Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Well Test Interpretation Using Laplace Space Curves-Bourgeois
Well Test Interpretation Using Laplace Space Curves-Bourgeois
USING
LAPLACE SPACE TYPE CURVES
By
Marcel Bourgeois
Elf Aquitaine
April 1992
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Mathematical Background
2.1 Considerations of Dimension : : :
2.2 Flowrate Deconvolution : : : : :
2.3 Initial And Final Value Theorem
2.4 Semilog Behavior : : : : : : : : :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
3
3
5
7
8
3 Applications
3.1 Forward Laplace Transform : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.2 Type Curves : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3.3 Treatment Of Wellhead Flowrate Variation : : : :
3.4 Buildup With No Measurement Prior To Shut-In
3.5 Numerically Stable Wellbore Storage Removal : :
3.6 Pressure Dependant Wellbore Storage : : : : : : :
3.7 Nonlinear Regression in Laplace Space : : : : : :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
11
11
17
26
30
34
39
42
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
4 Conclusion
45
4.1 Nomenclature : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 47
4.2 Subscripts and Superscripts : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 47
5 Appendix
51
5.1 Fortran Program : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 51
5.2 Field Example : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 52
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
This study presents the mathematical background which justies the use of
Laplace space in well test analysis. It enables us to perform the whole parameter identication (CD ; Skin; kh; ...) in Laplace space, or at least gives
us a powerful tool to treat the pressure data in order to recognize the model
to use for the parameter identication in real space. It shows a manner in
which the Laplace transform can be plotted, showing exactly the same behaviour as the real pressure function so the plots keep their familiar shape.
The coecients of the dimensionless parameters remain the same, too. This
enables us to display a new set of characteristic and easily understandable
type curves in Laplace space.
The mathematical background also sheds light on the use of the Laplace
transform to achieve
owrate deconvolution, using modications of earlier
techniques which had been found to be extremely sensitive to noise in the
data.
The treatments displayed are numerically stable, and it is explained why
numerical instability can occur in
owrate deconvolution. The eectiveness
of the treatments is explained whenever possible, and the eect of the latetime extrapolation is discussed as well.
The Laplace space approach provides an entirely new way of examining
and understanding well test results. It has been succesfully applied to noisy,
simulated data where a conventionnal interpretation could not illuminate
ambiguities.
iii
Chapter 1
Introduction
There are many techniques available for solving the problem of transient
ow
of slightly compressible
uids in porous media. One of them is the use of
the Laplace transform, which has many convenient properties (van Everdingen and Hurst, Ref. [1]). Since the diusivity equation is usually simpler in
Laplace space than in real space, solutions may be determined for most well
congurations, which correspond to dierent boundary conditions. Previous
investigations, particularly Ozkan and Raghavan (Ref. [2, 3]), provide extensive libraries of computable solutions to a great variety of well test problems.
The analytical solutions are therefore usually better known in Laplace space
than in real space. In addition to this, evaluating the solution in Laplace
space makes it very easy to take into account the double porosity behaviour
of a ssured reservoir.
Despite all these advantages, the Laplace transform often remains abstruse and somewhat \user-unfriendly", because methods of direct interpretation rely on the visualization of the solution in real space, in order to
recognize the reservoir model.
This study investigates a way of presenting the Laplace transform of the
transient wellbore pressure which makes it directly interpretable. It allows us
to create characteristic type curves, and therefore to perform model recognition in Laplace space. Eventually, the whole parameter identication can be
performed in Laplace space, which reduces the need for numerical inverters.
This, as discussed in the last chapter, is interesting when the data are not
1
monotonic and the time consuming algorithm developed by Crump [4] has to
be used instead of Stehfest's algorithm [5]. Working more in Laplace space
can therefore save a lot of mathematical treatment, which is all the more
protable when numerous iterations are to be performed, such as in nonlinear regression, also known as automated type-curve matching (Rosa and
Horne, Ref. [6]), one of the more promising modern well test identication
methods.
The new understanding of the properties of the Laplace space solutions
has enabled the development of a new method for deconvolving
owrate
variations with noisy data. Basically,
owrate deconvolution has a very simple expression in Laplace space for perfect data, but numerical instability,
which is inherent to the process, can cause problems. Constrained methods
(Kuchuk et al., [7]) can be used to perform deconvolution despite this instability, but this study shows a simpler and quicker treatment, even in cases
when no
owrate measurements are available.
This work therefore expands our ability to solve problems of transient
ow with a simple yet powerful approach.
This work has been presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Fall
Meeting in Dallas (Oct.7th, 1991) as paper # 22682, and the last results
have been presented at the student paper contest during the Western Regional Meeting in Bakerseld (March 30th, 1992). It has been accepted for
publication in SPE Formation and Evaluation.
Chapter 2
Mathematical Background
2.1
Considerations of Dimension
Lfp(t)g = p(sf ) =
Z 1 e0
t=0
sf t
p(t) dt
(2:1)
sf Lfp(t)g = sf p(sf )
(2:2)
This expression has the dimension of a pressure, and will therefore be
expressed in psi if oileld units are chosen, or in bar or Pascal . It should be
emphasized that the operator, which acting on the real pressure p(t) results
in the Laplace pressure sf 1 p(sf ), has a very useful linear behavior, which
will enable us to perform unit conversions or multiplications: For example,
if p0 = 1, we have sf p0 (sf ) = 1, and thus:
sf (a + b 1 p) = a + b 1 sf p
3
(2:3)
pD =
kh
1p
141:2 qB
0:000264 k t
=
ct rw2
0:8936 C
=
h ct rw2
(2.4)
(2.5)
(2.6)
pD =
(2.7)
tD
(2.8)
CD
(2.9)
The relation p = t =C is only true in consistent units. For the oileld
unit system, the equivalent relation is p = qB=24 1 t=c , because C is
expressed in bbl/psi and not in hr/psi.
