Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Vol. I
• By
James T. Smith
0
COPYRIGHT
By
James T. Smith
P.O. Box 1990
• Cody, Wyoming 82414
Telephone: (307) 527-6494
E-Mail: jtsmith@180com.net
^ 0603
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Primary Flow Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Types of Fluids in the Reservoir . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Number of Mobile Fluids in the Reservoir ... 2-2
Reservoir Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Time Dependence of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Flow Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Darcy's Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Steady State Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Transient Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Late Transient Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Pseudosteady State Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
Constant Pressure Outer Boundary . . . . . . . . 2-54
Principle of Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54
Superposition in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
Superposition of Flow Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63
Flow Equations in Dimensionless Form . . . . . . . . . 2-66
Type Curve Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75
Summary . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2-84
References .. ........ . . .... . .. .. . . . . . 2-85
Nomenclature .. .... . . ...... ... .. . .. . . 2-86
iii
•
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Analysis of Transient Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Determination of Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Boundary Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Analysis of Pseudosteady State Data . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Reservoir Limits Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Estimation of Drainage Shape . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Radius of Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Stabilization Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Practical Limitations of Reservoir
Limits Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Evaluation of Formation Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Modifications of Flow Equations for a
Skin Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
Effective Wellbore Radius 3-27
Effect of Skin on the Semilog Plot ........ 3-28
Calculation of the Total Skin Factor ....... 3-30
Calculation of the Damage Skin Factor ..... 3-33
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
Damage Ratio and Damage Factor . . . . . . . . 3-45
Flow Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Causes of Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Semilog
Plot 3-51
Effect of Wellbore Storage on Formation
Face Rate . . . ................. 3-52
Detection of Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . 3-56
Duration of Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59
Changing Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-69
iv
•
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Horner Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Ideal Versus Actual Pressure Buildup
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Determination of Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
Estimation of Average Pressure . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
Evaluation of Formation Damage . . . . . . . . . 5-29
Determination of tp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34
Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35
v
•
Page
vi
•
Page
vii
•
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-1
Pressure Drawdown Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-3
p2-Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-3
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-4
Permeability Determination . . . . . . . .. 7-5
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-6
Evaluation of Turbulence . . . . . . . . .. 7-6
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-8
Pseudosteady State ............ .. 7-9
p-Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. 7-13
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. 7-13
Permeability Determination ...... . .. 7-13
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .. 7-14
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
Real Gas Pseudo-Pressure, m(p) . . . . . . . .. 7-14
Evaluation of m(p) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-16
Pressure Drawdown Equation . . . . . . .. 7-22
Permeability Determination . . . . . . . .. 7-22
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-23
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-24
Pseudosteady State Flow . . . . . . . . . .. 7-24
Advantages of m(p) Method ...... .. 7-24
Pressure Buildup Test ................. .. 7-29
p2-Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-29
Horner Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-30
ix
•
Page
Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-30
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-30
Average Pressure .......... . 7-31
Flow Efficiency ........... . 7-32
Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson Plot . . . . . . . . 7-38
Agarwal Method .............. . 7-39
p-Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-39
Horner Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-39
Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
Average Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
Other Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . 7-40
Real Gas Pseudopressure, m(p), Method ... . 7-41
Horner Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41
Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41
Skin Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41
Flow Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-42
Average Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 7-42
Other Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . 7-42
Problems of Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-50
Wellbore Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-50
Bounday Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-53
Short Producing Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7-53
Changing Gas Properties . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7-53
Type Curve Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7-55
Fractured Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7-56
Conventional Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . 7-57
Type Curve Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-59 .
Gas Well Deliverability Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-67
Flow-After-Flow Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-68
Empirical Method of Analysis . . . . . . . 7-70
Theoretical Method of Analysis . .... . 7-85
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
Isochronal Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
Empirical Method of Analysis . . . . . . . 7-93
x
•
Page
xi
•
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
Interference Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
Homogeneous Isotropic Reservoir . . . . . . . . . 9-7
Single Active Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
xii
Page
X. DRILLSTEM TESTING
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
Equipment and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
Analysis of Pressure Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
Pressure Buildup Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
Flow-Period Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
Wireline Formation Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 10-15
Interpretation of DST Pressure Charts . . . . . . . ... 10-16
References .. . .... .. ..... ... .. . . . . . .. 10-20.
Nomenclature ...... . .. .. . .... .. . . . . .. 10-22
Summary of Major Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 10-23
xiii
MAJOR REFERENCES: Pressure Transient Testing
0
1. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests
in Wells, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas: Monograph
Series, Vol. I (1967).
4. Ramey, H.J., Jr., Kumar, A., and Gulati, M.S.: Gas Well Test
Analysis Under Water Drive Conditions, American Gas Association,
Arlington, Virginia (1977).
0
10. Sabet, M.A.: Well Test Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston
(1991). 40
11. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey (1993).
0
•
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
• I. TYPES OF TESTS
• Effective permeability
• Detection and magnitude of formation
damage and/or stimulation
• Detection and approximate distances to
flow barriers and fluid contacts
• Volumetric average reservoir pressure
• Drainage pore volume
• Communication between wells
• Detection, length, and capacity of fractures # I
1-2
^tr M tvcu, e&" J4 .x-atJ, wto.c, -.- a,- a,,L c¢. u/VL S
^
commonly and successfully to characterize a reservoir. Test
design, as well as test analysis, is discussed. It is not
possible to understand pressure analysis without some
theoretical considerations; however, this manual stresses
the practical aspects of pressure analysis and design. All
methods of analysis are illustrated with the use of practical
examples.
This manual does not attempt to take the reader to the
frontiers of knowledge in well testing. Instead, those
methods of pressure analysis which, in the author's opinion,
have been most successfully applied are presented. References
are presented at the end of each chapter to assist the
engineer who needs to further pursue a particular subject.
Other publications which give excellent coverage of this
subject are the Society of Petroleum Engineers' Monographs
on well testing' '2, and Alberta Energy Resources and Conser-
vation Board's gas well testing manual3.
IV. ORGANIZATION
1-3
applied throughout the remainder of the book.
C:
Chapter 3 covers pressure drawdown testing which,
theoretically, is the most simple pressure transient test.
This test is not discussed first because it is the most
important test; instead, we cover it first because it
follows more directly and logically from the flow theory
in Chapter 2 and, therefore, is easier to understand than
other tests. Further, it is the only singZe-rate production
test that we run; all other tests we will discuss are multi-
rate tests and, basically, are variations of the drawdown
test. This is probably the most important chapter in the
manual. Most of the concepts used in pressure transient
testing are introduced in this chapter.
With the exception of the pressure drawdown test, all
pressure transient tests involve multiple rates. Chapter 4
will present a general approach to multirate testing.
Chapter 5 discusses the most commonly used test, the pressure
buildup test. Fractured reservoirs are becoming increasingly
important and an entire chapter, Chapter 6, is devoted to
the analysis of tests conducted in fractured reservoirs.
Discussion of well testing in Chapters 3-6 is restricted
to liquid systems. Chapter 7 shows how liquid theory can be
applied with minor modifications to the analysis of tests
from gas reservoirs. Gas deliverability testing is also
treated in this section.
Chapter 8 presents pressure testing techniques in
injection wells, a subject which is already important because
of waterflooding, but which will gain even more significance
with future emphasis on enhanced oil recovery. Chapter 9
discusses methods of well testing when more than one well
is involved in the test.
1-4
•
REFERENCES
1-6
•
Chapter 2
I. INTRODUCTION
L compressibility as:
A. Incompressible fluids
An incompressible fluid is one which experiences no
change in volume (or density) when pressure and/temperature
chang. Actually, there are no incompressible fluids; some
fluids, however, approximate this behavior and can be assumed
incompressible for certain types of engineering calculations.
The pressure behavior of a reservoir is very sensitive to
fluid compressibility; consequently, equations based on
incompressible flow are not adequate to design or analyze
pressure transient tests.
2-2
0
of pressure data becomes more difficult as the number of
mobile fluids increases. A rigorous description of multi-
phase flow can generally be obtained only by the use of a
computer. Approximate solutions of multiphase problems •
which require only hand-calculations will be presented in
this manual.
3. Reservoir geometry
The shape of a reservoir has a significant effect on
its flow behavior. Most reservoirs have irregular boundaries
and a rigorous mathematical description of geometry is often
possible only with the use of computer simulators. Fortu-
nately, most pressure transient tests do not involve the
entire reservoir; instead, it is only necessary to describe
that part of the reservoir affected by the well(s) being
tested. This can usually be accomplished using simple
^ geometries. The flow geometries most useful in well test
work are:
0 A. Radial flow
In the absence of severe reservoir heterogeneities,
flow into or away from a wellbore will follow radial flow
lines for a substantial distance from the wellbore. Further,
the largest pressure gradients in a reservoir occur near
the wellbore where flow is radial. For these reasons, radial
flow is the geometry applicable to most pressure transient
work.
When in radial flow, reservoir fluids follow flow paths
which converge at the wellbore; moreover the cross-sectional
area to flow is a function of distance from the welibore.
The flow lines and isopotential lines for ideal radial flow
are illustrated by Fig. 2.1.
•
2-3
^y °rlT
^ ^,& •fourt^ ^ll s StahcJ
•
FLOW
LINES
PLAN
VIEW
ENT I AI,
ES
yv ^- WEI.LBORE
SIDE
VIEW •
• Fig. 2.1: Ideal radial flow into a welibore.
B. Linear flow
Linear flow occurs when flow lines are parallel and
flow is in a single direction. This can occur only if the
cross-sectional area to flow is constant. A common
application of linear flow equations is in the analysis of
pressure data from wells which have been hydraulically
fractured, or wells which intersect natural fractures. Wells
which fit this description exhibit linear flow immediately
following a rate change and the pressure data measured during
this time period must be analyzed using linear flow equations.
Figure 2.2 illustrates linear flow into a vertical hydraulic
fracture.
q
2-4
^ The analysis of pressure data from fractured reservoirs
will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
FRACTURE
---j --
ISOMETRIC
VIEW
WELLBORE
FLOW LINES
PLAN
VIEW WELL
FRACTURE
C. Elliptical flow
Following linear flow in a fractured system, lines of
constant pressure become elliptical in shape. This is
illustrated by Fig. 2.3 which depicts a well producing from
a reservoir with a vertical fracture. The mathematical
equations required to rigorously describe elliptical flow
are difficult to handle. Fortunately, as will be shown in
Chapter 6, methods have been developed to analyze fractured
2-5
F
WELL
•
FLOj^
LINES
ISOPOTENTIAL
LINES
• 1
•
2-6
• WELL
SIDE
VIEW
WELL
0 FLOW
SIDE LINES
VIEW
2-7
equation will be necessary at another time. It is essential
that the well test analyst be able to recognize each of these
flow regimes in order to apply the correct equation or
analysis technique at the proper time. Failure to do so can
result in serious errors.
As noted previously, flow into or away from most wells
is adequately described by a radial flow model. Accordingly,
to aid our understanding of the effect of time on reservoir
behavior, consider a well centered in a circular reservoir of
radius re. It is assumed that this reservoir is homogeneous
and has a constant thickness. Further, the reservoir is
assumed to produce at constant rate into the well. This
system is illustrated in Fig. 2.6.
•
PLAN
VIEW
SIDE
: . : h VIEW
2-8
-(AAa,t VanA.&LPA4 d-zkeA.wu.n.c,
dUstcu6ocvti.c._, m o-w^ ?
• 4 vw^; a_6teQ 6jt^ *
2-9
The reservoir pressure distribution caused by this
•
flowing well, when plotted as a function of time, will
appear as illustrated by Fig. 2.7. It is observed at time
tl that the pressure disturbance has moved a distance r 1
into the reservoir. At radii greater than rl, the reservoir
pressure remains equal to the initial reservoir pressure, pi..
It is important to note that the reservoir boundary (r=re)
is having no effect on the pressure behavior of the reservoir
at time tl. In fact, the pressure distribution in the
reservoir at t 1 is exactly the same as it would be if the
reservoir were infinite in size.
t=0 rl r2
Pi
tl •
t2
t3
n t4
y
t5
rw e
RadlLis
2-10
^a-
"nc^, encc^ ,t,^o c^o^u^
^ , hG^(Gttt;f,,p/1 GtM^C ^ ^-
These same comments can be made at time t2 when the
pressure disturbance has advanced to a radius r2; there is
still no effect of the boundary on the reservoir pressure
distribution, or the behavior of the producing well.
At time t3, the pressure disturbance reaches the
boundary. This causes the reservoir pressure behavior to
change. Until this time, the reservoir behaved as if it
were infinite in size. Beyond this time, it will behave
like a closed container.
These observations lead us to a definition of transient
flow: Transient flow is that time period during which the
boundary has no effect on pressure behavior in the reservoir.
For the pressure behavior depicted by Fig. 2.7, transient
flow occurs during the time interval o<t<t3. Equations
which can be used to predict the length of the transient
flow period will be presented in Chapter 3.
2-11
transient flow. It will be very important, however, to •
recognize late transient flow so that data measured during
this period are not incorrectly analyzed; methods to
recognize late transient flow will be presented in Chapter 3.
pil- - - t=0 - - -
(PR)l^^ - - - - - - ^^
-+ A p1
•
Apl tl Apl
-- - -----^i -------- p2
(PR) 2
t2
Ap2
I
^
_
t
s
_T
Ap1
^
^D2
01
r r
w e
Radius
q
Fig. 2.8: Relationship of pressure distribution
to time during pseudosteady state flow.
2-12
•^ p^ s^u ru Cfi^a^o^c s bC.a. SoJvri-C dUIWA.^4 Prv"c,v^bve atve w-E^6,
2-13
those equations which will be useful in the design and analysis
of pressure transient tests. By combining the conservation of
mass equation with a transport equation ( Darcy's Law) and
various equations of state, the necessary flow equations can
be developed. Since all flow equations to be considered
depend upon Darcy's Law, it is important to consider this
transport relationship first.
1. Darcy's Law
This is an empirical relationship which shows that the
volumetric flow rate of a fluid through a porous medium is
proportional to the pressure gradient. For a horizontal
linear system, this relationship is '
u = g = - u ^ (2.2)
u = ar = k (,P) (2.3)
r
Ar u arr
2-14
If more than one fluid is flowing in a formation, the flow
rate of a specific fluid can be computed from Eqs. 2.2 or
2.3 by substituting the appropriate effective permeability
and fluid viscosity.
It is very important to note that Darcy's law only
applies to Zaminar flow. When turbulent flow exists,
application of Darcy's law can result in serious errors.
Modifications for turbulent flow will be discussed in subse-
quent sections.
OLr
2. Steady state flow
The equations for steady state flow are based on
Darcy's Law. These equations are derived in numerous
publications and will be presented here only in their final
form. These equations have no application to pressure
transient testing; however, it is important that the reader
recognize these commonly published equations and not misuse
them in well test analysis.
A. Linear systems
A horizontal linear reservoir is illustrated by Fig.
2.9. Applications to reservoirs containing single-phase
incompressible and highly compressible fluids are considered.
P?
• ql
2-15
•
a. Incompressible flow
ql = q2 = 0.001127 kA (p p) (2•4)
ULB 1 2
kATsc(p1Z-p22)
a2sc = 0.003164 Tz uL , scf/D (2.6)
p sc 2
Q
3 . , Q,^ hc,nr^
L_^, p7, 't ma"
2-16
^ B. Radial s y stems
Consider the radial reservoir in Fig. 2.6 which is
drained by a well at its center:
p -P
q = 0.00708 hk e rwf STB/D (2. 7)
in e
r
w
fU,^^lO^m-^E (Wa-'^^`- Q ^
Another useful and equivalent form of this equation can be
written if the pressure drawdown is expressed in terms of
^ PR rather than pe , i . e., C P^ ho^f' 9uac1L4, ^itinoLtSri UI^4,^0^' )
^ ^
hk pR pwf (2.8)
q= 0.00708
r
ln re - 0.5
w
2-17
N ate, " ftme 6actu'r- -IA'- SS LItp,
^ .
La cczj.v'.^.
fl Vri2 .
C^Van-,O p"a- (^r^^-en
•
hkTsc(pe pwf) , scf/D (2.10)
agsc = 0.01988
re
upscTzwln r
w
3. Transient flow
Transient flow begins when the flow rate of a well is
changed; it ends when the pressure disturbance created by
the rate change hits a boundary.
The period of transient flow is very important in
pressure transient analysis. Every well tested experiences
transient flow and it is this flow period which typically
yields the greatest amount of information about a reservoir.
Consequently, this text will deal primarily with the
analysis of pressure data recorded during the transient
flow period.
A. Radial flow ^
When a pressure transient test is conducted in a well,
fluid flow near the wellbore, where pressure gradients are
largest, will have the greatest effect on test results. In
the absence of heterogeneities or discontinuities, flow near
the wellbore is essentially radial.
For purposes-of mathematical development, consider the
ideal cylindrical model depicted by Fig. 2.6. It is assumed
that the producing well has an^^open-hole completion, that it
fully penetrates the formation, and that the well is perpen-
dicular to the horizontal formation. It is also assumed that
no flow occurs in the vertical direction or the 0(circular)
* I
direction; thus, all flow is radial and can be described
using a small cylindrical segment of the reservoir which has
an inner radius, r, and an outer radius, r + Ar. This
reservoir segment is shown in Fig. 2.10 with fluid flowing
in the positive r- direction.
•
2-18
• N
^ (ou )
p_ r r+Ar
r
e
•
Fig. 2.10: Cylindrical segment of reservoir used
to derive transient flow equations.
• into elementj r 6
^
2-19
[Rate of mass 1 = [2Tr(r+Ar)h] (pu )
out of elementf r r+Ar
•
Rate of mass 2^rorh[(^p)t+ot-(^p)ti
[accumulation] At
27rrArh[W)t+At- W)t]
= 27rrh(pur)r
or,
k ^ (2.12)
ur
u ar
(2.1J)
r ar [r P-s ^ at (^P) •
• liquid is defined as
?-?1
u.v" t15 ' c -- ^p SL
^afl^G^n ^ a.e ' c,^^
c^l crn, pte s S-^ bt
z (2.14)
c=- 1 av
vap G^ C (^ ^^ I^w U S
C = - P aP ( p
and
C = p aP (2.15)
^
C = p p (2.16)
P P
c dp = ( (2.17)
P
J -.
po po
p = p ec(P-Po) (2.18)
0
•
2- 22
• The equation of state for density in Eq. 2.18 can be
substituted into Eq. 2.13 to obtain
1 a
r ar Le c (p-po) r ap ar k at
(P
[ eco) 1 .
2
1 + cr (^P) Z = k ^c ^P + a , (2.20)
r
1 3^ + r
ar2
cf = Vp
1 dp
(2.21)
•
2-23
1
cf = ^Vb
d(^V )
dp
b
=
1 do
dp
^ (2.22)
•
0
P
Using the chain rule of differentiation,
a^ __a! a = ap (2.23)
t ap at ^c f at '
a?P + 1 ^ + c ( D^P) 2 = ku c ^P + 1 ap ^P
r
or, + ( aP) 2= ku (c + c f) aI
a?P2 + r D r t
2-^p + 1 aP +,C
or,
ar2 r ar (^) 2 = k^ct ^ (2.24)
•
^O C^oi. t,c^u^dS^
where ct = C + c f.
2 ^ ;^ c t ;p
+ 1 aP= (2.25)
a.. r 3r k 3t '
3r,
p = pressure, psia
ct= total compressibility, psi
t = time, hrs
^ = porosity, fraction
u = viscosity, cp
ct = c o S o + c S + c g S g + cf (2.27)
w w
2-25
GLS^uw^ tmS E t^, 2-26
•
2-26
• p(r,t) = pi - 141.2 k qBll Z 2
r2
4+ tD)
reD - 1
00
ean2 tDJ2 reD) IJl (an) Y o (anreD)-Y 1 (an)1 0 (anri
+ Tr (2.28)
an [J (ctflrD) - Ji (an) J
n=1
(2.29)
J1(anreD)Y1(an) - Jl((xn)Y1((xnreD) = 0
• and:
rD
_
r
r
w
e
reD r
w
t = 0.0002637kt
D t
^ucrw
J1 = Bessel function of first kind of order one
Y1 = Bessel function of second kind of order two
p(r,t) = pressure at radius r and time t, psia
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
r = radial distance from producing well to
location where pressure is being computed, ft
re = radius of outer reservoir boundary, ft
t = length of time well has been producing, hrs
q = formation producing rate, STB/D
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB
k = effective permeability of formation to
produced fluid, md
h = formation thickness, ft
• cp
u
= formation porosity, fraction
= viscosity, cp
e = base of natural logarithm
2-27
q
If only the pressure at the well is considered, i.e.,
r= rw and p(r,t) = p(rW) t) = p`ti,f, Eq. 2.28 reduces to:
u 2tD + l 3
pwf = Pi - 141.2 kh r2 n r eD 4
eD
°D 2
•
2-28
AP Cr,{,)
Bu - 948^uctr2
p(r,t) = pi + 70.6 kh Ei (2.31)
kt
^ -u
where: Ei(-x) = - u du (2. 32)
B. = exponential-integral. function.
2-29
•
r--
r-,
.r.,
aa
^ •
r-^1
Fig. 2.11:
tD/rD
2-30
•
Table 2.1: Values of the exponential-integral5,-Ei(-x)
•
2-31
B o = 1.32 RB/STB r w = 0.25 ft
•
u o = 1 . 2 cp k o = 80 md
14% h = 11 ft
c t = 16x10psi-1 p i = 3600 psia
Bu 948^uctrz
p(r,t) = p + 70.6 ^ Ei
1 kt
r 3.185x1 0-Sr2^
- t
p(r,t) = 3600,+ 31.77 Ei
L
a) A summary of calculations for t = 48 hrs is presented
in the following table. These results are also presented
graphically in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13.
•
2-32
•
r, ft x Ei (-x) p(r,48),psia
Therefore,
88
% Drawdown = (100) = 16.9%
522
1 3166 16.9
5 3269 36.6
10 3313 45.0
100 3459 73.0
•
2-33
370!
360
3S0
340
ca
.H
U)
330
w
320
310
300
OoL Y w 1 10 102 103 10"
r, feet
• • •
• • •
3700
3600
n t = 1 hr
3500
A t = 6 hrs
• t = 48 hrs
3400
.r.,Cd
^
3300
3200
3100
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
r, feet
Fig. 2.13 Pressure distribution after 48 hours for the reservoir in Ex. 2.1.
E^.(-X) = 2, 303 111^ 'e cl•-?8^ x)
kt - (2. 34)
. p(r,t) = pi - 162.6 khu log 3.23 0
uctr2
2-36
• Like the exponential-integral solution, this equation can be
used to compute pressure as a function of time at any location,
within the stated assumptions.
In most well test applications, we are primarily
concerned about pressure behavior at the formation face of
the producing well. For this important situation, r=rw,
p(r,t) = p(rw,t) = pwf, and Eq. 2.34 becomes
2-37
Bu ^uctr2 ^
p(r,t) = pi + 70.6 k Ei
L -948
kt
p(0.25,t) = 3600
kt Z- 3.23 ^
pwf = P. - 162.6 k qBp
L log ^ uctrw J
pwf = 3600
0
162,6(250) (1.32) (1.2) log 80t - 3.23 ^
-
77
0(11) (0.14) (1 . 2) (16x10 6 ) (0.2 5) 2
1
1 3201 3201
10 3128 3128
24 3100 3100
240 3027 3027
2400 2954 2954
•
2-38
• It is obvious that Eq. 2.35 gives exactly the same results as
the exponential-integral equation, for the times considered,
when computing the flowing formation face pressure.
^uc r2
t > 9.48x10'` k
2-39
3
CO 3
.H
W
2 800
t, hrs
Fig. 2,14; Flowing formation face pressure versus time, Ex. 2.2.
0 • 0
q values of rD and tD as discussed on page 2.29.
Qv Z P-7
P (2.36)
zR
2-41
,&,:?-, c. : o& L.. pc,rILI^ oY. ^c.e s swlu
_
P P
6F
pSeudO D YPSS(.kr2 :
f
^
(2.37)
^ r Tr ^ r ^ 7 at (z)
1 2 + uZ
22^ + 32P2 +
r ar ar2 2 uZ [] 1 p{ ap }
[ 15 _ 1 aapz (2.38)
k at z '
c = - 1 ^V . (2.14) ^
V ap
v = p = PMT (2.39)
so that (2.40)
2-42
p^i^. C^h tOY ( ^QUiO^: a?P- + L LP = ^^CT V I -
. u ar' r ar .oooZcq k at
Rock compressibility, as well as the presence of other fluids,
can be accounted for by introducing the total compressibility,
ct, into Eq. 2.41. Written in oilfield units, Eq. 2.41
becomes L* va-^mr. ^or 3aS,
B. Linear flow
Equations which describe linear flow of liquids and
gases are derived from material balance considerations
using a procedure similar to that used to develop the
radial flow equations. The details of these derivations
^+a+a=^uct ^p (2.43)
ax2 ay2 az2 0.000 2 6 4k at
•
2-43
4. Late transient flow
•
Late transient flow begins when the pressure disturbance
created by placing a well on production reaches the nearest
boundary; it ends after the disturbance has reached all
boundaries defining the drainage area of the well and the
reservoir stabilizes into pseudosteady state behavior. As
noted previously in this chapter, the flow behavior is
generally too complex during the late transient period to
be described mathematically. Therefore, no attempt will
be made to present equations for this time regime.
n
5. Pseudosteady state flow ^^ie ^ac^,,dL qLC bQur,o^an,^¢,o
----- After a well has produced-at constant rate for a
sufficient period of time for the pressure disturbance to
reach all drainage boundaries, the reservoir will eventually
achieve a state of flow where pressures everywhere in the
drainage area are decreasing at the same rate. This behavior
was illustrated by Fig. 2.18.
a. Radial flow
The general solution for radial flow in a reservoir
bounded with no-flow boundaries was presented previously
as Eq. 2.28. Futhermore, it was found that for the special
case where r=rw, the flowing bottomhole pressure, Pwf'
could be computed using Eq. 2.30. When time is sufficiently
large in Eq. 2.30 for pseudosteady state to begin, the
summation term approaches zero and Eq. 2.30 becomes
r2
pwf = pi - 141.2 k t D + ln reD - 4 (2.45)
^rZeD
^aj-_^^
{^,o Equation 2.45 is more useful if it is written in terms
^w d of the volumetric average reservoir pressure, PR- From a •
2-44
• material balance, the change in reservoir pressure which
will result from producing qt barrels of fluid from a
reservoir of pore volume Ah^ will be:
t B
Pi - PR = 0.2339 Ahq (2.46)
c
t
r
j pwf = PR - 141.2 k 11 n re -0.751
w J
h. Generalized geometry
During pseudosteady state flow, the shape of the
drainage area dictates the geometry of flow. Rather than
2-45
^{ 3 S^ o.^ 2= acJw
A = 7r2
e
and CA = 31.62,
it reduces to
r
141.2 khu [ In re - 00..7 5 . " (2.51)
QS^ pwf = PR - w J
U'" •
Note that Eq. 2.51 is identical to Eq. 2.47 which was
developed from the general solution.
•
2-46
d; VAA^ VIM - We +10,VS^ u,,
^'"
Table 2.2; Shape factors f or =rolus^iosed
^ //s/ingle-wel l drainage
• Fol
30.8828 3.4302 - 1.3106 0.1 0.05 0.09
2-47
Table 2.2: CONT'D.
q
•
S
l 2.3606 0.8589 -0.0249 1_0 0.40 0.025 •
IN V£RT/CALLY-FRACT(JR£ORES£RW/RS USE {xe/x} 12 IN PLACE OF A/r,2, FOR FRACTURED SYSTEMS
-05
[7
1.6620 0.5080 +0.1505 0.175 0.09 CANNOT USE
k = 175 md h = 27 ft
= 18% r w = 0.33 ft
u= 1.1 cp q= 720 STB/D
B = 1.37 RB/STB c t = 24.2x10 6psi-1
pi = 4,440 psia A = 40 acres
^
a) Assuming this well has been producing at constant rate
for a sufficiently long time to achieve pseudosteady state
flow, compute the flowing formation face pressure at the
following times: 20, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 hours. Plot
these results as pressure versus time on cartesian paper.
2-49
The reservoir shape factor, C A, is obtained from Table 2.2
as a function of drainage geometry and well location within
the drainage area. This well is producing from the interior
of a field developed on 40-acre square spacing; accordingly,
under ideal conditions, the well is centered in a square
drainage area which is 40 acres in size. The shape factor
for a well in the center of a square is 30.88. Therefore,
_ (0.2339)(720)(1.37) t
(40) (43,560) (27) (0.18) (24.2x10 6)
t,hrs pwf,psia
20 4191
50 4157
100 4101
150 4045
200 3988
250 3932
2-50
E 4200
4100
M
I-q
4000
SLOPE = - 1.126 psi/hr
3900
3800 L-
• 0 50 100 150
t, hours
200 250
A PR = (1.126 psi/hr)(250-20)
2-51
6. Productivity Index 0
j = q (2.52)
PR pwf
2-52
Se no^F, ^ylno^c , l.''tua' n ad^L , firam s^'ew"^ ^ s S ] l,^rw : pw^ vs -FZm e
PR d4ap5 6-4
pR-pwf I^Vw 011-^
V • pwf
e'k PD-h e^1114IL3
^T 2rfs Start of pseudosteady
state flow
^Ghs+OLy,t 6ru-
PSS J = 0.0142
kh
STB/D/psi (2.53)
4
uB (ln A + in
1.781CA)
r2
w
kh , STB/D/psi. (2.54)
J = 0.00708
r
uB (ln re - 0.75)
w
2-53
damaged due to workover, production or injection operations.
•
If it is recognized that a well is "damaged", an appropriate
stimulation treatment can be designed to remove the damage
and increase productivity. One of the most important
applications of a pressure transient test is to determine
the productive capacity of a well; by comparing this with
the ideal productivity index of the well, the need for well
stimulation can be evaluated.
co
esn tDw Jo(SnreD)
- 2 (2.55)
Y_ * S2 [Ji (Sn) - Jo (SnreD)1
n=1
/ .
r
where
reD = re
w
kt
t = 0.0002637
•
Dw 2
^uctrw
2-54
• and Sn is a root of
(2.57)
pwf = pi
w
p • -p
or q= 0.00708 µB 1 rwf (2.58)
ln e
rw
^uC r2
t > 4. 74x103 --F- e (2.59)
•
2-55
•
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
,-, 6.5
4-i
3
^•^
6.0
^
,C N
r- 5.5
r- •
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5 103
104 fOS 106 107
0.0002637kt
z
^ucr
t w
2-56
•
IV. PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION
1. Superposition in space
Consider the three wells in Fig. 2.18 which began
producing at the same time from an infinite reservoir.
According to the principle of superposition, the total
pressure change at Well 1 is
•
2-57
^0.b0L, E. r^9^re ^P^Gp^z 10 •^0^^^ ^ •
rZ ^. P(C,t)
r12
r2 3 r3
WELL 1
r13
WELL 3
q2Bu 948^uctrl2
- 70.6 kh Ei - kt
Bu 948^uc r2 ^
ktt 13
- 70.6 akh Ei (2.60)
2-58
• where ql, q2 and q3 refer to the respective producing rates
of Wells 1, 2 and 3.
This same concept can be used to compute the pressure
drawdown at Wells 2 or 3. Further, any number of wells
flowing at constant rate in an infinite system can be treated
in this manner.
A very important application of this principle is in
the analysis of interference tests. A typical interference
test is conducted by changing the rate at one well while
measuring the pressure response at one or more adjacent
wells. Proper analysis of the data from an interference test
can yield information about formation properties between
the wells. A modification of the interference test, called
a puZse test, is experiencing widespread use today. These
tests will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.
ql = 80 STB/D = 16%
= 150 STB/D ct = 24. 6x10-6psi-1
q2
a3 = 210 STB/D h = 24 ft
rw2 = rw3 = 0.33 ft r12 = 800 ft
rwl =
B = 1.35 RB/STB 500 ft
r 13 =
W = 2.5 cp r23 = 600 ft
.
k = 56 md = 473 5 psia
pi
2-59
each well:
0
/Y%^ (pi pwf)total at Well 1 ( ")Well 1 +( Ap)Well 2+('^p)Well 3
q Bu
-W-
^ log kt2 - 3.23
(Ap)Well 1 = 162.6
^uctrwl
q Bu `^uctrl2
(AP)Well 2 = -70.6 kh Ei -948
kt
= -26.6 Ei(-1.48)
.
(AP)Well 2 = 2.7 psi.
NO FLOW
BOUNDARY
2-61
This situation occurs often in reservoirs when a well is
located near a sealing fault. It can be shown that two
identical wells producing at equal rates from an ideal
•
reservoir will always have a no-flow boundary equidistance
between the wells. Consequently, the effect on the well
of the boundary in Fig. 2.19 would be the same as the effect
of.an image well located a distance 2L from the actual well.
The use of an image well to simulate the no-flow boundary
is illustrated by Fig. 2.20.
ACTUAL IMAGE
WELL WELL
Qf--- L L --ti
NO FLOW
BOUNDARY
[ log
kt 2- 3.23
Pi pwf - 162.6 a
^uctrw
948^uct (2L) 2
- 70.6 khu Ei (2.61)
kt
•
2-62
APC 206 2/01
0
'
Noti ce that this equation assumes the reservoir is infinite
except for the indicated boundary.
The concept of image wells can be used to generate the
pressure behavior of a well located within a variety of
boundary configurations. Many of the methods considered
later in this manual are based on this principle.
c^
^ Time
2-63
The total pressure change at the formation face of the
producing well at time t will be the summation of the
pressure changes at time t caused separately by each rate
change.
AP)q3-q2
-0 + (pp) + (
(pi pwf)total (Ap)
kt Z - 3.23
(Ap)ql-0 = 162.6 (ql khBu
0) [los
oucrw
t
(q2-ql)BU k(t-t1)
(Ap) = 162.6 log - 3.23
kh
q2-al ^uc-tr2
(q..)Bu k(t-t )
3-q2 2- 3.23
(^p) = 162.6 log
q3'q2 ^uctrW ^
2-64
^ By summing the indivi dual pressure changes, the flowing
formation face pressure of the producing well is determined
at time t to be:
B
pwf = pi -•162.6
a khu log kt Z- 3.23
^uctrw
(q2-c{1)BU k(t-tl)
- 162.6 log - 3.23
kh
P+o+ uj, ^uctrw
(a3-q2)BU k(t-t2)
- 162.6 log - 3.23 (2.62)
kh 2
^uctw
• t1 = 48 hours
t2 = 96 hours
ct = 15x10-6psi-1
rw = 0.5 ft
k = 38 md pi = 3820 psia
26%
2-65
•
Solution. The flowing formation face pressure can be
computed directly using Eq. 2.62:
pwf = 3820
2-66
r^
L equations in dimensionless form. First, we will show by the
following simple example how data presentation can be
simplified and compacted by judicious choice of the plotting
parameters.
•
2-67
P (r, t) = pi + 70.6
e
B
- Ei -948
t
uctrz
•
^uc r2
pi-p(r,t) = -70.6 k qB" Ei -948
kt
2
pi-p(r,t) = 104.0 Ei (-1.418x10 _a rt )
•
2-68
0 3
10
,r ,l,3
102
.r.,
^
14
¢.
10
0.1 1 10 100
t,hrs
•
2-69
"L/1-2 Roriy,a,(A^S G^dL^Q.
t or e^-Fec#- o^ +'
103
r-I 102
^
10
1
10-5 10-4 10-3 10- 2 10-1 1
t/r2
• • •
It is observed in this example that a plot of pressure
drawdown versus t gives two separate curves for the two
radii considered. If 100 different radii*were of interest,
100 different curves would be generated. An obvious question
arises in this situation: How do you present solutions in
compact form when a large number of variables are involved?
A clue to answering this question is provided by considering
Fig. 2.23. When the pressure drawdown is plotted versus t/rZ,
the data for both radii form a common curve. In fact, the
pressure drawdown for any reservoir radius will plot on this
exact same curve.
If radius and time are the only variables, all pressure
data can be plotted on a single curve in the manner indicated
by Fig. 2.23. Other variables in the flow equations, however,
include 0, u, ct, k, h, q, and B. Obviously, an infinite
number of solutions exist when all of these variables are
considered. f We will show in the following discussion that by
properly selecting the plotting parameters, the effect of all
these variables on pressure can be presented izi compact form.
The key to solving this problem is to use dimensionless
variables.I
Most dimensionless variables used in well testing arise
logically from the equations which describe reservoir fluid
flow. To introduce this dimensionless solution approach,
consider for example the radial, incompressible, steady
state solution presented previously as Eq. 2.7:
kh(pe-pwf)
q = 0.00708 (2.7)
r
Bu ln (re)
w
r
pwf - 141.2 khu In re (2.63)
Pe
• w
2-71
or,
•
r
pe pwf = in re (2.64)
w
141.2 k qBll
r
PD = in re (2.65)
w ^
where PD = pe pwf . (2.66)
141.2 ^
pi-p(r,t)
(2.67)
PD
D = 141.2 Bu
kh
+ t = 0.0002637kt (2.68)
D ^uctr2
-^ rD = r (2.69)
w
•
2-72
• where: PD = dimensionless pressure
tD = dimensionless time
rD = dimensionless radius
r2
Ei (- D _k (2.70)
1 PD = - 2
4tD
It was shown earlier that when tD/rD > 25, the exponential-
integral solution can be approximated by Eq. 2.34 which, in
dimensionless form is
t
PD = 1 [in D + 0.80907]. (2.71)
rD
kt
where tDA = 0.0002637 (2.73)
t
•
2-73
^^ Pe Cur^ e
EO,r 2.^0
tD/ rD
Fig. 2.24: Dimensionless pressure for a single well. in an ideal infinite system, i.e.,
the exponential-integral solution.
0 • •
• It is also useful to present other flow equations
in dimensionless form. These equations will be presented
throughout the text as they are needed to accomplish specific
well testing objectives.
Gn'Sf a.*,t
t JO . 0002637k t
(2.68)
D 2
L uCr
t w
so that , tD ='0.00026371 t
(2.74)
rD
L pctr2
2-75
It is observed that tD/r2D is also a product of two terms
which includes t and 0.0002637k/^uctr2. When pressure is
measured at some distance r from the producing well
(interference test), it is significant that 0.0002637k/Cictr2
is a constant; accordingly, tD/rD and t differ only by a
constant multiplier.
If we take the logarithm of both sides of Eqs. 2.67
and 2 . 74 ,
2-76
• t
102 l_03
0.1 1 10
I 102
I0 10
^
_p
10 J 1
I10 103 los
102 10"
• tD
r2
D
•
2-77
1. Obtain a large-scale copy of Fig. 2.24. This type
•
curve is an ideal prediction of how the pressure
should behave at the observation well.
2. Obtain a sheet of tracing paper and construct a
log-log scale having the same dimensions as the
type curve you are using; this is best accomplished
by placing the tracing paper on the type curve
and tracing the major grid lines.
3. Plot your field data on the tracing paper as Ap
versus t, where bp = Pi Pobs' This plot, often
referred to as a data curve, is illustrated by
Fig. 2.26.
1 0z
• •
• •
•
•
•
0
., 10 •
•
DATA
•
• CURVE
1
10 2 1 n3
0.1 1 10
t , hrs
•
2-78
^ DATA
\ CURVE
TYPE
MATCH
CURVE
POINT
------ ----- -I
^ ---Q ^ -- -
(PD) M (AP) M
( t)M
t
(tD/rD)^^ ^
^ D/rD
_ kh
PD 141.2qBU ^P
so that,
•
2-79
•
kh = (PD) M
141.2qBU (AP)M
kt
t- = 0.0002637
^uctrz
rD
so that,
•
0.0002637k (tD/rD)M
Cuctr2 (t)M
2-80
• h 23 ft rw = 0.5 ft
0.8 cp ct = 8.3x10-6psi_1
PO
Bo 1.12 RB/STB pi = 3456 psia
427 STB/day
q0
0 3456 0
1.0 3454 2
1.5 3451 5
2.0 3449 7
3.0 3444 12
5.0 3435 21
10.0 3423 33
20.0 3410 46
^ 30.0 3402 54
40.0 3396 60
60.0 3386 70
80.0 3380 76
100.0 3376 80
150.0 3366 90
200.0 3360 96
(Ap)M = 10 psi
(pD)M = 0.22
(t) M = 10
(tD/rD)M = 1.6.
2-81
10z •
•
• •
• •
• DATA
CURVE
•
f:10
•
•
1
1 10 102 ln3
t, }1 r s
k = 141.2qBii (pD)M
h Op M
k = 51.7 md.
0.0002637k (t)M
uctr2 (tD/rD)IN4
•
2-82
• • •
00
W
i(
tD/rD
Fig. 2.29: Type curve match for interference test in Ex. 2.7.
(0.0002637) (51. 7) 10
•
1.6
(0.8)(8.3x10-6)(340)2
= 0.111
= 11.1%
VII. SUMMARY
•
2-84
0
REFEREN C E S
8. Ramey, H. J., Jr., Kumar, A., and Gulati, M. S.: Gas Well
Test Analysis Under Water-Drive Conditions, American Gas
Association, Arl in
gton, Va. (1973T.
2-85
E
NOMENCLATURE - CHAPTER 2
2-86
^
pwf = flowing formation face pressure, psi.
