64 views

Uploaded by DanOtah

- EBO 3 Exercises
- ENI_-_Completion_Design_Manual.pdf
- ENI - Completion Design Manual
- ENI - Completion Design Manual.pdf
- History matching Report
- HW paper
- Permeability Consideration
- 7. Interpretation
- Resumen de Registros
- Brine Injection Studies
- Sonatrach's _Well Testing
- bakker
- Suzuki2017_Fracture Network Created by 3D Printer Validation CT Images
- Chapter 5 FILTRATION AND SEPARATION IN GEOTEXTILES
- PBU Practice
- Darcy's Law & Applications
- 1_FormationPressure
- SPE-950083-G
- 2Analysis of Asphalt Concrete Permeability Data Using Representative Pore Size
- A A

You are on page 1of 146

Chapter 1: Fluid Flow in Porous Media

Tel: 0131 451 3122 Fax: 0131 451 3127 Email: jami.ahmady@pet.hw.ac.uk

Unsteady-state flow in heterogeneous systems:

Three dimensional. Multi (three) phases. Multi (three) forces (viscosity, capillary, gravity, inertial).

One dimensional. One phase. One force (viscosity, impact of gravity and capillary for static pressure distribution discussed in the last three chapters).

Pressure behavior. Average reservoir pressure. Reservoir properties.

Permeability.

Reservoir characterisation.

Faults, layering, areal continuity. y g y

Well completion efficiency (skin). Well productivity.

PI q/DP, PI=q/DP, which stays constant at least for a period of time.

Also Al samples f lab analysis. l for l b l i

Reservoir temperature. p

Pressure Behaviour

Pressure history vs. time during a test leads to: Determination of average (static) reservoir pressure. Flow capacity (kh=net pay*permeability). Skin. Reservoir discontinuity and limits (fault, ).

TYPICAL OIL PRODUCTION PROFILE

PLATEAU W.B.T.

CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT

PROD. RATE

OIL

For an Offshore Field the Target Plateau Rate is Typically 10% of Recoverable Reserves p.a.

TIME

Fig 1.1.1

. . . depends on the following factors: Water Depth Oil Price Pipeline Tariff

. . . each case must be examined in detail and an economic assessment made

. . . in the early days of the North Sea development a figure of 5000 STB/d was often quoted (no longer valid)

WELL-HEAD

ps

S EP ARA TO R (1

st

GAS OIL

ST AG E)

WATER

WELL

pr pe pi p

q

RESERVOIR

p s = Separator Pressure

pwf

Fig 1.1.2

Darcys Law

=u=-

m dx

k dp

Fig 1.2.1

Darcys Law

Definition of the permeability of a porous medium Permeability is an intrinsic rock property q A u m p x k in-situ volumetric flow-rate cross-sectional area superficial fluid velocity fluid viscosity pressure or potential length permeability m3/s 2 m m/s 2 Ns/m Pa m m2

q k dp =u=A m dx

q : cc/s

A : cm

m : cp

p : atm

qs : bbl/day

x : ft

qsB

11271 10 . =A m

-3

1 md = 0.986923 *10

k dp dx

-15

Core Holder

Transducer

q

k p1 - p 2

mL

i. e. k =

A Dp

qmL

Fig 1.3.1

Assumptions.

Steady state creeping flow. Rock 100% saturated with one fluid. Fluid does not react with the rock. rock Rock is homogeneous and isotropic.

Q=

P L

Units. Units

One Darcy is defined as the permeability which will permit a fluid of one centipoises viscosity to flow at a linear velocity of one centimetre per second f a pressure gradient of one ti t d for di t f atmosphere per centimetre.

Q=

P L

I(current) = E(potential) rL k 1 R = Q I, , P E r R(resistan ce) A

q = K 'A T k Q q, K ' , P T L

Q=

Empirical correlation (e.g. Carman-Kozeny). Log data.

P L

Use of an empirical equation ( g Timur) & extending the p q (e.g. ) g correlation between measured lab. & log data (porosity & Swi).

Laboratory Measurements. y

Steady-state flow of a fluid & Darcy Law with measured Q & P, reservoir conditions preferable otherwise to be corrected.

An average (unlike core & log) in-situ (like log) k.

f D v s2 36 k 1 (1 - f)

3

k1 = 150

Fig 1.3.2

36 f D k= k1 1 - f

3

k : permeability

a f

2 vs 2

Dvs : Volume - Surface Mean Particle Diameter = 6(1 - f)/a Shows importance of porosity and grain size as determinants of permeability

f : porosity

Investigated the permeability of well sorted detrital rocks with porosities down to 10%

Berg Correlation

-6 5 .1

k : permeability (Darcy) f : porosity MD : Weight median grain size PDa : phi percentile deviation - measure of sorting Cum Wt % Cum Wt %

k = 5.1 10

e j

MD

e -1. 385PD s

1 D= 2

FG IJ HK

phi

Berg : Trans Gulf Coast Assoc of Geol Soc 20, 303 (1970)

phi

Formation Resistivity factor. y

Ro resistivity of water saturated rock. Rw resistivity of water in the pores.

