Recent Developments in the Interpretation and
Application of DST Data

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 8

Recent Developments in the Interpretation and
Application of DST Data

© All Rights Reserved

- Waterflooding -
- 07a12301 Process Engineering Principles
- L_EPS_Brochure.pdf
- SPE-124441-MS
- FGimex
- Well Test Tools_ppt
- 070119 Lec Course Introduction
- PetroMod 2012 2 PetroReport UserGuide
- 00057916 Agarwal 1999
- 080307_P324_08A_Exam_01_Study_Guide.pdf
- Ch1 Advanced Reservoir Engineering 2007
- PerfAnalyMHAssetNov03
- SPE93879[1]
- WATER FLOODING
- Descripcion Por Topico de Interes
- 00970
- Geofluids in Deep Sedimentary Basins and Their Sig
- WHITE - Buku Text
- pete473_fall-2005_part91
- 00093554.pdf

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Application of DST Data

L. l?. Maier

8

Calgary, Alberta

Dktributed

by Hallibution

Company

SPE 290

0!

.,. .,

Application ;f DST Data

L. F, MAIER

JUNIORMEMBER AIME

Abstract

test interpretation techniques which may be applied by

well operators to the majority of field cases. Recommerfdadons

are submitted for obtaining better DST data, and rhe

evaluation of data received is discussed.

Oil, g-as and multiphase flow are considered. Methods

of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir

pressure, productivity index, transmiwibility, damage ratio,

radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potenticd.

Application of calculated information to well comph?tion

is discussed, and several gas case historier are tabulated

which illustrate the general correlation between DST information and actual well performance.

Intrmktion

may be considered to be of four general categories: (1)

factual data including statistical well information and a

description of the festing tools; (2) measured data concerning the recovered fluids and their properties, the time

periods involved and general remarks based on observations during the test; (3) recorded pressure and temp+mature data; and (4) interpretation calculations, where applicable.

Greater emphasis is now being placed on the quality

and completeness of the physical measurements and observations made during the test. This has been necessary

in order to complement the accuracy and dependability

of the pressure-recording instruments,

Interpretation is considered an important part of the

drill-stem test, and for this reason the necessary calculations are now being done on the majority of tests run

in Canada. This information has proven to be of considerable assistance to the well owner in well-completion.

formation-evaluation and hydrodynamic studies. This paper

is an up-to-date presentation of practical methods of drillstem test interpretation and suggestions for improved testi ng techniques generally applicable to Canadian conditions.

OrLginsl manuscript

reaefved in Society of Petroleum

Engineers

office

EfarcLI 12, 1962, Revised manuscript

received

July 27, 1962. PaDer wesented at SPE Production

-arch

SmPOSIW

held APri[

12-1S. 1952.

in l!ulsa, Okla.

NOVEMBER,

1962

CALGARY, ALTA.

with new developments and motlfications to present a

comprehensive interpretation guide for the great majority

of DST results encoimtered.

..

Evabratkm

of Basic

DST Data

the well operator must evaluate the basic data which were

measured and recorded. Examination of the pr=ure data

and the charts will reveal whether or not the test was

satisfactory from a mechanical viewpoint and wiU help

to verify the accuracy of the gauges. A zero-pressure base

line is drawn on the chart by the bourdon tube pressurei~~rnent

prior

to assembly in the tmf~

string, and the recorded pressure must zero-in on this

base line at the time of tobl assembly and zero-out

during disassembly after the test.

rwor~lng

gauge malfunction, they must be considered to be unrepresentative of true formation pressu.es. Depending

upon the severity of the steps, such pressure data may

be of some value but must be used with extreme caution.

If all gauges appear to have recorded correctly, the

proper way to check their accuracy is to compare their

recorded pressures at such key poiots as initial closed-in

pressure, final flow pressure and final closed-in pressure..

If the inifial and final hyrkostatfc pressures are clearly

defined on the charts, these may be used as well. The

recorded pressure difference between any two gauges at

these key points is compared with-the predicted difference

due to the hydrostatic head between the gauges. The discrepancy between the recorded and calculated difference

is divided by two, and thk quantity is calculated as a

percentage of the average pressure of the two gauges.

l%is is equal to the possible per c~nt error of each gauge,

assuming their accuracies to be equal,

The volumes of liquid recoveries often are difficult fo

determine accurately due to intermingling of the various

fluids produced and, occasionally, due to severe gas-cutting.

Gas flow measurements may be hampered by Jiquid flow

tbraugh the flare line. Production test kits containing the

%amIIces

dvm at

end of pap=.

121s

the recovery. The kit illustrated in Fig. 1 contains a pitot

tube, side static device, orifice well tester, manometers,

pressure gauges, thermometers, hydrometers, pH paper,

Ctc.

Assuming friction drop is nil, the final flow pressure on

the uppermost gauge equals the hydrostatic head of fluid

above it; thus, the reported liquid recovery may be verified. A check may also be made on the reported flow times

imd closed-in-times, Since time deflection on the chart

is measured in thousandths of an inch, then for any one

chart the ratios of reported times to chart deflections

should be equal for all timed periods,

PressureBuild-Up

Curves

characteristics of a well is expressed as

162.6 g@

t-l-e

(1)

Iog r....

kh

()

The boundary conditions make this equation particularly well suited for DST application, and the assumptions

usually are as valid for a DST as they are for producing

po=pl

wells. Theoretically,

a plot of p, vs log

extrapolating log

t-to

()

~

t+e

e

()

will

162,6 qpfl

~h

, and

become an almost universal standard, and only this technique will be considered in this paper, The sequence of

events usually is classified as fsrst fiow, initial closed-in

pressure, second flow and final closed-in pressure.

