You are on page 1of 67

Well Test Analysis

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
First Complication: Wellbore Storage
Wellbore Storage
Wellbore Storage

When a wellbore is opened to


flow, it is opened at the surface
(Figure 2). The early
production comes from the
decompression of fluids in the
wellbore and other wellbore
effects, and not from fluids in
the reservoir. This effect is
referred to as unloading, a
form of wellbore storage.

Figure 2
Wellbore Storage
Figure 3 shows the difference that
exists in the flow rate at the surface
and the flow rate at the sandface, or
perforations. There is a time delay
before the flow rate from the
reservoir equals the flow rate at the
surface. Essentially, this wellbore
storage effect causes the reservoir
flow rate to gradually, rather than
instantaneously, reach the surface
flow rate. It is important that we
incorporate or account for the
wellbore unloading when we
interpret the pressure/flow data Figure 3
collected during a well test.
Quiz: Wellbore Storage
Just as there is a delay in flow-rate response during the opening of a
well for a drawdown test, there is also a delay when a well is shut in
at the surface to begin a buildup test ( Figure 4 ).

In this case the surface flow stops instantaneously, while the sandface
flow gradually drops to zero. This condition is a second wellbore
storage effect that is often referred to as after flow.

After-flow must also be incorporated into the interpretation of buildup


test data.
Wellbore Storage

Figure 4
Flow Regime

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Pseudo Steady state
Skin Effect
Skin Effect

Figure 5
Skin Effect

Figure 6
Damage caused by Production
Skin Effect
Skin is the term used to refer to the alteration of permeability that
exists near the wellbore.

The skin factor, s, is used to quantify the skin. If the well has been
damaged, there is an additional pressure drop at the wellbore for a
given flow rate and the skin factor is positive. If the well has been
stimulated and the pressure drop at the wellbore has been decreased,
the skin factor is negative.

We should point out that, unlike well-bore storage, which has an effect
only on the early data, the skin effect is constant throughout a well test
(unless the skin is a function of flow rate). A supplemental positive or
negative pressure drop caused by the skin remains throughout the test.
Its magnitude will change as the flow rate changes.
Drawdown Test- No Damage
Reasons for Positive Skin

Overbalanced drillings (filtrate loss)

Damaged perforations

Gravel Pack

Unfiltered completion fluid

Fine migration after long-term production

Non darcy flow (predominantly in gas wells)

Condensate banking (act like turbulence)

Partial completion
Pre-Acid Treatment Post-Acid Treatment
Perforation Damage Completion Damage
Reasons for Negative Skin

Acidizing

Hydraulic Fracturing

- Frac Pack (0 to -0.5)


- Hard rock Frac (up to -6)

Natural Fractures
Solution Incorporating Skin
Drawdown Test
Ei function solution
Ei -function solution (line-source solution) is first proposed by Matthews and Russell in
1967. It is based on the following assumptions:
Infinite acting reservoir, i.e., the reservoir is infinite in size.
The well is producing at a constant flow rate.
The reservoir is at a uniform pressure, , when production begins.
The solution has the following form:
70.6 948 2
, = + (1)

where, p(r,t) = pressure at radius r from the well after t hours


t=time, hrs
k=permeability, md


=flow rate,
Q=o STB/D

Logarithmic approximation
For x<0.01, the function has the following
logarithmic approximation:
= ln(1.781) (2)
948 2
where, =

Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 gives:

(3)
For the bottomhole flowing pressure, i.e., @r= , at any time, Eq. 3
can be rewritten as:

p wf pi
162.6Qo Bo o kt
log

3.23 (4)

o ct rw
2
kh
The skin effect
Skin due to damage Skin due to stimulation

(ks > k)

(ks < k)
The skin effect contd

Where
141.2
= (5)

= additional pressure drop due to skin effect
S= skin factor

Skin factor (S) is a dimensionless variable used to quantify the magnitude of skin effect.
Incorporating skin into the Ei-Function solution
For rw r rs
70.6 948 2
, = + 2

For r > rs
70.6 948 2
, = +

For r=rw
70.6 948 2
= + 2

Log approximation to the Ei-Function

For r=rw
162.6
= 2 3.23 + 0.8686

Skin and permeability
Skin and permeability contd

2 1
=
log 2 log(1 )
Question 1

A well has been produced at a constant rate of 250 STB/D.


During the flow period, bottom-hole flowing pressures were
recorded as tabulated below. The following rock and fluid
properties are known:

Estimate permeability and skin factor.

=4412 psi h= 69 ft
=0.8 cp =3.9%
=0.198 ft = 17e-6 psi-1
B=1.136 bbl/STB
Solution

162.6 162.6 250 0.8 1.136


= = = 7.65
70 69

1
= 1.151 + 3.23
2

4412 3652 7.65


= 1.151 + 3.23
3582 psi 70 0.039 0.8 17 106 0.1982
=6.355
Radius of Investigation

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Well Testing and the Ideal Reservoir
Model

A well test, in its simplest form, consists of disturbing the reservoir


by producing from or injecting into a well at a controlled flow rate
for a period of time and measuring the pressure response at the
production or injection well, or at some nearby observation well.

