Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

.

6iii$a

Society of PetroleumEngineers

~p~ 27667
Interpretation of Field Pressure and Production Data With a New
Analytical Layered Reservoir Simulator
Chao Gao, Texas A&M U.; J.E. Jochen, S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.; and W.J. Lee,
Texas A&M U.
SPE Members

Copyright

19S4, tWety

of Petroleum

Engineers,

This paper wee prepared for preaentetion

Inc.

at me I s94 SPE Permien Sasin 011 and Qaa Rewvety

Confarenca

held in Midlend, Texas,

l~ls

fJerch 1~,

This PaPar wee eafeoted for preeentatlon by an SPE Program Commltfea following review of information oontainad in an abetract eubmittad by the aufhmts). Contents of the paper,
= Preeanfad, have nOf bean reviewed by the Sooiaty of Petroleum Enghmere and are subject to corractlon by the author(s). The material, aa praeanted, doaa not naoaaeerily raflact
any position of the Society of Petroleum Enginaara, Ma offiira,
or rnembara. Papers pnxtanted at SPE meetings ara subject to publication review by Editorial Commifteea of theSOOiefy
of Petroleum Errgineara. Permieabn to wpy ia raetrjofad to an ebetreot 04 M more than s00 words. Illuafratkms may not be sopiad. The abstract ehotdd mntein conapiowua acknmvladgment
. . . . .. . . .. ..:.=== n fi a.. awan~
pti~=,~n,
H 750s535s5
U.S.A. Telex, 1SS245 SPEUT,
... . . .
of whara and by whom the papar is preeaniaa. wme Lioiarmn, m-1=, T.-. -.
.,

A~s TRACT

diffcrencc reservoir simulators.

This paper presents the application of a new analytical simulator


specifically developed for multilayer reservoirs. In this paper, we
demonarrate how thii analytical simulator can be us~ the same way as
a conventional numerical simulator, to history-match field pressure dat~
production daq and forecast reservoir performance. Two ftcld cases are
presented in which analytical simulation results and numerical
simulation rcsuhs are compared.

D~cRIpTIo

N OF THE ANALYTICAL SIMULATOR

Reference 1 presents the details of the development of the


analytical sohttions to the reservoir performance of a commingled
systcm by using Laplacc transforms to SOIVCthe partial differential
equations. The analytical solution for each layer can be combined
together with inner boundary conditions at the common wellbore to
simulate mtdtilayer reservoirs.

ODUCTION
It has been shown that an equivalent single-layer rcecrvoir model is
not as accurate when describing
a well complctcd in a layered
reservoir.6 Usually, the single-layer model will bc optimistic.
Developing a reservoir description for a multilayer reservoir systcm
often requires a geological analysis, well logging data, core data, insuite stress information, the characterization of natural fractures (if
applicable), and well test data. A reservoir description developed with
these data can provide the basis for a better understanding of a
multilaycr system. Once a multilaycr reservoir description has been
wcenrnir &.r@r~& ~oo] is ~ded
fOl
PG.;-. al,
m,+ m-.
.,-mir.ideve 1Csped, Stt e,..ww,.
. .. -----studying this kind of reservoir. To study a multilaycr reservoir, it is
often necessary to history match production and well test data and to
fnm~act
~,ske wmd,i~r;fim
~.
v..
.V.
----- c we h~v~ fQurtd that conventional tIUfnCriCCl
simulators can be difficult to set-up and time consuming to run,
especially for reservoir containing more than onc layer.
In tits paper, wc present the application of a ncw analytical
simulator developed specifically for a multilaycr system. F30thoil and
. ..- Jw12,V,*
. ..-.....% DJs,w.,,.
-..=*--- m,
e.- hm .....
~n+lcd---- Chw
g--- new
... ~n~!ylical reservoir
simulator is capable of modeling the performance of commingled
reservoirs with unequal initial pressures in different layers and allows
each layer to be homogcneotta or dual porosity, hydraulically fractured
or have radiaf flow (with skirt), and be finite or infinite in extent. In
addition, this simulator can model constant rate production and constant
bottom-hole pressure production. pressure buildup tests following both
constant bottom-hole pressure production and constant rate production
can also be modeled. The advantage of using this analytical simulator is
that it is much caaicr to usc and faster than conventional finitc413

