Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effect of A Partially Communicating Fault On Transient Pressure Beh-Vior
Effect of A Partially Communicating Fault On Transient Pressure Beh-Vior
Effect of A Partially Communicating Fault On Transient Pressure Beh-Vior
Summary. A mathematical model is presented that describes the effect of a partially communicating fault on transient pressure
behavior. The well is treated as an infinite line source and the partially communicating fault as an infinitely long, vertical
semipermeable barrier. Analytic solutions are giv~n for the interference response at an observation well ahd the draw down
behavior of the active well. These solutions can improve th~ design and analysis of interference tests, which are affected by
partially corrurmnicating faults. They are initially developed for constant formation thickness but are later extended to the case of
unequal formation thickness on opposite sides of the fault.
lntroductio"
A question that arises frequently in the developmental planning of
oil and gas fields is to what extent the faults that have been identified by seismic and geologic studies will act as barriers to fluid
flow. The question is important because it may have a major jmpact on the number of wells required to exploit the field's reserves.
Faults in a hydrocarbon-bearing structure may be either sealing
or nonsealing. A sealing fault will completely impede lateral fluid
flow and maY actually form part of the trapping mechanism for the
hydrocarbon accumulation. The throw of a sealing fault is such that
permeable strata on one side of the fault plane are juxtaposed against
impermeable strata on the other side, as illustrated in fig. 1.
A nonsealing fault, which will usually have insufficient throw
to cause complete separation of the penneable strata on opposite
sides of the fault plane, will always allow some degree of lateral
fluid flow. Because of various mechanical processes, such as grain
crushing, bed deformation, and clay smearing, however, the transmissibility of the fault zone may be much lower than the transmissibility of the undisturbed permeable strata. Such a situation, as
illustrated in Fig. 2, is referred to as a partially communicating fault.
Interference testing would seem to be an obvious method for measuring the transmissibility of a partially communicating fault. The
design and analysis of conventional interference and pulse tests are
based on the homogeneous reservoir model, however, which may
be inadequate. At best, it may give an average interwell transmissibility, but it will not quantify separately the transmissibility of
the fault and the transmissibility of the continuous reservoir.
In practice, though, many interference tests across faults have
had the simple, qualitative objective of demonstrating whethe.r communication exists. Such an application was suggested by Johnson
et al. 1 in respect of pulse testing. On the other hand, there have
probably been many atte~pts to measure the transmissibility across
a fault by interference or pulse tests, which have yielded no result.
Qualitatively, a negative test result would imply that the fault was
sealing, but the field pressure performance may later show that it
was nonsealing. In such a case, the interference or pulse test may
have failed because it was designed with an inappropriate flow model
(i.e., the homogeneous reservoir model and exponential integral
solution).
The influence of a partially communicating fault on interference
testing was first considered by Stewart et al., 2 who introduced the
idea of modeling the fault zone as a linear, vertical semipermeable
barrier of negligible capacity. Of course, the model is a great simplification of the complex physical nature of the fault zone, but as
Stewart et al. 2 noted, it h,as the essential property of imposing a
linear flow pattern at the fault plane. It is also the way in which
partially communicating faults are modeled in reservoir simulation
studies. In fact, the set of drawdown type curves Stewart et al. 2
developed was obtained by numerical simulation.
*Now at She!ll International Petroleum Mij.
Copyrig~t
590
SEALING FAULt
------
P2 Pt
.........
.._...Vx
--
(a)
Pt
Fig. 1-Sealing fault prevents lateral fluid flow.
h1
P2 - ......... Vx
hz
--------
(b)
PARTIALLY COMMUNICATING FAULT
.. ~ y
Observation Well
Region
(x, y)
""'
L ______.
(b, 0)
Observation
Well
...
'
Active Well
Region
'Y/1
Fault
(a)
k1
f.l1
'Y/1
(b)
k1
fl-1
'Y/1
a2 ilpi
a2 ilpi
qp,
1 ailpi
&2
~2
If
and
591
10 ~--------~----------~--------~--------~----------,
10- 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
w-!
