Well Test Analysis

Chapter 6: Distributed Pressure Measurement Principles

Professor M. Jamiolahmady (Jami)

Tel: 0131 451 3122
Fax: 0131 451 3127
Email: M.Jamiolahmady@hw.ac.uk
1 1
 DPM, the generic name given to a pressure-depth survey in an
open-hole observation well, which has just been drilled.
The term WFT refers to all devices (e.g. RFT, MDT), which can make repeated
measurements of local pore pressure in a borehole.

 Interpretation of RFT data, originated in Iran in 1976, was pioneering

but development of North Sea reservoirs demonstrated the real merit
of DPM as a reservoir monitoring technique.

 Here principles & applications (next two chapters) of DPM are

discussed.

2
 RFT (as the first WFT tool) was originally intended for sampling fluids.
It incorporated a pressure gauge that had the primary purpose of
simply providing an indication of local k, i.e. if sampling possible.
New WFT generations have much improved sampling & k detection capability.
They also filter the fluid contaminated with mud.

 Raw WFT data includes a table of P vs. Time at a sequence of

measured or true vertical depths.
A WFT device can be reset at any number of locations & a plot of reservoir
pressure versus true vertical depth is the principal objective of the survey.

 The main problem is supercharging in low k formations.

3
 WFT main outputs.
 They include formation pressure, permeability profiling, identification of fluid type
& fluid contacts, evaluation of reservoir structure & sampling reservoir fluids.

 WFT surveys trends.

 WFT surveys in unproduced reservoirs where hydrostatic (gravity-capillary)
equilibrium exists, gives hydrostatic fluid gradients (straight lines on a pressure-
depth plot), Chapter 7.
 For new wells in already produced fields, hydrostatic equilibrium may not exist
and indications of reservoir zonation are obtained from the recorded differential
depletion pattern, Chapter 8.

4
 Main principles.
A packer is set against mud filter-
cake through which a probe emerges
to make contact with the formation.
• Packers are set to achieve a seal.
A small volume of fluid is withdrawn
into two pre-test chambers equipped
with pistons after which buildup to
initial pressure is achieved.

5
 Main features.
 Two drawdown and one buildup.
 The most important elements is the estimate of formation pressure, pf.
 Tob is used as a local indicator of k of the formation.
• In a high k-formations this buildup is quite rapid but not in low k-rocks.

6
 Rate profiles: Pressure and rate profiles during overbalanced drilling
 a) Initial spurt loss leading to
a rapid buildup of filter cake &
rapid decrease in mud loss.
 b) Dynamic filtration, which
occurs while mud is being
circulated in the well.
•Equilibrium mud loss rate, cake
deposition and cake erosion.
 c) Static filtration after
circulation of mud stopped.
• Fluid loss rate becomes almost
half of dynamic rate and then
continues to decrease.

7
 Mud Hydrostatic pm
Fluid Loss Characteristics
Pressure
of Typical Water Based Mud
Supercharging
Due to Mud SAND FACE PRESSURE

Filtrate Influx
s
p FORMATION
PRESSURE

f
Radial p
Injec tion
MUD CAKE

TEMPERATURE

3 300 °F
FILTRATION
DIFFERENTIAL
RATE
2
PRESSURE
(cc/min/100cm2)
1 500 psi
Laboratory Test
on Filter Paper 0 30 60
Fig
TIME (min) Fig 1.3.1
8.3.1
Excess Pressure at Sandface

Dp = p - p
s s f

"Supercharging"

q l ,2 = static fluid loss rate

D t = Time of static filtration

q l ,1 = Dynamic fluid loss rate

T 1 = Time of dynamic filtration

 MUD FLUID LOSS DATA

0.1
BENTONITE MUD
0.5
Bentonite Mud
STATIC FILTRATION
Mud Filtration Loss

Dynamic Filtration

Mud Filtration Loss

(cc/min/100cm )

API 30 min FILTER LOSS : 9.1cc

API 30 min Filter Loss : 10cc
2

(cc/min/100cm2 )
0.4
AFTER 21hr DYNAMIC FILTRATION
Differential Pressure 400 psi
WITH EQUILIBRIUM RATE OF
0.3
(after Ferguson and Klotz) 0.114 cc/min/100cm