Pseudo variables were used for gas systems. Since each layer may hae
different gas properties, due to either different initial pressure or
differential depletion, pseudo times arc defined baaed on each layefs
w properties and k itve:.agedgss prcpe.tih=s
... .fnr. . LhC IOU! s~stem. A
multiple time scale concept was used when taking Laplsce transforms
and inverting Laplace transforms numericdly.2
This analytical simulator can provide wellbore pressures, layer
sandface rates, layer average pressures, and layer cumulative
~oduction. Both production and shut-in periods can be modeled. The
production can be either constant
rate of constant pressure production.
FIE LD CASE APPLICATI ON
In this section, we discuss how this analytical simulator cart be used in
the same way as numerical simulators, to analyze pressure tramiertt
data, production data, and make Iong-term performance forecasts for
two WCIISlocaied in the United States. The two cases discussed in tiis
section were originally presented in SPE papers. In these papers, ire
authors state that they used a numerical simulator to analyze pressure
transient and production data and to dcvclopcd a multilayer resemoir
description. with which to make long-tcrrn performance forec=ts.
Reservoir models for both WC1lSwere developed baaed on core data.
log data, and well test data. To demonstrate our ncw analytical
simulator as an efficient and accurate reservoir study tool, wc used k to
rerun the simulation using the santc reservoir description, or a similar
reservoir description with little modification,
as the ones in :!e
literature and compare our results wifh the field data end the rcsuhs of
numerical simulations. A general purpose numerical simulator 3 was

INTERPRETATION
OF FIELD PRESSURE AND PRODUCTION DATA
WITH A NEW ANALYTICAL LAYERED RESERVOIR SIMULATOR

SPE 27667

used for the comparison.

J3eld Case 1-- Berea Sand ttwo Iavera. Well CooD 2)

500

The Coop 2 well is located in eastern Pike Co., KY. In thk ar~
.L
n-.. ..-- . . .V...f.,,.~ rm
in~den~
non-cotnmutticstirtg
Ule~==a
-. ~~m&t
----- of
-. two
.
sand packages; both sand intervals have low matrix pcrmeabilities
(0.0001 md to 0.0008 md) and are naturally fractured.4 Fig, 1 shows a
cross-section in the inunedate location of the Coop 2 well. According
to reference 4, after a breakdown/ballout treatment, separate and
sitnultarteous pre-fracture well tests were conducted on the Upper and
Lower Berea to determine permeability, completion efficiency, and
reacrvoir pressure for each layer. Table 1 summarizes the properties of
this two-layer reservoir based on the analysis of logs, cores, an
interpretation of an FMS log, and WC1ltest data. Following the prefracture well tests, the WC1lwas flowed for about two months. Then, the
entire Berea completion interval was hydraulically fractured.

1-

analytical

simulation
1-

~1

o~

The authors of reference 4 history-matched the post-fracture


buildup behavior using a 225-ft infinite wnductivity fracture and 80
acre well spacing. Before shut-in, the well was produced under a
constant pressure of 78 psia. Fig. 2 compares the post-fracture buildup
data with the results from our analytical simulator. It can been seen that
agrccmcm between the field data and the results of our analytical
simulator is excellent. Although we did not include the numerical
simulation results, the agreement between the analytical simulation
results and the field data is essentially as good as the agreement between
the field data and the results of numerical simulation. Fig. 3 shows the
sandface rate behavior after shut-in calculated using our analytical
simulator. Comparing Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, we can ace that when the shut-

0.01

0.1

100

10

1000

SHUT-IN TIME, hr
Fig. 2: History-match post-fracture buildup data.
in time is ICSSthan 1 hour, wellbore storage is dominant and after tic
shut-in time is larger than 100 hours, the wellbore storage starts to
dissipate. Bsscd on the above results, we are wnfidcnt that the
reservoir description for this two-layer reservoir is reasonable.

UPPER

100 =

50
WER

n
:.01

1
0.1

10

100

SHUT-IN TIME, hr

Fig. 3: Analytical mudeling sandface rates


wm.tinpor~n~
fn~ !)a~ea Sands.
F@. 1: Cram=.=
. . . ... ~.
..r.

.-

414

1000

C. GAO, J.E. JOCHEN AND W. J. LEE

SPE 26665

1000
a
6 -

Field case 2--Dcvottisn Sh ale (11 1avers. Well Cooo 1 )

4 -

The second case is for a well completed in the Devonian Shales;


the Coop 1 well. This well is located in eastern Kentucky. The authors
of reference 5 state that this well was part of a three-well research
program sponsored by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). The objective
of their research was to obtain a better understand~ of the physical
pmpettics controlling well perfortmtticc m the Devonian Shales. On the
basis of the data analy~
they concluded that the Uvonian Shales in
~~.ecas~~r.. q~mw~
. -.. ..= ~~~
--- mav
... , k.
- dtamcteriti
as a naturally fiectured,
layered reservoir.