= volumetric average reservoir pressure, psi
PR
q = flow rate, STB/D
qg = gas flow rate, ft3/D
agsc = gas flow rate at standard conditions, scf/D
r = radial distance, ft
re = distance to outer boundary of cylindrical reservoir, ft
reD re/rw
rD = r/rw
rw = wellbore radius, ft
R = universal gas constant
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
so = oil saturation, fraction
Sw = water saturation, fraction
t = time, hours
tD = dimensionless time = 0.0002637kt/^pctrk
tDA = dimensionless time = 0.0002637kt/^uctA
T = reservoir temperature, OR
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions, OR
u = apparent velocity (flux) = q/A
v = specific volume, ft3/lbm
V = volume, ft3
Vb = bulk volume, ft3
Vo = pore volume, ft3
x = linear coordinate, ft
x = 948^uctr2/kt in exponential-integral equation
y = linear coordinate, ft
Y1 = Bessel function
Y2 = Bessel function
z = linear coordinate, ft
z = gas deviation factor, dimensionless
ct n = roots of Eq. 2.29
6n = roots of Eq. 2.56
TI = hydraulic diffusivity = k/buct
u = viscosity, cp
ug = gas viscosity, cp
2-87
•
uo = oil viscosity, cp
p = density, lbm/ft3
pg = gas density, lbm/ft3
Po = oil density, ibm/ft3
0
2-88
•
SUMMARY OF MAJOR EQUATIONS - CHAPTER 2
aZp + 1 ap ^uct ap
2'26 ar2 - - = 0.0002
r ar 64k at
2.27 ct = co So + cw Sw -* cg S9 + cf
qBu 948¢uctr2
2.31 p(r,t) = pi + 70.6 kh Ei
kt
• qB^^ kt
2.35 pwf = pi - 162.6 kh log - 3.23
2
o^^r ^,^ ? 31 uctrw
4A
2.49 p = p. - 162.6 ^ log
wf 1 kh
1.781CArw
0.2339qBt
Ah^ct
r ^
2.51 = PR - 141.2 k qB'j [In re - 0.75]
p^^^f
w
2.52 J = a
PR pwf
•
2-89
•
2.53 J = 0.0142kh
4
uB [in_+in
2
1,781CA
rw
0.00708kh
2.54 J =
r
uB
C In re - 0.751
w J
kh[pi - p(r,t)]
2.67
PD = 141.2qBp
t = 0.0002637kt
2.68
D Z
trw
2.69 rD = r
w is
r2
2.70 PD = - ZEi 4D
D
2.71
C
PD = 2 In D+ 0.809071
rD J
A 1
2. 72 PD = 27rtDA + 2 In 2 +^ In [2. CA58
rw J
2.73 tDA = 0.0002637 ¢u^ A
t
•
2-90
• PROBLEMS
2-91.
pressure in (b)? If not, how much error would you
make by using Eq. 2.34? What conclusion can you
make from this result about the use of Eq. 2.34 to
calculate pressure at large distances from the
producing well?
h = 18 ft pi = 3875 psia
uo = 2.1 cp ct = 1l.1x10-6psi
Bo = 1.21 RB/STB
2-92
SOLUTIONS
Ei(-x) = in (1.781x)
Ei(-0.01) = -4.028
Error = -0.25%
2-93
2. (a) The formation face pressure of the producing well
• can be estimated during transient flow using Eq. 2.35:
0
ct = coSo + c w S w + V + cf
ct = (18x10-6)(0.65)+(3x10-6)(0.35)+3.4x10-6
ct = 16.15 x 10-6psi-1
$uct r2
t > 9.48 x 104
k
2-94
' 0 .
011c r2
p(r,t) = pi + 70.6 kqB" Ei 948
kt
•
p(2000, 1008) = 5,190 + 70.6 (4,820) ( 1.27) (0.8) •
(115) (42)
r2
t > 9.48x10" ^uc
-^- •
2-95
• p(2000, 1008) = 5,065 psia
2-96
3. The total pressure drop at Well 3 is the summation of
pressure drops at that location caused separately by
• production of Wells 1, 2 and 3.
q1BU 948^uctr1 ; I
(^P)Well 1 = -70.6 kh Ei -
kt
- 70.6 (80)(1.35)(2.5) •
TS-6T(24)
• Ei (948)(0.16)(2.5)(24.6xl0-6)(500)21
(56) 72 j
_ -14.2 Ei (-0.578)
(-14.2)(-0.475)
q2Bu 948^uctr23
(AP)Well 2 = -70.6 kh Ei -
kt
_ - 70.6 (150)(1.35)(2.5) •
(56) (24)
= -26.6 Ei (-0.833)
= (-26.6)(-0.293)
2-97
The pressure drop at Well 3 caused by its own production
can be computed using the log approximation of the
exponential-integral solution (Eq. 2.35): •
q Bu
(AP)Well 3= 162.6 k-^ log k t 2 - 3.23
^uctrw3
Therefore,
•
2-98
APC 206 2/01
BY CHK.: SUBJECT
_._._. .. . . . .
f O ^j
--- -
a. - .
7 - 0 2. 3
t " o Q
0 ^ L b
2- = f^ 4.41 rw b n 2.
- - - T- r _ r T-- ---I
_ ----- - - - ^ h,
X = 2 ` ,2 . 00 0 5 Z. = . 3 LIs
•
- - 3 -0-^ ._. ._._. _._.
= c S t- c s +
A p_C ^^' 2 .
G 4 ^ 2c^ ^. 2 8 0 ) 3 z
.5 2
= 51 90
- ^
^ = I 2« ^' - 3 2
__- - _
-- __. __ __
•
4. The pressure data obtained from the observation well
^ were used to prepare the plot of (Pi Pobs) versus t
shown in Fig. 2P.1. The data used to prepare this
graph are tabulated below:
t,hrs t,hrs
pi pobs pi pobs
1 0 60 76
2 0 80 81
5 0 100 93
10 3 150 115
15 14 200 132
20 22 300 156
30 35 400 173
40 47 S00 187
50 S7
i • '°
.'., • •
Ln •
•
•
n 10`
0 •
•
.^ •
•
•
10
10 102
103
t,hrs
2-99•
The data curve was matched with the exponential-integral
type curve to obtain the match depicted by Fig. 2P.2. •
From the match point,
(PD) M = 0. 76
(tD/rD)M = 16.0
k = 141.2qBU (pD)M
Q^ M
h
k = 40.9 md
0.0002637k (t)M
uctr2 (tD/rD)M
^ = 0.149
^ = 14.9%
2-100
• • ^
aQ
r.^
tD/rD
BY CHK.: SUBJECT
•
i i i
0
Chapter 3
I. INTRODUCTION
0
E
q
U
C[.
zw
CF
BEGINNING
cz SHUT-IN .-'^OF TEST
0 0
w
0 t
TIME
* Pi
U
ts. W
• C V)
F_
(n
.2
Ce
O
LL.
0 t
TIME
•
3-2
•
The pressure drawdown test is particularly applicable
to:
• New wells
• Wells that have been shut-in sufficiently
long to achieve a reasonably uniform pressure
in the drainage area of the well
• Wells where loss of revenue necessary to run
a shut-in test (pressure buildup test) would
be unacceptable
• Wells in which the primary objective is to
establish reservoir limits
• Wells where equipment problems or reservoir
problems make it unadvisable to run a shut-in
test
•
3-3
• II. ANALYSIS OF TRANSIENT FLOW DATA
m log t+ b (3.3)
°^ pwf =
•
3-4
•
1. Determination of permeability
It is apparent from the form of Eq. 3.3 that[a plot of
pwf versus t should yield a straight line during the
transient flow period.] This semilog straight line is
illustrated by Fig. 3.2. It should be noted, however, that
this behavior is based on an ideal model; if any of the
assumptions or boundary conditions of this ideal model are
violated by the reservoir being tested, actual pressure
behavior will probably deviate from that predicted by Eq. 3.3.
Also, since Eq. 3.3 is based on transient flow, it should be
expected that this predicted behavior will change after the
pressure disturbance reaches a boundary.
S f,ncu oa.k f w^
av^- (AA- eV 3.21 SLOPE = m, PSI/LOG CYCLE
cv1 G^,^^ r,,,^ ►^ •
z5l"" 4r- •^^.__
• ^
^ fLQ ^^1QiV^-' END OF
U R^ ^ • ^
TRANSIENT FLOW
•
0.1 1 10 102
t, hrs
kh = - 162.6 9B,,
m
(3.5) •
3-5
• When formation thickness is known, permeability can be
computed as
k=- 16 2. 6 mh
qB" (3.6)
3-6
18.0 4563.2 24.0 4556.5
•
19.0 4562.3 26.0 4554.3
20.0 4561.0 28.0 4553.0
22.0 4558.6 30.0 4552.1
B 0 = 1.75 RB/STB
uo = 0.65 cp
so = 69%
S = 31%
w
11%
c o = 11.1 x 10
c w = 3.0 x 10-6
C f = 4.6 x 10-6
162.6quB
kh m
k = 719md-ft = 24 md.
30 ft
. 1
2. Boundary Effects
The straight line relationship predicted by Eq. 3.1 is
only valid for data recorded during transient flow. After
a well has produced sufficiently long for its drainage
3-7
• • •
plhr = 4614 PSIA
4620
4600
4580
^.
00 45fi0
4540
z 4 b 8 10 20 30 40
t, hours
380^uctA
(3. 8)
^ tetf = __T-
3-9
• Well 1 Well 2 Well 3
,^ ^, . .\y ^
a^ =0^'• ^
a =0
ar
I
A B
3-10
a square well pattern in a constant thickness, homogeneous
•
reservoir where all wells are producing at equal rates. The
point of interference between adjacent producers will, in
this ideal system, occur half-way between the wells. Accordingly,
each well will be surrounded by a boundary in the shape of
a square. This is illustrated by Fig. 3.5. If a pressure
drawdown test was run in one of these wells, it would experience
transient flow until the pressure wave hit the drainage boundary
shown; after transient flow ended, pressures would be dictated
by the volume and shape of the square drainage area.
0 O O
NO-FLOW BOUNDARY
CAUSED BY ADJACENT
/ ^PRODUCE RS
♦
<
1]
O O
/
/
/
/
/ \
0
i
\ /
\ /
\ /
O O
•
3-11
• Many different drainage patterns result from the
various development patterns encountered in petroleum
operations. Drainage geometries are further altered by
reservoir heterogeneities. Also, the drainage pattern
of a particular well will change if its producing rate
relative to adjacent producers, or vice-versa, is altered.
A knowledge of the drainage geometry is very important because,
as we will see in the next section, the pseudosteady state
pressure behavior of a well is dependent upon the size and
geometry of the area being drained.
3-12
illustrated by Fig. 3.6.
I^SS ^ e^t-c0^e^.
• End of transient
flow
•
• Beginning of
• pseudosteady
state low
b^ ^
c • •
Tranaient I
flow • Slope = m', psi/hr
°- f
^`
Late
transient I Pseudosteadv
flow state flow
, I
t, hrs ^
m, 0.2339q B (3.11)
Ah^ct
3-13
^ ' ^i.v ►^,,^.-^S -^.¢.^-^
• ^
determine reservoir volume. A drawdown test run for this
purpose is commonly referred to as a reservoir limits test2.
2.303 (p -
CA = 5.456 m, exp lmr Pint) (3. 13)
32 4552.3
34 4550.7
36 4550.0
38 4549.2
40 4548.6
42 4548.5
44 4548.0
46 4547.2
48 4546.4
50 4546.2
52 4545.5
54 4545.0
56 4544.1
58 4544.0
60 4543.0
0
ct = Soco + S w c w + cf
0.2339qB
J Ah^ =
m'ct
f 3-15
• • •
462
END OF
TRANSIENT FLOW
460
4S4
t, hrs
A = 1.53 x 10'
(30) ( 0.11 )
2 305(plhr pint)
C 5.456 m exp
A = m' m
Ca = 21.9
St.c p 50 0 °^
fah- gfe,^ vralnl1.a'f,
3. Radius of drainage - .i
.cm^t^^ o o` ►
Many engineers use the concept of a radius of drainage
to aid in understanding and analyzing pressure transient
tests. Unfortunately, this is a term which is widely mis-
understood and, consequently, is often misused. Concep-
tually, the radius of drainage represents the distance which
a pressure disturbance has moved into a formation following
a rate change at a well. In practice, however, one must
decide what constitutes a pressure disturbance before its.
movement can be described.
When a well starts producing, a pressure disturbance
• rd = 0.029 u
[ct]
Z
(3.14)
3-18
According to Eq. 3.14, the drainage radius continues to
•
increase as t increases. However, the drainage radius
cannot extend beyond the drainage boundary of the well;
thus, Eq. 3.14 only applies until the time the pressure
disturbance reaches the drainage boundary.
k = 10 md
= lSo
u = 2.7 cp
ct = 20 x 10-6psi
(10) (24) z
rd = 0.029
(015) (2.7) (20xl0 6)
0
rd = 158 ft.
.7 4. Stabilization time
Stabilization time has also been defined many ways in
the literature5. The most commonly used definition, and
the one used here, isCthe time required for pseudosteady
state flow to begin ^ An estimate of this time is
^uctA 2
t = t ) (3.15)
pss 0.000 263 c( DA pss
380^uc A
(3.16)
pss
3- 20
= (380) (0.15) (2. 7) (20x10 6) (40) (43 , 560) ^
tpss 10
t = 536 hrs
pss
38ftuctA
(3.16)
(tpss)min ^
3-21
• 2) The test often does not work well in large
drainage areas. The rate of pressure
change during pseudosteady state flow is
inversely proportional to the drainage pore
volume; consequently, the rate of pressure
change will be small and more difficult to
measure and interpret. Also, test times
required to achieve pseudosteady state flow
in large drainage areas will generally be
prohibitive.
3-22
•
the wellbore. This region of altered permeability, commonly
referred to as a skin zone, can extend from a few inches to
several feet from the welibore. Many other wells are
stimulated by acidization or hydraulic fracturing; the skin
zone in this case effectively represents an area of increased
permeability near the wellbore. A schematic of a skin zone
is shown in Fig. 3.8.
SKIN UNDANLAGED
ZO\E ZONE
•
ti
3-23
APC 206 2/01
#14nadarApt
Petroleum Corporation
PROJECT COMPUTATIONS
JOB NO.
OF SHEETS
0
•
0
•
(pwf) Ideal
Damage
r r
w s
Radius
r r
Aps = 141.2 k ln rs - 141.2 k qBp in rs (3. 17)
Ti -
s w w
•
3-24
or, r
C
dps = 141.2 kh^ k ln rs (3.18)
s w
(log kt - 3.23)
(pi-pwf)IDEAL ° 162.6 k
Oucrt 2w
r
+ 141.2 kh
qBP Ik - in rs
s w
r
+ 0.87 (k - 1) in rs (3.19)
s w
An
S _ . s _ (3.24)
141 .2qBv (Aps D
TE
3-26
be a negative number. As the depth of stimulation
•
increases, the numerical value of s increases; however,
it is significant to note that a stimulated well rarely
has a skin factor less than -8, and this will occur only
in wells which have highly conductive fractures that
penetrate deep into the reservoir.
It is observed from Eq. 3.21 that a negative skin
factor will result in a negative value of Aps. This
simply means that a stimulated well will require Zess
pressure drawdown to produce at rate q than an equivalent
well with uniform permeability. A comparison of pressure
distributions near the wellbore for positive and negative
skin factors is illustrated by Fig. 3.10.
!J 5
Radius
2. Effective wellbore.radius
all flow equations in 0
As an alternative to writing
terms of the skin factor, the skin zone around a well can
3-27
• be accounted for by defining an effective wellbore radius,
rwa, as
-S
r wa = r w e (3. 2S)
kt -
pwf = pi - 162.6 k qBP (log 3.23 + 0.87s)
z
0uctw
r
kt -
pwf = pi - 162.6 khu ( log 3.23)
Wtrwezs
• kt
pwf - pi - 162.6 khu (log - 3.23)
^uctrwa
3-28
often not apparent, however, either because it happens so
•
quickly, or because it is masked by other early-time
problems such as welibore storage. Figure 3.11 illustrates
the ideal effects of both negative and positive skin factors
on the semilog plot of pressure drawdown data.
SLOPE = m
's
START OF
BOUNDARY
/EFFECTS
G.•
^ps •I ``
•
^
0.1 1 10 10Z
t
k = - 162.6 q
mh
3-29
•
ksflVs + kAVud
(3.26)
AVs + AVud
k = k
3- 30
Eq. 3.20 helps us gain insight into the meaning of the skin
•
factor, the reader is cautioned that this is a steady state
relationship and should not be used for quantitative
purposes. Instead, we will show that the skin factor can be
evaluated using measured drawdown pressures.
The skin factor can be calculated from transient flow
data by rearranging Eq. 3.22:
or, _
s= 1.151 pwf pi - lo kt + 3.23 (3.28)
M g ^uctrW
0
Aps = -0.87ms. (3.30)
3-31.
•
•
• SLOPE = m
^^ •
^` ••
Plhr -------^^,^
0.1 1 10 100
t, hrs
m = - 36 psi/cycle
plhr = 4614 psia
k = 24 md.
= 0.11
uo = 0.65 cp
ct = 13.2x10-6p si 1
^
rw = 0.33 ft
3-32
•
(a) The skin factor is computed using Eq. 3.29:
24
s = 1.151 4614-5000 - log
-36
(0.11) (0.65) (13.2x106) (. 33) 2
+ 3.231
Gps = - 0.87ms
3-33
R'e"mL' a.( ^, tk.e, c^^ rr ^z
-^, " tid..A.a.L c,-tdV _ c;n►^rP,v-e ^ .
where
^ Sd = skin due to permeability alteration;
this includes formation damage
sd = s - sr - sp - S t - s f - SSW (3.32)
0
3-34
The right-hand-side of Eq. 3.32 can be difficult to evaluate,
•
but methods are available to estimate these quantities.
h
0
•
hp^^
OPEti
h INTERVAL
P
1
r
e
0.2126 (z /h + 2.753)
= rwe m for h 0 > 0,
S
and rwc = rw for ho = 0
zm = h 0 + hp/2
3- 36
•
EARLY TIME kh
REPRESENTS OPEN
INTERVAL
LATE TIME kh
REPRESENTS
ENTIRE
IINTERVAL
•
0.1 1 10 102
t, hrs
•
3-37
^
^ perforation diameter
• depth of penetration
• shot density
• perforation pattern
• ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability
• radius of damage zone
3-38
n 1 ^^
V-1
increasing rate so that the skin due to turbulence is a
•
function of rate.
Turbulence is seldom a problem in oil wells. However,
turbulence is common in gas wells, particularly in low
permeability reservoirs. M ^thods of evaluating the
turbulence skin factor will be discussed in Chapter 7; these
methods can also be applied to oil wells.
ssw (a,/41)2.06
- ( a'/56)1.865 log (hD/100) (3 ;4
• ^
3-39
•
V ^3 0
moo
-2 Jo
^A _^ Soo
-s
-6 ^Jo
4 6 • 2 3 4 6 • 2 3 4 6 •
I OY 103 104
h/r w
hD = ^ (kH/kv)0.5
w
3-40
q
skin effects can result from the buildup of solution gas
near the wellbore in oil reservoirs, liquid buildup in
gas reservoirs, gravel packs, formation compaction near
the wellbore in unconsolidated formations, etc.
It is generally not possible to predict the skin effects
caused by all non-idealities in a well; accordingly, it will
not always be possible to compute an exact value of the
damage skin factor. However, even in these cases, an
engineer who is knowledgeable of his well, and who under-
stands the causes of skin effects, can make adequate common-
sense decisions.
sd = s- sr - ^ -St
/ - s- s^
sd = s - sr
Eq. 3.33:
3-41
• h_-
sr = 1.35 [F
0.825
{1n (h kH/kV + 7)
P
h = 30 ft
h = 15 ft
p
r = 0. 33 ft
w
kH/kv = 1 aS^cw^ed,
h =0
0
Therefore,
zm = 7.5 ft w w kr-n ^ o= O
f wc
0 .825
Sr = 1.35 i - 11 { in (30 ^+ 7)
^ J
P Sr = 3.5.
is
3-42
Therefore, the damage skin factor is
•
-s sd = s - 4- 3.S
r 6 4
S d = 2.9
Jideal
•
3-43
• _ Q (3.36)
actual
PR pwf
_ Q (3.37)
Jideal -
PR - pwf - Aps
Therefore,
CORRVALUE OF
PR FOR EQ. 3.38
p
PR
^ - \ pR Pwf
pin ^ -^
I
CORRECT VALUE OF Pwf I
Pwf FOR EQ. 3.38
TIME
3-44
7. Damage ratio and damage fac or
•
Damage ratio and damage factor are also used as
indicators of the skin effect. The damage ratio, DR, is
the inverse of flow efficiency:
Piz pwf .
DR = 1 - (3.39
E - -
PR pwf _ Aps
A
DF = 1 - E = ps . (3.40!
PR pwf
8. Flow improvement
If the value of Aps used in Eq. 3.38 is based upon
the damage skin factor, i.e., Ops =-0.87msd, and if it
•
is assumed that this damage can be removed by a stimulation
treatment, the flow rate after stimulation should be
1 ^.^117
qafter E 'before (^
stimulation stimulation
•
3-45
Problem. If the damage detected in Ex. 3.6 were removed,
how much production increase could be expected?
Aps = -0.87msd
= -0.87 (-36)(2.9)
Aps = 91 psi
E = PR pwf Aps
PR pwf
E = 5000 - 4560 - 91
5000 - 4560
E = 0. 79
_ 1
aafter E abefore
stimulation stimulation
^
q after = 177) STB/D,
stimulation
3-46
^-.SUr^4Ce rCt-{"e
/ ._^-- •
/e5evvei,r Yo,'Ee
•
^4C°O
_L
Thus, an increase in production rate of 37 STB/D could
ideally be anticipated if the damage were removed.
V. WELLBORE STORAGE
q - qf + awb (3.42)
q -^
qwb
qf
STORAGE
EFFECT ENDS
0
0
t
•
3-48
Prbduced wellbore fluids generally originate from two
•
sources: A falling fluid level in the casing-tubing
annulus, and expansion of fluids in the wellbore. Each of
these effects will be considered, and will be quantified in
terms of the welibore storage factor, C, which is defined as
^
144:
C = 5.6
, ..
SHUT-IN FLOWING
or,
144A
5.615p, bbl/psi (3.44)
C
V..4, c,.,h
C = (3.45)
5.615
3-50
C _ 5.615C 0.894C
(3.46)
•
D 27rh^ctrW 2 ohc t r2
C PRESSURE DEVIATION
C2
DUE TO STORAGE
•
CORRECT
nwf C1=0
STRAIGHT LINE
1 `
C3>C2>C1
BOUNDARY EFFECTS
O.i 10 102
1
t, hrs
•
3-51
• When wellbore storage is significant, it must be
considered in the design of a test and in the analysis of
test data. Pressure data affected by wellbore storage
often plot as a straight line on semilog paper; this can
cause an engineer to misinterpret this data as transient
flow, and to make calculations and deductions which are
incorrect. Furthermore, it is possible in some wells for
wellbore storage to last longer than transient flow; when
this happens, the true semilog straight line will not be
present and, accordingly, it will not be possible to analyze
the data using the methods presented thus far. In order to
avoid these problems, it is necessary that we be able to
determine the presence and duration of wellbore storage
effects in pressure transient data, or the test must be
designed to avoid the occurence of wellbore storage.
. qf = a - awb, (3.47)
3-52
a
•
PC S--\ i: F,
A
a
:awb.l'.
.• piV f
q
f • ^
•
Fig. 3.20: Schematic of wellbore with
changing annular fluid level.
24Aa(zl - z2)
qwb
5.615(t2 - t1)B
Or, in general,
24A
a dz (3.48)
awb 5.615B dt
•
3-53
• where:
qwb = flow rate contributed by the wellbore, STB/D
Aa = cross-sectional area of annulus, ft2
z = height of annular fluid column, ft
t = producing time, hrs
dz/dt = rate at which annular fluid level is
changing, ft/hr.
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB.
24Aa
dz (3.49)
qf 5 - 6 - l B dt
q + -
24Aa
dz _ (a - q) B. (3.50)
T-71-5 U t_ f
(3.51)
pwf pcs + 1
where:
PCs = surface casing pressure, psia
p = density of the fluid in the wellbore, lbm/ft3
Thus,
d(pwf pcs) _ p dz
(3.52)
dt 144 J T
3-54
144A
•
(3.44)
C = 5.615a p.
q f dpD 0
= 1 - CD ^ (3.56)
q
D
0.00708kh(p. - p )
a ul wf (3 57)
where:
PD =
t = 0_.0002637kt (3.58)
D ^uctrw
C = 0.894C (3.59)
D Octhrw
r 1
B. Fluid Expansion
Consider again the well depicted by Fig. 3.20 and assume
that the wellbore is initially filled with a single-phase
fluid. When the well is placed on production and the pressure
in the wellbore decreases at a rate dpwf/dt, the fluid stored
in the wellbore is going to expand and contribute to
production at a rate
3-55
24Vwbcwb dpwf (3.60)
awb 5.615B dt
C = Vwbcwb (3.45)
S.615
so that,
^ qf = 1 + 2 4C dpwf
(3.63)
q qB dt
3-56
At early flow times when wellbore storage dominates
•
pressure in the wellbore, i.e., when qf/q = 0,
24C dpwf
+ qB = 0,
__(Ft_
9
^ or
pwf t
2BC pwf = - f dt,
q I d 0
pi 5Av-Pc --V--
^ 2►-t G
so that
B P' Dwc
rX (3.64)
Pi pwf 24C' t b
^--^
.^ b=o °
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq 3.64, W-^eh tF = o
• Lc^n s toAa41c.
log (pi pwf) = log 2 + log t ^ad^,, lo WAst•(3.65)
3-57
yt„^.►.o^e.t^ c^,^•.^.- ,
s.A
104r-
•
UNIT SLOPI
LINE
1O
•
.H •
•
a
•
10
'^^END OF COMPLETE
CONTROL BY
WELLBORE S`I'ORACE
10
,
1
0.1 1 10 102 103
t, )lT'ti
^
Fig. 3.21: Effect of wellbore storage on the
log-log plot of pressure drawdown
data.
{traz ^. d^ # e C.E-c; ^
unit slope line, to obtain Q^ Vt
3-58
Taking the logarithm of both sides,
•
log PD = log tD - log CD (3.68)
•
1.0
C CC 3
qf
q
C }>C2 >C1
3-59
• In Chapter 2, we presented the solution to the radial
diffusivity equation for the case where the formation face
flow rate, qf, was assumed constant and equal to the surface
flow rate, q (i.e., zero wellbore storage). Within this
assumption, the formation face pressure during transient
flow was predicted to be (Eq. 2.35)
q
where PD and tD are defined by Eqs. 3.57 and 3.58. When
modified to include the skin factor, Eq. 3.70 becomes
3-60
^63
PCrWF Iyi.Z
102
Q)
10
V) C^^ = 0 S= 0
U)
a^
^
^
a)
r--^
O 1
N
o\ r-
Q) 1 ,^O
10-1
102 103 101 105 106 10' 108
Dimensionless time, tD
y
^
The curve for CD = 0 on Fig. 3.23 is the familiar line
source solution. All of the curves for CD > 0 begin with
a unit slope line, as predicted by Eq. 3.68, then curve with
decreasing slope until they intersect the curve for zero
storage. The point of intersection of each storage curve
with the zero storage curve represents the time when wellbore
storage effects end; accordingly,it is the time at which the
correct transient flow straight line will begin on the semi-
log plot.
When the effects of both wellbore storage and skin are
included in the radial diffusivity equation, the solutionZ3'24
depicted by Fig. 3.24 is obtained. It is noted on this figure
that the skin factor has very little effect upon the time at
which wellbore storage effects end during a pressure drawdown
test. It will be shown in a subsequent section that this
curve, generally referred to as the Ramey Type Curve, can
be used to directly analyze pressure drawdown data.
^ Based upon the solution presented in Fig. 3.24, we can
develop the following rules of thumb to estimate where
storage ends:
3-62
io,
io
0
0
10,
10' 10' 10'
102 103 105 (o6
to
IIkI- - Fig. 3.24: Dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless time for radial flow in an
infinite system, including the effects of wellbore storage and skin
(Ref. 23).
0 • •
• storage can be predicted. A test must be run sufficiently
longer than this time in order for the semilog straight line
to develop. Note that, in addition to C, the length of
storage effects also depends upon reservoir transmissibility,
kh/u; in particular, storage will last longer in low
permeability formations.
•
3-64
Depth to mid-point of perforations = 6530 feet
•
Average density of oil in wellbore = 43.7 lbm/ft3
Inside diameter of production casing = 5.012 inches
Inside diameter of tubing = 1.995 inches
Outside diameter of tubing = 2.375 inches
h = 20.1 feet ct = 18.2x10-6psi-1
= 14% rw = 0.333 feet
Uo = 1.7 cp k(from an adjacent well) = 30 md
co = 9.5X10psi 1 B 0 = 1.23 RB/STB
Solution.
2
Aa = 0.106 ft .
3-65
• The storage factor caused by a falling fluid level in the
annulus can be computed using Eq. 3.44:
144A
C = a
5.615p
^L
C _ (144) (0.106)
.61 43. 7
C = 0.0622 bbls/psi.
C = Vwbcwb
5.615
an d
C = (834)(9.5 x 10-6)
5.615
C = 0.0014 bbls/psi.
3-66
r , 65- ---^'j C = 0 . 0 6 2 2 + 0. 0 014
•
C = 0.0636 bbls/psi.
C = 0.894C
D 2
^hcrw
t
C = (0.894)(0.0636)
(18.2x10 ') (^?.3 33
^
CD = lo,Ono.
= Cu(200,000 h + 12,000s)
t
t = (0.0636)(1.7)(200,000
(30) (20. 1)
3-67
OuctA
tetf 00026 3 7 k
U-.- (tDA)etf'
t _ (0.14)(1.7)(18.2x10-6)(40)(43,560) (0.09)
etf 0.0002637 30
3-68
•
it is possible to have a decrease in storage.
A sharp increase in storage will affect the basic
plots, as shown in Fig. 3.26. In this illustration the
test started with C1 and then increased to C2 at tl. A
decrease in storage would cause similar changes except in a
different direction. These changes in shape are important
because they can be misinterpreted for other things. Since
the changes usually occur when the formation face pressure
corresponds to the hydrostatic head of the fluid column
involved, it should not be difficult to verify if wellbore
storage changes caused the deviant pressure behavior.
It is important to note that when the storage factor
changes, the second storage factor determines when the
correct semi-log straight line begins.
3-69
q
C2
-%I _. _. C') >C1
Cl
pwf
C=0
7 t
CORRECT
^ STRAICHT LINE
- -
0.1 1 10 100
t , hrs
i•
100
C=0 ^- - - -
r ^
^
Ile
i /
An 10 C`>C1
^
Cl
'7 /
\,j /
1 ^ tl
0.1 1 10 100
t , hrs
3- 70
than a unit slope line. This could easily lead an engineer
•
to misinterpret the data.
^^S 4- T^aS
Problem. An undersaturated oil well has been produced for
600 hours at a constant surface rate of 61 STB/day. The
bottomhole pressure data have been accurately recorded and
are tabulated as shown. Also, average reservoir rock and
fluid properties are presented. You are to estimate the
formation permeability and the total skin factor. The well
is drilled on an 80-acre square pattern.
0.2 3855 5
0.4 3851 9
1.0 3837 23
2.0 3815 45
4.0 3775 85
6.0 3742 118
10.0 3677 183
20.0 3566 294
40.0 3452 408
60.0 3422 438
100.0 3362 498
150.0 3348 512
200.0 3334 526
535
300.0
400.0
500.0
3325
3314
3308
546
552
•
600.0 3305 555
3-71
• Solution. Semilog and log-log plots of the drawdown data
are presented in Figs. 3.27 and 3.28, respectively. It is
obvious from the log-log plot that the first four or five
points are completely controlled by wellbore storage. The
data begin to deviate from the unit slope line at t* = 3
hrs; accordingly, wellbore storage effects should end at
approximately 50t*, or 150 hrs. This corresponds to the
beginning of the straight line shown on Fig. 3.27. It is
still possible, however, that data after t = 150 hrs are
affected by the boundary. 'Core data indicate a permeability
of approximately 5 md; using this information, and assuming
that the well is centered in a square drainage area, the
estimated time for transient flow to end is, from Eq. 3.7,
^uctA
tetf - 0.0 (tDA)etf
941 hrs.
tetf
m = -65 psi/cycle
k = 6.3 md
3-72
3900
3800
3700
3600
^
.r.,
pihr - 3483 psia
`'4 3500
3400
m = - 65 psi/cycle
3300
Fig. 3. 27: Semilog plot,
Ex. 3.9.
3200 11 1 1
0.1 1 10 102 103
t,hrs
• • •
• 11 •
103
^ 102
-,
4A 3 hrs
° 10
1
10-' 1 10 102 103
t, hrs
s = 1.151 1 3483-3860
-65
6.3 + 3 .2
- log
(.15) (1.25) ( 21.1x10 6) (. 316)2
^
s = 2.1
•
^ VI. MULTIPHASE FLOW
X t
162.6 Rh [log t 2- 3.23 + 0.87s^ (3.73)
pwf = pi - t ^ctw J
a
where:
total production rate, RB/D
q Rt
total gas production rate, Mscf/D
qgt
water production rate, STB/D
qw
Rs solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB
Rsw
gas formation volume factor, RB/scf
B9
water formation volume factor, RB/STB
^ Bw
k k k
w
at = ouo
+ ug +Uw . (3.75)
B
ko = - 162.6 °m0h° (3.76)
Bu
w
k w = - 162.6 q^`mh w (3.77)
162.6(1000 qgt
qoRs qwRsw)Bgug
kg = - mh (3.78)
3-76
^
•
s= 1.151 pihm pi - log t2 + 3.23 (3.79)
^ ^c t rw
VII. TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS
0.00708kh (pi-pwf)
(3.56)
PD aBu
t 0.0002637kt (3 . S8)
D Ouctrw
3-77
• • •
10`
C^
A
to QIP
0
CL
r
00 OQ^
10'14^51111[S1CZ1kIItW
10Z 103 104 10° 10' 10' 10"
tp
Fig. 3.29 Dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless time for radial flow in an
k
infinite system, including the effects of wellbore storage and skin (Ref. 23).
The magnitude of wellbore storage is expressed by the
•
wellbore storage coefficient, C, which in dimensionless
form, CD, was defined by Eq. 3.59 as
C = 0.894C (3.59)
D ^cthrW
3- 79
•
radial flow of a single phase slightly compressible fluid.
If, when a drawdown test is run, we can determine which of
these theoretical curves the field data best match, it is
possible to compute the properties of the subject reservoir.
The required procedure for type curve analysis is:
• c
1000
UNIT
SLOPE •
• •
• • ^ ^ • • • •
~ 100
.r.,
1(^
10-3 10 2 10-1 1 10 10`
t, hrs
Fig. 3.30: Data curve for use with Ramey type curve.
3- 80
•
3) Place the tracing paper onto the type curve
in such a way that the unit slope line on
the data curve overlays the unit slope line
on the type curve which has a value of CD
equal to the calculated CD.
4) Keeping the unit slope lines of the data
curve and the type curve matched, slide the
data curve over the type curve until the
data curve matches one of the curves on the
theoretical plot. An illustration of these
curves in the matched position is presented
by Fig. 3.31.
10`
10
cc ^1
ccr^
c
•
C
):
10,
102 10° 10' 10° 10` 10'
0.0002637kt
^ucrt 2w
3-81
• 0.00708khOp
(3.56)
PD = qBp
k = 141.2qBu ( pD)ht
(3.81)
h
TA p7, 1
t = 0.0002637kt (3.57)
D z
^uctrw
3-82
•
Figure 3.32 presents this data curve. It is noted that
the first five points on the data curve form a unit slope
line. The equation of this line is, from Eq. 3.66,
qBt
C =
pi pwf
l0Y
•• ••••
• •
•
•
.^ 1tj2
•
CD = 10'
c ln
1
10 10 10` 103
t , hrs
C = 0.136 bbl/psi.
C = 0.894C
D Octhr`
(0.894)(0.136)
CD = (0.15) (21.1xl0-6) (37) (0.316) 2
CD = 10,397 = 104
k = (141.2)(61)(1.23)(1.2S) 2.35
37 x 100
k = 8.4 md.
3-84
a
CL
W
CO
Ln
to
• • 0
•
Two important observations can be made from Ex. 3.10:
First, because of the similar shapes of the type curves,
it is difficult to obtain a unique match. In fact, if a
unit slope line does not form on the data curve so that
CD can be computed, it is impossibZe to determine a unique
match. Suppose, for example, that CD had not been known
in Ex. 3.10, and the data had been matched on the curves
for C D = 103 instead of CD = 10', as shown by Fig. 3.34.
Although CD = 103 is incorrect, you can see from Fig. 3.34
that an exact match is still possible; obviously this
match would give incorrect answers. Because of this
difficulty in obtaining a unique match, it must be con-
cluded that the conventional semilog plot is a more
accurate method to evaluate pressure transient data.
It is also observed from Ex. 3.10 that the last 6
data points on Fig. 3.34 lie on the curve for CD = 0.
^ This means that these data points are not affected by
wellbore storage and, if plotted on a semilog plot, could
be expected to form the correct straight line. This
observation is confirmed if we observe the semilog plot of
this data which was presented in Ex. 3.9 as Fig. 3.27; it
is noted in Fig. 3.27 that points which form the straight
line are the same points which lie on the curve for CD = 0
on Fig. 3.33. This observation is very important because
it means the type curve will show us which data should form
the correct straight line on the semilog plot. Further, if
we look at Fig. 3.34 which shows a match of the test data
with the wrong storage curve, it is noted that these same
six points fall on the curve for CD = 0; i.e., even though
we don't know the correct storage factor, the type curve will
still show us which data are not affected by wellbore storage.
From these observations, we can make several conclusions
concerning the use of Ramey type curves;
3-86
10t
I0
C
CL
00
I0'
to
• 0 0
q
method. Therefore, type curves should
never be used for an analysis when
conventional methods can be applied.
2) The most important application of type
curves is to show which data are not
affected by wellbore storage and,
consequently, can be used to make a
conventional semilog analysis.
3-88
o ^
N
O
T •
^ ^--i 4--^
4-• ^
r J
v ^.
Gf,
sajnutw `I
•
3- 89
• S) The curves do not include the effect of
a skin factor. Each curve on Fig. 3.35
is for an undamaged well with the para-
metric value of kh/5.61SuC shown on the
curve. The curves can be used, however
to detect the presence of a skin effect.
6) The 45° dashed straight line on the
right-hand side of Fig. 3.35 represents
100 percent wellbore storage. The equation
of this line, modified from Eq. 3.66, is:
A. Calculation of permeability
In order to analyze pressure drawdown data for
permeability using the McKinley curve, a curve matching
procedure is required. This procedure is:
3-90
164
•
^
103
. F:
^ 10Z
10
1 10 102 103 104 l05
Qp = pi-pWf, psi
C = (5.615ApC B (3.85)
qB )M1f S. 615 Ap^1
kh
^ (5.615uCM = 215
3-92
10`
•
104
ln3
4-J
102
10 •
AP = pi-pf, psi
(AP)NI = 100
5.615ApC) = 0.93
^a M
3-93
• • •
a^
4-J
5.616ApC/cIB, cu ft-day/RB
Fig. 3.38: Match of data curve with McKinley curve, Ex. 3.11.
= 5.615ApC B ^
^ ^ qB .615 Gp ,t
)M
C = (0.93) (51)i1.2100
C = 0.124 bbls/psi
kh 5.615uC
k = (5.615^) ^t ( h )
k = 5.1 md.
3-95
• C. Potential errors in using McKinley type curves
Common errors made in using the McKinley type curve are:
(1) Value of ^uctrw/k different from assumed value -
The McKinley type curve was developed using a constant value
of ^uctrv/k = 1.0 x 10-7 . Figure 3.399 shows the relation-
ship between the true value of kh/u and the value which will
be computed using the McKinley type curve, as a function of
this parameter. Obviously, if the value of ^uctr^/k for the
reservoir being tested varies significantly from the value
assumed by the McKinley type curve, a significant error can
result.
(2) Data out of wellbore storage region - The McKinley
curve should not be used unless data affected by wellbore
storage are present. If only data not affected by wellbore
storage are used in the type curve analysis, significant
error can occur in calculated results. When storage effects
^ are not present, the conventional method of analysis should
be used.
3-96
1.6
1 1 . 1 LL
1.4 fi l l Il y
W 1.Z
E-
^
1.0
E-
x f il l
w
0 f i ll
V r--^
.T'
0. 8
7T
[f il l H i ll
0.6
H il l
2.275 x 105^uctrw
0 16
0 0
• • •
CoVVMM O tiA FlDPE71101 .Wkn . FRANCE . AM rlpMt newvW .
B
YI^
00
Fig. 3.40: GriTigarten type curve for homogeneous reservoirs (Ref. 34).
3) All curves, except for very low CDe2s
•
values, merge into a single unit-slope
straight line at early times. Data
which plot on the unit-slope straight
line are completely controlled by
wellbore storage.
4) The axis on the right of the curve,
i.e., At/t , is for pressure buildup
analysis aRd will be discussed in
Chapter S.
5) The basic model used to construct the
curves for C D ezs > 0.S is identical to
that used to construct the Ramey type
curve23 and the Earlougher-Kersch type
curve33. Curves for C eZs < 0.5 are for a
well with an infinite 2onductivity
vertical fracture as developed in
Reference 40. The analysis of fractured
wells will be discussed in more detail
in Chapter 6.
3-99
• If a unit slope
the theoretical plot.
line is not present on the data curve,
the matching procedure is not as con-
venient; in this case, the best match
must be decided upon without the control
imposed by the unit slope line.
S) When the best match has been determined,
select a match point and record the
corresponding values of (Ap) M and (PD)M
from the ordinate and the values of (t)N1
and (tD/CD)M from the abscissa.
6) Record the value of (CDeZS)N1 from the curve
which the data match.
7) Using the match values of pressure, compute
permeability as
k = 141h2aBU ( (P ) (3.87)
pP)^1
^q '
C = 0.894C (3.59)
D ^cthrW
(C e2s)
^ s = ^ ln DC NI . (3.89)
D
3-100
•
Example 3.12: Analysis of pressure drawdown data using the
Gringarten type curve.
(AP) NI = 100
(pD)Nt = 2.25
(t) NI = 10
(tD/CD)%I = 5.2.
(CDe2s)M = 108
k = 141.2qBp (PD) NI
hi TIIht
^
3-101
• • •
OtpplVM 0 1WM F1OP£DIOL . YMkn . FlUNM. All dpBls nwved.
Ii;
1--+
a tl
103 104
2 3 4
kn At
DIMENSIONLESS TIME =o.oo0i95 -E-
cp a i. i x v
Fig. 3.41: Match of pressure clrawclown data on the Gringarten type curve, Ex. 3.12.
k = 141.2(61)(1.23)(1.25) 2.25
•
37 100
k = 8. 1 md.
kh (t)M
C= 0.000295 u tD CD ^1
C = 0.000295 (8.1)(37) 10
1.25 5.2
C = 0.136 bbls/psi.
