SPE 56487

Analysis and Interpretation of

Well Test Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia

Authors:
T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M U.
N.J. Kaczorowski, ExxonMobil (Indonesia)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.

Summary

A comprehensive field case history of the

analysis and interpretation of well test data
from the Arun Gas Field (Sumatra, Indonesia).

2-zone radial composite reservoir model is

effective for diagnosing the effects of condensate banking at Arun Field.

Summary

Development and application of a new solution

for the analysis and interpretation for wells that
exhibit "well interference" effects.

Outline

Introduction
Well Test Analysis Strategy
Multiwell Model
Regional Pressure Decline
Analysis Procedure
Field Example
Conclusions

Arun Field

Field Description
Located

in Northern part of
Sumatra, Indonesia
Retrograde gas reservoir
One of the largest gas fields
in the world
Arun Field has 111 wells:

79 producers
11 injectors
4 observation wells
17 wells have been abandoned

Major Phenomena in Arun

Liquid accumulation near wellbore (condensate banking)

Need to know radial extent of condensate banking

for the purpose of well stimulation.

Well interference effect

This well interference effect tends to obscure the

radial flow response, and hence, influence our
analysis and interpretation efforts.

Well Test Analysis Strategy

Condensate banking phenomenon

2-zone radial composite reservoir model is used,

where the inner zone represents the "condensate
bank," and the outer zone represents the "dry gas
reservoir." (Raghavan, et al, (1995) and then by
Yadavalli and Jones (1996) )

Well interference effect

Developed a new method for the analysis of well

test data from a well in multiwell reservoir where
we treat the "well interference" effect as a
"Regional Pressure Decline."

Multiwell Model

n well

p D(xD,y D,t DA) =

i=1

D,iu(t DA t sDA,i)

p D,i(xD,y D,[t DA t sDA,i],xwD,i,y wD,i)

Bounded Reservoir
with Multiple Wells

Analytical Solution Matches Numerical Solution

3

10

Dimensionless Pressure, pD

Legend:
Numerical Simulation
Analytical Solution
2

10

pD

10

pD'

10

-1

10

-6

10

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

10
10
10
10
10
10
Dimensionless Time, tDA (Based on Drainage Area)

10

Regional Pressure Decline Model

Issues:

Arun Field has been produced for over 20 years and

currently in "blowdown" mode.
Drawdown and buildup tests induce local transient
effects.
Most of the well tests performed at Arun Field are
relatively short (< 5 hours producing time), and the
pseudosteady-state flow condition is not established
in the area of investigation given such short production times.

Regional Pressure Decline Model

Assumptions:

All of the wells in the reservoir are at pseudosteadystate flow conditions at the time the "focus" well is
shut-in.
Any rate change at the focus well (including a
drawdown/buildup sequence) cause transient flow
conditions only in the vicinity of the focus wellnot in
the entire reservoir.

Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure at focus well:

p wD(t DA) = p D,1([xwD,1 + ],[y wD,1 + ],t DA,xwD,1,y wD,1)
+ 2t DA( D 1)

Vpc t dp Vpc t

=
where: D =
q 1B dt
q 1B

Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure buildup analysis relations:

p sD(t DA) + 2( D 1)t DA = 1 ln 4 t DAe A2 + s
2 e
rw

Vs.

Straight line on semilog plot

Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure buildup analysis relations:

2

dp sD
t
t DAe
= 1 2 ( D 1) DA
t DAe
dt DAe 2

Vs.

Straight line on Cartesian plot

Rate, q

Simulated Case

Offset wells are produced

at the same flowrate.

Focus well is shut-in

Focus well is put on production

Time, t

Offset wells are kept

on production.

Focus well is shut-in

Multiwell Response is Different than

Single Well Response
', [p-wsp
-pwf((
t=0)] format
psD' p[psDws
wf t=0)] format

0.5
0.3
0.0
-0.3

pbar continues to decline.

