Sie sind auf Seite 1von 522

Well Testing Analysis

Basis for Grade:


Homework
20%
Examinations (3)
45%
Final Examination
25%
Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%
total = 100%
Grade Cutoffs: (Percentages)
A: < 90
B: 89.99 to 80
C: 79.99 to 70
D: 69.99 to 60
F: < 59.99

Introduction
to Well Testing

Objectives
List the more common objectives of well testing.
Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining
its purpose and applications
assumptions made in its derivation and how it is
derived
its form for one-dimensional radial flow.
List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources
for each of the variables that influence responses in a well
test.
Compute the total compressibility for different reservoir
systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).

What Is A Well Test?


A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization
Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir
than cores or logs
Provides estimates of
permeability under in-situ conditions
near-wellbore conditions
distances to boundaries
average pressure

How Is A Well Test Conducted?


q
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well

Production
remainst
constant
Pressure
stabilizes

How Is A Well Test Conducted?


q=0
Well is
shut in

Production drops to 0

q
t

Sensor is
lowered
into well

p
Pressure
rises

Fundamental Concepts
Applications and objectives of well testing
Development of the diffusivity equation
Definitions and sources for data used in
well testing

Types and Purposes of Well


Tests
Pressure transient tests
We generate and measure pressure changes with time

Deliverability tests
Well controlled production

(Production Analysis)
Use of production data for goals usually achieved by
well testing

Production data analysis


Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)
movable fluid volumes.

Well Test Applications

Well Test Objectives


Define reservoir limits
Estimate average drainage area pressure
Characterize reservoir
Diagnose productivity problems
Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness

Single-, Multiwell Tests


q
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well

Single-, Multiwell Tests


Well is shut in,
pressure is
measured

Single-, Multiwell Tests


Well is
shut in
Sensor is
lowered
into
offset
well

. . . pressure is
measured at
offset well(s)

Kinds of Well Tests


q
Plot
Produce well
at constant pressure
response
rate
Lower
sensor
into well

Pwf
t

Kinds of Well Tests


Shut in well
Plot
pressure
response

Produce
well at
constant
rate
Lower
sensor
into well

Pws
t

Kinds of Well Tests

Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate p

Plot
pressure
response

Kinds of Well Tests


q=0
Shut in well
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate

Measure
pressure
response

p
t

Multiwell Tests
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)

Produce
one well at
constant
rate . . .

p
t

Multiwell Tests
q
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . .

p
t

PTA: Single-Well Tests


one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.

pressure buildup test


shut in after controlled production

drawdown or flow test


(specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits tests

pressure falloff test


similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is, conducted on
an injection well

injectivity test
Inject into the well at measured rate and measure pressure
as it increases with time
analogous to pressure drawdown testing.

PTA: Multiwell Tests


Flow rate is changed in one well
Pressure response is measured in one or more other
wells
Directional variations of reservoir properties
(orientation of natural fractures)
Presence or lack of communication between two
points in the reservoir
Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the
matrix and fracture systems

Multiwell tests:
Interference tests
The active well is produced at a measured, constant rate
throughout the test
(Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any
observed pressure response can be attributed to the active
well only.)

Pulse tests
The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned to
production and shut in again
Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely
exceeding more than a few hours
Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)

Deliverability tests (DT)


production capabilities of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
primarily for gas wells
absolute openflow (AOF) potential
inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas
backpressure curve

DT: Flow-After-Flow Tests


(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)
producing the well at a series of different stabilized
flow rates
measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing
pressure at the sandface
typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates

DT: Single-Point Tests


low-permeability formations
flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole
flowing pressure is stabilized
required by many regulatory agencies
requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability
behavior
(from previous testing or from correlations with other
wells producing in the same field under similar conditions)

DT: Isochronal Tests


Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of singlepoint tests developed to estimate stabilized
deliverability characteristics without actually flowing
the well for the time required to achieve stabilized
conditions
The isochronal test is conducted by alternately
producing the well, then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir pressure
prior to the beginning of the next production period.

Issues

Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells


Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells
Effects of Reservoir Properties
Low Permeability vs. High Permeability
Formations
Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
Safety and Environmental Considerations
Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
Other environmental Concerns

Production data analysis


Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)
movable fluid volumes.

End of Class

The Diffusivity Equation


Describes the flow of

a slightly compressible fluid


having constant viscosity
in a porous medium
at constant temperature

Derived from basic relationships of


continuity
flow equation (Darcys law)
equation-of-state

The Continuity Equation

(Av)1

(Av)2

Av 1 Av 2
m

Flow Equation (Darcys Law)

kAp
q
L
or, in differential form,

k x p
ux
x

Equation of State for a Slightly


Compressible Liquid

oe

c p po

The Diffusivity Equation


One-dimensional, radial form:

1 p ct p
r
r r r
k t

Formation Volume Factor

Vres
B
Vsurf
For oil:

For gas:

For water:

Vres
Bo
Vsurf

Vres
Bg
Vsurf

Vres
Bw
Vsurf

Viscosity
A fluids resistance to flow
Gasolinelow viscosity
Vaselinehigh viscosity

Fluid Compressibility

1 V
ln V
c

V p
p

Porosity

Permeability

qL
k
Ap

Pore Compressibility

1 ln
cf

p
p

Net Pay Thickness

h1
h2
Shale
h3
h4

Sand

h = h1 + h2 + h3
(No perforations
in this sand)

Net Pay Thickness

Vertical well,
horizontal
formation

Deviated well,
horizontal
formation

Vertical well,
slanted formation

Deviated well,
slanted formation

Saturations

Wellbore Radius
rw

Total Compressibility

ct c f So co Swcw S g c g

Modeling Radial Flow

Instructional Objectives
State the Ei-function solution to the diffusivity equation, and
list all the assumptions on which it is based. State practical
rules for determining the numerical values of the Ei-function.
Given formation and fluid properties, be able to calculate the
radius of investigation at a given time and the time necessary
to reach a given radius of investigation.
Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the radius of
investigation.

Radial Flow Reservoir Model

Bulk
formation
rw

Ei-Function Solution
to the Diffusivity Equation

qB 948ct r
p pi 70.6
Ei

kh
kt

Ei x

u
e

du

Ei-Function Graph
Log approximation

-Ei(-x)

Ei-function
drops to zero

0
0.001

0.01

0.1

-x

10

100

Short-Time Approximation for EiFunction Solution

p pi
2

Applies when

948 ct r
10
kt

(large radius or small time)

Long-Time Approximation
to Ei-Function Solution
2

qB
1688

c
r
t

p pi 162.6
log10

kh
kt

948 ct r 2
0.01
Applies when
kt
(small radius or large time)

Pressure Profile
During Drawdown
2000

ri

t=0

ri

ri

ri

t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr

Pressure,
psi

t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs

1000

10

100

1000

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10000

Pressure Profile
During Buildup
2,000
1,800

Pressure,
psi

ri

t = 100 hrs

1,600
1,400

ri

t = 1 hr

1,200
t = 0.01 hrs
1,000

ri

t = 10,000 hrs

ri

10

t=0
100

1,000

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10,000

Radius of Investigation Equations


Radius of investigation for a
given time t:
kt
ri
948ct
Time required to reach a given
radius of investigation ri:
948 ct ri2
t
k

Characterizing Damage and


Stimulation

Instructional Objectives
List factors that cause skin damage or geometric skin factor.
Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to
damage; conversely, calculate additional pressure drop for a given
skin factor.
Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,
and average drainage area pressure.
Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,
express apparent wellbore radius as a skin factor.
Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength (for
an infinite-conductivity fracture); conversely, express fracture halflength as an equivalent skin factor.

Drilling Fluid Damage


Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Mud filtrate
invasion

Filtrate may cause


clays to swell,
causing damage

Production Damage

p > pd

P< pd

Gas Condensate
Reservoir
Immobile condensate
ring reduces
effective permeability

p < pb

p > pb

Oil Reservoir
Free gas reduces
effective permeability

Injection Damage

dirty
water

incompatible
water

Reservoir Model
Skin Effect
Altered
zone

ka
rw
ra

Bulk
formation

Reservoir Pressure Profile

Pressure, psi

2,000

1,500

1,000

ps

500
1

10

100

1,000

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10,000

Skin and Pressure Drop

0.00708 k h
s
ps
qB

Skin and Pressure Drop

141.2qB
ps
s
kh

Skin Factor and Properties


of the Altered Zone

k
ra

s
1 ln
ka
rw
rw

rds
h
r

Skin Factor and Properties


of the Altered Zone

ka

k
1

ln ra rw

Effective Wellbore Radius

rwa

r
e
wa
w

rwa

s ln
rw

Minimum Skin Factor

re

smin ln
r
w

Minimum Skin Factor


Example

re

smin ln
rw
745
ln
7.3
0.5

Converging Flow to Perforations

Geometric Skin

Partial Penetration

hp
h

Geometric Skin

Incompletely Perforated
Interval
h1
hp

ht

ht
s
sd s p
hp
Geometric Skin

Partial Penetration
Apparent Skin Factor
h1 D h1 ht

Geometric Skin

hpD hp ht

sp

1
A
h1 D hpD 4

hpD A 1
1

1
1 ln

ln

2rD hpD 2 hpD B 1


hpD

rw kv

rD
ht kh

1
B
h1 D 3hpD 4

Deviated Wellbore

h sec

s sd s

Geometric Skin

Deviated Wellbore
Apparent Skin Factor
w'

w'

s
41

2.06

tan

kv
tan w
kh

w'

56

1.865

hD
log

100

h
hD
rw

kh
kv

Well With Hydraulic Fracture

L f 2rwa
rwe

Lf

rwa

Geometric Skin

Lf
2

Completion Skin
rw

rp

kdp

s s p sd sdp

rdp
kR

Lp
kd
rd

sdp

h
Lp n

rdp kR kR
ln

kdp kd
r
p

Gravel Pack Skin


Cement

sgp

Lg

kR hLg
2
2nkgp rp

Productivity Index

q
J
p pwf

Flow Efficiency

J actual p pwf ps
Ef

J ideal
p pwf

Flow Efficiency and Rate

qnew qold

E fnew
E fold

Semilog Analysis
For Oil Wells

Instructional Objectives
Analyze a constant-rate drawdown test using semilog analysis.
Analyze a buildup test following a constant-rate flow period
using the Horner method.