0.05

0.2

0.1

0 10 20 10 20
TIME FROM TERMINATION OF CIRCULATION
TIME (hr)
Dtl (hr)
Data Obtained on Model Oil Well
(Large Sandstone Block with Central
1954
Hole Through Which Mud was
Circulated)
Fig
Fig8.3.2
1.3.2
 Simplified Fluid Loss Rate Schedule

q l,1
Mud
Fluid WFT
Loss Survey
Rate
ql
Dynamic
Filtration q l, 2

Static Filtration

Dt
Td
Fig 8.3.3
 Two-Rate Transient Injection Theory

Dp =
s
LM
ql,2 m ql,1 T1 + Dt
ln + ln Dt + ln
kk r
+ 0.80908
OP
4 p kk r ql,2 N Dt f m c trw
2
Q
Supercharging Depends Mainly on:

Mud Static Fluid Loss Rate, q l,2

Formation Permeability, k

Fluid Viscosity

In-situ Mud Fluid Loss Rate and Local Formation Permeability

are very Difficult to Measure
 Excess Pressure Due to Mud Filtrate Influx
m = 0.5 cp

d
50
f = 0.25

0. 1 m
-6 -1
ct = 3*10 psi

k=
40 rw = 0.333 ft
EXCESS Tl,1 = Dtl = 12 hr
ql,1 = 2ql,2
PRESSURE
30 md
0. 5
Dp =
s
(psi) k

20
m d
k=1

10

k = 10 md
0
Fig 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
8.3.4 MUD STATIC FILTRATION LOSS RATE (cc/min/100cm2)
 Gradient = 0.453 psi/m (gas)
3500 (PVT Analysis - 0.453 psi/m)

TV Pressure
∆p = 3.4SI
l

Depth
Depth
(m)
Diagram
3600

Hypothetical
Water Sleipner
3700 Gradient
Field
Norway

6250 Pressure 6300

(psi) Fig
Fig8.3.5
1.3.5
 It has been shown that DPs~1/k=a/k=a*SI.
 a assumed to be roughly constant.
 DPs=4/k as an order of magnitude estimate as in general a#4.

 During DD, kd=f(q, m, DPDD).

 kd lies somewhere between the spherical and the horizontal k.
 Two estimates of kd from two DD can be obtained.
 One of the features of DD flow is that the probe pressure quickly attains a nearly
steady-state value.

 BU, transient spherical flow (superposition of two DD, ps=m*fs(Dt)+pi,

fs(Dt)=f(q1, T1, q2, T2, Dt) & m=f(ks, q1, m, f, ct), ps=pi at Dt=Tob.
 ks is generally less than kd.

11
 It has been shown Tob~1/ks.
 Since, DPs~1/k, Tob is an excellent criterion to assess supercharging.
 DPs=4/k as an order of magnitude estimate as in general a#4.
 As a rule of thumb (developed empirically for Middle East reservoirs in the early
days of RFT usage) it is rare for supercharging to be significant at values of
SI=1/ks less than about 3 corresponding to Tob of less than 2 minutes.

12
 ~
Supercharging Index, 1/ks , as a Function of
Observable Buildup Time, Tob, for a Standard Pretest

~
10
1/ks = 0.0256Tob - 0.3
RECIPROCAL
OR
PERMEABILITY
1 T
SI = ~ = ob
ks 40
~
1/ks ~ 40 T = 20 sec
5 ks =
Tob q = 1 cc/sec
(md-1)
m = 0.5 cp
SI
f = 0.25
cctt = 3 *10-6 psi-1
0
100 200 300 400

DURATION OF OBSERVABLE BUILDUP, To b

(sec) FigFig 1.4.2
8.4.2
 Duration of Observable Build-up
Tob
on a Spherical Flow Plot

f
p

Pressure Gauge
ps Resolution
dp At this point the
indicated pre ssure
becomes ind isting uishab le
f
from true p

f s (T, t)
Fig 8.4.1
Fig 1.4.1
 DRAWDOWN ANALY SIS

Flow-shape factor for various flow patterns

8''

C = 1.0 C = 0.5

Hemispherical S pherical
F low F low
C = 0.668
Cqµ 5660 qµ Where: k = drawdown permeability (md)
∆pDD = kd = q = probe flow-rate (cc/sec)
2πrpe kd ∆pDD µ = viscosity of flowing fluid, usually mud filtrate (cp)
∆pDD = drawdown pressure difference (psi)

