Pressure-Transient Analysis as an Element

of Permanent Reservoir Monitoring

P ermanent downhole gauges

(PDGs) provide vast amounts
of pressure-transient and rate
data which may be interpreted
with improved pressure-transient-
analysis (PTA) approaches to gain
more knowledge about reservoir
dynamics. Permanent pressure and
rate measurements allow for analysis
of time-lapse pressure transients and
comparative interpretation of flowing
and shut-in periods. The approaches
used provided the basis for an
improved methodology of interpreting
permanent pressure measurements,
where the scope of the standard
PTA application may be extended to
integrate new data sources.
A Methodology of PDG
Interpretation Focusing
on Both Flowing and
Shut-In Periods
Practical Remarks on Comparison of
Pressure Transients and Choosing a
Model. Comparison of different pres-
sure transients is usually carried out on
the basis of plotting all the transients
and derivatives on the same log-log plot.
In practice, a difference between time-
lapse shut-in pressure transients does
not necessarily indicate change in well
reservoir parameters because such a
comparison is usually carried out for
rate-normalized data with a chosen ref-
erence transient. The rate before the
shut-in period of interest governs the
pressure-transient location on the log-
log plot. An approximate value may be
attributed to this rate because of the av-
This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights
of paper SPE 170740, “Pressure-Transient Analysis as an Element of Permanent
Reservoir Monitoring,” by A.A. Shchipanov, R.A. Berenblyum, and L. Kollbotn,
IRIS, prepared for the 2014 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, 27–29 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
eraging of flow data, while permanent
rate measurements may help in reduc-
ing this uncertainty. Flowing pressure
transients are usually normalized sub-
ject to variable rates during the flowing
period. This makes comparison of these
pressure transients more reliable.
Pressure derivatives are more rep-
resentative in this sense, because well
history before and during a pressure
transient is accounted for by use of the
superposition principle commonly used
for the derivative calculation. At the
same time, assuming radial flow as the
main flow regime in the superposition
calculation—as well as averaging, cut-
ting, or possible errors in rate history
before the pressure transient of inter-
est—may have an impact on the deriv-
ative trend, especially for late elapsed
times and interpreting boundary ef-
fects. Simulation of the well history
in the linear scale with the analytical
model used for the pressure and deriva-
tive interpretations in the log-log scale
improves reliability of the analysis. The
simulated pressure response may help
in evaluating the impact of superposi-
tion effects and in revealing changes in
well/reservoir parameters. Comparison
of time-lapse pressure transients and
derivatives may be used for diagnos-
tics of changes in well/reservoir param-
eters, while only simulation of the well
history, or at least a part of the history,
would provide reliable conclusions on
such changes.
Choosing a proper model to de-
scribe the well, the reservoir, and bound-
aries is crucial for analysis and forecast-
ing and for drawing conclusions. The
usual practice is that the chosen model
should represent basic well and reser-
voir features that are known before the
analysis, such as well type; reference
fluid and stimulation performed; and
well environment, including neighbor-
ing wells and faults.
Comparison of Time-Lapse Pressure
and Derivative Transients. As a first
stage of the analysis, time-lapse pres-
sure and derivative transients may be
extracted and plotted on the same log-
log plot. Separate plots for well flowing
and shut-in pressure transients are sug-
gested because these two types of tran-
sients may follow different trends. Com-
parison of time-lapse transients may
serve as a first indicator of changes in
well/reservoir parameters. Use of the
superposition principle for derivative
calculations in combination with possi-
ble impact of dynamic boundary effects
(e.g., neighboring wells) may lead to de-
viation of the pressure and derivative
transients from each other. This means
that the comparative analysis of time-
lapse responses may be considered only
as a preliminary diagnostic of changes
in well/reservoir parameters.
Analysis of Time-Lapse Responses Fo-
cusing on Both Flowing and Shut-In
Periods. A second stage of the analysis
is a step-by-step interpretation of each
pressure transient or pair of transients
(flowing and closest shut-in) according
to historical data (Fig. 1). In general, a
difference between flowing and shut-in
responses may be related to many ef-
fects. Starting from the first analyzable
period of the well history or, even bet-
ter, from a flowing/shut-in pair, PTA is
carried out in the log-log scale. First, the
shut-in response may be used for match-
ing pressure and derivative with a ­chosen
model because this response is usually
less noisy, with clear i­ndications of flow

For a limited time, the complete paper is free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.