The first flow period of several minutes aids in the

removal oi any supercharged pressure caused by drillingmud or filtrate invasion near the wellbore. During this

period there also may be a removal of some of the damage or skin effect. This would tend to stabilize the effective

permeability (and, hence, the flow conditions) prior to

the second flow period, improving the accuracy of the

interpretation,

closed-in pr~ssure. A study of the build-up plots on the

maiority of tests run in Canada for the past two years

illu~tra{es that, in many cases, supercha~ged pres~ures

were not removed prior to initial shut-in. This is particularly true in the case of gas-well testing, where almost

half of such tests indicate supercharging. Experience

shows that a first flow time of 5 to 15 minutes generally

is satisfactory in removing supercharge. While these

longer flow times may result in build-up curves of lesser

closure, requiring slightly more extrapolation to determine

reservoir pressure, it still is more desirable to work with

true pressures. Good initial closed-in pressure curves are

nearly always obtained provided the closed-in time is

approximately 30 minutes or more, A discrepancy in the

extrapolated pressures may also be caused by partial

depletion of the reservoir duririg the second flow period,

and there are several cases cm record where this has happened in various formations and localities. Fig. 2 ilhrstrates a pressure chart from such a test. It is often difYscult to distinguish between supercharged pressure and

partial depletion, which is another important reason for

eliminating supercharge.

It is not uncommon to observe an initial closed-in

pressure which has a slower build-up than the final closedin pressure; an example is shown in Fig. 3. In such cases,

the initial build-up is influenced by the presence of a

deeply-invaded, low-permeability damaged zone, since the

radius of investigation is quite small for short flow times.

Longer first flow times would result in build-ups inore

characteristic of the undamaged formation.

For adequate interpretation, the time required for the

second flow period is subject to a large number of factors.

This usually is dictated by experience and knowledge of

reservoir and hole conditions, as well as by the nature

of the blow, It is usually desirable to have the final

closed-in time equal to the second flow time-or perhaps

longer in the event of a poor blow. Exceptions to this

rule include most gas wells, very badly damaged wells,

or oil wells with an indicated M of greater than 500 md-ft.

Here, a closed-in time equal to one-half the flow time

usually is sufficient.

Another common build-up characteristic is the S-type

curve, and some causp of this have been described as

indicated by an extrapolated initial closed-in pressure

Fig.

Fig.

1214

lDST

production

test kit,

2-Pressure

pleted during DST.

JOURNAL

OF

PETROLEUM

partially

TECHNOLOGY

de.

through vertical permeability, results in a build-up plot

which extrapolates approximately to the hydrostatic mud

pressure; and (2) high drawdowns on Iow-permeability

wells may cause gas to come out of solution, thus increasing the gas saturation near the wellbore. As the pressure

increases during the build-up, the gas goes back into solution and some after-production of oil must take place.

This slow-rate after-production is probably the most common cause of the S-type build-up.

Since two separate combinations of flow and closed-in

periods are involved, two sets bf crdctdations may be

carried out if desired, The second-period calculations

generally can be considered more accurate, since longer

flow jimes are customary and more stabilized skin conditions exist.

In the extrapolation of the final closed-in pressure, it

must be considered that the well has been producing for

a time equal to the sum of the two flow periods, but

interrupted by the initial closed-in period. If the initial

closed-in pressure build-up is complete, or very nearly so,

then the influence of the first flow period may be disregarded in the final closed-in pressure build-up plot, aod

the flow time used would be that of the second period

only. If the initial buiid-up is poorIy developed, the final

build-up will be affected by all previous events and ri

modified build-up equation wi[l apply, derived by superimposing the point-source solution.e As discussed in Appendix A, this solution may be closely approximated by

f +. e ~t,

substitution of total flow time in the expression .

.

6

build-up plot will have ri slight curvature,

but in using

t+e

the points with the lowest value of ~

for the straightline extrapolation, good resuits may generally be obtained.

Under normal testing conditions, for example, if the

second flow period is more than five or six times that of

the first flow period and at least as long as the initial

closed-in ueriod. there will be virtually no error in the

extrauolat~d pressure and the error ii the sIope of the

plot ~ill be l&s than 2 per cent, If the first flow- period is

equal to the second flow period, error in extrapolated

the error in the slope could be approximately 10 per cent.

The error in the slope may be corrected by dividing the

easuredslOpeby

104++)

(%+::+

~+])yas

illustrated in Fig. 4.

One assumption in ~. 1 is that constant rate of production exists prior to shut-in; however, on a liquid recovery test the tlow rate usually decreases throughout the

ffow period. DoIan, et aL illustrated that the error through

use of an average flow rate was not significant provided

the rate of change of q was relatively constant, This usually holds true in the majority of tests on oil reservoirs,

at least where the calculated productivity index is les$

than approximately 1.5 B/D-psi, However, with the

marked increase in the number of water-source wells

drilled in recent years and the use of the drill-stem test

for their evaluation, large numbers of very prolific wells

have been tested where the average-flow-rate simplification

does not apply. The entire interpretation of such cases

must be handled in a different manner, which is beyond

the scope of this paper.

011 Flow

The transmissibility of the formation tested may be

calculated from the slope of the build-up plot.

k. h

162.6 q. B,

.