Ei-Function Solution
qB 948c t r
p pi 70.6
Ei
kh
kt

-Ei(-x)

4
2
0.001

-x

100

Reservoir Pressure Profile


2,000

Negative skin
(s = -2)
Pressure,
psi

Unsteady-state pressure
(s=0)
Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)

500
1

10
100
1,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10,000

Incorporating Skin into the


Ei-Function Solution
For r = rw
2

948 c t rw
qB
2 s
p pi 70.6
Ei
kh
kt

For r > ra

948 c t r 2
q B

p pi 70.6
Ei
kh
kt

Log Approximation to the


Ei-Function
y = mx + b
pwf

qB Use |m| in computations


pi 162.6
from this point forward
kh

k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t log10
2

ct rw

Estimating Permeability and


Skin
162.6qB
k
mh

pi p1hr

k
3.23
s 1.151
log10
c r 2
m

t w

Drawdown Test Graph


1,200

Usually several cycles apart


(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at
1 hr on bestfit line

Pressure,
psi

Plot pressure vs. time

(t1, pwf1)

Powers of 10
700
0.1

10

Elapsed Test Time, hrs

100

1,000

Example
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
= 0.8 cp

p p

k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log10
c r 2
m

t w

Example
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
= 0.8 cp
162.6qB

mh

p p

k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log10
c r 2
m

t w

Example
3,600

Extrapolate to get p1 hr

slope = p10 hr-p1 hr


-100
m 100
p10hr 3,440 psi

p1hr 3,540 psi


Pressure,
psi

One log cycle

Plot data points


from field data
3,300
1

10

Time, hrs

100

Example
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
= 0.8 cp
162.6qB

p1hr 3,540 psi

mh

p p

k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log10
c r 2
m
m 100

t w

Problems with Drawdown


Tests
It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly constant
rate
Even small variations in rate distort the pressure
response

Alternative to Drawdown
Tests
There is one rate that is easy to maintain a flow
rate of zero.
A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producing well and measuring the resulting
pressure response.

Buildup Test - Rate History


q

Rate during production of


+q.
t + t

Rate after shut-in of -q


-q
q
0

Sum after shut-in


of 0.
tp

Buildup Pressure Response


0

Pressure normally declines


during production...
tp + t

but rises during the


injection (buildup) period...
0

yielding a pressure curve that is the


sum of the two rate curves:

tp

Buildup Test - Superposition

k
qB
3.23 0.869 s
pws pi 162.6
log10 t p t log10
2

kh

c
r
t w

k
qB
3.23 0.869 s
162.6
log10 t log10
2

kh

ct rw

t p t
qB

pws pi 162.6
log 10
kh
t

y = mx + b

Buildup Straight-Line
Analogy

162.6qB
k
mh
Horner time ratio

pi b @

t p t
t

Buildup Test Graph


2,000

pi

Pressure,
psi

1,400
10,000

1,000

100

Horner time ratio

10

Estimating Skin Factor


From a Buildup Test
s 1.151

p1hr pwf

k
3.23
log 10
2

c t rw

Horner Pseudoproducing Time

tp
pws

24 N p
qlast

t p t
qlast B

pi 162.6
log10
kh
t

Semilog Analysis
For Gas Wells

Instructional Objectives
1. Identify range of validity of pressure,
pressure-squared, and adjusted pressure
analysis methods
2. Estimate pressure drop due to nonDarcy
flow
3. Analyze flow and buildup tests using
semilog analysis

Outline
Flow Equations For Gas Wells

Pseudopressure
Pressure-Squared
Pressure
Adjusted Pressure

Non-Darcy Flow
Example

Diffusivity Equation - Liquids

1 p c t p
r
r r r
k t

Continuity Equation
Equation of State For Slightly Compressible
Liquids
Darcys Law

Real Gas Law


absolute pressure, realideal
gas deviation
gas constant,
factor,
10.72 (ft3)
psi
dimensionless
(lb)/(mole)(in2)(R)

pV=znRT
pV znRT

number of moles
temperature, R
volume, ft
3

Real Gas Pseudopressure


absolute pressure, psi

p p p 2

p
p0

pdp
z

Gas Flow Equation


Real Gas Pseudopressure
1 p p c t p p
r

r r r
k t
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law

Gas Flow Equation


Pressure-Squared
2
2

c t p
1
p
r

r r r
k t

Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law
The term z Is Constant

Pressure-Squared Ranges
0.16

SG=1.2

Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi

SG=1.0

Tf = 200 F

mu*z,
psi/cp

SG=0.8
SG=0.6

2,000

4,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

8,000

10,000

Gas Flow Equation: Pressure


If p/z is constant,

1 p ct p
r
r r r
k t
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law

Pressure: Range Of
Application
250

Tf = 200F

SG=0.6

SG=0.8

p/*z,
psi/cp
(x103)

SG=1.0
SG=1.2

Fairly constant at rates >3,000 psi


0

2,000

4,000
6,000
Pressure, psia

8,000

10,000

Gas - Dependent Variables


Pressure-Squared - Valid Only For Low
Pressures (< 2000 psi)
Pressure - Valid Only For High Pressures (>
3000 psi)
Real Gas Pseudopressure - Valid For All
Pressure Ranges

Gas Flow Equation:


Real Gas Pseudopressure
1 p p ct p p
r

r r r
k t
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law

Strong Variation
With Pressure

Real Gas Pseudotime


t ap

dt
p ct p

Adjusted Variables
z

pa p
p
t a ct i

i
t

p0

pdp z
p p p

z 2 p i

dt
ct i t ap
p ct p

Using Horner Time Ratio


With Adjusted Time
HTR

t p t a
t a

Non-Darcy Flow
Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcys law fails
Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin

Apparent Skin Factor

s ' s Dq g

Estimating Non-Darcy
Coefficient
From Multiple Tests
10
8

Apparent
skin factor

D = 5.1x104D/Mscf

6
4
s = 3.4

2
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Flow rate, Mscf/D

8,000

10,000

Estimating Non-Darcy Coefficient


From Turbulence Parameter
Often, only one test is available
If so, we can estimate D from

2.715 10

15

k g Mpsc

hrwTsc g ,wf

Estimating Turbulence
Parameter
If is not known, it can be estimated from

10 1.47 0.53

1.88 10 k

Wellbore Storage

Objectives
Define wellbore unloading
Define afterflow
Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level

Fluid-Filled Wellbore Unloading


Rate

Surface Rate

Ei-function solution
assumes constant
reservoir rate

Bottomhole
Rate

Time

Mass balance
equation resolves
problems

q qsf B
dpw

dt
24Vwbcwb

Fluid-Filled Wellbore Afterflow


Rate

Bottomhole flow
continues after
shut-in

Surface Rate

Bottomhole
Rate
Time

q qsf B
dpw

dt
24Vwbcwb

Rising Liquid Level


Rate

Surface Rate
Bottomhole
Rate

Time

Liquid rises until


hydrostatic head in
wellbore matches
pressure in formation

q qsf B 5.615 wb
dpw

dt
24
144 Awb

gc

Wellbore Storage

q qsf B
dpw

Fluid-filled wellbore
dt
24Vwbcwb
Rising liquid level

q qsf B 5.615 wb
dpw

dt
24
144 Awb
General

q qsf B
dpw

dt
24C

gc

Wellbore Storage Definition

q qsf B
C
dpw
24
dt

Fluid-filled
wellbore

C Vwbcwb

Rising
liquid level

144 Awb gc
C
5.615 wb g
Awb
25.65
wb

Type Curve Analysis

Objectives
1. Identify wellbore storage and middle time regions
on type curve.
2. Identify pressure response for a well with high,
zero, or negative skin.
3. Calculate equivalent time.
4. Calculate wellbore storage coefficient,
permeability, and skin factor from type curve
match.