.-

u-

100

~
(n
111

After a detailed reservoir study, the authors in reference 5


developed an eleven-layer, naturally fractured reservoir model with
each layer containing different initial reservoir pressures. Table 2
summarizes each layers properties from Layer A through Layer K
based on the analysis of cores, logs and stress tests.
The authors in refcrencc 5 used the stress profile to provide the
initial criterion for layer selection. They concluded that since matrix
permeability is very low, natural fiacturcs are primarily responsible for
gas production in the Devonian Shales: therefore, they felt that if they
could identify where natural fractures terminate, then those points
should act essentially as no flow boundaries. Them the borehole camera
and the FMS log were examined and interpreted to be sure that natural
fractures did not cross any of the layers selected by the stress profile.
l%xdly, lithology and gas content were used to further refine the layer
boundaries.
Fig. 4 presents a history match of the prc-fracture pressure buildup data
using our analytical simulator. Before shu~-in, the well was produced
under a constant pressure of 94 psia. The numerical simulation data
presented in ref. 5- are also included. There were only six layers which
were perforated before hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, we used a sixlaycr reservoir model to history match the pre-fracture buildup data.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 can be used to support our history match of the prefracture buildup data. During the first 10 hours of shut-in,

a-

i
1

1 [

# I 111111

0.1

1 1

11111 I 1nl!ml
10

I 1
1000

100

SHUTIN TIME, hr
Fig. 5: Wellbore storage effect after shut-in - unit slope line.
Fig. 5 shows that there is typical unit slope line on the log-log plot of
pressure change vs shut-in time and Fig. 6 shows that the total sandface
rate after shut-in remained essentially unchanged. The crossflow after
shut in will affect wellbore pressure during buildup and delay the
development of the semilog straight line.
Fig. 7
data using
calculated
production

presents Oui history match of the post-fracture production


our analytical simulator. It can bc seen that the results
using the analytical simuiator agrees wiih iiie fieid
data.

10

IJ
s
w1<

.................-.!.-I-.4

ezmdfal.~

@?Q :

{&jEj

E
400
: :=:

..

o
Layer
C ~
:
1 1 I 11!111 t 1 1lI1ltl
.9
10
1
-0.1

Layer ~

200

1 I 11111111 I 1~
100

SHUTIN TIME, hr
0.1

10

100

1000

SHUTIN TIME, hr

Fig. 6: Wellbore storage effect - Sand face rate.

Fig. 4: History match pre-fracture buildup data.

415

1000

INTERPRETATION
OF FIELD PRESSURE AND PRODUCTION DATA
WITH A NEW ANALYTICAL LAYERED RESERVOIR SIMULA1OR

SPE 27667

field data

analytical

before

-.

700

500 400
#

10

300 n
o

400

300

200

100

l,,

10

,,i,

-layer D
,,li I1lii 191111111

20

TIME, days

30

40

50

60

TiME, yr

Fig. 7: History match post-fracture production data.

Fig. 9: Layer average pressure performance


Fig. 8 compares the post-fracture well pesformsnce forecasts for 50
years from our analytical simulator to the numerical simulator. The
agreement between the two forecasts is excellent with less than 4%
deviation. Fig. 9 illustrate how each layers average pressure behaves
during the 50 years.
o

~N

CONCLuD~G

The advantage of using this analytical simulator is that (1) it is easy


to setup an input data file and (2) simulation runs are very fast. For
example, when simulating a naturally fractured reservoir that was
hy&aulically fractured, we only need to input three numbers for each
200

#
/
8
#
/
/
M,#.
111

ii

100

50

I,/

/## #

I
150

layer (intcrporosity flow mefficiert~ ~ dual porosity storativity ratio,


o and fracture half-length, L.. Table 3 compares the setup times and
computation times between the numerical simulator and our analytical
simulator.
WMARK.S

Irt thk paper, we present the application of our new analytical layer

reservoir simulator. Thk simulator has proven to be an accurate and


cfficicnt reservoir analysis tool for reservoir engineers. The analysis of
field data from Iwo multilayer gas reservoirs in the United States were
presented. Information of total sandface rate and layer sandface rates
sftcr shut-in will be helpful for analyzing pressure buildup data. History
matching may be the best method to analyze pressure transient data
from wells completed in multilayer reservoir. Because of the
tremendous amount of computation time and effort associated with
history matching. we have found this analytical simulator to be
invaluable
NOMEMXAIWW
gas in place, MMscf
net pay thickness, ft
fracture spacing of xdwection, ft
fracture spacing of ydirection, ft
permeability, md
bulk perrnesbllity in the xdirectiort. md
btdk permeability in the ydircction, md
matrix permeability in, md
initial pressur% ft

numerical simulation
analytical simulation

average

r~~i<titi

Pif%siie,

p~a

apparent skin factor, dnensiordess


cmrtate water saturation, fraction

TiME, yr

Fig. 8: Weii performance forecasts for W-eilCoop 1

416

gas porosity, fisction

.
.

intcrporosity fiow we fficien~ detnentimtkss


storativity ratio, dementionlcss

C. GAO, J.E. JOCHEN AND W. J. LEE

SPE 26665
Acwo

WLEDGMENT s

We acknowledge the Gas Research Institute (GRI), which sponsored

this research under GRI Contract No. 5086-213-1446,


Ertgineetins and Treatment Design Technology.