.. . . . . . . . (2)

%

b

Since B. is usually unknown at the time of the DST

anaIysis, it may be necessary to estimare it from some

type of average correlation plot, An estimate may also

have to be made of the oil viscosity under reservoir conditions in order to calculate the in situ capacity (M),

and through knowledge of the net pay thickness in the

test interval the average effective permeability may be

estimated. This permeability represents the estimated res~ervoir permeability to the extent of the radius of investigation during the test. It would not normally include the

effect of skin damage in the immediate vicinity of the

tJJ

e

I

.-

II

In

0.

lope. ml

cat

E

Slope~ m

II

I

Fig. 3&bct

NOVEMBER,

showing

influenced

1962

by wellbore damage.

build-up

11111

10

(w%%%)

~,g. 4-Approximate

and exact buildup

plots, considering

influence of first flow period.

1215

beyond the damaged zone.

The next step is to calculate the average productivity

index during the flow period. It has been common practice to assume that the flow rate is constant, and to calculate productivity index by dividing the average flow

rate by the difference between reservoir pressure and final

flow pressure. However, the flow rate is rarely constant,

and a more realistic drawdown would be calculated by

considering some average wellbore pressure during the

flow period.

As the flow period progresses the wellbore pressure

increases, causing the flow rate to decline. These factors

can vary widely, depending upon the wells capability. The

flow period could be divided into a number of time increments and the productivity index calculated for each

increment. Such calculated values may or may not be

relatively constant during the flow period, An identical

solution to the average of these values is obtained by dividing the average production rate (total liquid recovery

volume divided by total flow time) by the difference

between reservoir pressure and the weighted average flow

pressure.

J=

oil reservoirs. It must be realized that the applied equations assume that the compressibility and viscosity of the

gas remain reasonably constant over the range of temperature and pressure variation encountered in the reservoir

during the flow period. Such is not the case, of course,

since these parameters are functions of pressure and the

differential pressure between reservoir and wellbore may

be quite large on some drill-stem tests. This situation is

most common with low-permeability reservoirs and/or

some degree of skin damage, In the event of skin, however, a large percentage of the pressure drop would be in

the immediate vicinity of the wellbore, arid the majority

of the effective area of investigation would have a relatively

small drawdown, In reviewing a large number of drill:

stem tests performed on a variety of reservoirs, it was

found that only a small percentage showed rxcessive pressure drawdowns between the reservoir and the external

boundary of the skin, Nevertheless, reducing the drawdown will certainly improve the accuracy of the calculations, and more extensive use of chokes should be made

in instances where required.

o

-..........,(3)

Pt-P

number of equally spaced time intervals and calculating

the average of these values. A total of 10 intervals is

usually adequate.

If wellbore damage exists at the time of the DST, the

producing characteristicsof the well will be @ected. The

possible causes of damage or skin effect have been widely

discussed and several calculation methods have been presented. As a close approximation for the DST case (see

Appendix B), the van Everdingen dimensionless skin factor may be expressed as

s=

1.1515

~

log(k.t)

1.80

. (4)

o

[

1

Damage ratio, defined as the ratio of theoretical J to actual J, is derived from the skin equation.

(P1 ~) /mO

Iog(k.t)+l.80

. . . . 5)

The pressuse drop caused by the skin may then be calculated from Eq. 6,

DR z:

1800

,

(o,;)

(DR 1)

. . . . . ./,

(6)

DR

Undw the trai~sient flow conditions existing during the

DST flow period, the drainage mdhm coincides with the

wellbore radius at zero flow time and continually propagates outward until the flow period ends urdess the transient radius reaches some barrier. This radhss is commonty

referred to as the effective radius of investigation, since

the reservoir properties are being measured to its extent.

One solution was obtained by an empirical correlation

of known mathematical data, which may be expressed

by F@.7 (see Appendix C).

pD -_

oil test, ,South

(Mobil Oil-I% re-Sincltiir.British

Carievale Well 13.12

American ).

r,&4.63(kOZ)~.

(7)

5, with tbe buifd-up piot given in Fig. 6.

\.

,=

a

& 1600

Initial ~P

L

II

!500

D

\

!450

10

t+e

7-

Gas Flosv

Ga%well test interpretation

1216

may be conducted

with

Fig. 6-BuiId.np

plo~

sOURNAL

South Csrievale

OF

PETROLEUM

,.

Well M-12.

TECHNOLOGY

is expressed by

P9=

P/-

;;;q,o,(+

,.,

and extrapolated to log

t+e

~

()

t+e

~

()

(8,

is constructed

s

. . . . . . ;..

, .,.

, ,.

-(lo)

Noting that actual gas-well behavior did not conform

with the theoretical equation, Smith proposed that it be

modified by the addition of the S factor and another correction term designated as the Y function. The resulting

equation is equivalent to the van Everdingen skin equation

modMed by the addition of the Y term. For DST use,

it may be simplified by assuming the parameters as given

in Appendix B.

Y=

9

[

1

..+.

. . . . .,.

, ,.,

. [11)

The damage ratio may then be calculated by Eq. 12.

DR z

1,1515

(p; - p;)[m.

log (k,rpf) - 1.40+ Y/1.1515

(12)

the theory to conform with actual gas-well behavior in

accounting for the additional pressure drop caused by a

condition commonly referred to as turbulent flow.

Its importance in the presented equations is unknown

since no attempt has been made to evaluate it from DST

NOVEMBER,

1962

? -P.

. ,.

. (13)

)

The radius of investigation of the gas well during a DST

may be approximated by the expression

Po=

As in the case of the liquid interpretation, the transmissibility may be calculated after measuring the slope of

the build-up plot.

k,h

1632 q, ZT

(9)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . .

.

mg

1%

With a knowledge of h and an estimation of ~, and z

from suitable data on gas properties, the capacity and

permeability of the formation may be calculated.

The assumption of constant flow rate in the build-u})

equation usuaUy is not a serious one. Variations in flow

rate are not rmrmally extreme and the rate usually becomes fairly constant if adequate flow times of one hour

or longer are allowed. One accepted practice is to measure

the flow rate at a number of equally spaced time intervals

throughout the test. In the event of any tippreciable deviation from constant flow rate, the average of the various

measured rates should be used in Eq, 9, Likewise, p,

usually becomes reasonably constant; when necessary, however, ~ may be used in any expression containing flowing

pressure.

To date, there has been no general analytical solution

to the nonlinear partial differential equation describing

the flow of natural gas through porous media. However,

by reducing the differential equation to an appropriate

finite-difference equation, numerical solutions have been

obtained by digital simulation on electronic computers.

Aronofsky and Jenkhrs3 concluded that the numerical

solutions nearly coincided with the solutions for transient

liquid flow for a wide range of dimensionless flow rates.

By combining the liquid and gas equations, a theoretical

equation was given for gas flow during the early stages

of production which may be expressed as

s+

drill-stem test were run in a particular manner; however,

if it has not been determined, it may be ignored and apparent values of DR and S calculated,

The pressure drop across the skin may he calculated

from the following equation.

r, s0,125

pf~DR-I)+p:

DR

(k,tp, )~

of a gas well is expressed as

(14)

performance

-p,)

. . . . . . . . . (15)

q, =C(p;

Data taken from a DST which achieves a constant flow

rate may be considered valid for plotting as a single point

on a back-pressure plot of q. vs PI= - p.?. Such a pOint

certainly could be in error; however, for the purpose of

an estimation of the absolute open-flow potential it does

have some value. This is particularly true since the information in most cases would be available prior to completion of the well. Expressed in equation form (see Appendix D),

(16)

If the exponent n cannot be estimated, it may be assumed

to have the extreme values of 0.5 and 1.0, and n range

of q. calculated.

The computed value of g. will be with respect to the

time at which q, and p, were measured, usuallY at time r.

Studies of isochronal-performance

testing- show that

the performance coefficient C decreases with time until

stabilized flow conditions prevail. This may require considerable time except in Klghly permeable wells. In most

cases, therefore, the open-flow potential calculated by

Eq. 16 will be somewhat higher than that which would

be calculated for stabilized flow. A corrected value may

be calculated by Eq. 17.

(17)

~{.=q,{[p:yp,,]p::;;:]]}.

r. is established from the well spacing.

Figs. 3 and 7 illustrate the pressure chart and build-up

plot of an example gas test interpretation.

Msdtfphisse

)?kSW

In certain cases drill-stem tests are performed on reservoirs which may produce various combinations of oil,

water and gas as separate phases. Such tests may be irrterpreted by applying the same theory as was used for

the single-phase interpretations, the only modification being

the substitution of the efiective total fluid properties of

the multiphase system for the equivalent single-phase

properties.w

The pressure build-up curve may be plotted as in an

oil test, and the plot extrapolated to obtain reservoir

pressure.

Each fluid is first considered separa~ly to obtain the

indhidual transmissibilities.

k.h

162.6 B,q.

.

%~.......

(2)

..

.

1217

kJt

.-

162,6 B.qw

,.

P.

l%

k,h

.

1632 ZT

(% -q,,R,)

m.

Pa

(18)

. . , . . .

(19)

is distributed uniformly throughout the interval h. If the

two phases are segregated within thh interval, separate

values of h must be estimated for each phase.

From these equations, individual mobiiities (k/p) are

determined, and total mobility is calculated as.the sum

of the individual mobllities, Individual permeabilities and

relative-permeability ratios may also be calculated.

It must be stressed that in certain cases it is possible

to recover large quantities of filtrate water which are

sometimes mistaken for formation water~ Such cases

usually can be identified by proper sampling and laboratory analysis. More-reasonable values of effective permeability would be calculated by considering the filtrate water

as hydrocarbon production rather than formation-water

production,

The remaining calculations involve fluid compressibility.

In multiphase work the total compressibility, which is the

sum of the fractional compressibilities, is used. When oil

and gas compressibilities are unknown, total fluid conlpressibility may be approximated as

c, =s,, (10-) +

;+

s,,

(3

x 10-) .

plot of an example multiphase test interpretation.

Field Application of DST Interpretation

The reservoir information obtained from the drill-stem

test analysis generally is considered to have some degree

of reliability and to be of considerable worth in formation

evaluation. The acceptance of !his information has expanded such that the drill-stem test must be considered

as much an evaluation tool as it is an exploration tool,

While much of the information is considered to be approximate, in many cmes it is the only information and

can often be available before the well is completed, In

fact, DST information has proven to be of great assistance

to the well owner in the well completion itself.

The wide variations in skin conditions encountered at

the time of the DST clearly show that a wells potential

should not be based on recovery alone, and in some in-

(20)

these may be estimated through use of relative-permeability-ratio plots when actual data are unknown. Errors

through approximations of the individual fluid compressibilities

and

the fluid saturations will be minimized since

they are applied in the logarithm; however, the following

equations must be regarded as estimates only.

.sS

DR ~

1.1515 ~

!, 0

[

. . . . .

(+)

. .

