Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Well Testing Res Des Concepts PDF
Well Testing Res Des Concepts PDF
Schlumberger 2002
∆PDD =
Pi - P(t )
=
∆PBU P(t ) -=
P( ∆t 0)
4
Well test Types
• Draw down
– Open the well with constant rate decreasing bottom hole pressure
• Build Up test
– Shut-in the well increasing bottom hole pressure
• Injection/ fall-off test ( different fluid type)
– The fluid is injected increasing Bottom hole pressure
– Shut-in the well decreasing the bottom hole pressure
• Interference test / pulse test
– Producing well measure pressure in another shut-in well away from
the producer communication test
• Gas well test
– Back pressure , Isochronal test , modified isochronal test well
productivity, AOFP, Non-Darcian skin.
5
Information obtained from well
testing
• Well Description
– For completion interval (s),
– Production potential (PI), and skin
• Reservoir Description
– “Average” permeability (horizontal and vertical)
– Heterogeneities(fractures, layering, change of Prop.)
– Boundaries (distance and “shape”)
– Pressure (initial and average)
• Note: Well Description and Reservoir Description
– May be separate objectives
6
Methodology
• The inverse problem
Q vs t P vs t
Reservoir
7
Example: Interference test
Observation well:
1. The signal will be received with a delay
2. The response is smaller
8
Fluid Flow Equation
9
concepts
• Permeability and porosity
• Storativity and Transmissibility
• Skin
• Wellbore storage
• Radius of investigation
• Superposition theory
• Flow regimes
• Productivity index (PI)
10
Concepts-Definitions
• Permeability:
– The absolute permeability is a measure of the capacity of
the medium to transmit fluids. Unit: md (10-12 m2)
Kh
• Transmissibility T=
µ
• Storativity S = ϕ ct h
T
• Diffusivity (Hydraulic diffusivity) η=
S
• AOF
• PI
11
Fluid flow equation: ingredients
• Conservation of mass ( continuity equation)
∂
∇( ρ • v ) =− ( ρφ )
∂t
12
Fluid flow equation: radial case
• Continuity + Darcy: in radial coordinate (isotropic)
1 ∂ r ρ kr ∂P ∂
= (ϕρ )
r ∂r µ ∂r ∂t
• Assumptions:
Radial flow into a well opened over entire thickness , single
phase, slightly compressible fluid, constant viscosity ,
ignoring the gravity, constant permeability and porosity
1 ∂ ∂P ϕµ c ∂P
=
r ∂r ∂r
r
k ∂t
13
Solution to radial diffusivity equation
1. Constant Pressure
boundary, p=pi @re
2. Infinite reservoir
∂p qµ B
|r =
∂r w 2π khrw p=pi @ ∞
3. No flow boundary
∂p/∂r =0 @ re
14
Unsteady- Infinit acting reservoirs(radial
flow regime): DD
• Finite diameter well without WBS- infinite acting reservoir
∞
∆P( r=
,t)
q 2
2π T π ∫0
1−e ( )
− u 2t D J 1 (u )Y0 (ur ) − Y1 (u ) J 0 (ur )
(
u 2 J 12 (u ) + Y12 (u ) )
du
q µ B 1 ϕµ cr 2
P( r , t ) =
Pi − Ei −
2π kh 2 4kt
162.6q µ B kt
=
Pi − Pwf (t ) log − 3.23 + 0.87 S
ϕµ ct rw
2
Kh
USS,PSS,SS?
∂P/∂t=f(x,t) USS (Well test)
∂P/∂t=cte PSS (boundary)
∂P/∂t=0 SS( aquifer)
15
Radius of investigation
Or it’s the radius beyond which the flux 1. Based on radial homogeneous if
should not exceed a specified fraction fracture ?
or percentage of the well bore flow rate 2. Is it a radius or volume?
3. How about gauge resolution?
4. Which time we are talking about?
Can we use the radius of investigation to 5. How about a close system?
calculate the pore volume and reserve? 6. How about the velocity of front?