JPT • SEPTEMBER 2015 111

 Flowing and/or
shut-in Period 1
(log-log)
Matching
Choosing a model and history
matching measurements segment
(linear)
Fig. 1—Work flow of the time-lapse PTA.
regimes. The model is further tested to
be capable of matching the flowing re-
sponse. Modifications of the model pa-
rameters, or even the model itself, may
be necessary to fit the response.
If the chosen model provides a
reasonable match of at least the flow-
ing response, an attempt to match the
well history (in the linear scale), or its
segment, before the analyzed pres-
sure transient may be made. Ideally,
the model should provide a reasonable
match of the whole well history. In prac-
tice, a reasonable match may often be
achieved only for the limited history
segment containing the pressure tran-
sient of interest, while changes in well/
reservoir parameters and presence of
boundary effects varying with time may
lead to deviations of the model response
from the measurements.
Furthermore, the model is tested
for capability of reproducing the next
pressure transients chosen in the well
history, and modifications of the model
parameters and probably of the model
itself may be performed. This step-by-
step interpretation would result in a set
of well/reservoir parameters changing
with time, providing the history of such
changes and the current status of these
parameters, which is of special interest
for well-performance predictions.
Application of Interpretation Results.
The analytical or simplified numerical
models applied in the interpretation
process may be further used for predic-
112
Period 2 (log-log)
Testing the model from
previous period
Correction of the
model/parameters ...
if necessary
tion of well performance and behavior
under different scenarios. The models
may be particularly useful for simulat-
ing short forecast scenarios, sensitiv-
ity studies, and uncertainty analyses.
The time-lapse PTA also provides ad-
ditional input for reservoir simulation.
Well-connectivity and reservoir proper-
ties are reported as time- or pressure-
dependent variables and may be used
directly in reservoir models, improving
history matching and prediction capa-
bilities of the numerical models.
Field Cases
Three field cases are presented in the
complete paper to illustrate application
of the methodology. The first case is a
good example of classical PTA working
well, providing reliable estimation of
well/reservoir parameters from a single-
well shut-in or flowing response. The
second example shows the value of in-
terpreting both flowing and shut-in re-
sponses, with the advantage of using
multiple shut-in pressure transients.
The third, and most complicated, exam-
ple illustrates all sides and advantages of
the methodology applied.
Conclusions
Advantages of the time-lapse PTA were
confirmed with field examples, provid-
ing estimation of well/reservoir param-
eters evolving with time, improving res-
ervoir description through focusing on
flowing reservoir properties, and under-
standing the difference between near-
Period N (log-log)
Current model and Forecasting
well/reservoir well
parameters performance
well-flow and boundary effects during
flowing and shut-in periods. Application
of the described methodology improves
the PTA reliability and extends its scope
in the following ways:
◗◗Analysis of sequential
pressure transients provides
a basis for isolating reservoir
effects from measurement
noise.
◗◗Comparison and interpretation
of both flowing and shut-in
pressure responses would give
a more-complete picture of the
well behavior with estimates
of flowing well/reservoir
parameters.
◗◗Representation of well/reservoir
parameters evolving with time
is now feasible through available
PDG data and interpretation
approaches.
As practical guidelines for time-
lapse PTA applications, the following
may be suggested:
◗◗Use of both well-flowing and
shut-in pressure transients.
◗◗Analyzing sequential flowing/
shut-in periods in well history
to confirm repeatability (static
well and reservoir conditions)
or to reveal changes in well/
reservoir parameters.
◗◗Matching both pressure-
transient responses (the log-
log scale) and history or its
segments (the linear scale). JPT
JPT • SEPTEMBER 2015