The denition of the dimensionless Laplace variable is:
s = sf t=td = t sf
The dimensionless Laplace pressure is therefore:
4
(2:10)
Z1
2 k h
s 1p(sf )
(2:11)
qB f
tD =0
The proportionality coecient p between dimensionless and full dimension Laplace pressure remains the same as in real space, which is very convenient:
s pD (s) = s
s pD (s) = sf 1p(sf ) =p
(2:12)
For the skin S , the dimensional pressure drop across the skin is related
to the dimensionless skin factor the following way:
1pS = p S
2.2
(2:13)
Flowrate Deconvolution
Z
p (t ) =
D D
tD
=0
K (tD 0 )
pD (s) = K (s)
@qsf D ( )
d
@
1 s qsf D (s)
(2:14)
(2:15)
Here pD is the pressure drop which actually occured due to the (variable) sandface
owrate qsf D (=qsf =qreference ), and K is the pressure drop
which would have occured had the well been opened to
ow at constant rate
(qreference ) at time zero. To yield the pressure drop in the well which would
have occured if the
owrate had been a Heaviside step function ( = Kernel
function), the actual Laplace pressure drop is divided by the Laplace
owrate
[1, 8]:
s K (s) =
5
s pD (s)
s qsf D (s)
(2:16)
pwD (tD ) =
tD
=0
K (tD 0 )
@qsf D ( )
d + qsf D (tD ) S
@
(2:17)
In Laplace space:
1 s qD (s)
+ s qD (s) S
(2:18)
qsf D = qwhD
0 CD @p@twD
D
(2:19)
spwD (s)
0S
(2:22)
1 0 CD s2 pwD (s)
This relation is exact, but can be numerically unstable (due to division
by zero) for wellbore storage deconvolution, if the data are noisy or if CD
is overestimated. This important practical problem is addressed later (see
Eq. 3.58).
s K (s) =
2.3
Let us start with the initial value theorem, which is more intuitive. This
theorem is true for any function that admits a Laplace transform. It is thus
applicable to the
owrate and, what is of most interest for us, to the pressure,
dimensionless or not. If the indicated limit exists, then:
lim
f (t) = sflim
!1 sf f (sf )
t!0
(2:23)
lim
p(t) = sflim
!1 sf p(sf )
t!0
lim p (t ) = slim
!1 spD (s)
t !0 D D
(2.24)
In particular :
(2.25)
For a drawdown test with wellbore storage, the linear early time behavior
pD = tD =CD corresponds in Laplace space to s pD (s) = 1=(sCD ), which is
linear with respect to (1/s). For a buildup test, both pD and s pD (s) tend
to the shut-in pressure when tD ! 0 and s ! 1 .
The nal value theorem has a similar expression, but the limit is usually
not nite for well test applications.
lim p(t) = slim
sf p(sf )
f !0
lim p (t ) = slim
sp (s)
t !1 D D
!0 D
t!1
(2.26)
(2.27)
The exception where the limit is nite is a buildup test, where both
expressions tend towards the initial pressure of the reservoir.
In both cases, the Laplace pressure and real pressure have a very similar
behavior, demonstrating that the real space and Laplace space pressures
range between the same values. This makes the Laplace pressure useful for
visualization, as shown in section 3.2.
2.4
Semilog Behavior
= ln(tD );
= 0
+ ln(1=s) = ln(e0
=s)
= a + b lntD ;
= a 0 b
+ b ln(1=s)
(2.28)
(2.29)
(2.30)
(2.31)
Let us take the example of a vertical well, fully completed, in a homogeneous, innite-acting reservoir. The solution to the diusivity equation is
well known, and can be expressed by means of the modied Bessel function
of second kind and order zero and one. This cylindrical source solution can
be approximated for the usual tD range by the line source solution, for which
we know the exact expression in real space, namely the exponential integral.
In dimensionless terms, the solutions are:
K (r s)
Cylindrical source: s K (s) = p 0 D p
s K1 ( s)
p
Line source solution: s K (s) = K0 (rd s)
r2
1
E1( D )
equivalent in real space to: K (tD ) =
2
4 tD
(2.32)
(2.33)
(2.34)
K (tD ) =
s K (s) =
z }| {
0:809
1
( ln(tD ) + 2 ln2 0
)
2
1
1
( ln( ) + 2 ln2 0 2
)
2
s
0
(2.35)
(2.36)
Therefore, the plots K (tD ) vs. tD and s KD (s) vs. e s have the same
asymptote, which is the well-known semilog straight line. The plots in real
8
space and Laplace are not exactly the same, which is understable, but are mutually corresponding: to a real fuction corresponds a unique Laplace transform, and to a Laplace transform corresponds a unique original function.
Nonetholess, the semilog regions of the plots of K (tD ) vs. tD and s K (s) vs.
1 will have the same semilog slope, which will be ln(10)/2 1.15 per log
s
cycle, if the decimal logarithm is chosen. This interesting property, as well as
the expression of the Laplace transform as computed in Romboutsos' algorithm (Ref. [11]), had already been found by Chaumet, Pouille and Seguier
in 1962 (Ref. [9]).
Figure 2.1, shows a plot of the Kernel function for an innite acting
well and for the case of a linear boundary condition (constant pressure and
no
ow). Since both the diusivity equation and the Laplace transform are
linear with respect to the pressure ( assuming Darcy
ow ), the superposition
theorem holds and can be used to take the boundaries into account.
For example, for a reservoir with a sealing fault, the pressure drop in case of
a stepwise
owrate can be computed using following expressions :
(2.37)
(2.38)
14
s*Kbar(s)
12
10
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0.01
0.1
1.