C = 0.894C
D Octhrw
C = (0.894)(0.136)
D (O.1S) (21.1 x 10-)(37)(0.316 )2
9
CD = 10,397.
s= 0.5 in
r (C e2s)
D
CD
M
0
108
s =
0.5 ln [lo397j •
3-103
•
These values of permeability, wellbore storage factor
and total skin factor compare favorably with the results
previously computed using other methods, i.e.,
k = 6.3 md
s = 2.1
k = 8.4 md
C = 0.136 bbls/psi
s = 5
^ k = 5.1 ma
C = 0.124 bbls/psi.
3-104
presented in Fig. 3.40. At high values of COeZS on the
•
Gringarten curves, all of the curves have similar shapes;
consequently, if field data happen to plot on this portion
of the curve, it is difficult to obtain a unique match
and, accordingly, unique values of k, s and C.
Pressure transient data will often exhibit character-
istics which are more uniquely related to, and more sensitive
to, reservoir paramaters if the pressure derivative, rather
than pressure, is plotted versus elapsed time. Application
of the pressure derivative to conventional analysis has
been demonstrated for fractured wells' interference tests;2
and in the detection and location of sealing faults.°3 The
effect of plotting the pressure derivative rather than
pressure differential can be more generally observed,
however, by considering pressure transient solutions in the
form of a type curve.
The Gringarten type curve, Fig. 3.40, was replotted by
Bourdet, et a13; using the dimensionless pressure derivative,
pD, rather than dimensionless pressure, pD, where
d (PD)
PD = d(tll/CD (3.90)
3-105
• E •
,
£^
c1o
dI-
Y ►
rQ
^.lJ
^
^
W
^
^
^
CD 1 i n 5 n^ q ra
µ C
Fig. 3.42: Derivative type curve for a homogeneous reservoir (Ref. 35).
•
was previously presented as Eq. 3.56, i.e.,
kh A(3.56)
PD = 1 .2qBp p'
_ AP T (3.91)
dtD 141k2qBu ddt^ 141k2qBu
D /C D)
(3.92)
tpDC d(t^ 141kZqBu ^p^'
D D
tD _ 0.00029Skht (3_93)
CD uC
, tD _ kh tAp, (3.95)
pD CD 141.2qBp
3-107
• type curve. Once the pressure transient data, with Ap't
plotted on the ordinate, is matched with the derivative type
curve, with pDtD/CD plotted on the ordinate, permeability
can be computed from Eq. 3.95 using any match point, i.e.,
k= CD )M
(PD C^)1^1
(3.96)
^p' t)^t h
tD
PD = CD • (3.67)
Therefore,
dpD
p'D = tD CD = 1
and
t t t
pD (CD) = (1) (CD) = D
D LD
3-108
q
According to Eq. 3.97, a unit slope line
should be expected on a log-log plot of
pD(tD/CD) versus tD/CD when wellbore
storage completely controls the data.
2) When transient radial flow is reached,
i.e., when data would form a straight
line if plotted on a conventional semi-
log graph, the derivative curves become
horizontal at a value of pD(tD/CD) = O.S.
This is expected if we consider the
exponential integral equation (Eq. 3.71)
which describes transient radial flow,
i.e.,
dpD _ 0.5
d-Et
CD tD CD
Therefore,
tD
PD CD = 0.S. (3.99)
3-110
to compute the derivative to very complex algorithms which
•
utilize several points on either side of the point in
question. It is sometimes necessary to try several different
methods in order to find one which best smooths the data.
A method which does an excellent job of smoothing data with-
out altering the shape of the derivative curve was published
in 1970 by Akima:'4 This method utilizes five points, two
before and two after the point of interest, to compute the
derivative. Its major disadvantage is that it requires a
computer solution. Other simpler differentiation schemes
were tested and published by Bourdet, et al"
The derivative type curve implies that pressure should
be differentiated linearly with time, i.e.,
d (Ap)
^p dt
_ dpD ^
p'D d tD CD)
, _ d(o)
I-pl n d in t
dpD
pDln
d [ln (tD/C D) ]
3-111
• _ kh
PD 141.2qBu Gp
and
dpD = kh d (Gp)
dt 141.2qBu dt
dpD'
d[ln(tD/CD)] _ kh d(G ) d(ln t)
141.2qBu d ln t dt
d[ln(tD/CD)] dt
dpD kh d (L p )
d ln t)
• d[ln(tD/CD)] 141.2qBu
kh
or (3. 100)
pD1n = 141.2qBu "Pin
, kh ,
3-112
2) Differentiate the pressure drawdown
•
data using an appropriate method to
determine the value of Apin corre-
sponding to each measured pressure,
i.e.,
_ d(Ap) _ A(A P )
'Ap t A ln t)
In d(ln t)
•
3-113
• 8) After the match is obtained, select a
match point and record the correspond-
ing values of (Apin)M and ( pDln)M from
the ordinate and the values of (t).',1
and (tD/CD)^^ from the abscissa.
9) Record the value of (CDeZS)M from the
curve which the data match.
10) Using the match values of pressure
derivative, compute permeability from
Eq. 3.100 as
(t) M
0.000295 uh tD CD)^1 (^ 88)
7-
C = 0.894C
(3.59)
D ^cthrw
1 (CDe2s):M I
s = 2 In (3 .89)
CD
3-114
taneously matched, both matches should correspond to the
0
same value of CDe2s. This procedure will simultaneously
take advantage of the characteristics of both type curves
and will result in greater confidence in the final solution.
This procedure will be demonstrated by the following
example:
11 x 10 -' psi -i 0
P i = 3100 psia c=
1 _ 6 - 1
qo = 270 STB/D cw = 3 x 10 psi
qw = 0 cf = 4 x 10- psi
qg = 88 MSCF/D So = 0.6
R s = 340 SCF/STB S W = 0.4
B o = 1.15 RB/STB P O = 1.7 cp
0.-193 r w = 0.4 ft
h = 24.2 ft
3-115
C 2898.4 201.6 77.18
0.1500
0.1667 2890.6 209.4 72.96
0.2000 2878.0 222.0 66.27
0.2333 2868.5 231.6 58.41
0.2667 2861.0 239.0 52.21
0.3000 2855.1 244.9 47.40
0.3333 2850.3 249.7 43.36
0.3667 2846.3 253.7 40.35
0.4000 2842.9 257.1 37.05
0.4333 2840.0 260.0 35.69
0.4667 2837.4 262.6 33.15
0.5000 2835.2 264.8 31.48
0.5833 2830.4 269.6 30.15
0.6667 2826.6 273.4 27.64
0.7500 2823.4 276.6 26.12
0.8333 2820.7 279.3 25.88
^ 0.9167 2818.3 281.8 24.52
1.0000 2816.1 283.9 24.04
1.1667 2812.4 287.6 23.76
1.3333 2809.3 290.7 22.97
1.5000 2806.6 293.4 22.88
1.6667 2804.2 295.8 22.68
1.8333 2802.1 297.9 22.35
2.0000 2800.1 299.9 21.68
2.5000 2795.3 304.7 21.39
3.0000 2791.4 308.6 21.40
3.5000 2788.1 311.9 21.38
4.0000 2785.3 314.7 21.11
4.5000 2782.8 317.2 20.98
5.0000 2780.6 319.4 20.94 °
5.5000 2778.6 321.4 20.95
6.0000 2776.8 323.2 20.58
6.5000 2775.2 324.8 20.55
7.0000 2773.7 326.4 20.40
• 7.5000 2772.2 327.8 20.18
8.0000 2770.9 329.1 20.10
3-116
8.5000 2r69.7 330.3 20.21
9.0000 2768.5 331.5 20.65
9.5000 2767.4 332.6 20.54
10.0000 2766.3 333.7 20.65
10.5000 2765.4 334.6 20.60
11.0000 2764.4 335.6 20.53
11.5000 2763.5 336.5 20.65
12.0000 2762.6 337.4 20.33
12.5000 2761.8 338.2 20.13
13.0000 2761.0 339.0 20.63
13.5000 2760.2 339.8 20.16
14.0000 2759.5 340.5 19.76
14.5000 2758.8 341.2 20.29
15.0000 2758.1 341.9 20.80
15.5000 2757.4 342.6 20.03
16.0000 2756.8 343.2 19.38
16.5000 2756.2 343.8 19.80
17.0000 2755.6 344.4 20.40
17.5000 2755.0 345.0 20.80
18.0000 2754.4 345.6 20.92
18.5000 2753.9 346.1 20.31
19.0000 2753.3 346.7 19.59
19.5000 2752.8 347.2 19.68
20.0000 2752.3 347.7 20.00
20.5000 2751.8 348.2 20.50
21.0000 2751.3 348.7 20.81
21.5000 2750.8 349.2 20.89
22.0000 2750.4 349.6 21.69
22.5000 2749.9 350.1 22.52
23.0000 2749.5 350.6 20.44
23.5000 2749.0 351.0 18.93
24.0000 2748.6 351.4 19.40
3-117
•
Solution. A log-log plot of the pressure derivative, GPln'
as well as the pressure differential, dp = pi-pwf, is
presented in Fig. 3.43. It is observed from the curve which
represents pressure derivative that a unit slope line is not
present; however, the late time data appear to form a
horizontal line which indicates the probability of transient
radial flow. These data curves were overlayed onto the
derivative type curve in Fig. 3.42 to obtain the match shown
by Fig. 3.44. Notice that the late-time horizontal line on
the pressure derivative data curve overlays the horizontal
line on the derivative type curve corresponding to PDln 0'S'
this control was of significant assistance in obtaining the
final match. Observe also that both data curves match type
curves which have the same value of CDe2s.
From the match point indicated on Fig. 3.44,
('^pln)M = 100
(PDln)M = 2.5
(t) M = 10
(tD/CD)Ni = 850.
(CDe2$)M = 104
^
k = 141.2QBU PDln M
h Apln M
k = 77 md.
3-118
103
• A p
n 4p ln
• ••••N
• • • •••• • •••
•••
•• 'M • • ••••
• ••
•
•
•
a •
102
^ , nn nnn
n
n
n n
w a. nn
• n
n
nn
n
n^ nn
am n nnnnn nnnn n nnnn %
10 _2
10 10° 101 102
t,hrs
0 0 0
• • •
Copyright © 1Y09 RLPETROL , MNun. FRANCE. All rIpft ►Mw1^d.
-I
PQ
.x •
I`r
c^.
pq
6r
.>~ N
.`^ •
^1.
t^^/C^ = 0.000295 ^h t
(t)
C = 0.000295 uh (tD CD ^i
(77)(24.2) 10
C = 0.000295
1.7 850
C = 0.0038 bbls/psi.
C = 0.894C
D ^cthrW
ct = 11.8 x 10-,Psi-1
Therefore,
(0.894) (0.0038)
=
cD (0.193) (11.8 x 10-6)(24.2)(0.4)2
CD = 385.
• 1
(CDe2s)^t
s = ^ ln
CD . ^
3-121
•
1 10`'^
S =
[
Z in 385
s = 1.6.
m = -46 psi/cycle
= 2813 psia.
plhr
0
Permeability can be computed from the slope using Eq. 3.6:
k 162.6qBU
mh
k = (162.6)(270)(1.15)(1.7)
(-46) 24.2)
k = 77md.
12813-3100 _ l0 77
s = 1.151
-46
g (0.193)(1.7)(11.8x10 6)( 0.4)2
^
+ 3.23]
s = 1.6
3-122
}. .
• -! . .i ., . 1+1^1 1 t •. ^•-+-^^.
3050 . .. , ^ ^ r } + , ^
.. . r
t .^.i
...•. . - _t +
.^I ^ N'h!
. . . . . . . ....: .... .. . ._. L
, _. j.-., . .. . ^ .. .. .^ ^. ^'..... . .. ^ .
., ^ . a
• .. '
. . . . .
..:..:,_.
.. ...... .. . -
_. .: : .... »a.:... »... :^ ..,, ..1
y ... . . _ 1 - 1 , i -..
.{ .. ^ . _.. ; .. .. ' l .
... j . . : .... ». ._.. . L ..,^ .. ..' ... . . . .^. . .. ±
, , r . _+`{
_ i l-^ , .r•w ^
.
n»+--
3000
. . . . .. .
,. _ .... . .. t Lrt k.+1.. ,-rh..^».^.,.,i. ^ ,.
. . .. 1... ..:.^,. ....- «._ . .^ .... .. . ..i. ., . ...I...._._ - ... .... . . ' , ^. .: ._^
4- { ++ f
.. .. + ^ ^ . ..y..: J 1. + rl ._ ^ . .. t . ,j. ..^1 ^ $ ^t11 1 7Ir ^ • ,r, ll h 1-
2950 . .l .Ll..l , ^ I.
H
_ .i ... . ..^
. .. . ^
W ... . _. . .. . ^ ,.., ^ ;
^ ^.__ ...:. .. . ._: . ,•. ^ 4-1 ,
`
^'
_ ... .... ..... ..»_ . .. .. ....
. . .... ._ _._..... _..... ...^ .u. ..... . . - .._ _ ..:. . . ,' . ^ d r^
. . . . . . ,- -- --. _ . .. ... .... ...... _ .... .. " ..,.- .^ .
, ^, ,:. ^. .,
I
t ..^
m 2900 .. . .. .i ^ j:
.. . ... . . . ...... .......^ .^ . _. : .j_ + t .`+^ ^ ;
. . . . .. .. _ ^ .._. . ..... i._... .. ..- ... ... ._. . . ... . _. . , .. ... _.. .. .,_, _^ + . ,:. . .i , „i . _,,.
..... ............_.^. . f.... .... .. ; . . _.....4 .
2850 ^ . ...... + .... ^ . .. ^ii ^y i
. - . . . j_ _ . . . ... _ _ ; ... '. :;. . _ y 4 ^^,
,. • :. »
i
' •.
^ j
JI ,
. _ .... .. ^ .... ..... .. ...... .j......^. ^ , .^ ....{ y .^ . . .... . . _.._....I ..,. . ^; _ .,_i... . .....,..:: . :::' ... ^' ._ , ^ • ^ __
^ ^ _ ^.-.-.W..____ _- • ^' . ^
y ' ^^ , ! . .
m SLOPE - 4 6 PSI/C Y C L E
:::.......::......:..._ t . ^.^ ... . -,
2800 ^..
1 : t.
.^ .
^•1
. 1 ..,
.
,. . .. . . .. ' . ^_ , ..^ . _
'
. . . . . . . . . ...... .... . . _ ,. . . ._. _. .a . . .. . . . . . ....
+ =
•• 2 , 813 p S IA ----r-
. . P 1HR ^
.........
....
..........._w.__ .... _» .. . .; .
.. ............ . f . t
2750 .. ..., ..
.. ... .,. .. : ^
:... . . .... ........
._..__ ...... .....•^-. ... .
, .. ,f , . .^ 4 l
. ........ ......_......_....... . .. ... ^_. ^ , . . .. .. .. .: .. .. . . .. . ^, . . ... ;_.: .: .. . _ .. ,1.._ t ,. .:
...,. . ^.. , -i , + ' ., .,, . .. .. ... G l .: .^..
t, hrs
0 0 9
^
A comparison of the permeability and skin factor
computed using the derivative type curve and the
conventional semilog plot shows that the two methods are
in excellent agreement.
•
3-124
VIII. TEST DESIGN
•
If satisfactory results are to be obtained from
pressure drawdown data, it is important that the test be
properly planned. While test design considerations will
vary depending upon the objectives of the test, the
following factors should be considered when planning a
test:
t Cu(200,000 + 12,000s)
>
kh
3-12S
• geometry is not known, the minimum
time required to achieve pseudosteady
state can be computed using Eq. 3.16:
380^uctA
pss minimum k
IX. SUMMARY
3-126
Pressure drawdown tests can yield other information
•
which was not discussed in this section. For example,
this test can be used to detect fractures, estimate
fracture length, detect faults, and estimate the distance
to faults. These capabilities will be discussed in
subsequent chapters, and procedures for making these
calculations will be presented. Unfortunately, there are
other practical problems which can further complicate
pressure analysis; these problems, and their effects on
pressure transient data, will also be discussed.
•
3-127
•
REFERENCES
3-128
•
14. Odeh, A. S.: "An Equation For Calculating Skin Factor
Due to Restricted Entry", J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980)
964-965.
3-129
•
26. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr.:
"The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure
From Bottom Hole Pressure Buildup Characteristics",
Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91.
32.
Trans., AIME, 249.
•
3-130
• 37. McKinley, R. M. and Streltsova, 1'. D.: "Early-Time
Pressure Buildup Analysis for Prudhoe Bay Wells",
SPE 10266, Presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, held in San Antonio, Texas, October
5-7, 1981.
47. Bourdet, D., Alagoa, A., Ayoub, J. A., and Pirard, Y. M.:
^ "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well
Tests," World Oil (April, 1984) 111-124.
3-131
48. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., Whittle, T. M., Pirard,
•
Y. M., and Kniazeff, V.: "Interpreting Well Tests
in Fractured Reservoirs," World Oil (Oct., 1983).
•
3-132
•
NOMENCLATURE - CHAPTER 3
3-133
•
ks = permeability of skin zone, md
kv = vertical permeability, md
kw = effective permeability to water, md
m = slope of semilog plot of pwf versus t, psi/log-cycle
m' = slope of cartesian plot of pwf versus t, psi/hr
surface casing pressure, psi
p cs =
= dimensionless pressure = kh(pi-p f)/141.'.'qBu
PD w
pD = dimensionless pressure derivative, dpD/d(tD/CD)
dimensionless pressure derivative, dpD/d[ln(tD/CD)J
pDln-
p. = stabilized reservoir pressure at beginning of drawdown
1 test, psi
intercept pressure on cartesian plot of pwf versus t,
pint
psi
= volumetric average reservoir pressure, psi
PR
flowing formation face pressure, psi
pwf =
pressure from semilog straight line at t= 1 hour, psi.
plhr
q = flow rate, STB/D
qf = formation face flow rate, STB/D
qgt = total gas production rate, Mscf/D
qo = oil production rate, STB/D
total production rate of gas, oil and water, RB/D
qRt =
qk, = water production rate, STB/D
flow rate contributed by the wellbore, S'I'B/D
qwb =
rd = drainage radius, ft
re = distance to outer boundary of cylindrical reservoir, ft
rs = radius of skin zone, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
r wa = effective wellbore radius, ft
r wc = corrected wellbore radius, ft
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
R sw = solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB
s = total skin factor, dimensionless
sd = skin due to permeability alteration, dimensionless
sf = skin due to fracture, dimensionless
sp = skin due to perforations, dimensionless
^ S = skin due to restricted entry, dimensionless
r
3-134
•
ssw = skin due to slanted well, dimensionless
st = skin due to turbulence, dimensionless
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
So = oil saturation, fraction
Sw = water saturation, fraction
t = producing time, hrs (t has units of minutes only
when using McKinley type curve)
tD = dimensionless time
(tDA)etf = dimensionless time to end of transient flow
(tDA)pss = dimensionless time to beginning of pseudosteady
state
tetf = time to end of transient flow, hrs
tpss = time to beginning of pseudosteady state, hrs
Vwb = volume of wel3bore in communication with the producing
formation, ft
z = length of fluid column in annulus, ft
zm = distance from top of producing formation to the middle
of the open interval, ft
a = angle of deviation between wellbore and bedding plane
of formation, degrees
©p = pressure differential, pi pwf' psi
Ap' = pressure derivative, d(Ap)/dt
pressure derivative, d(Ap)/d(ln t)
"pln
^ps = pressure loss caused by skin zone, psi
(Aps)D = dimensionless pressure loss due to skin zone
AVS = volume of skin zone, ft3
AVUD= volume of undamaged zone, ft3
AV"wb= change in volume of wellbore fluids, ft3
a = total mobility of reservoir fluids, md/cp
viscosity, cp
p = density of fluid in wellbore, lbm/ft3
= porosity, fraction
•
3-135
E
SUMMARY OF MAJOR EQUATIONS - CHAPTER 3
3.6 k = - 162.6 ^
s.7
^uct
• i
' tetf 0.0002637k (tDA)etf
380^uctA
3.8
tetf k
0.2339clBt
Ah^ct
0 1
3.10 pwf = m1t + bl
3.11 mt = - 0.2339^c. B
AhTc t
•i
3-136
• 3.12
ph^ _ - 0.2339qB ,
m,c
fts
[2.303 (p )
2. 313 (Plhr pint
Pint
3.13 CA = 5.456 11
kt ^Z
3.14 r d = 0.029
[4ctj
0uCtA
3.15 tpss 6.00026371(t DA pss
• + 0.87s)
-S
3.25 rwa = rw e
3. 30 Ops = - 0.87 ms
3.31 s = sa + sr + sp + st + S + S
0.825
3.33 sr = 1.35 r
h - 1 fln (h kH/kv + 7)
•
3-137
3 . 34 s S w _(a' /41) 2' 06- (( a'/56) 1865 log(hD/100)
•
3.38 E = pR pwf Aps
PR pwf
Ap
3.40 DF = 1 - E = s
PR pwf
3.41 = 1
aafter E ' before
stimulation stimulation
144A
3.44 a
C = 5.615 p
0.00708kh(pi
3. 57 = pwf)
PD c{Bu
3.58 t = 0.0002637kt
D 2
^ucrw
t
3.59 c = 0.894C
D ^ cthr w
3.66 C = Bt
24 pi - pwf)
•
3-138
i• xt
3. 73 pwf = P. - 162.6 Rh [log t Z
t ^crw
t
- 3.23 + 0.87si
+ qwB
w
k k k
3.75 a = ° + 9 + w
t uo ug uw
B
3.76 ko = - 162.6 q°mhuo
i• 3.77 k
w
= - 162.6 awBwuw
mh
7 - 162.6(1000qgt
a oRs q wRsw)BQug
3.,8 kg
mh °
plhr
3.79 s 1.151 pi - log 't + 3.25
m ^ctr^,
k = 141.2c{Bu (pD)M
3.81
h (AP) M
C_ F5.615 ApC qB
3.85
^ qB ]%1 5.615 (AP) M
3-139
•
r kh ^ 5.615pC
3 . 86 k
L5.615^C ^^ h
141.2qBu (PD)N1
3.87 k =
h
'-PT^
(A I
(t)
3.88 C = 0.000295 uh tD CD)M
1 ! (C De2s)\1
3.89 s= 2 In ^ C
D
, tD = kh ,
3.95
PL CD 141.2qBu tAp
•
, kh
3.100
pDln 141.2qBu ^p,In
k = 141.2aBu ( pDln),%t
3.101
h (^pl^til
•
3-140
PROBLEMS
•
PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST
u
= 1.2 RB/STB
= 16%
= 0.65 cp
So = 78%
Sl^ = 22% •
t, hrs pwf, psia t, hrs ptiti f, psia
3525
17-
_
^
^.. . . . , .. ....- .__ - - -- .{_._: ^:;
3500 .- --- - -- , ._,....^ . ;...
__ . - -j - -
- ;, .. .: .. _ -. - ---^-
77
ca
=-^1^?^ - ^;^ --^ - ^ - --_
3475 - r ^ - -- - - - -
=
w 3
t-F•-
- ^_ -^--T
._`_ - F: - • ----
• } _;
^
- J
_.^ 4
T.
.- . - . , . . - .-.-. 4-
3450
; .
3425
---'-}-
L T
J , rl _t
i
r i
_L_
- . .1 ., _
L L
1-7
3400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
" t, hrs
PROBLEM 3 .1
I ^ +
i I I^ ..r .
1 1
•^, f a l f,ll
1 ^' .l: l , ^II^^ ^ II^ ,^i• a;;
, '^ I l , .^
't' ,!il ' , 1 ^l, ^^? -•i ^!^++{
-
^ ^-
- }
4r
-
3650 L' { l'„ , i II
y 1t L l 7 r
. l_ ^t , ..i .w; ;-
14- - r- I 4
3600
(. h !!+ 1 Ir __ ..
I. .. . :. ,^.
^ . I. I.
: ' '^ „^ • . . ^ ^ . ^ .- - .. . ^.
.^ l ,+ I .. .
I ^ ' __-•
I .:7 _ I ^.. ^^
'
, y I . . . i:. ^ . . ...^ • I ^ {
+ + .L..-.. ^
T ' II I I ,, -^. I
3550 I
. , ^I^^ ^ . .•
{ ` . .. L^^ . . .,' ! -.-^-:., L:.'.- I^ . ^ ^., ^.._ _.... ._.. . ,,.
;+ _. ..:
., I . : : ^_ ^,
- .. .'', 4 '
., _' ' ^ ..: . . ^ ...^I : . _ - •^ ^.I ^ ,.. . ^ , I
. I. .
(.n1 ^
.•. { ^ f ;,i ,^{'
*
', ^^^^ _ ^^ ^ I ' :...^ . j I . Iy ' t
1 ^
^_ - ^ ^ I .. _
-{^
w •
J r :...... ._ .^^
j, ll^ ,. _ __. -._ ^ ,^I ' ^I I f} ' 1^ ^ ^
{ .,
l:... ..
3500
'ti7
7. ' ., Tt . .tl .
11
.^:11... ..
I 1
t
.
I
:. I I ...I :_. 11„
44 ^
: , LI { •I ^ 4 'll' h+ J I ^.
I '' I' Ii ^' t t, i t:t
T * 1i? i i
4t lili '
3450 2I
, i.
J {; , ^ tl i°rv'1 -t p ri
4- 1
.: ,.
, _ ..
3400 I I{I
t, hrs
• • •
^
2. A well completed in a consolidated formation is placed
on production at a rate of 303 STB/day. You are given
the fluid,rock, and pressure drawdown data. Use your
knowledge of transient analysis and, if possible,
estimate the permeability and drainage area of the well.
A semilog plot of the drawdown data accompanies this
problem.
3-144
4720
+j t} {i rl 1
' r• i ^
- . t'- •^. • - r - ^ .
. ^ I
r-, + PROBLEM 2
4710
ti.^ ,
- .. - I ^ ;. -
, . . . . . . .^ .^
-+^ -, -
1- ; --I- ^
_ _ --t ^ - 'f^-r - ---+- ^ - 2 N -rt«+ • ^-r-r i m*,^*r-- ^ - ..^ .
-- _ T i._•
r i J1 1 i
4700
^._ - •r^ . L.
..- ^•^ -- 1"' :^-
- - ' ;,
I• ^
y ___ _ I , , . . ^' - -•'
^ .^ ..-^ -.-•. . A .. I
^ _- t • ^ ^ _`l
-^l" ^ ^^ _•-^_
"'"
^^ T
__ ^ ^ - , ^ __ ^ _..- • _ _
- - •;- .- -•,• , - -r---- • --^ T4 ,^, yl+...rl.e-.µ
-^-- • - -- ; -- -1 - - -
4690 •; .^ _ 3 I
--^^ _ ---
- - - -, --- -- ----- _ -- -
-- ^ `!-- - --f-^- ---^ -•-, - --- ^ -^---^-^-
- ^- . . .. . - -
--- -+------^ ^ _ -,, ' ' -T----!- - , -• • .
w - --_ --- _ _- - • - - -
- - -- --^^ -••---- .._-_---i.^: _-.- ---- ..... . __r ,
4680 '
.{.
,
46 70
^"^ - - - ^' ,^_ ^ •
_ ^ ^ ' _++^ ^.. . _ . _ . ^i: l ,. ; ^
-- - -{ I ^1 .
-- ; ------} - -- ? ^
-- ^ - ~3I-±-^- ^
4660 -.
- ^^ - - - - • -- - - a. ^ .. _ . - :^: ^,
. _ .. ... . ^^
s • s
• ^ ; ± # ^
,
{ (
{! t': lr f
i
^+ r _ }. , y { ' •i r ^I' f ^ ,I r , . f^ . . , ; 1
I , 1 1 1 , ! ttt . ., . : .,: ;. f
Ll t I+t- , J { ' 1:; r{ . t:'^ + ;'+
.l ^ ^ , tt } {
{ ^ t- ^ r
^
^ ^ i .i ^ -,,. ` ! .1 1-• ^ • ^+' ^ ^ lii' t f' ,l^ ! ^ I^' +t:f rf^l I I ^^I
^.il , l • ^ ^^ ^ # r.# i ,+{' ,^I^ 'i ' ^ at j:, tr ! r f- "+ t t;^f I ^ ^ ^ 'I} ,` , . ` '1
T Tf r
^. . + 1tf^ r
,• -7 , '^^^ l.
11 i1T 'j,- ` ^ Y I }^ , •{ t r•
.I . ^ „ .1 - t7
f+t-
f
^ I :I i. '^^ IHj
q
r 1 ; ,r ^ , f + } r^ ;. +
a•
rc^
,
;
U - 77
Z 1 4^1 411 j t
!
W
l7 ^ !j ` .r
N - r •+ t^ ^r i i^`t^ r-^ .^^lt r I r i= I i,^i ^ ^i { ;l i
r
TTT
W
j ; + f 'I ff il ^
q L r^ ,^
4T
. .
r ! 7 !
I r .I If^i, .14. +: ^-. -;+•
' i t ^ ,1 , . ,. r^^ ,
,r^; r., , , } ^ :f ' ^► if ^( ,^ ! ' ^ ;- .r. ^ ? f
• r
' ;fl;
,J '
, i t^
.
f • 7^
!
, ^(
1
I
^
'i
- ^ 1
,t^
t.
^ : , ( ':' ;!
^:
^
;1.,11:^
r
^f: f, ^
ir
rf
7'
i ^ 1} ' i' 4`^' ' ; ^^^!^ ' ^i ( ^^f, +*, ; ^^ ^ ;
.
^ ^:I
:
: +
. ^
i l. } ii
rr t
r
`( ^
•
r^I . ;
7 t{ II + i i T { J + l+ i, {I . r{ •t
^ } t ^^^: ^ ^ ^. ^ ; ' -ii1(lr Y, ^ r ^ • ^ I ^ll' ^ i j^r ff
^ -^ ! ^ ' (: J ^ : ^ t'I• ^ ^ ^ ! !
i^+^
i
? I
, ; 11 =r r} }rr i y; -+!
u {` ^ r' i }}
^ ^ I^ 1 , -- 1
+^
1,f!
?'
I
a i t
a < U_ l
Z !}
7t + , ^ I+ 1 : ^
y.. t
^f, 'jr. t r i (' I ^ , .I . . ^ 4 •} r ' , = yi ^-r ^1, I---i, '-+-+--Y
Z a
W
^ i
G a
N q
W N
11 !: '
t r l ^
C i
ox
qq .^ ,- ' +^ •' •, ^. I' I L '
:1: +
: j - :l ?_ r• ; ,+ ,r.,
• E :11 ^
N N
q
} # t t 1 { +1 ^ T
] ^ • r 1"' ' - I . i- I 2 .^ .; IL rrr i1 4
_ I ! +
i lfr :irr t ^^
{
+ ^ f^ !!, 'l +rt?
,,
I r ` t 111?f
^ ^ .I,
, I
I
,
r
7i
I
• ^`+
ir
^ r^r `h-(r
I{
?
7 .
.« ! t F
-• t r r
471
t+ 1 T7T
.?t
m
;1 ;:++ t +^ f.;i I (1: 't^I
{ F 1
{j. ri t+` HI r
j
I {_' r l1 7 i.I
* -'.. - L
,: + ' :' j .}: '' •,.^^' ^-1: ^' :,:
f ^1~ ; _.r.
.I. i•i J µ rl. ^+^ir` ?l.
•^ r• (. i t . t: }t?
i
r i ^ l{' i ,, 11 { 1 1 }^^ i f : {
: fj f : ( _
^
_ y # r=
^{ .1 1: 1- ^ ^ j1^
' rf F» ♦ 1:
Y } + y. . 1 ..
^^ ^' , t +Y + i
1 :^;^
r ^ +^f ` ^ • T.. 11 4 , ' ^ 1 t^
.
I r{ , j ,1; r { ^^ + F^
3-146
3. An oil well is located in a field developed on 40-acre
•
spacing. A 24-hr pressure drawdown test is run on the
well. When the pressure data from this test are plotted,
would you expect to see any boundary effects? Explain
the reasoning behind your answer. Other reservoir
information is given below:
k = 22 md
= 12.6%
2.3 cp
-s i
ct = 1.86 x 10 psi
8.2%
h = 27 feet
k = 2.2 md
u = 0.0156 cp
ct = 2.5 x 10 4 psi 1
3-147
•
drilled on 80 acre spacing. The vertical permeability
is approximately two-thirds of the horizontal perme-
ability. Pressure data, as well. as rock and fluid
data, are presented. You may neglect turbulence
effects, and you may assume the reservoir is not
fractured. Does this well need a stimulation treatment?
If so, what increase in production can be expected?
(Note: The early time data in this test are affected
by near-wellbore non-idealities)
q = 200 STB/D
u = 3.5 cp
= 0.15
h = 20 ft
B = 1.20 RB/STB
= 5500 psia (measured)
pi
^ rw = 4 inches
c t = 33.94 x 10 ^ psi
0.1 5041
0.2 4880
0.5 4758
1.0 4718
2.0 4686
3.0 4669
5.0 4647
7.5 4630
10.0 4618
20.0 4585
30.0 4579
50.0 4554
^ 70.0 4538
100.0 4530
3-148
5100
5000
4900
4800
4 700
4600
4 500
4400
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
t, hrs
•
6. An oil well was placed on production at a constant
surface production rate of 45 STB/D. The pressure
decline at the formation face was recorded and
tabulated. A semilog plot of these data accompanies
this problem. Other reservoir rock and fluid
properties are given. Estimate the formation
permeability.
pi = 3400 psia
q = 45 STB/D
u = 2 cp
ct = 13.2 x 10-6 psi-1
B = 1.1 RB/STB
h = 15 ft
rw = 0.316 ft
0.10
•
t, hrs pwf, psia
0.1 3399.1
0.2 3398.1
0.4 3396.3
1.0 3390.7
2.0 3381.4
4.0 3362.3
10.0 3308.3
20.0 3267.5
•
3-150
3450
PROBLEM 6
1
3400
3350
^
2
4-
Ln 3300
3250
3200
0.1 1 10 102
t, hrs
^ 0 0
•
.o
•
c
L
^ W
C J
^ U Y
f U
7 1- M
X
J a W
J U
]
vi
a
z
3-15.2
7. The pressure drawdown data for an oil well are presented
•
along with other pertinent information. It is required
that the wellbore stor<ag'e ^factor, formation permeability
and total skin factor be computed. A semilog plot of the
data is presented.
0 3700 0
0.I0 3640 60
0.15 3611 89
0.20 3583 117
0.25 3556 144
0.30 3S30 170
0. 40 34 86 214
0.50 3440 260
0.60 3401 299
0.80 3332 36S
1.0 3273 427
1.5 3159 541
2.0 3069 631
3.0 29 39 761
4.iT 2892 808
5.0 2857 863
6.0 2805 895
8.0 2762 938
10.0 2736 964
12.0 2730 970
15.0 2690 1010 .
3-153
• • •
3700 ! , .! 14
!
3600 t' 1 , +
r*; 7 1- 17 t _4
Ilk PROBLEM 7 t.^
3500 +T WI
=Y a:.i ^
! I I t 1 I
I
3400 _
i I
T ;
' "
! „ , ; ,' „ • f
t, ! 7,
3300
r+ ~=- ^ ^ " .'
,
3200
...;^._..:-
- ^ - ---, ---^- ^ _ ---
LA ---^- ~_ 1 ..... -
3100
^ ^ _} - - ^ ^' -^---r---
- -
w `'•'
.i } ,____^^^ _•-.^._{-. .{ .._ y^? 1 `_- ^
3000
cn
4-
1 - --T-t-- --r , -^ ,- t - ,-; ^;' -- • ^--r-- ^- -._ -^-. , ----^ - i . - , '-- -.-4--- ! *---,
, _ _ , - . _^---- __ ! • -- . ., --1 ^ - -_ _^__L_ .-,-'
' _ ^>. _ ... .1 . $ . t ^l ^: -^---}--+.} -- ,-^' _ ^,-. ^ E, . - .
2900 , ------ r ' -i --- ^ -; -i - -
+ ' . ^ ' ' , -. . --^- - - ^-'^ - . . . ^ - ' - ---r-- + - - - - -' -i --? T^ l ;
_^_ -T
, ^ - t! . . ..- , .. . _.. _ ...-_ -- ^ - ` r ' ` 1_• , ---`^-^ -+^r^--• Y
^ i
2800
^ ^ -i . . ---°^-'-+ - -
2600 - - .. - ,-1_ ^--+ - + r- . i.. `.. } - .'. -. . - _ ^ -' T --• _ . T' _^-^ `_
. _ __ _ T.-.- T , , __ i '. . ' _ -• _ • + -- : -. - ^ .'-__
-` -^-^-t-1-^-f-•.- _ .
_`-' t._ ^ ^^-F ^ _ 'a ._. -^-+-'_'^ -t . "^-iT-- ^
_ I , . T-"_ _ . .. . .*.. .
_ _. -• . -r^- , '__
2500
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 20 40
t, hrs
NO. 340-L22 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER EUGENE DIETZGEN CO.
LOGARITHMIC MADE IN U. S. A.
2 CYCLES X 2 CYCLES
iJ 41 A tA G J m 4D 0 t^ m h W 6i J CD mO
t^ . . • , i'^ r{,
i- ^, Ih + ,-r,+ ,- +. ', -'+-- r •. -i ^--+"^-^--_ 1 t+^ i.
+4 4 -s.: -#•{ ' '" rfi ,{ +.-
t
''1
, ,
pil
'
i ^. r$ « ru,
r r}^ + }
+ 3 s ^} s
f,^fi
F Lkt
Id
} _.• - ^ ^- ^ {# ' ^ +^
ti 1 "+1- +++F - --1
r t + 4
t ^1: -.-r-• y-^i: . 1 . .', 1 I ' • +- ^ .. 4t : . ^i ^
T.
_ . - r - ---- - . ... - ^
, ^- - : .: «-^. =3s"_'.-
. ^ . ..:c . ....'^..! .-. .•: ..,.^ .i .. .t ..i .. ..: . ._. i ' -`i: .M
G - .;-..
• 1
J _ ._.. ^_'y."
t_,1 _ . ..... . . .. l .I
.. , .. ^
.::::
.......
1--+ m _^ ..---'--.
U^
u, o ,_
-`--- ^ ._ 1
^^ t r t ii:'.t: }.,... a..r .:,-: .. _
0
+ 41,
^
r77
=•. - I ^
{ I r 1 ; t t
-1-'-{-^ -^
.
,
f rt+^ j {
^ ^ f. J 1 !
,
... . ! .? 44
r 11 1
_ rj. ^ i^^ ^ ^ i}
! +r; t Y ^^^ ^ ^• I ^ Prt It}
..
_l a ._....-.-.-- i ^1-^ ^ a r J- ^ - 1 {T_'
11• ^ i l .1.
•1-... ^' 1 '
_ J.^ - r
W . . . ..:
1^
f..l, } ^ + t t a ^ 1 ,I1• ^
^. .I
r ( i.
y.- ^ -..- { Y 1 t I f .I^ + .il
'-C^'1--.'
'$t 117 ^L' 1^ ^^ T ^ 1 A • -t t Y t.
Zj ~-4 ^ I ]-': -i 1 .I -.3 Y. } ItS '1 - ^ ]' 1 '7 tI
A
: { t 1 1 { a^
'
;+H 7 T_
7 -
a 0
... . _ :
-,+_.-._' - ._., ^...
_T ^7-. ] - -:_ 1«.
.. .
-''_.:..^...::.. .-37• ..ti. _ . t «.I.: _.. ._ -^.t. . -1 . 1 ^..!__ t-^xZ$ _ ' T1.
-}
m
_. '. .. 1 . . . . '
. ^
^::rz =-_ r ._.....:; , . ..., T_"., . __:+ ..,. ^. ..._ _ r._ ++^^,---' . ..: .. ........_.....{ ..,. ... ...... i :^ +-
J
,
1
-- Pit I l .-{
H
O^ t
t^ . ,
Lt____._:41^_ ^_.4 ____^____ ^ i ^^^.^._ _..,_..._._^. _ ^-- ^^-'1 ^• ^ . c _._ . i ... __J
^
0 0 •
• 8. Use the Ramey type curve to calculate permeability
and total skin factor for the data in Prob. 7.
Compare your answers to those obtained in Prob. 7.
•
3-156
•
t, hrs pwf, psia Ap, psi
apln
•
3-157
• • •
6000 -rt
PROBLEM 11
5900
T-+r
--r.
5800
^
.r.,
570 0
^
5600
v, +t
co
5500
5400
5300
10 10-2 10-1 10° 101 102
t, hrs
SOLUTIONS
•
PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST
m = - 56.3 psi/cycle.
k = - 162.6 mh
qB"
k = 13. 4 md.
•
From the cartesian plot, Fig. 3P.2, m' = -0.37
psi/hr. Also, from Fig. A.4, cf = 4 x 10-6 psi-1.
The total compressibility is computed using Eq. 2.27,
i.e.,
ct = coSo + c w S w + cf
-6
ct = 15.6 x 10 psi
A = - 0.2339aB
m' cth^
3-159
A = 1.8 x 106 ft2
•
A = 41 acres.
•
3-160
E 3700
• •
3650
3600
cd
.r{
V)
3550
w
APPROXIMATE END OF
TRANSIENT FLOW
3500
3450
3400 1--
0.1 1 10 102 103
t, hrs
:;
f
• I ' , ,' tt^ j t t! t .•« 1}
,a
YT "
^ l
` 1^.^
^Ii^ ^{{I
0
^$ , { „ f^i -f I +^^ ^
^ ff 1 } ^ M it • ? r, '` r C' 1} ; ^ r^: r^-{
. ^^ .,. ., ,^ r.,
1
^ V .r .i•, 1 V
,F. C)
iiij ,, (( ^
rr
1
J^i -
-T- ^
I 1 o
Q H ^ 00
+i . r +r t r
+ I)i ;t + t r- -^T r • r :
I f^ ^ ! ^(^ ^ij' ff? I l fi
'
ra
t1 }t ^ r i /^
1^
_^ l l 1' I )• 1 ^{t
^
I 1
^
i); ,;r- Y 1 Ilj f ,
:+
^ •
'r„ ^
^, 1 ^f r„ ^'i. ! ;•; i ^ r I•_
{
l'
,r
tf!
i r^^ ^
/^ I i ^ f i •
r : :^ ,
o C:^ 0
, 1, ) r 1
' 1 ` ^,^ #^ ^ t $ l i!f i
V)
.^,^ _• _, , :-^ ; t r ';f r^ ; ;^ ,,,,' } i ? 1I ^O^ ^ ^, 1 4J
^^ t a^
f-•r
r t i ^f#; it{; t U
1^ ^j tI I 1' ^ l I rl f ^1 11G
i ttrf rrl 4 )+ h ^
!1 . •, ^ ^lr^ "
$ ^'- r ^' ; c. ^ - 1-1' ^ • - ^-{ { r F ^'1` ,j: i ^[ ) {) {.) . :^ 1- O
1 - t - 1L +; ^ 'f Ji { , ' J 'f '^I : h ' t1 I I ^ +^ ^ y ! . }`rY.