Pressure builds up to pbar
(closed boundary)

-0.5
-0.8
-1.0

Legend:
Multiw ell, Single Well

-1.3
-1.5
-1.8

tpDA=1x10

tpDA=1x10

tpDA=1x10

tpDA=1x10

-2
-3
-4
-5

-2.0
0

10

20

ttDA
DA

30

-3

40x10

psDepsDe
' [p
- p t=0)]
(t=0)]
format format
', [p
ws
ws-pwf(wf

Straight Line on Cartesian Plot

1.00
0.75
0.50

psDe' = 0.5 - 2(D - 1) tDA2/ tDAe

0.25

psDe' = 0.5

0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Legend:

-1.00

tpDA=1x10

-1.25

tpDA=1x10

-1.50

tpDA=1x10

-1.75

tpDA=1x10

-2
-3
-4
-5

-2.00
0

10

20
2
tDA
2 /tDAe

tDA / tDAe

30

-3

40x10

Regional Pressure Decline Signature

May Not Be Unique
[p',ws
psDep'sDe
(t=0)]
formatformat
[pws--pp
(t=0)]
wfwf

1
0

This portion may be falsely

p
- 2regional
(D - 1) tDA2/ tDAe
sDe' = 0.5 as
interpreted
psDe' = 0.5
pressure decline effect.

-1
-2
-3

Legend:
tpDA=1x10

-4

tpDA=1x10
tpDA=1x10
tpDA=1x10

-5
-5
10

10

-4

-2
-3
-4
-5

10

-3

10

-2

10

2
tDA
2 /tDAe

-1

tDA / tDAe

10

10

10

Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

To analyze pressure buildup tests taken in multiwell
systems, we recommend the following procedures:
1: Plot te(dpws/dte) versus t2/te on a Cartesian scale. From the straight-line trend we obtain the
slope mc and intercept bc. We calculate permeability
using the intercept term as:

Step

qB
k = 70.6
b ch

Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

2: The Horner plot [(pws+mct) versus
log((tp+t)/t)] can also be used to estimate formation
properties. From the straight-line trend observed on
the Horner plot, we obtain the slope msl as well as the
intercept term, (pws + mct) t=1hr.

Step

Permeability
And the skin is
factor
estimated
is calculated
using: using:
qB p

(p wsk+=m162.6
t)
t=1hr
c
wf,t = 0
s = 1.1513
h
mm
sl sl
tp
1.1513 log
+ log k 2 3.22751
t p+1
c tr w

Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

Step

3: In order to use standard single-well type

curves for type curve matching, we must make the
appropriate "corrections". These relations are:

Pressure function:
p ws,cor = p ws + m ct

Pressure derivative function:

dp ws
t e
dt e

cor

t 2
dp ws
= t e
+ mc
t e
dt e

Well C-I-18 (A-096)

[Test
Date:
September
1992]
Well C-I-18
(A-096)28
[Test
Date: 28 September
1992]

Pseudopressure Functions, psi

Functions, psi
Pseudopressure

10

10

Infinite acting
Reservoir
Improvement
onModel
(Does not
includederivative.
non-Darcy flow)
pressure

10

Condensate banking
region.
Higher mobility
region.
Closed boundary at 160 ft?
(includes non-Darcy flow).

10

-1

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

10

Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, tae, hrs

Effective
shut-in pseudotime, hrs

10

Pseudopressure,
Shut-in
Shut-in Pseudopressure,
ppws, psia psia

Well C-I-18 (A-096)

[Test
Date: 28 September 1992]
We ll C-I-18 (A-096) [Te st Date : 28 Se pte mbe r 1992]
1160
1140

Condensate banking
region.

1120

Higher mobility
region.

1100
1080
1060
1040
1020
3
10

10

10

Horne r Pse udotime ,(ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.56 hr), hr

Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.56 hr)

10

pws

Pseudopressure, p , psia psia

Shut-in
pseudopressure,
Shut-in

Well C-I-18 (A-096)

[Test
Date:
28[TeSeptember
1992]
We ll C-I-18
(A-096)
st Date : 28 Se pte mbe
r 1992]
1150

pp,bar = 1148.6 psia

Data deviate from the "Muskat line"
--indicating an interference effect
from
surrounding
wells.
Onset
of boundary
dominated flow.