10
100
1000
10000
100000 1000000
1e7
1e8
14
12
10
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0.01
a
0.1
1.
10
100
1000
10000
100000 1000000
1e7
1e8
Dimensionless Time td
Chapter 3
Applications
3.1
Z 1 e0
Z 1 e0
@p
dt (3:1)
@t
t=0
t=0
Nevertheless, the Laplace pressure has a smoother behavior than the real
pressure, but that is not always a disadvantage, since the derivative (with
respect to ln(s) for example) of this expression is very diagnostic and remains
smooth even for noisy original data, as will be shown in the examples.
sf p(sf ) = sf
sf t
p(t) dt = p(0+ ) +
sf t
One of the main problems is related to the fact that the Laplace transform, by denition, requires the knowledge of p(t) over the whole time range,
and that even a properly designed well test can give this information only
partially. The pressure is measured only for a given time range (usually from
about a second or a couple of seconds to a couple of days), and therefore
11
I (sf ) =
Z1
t=tmax
e0sf t ln(t=tmax ) dt
12
(3.3)
1 1 e0sf t
dt integrating by parts
sf tmax t
1
=
E (s t ) exponential integral
sf 1 f max
6= e0sf tmax ( 0
0s ln(sf ) )
f
=
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
n01 f
0s t
0s t
f0
fn 0 fn01 1
i+1 0 fi e f i 0 e f i+1
+
1
+
E (s t )
f (sf ) =
sf
s2f
ln(tn=tn01 ) sf 1 f n
i=0 ti+1 0 ti
(3:7)
The expression for sf f (sf ) is straightforward. When working with real
eld data, which always contain a certain amount of noise, it is necessary
to compute the last semilog slope m = lnf(nt0n =tfnn0011) with an expression less
sensitive to the last measurement, and a weighted logarithmic nite dierence
formula was used, which computes this slope on the last 0.2 or even 0.4 logcycles. This is true as well for pressure as for
owrate measurements.
For a late time linear interpolation, the traditional Romboutsos and Stewart algorithm (1988) can be used:
n01 f
0s t
0s t
f
fn 0 fn01 e0sf tn
i+1 0 fi e f i 0 e f i+1
1
+
1 s2 (3:8)
f (sf ) = 0 +
sf
s2f
tn 0 tn01
f
i=0 ti+1 0 ti
measurements) stop before a given trend is set: what would the data would
have looked like if the well test had lasted longer ? Would they have had a
semilog behavior, or a linear behavior, or any other time dependance ? It is
always disturbing to have to assume part of a result to get it, and following
the feedback of numerous reviewers, we investigated a way to generalize our
approach. Except for two cases, all the common models we work with in well
testing show a log-derivative (often called derivative) that either stabilizes to
a constant value (innite acting radial
ow), or displays a log-derivative with
a constant slope on a log-log plot (1/2 for linear
ow, -1/2 for spherical
ow,
or 1 for pseudo-steady state). The rst exception is, of course, the buildup
behavior, where the log-derivative continuously bends downwards. This can
be remedied as in real space by rewriting the pw vs. 1t le as a pw vs. teq
le:
t
(3:11)
teq = 1t p
t p + 1t
teq is Agarwal's equivalent time (Ref. [20]), which can be generalized to any
succession of buildups and drawdowns. The second exception is a constant
pressure boundary, where the log-derivative bends downwards again. This
case is not considered problematic either, since once the pressure does not
move anymore (very small log-derivative, disappearing from the log-log plot),
the extrapolation is not a problem any more. Before this stabilisation, the
curved log-derivative can be approximated well enough with a straight-line
on a log-log plot, and this extrapolation \sticks" to the data long enough
(for the needed half-log cycle) so that, for 1=sf < tmax , the error can be
neglected.
In all cases, this late time power extrapolation, as opposed to a linear
or semilog extrapolation, seems to be general enough to \read" the needed
information out of the data. It is necessary to get some second log-derivative
information, which is computed by . Let us denote u = ln(t). Then the
semilog slope at each point is: f 0 (u) = dlndf(t) . Instead of writing f 0(u) =
f 0 (un) m, we say that:
t
f 00(u )
(3.12)
f 0 (u) = f 0(un) ( ) where = 0 n
tn
f (un)
m
integrating f (t) = f (tn) + (t 0 tn )
(3.13)
tn
This can be integrated the following way:
14
Z
f (s ) =
f
tn
m
f (t)e0sf t dt +
tn
Z 1(t
tn
0 tn )e0sf tdt
(3:14)
n01 f
0s t
0s t
f
i+1 0 fi e f i 0 e f i+1
= 0+
1
(3.15)
sf i=0 ti+1 0 ti
s2f
1 1 0x
m
+
(x 0 xn )e dx
(3.16)
(sf tn) sf sf tn
This last integration yields the incomplete Gamma function 0, which can
be accessed with the IMSL library for example, and which stands in our nal
algorithm
apl8, included in the Appendix:
n01 f
0s t
0s t
f
i+1 0 fi e f i 0 e f i+1
1
(3.17)
f (sf ) = 0 +
sf i=0 ti+1 0 ti
s2f
m
1
+
f 0( + 1; sf tn) 0 (sf tn) e0sf tn g
(3.18)
(sf tn ) sf
If ! 0, this numerical Laplace transform reduces to Eqn. 3.7, which is
easier to compute. We have visualized the eects of the dierent assumptions
in Fig. 3.1. We performed the following test: we simulated some standard
data, discretized them, took their Laplace transform, and came back to real
space using Stehfest's algorithm (inverse Laplace transform, [5]). With perfect algorithms, the output should be the same as the input, for the function
as well as for its derivative. We see in the rst plot that this is not exactly
true, if we use n=4 in Stehfest's algorithm. This means that there is a systematic error added in the process of taking the inverse Laplace transform.
