Well Testing in Horizontal Well For Calculation Productivity Index

TRIPOLI UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Well Testing In Horizontal Well For Calculations

Productivity Index
Prepared By
Fouad Aghill Abdaullah Eqswella & Mohammed Ali Sasi
& Abdelraouf Mohammed Bin Halim
Supervised by
Dr . Said . Edbieb
Spring : 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all we would like to thank ALLAH the Merciful and

Almighty for giving us the support and power to finish this
work
We would like to thank our families specially our parents for their
asking Allah for us to do this project successfully.
We are extremely grateful to our advisor Dr. Said Edbieb for his guidance
and patience during this study. The discussions with him were always very
enlightening, and we thank him very much for his advice and generosity
on several occasions.
Special thanks to Engineering Planning Department in Waha Oil Company

for supplying the data for Wells: B-88-H , B-90-H , B-92-H .
We would like to extend my gratitude to the faculty staff and colleagues in

the Petroleum Engineering Department especially Eng. Mohammed Shwikat
& E n g . A b d A l r r a z z a g A l i S o u l i m a n for providing a cooperative
and friendly atmosphere throughout our stay at University of Tripoli.
I
D E DI C A T I O N
This project is dedicated with all our heart to our beloved

Parents and our dear Brothers and Sisters
II
Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................... I
Dedication............................................................................................... II
Table of Contents................................................................................. III
List of Tables....................................................................................... IX
List of Figures...................................................................................... IIX
Abstract.................................................................................................. XIV
Chapter One
General Overview of Horizontal Wells
1.1 Introduction................................................................................ 1
1.2 Limitation of Horizontal Wells.................................................... 4
1.3 Horizontal Well Applications...................................................... 5
1.4 Advantages Of Horizontal Well.................................................. 5
1.5 Disadvantages Of Horizontal Well................................................. 6
1.6 Drilling Techniques..................................................................... 6
1.7 Completion Techniques.............................................................. 7
1.7.1 Open Hole Completion............................................................... 9
1.7.2 Slotted Liner Completion............................................................ 9
1.7.3 Liner with Partial Isolations........................................................ 10
1.7.4 Cemented and Perforated Liners................................................ 11
1.8 Skin Damage in Horizontal Wells........................................... 11
1.9 Pressure Transient Analysis (Well Testing)................................. 13
III
Chapter Two
Oil Field (Over View)

2.1 Introduction............................................................................. 17
2.2 Production History................................................................. 19
2.3 Shut - in wells & workover plan review.......................... 22
2.4 Pressure H 24
2.5 Future P 25
Chapter Three
Productivity Index
3.1 Introduction................................................................................ 28
3.2 Productivity Index in Vertical Wells......................................... 30
3.3 Productivity Index in Horizontal Wells..................................... 35
3.3.1 Productivity of Horizontal Wells under Steady-State................ 40
3.3.1.1 Borisov s Method....................................................................... 40
3.3.1.2 The Giger-Reiss-Jourdan Method.............................................. 41
3.3.1.3 Joshi s Method........................................................................... 42
3.3.1.4 The Renard-Dupuy Method....................................................... 43
3.3.2 Productivity of Horizontal Wells under Pseudo-Steady State.... 45
3.3.2.1 Mutalik et...al. Method............................................................... 46
3.3.2.2 Babu and Odeh Method............................................................. 50
3.3.2.3 Kuchuk et al. Method................................................................. 54
IV
Chapter Four
Productivity Index Calculations
4.1 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-88-H....................... 57

4.1.1 Productivity Index Calculation under Steady State Condition 59
4.1.2 Productivity Index Calculation under Pseudo-Steady State
Condition.................................................................................... 63
4.2 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-90-H...................... 68
4.2.1 Productivity Index Calculation under Steady State Condition.... 70
Condition....................................................................................... 74
4.3 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-92-H........................ 79
4.3.1 Productivity Index Calculation under Steady State Condition.... 1
Condition.................................................................................... 85
Chapter Five
Conclusion
Conclusion.............................................................................................. 94
References............................................................................................... 96
VIII
List of Tables
Table
2.1 Well classification of dahra(pL-7) reservoir as of december

2011 18
2.2 Dahra( PL-7)reservoir Data summary December 2011 21
2.3 Dahar (pL-7) reservoir status of shut in wells as of December
2011 23
2.4 Ten years sbhp survey and production data comparison Dahra
(pL-7) reservoir 25
2.5 Dahra (pL-7)reservoir five years plan .. 26
3.1 (Shape related skin factor SCA,h for horizontal wells for various
well penetration and different rectangular drainage areas) 49
3.2 (Values of dimensionless function, F, for calculation of
productivity of horizontal wells) 55
4.1 Productivity Index Calculation For Well B-88-H 57

4.2 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-90-H . 68
4.3 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-92- 79
IX
List of Figures
Figure
1.1 A Schematic of a vertical well drilled perpendicularly

to the bedding plane and a Horizontal well drilled
parallel to the bedding plane...................................................... 3
1.2 A Schematic of different drilling techniques........................ 7
1.3 Open hole completion..................................................................... 9
1.4 Slotted liner completion................................................................. 10
1.5 Liner with partial isolation.......................................................... 11

1.6 Cemented and perforated liners............................................... 11
1.7 Ideal and actual damage zone................................................... 13
1.8 Pressure response to change of the flow rate.................... 15
2.1 Dahra PL-7 top satal structure map.................................... 17