Dimensionless Variables
qB 948ct r 2
p pi 70.6
Ei

kh
kt

r
w

r
rD
rw

kh pi p
1

Ei
141.2qB
2
0.0002637 kt

4
2

c
r
t
w

kh pi p
0.0002637 kt
pD
t

141.2qB
1
rD2 D
ct rw2

pD Ei
2 4t D

Radial Flow With WBS And


Skin
kh pi p
pD
141.2qB

0.0002637 kt
tD
ct rw2
r
rD
rw

khps
s
141.2qB

0.8936C
CD
ct hrw2

Gringarten Type Curve

Constant rate production


Vertical well
Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
Infinitesimal skin factor
Constant wellbore storage coefficient

Gringarten Type Curve


100

Wellbore storage coefficient


Skin factor

CDe2s

PD

CDe2s=1060

Type curve

CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
Stem
Time group
100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Gringarten Type Curve


100

PD

Similarities of curves make


matching difficult

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure Derivative
162.6qB
p
kh

log

kt
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

p
p
t

t
ln t

pD
pD
tD

t D ln t D

p 70.6qB
t

t
kh

tD

pD
0. 5
t D

Derivative Type Curve


100

Differences in curve
shapes make
matching easier

CDe2s=1060

tD/PD
CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure + Derivative Type


Curves
100

Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes

PD

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure/Derivative Type
Curve
100

WBS

PD

Transition

Radial Flow

Unit
Horizontal Derivative
Slope
Line

Early Time Region

Middle Time Region


100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure + Derivative Type


Curve
100

High skin
PD

No skin

Low skin

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Equivalent Time For PBU


Tests
pi pwf

pi pws

qB
162.6
kh

qB
162.6
kh
qB
162.6
kh

log10 t p log

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

log10 t p t log

log10 t log

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

Equivalent Time For PBU


Tests
pws pwf

pws pwf

qB
162.6
kh

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

log10 t p log

qB
162.6
kh

qB
162.6
kh

log10 t p t log
log10 t log

k
3.23 0.869s
2
ct rw

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

t p t

qB
k
log
3.23 0.869 s
log10
162.6
c r 2
t p t
kh

t w

Equivalent Time For PBU


Tests
pi pwf

qB
162.6
kh

log10 t p log

k
3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

t p t
qB
k
3.23 0.869 s
log
pws pwf 162.6
log10
t p t
c r 2
kh

t w

qB
k
3.23 0.869s
pws pwf 162.6
log10 te log
c r 2
kh

t w

Equivalent Time For PBU


Tests
Drawdown

p pi pwf vs t
Buildup

p pws pwf vs t e

Properties Of Equivalent
Time
te

t p t

t p t
tp

t , t t p

tp
t p t

t p , t t p

t p t

tp
HTR

Adjusted Variables For Gas


Wells
z

pa
p

ref

t a ct ref

p' dp '
p ' 0 p ' z p '

dt '
t ' 0 p ct p

Ca Vwb cg ref

Field Data Plot


1,000

teq

1,000

Overlay Field Data on Type


Curve
100

1,000

PD

teq

1,000
100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Move Field Data Toward


Horizontal
100

1,000

PD

Align data with


horizontal part of
1,000
teq type curves

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Move Field Data Toward


Match
100
1,000

PD

Stop when data align


with horizontal stems

P
Begin to move toward unit slope line
1

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Move Field Data Toward


Stems
100
1,000

PD

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Move Field Data Toward


Stems
100

Assume
pD =1,000
10

Assume
p = 262

Lets
say s=7x10
Calculate
s from9
matching stem value

p/pD k
pD

Extrapolate curve
as necessary

p
Assume teq
= 0.0546
1

0.01

Assume
tD/CD = 1

teq
Teq/tD CD

1,000

100,000

tD/CD

Use Reservoir, Well


Properties
q = 50
B = 1.325
= 0.609
h = 15

= 0.183
ct = 1.76 x 10-5
rw2 = 0.25
CD = 1703

Calculate k From Pressure


Match
141.2qB pD
k

h
p

M .P .

141.2 50 1.325 0.609

15

14.5 md

10

262

Calculate CD From Time


Match
CD
CD

0.0002637 k
2
ct rw

teq
tD C D

M .P .

0.0002637 14.5

5
0.183 0.609 1.76 10 0.25

1703

0.0546

Calculate s From CDe2s


2s

1 C De
s ln
2 C D
9

1 7 10
s ln
2 1703
7.6

Manual Log-Log
Analysis

Instructional Objectives
To be able to manually estimate permeability and
skin factor from the log-log diagnostic plot
without using type curves

Estimating Permeability and


Skin Factor from the
Diagnostic Plot
1000

Pressure change, psi

pr
100

(tp)r
10

1
0.01

0.1

10

Equivalent time, hrs

tr

100

1000

Estimating Permeability
and Skin Factor
70.6qB
k
h tp r

ktr
1 pr

s
ln
2

2 tp r
1688 c t rw

Example
q
h
B

= 50 STB/D
= 15 ft
= 1.36 RB/STB
= 0.563 cp

pwf

ct
rw

= 2095 psia
= 18.3%
= 17.9 x 106 psi1
= 0.25 ft

Estimate (tp)r, tr, and pr


1000

Pressure change, psi

400
100

14
10

1
0.01

0.1

10

Equivalent time, hrs

20

100

1000

Estimate Permeability
70.6qB
k
h tp r

70.6 50 1.36 0.563


15 14

12.9 md

Estimate Skin Factor

ktr
1 pr

s
ln
2
2 tp r
1688 c t rw

1 400
12.9 20


ln
2
6
2 14
1688 0.183 0.563 17.9 10 0.25
7.23

Flow
Regimes and
the
Diagnostic
Plot

Objectives
1. Identify early, middle, and late time regions
on a diagnostic plot.
2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow
regimes on a diagnostic plot.
3. List factors that affect pressure response in
early time.
4. List boundaries that affect pressure
response in late time.

The Diagnostic Plot


Pressure change (p)
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Pressure derivative ( p )

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

The Diagnostic Plot


Unit-slope
line
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
Near-wellbore effects
( p ), psi
(wellbore storage)
Early-time
region

Middletime
region

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Late-time
region

The Diagnostic Plot

Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Homogenous reservoir
horizontal derivative
(best estimate of k )
Early-time
Partial
penetration,
region
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity

Middletime
region

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Late-time
region

The Diagnostic Plot

Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Infinite-acting
behavior

Early-time
Partial
penetration,
region
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity

Boundary
effects
Middletime
region

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Late-time
region

Flow Regimes
Common characteristic shapes of derivative

Volumetric
Radial
Linear
Bilinear
Spherical

Different flow patterns may appear at


different times in a single test
Flow regimes follow sequence within model

Volumetric Behavior
Fluids from outside recharge tank

Volumetric Behavior
Wellbore Storage

qBt
p
24C

Pseudosteady-State Flow

pi pwf

0.0744qBt 141.2qB

2
ct hre
kh
General Form

re 3
s
ln
rw 4

p mV t bV

Volumetric Behavior
General Form
Derivative

p mV t bV
mV t bV
p
t
t
t
t
mV t

Volumetric Behavior
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Pressure change during recharge


or pseudosteadystate flow

Pressure derivative

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Volumetric Behavior
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi
Wellbore
storage

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Radial Flow
Wellbore

Radial Flow
Wellbore

Fracture

Radial Flow
Late radial flow
Wellbore

Early radial flow

Radial Flow
Vertical Well

162.6qB
p
kh

log

General Form

kt

3.23 0.869 s
2
ct rw

p m log t b

Radial Flow
General Form

Derivative

p m log t b

p
m log t b
t
t
t
t
m

2.303

Radial Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Pressure

Pressure derivative
Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Radial Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi
Radial
flow

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Spherical Flow
x
y
z

Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore

Few perforations
open

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore

Small part of
zone perforated

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore

Certain wireline
testing tools

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow
Spherical Probe (RFT)

pi pwf

ct rp
q

1
4krp
kt

General Form

p bS mS t

1 2

Spherical Flow
General Form

Derivative

p bS mS t

1 2

bS mS t
p
t
t
t
t
1
1 2
mS t
2

1 2

Spherical Flow
Pressure

Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Pressure derivative
2
Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Spherical Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi
Spherical flow

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Linear Flow
Vertical wellbore

Fracture

Linear flow

Linear Flow
Vertical
wellbore

Linear
flow

Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir

Linear Flow
Wellbore

Early linear flow

Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore

Linear Flow
Channel
Hydraulic
Fracture

General
Form

16.26qB kt

p
khw ct

12

4.064qB kt

p
khL f ct

12

p mL t

12

bL

Linear Flow
General
Form
Derivative

p mL t

12

bL

p
mL t bL
t
t
t
t
1
12
mL t
2
12

Linear Flow
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well

Pressure
change (p ) Pressure change in
and derivative undamaged
Pressure 1
( p ), psi fractured well
derivative

2
Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Bilinear Flow

Bilinear Flow
Hydraulic Fracture

44.1qB 1
p
wk
h
f

General Form

12

ct k

p mB t

14

bB

14

Bilinear Flow
General Form

Derivative

p mB t

14

bB

p
mB t bB
t
t
t
t
1
14
mB t
4
14

Bilinear Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi

Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well

Pressure derivative
4
Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Diagnostic Plot

Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
( p ), psi
Wellbore
storage

Radial
flow
Spherical flow

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Recharge?