The error in the truncated data is larger due to a coarse estimate of the late
time behavior of the data. On the second plot, the error is smaller due to a
better accuracy in Stehfest's algorithm (n=6) during the storage transition.
More importantly, the late time power extrapolation is much better for the
truncated data, which is good news: we are able to overcome the lack of
knowledge of the late time behavior of the pressure function to an extent
which enables us to remain accurate in the pertinent time range.
In conclusion, we found an analytical expression which is general enough
to treat all the usual late time behaviors, which is a signicant improvement
on what could be found in the literature until now.
15
Effect of Truncation
102
b
c
d
10
PD(tD)
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb dcb
dcb dcb
dcb
dcb dcb
b
dcb dcb dc
d
dcb dcb dcb cb
dcb cb cb cb cb cb cb
bbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bb
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb
cdb cdb cdb cdb cdb cdb cb
d cdb
dcb cdb cdb cdb
cdb cb
dcb cdb
d cb
dcb cdb cdb
db
cd
dcbcdb cdb
cdb d
dcbcdb
cb d
dcbcdb
cb d d
dcbcdb
cb d
dcbcdb
cb
b
d
c
dcb
cb
cb
dcbcdb
cb
dcbcdb
cb
cb
dcbcdb
cc
dcbcdb
b
cdb
b
b
d
c
bb
dcbcdb
bb
b
d
c
dcb
bbb
b
d
c
bbbbbb
dcb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
b
d
c
dcb
b
d
c
cdbdcb
b
d
c
cdb
b
d
c
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
b
d
c
cdbdcb
cdbdcb
cdbdcb
cdbdcb
b
d
c
cdb
cdbdcb
10-1
10-1
10
102
103
104
tD/CD
102
b
c
d
PD(tD)
10
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb cdb cdb
dcb cdb
dcb cdb cdb
dcb cdb
dcb cdb
dcb cdb
dcbcdb cdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
b
d
c
dcb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
dcbcdb
cdb
10-1
10-1
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb
dcb dcb
dcb dcb
dcb dcb
cdb cdb
dcb dcb
dcb dcb
cdb
cdb
cdb
cdb
cdb
cdb
cdb
cdb
10
cb cb cb cb cb cb b b
cb
cb
cb
cb
cb
cb b
bbbbbbbbbbbb
bb
102
bbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
103
104
tD/CD
3.2
Type Curves
d(spD (s))
d(spD (s))
= 0s
(3:19)
dln(1=s)
ds
This derivative is smoother than in real space, because the Laplace pressure is still dened with an integral, and therefore the transitions in Laplace
space are less abrupt than in real space. In this regard, the Laplace pressure derivative type curves are similar to the integral pressure type curves
described by Reynolds and Blasingame.
@ 2 pD 1 @pD
@pD
+
=
2
@rD rD @rD
@tD
2
@ pD 1 @pD
+
= s pD (s)
@rD2
rD @rD
(3.20)
0 pD (tD = 0+)
(3.21)
The arguments in favor of the Laplace space approach are that even
when the real data are very noisy, the Laplace pressure and its derivative are
still smooth, which makes it a very ecient diagnostic tool. Moreover, the
better knowledge of the reservoir solutions in Laplace space and the fact that
the treatment of
owrate variations is simplied, as shown in the following
chapters, make the method more broadly useful in practice.
18
14
12
10
0
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
One other useful advantage of Laplace space is that double porosity behavior can be taken into account very easily by replacing s by:
! (1 0 ! )s +
(3:22)
(1 0 ! )s +
in the argument of the Bessel functions (Warren and Root, Ref. [18]).
This holds for pseudosteady state interporosity
ow, while for transient interporosity
ow, the model suggested by deSwaan-O (Ref. [19]) can be used:
u = s f (s) = s
s 0!0
s 3!0s
tanh(
3s
The denitions of 0 and !0 are given by:
s f (s) = s ( 1 +
!0 =
and
(ct h)m
(ct h)f
0
))
(3:23)
(3:24)
12L2 (kh)m
(3:25)
h2m (kh)f
In Eqs. 3.24 and 3.25, hm and hf are the thickness of the individual matrix
and fracture elements, respectively. The denition of the dimensionless time
for this model is given by:
0 =
tD =
kf t
(ct )f L2
(3:26)
Type curves for pseudo steady state interporosity
ow are shown in Figure 3.4. The rst plot, which is in semilog scale, shows the Kernel function
of the reservoir, which is the response if neither wellbore storage nor skin
were present, and if the sandface
owrate had been a unit step function. For
the second plot, which is in log-log scale, the more conventional case of a
wellbore pressure including skin and wellbore storage is shown. The characteristic eects of ! and are the same as in real space, which is predictable
considering the poperties of the Laplace pressure.
20
sPDbar(s)
10
10-1
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
103
104
105
1 / ( s *CD )
102
PD(tD)
10
10-1
10-1
10
102
tD / CD
10
0
0.0001
0.01
1.
100
10000
1000000
1e8
10
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
s*Pdbar(s)
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
0.1
0.1
f
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 / ( s * cd )
Figure 3.5, shows the eect of partial penetration on the Kernel function.
The plots do not include the eect of wellbore storage and skin due to damage
at the wellbore. The rst plot is in semilog scale, therefore the additional
partial penetration skin is obvious. The values of this partial penetration
skin are the same as if conventional real space plots had been used. In the
second plot, which is log-log scale, dierent
ow regimes are visible. At
early time (that means at small 1=s), the rst radial
ow is visible, with a
Laplace pressure drop inversely proportionnal to the completion ratio. At
middle times, we expect a -1/2 slope of the log-derivative in real space,
but in Laplace space, since the transition is stretched, this spherical
ow
behavior is visible only for extremely small completion ratios (hw =h < 5%).