(Pf F) /mz#

l.~lr.i

10(:)

wf

(+)1

. .

...:

3231

. (2])

.

- 323

(22)

Fig. 8Pressure

chart for tin exampIe multipimse

test,

H:mtilton Lake Well !5-13 (S!nndard Oil Co. of California).

-4.4

4,2

800

~- 3.8

.5

Q

.;

a

Final

~

\

.

a 3.4

CIP

,,

II

111111-.

11111111

II

ill

1.

800

3.0

10

f+e

550

m

[

10

f+e

=1-

(Wkhe Rose, et al.).

1310

Fig. 9Build-up

plot, Hamilton

JOURNAL

OF

PETKOLEIJM

TECHNOLOGY

equal the second flow period.

5. Prior to interpretation, evaluate the accuracy of

the pressure gauges by comparing their recorded pressures

at several key points.

6, The hydrostatic pressure of liquid recovery should

be calculated and compared with the final flow pressure.

decided by the well owner through knowledge of the

damage ratio. Well stimulation is becoming increasingly

important, and more emphasis is being placed on designed

or engineered treatment recommendations for maximum

efficiency, These calculations involve a two-step operation

of fist removing the wellbore damage and then increasing

the formation capacity. Thus, a knowledge of DR and

formation kh is essential, and this information may be

gained from the DST analysis.

Table 1 presents a comparison between the absolute

open-flow potential calculated from the DST and that

derived from back-pressure testing after well completion

on a number of gas wells, It must be considered that the

skin effect could change from the tire: of the DST tu

the time of completion and the stimulation treatment may

or may not remove all of the damage, or it may improve

the formation capacity such that the net result in production improvement is greater than that possible from

removal of damage alone. Considering the many complex

and unknown factors involved, the]ie is a relatively good

correlation between the DST predicted and the actual

well performance figures when considered in the light of

the stimulation treatments involved.

results may be interpreted with a reasonable degree of

accuracy to help obtain reservoir pressure, average effective permeability, productivity index, damage ratio, radius

of investigation and absolute open-flow potential,

2. The calculated data are in relatively good agreement

with data from other sources,

3, In addition to its contribution towards formationevahzation and hydrodynamic studies, DST interpretation

may be of considerable help in the well owners design of

stimulation treatments.

b=~

Suggestions

t, + t,

, minutes

compressibility, psi-

E

coefficient in back-pressure equation, Mcf/D/

psi

D= gauge depth, ft

DR = damage ratio, dimensionless

h= net reservoir thickness, ft

J= productivity index, B/D-psi

k= permeability, md

m = slope of pressure build-up plot, psi/cycle or

psi/cycle

n = exponent in back-pressure equation, dimensioriless

Pr = static reservoir pressure, psi

depending upon the specific conditions of the well in question.

1. The vohme of liquid recovery should be carefully

measured. The various liquids or contaminated mixtures

should be adequately described and density measurements

taken.

2. Measure the gas flow at several equally spaced time

intervals throughout the flow periods.

3. Pressure drawdown on gas tests should be reduced,

where necessary, through more extensive use of chokes.

4. The first flow period should be at least five minutes,

and the initial closed-in period at least 30 minutes, The

second flow period is dictated by experience and knowledge ~f conditions and generally should be longer for

.._.

TASLE 1DST PREDICTED GAS-WELL

Well

White Rose

Pembina 11-26

H, B. Uno.Tex

Wknberne 7.29

ZaPOta Mazy 11.23

Zgpata Mozy 17-27

F.armaiian

.

IJlolrmore (ss)

D-3

PERFORMANCE COMPtiE

(M&D)

[Is)

2.30

0.108

Glauconitic

;iklns (ss)

(ss)

3.20

1,10

DA

D WITH

PDST.COMPLETION

Predlcled

q,i (hVAcF/D)

Ffnd

[MMcf/D)

stlmk!~fon

. .._

4<50

1.22

35.5

4.00

17.20

4,30

3.0

10,80

0.70

2,39

50-sal acid

14,0004b.

sand frac

7,50

2.0

3.35

7.40*

1.46

2.50

3.50

I .31

MO

2.03

2.6

2.95

16,750-soI

Pa:!;

jedney

Baldennel

1.41

1.7

2..6S

4,250-Eal

jedney

acfd

acid

edd

Halfway

($S)

S.25

6.3

9.07

40,000.lb

sand frac

Pagf&6 :dney

. .

Halfwsy

[ISI

I .79

1.6

3,03

36,600.lb

sand frac

Doma Laprtse

Creek b-2.ff

8aldwmel

[del]

0.64S

12.8

S,47

6,000wII

acid

7.70

13.20

2.55

1.56

Dame LaDrlse

Creek u.25.H

Dome Lawlse

Creek 0.81 .H

Baldwmel

(d.al)

0.310

10.1

3.13

5,500.991

acid

2.20

0.70

Saldonnel

[del)

0,486

3,6

~ .77

18,500.gal

acid

4.80

2.71

MCIXIY Dome

8ubbles b.a62.B

Bald.nnel

[dol}

0.486

2.1

1.04

11,500-ga[

acid

4.80

4.61

Panatta

Glaumnltfc

2.50

4.1

11.50

10,000.lb

$and,

350-lb Al.-

39.00

3.39

belier

Drum.

4.3

1962

(SII

ASSUMED n = 0.8

qA

-_ .

500.s01 acid

?.10

NQVBMBJZR,

1,040.gal

8aId.annol (dol)

Pa:f;

.