Fr =

Ro Rw

a and m are constants.

Archie, carbonates, a=1, m=2. Humble, sandstone, a=0.62, m=2.15.

Fr =

Resistivity of a rock saturated with hydrocarbon and y y water is greater than that of a rock saturated with water Rt>Ro. 1/ n

n values range from 1 7 to 2.2. 1.7 2 2

R Sw = o R t

1/ 2

For n=2

R Sw = o Rt

1/ 2

FrRw = R t

Timur

Af k = C S w ,irr

k 1/ 2

k 1/ 2

w2

w 4 w , irr w t , irr

exp onent

Sea Bed

MSL

Overburden at Depth =

= total weight of rock plus sea water (obtained from density log)

pc

psi

OverBurden

Formation

pg

psi

pc = pp + pg

Fig 1.3.3

(%)

1 0

pp = 0, pc varying

0 2000

SANDSTONES LIMESTONES

fpa fp

pC

6000

10000

pp

Vpa - Vp Vpa 2

4 3

pc = 14500 psig pp varying

BEREA = 20%

14000

Fig 1.3.4

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 BA

pp = 20 bar

FA

k ko

MA

SP

BA = 0.4 md BE = 52 md

ko

FA = 817 md

MA = 737 md SP = 944 md

200

600

pc

BE (bar)

1000

Fig 1.3.5

Ekofisk Reservoir

6 3 km 400 ft 600 ft

Overburden

Seabed

Tight

Zone

Initial Reservoir Pressure = 7000 psi (Pore Pressure) End of 1985 : Initial Net Effective Stress = 2000 psi Pore Pressure = 4000 psi

Fig 1.5.5

50 40 30 20 10 0

B

40 cm/yr

Time (days)

200

400

km

100 50 0

200

250

Bathymetric Survey

Fig 1.5.6

Ekofisk Reservoir

Very little pressure maintenance

. . . naturally fractured reservoir with solution gas drive and some gas re-injection

Reservoir originally thought to be oil wet were raised by cutting, installing flanges extensions of 6m

In 1987 all six of the steel jacket structures and jacking up the platforms and inserting

55 50

Elastic Plastic

Yield Point Pressure

(%)

45 40 35 30

5000

4000

3000

Fig 1.5.7

2000

Half the oil produced from Valhall is a direct result of the rock compressibility mechanism In the crest rock compressibilities can be as high as 15010-6 psi-1 On the reservoir crest a measured PTA permeability of 120 md was corrected to an original value of 300 md Final set of compaction curves shown in Fig 1.5.7

Valhall Reservoir

Cook and Jewel:Simulation of a North Sea Field Experiencing Significant Compaction Drive, SPE Res. Eng., 11,(1), 48-53, Feb 1996

Flow Regimes

Steady-state, P=f(r), qr=constant.

Strong aquifer support or injection wells.

Semi-steady state, P=f(r,t) Semi steady state P=f(r t) but P/dt=constant P/dt=constant.

Closed no flow outer boundary.

Transient well test data.

P RODU CING WEL L OBSERVATION WELL

re

pe

q

ACCESSIBLE FROM

WELL SHUT-IN

pe

RFT DATA

wf

re

Fig 1.4.1

k f

rw

re

Fig 1.4.2

Incompressible Flow

q

Steady-State Radial

q ur ur re q h

pe

rw

pe

rw

ur =

q 2pr h

k dp m dr

re

Fig 1.4.3

q sB k dp ur = = 2 p hr m dr

re

Darcy's Law

q sB m 2 p kh

rw

dr = r

pe

dp

pw

\

Dimensionless Pressure

pe - pw

pD

pe - pw re = = ln = ln rDe q sB m rw 2 p kh

q sB m re = ln 2 p kh rw

pe

pw q

rw

re

rw

re

Fig 1.4.4

P RE SS UR E PR OF IL E I N T HE VI CI NI TY OF A WE LL

p - pw pD = qsBomo 4 2pkh

3 1 2 0

p = ln rD D

1 100

r/rw

200

300

Fig 1.4.5

400

WELL-HEAD

ps

S EP ARA TO R (1

st

GAS OIL

ST AG E)

WATER

WELL

pr pe pi p

q

RESERVOIR

p s = Separator Pressure

pwf

Fig 1.1.2

qs J ss = pe - p w

1127 10 -3 2 p kh . qsB = pe - p w re m ln rw

Field Units

J sse

1127 10-3 2p kh . = re B m ln rw

bbl/day/psi

qs = Jsss(pe - pwf)

i.e.

pwf

pe

p wf = p e -

J sss

qs

. . . Definition of P.I.