16
Radius of investigation
Rate
Rate
Q, T-dt
Q=0, T-dt
time time
-Q, dt -Q, t
Injection Observation
time
17
Skin Pressure Drop
Skin Pressure drop: higher pressure drop
near the well bore due to mud filtrate,
reduced K , improved K, change of flow
streamlines, fluid composition change,….
It is one of the most important parameter
used in production engineering as it could
refer to a sick or excited well and leads to
additional work-over operations.
Bourdet 2002
18
Wellbore Storage
q Q(surface)
Q(Sand face)
Q(wellbore)
t
log∆P, log∆P’
∆V ∆P( ∆t=
)
qB
∆t
C=
− =
c0Vwb 24C
∆P
Pure WBS
Superposition
• Effect of multiple well
– ∆Ptot@well1=∑∆Pwells @well1
• Effect of rate change
∆Ptot = ∆P( q1−0) + ∆P( q 2− q1) + ... + ∆P( q 2− q1)@ tn −ti−1
• Effect of boundary
∆Ptot = ∆Pact + ∆Pimage
20
Radius of investigation:superposition
Rate
Rate
Q, T-dt
Q=0, T-dt
time time
-Q, dt -Q, t
Injection Observation
∆Pr ,t = ∆Pr ,t 1 + ∆Pr ,t 2
−70.6( −q µ B ) −948ϕµ ct r 2
∆Pr ,t 1 = Ei
kh kt
−70.6( q µ B ) −948ϕµ ct r 2 Pressure drop, at “r”
∆Pr ,t 2 = Ei
kh k ( t − ∆t )
−948ϕµ ct r 2
−1694.4 µ
∆Pr ,t = e kt
kht
948ϕµ ct r 2
tmax = time
k
21
Fluid flow equation : complexity
• Linear , bilinear , radial, spherical
• Depends on the well geometry, and reservoir
heterogeneities
• Change the fluid flow equation and the solution
• The fluid heterogeneities affect the diffusivity
equation and the solution ( non linearity gas res)
22
Derivative Plots
23
Derivative plot
Transition
Transient
SS
PSS
Transition
Transient PSS
Reservoir Pore
volume
SS
WBS-
Transition Matter 2004
24
Derivative plot : Example1
Structure effect on well testing
25
Bourdet 2002
Derivative plot
Example2 : Radial Composite
Equivalent
Homogeneous
ΔP &
K2<K1
ΔP’
Log(t)
m2
ΔP Composite
m2 k2
=
m1 m1 k1
Log(t)
26
Derivative plot : Example3 :
Horizontal Well Testing
27
Some sensitivities!
29
Uncertain parameters
• Complex permeability / porosity (higher order of heterogeneities)
• Complex thickness
• Complex fluid
• Wellbore effect?
• Any deviation from assumption
• New phenomena ?
• Gauge resolution
• Measurements? Correct rate history
• Numerical- Analytical
• Core-Log values ? Seismic?
• Averaging process?
• Layering response?
• Test design? Sensitivities? Multiple models ?