PERFORMANCE,

SNmulaNOn

Treatment

FacJf}7 ~bbles

. .

[del)

_.

B,6S5

1,42

; = weighted average flowing wellbore pressure,

psi

P* = wellbore pressure at time 6, psi

t+e

p,o=poat~=

10 on straight-line portion of

=

PD pressure drop across skin, psi

g=productioh

rate, STB/Dor Mcf/D (14.65 psia

and 60F)

r, = stabilized radius of drainage, ft

ri = radius of DSTinvestigation, ft

rw = wellbore radius, ft

,

R, = solution gas-oil ratio, Mcf/D/STB

s = fluid saturation, fraction

S= skin effect, dimensionless

t, = first flow time, minutes

t,= secorrd thwtime,minutes

t= effective flow time (t, + t,, or t,), minutes

T= temperature, R

Y = correction factor, dimensionless

z = compressibility factor, dimensionless

.,

p = viscosity, cp

~= porosity, fraction

d =time point during the closed-in period, ,minUtes

O, =total timeof initial closed-in period, minutes

Subscripts

A =absolute open-flow potential

g = gas

o = oil

t = total

w = water (except for r.)

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express his appreciation to the

various producing companies for permission to publish

their well data, and to Halliburton Oil WelI Cementing

Co. Ltd. for permission to present and publish this paper.

References

1. Black, W. M.: A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques

and Analysis,lour. Pet. Zkch. (June, 1956) VIII, No, 6, 21.

2. Olson, C: C.: YSubsurfacePressures Tell Story, World Oil

(Feb., 1953).

3, Zak, A. J,, Jr. and Griffin, P,, III: Heres a Method for

Evaluating DST Data, Oil od Gas Jour. (April, 1957),

4. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: Special Ap.

placations of Drillstem Test Pressure Data, Trans., AIME

( 1957) 210, 318.

5. Ammann, C, B,: Caee Histories of Analyses of Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Drillstem Tests, Jour. Pet.

Tech. (May, 1960) XII, No. 5,27.

