PBM5153

WELL TEST ANALYSIS

Linear Discontinuities (Sealing Faults)

May 2021 Semester

DR BERIHUN MAMO NEGASH

Petroleum Engineering Department

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 1

Content
▪ Diffusivity equation
▪ Infinite acting reservoir (transient flow)
▪ No-flow outer boundary (PSS)
▪ Constant-pressure outer boundary (SS)
▪ Superposition in space – revision
▪ Method of Images
▪ Superposition in time – revision
▪ Distance to faults

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 2

 LESSON OUTCOME

Apply superposition in space to model

behavior of a well in the vicinity of a fault.

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 3

DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : INFINITE ACTING RESERVOIR (TRANSIENT FLOW)

• The line source solution in terms of field variables is given as

For values of x less than 0.01
2
𝑞𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟
𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖 + 70.6 𝐸𝑖 − 𝐸𝑖 −𝑥 = ln 1.781𝑥
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡
= − 2.303 [log x + 0.25]

The line source solution is an approximation, so we

Assumptions
1. Slightly compressible fluid
2. Laminar (Darcy) flow
3. Small and constant fluid
compressibility
4. Isothermal conditions
5. Negligible gravity effects
6. Homogeneous porous media • How will the solution for a closed circular reservoir
7. Infinite acting
must define the limits of its applicability.
5 𝜙𝜇𝑐 𝑟 2 2
3.975 𝑥 10 𝑡 𝑤 948𝜙𝜇𝑐 𝑡 𝑟𝑒
<𝑡<
𝑘 𝑘
Discussion question
• What limits the applicability of the line source
solution at early times and late times?
differ from the line source solution at times after
the line source solution become invalid?

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 4

DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : INFINITE ACTING RESERVOIR (TRANSIENT FLOW)

• The line source solution in terms of field variables is given as

For values of x less than 0.01
2
𝑞𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟
𝑝 = 𝑃𝑖 + 70.6 𝐸𝑖 − 𝐸𝑖 −𝑥 = ln 1.781𝑥
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡
= − 2.303 [log x + 0.25]

The line source solution is an approximation, so we

Assumptions
1. Slightly compressible fluid
2. Laminar (Darcy) flow
3. Small and constant fluid
compressibility
4. Isothermal conditions
5. Negligible gravity effects
6. Homogeneous porous media 2. Greater than the upper limit the reservoir
7. Infinite acting
must define the limits of its applicability.
3.975 𝑥 105 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒2
<𝑡<
𝑘 𝑘
1. Less than the lower limit the assumption of zero
well size limits the accuracy
boundaries will affect the pressure distribution
and the reservoir is no longer infinite acting

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 5

 Diffusivity Equation : NO-FLOW OUTER BOUNDARY (PSS)

CONSTANT PRODUCTION RATE, NO-FLOW BOUNDARY

1   P  ct P
Equation: r = (34)
r r  r  k t
Initial Condition: P(r ,0) = Pi (35)

Boundary Conditions:
2kh  P 
Inner Boundary q= r  (36)
  r  rw

 P 
Outer Boundary   =0 (38)

 r  re

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 6

 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : NO-FLOW OUTER BOUNDARY (PSS)

Applying the material balance equation using compression definition,

ct  V  dp = −dV
or
dp dp qB
ctV = − qB  =−
dt dt ct re2 h
Substitute into diffusivity equation,
1   p   ct  qB  1   p  qB 
r =  −    r  = −
r r  r  k  t e
c  r 2
h  r r  r   r 2
e kh

Integration yields,
p qB  r 2
r =− + C1
r 2 re kh
2

According to outer boundary condition,

qB  re2 qB 
0= − + C  C =
2 re2 kh 2 kh
1 1
 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : NO-FLOW OUTER BOUNDARY (PSS)

𝜕𝑝 𝑞𝐵𝜇 1 𝑟
Substitution yields = 2𝜋𝑘ℎ − Volume averaged reservoir pressure
𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝑟𝑒2

