Basic Concepts in Well Testing for Reservoir Description
Patrick Corbett Hamidreza Hamdi Alireza Kazemi
The Ball Room, Station Hotel, Guild Street, Aberdeen
Wednesday 6th April 2011
1
Introduction
2
Description of a well test
Flow rate @ Surface Pressure @ Downhole
∆PDD =P(t ) Pi = P(t ) = 0) ∆PBU P( ∆t
Schlumberger 2002
1. During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change in production rate. 2. For well evaluation less than two days. reservoir limit testing several months of pressure data
3
Well test objectives
• Exploration well
– On initial well, confirm HC existence, predict a first production forecast (DST: fluid nature, Pi, reservoir properties
• Appraisal well
– Refine previous interpretation, PVT sampling, (longer test: production testing)
• Development well
– On production well, satisfy need for well treatment, interference testing, Pav
4
Well test Types
• Draw down
– Open the well with constant rate decreasing bottom hole pressure
• Build Up test
– Shutin the well increasing bottom hole pressure
• Injection/ falloff test ( different fluid type)
– The fluid is injected increasing Bottom hole pressure – Shutin the well decreasing the bottom hole pressure
• Interference test / pulse test
– Producing well measure pressure in another shutin well away from the producer communication test
• Gas well test
– Back pressure , Isochronal test , modified isochronal test well productivity, AOFP, NonDarcian skin.
5
) Boundaries (distance and “shape”) Pressure (initial and average)
• Note: Well Description and Reservoir Description
– May be separate objectives
6
. layering. – Production potential (PI).Information obtained from well testing
• Well Description
– For completion interval (s). change of Prop. and skin
• Reservoir Description
– – – – “Average” permeability (horizontal and vertical) Heterogeneities(fractures.
Methodology
• The inverse problem
Q vs t P vs t
Reservoir
• Model recognition (S)
– Well test models are different from the geomodels in the sense that they are dynamic models and also it’s an average model.
7
.
The response is smaller
8
. The signal will be received with a delay 2. Measure the signal at both wells Observation well: 1.Example: Interference test
1. Create signal at producing well 2.
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
.
ConceptsDefinitions
• Permeability:
– The absolute permeability is a measure of the capacity of the medium to transmit fluids. Unit: md (1012 m2)
• Transmissibility • Storativity
T=
Kh
µ
S = ϕ ct h
η=
T S
• Diffusivity (Hydraulic diffusivity) • AOF • PI
11
.
or NavierStoke)
1 v = − K • ∇P
µ
12
. defining the density and changes in density with pressure 1 ∂ρ c=
ρ ∂t
• Transport equation ( Darcy’s law: experimental.Fluid flow equation: ingredients
• Conservation of mass ( continuity equation)
∂ ∇( ρ • v ) = ( ρφ ) − ∂t
• EOS.
slightly compressible fluid. constant permeability and porosity
1 ∂ ∂P ϕµ c ∂P r = r ∂r ∂r k ∂t
13
.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. ignoring the gravity. constant viscosity .
Infinite reservoir p=pi @ ∞ 3.Solution to radial diffusivity equation
• Inner/outer Boundary conditions:
∂p qµ B r = ∂r w 2π khrw
1. p=pi @re 2. No flow boundary ∂p/∂r =0 @ re
14
. Constant Pressure boundary.
Unsteady.87 S 2 Kh ϕµ ct rw
USS.6q µ B log − 3.t) USS (Well test) ∂P/∂t=cte PSS (boundary) ∂P/∂t=0 SS( aquifer)
15
.infinite acting reservoir
∞ q 2 − u 2t D J 1 (u )Y0 (ur ) − Y1 (u ) J 0 (ur ) ∆P( r= .t) 1−e du 2π T π ∫ u 2 J 12 (u ) + Y12 (u ) 0
(
)
(
)
q µ B 1 ϕµ cr 2 P( r .SS? ∂P/∂t=f(x.Infinit acting reservoirs(radial flow regime): DD
• Finite diameter well without WBS. t ) = Ei − Pi − 2π kh 2 4kt
Pi − Pwf (t ) = kt 162.PSS.23 + 0.
Based on radial homogeneous if fracture ? 2. How about gauge resolution? 4.Radius of investigation
The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure transient has moved into the formation. How about the velocity of front?
16
. Is it a radius or volume? 3.
ri = 0. How about a close system? 6.032 k ∆t ϕµ ct
Or it’s the radius beyond which the flux should not exceed a specified fraction or percentage of the well bore flow rate Can we use the radius of investigation to calculate the pore volume and reserve?
