Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
6iihli .,,
m
,
.
-~
SPE 50671
Interpretation of FaHoff Tests on Fractured Wells of the Barsukov Oil Field in Western
Siberia
A.N.P. Dros, SPE, Hagoort & Associates, A.M. Kuznetsov, Purneftegas, J. Hagoort, SPE, Hagoort & Associates
363
2 A.N.P. DROS, A.M. KUZNETSOV, J. HAGOORT SPE 50671
dp q (ln[4;r:]+2S] ......................5)
= ..............7n .................. ..x..u ....................... (1) i p = 4nkh
dt Cf
The pressure plots as a straight line on a semi-log plot. The
where CJ is the fracture storage coefficient. For a confiied slope of the line is given by the fluid mobility; the level is
rectangular fracture, the fracture storage coefficient is given determined by the skin factor. We have assumed radial flow in
by: the water zone that is still at the initial reservok temperature of
55 C. The water viscosity at this temperature is 0.55 10-3Pa.s.
~ = (1 - v2)27dzL; Hydraulic fractures connected to the wellbore show up as
f
............................................... (2) negative skin factors that depend on fracture size. For small
E
confined rectangular fractures the skin is related to the fracture
For penny-shaped fractures the fracture storage coefficient is:
+
half-length by:
8(1 V2)r;
)_
Cf= c; ............................................... (3) Lf
E S=ln ..........................................................(2)
[ rw
where C = 0.661.
The fi-acture size can be derived from the observed fracture Instantaneous shut-in pressure. The injection pressure (1P)
storage coefficient, provided the Poisson ratio and Youngs prior to shut-in includes ftiction losses from wellbore to the
modulus are known. Examples of the application of the hydraulic fracture. The friction losses are indicated by a rapid
technique are given in References 4 and 5. pressure drop just after shut-in. The injection pressure without
The Barsukov reservoir rock is a high porosity, the friction losses is commonly referred to as the instantaneous
consolidated and friable sandstone. No rock mechanical shut-in pressure (ISIP). The ISIP is the pressure within the
measurements are available. We have used a value of 0.25 for fracture just before shut-in, which is required for the log-log
the Poissons ratio. Youngs modulus for this rock type ranges plot and for the MDH analysis. Because of the coarse pressure
between 2 and 7 10%.Pa. sampling, the ISIP cannot be read off directly from the
pressure data. We therefore have determined the ISIP by
Linear flow. Traditionally infinitely conductive hydraulic extrapolation of the linear and/or the square root pressure
fractures are identified and analyzed from a period with linear trend observed during storage and linear flow back to time
flow. It is recognized by train track half slope behavior on a zero.
log-log plot. Fig. 2 shows an example of a typical Barsukov
test response showing the linear flow behavior on the log-log
plot. The pressure response during the linear flow period is
given by:
364
SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 3
directly to the injection of cold water. Falloff tests are half-lengthhadius to be in the order of 80 m. The infectivity
available for the years 1993 to 1996. One day prior to the test has also significantly increased.
a choke was removed and the test rates are larger than the In 1997 a step rate test was performed on well A (Fig. 10
monthly injection rate. Furthermore a step rate infectivity test (e)). Different choke sizes were installed, starting with the
is available for 1997. With the reservoir pressure obtained smallest. After 8 hours the injection rate and pressure were
from the fall-off tests and injection pressure we have measured. The absolute pressure level compared to the falloff
calculated the infectivity index based on the injection history. tests is uncertain. The data clearly show a change in the
Fig. 9 shows the infectivity and reservoir pressure over time. ,injectivity when the fracture opens and propagates.
Nearby production wells produce mostly from an interval
of about 14 m just above the perforated zone of well A. The Development. Based on voidage replacement of produced
zones are separated by a shale layer. Fig. 8 shows the sum of water and oil, it seems likely that well A injected into non-
the oil and water production rates. The two nearest wells at a perforated zones in the period 1991 to 1993. It is uncertain if
distance of 250 m showed production water breakthrough in the leakage is caused by fracturing or simply by leakage
1993. through the cement column. No data are available on what
happened in January 1993, but the leakage seems to have
Test analysis. Fig. 10 (a) to (e) show the log-log plot of the stopped.
pressure response for 1993 to 1996. Fig. 10 (f) shows the From 1993 to 1996 we see an increase of the fracture size.