Estimating
Average Reservoir
Pressure

Estimating Reservoir
Pressure
Middle Time Region Methods
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method
Ramey-Cobb Method

Late Time Region Methods


Modified Muskat Method
Arps-Smith Method

Middle-Time Region Methods


Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR
pressure trend
Advantage
Use only pressure data in the middle-time region

Disadvantages
Need accurate fluid property estimates
Need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
May be somewhat computationally involved

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr
Porosity, = 0.15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, ct = 1.615 x 10-5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1
reservoir)
2

Curves for Square Drainage


Area

pMBHD

-1
0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

Curves for 2x1 Rectangle

pMBHD

-1
0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

Curves for 4x1 Rectangle

pMBHD

-1

-2
0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
2750

p*=2689.4
m=26.7

2650

Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550

2450

Step
Step1:
2:Plot
Extrapolate
pressureslope
vs. Horner
m to find
timep*
ratio

2400
106

105

104

103

102

Horner time ratio

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time

0.0002637 kt
ktpp
t pAD
pAD
ctt A

0.0002637 7.5 482

5
0.15 0.25 1.615 10 1500 3000
0.35

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD
6
5

2x1 rectangle

4
3

pMBHD

2.05

2
1
0
-1
0.01

tpAD = 0.35
0.1

tpAD

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p

m
p p*
pMBHD t pAD
2.303
26.7
2.05
2689.4
2.303
2665.6

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*
Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find pMBHD
Calculate p
If tp >> tpss, more accurate results may be obtained
by using tpss in place of tp in calculating the Horner
time ratio and tpAD

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Advantages
Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
Uses only data in the middle-time region
Can be used with both short and long producing
times

Disadvantages
Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
Requires accurate fluid property data

Reservoir Shapes
1

1
Dietz shape factor CA = 4.5132
Dietz
Dietzshape
shapefactor
factorCC
==30.8828
12.9851
A A

Reservoir Shapes
2

Dietz shape factor CA = 10.8374

Reservoir Shapes
4

Dietz shape factor CA = 5.379

Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape
factor CA =
31.62

Dietz shape
Dietz shape
factor CA = 19.17 factor CA = 27.1

Dietz shape
factor CA = 21.9
Dietz shape
factor CA = 31.6

Dietz shape
factor CA = 0.098

Ramey-Cobb
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time

t pAD

0.0002637kt p

ct A

0.0002637 7.5 482

5
0.15 0.25 1.615 10 1500 3000
0.35

Ramey-Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage
area shape and well location

t p t

C At pAD
p

21.8 0.35
Shape factor C
7.63

= 21.8369

Ramey-Cobb
2750

2650

Shut-in
wellbore
pressure, psia
2550

p 2665.8

HTR = 7.63

2450
2400
106

105

104

103

102

Horner time ratio

10

Ramey-Cobb
Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area shape
and well location
Calculate HTRavg
Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to HTR avg

Read p at HTRavg

Ramey-Cobb
Advantages
Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
Uses only data in the middle time region

Disadvantages
Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
Requires accurate fluid property data
Requires producing time long enough to reach
pseudosteady state

Late-Time Region Methods


Based on extrapolation of post-middle-time region
pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
Advantages
No need for accurate fluid property estimates
No need to know drainage area shape, size, well location
within drainage area
Tend to be very simple

Disadvantage
Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient data

Late-Time Region Data

2
250ct re

2
750ct re

Late-Time Region Data


100

10

Dimensionle
ss pressure
1

0.1

0.01
103

104

105

106

107

Dimensionless shut-in time

108

109

Modified Muskat Method


Exponential decline
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in pressure

p pws Ae

bt

ln p pws ln A bt
ln p pws C bt

Modified Muskat Method


Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure

ln p pws C bt

Modified Muskat Method


1000

Assumed pressure too low

p pws , psi

100

5600
5575

10
1500

Assumed pressure fits


Assumed pressure too high
2000

2500

3000

3500

Time, minutes

4000

5560

4500

Modified Muskat Method


Advantages
Very simple to apply

Disadvantages
Somewhat subjective: Which data points
should I try to straighten?
More sensitive to estimates that are too low
than to estimates that are too high
Not easily automated

Modified Muskat Method


Recommendations
Dont try to straighten data until there has
been a clear deviation from the middle-time
region
Once middle-time region has ended, try to
straighten all data
Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered in drainage areas

Arps-Smith Method
bt

p pws Ae
dpws
bt
Abe
dt
dpws
b p pws
dt

Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation

dpws
b p pws
dt

Arps-Smith Method
Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale
10
9
8
7

dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5

Step 3: Fit a straight line


through the data points

Pavg = 5575 psi

Step 24: Read p from


the1 x-intercept
0
5300

5350

5400

5450

Pws, psi

5500

5550

5600

Arps-Smith Method
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the
wellbore storage coefficient C

dpws
b p pws
dt

q qsf

24Cb
J

q J p pwf
Bo

dpw
B 24C
dt

Arps-Smith Method
Advantages
Simple to apply
Easily automated

Disadvantages
Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt

Assumes pws approaches p exponentially


Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time

Hydraulically
Fractured
Wells

Hydraulically Fractured
Wells

Flow Regimes
Depth of Investigation
Fracture Damage
Straight Line Analysis

Bilinear Flow Analysis


Linear Flow Analysis
Semilog Analysis

Type Curve Analysis

Ideal Hydraulic Fracture


Reservoir sand
(permeability=kr )

Hydraulic fracture
(permeability =kf )

Wellbore

Fracture width, wf

Fracture
halflength, Lf

Dimensionless Variables for


Fractured Wells
0.00708kh
pi pwf
pD
qB

fD

ct

f ct f k
kf

Cr

wf k f

kL f

tLf D
CL f D

0.0002637 k

t
2
ct L f
0.8936C

ct hL2f

FcD

wf k f
kL f

Cr

Flow Regimes in Fractures


Fracture flow
Linear
Bilinear

Formation flow
Linear
Elliptical
Pseudoradial

Fracture Linear Flow


Transient moves down fracture length

Transient has not


moved into reservoir

Transient has not


reached end of fracture

Fracture Linear Flow


(Log-log plot)
Pressure

2
pD
fD t L f D
FcD
Time
(Too early for practical application)

Fracture Linear Flow


End of linear flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure

Dimensionless
time

tL f D
Time

2
0.01FcD

2
fD

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Pressure transient moves down


fracture, into formation

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture

Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure

Pressure
drop:

1
2.45 14
4
pD
tL f D
tL f D
1.25 2 FcD
FcD
Time

Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure

(Time depends on dimensionless


flow, fracture conductivity)
Time

Bilinear Flow
If FcD < 1.6
If 1.6 < FcD < 3
If FcD 3

tL f D

4.55

2.5
FcD

t L f D 0.0205 FcD 1.5


tL f D

1.53

0 .1
2
FcD

(Time depends on dimensionless


flow, fracture conductivity)

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100

Data can yield fracture conductivity wkf if kf is known.

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Data cannot yield Lf, but may identify lower bound .

Formation Linear Flow


Negligible pressure drop down fracture

Transient
Flowmoves
from beyond
linearlyends
into of
wellbore
fracture not yet significant

Formation Linear Flow

pD t L f D
100

0
.
016
L
D
2
f
FcD

Elliptical Flow

Pseudoradial Flow

Pseudoradial Flow
162.6qB
p
kh

kt

3.23 0.869 s
log
2

ct rw

tL f D 3

Depth Of Investigation
a

2
Lf

Lf

a b

Depth Of Investigation
tbD

0.0002637kt

2
ct b

For linear flow, pseudosteadystate flow exists out to a


distance b at a dimensionless
time given by

tbD

Depth of investigation for


a linear system at time t

kt
b 0.02878

ct

12

Depth of Investigation
Depth of investigation
along minor axis

kt
b 0.02878

ct

Depth of investigation
along major axis

a L2f b 2

Area of investigation

A ab

12

Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture
Damage
k
kfs

kf
wf

Ls

Lf

Choked Fracture Skin Factor


p

qBL
0.001127 kA

ps

0.00708kh
0.00708kh

sf
ps
qB
qB

qBLs
0.001127 k fs 2h f w f

qBLs

0.001127 k fs 2h f w f

kLs
sf
k fs w f

Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
k
kf
ws

ks

wf
Lf

Fracture Face Skin Factor


qBL
p
0.001127 kA

qBws
ps
0.001127 4h f L f

0.00708kh
0.00708kh

sf
ps
qB
qB

ws
sf
2L f

1 1

k k
s

qBws

0.001127 4h f L f

1
ks

1 1

k k
s

Bilinear Flow Analysis


Procedure
Identify the bilinear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
Graph pwf vs. t1/4 or pws vs tBe1/4
Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the best
straight line
Calculate the fracture conductivity wkf from the
slope and the fracture skin factor sf from the
intercept

Bilinear Equivalent Time


t Be

14
tp

14

t p t

t Be t , t t p

t Be t p , t t p

14 4

Bilinear Flow Analysis


Equations
44.1q B

wk f

h
m
B

c k
t

0.5

Drawdown

0.00708kh
pi p0
sf
qB

Buildup

0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB

Bilinear Flow Analysis


2800

2750

pws, psi

m=63.8 psi/hr1/4

ps

2700

2650

p0=2642.4 psi
pwf=2628.6 psi
2600
0

0.5

1
1/4

teqB , hrs

1.5
1/4

Limitations of
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Applicable only to wells with low-conductivity fractures
(Cr < 100)
Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore storage
Requires independent estimate of k
Gives estimate of wkf and sf
Cannot be used to estimate Lf

Linear Flow Analysis


Procedure
Identify the linear flow regime using the diagnostic plot
Graph pwf vs. t1/2 or pws vs tLe1/2
Find the slope mL and the intercept p0 of the best straight
line
Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from the slope and
the fracture skin factor sf from the intercept

Linear Equivalent Time


t Le

12
tp

12

t p t

t Le t , t t p

t Le t p , t t p

12 2

Linear Flow Analysis


Equations
4.064q B

Lf
mL h k ct

12

Drawdown

0.00708kh
sf
pi p0
qB

Buildup

0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB

Linear Flow Analysis


6000

5000

m=211 psi/hr1/2

paws, psi

4000

ps

3000

pa0=2266.0 psi

2000

pawf=1656.2 psi
1000

0
0

10

taLeq1/2, hrs1/2

12

14

16

18

Limitations of
Linear Flow Analysis
Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures (Cr > 100)
Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
Long transition period between end of linear flow (t LfD
< 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow (tLfD > 3)
Requires independent estimate of k
Gives estimate of Lf and sf
Cannot be used to estimate wkf

