Interpreting CBM Well Tests

SPE GCS Reservoir Study Group Houston Feb 25th 2010 Prof George STEWART Weatherford Geoscience Institute of Petroleum Engineering Heriot-Watt University

3rd Australian CSG (CBM) DST

Rate steps: 34.6, 32.8, 31, 27.8, 27.2 bbl/d

rw = 0.1573 ft h = 7.96 ft = 0.02 Bw = 1.013 w = 0.475 cp cw = 3.0310-6 psi-1 ct = 2.0310-4 psi-1 T = 134.6oF

Log-Log Diagnostic of Final Buildup

Interpretation Based on 90o Intersecting Faults

Five rate points in history

Semilog Analysis of Final Buildup

L1 = 14.8 ft L2 = 20.8 ft

Radial Flow SL

pi = 1446.9 psia k = 3.53 md S = 9.42

Hemi2 Radial Flow

3rd QLD CSG DST

2nd NSW CBM Test

Classical Falling Liquid Level Slug Test

h = 23.2 ft = 0.01 rw = 0.1575 ft T = 71.6oF 0.951 cp ct = 1.5910-5 psi-1 Bw = 1

w =

NSW Falling Liquid Level (Slug) Test

540.4 psia pc

429 psia pi

Pressure Integral Log-Log Diagnostic Plot

I(p)
pi po

pi = 429 psia pc = 540.4 psia

Cs = 0.021 bbl/psi

pi = 254 psia

Diagrammatic Illustration of a Slump Block of Limited Volume

Potential Leakage Path

This block is charged up in pressure during the injection Only a possible geological explanation

Stress Dependent Skin Contribution, S

7

rw = 0.35 ft h = 100 ft Bo = 1 o = 1 cp ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 i = 0.005 ki = 15 md E = 125000 psi = 0.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia

Skin, S

Skin calculated from BU following a period of production

0 0 100 200 300 400 500

Well Flow-Rate, q (bbl/d)

Apparent Skin from Conventional Buildup Analysis

30

i = 0.01
25

Total Apparent Skin, Sa

Effect of True Skin is Magnified

20

15

10

Ss = 1.3725
Well Chokes

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

True Skin, S

Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity

(SDPP)

CBM Evaluation: Injection Fall-Off Test Example: High Perm

Reservoir Analysis

Well Shut- In

Start Pumping Formation Temp

Inflate Packer

13

Steady-State Radial Flow with Pressure Dependent Permeability and Porosity DArcys Law:

q q k (p ) dp = = ur = A 2rh (p ) dr

h eff

h (p i )[1 (p i )] = h ( p) = [1 (p )]
. . . Compaction of formation due to porosity change

Separating the variables:

dr 2h (p i )[1 (p i )] k (p ) = dp r q 1 (p )

Stress Dependent Height Compaction

pi

p
h pi 1 pi 1 p

h(pw)

heff = h(p) =

bg

h(pi)

rw

r re
. . . used in formulation of SDPP pseudopressure

pw

Integrating:

dr 2h (p i )[1 (p i )] k (p ) r= 1 (p ) dp q rw pw
re pe

i.e.:

re 2k i h i [1 (p i )] k (p ) ln = 1 (p ) dp rw q k (p i ) p w
pe

Normalised Pseudopressure definition:

1 i p = ki

bg

k p dp 1 p pb

z
p

b g b g

Reservoir Integral

Reservoir integral may be expressed as the difference between two pseudopressures:

k p k p k p dp = dp dp 1 p 1 p 1 p pw pb pb

pe

b g b g

pe

b g b g

pw

b g b g

re 2k i h i ln = pe p w rw q

m b g b gr m b g b gr

Inclusion of Skin and Conversion to Semi-Steady-State:

re 3 2k i h i ln + S = p pw rw 4 q

Input Rock Mechanics Parameters

k(p) 1 (p)
p

E, , n
Palmer-Mansoori Model pb

Generate Pseudopressure Function by Quadrature

k(p ) dp

pb

1 (p )

(p)
(psi) Generation of the SDPP Pseudo-Pressure Function

(psia)

Well SSS Deliverability

(p) (p)
re 3 m ln + S rw 4

P
q m= 2 k i h i

(pw) pw

Well deliverability curve reflects the shape of the pseudopressure function Effect of Skin is magnified at low wellbore pressure