Integrating again • The pressure decrease 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝ҧ results

from removal of qB RB/D of fluid for t
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟 𝑟2 𝑟𝑤2
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = ln − 2 + 2 hours
2𝜋𝑘ℎ 𝑟𝑤 2𝑟𝑒 2𝑟𝑒
• a total removed of 5.615qB (t/24) ft3] is
𝑟𝑤2
The term ≈ 0 since 𝑟𝑤 ≪ 𝑟𝑒 . At 𝑟 = 𝑟𝑒 , we
2𝑟𝑒2
have ∆𝑉 5.615𝑞𝐵 𝑡ൗ24
𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝ҧ = =
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟 1 𝐶𝑡 𝑉 𝐶𝑡 𝜋𝑟𝑒2 ℎ𝜙
𝑝𝑒 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 2𝜋𝑘ℎ ln 𝑟𝑒 − 2 - - - - - - SI Unit
𝑤
0.0744𝑞𝐵𝑡
=
In this case, we can see that the pressure change 𝜙𝐶𝑡 ℎ𝑟𝑒2
with respect to time is independent of time
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟 3
𝑝𝑒 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 141.2 ln 𝑟𝑒 − 4 - - - Field Unit
𝑘ℎ 𝑤

𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑘𝑡 𝑟 3
When 𝑝𝑒 = 𝑝ҧ 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 141.2 0.000527 𝜙𝜇𝐶 𝑟 2 + ln 𝑟𝑒 − 4
𝑘ℎ 𝑡 𝑒 𝑤
 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : NO-FLOW OUTER BOUNDARY (PSS)

Adding the skin factor and using field Note that,

unit 1. for a damaged well, the average permeability is lower
than the true, bulk formation permeability
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟𝑒 3
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 141.2 𝑙𝑛 − + ∆𝑃𝑠 2. for a skin factor of zero the average permeability and
𝑘ℎ 𝑟𝑤 4 the true, bulk formation permeability are the same.
3. For a stimulated well, the average permeability is higher
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟𝑒 3
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 141.2 𝑙𝑛 − + 𝑠 than the true, bulk formation permeability
𝑘ℎ 𝑟𝑤 4
Productivity Index (J)
Average permeability
𝑞 𝑘𝐽 ℎ
We can define an average permeablity 𝐽= =
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 141.2𝐵𝜇 𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 3
such that 𝑟𝑤 4
Flow efficiency (FE), Damage Ratio (DR), and Damage Factor
𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟𝑒 3
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 141.2 𝑙𝑛 − 𝑞
𝑘𝐽 ℎ 𝑟𝑤 4
𝐽𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓
Hence 𝐹𝐸 = = 𝑞
𝐽𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑠 = 0
𝑟 3 𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 − ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4
𝑤 1
𝑘𝐽 = 𝑘 DR = ; DF = 1 − FE
𝑟 3
𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4 + 𝑠 𝐹𝐸
𝑤
 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : NO-FLOW OUTER BOUNDARY (PSS)

Example
Analysis of a Well From a PI Test. A well produces 100 STB/D oil at a measured flowing
bottomhole pressure (BHP) of 1,500 psi. A recent pressure survey showed that average reservoir
pressure is 2,000 psi. Logs indicate a net sand thickness of 10 ft. The well drains an area with
drainage radius, re, of 1,000 ft; the borehole radius is 0.25 ft. Fluid samples indicate that, at
current reservoir pressure, oil viscosity is 0.5 cp and formation volume factor is 1.5 RB/STB.
1. Estimate the PI for the tested well.
2. Estimate formation permeability from these data.
3. Core data from the well indicate an effective permeability to oil of 50 md. Does this imply that
the well is either damaged or stimulated? What is the apparent skin factor?
1 3 𝑟 3
𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4
𝑞 100 𝑆𝑇𝐵 𝑘𝐽 = 𝑘 𝑤
𝐽= = = 0.2 𝑟 3
𝑝 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 2000 − 1500 𝑃𝑠𝑖 ∗ 𝐷 𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4 + 𝑠
𝑤
2 𝑘 𝑟 3
𝑟 3 𝑠= −1 𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4 = 16
141.2𝐽𝐵𝜇 𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 4 ℎ 𝑘𝐽 𝑤
𝑤
𝑘𝐽 = = 16 𝑚𝑑
ℎ
 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : CONSTANT-PRESSURE OUTER BOUNDARY (SS)