1997 step rate test response. Table 1 gives the test parameters We estimate that the fracture has increased from a half-length
and evaluation results. The ranges in fracture size are based on of 20 m in 1993 to 80 m in 1996. The increase in size
larger reservoir thicknesses (and consequently lower coincides with an increase in reservoir pressure. Possibly the
permeabilities). actual voidage replacement is just above one, causing fracture
Clear radial flow is observed in the 1993 tests and we growth. We see that ISIP remains more or less constant.
calculate an effective permeability thickness of 350 mD.m Afler the polymerlcement injection operations in 1996 the
(see Fig. 10 (a)). No linear flow is observed in the 1993 test. fracture seems to be stable. The reservoir pressure and
The skin factor based on the injection pressure indicates a injection pressures are also lower. The step-rate test shows that
possible fracture. When we use an ISIP in the same order of the fracture is still present.
magnitude as the ISIP of the 1994 tests, we see that train-track
behavior can be matched. Conclusions
The 1994 tests shows, however, clear linear flow (Fig. 10 1. We have successfully estimated fracture size from falloff
(b)). To obtain a train-track of pressure and pressure tests, using fiactnre storage, linear flow and radial flow.
derivative an ISIP of 230 102kPa, much lower than the 1P is 2. A large number of tests show pronounced storage effects
used. No clear radial flow is observed. The line shown in Fig. due to fracture closing. Fractures size derived from
10 (b) is the same permeability thickness as obtained from the fracture storage correlate fairly well with fracture sizes
1993 test. We calculate a fracture half-lengthlradius of the derived from linear flow.
order of 20 m.
3. Many tests show linear transient flow, indicating that the
Both storage and linear flow can be observed in the August
induced fractures become propped over time.
1995 test response (Fig. 10 (c)). A falloff test in July gave a
similar response. We see that the ISIP gives both an overlap of 4. Fracture sizes derived from radial flow skin factors are on
the pressure and pressure derivative for the storage period and average smaller than ffacture sizes derived from fracture
a train-track for the period with linear flow. The infectivity of storage and linear flow.
the well has significantly increased compared to 1994. The 5. Fractured water injection wells may exhibit significant
permeability-thickness is estimated at 800 rnll,m. We estimate near wellbore friction losses.
a fracture length/radius of about 30 m. The September 1995
falloff test (Fig. 10 (d)) showed a much higher permeability- Nomenclature
thickness, indicating injection into a larger zone. Linear flow v= Poisson ratio of rock
is clearly observed. With the same permeabilities as for the
o= stress, Pa
1993/94 tests, we calculated a doubling of the fracture size.
~= thermo-elastic expansion coefficient, C-
The pressure derivative of the 1996 test response shows a
unit slope behavior for almost the entire test (Fig. 10 (e)). To ct~ = Biots constant
fit the pressure onto the unit slope line, we obtain an ISIP C~= fracture storage coefficient, mffa
similar to the previous tests. The wellbore storage coefficient c = compressibility, Pa
is huge: 14 m3/102kPa (exceptionally high compared to the E = Youngs modulus, Pa
FS = fracture storage
other wells). For a confined fracture we estimate the fracture
h = reservoir height, m
366
SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 5
ZIIP= infectivity index based on injection pressure, Oil and Gas Rehabilitation Project of the European Bank for
m3/slPa Reconstruction and Development for the Rosneft-Purneftegas
ISIP = instantaneous shut-in pressure, Pa Oil Production Association. The program is supported by the
1P= injection pressure, Pa Dutch government.
k = effective permeability, mz
L,= fracture half-length or fracture radius, m References
LF = linear flow 1. Hagoort J., Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic fracturing, PhD
p = pressure, Pa Thesis, Delft University of Technology (April 1981).
q = injection rate, m3/s 2. Perkins, T.K., Gonzalez, J.A.: Changes in Earth Stresses
around a Wellbore Caused by Radially Symmetrical Pressure
r = radius, m
and Temperature Gradients, Sot. Pet. Eng. J., AIME (April
S = skin factor
1984).
T= temperature, C 3. Koning, E.J.L. and Niko, H., Fractured Water-Injection Wells:
t=time, s A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture Dimensions,
paper SPE 14458 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical
Subscripts Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sep 22-25.
i = initial 4. Koning, E,J.L. and Niko, H., Application of a Special Falloff
r = reservoir Test Method in a Fractured North Sea Water Injector,
t = total unsolicited paper SPE 16392 (June 1985).
5. Prado, L.R., et al, Falloff Testing a Waterflood-Induced
w = wellbore
Fractured Well in Western Venezuela, paper SPE 18142
e = effective presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Ott 2-5.
