Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering Texas A&M University Lecture 08:

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 t-blasingame@tamu.edu
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 1

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Origin of the "Deliverability" (or Backpressure) Relation
 Empirical.  Used to assess "open flow" potential of gas wells.  Does not provide a "time-dependent" behavior. Multi-Rate Testing  Historically, VERY popular still used quite often,

especially on new wells to estimate deliverability and "non-Darcy" flow effects.  Keep it simple a "4-point" test is appropriate.  Isochronal testing is very difficult to implement.

Pressure Transient Analysis

 Expected Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA).  Example Data Sets: PTA and Production data.  Basic Plots: Lee Text Example 2.2 (Pressure Buildup).

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 2

Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation

Well Testing Historical Perspectives Origin of the "Deliverability" (or Backpressure) Relation

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 3

History of the "Deliverability" Equation

Gas Well Deliverability:  The original well deliverability relation was completely empirical (derived from observations), and is given as: q g ! C ( p 2  p 2 )n wf

 This relationship is rigorous (i.e.,

it can be derived) for low pressure gas reservoirs, (n=1 for laminar flow).

 From: Back-Pressure Data on NaturalGas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices Rawlins and Schellhardt (USBM Monograph, 1935).

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 4

Multi-Rate Testing

Well Testing Historical Perspectives Multi-Rate Testing

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 5

Deliverability Testing: Basics

a. "Standard" 4-point test deliverability test note that the rates increase (to protect the reservoir).

c. Modified "Isochronal" test sequence note that each "buildup" is not required to achieve pi.

b. "Isochronal" test sequence note that each "buildup" is required to achieve pi.

d. Governing equations for "deliverability" test analysis/interpretation.

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 6

Deliverability Testing: Orientation

a. Basic "pressure-squared" relation that is presumed to describe gas flow analogous form can be derived from steady-state flow theory (Darcy's law).

b.Traditional "deliverability" plot probably derived from empirical plotting of data.

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 7

Deliverability Testing: Orientation

a."Rate-squared" (or velocitysquared) formulation analogous form can be derived from steadystate flow theory (Forchheimer Eq.).

b. Modified "deliverability" plot note that bqsc2 must be known (... need alternative approach).

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 8

Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation

Well Testing Historical Perspectives Expected Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) Production Analysis (PA)

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 9

Expected Results from PTA

 Expected Results of Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA):
estimate reservoir properties from a particular "flow regime" (i.e., a flow regime is a characteristic behavior derived from an analytical solution e.g., the constant pressure derivative function for infinite-acting radial flow (IARF)). Examples of other specialized plots: square-root and fourthroot of time plots for fractured wells. "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides estimates of dynamic formation properties: (i.e., model parameters)  Radial Flow: k, S, CD  Fractured Wells: k, xf, FCD, CfD  Horizontal Wells: kr, kr/kv, hwell, (effective length) zw (position), ChD  Dual porosity reservoir properties: [, P

"Conventional" PTA: Use of semilog and other specialized plots to

 Data Requirements/Assessment/Review:
Typically involves very accurate measurements of bottomhole pressures
(this is a priority). Rate history is most often the weakest link must perform "due diligence" and obtain the best possible rate history. Should use downhole shut-in device to minimize wellbore storage. PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 10

Expected Results from PA

 Expected Results of Production Analysis (PA):
used to provide estimates of recovery and forecasts of future performance. "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides estimates of dynamic formation properties (k, S, xf, dual porosity properties, etc.) "Model-based" forecasting: A direct extension of model-based analysis generation of a time-dependent pressure and/or rate forecast.

"Conventional" decline curve analysis: (Arps, etc.) empirical relations

 Data Requirements/Assessment/Review:
Are production data available? (BOTH rates and PRESSURES!) Is the well completion history available? (review for issues) PVT and static reservoir properties? (must be assessed/included) Is the production "analyzable?" (can major issues be resolved?)

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 11

PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts

Well Testing Historical Perspectives Reservoir Performance Analysis: PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 12

Production ata: Example 1

Sewell Ranch ell No. 1 arnett Field (NorthTexas)

1.E S F as Flowrate ellbore Pressure 1.E 1 1 1 1 1.E 1 Surface Pressure, psig

as Production Rate,

1.E

1.E 1 1 Producing Time, days

 Production Example 1: Sewell Ranch No. 1 (North Texas (US))

 Rate and pressure data affected by water loading.  Late-time data affected by line pressure (other wells in flow system).
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 13

Production ata: Example 2

UPR22 Gas Well Mid-Continent (US)

.E Gas Production Rate, MSCF Gas Flo rate Wellbore Pressure .E

2 .E 2

.E 2 .E 2 Producing ime, days 2

 Production Example 2: UPR22 Gas Well (Mid-Continent (US))

 Rate and pressure data affected by fluid loading.  Seasonal cycles in demand/production.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 14

Calculated

P, psia

Pressure Transient Data: Example 1

Bourdet E ample (SPE 12777) ((t e F 1.E+04 Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Derivative 1.E+03 ( p and ( p' , psi ( p and ( p' , psi Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Derivative

1.E+02

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00 , hr (t

1.E+01

1.E+02

(t e , hr

a. No Rate History: ((t format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time (Bourdet (SPE 12777)).

b.Rate History: ((te format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus Agarwal superposition time (Bourdet (SPE 12777)).