1149
1148
1147
1146

"Transient flow"

1145
1144
1143
1142
0

dppwsdp/d/dtat ,, psi/hr
psi/hr
pws

10

Well C-I-18 (A-096)

[Test
Date:
We ll C-I-18
(A-096)28
[Te stSeptember
Date : 28 Se pte mbe r1992]
1992]
15

p ae

(p(pp')')ttae, psi
, psi

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0

10

15
2

ttaa2//tae, thrs
ae

20

25

30

psi
Functions,
Pseudopressure
psi
Pseudopressure Functions,

Example 3: Log-log Summary Plot

10

We ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[TeDate:
st Date
5 January
1992]
Well C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
5 :January
1992]

Raw data
Corrected

10

10

Improvement on
pressure derivative.

Closed boundary
atReservoir
150 ft? Model
Infinite-acting
(Does
not include non-Darcy
(includes
non-Darcy
flow). flow)
10

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

Effe ctiv e Shut-in Pse udotime

t,ae, hrs
Effective
shut-in pseudotime,
hrs

10

Example 3: Horner (Semilog) Plot

ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Te st
Date5: 5
January1992]
1992]
WellWe
C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
Date:
January

Pseudopressure, ppws, psia

Shut-in
psia
Pseudopressure,
Shut-in

2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400

Raw data
Corrected

1300
1200
3
10

10

10

Horne r Pse udotime ,(t +t )/t (t =t =1.62 hr), hr

a pa
a pa p
Horner pseudotime,
hrs
(tp = 1.62 hr)

10

Example 3: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

Pseudopressure, ppws, psia psia
Shut-inpseudopressure,
Shut-in

ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Te st
Date5: 5January
January1992]
1992]
WellWe
C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
Date:

1922

pp,bar = 1920 psia

1920

Onset of boundary
dominated flow.

1918
1916

"Transient flow"
1914
1912
1910
0

10
dppws
dppws
/d/dtta, ,psi/hr
psi/hr
a

15

20

Example 3: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well
(A-084)
1992]
WeC-IV-11
ll C-IV-11
(A-084)[Test
[Te stDate:
Date :55 January
January 1992]

25

Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
pressure correction.

15

(p ')

ae

p t
(pp')tae
, psi

20

10
5
0

Presence of multiwell
interference effects is unclear

-5
0

10

15
2

ttaa/2/tae, thrs
ae

20

25

psi
Functions,
Pseudopressure
psi
Pseudopressure Functions,

Example 4: Log-log Summary Plot

Well We
C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
4:May
1992]
ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[TeDate:
st Date
4 M ay
1992]

10

Raw data
Corrected

10

10

Improvement on
pressure derivative.

Condensate banking
region.

Infinite-acting Reservoir Model

Closed(Does
boundary
at
197
ft?
Higher
mobility
not include
non-Darcy
flow)
(includes non-Darcy flow).
region.
10

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

Effe ctiv e Shut-in Pse udotime

t, , hrs

10

ae
Effective shut-in pseudotime,
hrs

10

Example 4: Horner (Semilog) Plot

ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Te st
Date4: 4May
M ay1992]
1992]
WellWe
C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
Date:

Pseudopressure, ppws, psia

Shut-in
psia
Pseudopressure,
Shut-in

1950
1900
1850
1800
1750

Condensate banking
region.
Higher mobility
region.

1700
1650
1600

Raw data
Corrected

1550
1500
3
10

10

10

Horne r Pse udotime ,(ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.63 hr), hr

Horner
pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.63 hr)

10

Example 4: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

Pseudopressure, ppws, psia psia
Shut-inpseudopressure,
Shut-in

ll C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Te st
Date4: 4May
M ay1992]
1992]
WellWe
C-IV-11
(A-084)
[Test
Date:

1884

pp,bar = 1882.8 psia

1882
1880

Onset of boundary
dominated flow.