6. Horner, D, R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc.. Third

~~~$, Pet, Cong., Section II, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland

i. van.,Everdingen, A. F.: The Skin Effect and Its Influence on

~~8 P~$etive Capacity of a Well, Trurw, AIME (1953)

,.

8. van Poollen, H, K.: Status of DrfI1-StemTesting Techniques

o

9. N~le, R.- G.: me Effect of a Sho:i Term Shut.In on a

Srsbaequent Pressure Build.Up Teat on an 011 Well, Trnns.,

AHWE (1956) 207, 320.

10. Calhoun, J. C., Jr,, Fursdomentuk of Reservoir Engineering,

1220

11, Hursk W., Haynie, O; K. and Walker, R. N,: Some &oblems in Pressure Build.Up, Paper SPE 145 presented at 36th

Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Dallas (Oct. 8.11, 1961);

also New Concept Extends Pressure Build-Up Analysis, Pet.

Engr. (Aug., 1!!62) 34, No. 9, 41.

12, Jenkine, R and Aronofsk , J. S.: Unsteady Radial Flow of

Gas Through Porous ~dia, Jour. AwL Mwh. (June,

1963) 20.

Unsteady Radial Gas Flow, Tram, AIME (1954) 20~, 149.

14. Smith, R. V.: Unsteady.State Gas FlowInto Gas Wells,

Jour. Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1961) 1151.

15. Cullende~, M. H.: The Isochronal.Perforrnmwe Method of

Determinmg the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells, Trans,,

AIME ( 1955) 204, 137,

16. Tek, M. R:, Grove, M. L. and Poettmann, F. H,: ilfethod

for Predicting the Backpressure Behavior of Low-Permeabil.

ity Naturaf Gas Wells, Trans., AIME ( 1957) Z1O, 302.

17, Poettmann, F. H, and Schilson, R. E.: Calculation of the

Stabilized Performance Coefficient of Low.Permealrility Nat.

tiral Gas Wells. Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 240.

18, Perrine, R. L. : Analysis of Pressure Build-Up Curves,

Paper presented at meeting of Pacific Coast Dist, API, Div.

of Production, Los Angeles, Cslif. (May, 1956).

19. Grynberg, J.: DST-Success or Failure?, Or? and GasJour.

(June 22, 1959).

APPENDIX

DST with a short initial closed-in period may be accounted

for by using a modified build-up equation; which is applied

+e

t,+e t,-te+t,

by plotting p, vs log ~

, For

e, + f,,+ 0 )

normal DST time periods, this plot will be very closely

t,+t, +o

approximated by a plot of PCvs log

~

.

( ,)(

to the same pressure as 0 approaches infinity. However,

t,+t, +e

the plot involving

will have some curvature

0

and a lesser sloie in the region under ~onsideration. This

slope equals P, - p,,.

L+t,-to=

e

t, + t,

O=T.

loor

Let

b

t,-it,

= -T

Then

=ig

6--lT==J 25)

Thus, the slope of the plot of log

may be corrected by dividing by log

+1

), The

correction

t,+t,

($+

is approximate

-1-fl

Vs po

)1

t,

L9+t,

+h

is necessary for DST accuracy unless t, approaches t~.

JOURNAL

0S

PETROLEUM

7?ECStNOLOG3f

Fig. 4 illustrates the magmtude of error ot the approximate plot and shows application of the correction factor.

APPENDIX

~~ = - Pf -F,,

Pf

calculate damage ratio, Eq. 13 of Ref. 7 may be expressed.

in tle[d units as

Iog (kf/$$#cr,) -1-5,01 .

Is= 1,1515 ~

[

1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)

Parameters ~, ~ and c am usually unknown at the

s=

-;

1.1515 *

(4)

When S = O, DR = 1.0.

Let q,, = q., I?lo= m. for undamaged system

0=

1,1515

;

[

m.

162.6 q./&

k~

Since m. =

~,,

=

Pr2(~R

(30)

) ..- ~,

APPENDIX

(6)

terms would b?

I)fi,:

DR

(13)

continually increases with flow t~me, Its maximum value

is of interest since reservoir properties are being measured

out to this extent. A radial drainage formula (Eq. 8 of

Ref. i 1) has been developed by an empirical correlation

of known mathematical data, applicable to the constantrate case with a tlxed pressure at the exterior boundary,

This equation can be applied to estimate the radius of

investigation during the test, and can be expressed as

=26408

()~

31)

,

B, then

introduced into Eq, 30, resulting in

. .., (27j

9. = 162.6 p.B. [log (k.f)

+ 1.801

.,O

pD=Q?L-@D(~-_!l

k~

Rearranging,

values of + = 0.15 and PC := 0.955 X 10-h cp-psi, then

approximate solution derived. While r. is known, for

simplicity assume it equals 0.333 ft, since actual variations

would cause less error than probable deviations from the

assumed ~, p and c values.

Then

,,,

(P + P.)

(28)

(oil flow)

(gas flow)

r, s 4.63( k.t)t,

.

r, s 0.125 (krp,)*,

.

.

.

,

.

.

. . . . . . .-00143[(

. . . .3(91

.....

(7)

(14)

(multiphase flow)

Also,

m.k.h

q. = -162.6 p,B.

(1% ;) /w

DR ~ ~:~

c?,, 1% (M +ZKiti

. . (5)

The skin equation for gas, containing the Y function,

becomes

s+

1

[ m~

?.

. . . . . . . . . . . (29)

Y=

...

Assuming c = ~

jf)=o.15(1 --

DRz

,.

(PI = -

p.) /mg

1,1515 +;o

[

...

...

(12)

log(:)(+)

.,

+ 3.23]

.,

...

(2!)

(p/ ;) /mu

DR z

10g(+)(+)i

-.323

22)

It is of value to know the pressure drop across the

XOYEMBER,

% =C(p;

-p:)

1962

the back-pressure

as

, . . . .

performance

,

. . ,

(15)

.~

mce

90 = qf when p. = O,

Ihen

,J

(/);)

as in the liquid case, with the substitution of total compressibility and total mobility,

Assuming ~ = 0.15 and r,, = 0.333 ft,

s=

of, a gas well is expressed

rft=

1 )?1

1

...

, .,,

, ...

. . . . . (11)

Solving fo~ damage ratio as before,

APPENDIX D

s+

(23)

,,

(f:

,,

[1

(16)

Prz -P.

%P?

P!- - P.

(32)

and

rluPI

n,.

,.,

..

(33)

minimum tf~ = -,,

(P, - P*)i

During the DST flow period, the performance coetlicient C may be somewhat higher than it would be for

stabilized flow, particularly if the permeability were not

very high. Thus, the flow potentials calculated by the

afore-mentioned methods would Jikewise be higher than

the actual stabilized values.

Considering r. as the stabilized drainage radius and C,

as the stabilized perfornumce coefficient, and rl thedrainage radius and C? the performance coefficient at time /,

then by applying Eq. 5 of Ref. 17,

~~

()

c,

In r,/r,.

lnrc/r,,

(34)

1:21

Since stabilized

q4 =

then stabiliid

29A,

(17)

0,.

DISCUSSION

H. K. VAN POOLLEN

MEMBER AIME

in which he ably updates and summarizes drill-stem test

evaluation methods. In using some of the published works,

the author oversimplified the concepts without further

elaboration.

The author of this discussion takes exception to the

use of )%{. 17 as derived in Appendm D, using Eqs, 34

and 16. Maier refers to a paper by Poettmann and Schilson and: particularly, to Eq. 5 of that reference. He

assumed that a = rw, which is an oversimpli5cation, The

a referred to by Foettmann and Schilson is the effective

weilbore radius. Because a is usuaily unknown, a nmch

more elaborate relationship of absolute open flow to potential at any time t was originally given. So Maiers short-cu$

is only valid if his r., the actual wellbore radius, is equal

to the effwtive wellbore radius,

AUTHORS

REPLY

TO