+
14 ; Y^ i ; . ) ) , i- , r/t' 1 'r I I •. ^ Ir^ ; IF +.).}
00
•1 ^
, h ' i^ i ' . .. . .
0
C) Ln o C) Ln 0
u7 N O Uy
Ln
O
Ln l!)
tt
M M M M M M M
Etsd 1^ Md
Is
3-162
APC 206 2/01
•
DATE _"-SLI.PROJECT P"3- 1 JOB NO.
0
2. Instead of forming one semilog straight line, as
• predicted by the ideal theoretical model, it appears
from the semilog plot that the drawdown data form four
possible straight lines. The obvious question is:
Which line represents transient flow and can be used to
compute permeability?
Additional insight into this problem is gained
from the cartesian plot. Inspection of Fig. 3P.3
suggests that pseudosteady state probably begins some-
where between 4 and 8 hours. If this is true, it is
evident thtLt lines 3 and 4 on the semilog plot are
apparent straight lines which do not represent transient
flow; accordingly, we must now decide between lines 1
and 2. Notice that line 1 ends very quickly (t = 0.3 hrs) ;
we will show in a subsequent section that this is also
an apparent straight line which is being caused by an
early-time non-ideality such as wellbore storage or
formation damage. Thus, it is concluded that line 2
• represents transient flow, and can be used to compute
0
permeability.
The slope of line 2 is m = -8.3 psi/cycle.
From Eq. 3.6,
k = - 162.6 mBu
k = 729 md.
• •
3-163
V 0L L-I
4^:b A 1^ 4-
C^ CN O V V J
tli O^ V 00 CD O F-+ N
O O O O O O
O
f
^1
1. 11
! r^ ^ . ^
f . ! n 1,
^ t il: r ^ !t !^ t t '' It , .,• I
,I Ir ', I t, I! i r. , { I- 1. . • I Il
i ^^ 1^ , 4 ( t"I
1^ 1
1^- Fly-i.
1 1 t ; n Ti
00
.
1 t 1.;^
, , I,
i.t^ . 1 1'j Jt 11 t . ^
^,
+ ^ , '7 '
; ,:', !1: 1 , {` t1 1 - i •^ ; 1 f# - 1}l+
1
11 +1' . ^}1
^
TI t
N
I. ,i{
tl1 ^` I
; +r { l i l t . ' +_ ^ . ;; •^ j
.i :
,,
$
1 ;t#
+-
O^
t. ,+,
$+l ,.^ ' i 14i i {
•N
0
,I
t+
.
1
, :-.t
.
.
I T
-a - _ a
,
J
t
' ^
T lk. 1 ^
a
i
1
♦-
•
I $ # ^ 1p;
;
1 ,k `^ 1 ;#t ; u;; +,i fi1; #; nil
1 iv-
1 ► ;; ' 1 1; ^ ; 1; ^*' ±{1; ! ^ ,{ ^ 44;
,
11 f i ll
1. ,, +
N
Itt $t { ;+
t ,, t
N ; :
7 - 77
^J
1;
•W
^
{^ ,
~
!
^
{
f
I
1 ' 1 ' ^ 1
t
t+
,
(
-1
^11
1
^
.
^,
.
^
^
t
I
11:.
1
,1
,
'i1
+11t
111
' ,
-
{It
:t
+a
I T
I
11.
1
-r,,t
t+,
,-
{ t.
l
t 31
t^i
1
^
L
•i^'
i ♦ -
r+`
l 1 ,, rf+
It
+
I
I ^,^1
i
!
,
r
?'
{,i
1
•
1 t I t !} t + i{ 1* ^L,. ,
i .
r A l } ild: ,
^ '{
!
l t; ?1; ^1 t '
1.
T H lot ,+ ^j i ; {i ! jt ' , x+!' ^# till I rll }' 1;
ct = coSo + cwSw + cf
•
ct = (6.9x10 6) (0. 75) + (3.2x10-6) (0. 2S) + 4.4x10-6
-6
ct = 10 . 4 x 10 psi
A = - 0 m?
A = 154 acres.
•
3-165
• 3. In the absence of any knowledge about the drainage
geometry, or the well location within the drainage area,
it will be assumed that the well is centered in a square
drainage area. From Table 2.2 we find that this system
should behave like an infinite system for dimensionless
times less than 0.09, i.e., (tDA)etf ^ 0.09. Therefore,
from Eq. 3.7, transient flow should last until
^uc ta
tetf - 0.00 0 26-)7k (tDA)etf
_s
__ (0. 126) (2. 3) (1.86x10 40) (43560
(0.09)
t etf 0.0002637) 22)
E
3-166
4. The real problem in a tight reservoir such as this
relates to the length of time it takes to attain pseudo-
steady state flow. C Dnsider, for example, the time
required for the well to stabilize if the drainage area
were 320 acres. From Eq. 3.16,
380^uctA
tpss k
-4
t _ (380)(0.082)(0.0156)(2. SX10 ) (320) (43560)
pss 2.2
•
3-167
V
I*
m = -94 psi/cycle.
k = 72.7 md.
4713-5500
• s = 1.151
[ -94
72.7 6 • + 3.23
- log
(.15) (3. 5) (33.94xl0 )(0.333) 2
s = 4.6.
sd = s - sr
3-168
5100
5000
4900
4800
^
w
cD m = -94 PSI/CYCLE
4700
a--Y
4500
Fig. 3P.4: Semilog plot, Prob. S.
4400
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
• t, hrs
• 0 i.
4w-
0.825
825
^ sr = 1.35 (h kH/kv + 7)
[_.- 1 1
h = 0.
0
Also,
zm = ho + hp/2
zm = 0 + 12/2
zm = 6 ft.
0.825
sr = 1.35 [i^ - 11 {in (20 3/2 + 7)
Sr = 2.3.
sd = s - sr = 4.6 - 2.3
• sd = 2.3.
3-170
-4
E = PR pwf AP s
PR pwf
E = 0.81.
_ 1
aafter E "before
stimulation stimulation
= 0
1 .81 (200 STB/D)
aafter
= 247 STB/D.
•
stimulation
3-171
^ Thus, the potential for a 47 STB/D increase in
production is indicated if the damage in this well
is removed.
is
3-172
7. Log-log and semilog plots of the pressure data
• are presented in Figs. 3P.6 and 3P.7, respectively.
From the log-log plot it can be seen that the first
few data points lie on a straight line of unit slope.
These points are completely controlled by wellbore
storage. From the straight line we can pick any
arbitrary point and read the corresponding values of
Lp and t. For example
Ap = 300 psi
t = 0.51 hrs.
C = Bt
24 pi - pwf)
.
C = 0.0141 bbl/psi.
m = -235 psi/cycle.
Therefore,
kh = - 162.6quB
m
3-176
-Y
1000 . 1
77 7
800 A f #^-
r +I - r _ ^*
77
rTT t Yi^i--
600
17
UNIT SLOPE LINE
Fi T ,
400
t4
.^ + 1 ; , r , +.-` r{ , r 1 r{
} r
f F ^ 1 f t Tr
1#1 ti
-47 -# :7 ^ j * t i t, -t
_
; ,
. ;! ^r !t ,1
+Y ,
200 i^ ^ ,r ;r ^ •r . ,_ ,.^ „ ^ •
^# !
.^ fi^r
_ . T ^1 .i,' ?. .;. ^ ::...:. ti.^
.:: .. :.. } : :;i# f : .^r' ^ _ I' . ` ^ } t
•r
tt _ Y-{ r 1^_ i } i L 1
^ ft t ^
1+»- .-li-,•
^y^ r^ } ^ -
- TI t r
♦ E 1 ?^
YTI G-}r L [
l j 4 rr!
^ t , i ,' ± t r{ +^ `^ r ;+ rr }}
,, ,• } f
. .^ L- 1:. j f .t r, lt If ^ Y - f i1 1 .f
-t1^^ }^ • .. . ^
r ^t ^^^ } -1 • ^♦ ^ T } ^, ^ 1 I f+
'
1 f
,
100 1 7: ir t
i 7
80 I^tr rr! # i
1 ^ I
^ r,
1
t , ^ r- 1 rI
' } . ^ -. .♦ , + 1 ^ ^.... . ^ tk^ ^.^ +++'^{5 'Yr r f ,r .i{ `
1:.. ^'r'
60
^ ^r^
F
r LI
'
.}^. -
71 1
♦f
r
f .I. t ^1^ -
r
l^^YL.,
_
•
` ^! l 1
''H rr + t
^
'+
.
r
^ -}
r ^TTT ^I^^ I
• j_ 1 -}"^1 { r 1 S_t j^ t•r ` ' S 1!
. . I..I^
r
^ t x t i, - rt i.
^ } ^
40
^ ^.^^ ♦•' - . • ^' ^ ^ ' .^ ^ ^ .._^ F
{ t . 1
^1 # - t
♦ - -r + +1 ^ j.
^.. • r ! • -} rY r ^'7-1 -f'^
r I ry
4 ^•
.,.
^} !1 1 f^1 t,
1 1: -r-^ y ^- i ^} t ^ } # ^
}- + Y f r l.
} t i
z i^ ^: j
L( , {I t }rl .i r $ t r ^f t t i
T
1 ^ ,
^t-^T{ --` LLt 4-1 I. rI t ^_ I ^ Iryl I i ^-'^
3-^ j
t
^ I i 't # r r ' I , r r l { {, ti l Z _ t r ` ^ #i i i{I l i i I ^ I + 1 f ^ ; ^ {
1 ._rt^ ; ^ I 1i 1 ^
: I ^ ^ t t Ir r^ 1 I,
x
20 tjt7+
r
[
4. '
..
t, hrs
3-177
i 3700
• • -
IF I
, .i .. a ^ . •^
'_,..t { l:«F Y • 1I ' + 1 .
1 'rt T^T
3600 I I
41
3500 ,.^
- •T +. - .N .
^
^ -^ ' •a •^ :>.. , 111 d^ . ,I - ,----^---^--- ,
r .^:
3400 I• ^ I I '^ __1..^_ ^: ^ ^ ^1; .
ti_1I ^i,
^, I ^
' •• ^ '^ ` - ^ ' I.,. ^ t I , l i , -
_^. .- ^ ' i.:.
," I •
^ i^ ^ '_" ' - . ^^ ^^ •
^
.
.1 . •
^. . . . ^
- ^ ^ _ i- 1 ^ ^^ ., . _
3300
4-i .
- - . } - -1 - i ^ - --^ - - t --} t - -- -_ _ _ .
W ¢3
_.
---
3000
cc _ _^ __ ^ ^ . .. _, . _.. . - -- - ' - 1 -'-• r- ^_ . _-__ L1___^ T_ .
t-
-__^_r_-^
--+
:
^.
2900
i 1T_^ __c.. ^ II r :.^_^ ^^ t + L i_ -^ ._ ^-- , T^ I , ^r'^ t- ' -, ,- ^ --r---t- + ^ ^-•+
' -;-. . ' ' : . r^^ :
-._ ... .... . . .
---- ^ . _._, • • -- -•- T-- - - ! • - -- -- -+---^-+ - - - -
2800 y- ' I -. ^^ I • Il l I- ^I I
^^.^ 1 . .-
' -
^
.^i
-
Y
^':._^_ _ _ •-t_r W^ • • ^ -t ^.-l._-l.i^l
---t-1-•-•-- ♦. { '^
l y
!I _
--•- J _^ --•-.-,+ ^ _, ._r-^_ , TT.^ .,^-^_t_._ • ,+,.._.. -. _^ --, --- -1 --f^ -- i ' _' ., * ._
T
2700 m = 235 PSI/CYCLE
. _ . T^
- ^+. 1 -
^' 1 '1. ^ ^ ^ .i - a-+.i^--' ' .. ' i 111 ^t _ Y. ^ ^ ^^ _' •.1 , -•.^
- -•-
_- ^
i -^-- ^ --
.. - . . ^ ..
T +--::I-._. ^ ' _ ^ -+ ^-_-_ _ ^T • a-4- t ., ^a
.
---i--. ^ .J-; - ^ - . -_ ^.^
; ^. ; t • , ----^ -^-^ -^ =- } ---^-- + •- i --^ - ^--^---s ^ ;-{ -
.-.
-j
. i ^., . 1.;. ,-.. a f ^. ^ .^ , ._
:• ,` _^.. _ .; ^ Tr ^^
2600
1,__.;f , ; r _ ^. ':, - - ^-^^_ {^ ^ ^ ` ._ . , _ :^ , + ; • :^
._ ^ . . ' ... .. .-. ♦ ' . t _. .t., .^ L ^-^ ^ ♦ _.. __, , _. ^- .-.`..•...
---y--'__Y ^ . _ . _ __._ - - ' - -, _ • t-_ "Y_ --.-
2500
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 20 40
t, hrs
Fig. 3P.7: Semilog plot, Problem 7.
kh = 179 md-ft
s = 1.151 2968-3700
-23S
S = -1.9.
•
3-179
8. A data curve is presented in Fig. 3P.8. It is
observed that the first four points on the curve
•
define a unit slope straight line. This line was used
in Problem 7 to compute the wellbore storage factor C
as
C = 0.0141 bbl/psi.
C _ 0.894C
D ^cthrw
_ (0.894)(0.014l)
CD (0.186) (14x10 6) (8) (.25)2
CD = 9,682 = 104
(PD) hI = 1.0
k_ 141 2 Bu (pD) h9
( 11 p ^1
k=(141.2)(115)(1.73)(1.3) X 1.0
8 143
k = 31.9 md.
to
3-180
•
104
CD = 10"
103
• • •
.H •
•
C].
•
4-^
•
•
°
1.02
•
10
0.1 1 10 102
t, hrs
•
3-181
• ^ •
tp
S = 0.
LI
These answers compare to k = 22.4 md and s = -1.9
which were computed in Problem 7 using the conventional
method. Because of the difficulty in obtaining a unique
match with type curves, the conventional analysis is
regarded as the most accurate.
•
3-183
I
9. The data curve for the McKinley plot is presented
• in Fig. 3P.10. This curve was matched with the
McKinley graph to obtain Fig. 3P.11.
10 4
103
Ln
a)
102
+-+
•
• 10
•
1
10 102 103 10" IO5
Ap, ps i
kh
• = 2500
5.15pC
3-184
^
^
00
Ln
5.61SOpC ft3-day
qB ' RB
E ^5.615ApC1
qB = 3.0
JM
C = 5.615LpC B
qB
IM 5615M
C = 0.0106 bbl/psi.
•
k = [5.615cj1L5.6h5uC1
k = 24.2 md.
•
3-186
• • •
PTA^:7: Chapter 3, Problem 7 - Oil Well Drawdown
Storage: unit slope; linear low: half slope; type curve matching
2*1OJ
Le gend
o TEST DATA
z
10v 0 d(P)/d(In(T)) DER5G,-
-- -
i o
^
a
a - -^-- - E - - I CID
1 - ^ - ®
---^ -
10. The data curve for the Gringarten type curve match
• is presented in Fig. 3P.12. This curve was overlayed
onto the Gringarten type curve to obtain the match
presented by Fig. 3P.13.
10''
103 • • •
^ •
t^. •
•
•
•
•
•
102
10
0.1 1 10 102
t, hrs
•
3-187
4r•M ► O WO RorEtwoX. MOM, MANN.rpnr.
Al ^w...a .
s
s
cl^^
F-+
00
^ x
a
I
2 3 4 ^ b / tl v
. fp 5 , r-. kh At
DIMENSIONLESS TIME 0.0004Y5 - ^ 1 3 • s • , e 7 i 4 567a9
o N
• • ^ .i
The value of CDeZs determined from the match
• depicted by Fig. 3P.13 is
(CDe2$)M = 104
(Ap) M = 1000
(PD) M = 7.0
(t) M = 1.0
(tD/CD)M = 4.5.
k = 141.2qBp (PD)NI
h (A P) NI
k = 32 md.
(t) ^1
C = 0.000295 kh
u tD CD M
3-189
C = 0.0129 bbls/psi. .
C = 0.894C
D ^cthrW
C _ (0.894)(0.0129)
D (0.186) (14x10 6) (8)(0.25 )z
CD = 8,858.
(C e2s), i
s = 0.5 in
D CD 1 •
s= 0.5 in [
88 1
s = 0.06.
k = 22.4 md
s = -1.9
•
3-190
Ramey type curve:
0
k = 31. 9 md
C = 0.0141 bbls/psi
s = 0
k = 24.2 md
C = 0.0106 bbls/psi.
3-191
APC 206 2/01
- - - -
_ 2 L
C D ZS ^. = D
or?^ --
00 o 9a 8 .l
-, ^
-7111
-0
(Apln)M = 1000
(pDln)M = 11.5
(t)M = 0.01-
(tD/CD)M = 3.4.
CDe2$ = 103.
141.2qBu ( pDln)M
k = ,
h
"pn) NI
k = 3.1 md.
C = 0.000295 kh (t) M
tD CD N1
3-192
10
• •^• •
• • • • •
• •
•
• n
102 n n
• •
n ^
n n
a n n n n nnn n
u.7
^.
•
cp
101
^
Op
APT ln
n
10°
10-4 10-a 10-2 10-1 10° 101
t , hrs
• • r
.
• ^ •
copyAqM © 1Be3 FIOPFInoL,MMw,,FRANCE.AII rwM.ls.rr.a.
The use of this type-curve I. M^cAOW In WorW 041 - Wy 1M:
I~
S^.
P1
^
.^ •
r-i
-Q
`a a
aa
Cr
.y. •
'--1
r-1
W 10' 1U - ^p^
'w lo-, ' 10 10 10 10 U
t
^L = 0.000295 kh t
D C
C = 0.894C
D ^cthrw
ct = coSo + cwSW + cf
^
Therefore,
-4
C _ (0.893)(1.65 x 10 )
D (0.08)(14.7 x 10- 6) (80)(0.2 9) Z
CD = 18.6.
1
S = 2 (CDe2s)M
1n
CD
= 1 ln r103
s Z
L18.6J
s = 2.0.
0
3-195
The type curve match depicted by Fig. 3P.15
indicates that the last few points should be in
transient radial flow and, accordingly, should form
a semilog straight line. A semilog plot of the
pressure drawdown data is presented in Fig. 3P.16.
From this plot,
m = -106 psi/cycle.
k = - 162.6 m
k = 2.9 md.
0
The total skin factor is computed using Eq. 3.29:
5,430 psia.
plhr =
Therefore,
= 1.151 5430-6017
s
-106
3-196
6000
5J00
S800
5700
5600
w
5400
5300 "llL
10-3 10-2 10-1 10° 10, 102
t, hrs
0 9 0
s = 1.6
0
Comparing these values of k and s to those determined
by type curve analysis, it is found that they are in
excellent agreement.
•
3-198
r
C7 • •
1000
^
n
...
n.
CO
aD
o .
100
•^ Pressure
Radial Deriv
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time hours
This is a match of the pressure drawdown data from Problem 3.11, Smith, using the Bourdet, et al., derivative type curve for homogeneous
reservoirs. It should be noted that s is the total skin factor, total skin can include the effects of many non-idealities in addition to formation
damage.
1000 Prob. 3-11: Log-Log Quick Match Results
Quick Match Results
Radial homogeneous
Infinitely acting
Cs = 1.701 e-004 bbUpsi IF-
K = 3.0994 md
S = 1.9762
o.
..
CL 100
Ca
...
(D
0
a TP1 Pressure
M Radial Deny
- Genera ted
- Gen dedYatIME
10
0.001 0.01 0.1
Elapsed Time (hours)
This plot shows a comparison of the acutal test data (points) to the theoretical behavior (lines) that should occur in an infinite-acting
homogeneous reservoir with the parameters shown in the results box. The theoretical results were generated using Quick Match. If the
reservoir model, welibore storage model, and boundary model are correct, and if the parameters determined from the test analysis are correct,
the theoretical test behavior generated using these models and parameters should match the test data. In this case, the theoretical model is in
excellent agreement with the measured data, thereby confirming that this is a reasonable solution.
11 • •
• • •
6100 Prob. 3-11: Semilo Analysis
6000
5900
5800
.m
^
n
"
5700 M Results
:3
tal homogeneous
InfinRety acting
K = 2.9674 md
= 237.3905 md.R
5600
Rim = 80.8052 ft
FE -0.759
S = 156.6804 psi
S = 1.7319
5500
5400
5?^
0.0001 0. 001 0 . 01 0. 1 1
Elapsed Time (hou rs)
This is the conventional semilog analysis of the test data. The straight line used in this analysis was fit to those data that exhibit a horizontal
derivative on the log-log plot. It should be noted that S represents the total skin factor, not the damage skin factor, and that the flow efficiency,
FE, and the pressure loss caused by skin, dpS, are computed using the total skin factor. It should also be noted that the radius of investigation,
Rinv, is calculated using the total length of the test; if boundaries are encountered during the test, this number can be misleading.
PROBLEM 3-11B : SIMULATED BOUNDARY EFFE CTS,
• PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST
(a) Simulate the behavior this well would have if it were located in
the center of a square drainage area with no-flow boundaries
located 50 feet away. Present your results on both semilog and
log-log plots and summarize any diagnostic characteristics that
you observe for this type of boundary.
(b) Repeat part (a) for a well in the center of a square drainage area
with constant pressure boundaries located 50 feet away.
0
t
• • •
N
n
a 100
a^
0
. . ..
•. TP1 Pressure
H Radial Deriv
- Generated
- Gen derivative
10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time (hours)
The solid line on this plot illustrates the pressure behavior that would have occurred if the well had been located in the center of a square
drainage area with no-flow boundaries located 50 feet away. After the onset of boundary effects, the well approaches pseudosteady state flow; it
is observed that the derivative forms a unit-slope straight line at late time after pseudosteady state is reached.
6100 PTA3-11 B: Sq uare - No Flow Boundaries
6000
5900
5800
5700
^
N
02 5600
a
Quick Match Results
R a di a l h omogeneous
5500 losed system - IL: L: L:LI
= 1.701 o-004 bbUpsl
K = 3.0994 md
-1.9762
L -50 ft
5400
n
n
5300
S2nn
0.0001 0.001 0101 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time (hours)
The solid line on this plot illustrates the pressure behavior that would have occurred if the well had been located in the center of a square
draingage area with no-flow bounaries located 50 feet away. After the onset of boundary effects, the reservoir approaches pseudosteady state
flow. Pseudosteady state flow does not result in any diagnostic characteristics that are recognizable on the semilog plot.
• • •
3
,^ v_.
• • •
1000 PTA3-11 B: Square - Constant Pressure
Quick Match Results
Radial homogeneous
Closed system - IL:L:L:L)
Cs = 1.701 e-004 bbUpsl ^
K = 3.0994 md
S = 1.9762
L =50 ft
=
n.
a 100
^
0
. , , ..
nn TP1 Pressure
H Radial Deriv
- Generated
- Gen derivative
10
0.001 0.01 . 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time hours
The solid line on this plot illustrates the pressure behavior that would have occurred if the well had been located in the center of a square
drainage area with constant pressure boundaries located 50 feet away. After the onset of boundary effects, the well approaches steady state
flow; while not shown by this plot, the derivative becomes zero upon reaching steady state flow.
6100 PTA3-11 B: Sq uare - Constant Pressure
6000
5900
5800
N
SL'
..
5700
^
(U
a
Quick Match Resufts
5600 Radial homogeneous
Closed system - (L:L:L:Lj
s t 1.701 e-004 bbVpsl
K = 3.0994 md
S = 1.9762
5500
L =50 ft
5400
n
5-Ann
0.000i 0.001 1101 0.1 1 l
Elapsed Time (hours)
The solid line on this plot illustrates the pressure behavior that would have occurred if the well had been located in the center of a square
draingage area with constant pressure baunaries located 50 feet away. After the onset of boundary effects, the formation face pressure
approaches a constant value as the reservoir approaches steady state.
0 0 0
• PROBLEM DD NDAHl : R ESE RVOIR LIMITS TEST
• =
q° 595.4 STB/D B° = 2.55 RB/STB
h=18ft
^=0.152
T=270°F
p; = 5,115 psia
SW 0.36
^
q
0
Ar
Solution: DDNDAH1
Attached are the log-log and cartesian plots of the test data. Early data on the log-log plot indicate the
presence of wellbore storage effects. It appears that wellbore storage effects may have masked the transient
flow period and that boundary effects were already present when storage ended. Since no information is
available regarding the position of the well relative to reservoir boundaries, no attempt was made to model the
possible geometries which could have caused the behavior depicted by this test.
The objective of this test was to estimate the size of the reservoir. The log-log plot of the derivative shows
that the late date form a unit-slope line; this is characteristic of pseudosteady state flow. A straight line through
• the pseudosteady state data on the cartesian plot was used to estimate the drainage area to be:
A = 293 acres
NOTE: The shape factor, Ca, reported on the cartesian plot has no meaning II Computation of the shape
factor requires knowledge of the skin factor and the slope of the semilog straight line; the porrect values of
these parameters are not available for this test since no semilog analysis was made. Also, the value of R
reported on the cartesian plot has no physical meaning; it represents the radius a circular reservoir would have
if it contained the reservoir area, A, computed from this test.
0
DDNDAHI: Lo -Lo Plot
.•
+..
•• .
. n
,-. ••
. .
a100
a n ^ •
^o n
•
a^
0 • n •
• ;
• •
%
n
n • n •
• n ' n
. n
The derivative data which plot as a unit-slope line on this plot are believed to represent pseudosteady state flow. These data also plot as a
straight line on cartesian paper, the slope of the cartesian straight line can be used to estimate the area of the reservoir.
0 0 • _ *I
^ r
• •
5200 DDNDAH1: Cartesian Plot
Model Resutts
Radial homogeneous
baed system
5100 = 292695 acres
R = 2014.5433 ft
Ca = 9.`'ii
5000
4900
,-.
co
V
CL
ED 4800
^
^
Q.
4700
' ••••
••^
•
•
4600
•••
••
4500
44000
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Elapsed Time (hours)
The data used to construct the pseudosteady state straight line on this graph correspond to those derivative data which plot as a unit-slope
line on the log-log graph.
NOTE: The value of the shape factor. Ca, reported on this graph has no meaning. Calculation of the shape factor requires knowledge of the
skin factor and the slope of the semilog straight line; these values are not known for this test since no semilog analysis was made. Also, the
value of R reported on this graph has no physical meaning; this is the radius that a circular reservoir would have if it contained the area, A,
computed from this test.
-40
0
• PROBLEM DDNDAH2: RESERVOIR LIMITS TEST
q° = 23 8.1 STB/D
rW= 0.3646ft
h= 12ft
0. 169
p; = 5,458 psia
T = 262 OF
lp B° = 1.73 RB/STB
•
0
DDNDAH2
The purpose of this test Is to determine the size of the reservoir. This is the discovery well, and is the only
well in the reservoir. This test is considered to be of high quality; although the test was almost 50 days long, a
major effort was successfully made to keep the rate constant during this entire period. Scatter in the data are
due primarily to running gauges In and out of the well every week, and to treatment for paraffin problems.
Problems were encountered toward the end of the test due to the apparent drop-out of salt near the wellbore.
Fluid properties are from a laboratory PVT study. It Is believed that this is a closed reservoir with a
solution-gas-drive recovery mechanism.
The early data are complex due to wellbore storage effects and what appear to be multiple boundary effects.
No geological information is available regarding the location of boundaries; accordingly, no attempt was made
• to model boundary effects using the well test data.
The derivative data form a unit-slope line on the log-log plot after approximately 200 hours. These data,
which are believed to represent pseudosteady state flow, also form a straight line on the cartesian plot. From
the slope of the cartesian straight line, the reservoir area was determined to be
A = 51 acres.
NOTE: The shape factor, Ca, reported on the cartesian plot has no meaning!! Computation of the shape
factor requires knowledge of the skin factor and the slope of the semilog straight line; the correct values of
these parameters are not available for this test since no semilog analysis was made. Also, the value of R
reported on the cartesian plot has no physical meaning; It represents the radius a circular reservoir would have
if it contained the reservoir area, A, computed from this test.
0
1000
100
10
1000
The unit-slope line on this graph is believed to represent pseudosteady state flow. The data which form the unit-slope line are analyzed on the
attached cartesian plot to determine reservoir area. Scatter in the data are caused primarily by running gauges in and out of the well on
approximate one-week intervals, and by paraffin problems encountered during the test. Problems were also encountered toward the end of the
test due to the apparent drop-out of salt near the weilbore. J
0 0 0
• • •
5600 DDNDAH2: Cartesian Plot
Model Results
5400 Radial homogeneous
Closed system
5200 = 50 .8587 acres
= 839.7533 ft
500 0 Ica = 10.241
4800
4600
4400
-420
y
0
^4000
a^
3800
•
a 3600 a A.
^.^.«
3400
3200 ^ ..
^ .► •
3000
•.^• •
2800
4^ ^* , •
2600 •..
2400
22000
200 400 600 800 1000 120
Elapsed Time (hours)
The straight line on this plot is believed to represent piseudosteady state flow. The line was selected to correspond to those derivative data
which form a unit-slope iine on the attached log-log plot.
NOTE: The shape factor, Ca, reported on this graph has no meaning!! Calculatlon of the shape factor requires knowledge of the skin factor
and the slope of the semilog straight line; the correct values of these parameters are not available since no semilog analysis was made. It
should also be noted that the value of R reported on this graph represents the radius a circular reservoir would have if it contained the area, A,
determined from this test; this does not imply that this reservoir is radial.
•
0
^ PROBLEM DESIGN-DD: Design of Drawdown Test, Closed System, with
Wellbore Storage and Skin
Additional Data:
Initial Reservoir Pressure = 4400 psia
Reservoir Temperature = 212 OF
h = 40 feet
(^=22%
SW=27%
Sg = 0
cf=12x10' psi`
y°=34°API
yg=0.72
is
Producing GOR = 675 SCF/STB
k=52md
s=5
C = 0.02 bbl/psi
rW = 0.33 feet
After predicting the behavior of this test, analyze the test to determine k, s, C, and
drainage pore volume. Explain any potential problems that might be encountered in
analyzing a test conducted in this manner. How could you change the design of the
test to eliminate these problems?
0
•
0
Computation of the Pseudoskin Factor
Caused by a Restricted-Entry Well
Completed in a Multilayer Reservoir
N. Yeh,' SPE, and A.C. Reynolds, SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary. This work considers flow to a restricted-entry well in a single- or multilayer reservoir where crossflow occurs between
reservoir layers. A simple algebraic expression for approximating the pseudoskin factor caused by restricted entry is presented. It is
shown that, for practical purposes, this equation yields sufficiently accurate estimates of the pseudoskin factor regardless of the location
of the open interval. This work also extends single-layer results of interest in well testing to the multilayer case and shows that i f sufficient
data are available, the results of this work can be used to prepare a complete analysis of well testing pressure data obtained at a restricted-
entry well.
Introduction
Wells are frequently completed over only a fraction of the productive ,0t =0, and c,t =cf. The dimensionless wellbore pressure and
zone to delay water and/or gas coning. A well completed in this dimensionless time are defined by.
way is referred to as a restricted-entry or partially penetrating well. Pwli-(kh(P!-Pwj))1(141.2qµ) ......... .. ............ (3)
Two questions of practical importance are (1) what is the produc-
tivity loss caused by restricted entry and (2) should the well be stimu- and 1D-(2.637x10-4 kt)l(¢crprw) . ......: .. ..........(4)
lated. Answering these questions requires estimates of the pseudo- where q-total sandface production rate in RB/D. All definitions
skin factor resulting from restricted entry and the real skin (me-
are given in terms of oilfield units. For flow to a restricted-entry
chanical skin) caused by damage, or stimulation, as well as an es- well in a layered reservoir, pseudorad'1al flow will eventually occur,
timate of reservoir permeability. Although well testing has been provided that the well's drainage area is sufficiently large. 1.2.8. 10
advocated for estimating these parameters, 1.2 pressure data ob- During pseudoradial flow, the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop
tained from restricted-entry wells will usually exhibit only one
is given by
semilog straight line, the one corresponding to pseudoradial flow.
Semilog analysis of such pressure data yields estimates of the total PwD ° 1.1511og(4rD/e7)+st . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
flow capacity and the total skin factor. Because the total skin factor
where st =total skin factor.
is a linear combination of the real skin factor and the pseudoskin
We let kw denote the'thickness-averaged horizontal permeability
factor, additional information is required to obtain estimates of the
(based on hw) adjacent to the open interval. In general, kw is given
individual skin factors. The standard procedure is to use correlations
by
to estimate the pseudoskin factor (see Refs. I through 6). Once the u'o
• total and pseudoskin factors have been estimated, the real skin factor
can be calculated directly.
Refs. 1 through 7 discuss procedures or solutions that can be used
to estimate the pseudoskin factor caused by restricted entry. With
kw-(l/h.) D k1hw/ . ............................ (6)
1^^o
where the sum is over all layers that are at least partly opt:n to flow.
the exception of Ref. 2, all results assume a single-layer reservoir. For example, for both cases shown in Fig. 1, no - 1, mo =2, and
The results of Ref. 2 are restricted to a two-layer reservoir where kwa(kthwt+k2h„r1)/hw, where hw,t and h,,,z are as shown in Fig.
the open (perforated) Interval is adjacent to one of the layers and 1. Note that for Case A, h„2-hz, whereas for Case B, h,,,t -h t.
the length of the open interval is exactly equal to the thickness of In general, h1 is the height (length) of the part of the open'interv al
the reservoir layer open to flow. The results of this work remove that is adjacent to Layer J. For cases where the height (length) of
these restrictions and apply specifically to a restricted-entry well the open interval, hw„ is equal to the thickness of one individual
in a multilayer reservoir with an arbitrary location of the open in- layer with thetop of the open interval adjacent to the top of that
terval. Moreover, we present a simple equation that can be used -layer, kw equals the permeability'of the open layer. Figs. 2, and
to compute the pseudoskin factor and show that this equation yields 3 depict such situations. For the geometries of Figs. 2 and 3,
results that are sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. In this -k 1. Note that in Fig. 3, we have designated the layer open to
work, we also extend the well test analysis procedures of Bilhartz flow (the middle layer) as Layer 1.
and Ramey' to the multilayer case. On the basis of the results dis- The dimensionless flow capacity of the open interval is denoted
cussed in this work, Refs. 8 and 9 present type.curves for analyzing by ft and is defined by
well test pressure data obtained at a restricted-entry well.
fl =(khw)I ( kh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
Deflnltions and Background
where h=total reservoir thickness. When only one layer is open
For the layered-reservoir problem considered here, it is appropriate to flow, the open la yer is always designated as Layer 1. In such
to define the thickness-averaged horizontal permeability and the cases, ft m(kth,,,t)/(lrJr). For cases where the height (length) of the
thickness-averaged porosity-compressibility product by open interval equals the thickness of the open layer, hwl aht and
m ft-(ktht)/(kh) (see Figs. 2 and 3). For single-layer cases, Eqs.
k=(1/h) E kjhl ..................................(1) 6 and 7, respectively, reduce to kwsk and it ab, where b is the
J-1 penetration ratio and is defined by
M
b =hw/h.• .............. . .......................... (8)
and cr =(1/h) E Ojc,/h/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) With this notation, the results of Refs. 1, 2, 8, and 10 indicate that
1-1 the total skin factor that appears in Eq. 5 may be approximated by
The subscript j refers to the layer index; e.g., kj =horizontal per-
0
e PARTIAL PENETRATION - Spherical & Hemispherical Flow
Reference: Stanislav, J.F. and Kabir, C. S.: Pressure Transient Analysis, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ( 1990), 109-121.
(^µct)li2
M = 2453 Bµ
e q k 3n ^l)
S
where
kQ = k 2' kZ ^ (2)
• The vertical permeability can be computed from the slope of the spherical flow
straight line, ms, as
The horizontal radial permeability, k, can be determined from early radial flow data
before spherical flow begins, or from late radial flow data after spherical flow ends.
0
REFERENCES: Multiphase Well Test Analysis
•
Perrine, R. L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drilling and
Production Practices, API (1956) 482.
7. Al-Khalifah, A-J. A., Aziz, K. and Horne, R. N.: "A New Approach to
Multiphase Well Test Analysis," paper SPE 16743 presented at the 62nd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Dallas, Texas, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
11. Raghavan, R.: "Well-Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow," SPE Formation
Evaluation (Dec. 1989) 585.
16. Raghavan, R., Chu, W.C. and Jones, J.R.: "Practical Considerations in
the Analysis of Gas-Condensate Well Tests," SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering (June 1999) 288.
L^
0
I
• DERIVATIVE ALGOR ITH MS
A1RmL + AtLmR
M=
OtL + AtR (1)
AP
0 -1-
1
where AtL is the spacing between the point of interest and the point to the left, •
and mL is the slope of the line connecting the point of interest and the point to
the left; AtR and mR are the corresponding spacing and slope, respectively, to
the right.
^
^ 1 0
i m4 i
M, 0
mi
1+Z
MI
l+l
AP
01
o
0 ^
i-2
0 Data points
• Points used to
compute derivative
•
t
m=
m2 - ml I ms + 1 r"a - m3 1 m2
(2)
Ima - mJ + Im2 - mil
where m,, m2, m3, and m4 represent the slope of the line segments connecting
-2-
•
• the points. For example, the slope of the line connecting points i-2 and i-1
is computed as
•
0
0 0
ML
Op 0
oil
^
0 1 I
0 o Data points
etL AtR
• Points used to
compute derivative
9 ,.
interval, the time function interval, At, is measured from the point of interest
to the first point outside the interval. If only one point is within the interval,
the time function interval will be measured from the point of interest to this
point. If more than one data point exists within the interval, the time function
interval will be measured from the point of interest to the farthest point in the
interval. Using the three points defined in this manner, the derivative is
computed using Eq. 1.
The advantage of this method is that the smoothing parameter, 8, can be
increased as the amout of noise in test data increases. Care must be taken,
however, that S is not made so large that the character of the data is changed.
As a general rule, you should use the smallest smoothing parameter that will
result in a derivative curve that can be interpreted.
References
1. Akima, H.: "A New Method of Interpolation and Smooth Curve Fitting
Based on Local Procedures," Journal Association of Computing
Machinery (Oct. 1970) 17, 589-602.
2. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A. and Pirard, Y.M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative
in Well Test Interpretation," SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1989)
293-302.
-4-
•
• PROBLEM PTAX3-13: BUILDING A PANSYSTEM DATA FILE
FOR A DRAWDOWN TEST; ANALYSIS
OF DRAWDOWN DATA FROM A
HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR WITH
WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN
0. 193 So = 0.6
h=24.2 ft SW = 0.4
p; = 3100 psia
^
•
0
0 • •
0 0 •
1000
C14
100
10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 0 •
Match Results
Radial hwr4geneotm
1000 Infinitely acting
K =77 md
Cs = 0.0039 bbUpol
_ 395.2147
S = 1.6
c3.
'-' 100
6?
10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 • 0
310(
PTAX3-13: Quick Match
305(
300(
295(
2901
285( ) •
2801
Quick Match Results
R ad i a l homogeneous
Infinitely acting
Constant compressibility
2751
Cs = 0.0039 bbUpsi
K =77 md
S = 1.6
Pi = 3100 psia
270^ P
.01 0.1 1 10 1
Elansed Time (hours)
• • •
1000 DESIGN-DD: Log-Log Plot
.
. •
. ^
. •
. ' .
.
. •
.
. •
n • • • . . . . • • • • ' .
. •
100 . .
.
• ' .
.
. • ^ • . ^
rA
.
^
A . ^ • •
a • . . ^
ed.+
.
^ • • .
A •
: • •
10 + • •
s • .
• ^
s • • • .
•
1 •
4400 n n • . . . . . . . •
^ • . .
n .
4300 ^ • . ^
. a
n n n • • n ' • • • .
4200
. .
4100 •
4000
v^i •
3900
^
3800 ^
3700
3600
3500 .
3400
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Elapsed Time (hours)
is 0 is
RJeYevl ce \_ee1 3 . w,,,,^ 1n)4^^enbarj er t 'R A . . (; aS
Appendix F
Determining Pressure Derivatives
The derivative at a point is determined by finding a weighted mean TABLE F-1-DATA FOR DERIVATIVE CALCULATION
of the slopes to a preceding point and a following point (Fig. F-1).
The parameter L defines the minimum abscissa distance to these at GP Derivative
points, smoothing out "noise" in the neighborhood of the central (hours) (psi) In(At) Window
point. Thus, L can be defined as G(ln t) for a flow test or as 11.99 830 2.4841
&(]n at,) for a buildup test. Experience indicates that 0.1.-!-.L!.- 15.98 839 2.7713
0.3 often is a satisfactory compromise between being too far from 2.8764
the central point so that detail is lost and being too near the central 19.97 845 2.9942
. point so that a great amount of noise is introduced. However, trial 23.96 850 3.1764 3.1764
and error may indicate that other values of L are more appropriate 29.93 859 3.3989
in a given situation. 3.4764
The pressure derivative calculation procedure is best illUNIrated 39.88 864 3.6859
with an example taken from field data. Suplx).w that we want in 49.32 869 3.8983
determine the derivative -dpw,fld Int=d(Ap)ld In(W) at at=
23.96 hours from the drawdown data in Table F-1 and that we
choose L=&(ln t)=0.3. We first calculate In(At) for all test times, 0
obtaining ln(23.96)=3.1764 at Ata23.96 hours. Then 3.1764-L=
3.1764-0.3=2.8764, and 3.1764+L=3.1764+0.3=3.4764, as
0
shown in the last column of Table F-1, creating a "window" around
the central point. We use the data points just beyond this window
r
o^ ^ --°-------
dPR
to calculate the pressure derivative, mp: 0
AIL = 3.1764 -2.7713 - 0.4051.