Pseudoradial Flow Analysis


Procedure
Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the diagnostic
plot
Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)
Find the slope m and the intercept p 1hr of the best straight line
Calculate the formation permeability k from the slope and
the total skin factor s from the intercept
Estimate fracture half-length from total skin factor

Pseudoradial Flow Analysis


Equations
162.6qB
k
mh
Drawdown

p p

k
i
1hr
3.23
s 1.151
log10
2
c r
m

t w

Buildup

p1hr pwf

k
3.23
s 1.151
log10
2
c r
m

t w

Pseudoradial Flow Analysis


2500
2400
2300

pws, psi

2200

m=120 psi/cycle
p1hr=2121 psi

2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
0.001

0.01

0.1

te, hrs

10

100

Apparent Wellbore Radius

Lf/rwa

100

10

1
0.1

10

FcD

100

1000

Estimating Lf From Skin


Factor
1. Calculate rwa from rwa = rwe-s
2. Estimate Lf from Lf = 2rwa
3. Estimate fracture conductivity wkf
4. Calculate FcD from FcD = wkf/kLf
5. Find Lf/rwa from graph or equation
6. Estimate Lf from Lf = (Lf/rwa)*rwa
7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence
(Warning: may not converge)

Limitations of
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered before
pseudoradial flow develops
Long transition period between linear flow and
pseudoradial flow
Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for practical test
times in low permeability reservoirs with long
fractures
Gives estimate of k and st
Does not give direct estimate of Lf, wkf, or sf

Dimensionless Variables For


Fractured Wells

0.00708kh
pD
pi pwf
qB
Cr

wf kf

kL f

0.00708 kh
sf
ps
qB

tL f D

FcD

0.0002637 k

ct L2f
wf kf
kL f

CL f D

C r

0.8936C

ct hL2f

Type-Curve Analysis:

Fractured Wells, Unknown k


1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Match field data to type curve
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate Lf from time match point
5. Calculate k from pressure match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)

Interpreting Match Points,


Unknown Permeability
141.2qB pD
k

h
p

MP

0.0002637 k t
Lf
tL D
ct
f

MP

Type Curve Analysis:

Fractured Wells, Known k


1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Calculate pressure match point from k
3. Match field data to type curve, using calculated pressure
match point
4. Find match point and matching stem
5. Calculate Lf from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wk f, sf, or C)

Interpreting Match Points


Known Permeability
p MP

Lf

141.2qB
pD MP

kh

0.0002637 k t
tL D
ct
f

MP

Cinco Type Curve


10

pD, tDp'D

Cr = 0.2
0.5
1
3
10
50
1000

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Cinco Type Curve:

Interpreting Cr Stem

w f k f kL f Cr

Choked Fracture Type Curve


10

pD, tDp'D

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
1E-06

sf = 1
0.3
0.1
0.03
0.01
0.003
0

0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Choked Fracture Type Curve:

Interpreting sf Stem

qB
ps
sf
0.00708kh

Barker-Ramey Type Curve


10
CLfD = 0

pD, tDp'D

0.1

5x10-5
3x10-4
2x10-3
1.2x10-2
8x10-2
5x10-1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
1E-06

0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Barker-Ramey Type Curve


Interpreting CLfD Stem

2
ct hL f

0.8936

CL f D

Limitations of
Type Curve Analysis
Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown what about buildup tests?
Shut-in time
Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
Superposition type curves

Type curves may ignore important behavior


Variable WBS
Boundaries
Non-Darcy flow

Need independent estimate of permeability for best results

Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells

Horizontal Well Analysis


Describes unconventional and complex
reservoirs
Defines effectiveness of completion technique
options
Distinguishes between poor reservoir and
damaged wellbore
Differentiates between completion success and
in-situ reservoir quality

Complications in Analysis
Three-dimensional flow geometry, no radial
symmetry
Several flow regimes contribute data
Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult
interpretation
Both vertical and horizontal dimensions affect
flow geometry

Steps to Evaluating Data


Identify specific flow regimes in test data
Apply proper analytical and graphical
procedures
Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of results
to assumed properties

Step 1: Identify Flow Regimes


Five major and distinct regimes possible
may or may not even occur
may or may not be obscured by wellbore storage
effects, end effects, or transition effects

Step 2: Apply Procedures


Estimate important reservoir properties
Determine parameter groups from equations
Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of
a computer

Step 3: Evaluate Results


Expect nonunique results
Simulate test to confirm that the analysis is
consistent with test data
Use simulator to determine whether other sets of
formation properties will also lead to a fit of the
data

Horizontal Well Flow Regimes


Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
(3) early linear
(4) late pseudoradial
(5) late linear

Calculate different
formation properties
from each period

Any flow regime may be absent from a plot


of test data because of geometry, wellbore
storage or other factors.

Well and Reservoir Geometry


Horizontal wellbore
Lw
b
z

y
h

Well and Reservoir Geometry


Dy

Tip of well
Dx

x
z
h
0

dx
dz
Dz

dy

z
y

Flow Regimes
Radial
Flow not affected by
reservoir boundaries

Flow Regimes
Hemiradial
Flow affected by one
vertical boundary

Flow Regimes
Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries

Flow Regimes
Early Linear
Flow effects not seen
at ends of wellbore

Flow Regimes
Late Pseudoradial

Flow Regimes
Late Linear

Flow Regimes/Drawdown
1

p
1

Log (p)
or
Log (p)

2
1

2
1

p'

Wellbore
storage

Early
Radial
Flow

Early
Linear
Flow

Pseudoradial
Flow

Log (time)

Late
Linear
Flow

Required Permeabilities
Flow
Regime

Result
of
Analysis

Permeabilities
Required for Limit
Calculations

Permeabilities
Required to
Calculate Skin

Early Radial

k xk z

End - kz and ky

k xk z and kx/kz

Hemiradial

k xk z

End - kz and ky
Start - kz
End - ky

k xk z and kx/kz

Early Linear

kx

kx and kz

kh k xk y Start - ky
kx, ky and kz
End - ky and kx
Start - ky and kz
kx
Late Linear
kx and kz
End - kx
Note: We can use k h k xk y in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,
Late
Pseudoradial

we assume kx = ky = kh. This assumption may reduce analysis accuracy.

Pretesting a Vertical Section


Determines kh and kz
Determines properties useful in horizontal
test design (using an analytical or finitedifference simulator)
Identifies likely flow regimes
Estimates required test duration
Identifies probable ambiguities

Required Distances
Flow
Regime

Result
of
Calculation

Early Radial
Hemiradial
Early Linear

Lw
Lw
Lw and h

Late
Pseudoradial
Late Linear

h
b and h

Distances
Required for Limit
Calculations

Distances
Required to
Calculate
Skin

End - dz and Lw
End - dz and Lw
Start - Dz
Lw and h
End - Lw
Start - Lw
Lw, h and dz
End - dy, Lw, and dx
Start - Dy, Lw, and
b, h and dz
Dz
End - dx

Early Radial Flow Regime


Similar to radial
flow near vertical
wells

May be masked by
wellbore storage
effects

End of Early Radial Flow


Vertical
boundary
effects

1800dz2 ct
t Erf
kz

Wellbore
end
effects

125L2w ct
t Erf
ky

Early Radial Flow Pressure

k x kz t

l
o
g

3
.
2275

0
.
8686
s
a

2
ct rw

162
.
6
qB

pi pwf

k x kz Lw
1 4 k x 4 kz

2
l
o
g

2 kz
k x

Early Radial Flow/Drawdown


47

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

m
Lw k x kz

33
0.1

Time

100

Early Radial Flow/Drawdown


47

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

k x kz
m Lw

33
0.1

Time

100

Skin in Early Radial Flow

pi p1hr

k x kz

sa 1.1513
log
3.2275
2
m
c rw

1
2.3023 log
2`

k
k
4 x 4 z
k k
z
x

Early Radial Flow Buildup Plot


47

Semilog plot

Correct only if (tp+t) and


t appear simultaneously
or if tp >> t.

33
1,000

Horner Time Ratio

10

Early Radial Flow Buildup


Plot
47
Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

m
Lw k x kz

33
0.1

(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
Time

100

Early Radial Flow Buildup


Plot
47
Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

k x kz
m Lw

33
0.1

(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
Time

100

Early Radial Flow/Buildup


p

k k

p
1hr w f

x z

sa 1.1513
l o g

3
.
2275

m
c r 2

t w

1
2 .3023 log

kx
kz

kz
kx

Start of Hemiradial Flow


Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance dz from wellbore) affects data
and before farthest boundary (at Dz from
wellbore) affects the data.
dz
Dz

Start of Hemiradial Flow


Begins after closest vertical boundary (at distance
dz from wellbore) affects data and before furthest
boundary (at Dz from wellbore) affects the data.

tShrf

2
1800 d z

kz

ct

End of Hemiradial Flow


Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .
2
1800 Dz ct
t Ehrf
k
z
dz
Dz

End of Hemiradial Flow


. . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,
whichever comes first.
2
125 Lw ct
t Ehrf
ky
d
z

Dz

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47

Semilog plot

325
.
2
qB

m
Lw k x kz
33
0.1

Time

100

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47

Semilog plot

Radial flow

162
.
6
qB

m
k
k
z
x
HemiradialL
flow
w

33
0.1

325
.
2
qB

m
Lw k x kz
Time

100

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
p p

k k
i
1hr

x z

sa 2.3026
log

3
.
2275

m
c r

t w

k
2.3026 log 1 x

kz

dz

r
w

Early Linear Flow Regime


Start

1800d z2 ct
tSlf
kz

Early Linear Flow Regime


End

160L2w ct
t Elf
ky

Early Linear Flow/Drawdown


11

Cartesian plot

8.128qB
kx
m Lw h ct
1

Time1/2

Early Linear Flow/Drawdown


k x kz ( pi p1hr )Lw
sa
sc
141.2qB
Convergence skin

d
rw

sc
1

sin

h
kx
h

kz

Early Linear Flow/Drawdown


Flow converges from
total cross-section of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
Convergence skin

Early Linear Flow/Buildup


1800

8.128qB
kx
m Lw h ct

1400

p,
psia
1000

600
18

22

26

30

tp t t , hr

1/2

34

38

Early Linear Flow/Buildup


k x kz ( p1hr pw f )Lw
sa
sc
141.2qB
d
kz
rw
z

sc
1

sin

h
kx
h

Late Pseudoradial Flow

Start

Lw
b

Lw
0.45
b

Late Pseudoradial Flow

Start

1480L2w ct
tSprf
ky
Wellbore
end effects

Late Pseudoradial Flow

L
w
2000ct D y 4

t Eprf
ky

Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...