10
-~= I x~o ~
0
:
x~o'
and
- kh oilpt
p,
OX
=
x=O
kh
Pvn=27r-dpn, n=1,2, ........................... (9)
and
"L
~c:
)/(:). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(14)
where L is the displacement of the observatiort well from the active well perpendicular to the f~ult (see Fig. 5).
The dimensionless parameter a L is defined as the specific transmissibility ratio with respect to the interwell distance, L For the
. case of constant reservoir thickness on both sides of the fault, a L
is equivalent to the dimensionless fault conductivity defined by
Stewart et al. 2
These definitions allow Eqs. 2 through 8 to be expressed in dimensi9nless form. The resultant equations are giveri in Appendix A,
which also outlines the solution procedure.
Observation-Well-Region Solution
The drawdown distribution in the observatiort-well region as a solution to Eqs. 2 through 8 is
rL [exp(
4aiu-
................................... (15)
In the special case when the observation Well is directly opposite
the active well (i.e., Yv=O and lxvl+bv=1), Eq. 15 reduces to
qp,
2
.
(
[fDL
1 ) du
Pv=-liraLJ
exp(4aLu+2aL)erfc 2acJu+-- - .
2~ ~
~
~
3.0 +-----~~-----+------~~~r-r---~~
c.
~
12.0 +-------t------:E
i:S
10
Dimensionless Time loL
Fig. 7-Semilogarithmic plot of pressure drawdown for an_observation well near a partially communicating fault.
Fig. 8-Pressure drawdown for an active well near a partially -;;ommunicating fault.
2JU
JU
ActiveWeiiRegion Solution
The drawdown distribution in the active well region as a solution
to Eqs. 2 through 8 is
. .................................. (19)
where
tvA ='rftlb 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(20)
and
aA~c;: )!(:).
............................
(21)
( - -r~w)
1 ) -.,J;ra.A
.
Pvw=-lhEi
. - -VzEi ( - 4tvA
tvA
tvL
J
0
Yv
2) erfc [2a.LJU+
[exp (4a.Lu-4u
2
(xv +bv)
2JU
J-JUdu ] .
................................... (18)
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987
...... (22)
JUJU
10
Co=L
s
-~0.9
aA
..._---+----l----+-,l.'+--.....::....,----+---+----1
= 0.1
blrw = 200
"-
Q.
::1
~
~
0.8
-~
-.:
~
~ 0.7
...~
"
Homogeneous Reservoir
i5
10_,
10
Dimensionless Time
102
IO'+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 '
10'
10'
10'
10
10
10'
loA
Dimensionless Time t 0 /C 0
Fig. 10-Pressure derivative drawdown example for an active well with wellbore storage and skin.
...-.......................... (23)
lXA = 0.25
fJ:?Ap= 1000
2.04-------+~~,-,-~~-~-----4-------+-----~
'
/',,,
slope= m
'
'
' ',
'
Naturally Fractured
Reservoir
10
102
{tp
103
+ D..t)l D..t
Fig. 11-Pressure buildup example f.or an active well near a partially communicating fault.
594
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.100
0.200
0.500
1.000
2.000
__!N_
5.6507
4.9681
4.0785
3.4225
2.7907
2.0146
1.4934
1.0478
0.5963
0.3613
0.2063
h1 a!lp1
ax
x=O
=h2 a!lp2
ax
- kh2 a!lp1
JL
ax
kh
op=
141.2qJ.L
where p* is the extrapolated pressure of the first semilog straight
line. The specific transmissibility ratio of the fault can then be obtained from Eq. 23 with the help of Table 1. In practice, the usual
problems of wellbore storage and insufficient drawdown or buildup time would make such an ideal response difficult to measure.
Nevertheless, the technique might still be practical if the test could
be conducted with a bottomhole shut-off tool. A pressure-derivative
approach would probably assist in the interpretation of actual data.
where
ltJL
~(~:)/(::
) .............................. (29)
In a similar manner, one can obtain the following solution for the
active well:
Pvw=
-1f2Ei(-
Ei.(--1-)-c
rvw ) - 112C 1
4tvA
2I(ct.A,tvA);
4tvA
aA
~ ~:
(
) / ( : ) . .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (33)
................................. (34)
and
. ............................ (35)
Conclusions
Analytic solutions have been obtained for the transient pressure behavior of a constant-rate well in an infinite reservoir that contains
a linear, vertical semipermeable barrier. The solutions may be useq
to improve the design and analysis of interference tests between
wells separated by partially communicating faults. The type curves
generated by these solutions will yield separate estimates of the formation transmissibility arid the transmissibility of the fault itself.