Well Deliverability Curve

p
Single Phase Liquid (Water) Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (FBHP)

pw

Effect of Decreasing Reservoir Pressure

SDPP Case

Flow-Rate, q

AOF

Similar to Gas Well Behaviour i.e. curved IPR

Palmer and Mansoori CBM Rock Mechanics Model

- Based on Linear Elasticity
p pi = 1 + i iM

Recommended by Mavor
Code Porosity Cutoff = 0.00001 Does not handle permeability rebound

very sensitive to i

3 k = ki i

1 M = E (1 + )(1 2) M 1 + K = 3 1
E = Youngs Modulus

Constrained Axial Modulus

Bulk Modulus

= Poissons Ratio

SDPP Test Problem

pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md i = 0.005 E = 1.25105 psi = 0.39 n=3 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft q = 500 STB/D = 1 cp Bo = 1 tp = 10 hr
Typical parameter values relevant to CBM (CSG) High total compressibility, ct Test Design in well test software used to generate synthetic data Test declared as oil but given water properties This artifice allows access to pseudopressure option in software

- natural fracture (secondary) porosity

Note: setting = 0.5 reduces SDPP model to radial homogeneous behaviour

Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity

pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md E = 1.25105 psi = 0.39 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft i = 0.005 n=3 q = 500 STB/D

CRD

p'

Ideal DP kh = 1500 md.ft SDPP Model - CBM

p' =

dp dln t

Handling of SDPP in Pansystem

Method 1 Rock mechanics and i known a priori Generate and import pseudopressure function, (p) Analyse data as a liquid system Whole test can be analysed conventionally Similar procedure to gas well analysis Method 2 SDPP pseudomodel Flow and shutin periods handled separately Pseudopressure computed within model Rock mechanics variables become parameters in regression Especially i and n Shutin period modelled as equivalent flow period Synthetic initial pressure required

SDPP Pseudopressure
In gas well testing pseudopressure [ m(p) ] allows interpretation for k and S in the usual way on log-log or semilog plots This is not the case in the SDPP situation ki , i and rock mechanics parameters (E, , n) are required to generate a pseudopressure SDPP pseudomodel allows all parameters to be included in the nonlinear regression process (Quickmatch and Automatch) Pseudopressure is used to validate an interpretation once the parameters have been identified Early work of Raghavan and Cinco showed that data generated using a numerical model could be transformed to the liquid solution using SDPP pseudopressure Hence the pseudopressure method can be used to generate SDPP responses (if the above parameters are specified) The term ct in the accumulation term of the diffusivity equation does, in fact, vary with pressure through Is Agarwal pseudotime necessary?

SDPP Model - StressDependPerm

Key feature is the embedding of the pseudopressure calculation in the model This allows rock mechanics parameters to be estimated by regression Constant rate model Wellbore storage can be added in well test software Finite wellbore radius (FWBR) solution which can handle negative skin Variable rate convolution not allowed

SDPP Model - StressDependPerm

Parameter List:

k, S, E, , n, qref, tp, , pref

k and evaluated at pref Parameters in red must be specified and not selected as iteration variables in nonlinear regression pref may be pi but not necessary Allows rock mechanics parameters to be determined by regression, particularly the exponent, n Most common regression subset is k, S and n Usually the coal properties, E and , are known independently tp = 0 defines drawdown or injection at constant rate tp > 0 defines buildup or falloff preceded by constant rate Constrained by DLL facility in well test software Buildup or Falloff treated as equivalent drawdown or buildup In this case q +ve for Falloff and -ve for Buildup

Simulation of Constant Rate Production (Test Design) CRD

pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md i = 0.005 E = 1.25105 psi = 0.39 n=3 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft q = 500 STB/D rw = 0.35 ft = 1 cp B = 1

pwf
(psia)

pwf(tp) = 927.113 psia

SDPP Model - CBM

Time, t (hr) Last Flowing Pressure required for Buildup Simulation

Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity

pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md E = 1.25105 psi = 0.39 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft rw = 0.35 ft = 1 cp B = 1 i = 0.005 SDPP Model n=3 q = 500 STB/D

CRD

p
(psi)

p'
SDPP Model

SDPP Model - CBM

Time, t (hr)
Homogeneous Model

Production

Method 1 - SDPP Pseudopressure Import

Rock mechanics model assumed known i.e. E, , n and i are specified a priori Normalised pseudopressure function generated and imported into well test software Test analysed in terms of transformed pressure Stress dependent effect is implicitly backed off Interpretation yields ki and true skin, S Any well test model can be used to interpret the transformed data No-flow boundary, vertical fracture and radial composite effects have been observed in CBM tests Main problem is defining the initial porosity, i, to use in the Palmer and Mansoori model E = 500,000 psi and = 0.25 are good values for coal seams Iteration is required to find stress dependence of permeability