Late Pseudoradial Flow


1650 ct d x2
t Eprf
kx
or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
(whichever is reached first)

Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
59

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

kx k y
m h
53
100

200

Time

300

400

500

Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown


pi p1hr

k
y

l
o
g
L
k
2 sc
sa 1.1513 z w
m

c
L
t w
ky h

1
.
83

kz d z
rw
sc
1
sin
h
k x h

Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup

p1hr pw f
t p 1

lo g
t
m

L
k
p sc
sa 1.1513 z w

ky h

y
1.83
lo g

c
L
t
w

d
kz
rw
z

sc
1

sin

h
kx
h

Late Linear Flow


Effects of pressure

Late Linear

reach boundaries in
y, z directions

Late Linear Flow

Late Linear

Pseudosteady-state
flow in these directions

Late Linear Flow


4800 ct ( D y Lw / 4 )2
tSllf
ky

Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .

Late Linear Flow


1800 ct Dz2
tS llf
kz

. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)

Late Linear Flow


End

1650 ct d x2
t Ellf
kx

Late Linear/Drawdown
Estimate kx

60

8.128qB
kx
m iv bh ct

Cartesian plot
30
5

8.128qB
b
m iv h ct kx
Time1/2

17

Late Linear Flow


Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp
(a complex function
from literature)

Late Linear Flow


Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp

k x kz ( pi p1hr )b
st
141.2qB

sa st s p
b

sa sa
Lw

Late Linear Flow


Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp

k x kz ( pi p1hr )b
st
141.2qB
Lw
sa
b

k x kz ( p1hr )b
s p sc
141.2qB

Late Linear Flow/Buildup


Pressure is plotted vs. ( t p t t )

Late Linear Flow/Buildup


From the slope, miv we can calculate kx:
8.128qB
kx
m iv bh ct
or

8.128qB
iv

m h ct k x

Late Linear Flow/Buildup


4,000

8.128qB
kx
m iv bh ct
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
shut-in time to calculate p*

Semilog plot
3,400

Horner Time

10,000

Late Linear Flow/Buildup


Calculate total skin, st, from

k x kz ( p1hr pw f )b
st
141.2qB

and skin due to altered permeability,


sa, from
Lw
sa

kx kz ( p1hr pw f )b

s p sc
141.2qB

Summary of Analysis Procedures


Calculate kx

Early linear flow regime data: from effective


wellbore length, Lw
Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore

Effective wellbore length, Lw, can be


calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if kx has been calculated.

Summary of Analysis Procedures


Calculate kx

Early linear flow regime data: from effective


wellbore length, Lw
Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore.

Length of the boundary, b, parallel to


wellbore can be calculated from data in
late linear flow regime if kx is known.

Summary of Analysis Procedures


Calculate kx

Calculate kz from data in early radial or


hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime
If data such as Lw or b are unknown or if
flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.

Summary of Analysis Procedures

Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

We can assume kx = ky = kh and often


simplify analysis, but validity is
questionable.

Summary of Analysis Procedures


Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

Check on expected durations of flow regimes using tentative results from the analysis to
minimize ambiguity in results

Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Using the Techniques

Drawdown Diagnostic Plot


Wellbore storage
unit-slope line
p
Log (p)
or
Log (p)

p'
Linear flow halfslope
Radial flowline
horizontal derivative

Log (time)

Build-Up
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build
up tests
Log (p)
or
Log (p)

(better chance
if tp>>tmax)
Wellbore
storage

Early
Radial
flow

Early
Linear
Flow

Pseudoradial
Flow

Log (time)

Late
Linear
Flow

Field Example: Well A


Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h, ft
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours

2,470
0.25
5
150
104
1.40
0.45
238

Horizontal
exploration well
Vertical tectonic
fracture
Permeability
probably results
from fracture

Well A: Diagnostic Plot


10,000

p
Wellbore
1000
storage
Log (p

Radial flow?

p'

or p )

100

10

10

t, hr

100

Well A: Horner Plot


Test time too 24.69 Time
short to
4,000 detect lower
m -392.63
boundary,
3,500
linear flow,
or anisotropy
p
k = 0.011
2,500
s = 2.9
2,000
Semilog plot
4,500

1,500

10

Horner Time

2.4

100

Well A: Buildup History Match


10,000

p
Wellbore
1000
storage
Log (p

Radial flow

p'

or p )

100

10

k = 0.027 k = 0.011
s = 11.5 s = 2.9
(from Horner plot)
1

10

t, hr

100

Field Example: Well B


Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h, ft
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours

2,000
0.30
17
75
200
1.60
1.80
1,320

Well in west Texas


carbonate
Expected isotropic
k caused by
fracturing,
dissolution

Well B: Diagnostic Plot


1000

p, psia
or p

100

Radial flow
Wellbore storage

10
1

10

100

t, hr

Linear
flow
1000

Well B: Horner Plot


4000
3900
3800

t, hr

146.67

13.33

tErf = 165 hr
k = 0.15
k = 0.14

p, psia
m = 336.4

3600
3500
3400

k = 0.14
10

Horner time

100

Well B: Buildup History Match


1000

p, psia
or p

100

k = 0.15
k = 0.14

10
1

Good
agreement

10

100

t, hr

1000

Well B: Tandem-Root Plot


1800
1600

h = 75 ft
Nearest boundary = 29 ft

1400

p, psia
1000

m = 39.6

800
600
10

100

tp t t, hr1/2

Field Example C
Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h, ft
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours

1,400
484
0.41
17
54
2,760
1.10
4.88
36

Horizontal well
High-k sandstone
Extensive
underlying aquifer

Well C: Diagnostic Plot


1000

Radial, hemiradial,
or elliptical flow

100

p, psia
or p

No apparent
wellbore storage

0.1

Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

Well C: Type-Curve Match


1000

p
p

100

p, psia
or p
1

0.1

0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

Well C: Horner Plot


5.44

4000

3800

t, hr

0.0490

4.90E-03

k = 53

p, psia

k ~ 48

3600

3400

0.4949

(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
1

10

100

Horner time

1,000

10,000

Well C: Regression Match


1000

p
p

100

p, psia
or p
1

0.1

Geometric average
of horizontal,
vertical k ~ 48
0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

Horizontal Well Test Configuration


Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests

Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve

Horizontal Well Test


Configuration
Wellbore storage inherent
in horizontal well testing

Horizontal Well Test


Configuration
Wellbore crossflow may
dominate test results

Factors That Affect


Transient Response

Horizontal permeability (normal and


parallel to well trajectory)
Vertical permeability
Drilling damage
Completion damage
Producing interval that may be effectively
much less than drilled length
Variations in standoff along length of well

Obstacles to Interpretation
Multiple parameters frequently yield
inconclusive test analysis results
Wellbore storage obscures effects of transient
behavior
Middle- and late-time response behavior may
require several hours, days, or months to
appear in transient data

Ensuring Interpretable Data

Estimate horizontal and vertical k from tests in pilot


hole before kicking off to horizontal borehole
segment
Estimate standoff from directional drilling survey
Determine producing part of wellbore from
production log flow survey
Flow wells in developed reservoirs long enough to
equilibrate pressures along the wellbore and minimize
crossflow

Effects of Errors
in Input Data

Presentation Outline
Introduction
Sources of Error in Input Data
Effects of Error on Results of Welltest
Interpretation
Examples
Summary

Problem 1
Well A estimates from PBU test
Permeability, 10 md
Skin factor, 0
Distance to boundary, 250 ft

Analysis assumed net pay 25 feet


If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how
would that affect our estimates of
permeability, skin factor, and distance to
the boundary?

Problem 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Can these inconsistencies
possibly be resolved?
What could have caused this much
error in the distance estimate?