The pressure response, which depends on the rock and fluid


properties beyond the wellbore, is then used to describe the unknown
reservoir system.
The "Ideal" Reservoir Model

We shall describe the reservoirs pressure response to flow during a test


by considering the very simplest reservoir model;

One with single-phase, radial flow in a homogeneous, isotropic reservoir


with an "outer boundary "that may be considered "infinite," and a
constant flow rate at the wellbore.
The "Ideal" Reservoir Model

All flow occurs radially through a horizontal reservoir between


impermeable upper and lower reservoir boundaries. The well fully
penetrates the reservoir vertically and is fully perforated.

The reservoir rock and fluid properties are assumed to be uniform


throughout the reservoir and the fluid properties are assumed to be
independent of pressure.

In reality no reservoir satisfies all of these assumptions; however, we


can compare the actual reservoir response with the ideal case for
equivalency or divergence. We may refer to this model as the ideal
reservoir model and use it to describe the simplest expected pressure
response during well testing.
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown
Test
With an ideal model, we can
show that if the reservoir
pressure is initially constant
throughout and equal to pi, and
the well is opened to flow at
constant rate along its full
wellbore thickness, a pressure
transient will move out radially
from each point in the wellbore
with time. A specific example,
which we shall refer to as the
base case, is shown in Figure 1
(The Base Case: The pressure
transients in an ideal transient radial
flow from a wellbore during a Figure 1
drawdown test).
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown
Test

A test that involves opening the well to flow at a constant rate is called
a drawdown test. The pressure response is a form of pressure
transient, and our interpretation of it comprises one aspect of
pressure transient analysis.

If we solve the equations that describe transient radial flow into the
wellbore for our "ideal" reservoir model, it is then possible to specify
the pressure distribution in our reservoir as a function of time.
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown
Test
Radius of Investigation

The radius of investigation is the maximum radius at which a significant


pressure disturbance has been propagated. Its approximate position at
any given time can be calculated using the expression

1
kot 2
ri
948 o c t
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown
Test

For the drawdown test pressure


response shown in Figure 1 (The
base case), we have plotted the
radius of investigation versus
time in Figure 2 (The effect-of-
mobility ratio: the radius
investigation versus flow time
during a drawdown test).

Figure 2
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown
Test

There are two important conclusions that can be drawn from this information: first,
we note that if a well test is intended to investigate a certain distance into the
reservoir, the required duration of the test will depend upon the relative values of
permeability, fluid viscosity, porosity, and total compressibility.

Equation 1 implies that if the mobility of one reservoir is five times less than that of
another, the former must be tested 5 times longer if the same radius is to be
investigated in both cases. This assumes, of course, that the porosity and fluid
compressibility are the same in both cases.
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown Test

The second conclusion we may draw for our ideal reservoir system is
that the radius of investigation does not depend upon the production
rate.

The pressure transient will move outward to the same distance in the
same period of time whether the production rate is high or low. (The
rate affects only the magnitude of the pressure response.)

Considering the conclusion in isolation, then, we need not conduct


flow tests at high rates. However, the production rate should be
constant throughout the test and should be such that we can accurately
measure the pressure response with the tools we have available.

We observe, then, that the radius of investigation concept provides a


guide for well-test design.
Variables That Affect the Shape of the Pressure Transient During a Drawdown
Test

We should look once again at the shape of the pressure transient as it


moves outward in the reservoir and see what properties will cause it to
change.

Let us consider the base case ( Figure 1 ) and see what happens as we
change one variable at a time. The results are given in Figure 3 (The
effect of mobility on pressure transients during a drawdown test) and
Figure 4 (The effect of production rate on pressure transients during a
drawdown test).
Reservoir Pressure Response During a
Drawdown Test

Figure 3
Reservoir Pressure Response During a
Drawdown Test

Figure 4
Pressure Transients During a
Drawdown Test in a Finite Reservoir
It is helpful to see how the
pressure profiles change in a
reservoir that is not "infinite." To
do so we must modify our
theoretical model to show a finite
volume reservoir with an
impermeable barrier. Let us use an
enclosing no-flow outer boundary
with an outer radius of re. No flow
takes place across this outer
radius. In Figure 5 (The effect of a
finite reservoir outer boundary on
pressure transients)
Figure 5
Pressure Transients During a Drawdown Test in a
Finite Reservoir

we see that the presence of a finite outer boundary with an outer radius
of re will not affect the pressure profile until the radius of investigation
reaches re, but that thereafter the pressure profile drops more rapidly.