Reservoir

Gso,C. and Lee, W.J.: Modeliig Commingled Resemoirs Whit


Pressure-hpmtdent Properties and Unequal Inhial Pressure in
Different Layetzi paper SPE 26665 presented at the 1993 SPE
Annual Technical
Oct. 4-6.

Conference and Exhibition,

Houstom TX,

Stehfea~ H. : Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms,


Cornrnunicufion of the ACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No. 1, Algorithm

368.
SABRE, A General Purpose Multi-Dimetwional,
Petw!eu?? Reservoir Wttdalor,

Multi-Phase
Versio?l 3:!)0, s: l% Ho!ditch &

Associates, Inc., College Station, TX (March. 1992).

G.,. .T...u.. e.
at -.
/. !$~~~~~ ~q~ &&q.~!~~QnEva!trstiQnQfthe
..-.+
Berea Sandstone Formstion in Pike County, Kentucky, paper
SPE 25896 presented st the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional and Low Permeability Re.mvoirs Symposium, Denver,
CO, April. 26-28.
Jochen, J. E. and Lancaster, D.E.: Reservoir Characterization
of an Eastern Kentucky Devonian Shales Well Using a
Naturally Fractured, Layered Description, paper SPE 26192
presented at the 1993 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Calgary, Csnad4 June 28-30.
kdhtils;
or,,
Layers

in

..A MU,
I..
WI.
n .- . t;vm
J. L. a,,u
. . .. .. rl~-i;fi.-~i~mn
S*,, ... ..-.. ,, . f .D.rvi,,(.
..
Low-Permeability Gas Wells; JPT (Nov. 1992) 1240-

48.

417

INTERPRETATION
OF FIELD PRESSURE AND PRODUCTION DATA
WITH A NEW ANALYTICAL LAYERED RESERVOIR SIMULATOR

Table 1- Reservoir Properties

and Gas in Place for the Upper and Lower Berea


Well Test Reds

Nat1Frarmm SPSC@?
hi

(Ii)

k#sc#

(%)

3.8
4.1
2s
Tn2m IDSansdysis
4%42mc421eanalysis
%uln FMs amllysis
40

SPE 27667

If41cmccdng
(h)
10

m-w

(red)
0.0001

(!i)
1

0.0008

GIP

F
00

E
(red)
0.00s5

4.8

7go

302

0.027

-5.6

695

207

10

Table 2- Reservoir Properties for the COOP 1 Well


3ATE31
3n4eWaL rl
Tkkkoem ft
P4rrm4km Mink. n
uam0krR4s4n7e,
Uk
Ne4 Pm fl

IAYU

%
TIMIFbui4Y,
waler Sa4ur40w. %

D
B
c
414b4217 4Z41UJ2 anuu

24
4,]m

23

Is
4220

4370

45
4,303

870
9.0
33
963

690

540

6(I3

23s
4.1

15.0

47.0
4.3

70.7

5.1
56.1

40s
4.5

66.4

0.002

0.oo2

0.s02

k.ti
,,md
, md
k_n
hm, n

F
I
I E
I 4a4MslI I 4M4.4M

A
4WI*

30.0
6.4

51

17

630

690

750

8.3
4.9

47.0
$2

S2S
4.2

%.4

66.6

57.7

n.3

0.006

0.002

0.002

0.002

82.0
0.002

0.29
0.2X03

1,Oca

850
13.3
4.s

3.5
3.9
75.s

0M040

0.oo200

o.wsm

0.00067

o.o02co

0.00510

0.CC079

o.c0200

M1OOO

0.oo200

0.0C04S

0=

O.omm

0.0007S

o.a2505

o.o0200

0.29U70

309
11

30.0
30.0

12
23.s

0.8
1.0

30.0
30.0

0.2
1.3

30.0
4.7

30.0
30.0

22.3
22.3

Table 3- Set-up and Computation

I
H
I
J I K I Total
G
I
04s.4340 444M4a4 44044449I 4449-44[7 I 4487.4$17
,
;53
I 30
is
4s
bi
Is
4,306
6
4.36s

Time Comparison

I Setup Time (rein)


Run Time (see)
.
. II
Simulator
LAYSIM Simulator LAYSIM

Problem

1 Layer/Single$, Skin

I1 Layer/Dual $, L f

10

30

300 (5 rein)

3 LeyeraNarylng p,s, A

45

43

3 Leyers/Complex

60

10

400 (7 rein)

GRI Well (11 Layers)

15

120

Both Models Run on 486/33 Personal Computer

418

26

12,151(36min)

260.0
4.5
66.6
0.0056