Sources of Input Data


Log interpretation
Fluid properties
Reservoir and well properties

Data From Log Interpretation


Porosity
Water saturation
Net pay thickness

Causes of Error in Log


Interpretation

Failure to calibrate the logging tool

Failure to make necessary environmental corrections


Failure to calibrate the log-derived properties against
core measurements
Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net pay
estimation

Error in Log Interpretation Data


Parameter

Deviation
Without
correction

With
correction

Porosity

15 %

5%

Water saturation

40 %

10 %

Net pay

50 %

15 %

Fluid Properties Data


Formation volume factor
Compressibility
Viscosity

Error in Fluid Properties Data


From Gas Properties Correlations
Parameter

Deviation

Bg from composition

1.1% to 5.8%

Bg from composition

1.3 % to 7.3%
(as much as 27% if
impurities are ignored)

cg

Negligible at low pressure

2% to 4%, g < 1
up to 20% low, g > 1.5

Error in Fluid Properties Data


From Oil Properties Correlations
Parameter

Deviation

Bo, p > pb

10%

Bo, p pb

5%

co, p > pb

Up to 50% low at high pressure


Best near pb

co, p pb

10%, p > 500 psi 20%, p < 500 psi

Order of magnitude only

Other Input Data


Flow rate
Wellbore radius
Formation compressibility
Total compressibility

Error in Well and Reservoir Data


From Measurement or Calculations
Parameter

Error

Flow rate

Failure to record rate before BU test


Inaccuracy in estimates, averages

Wellbore radius

Poor choice of measurement

Formation compressibility

Estimation errors

Total compressibility

Variations in fluid saturations


Abnormally pressured reservoir
Oil compressibility

Total Compressibility

ct c f S o co S wcw S g c g
Formation
compressibility

Each phase of fluid


times its compressibility

Effects of Errors

Vertical well
Single-phase flow
Homogeneous reservoir
Boundary
No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed

Test
Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off
Duration long enough to identify boundary

Errors in Viscosity
If input = 2 true
Then:
kcalc = 2 ktrue
Nothing else will be affected

Errors in Porosity
If input = 2 true,
Then:
scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2

Errors in Water Saturation


Cause errors in calculating total
compressibility

Errors in Compressibility
If ct input = 2 ct true
Then:
scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2

Errors in Net Pay


If hinput = 2 htrue
Then:
kcalc = ktrue/2
scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2

Errors in Flow Rate


If qinput = 2 qtrue
Then:
kcalc = 2 ktrue
scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
A calc = 2 Atrue

Errors in Formation Volume


Factor
If B = 2 B
input

true

Then:
kcalc = 2 ktrue
scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
A calc = 2 Atrue

Errors in Wellbore Radius


If rw input = 2 rw true
Then:
scalc = strue+ ln(2)

Solution to Problem 1
Well A estimates Net pay50 ft
Permeability, 10 md
Skin factor, 0
Boundary, 250 ft

Assumed net pay 25 ft

Permeability, 5 md
Skin factor, 0.35
Boundary, 177 ft

Solution To Problem 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility
could be off by a factor
of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away

Summary
Permeability is most affected by errors
in viscosity, net pay, and flow rate
Distances to boundaries and drainage
area are most affected by errors in
compressibility
Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable

Bounded Reservoir
Behavior

Cautions
Recognizing may be as important as analyzing
Many reservoir models may produce similar
pressure responses
Interpretation model must be consistent with
geological and geophysical interpretations

Characteristics
Boundaries control pressure response
following middle-time region
Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
Producing and shut-in times both lie within
middle-time region
Shut-in time is much less than producing time

Boundaries affect pressure responses of


drawdown and buildup tests differently

Shapes of curves
Durations of flow regimes explain shape of
drawdown pressure responses
Shape of buildup derivative type curve depends on
how the derivative is calculated and plotted
Shut-in time
Equivalent time
Superposition time

Superposition in space
Producing wells

Radial flow pattern


Apparent no-flow boundary between wells

Superposition in space
Producing well
Image well

Equal distances from


no-flow boundary

Real no-flow boundary

Superposition in space
No-flow boundary

Image well

Image well
Producing well

Superposition in space

No-flow boundary

Producing well

Superposition in space

Infinite-acting reservoir

Infinite-acting reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

Drawdown Type Curve

10

No boundaries encountered
1

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir
Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Derivative with respect to shut-in


time

Shape depends on duration of


production time prior to shut-in
Drawdown

0.1
tpD=105

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=106

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless
shut-intime
time

tpD=107

1E+08

tpD=108

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir
Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

Derivative with respect to equivalent


time
10

Not affected by producing time


1
tpD=105

tpD=106

tpD=107

tpD=108

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative taken with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
shut-in time

1
5

Drawdown

tpD=10 ,10 ,10 ,10


0.1

Largest time on plot is not limited


to producing or shut-in time
0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Linear no-flow boundary


(If so, far away.)

No-flow boundary

Producing well

Linear no-flow boundary


100

Dimensionless pressure

Drawdown Type Curve


10

Hemiradial flow
1

0.1

0.01
1E+03

Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1


Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Linear no-flow boundary


100

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

Derivative with respect to shut-in time


10

Drawdown

tpD=108

The longer the equivalent time before shut-in, the


longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown

0.1

0.01
1E+03

tpD=105
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=106
1E+07

Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless
shut-intime
time

tpD=107
1E+08

1E+09

Linear no-flow boundary


100

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

Derivative with respect to equivalent


time
10

tpD=105

0.1

tpD=106

tpD=107

tpD=108

Drawdown

Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log


cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Linear no-flow boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shut-in time
tpD=108
tpD=107

1
tpD=105
0.1

0.01
1E+03

Drawdown

tpD=106

Similar to drawdown response

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Linear constant-p boundary


Constant-pressure boundary

Producing well

Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary

Linear constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

Drawdown Type Curve

10

Slope can (and in this


case, does) reach -1

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Linear constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin time

Slope steeper than drawdown slope for


very short producing times before shut-in
tpD=106

0.1
5

tpD=10

0.01
1E+03

Drawdown curve
Drawdown
tpD=10

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless
shut-intime
time
Dimensionless shutin

tpD=108
1E+08

1E+09

Linear constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle
for very short producing times prior to shutin

0.1
tpD=105

Drawdown

tpD=106
tpD=107

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=108

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Linear constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
shut-in time
tpD=105,106

1
tpD=107
0.1

0.01
1E+03

Drawdown
Derivative curves resemble
drawdown curve

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

tpD=10
1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir
No-flow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )

Producing well

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

Drawdown Type Curve Slope 1/2

10

Slope = 1/2
0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir
Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Derivative with respect to shutin time


tpD=108

Drawdown
1

0.1

Derivative reaches a
slope of -1/2 if shut-in
time is much larger
than producing time

tpD=107

tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless
shut-in
time
Dimensionless shutin
time

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
dimensionless time

Drawdown

tpD=10
tpD=105

tpD=108

tpD=106

Radial equivalent
time not appropriate
in linear flow regime

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shut-in time

tpD=108

Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=105
0.1

0.01
1E+03

tpD=106

Derivative curve shape resembles


drawdown curve shape
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Intersecting sealing faults


Wedge reservoir
No-flow boundaries

Producing well

Intersecting sealing faults

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Drawdown Type Curve


The narrower the angle, the
longer to reach new horizontal

0.1

0.01
1E+03

Derivative levels off at


(360/ ) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Intersecting sealing faults


Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Derivative with respect to shut-in


time
Dramatic difference in curves
Drawdown
when shut-in is greater than
producing time prior to shut-in

tpD=108

tpD=10

0.1
tpD=106

tpD=105
0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin time

Dimensionless shut-in time

1E+08

1E+09

Intersecting sealing faults

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
tpD=108
5

tpD=10

tpD=10

Drawdown

tpD=107

0.1

0.01
1E+03

Derivative shape same as drawdown


response only when producing period
reaches fractional flow regime
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Intersecting sealing faults

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respedt to
equivalent time, plotted against
shut-in time
Drawdown

tpD=107

1
tpD=105
0.1

0.01
1E+03

tpD=108

tpD=106

Derivative, drawdown curves similar

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Closed circular boundary


No-flow boundary

Producing well

Closed circular boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Drawdown Type Curve


Unit slope may be seen
earlier if two zones with
different permeability
are present

0.1

0.01
1E+03

Both slopes approach unit


slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)

Reservoir limits test yields


pore volume of interval

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Closed circular boundary


Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Derivative with respect to shutin time


Drawdown

6 6, 7 7 8 8
ttpD
=10
,10
=10
10,10
,10
pD

tpD=10
0.1

0.01
1E+03

Derivative falls rapidly


for all combinations of
plotting functions
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin time

Dimensionless shut-in time

1E+08

1E+09

Closed circular boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Drawdown

0.1
tpD
=1077,108 8
pD=10 ,10

tpD=105
0.01
1E+03

tpD=106
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

Slope drops sharply


for very small values
of producing time
before shut-in
1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Closed circular boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shut-in time
Drawdown

1
tpD=105
0.1
6

6
7
8
,10
tpD= t10
, 10,10
, 10
pD=10

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

Derivative, drawdown
type curves differ
fundamentally
1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Circular constant-p boundary


Possibly strong aquifer
supporting pressure
equally from all directions

Constant-pressure
boundary

Producing well

Circular constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

Drawdown Type Curve

10

Pressure approaches
constant value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Circular constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin time
Drawdown

1
tpD=106,107,108
tpD=105

Curve can be identical to


drawdown plot just seen

0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin time

Dimensionless shut-in time

1E+08

1E+09

Circular constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time

Derivative falls off rapidly


0.1

Drawdown
tpD=105

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

tpD=106

1E+05

tpD=107,108

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09

Circular constant-p boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shut-in time
Results in somewhat-changed
curve on the plot

0.1

tpD=105

Drawdown
tpD=107,108
0.01
1E+03

tpD=106
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09

Radially composite reservoir


Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well

k1

k2

Producing well

Radially composite reservoir


Drawdown Type Curve

Dimensionless pressure

100

Varying M1/M2

M1/M2 = 100

10

k
m (mobility)

M1/M2 = 10

Responses resemble other tests


M1/M2 = 1

M1/M2 = 0.2

0.1

M1/M2 = 0.05
0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Radially composite reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

Drawdown Type Curve


Varying S1/S2

10

10
1

S1/S2 = 100

0.05

1
S1/S2 = 0.01

0.1

0.01
1E+03

S (storativity) = cth

If
1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area
If sS11/s
/S2>
2<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow
If M1/M2<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular
boundary during transition
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Final comments
Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a
closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to
apparent fit of test for many different
reservoirs

Arbitrary well position


L

dy

dx

Cautions
Make sure the model is consistent with known
geology before using the model
Two most dangerous models (because they
can fit so many tests inappropriately)
Composite reservoir
Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir

Final comments
Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a
closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to a poor
fit of test for many different reservoirs

Buildup Testing
and the

Diagnostic Plot

Objectives
Become familiar with time plotting
functions used with diagnostic plots for
buildup tests
Become aware of the very different
shapes in the diagnostic plots of buildup
and drawdown tests as buildup tests
approach stabilization

Time-Plotting Functions

Shut-in Time
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Multirate Equivalent Time
Superposition Time Function

Variable Rate History


q
q2
qn-1

q1

qn
0

t1

t2

tn-2

tn-1

t
t

Horner Pseudoproducing Time

Expressed
another way...