. . . equation of a straight line

slope

qs

IPR

1 Jsss

In oil wells under laminar (creeping, Darcy) flow:

qs=Jss(Pr-Pwf):

Pwf-Ps=fVLP(qs) (q )

Solving the above two equations simultaneously for qs & Pwf, k knowing Jss and fVLP f i d functions, specifies ti ifi the well operating conditions.

FBHP (psi)

(pe)1

pe - pw

pw

(pe)2 (pe)3

slope = -

DRAWDOWN

1 J

IPR

qs

Fig 1.4.6

Bottom-Hole Pressure

pwf ps

VL P

pr

IPR

pr - pwf

Drawdown Total Dp

Operating Point

Lift

Due to Gilbert

Match vertical lift performance (VLP) to inflow performance relation (IPR) i.e. find qs from nodal analysis

pwf - p s

Fig 1.1.3

pe p

p(r) rw re pw

Fig 1.4.7

p(r) = pw +

ln r rw 2p k h

qm

qm r p r = pw + ln 2 p kh rw

bg

re

Averaged Pressure

p = pw +

pdV V

p r 2 p rhdr p re2 h

bg

rw

qm re 1 p = pw + ln 2 p kh rw 2

LM N

OP Q

1 qm i.e. p e - p = 2 2 p kh

STbbl/day/psi

qs 1127 10 -3 2 p kh . J ss = = p - pw re 1 B m ln rw 2

LM N

OP Q

Pressure in Reservoir

rw

t

TRANSIENT INFINITE-ACTING PERIOD SEMI -STEADY STAT E

re

Fig 1.5.1

PRESSURE

t2 t3

t1

dp = constant . . . all r dt

rw

re

Fig 1.5.2

p

PRESSURE

p=

rw

re

p r 2prdr

ej

pre2

p wf rw

AT SSS

dp dt

dp dt

re

Fig 1.5.3

1 V c = V p

Compressibility of a Liquid

DV = qdt = cVdp

Volume produced in time interval dt

dp q q sB ==2 dt cV c p re h f

. . . a more sophisticated analysis shows that c should be replaced by the total system compressibility ct where: c w . . . water compressibility

c t = c w S wc + 1 - S wc c o + c f

c o . . . oil compressibility

1 Vp cf = Vp p

Allows for the presence of connate water and formation compaction Latter term is significant in unconsolidated formations

pi

slope , m = *

2 c t p re h f

q sB

Time , t

Fig 1.5.4

No Flow Across External Boundary Slightly Compressible Flow Oil Production at Central Well is Sustained by Expansion of Fluid in Place

q

ur = 2p hr qr

ej

=-

m dr

k dp

re

ur

rw

Fig 1.5.10

Closed System

qr

qr

q

0

Flow Distribution

rw

qr

rw

re

qr = - cVr re

dp dt

re

Fig 1.5.11

qr

q r = - cVr r e

q rw

qr

dp dp 2 2 = - c p re - r h f dt dt

\

q

0

re

qr k dp -ur = = 2 p rh m dr

Darcy's Law

dp 2 q = - c p re h f dt

qr

q r re2 - r 2 r2 = = 1- 2 2 q re re

rw

re

Hence on substitution:

qr

Integration gives:

FG 1 - r IJ = 2 p rkh dp =q H r K m dr FG1 - r IJ dr = 2 p kh dp H r K r qm

2 2 e

2 2 e

re

rw

FG 1 - r IJ dr = 2 p kh H r K r qm

2 2 e

pe

dp

pw

q =

w

FG ln r m H r

2 p kh

2 2 e

2 p kh

e

1 r - + 2 2 2 re

2 w

bp IJ K

w

- pw

q=

For re >> rw

bp - p g FG ln r - r + r IJ m H r 2r 2r K 2 p kh q= bp - p g FG ln r - 1 IJ m H r 2K

2 w w 2 e

e w e w

q

p

rw

pe

pw

re

p=

z bg

V

e

p r dV

2p h f

2 p re2 - rw h f

rw

z bg

re

p r r dr

qm p = pw + 2 p kh

qm 1 Dp = p e - p = 2 p kh 4

LM ln r N r

3 4

OP Q

qr q

pD = p - pw qm 2p kh ln r rw r 2re2

2

6 5 4 3 2 1

re = 400 rw

r re2

2

SS FLOW

SSS FLOW

pD

qr q

100

200

r rw

300

0 400

Fig 1.5.12

Well Productivity Index in a Bounded (Closed) Drainage Area The SSS well inflow equation is:

J sss

qs q = = p - pw B p - pw

g

FG H IJ K

q=

2 p kh p - p w

or in field units:

FG ln r m H r

g 3I - J 4K

hence

J SS S

2 p kh = re 3 B m ln rw 4

J SSS =

11271 10 2 p kh .

FG ln r Bm H r

-3

3 4

IJ K

At Semi-Steady-State (SSS) conditions, pressure gradient with time is constant, no flow closed boundary.