The Kernel function has been computed for completion in the middle of the
layer (zw = h=2), for a homogeneous reservoir (u = s), using the following
expression:
4 h 1 1
n2 2
( K0 (rD u + 2 )
(3.27)
sK (s) = K0 (rD u) +
hw n=1 n
hD
h
z
z
sin n w cos n w cos n )
(3.28)
2h
h
h
Figure 3.6 shows the pressure drop in a well with wellbore storage and
skin in a reservoir with a closed outer boundary. The linear pressure drop
with respect to time gives a unit slope on a log-log plot, in Laplace space as
well as in real space. The Kernel fuction has been computed with:
K (r s)I (r s) + I (r s)K0(rD s)
p
p
sK = p1 eD p0 D p 1 eD
s(I1 (reD s)K1 ( s) 0 I1 ( s)K1 (reD s))
If reD 1, this can be approximated as:
p
p
p
K1(reD s)I0(rD s)
p
sK = K0 (rD s) +
I (r s)
1
23
eD
(3:29)
(3:30)
20
s * Kbar(s)
15
10
0
0.01
0.1
1.
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1/ s
10
s * Kbar(s)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1/ s
25
s*Pdbar(s)
20
15
10
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1e7
1e8
1000000
1e7
1/s
1000
100
10
0.1
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1 / ( s * cd )
3.3
The previous section demonstrated that it was possible to generate characteristic type curves in Laplace space for any kind of problem using the solutions already published in the literature. However this is already possible in
real space as well, although usually more time consuming, especially when
innite series have to be used for the computations. This section shows treatments for which the Laplace space approach brings substantial advantanges
in comparison to the real space approach, using the background described in
Section 2.2.
There are dierent kinds of deconvolution, depending on the physical origin of the
owrate variation and of the data available. If downhole
owrate
measurements are available, wellbore storage deconvolution can be performed,
as explained in Section 3.5. However in practice, there are other causes of
owrate variation than just wellbore unloading, and the most common is the
fact that even at the wellhead, it is dicult to maintain the
owrate constant
during the whole test. This can be due to change of the chokes, or by a slow
cleaning-up of the well, or because the pump gets too weak when the pressure
drop increases, or when light oils are evaporating, or many other reasons. The
deconvolution treatment, namely dividing by the Laplace wellhead
owrate,
is straightforward and stable:
s pwD (s)
(3:31)
s qwhD (s)
pwDc is the dimensionless wellbore pressure that we would have measured
if the
owrate had been constant at the wellhead. It therefore includes wellbore storage and skin eect, since the boundary condition (qwhD = 1) is
applied downstream of the wellbore. The advantage of this treatment is that
the whole rate history can be used for the match, and not only the last time
range where the
owrate is (supposed to be) stable. Thus, more information
can be taken into account.
s pwDc =
For the theoretical case where the
owrate is a step variation, the treatment is very simple, as it is in real space.
26
If tD < 0 qwhD
0 < tD < tD1 qwhD
tD1 < tD < tDmax qwhD
Then s qwhD
=
=
=
=
0
q1
q2
q1 + (q2 0 q1 ) e0stD1
(3.32)
(3.33)
(3.34)
(3.35)
This treatment is very ecient and does not give any problems whatsoever, but can be made in real space as well. The advantage of the Laplace
approach appears when the wellhead
owrate is not a succession of perfect
step functions. The Laplace transform has to be taken numerically, and the
deconvolution gives good results if the
owrate measurements are accurate
enough.
As an example, consider the
owrate history displayed in Figure 3.7. The
pressure data have been generated with 0.2 % random noise, using the superposition of the
owrate data. The model is a fully completed wellbore in
a homogeneous reservoir (k = 150mD; h = 35ft), with a wellbore storage
coecient of C = 0:006bbl=psi, and a skin of S = 1:3. In addition, there is a
sealing linear boundary, at a distance of 340ft from the wellbore.
A rst match has been performed assuming that the
owrate was constant, which is certainly not true for the rst 3 minutes. The production
time is 72 hours. The match (rst plot of Figure 3.8) gives erroneous results
for all the parameters if the whole time range is considered, even though the
owrate looked almost perfect on the Cartesian plot. This emphasizes the
importance of the early time data.
The second step took into account the variable wellhead
owrate. We
took the Laplace transform of these data, and deconvolved the pressure data
using Eq. 3.31. The results are plotted in Laplace space, using the appropriate variables sf pw (sf ) vs. 1=sf . The third plot of Figure 3.8 displays the
deconvolved pressure and the match, after coming back to real space using
Stehfest's algorithm. It can be seen that even though the data were somewhat noisy, the deconvolution is stable except for the rst couple of points,
and that it gives very good results for the parameter estimation.
27
4000
3500
3500
2500
2000
ccc
ccc
ccccccccccccccc
ccccccc
cc c c c c c c
cc
cc
3000
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1500
cc
flowrate (bbl/hr)
flowrate (bbl/hr)
3000
c
c
c
2500
cccccccccccccccccccc
ccccccc
cccccccccccccccccccccc
2000
1500
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1000
c
c
500
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
cccccccccc
cc
c
c
500
cc
1000
cc
c
cc
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 cc
0.001
cc
0.01
0.1
time t (hr)
time t (hr)
28
10
3.4
This section deals with an often encountered practical problem, which is that
no measurements were made during the production time, and that only the
pressure transient during the buildup was recorded. The procedure described
here is equivalent to rewriting the buildup pressure le as a function of Agarwal's equivalent time (see Eq. 3.11, or Ref. [20]).