30
Rock Description
31
Core data evaluation
• Summary numbers
(statistics) for comparison
with well tests
• Variability measures
• How do the numbers
relate to the geology
• How good are the
summary numbers
• How representative are
the numbers
32
Measures of Central Tendency
• Mean - population parameter
• Average - the estimator of the population mean
• Arithmetic average N
1
k ar = ∑ ki
N i =1
• Geometric average 1
N
1 N
k geom = ∏ ki
N
k geom = exp ∑ log e ( ki )
i =1 N i =1
• Harmonic average −1
1 N
k har = N∑
i =1 k i
33
Differences between averages
Measures of heterogeneity
k har ≤ k geom ≤ k ar
34
Averages in reservoir engineering
• Used to estimate effective property for
certain arrangements of permeability
k ar k ar
• Horizontal (bed parallel flow)
k geom k har
• Vertical and Horizontal (random)
k har
• Vertical (bed series flow)
• Need to
consider the
-
kar 10-50ft
nature and
scale of the
-
kgeom 5-10ft layering in the
volume of
investigation of
-
1-5ft a well test
khar
36
Well test comparison example
Minor
channels
Major
channels
55m 35m
Minor
Channel Major
LinK Channels
XX55 LogK
.01 10k 0 2000 4000
LogK LinK
Triassic Sherwood Sandstone
Braided fluvial system
(Toro Rivera, 1994,SPE 28828, Dialog article)
39
Core plug petrophysics
WELLAA
WELL WELL
WELLBB
70 60
Arith. av.: 400mD Arith. av.: 625mD
60 50 Geom. av: 19.8mD
Geom. av: 43mD
50
Count
40
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
∆P
r
ETR MTR LTR
WELL B
Time
WELL A WELL
WELLBB
LogK LinK
LogK LinK
Few large channels
Many small channels More extensive
Limited extent “Channel effective flow”
“Floodplain effective flow”
‘Well B’
measure of
S.North Sea Rotliegendes Fm (6)
Crevasse splay sst (5)
Sh. mar.rippled micaceous sst
variability
Fluv lateral accretion sst (5) Very heterogeneous
Dist/tidal channel Etive ssts
Beach/stacked tidal Etive Fm.
Heterolithic channel fill
SD
Cv =
Shallow marine HCS
Shall. mar. high contrast lam.
k ar Shallow mar. Lochaline Sst (3)
Shallow marine Rannoch Fm
Aeolian interdune (1)
Shallow marine SCS Heterogeneous
Lrge scale x-bed dist chan (5)
0 < Cv < 0.5 Homogeneous M ix'd aeol. wind rip/grainf.(1)
Fluvial trough-cross beds (5)
0.5 < Cv < 1 Heterogeneous Fluvial trough-cross beds (2)
Shallow mar. low contrast lam.
1 < Cv Very Heterogeneous Aeolian grainflow (1)
Aeolian wind ripple (1)
Homogeneous core plugs Homogeneous
Synthetic core plugs
0 1 2 3 4
44
Cv < 0.5 for a normal distribution
Sample sufficiency
( 200 • Cv )
• Where Ns = actual no. of data points Ps =
• Ps gives the tolerance Ns
45
Sample sufficiency
( 200 • Cv )
• Where Ns = actual no. of data points Ps =
• Ps gives the tolerance Ns
47
Lorenz plot
• Order data in 1
decreasing k/φ and
calculate partial
Fj
sums Transmissivity
0
∑
jJ
j =1
k jhj
Fj =
∑
iI
i =1 i i
kh 0
0 1
Φj
∑
jJ Storativity
j =1
φj h j
Cj =
∑
iI
φh
i =1 i i I = no. of data points
48
Lorenz plot
• Order data in 1
decreasing k/φ and
calculate partial
Fj
sums Transmissivity
0 Lc = 0
∑ j =1 k j h j
jJ Homogeneity
Fj =
∑
iI
i =1 i i
kh 0
0 1
Φj
∑
jJ Storativity
j =1
φj h j
Cj =
∑
iI
φh
i =1 i i
49
Lorenz plot >> Lorenz Coefficient
• Order data in 1
decreasing k/φ and
calculate partial
Fj
sums Transmissivity
0 Lc = 0.6
∑ j =1 k j h j
j Heterogeneity
Fj =
∑
i
i =1 i i
kh 0
0 1
Φj
∑
j Storativity
j =1
φj h j
Cj =
∑
i
φh
i =1 i i
50
Unordered Lorenz Plot
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.60
0.60
kh
0.50
kh
0.50
0.40
0.40 SPEED ZONES
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10 Series1
0.10 Series1
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00
Phih 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
52
Hydraulic Units and Heterogeneity
Rotated Modified
Lorenz Plot
54
Scale dependant anisotropy
Rannoch anisotropy
Grain Lamina Bed Parasequence
1
.1
kv/kh
WB
.01 SCS
HCS
Formation
.001
10 -6 10 -4 10 -2 10 0 10 2 10 4
Sample volume (m3)
Which K = 10mD???