24 N p

tp

qn1

n 1

tp

Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in

24 q j t j t j 1
j 1

qn1

Horner Pseudoproducing Time


tp

24 N p
qn1

Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in

Good results as long as last


producing time is at least 10x
maximum shut-in time.

Multirate Equivalent Time

n 1

te

t n 1 t j 1

t
j 1
n 1
j 1

q j q j 1

q
n

1
n

(Agarwal equation for radial flow)

Superposition Time Function


n 1

j 1

1
STF

qn qn 1

ln t

q j q j 1 ln t tn 1 t j 1

Some literature recommends . . .


Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time

Superposition Time Function

n 1

q j q j 1
ln t tn 1 t j 1
STF
j 1 qn qn 1
ln t

(previous equation, rearranged)

Superposition Time Function



STF ln


n 1

t tn 1 t j 1
j 1

q j q j 1

q
n

1
n

(previous equation, rearranged again


using properties of natural logarithm)

Superposition Time Function



STF ln


n 1

1
t t
j 1
j 1 n 1

q j q j 1

q
n

1
n

STF ln C ln te

te

Superposition Time Function


Superposition time function is simply the
log of a constant plus the log of the
equivalent time.
Derivitive with respect to multirate equivalent time
= derivitive with respect to superposition time

STF ln C ln te

Superposition Time Function


Some literature recommends . . .
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
Some literature recommends . . .
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function

STF ln C ln te

Superposition Time Function


Since the derivatives with respect to
multirate equivalent time and
superposition time are equal,

STF ln C ln te

Conclusions
Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate
when producing time is 10 times greater
than the maximum shut-in time

Conclusions
Derivatives with respect to time for the
superposition time function and radial
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs. shut-in time, superposition time, or
equivalent time

Conclusions
Some literature or software documentation
may specify the method of taking or
plotting the derivative, but any of these will
work for these situation.

Radial Flow

Approaching Stabilization
Stabilization is the stage where pressure has
built up completely and is no longer
changing.

Stabilization In Radial System


100

Drawdown

pD

10

Buildup

1
Drawdown
0.1

Producing times must


be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time

0.01
1E+02

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

tD

Buildup, tpD=10

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

Linear Flow

Stabilization in Linear System


1000

Drawdown

pD

100

(spherical flow may also


produce slope = -1/2)

10

tpD=103

Derivative
response
slope = -1/2

0.1
1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E+03

tD

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

Volumetric Behavior

Stabilization in Volumetric System


100

Dimensionless pressure

All boundaries have been felt


10

Drawdown
1

tpD=10
0.1

0.01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

Drawdown response
feels boundary later than
build-up response

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin time

1E+08

1E+09

Conclusions
Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different as
the reservoir approaches stabilization.
Dont expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.

Integrated Well Test


Interpretation

Integrating Test Interpretation


Geology

Geophysi
cs

Petrophys
ics

Model
Selectio
n
Paramet
er
Flow
Estimatio
Regime
n
Identificati
Model
on
Validatio
n

Engineerin
g Data

Well Test
Interpretat
ion

Interpreting Integrated Data


Importance of Model Selection
Integrating Other Data

Geological Data
Geophysical Data
Petrophysical Data
Engineering Data

Validating the Reservoir Model


Common Errors and Misconceptions

Similar Model Responses


Well in a Wedge

Composite Reservoir

Multiple Knobs Confuse


Composite
Reservoir

Well in a Box
W

R
M1,S1

M2,S2

Mobility ratio M1/M2


Storativity ratio S1/S2
Distance to boundary R

L
D1

Distance to wall D1
Distance to wall D2
Reservoir length L
Reservoir width W

D2

Models Simplify Geology


-79

Well A
-9
10
0

-8
9

00

-87
00

-85

00

-83

00

00

-81

00

Interpretation model must be

consistent with (not identical to)


geological model

Have we oversimplified the geology?

Responses Differ With Test Type


Slight divergence;

Closed Reservoir - DD TC

Const Pres Boundary - DD TC

Close match

Closed Reservoir - BU TC

Const Pres Boundary - BU TC

Importance Of Model Selection


Most major errors caused by use of wrong
model instead of wrong method
Meaningless estimates
Misleading estimates

Two aspects of model selection


Selecting reservoir geometry
Identifying features of pressure response

Geology Offers Insights


Depositional
environment
Reservoir size
Shape
Orientation

Reservoir
heterogeneity
Layering
Natural fractures

Diagenesis
Types of boundaries
Faults
Sealing
Partially sealing

Fluid contacts
Gas/oil
Oil/water

Geophysics and Petrophysics


Structure
Faults
Location
Size

Reservoir
compartments
Shape
Orientation

Net pay thickness


Porosity
Fluid saturations
Fluid contacts
Lithology
Layering
Evidence of natural
fractures

Engineering Data
Drilling datadaily reports
Production and flow test data
Stimulation treatment results
Fracture design half-length, conductivity
Fracture treating pressure analysis results
Problems during treatmentdaily reports

Data from offset wells


Possible interferenceproduction records
Well test results

Reality Checks Validate Model

Wellbore storage coefficient


Skin factor
Core permeability
Pressure response during flow period
Productivity index
Average reservoir pressure
Radius of investigation
Distances to boundaries
Independent estimates of model parameters

Wellbore Storage Coefficient


Fluid-filled wellbore

C Vwb cwb

Rising liquid level

144 Awb g c
C
5.615 wb g

WBS coefficient from test should be within order of


magnitude of estimate
Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may indicate
reservoir storage instead of WBS

Skin Factor
Likely estimates by completion type

Natural completion
Acid treatment
Fracture treatment
Gravel pack
Frac pack

0
-1 to -3
-3 to -6
+5 to +10
-2 to +2

Local field experience may suggest more


appropriate values
Skin factor < -6 very unlikely

Core Permeability
In-situ permeability from well test
Core permeability to air
Highoverburden and saturation
Lownatural fractures

Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value


less than kh from well test
Fractures
Missing core

Most useful when entire interval cored

Production Period Pressure


Must be consistent with shut-in pressure
response
Must ensure consistency
Interpret flow periods independently
Predict flow period pressures from results of
buildup
Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously

Productivity Index
Field Data
Model Parameters

q
J
p pwf

kh

1 10.06 A 3

s
141.2 B ln
2
2

C Arw 4

Correct model should give consistent values

Average Reservoir Pressure


Compare average reservoir pressure from
test interpretation
Material balance
Analytical simulation
Numerical simulation

Results should be similar if same reservoir


model is used

Radius of Investigation
ri

kt
948ct

ri

kte
948ct

Estimate radius of investigation


Beginning of middle-time region
End of middle-time region

Unrealistically large ri may indicate selected


MTR is incorrect
Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics

Distance to Boundaries
Reservoir size
Production data
Geological data
Geophysical data

Distances to boundaries
Geological data
Geophysical data

Geoscience professionals should develop


common interpretation model

Independent Parameters
Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
Storativity ratio
Interporosity flow coefficient

Independent Parameters
Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Radius of waterflooded zone
Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2
Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2

Independent Parameters
Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Fracture properties from treatment design
Fracture half-length lf
Fracture conductivity wkf

Common Errors/Misconceptions
Most-often-misused models
Well between two sealing faults
Well in a radially composite reservoir
Well in a rectangular reservoir

Common misconceptions
Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage
Peak in derivative indicates radial flow
Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure boundary

Well Between Two Sealing


Faults
Well in a Wedge

Angle between faults


Distance from well to 1st fault
Distance from well to 2nd fault

Radially Composite Reservoir


Composite Reservoir

Mobility ratio M1/M2


Storativity ratio S1/S2
Distance to boundary R

Rectangular Reservoir
Well in a Box
W
L
D1

Distance to wall D1
Distance to wall D2
Reservoir length L
Reservoir width W

D2

Unit-slope line always


indicates wellbore storage

Unit-slope line may be caused by


Pseudosteady-state flow
(drawdown test only)
Recharge of high-permeability zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)

Peak in derivative implies radial flow


Linear
Bilinear
Radial
Spherical

Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow


restriction for any flow regime

Strong aquifer acts as constant


pressure boundary

Mobility of water must be much higher than


that of reservoir fluid to act as constant
pressure boundary
Maybe, maybe not for oil
Never for gas