We know that buildup data do not behave like drawdown data, and therefore we cannot treat them in exactly the same way, especially when the
duration of the test is not negligeable in comparison with the preceding production time. In real time, the solution is to use the \Horner" time, dened
as:
t + 1t
tH = p
(3:36)
1t
If we denote as pBU (1t) the buildup pressure with measurements starting
at shut-in time (1t = 0), we have in real space:
(3:37)
If the initial drawdown has reached semilog behavior during the production time ( t < tp , with usually b = 1=2 ), we can derive:
(3.38)
(3.39)
Therefore, as soon as pDD (1t) reaches semilog behavior, the slope on the
Horner plot is the same as the slope we would have had on a traditional plot
for a drawdown test. The approximation is all the better if tp is large.
We followed the same philosophy to nd a Laplace variable which enables
us to treat a builup test as a drawdown. Our new time variable will be 1t
in the Laplace transform, and we dene, with dimensionless variables:
30
Z1
(3:42)
ex E1 (x)
(3:43)
limx!0 A(x) = e0
' 0:5614594835
to limx!1 A(x) = 1
We dene the dimensionless buildup Laplace variable sBU as:
A(s 1 tpD )
tpD
The full dimension buildup Laplace variable sBUf is similarly:
sBU = s +
sBUf = sf +
31
A(sf 1 tp )
tp
(3:44)
(3:45)
(3:46)
(3:47)
e
e
16
14
eeeeeeeee
eeeeee
eeee
e
e
ee e
e
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e
s*Pdbar(s)
12
10
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e
e e
e e e
e e e e
e
0
1e-10
1e-9
1e-8
1e-7
0.00001
1e-6
0.0001
0.001
0.01
s or sBU
100
eeeeeeeeeeeee
e e e e e eeeeeeeee
e eeeeee
e e e e e e
e e e e e
e e e e
e e e
e e e
e e
e
e e
10
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
ee
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e e e e
e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
ee
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e
e e
e e
e e e
e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e eeeeeeeeeee eeeeee
e
e
ee
e
e
e
ee
e
e
e
ee
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0.1
0.1
e
e
e
e
e
e
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1e7
1 / ( s * cd ) or 1 / (sBU * cd )
Figure 3.9: Example With Production Time Of tpD = 108 and 2 105
33
3.5
Since the eect of wellbore storage is to delay the
owrate impulse on the
reservoir, removing the eect is a deconvolution process.
A lot of dierent deconvolution algorithms already exist, either using direct real space deconvolution, or curve-tting approximations. The drawback
of the former is that they are generally recursive, and therefore add up errors
occuring in the rst steps of the computation. The disadvantage of curvetting is that it is an approximation, and needs a lot of computation prior to
deconvolution to nd the best coecients of each function. A way to avoid
this problem is to constrain the deconvolved pressure to stabilize it, but this
requires additional computation time as well.
The advantage of our Laplace space approach is that it does not have this
stability problem due to recursivity, because the Laplace transform takes the
whole time range into account. The only stability problem we encountered
was at early times, for wellbore storage deconvolution. This can be handled
by removing the wellbore storage only partially, as will be shown in this
section. We must be aware of the fact that when the formulas of Section 2.2
are used with no downhole
owrate measurements, we have to estimate the
sandface
owrate as:
s qsf (s) = 1 0 CD s2 pwD (s)
(3:53)
D
should not be the sandface
owrate, but the
owrate just above the perforations, which we will call qm, because this is the
owrate measured when a
bottomhole
owmeter is installed. This has the advantage that there is the
small remaining storage of the rathole, or of the small volume of the wellbore
under the
owmeter, which will stabilize the deconvolution. We will call Cr
this residual storage, and pwc the deconvolved pressure . pwc is the measured
pressure drop if the bottomhole
owrate is a unit step:
qmD = 1 if t > 0
(3:54)
Actually, with this assumption, the sandface
owrate at early times is
smaller than unity, and the following mass balances can be written, assuming
constant wellbore storage:
qsfD = qwhD
qmD = qwhD
0 CD dpdtwD
D
0 (C 0 Cr )D dpdtwD
D
(3.55)
(3.56)
Since the diusivity equation is linear, the pressure drops remain proportional to the owrate, and thus:
35
36
38
3.6
In the previous section, the wellbore storage was assumed constant in time.
However we know that this is only a coarse assumption, since the compressibility of the
uids in the annulus is a function of pressure and temperature. Therefore, if a well test has a big pressure drop, the absolute pressure
pw = pw0 + 1pw becomes important. We made the assumption that the
compressibility of the
uids, and thus the wellbore storage as well, was inversely proportionnal to the absolute pressure. With dimensionless variables,
we denote in this section:
(3.59)
(3.60)
Let us assume that we are using the results of the last section, and that
we only want to remove part of the wellbore storage, for example = 90%.