An explicit solution for drawdown at the active well offers the
possibility of deriving fault transmissibility from the drawdown and
buildup behavior of the active well alone. One could use this method
if a convenient observation well is not available for interference
testing.
It was found that the draw down and buildup behaviors of the active well resemble inverted forms of the characteristic behavior of
a well in a naturally fractured reservoir.
Interference type curves were generated for the special case of
a fault that is perpendicular to a line of intersection joining the active and observation wells. The general analytic solution for the
pressure-drawdown distribution, however, can be used to generate type curves for other fault orientations.
Nomenclature
b = x coordinate of active-well location, ft [m]
ct = total compressibility, psi - 1 [Pa - 1]
CD
x=O
Pvs=PvwCtvAp+fltvA)-Pvw(lltvA), (24)
and
aL
= dimensionless
storage constant
595
op
D.p
q
rw
s
t
D.t
Tf
u
Vx
w
x
z
a
{3
formation permeability' md
effective permeability of fault zone, md
effective hoi-izontal thickness of fault zone, ft [m]
interwell distance perpendicular to fault, ft [m]
Laplace transformation operator
semilog slope of pressure change for infinite-acting,
homogeneous reservoir
= pressure, psi [Pa]
= incremental pressure difference (see Eq. 25 and
Fig. 11)
:;= pressure drawdown, psi [Pa]
= production rate, RIVD [res m 3 /d]
= wellbore radius, ft [m]
= Laplace transform parameter
= time, hours
= shut-in time, hours
= specific transmissibility= k1hllp.t,
m 2 /Pas=0.00l}27k1hlltp,, md/cp or RB/D-psi-ft
with kt in md and p, in cp (see .Eq. 1)
= variable of integration
= .volumetric leakage rate per unit length of fault,
RB/D-ft [res m 3 /dm]
= transformed pressure drawdown (see Eq. A-10)
= distance perpendicular to fault, ft [m]
= distance from active well p~rallel to fault, ft [m]
= component of transformed pressure drawdown (see
Eqs. A-18 and A-19)
= specific transmissibility ratio (see Eqs. 14 and 21)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
= ..Jw 2 +s
Subscripts
A = active well
D = .dimensionless
f =fault
i = initial
L = with respect to interwell distance
p = producing
S = shut-in'
W = wellbore
1 = active-well region
2 = observation-well region
Acknowledgments
I thank Shell U.K. E&P and Shell Inti. Petroleum Mij. for permission to publish this paper. I also gratefully acknowledge Sandra
M. Robertson's assistance with various computer applications.
References
1. Johnson, C.R., Greenkorn, R.A., and Woods, E.G.: "Pulse Testing:
A New Method for Describing Reservoir Flow Properties Between
Wells," JPT (Dec. 1966) 1599-1604; Trans:, AIME, 237.
2. Stewart, G., Gupta, A., and Westaway, P.: "The Interpretation oflnterferen~e Tests in a Reservoir With Sealing and Partially Communicat-
596
ing Faults," paper SPE 12967 presented at the 1984 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 22-24 ..
Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 10, 1.
Horner, D.R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells," Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., The Hague (1951) 503-,23.
Gray, K.E.: "Approximating Well-to-Fault Distance From Pressure
Build-Up Tests," JPT (July 1965) 761-67.
Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K., and van Poollen, H.K.: "Effect of Linear
Discontinuities on Pressure Build-Up and Draw down Behavior,'' JPT
(Aug. 1963) 885-95; Trans., AIME, 228.
Streltsova, T.D. and McKinley, R.M.: "Effects of Flow Time Duration on Buildup Pattern for Reservoirs With Heterogeneous Properties,"
SPEJ (June 1984) 294-306.
Earlougl1er, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 10, 5.