 Pressure Transient Example 1: Bourdet (SPE 12777)

 Production history effects are obvious.  Interpretation should consider "no rate" and "rate" history cases.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 15

 



 

 

 

1.E+00 1.E-03

  

1.E+01

Bourdet Example (SPE 12777) ((t Form t)

      

Pressure Transient Data: Example 2

DaPrat xample ( ell Mach 3 , P 13054) ((t Format) 1. +04

1. +03 ( p and ( p , psi

1. +02

1. +01

1. +00 1. -02

Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Derivative ( =0.2) Pressure Drop Derivative ( =0.3) Pressure Drop Derivative ( =0.4) imulated Pressure Drop imulated Pressure Drop Derivative

1. -01

1. +00

1. +01 (t , r

1. +02

1. +03

 Pressure Transient Example 2: DaPrat (SPE 13054)

 Dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir (PSS interporosity flow).  Illustrates the sensitivity of the pressure derivative function.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 16

Data Artifacts: Example 1

Womack Hill Well No. 1 33 Womack Hill Field (Alabama)

1.E 04 Prorat d Production Initial Depletion (no pressure support ) Oil Flo rate Wellbore ressure Conversion to Jet Pump Recompletion Acid Stimulation

2000 ressure, psia Estimated HF 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800

ate, S Oil roduction

D 1.E 03 1.E 02

600 400 p wf assumed constant 200 0 1000 11000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

1.E 01

roducin

ime, days

 Data Artifacts Example 1: Womack Hill Field (Alabama (US))

 Note the various events (value of annotated production records).  No pressure data (typical).
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 17

Data Artifacts: xamp e

e od Co ombia ( outh America)

. + i F owrate We bore ressure st. BHF ressure, psia Pump C nge ime, da s p wf not synch onous w th rate prof e BD roduction Rate, i . + . +

roducin

 Data Artifacts Example 2: Told Well 3 (Colombia)

 pwf NOT synchronous with qo (pwf from fluid levels).  Note that effect of pump change is captured by pwf and qo.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 18

ata Artifacts: xam le

as ell oor arl ime ata anada

. as lo rate ell ore ressure sia as roduction ate p wf g w q



qg

roducin

ime da s

 Data Artifacts Example 3: Canada Gas Well

 pwf NOT synchronous with qg at early/intermediate times.  Dispersion in pwf at middle times not reflected in the qg function.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 19

alc.

p wf

ressure

: x

 Data Artifacts Example 4: Southeast TX Gas Well (US)

 Multiple completion changes.  Issues related to pressure profile measure bottomhole pressure?
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 20

Data Artifacts: Example 5

San er Gas Well ase (South Texas (US)) Pressure

(t , hr

a. Semilog Plot: ((t format) Pressure versus shutin time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) Packer leak (most likely cause).

 Data Artifacts Example 5: South Texas Gas Well (US)

 Gas well with anomalous pressure "jump" packer leak?  No "reservoir" mechanism (other than injection) could produce feature.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 21

"

" &"

&"

. -

. -

. -

( p and ( p' , psi

p f , psia

&" $ '

&" # '

&" '

&" '

&"

!% !$ !# " ! ! " % $ # (

a ger Gas

e Case

uth Te as U

Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Derivative

(t , hr

b.Log-log Plot: ((t format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) Packer leak (most likely cause).

Data Artifacts: Example 6

Dunn refracture ressure uildup (Condensate (Mid-Continent (US)) .E Pseudopressure Drop, pp and (pp' , psi ( Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Derivative anking)

.E

.E

.E

.E .E.E.E.E .E .E Shut-In seudotime (t a , hr

 Data Artifacts Example 6: Mid-Continent Gas Well (US)

 Changing wellbore storage and condensate banking (very high skin).  Interpretation depends on understanding of reservoir and fluids.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 22

Well Test Analysis Basic Plots

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Well Test Analysis Basic Plots

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 23

Well Test Analysis: Basic Plots (Lee Text Example)

a. Log-log "preliminary analysis" plot wellbore storage and radial flow (Cs, k).

b. Cartesian "early-time" plot used to analyze wellbore storage (p0, Cs).

c. Cartesian "Arps" plot used to estimate average reservoir pressure.

d. Semilog "middle-time" plot used to analyze radial flow behavior (k, s).

e. Horner "middle-time" plot used to analyze radial flow behavior (k, s, p*).

f. Log-log "summary" plot summary of all analysis (Cs, k, s, A, etc).

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 24

Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-log Plot

 Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-Log Plot

 Pressure drop function does not give much resolution.  Pressure drop derivative function shows wellbore storage/radial flow.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 25

Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot

 Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot

 Used to estimate wellbore storage coefficient (slope of trend).  Pressure at start of the test estimated from extrapolation.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 26

Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (PBU)

 Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (Pressure Buildup)

 NOT a universally valid plot (ONLY valid for very late times).  Average reservoir pressure estimated from extrapolation.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 27

Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (MDH)

 Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson)

 NOT corrected for rate history.  Can be difficult to interpret (semilog straight line needs orientation).
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 28

Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot

 Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot

 CORRECTED for rate history.  Used to estimate permeability, skin factor, average reservoir pressure.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 29

Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-log Plot

 Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-Log Plot

 Used to show simulated reservoir response (based on analysis).  Multiple data functions used to orient analysis/interpretation.
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 30

Module 4: Well Test Analysis Work Relations

 Given data Lee text (1st edition),

Example 2.2.

 Working relations Lee text (1st

edition), Example 2.2).

PETE 613 (2005A)

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

Slide 31

Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering Texas A&M University Lecture 08:

Well Testing Historical Perspectives

(End of Lecture) T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 t-blasingame@tamu.edu
PETE 613 (2005A) Well Testing Historical Perspectives Slide 32