This means C 0 Cr = C . The
owrate conservation equation still holds as:
qmD = 1
0 CD dpdtwD
D
(3:61)
Z 1 e0
dpwD (tD )
dt
pwD (tD )dtD D
0
d ln(pwD (tD ))
= 1 0 CD0 pwD0 Lf
g
dtD
= 1 0 CD0 pwD0 fs ln(pwD (tD )) 0 ln(pwD0 )g
1p + p
= 1 0 CD0 pwD0 s ln( wD wD0 )(s)
pwD0
s qmD (s) = 1
0 CD0 pwD0
stD
(3.62)
(3.63)
(3.64)
(3.65)
The deconvolved pressure drop (or increment) can then be computed as:
39
s 1pwD (s)
s qmD (s)
s 1pwDc(s) =
=
s 1pwD (s)
+pwD0 )(s)
CD0 pwD0 s ln( 1pwD
pwD0
(3.66)
(3.67)
sf 1pwc(sf ) =
=
sf 1pw (sf )
sf qm (sf )
1
sf 1pw (sf )
C0 pw0 sf ln( 1pwpw+0pw0 )(sf )
(3.68)
(3.69)
Again, since we have the data and the algorithm to take the Laplace
transform, nothing hinders us to perform this treatment, except the fact
that we never did it before. We tested this approach on the example plotted
on Fig. 3.11, which is a builup test from Alaska. The long lasting storage
transition and the important pressure increment made this test interesting
for our purpose. After wellbore storage removal, we were able to recognize
a radial composite model, which is in accordance with the fact that gas has
been injected around this well and therefore created a higher mobility zone
at some distance.
40
Initial data
Log-derivative
Pressure [psi]
1000
100
10
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
10
100
Time [hr]
10000
Treated data
Log-derivative
Pressure [psi]
1000
100
10
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
Time [hr]
3.7
Min~ 6ndp
)
i=1 [ pmodel (ti ; ~
0 pmeasured(ti) ]2
(3:70)
Most models are known in Laplace space ([2, 3]), and therefore each
computation of pmodel (t; ~) requires the use of a numerical inverter ([4, 5]).
Typically with Stehfest's algorithm, the computation of one point in real
space requires 6 or 8 computations in Laplace space. This is all the more
time-consuming as these computations may be expensive if innite sums
occur. This problem is further aggravated if numerous iterations (up to 10
or 20) have to be performed before convergence. Based on the work showed in
this study, we thought that we could choose a range for the Laplace variable,
where the Laplace pressure would convey as much information as the real
pressure itself. Logically, we chose ndp points , with 1=sf i = ti ; i = 1::ndp.
The regression was performed using a least-square problem as well:
Min~ 6ndp
)
i=1 [ sf i pmodel (sf i ; ~
0 sf i pmeasured(sf i) ]2
(3:71)
second term has to be computed only once, and does not change any more
as ~ is updated during the regression.
A Gauss-Newton minimization was performed using this approach. The
data were taken from the example treated in Fig. 3.10. We did the regression
assuming a standard innite acting, storage and skin model. The real space
regression algorithm converged in 8 iterations. With the same starting point,
our Laplace space algorithm converged to the same solution (within 1 %) in
6 iterations. The search path is shown in Fig. 3.12. The main dierence
is not the number of iterations, but the fact that the regression requires
less computations for each iteration. The fact that the objective function is
smoother in Laplace space is only of slight advantage here. It would have been
more important if the data had been noisier. For example, it would probably
still be possible to match on the derivative in Laplace space, whereas we
would have to match on the pressure itself in real space, if the data were
very noisy. Another advantage of the regression in Laplace space is of course
when the
owrate is varying during the test. Typically, if a downhole
owrate
qm is measured, the regression can be performed directly on:
1 sf qm(sf )
(3.72)
In such a case, regression in real space on pw (t) would require either a tedious superposition of pw c(t) [10], or an inversion of Eq. 3.72 with Stehfest's
algorithm for example [4, 5]. If Laplace space has to be used on the data
anyway for deconvolution, and since we usually have to use it for the model,
it seems logical to use it for the regression as well.
43
c
c
140
cc
c
Permeability k
[md]
120
c
c
c
100
c
c
80
c
c
c
60
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Skin S
Chapter 4
Conclusion
The following ndings were obtained from this study:
(1) The Laplace transform can be displayed in a characteristic, familiar
looking way if the variables sf pw (sf ) vs. 1=sf are chosen. These variables
have the same dimension as pw (t) vs. t.
(2) Taking these variables, or the equivalent dimensionless expressions
s pwD (s) vs. 1=s, it is possible to plot type curves in Laplace space with the
same log-derivative as in real space. These type curves are smoother than
in real space, but still characteristic enough to perform model identication.
If implemented in an automated type curve matching procedure, they allow
the whole parameter estimation to be performed in Laplace space, since the
Laplace transform contains as much information as its original function in
real space.
(3) Although we need to know the behavior of the function (usually pw (t))
over the whole time range, we have seen that a linear interpolation at early
time and a power extrapolation at late time, with rst and second derivative
information, are satisfactory for the computation of the Laplace transform.
We developed adequate algorithms for this purpose, and tested them succesfully on simulated as well as on actual eld data.
45
46
4.1
b
ct
C
f
h
k
n
p
q
r
s
sf
S
t
!
Nomenclature
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
4.2
D
H
c
sf
wh
m
r
w
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0 =
f =
semilog slope
total compressibility, psi01
wellbore storage constant, bbl/psi
time fuction
formation thickness, ft
permeability, md
number of available data points
pressure, psi
owrate, B/D
radius, ft
Laplace variable (dimensionless)
fully dimensional Laplace variable, hr01
damage skin
time, hr
oil viscosity, cp
dummy integration variable
system porosity
storativity contrast in ssured reservoirs
transfer coecient in ssured reservoirs
Subscripts and Superscripts
dimensionless
Horner time
constant rate = deconvolved
sandface
wellhead
measured or at the
owmeter
residual
well, wellbore or perforated
time derivative of
Laplace transform of f
47
Bibliography
[1] van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: \The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs", Trans., AIME
(1949)186, 305-324.
[2] Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: \Some New Solutions to Solve Problems
in Well Test Analysis: Part 1 - Analytical Considerations", SPE 18165,
1989.
[3] Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: \Some New Solutions to Solve Problems
in Well Test Analysis: Part 2 -Computational Considerations and Applications", Nov. 1989.