CONSTANT PRODUCTION RATE, CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY

1   P  ct P
Equation: r = (34)
r r  r  k t
Initial Condition: P(r ,0) = Pi (35)

Boundary Conditions:
2kh  P 
Inner Boundary q= r  (36)
  r  rw

Outer Boundary P(r = re , t ) = Pi (39)

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 11

DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION : CONSTANT-PRESSURE OUTER BOUNDARY (SS)

From the diffusivity equation

1   p 
r  = 0
r r  r 
we have
p
r =C
r
Separation of variables and integration yield
r r dr r
rw dp = C rw r  p − p wf = C ln
rw
Applying the inner boundary condition, at r = rw
k p p qB 
q = 2 rh r = =C
 B r r 2 kh
Therefore we have
qB r
p = pwf + ln
2 kh rw (SI Unit)
 METHOD OF IMAGES
Method of Images
• The method of images states that a fault or a single, no-flow boundary can be represented by
an imaginary well, producing at the same rate as the producing well, situated an equal
distance on the other side of the fault as the producing well.
• The fault is thus eliminated, and we are left with a two well system in an infinite acing
reservoir that can easily be solved with superposition.

𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓
𝑊𝑃
= 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑊𝑃 + 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑊𝑖 =

𝑞𝑊𝑃 𝐵𝜇 1688𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2 𝑞𝑊𝑖 𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 2𝐿 2

−70.6 ln − 2𝑠 − 70.6 𝐸𝑖 −
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡 𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡

• In the presence of a linear boundary, a plot of ΔP versus t

on semi-log graph paper produces the usual straight line
of slope m,
• As t becomes large, the slope gradually increases to 2m.
6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 13
 METHOD OF IMAGES
Example – Superposition in space - modeling a well near a fault
Suppose a well is 350ft due west of a north-south trending fault. From pressure
transient tests, the skin factor, s, of this well has been found to be + 5.0. This well has
been flowing at a constant rate of 350 STB/D for 8 days. The following data describe
the well and formation. Calculate the pressure at the flowing well.

rw = 0.333 ft
h= 50ft
B = 1.13 RB/STB
re = 3,000 ft
k= 25 md
Pi= 3,000 psia
Φ= 0.16
Ct = 2 X I0-5 psia-1
μ = 0.5 cp

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 14

 METHOD OF IMAGES
Solution – Superposition in space - modeling a well near a fault
1. First, we set up the appropriate image well. To model this fault on the basis of the
method of images, we must have the equivalent system.
2. We can then consider this as a multi well problem. From superposition,

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 15

 METHOD OF IMAGES
Solution – Superposition in space - modeling a well near a fault

(P − p )i wf WP
= ( Pi − p )W + ( Pi − p )W
P i

𝑃𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓
𝑊𝑃

𝑞𝑊𝑃 𝐵𝜇 1688𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2 𝑞𝑊𝑖 𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 2𝐿 2

= −70.6 ln − 2𝑠 − 70.6 𝐸𝑖 −
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡 𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡

(p ) wf WP
= 2687 psia
6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 16
 METHOD OF IMAGES
Superposition in space - modeling a well near a fault
Suppose the boundary is as shown, how many image wells are required?

Case 1 Case 2
Case 3

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 17

 Distance to boundary
ESTIMATING DISTANCE TO BOUNDARIES FROM BUILDUP TESTS

This figure illustrates the technique which uses superposition in space.