1. Which time we are talking about? 5.
Tdt
time
Q. Tdt
Q=0. at “r”
time
17
. dt Q.Radius of investigation
Rate Rate
Q. t
time
Injection
Observation
Pressure drop.
improved K. fluid composition change.
Bourdet 2002
18
.Skin Pressure Drop
Skin Pressure drop: higher pressure drop near the well bore due to mud filtrate. change of flow streamlines. 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 workover operations.…. reduced K .
Wellbore Storage
q Q(surface) Q(Sand face) Q(wellbore)
t
log∆P. log∆P’ Pure WBS
Transition
Radial FR
In surface production or shut in the surface rate is controlled However due to compressibility of oil inside the well bore we have difference between sandface production and surface production It can affect the inner boundary condition and make the solution more complicated
∆V C = =wb − c0V ∆P
∆P( ∆t= )
qB ∆t 24C Pure WBS
.
. + ∆P( q 2− q1)@ tn −ti−1
• Effect of boundary
∆Ptot = ∆Pact + ∆Pimage
• Effect of pressure change
20
..Superposition
• Effect of multiple well
– ∆Ptot@well1=∑∆Pwells @well1
• Effect of rate change
∆Ptot = ∆P( q1−0) + ∆P( q 2− q1) + .
t
time
Injection
Observation
∆Pr .t 2
Pressure drop.Radius of investigation:superposition
Rate
Rate
Q.t 2 = k ( t − ∆t ) kh −1694.t 1 + ∆Pr . dt Q.t 1 = Ei kh kt −70.6( q µ B ) −948ϕµ ct r 2 Ei ∆Pr .4 µ ∆Pr .t = e kht 948ϕµ ct r 2 tmax = k
−948ϕµ ct r 2 kt
time
21
. Tdt
time
Q.6( −q µ B ) −948ϕµ ct r 2 ∆Pr . Tdt
Q=0.t = ∆Pr . at “r”
−70.
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
. bilinear . radial.Fluid flow equation : complexity
• Linear . spherical • Depends on the well geometry.
Derivative Plots
23
.
Derivative plot
Transient Transition SS PSS
Transient
Transition
PSS Reservoir Pore volume SS
WBSTransition
Matter 2004 24
.
Derivative plot : Example1
Structure effect on well testing
Bourdet 2002
25
.
Derivative plot Example2 : Radial Composite
Equivalent Homogeneous
ΔP & ΔP’
K2<K1
Log(t) ΔP m1 m2
m2 k2 = m1 k1
Composite
Log(t)
26
.
…)
27
.Sw. Sw 3 Later radial flow ST=f(Sw.Derivative plot : Example3 : Horizontal Well Testing
Example: Linear flow:
1 Vertical radial Sw 2 Linear flowSpp.Spp.SG .
Some sensitivities!
Houze et al. 2007
28
.
Practical Issues
• • • • • • • • • • • Inaccurate rate history Shutin times Gauge resolution Gauge drift Changing wellbore storage Phase segregation Neighbouring well effect Interference Tidal effects Mechanical noise Perforation misties
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 CoreLog values ? Seismic? Averaging process? Layering response? Test design? Sensitivities? Multiple models ? How to make decision?
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
.
population parameter • Average .Measures of Central Tendency
• Mean .the estimator of the population mean • Arithmetic average N
1 k ar = ∑ ki N i =1
N 1 N
• Geometric average
k geom = ∏ ki i =1
1 N k geom = exp ∑ log e ( ki ) N i =1
• Harmonic average
k har
1 = N∑ i =1 k i
N
−1
33
.
Differences between averages
Measures of heterogeneity
k har ≤ k geom ≤ k ar
Each permeability average has a different application in reservoir engineering
34
.
not the application!!
35
.Averages in reservoir engineering
• Used to estimate effective property for certain arrangements of permeability
k ar
k geom
• Horizontal (bed parallel flow) • Vertical and Horizontal (random) • Vertical (bed series flow)
k ar
k har
k har
Remember these assumptions….
Comparing the well test and core perms. • Need to consider the nature and scale of the layering in the volume of investigation of a well test
36
kar

1050ft
kgeom

510ft
khar

15ft
.
Well test comparison example
Well A
Core plug data
Well B
• Well A: Kar =400md ktest = 43md kgeom = 44md • Well B: Kar =600md ktest = 1000md
ToroRivera et al.. 1994
37
.
Permeability distributions in well
Well A Well B
Minor channels Major channels
• NB: K data plotted on log AND linear scales
38
.