This occurs because, in the finite case, all of the production must
come from the finite reservoir volume.
Pressure Transients During a Drawdown Test in a Finite Reservoir

In effect, as we see in Figure 6 (The reflection of a pressure profile at a


sealing fault) and Figure 7 (The reflected pressure profile reaches
wellbore) the pressure transient, upon reaching the barrier, is reflected
back toward the wellbore. In Figure 6 the reflection has not reached the
wellbore; in Figure 7 it has.

Prior to the pressure transient reaching the finite outer boundary, we have
what is referred to as transient flow conditions.
Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown-
Buildup Test Sequence
The pressure distribution
in the reservoir is shown
in Figure 8 . Note that the
well is shut in at t = t4 and
that the pressure builds up
thereafter. In buildup
tests, except for the early
influence of decaying well
rates on pressure
response, the majority of
test data relate to a
condition where the rate is
zero and thus not
changing. Figure 8
Injectivity and Fall off Tests

Figure 9
Early, Middle and Late Time
Pressure Behavior

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Early, Middle and Late Time Pressure Behavior
Typical drawdown test pressure behavior
Early time flow is dominated by wellbore storage.
Middle time (transient) flow is a period where the
reservoir act as an infinite. i.e. a semilog plot of
Pwf versus t is a straight line which can be used
to determine permeability.
Late time flow is a flow period where the
pressure data is dominated by boundary effects.
Can be used to calculate the size and shape of
the reservoir.
Early time region (ETR) pressure behavior
During drawdown During buildup
Early time region (ETR) pressure behavior

Falling/rising fluid
level

1/
Falling/risin
g fluid level
Early time region (ETR) pressure behavior

Falling/rising
fluid level
Effect of wellbore storage on pressure
Example 2: Wellbore storage calculation
The well is 2600 ft deep and has 6.625, 24lb/ft casing (5.921 ID). The bottomhole pressure is
1690 psi. If the well is filled with water ( = 4 106 1 ). What is the wellbore storage
coefficient?

Solution:
For fluid filled wellbore
=
=
2 2
2
5.921 1
= = = = 0.191 2
2 2 144

= 0.191 2 2600 = 497.154 3

6 3
3
= 497.154 4 10 = 1.989 10


= 3.542 104

Wellbore storage from pressure transient test data

From material balance, the pressure in


the wellbore is directly proportional to
time during wellbore storage dominated

(psi)
Unit slope
period of the test line


=
24
Where = for drawdown and
= @=0 for buildup

On log-log plot of pressure drop ( )


(hrs
versus time, this gives a characteristic )
straight line of unit slope. 170000 0.14 (hr)
= (bbl/psi)
24 =

Example 3: Wellbore storage calculation from PTT
p=pi-pwf, p=pi-pwf,
Determine wellbore storage t, hrs psi t, hrs psi
coefficient (C) from the data and 0.0109 24 0.437 648
0.0164 36 0.491 698
table below, which were obtained 0.0218 47 0.546 744
in a pressure drawdown test on 0.0273 58 1.09 1048
0.0328 70 1.64 1172
an oil well. 0.0382 81 2.18 1232
0.0437 92 2.73 1266
q=500 STB/D rw=0.3 ft 0.0491 103 3.28 1288
0.0546 114 3.82 1304
=0.2 h=56 ft
0.109 215 4.37 1316
=0.8 cp Bo=1.2 RB/STB 0.164 307 4.91 1326
Ct=1e-5 psi-1 Pi=3000 psia 0.218 389 5.46 1335
0.273 464 6.55 1349
0.328 531 8.74 1370
0.382 592 10.9 1386
0.437 648 16.4 1413
0.491 698
Example 3: Wellbore storage calculation from PTT

10000 . .
= =


1000 = . /
p, psi

100
(0.045 hrs, 100
psi)
10

1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
, hrs
Middle time region (MTR) pressure behavior

During this period, the reservoir is producing fluids, and pressure versus time data contains reservoir
information.
The straight line on semilog graph, whose slope is related to effective permeability of the flowing
phase, usually occurs during this period.
The straight line is called the correct semilog straight line
Late time region (LTR) pressure behavior

During this period, the pressure transient encounters reservoir


boundary.
The semilog curve deviates from the straight line established
during the middle-time region.
The bottomhole flowing pressure for a no-flow boundary can be
estimated using:

0.234 162.6
= 2 log + 0.351 + 0.869

Late time region (LTR) pressure behavior

Based on late time straight line on Cartesian plot of vs. :

0.234
=

0.234
= ( 3 )

The time to reach pseudo steady-state in a cylindrical reservoir can
be estimated from:
1190 2
= (hr)

ETR, MTR and LTR pressure behavior
0.234 162.6
= 2 log + 0.351 + 0.869


=
24

162.6
= 3.23 + 0.869
2