[4] Crump, K.S.: \Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms Using a
Fourier Series Approximation", Journal of the ACM, Jan. 1976, Vol.
23, 89-96.
[5] Stehfest, H.: \Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms", Communication of the ACM, Jan. 1970, Vol. 13, No.1, 47-49.
[6] Rosa, A.J. and Horne, R.N.: \Automated Type-Curve Matching in Well
Test Analysis by Using Laplace Space Determination of Parameter Gradients", paper 12131 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
[7] Kuchuk, F.J., Carter, R.G. and Ayestaran, L.: \Numerical Deconvolution of Wellbore Pressure and Flow Rate", SPE 13960, 1985.
[8] Kuchuk, F.J.: \Applications of Convolution and Deconvolution to Transient Well Tests", SPEFE, Dec. 1990.
48
[9] Chaumet, P., Pouille, J. and Seguier, P.: \Application de la transformation de Laplace a l'etude des courbes de pression en regime transitoire",
Revue de l'Institut Francais du Petrole, Dec. 1962.
[10] Guillot, A.Y. and Horne, R.N.: \Using Simultaneous Downhole Flow
Rate and Pressure Measurements To Improve Analysis of Well Tests",
SPEFE, June 1986, 217-26.
[11] Romboutsos, A. and Stewart, G.: \A Direct Deconvolution or Convolution Algorithm for Well Test Analysis", paper SPE 18157 presented at
the 63rd SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX, Oct. 2-5, 1988.
[12] Earlougher, R.C. Jr. and Kersch, K.M.: \Analysis of Short-Time Transient Test Data by Type-Curve Matching", JPT, July 1974, 793-800;
Trans., AIME, 257.
[13] Gringarten, A.C.: \Type-Curve Analysis: What It Can Do and Cannot
Do", paper SPE 16388, JPT, Jan. 1987, 11-13.
[14] Gringarten, A.C. et al.: \A Comparison Between Dierent Skin and
Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis", paper SPE 8205 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
[15] Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Agarwal, R.G.: \Annulus Unloading Rates as
In
uenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Eect", SPEJ, Oct. 1972, 45362.
[16] Ramey, H.J. Jr.: \Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in the Presence of Skin Eect and Wellbore Storage", JPT, Jan. 1970, 97-104;
Trans., AIME, 257.
[17] Bourdet, D. et al: \A New Set of Type Curves Simplies Well Test
Analysis", World Oil, May 1983, 95-106.
[18] Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: \The Behavior of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs", SPEJ, Sept. 1963, 245-255.
49
[19] deSwaan - 0, A.: \Analytical Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", SPEJ, June 1960, 117-122.
[20] Agarwal, R.G.: \A New Method to Account for Producing TIme Eects
When Drawdown Type Curves are Used to Analyse Pressure Buildup
and Other Test Data", paper SPE 9289 presented at the 55th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Sept 21-24,
1980.
[21] Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A.: \Handbook of Mathematical Functions", Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1972)
[22] Meunier, D.F., Wittman. M.J. and Stewart, G.: \Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of After
ow", JPT, Jan.
1985, 143-52.
50
Chapter 5
Appendix
5.1
c
c
c
c
c
Fortran Program
51
&
&
c
c - computation of Laplace transform with linear interpolation between
c - data points, and power extrapolation afterwards
c
f0 = (pd(1)-pinitl) / td(1)
sum= f0 * (1. - dexp(-s*td(1)) ) / (s*s)
do 1 i=1, ndp-1
fi = (pd(i+1)-pd(i)) / (td(i+1)-td(i))
sum = sum + fi * ( dexp(-s*td(i)) - dexp(-s*td(i+1)) ) / (s*s)
1
continue
c - a log-log extrapolation for the derivative for large t ----------alpha= a / m
alpha1=alpha+1.d0
xn= s*td(ndp)
if ( (dabs(alpha).gt.(1.d-1)) .and. (xn.lt.50) ) goto 68
c - if the derivative is flat enough, the exponential integral is OK
sum= sum+ m * expin(xn) / s
flapl8 = sum
return
68
sum= sum + m / (alpha*s* xn**alpha)
&
* ( DGAMIC(alpha1,xn) - xn**alpha *dexp(-xn) )
flapl8 = sum
return
end
5.2
Field Example
52
sf 1pwc (sf ) =
sf 1pw (sf )
sf qm (sf )
(5.1)
Regression (storage and skin match) was still performed in real space. Fig. 5.2
shows the result of deconvolution both in Laplace space and in real space.
The hemispherical
ow due to partial penetration is visible, as well as the
slight double porosity behavior due to the layers. The results can be compared with those in Ref. [8]. The
apl8 algorithm was used to take the
(forward) Laplace transform of both the pressure and
owrate data, and
Stehfest algorithm was used (with n=4) to take the inverse Laplace transform. The results are good enough to make the Laplace approach interesting
in practice for deconvolution problems.
18000
16000
14000
Flowrate qm (STB/D)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
time (hours)
c c c ccc
c c c ccc
c c c c c cc
c c c cc
10
aa
aa
aa
aa
a aa
aa a
aa aaaa
c c
c
cc
cc
cc
c
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
c cc
cc
c cc
cc
10
aa aaa a a
c
a
a
aa
c cc
cc c
cc c
cc c
c c
c cc
cccc
c c c ccc
c c cc ccc
10
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
1/sf (hr)
104
a
c
c
103
c
a
a
c
a
a
a
c a
ac
c
a
c
10
cc
c
a
cc
c c ccc
c c c cc c c
cc c c c
cc cc ccc
c cc c c
c c c
c cc c c
c c c c ccc c c cc ccc
10
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
time (hr)
Figure 5.2: Well A: Deconvolved pressure drop in Laplace and real space
54