P*=Pe, c=0.5 P =P P*=Pave, c=0 75 c=0.75. Pave , volumetric average pressure. Pe , external boundary pressure.

2kh P* Pw Q= re Ln c rw

At Steady-State (SS) conditions, no variation in P & saturation with time, constant external pressure.

P*=Pe, c=0 P*=Pave, c=0.5.

PI is the ratio of production to the pressure drawdown in the drainage area of a well.

SS, P*=Pe, c=0, P*=Pave , c=0.5. SSS, P*=P c=0.5, P =P SSS P =Pe, c=0 5 P*=Pave, c=0 75 c=0.75.

Q=

2kh

P r Ln e c rw

J=

Q 2kh = P - P

1 r Ln e c rw

JD does not include the impact of reservoir thickness, fluid and rock properties. J

Only depends on drainage area & rw.

JD =

2kh

1 r Ln e c rw

Q= 2kh P r Ln L e c+S rw JD = 1 r Ln L e c+S rw

. . . Multiwell Reservoirs

p1 V1 q1

p4 V4 q4 p2 V2 q2

p3 V3 q3

Fig 1.5.8

Under semi-steady-state (SSS) conditions the reservoir pore volume drained by a well is proportional to that well's production rate i.e.

qi V Vi = qi

Vi determined by planimetering at joint SSS due to Dietz

V = total reservoir

compartment volume

p1 = p 2 = p 3 = p 4

real no-flow boundaries such as sealing faults must be respected before assigning drainage areas

Real no-flow boundaries SUCH AS SEALING FAULTS MUST BEbe such as sealing faults must REAL NO-FLOW BOUNDARIES respected before assigning virtual drainage areas

RESPECTED BEFORE ASSIGNING VIRTUAL DRAINAGE AREAS

p1 V1 q1

p2 V2 q2

p4 V4 q4

p 3 V3 q3

Fig 1.5.9

Deviation from radial flow in non-symmetric drainage caused by well proximity to a physical boundary

Fig 1.6.1

- note the longer length of flow paths and the bunching of streamlines with a non-central well - areal flow convergence effect The basic radial flow equation for SSS is:

qm p - pw = 2 p kh

FG ln r H r

3 4

IJ K

qm 1 pre2 p - pw = ln 2 3 / 2 2 p kh 2 p rw e

where

qm 1 4A p - pw = ln 2 2 p kh 2 g C A rw

J SSS

For non-symmetric drainage areas and well locations and the PI is smaller than that of a well in the centre of a circle e.g. rectangle Dietz evaluated CA for a wide variety of shapes and well positions Especially important in long narrow reservoirs e.g. channel sands and when well is close to a fault

4 p kh = 4A B m ln 2 g C A rw

FG H

IJ K

CA < 31.62

CA = 4.514

CA 30.88 tDAsss 0.1 CA 21.9 tDAsss 0.4 CA 4.51 tDAsss 0.6

Fig 1.6.2

CA 31.6 tDAsss 0.1 CA 0.098 tDAsss 0.9 CA 3.34 tDAsss 0.7

1 2

1/3

7/8

2

2 2

7/ 8

7/8

4 4 4

qm re 3 p - pw = ln - + S A rw 4 2pkh

FG H

IJ K

where:

Total skin factor is a vehicle for allowing for all deviations from ideal radial flow No formation damage contribution to skin in this formulation

1 4p 3 S A = ln + 2 g CA 4

a2

b1 a1

xD = L2 a2

Well

a2 < b2 a1 < b1

b2

L1

yD =

L2

L1

a1

Fig 1.6.3

a = aD L b bD = L c cD = W

A = WL

p wD

b p - p g 2 pkh = 1 ln =

qm

w

4A 2 g C A rw

i.e.

p wD =

ln C A

2p A W2

D D w D

2 2 2 2 D D

g = 0.5772

a 1 = 0 = yD a2 L2

b2

L1

Fig 1.6.4

Reservoir Limit

Clusters

Well

Well Spacing Lc

Overall Block

4 3

Fig 1.6.5b

Cluster

Well

Five

Fig 1.6.6

AREA =

re q

2

After Yaxley

ro q

qo

Well

re

+ (ro,qo)

Fig 1.6.7

CA =

LM 4p F r g exp M G ln MM q H r N

e o

OP 3I qr PP - J + 2 ln 4K FG p q IJ 2p sin H q K PQ

o o

4A

. . . Due to Yaxley

Intersection Angle Well Distance from Apex ro 1 5 10 20 50 100 200 300 350 400

q = 60 Dietz Shape Factor, C 9.5289510-27 2.326410-18 3.430410-15 3.5127510-12 3.350010-8 3.430410-5 3.5127510-2 2.0256 9.46298 35.9706

q = 90 Dietz Shape Factor, C 7.116310-16 1.7790710-10 1.138610-8 7.287110-7 1.7790710-4 1.138610-2 0.7287 8.3004 20.9305 46.6372