Clark, G. and Van Golf-Racht, T.D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach
to Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Example,"
JP-T (Nov. 1985) 2023-39.
Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "UnsteadyState Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single InfiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1974) 347-60; Trans.,
AIME, 257.
Chen, H.K. and Brigham, W.E.: "Pressure Buildup for a Well with
Storage and Skin in a Closed Square,'' paper SPE 4890 presented at
the 1974 SPE California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, April4-5.
Bourdet, D. et al.: "Interpreting Well Tests in Fractured Reservoirs,"
World Oil (Oct. 1983) 77-87.
Gradshteyn, I.S. and Ryzhik,-I.M.: Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, corrected and enlarged edition, Academic Press Inc., New York
City (1980) 307-10, 931.
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A.: Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Natl. Bureau of Standards, 1968.
apz
=--;;;'
x=O,
............................... (A-3)
apz
ax
Pn=O at t=O, n=l,2 ............................ (A-5)
Pn~o as lxl~oo,
............................... (A-6)
and
Pn~o as IYI~oo
................................ (A-7)
and
F [ji n(x,y,s)] =
(A-9)
-00
=p n(X,W;S) .
d 2 w1
27t
- --(w 2 +s)w 1 =--o(x-b), x>O, ........... (A-11)
2
dx
s
d2w2
dx2
Limiting Cases. There are three limiting cases of the general so-
lut~oh W exarnin~ that depend ori the behavior of the function /(a, t).
dx
.fir
2../U
-./U ).
4au+ 1
arid
dw 2
=a(Wt -w2), x=O . ........................ (A-14)
dx
Eqs. A-ll through A-14 areordinary differential equations for
which the solutions are readily obtained:
7r
w 1 =-e-13lb-xl+
s(3
1re -{3(b+x)
. , x>O .............. (A-15)
s((3+2a)
and
.
7r
w2=-e
s(3
_r.llb-xl
fJ
Case 3: Late-time behavior (i.e., t-+ oo). To study this case fully
we hav~ to find an aiternative form for the ihtegnil term in Eq.
A-21. Gradshteyrt and Ryzhik 13 give the following integral relationship:
1re-{3(b+lxi)
where
.................................. (B-3)
Now let w 1 =z1 +z2. This means that W:2 =z 1 -z 2 and the inversions of w 1 ahd w2 are obtained simultaneously after die corrimon
components z 1 and z2 are inverted independently:
te-l 14u
7r
z 1 =-e-13lb-xl
(
v2
)
exp ---2av dvdu.
b+ lxl
4u
-
/(a,t)=a~~xp[2a(b+lxbJ)---I
............................... (A-18)
s(3
oo
.................................. (B-4)
and
t2 =
Eqs. A-18 and A-19 were inverted by taking the inverse Laplace
transformation and applying the integral inversion formula for the
compiex Fourier transfotmation. The results are
.
[ [(b-x)2 +y2]]
F- 1- 1(z1)=-lhEi
.......... (A-20)
.
4t
and
4t
00
-exp[2a(b+lxi)]I - - - - - - b+lxl
y2+u2
...... (B-5)
For the special case of b+ ixl = 1 and y=O, Eq. B-5 reduces to
-l(a,t),
4t
tf [
y2
l(a,t)=..hra exp[2a(b+lxi)]J lexp 4a 2u- u
4
l(a,t)= -\>E;(-
X erfc
[ 2a.JU +
.JU
JU .
where
oo
(b+lxi)J du]
:J
f(aJt)=e 2a
e-2aue-u2/4tdu
.....................
(B-7)
597
But as
t--+oo,
f(cx)=e 2a
j
1
e -2au
--du= -e 2aEi( -2cx) . ............. (B-8)
u
l(a,t)
~-
hEi(-
:J
E+OO
kPa
SPEFE
where j(cx) is independent oft.
Some useful values of the functionf(cx) are listed in Table 1. The
late-time behavior for the active well can be deduced by combining Eqs. 18 and B-5. After incorporating the definitions of dimen-
598
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 22, 1985. Paper accepted for publicatioh Jan. 16, 1986. Revised manuscript received Jan. 2, 1987. Paper (SPE 14311) first
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.