II Ii LIIII1I
APL (850-839) 0 ^1 L ^ L
a 27.1538 s mL. 0
AtL 0.4051
atR =3.6859-3.1764=0.5095.
0
i dtL ^ dtR ^
A PR (864-850)
27.4779 smg.
AtR 0.5095
mLAtR +mRGtL
mp=
AtL +AtR
0 - DATA POINTS
(27.1538)(0.5095) +(27.4779)(0.4051)
_ =27.30_ )( - POINT TO BE DERIVED
^ (0.4051 +0.5095)
q - POINTS USED FOR THE CALCULATION
S1 Metric Conversion Factor
psi x 6.894 767 E+00 = kPa M P . VALUE OF DERIVATIVE
0
REFERENCES: Application of Pressure Derivatives in Well Test Analysis
4. Bourdet, D., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A.A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "A
New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil (May
1983) 95.
6. Bourdet, D., Alagoa, A., Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "New Type
Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests," World Oil (April
1984) 111.
11. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A. C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPE Formation
Evaluation (March 1988) 197.
13. Yeh, N-S. and Agarwal, R. G.: "Development and Application of New
Type Curves for Pressure Transient Analysis," paper SPE 17567
presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Tianjin, China, Nov. 1-4, 1988.
^
14. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well Test Interpretation," SPE Formation Evaluation (June
1989) 293.
15. Duong, A. N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation
With the Pressure/Pressure-Derivative Ratio," SPE Formation Evaluation
(June 1989) 264.
16. Onur, M., Yeh, N. and Reynolds, A. C.: "New Applications of the
Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Analysis," SPE Formation Evaluation
(Sept. 1989) 429.
17. Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K.: "The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD) - A
New Diagnostic Tool In Well Test Interpretation," Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (April 1992) 63.
0
•
Chapter 4
MULTIPLE-RATE TESTING
I. APPLICATIONS
1]
U U II. METHOD OF SUPERPOSITION
0
t t
(4.1)
(pi .pwf) total (pi pwf)ql] o+[(PiPwf)q2q1] t'
1
4-2
•
q1
^
q 2 al
Q2 -------^
0
0 t, t
TIME
4-3
•
pi
al
0 0
`
t
0
(a2-(1l) ------
pi
tii
al pi
a2
0
tl t tl
E
Fig. 4.2: Graphical illustration of the principle of
superposition applied to a multiple-rate well.
4-4
CA/v- ^o^^ . 6k,
,,i,w,rds.#, (e-^ u,n.
•
PRI/SSURE RESPOVSE DUE
Pi TO DI:CRL'ASED RATE
pwf
pwf(At=0) ^ -^ ^^-
0 ^
TIME
Qqru,.S
GL S U
,1^. s4Ow4&v,&c
A.a)b, tt'avq
• 6,,t- wtt,c.b41A
4
0 tl (At=o) tl+1A
TIME
4-5
evaluated without shutting in the well.
•
In order to analyze data obtained with the two-rate
_ _
(pi pw f) t1+At (pi_pwf) q1Jt1+ At
o
Al K) OP
" n^ - 3.23 + 0.87s . (4.3) •
]
Vd_ U ^
[log
•
Simplifying,
162.6q1Bu
[log (t1+Ot) - log OtI
pi pwf kh
162.6q Bu
+ kh 2 log At + log 2- 3.23
^ucrw
tk
+ 0.87s] (4.6)
mTR X
or,
162.6q 1Bu t l +At
+ a
q 2 log At
pwf = kh At
1
r16:
2.6q,B^;
q2 k
log 2 3. 23 + 0.87s (4. 7) ^
ql ^uctrw
4-7
vl
so that, •
^ pwf mTRX + bTR
(4. 8)
where, 162.6q1Bu
(4.9)
m'I'R kh
X = log
tl + ^t + a2
Q log At. (4.11)
At 1
ql a2 mTR ^uctrw
+ 3.23] . (4.13)
q2
P = bTR - ql_2 [pwf(Ot=O) - Plhr1' (4.14)
•
4-8
• INTERCEPT = bTR
q 2 < q 1
•
• SLOPE = mTR
• ^
RETURN TO
pwf PRESSURE DRAWDOWN
RATE RESTABILIZATION--5-6^4
EFFECT •
•
•
A INCREASING At
tl + ^t a2
log + log At
At
1
4-9
ing the rate change are given along with other reservoir
•
data. What is the effective permeability to oil and the
total skin factor?
A = 160 acres
rw = 0.265 ft
= 20%
h = 20 ft
uo = 0.39 cp
Bo = 1.322 RB/STB
ct = 1.38 x 10-4 psi-1.
4-10
• The calculations necessary to prepare the data plot are
summarized in the following table:
t1+ot
t1+°t a2 X pwf, psia
At, hrs log log At
At At
1
0.165 1019 3.01 -0.64 2.37 2007
0.245 687 2.84 -0.50 2.34 2028
0.325 519 2.71 -0.40 2.31 2047
0.41 411 2.61 -0.32 2.29 2062
0.49 344 2.54 -0.25 2.29 2085
0.58 291 2.46 -0.19 2.27 2098
0.67 252 2.40 -0.14 2.26 2126
0.75 225 2.35 -0.10 2.25 2127
0.83 203 2.31 -0.07 2.24 2136
0.90 188 2.27 -0.04 2.23 2148
^ 0.99 169 2.23 0.00 2.23 2154
1.09 155 2.19 0.03 2.22 2158
1.15 147 2.17 0.05 2.22 2166
1.32 128 2.11 0.10 2.21 2176
1.50 113 2.05 0.14 2.19 2182
1.72 99 1.99 0.19 2.18 2187
2.0 85 1.93 0.25 2.18 2190
2.5 68 1.83 0.33 2.16 2194
3.0 57 1.76 0.39 2.15 2198
4.0 43 1.63 0.49 2.12 2200
6.0 29 1.46 0.64 2.10 2201
8.0 22 1.34 0.74 2.08 2204
10.0 17.8 1.25 0.82 2.07 2205
12.2 14.8 1.17 0.89 2.06 2206
21.0 9.0 0.95 1.08 2.04 2210
25.0 7.7 0.89 1.15 2.03 2212
27.0 7.2 0.86 1.17 2.03 2213
4-11
2250
m TR = -124 PSI/CYCLE
2200
•
2100
2050
2000 LL^U
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
x M
•
4-12
^
psi/cycle. Thus, from Eq. 4.12,
162.6q1Bu
k = -
mT Rh
k = 2.6 md.
ql (pwf(At-0) plhr)
s = 1.151
[q-q2 mTR
- log k + 3.231
CuctrW J
^
78 1963-2187
s = 1.151
78-64 ( -124 )
2.6
- log
(. 2) (.39) (1. 38x10-4) (.265) 2
+ 3.231
s = 7. S.
4-13
history illustrated in Fig. 4.6. The flowing pressure at
•
time t can be calculated using Eq. 3.22 if the method of
superposition is applied to this rate history, i.e.,
ql
q3
qN
q4
0 q.2 ^ I^'•.• qN 1
I I I I q
0 tl t2 t^ La tN-2 tN-i t
TIME
162.6(q2-ql)BU
log k(t-t1) - 3.23 + 0.87s
- kh
^uctrw
4-14
• 162.6(q N -q N- 1)Bp k(t-tN-1)
kh log $uct r2w
Expanding,
162.6q1BU [iou kt
3
2- 3.23 + 0.87s
pwf(t) kh
^uctrw
162.6q2Bu k(t-t1)
- log - 3.23 + 0.87s
^ Ouctrw
162.6q Bu k(t-t )
+ 1 log t 1- 3.23 + 0.87s
ch
0 162.6qN-1BU
^ucr2w
k(t-tN-2)
-•••- log
kh
Ouc r2
t w
- 3.23 + 0.87sI
162.6qN BU k(t-tN-1)
- 3.23 + 0.87s
kh 2
[log Ouctrw
+ 162.6QN-1BU lo k(t-tN-1)
g
k ^uctw
•
4-15
Collecting terms,
•
162.6q1Bu t 1
[iou
Pwf(t) pi kh t-tll
J
162.6q2BU [ t tl
kh log t-t2
162.6qN-1Bu t-tN-2
kh 1og t-tN-1
162.6qNBu k(t-tN-1)
kh log 2
$uctrw
(4.17)
- 3.23 + 0.87s]
0
Factoring qN,
162.6qNBu ql/qN
t
[iou ( )
pwf(t) pi kh t-tl
t-t 1 q2/qN
+ log (t-t2)
t-t NqN-1/qN
+...+ log (t-t-2
N-1
162.6qNBU k(t-tN-1)
-
.kh ^uc r2
[log t w
•
4-16
• Expressing in a more general form,
N-1 qj/c{N
^ m mR
• + 162khBU
log k 2- 3.23 + 0.87s ( 4.20) •
Pi pwf (t) ^ q 1
^N = mMR (4. 21)
Z log (t t j-1) + bMR
j=l
_ 162.6Bu
mMR kh (4,2j)
•
4-17
•
2- 3.23 + 0.87s . (4.23)
bMR 'MR log
^uctrw
pi
qN
pwf
vs F
q" q' 1
> qN> lo ^a (t-t ^. -1
j=1
Z
U,
SLOPE = mMR
•^i
- •
N
qi qj -1
q log (t - tj-1
)
ti
.
j=1
•
4-18
• It is important when making this plot to understand that
each measured pressure is associated with the rate
occurring when that pressure was measured.
The permeability and skin factor can be computed by
rewriting Eqs. 4.22 and 4.23, respectively, as
k = 162.6Bp (4.24)
m MR F
and
MR - log k + 3.23 . (4.25)
b s= 1. 51 m
MR 0uctr 2w
pi = 2,906 psia
Bo = 1.27 RB/STB
p = 0.6 cp
h = 40 ft.
t q pwf t q pwf
(hours) (STB/D) (psia) (hours) (STB/D) (psia)
1.00 1,580 2,023 9.6 1,370 -
1.50 1,580 1,968 10.0 1,300 1,815
1.89 1,580 1,941 12.0 1,300 1,797
2.40 1,580 - 14.4 1,260 -
3.00 1,490 1,892 15.0 1,190 1,775
3.45 1,490 1,882 18.0 1,190 1,771
3.98 1,490 1,873 19.2 1,190 -
4-19
4.50 1,490 1,867 20.0 1,160 1,772
•
4.80 1,490 - 21.6 1,160
5.50 1,440 1,853 24.0 1,137 1,756
6.05 1,440 1,843 28.8 1,106
6.55 1,440 1,834 30.0 1,080 1,751
7.00 1,440 1,830 33.6 1,080
7.20 1,440 - 36.0 1,000
7.50 1,370 1,827 36.2 983 1,756
8.95 1,370 1,821 48.0 983 1,743
N
Pi pwf a' - q'-1
a vs - a ^ log (t - t j
N N ^
j=1
Pi pwf
q
t pwf pi pwf aN
(hours) (STB/D) N (psia) (psi) (psi/STB/D)
1.00 1,580 1 2,023 883 0.5589 0.0000
1.50 1,580 1 1,968 938 0.5937 0.176
1.89 1,580 1 1,941 965 0.6108 0.277
2.40 1,580 1 - - - -
3.00 1,490 2 1,892 1,014 0.6805 0.519
3.45 1,490 2 1,882 1,024 0.6872 0.569
3.98 1,490 2 1,873 1,033 0.6933 0.624
4.50 1,490 2 1,867 1,039 0.6973 0.673
4.80 1,490 2 - - - -
5.50 1,440 3 1,853 1,053 0.7313 0.787
4-20
• 6.05 1,440 3 1,843 1,063 0.7382 0.819
6.55 1,440 3 1,834 1,072 0.7444 0.849
7.00 1,440 3 1,830 1,076 0.7472 0.874
7.20 1,440 3 - - - • -
7.50 1,370 4 1,827 1,079 0.7876 0.974
8.95 1,370 4 1,821 1,085 0.7920 1.009
9.6 1,370 4 - - - -
10.0 1,300 5 1,815 1,091 0.8392 1.124
12.0 1,300 5 1,797 1,109 0.8531 1.154
14.4 1,260 6 - - - -
15.0 1,190 7 1,775 1,131 0.9504 1.337
18.0 1,190 7 1,771 1,135 0.9538 1.355
19.2 1,190 7 - - - -
20.0 1,160 8 1,772 1,134 0.9776 1.423
21.6 1,160 8 - - - -
24.0 1,137 9 1,756 1,150 1.0114 1.485
28.8 1,106 10 - - - -
• 30.0
33.6
1,080
1,080
11
11
1,751
-
1,155
-
1.0694
-
1.607
-
36.0 1,000 12 - - - -
36.2 983 13 1,756 1,150 1.1699 1.788
48.0 983 13 1,743 1,163 1.1831 1.800
4-21
S
= 1 [(1580 - 0) log (7.5 - 0)
1370
= 0.974.
k = 13.6 md.
4-22
• • •
1.
0.
^, z
^
W c}^ I:^L A
(mMR) 1= 0. 227 psi/ (STB/D)
iiI^ ^^^
0.
0.
I.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
N
(aj - aj _ 1)
x log (t - tj 1)
q
j=1
2000
1950
ml = -160 psi/cycle
ct 1900
^
w i :
1850 n
^l I
1800
m2 = -63 psi/cycle
1750
0
1700
1 10 60
t, hrs
4-24
•
The conventional analysis is also misleading in other
ways. For example, the data on Fig. 4.9 show a decrease in
slope at a test time of approximately 12 hours. This would
indicate a possible increase in permeability or mobility
away from the wellbore which is just the opposite of the
effect shown by the more accurate multi-rate analysis.
Actually, the decrease in slope on the conventional plot is
caused by the changing flow rate; accordingly, this analysis
could be very misleading.
This example clearly illustrates the danger of using
constant-rate theory to analyze tests where significant
changes in rate occur.
•
4-25
•
0
•
RE FE I,, EN CES
•
4-26
•
0
•
NOMENCLATURE - CHAPTER 4
•
4-27
•
0
•
SUMMARY OF MAJOR EQUATIONS - CHAPTER 4
Equation Number
in Text Equation
162.6q Bu t +^t q
4.7 [1og + a2 log ^t
pwf = pi - kh 1 At
1
162.6q1Bu q2 r k
- log - 3.23+0.87s]
kh al L ^uotrw
162.6q1Bu
4.9 MTR = - kh
tl + At q2
4.11 X = log At + a log At
1
162.6q1Bu
4.12 k = -
mT Rh
- log k + 3.23]
z
^uotrw
q2
-4.1PbTRql2[pwf(At=O) plhrl
•
4-28
N
Pi pwf qj Q^-1 ^
4.21 aN = mMR log (
t-t)-1)+byiR
j=1
m _ 162.6Bu
4.22
MR TE-
4.23
bMR = mMR L01- k Z - 3.23 + 0.87s^
t
^uorw
k = 162.6Bu
4.24
MMR
4.25 s = 1.151
r MR - log ( k 2 + 3.23
m IR ^ U ot r w
•
4-29
• PROBLEMS
MULTIPLE-RATE TESTING
0 1419
0. 25 1400
0.5 1384
0. 75 1358
^ 1.0 1335
1.25 1321
1.5 1310
1.75 1304
2 .0 1300
2.5 1286
3.0 12 80
3. 5 1274
4.0 1270
.4.S 1265
5.0 1261
6.0 1255
7.0 1249
8.0 1245
9.0 1241
10.0 1237
15.0 1219
20.0 1206
26.1 1200
4-30
•
L]
Z
W W
a
N0
yF1 N
p X
•
4-31
• Additional reservoir information:
uo = 1.63 cp
Bo = 1.63 RB/STB
h = 108 ft
^ = 30%
ct = 302 x 106 psi
rw = 0.365 ft
100
Ln
50
0'-
0 6 12 18 24
t, hrs
•
4-32
a) Develop an equation which can be used to compute
the flowing formation face pressure for any time t
where t>18 hrs.
b) Use the equation from (a) to calculate the
expected formation face pressure at t = 24 hrs.
p; = 1000 psia
h = 80 ft
15%
c, = 6 x 10-6 psi-'
ru, = 0.3 ft
0 I
µw, = 0.7 cp
BW = 1.0 RB\STB
•
4-33
q
Point t piwi
No. hours psia
1 0 1000
2 1.000E-03 1159.7
3 2.000E-03 1192.2
4 3.162E-03 1208,5
5 5.012E-03 1223.7
6 1.000E-02 1245.9
7 1.585E-02 1260.6
8 2.512E-02 1275.3
9 5.012E-02 1297.3
10 0.100 1319.3
11 0.200 1341.4
12 0.283 1352.7
13 0.366 1361.2
14 0.450 1368.0
15 0.500 1371.4
16 0.501 1531.2
17 0.502 1563.8
18 0.504 1587.8
19 0.506 1602.9
20 0.510 1617.9
21 0.520 1640.6
22 0.550 1671.9
23 0.600 1696.8
24 0.700 1723.8
25 0.783 1738,8
26 0.908 1755.6
^
4 - 3 3A
E
Point t piwi'
Na. hours Psia
27 1.000 1765.4
28 1.001 1925.2
29 1.002 1957.9
30 1.003 1974.2
31 1.005 1989.6
32 1.010 2012.3
33 1.020 2035.3
34 1.040 2059.2
35 1.063 2076.1
36 1.100 2094.0
37
38
1.200
1.325
2123.8
2148.2
•
39 1.408 2160.8
40 1.500 2172.6
41 1.501 2041.7
42 1.502 2066.2
43 1.503 2081.0
44 1.505 2095.6
45 1.510 2117.7
46 1.520 2140.5
47 1.540 2164.7
48 1.563 2181.9
49 1.600 2200.5
50 1.700 2232.3
51 1.825 2258.9
52
53
1.908
2.000
2273.0
2286.5 •
4 -3313
a
SOLUTIONS
q
At, hrs tptt log t^tt al log At x pwf, psia
•
1300
2.5 12.4 1.09 0.76 1.85 1286
3.0 10.5 1.02 0.91 1.93 1280
3.5 9.11 0.96 1.04 2.00 1274
4.0 8.10 0.91 1.15 2.06 1270
4.5 7.31 0.86 1.25 2.11 1265
5.0 6.68 0.82 1.34 2.16 1261
6.0 5.73 0.76 1.49 2.25 1255
7.0 5.06 0.70 1.62 2.32 1249
8.0 4.55 0.66 1.73 2.39 1245
9.0 4.16 0.62 1.83 2.45 1241
10.0 3.84 0.58 1.91 2.49 1237
15.0 2.89 0.46 2.25 2.71 1219
20.0 2.42 0.38 2.49 2.87 1206
26.1 2.09 0.32 2.71 3.03 1200
4-34
6
k = 94.1 md.
al (pwf(At=0) plhr)
s = 1.151
al a2 mTR
•
- log k + 3.231
^uctr 2
w
1841 1419-1315
s = 1.151
1841-3523 ( -78.3 )
- log + 3.231
(.3) (1.63) (302x10
94.1 -6) (.365) Z
s = - 2.0.
4-35
• • •
bTR = 1431 PSIA
1400
cl
.r.,
V)
U, ¢' 1300
1200
0 1 2 3
---------------
q„-o
41aw
ouIe- Cv ►ti
"lXb
(D
^
2. a) This equation can be written using basic super-
position principles, or it can be obtained from
40 Eq. 4.20 by taking the indicated summation. Since we
are interested in predicting t during the third flow
rate, N = 3. Therefore, from Eq. 4.20,
_ _ 162.6Bu
al log t+(q2-ql) log (t-tl)
• pwf pi kh
162.6q3BU [log k.
2 - 3.23 + 0.87s^ .
- kh
Cµcrw
t
b) When t = 24 hrs,
C log
-
100 -6 - 3.23+(.87) (10
(.2) (2.0) (20x10 ) (.25) 2
0
4-37
•
0
SOLUTION: PROB. 4-3, SMITH
SOLUTION:
k=19md
s=0
• (B) The downshift in pressure-time data from Step 4 is caused by formation parting which resulted when the
injection rate was increased from 3000 to 4000 bbl/d. Formation parting causes a reduction in the skin factor
which, as shown by the Intercept term in Eq. 4.20 (Smith), results In a line with a smaller intercept than was
obtained using the data from Steps 1-3. The last pressure which was recorded before this downshift occurred,
i.e., p = 2172.6 psia at t = 1.5 hrs, is a good estimate of the formation parting pressure.
11
4-38
0. 4 Prob . 4-3: Gen . Superposition Plot .
•^ TP1 Pressure
no TP2 Pressure
n. TP3 Pressure
0.35
cc
0.3
7
A CU
W
t^o
0-0.25
^
Model Results
Radial homogeneous
Infinitely acting
K = 19.0161 md
= 1521.2844 md.ft
S --0.0301
0. 2
0.1r,
0.001 0.01 . 0.1
Equivalent Time (hours)
This is a generalized superposition plot, referenced back to the initial pressure, of the first three steps of a step-rate test on a water injection
well. Since all three steps are below the formation parting pressure, all of these data represent transient radial flow and, accordingly, plot on a
common semilog straight line.
• is •
• • •
0.4 Prob . 4-3: Gen . Su p erp osition Plot .
TP1 Pressure
m TP2 Pressure
nn TP3 Pressure
°° TP4 Pressure n
•^
n
0.3 5 •
n
.-,
T
N ^n
n
M n
I °
^
h
Q °
(Y 0 . 3
cc
°
t ^ 0
a ^
0 IL
cm °
0
a
^
0
0.25
0.2
0.01 0.1
Equivalent Time (hours)
This is a generalized superposition plot, referenced back to the initial pressure, of the first four steps of the step-rate test. Since injection
pressures during the first three steps are below the formation parting pressure, all these data represent transient radial flow and, accordingly, plot
on a common semilog straight line. The increase in injection rate from Step 3 to Step 4 caused the formation to part and, because of the
decrease in total skin factor (or increase in effective wellbore radius), caused a downward shift of the data during Step 4. This shift in data at the
time of formation parting provides a method of measuring the formation parting pressure during a step-rate test.
•
0
•
Chapter 5
I. INTRODUCTION
0
•
0
a5
• 2- Czate, P Bt)
FLOWING
^Q q
U
z :^a
q F
t 'A t
p
q
IT
0 SHUT-IN
0 t_(At=0) t+ A t
r'
TIME
• ^ •
buildup test.
.
Primary disadvantages of the test are:
5-2
• Requires a reasonably constant rate for a period
of time prior to shut-in;
• The pressure buildup test is a two-rate test;
accordingly, superposition methods must be
used to evaluate the data.
5-3
pi Ato
Atl
At2
PR dt3
^
^
:n4
pwf(At=0)
rw r1 re
r2
5-4
Atn Atl At2 At-
pi
PR At4
At
V
,,
a pwf(At=0) rw r1 r2 r3
re
•
5-5
• You will recall that Eq. 5.1 applies to a constant rate well
producing from a reservoir which is infinite-acting, i.e., in
transient flow. This expression does not apply directly to
the variable rate history shown in Fig. 5.1; however, it can
be used along with the method of superposition to develop a
relationship that describes the pressure behavior to be
expected during a buildup test.
According to the superposition principle, the pressure
change, pi pws' which occurs at the formation face during a
shut-in period, At, is equal tol:
or,
• + 162.6(-q)Bu
kh
log kLt
2 3.23 + 0 87s (5.3)
Ouc trw
Vf,
5-6
q
•
-q
•
Q
C--^
tp (At=0)
TIME
5-7
0 A/.\. At -+
ar ^
& •
This reduces to: ^ ^ ^ ^-^- ^^ WOW 04^+ 01'
JWh9 •P'r n,,, SS^,IIc(, W.9.c,^,Q-t(-
+ At ( ^
_ _ 162.6qBu lo t p lpu;^ld ^ P^ (5.4)
pi pws kh g At ^
or,
t +At
162.6qBU P .X_ (5.5)*
pws pi kh log at
( (b ^ -Y -^ `----Y--^'
VVII
where ^s = shut-in formation face pressure, psia
pw
t = time well flowed before shut-in, hrs
P
At = shut-in time, hrs
q = rate before shut-in, STB/D.
162.6qBu (5.6)
m =
kh
0
This plot, commonly referred to as the Horner pZot, is
illustrated by Fig. S.S.
Note on the Ho rner plot that the scale of time ratio
increases from left to right. Because of the form of the
ratio, however, the shut-in time, At, actually increases
from right to left. Mathematically, the slope is a negative
number, and must be used as a negative number in all
5-8
Pi
SLOPE = m, PSI/CYCLE
^
^
^n
l.,^,^v At Y""°an
t +At•
p
At
calculations.
It is observed from Eq. 5.5 that pws = pi when the time
ratio is unity. Graphically, this means that the initial
reservoir pressure, pi, can be obtained by extrapolating the
Horner straight line to (tp+At)/pt = 1. This is illustrated
by Fig. S.S. It must be remembered, however, that Eq. 5.5
assumes the reservbir to be infinite in size; if infinite
reservoirs did exist, then at some point in the reservoir
the pressure would always be equal to the initial pressure,
and the Horner straight line would always extrapolate to
that pressure. In practice, reservoirs are finite and, soon
after production begins, fluid removal will cause a pressure
decline everywhere in the system. Under these conditions,
the straight line will not extrapolate to the initial
pi^essure. Instead, the pressure obtained at a unit time
ratio will be a false pressure, p*. This is illustrated by
Fig. 5.6. The false pressure has no physical meaning, but
•
5-9
^w etv,_ 1/4A d, Mtt
CJ jyko- 6'u4`'^ oU
UA'ta ! ^ UAA11
M2-
• no <a,^
^o • • ^•^
^
(A
a PR
t +^t
At
5-10
^
2. Determination of permeability
According to Eq. 5.5, pressures measured during the
transient flow period of a buildup test will plot as a
straight line on the Horner graph with a negative slope
equal to
m = - 162.6 ^
kh = - 162.6 ^. (5.7)
k = - 162.6 m . (5.8)
h = 16 ft
= 13%
pwf = 290 psia ( measured immediately before shut-in)
rw = 0.25 ft
Bo = 1.67 RB/STB
PO = 0.7 cp
5-11
4
At, hrs pws, psia
0.5 925
1.0 1380
2.0 1800
3.0 1815
4.0 1820
5.0 1824
6.0 1830
8.0 1837
10.0 1843
12.0 1847
14.0 1852
16.0 1853
18.0 1856
S-12
12.0 4.70 1847
•
14.0 4.17 1852
16.0 3.78 1853
18.0 3.47 1856
m = - 66 psi/cycle.
k 162.6qBu
0 mh
ko = 27.0 md.
P4 = 1891 psia.
5-13
• • •
1900
p* = pi = 1891 PSIA
1880
^
^
In
1840
u, ^
1820
1800
1780 L
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 30
t + ^t
P
At
_ * m (5.9)
PR P + 2.303 PDMBH
2)
and identify the correct straight line;
Compute k from the slope of the Horner
straight line;
•
5-15
• • •
6
O
rn 3
N
U-7
11
10 10 - 1 1 10
tnA -- tArFG, ^^
3
M
O
M
U^
i fd
r-'
1 II 2
.i..
_1
ln 2 1()-1
tDA
Fig. 5.9: Alatthews-13rons-flazebroek dimensionless pressure for different well
locations in a square drainage area ( After Ref. 4).
• • •
7 • •
6 I LL 1 1. 1 } ^+ jfq ,^Il
lip
- . j k I} ^ ^} { t 1 l r. t i,
^ 1! i
^ _, , l .
#' { ,• t, ,lj '
1 1r-
; 1 ^^ I i
; TIT" Im 1_ f _` Ir L^!t I rt ` ^ j ,t r
. .
5 r ^ Fr !l^
.,
i ; T ^ `.
a ,.
^ y4, r ^ } ^ r 1Ij r^_
r i+ y?l+
1 l + r ^ I !f
t 1 i I f 44 ^ ^,
., ^^` L- ^ *rt
T ^' ^ll t:; ,' } ^^:.
- - r t ,^11 L lf 1^ r^c J I ^ - t-^ 1^ F^ f' E1 -- ^J •
4 ^ - t Fl1^ :
1I
^t «
It
t i!+
t
^ t }^- I^; t , ^
t t ^O !
+ j . ► r ^[_ ^^^^
Yr ^ r , E ^t
1 r 1 l^ ii y^
T I+ ^ ,• r ,
3
!r, - fl t
v
t ili t
1}
4
^
0 ^ t- ^
(.n _ ! . . h iti •l -r l -- * . -. _
-
^
a ^
rt i ^ •{ I
l rf l^l _^ l ^! I - t
!--'
00 ^ ^ ,
II 2 - - - - t I l,t - rt 44 f V
•• ^} :^ I ! ..* '^ -I^. ^ ^- - !,1
^, I . t. r . -i -
"O
O
or, +: y
+ P^
P,^ 1 ,, 1 „• j } t
^. ,t } - 1- ^ a ^ ^ ^ I,
- - 1 ^ If f^ ^ ^-! , = +
- _
Alt t . . ^ ^^ lj tl _- _ I 4ir i f ^ •.t ^{. , ,
1
- ^ + 1, j ^ t- - f`t ►-^^G ^ j ^, • ^ '` 1 'il' ^;^;'! lii
- - ! „! r
r "
i L6 :, + .^ _ I ;
- - tt
tl ' it
If I ' lit
1 r' :'t J^ i r I, l4 l l,
r
0
-^ ^^ ^ ^L T 1 1 `t • - ♦ -- ;_ j ^_ ^ ^ t ^ r7: *^to^^ P SS ,, I t ! , ^ ,-;
-1 ^ LT V ;,I til
I I
a^ 4 a a 1 9 t ^ a 4 • • 7 8 s t a a e a 7• s
_ 2
10 10- 1 I 10
t I)A
^
2
M 1.
(V
Ln
N II
lD
,z. 0
G-1
^D
-1
-2
10-^ 10-i 1 10
tI)A
Fig. 5.11: Matthews-Brons -tiazebroek dimensionless pressure for different well locations
in 4:1 and 5:1 rectangular drainage areas (After Ref. 4).
• 0 0
• 3) Determine p*;
4) Estimate the drainage configuration
associated with the test well; the
well pattern will give a clue to this
configuration. In the absence of other
information, assume the well is centered
in a square drainage area;
5)- Estimate the drainage area associated
with the test well. Use the area based
on well pattern for developed fields;
6) Compute tD q according to Eq. 5.10. Make
sure that the value of t used to prepare
the Horner Plot is used p to compute t DA;
7) Enter the appropriate curve and
determine PDMBH'
8) Compute PR using Eq. 5.9.
5-20
the drainage area is not accurately specified, significant
errors can result; this is apparent from Fig. 5.9 which shows
the effect of well location on the MBH dimensionless pressure
in a square drainage area.
t +Ot
At, hrs pws, psia
P At
0.1 2504 46801
0.2 2668 23401
0.3 2769 15601
0.5 2882 9361
0.75 2953 6241
1.0 2980 4681
5-21
• 1.5 3006 3121
2.0 3019 2341
3.0 3030 1561
4.0 3037 1171
5.0 3043 937
6.0 3048 781
8.0 3054 586
10.0 3059 469
12.0 3066 391
15.0 3068 313
18.0 3071 261
k = 162.6 mqBW
^
k = - (162.6) (135) (1.63) (0.9)
-54 (22)
k = 27.1 md.
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^uctA
5-22
1 10 102
3250
3200
31S0
Cd
.r.,
U)
3100
tn
W ^
3050
3000
IIJa Ma v-.,
2950
102
' 10 3 10"
• • •
APC 206 2/01
•
NO. OF SHEETS
0
•
•
0
The MBH dimensionless pressure correspondinga to this v a lu e
is, from Fig. S.91 pDMBH = 5.12; thus, from Eq. 5.9,
m pDMBH
PR = p* + -2.303
PR = 3083 psia.
5-24
6.0
•
5.0
4.0
•
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 4.0 4.5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
6.0
^
5.0
4.0
• 3. 0
2.C
!.C
s 0
0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.
S-26
•
Example 5.3: Determination of average reservoir pressure
using the Odeh-Al Hussainy Method
t +Ot
At, hours pws, psia P At
0.133
0.267
2027
2097
11,600
5,770
•
0.40 2108 3,850
0.53 2113 2,910
0.67 2116 2,300
1.2 2122 1,285
2.0 2125 775
3.0 2127 515
4.0 2127.8 386
5.0 2128.5 309
6.0 2129.0 258
7.0 2129.6 221
8.0 2130.0 193
9.0 2130.5 172
10.0 2131.0 155
5-27
• • 0
2150
2140
2130
a
2120
^
W
2110
2100
2090
1 10 102 103 10"
t' + At
P
At
PR -Pi = 1.53;
m
therefore,
PR = 2150 + (1.53)(-7.0)
PR = 2139 psia.
C. Ramey-Cobb Method
•
Ramey and Cobb' showed that PR can be read directly from
the Horner straight line if the well reached pseudosteady
state before shut-in. The time ratio at which PR is read from
the Horner graph is:
t +At
(5.11)
At - = CAtDa.
pws-pR
ktp
_ 162.6qBp
pwf(^t=0) = Pi log
kh 2
Cuctrw
kt
khgBU
pws - pwf(At=0) = 162.6 L Z- 3.23
log
^uctrw
t +At
+ 0.87s - log P (5.13)
• or,
Pws
Pwf(At=0) =-m log
ktpOt
2
Cuctrw (tp+At)
p (Ot=O) - p"'s kt At
s = 1.151 ^'^f m - log 2p (5.15)
^uctrw(tp+At)
+ 3.231.
P wf (Ot=O)
m
-p
s 1.151 ws - log kAt2 + 3.23 , (5.16)
• ^ucrw
t
5-30
LJ
Any value of At, and the corresponding value of pws
can be used in Eq. 5.16 to compute s; however, pws must be
obtained from the Horner straight Zine, not from the
measured data. Since these values are arbitrary, it is
common practice to select ^t = 1 hr; hence, the correspond-
ing pws is called plhr' With these substitutions, Eq.
5.16 takes the most commonly used form of the skin equation:
pwf(At-0) plhr k
s = 1.151 - log + 3.23 (5.17)
m ^uctrw
Accordingly,
sd = s- sr - sp - S. - s f - sSw (5.19)
C. Flow Efficiency
The flow efficiency was previously defined by Eq. 3.38
as:
E = PR pwf Aps
PR pwf
(5.20)
•
5-31
If PR is not available, it can generally be replaced with p*
without much loss in accuracy, i.e.,
p* pwf Aps
E _ (5 . 21)
p pWt
DR = 1 = PR pwf (S.23)
E -
PR - pwf - Aps
^ps
DF = l - E = (5 . 24)
PR pwf
.
E. Flow improvement
If the value of Qps is computed using the damage skin
factor, and if it is assumed that this damage can be removed
by a stimulation treatment, the flow rate after stimulation
should be
•
5-32
_ 1 0
(5.25)
aafter E abefore
stimulation stimulation
fiquation 5.25 assumes that pwf is the same before and after
5.timulation.
m = -54 psi/cycle
3,005 psia
plhr =
PR
k
= 3,083 psia
= 27.1 md
•
pwf(At=0) = 2,260 psia
= 0.15
uo = 0.9 cp
ct = 13 x 10 6 psi
rw = 0.25 ft
= 1.151 r2260-3005
s
L -54
2 7. 1 6 + 3. 23]
- log
( 0 . 1S) (0 .9) (13x10 ) (0 .25) Z
s = 9.9. •
5-33
• The pressure loss due to this total skin is obtained from
Eq. 5.22:
Aps = -0.87ms
Aps = -0.87(-54)(9.9)
Aps = 465 psi.
E = PR Pwf ©ps
PR pwf
E = 3083-2260-465
3 .5-226
E = 0.43.
5-34
^
ative volume duced since last j ation(5.26)
t =
---* P constant rate iust before shut-
6. Wellbore storage
Wellbore storage is one of the most common and severe
problems encountered in the analysis of pressure buildup
data. The purpose of this section is to explain the cause
•
5-35
0
of storage, show its effect upon buildup data, detail how
it can be detected, present methods to predict the duration
of storage, and discuss ways of minimizing storage through
test design.
•
Q
w
4 r ACTUAL SHUT-IN
HISTORY
IDEAL SHUT-IN
HISTORY
0 tp(At=o)
TIME
•
5-36
This afterfZora of fluid is possible because, in effect, the
•
wellbore acts as a storage tank; fluids enter the wellbore
by causing the liquid level to rise or, if the wellbore is
full, by compressing the fluids in the wellbore. Wellbore
storage will continue after shut-in until the pressure in
the wellbore is sufficiently large to stop formation flow.
SAV
C = (5.27)
^lbSap
144A
(5.28)
C = 5.6l5p . bbl/psi
5-37
•
FLOWING
• tubing.
The compression of fluids within the wellbore can also
contribute to wellbore storage. The wellbore storage factor
caused by this effect is
.
The behavior of a buildup test will be dictated by the
total storage factor, i.e., the sum of Eqs. 5.28 and 5.29.
The primary storage effect in most oil wells will be caused
by a rising fluid level; however, when the gas-oil ratio in
the producing stream is large, gravity segregation of oil
• and gas in the wellbore can cause special problems which will
be discussed in a subsequent section. When working with gas
5-38
•
wells, the primary storage effect will be due to gas
compression.
The use of some type curves to analyze buildup data
requires that the wellbore storage factor be expressed in
dimensionless form. The dimensionless storage factor is
defined as
C = 0.894C (5.30)
D 2
t
^hcrw
5-39
9ums'tt.'vru.o, 1ti113 Aw.a'c^^ A,^r W" .
•
SLOPE = m
.^
Cs+
EFFECT OF
WELLBORE STORAGE
0 • •
• negligible:
5-40
D(a,wcxwm
CP; ' pwrp^ vs.
10
^ 10
0.1
0.1 1 lU lU lU •
At
0 •14s
At > 170,000uCe (5. 33)
kh
•
5-41
^ Equation 5.33 can b e ver y useful in the design of a
buildup test. The value of C can be estimated from the well
completion configuration; if values of k, h, u and s can be
estimated from other sources, the shut-in time required to
overcome storage effects can be estimated. If s is not known,
substituting s=0 into Eq. 5.33 will yield a minimum time for
storage to become negligible.
A comparison of Eqs. 5.33 and 3.72 suggests that the
skin factor has a larger effect upon the duration of storage
in buildup tests than it does in drawdown tests.
5-42
boundary effects begin, i.e., when the correct Horner straight
•
line ends.
Cobb and Smith" developed correlations which relate the
shut-in time at which boundary effects begin, atesll to the
length of time the well produced prior to shut-in; this time
is
^u ctA
(5.34)
Atesl 0 .0002 6 3 7 k (AtDA)esl.
0.0002637ktp
0
tDA ^ucta
CURVE
NUMBER SHAPE
^1
^I
,1 10'1 •
Cl) 3 1
Cn 4)
2
^
4 I
IO':
^ri-, 14 4
IO-3 10-= 1O"1 I
e I
t DA
r- -,
Fig. 5.20: Dimensionless time to
end of Horner straight 7 1 I
I I
line for shapes identi- L- _J
fied in Table 5.1.
NO FLOW
Data of Cobb and Smithll
------ CONSTANT PRESSURE
and Kumar and Ramey12
(After Ref. 9).
•
Example 5.5:* Pressure buildup design - wellbore storage and
boundary effects
Depth to mid-point of
perforated interval = 8,493 ft
Average density of oil
in the wellbore = 40.3 lbm/ft3
Inside diameter of tubing = 1.995 inches
Cumulative oil production = 18,300 STB
Packer depth = 8,460 ft ^
h = 33 ft ct = 24.7x10psi 1
= 18.5% rw = 0.333 ft
u= 2.4 cp Bo = 1.34 RB/STB
co = 11.2x10-bpsi q = 235 STB/D
k = 56 md (from test on an adjacent well)
5-45
^
accordingly, only the rise in fluid level will be considered.
Further, since a packer is located immediately above the test
interval, the only volume affecting wellbore storage is the
tubing volume. The cross-sectional area of the tubing is
144A wb
C = 5615 p
C - (144) (0.0217)
T-
5. 15 40 .
C = 0.0138 bbl/psi.
C _ 0.894C
D
Ohctrw
(0.894) (0.0138)
CD = (0.185)(33)(24.7x106)(0.333)2
CD = 738.
0•1VS
At = 170,00011Ce
S-46
At = (170,000) (2.4) (0.0138)
•
( 56 ) ( 33 )
At = 3.0 hrs.
^uctA
^tesl 0.0002637k (^tDA)esl
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^uctA
tDA = 0.89
(AtDA)esl = 0.0042.
Therefore,
5-47
•
Example 5.6: Pressure buildup test with wellbore storage
and boundary effects
q = 95 STB/day
t = 505 hours
p
r = 0.25 ft
w
h = 15 ft
Bo = 1.24 RB/STB
ct = 15 x 10-6psi-1
uo = 0.85 cp
0 = 15%
k = 21 md (data from adjacent well)
t +At
At, hrs pws, psia p
At
0 pwf=3041 -
0.00158 3064 3.19 x 105
0.00315 3087 1.60 x 105
0.00631 3134 7.99 x 10"
0.0158 3222 3.19 x 10"
0.0315 3331 1.60 x 104
0.0631 3444 7.99 x 103
0.158 3533 3.19 x 103
0.316 3560 1.60 x 103
0.631 3580 8.0 x 102
1.58 3603 3.2 x 10z
3.16 3620 1.6 x 10 Z
5-48
6. 30 36 36 81. 0
15.8 3655 32.9
31.6 3668 17.0
63.1 3677 8.99
158.0 3681 3.19
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^uctA
t = 0.0002637(21)(505) = 0.42.
DA
(0.15) (0.85) (15x10-6) (80) (43560)
^uctA
^tesl 0.0002637k (^tDA)esl
•
5-49
• • •
3900
3800
I II. II'1
+ III
3700 1 inuiuniu
II
3600
V)
3500 m = -56 PSI/CYCLE
U,
0
I
3400
3300
IV
103
.14
V)
r-,
0
1
+) 102
NI 4-4
til UNIT SLOPE LINE
10
10 3 10-2 10 1
At, hrs
.7 • •
^ t +At _ 505 + 6.0
= 85.2.
( ^ )esl 6.0
m = - 56 psi/cycle;
3,592 psia.
plhr -
+3,231
s = 5.6.
5-52
8. Detection of faults and other flow barriers •
When a well is located near a sealing fault, or other
flow barriers, pressure behavior during a buildup test can
be significantly altered from that previously discussed.