Table 6.1 Dietz Shape Factors for a Well on the Bisector of Intersecting Faults (re = 1000, rw = 1) Yaxley formula is valid provided ro < 1/3 re Use default value of 31.62 if formula predicts a larger value

ideal profile altered profile

pe

Dps

pw pwf rw rs

For a variety of reasons there is often an annular region of altered permeability around the wellbore

Since most of the pressure drop in radial flow occurs within the region from rw to 100rw near wellbore permeability alteration is very important

Formation damage

Fig 1.7.1

ks

Dps

p wf

pw

Ideal Pressure Profile Based on Homogeneous Permeability, k Actual Pressure Profile Steepened by Reduced Permeability, k s, in Altered Zone

pe

ks . . . Altered Zone Permeability rs . . . Extent of Alteration pwf . . . Actual Bottom-hole Pressure Dps . . . Incremental Pressure Drop

rw

rs

Fig 1.7.1

pm

Dpmc psf

ql

pf

Spurt Loss

Dynamic Filtration

Static Filtration

psf - pf . . . Excess Formation Pressure "Supercharging" pm - pf . . . Mud Overbalance psf . . . Sandface Pressure pf . . . Formation Pressure

Time

Fig 1.7.2

Saturation Profiles

Sw

ql

1-Sor Swc

FLUSHED ZONE

t1

ri =

t2

Qe pf 1 - S or - S wc

Qe

rw

ri(t1)

ri(t2)

Fig 1.7.3

Piston-like displacement with the creation of a flushed zone at residual oil saturation

Mud fluid loss rate depends on the overbalance and the filtration properties of the drilling mud

Depends on porosity and cumulative fluid (mud filtrate) injected Q l = cumulative fluid loss per unit height of formation

ri (t)

ri =

Ql p f 1 - Sor - S wc

Often

ri

is synonomous with

rs

PRESSURE PROFILE IN THE FORMATION BASED ON UNALTERED PERMEABILITY k

SKIN

Dps

pw

pw f

pw f

D ps

= INCREMENTAL SKIN PRESSURE DROP Incremental skin pressure drop (POSITIVE FOR DAMAGE) (Positive for Damage)

D ps qm 2p kh

pw

D ps

Fig 1.7.6

. . . Due to Near Wellbore Permeability Improvement i.e. Stimulation Possible Actual Profile Region of Increased Permeability

Dps

"Skin"

pw

pwf

S=

qm 2p kh

Dp s

Fig 1.7.7

Formation of Permeability, k

pe

pwf

reff rw

Dps

rw, eff = rw e - S

re

Fig 1.12.1

pe

re re p D = ln + S = ln rw rw ,eff

pwf

reff rw

Dps

Well Radius

Effective

re

\ S = ln rw - ln rw ,eff

rw ,eff = rw e

-S

or S = ln

rw rw ,eff

Hawkins Equation

rs

ks rw re

Fig 1.7.8

Hawkins Equation

(Open-Hole)

qm rs qm rs Dp s = ln ln 2 p k sh rw 2 p kh rw

LM F k - 1I ln r OP GH k JK r Q N LM F k - 1I ln r OP Dp S= = G JK r Q qm NHk 2 p kh

qm Dp s = 2 p kh

s s s w s s w

Pressure Drop that would have occurred if the Permeability was unaltered

8 6 4 2 0 k s=

k 2

Damaged Zone

20 40

rD

60

80

100

Fig 1.7.9

Gas Block Around an Oil Well where BHP is Below the Bubble Point

pb pw f

rw

Fig 1.7.10

Flow Occurs across Bedding Planes Hence Vertical Permeability is Important

PARTIAL PENETRATION

V ERTICAL FLOW CONV ERGENC E ADDITIONAL PRESSURE DROP REQUIRED PARTIAL COMP LETION

Fig 1.9.1

GAS OIL BEARING RESERVOIR HIGH GOR HIGH WOR WELL WELL

WATER

OG C

Fig 1.10.1

WOC

Fig 1.10.2

Pressure Distribution in Oil Phase is Little Affected by Presence of Static Cone

O OW C

qc

ho

pw + rwhap

hap

pw

pe pe + roghap

Fig 1.10.3

C ri ti c a l Ra t e F o r G a s F r e e P r o d u c ti o n

pw - rg g h a p

ho

hap

hp

pw

pe - r0 g h ap

pe

Fig 1.10.4

Flow

Plugged Perforation

Fig 1.9.5

hp theor.