1878
1876

"Transient flow"

1874
1872
1870
0

10
dppws
dppws
/d/dtta, ,psi/hr
psi/hr
a

15

20

Example 4: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well
(A-084)
1992]
WeC-IV-11
ll C-IV-11
(A-084)[Test
[Te stDate:
Date : 4
4 May
M ay 1992]

40

Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
pressure correction.

ae

p'), t psi
(pp')(tpae

30

20

10
(pp')tae >0, no clear indication of
multiwell interference effects.

0
0

10

15
2

ta / tae

ta /2tae, hrs

20

25

30

Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)

from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)

kh Map

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000
16000

kh

15000
10000

5000
4000

20000

10000

20000

40000

30000

A-108

10000

A-017
A-107
10000
A-097 A-070
A-048
A-060
A-041
A-085
A-084
10000
A-062
50000 A-049

50000

7000
6000

30000

20000

A-095

11000

A-078

A-015 A-080
A-034
A-016
A-035

A-077

20000

A-099

10000

8000

A-098 40000
A-058
A-071

20000

9000

A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021
A-024
A-106
A-082
A-068
A-105STA-102
2
A-022ST 2
A-029
20000
40000
A-083
A-033
A-089 A-073
A-040
30000
A-093

10000

10000

12000

A-027

10000

A-092

A-067

13000

10000

A-088

20000

12000
11000

14000

A-081
A-036
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
30000
A-059
A-074
A-025ST
40000
A-042
A-054
A-096
20000
A-104

30000

13000

A-101

10000

14000

30000

A-103

x-position (relative distance)

distribution appears reasonable.

3 major "bubbles"
of kh noted, probably erroneous.
kh shown is for the
"outer" zone (when
the radial composite model is used).

1x2 Pe rspe ctiv e

Vie w
15000

A-110ST A-046 40000 40000

A-100
A-053
10000
60000
A-091
80000
Legend: (Well Test Analysis)
A-051
50000

Flow Capacity ( kh) Contour Plot

(10,000 md-ft Contours)
Arun Field (Indonesia)

A-109
100000

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000

3000
3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

y-position (relative distance)

Logarithm of the Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (D, 1/MSCFD)

from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)

D (Non-Darcy) Map

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000
16000
1x2 Pe rspe ctiv e
Vie w
15000
15000
A-103

A-081
A-036
-4
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
-3.8
A-059 -3.8
A-074
A-025ST
-5 A-042
A-054
A-096
A-104

-4.8

-4.6

A-088 -4.2
A-067

-5

-4.6 A-077
A-095

-4.8

7000

A-107

A-108

5000
4000

-4

A-110ST A-046
A-053
Legend: (Well Test Analysis)
A-091
Logarithm of the Non-Darcy
A-051

Flow Coefficient
(log(10) Contours)
Arun Field (Indonesia)

8000

A-017
A-097 A-070
A-048
A-060
A-041
-4
A-085
A-084
A-062
A-049

-3.8

6000

A-015 A-080
A-034
A-016
A-035

-3.8
-3.6
-3.6
-3.4

A-099

9000

-3.8

-4.8

-4.2

A-071

8000

10000

-4.2

A-098
-4.6
A-058

11000

A-078

-4

9000

12000

A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021
A-024
A-106
A-082
A-068
A-105STA-102
2
A-022ST 2
A-029
-4.6
A-083
A-033
A-089 A-073
A-040
A-093

-4.4

10000

A-027

-4.6

A-092

13000

-4.2

12000
11000

14000

A-101

-4.2 -4

13000

No Data

-4.4

14000

x-position (relative distance)

map indicates a
uniform distribution.
"high" and "low"
regions appear to be
focused near a single
well.
Relatively small data
set (30 points).