data, cm-:ain assumptions must be made; for example n

was assumed equal to 0.8 in the calculated data of Table

1. You may consider a = re an assumption which appears

valid for this particular application from our experience

in this area,

The stimulation effect as used here is considered to be

the effect of the stimulation treatment over and above that

of removing the wellbore damage, The effect of ignoring

the possible range of variations in effective wellbore radius

under normal DST condhions would be slight compared

to the magnitude of most of the damage-ratio factors

L17rLE70N, COLO.

gas-well performance with post-completion, performances,

To obtain the predicted absolute flow, the author has

made use of E@, 16 and 12, while assuming certain values

for porosity and wellbore radius, Also, a value of n = 0.8

was assumed for, the slope of the back-pressure curve.

The difference between final measured open flow and the

predicted open flow was accounted for by the stimulation

treatment, Ratios given between measured and predicted

open flows were called stimulation effect. It could be

quite possible that this effect is due to errors introduced

while maktng the afore-mentioned assumptions.

The discusser does not object to the use of simplifying

assumptions for the purpose of field analyses of drill-stem

tests. Nevertheless, the use of such assumptions should

be clearly indicated,

H.

K.

VAN

POOLLEN

Table 1. The significance of Table 1 is that, even though

the calculated stimulation effects are dependent on the

vaiidity of the single-point estimation of absolute openflow potential as well as the approximate nature of the

damage-ratio equation, the results are in reasonbly good

agreement with expected productivity increases which are

normal for the type qnd size of stimulation treatments

**

used on the particular wells,

EDITORS NOTE: A PICTURI? AND B1OORAPH1CAL

SKETCH

OF L, F, MAMR WERE PUBLISHEDINTHESEPT,,1962 ISSUE

OF JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY.

:.

,,.

3222

.. .

,.

. . ..-.

JO UR~AL

OF

PETROLEUM

.

TECHNOLOGY

- Waterflooding -Загружено:jayeshep
- 07a12301 Process Engineering PrinciplesЗагружено:Nizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- L_EPS_Brochure.pdfЗагружено:Amirul Asyraf Amran
- SPE-124441-MSЗагружено:Sergio Flores
- FGimexЗагружено:Omar Santamaría Castillo
- Well Test Tools_pptЗагружено:kartikey
- 070119 Lec Course IntroductionЗагружено:bharath35kumar
- PetroMod 2012 2 PetroReport UserGuideЗагружено:Mohammed Rafique
- 00057916 Agarwal 1999Загружено:Dull Márquez
- 080307_P324_08A_Exam_01_Study_Guide.pdfЗагружено:rahulscribd007
- Ch1 Advanced Reservoir Engineering 2007Загружено:Rrelic
- PerfAnalyMHAssetNov03Загружено:dbircs1981
- SPE93879[1]Загружено:Magdi Mubarak
- WATER FLOODINGЗагружено:gt295038
- Descripcion Por Topico de InteresЗагружено:Jose Javier Moreno
- 00970Загружено:shanguelei
- Geofluids in Deep Sedimentary Basins and Their SigЗагружено:Mahathir Wiaam
- WHITE - Buku TextЗагружено:Nameis Ghoffar
- pete473_fall-2005_part91Загружено:Reza Ramadhan
- 00093554.pdfЗагружено:msmsoft90
- SPE-107283-MS-PЗагружено:Murat Syzdykov
- Carbonate Without Frac WtaЗагружено:Yuhanis Fatihah Zainudain
- [Acta Geophysica] Unsteady Inter-porosity Flow Modeling for a Multiple Media ReservoirЗагружено:Xavier Vivas
- PERFORM - Evaluating Pressures in Completions - EnЗагружено:Alfonso R. Reyes
- is.11255.3.2008Загружено:VinodVaghani
- Water floodsЗагружено:Petro1111
- 02 Basic Background GeologyЗагружено:forscribd1981
- MeasurIT Flexim Application Data Sheet FLUXUS 0811Загружено:cwiejkowska
- 08 Fluid DynamicsЗагружено:Roanne Cadang
- OTC-25144-MSЗагружено:David Montoya

- 00000572.pdfЗагружено:Bahman Matouri
- api-spec-4f-2013Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000800Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000794Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000790Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000787Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000768.pdfЗагружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000774Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000761Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000705Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000667Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000681Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000613Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000569Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000602Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000572Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000558Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000546Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000542Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000544Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000545Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000532Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000494Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000535Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000503Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000480Загружено:Bahman Matouri
- 00000493Загружено:Bahman Matouri

- dirtytankerwire 217Загружено:captain maan
- Cas ConocoЗагружено:Parth Vaswani
- Job Vacancy and Application LetterЗагружено:Rahmawati
- 2016-03-16 RE - FOIL Request - Housing Discrimination Cases (Telephone Conference Summary)Загружено:Progress Queens
- EBS QЗагружено:Anonymous 8RhRm6Eo7h
- ADE7953Загружено:Malavika Ghosh
- dss excell.pdfЗагружено:Azuar Coway
- MPMC Lab ManualЗагружено:sujaganesan2009
- Data ErrorЗагружено:cristian faundes
- MT6737M_Android_scatter.txtЗагружено:android makeer
- Investing in Africa through MauritiusЗагружено:jda_23
- General Information-combined EventsЗагружено:Beutcloud
- California Tax Board: 03 5949Загружено:Taxman
- RTO HandbookЗагружено:K Scott Wyatt
- Copyright TransferЗагружено:Mohammed Masirulhaque
- ICA International Diploma in Financial Crime Prevention Assignment 2Загружено:devonna
- Stres perawat Critical Care Serbia.pdfЗагружено:Rynaldi Rahman
- Introduction to IC EnginesЗагружено:abhiy91
- OHLEG Recommendations.pdfЗагружено:German Lopez
- resumeЗагружено:api-271144020
- 2_6(2)2008Загружено:Hyun Jin Yoo
- NIST PrefixesЗагружено:giganigga
- Tm 9-821, 2,5 Ton Truck Federal, 1943Загружено:Advocate
- Property Law Case DigestЗагружено:PeanutButter 'n Jelly
- Bookkeeping & Accounting Chapter 1Загружено:Joan Ferreira
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)Загружено:Shubham Sharma
- Www.pnahfoo.com Images eBook Sample.assessment.questions Pce.ac Pce.ac.English Pce.ac.Set.c.engЗагружено:phyliciayap
- Attracting and Retaining Top TalentЗагружено:Shikha Sharma
- What is Economics (3)Загружено:Steven Simz
- Bottled Water in IndiaЗагружено:subhendu_pinu