Finite element computer simulation by Zimmerman

 PROPAGATION OF PRESSURE DISTURBANCE

SPHERICAL CYLINDRICAL

Pressure Permeable
Disturbance Formation

RFT Pressure
RFT
Pretest Disturbance
Pretest
Probe
Probe

Permeable
Formation

(a) (b)
Fig 8.6.2
 Spherical Buildup Plot
p
SPHERICAL
p*
Anomalous BUILDUP
Early Time
Behaviour HORIZON.
ps BOUNDARY
SLOPE, ms
SHUT-IN EFFECT

PRESSURE
ms =
8 ´ 10 4 q1m fmc t b g 1/ 2
AT LATE

(psi) k 3s / 2 TIME

d i
k s = k r2k v
1/ 3

q 2 / q1 - 1
kr RADIAL PERMEABILITY b g
fs T1, T2 , t =
q2 / q1
t - T2
-
t - T1
-
1
t
0

kv VERTICAL PERMEABILITY SPHERICAL TIME FUNCTION

Fig
ks SPHERICAL PERMEABILITY 8.6.3
 1. Radius of investigation.
 BU is longer (1-5ft) than DD (few cm).

 2. Reservoir heterogeneity.
BU with greater rinv affected by both microscopic & macroscopic heterogeneities
whereas DD affected mainly by microscopic heterogeneity.
• Slope of BU-plot is more likely to be affected by heterogeneities.

 3. Formation damage.
 DD with smaller rinv could be affected by mud invasion and local compaction or
fracturing due to WFT probe.

 4. Invasion profile.
 DD invaded zone, BU could be invaded zone or beyond.
16
 5. Anisotropy.
 BU with greater rinv is affected by both microscopic anisotropy due to rock
sedimentary texture & by macroscopic anisotropy due to layering (reservoir
heterogeneity). DD affected mainly by microscopic anisotropy.
 DD-k is somewhat between horizontal & spherical k, BU-k is spherical ks &
related to kh by kh=A1/3ks; A=kh/kv.

 6. Range of measurable permeability.

 Depends on gauge resolution & reservoir conditions.

 kv<ks<kd<kh.

17
 1. A WFT tool gives an in-situ measurement.
 As in well testing, but unlike core measurements.

 2. WFT measurements are discrete.

 Allowing permeability profiling, as is possible with core data (including
minipermeameter) but not with well testing, which produces an average value of
the tested interval.

 Despite its associated uncertainties, WFT-k, a valuable component

complementing the other two.

18
 Redcliffe’s 1986 HW-M.Eng thesis.
 40 RFT and 3 WT taken from 4 North Sea Wells.

 1. RFT data.
 Two analysis for BU using the invaded & un-invaded parameters; DD analysed
using SS flow equation with invaded zone properties.

 2. Well test data.

 RFT permeabilities thickness averaged to produce a single value for comparison
with WT-k.
• Clearly validity of such comparisons increases with number of RFT tests data being averaged.

19
 3. A three stage process for core data.
 Depth matching with FRT data.
 Conversion to in-situ conditions.
• Correcting for gas slippage (Klinkenberg) effect, lab confining stress ( which usually lower than
overburden) & clay swelling (due hydration not present in lab dry core measurement), Overall lab-
kair too high.
 Averaging.
• One geometric average (kG(bu)) over 2ri-BU (arithmetic and harmonic may be done for
comparison). The other one (kG(dd)) typically the geometric average of only the 2 or 3
measurements nearest the RFT test depth.

20
 1. RFT DD-k agrees reasonably well with core-derived-k. Limited
comparison with well test data also shows reasonable agreement.
 Thus, DD measurement provides a reasonable estimate of kh, provided
anisotropy is low (or known) & well damage is not excessive.

 2. RFT DD-k determination technique (SS formulation) is quick and

simple, measurement is in-situ and discrete.

 3. Agreement between RFT BU-k & core-k generally poor.

 Due to uncertainties associated with invasion profile & formation heterogeneities.

21
 4. BU interpretation technique is more involved and requires
additional input parameters (f, ct, ...).
A valid spherical straight line can be difficult to identify, particularly in
heterogeneous formations.

 5. Two (DD & BU) RFT measurements are on different scales &
correlation between them is poor.
 Combining them to predict kh and A may be valid in homogeneous formations,
but does not appear to be a robust technique in heterogeneous formations.

 6. FRT-DD measurements can be used for permeability profiling, as a

conventional WFT pressure survey is usually run in most wells (at
least in NS), whilst only a limited number of wells are cored.
22