Constant rate production for a well near a boundary is simulated by:
 qB    kt  
pi − pwf = 162.6  * log  2 
− 3.23 + 0.869 s  +
 kh     ct rw  
(48)
 qB    −948 ct (2 L) 2  
 70.6  *  − Ei  
 kh    kt 

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 18

 Distance to boundary
 qB    k (t p + t )  
pi − pws = 162.6  * log  2 
− 3.23 + 0.869 s  +
 kh     ct rw  
 (−q) B    k (t )  
162.6  * log  2 
− 3.23 + 0.869 s  −
Build-up  k     ct rw  
(49)

 qB    −3792 ct ( L) 2  
 70.6  *  Ei    −
 kh    k (t p + t )  

 (−q) B    −3792 ct ( L) 2  
 70.6  *  Ei  
 kh    k ( t ) 
This equation (49) can be simplified and written as
𝑞𝐵𝜇
𝑝𝑤𝑠 = 𝑝𝑖 − 162.6
𝑘ℎ
(𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2 −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2 (50)
∗ log − 0.434 𝐸𝑖 + 0.434 𝐸𝑖
Δ𝑡 𝑘(𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) 𝑘(Δ𝑡)

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 19

 Distance to boundary
• Equation (50) predicts that, initially, the usual middle-time region will
develop, however at later times, the data will deviate from the
established semi-log straight line of the middle-time region.
• The term pMT is the pressure on the extrapolated middle time semi-
log straight line and ΔpL is the difference between pMT and
measured BHP.

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 20

 Distance to boundary
To estimate the distance to the fault, we determine ΔPL which is the difference in the Ei
functions,

Δ𝑃𝐿 = 𝑃𝑤𝑠 − 𝑃𝑀𝑇 = 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃𝑤𝑠 − 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃𝑀𝑇

𝑞𝐵𝜇
𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑠 = 162.6
𝑘ℎ

(𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2 −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2

∗ log − 0.434 𝐸𝑖 + 0.434 𝐸𝑖
Δ𝑡 𝑘(𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) 𝑘(Δ𝑡)

𝑞𝐵𝜇 (𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) −948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (2𝐿)2

𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑀𝑇 = 162.6 ∗ log + 0.434 ∗ 𝐸𝑖
𝑘ℎ Δ𝑡 𝑘(Δ𝑡)

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 21

 Distance to boundary

𝑞𝐵𝜇 −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2 −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2 −3792𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 (𝐿)2

Δ𝑝𝐿 =70.6 −𝐸𝑖 + 𝐸𝑖 − 𝐸𝑖
𝑘ℎ 𝑘(Δ𝑡) 𝑘(𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) 𝑘(𝑡𝑝 )

(51)

In special case when tp >> Δt equation (51) reduces to

 qB    −3792 ct ( L) 2  
pL =  70.6  *  − Ei  
 kh    k ( t )  (52)

Equation 52 can be solved directly or by trial and error for L

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 22

 Distance to boundary
When sufficient shut-in time has elapsed so that the logarithmic
approximation applies to the Ei functions, the buildup equation
becomes

𝑞𝐵𝜇 (𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡) 𝑞𝐵𝜇 (𝑡𝑝 + Δ𝑡)

𝑝𝑤𝑠 = 𝑝𝑖 − 162.6 log − 162.6 log
𝑘ℎ Δ𝑡 𝑘ℎ Δ𝑡

𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑡𝑝 +Δ𝑡
= 𝑝𝑖 − 2 162.6 ∗ log (53)
𝑘ℎ Δ𝑡

(𝑡𝑝 +Δ𝑡)
= 𝑝𝑖 − 2𝑚 log
Δ𝑡

Equation 53 shows that the slope of a buildup-test plot eventually will

double for a well near a barrier, such as a sealing fault. When the slope
doubles, the distance to the boundary can be estimated in a simple way.
6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 23
 Distance to boundary

• In the presence of a linear

boundary, a plot of ΔP versus t
on semi-log graph paper
produces the usual straight line
of slope m,

• As t becomes large, the slope

gradually increases to 2m.

6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 24

 Distance to boundary
The distance, L from the well to the fault is given by the empirical
equation:
0.000148𝑘Δ𝑡𝑥 1/2
𝐿=
𝜑𝜇𝑐𝑡
(54)
Δ𝑡𝑥 = the point of intersection of the middles and late time

This method of estimating the distance to a fault is appealing because

of its simplicity. Unfortunately, it is not applicable because the time
required for the slope to double can be long as:

3792 ct L k t  0.01
2
or t  3.8*105  ct L2 / k

For large L or small k, the slope will not double during a typical buildup
test and this method will not apply.
6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 25
 …

The End
6/28/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 26