SPE 28828.Well test comparison example
XX10
WELL A WELL A
XX20
WELL B B WELL
55m
35m
Minor Channel
XX55 LogK
LinK
Major Channels
. Dialog article)
39
.01
LogK LinK
10k 0 2000 4000
Triassic Sherwood Sandstone
Braided fluvial system
(Toro Rivera. 1994.
av. av: 19. av: 43mD 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 60
WELL B WELL B
Count
50 Geom. av.8mD 40 30 20 10 0 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Arith.: 400mD 60 Geom.: 625mD
Permeability distributions similar Permeability averages similar Effective permeability similar?
40
.Core plug petrophysics
WELL A WELL A
70 Arith.
WT loglog plot
WELL A
WELL A
∆P
∆P
r
ETR MTR LTR
WELL B
ETR MTR LTR
r
WELL B
Time
ETR: Linear flow MTR: Radial flow (44mD) Negative skin LTR: OWC effect
ETR: Radial flow? MTR: Radial flow (1024 mD) Small positive skin LTR: Fault?
Well test response very different Geological interpretation?
41
.
Well Test Informed Geological Interpretation
WELL A
WELL A
WELL WELL B B
LogK
LinK
LogK
LinK
Many small channels Limited extent “Floodplain effective flow”
INTERFLUVE
Few large channels More extensive “Channel effective flow”
INCISED VALLEY
42
.
same formation
43
.‘Well A’ ‘Well B’
Two different well test responses .
Coefficient of variation
• Normalised measure of variability
SD Cv = k ar
0 < Cv < 0. high contrast lam.North Sea Rotliegendes Fm (6) Crevasse splay sst (5) Sh.5 Homogeneous 0. Shallow mar.5 for a normal distribution
.rippled micaceous sst Fluv lateral accretion sst (5) Dist/tidal channel Etive ssts Beach/stacked tidal Etive Fm. Aeolian grainflow (1) Aeolian wind ripple (1) Homogeneous core plugs Synthetic core plugs 0 Very heterogeneous
Heterogeneous
Homogeneous 1 2 3
44
4
Cv < 0. Heterolithic channel fill Shallow marine HCS Shall. wind rip/grainf.(1) Fluvial troughcross beds (5) Fluvial troughcross beds (2) Shallow mar. mar. Lochaline Sst (3) Shallow marine Rannoch Fm Aeolian interdune (1) Shallow marine SCS Lrge scale xbed dist chan (5) M ix'd aeol.5 < Cv < 1 Heterogeneous 1 < Cv Very Heterogeneous
Carbonate (mix pore type) (4) S. low contrast lam. mar.
of data points • Where Ns = actual no.Sample sufficiency
• Representivity of sample sets • for a tolerance (P) of 20% • and 95% confidence level • Nzero or No = optimum no. of data points • Ps gives the tolerance
N 0 = (10 • Cv )
2
Ps =
( 200 • Cv )
Ns
45
.
of data points • Ps gives the tolerance
N 0 = (10 • Cv )
2
Ps =
( 200 • Cv )
Ns
For carbonates (high variability P=50%)
(10 • Cv ) 2 N0 = 4
46
. of data points • Where Ns = actual no.Sample sufficiency
• Representivity of sample sets • for a tolerance (P) of 20% • and 95% confidence level • Nzero or No = optimum no.
.Comparison of Core and Test Perms
Zheng et al. 2000
47
.
Lorenz plot
• Order data in decreasing k/φ and calculate partial sums
1
Fj
Transmissivity
∑ Fj =
∑ Cj =
jJ j =1
0 0 0
k jhj
∑
iI
i =1 i i
kh
Φj
Storativity
1
jJ j =1
φj h j
∑
iI
i =1 i i
φh
I = no. of data points
48
.
Lorenz plot
• Order data in decreasing k/φ and calculate partial sums
Fj =
1
Fj
Transmissivity
∑ j =1 k j h j
jJ
jJ j =1
0 0 0
Lc = 0
Homogeneity
∑
iI
i =1 i i
kh
∑ Cj =
Φj
Storativity
1
φj h j
∑
iI
i =1 i i
49
φh
.
Lorenz plot >> Lorenz Coefficient
• Order data in decreasing k/φ and calculate partial sums
Fj =
1
Fj
Transmissivity
∑ j =1 k j h j
j
j j =1
0 0 0
Lc = 0.6
Heterogeneity
∑
i
i =1 i i
kh
∑ Cj =
Φj
Storativity
1
φj h j
∑
i
i =1 i i
50
φh
.
Unordered Lorenz Plot
Reveals stratigraphic layering
51
.