PRESUMED SITUATION E F F E C T IV E P E R F O R A T E D I N TE R V A L R EV E A L E D BY PRODUCTION LOGGING

DR AW DO WN IS RE DU CED BY

eff.

hp

INCREA SED AND P.I. AD DITIO NAL F LOW CONV ERG ENCE

Fig 1.9.8

hp

hs

Top or Bottom

hs

Central

hp

hp

hs

b=

hp h

hD =

k hs k v rw

General Position

Fig 1.9.2

30 25 20 15 10 5 20

Sp

= 10000

hD = k h k z rw

Correlation

Marting

Brons and

100

1000

b = Penetration Ratio

0.1

b=

0.4

hp h

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fig 1.9.3

Based on Homogeneous Theory i.e. uniform horizontal and vertical permeabilities

Lack of Knowledge of the Effective or Average (macroscopic) Vertical Permeability Does not Allow for Layering

pD

Sa

Sp

Sd

NO DAMAGE NO CONVERGENCE

rD

Superposition of Skin Effects Due to Partial Completion and Damage Fig 1.9.4

hp

rw

ks

Al te red Zon e

rs

Fig 1.9.6

Limited Entry with Formation Damage hp rw ks Fig 1.9.6 rs Flow convergence zone

Altered zone

Incremental Pressure Drop over the Altered Zone Note that hp is used in this formulation

p e - p wf

qm re = ln + S p rw 2 p kh

FG H

IJ K

qm rs qm rs Dp d = ln ln 2 p k s h p rw 2 p kh p rw

qm h Dp d = 2p kh h p

or

s

Dp d = Sd qm 2 p kh

s w

FG k - 1IJ ln r Hk K r =

s

LM F k - 1I ln r OP GH k JK r Q N

s s w

is the intrinsic or true skin factor Formula due to Rowland and Jones and Watts

S tr Sd = b

The effect of damage is enhanced by a limited entry due to the The inflow equation including damage effect and geometric skin becomes: The total skin effect is written as: increased velocity through the altered region Total Apparent Skin

S tr Sd = b

p e - p wf

qm re S tr = ln + S p + 2p kh rw b

FG H

IJ K

S tr Sa = Sd + S p = + Sp b

pws

ETR

MTR

LTR

m SLOPE , m = 4p k h ln tp + D t Dt 0

p*

Hence St r

Sa = S d + Sp =

S tr b

+ Sp

Fig 1.9.7

a

-2 0 15o 30o 45

Sswp

Deviated Wells

-6

-4

10

h rw

10

a =75

60o

o

10

Fig 1.11.1

h

Effect of Deviation i.e. Flow Divergence Expressed as Another Component of the Skin Factor viz. S sw p

2. 06 1. 865

S swp

0 < a <75

FaI = -G J H 41K

o

FaI -G J H 56 K

h > 40 rw

F h I log G JK H 100 r

w

S a = S d + S swp =

b=

h a s co

hp h

S tr b

h cos a h

+ S swp

cos a

i.e. b > 1

2pk Dp s qm h cos a =

where: S tr =

F k - 1I ln r GH k JK r

s

Fig 1.11.2

Sc = Sdamage + Sperforation

q=

2p kh p e - p wf

w

FG ln r m H r

IJ +S K

a

where:

Sa = Sc + S p

Sc =

Sc,tr b

xf

re

Double Wing Fracture

xf

= Fracture Half-Length

xf

Fig 1.12.2

h

re

xf

xf

xf . . . Fracture Half Length

rw ,eff

xf = 2

provided

re >2 xf

Radius of Investigation

J sss =

or

F ln r BmG H r

2pkh

e

w ,eff

3 4

I JK

rw ,eff

xf = 2

J sss

2pkh = re 3 Bm ln - + Spr rw 4

FG H

IJ K

2rw Spr = ln xf

w

p e - p wf

qm = 2 p kh

FG ln r H r

IJ +S K

p De =

p e - p wf = ln rD e + S qm 2 p kh

J SS

qs = = p e - p wf

2 p kh re B m ln +S rw

FG H

IJ K

p - p wf

or

qm = 2 p kh

FG ln r H r

3 - +S 4

IJ K

pD

Index

SSS Productivity

p - p wf 3 = = ln rDe - + S qm 4 2 p kh

J SSS qs = = p - p wf

FG Bm H

2 p kh re 3 ln - +S rw 4

IJ K

1

Generalised Formulation

SSS

PI

JSSS =

Bm

OIL VISCOSITY

1 ln 4 A 2 2 g Ca rw

2p k h

5 WELL SPACING

3 WELLBORE DAMAGE

6 WELL DIAMETER

Fig 1.8.1

pwf

pr

VLP

IPR+S

dqs

IPR-S

qs

dqs

Fig 1.8.2

Flooding Pattern

50 49 43 38

Five Spot

C O NF I N E D

P R OD U C E RS

70 57 54

62

46

IN J E C T I O N WELL

30

51

Steady-State, Homogeneous

Fig 1.8.3

Steady-State, Single-Phase Flow Layer Skin Factors Zero q Common External Pressure, p e