– Averaging process
• Reservoir Description
– Heterogeneous
– Scale dependant
– Upscaling challenge
58
References
Bourdet 2002, Well-test Analysis: The use of advanced interpretation models, Elsevier
Corbett and Mousa, 2010, Petrotype-based sampling to improved understanding of the variation of Saturation Exponent, Nubian Sandstone
Formation, Sirt Basin, Libya, Petrophysics, 51 (4), 264-270
Corbett and Potter, 2004, Petrotyping: A basemap and atlas for navigating through permeability and porosity data for reservoir comparison
and permeability prediction, SCA2004-30, Abu Dhabi, October.
Corbett, Ellabad, Egert and Zheng, 2005, The geochoke test response in a catalogue of systematic geotype well test responses, SPE 93992,
presented at Europec, Madrid, June
Corbett, Geiger, Borges, Garayev, Gonzalez and Camilo, 2010, Limitations in the Numerical Well Test Modelling of Fractured Carbonate Rocks,
SPE 130252, presented at Europec/EAGE, Barcelona, June
Corbett, Hamdi and Gurev, Layered Reservoirs with Internal Crossflow: A Well-Connected Family of Well-Test Pressure Transient Responses,
submitted to Petroleum Geoscience, Jan, abstract submitted to EAGE/Europec Vienna, June 2011
Corbett, Pinisetti, Toro-Rivera, and Stewart, 1998, The comparison of plug and well test permeabilities, Advances in Petrophysics: 5 Years of
Dialog – London Petrophysical Society Special Publication.
Corbett, Ryseth and Stewart, 2000, Uncertainty in well test and core permeability analysis: A case study in fluvial channel reservoir, Northern
North Sea, Norway, AAPG Bulletin, 84(12), 1929-1954.
Cortez and Corbett, 2005, Time-lapse production logging and the concept of flowing units, SPE 94436, presented at Europec, Madrid, June.
Ellabad, Corbett and Straub, 2001, Hydraulic Units approach conditioned by well testing for better permeability modelling in a North Africa oil
field, SCA2001-50, Murrayfield, 17-19 September, 2001
Hamdi, Amini, Corbett, MacBeth and Jamiolahmady, Application of compositional simulation in seismic modelling and numerical well testing
for gas condensate reservoirs, abstract submitted to EAGE/Europec Vienna, June 2011
Hamdi, Corbett and Curtis, 2010, Joint Interpretation of Rapid 4D Seismic with Pressure Transient Analysis, EAGE P041
Houze, Viturat, and Fjaere, 2007 : Dynamic Flow Analysis, Kappa.
Legrand, Zheng and Corbett, 2007, Validation of geological models for reservoir simulation by modeling well test responses, Journal of
Petroleum Geology, 30(1), 41-58.
Matter, 2004 : Well Test Interpretation, Presentation by FEKETE , 2004
Robertson, Corbett , Hurst, Satur and Cronin, 2002, Synthetic well test modelling in a high net-gross outcrop system for turbidite reservoir
description, Petroleum Geoscience, 8, 19-30
Schlumberger , 2006, : Fundamental of Formation testing , Schlumberger Schlumberger ,2002: Well test Interpretation, Schlumberger
Toro-Rivera, Corbett and Stewart, 1994, Well test interpretation in a heterogeneous braided fluvial reservoir, SPE 28828, Europec, 25-27
October.
Zheng, Corbett, Pinisetti, Mesmari and Stewart, 1998; The integration of geology and well testing for improved fluvial reservoir
characterisation, SPE 48880, presented at SPE International Conference and Exhibition, Bejing, China, 2-6 Nov. Zheng,
59