Analysis of CRD using Normalised SDPP Pseudopressure

Liquid Solution k = 15 md S = 0 (p) Pseudopressure Transform of Figure 2.6 (psi)
q = 500 STB/D

Production

Time, t (hr)

CBM Data

Critical Conditions in Production (Drawdown)

Condition where permeability at the sandface has reduced to zero Sandface closure Unique to production (drawdown) Flow-rate, q, cannot be larger than the critical (specified fi , pi and kh) Or fi must be greater than fi,crit for specified flow-rate, q

Critical Conditions in Production (Drawdown)

rw = 0.35 ft = 1 cp Bo = 1 pi = 1500 psia ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 E = 500,000 psi q = 500 bbl/d = 0.25 i = 0.0025

k = 15 md n=3

S=0

h = 81 ft

Sandface Closure

At h = 80 ft a simulation crashes

Choking Condition in Production (Drawdown)

Parameters from Mavor IFO Field Example (q = -96 bbl/d) rw = 0.26 ft h = 2.5 ft = 0.65 cp Bo = 1.005 ct = 3.00310-3 psi-1 E = 500,000 psi = 0.25 n = 3 pi = 734 psia ki = 11.3 md i = 0.001

CRD tp = 10 hr

qcrit = 7 bbl/d

Rock Compressibility, cf
Palmer and Mansoori

(Pore Volume)

Van den Hoek

1 cf = 2Ei

Almost identical when = 0.39

3(1 2) cf = Ei
ct = cwSwc + co(1 - Swc) + cf or ct = cw + cf

ct should be updated if E, or are changed by regression cf is not pressure dependent

Use of Effective Youngs Modulus, E

Palmer and Mansoori

p pi p pi = 1 = 1 i i M i Ef ( )

1 f ( ) = (1 + )(1 2 )

Enter log porosity, i, into Pansystem parameter set Calculate rock compressibility from accepted value of E Use effective E to achieve variation in SDPP model This maintains correct diffusivity in the simulation

Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity

Buildup Following Constant Rate Production

CRB

p
(psi)

tp = 10 hr

p
d p p = t + t d ln p t

LM N

b g

OP Q
p'

pwf(tp) = 927.113 psia

p = pws pwf(tp)

DP k = 15 md

Elapsed Time, t (hr)

= 1 cp q = -500 STB/D Bo = 1 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 rw = 0.35 ft h = 100 ft ki = 15 md i = 0.005 E = 1.25105 psia = 0.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia

Injection Well Falloff

tp = 10 hr
pwf(tp) = 1719.58 psia

CRS (IFO)

pFO
(psi)

d p p = t + t d ln p t

LM N

b g

OP Q

Ideal DP kh = 1500 md.ft

p'
Equivalent Time, te

= 1 cp q = -500 STB/D Bo = 1 ct = 80.310-5 psi-1 rw = 0.35 ft h = 100 ft ki = 15 md i = 0.005 E = 1.25105 psia = 0.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia

Mavor Field Example Data (Unreduced)

pwf(tp) = 1504.56 psia

pw
(psia) Injection Falloff

q = 96 bbl/d

Time (hr)

Mavor Field Example (Injection and Falloff)

Falloff period

p
(psi)

(IFO)

q = -96 bbl/d

pwf(tp) = 1504.56 psia

tp = 8.6458 hr

Elapsed Time, t (hr)

rw = 0.26 ft h = 2.5 ft m = 0.65 cp cw = 3.010-6 psi-1 Bw = 1.005

10

Derivative Fingerprints for IFO Shrinking Fracture Model After Van den Hoek SPE 84289

tD*dpD/dtD

pD
0.1
dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.1 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.3 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.5

0.01

dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.7 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.8 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.9 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.95

0.001 1E-3

1E-2

1E-1

D tD

1E+0

1E+1

1E+2

Total Compressibility, ct

ct = cf + cw

3 1 2 cf = i E
For coal :

i = 0.001 = 0.25 E = 5105 psi

cf = 310-3 psi-1 i.e ct = 3.00310-3 psi-1 . . . very high rock compressibility

Determination of Initial Reservoir Pressure, pi IFO

Semilog (Horner) Graph

pws
(psia)