Stratified Reservoir

pe

q1 q2 q3

pw

k2 h 2 k3 h3

pe

Fig 1.13.1

2p k i h i pe - pw qi = re m ln rw

g

N

\ qi = q =

N i =1

2p k i h i re m ln rw

i =1

bp - p g

e w

Layered System

q = Sqi

pe

q1

S1

w

q2 p q3

Reservoir Communication

S3

S2

k1 h1 k2 h2 k3 h3

Applicable to Perfect Layered or Stratified Systems with a Common Pressure on Each Flow Face Perfect Layered System

k=

k h

N i =1 N i

h

i =1

k h

N i =1 i

LAYER N

kN

hN

i

LAYER i ki hi

Fig 1.13.3

k1

h1

k N-1 kN

p1

k i+ 1 k3 k i- 1 ki

k N-2

p2

k2

k = k 1 k 2 ... k i ... k N -1 k N

1/ N

Fr e q u ency

Fig Fig 1.13.4 1.15.4

Log k

West Seminole San Andres Unit (Exxon)

Well Falloff (md.ft) 1094 1008 533 944 599 889 1306 Test kh Arithmetic (md.ft) 910 732 637 446 467 868 Mean Core kh

Geometric (md.ft) 242 312 355 265 193 197 335 Mean

Core kh

1008

Geometric Average

Permeability Averages

kG = P ki

N i =1

FH

IK

1/ N

kA =

k

N i =1

Harmonic Average

kH =

. . . Vertical Flow Perfect Layering kA and kH are Upper and Lower Limits Respectively of Average Permeability

1 k i =1 i

N

Gas Permeability - 1

Klinkenburgh, non-zero velocity at pore walls.

Slippage of gas molecules along the solid grain when the pores diameter is in the range of the gas free path. A function of pressure, pore pressure size and gas type (smaller the molecules, larger effect).

kG = kL +

m P

Gas Permeability - 2

Compressibility.

Use of Boyls law (P1V1=P2V2=>P2/(2Pb) instead of P).

Low viscosity gas dictates higher velocities for same P. If Darcy law is used, k decreases at higher velocities used velocities.

10

3

102

10

10

(After Juhasz)

10-1

WELL A, Upper Jurassic

Fig 1.15.6

10-1

100

101

102

103

Darcy Equation.

dP = v dx k

dP = v + v 2 dx k

Forcheimer Equation

r

inertial term is important only if

dp m = u + br u dr k

is comparable to

2 r

br u r

m /k

r

br u k br u Re = = 0.1 m m k

r

Forcheimer Equation. q

dP = v + v 2 dx k

Irregular, chaotic fl I l h ti flow of fluid, Turbulent

Fig 1.2.2

Laminar Flow

Reynolds Experiment

E. Sketne

Dp DL = av

Re p =

D p rv m

< 2100

Hagen-Poiseuille Equation

Re p =

D p rv m

Dp DL

Dp DL

= av + bv 2

= av

Darcys Law

is a fundamental rock property. p p y Core laboratory. Available correlations. Field, open hole with homogenous porous medium.

Field with any non-uniformity in flow, different from lab data.

Laboratory Measurement

Core flow at incremental flow rates. Real gas law & Forchiemer Eq.

z & =f(P), negligible. i slope of y vs. x. is l f

M W (P1 P2 )A W 1 = + 2zRTLW A k

2 2

Y = x +

1 k

Laboratory Measurement

Clashach Core, Swi=0%, k=553 mD 2.7E+12 2.5E+12 2.3E+12 2 3E+12 2.1E+12 1.9E+12 1.7E+12 0 2000 4000 x /m

-1

Y /m-2

y = 1.035E+08x + 1.699E+12

/m

-1

6000

8000

10000

From Correlations

There are numerous correlations in the literature. First correlation, Janicek and Katz (1955)

k in md and in (1/cm).

1.82 108 = 54 34 k

k in m2 and in (1/ft).

k in mD and in (1/ft).

Field Measurement

High velocity an additional skin. g y Variable rate test, essential.

Stabilized or Transient.

e.g., Isochronal test or Step rate transient.

ST = S + DQ sc

from D. D

kM w Psc D= hr RT 2 sc w

Clashach, Swi=0, 90 degree phasing 80 70 60 Total Skin (ST) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 0 0.5 05 1 1.5 15 2 Q /MMSCFD 2.5 25 3 3.5 35 Lp /inch 3 6 9 12 15 Open Hole Li (3)

ST = S + DQ sc

Lp *1E-8 /in /m-1

(from Slope) )

S

(intercept)