Acknowledgments 6. Earlougher JR, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE
The authors would like to thank Rosneft-Purneftegas for Monograph VOI5, 1977.
permission to publish this paper. The work and analysis
described in this paper has been carried out in the context of
the Technical Cooperation Program as part of the West Siberia
Aug 93 420 250.6 227.0 179.8 350 -2.1 -3.5 5.9 11-16/ 24-33 I
Aug 94 370 254.7 230.0 190.4 350 -2.9 -3.6 5.7 14-19/ 30-43 I
Aug 95 670 273.8 236.0 203.4 1.8 800 0.5 -4.4 9.5 17-25128-43 46-93122-44
Sep 95 460 262.8 242.0 225.9 - ? 3000 41.2 ().1 12.4 14-75 I 24-126 I
Ju[ 96 770 253.6 232.0 c211.7 14.0 - - - 18.4 -155-85 - / 65-120
109
I , ,1
1 . wdkest Mezsure derivacwe ./
I
.!
~ ----fiy-yt-
+ w West pwssure3
-1+ .Weutestpres,u,e
0.1, I I It. t - 1,,,,,, -- _r_,J
0,1 I I 1 1 Itll 1 I I I 1 [1
100 1004 lcooo W300c
104 1002 10WO lom30
Time after shut-in (see)
Time after shut.in (see)
Fig. 1-Example of observed fracture storage l%g. 2-Example of observed linear flow behavior
367
6 A.N.P. DROS, A.M. KUZNETSOV, J. HAGOORT SPE 50671
r
_ - _________ ._ . . ------.. . .
..., -
m .
50
40
Sa
20 -:-
10
0
I 0 10 20 30 40 50 0+7 70 w eo 100 110 120 130 140
o 20 40 60 00 100 120 140 i
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m)
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m)
Fig. 3-Comparison of fracture size estimates based on linear ...DW Fig. Comparison of fracture sizes estimates based on linear flow
and skin- factor. The fracture size based on the skin factor is and fracture storage, assuming confined rectangular fractures. The
underestimated. two approaches compare well, especially for the tests in which both
linear flow and fracture storage are observed. The fit between the
sizes requires a Youngs modulus of 17 10ckPa.
30. +
70 . . . . . . . ........................r
,.,,,,...,,,,,,.....,
.*q
I
.
25. $
a A . L.l--LLll--...l . . . ..l ~
*
in a A z
~ 1.1,;
5f. .* -+--4-.
-....I . -. ~
20. .._..& s
,0
--
~
~ 40.
g
1 I .-. ;.. .. . ,
:~
10. . g
g 20.
.
z
5. Afl . n %
~ tests cbee in time
L 10.
.
. In onete.st
.
I
Oq I I o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 170 tw 210 23o 2511 270 290 310
Fracture half-length based on linear flow (m) ISIP (100 kl%)
- ~-
Fig. 5-Comparison of fracture size estimates based on linear flow Fig. 6 >omparison of the obsewed friction losses with the
and fracture storage, assuming penny shaped fractures. The two instantaneous shut-in pressure. Two groups can be distinguished:
approaches show a good correlation. The fit between the sizes (1) one with low friction losses, and (2) a group with friction losses
requires a (low) Youngs modulus of 1 106kPa. showing a decreasing trend_with increasing ISIP,
SQ TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..T.
.
j/j .
70.
.-
. .
ea -.l.-+
.
5. . I .* .*
* .*
q ** . .
40.
*
30. _.:*
20.
. .
10.. _* ~
.
0 102333405060 70S9
368
SPE 50671 INTERPRETATION OF FALLOFF TESTS ON FRACTURED WELLS OF THE BARSUKOV OIL FIELD IN WEST SIBERIA 7
.
140 1400 25
120 1200
20 2Q0
0 o
0
i.--G!!Yure =~fl~~~te=ywd
. test Mdiiitv . . . . re2wo# cressure
~ I .. ....
Fig. 8-injection rate and pressure vs. time for well A ig. 9-lnjectivity index and-reservoir pressure vs. time for well-A&
- f-;-jr;!ltl~ : .Wd,es,pwsres
100 10II lccc - Im ,CQ Im Icao Icoxa
II 0,1t
lca
: 1
lm
h ,
1KW3
- -?-J...:
lcccm
Time aft.r shut-l. (1..) Tim. after shut+ (S.C) Tim. altar shut-l [s.c)
(a) August 1993: Falloff test (b) August 1994 Falloff test (c) August 1995: Falloff test
f, I , - ------ --
I + +tJyp+i
0?
*w.Mwswres
I lKI 0 10Q2C02C@ 4W5C06CQ71Xl WOW
lCCO lCWI
I
Iccm lWY$M
103 Icowl Iwo
TkII. fter .hut.in (...) Inbction rat. (mXd)
Tim. aft.r shut-l. (s..)
I 11
(d) September 1995: ~al~off=st (e) July 19~6: Falloff test ) May 1997: St;p~~n~ec~vity test -
Fig. 10-Successive falloff tests overtime for well A show the fracture development
369