80
1.90 0.Example Lorenz Plots
Lorenz Plot
1.00 Series1
0.90 0.40 Phih 0.60
0.50 0.40 0.00 0.60
kh
0.20
SPEED ZONES
0.40 0.20
0.60 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
Use them together
52
.30 0.00 0.70 0.60
kh
Modified Lorenz Plot
1.00 0.80 1.70 0.20
0.10 0.50 0.40 Phih
0.00
Series1 0.80 0.10 0.80 0.
2001)
53
..Hydraulic Units and Heterogeneity
Rotated Modified Lorenz Plot
( Ellabed et al.
Heterogeneity and Anisotropy
54
.
001
10 6
10 4
Sample volume (m3)
10 2
10 0
10 2
10 4
Probe Plug
Plug averages Probe average
Estimate of kv/kh anisotropy depends on the scale of application
55
.01
.1
WB SCS HCS Formation
.Scale dependant anisotropy
Rannoch anisotropy
Grain
1
Lamina
Bed
Parasequence
kv/kh
.
.Kv controls vertical inflow
Ebadi et al. 2008
ICV – Interval Control Valve
56
.
Putting it all together
57
.
Conclusions
• Well testing
– Model driven – Simple Models – Averaging process
??
K x h = 600mDft
Where h = 60ft
Which K = 10mD???
• Reservoir Description
– Heterogeneous – Scale dependant – Upscaling challenge
58
.
26 Nov. Schlumberger ToroRivera. Validation of geological models for reservoir simulation by modeling well test responses. Petrotyping: A basemap and atlas for navigating through permeability and porosity data for reservoir comparison and permeability prediction. Welltest Analysis: The use of advanced interpretation models. 2010. October. Journal of Petroleum Geology. : Fundamental of Formation testing . SPE 28828. Corbett. Ellabad. 2004 : Well Test Interpretation. submitted to Petroleum Geoscience. Europec. 51 (4). Corbett. June Corbett. 4158. SPE 94436. Viturat. June 2011 Hamdi. MacBeth and Jamiolahmady. Synthetic well test modelling in a high netgross outcrop system for turbidite reservoir description. 2007 : Dynamic Flow Analysis. 30(1). Schlumberger Schlumberger . abstract submitted to EAGE/Europec Vienna. 19291954. Hydraulic Units approach conditioned by well testing for better permeability modelling in a North Africa oil field. Matter. Application of compositional simulation in seismic modelling and numerical well testing for gas condensate reservoirs. 2001 Hamdi. China. Borges. Madrid. Kappa. Gonzalez and Camilo. Sirt Basin. Northern North Sea. Corbett and Straub. Abu Dhabi. 264270 Corbett and Potter. 2004 Robertson. abstract submitted to EAGE/Europec Vienna. 8. 2527 October. Corbett. Hurst. SPE 93992. 2002. 2007. Madrid. 2000. 2005. Hamdi and Gurev. 2001. presented at Europec. Petroleum Geoscience. June 2011 Corbett. Zheng and Corbett. and Fjaere. Ryseth and Stewart. The comparison of plug and well test permeabilities. and Stewart. Timelapse production logging and the concept of flowing units. Zheng. The integration of geology and well testing for improved fluvial reservoir characterisation. Layered Reservoirs with Internal Crossflow: A WellConnected Family of WellTest Pressure Transient Responses. SCA200150. Norway. Pinisetti. Garayev. Limitations in the Numerical Well Test Modelling of Fractured Carbonate Rocks. Barcelona. AAPG Bulletin. Pinisetti. Advances in Petrophysics: 5 Years of Dialog – London Petrophysical Society Special Publication. Ellabad. Uncertainty in well test and core permeability analysis: A case study in fluvial channel reservoir. Nubian Sandstone Formation. presented at Europec/EAGE. Jan. Bejing. Elsevier Corbett and Mousa. SPE 130252. 2010.References
Bourdet 2002. 2005. June Corbett. Cortez and Corbett. 2010. Corbett . SCA200430.
59
. Libya. Satur and Cronin. Murrayfield. Joint Interpretation of Rapid 4D Seismic with Pressure Transient Analysis. 1994. Corbett and Curtis. Petrophysics. The geochoke test response in a catalogue of systematic geotype well test responses. EAGE P041 Houze. 1998. Petrotypebased sampling to improved understanding of the variation of Saturation Exponent. Well test interpretation in a heterogeneous braided fluvial reservoir. 1719 September. 1998. Amini. 2004. Presentation by FEKETE . presented at SPE International Conference and Exhibition. Legrand. 2006. June. presented at Europec.2002: Well test Interpretation. 84(12). SPE 48880. Corbett. Mesmari and Stewart. Geiger. ToroRivera. Egert and Zheng. Corbett and Stewart. 1930 Schlumberger . Zheng.