-4.4

This

A-109

A-100

7000
6000
5000
4000

3000
3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

y-position (relative distance)

Condensate Bank Radius (ft) from Well Test Analysis

(Arun Field, Indonesia)

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000
16000

Condensate Radius Map

Good

15000
No Data

14000
13000

A-103

14000

A-101

A-081
A-036
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
A-059
A-074
A-025ST
30
A-042
A-054
A-096
25
A-104

13000

25

10

15

10

25

A-077

7000

20A-017
10
A-097 A-070
A-048
A-060
A-041
A-085
A-084
A-062
A-049
10

20

15
5

A-108

25

A-107

8000

Condensate Bank Contour Plot

(Various Contours)
Arun Field (Indonesia)

20

4000

1 3

5000

5
A-110ST A-046
A-053
A-091
Legend: (Well Test Analysis)
25
A-051
A-109

10

A-099

A-015 A-080
A-034
A-016
A-035

10

20

9000

A-095

6000

10000

25

8000

11000
A-078

A-098
35
A-058
A-071

9000

12000

15

10000

A-027

A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021
A-024
A-106
A-082
A-068
A-105STA-102
2
A-022ST 2
A-029
A-083
A-033
A-089 A-073
A-040
30
A-093

35
25 30
15 20

11000

25

A-092

A-067

40

12000

A-088

30

x-position (relative distance)

distribution of
values"high" spots
probably indicate
need for individual
well stimulations.
Relatively small data
set (32 points).

1x2 Pe rspe ctiv e

Vie w
15000

A-100

7000
6000
5000
4000

3000
3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

y-position (relative distance)

D (Non-Darcy)kh Crossplot
crossplot indicates an "order of
magnitude" correlation.
Verifies that nonDarcy flow effects are
systematic.

( , 1/MSCFD)
Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient D
( at Time of Well Test)
from Well Test Analysis D

D-kh

Comparison of Non-Darcy Flow Coe fficie nt

D)(from We ll Te st
Analysis v e rsus Flow Capacitykh)
( from We ll Te st Analysis
(Arun Fie ld -- Indone sia)
3
4
5
6
10
10
10
10
-3
6
10
10

Slope = 2
-4

10

10

-5

10

10

Legend: DWT vs. khWT

Comparison of D from Well Test Analysis
versus kh from Well Test Analysis
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
-6

10

10

10

10
10
10
Flow Capacity k
( h, md-ft)
from We ll Te st Analysis kh
( at Time of We ll Te st)

Conclusions

The new "multiwell" solution has been

successfully derived and applied for the
analysis of well test data taken from a
multiwell reservoir system.

The appearance of "boundary" effects in

pressure buildup test data taken in multiwell
reservoirs can be corrected using our new
approach. Care must be taken so as not to
correct a true "closed boundary" effect.

Conclusions

The 2-zone radial composite reservoir model

has been shown to be representative for the
analysis and interpretation of well test data
from Arun Field (most of the wells exhibit
radial composite reservoir behavior).

Conclusions

The effect of non-Darcy flow on pressure

buildup test analysis seems to be minor for
the wells in Arun Field. Although not a focus
of the present study, our analysis of the
pressure drawdown (flow test) data appear to
be much more affected by non-Darcy flow
effects.

SPE 56487

Analysis and Interpretation of

Well Test Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia

Authors:
T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M U.
N.J. Kaczorowski, ExxonMobil (Indonesia)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.

format
psDPressure
' or psDe' or pDerivative
Functions
Dim.
sDc' , [pws-pwf(t=0)]

The "Regional Pressure Decline"

Improves The Derivative
10

tpDA=10-5
tpDA=10-4 tpDA
=10-3tpDA
Shut-in
time
=10-2
10

10

-1

Agarwal eff.
shut-in time
-2

10

-6

10

-5

10

-4

tDA or tDAe

tDA or tDAe

10

-3

10

-2

psD orpsDpsDc
[p, ws
(t=0)]
formatformat
[pws--pp
or psDc
(t=0)]
wfwf

9
8

-5
-4
-3
tpDA=10-2

MDH

6
5
4

Agarwal effective time

3
-6
10

10

-5

10

-4

tDA or tDAe

tDA or tDAe

10

-3

-2

10