If the pressure behavior for this situation is not under-
stood, an incorrect interpretation of the data will likely
be made. However, if the pressure analyst understands this
behavior, it is not only possible to detect the flow barrier
but, in many cases, the distance to the barrier can be
estimated. Figure 5.23 depicts a well located a distance,
L, from a sealing fault.
TEST
WELL
(,}." L
SEALING
FAULT •
TEST IMAGE
WELL WELL
^- L L -=^
948^uc L2
Ap = pi - p(L,t) = - 70.6 kghu Ei - kt t . (5.35)
When both the test well and image well are flowing at the
same rate prior to shut-in, the total pressure change at
^ time tp in the test well is, by superposition,
948^uctrw 2]
pwf = pi + 70.6 qB"
kh Ei kt
p
948^uc (2L)2
+ 70.6 k Ei - ktt . (5.37)
P
948^uctrW 948^uct(2L)2
- Ei - + Ei k tp + At)
kAt
948^uct(2L)2
- Ei (5.38)
kAt
Ei(-x) = ln (1.781x).
t +4t
pws = pi - 70.6 khu {ln At
•
5-55
^
3792¢uc L` 3792^uc L2
- Ei - + Ei - t } (5.39)
k(tp+^t) kAt
large;^
it^,,.^, ^ Ss.
The values of L2 and t will generally be quite
thus, for early buildup times when At is relatively small,
the first Ei-term in Eq. 5.39 will be approximately constant.
Further, the second Ei term will be essentially zero. Under
these conditions,
t +At t +ot
_ 70.6 Bu (5.41)
pws pi - khq ln pt + In At
S -S6
^^n tv^^
•
.^
t +At
i?
At
k1,t
L = 0.01217 uct • (5.43)
5-57
Problem. An oil well produced 4,410 ST B o f oil a nd was shu t
in for a buildup test. The average production rate was 105
STB/day prior to the test. The well is located in an area
where a fault is suspected. Given the rock, fluid, and build-
up data presented, estimate the distance to the discontinuity,
the effective permeability to oil,and the total skin factor.
qo = 105 STB/day
rw = 0.33 ft
h = 19 ft
= 160
Po = 0.87 cp
Bo = 1.27 RB/STB
ct = 18.4 x 106psi
t +^t
At, hrs P pws, psia
0 -- 2665
0.1 10,081 2940
0.2 5,041 2970
0.5 2,017 3009
1.0 1,009 3040
2.0 50S 3070
5.0 203 3111
10.0 102 3148
20.0 51 3192
50.0 21.2 3258
100.0 11.1 3311
200.0 6.04 3361
•
5-58
3400
3300
3200
.^,
N
u,
3100
3000
2900
1 10 102 10 3 10"
t + At
P
At
• 0 0
• t
^
+Ot
= 73;
x
thus,
Atx = 14 hours.
Also,
162.6q oBouo
ko = - m1h
k = 9.9 md.
0
• L = 0.01217
k^t x
^^ct
(9•9)(14)
L = 0.01217
(0 . 16) (0 .87) (18. 4x10- 6)
L = 90 ft.
9.9
s= 1.151 r2665-3040 - log
-100 (0.16) (0.s7) (1a.4x10-6) (0.33) 2-
+ s,231
s = -0.7.
5-60
Several studies14-'-a have been reported in which the
effect of parallel faults, and faults intersecting at various
angles, have been studied. Theoretically, it is possible to
compute the distance to each of the faults in a multiple
fault system, and the angle of intersection of the faults.
Practically, however, only the distance to the nearest fault
can generally be computed.
If formation permeability is low, or if a fault is
located a large distance from the test well, the fault may
not be detected because of the long shut-in time required
for the pressure transient to reach the fault. In wells
where the producing time prior to shut-in is short, it is
possible that a fault will not be detected by a buildup test
regardless of the shut-in time; this problem will be discussed
in a subsequent section.
5-61
•
4
2
6
3 .^ ^. ^
• ^^^ ,q ,
. .)
4 ^^\ hq ^ •9
^ N
..^ .
1` • 0
04
.^ ^ 1
10 ^ 1 '4
12 3
1
• 14
4
F1 1
1 10 iu 2 1u 3 lo"
t +nt
P
At
VP
Vpi = 1 (5.44)
qt
•
drained by a well is proportional to the flow rate of the
well.
5-62
The drainage configuration of a well in a complex
reservoir can be difficult to estimate without the use of
computer simulation studies. As a rough estimate, the
p"bsition of the drainage boundary between two wells will be
proportional to the relative rates of the wells. For
example, if two wells separated by a distance, d, are pro-
ducing at rates ql and q2, the approximate distance from
Well 1 to the boundary will be dql/(q1+q2). By considering
the relative rates of all adjacent wells, this method can
be employed to obtain an estimate of the drainage geometry
of the test well. While more rigorous studies of pressure
distribution and drainage geometry are availab1e1, 22, it is
generally difficult to apply these to field situations.
It is not necessary to know the drainage configuration
to compute permeability and skin factor, provided the correct
semilog straight line can be identified. However, an
accurate determination of average pressure using any of the
methods previously discussed requires that both drainage
configuration and drainage area be known. Observation of
the Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek curves, presented in Figs. 5.8-
5.11, shows clearly that an error in the drainage configu-
ration can result in a significant error in the calculated
value of average pressure.
5-63
^ ^r-- 933' ---^
233
t +At
At, hrs pws, psia
P At
0 pWf = 1511 -
0.095 2082 2.53x103
0.167 2094 1.44
0.23^ 2102 1.01
0.334 2110 7.2x102
0.447 2118 5.38
0.716 2128 3.36
0.955 2134 2.52
• 1.19.
1.62
2139
2146
2.03
1.49
5-64
2.14 2153 1.13
2.63 2157 9.23x10
3.44 2163 7.08
4.39 2170 5.57
6.20 2178 3.97
7. 16 2183 3.45
8.11 2186 3.06
9.55 2191 2.61
11.93 2197 2.11
14.32 2202 1.78
16.70 2206 1.54
19.09 2210 1.36
21.48 2213 1.22
23.86 2216 1.11
24.82 2217 1.07
28.64 2221 9.38x10°
31.03 2223 8.73
35 .8 0 2226 7 . 70
42.96 2231 6.59
47.73 2233 6.03
71.60 2241 4.35
95.46 2245 3.51
143.19 2250 2.68
190.92 2251 2.26
5-65
• • •
2300
2200
cz
.^,
u, ^
o3
o, a
2100
2000
1 10 102 103 104
t t'At
P
At
Fig. 5.29: Horner plot, Ex. 5.8.
_ .
From the first straight line,
m1 = - 53 psi/cycle
k = 20.5 md.
p* = 2,262 psia.
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^^;ctA
_ 0.0002637)( 20.5 )( 10 ) ( 24
(0.11) (0.63) (12x10-6) (80) (43,560)
)tD`^(
tDA = 0.45.
-2.303(p*-pR)
= 0.44
0.44m1
PR = p + 2.303
PR = 2,262 + (0.4430351)
PR = 2,252 psia.
•
5-67
^
This is in agreement with the last buildup pressure which,
from Fig. 5.29, appears to be close to stabilizing at PR'
5-68
times prior to buildup were long enough for the discontinuity
to influence the pressure drawdown behavior of the well.
Many well test conditions, however, do not permit long pro-
ducing times; this is particularly true in drill stem tests,
'and in new wells where storage facilities are limited and
pipeline connections have not yet been made. The objective
of this section is to discuss the effect of short flow times
on the buildup behavior of wells located near reservoir
discontinuities.
Recent studies18,2s,26 clearly show that the buildup
behavior of a well located near reservoir discontinuities is
strongly dependent upon the length of the flow period
preceding shut-in. If a well in the presence of a discon-
tinuity is flowed sufficiently long before shut-in for the
effect of the discontinuity to be fully developed in the
drawdown behavior, then the buildup data, providing the
well is shut in long enough, will exhibit characteristics
which are indicative of the type of discontinuity present.
However, if the well is not produced sufficiently long for
the discontinuity to fully influence the drawdown behavior,
two possibilities exist: First, the discontinuity may have
no effect on the buildup data, regardless of how long the
well is shut in or, second, the buildup data will exhibit
anomalous behavior which is not indicative of true reservoir
characteristics, and which can lead to an erroneous interpre-
tation.
In a study of buildup behavior of wells near a linear
no-flow boundary in an otherwise infinite system, Streltsova
and McKinleyl$ showed that the second straight line of slope
2m would not appear on the Horner plot, regardless of the
shut-in time, unless the well produced for a dimensionless
time before shut-in equal to
0.0002637kt
tDL = 2 p = 10. (5.45)
^u c tL
0
5-69
This means that the r a dius of investi gation, R1., of the flow
period would have to meet the criterion that
kt _'Z
R. = 0.029 u^ = 6.32L. (5.46)
t
5-70
11. Multiphase flow
•
The pressure buildup equations can be modified23,24 to
account for multi-phase flow. The Horner equation is
tp+At
pws = pi - 162.6 a.h log (5.48)
At
t
•
Bg = gas formation volume factor, RB/scf
Bw = water formation volume factor, RB/scf.
at = -162.6 m'F
a (5.50)
k k k
Since a = -o + g + W (5 . 51)
t ug Ow
PO
a oB ouo (5 .52)
k = -162.6
o mh
5-71
The total skin factor can be computed as
5-72
qRt = qoBo + (1000qgt - qoRs)Bg + QwBw
•
aRt (278) (1.33)+[(1000) (720) -(278) (705)] (1.25x10-3)
+ (67) (1.02)
at = - 162.6 ami
(162.6) (1093.1
^`t -61 ( 31 )
at = 94 md/cp.
(162.6)(278)(1.33)(1.3) _
(-61) (31)
ko = 41.3 md.
k = - 162.6 q wBwuw
w mh
kw = 3.5 md.
•
5-73
• The permeability to gas is determined from Eq. 5.54 as
kg = 1.5 md.
ct = coSo + c w S w + cgSg + cf
• ct = 59.4x106psi
+ 3.231
s = 2.9.
5-74
^
1 J
ql
`1 N - 1
q
-3:
•
q=0
0
,
tl t2 tV-2 tN-1 tN
TIME
5-75
• rate prior to shut-in for a sufficient length of time
that pressure changes caused by previous rate changes
are negligible during the shut-in period.
An obvious question is: How long must the well be
flowed at constant rate prior to shut-in in order for
the Horner approximation to be sufficiently accurate. Two
guidelines will handle most testing situations: First,
if the last rate is maintained constant sufficiently long
for the radius of investigation (Eq. 3.14) achieved at this
rate to reach the drainage radius of the well, this method
will always be adequate27. Second, if a well undergoes a
rapid series of rate changes immediately before shut-in,
this approximation will generally be adequate if the last
rate is maintained constant for a minimum of three times as
long as the length of the previous rate. Referring to Fig.
5.30, the requirement of this second condition is that
aj (tj - tj-1)
j=1
qOS = tl qj (t j- tj (5.58)
OS
• j=1
5-76
The value of tp in Eq. 5.57 is the actual flow time, not the
•
Horner time. The regular Horner analysis is made using t0S
and qOS in place of tp and q.
Finally, the most rigorous analysis would be to treat
the test as a general multi-rate test. In this case, Eq.
4.20 can be modified to express the shut-in pressure, pws, as
N
tN tj 1+ At
pws pi + m n
L log ( t ^ tJ + At (5.59)
L
j=1
•
Example 5.10: Buildup test analysis with rate variation
before shut-in.
2 2813
3 2838
5 2872
7 2895
9 2910
11 2919
13 2930
15 2955
17 _94?
0
5-77
• Bo = 1.0 RB/STB
uo = 0.6 cp
0 0 0
1 3 478.5
2 6 319.0
3 9 159.5
N j t. -1 + At
(t N ^ .
- 10
qN g tN - t j + At )
j =1
478.5 9-0 + At
- 159.5 log (9-3 + Ot
319.0 9-3 + At
+ 159.5 log (9-6 + Ot
159.5 9-6 + At
+ 159.5 log (9-9 + At
5-78
At and pws
•
At, hrs pws, psia
2 1.2210 2813
3 1.0280 2838
S 0.7949 2872
7 0.6533 2895
9 0.5563 2910
11 0.4851 2919
13 0.4305 2930
15 0.3871 2935
17 0.3517 2942
kh = - 162.6 qB^'
m
kh = 102 md-ft.
•
5-79
^ 2950
2920
m = -153 PSI/cycle
2890
^
Ln
;7-
2860
2830
is
2800
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
N log ( t N tJ-1++ At
> aN tN tj t
j=1
•
5-80
_k III. MILLER-DYES-HUTCHINSON ( MDH) METHOD OF ANALYSIS
•
Another widely used method of analyzing pressure buildup
.data was suggested by Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson29. This
method is based upon the solution of equations which describe
the pressure behavi^r ^n a f^n^tP rese^voir. The pressure
drop (pi-pws) at the wellbore at any time after shut-in is
obtained by superimposing the pressure drop due to a flow rate
q, for a time tp+At, upon the pressure drop caused by a flow
rate -q acting for the shut-in time At. This is the same
procedure used to obtain the Horner equation except we are
now considering a finite reservoir. Therefore, by superposition,
_ 0.2339 Bt (5.61)
^ct
5-81
^ Substituting Eqs. 5 . 6 1 and 5.62 into Eq. 5.60 yields
+ 0.2339qB(tp+At)
162.6qBU log kAt
Ah^ct kh
^uc t w2
^ + 162.6qBU
log k - log 4A - 3.23
kh ^uctrw 2 1.781CArW
0.2339qBtp ^Q
(5.64)
Ah^ct
m = 162.6 ^ . (5.65)
5-82
•
ca
I-q
tA
At, hrs
k = 162.6 ^ (5.66)
V^
L m ^uctrw
0 . 2 339qBtp
or, PR = pi (5.72)
Ah;pct
k4t (5 .73)
- log
• z
^uctrw
5-84
It is now possible to determine the value of At to
•
which the MDH straight line must be extrapolated to obtain
Since we want to know when pws
PR' PR' PR can be
substituted for pws in Eq. 5.73 to obtain
^uct
(at) PR = 3792 kC (5.74)
A
4. Wellbore storage
Wellbore storage affects the N1DH plot in the same
manner it affects the Horner plot. Wellbore storage can
be detected using the log-log plot, and the duration of
storage is predicted using the same equations presented
for the Horner method.
^uctA
(5.34)
Atesl 0.0002637k (AtDA)esl'
5-85
•
-4
V)
tDA
5-86
the producing time or the stage of reservoir develo p ment.
The MDH method, however, should not be used unless the
well has flowed sufficiently long to be in pseudosteady
s-tate at the time of shut-in. The time required to achieve
pseudosteady state flow can be predicted using Eq. 3.15.
A study by Cobb and Smith" concluded that, in general,
the Horner method is superior to the MDH method because it
is applicable over a greater range of producing times. In
particular, it was shown that for short producing times,
i.e., t p < t pss , that the Horner plot will give a straight
line over a longer interval of shut-in time than the MDH
plot for the same data. This can be very important when
wellbore storage or boundary effects are present; the
straight line on the MDH plot might be masked by these
effects, whereas, on the Horner plot the same data would
yield a straight line.
The MDH plot is probably used more often than the
Horner plot because it is easier to prepare. The author
prefers the Horner plot because of its application to a
wider range of test conditions.
7. Other applications
While equations will not be repeated, it should be
stated that modifications to the MDH method for multiphase
flow are identical to those previously presented for the
Horner method. Also, the criteria for detecting faults,
the effects of wells not centered within their drainage
area, and the procedures for handling variable rates before
shut-in, are the same as previously presented.
5-87
At the time of shut-in, the well had been producing for an
effective time, tp, of 13,630 hours.
A wb
= 0.0218 ft2
h = 69 ft
5-88
•
a) Determine permeability, total skin factor, average
pressure and flow efficiency using the MDH method.
103
'--1
+^+
^
C_
10Z
0.1 1 10
At, hrs
•
5 -89
• • •
4600
4400
4200
•^
^n
u, 4000
3800
3600
0.1 1 10 102
At, hrs
k = 162.6 m
qBP
k = 7.6 md.
k + 3.23
s = 1.151 - log
LPlhrPwf(At0)
m ^uctrw
+ 3.23] •
s = 6.8.
^uctA
(^t)pR = 3792 kCA
5-91
• PR = 4,449 psia.
pR pw f(At=0) - Aps
E
pR pwf(At=0)
where
Ops = 0.87ms.
Therefore,
^ and,
E = 4449 - 3534 - 414
4449 - 3534
E = 0.55.
C = aBAt 0 1
24[p ws-pwf(At=O)]
5-92
q
C = 0.012 bbls/psi.
The storage factor can also be computed based upon the well
completion. Since this is an oil well, it is assumed that
the effects of fluid expansion are negligible and that the
dominant storage effect is caused by a rising fluid level.
The storage factor caused by a rising fluid 1, Dvel is given by
Eq. 5.28:
144A
wb
C =
5.615p
C = (144) ( 0.0218)
(5.615 53
C = 0.0105 bbls/psi.
At = 8 hrs .
•
5-93
•
IV. EXTENDED MUSKAT ANALYSIS
2. Determination of permeability
Permeability can be computed as'
141.2qB^i
k = (5^ . 'S)
pDMint
"s int
hR
5-94
•
103
PR TOO LARGE
^
102
CORRECT pR
(PR-Pws) int
)
PR TOO SMALL
10
At, hrs
•
5-95
•
1.4
/ -- 1
1.2
I • I
L___J
CONSTAN T
1.0 PRESSURE
/
0.8
/
/
0.6
•
0.4
NO FLOW
0.2
0
2 4 e 2 4 6 e 2 4 8 e
1 O-s io-e 1O-1 i
• tDA
5-96
^
in specifying an accurate geometry for a test well, raises
very serious questions about the accuracy of permeability
calculations from the Muskat method.
^ucta
At 0.0002637k (^tDA)sl
(5. 78)
•
where L^tDA is presented by Fig. 5.38 for a well in the
center of a square. The time to the end of the straight
line is not indicated by this correlation for the
constant -pressure -boundary square; this line will end at
At DA=0 512
•
5-97
• 0.09
0.08
END OF MUSKAT
TRAIGH T LINE
0.07
NO
FLOW
0.06
.--^
0.04
0.03 CONSTANT ^ ^
PRESSURE
0.02
! • • n L . • • ^ ^ o
• Fig. 5.38:
tDA
•
5-98
•
At, hrs pws, psia At, hrs pws, psia
h = 18 ft
Bo = 1.2 RB/STB
PO = 1.3 cp
qo = 330 STB/D
A 80 acres (wells drilled on square pattern)
tp = 14 days
kair = 5.0 md (core data)
^ = 0.10
_6 _1
ct = 18x10 psi
•
5-99
•
PR= 1,620 PR= 1,700 PR= 1,775
At, hrs pws, psia pR pws pR pws pR pws
^ PR = 1,775 psia
5-100
103
•
102
q
10
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
At, hrs
•
S-101
• tDA
0.0002637kt
^Pc
tDA = 0.054.
k = 141.2dBu
pDiNtint
Yl (pR pivs) int
k = 3.0 md.
k = (141.2)(330)(1.2)(1.3) (0.46)
(18) 800
k = 2.3 md.
5-102
Finally, we want to verify that we used the correct
portion of the data to make this analysis. Using tDA = 0.025,
Fig. 5.38 indicates that the correct straight line should
begin at (AtDA)esl = 0.044; therefore, from Eq. 5.78,
^uctA
At 0.0002637k (AtDA)esl
At = 592 hrs.
Since this test was only run for 260 hours, this clearly
indicates that even though the Muskat plot appears to have
a straight line, this line is incorrect. This also explains
why the calculated permeability is not in agreement with
either the Horner analysis or the core data. The fact that
PR agrees with the Horner method is probably accidental.
We conclude, therefore, that this data should not be
analyzed using the Muskat method.
0 V. AGARWAL METHOD
5-103
• wells and for fractured reservoirs.
The basis of the Agarwal method is a new time function,
referred to as equivaZent time, defined as
t At
Ate = t p At (5.79)
- p
m = 162.6 a. (5.81)
.
1. Determination of permeability
After the correct semilog straight line has been
identified, permeability can be computed from Eq. 5.81 as
5-104
•
P
SLOPE = m
.'.,
V)
• I
•
• •"'``-tVELLBORE tp
• STORAGE
0.1 1 10 102
A te, hrs
♦
5-105
3. Average pressure in the drainage pore volume of the
test well
The initial reservoir pressure, pi, or the false
pressure, p*, can be read directly from the semilog straight
line where Ate is equal to the producing time tp. This is
equivalent to reading the pressure from a Horner plot at a
Horner time ratio equal to unity. After p* is determined,
it can be used to determine PR using correlations previously
discussed for the Horner method.
4. Wellbore storage
Wellbore storage affects the Agarwal plot in the same
manner as it affects the Horner and MDH plots. The log-log
plot is again used to determine the length of wellbore
storage effects; in this case, however, [Pws pwf(At=0)] is
plotted versus At e rather than At. This plot is illustrated
^ by Fig. 5.41. If the unit slope line ends at At, the semi-
log straight line on the Agarwal plot should begin at
approximately 50Ate. Equations for predicting the duration
of storage (Eq. 5.33), and for computing the storage factor
(Eq. 5.32) are also applied as before by substituting Ate
for At. Use of equivalent time in the log-log plot accounts
for producing time in the solution; the primary advantage of
this plot will be illustrated in the next section which
discusses type curve analysis.
S-106
:i
•
10
UNIT SLOPE •
LINE •
r-, •
10 2
•
END OF COMPLETE
CONTROL BY
WELLBORE STORAGE
10
Ate
1
0.1 1 10 102 103
Ate, hrs
•
5-107
•
t at
At, hrs Ate=tP+ot , hrs Pws, psia pws-pwf(At=0), psi
P
5-108
This time was used with shut-in time to compute the equivalent
•
times shown in the table of input data. Log-log and semilog
plots of the buildup data are presented in Figs. 5.42 and 5.43,
respectively.
It is observed from Fig. 5.42 that a unit slope line
lasts until Ate ~ 0.1 hours. Applying the 50Ate rule of
thumb, the semilog straight line should begin at a shut-in
time of approximately 5 hours. This is consistent with the
semilog straight line shown on Fig. 5.43.
The slope of the semilog straight line is m = 100 psi/cycle.
Permeability is computed using Eq. 5.82:
k = 162.6 mh
k = 53 md.
- log k + 3.231 .
z
^uctrw
+ 3.23
1 0
s = 10.8.
5-109
• q E
104
IT SLOPE
H LINE
V)
r-,
i-^ 103
LH
tn
V)
F--+
i--^
102
10-2 10-1 10
Ate, hrs
9
4800
4600
m = 100 PSI/CYCLE
4400
.^,
^
4200
400C
380C
10 1 10 102
Ate, hrs
9 9 0
•
The false pressure, p*, is read directly from the
semilog straight line at Ate = tp. A lthough not shown
on Fig. 5.43, the value of pressure at Ate = 279.5 hours
from an extrapolation of the straight line is
p* = 4,798 psia.
5-112
drawdown equation for the transient fZow of a singZe-phase
•
Ziquid in a radiaZ flow system. This curve, which accounts
for the effects of both skin and wellbore storage, is pre-
sented as a plot of dimensionless pressure, pD, versus
dimensionless time, tD, where PD and tD were previously
defined for drawdown tests by Eqs. 3.57 and 3.58, respectively.
In order to apply the Ramey curve to the analysis of
buildup tests, it is necessary to redefine PD and tD as
5-113
• analyze buildup data, regardless of the producing time.
Although other methods have been proposed 33-35 which account
for short producing time in type curve matching, the Agarwal
method seems to be the easiest and most effective method
available.
5-114
straight line is masked by wellbore storage or skin effects.
•
VII. OTHER PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION
S-115
• illustrated by Fig. 5.44. Given enough time, the formation
and wellbore will achieve an equilibrium condition and
pressure will again increase in the wellbore.
•
• • • •• •
Ln • •
• •• • •
•
•
G:. •
•
•
•
•
t {'At
p
At
5-116
Type curves have been developed 40 which model the
•
pressure behavior caused by phase separation. These
curves offer the potential for analyzing data affected
by phase separation, but are limited by the assumption
that no additional gas enters the wellbore after shut-in.
When the problem of phase separation is present,
one of the following approaches should be used:
• 00
•
•
• \
• \\
•
•
0 • •
1 10 102 10 3 104
t '}At
p
At
3. Stratification
The theory used to analyze pressure buildup data
assumes that production is from a single homogeneous
reservoir. The_pressl^re hehavi ^r nf a reservoir w; th w^
or more distinct layers with communication only at the
wellbore will behave quite differently from a single layer.
Multi-layered systems can exhibit abnormal behavior and in
many cases are difficult to analyze. Significant studies
have been made only for two-layered systems.
A theoretical 1Iorner plot for a two-layered reservoir
with no crossflow is shown in Fig. 5.46. Early-time data
will yield the correct semilog straight line with a slope
that is proportional to the average flow capacity of the
two layers. This line may not last long, however, and can
easily be masked by wellbore storage and skin effects. The
straight line is followed by a transition period caused by
changing fractional flow rates from each layer; the data at
S-118
•
5 ,4 3 ? 1 1. Storage and skin
?. Proper straight
• line
•• 3. Transition
• 4. Flattening
• • • port ion
•
5. Final rise
1 •
SLOPE = m •
•
•
•
• •
•
+At
t^
At
5. Fractured reservoirs
Serious errors can he made in the analysis of buildup
data from fractured reservoirs if methods developed for non-
fractured systems are indiscriminately applied. All of the
methods discussed thus far assume radial flow. When a for-
mation is fractured, the flow geometry can be drastically
altered. For example, a hydraulically fractured well will
5-120
•
m2
CHANGE IN SLOPE m
DUE TO MOBILITY •
INCREASE
•
•
••
t +at
p
Ot
l04
1 10 102 103
t +Qt
P
At
•
5-122
•
VIII. TEST DESIGN
0.14s
At > 170 ,OOOCue .
kh
5-123
q
For purposes of design, setting s=0 in
this equation will yield a minimum value
of At. If storage is predicted to last
so long that the length of the test
becomes impractical, or there is the
danger of boundaries affecting the data
before storage ends, a bottomhole shut-
off tool should be considered.
^ucta
Atesl 0.0002637k ^^tDa)esl'
•
5-124
REFERENCES
•
1. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup
and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1967) 1.
12. Kumar, A., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Well Test Analysis
for a Well in a Constant-Pressure Square," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( April, 1974) 107.
0
5-125
• 13. Gray, K. E.: "Approximating Well-to-Fault Distance
From Pressure Buildup Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1965)
761.
5-126
25. Tipple, D. B. and van Poollen, H. K.: "Effect of
•
Reservoir Discontinuities Upon Buildup Behavior
Following Short Flow Times," paper SPE 6756 presented
at the SPE 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977.
5-127
• 38. Stegemeier, G. L. and Matthews, C. S.: "A Study of
Anomolous Pressure Build-Up Behavior," Trans., AIME
(1958) 213, 44.
49. Odeh, A. S.: "Flow Test Analysis for a Well With Radial
Discontinutiy," Trans., AIME (1969) 246, 207.
5-128
5l. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., and Jargon, J. R.:
•
"Problems in Interpretation of Pressure Fall-Off
Tests in Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1972) 1147-1156.
•
5-129
• REFERENCES: Wellbore Phase Redistribution
10. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Modeling Changing Storage During
a Shut-In Test," SPEFE (December 1994) 279.
0
• REFERENCES: Well Testing in Layered Reservoirs
5. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., Nai-Fu, F. and Gui, L. T.: "A Study of
Pressure Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs:
Shengli Field, China," paper SPE 15418 presented at the 1986 Annual
SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct.
5-8.
14. Gao, C., Jones, J. R., Raghavan, R. and Lee, W. J.: "Interpretation of
Responses of Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer
Boundary Conditions Using Derivatives," paper SPE 22681 presented at
the 66th Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 6-9, 1991.
15. Agarwal, B., Chen, H-Y. and Raghavan, R.: "Buildup Behaviors in
Commingled Reservoir Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure
Distributions: Interpretation," paper SPE 24680 presented at the 67th
Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC,
Oct. 4-7, 1992.
5-130
•
pDMBH = dimensionless Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek pressure
dimensionless Muskat intercept pressure
pDMint
= initial reservoir pressure, psia
pi
pi = average reservoir pressure at time of last shut-in,
psia
PR = volumetric average reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = flowing formation face pressure, psia
pwf(At=0) = flowing formation face pressure immediately
preceding shut-in of well for buildup test,
psia
pws = formation face pressure during shut-in, psia
(pR pws)int = intercept pressure difference on Muskat plot,
psi
plhr = pressure from semilog straight line at At = 1 hour,
psia
q = flow rate, STB/D
q*gt = total gas production rate, Mscf/D
qo = oil production rate, STB/D
qos = Odeh-Selig modified flow rate, STB/D
^
qRt = total production rate of oil, gas and water, RB/D
= water production rate, STB/D
qw
r`a = wellbore radius, ft
Ri = radius of investigation, ft
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
Rsja = solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB
s = total skin factor, dimensionless
sd = skin due to permeability alteration, dimensionless
sf = skin due to fracture, dimensionless
sp = skin due to perforations, dimensionless
sr = skin due to restricted entry, dimensionless
ssw = skin due to slanted well, dimensionless
st = skin due to turbulence, dimensionless
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
So = oil saturation, fraction
= water saturation, fraction
SW
^ tD = dimensionless time based on rw
tDA = dimensionless time based on A
5-131
tDL = dimensionless time based on L
•
tOS = Odeh-Selig modified time, hrs
tp = time well produced before shut-in, hrs
Vp = pore volume, ft3
Vwb = wellbore volume in communication with producing
formation, ft3
Aps = pressure loss due to skin, psi
At = shut-in time, hrs
Ate = Agarwal equivalent time, hrs
Atesl = shut-in time to end of semilog straight line, hrs
(AtDA)esl = dimensionless shut-in time to end of semilog
straight line
AtX = time of intersection of straight lines caused by
faults, hrs
AVwb= change in volume of wellbore fluids, ft3
at = total mobility, md/cp
u = viscosity, cp
p = density, ibm/ft3
= porosity, fraction
•
5-132
SUMMARY OF MAJOR EQUATIONS - CHAPTER 5
tp+Ot
16 2 . 6qBU log
5.5
pws pi kh At
m = - 162.6qBu
5.6
kh
k = _ 162.6qBp
5.8
mh
^, in
5. 9
5.10
PR P + 2. 30 3 pDhlBH
0.0002637ktp
• '
tDA = WtA
pwf(At=0) - plhr k
5.17 s = 1.151 - log
m
^uorw
t 2
+ 3.231
E = PR pwf Ap s
5.20
PR - Pwf
144A^^b
5.28
C = 57615p
5.29 C = Vwbewh
5.615
•
5-133
• S.30 C = 0.894C
D ^hcrw
t
qBAt
5.32 C=
24 [pws-pwf(At=0)]
0.14s
At > 170 000uCe
5.33
kh
^uctA
5.34
Atesl 0.0002637k(AtDA)esl
/kAtx
0uC
5.43 L = 0.01217
ct
tp+dt
5.48 pws = pi - 162.6 ^ t Rh log
• At
+ B
aw w
5.50 xt 162.6 mh t
5.53 11-W =- 16 2. 6 aw B
mh ^w
P wf (Ot=O) - p
• S.55 s 1.151
m
lhr - log t
trw
Z
+ 3.231
5-134
MILLER-DYES-HUTCHINSON METHOD ( m is a positive number)
+ 162.6qBU lo 4A
g k - lo g
kh 1.781CArW
^uctr^,
0.2339qBt p
- 3.23] -
Ah ^c t
5.65 m = 162.6 kh
qBV
5.66 qBw
k = 162.6 M11
Plhr Pwf(At=0) k
5.67 s = 1.151 - log
m ^uctrw
+ 3, 231
^uctA
5.74 (At)PR = 3792 kC A
141 . 2cIBu
5.75 k = PDMint
h(PR Pws) int
•
5-135
• AGARWAL METHOD ( m is a positive number)
t At
S. 79 Ate = t p +At
p
5.81 m = 162.6 kh
qBp
• 5.82 k = 162.6 mh
qB"
5.83 s = 1.151 l
L
e) - pwf(At=0)
m
- log k + 3.23
$uctrw 2
•
5-136
PROBLEMS
•
PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST
0.092 4033
0.23 4040
0.46 4045
0.92 4050
2.3 4056
4.6 4060
9.2 4062
23 4064
•
5-137
0 q = 460 STB/D A = 80 acres
B = 1.46 RB/S'I'B = 26%
u = 0.75 cp c o = 20xl0-6psi 1
h = 18 ft c w = 3xl0-6psi-1
r = 0.295 ft S = 22%
w w
pw f(4t=0) = 3,803 psia
t + at
At, hrs pot Pws' psia Ap, psi Apt
ln
0.15 90,900 3,680 146
0.2 68,200 3,723 189
0.3 45,400 3,800 266 208.7
0.4 34,100 3,866 332 228.9
0.5 27,300 3,920 386 247.3
1 13,600 4,103 S69 238.0
2 6,860
• 4 3,410
4,250
4,320
716
786
156.5
68.8
5-138
NO. 340-L310 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER OIETZ6EN CORPORATION
SEMI-LOGARITHMIC w^oc
3 CYCLES X 10 DIVISIONS PER INCH
CJl
F-
W
1^0
• • ^
q
6 2,270 4,340 806 52.9
7 1,950 4,344 810 39.9
8 1,710 4,350 816 38.2
12 1,140 4,364 830 33.1
16 853 4,373 839 32.5
20 683 4,379 845 28.5
24 569 4,384 850 28.0
30 455 4,393 859 24.0
40 342 4,398 864 21.8
50 274 4,402 868
60 228 4,405 871
72 190 4.407 873
A Horner plot and log-log plot of the buildup data
are presented..
•
5-140
1000
PROBLEM 2
100
F-+
F-+
A Ap
^ Apln
10
0.1 1 10 100
At, hrs
• • •
• • •
4600
PROBLEM 2
4400
4200
.^,
^
^n
4000
3800
3600
102 103 10`` 105
t +At
p
At
SEALING FAULT •
1
6 ]
A = 81 acres cf = 3.3 X 10 psi
tp = 43,869 hours So = 0.40
CIO = 817 STB/D Sg = 0.15
qw = 2,327 STB/D Sw = 0.45
q gt= 1,512 NIscf/D B 0 = 1.19 RB/STB
uo = 0.57 cp Bg = 1.96 x 10 -3 RB/scf
ua = 0.0142 cp Bw = 1.02 RB/S'I'B
uw = 0.45 cp Rs = 330 scf/STB
co = 31.1 x 10 6 psi1
- h = 110 ft
cw = 5.3 x 10 psi i 26%0
cg = 7.S x 10-4psi-' pwf(At=0) = 1,012 psia
r = 0.356 ft
w
•
5-143
•
t +At
t hr P n
5-144
1300
1250
1200
.^,
1150
U^
4-
cn
1100
1050
1000
102 103 10" 105 106
t Tl +At
At
0 is 0
^ NL7 3•1tJI C93 DIETZGEN L;RAPH PAPER ^ DIETZGEN CORPORATION
LOGARITHMIC -DE IN u.e.A. ^.-.,^ •il^...,^
3 CYCLES X 3 CYCLES • , _}
' N 41 p lp a J a o^ N 4i pIA a v m° - N W P (A 01 V m° 0
.i . 4
' t . ' rl { .• 1 1 ..I ^ ^ ^
- -
r . I ^{ .
i .I f 1 I :^ , l,; } •1
N - ^ . ^ ..F i f . •r I• t = 1^ = - - - .
r # { :l l 1! tt 1 ,I f
AR
a = Y i '{ ^: j }1 4 {_ t. c l
. . . 1,1
u
: . `. ^ ^ 1: {r r r i ^ ^
^ -- t t I I V : ^^ 3'_ ti':
^
_ i- .. F 14 :1
ti• .
I:T 4 ffli I F hill
.. i ^ . .
- - I 1 _- -_ -
M UM,
'lll ^
; i..:; ^ .; ^ • •^ ^ - ,^, f^
f
ft ,, ^ ^ ^:. , _ ,I 1, j, I ^.
r i . i1 1 , Lf ., . , } _ i` }: i .i I ^• . Gr ' t tj ^ t
N „^ ,:q 'i^, 1,
i ^ {' f•
^ 7
4 f ^r
W # '
4-
^ :: ^ t ` ^ 3 i ;_ ` ^ ' t j'' ` '" ^1'; : ^ ^1 ;' - -^ ♦ 1 ' J{
i i• . _ .FuL'
"t:j i+ .L }'' u: _
u , • _ - -_
a _ t i f= _ E
t ^ : { r {
° r jit ^! ^ ^' r I {
{!
: I
1 ;,. . . . .
L^ . . ,^ ^ . . , .:
I` i I• . ^^
W T
.? y 4^tl4t 4!:.I
: 1 fi r r
,
^ i ^ C f , i
_ ^} f l
u f'_ i , • i
47
1. t ^i: »:j sE
.. ;t-.
3 Uh i
4. An oil well is located i n the center of a closed
!
square drainage pattern. The well produced at a
constant rate of 210 STB /day for 50 hours. The well
was shut-in, and a press ure buildup test was conducted.
Reservoir rock and fluid properties are listed along
with the buildup data. The effects of wellbore storage
are negligible. Analyze the data by the Miller-Dyes-
Hutchinson method and es timate permeability, average
pressure and total skin factor. Reservoir pressure is
greater than the bubble point pressure.
A= 80 acres uo = 0.70 cp
^ = 22% r w = 0.17 ft
c t = 14 x 10-6psi-1 B o = 1.37 RB/STB
h = 12 ft pwf(At=0) = 2,360 psia
0.100 2709
0.165 2716
0.331 2726
0.497 2731
0.628 2735
1.00 2741
1.65 2747
2.48 2753
3.31 2756
4.97 2761
6.62 2764
8.27 2766
9.93 2768
S-147
NO. 340-L310 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER DIETZGEN CORPORATION
SEMI-LOGARITHMIC Mnoc IN u-e-A-
3 CYCLES X 10 DIVISIONS PER INCH
i^u. utiu-^u^ ui^^^. ^^ .vr^ r.rrcrt UI^ItuC1^1 t.UFtt'tIKAl1U1V
LOGARITHMIC -DK IN U.S. A.
(Jl
}--1
0 • •
• NO. 340-L310 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER
SLMI LOGARITHMIC
^ OIETZDEN
MAU[
CORPORATION
IN U. ^. A.
,•
3 CYCLES X 10 DIVISIONS PER INCH
(Jl
I--'
vl
6. The following pressure buildup data were obtained from
•
a well in a West Texas carbonate reservoir. The test
was conducted using an acoustical well sounding device.
Prior to the test, the well had produced 98 days since
last shut-in at an average rate of 6.6 STB/D. Determine
the effective permeability to oil and total skin factor
using the following methods:
h = 32 ft ( 2SPF) ct = 24 x 10 6psi 1
Bo = 1.15 RB/STB P o = 2,5 cp
= 12% rw = 0.33 ft
•
5-151
•
At, hrs At e , hrs
tp+nt
p ws , psia Op, psi Ap'l n
At
0 0 165 00 - -
0.5 0.5 175 4705 10 -
1.0 1.0 191 2353 26 -
2.0 2.0 221 1177 56 60
3.0 3.0 248 785 83 79
4.0 4.0 274 589 109 99
5.0 5.0 29S 471 130 114
6.0 6.0 317 393 152 131
7.0 7.0 339 337 174 143
8.0 8.0 358 29S 193 160
9.0 9.0 376 262 211 174
10 10.0 395 237 230 185
11 10.9 413 215 248 196
12 11.9 429 197 264 205
^ 14 13.9 464 169 299 224
16 15.9 496 148 331 237
18 17.9 525 131.7 360 248
20 19.8 551 118.6 386 259
22 21.8 577 107.9 412 257
24 23.8 601 99,0 436 262
30 29.6 662 79,4 497 277
36 35.5 714 66.3 549 296
42 41.3 749 57.0 584 299
44 43.2 759 54,5 594 301
46 45.1. 763 52.1 598 305
48 47,0 782 50.0 617 301
52 50.9 815 46.2 650 297
56 54.7 844 43.0 679 282
60 58,5 869 40,2 704 280
64 62.3 890 37.8 725 271
68 66.1 908 35.6 743 263
72 69.9 922 33.7 757 271
^ 76 73.6 937 31.9 772 267
5-152
80 77.4 951 30.4 786 -
84 81.1 962 29.0 797 -
88 84.8 974 27.7 809 -
92 88,5 981 26.6 816 -
96 92,2 985 25.5 820 -
97 93.2 987 25,2 822 -
98 94.1 990 25.0 825 -
100 95.9 994 24.5 829 -
104 99.6 1001 23.6 836
108 103.2 1008 22.8 843 -
112 106.9 1017 22.0 852 -
116 110.6 1023 21.3 858 -
120 114.2 1026 20.6 861 -
126 119.6 1036 19.7 871 -
132 125.0 1043 18.8 878 -
133 125.9 1051 18.0 886 -
5-153
•
• • •
1200
PROBLEM 6
1000
300
Ln 600
^• c^.
400
200
t {-At
p
At
10`
PROBLEM 6
<
102
vn
;r a
.I--
• Pressure
n Pressure Derivative
10
10 102 103
Ot, hrs
0 • •
•
SPE 9289 SPE
SOc^etb of PeU'dam Ef^eg`e Of AIME
A NEW METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCING TIME EFFECTS WHEN DRAWDOWN TYPE
CURVES ARE USED TO ANALYZE PRESSURE BUILDUP AND OTHER TEST DATA
©Copyright 1980, American Institute of Mining. Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc
This paper was presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of Ihe Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in Dallas. Texas, September 21 -24, 1980.
The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted lo an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write 6200 N Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.
INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT
Type curves have appeared in the petroleum lit-
Currently, type curve analysis methods are erature since 1970 to analyze pressure transient
being commonly used in conjunction with the conven- (pressure drawdown and pressure buildup) tests taken
tional methods to obtain better interpretation of on both unfractured and fractured wells. The
majority of type curves' 8 which have been developed
•
well test data. Although the majority of published
type curves are based on pressure drawdown solu- and published to date were generated using data
tions, they are often applied indiscriminately to obtained from pressure drawdown solutions and obvi-
analyze both pressure drawdown and buildup data. ously are most suited to analyze pressure drawdown
Moreover, the limitations of drawdown type curves, tests. These drawdown type curves are also commonly
to analyze pressure buildup data collected after used to analyze pressure buildup data. The applica-
short producing times, are not well understood by tion of drawdown type curves in analyzing pressure
the practicing engineers. This may often result in buildup data is not as bad as it may first appear.
an erroneous interpretation of such buildup tests. As long as the producing time, t, prior to shut-in
While analyzing buildup data by the conventional is sufficiently long compared topthe shut-in time,
semi-log method, the Horner method takes into At (that is (t +pt)/t - 1], for liquid systems,
account the effect of producing time. On the other it is reasonablg to analyze pressure buildup
hand, for type curve analysis of the same set of data using drawdown type curves. However, for cases
buildup data, it is customary to ignore producing where producing times prior to pressure buildup
time effects and utilize the existing drawdown type tests are of the same magnitude or only slightly
curves. This causes discrepancies in results larger than the shut-in times [that is, (t +At)/t
obtained by the Horner method and type curve >> 1], the drawdown type curves may not bepused tg
methods. Although a few buildup type curves which analyze data from pressure buildup tests. The above
account for the effect of producing times have requirement on the duration of producing times is
appeared in the petroleum literature, they are the same for the conventional semi-log analysis. If
either limited in scope or somewhat difficult to pressure buildup data obtained after short producing
use. time are to be analyzed, the Horner methodlo is
recommended over the MDH ( Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson)
In view of the preceding, a novel but simple method.9 The MDH method is generally used to ana-
method has been developed which eliminates the lyze buildup data collected after long producing
dependence on producing time effects and allows the times, whereas the Horner method is used for those
user to utilize the existing drawdown type curves obtained after relatively short producing times.
for analyzing pressure buildup data. This method Although pressure buildup tests with short producing
may also be used to analyze two-rate, multiple-rate times may occur often under any situation, they are
and other kinds of tests by type curve methods as rather more common in the case of drill stem tests
well as the conventional methods. The method and pre-fracturing tests on low permeability gas
appears to work for both unfractured and fractured wells. -
wells. Wellbore effects such as storage and/or
damage may be taken into account except in certain Thus, there is a need for generating buildup
cases. type curves, which account for the effects of pro-
tively short. Crawford, et al., 12 pointed out the A type curve is a graphical representation of a
above limitations for McKinley type curves in ana- mathematical solution (obtained analytically or
lyzing pressure buildup data from the DST tests. numerically) for a specific flow type. The solution
They also presented buildup curves for short pro- is normally plotted, in terms of dimensionless vari-
ducing times. Since their curves deal with specific ables, on log-log graph paper. The graph thus pre-
values of real producing times prior to shut-in, pared becomes the type curve for the specific flow
they are limited in scope and utility. Recently, problem with given inner and outer boundary condi-
the effect of producing time on analysis of pressure tions. Depending on the type of solution (drawdown
buildup data using drawdown type curves has been or buildup), drawdown and buildup type curves are
discussed by Raghavan.13 His study clearly points generated.
out the limitations of drawdown type curves for ana-
lyzing buildup data collected after small producing Drawdown Type Curves
times. A family of buildup type curves is presented
both for unfractured and fractured wells with pro- As the name implies, these type curves are
ducing time as a parameter. Although these type based on the drawdown solutions. The pressure draw-
curves offer a definite advantage over the existing down solution for a well producing at a constant
drawdown type curves, they are difficult to use rate as a function of flowing time, t may be written
because of the multiplicity of type curves. In a as
recent paper, Agarwa119 also discussed the limita-
tions of using drawdown type curves for analyzing
buildup data obtained after small producing times kh[pi-pwf(t))
but no details were given. These limitations are
141.2 qBp - pwD(CD) (1)
discussed here in this paper. Recently Gringarten,
et a1.15, presented drawdown type curves, plotted
in a slightly different form, and suggested some
guidelines regarding the portions of buildup data where,
which may be analyzed by drawdown type curves.
Although these guidelines may be useful in certain
cases, the basic problem still remains.
t _ 2.634 x 10-4kt (2)
methods because (1) this permits us to account for Eq. (1) is a general solution and is not meant
the effects of producing time, and (2) data are nor- to be restricted to any particular drainage shape or
malized in such a fashion that instead of utilizing well location. The majority of the published type
a family of type curves with producing time as a curvesl 8 for both unfractured and fractured wells
parameter, the existing drawdown type curves may be are based on pressure drawdown solutions for liquid
used. This concept appears to work for both unfrac- systems. Examples of pressure drawdown type curves
tured and fractured wells. Wellbore storage effects for unfractured wells are those presented by
with or without damage may also be taken into Agarwal, et al.,1 Earlougher and Kersch4 and
account provided that producing time prior to Gringarten, et al.ls In another publication Grin-
shut-in is long enough to be out of such wellbore garten, et al.,S-presented type curves for verti-
effects. cally fractured wells with infinite flow capacity
and uniform flux fractures. Type curves for finite
This method has been extended to include anal- flow capacity fractures were provided by Cinco
ysis of data from two-rate tests8i1s'17 and multiple et a1.,6 and.Agarwal, et al.7 More regarding
rate tests8r17'1s by type curve methods. Although the use of above type curves for analyzing buildup
not shown, it appears to have a potential for data will be said later.
applying type curve methods to other kinds of
testing. Buildup Type Curves
This new method, although originally conceived To obtain pressure buildup solutions, superpo-
for type curve analysis of buildup data, is quite sition may be applied in the normal manner to pres-
suitable for the conventional semi-log analysis. It sure drawdown solutions. This provides buildup
is similar to the Horner method because it includes pressures at shut-in times, At after a producing
the effects of producing time, and may be used to time, t . Fig. 1 shows a schematic of pressure
determine formation flow capacity, skin factor and builduppbehavior obtained following a constant rate
the initial reservoir pressure. However, it has an drawdown for a production period, t . Flowing pres-
added advantage. It allows the plotting of pressure sures pwf(t) are shown as a functioR of flowing
buildup data, with and without producing time time, t up to a production period, t, when a
effects, on the same time scale as the graph paper. buildup test is initiated. Buildup Fressures,
This enables a better comparison of data using the p s(t +pt), are shown as a function of shut-in time,
^
SPE '9289
or (11)
0P)difference ' pws(At-0)-Pwf(tp+At)
The flowing pressure, pwf(t ) at the end of
producing period, tp is given byP
As producing period t gets smaller or At gets
larger, the difference sho& by Eqs. (9) through
kh[pi pwf(tp (11) can no longer be ignored and the use of draw-
(4) down type curves to analyze pressure buildup data
141.2 qBp PwD[(tp)D] becomes invalid. The impact of the assumption shown
by Eq. (9) will be discussed first in a generalized
fashion followed by its impact on type curves for
Subtracting Eq. (3) from Eq. (4) and substituting specific flow regimes. Finally, the new method will
pWS(At=0) for pwf(tp), we obtain be discussed which accounts for producing time
effects for analyzing pressure buildup data.
UNFRACTURED WELL
(AP) buildup - Pws(tp+At) - pws(At=0) (8)
kh[pi-pwf(t)] 1
[ln(tD) + 0.80907] (13) To overcome the above difficulty, a new method
141.2 qBp -
has been developed which should allow us to analyze
pressure buildup data by means of pressure drawdown
type curves. This new method may also be used to
Eq. (13) is a pressure drawdown solution for a perform the conventional analysis.
radial system which also forms the basis for
semi-log straight line on a semi-log graph paper.. NEW METHOD
If Eq. (12) is substituted in Eq. (3), the well
known Horner pressure buildup equation is obtained. Eq. (5), presented earlier as a pressure
buildup solution, forms the basis for this new
method. Substitution of Eq. (12) in Eq. (5)
kh[pi-pws(tp+At)] 1 (tp+At)D
= 2 [ln AtD ] (14)
141.2 qBp
kh[pws(tp+At)-Pws(At=0)]
141_2 qBN
pi
which is generally not known. Consequently,
Eq. (14) is not suitable for the purposes of type
curve matching. However, (AP)buildu defined by
Eq. (16) thus becomes a pressure buildup solu-
tion for the infinite radial system. A comparison
Eq. (8) is generally known and is noprmally used for of pressure drawdown, Eq. (13) with Eq. (16), indi-
type curve analysis. If Eq. (12) is substituted in cates that pressure drawdown curves generated by
Eq. (6), the simplified pressure buildup equation is Eq. (13) should be the same as the pressure buildup
obtained. curves obtained by Eq. ( 16). To demonstrate this,
the family of buildup curves shown in Fig. 4 and
plotted as a function of dimensionless shut-in time,
kh[Pws(t p +At)-p (c1t=0)] were replotted as a function of the time group,
c.s At D'
(t D x AtD)/(tP + At)D. Results are shown in
141.2 qBp
F. 5.
^teD
(tpD x AtD)
(t + At) D
(18)
Infinite Radial System (s=0; •
To study the effect of storage on buildup type
curves, data presented by Agarwal, et al.,1 were
The dimensionless pressure change during utilized. Pressure drawdown data pw p vs. tD data
buildup or a rate change may be defined as13 for s=0 and CD=1000 were taken from Table 3 of the
above paper. Eq. (5) was used to generate the pres-
sure buildup data for a number of producing times as
_ kh[pws(tp + At) - Pws(At=0)] was done by Raghavan.13 Both pressure drawdown data
pwDs (19) and pressure buildup data are plotted on Fig. 6
141.2 qBp
(semi-log graph paper) as a function of t n and AtD
respectively. Note that a family of buildup curves
is obtained with producing time, t p ( 103 to 106) as
In establishing the new method, it was previ- a parameter. These data are also FIotted on log-log
ously assumed that wellbore effects (such as storage graph paper as shown by Fig. 7. These figures
and skin) are negligible. It appears that skin further emphasize the limitations of using pressure
effect, s, may be considered in the development of drawdown curves to analyze pressure buildup data
this method. obtained after short producing periods. Fig. 7
shows that unit slope lines for buildup data are
Infinite Radial System (s#0; shifted to the right of the drawdown curves. If
dimensionless storage, CD, is computed using the
buildup data, the computed value of C n will be erro-
If skin effect, s, is introduced in the pres- neously high. Moreover, if pressure buildup data
sure drawdown solution given by Eq. (12), we obtain are forced to match the pressure drawdown type
curve, the computed value of formation flow capacity
(kh) will be erroneously optimistic. The magnitude
of error will increase with decreasing producing
PwD(tD) = 2 Iln(tD) + 0.809071 + s (20) period.
•
The attempt was Although not shown in this paper, results indicate
made to establish the validity of this concept for that pressure buildup curves are normalized when the
the above situations by graphical means rather than new method is used. The lower limit of the pro-
the mathematical solutions. Let us first consider ducing time for s#0 is determined by the following
the infinite radial system with wellbore storage equation.20
effects.
A NEW METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCING TIME EFFECTS WHEN DRAWDOWN TYPE
CURVES ARE USED TO ANALYZE PRESSURE BUILDUP AND OTHER TEST DATA SPE 9289
• tpD > (60 + 3.5 s)CD (24) CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS USING THE NEW METHOD
• C
D
= 5.615 C 2
2n^hctrw
(25)
m = 162.6 qµB
kh
(28)
• plot.
same.
Steps for type curve matching remain the
The limitations on the lower limit of pro-
ducing time as discussed earlier should also apply
in this case.
Eq. (29) also provides the basis for making a
MDH plot for long producing times. Eq. (26) may be
solved for the skin effect, s as
SPE 9289 RAM G. AGARWAL
•
pws(Ate = I hr) - pws(4t = 0) Fig. 14 shows a comparison of drawdown data
s = 1.151[ [plotted as (Ap)drawdown vs. t and shown by trian-
m
gles] with the pressure buildup data [(np)buildu
vs. At ](shown by solid circles). The comparison
e
between the two plots is excellent. (Ap)^ui^d
log - k 2 + 3.23] (30) data plotted as a function of conventiona s u^Pin
0 ctrw time, At, are also shown by a dotted line with open
circles. Note that between 200 and 250 minutes
there is a departure between the conventional
Note that in Eq. (30), p(At = 1 hr) should buildup curve and the other two curves. Gringarten
be read on the semi-log straight line or its exten- et al.ls observed a similar departure between the
sion. conventional buildup curve and the drawdown curve at
about 250 minutes and concluded that the buildup
The initial reservoir pressure, p., or a false data beyond this time should not be analyzed by
pressure, p'^, can be directly read from the straight drawdown type curves. However, the modified buildup
line portion of the semi-log graph [p
ws vs. Ate] plot does not suffer from the above restriction. If
where At is equal to producing time, t. Inspec- the new method is used, the majority of data may be
tion of eEq. (17) indicates that this cgrresponds to type curve matched. Fig. 14 also suggests that in
the Horner time ratio, (t +At)/At equal to unity or this case, the real shut-in time, At, of 4281
shut-in time, A close to ?nfinity. The estimation minutes is only equal to (1347 x 4281)/(1347 + 4281)
of initial reservoir pressure by this method will be = 1025 minutes in terms of equivalent drawdown time,
illustrated later by means of a field example and Ate
will be shown on Fig. 16.
Next (Ap)huildu vs. Ate data were type curve
FIELD EXAMPLE matched using Gringagten at al'sls type curve as
shown in Fig. 15. Note that a very satisfactory
Pressure Buildup Analysis Using New Method match has been obtained. Computations for type
curve analysis are shown in Table 2 and results sum-
A field example taken from Gringarten marized in Table 3. It is also possible to read the
et al.'sis paper will be utilized to illustrate initial pressure directly from the log-log plot. To
the application of the new method to analyze pres- accomplish this, read (Ap) at At = t . This
sure buildup data taken on an acidized well. Both
conventional and type curve methods will be used to
analyze the data. Results will be compared with
those of Gringarten et al.'s To maintain the con-
provides p. = p(At=O)+(pp)buildup
pi = 3251 psi, as shown onbPiga95.
In ^.his Ease
(ql
l q2 - log k 2 + 3.231 (37)
= 2 [ Ln ^t + ^t (At)D ^Nctrw
0 I + 0.80907 + 2s] (33) An example will be shown later for multiple rate
testing.
•
A schematic of multiple rate testing is shown
in Fig. 18. This type of testing consists of
flowing a well at a constant rate q l for time, tl,
s = 1.151[pwfn(Ate n-1 hr) - pwfn-1(tn-I)
at rate q2 for time t] to t2 and so on. Say the
m
final rate is q for lime t to any incremental
time, At. Although not shown; pressures are denoted
as p (t ), p f (t2).... and p (t ) at the end
timewfn-1 n-1
of first , Isecond2and t periods. p (At) - log k 2 + 3.231 (42)
are the pressures during2the final (nth) period. If
^Nctrw
the steps similar to those shown for two rate
testing are followed for multiple rate testing, the
following equation is obtained. Next a computer simulated example will be con-
sidered to illustrate the application to multiple
rate data.
kh[pwf.n(Ot) - pwfn-1(tn-1)1
SIMULATED EXAMPLE
141.2 (qn-1 - qn)BN
Multiple Rate Analysis Using New Method
qj-1
n-1 To demonstrate the application, a computer gen-
qjn- 1 -
q n
erated example will be utilized. Table 4 lists the
1 tn-1 - tj-1
2{ln At)D reservoir and well data for a gas well, where (Nc )
^t + tn-1 - t 1 product is kept constant to eliminate the effectsgof
J
j=1
(Nc ) variations as a function of pressure. Rate
andgpressure histories are shown on Fig. 19. Note
+ 0.80907 + 2s} (38) that the gas well was produced at three different
flow rates (15, 10 and 5 MMCF/D) with intermediate
buildup periods. Each flow period was simulated to
where t= 0; q = 0 and n> 2. Eq. (38) is very be 1/2 day long whereas each of the first two
general°and should apply to any number of flow and
•
buildup periods was 1 day long. The third and the
buildup periods, provided that the system is final buildup period was 2 1/2 days long. Pressure
behaving like an infinite radial system and log vs. time data for each flow period are shown on
approximation is valid. Eq. (38) also suggests that Fig. 19 by means of open symbols, whereas for each
multiple rate test data during any flow or buildup subsequent buildup period by means of corresponding
period may be analyzed using drawdown type curves. solid symbols. Multiple rate test Eq. (40) was
For multiple rate testing, the equivalent drawdown expressed in terms of real gas pseudo pressure19,
time may be defined as m(p) and rearranged slightly for the purpose. In
Fo* n eaae aha.h9ts practical gas units, the following equation is
obtained:
At =
en
ji
( __ m[pwfn(4t)1 - m[pwfn-1(tn-1)}
n- l
qn I qn
(qn-1 - q n )
tn-1 - tS-1
.At (39)
TT ^t + tn-1 - j - 1
j=1 k
17T[log(Aten)
kh + log ^(Nct
)irw2
162.6(qn-1
into the program, as expected. The preceding
example was used to demonstrate the application and
establish the validity of the new method for mul-
tiple rate testing data.
•
qn)BN
kh = md-ft (41)
m
A NEW METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCING TIME EFFECTS WHEN DRAWDOWN TYPE
10 CURVES ARE USED TO ANALYZE PRESSURE BUILDUP AND OTHER TEST DATA SPE 9289
r 1
Other Kinds of Testing Finite Flow Capacity Fracture
Although not shown in this paper, it appears The new method was next applied to data for a
that the new method may be applied to other kinds of vertically fractured with finite flow capacity frac-
testing methods such as interference, constant pres- ture. Constant rate pressure drawdown data of
sure testing, etc. Agarwal, et al.,7 were used to generate a family
of buildup type curves with producing time as a par-
VERTICALLY FRACTURED WELL ameter. This had to be done for each value of
dimensionless fracture flow capacity. These results
The new method was next applied to vertically were replotted using the new method. Once again, it
fractured wells with both infinite and finite flow was possible to normalize the majority of buildup
capacity fractures. Results are discussed below. data on drawdown type curves. For the sake of
Eq. (5) again fgrms the basis of this study. Dimen- brevity, results are not presented here. However,
sionless time, Dx f for a fractured well is defined it should be suffice to say that constant rate pres-
as follows: sure drawdown type curves of Agarwal, et a1.7 and
Cinco, et al,s, may be utilized to analyze pres-
sure buildup data. Requirement is that (Op)b ldup
data are plotted as a function of Ate rather ^^ian
t = 2.634 x 10-4 kt
(44) the conventional shut-in time, At.
Dxf 2
O(Nct)i xf ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL BUILDUP DATA
•
erate a family t of pressure buildup curves with pro- example, if pressure buildup data collected after
ducing times, pDx , as a parameter. Results short producing time from an t9iF gas well are to be
similar to those of Raghavan are presented in analyzed by drawdown type curves, the following
Fig. 21. Since Raghavan13 adequately discussed the procedure is recommended.
limitations of using pressure drawdown curves for
analyzing pressure buildup data for fractured wells,
only certain key points will be re-emphasized- Graph {m[pws(t + At)] - m[pws(At=0)]j vs.
P
(i) Computed formation flow capacity will be (tap x Ata)
optimistiC.
(t + Ota) on
ap
(ii) Computed value of fracture length will be
pessimistic.
the data plot, utilizing the appropriate type curve.
(iii) The characteristic half slope line may Steps outlined in Ref. 14 for type curve matching
not appear on the log-log paper. remain the same. In the above time group, t and
At represent flowing time, t, and shut-inaFime,
Fig. 22 shows the replot of pressure buildup Atapexpressed in terms of real gas pseudo-time. If
data utilizing the new method. Data are plotted as variations of (pc ) vs. pressure during the test
period appear to gbe small, instead of using pseudo-
pw s vs. ^€Dxf or (tpDxf xAtDxf)/(tpDxf +atDxf). time, real times may be used.
Note that eDxf is the equivalent drawdown time,
expressed in the dimensionless form, for a verti- CONCLUDING REMARKS
cally fractured well. The majority of buildup data
have been normalized on the drawdown curve. It was 1. A new method has been developed to analyze
rather a surprising observation in view of the fact pressure buildup data by pressure drawdown type
that a time group developed for the radial system curves. It provides a significant improvement
should also be applicable for a fractured well which over the current methods because
is normally associated with linear, elliptical and
radial flow regimes. (i) the effects of producing time are
accounted for;
Although not included in this paper, the pres-
sure drawdown data of Gringarten, et al.,s for the (ii) data are normalized in such a way that
uniform flux fracture case were also considered. instead of using a family of buildup
Pressure buildup data were generated and plotted curves, the existing drawdown type curves
•
mation flow capacity, kh, skin effect, s, and
initial pressure, p.. It appears similar to m(p) = real gas pseudo pressure, psiz/cp
the Horner method because both methods take (kPa2/Pa•s)
into account producing time effects. However,
this method is more general and has the advan- = initial pressure, psi (kPa)
Pi
tage that
= dimensionless pressure drop [see
pwD
(i) both the MDH plot and the plot using the Eq. (1)]
new method utilize the common time scale,
which permits comparing the two plots and
determining the effects of including or
pwDs = dimensionless pressure rise or
excluding the producing time; change ( see Eq. (19)]
6.
also by means of example problem.
q
= pressure change during drawdown,
psi (kPa) [see Eq. (7)]
7. The method, although developed using liquid q = flow rate during the final flow
solutions, should be applicable to data from n period, STB/D ("standard" m3/D)
gas wells, as shown in the paper.
rw = wellbore radius, ft (m)
8. Finally, it appears that the new method may be
applied to a variety of testing methods such as s = skin effect
interference testing and constant pressure
testing to name a few. t = flow time, hours
k
= formation thickness, ft (m)
= formation permeability, md
t pD
At
= dimensionless producing period
• t ap = real gas pseudo producing period 2. Wattenbarger, Robert A. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:
"An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin
at e = equivalent drawdown time, hours Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Finite
(see Eq. 17) Difference Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept.
1970) 291-297; Trans., ATME, 249.
AtDxf. = dimensionless shut-in time based on
fracture half length 3. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data
Interpretation in the Presence of Skin Effect
At = equivalent drawdown time for two and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
e2
rate test, hours (see Eq. 34) 1970) 97-104; Trans., AIME, 249.
At = equivalent drawdown time for mul- 4. Earlougher, Robert C., Jr., and Kersch, Keith
en
tiple rate test, hours (see Eq. 39) M.: "Analysis of Short-Time Transient Test
Data by Type Curve Matching," J. Pet. Tech.
T = reservoir temperature, °R (July 1974) 793-800; Trans., AIME, 257.
xf = fracture half length, ft (m) 5. Gringarten, Alain C., Ramey, Henry J., Jr., and
Raghavan, R.: "Pressure Analysis for Fractured
N = viscosity, cp (Pa • s) Wells," paper SPE 4051 presented at the SPE-
AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio,
(Nc t ) i = viscosity-compressibility product Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1972.
at initial condition, cp
6. Cinco-L, Hever, Samaniego-V., F. and Dominguez-
^ = formation porosity, fraction A., N.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for a
Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Frac-
it = constant, 3.14159 ture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1978) 253-264.
en = equivalent for multiple rate test 10. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells,"
Proc., Third World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951)
f = fracture II, 503-521.
15. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet, D. P., Landel, 18. Odeh, A. S. and Jones, L. G.: "Pressure Draw-
P. A., and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A Comparison down Analysis, Variable-Rate Case," J. Pet.
Between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Tech. (Aug. 1965) 960-964; Trans., AIME, 234.
Type-Ruves to Early-Time Transient Analysis"
paper SPE 8205 presented at SPE 54th Annual 19. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Craw-
Fall,Ueeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 23-26, ford, P. B.: "The Flow or Real Gases Thrqugh
1979. Porous Media," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966)
624-636; Trans., AIME, 237.
16. Russell, D. G.: "Determination of Formation
Characteristics From Two-Rate Flow Tests,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1963) 1347-1355; Trans.,
AIME, 228.
is
0
• TABLE 1
TABLE 2
RESERVOIR AND WELL DATA
(Field Example - Ref. 15) TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS
(Field Example - Ref. 15)
Match Point
Formation thickness, h 30 ft
Formation porosity, ^ 0 .15 fraction PV
[6p)M = 10 psi [PwD) = 0.17
Wellbore radius, r 0 .3 ft
1 .0 cp M
Fluid viscosity, Nw
System compressibility, ct 10 X 10-6 psi-1
[6te] t, = 10 min [D)
cL = 0.64
1 .25 RB/STB D M
Formation volume factor, 8
Production rate, q 800 STB/D [cDe2s[
1347 minutes = 1.0
Producing period, t p
M
•
Eq. (2S) is used to compute
2186 3238 141 842.
2683 3242 145 898. C = (C)(5.615) _ (0.184)(5.615)
3615 3246 149 962. = 40600
D 2rtphctrw2 2n(.15)(30)(IX10-5)(.3)2
4281 3246 149 1036.
De2s)
S= 2 An [(cc MJ = 2 en [40821)
D
= -5.31
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
(Field Example - Ref. 15)
•
• '
Pi
1 ^ I)drar,davn pWS(tp+
p^(tp+ 6t)
t 6t
TIME TIME
8
• .
7
4
p)drawdo7
a 6 DRAWDOWN
------^ 1;
m SOLUTION
-_-__ 4 5 _ --•--- - -- 104
+p Q -R'" R- ^
----- 103
4 __.
o-- "----
^ ------
^ 3 2
^p)buildING
-' 0
, tp BUILDUP SOLUTION /p
2a 2
TIME, t or pt
Tn ^> I
10-° 26t
DIMENSIONLESS BUILDUP TIME, ptD • 2.634 x
0N ct rW
FIGURE 4: BUILDUP TYPE CURVES FOR VARIOUS PRODUCING TIMES- SEMI-LOG GRAPH
(INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEM, CO • 0 8 S. 0)
AD [(dP)bulldup vs 6t]
•
E
8 7
DIMENSIO
PRODUCING
7 6
4 a,^ tPD
6 DRAWDOWN ^ 5
a m SOLUTION
BUILDUP DATA
5 FOR VARIOUS ^ 4 sA
PRODUCING TIMES, t 9
pD
4 3
J tn
104
5• N 3 ° 103 2
2a^ 2 102 1 1 SA
c
1 0
102 10j 104 105 t x6 t 106
DIMENSIONLESS EQUIVALENT TIME, OteD • I t'+ ^D ) DIMENSIONLESS BUILDUP TIME, 6t0
pD D
FIGURE 6: NORIMLI2ED BUILDUP TYPE CURVE-SEMI-LOG GRAPH FIGURE 6: BUILDUP TYPE CURVES FOR VARIOUS PRODUCING TINES-SENI-LOG GRAPH
(INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEN, Cp 0; s. 0) (INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEN, Cp 1000; s•O)
•
10
-.------- • •
DRAWDOWN ^105
SOLUTION 10
V1
^W 5 BUILDUP DATA
1 SA , a--------°---°------ ^03 OC FOR VARIOUS
a
^ ^. 4 sA PRODUCING TIMES, tPD
_ ` s
m 3 •^• • 106
(n 0. 1 Vf 105
4A
^ 2 X 104
^BUILDUP ^ DIMENSIONLESS
fA SOLUTION PRODUCING TIME In ° 103
9 A
01 C •16 S °
N10 '
9
DRAWDOWN m
SOLUTION r--
7
PRODLICING
U
c
COeZ6 • 101,
C6 a^
C6 SA CL
1014
9
GO
10$-,
•
(INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEM, Cp 1000. S-0)
DRAYOONN TYPE CURVES4
U 1
NIP
C e 2s.
aIQ
0 10-1
N 0
^ rY
t6 4
O
10
10_2
11
FIGURE 11: A SCHEMATIC OF EARLOUfiIER AND KE0.5pl4 DINNOOi01 TYPE CURVES FOR A WELL WITH STORAGE AMD SKIN
(INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEM)-By PERMISSION Of MARATHON OIL CC1hJ+Y
•
!
1
4--
N
iL[
r^i
j 6
43 O
N
W
N
N
y,^ C.'
G.
K
a
N 0
Q
N
00
C TIME MINUTES)
DIMENSIONLESS TIME 1 t0or Otel • 0. 000295 ^^^ ^t or
CD
FIGURE 12: A SCHEMATIC OF GRINGARTEN Lt Li115 DPAYDOYN TYPE CURVES FOR A WELL WITH STORAGE AND SKIN FIGURE 13: WELL PRESSURES Vs TIME DURING PRESSURE DRAHDOid AND BUILDUP PERIODS
(BY PERMISSION OF FLOPETROL) ( FIELD EXAMPLE - REF. 15)
• 200
180
EXTRAPOLATED (0 pi - 154 psi
AT pte•tp•1347Min.
ORpi •3097+ 154•3251psi
160
ew
^ 140 ^.i
2 i" K ♦ "I iy''`I ^t _
100
120
r ------ ---^
c 10D HI_ -
U DEPARTURE BETWEEN
80 TWO CURVES
pl ^ ' DPibuiidup Vs ^ t-
e ,
N
3^ • i
W 60
a 6 P)drawdown vs. t 10 ^.. -I
a 40 1 • (Lp)buildup vs. ^te 1./^' , ,
0 N - - 1 C D ^^ CDO^
--L----__- ,-.
,
1
P) buildup vs. 6t
0.1
20
W
10
d
FIGURE 14: COMPARISON BETWEEN DRAYDOMN AND BUILDUP DATA USING NEW METHOD FIGURE 15: APPLICATION OF NEW METHOD USING GRINGARTEN Et Al TYPE CURVES
(FIELD EXAMPLE - REF. 15) (FIELD EXAMPLE - REF. 15)
q
ttF
•
Ke ql
33A) 9 q2
3300 • PWs Vs . o te
^ 3280 ^ pWS Vs. dt
EXTRAPOLATED PRESSURE FLOW TIME, I, HR.
3M Pi • 3253 psi^
USING NEWMETH00
3240 ^ INITIAL PRESSURE - PRESSURE DURING
kh - 2323 md-ft o°o ^ __,E- SECOND RATE
a ^
^ 3n0 s - 5,31 ' v+ -
SLOPE 00 K P,.,n Ra')
3200 o
70 ps ilcycl e
5 ^ G*
3180
9 3160 9
m 3140 6t e -t P 1341 min.
3120 ^ FLOW TIME, t, HR.
310D ^
3080
1 10 1 103 10
SHUT IN TIME, At or pt e (MINUTES)
ti N l^1
n a
3-9-3-9-3 9
9 ^ 9 ^ 9 S ^
15
q5
q qn 10
q2 ^ j
q_ u`c
5
d
q3 D
o<e
3
1 I
LL I I
1 I
q4 1 I ^t Q
^
a
e-0 tl t2 t3 t4 t5 n-2 tn-1 W
TIME, t, HOURS ^
^
d
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
TIME (DAYS)
0
•
..,...I . . . ..... ^ , , , .,.
X
o FLOW I
"7-
_21L • BUILDUP 1
e 5 a FLOW 2
LJ ^ BUILDUP 2
e FLOW 3
20 & BUILDUP 3
TIME (DAYS)
-- ^
INFINITE RESERVOIR ( xeJX M)
i•
a _
-------- -
9
lU - T BUILDUP SOLU7IQAL-
? G
co
INFINITE RESERVOIR lxelxt • W)
^
z
ce 0
N
1 DRAWDOWN
n^. SOLUTION
CL i .i
9 I in
DIMENSIONLESS BUILDUP TIME, pt ^
f
Ln 10 i
LH
z
0
^
FIGURE 21: BUILDUP TYPE CURVES FOR VARIOUS PRODUCING TIMES-LOG-LOG GRAPH
(VERTICALLY FRACTURED WELL WITH INFINITE FLOW CAPACITY FIWCNRE)
1D -2
10 10 1 10 102
DIMENSIONLESS EQUIVALENT TIME, 'teD
0
r'+
1:'
^^
• RESERVOIR ENIGINEERING
ABSTRACT theoretical than practical. In this presentation the authors will ad-
There are numerous technical papers on pressure transient analy- dress some of the many issues under the over-all umbrella of
sis which address both simple and complex reservoir-related "Wellbore Dynamics". These reflect the experience with "practi-
phenomena. These papers all make the implicit assumption that cal" welltest interpretation, which stems from years of specializa-
reservoir pressure can be measured directly. It is a fact of life, tion in this field, (more than 10 000 tests have been analyzed in
however, that the pressure recorder is located in a wellbore, not detail by the authors and their colleagues).
in the reservoir. The weltbore is an intrinsic link between the reser-
voir and the recorders. Although the pressures recorded in the well-
bore are normally representative of the pressures in the reservoir,
Weiibore Dynamics
they can also be affected by a number of wellbore related The topics which will be addressed in this paper will obviously
phenomena. deal with wellbore phenomena. However, not all of these well-
The many wellbore related phenomena that can have a signirl- bore phenomena will be studied. For example, we will not be
cant effect on the measured pressure have not been addressed in reviewing the effects of temperature on wellbore fluids or pres-
• the literature, except for wellbore storage and the classical phase sure recorders; nor will we address such topics as gas/oil solu-
redistribution hump. tion/liberation or retrograde condensation. Moreover, some of the
This paper presents several examples of tests that have been qf- ideas discussed do not take place "in" the wellbore, but in the
fected by wellbore dynamics, and shows that these could easily immediate vicinity of the wellbore, and often, their effects are in-
have been misinterpreted as complex reservoir phenomena (dual separable from weUbore effects. The "Wellbore Dynamics" that
porosity, etc.) instead of wellbore effects. These effects are often we shall illustrate will be grouped into the following topics:
accentuated by the (semilog) derivative which is traditionally used Liquid Influx/Efflux, Phase Redistribution, Wellbore (and near-
to diagnose reservoir characteristics. The fact that these are well- wellbore) Clean-up, Differences between Drawdown and Build-
bore and not reservoir effects must be recognized to prevent mis- up, Plugging, Recorder Effects, Mysterious Effects.
diagnosis, Often this can only be done from examination of the Many, but not all, of these "wellbore" transients occur at very
test data other than the recorded pressure-time trace. early time. Their detection and documentation has been facilitat-
ed by the advent of electronic pressure recorders. These recorders
are so accurate that they will detect these wellbore effects very
Introduction clearly, and can easily be misinterpreted as "Reservoir" effects.
There have been more than 1000 papers published on Pressure Indeed, the whole thrust of our field of engineering is to interpret
Transient Analysis. These publications address in great detail such the "Reservoir", by using pressures recorded in a "Wellbore".
fundamental topics as homogeneous infinite reservoirs, fractures, This often places the Reservoir and the Wellbore in a tug-of-war,
convolution, dual porosity, multi-layers, or such esoteric concepts and we find that, very often,"Wellbore" Transients will distort,
as super-bilinear-equivalent-pseudo-time or integral type curves. or even, dominate our "Reservoir" Transients. This is not sur-
With the progress made in both analytical and numerical solu- prising in view of the fact that in this tug-of-war, the Wellbore
tions to reservoir problems, and with the ready availability of has a distinct advantage over the Reservoir because this highly sen-
powerful computers, virtually every imaginable reservoir descrip- sitive recorder is sitting in the Wellbore and not in the Reservoir.
tion can be modelled and the solution presented in graphical form
(type curve).
In contrast, there are very few papers that deal with wellbore Liquid Influx/Efflux
effects. The only two classical wellbore topics that have been In this section, the authors will illustrate that the pressure trend
studied in any detail, are the concepts of Wellbore Storage0) and observed with the recorders does not necessarily reflect the pres-
Phase Redistribution(2). Even then, the treatment has been more sure in the reservoir. All the well test theory treats pressure as
measured at the sandface. In many cases, it is impossible to land
recorders at the sandface or even at the mid-point of perforations
Keywords: Wellbore dynamics, Liquid movement, Phase redistribution, (MPP). In some cases the recorder run depth (RRD) is above MPP
Recorder, Cleanup, Drift, Practical, Transient, Well testing. as shown in Figure 1, or at MPP in Figure 2. In the wellbore
Paper reviewed and accepled for publication by the Editorial Board of The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology.
•
RRD ABOVE MPP
RRO - MPP
kPa MPP
c1 (Rycnftltlc) - N I In11rK ^ 6000
1000 kPa
rrul^nt . 1 t111a • Pi ^
{-L uv1 RRD
. I vrP - oil
r )O Vth • wtrr
5000
ti t2 t3 ^
Y..
_- A p=100x10=1000kPa
1(RIID)
JI'^ ' t
1111D ^
FIGURE S. Liquid above RRD.
n,
7000
r,(Y/ ► 1 ♦
kPa
MPP 55500 a
1kP
ti. 6000
FIGURE 4. Pressure correction from RRD to MPP - single
phase. [RRD
5000
t1 Q t3
rates depending on permeability and damage ratio. At time t1, it
reaches RRD, at time tz it is halfway between RRD and MPP ep•(50x1)+(50x100)=550kPa
(Fig. 6) and at time t3 the liquid level has reached, or is below
MPP. In Figure 5, the pressure difference between MPP and RRD FIGURE 6. Liquid halfway between RRD and MPP.
is a constant, equal to the hydrostatic head of water. It stays con-
stant until the liquid level reaches the RRD. From then on, the
difference between MPP and RRD varies and equals the sum of 7000
♦
an increasing gas column plus a decreasing water column. Figure
6 illustrates when the liquid is halfway between MPP and RRD. kPa
MPP
When the liquid level is at, or below MPP, the correction from 100 kPa
MPP to RRD is the hydrostatic head due to a column of gas. M
It is obvious, as is illustrated in Figure 7, that whereas the
response recorded on the pressure recorder at RRD shows a sig- RRD
nificant deviation from linearity, and could be (mis)interpreted as
5000
a reservoir phenomenon, the truth is, that the pressure trend at
MPP was perfectly straight, and the recorded effect was a well- ti t2 t3
bore phenomenon, pure and simple. A rising liquid level would
exhibit the opposite trend to that shown in Figure 7. Ap^100x1- 100 kPa
Is this "ivory tower" thinking, or is the phenomenon real?
From the thousands of well tests that we have analyzed, these FIGURE 7. Liquid at MPP.
effects have been observed on approximately 75% of well tests
where more than one phase is flowing. Here are a few exam-
ples of very typical situations:
1. Oil wells flowing oil and gas to surface. At the end of a 2-week "efflux" causing the liquid level in the tubing to fall. Note that
shut in for a build-up test, a static gradient is conducted and (due to density segregation), during the first 5 days, only water
shows no liquid in the wellbore. Where did all the oil in the effluxes from the wellbore (into the reservoir?), and after that,
weilbore go? only oil is effluxing. Figure 9, on the other hand, shows that dur-
2. Gas wells producing at high water-gas ratio: Once again, at ing the shut in of an oil well, only water "influxed" into the well-
the end of a build-up test, the static gradient shows not a bore] ('The first and last static gradients are questionable-the first
drop of water above the perforations. one was taken a few hours into the build-up and the gas/oil/water
3. Acoustic well surveys (AWS): These very often indicate both levels are still unsettled).
rising and falling liquid levels. Admittedly, AWS are subject Figure 10 illustrates a gas well which produced at a high water-
to a lot of interpretation problems, but the over-all trends gas ratio. The point at which the water level falls below the record-
of rising or falling liquid levels are clearly illustrated (quite ers is clearly seen at 100 hours, and at 108 hours the liquid level
independently of such problems as collapsing foam columns, -has reached the sandface. The pressure difference (approximate-
misinterpreted reflections, etc.). ly 300 kPa) corresponds to the distance between RRD and MPP
Even though we have developed "rules of thumb" respecting multiplied by the difference between a water gradient and a gas
750 1^j
800 - 1000
,. 1250
-E, E
> >
^ 1000 1500
Cr
-' 1750
1200 2000
2250
E
1400 2500
r M CD a) N t0
1 4 8 12 14 r r
liquid level changes in the wellbore. Figure 12 illustrates the full ing liquid level. It also illustrates that, sometimes, the subsequent
set of pressure data on the same well as Figure 11, while Figure reservoir pressure response does give analyzable semilog straight
13 illustrates the parallel semilog straight lines often seen with such lines.
tests. Figure 17 shows the first seven hours of a build-up in an oil
well. The two tracks shown are for two electronic pressure record-
ers set for 30-second interval readings. Except for the slight off-
Phase Redistribution set in time, the recorders match exceptionally well, confuming that
The phenomenon of phase redistribution also known as "hum- some event is actually taking place and what is being recorded
ping"has been well documented in the reservoir engineering liter- is not a spurious aberration. It is the authors contention that what
ature(2,3). It is distinct from the liquid influx/efflux situation we are observing is phase redistribution on a smaller scale than
described previously. It represents pressure changes (sometimes sig- the humping effect - gas bubbles, coalescing into slugs and bub-
nificant and dramatic) caused purely by the redistribution of the bling through the oil column below the recorders. Whatever the
gas and liquid phases in the wellbore. An interesting explanation true nature of this wellbore dynamic, we do not believe that what
of the cause of the "humping" effect is given by S ►ider(4), to we are observing is a reservoir effect. Rather, we believe it is purely
which text the interested reader is referred. In this section, we will a wellbore effect which has totally masked the reservoir response.
provide three examples of phase redistribution effects, Figures 14,
15 and 16. These illustrate that the phase redistribution hump can
be of the same magnitude (Fig. 14) or even significantly larger Wellbore and Near Wellbore Cleanup
(Fig. 15) than the subsequent reservoir pressure response. Figure Consider the flow and build-up test shown in Figure 18. We have
16 shows the combined effect of phase redistribution and chang- two tests on different reservoirs in different parts of Alberta, that
`. . .
a•aaiaa
- .. . a..
• rc...^..t aw.• o...
•
.w •
01 ar1.HIn
.,.
a .... '
.»
10,
e
...
'." . ^. . . . ,. » ^ » »
K. M
10
FIGURE 14. Phase redistribution - small hump.
lo" io'• lo• lo' to
sm
-^.
:^}!
dient survey at the end of the build-up showed a dry wellbore.
FIGURE U. Falling liquid level of Figure 11. The pressure depletion of some 300 kPa was purely a wellbore
effect. The reservoir pressure at MPP before and after the test
did not change at all.