3 6 9 12 15 OH

pwf

pe

DpND = Bqs

VLP

pwh

Operating Point

slope = - A Dp ND

qs

IPR

Fig 1.16.2

DpsD

DpsND

rw

Damaged Region

ks

(unaltered formation permeability)

rs

Fig 1.16.3

- EBO 3 ExercisesUploaded by13670319
- ENI_-_Completion_Design_Manual.pdfUploaded byJuan Pablo Estikle
- ENI - Completion Design ManualUploaded byJuan Pablo Estikle
- ENI - Completion Design Manual.pdfUploaded byRhuddy Rodrigo Galvez Terrazas
- History matching ReportUploaded bysergey
- HW paperUploaded byAli Shah
- Permeability ConsiderationUploaded bysumprerona
- 7. InterpretationUploaded bymohamed_books
- Resumen de RegistrosUploaded byJohn Freddy Ramirez Vargas
- Brine Injection StudiesUploaded byMonica Urbieta
- Sonatrach's _Well TestingUploaded byFabian Vargas
- bakkerUploaded byVinh Duong
- Suzuki2017_Fracture Network Created by 3D Printer Validation CT ImagesUploaded byRosario Pacheco Serrano
- Chapter 5 FILTRATION AND SEPARATION IN GEOTEXTILESUploaded bysrokkam
- PBU PracticeUploaded byLeng Chai
- Darcy's Law & ApplicationsUploaded byEmad Aamer
- 1_FormationPressureUploaded byBenjamin Hagan
- SPE-950083-GUploaded byEdwin Vargad
- 2Analysis of Asphalt Concrete Permeability Data Using Representative Pore SizeUploaded byFasdarsyah
- A AUploaded byLuis Cardoso
- Reservoir Modeling Unit 004Uploaded byashraff09
- Evaluation of Hot-Brine Stimulation Technique for Gas Production From Natural Gas HydratesUploaded byBEN
- IcpUploaded byOksita Widyayanti
- PERMEABILITY TO RESIDUAL WATER SATURATION IN OIL SATURATED PLUGSUploaded bypahlawankemaleman
- 03 FormationProperties RAWUploaded byBond Say Hii
- Phd Mat Ringe 08Uploaded byHugo Duchovny
- UIHW#Farhan#04Uploaded byfarhan syari
- correia2015.pdfUploaded bykhelil mohamed
- Predicting Sand ProductionUploaded byMarcelo Ayllón Ribera
- OTC-18820-MSUploaded byDavid Montoya

- Basics of Oil & Gas Log AnalysisUploaded bywaqargeo
- CSP Math CourseUploaded byDanOtah
- How to Write Your PhD ProposalUploaded bycukey13
- Project Quality Assurance-General Requirements 1.pdfUploaded byDanOtah
- ATERROS an Introduction to Sanitary LandfillsUploaded bySoniaSegerMercedes
- Epa Landfill Operational PracticesUploaded byJhon Jairo Mazuera Guzman
- Full_Report_of_the_Ad-Hoc_Committee_on_Subsidy_Regime.pdfUploaded byDanOtah

- Gas Coning FinalUploaded byLuis Jesus Aguilar
- RC Column Design (ACI318-05)Uploaded byRizwan Mirza
- 3.6 Bernoulli's PeincipleUploaded byPauling Chia
- (1993) Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering Conflicts Between Desingn and RealityUploaded byalvaro_ave
- Industrial+Boilers+Product+catalogue+Uploaded bysilgec1988
- Vertical VaporizersUploaded byMeravigliorso76
- 4 - Spatial Degrees of FreedomUploaded byUltrazord
- #2 Pipes Class & Thickness (Handout)Uploaded byfarhan
- BHEL centrifugal compressorUploaded byJitendra Jaiswal
- Chiller 30XA_catalog -1Uploaded byPaul Kwong
- Coiled Tubing UBD Drilling _Bit Selection and Drill String DesignUploaded byOladokun Motunrayo Khadijah
- Design and Development of Vibratory Bowl FeederUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Chapter 10Uploaded bybea_sc
- 72e7e521c6f6785082Uploaded byJose Edisson Medina Alvear
- Chapter 4- Solar PanelUploaded byavocadocolor
- 1MEP-FILE-WITH-ANSWERS_3.docxUploaded byAshish B Pandey
- 06.07110706Uploaded byAkhil Zaqui
- racUploaded byapi-279049687
- The competitive role of wear and RCF: Full scale experimental assessment of artificial and natural defects in railway wheel treadsUploaded byfelipeo83
- Storageofsolids 141126102453 Conversion Gate02Uploaded byIrfan Mohammad
- 13-Steam Turbines [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded bys siva
- Modern PhysicsUploaded bynallilatha
- Electrical Properties of Semiconductors.pdfUploaded byApril Wilson
- CO2 Evaporator Design Technical Bulletin.pdfUploaded bybioarquitectura
- photonic products industrial laser modulesUploaded byWendy Seegar
- Near Infrared TransmissionUploaded byAudry Arias
- EE2224 - Solid Mechanics - Stress StrainUploaded byPreedep Baradidathan
- Climatic ChangeUploaded bysubhenduhati
- NMR Spectroscopy in IndiaUploaded byAakash Patil
- Reinforced Concrete Column1Uploaded byZitheeq Umar