S = 4.5 k = 11.3 md

Extrapolated pressure, p* = 734 psia

Horner Time Function tp = 8.6458 hr

Permeability Range in IFO Data

p
(psi) DP k = 11.3 md

DP k = 26 md

tp = 8.6458 hr Elapsed Time, t (hr)

Manual Match of Mavor Data

SDPP + NIWBS Model

p
(psi)

(Hegeman)

k = 11 md S = 4.5 i = 0.0009 Cs = 310-5 bbl/psi t = 0.075 hr Cf = -6900 psi

tp = 8.6458 hr Elapsed Time, t (hr)

E = 5105 psi = 0.25 n=3

Field Example Pseudopressure Function

700

Pseudopressure, y(p) (psia)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 500

ki = 11.3 md i = 0.001 pi = 734 psia E = 500,000 psi = 0.25 n = 3

600

700

800

900

1000

Pressure (psia)

Falloff Log-Log Diagnostic Based on Pseudopressure

Mavor Field Example

(p)
(psia)

Elapsed Time, t (hr)

Falloff Semilog Analysis Based on Pseudopressure

Mavor Field Example

(p)
(psia)

Horner Time Function k = 10.15 md S = 0.079 pi = 754 psia

tp = 8.6458 hr

Revised Permeability Range in IFO Data

p
(psi)

Cs = 0
DP k = 11.3 md

Cs = 0
DP k = 54 md

False Plateau

tp = 8.6458 hr Elapsed Time, t (hr)

i = 0.001 E = 5105 psi

ct = 310-3 psi-1

Improved Match with n Increased to 4.5

SDPP + NIWBS Model

p
(psi)

ki = 7 md i = 0.001 S = 13 C = 7900 = 0.075 hr Cs = 3.010-5 psi-1 E = 5.0105 psi = 0.25 n = 4.5

Elapsed Time, t (hr) tp = 8.6458 hr

Permeability Range of Revised Model

p
(psi) DP k = 7 md

DP k = 70 md

ki = 7 md i = 0.001 S = 13 Cs = 0 E = 5.0105 psi = 0.25 n = 4.5

50

Elapsed Time, t (hr)

Wellbore storage removed, extended FO

tp = 8.6458 hr

Nonlinear Regression for Three Parameters

SDPP + NIWBS Model

p
(psi)

k = 10.8 md S = 2.0 n = 2.466

Minimisation of 2

i = 0.001 Cf = -7900 t = 0.075 hr Cs = 310-5 psi-1 E = 5105 psi = 0.25

Elapsed Time, t (hr)

2 based on pressures only

tp = 8.6458 hr

Production Forecast (Dewatering)

6

k = 10.8 md S = 2 n = 2.466

pi = 734 psia pwf = 500 psia

Constant BHFP

Flow-Rate, q (bbl/d) Rate,

3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Time, t (hr)

Mavor Field Example Analysed with 90o Fault Boundary Model

(No Stress Dependency)

RH+NIWBS

= 0.001

DP k = 26.4 md

Cs = 2.13110-5 bbl/psi = 0.0876 hr C = -11000 psi k = 28.4 md S = -1.477 L1 = 175 ft L2 = 80 ft pi = 719 psia

Results from Nonlinear Regression

Mavor Field Example Analysed with 90o Fault Boundary Model

(No Stress Dependency)

i changed from 0.001 to 0.01

Cs = 1.78910-4 bbl/psi = 0.0742 hr C = -1000 psi k = 30.63 md S = -0.0105 L1 = 24 ft L2 = 54.5 ft pi = 723 psia

Results from Nonlinear Regression

Structure
Formation Geometry Natural Fractures Faulting Folding Stress/Compression
Well A
Permeability Facies Change

Well B

Well C

Channel Sandstone Belt

Coal Pinch Out Fault Offset

Schematic Diagram of Coalbed Reservoir Geometry

Components that affect lateral continuity, cleat properties, permeability, and porosity

Testing Strategy for CBM Wells

Buildup Following Production Derivative L-L Diagnostic CRB Falloff Succeeding Injection Derivative L-L Diagnostic IFO

Apparent DP
ki DP

Apparent DP

ki DP

Ideal SDPP Alone Including Storage and Boundary Effect Buildup Identifies Presence of Boundary Effects In Falloff SDPP and Boundary Effects are Similar and Combine to Give Steep Derivative Response

Resolution of Lack of Uniqueness Problem

Carry out a production test On drawdown the stress effect will be much stronger Choking may occur