Iliere are some effects that take place in the immediate neigh-
looked like Figure 18. They both show a depletion of some 300 bourhood of the wellbore that are often observed during tests.
kPa between the initial pressure and the extrapolated (Homer) Even though these are not truly wellbore effects, they distort the
.,^
build-up pressure. One of them was a "good news" story, the reservoir pressure data in the same way and can easily lead the
other was "bad news"! The "bad news" well was obviously deplet- analyst to a misdiagnosis of the reservoir response. The "bad
ing during test and hence had very small reserves. The "good news" case in Figure 18 clearly shows depletion, hence a limited
news" well had the recorders landed some 30 m below the perfo- reservoir. Yet, during the drawdown neither the rate nor the pres-
rations. Initially, there was some liquid (completion fluids) in the sure is declining; in actual fact, the flow rate was increasing. The
wellbore - as determined by the static gradient survey before the drawdown information is contradicting the build-up results. The
,; .
test. During the test this liquid was blown out, and the static gra- explanation is that during the drawdown, the near-wellbore for-
IvN
p 000
190 -
tID00
3 ^000
7C00
Ii70
rer ywr,.^
sow N ' ^r
r aa ^, • 0.^ rwcrd
"M - - - OTT F1-=
AL
um
00 w q RO IUO 200 7+0 700 370 340
t1110 _j Iw l1r)
L-
11 L
tO L
lf7 11 1^ W Ql QI Q7 Q4
,1.. ^ ►^
FIGURE 17. Phase redistribution - gas bubbling through oil? FIGURE 20. Increasing wellbore damage.
T
-------- - -- - -
,^c ...
^ - t- - -
GOOD NEWS I
BAD NEWS T
a^
r^
a0w
^ r loe w w ar s^ a.
...1 c.....,
to
cleanup can last several weeks. In six tests on wells that were frac'd showed a 25 fold increase in water-gas ratio.
and tagged with identifying tracers, frac fluids were still being
produced after three weeks of flow.
The reverse phenomenon has also been observed as shown in Differences: Drawdown and Build-up
Figure 20. In this example the build-up data indicate a good permo• The previously described cases will obviously show a distinct differ-
ability well with no depletion, while the drawdown data exhibit ence in analysis between the drawdown and the build-up. Figures
.F'.r
• ,a+
+° +
^+ f
FIGURE 22. Build-up data. FIGURE 24. Response shown on 4th recorder.
^-^
r--,... •.
•
and can only guess that they might be micro-seismic effects (we
,^ ^-Itsl fi^t CN^1a WYCYW MM.rynl,ilry^ 4^
could not find any documented earthquakes at the 400-hour time
frame!). We have observed geo-tidal effects in other situations;
FIGURE 23. Mysterious pressure effects.
they have a regularity to their pattern and do not look like Figure
26. In Figure 28 we present one of two recorders (identical be-
haviour on both) during a flow and build-up test in an oil well.
Notice the "cilia" (hair-like attachments) during the drawdown response, the wellbore has the unfair advantage of having (a) in-
and the build-up, except between points A and B.The regularity finite transmissivity and (b) immediate proximity of the pressure
of this pattern is fascinating. The size of a typical spike is 30 kPa recorder. This means that in most situations wetlbore effects will
(5 psi) and the interval between spikes is approximately 30 minutes. dominate over the reservoir effect.
The sampling frequency was such that there were some 20 data This state of affairs is unfortunate in that wellbore dynamics
points for each of the spikes. We have no idea what causes this, can mask or completely obliterate the reservoir response, and
cilia behaviour, nor why it is absent between points A and B, nor as a result, can easily lead to a misdiagnosis of the response.
why it appears so consistent during the drawdown which is ex-
pected to be in turbulent (hence erratic) flow. (As we write this,
it occurs to us that this cilia behaviour could easily be caused by Conclusion
a casing gas regulator - a back pressure valve that opens and The presence of Wellbore Transients must be recognized and taken
closes intermittently to release casing gas!). into consideration when performing a (Reservoir) Pressure Tran-
sient Analysis. All too often, analysts work with a set of pressure-
time data, oblivious of the practicalities of test operations. It is
Tug-of-war Wellbore vs Reservoir our hope that, in this paper, we have illustrated some of the
Of the many wellbore related effects that we have observed, only anomalies that can easily be (mis)interpreted as reservoir charac-
a few have been presented in this paper. Many of the effects have teristics. To avoid these pitfalls, the analyst must be familiar with
logical explanations while others are still a mystery. Many of these the operation of surface and bottom hole test equipment, field
effects occur at early time (Fig. 17), but they are certainly not con- conduct and practices, and details of the test performance. We
fined to early time (Fig. 26). We have documented cases of chang- estimate that approximately 50°/o of the well test analyst's time
ing liquid level effects a full 2 weeks after shut-in. should be spent examining the raw data and conducting validity
The primary function of welltest analysis is to determine the checks and reconciliation of all the data. The following procedures
reservoir characteristics, and not to study the wellbore (even though must be performed routinely, before or simultaneously with, any
some wellbore coefficients can be calailated). The best way to study pressure transient analysis:
the reservoir is to place the recorder inside the reservoir. Unfor- 1. examine wellbore configuration - packer, sliding sleeve,
tunately that is not possible, and the pressure recorder must be recorder depth, tubing depth, perforation depths, etc.
placed inside a wellbore that is in communication with the reser- 2. compare all the pressure recorders for inconsistencies; do not
voir. This means that any wellbore pressure effects will be felt in- rely on one recorder when one or more backup recorders are
stantaneously by the recorder and will be accentuated in used.
comparison with the more diffuse reservoir response. In the con- 3. adjust pressures to mid-point of perforations based on static
tinuous tug-of-war between wellbore response and reservoir gradient surveys conducted before and after the test -
^
MPP = Mid-point of Perforations
6. if a large capital investment depends on the results of a test; RRD = Recorder Run Depth
calibrate the recorders before and after the test to confirm the P = Hydrostatic pressure difference between RRD and MPP
integrity of the recorders.
7. maintain constant dialogue with the field supervisor to resolve REFERENCES
any anomalies in the data (leaks, operations, not reported in 1. AGARWAL, R.G., AL-HUSSAINY R., and RAMEY, H.J., JR.,
the field notes). 1970, An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Un-
8. conduct pressure transient analysis taking into consideration steady Liquid Flow: 1. Analytical Treatment; Soc. Pet. Eng. Jour-
all of the above practical aspects in conjunction with all of the nal, Yol. 10, pp. 2 79-290.
relevant reservoir engineering/geological factors. 2. FAIR, W.B., JR., Pressure Buildup Analysis with Wellbore Phase
Redistribution Effects; Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, pp. 259-270, April
Wellbore Dynamics have been ignored for far too long. They
1981.
must now be fully incorporated into any analysis. With the arrival 3. STEGEMEIER, G.L. and MATTHEWS, CS., 1958, A Study of
of extremely sensitive pressure recorders, we may be approaching Anomalous Pressure Build-up Behaviour; Trans., AIME, 213, pp.
the point of "information overload" - 30 000 to 50 000 data 43-30.
points per recorder per test is not uncommon. The recorders are 4. SLIDER, H.C.. Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
so sensitive that the response is dominated by "noise" (extrane- Methods, PcnnWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 204-211.
Corrections
Corrections on two errors in the paper, "A Type-Curve 0.32
Matching Procedure for Material Balance Analysis of + p6 .................................(14)
Production Data from Geopressured Gas Reservoirs", by
Anil K. Ambastha, published in the September-October 1991
issue of the JCPT, are as folbws: 2. Equation (A-3) should read as:
3500 -- -
3400
3300
•^^-, 3200
CD
^ liytb t9- S e^ V6v`t^
N
tN
"W 3100 °
Q- 0
3000
2900
2800
270A
200 220 240 260 280 300;
Time (hours) __ _ _
I This plot shows the effect of fluid egression during a buildup test where the fluid level dropped below the position of the pressure gauge.
3520 MNL60-1: Cartesian Plot
3500
3480
-3460
a
Q)
N
N
Q)
CL 3440
3420
3400
338^
7265 270 275 280 285 290
__ Time (hours)
This is a magnified view of the effect of fluid egression upon the gauge pressure. This is a welibore effect caused when the fluid level drops
below the position of the gauge during the test.
49 0 0
SOLUTIONS
t +At
At, hrs pWS, psia
p At-
m = -16.7 psi/cycle.
k = -162.6 mh
k = 272 md.
•
5-155
4090
p* = 4,082 PSIA
4080
4070
4060
^
^ m = -16.7 PSI/CYCLE
4050
4040
4030
1 10 10 2 103
t +At
P
At
ct = coSo + c w S w + cf
ct = 19.6 x 10-6psi .1
Thus,
= 1.151 3803-4051
s
-16. 7
• - log - 272 6
(0.26) (0 . 7S) (19.6x10 ) (. 295) Z
+ 3.23
s = 10.6.
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^uctA
• tDA = 0.40.
5-157
From Fig. 5•9' pDMBH - 2.53, so that
•
2 . 30 3 (pR-p*)
= 2.53.
m
p * = 40 82 .
Therefore,
m
PR = p* + 2.53 (2. 303)
PR = 4064 psia.
Aps = -0.87ms
E = PR pwf Aps
PR pwf
•
5-158
E _ 4064 - 3803 -154
• 40 64 - 3803
E = 0.41.
•
5-159
!
144A
wb
C 5.615p
C = (144) (0.0218)
5.615 53
C = 0.011 bbls/psi.
C= qBA t
24[pws-pwf(At=0)j
At = 0.82 hours
pws pwf(At=0) = 800 psi.
5-160
1000
100
^ a
10
0.1 1 10 100
At, hrs
0 0 0
• •
4600 + ^ „^ + i Vl : f :{
...
, + i1.,1 ,li '1,
;, r r• }t t
rT 1+ }
,. _
{, i m= -68 PSI/CYCLE
I
I+ `7 -U
4400 ; tr; .t}}1 },,;
^,;, ! , ,^.., ^ ti ,+•1l
. .. . . ., .,. .,..,{ ^ ....,. ..
,
;. } 1r
'1 ' {lit` i"' i1'
^.. l. i „C tf':, f ^ I^ I^`
1 T«
l r•'
^; ^I
jlilr,^;^ , ^ ,. ,t}+
l 'i:''t^ t,' j• ,r ` t
IT'
t -^ t
^ , ,
;^ ^ , ,. ; .^. h
, •+ • ,, ^ , ^ , ^; i: t ^ ft
4000
„!
N +I { 1 t
. F• . I ^ ^ f ^•i 1 ^ ^ r ... . , ,• ; j t i , ,{ ^ I ^ r ft .:. 1,, ^ •r . ,, .
_I ' ^ - .
--^ -ra--^ ' +•»'^ r
. . • ^ ^ t f^ ^ ^,1 1^ I f i i{ {, ^ ., ^ , ', { +
...., j j,l ^ . 1 , ?
. ^ , t'rr , ^•,•^'1 ti• f ,; -$^ t t1, 1^ T' ^r tl 1 ! - - - ' 1 i
..... . ^, t „I , ^•^ C I ,^ ,
, _^
t ^r $' •,, ^ I ^ ^ -^ ^1^t ^-
^ I ^ i{. ^•I}
I
3800
-, . ; . }' : i ._ .I ^ , • t ,l r -.1 ' :;. ^ 1 ! ' + } ^' ^ r
f. r : , } { ,;•
... :a , ; :{ : .', . ' 1++ ; } ^^•, i, f ,^ ,
M• .++« 1 +} + i , Y r
}I t : '} ' {f ! ^ ^•• 1..'
f
^ . . : . ,. , ; ^
;t^ -+ +
{
3600
lOz 103 10`' i05
t +At
p
At
C = 0.012 bbls/psi.
m = -68 psi/cycle.
k = -162.6 mh
qBl'
k = -162.6 (250)(1.136)(0.8)
k = 7.9 md.
•
5-163
WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN
INFINITE ACTING RESERVOIR WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR
We of this type-curve is described in World Oil-May 1983 : A NEW SET OF TYPE
nu.r,.a,a...a... •
^..i..:.
^ 9hsZ FOR OIL - PD kh Tw 2 P dp . ....c^
- PD GAS
' 141. LP 5.030 104q T Pu „ U(P)Z(P)
11
0
n
0
U
O
0
¢
c^
W to
¢
w
a
w
¢
Z)
N
U)
W
¢
a
tli o
z
W aa
w
¢
^
rn
w
¢ 1
a
2 '
^i
Z
O
rn
z
w
0
10't
DIMENSIONLESS TIME GROUP (D/CD U`
7' 9
- log
(0.039) (0. 8) (17x10- 6) (0. 198) 2
+ 3.23]
s = 6. 7.
zs
CDe M = 108
k = 7.0 md.
0
5-163B
This is in good agreement with the value of 7.9 md
• computed from the semilog plot.
The wellbore storage factor, from Eq. 3.88, is
kh (A
C = 0.000295 u(tD -
CD -FM
C = 0.01 bbl/psi.
C = 0.894C
D ^cthrW
_ (0.894)(0.01)
CD (0.039) (17x10- 6)(69)(0.198)'
• CD = 4,985.
1
S = Z (CDe2s)M
ln C
D
1 101
s = ln
[4,985 ]
s = S.
•
5-163C
• 0 •
1000 Prob. 5-2: Lo -Lo Plot
TF
a 100
(D
This plot shows a history match of the test using an infinite-acting model. It is observed that the late-time data deviate from this model; it is
possible that these data are being affected by adjacent wells.
1000 Prob. 5-2: Lo -Lo Plot
a-100
Ca
. *
Quick Match Resutts
Radial homogeneous
Ckased system - (L:L:L:Lj
Cs = 0.0105 bbUpsi
K =8.1 md
S -7.24
L = 1200 ft
Pi = 7846.8753 psia
0 0.1 100
1 10
Equivalent Time (hours) - T-13630.0
For the reservoir and wellbore parameters shown in the results box, this plot shows the theoretical behavior that should occur if this well were
centered in a square drainage area with no-flow boundaries at a distance of 1200 feet to each of the boundaries. Based upon the well spacing of
160 acres, it is expected that the boundaries would be approximately 1320 feet from the well; the behavior of the well implies, however, that the
boundaries are closer than expected and that the drainage area is less than 160 acres. This could be caused by heterogeneities, or by higher
producing rates at adjacent wells.
0 0 0
r
• • •
The purpose of this plot is to show that test data can be matched with a reservoir model that is incorrect. This well is surrounded by other
producing wells and, since there is no gas cap or water drive, it is known that all drainage boundaries are no-flow. This test was matched,
however, by assuming the well to be centered in a square with constant pressure boundaries at a distance of 660 feet from the well. THIS
SOLUTION IS INCORRECT!!! It is important to recognize that most well tests can be history matched with more than one model. Just because
you find a model that matches the behavior of your test does not necessarily mean that the model accurately describes your reservoir. Only
when your model is supported by information external to the test, i.e., seismic data, production data, production performance, etc., can you have
a high level of confidence in the results.
PROBLEM IPR-OIL: Oil Deliverability Prediction using:
0 (1) Vogel Method, and (2) Pseudosteady
Equation
Additional Data:
0
PROBLEM IPR-OIL
SOLUTION:
The "IPR-Prod Test" curve, which is computed using Vogel's inflow performance relationship, is based on one
production point, I.e., the flow rate and flowing bottomhole pressure at the time the well was shut in for the
buildup test (if available, up to three production points can be used). It is assumed that the well had flowed
sufficiently long to be in pseudosteady state at the time this point was measured. It is also assumed that the
Vogel relationship is a valid model to describe the inflow performance of a well. The advantage of this method is
that it is based upon actual production performance, and does not require any Information about reservoir fluid or
• rock properties, reservoir size or geometry, or reservoir thickness. The disadvantage is that it 1s subject to
potential errors in the production test; for example, if the production test is not run sufficiently long to reach
pseudosteady state, this method will give optimistic results. Also, this test is based upon a semi-empirical
relationship by Vogel which may not accurately describe the production behavior of this reservoir.
The "IPR-Trans Test" curve is not based on a production test, but is computed using the theoretical
pseudosteady state equation. This method assumes that the reservoir conforms to the assumptions made in this
equation, i.e., homogeneous formation, constant compressibility liquid, constant viscosity, constant permeability,
etc. It further assumes that the permeability and skin factor used in the equation, which came from analysis of
the pressure buildup test, are correct, and that the drainage area, A, and shape factor, CA, which are based on
well pattern and spacing, are correct. Fluid properties and formation thickness used in the equation are also
assumed to be correct. The advantage of this method is that no production data are required. The disadvantage
is that the theoretical pseudosteady state equation must accurately describe the reservoir, and the rock
properties, fluid properties, drainage area, shape factor, and formation thickness used in the equation must be
known with reasonable accuracy.
0
Page 1 of 2
Deiiverabili Plot - IPR
4500 - IPR-Trans Test
IPR-Prod Test
4000
3500
3000
,-.
1 2500
^ 2000
a
1500
1000
500
"IPR-Trans Test" , shown in the legend on this plot, refers to flow rates calculated using the pseudosteady
equation. The curve identified as "IPR-Prod Test" was computed using the Vogel equation.
ljo = 0.28 cp
C f = 3.3 x 10-6 psi-1
cw = 2.8 x 10-6 psi-1
co = 5.6 x 10-6 psi -1 C = Vwb L^P` /z.d^d^^
rw = 0.2615 ft 5C^25
Depth of Amerada gauge = -9073 (s.s)
Datum = -9073 (s.s.)
• M
Ate'
1# i
At ate t + ^t A d A S
pWS p
d lnot e ^
hrs hrs At psia psi
0 0 - 3262 0 -
0.017 0.017 11857.0 3311 49 -
0.033 0.033 5929.0 3367 105 -
0.050 0.050 3953.0 3572 310 288.18
0.067 0.067 2965.0 3723 461 227.47
0.083 0.083 2372.2 3729 467 166.91
0.100 0.100 1977.0 3729 467 106.43
0.117 0.117 1694.7 3729 467 39.54
0.133 0.133 1483.0 3729 467 62.87
0.150 0.150 1318.3 3729 467 69.43
0.167 0.167 1186.6 3738 476 73.48
0.183 0.183 1078.8 3753 491 75.49
0.200 0.200 989.0 376S 503 87.12
0.217 0.217 913.0 3777 515 97.87
0.233 0.233 847.9 3789 527 102 . 29
0.250 0.250 791.4 3795 533 114.46
0.283 0.283 698.4 3807 545 106.06
0.333 0.332 593.8 3819 557 92.18
0.383 0.382 516.5 3843 581 79.40
0.433 0.432 457.0 3849 587 71.13
0.500 0.499 396.2 3852 590 65.42
0.583 0.581 339.7 3862 600 57.64
0.667 0.665 297.4 3867 605 41.45
0.750 0.747 264.5 3873 611 40.35
0.833 0.830 238.1 3879 617 42.82
1.000 0.995 198.6 3883 621 34.17
1.167 1.160 170.4 3889 627 33.66
1.417 1.407 140.S 3896 634 27.69
1.667 1.653 119.6 3898 636 27.21
2.000 1.980 99.8 3904 642 28.94
2.333 2.306 85.7 3907 645 29.11 •
2.833 2.793 70.7 3911 649 28.07
I.
0
10,
U
4-J
102
'd
C^.
10
dte, hrs
0 0 0 .
^ • •
420
410
400
390(
^
380(
n^ 370C
3600
3500
3400
3300
1 10 102 103 10"
t + L^ t
At
3. a,b) Horner and log-log plots of the data are
presented in Figs. 5P.4 and 5P.5, respectively. The
log-log plot does not show a unit slope line; accordingly,
using the shut-in time corresponding to the first data
point, the maximum time that storage could last is
m1 = -37 psi/cycle
m2 = -78 psi/cycle
or m2/m1 C^ 2.
•
This is consistent with our expectation that a fault is
near the well and seems to confirm the existence of the
fault.
The total reservoir flow rate is computed using
Eq. 5.49:
=o
aRt q0B0 + (1000 qgt - aoRs
^w)Bg + awBw
5-164
1300
m2 = -78 PSI/CYCLE
1250
11 50
^n
^ ^.
a^
fJ,
1100
t +At
p At x = 3000
1050 x
1000 1 1 1j
102 103 10'` 105 106
t +At
P
At
Fig. 5P.4: Horner plot, Prob. 3.
0 0 0
• • •
103
0
n
4-) 1() 2
10
10 2 10-1 1 10
At, hrs
aRt
xt = -162.6
mh
5780.9
at = -162.6 (-37) 110
at = 231 md/cp.
atlltx z ^
or, L = 0.01217
Ht J
The time ratio at which the two straight lines intersect
is
t +At
0pt x = 3000 ;
x
therefore,
ct = coSo + cgSg + c w S w + cf
+ 3.3] x 10-6
5-167
ct = 129.7 x 10 6 psi-1
0
Thus,
(231)(14.6) z
L = 0.01217
(0.26)(129.7x10-6
L = 121.7 ft.
k = -162.6 q°Bouo
0 mh
^ k° = 22.1 md.
kw = -16 2. 6 aw^uw
kw = 42.7 md.
kg = 1.4 md.
5-168
(c) The total skin factor can be computed using Eq.
5.S5:
pwf(At=0)-P1hr
s = 1.151
m
^t + 3.231.
- log
^ctrw J
= 1.151 1012-1177
s
37
^
231
- log
(0 .26) (129. 7x10-fi) ( 0. 356) Z
+ 3,231
s = -0.05.
p* = 1,349 psia.
0.0002637ktp
tDA ^uctA
It
tDA _
0.0002637attp
¢ctA
•
5-169
(0 .0002637) (231) (43, 869) _
tDA _ (0.26)(129.7x10-6)(81)(43,560)
40
tDA = 22.46.
pDMBH = 4.24.
,^ m
PR = p + T.-TUT pDMBH
= 1349 + (-37)(4.24)
2.303
PR = 1,281 psia.
•
5-170
-
aappa
Engineering
SAPHIR V1.30 Methodology 3.7
When preparing build-up data, it the production time used for superposition is too small
compaied to the actual-well production history, the build-up correction will be excessive. On a
semi-log scale, the build-up curve is over compressed, and the straight line slope, if any, will be
over estimated. On the log-log derivative plot, the same error produces an upward deviation of
the response above the 0.5 line. This behavior is similar to responses corresponding to a
decrease of mobility, such as boundary effects.
t Conversely, when the production time is over-estimated, the build-up correction is insufficient.
On log-log derivative plot, the curve drops below the 0.5 line, as if mobility was increasing.
The definition of the well production history is not always a simple task. Some flow rates
measurements, such as during the clean-up period for example, are frequently missing and
have to be estimated. In other cases, fluid has been Injected into the well and this has to -be
considered in the history. The well can also have been shut-in for a while before the test, after a
production period: is it possible to neglect the well history prior to the long shut-in?
The influence of the different rate history simplifications can be illustrated on the following
simple example: the well has been produced at the same rate during two periods separated by a
shut-in, and the final build-up is analysed. The first production is 100 hours, the intermediate
shut-in period 50 hours, the final drawdown 20 hours. If the last build-up is analysed with 'the
superposition of the complete rate history, the derivative response is correct. If the equivalent
Horner time method is used, the production time is assumed to be 120 hours, and the
intermediate shut-in period is ignored: tp is too large and the derivative curve drops below 0:5.
On the other hand, if the production prior to the 50 hours shut-in is ignored, the production time
used for the superposition calculation is too small (20 hours only), and the derivative deviates
upwards [Fig.3.5].
In practice, it is recommended to check the validity of, the different assumptions performed
during the definition of the rate history. After the interpretation, a simulation of the complete well
pressure response can help in adjusting the assumed flow rates if necessary.
For long and complex production histories, the flow rate curve can be simplified, in particular for
rates produced a long time before the analysed period. The equivalent Horner time concept,
based on cumulated production figures, may then used. The closer the production data is to the
test period to be analysed, the more accuratly it has to be defined.
Before deciding to neglect part of the production history, it is recommended to first evaluate the
possible influence of this data on the final build-up. This is done by comparing the superposition
piotq,, including this production data or not.
S.ArHIR V1.30 Methodology 3.8
ie
ieZ
.,..
i . '^ ... •••
to
i
ie e-z 18-1 lee lei 1e2 to ^
Figure 3.5
to
Cft
le2
;
^
^
te1
+
Cft
e
le 1e"Z
Figure 3.6
,
i
aappa
Engineering
Methodology 3.9
SAPHIR V1.30
.7
Effect of errors In the initial time and pressure
When estimating the elapsed time at for a build-up response, the time of start of the period,
^.^.7 when the well was closed, can be in error. If the shut-in time is too soon (earlier than actual shut-
in time), the resulting elapsed times will be too large, and both the pressure and the derivative
curves are compressed at early times (Fig.3.6J.
On the other hand, if the shut-in time is taken as later than the actual value, the resulting elapsed
times are too small, and the curves are expanded in the early time region [Fig.3.71.
The influence of time errors is frequently a function of the sampling rate of the pressure gauge.
If an electronic gauge is used, points are recorded every few seconds, and a fraction of a minute
difference on the shut in time can produce a significant distortion. With mechanical gauges,
errors smaller than one minute are not really significant.
Shut-in pressure errors
When an error is made on the last flowing pressure before shut-in, pressure changes, Ap, -will
then be wrong, but only the pressure curve Is distorted, and not the derivative, since the
pressure error is a constant (Fig.3.8 & Fig.3.9J.
le
1e2
+
>I 1e1
4
1a tp-2 ,p-1 to
II M^
Figu ►e 3.7
i
.
a+1 " 6 1a: 1 V I.JV
^wCU^uau^ogy 1U
•^ '
to
ieZ
Ell
iel
++ En
a
to 1©-z
19-1 iee lei 102 to
Figure 3.8
to
i
ieZ +++
iei
8
19 18-Z
iee iei 1e2 to •
Figure 3.9
• ^.
• • •
Log-Log Plot: BUEGYPT
y •
'Po
•
• •
• •
• • •
•
• • • • •
10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Equivalent Time(bours) - Tp=197.62
This is not a final analysis of the test but illustrates the output when using the "time stepped" wellbore storage model. The stepwise increase in the
wellbore storage factor in this test results when the rising fluid level encounters an increase in tubing size. A continual increase in the wellbore storage
factor is also occurring during the test because of gas compression in the weilbore and gas going back into solution in the wellbore oil. PanSystem
V2.6 is not able to describe this combination of changing wellbore storage.
0 0 0
• • •
. •
• •
^.
N •
g •
a-1oo
CO
I ^, •
o •
.
.
. n
10 0.01 0.1 1 10 10
Equivalent Time (hours) - Tp=43869.2188 _^
This is a log-log plot of the test data with no corrections to the initial pressure or time. The raw data, from an Amerada mechanical gauge,
has a lot of scatter and a large smoothing parameter of 0.5 is being used.
• • •
• ..
.
, .. .
. •
^. • .
a
^ 100
^
0
• . .
.
. ^ n . .
. . •
. .
10 101
o.1 10
Equivalent Time (hours) - Tp=43868.9688
I This is a log-log plot of the test data with a correction of -.25 hours to the starting time of the test.
r • • •
^ ♦♦
'N100
Q
n n
CD n
^ n n
n n n n
n n
10
0.1 1 10 10
Equivalent Time (hours) - T-43868.9688
• • •
oa .^ Resucs
^^
fm* I I I I a l l-
1 = 21.317 md
= 2344.Q711 md.R •
=1.3297 md ^
an
= 41.0559 and ^ • •
a = 222-Z76D mdkP
= 516.5775 R
E = 1.0261 •
_ ^.92®9 Pal
a _.q2675
` 1 ^-gqg^ pain
1 =127.6887 R
1100
♦♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦
a 100
00
m
0
• . .
. •
.
n
. n . .
.. n
. .
10 0 1
1 10 100
Equivalent Time (hours) - Tp=43868.9688
The theoretical model on this plot (solid line) was generated using the solution from the semilog plot. It is obvious that this solution does not
provide a good history match of this test.
0 • •
Cq
a 100
cc
.. .
.
, n n
W7
.. •
10 0.1 1 10 I
Equivalent Time (hours) - T- 3868.9688
• PROBLEM BUNDAH2: PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST ON A WELL
WITH ACID STIMULATION
9
• • •
Mg" R.
p«
taults (90) - ILL)
2 00 bbUpsi ♦
944 md
51
418 R
2.4928psia
11
100^00
1 000 1 0000 1 00000
Homer Time Function - T p=43868 .9688
0 • •
CL 100
cc
n r n n n
n n
10 0.1 1 10 1
Equivalent Time hours - Tp=43868.9688
• • •
Ma" RAUft
saw homogeneous
^^o)-(^:y
1 = 115 bbUpsl
= 49.8427 md
= 7.1227 •
= 153.556 ft
1786.2324 psia
II
rW = 0.35 ft
0 0.174
h 40 ft
!^'0 0.294 cp
0
. ^^
^ ^.
^ KILOWETERS 1 - '
^ ^ s -^ •
t
SOLUTION: GRIF-AUS
SOLUTION:
Attached is the analysis of the test data using two different models: (1) Intersecting fault model with a 30
degree angle of intersection, and (2) U-shaped fault model. In both cases, the well was assumed to be equal
distance from the faults. The U-shaped fault model gives a better history match of the test, but the intersecting
fault model is in better agreement with the geological interpretation. Other models will also match the test but
have no geological basis.
From the intersecting fault model,
• k=2,700md
s = 10.6
Distance to faults = 450 ft
Angle of intersection = 30 degrees.
While the intersecting fault model does not result in a perfect match of the test data, it Iis important that the
behavior of the test is consistent with the geological interpretation of this reservoir.
•
GRIF-AUS: Manual T ype Curve Match
Match Results
Radial homogeneous
Infinitely acting
K = 2493.5371 md
Cs = 0.0386 bbl/psi
= 2166.4456
= 7.6725
0.01
^ ^ ^ n n nnnnnn
n •
ca
10
CO
W ♦
^. ♦
C7
CU
=
(D
^
a 0.001
cc
a)
0
.
♦N♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦
0 . 00ni
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 ,0
Equivalent Time (hours)
This graph shows the results of a manual type curve match where the minimum in the derivative curve was assumed to represent radial
transient flow. The purpose of this plot is to show the behavior of the test data relative to the ideal behavior of a homogeneous radial infinite
system (i.e., the Bourdet, et al., derivative type curve); there is no gurantee that this match gives the correct solution.
0 0 0 .
• • •
GRIF-AUS: Intersecting Fault Model
0.01
T n ©
W ♦
♦
H ♦
^
CL
U Quick Match Results
^ 0.001 Radial homogeneous
0 Intersecting faults (30)
^ n s = 0.03 bbUpsi
K = 2700 md ♦
cc S = 10.6
Q L1 ft N♦
_ 450 ♦
L2 = 450 ft • ♦♦
Pi = 3864.1236 psia ♦ ♦ ^•
♦ ♦ •
0.0001
0.001 0.01 0_1 1 10
Equivalent Time (hours)
This is a history match of the test data using an intersecting fault model where the angle of intersection is 30 degrees. A better match can be
obtained with a smaller angle of intersection, but 30 degrees is the smallest angle permitted by PanSystem.
The early data appear to be influenced by changing wellbore storage; this could be caused by phase segregation, gas compression, etc. No
attempt was made to model the changing storage.
The intersecting fault model does not adequately model the late data; this is probably caused by the presence of other boundaries, or because
the geometry depicted by the geological map provided with the test data is not correct. Other models such as a U-shaped fault (this model is
attached) give a better match of the test, but without other data to support these models, it is dangerous to conclude that these models correctly
describe this reservoir simply because they give a good history match.
GRIF-AUS: History Match, U-Shaped Fault
0.01
^
. '
C7
cc
0.001
0
CL n •
cc ♦ ^
a^
o ♦
•
• ♦
0 . 0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Equivalent Time (hours)
This is a match of the test data using a U-shape fault model. This does not agree with the geological interpretation of intersecting faults, but
gives a better match of the test data than is obtained with the intersecting fault model.
0 is 0 ,
^ PROBLEM 84-35X: Processing and Analysis of Raw Data,
Multirate Drillstem Test, High Permeability
Oil Reservoir
Pressure data from the lower gauge located at a depth of 5587.7 ft-KB TVD
• are presented in File 84-35X.TPR.
You are requested to build a PanSystem data file for this test, and to
analyze the final buildup for permeability, total skin, and p*. You are also
requested to comment on possible boundaries or heterogeneities that are
indicated by the test.
Additional Data:
0.228 PO 0.69 cp
SW 0.213 T= 187°F
Y° = 32 °API
0
• • •
2600 a
3038.5
2400
2200
ca
2260.17 m
a 2000 m Pressure ^
m a - Rate Change Q ^ U)
`, a p
^ a !! ^
y 1800 0 0
n- a a 1481 . 83 c
1600 o a 0
aa
a a
S aa
1400 a 0
g o 703.496
a a
1200 8 ^
^
100-5 0 4.84
0 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 15
Time (hours)
This is a plot of the raw pressure data before any data reduction, and the rate history.
Problem 84-35X: Rate Change Table
is
LI
2700 84-35X: Test Simulation Overla
2849. 88
2675 2486.66
0
o m BH Pressure
2650 _ T
^^ n 2123.44
°
2625 1760.22 ^
o n m
m 2600 1397
Quick Match Results cc
Rsdalharagsnsom
a ParoM fauft - ILL)
2575 Cs = 0.02 bblipsi 1033 . 78 _
u
K = 2eg.05 md ° O
S = 13.6577
L -548 ft
2550 Pi = 2^7 . 1129 p sia 670 . 56
2525 307.34
2500 45.88
0 25 50 75 100 125 1
Time (hours)
i
1; is C J
V
• • •
2675
2650
2625
a.
2600 a
Model Results
Radial homogeneous
P ara" fa u lts
2575 w = 11 rr.2631 ft
L1 = 433.6464 ft
Sc = 6.3596
K = 289.05 md
S = 13.6577 a
P` = 26?^_8G'^^' psai
25503L -
4 5 6 7 8
Square-root Su sition Time Function
This figure illustrates the straight line linear flow analysis on the square root plot. The straight line is constructed through those points
which form a half-slope on the log-log derivative curve. The slope of the linear flow straight line yields the distance, W, between the
parallel faults. Data on this plot are from the main shut-in period of the drillstem test.
270 84-35X: SEMILOG QU IC K MATCH RESULTS
an TP1 Pressure
- Gen
mat
2675 a
"NOUN
2650
n
^ o a
L42 2625
2s0o
This plot shows a match of test data from the main shut-in period to the type curve generated using the model and results displayed in
the results box.
is 0 0 I
IZ
• • •
cc
:2
m TP1 Prenure
a • .. RsdW Deriv
...
Q 0.01
C'°" pr°as<x°
cc - Gen derNaWw
CD
0
0 • •
d •
•
Q 0
Cs -0.02 bbil ^ e • 0 • .
K -269.05 md • ^ ^e^' • ^
0
S = 13.65T7 ° • ^ ^
L = 548 ft e ° • •" ss
Pi = 2697.1129 psfa s
0.0V
01 0.1 1 10
Equivalent Time ihours
This plot shows a match of test data from the main shut-in period to the type curve generated using the model and results displayed in
the results box
2700 84-35X: STRAIGHT LINE SEMILOG ANALYSI S
2675
.T
v O O
2625
2600
Model Results
Radial homogeneous
Parallel faults
K = 289.0499 rtx!
kh = 47115.1367 md.
2575
Rinv = 2878.2573 ft
FE -0.3906
dpS -105.1856 pal
S = 13.6577
f" _ 2678.1826 psia
2550
1 10 100 1 000
Superposition Ti me Functi on
This is the conventional straight line semilog analysis of the main shut-in period. The straight line is constructed through those data
which correspond to the horizontal derivative on the Log-Log plot.
is is 0
• • •
o a o coca
0 0
a
a
m ,
H
U) e
[ TP1Pressur.l
CL ° .• Radial Detiv
(30.01
0 . .
e
n.
c4 e ^
o 00
e
e, .
. •° °
'°°
^ • °
°°.a • as
. . 4 . . ^• e
e , . , 0 : •0. e
. ,
0 • °• ^
0-OT
01 0.1 1 10
Equivalent Time (hours) __
84-35X
Main Shutin
r
m = 31.1 psi/cycle.
k = 162.6 m qBP
380^uctA
tpss
t = 32.6 hrs.
pss
^uc tA
(Ot)pR = 3792 kC A
5-171
2770
2760
27 50
^ 2740
^
V N
N j
i^.
2730
2720
2710
2700
10 1 10 • 102
• At, hrs
-4-
[PlhrPwf(At0) - log
s= 1. 151 k + 3.23
m ^uctrw
= 1.151 [2741-2360
s
3 1.1
87'7
- log
(0. 22) (0.7) (14x10-6) (0.17) 2
+ 3. 231
i• s = 7. 3.
5-173
5. Data required to construct the Agarwal semilog
and log-log plots are presented in the following table:
t At
Ate tp
At pws pws pwf(At=0)
(hours) (hours) (psia) (psi)
0.15 0.15 3,680 146
0.2 0.2 3,723 189
0.3 0.3 3,800 266
0.4 0.4 3,866 322
0.5 O.S 3,920 386
1 1 4,103 569
2 2 4,250 716
4 4 4,320 786
6 6 4,340 806
7 7 4,344 810
8 8 4,350 816
• 12 12 4,364 830
16 16 4,373 839
20 20 4,379 84S
24 24 4,384 850
30 29.9 4,393 859
40 39.9 4,398 864
50 49.8 4,402 868
60 59.7 4,405 871
72 71.6 4,407 873
5-174
Fig. 5P. 8.
• The slope of the semilog straight line is
m = 74 psi/cycle.
k = 162.6 ^
k = 7.2 md.
is
- log k + 3. 231 .
^uctrw.
Therefore,
= 1.151 4280-3534
s
74
7' 2
- log -
(0 .039) (0. 8) (17x10-6) (0.198) Z
+ 3.23
•
J
s = S.5.
5-177
4600
4200
m = 74 PSI/CYCLE
3 ^ -^--
^ 4000 -+
-^,
o^ l- t
;-+-
3800
3600
10-1 1 10 102
Ate, hours
• 0 0
• 11 •
10"
0
4--) 103
(4-+
F--' V)
10 2
10 1 10 102
Ate, hours
rW=0.4115ft
^
h=21ft
0 = 0.30
B0 = 1.238 RB/STB
µo = 1.377 cp
tp = 2280 hrs
q = 155 STB/D
0
WD73BU
SOLUTION:
An attempt to match this test on the constant storage factor type curves shows that the wellbore storage
factor is continually decreasing during the early part of the test. Decreasing wellbore storage can be caused by
compression of wellbore fluids, gas going into solution, or phase segregation. Since the "hump" in the early
data indicates the probability of phase segregation, it is believed that this Is the primary cause of the changing
wellbore storage.
An attempt to match the data using the Fair changing storage model was not successful. The derivative
decreases more rapidly than is explained by the Fair model.
It was found that the data are best matched using the Hegeman, et al., model. From this match,
k = 489 md
s=210.
No information is available about the reservoir or well completion that explains the very large skin factor.
It is not obvious that radial transient flow exists in this test. Accordingly, there is considerable uncertainity in
the placement of the horizontal derivative in the type curve match which is presented, and in the semilog
analysis which is presented. The final solution does give a reasonably good history match of the test data,
however, and it is this observation that permits us to have a reasonable level of confidence in the final solution.
LJ
3200 WD73BU: Cartesian Plot
3100 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
^
3000 •
.
•
•
•
•
-290
CU
Q2800
... •
2700
0-
2600
2500
240&1
23001, 5 10 15 2
Ela psed Time (hours)
After building up for a short time, this plot shows that pressure then began to decrease because of wellbore phase redistribution; pressure
again increased toward the end of the test. This "humping" effect is a common feature of buildup tests that undergo changing wellbore storage
due to phase segregation within the wellbore; it should be noted, however, that phase redistribution does not always cause the pressure to
decrease.
9 0 0
• • •
3100 • .
• • •
• • • . . • • • . . .
308 a
3060
CL
CD
a 3040
3020,
3000
2980
10
1 Equivalent Time (hours) - Tp=2280.0
This is a magnified view which shows the decreasing pressure from approximately 0.65 hrs to 5 hrs; this is caused by phase redistribution.
Pressure continues to increase from 5 hrs to the end of the test.
This is a manual type curve plot of the test data. It appears from this plot that the wellbore storage factor was decreasing during the early
part of the test. This could be caused by (a) compression of the wellbore fluids, (b) gas going back into solution, or (c) wellbore phase
redistribution. While all of these may be occurring to some extent, it is believed that wellbore phase redistribution is the primary cause. This is
a gas lift well and phase redistribution is a common problem in other gas lift wells in this area. Also, the cartesian and semilog plots clearly show
the "humping" effect that is often associated with phase redistribution.
The late data indicate a possible boundary effect. Scatter in the late data, shown by the derivative curve, is possibly due to poor resolution in
the mechanical gauge being used.
0 0 0
i • •
O NE n.n
Aw-
100
...
a 10
CO
7FD
0
n Y
n n
0.1
S
Pi
0.01
= 210
= 3104.4521 psia TFITI
0.1 1 10
E,uivalent Time (hours) - T=2280.0
This is a match of the data using the Hegeman wellbore phase redistribution model. This match was obtained by trial and error using Quick
Match
3200 WD73BU: Semilo Plot -
.. TP1 Pressure
Generated
3100 OT .
3000 •
2900
az
Q2800 4 ick Match Results
y homogeneous
Infinitely acting
Cs = 0.0026 bWpsi
(n 2700
pN = 390 psi
Tau = 0.42 hr
K = 489 md
2600 S =210
Pi -3104.4521 psia •
2500 • '
2400 •
230 n
100 1000 10000 100000
Homer Time Function - T p=2280.0
This semilog plot shows the model generated by Quick Match superimposed on the test data.
40 0 0
• ! 0
3100
••
3000 •
•
2s0a •
.
.
a 2800 Model Resutts • •
Radial homogeneous •
Infinitely acting ♦
K = 471.382 md
o`'i 2700
= 9899.0225 md.R •
Rinv = 1321.9075 ft •
FE = 0.0488
2600 = 758.8402 psi •
SS = 201.3361 •
P* = 3101.7341 psia •
•
2500
2400,
230j00
1000 10000 100000
Homer Time Function - Tp=2280.0
1. The straight line used in this analysis was constructed through those data which form a horizontal derivative on the log-log plot.