Ijpt forum

Estimating Flow Efficiency From Afterflow.. Distorted

Pressure Buildup Data

Since publishing the type-curve analysis method skin pressure drop, I::i.Pskin, is equal to this pressure
given in Ref. 1 for afterflow-distorated pressur~. recovery less the pressure drop across an equivalently
buildup data, I have received numerous queries on sized zone with the formation permeability, k f ; that is,
estimating the flow efficiency of a damaged well di-
rectly from th.e type-curve match. This note describes
a method that gives a rough estimate of flow efficiency
for wells with localized damage.
Fig. 1 shows pressure buildup data computed dur-
ing the afterflow period for a well producing at 60
percent flow efficiency. In this figure, T = kh de-
I.t 100 1'"="-_-_---=l-==%=---=-A-=F=-=TE=-=R=-=F:-:-LO-:=:-:-7-::-+-----Jp--+------I
W
bl
notes transmlSSI - - , an d FIS th e
0 f md-ft
Ilty In unIts
cp
wellbore storage capacity in cu ft/psi, as defined be-
low Eq. 5 in Ref. 1. If one assumes that this storage
factor remains reasonably constant during the after-
flow period, then the breakaway character of the type-
w...
curve match in Fig. 1 denotes localized wellbore dam-
age with at least a 5: 1 permeability reduction around ~
I- 10r-----------tl~t----------l
the well. The departure, of the data points in Fig. 1 Z
from the T /F = 5,000 curve after a buildup of 80 ....
I

to 100 psi denotes a transition from a state in which ::>

::I:
flow into the wellbore is determined bYdamage-zone VOl
resistance to a state in which formation resistance
controls the flow. Conversely, pressure buildup before
the departure represents pressure recovery across the
damage zone. This is obviously a true statement for
the two limiting cases of (1) no wellbore damage at
100 1000
all, an,d (2) infinitely large formation permeability PRESSURE BUILDUP ABOVE
beyond the damaged zone. Statement validity for FLOWING PRESSURE, PSI
. intermediate cases can be shown from the unit re~ Fig. l-Afterflow-distorted pressure buildup data
sponse formulation given in Ref. 1. The so-called c,omputed for a well with a 60-percent flow efficiency.

Letters to JPT Forum are limited to a maximum of 750 words including 200 words for each table and illustration.
Acceptable subjects include new engineering ideas, progress reports from the laboratory and field, and descriptions
of unique equipment, processes or practices. Letters should be sent to the Editor. SPE-AIME reserves the right to
edit material to eliminate commercialism or remarks of a questionable nature.

696 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 APskin = ( 1- ~~h ) APd, (1)

where ~Pd is the pressure buildup at departure and 0.8

kWbis the permeability of the damaged zone. w

For the data in Fig. 1, t~ 0.6

Z RA = 10

APskin = ( 1- is) (90) = 72 psi.

w

~
u.
w
0.4
RWB

50

One can also estimate the total buildup from Fig. 1

~ NOTE: ~ =2000
9
u.
0.2 RWB
as ~p* ~ 180 psi. These values give a flow efficiency,
E, as follows:
0'0.003 0.01 0.1
E = ~p* -ilPskin PERMEABILITY RATIO, KWB
~p* ' KF
Fig. 2-Flow efficiencies for wells with damage given
by Eq. 3.
E = 180180
- 72 = 060
..
Eq. 3' concentrates most of the damage near the well..
Since the selection of initial point of departure bore so that localized damage should fall in the pa-
from the 5,000 curve on Fig. 1 is somewhat subjective,
one needs independent assurance that the indicated rameter range 10 :::; rra :::; 50 shown on Fig. 2.
wb
permeability reduction can, in fact, account for the According to Fig. ,2, a 5:1 permeability reduction
decreased flow efficiency. For this purpose, Fig., 2 = 0.2) should indeed reduce the flow effi-
(k wb / kf
shows two curves for stable flow efficiency as a func- ciency to about 60 percent. In general, the agreement
tion of' th'e ratio of permeability at the wellbore, kwb , between the two flow efficiencies should. be within
to the formation permeability; k.f. These efficiencies -I- 10 percent; otherwise, factors other than changes
are computed numerically from Eqs. 2 and 3~ in permeability ,are responsible for th,e behavior of
the buildup data in Fig. I.' For' example, wellbore
In(~) effects such as gas, breakout 'during buildup or the
E =. .re dr ' (2) change from a partially liquid-filled well to a com-
pletely liquid-filled well during buildup can give
j rwb
k r
kf
indications of damage that are inconsistent by the
two methods described above.
~ = '1 - ( k
f
~f kWh ) exp Reference
1. McKinley; R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility From' After-
flow-Dominated Pressure Buildup Data," J. Pet. TeclJ..' (July
r - rWh. ) 1971) .863-872; Trans., AIME, 251.
.r a - rwb (3) R. M. McKinley, SPE-AIME
( 1 _ r - rwb Esso Production Research Co.
fa - r'lvb Houston, Tex. '
SPE 4922

JUNE, 1974 697