2.2 Dahra( PL-7) reservoir well Location map 18
2.3 Dahra(pL-7)reservoir production performance as of December
2011 19
2.4 Dahra( PL-7)reservoir water cut map as of December
2011 ....................................... 22
2.5 Dahra( PL-7) reservoir isobaric map Survey last Quarter
2011 24
2.6 Dahra (pL-7)reservoir oil production rate forecast 26
XII
List of Figures
3.1 Productivity index during flow regimes................................ 29

3.2 A Sketch of a reservoir with a constant pressure boundary.. 31
3.3 A Sketch of a reservoir with no-flow boundaries.................. 34
3.4 Vertical well drainage area.................................................... 35
3.5.A Horizontal well drainage area............................................... 36
3.5.B A Three-Dimensional ellipse of horizontal well.................. 36
3.6 Multilateral and multi drain hole well.................................. 37
3.7 Joshi proposed the following two methods for calculating
the drainage area of a horizontal well................................ 38
3.8 A Schematic of a horizontal well located in a
rectangular drainage volume............................................... 46
.9 Shape related skin factor, SCA,h for horizontal well in a
square drainage area ( b / a ) =1............................................ 48
3.10 Shape related skin factor, SCA,h for horizontal well in a
square drainage area ( b / a ) =2........................................... 48
3.11 Shape related skin factor, SCA,h for horizontal well in a
square drainage area ( b / a ) =5........................................... 49
XIII
Chapter Overview of Horizontal wells
One
General Overview of Horizontal Wells

1.1 Introduction:
In the last few years, many horizontal wells have been drilled around
the world and become more capturing. The major purpose of a
horizontal well is to enhance reservoir contact and thereby enhance well
productivity, a long horizontal well provides a large contact area, and
therefore enhance well injectivity. Horizontal wells offer the following
advantages over those of vertical wells:
Higher sweep efficiency and larger injected area.

Lower injection pressure requirement for injecting fluids compared
to vertical wells.
Reduced unfavorable influence from gas cap drive or active aquifer
drive mechanisms.
Increased drainage area per well.
Less environmental impact due to fewer wells needed to be drilled
for accessing a large formation area below a small land or an off
shore platform.
Large volume of the reservoir can be drained by each horizontal
well.
Higher productions from thin pay zones.
Horizontal wells minimize water and gas coning problems.
In high permeability reservoirs, where near-wellbore gas velocities
are high in vertical wells, horizontal wells can be used to reduce
near-wellbore velocities and turbulence.
In secondary and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications, long
horizontal injection wells provide higher injectivity rates.
The length of the horizontal well can provide contact with multiple
fractures and greatly improve productivity.
During the period of 1980 to1984, only one or two horizontal

wells were drilled worldwide. In 1988 that number of horizontal wells
One
jumped to over 200 wells. Since, a gradual increase in wells has been
noticed, with 1570 wells drilled in 1994. Industry projections in the
year 2000 over 5000 wells were drilled horizontally.
Until a few years ago, the usefulness of horizontal wells has been
demonstrated only in North America and Western Europe. The
potential of horizontal wells has been recognized throughout the Middle
East, but specifically in Oman radical changes have been observed. By
the end of 1994 the numbers of horizontal wells were more than 200 in
Oman, 80 in Saudi Arabia, 50 in Abu Dhabi, 20 in Kuwait and 6 in
Egypt.
The horizontal drilling started in Libya (1995), many

companies now using this way to drill many wells to productivity
increase 2-3 times, compared with vertical drilling, void many
problems, like water conning or other problems and to reduce number
of wells drilled in the field.
Now in Libya, Some of the horizontal wells are cased or completed

as open hole, according to the reservoir characteristics and the length of
the horizontal section may be between (600-3500) ft.
In general, a horizontal well is drilled parallel to the reservoir

bedding plane. Strictly speaking, a vertical well is a well which intersects
the reservoir bedding plane at 90o. In other words, a vertical well is drilled
perpendicular to the bedding plane as shown in the Figure (1-1).
One
Figure (1-1): A Schematic of a vertical well drilled perpendicularly to the

bedding plane and a Horizontal well drilled parallel to the bedding plane.
Some reservoir bedding planes are almost vertical. Thus, while

analyzing horizontal well performance, Geometric configuration of the
reservoir bedding should be considered.
A typical horizontal well is different from a vertical well because

productivity of a well depends upon the well length. Moreover, the well
length depends upon the drilling technique that is used to drill the well.
ling engineers work together
to choose the appropriate drilling technique which will give the desired
horizontal well length.
The other important consideration is well completion scheme; one

can have an open hole, insert a slotted liner, insert a liner with external
casing packers, or case the hole and perforate the casing. Depending upon
local completion needs and experience, of the completion affects
horizontal well performance, thus, well length, the
in the reservoir and the type of completion that can be achieved depending
upon the drilling method.
One
different drilling techniques and appreciate different factors that influence

on horizontal well performance. A horizontal well project requires a
multidisciplinary for an economic success.
1.2 Limitation of Horizontal Wells:
As mentioned before, the major advantage of horizontal well

is a large reservoir contact area. Currently, one can drill as long as
(3000 to 4000 ft) long well, providing significantly larger contact area
than a vertical well. The major disadvantages is that only one pay zone
can be drained per horizontal well, however horizontal have been
used to drain multiple layers, this can be accomplished by two methods:
1. One can drill a "staircase'' type well where long horizontal

portions are drilled in more than one layer.
2. One can cement the well and stimulate it by using propped

fractures.
The vertical fractures perpendicular to the wells could intersect more

than one pay zone and thereby drain of each pay zone and intermediate
barriers.
The other disadvantages of horizontal wells are their cost.

Typically, it costs about 1.4 to 3 times more than a vertical wells
depending upon drilling method and the completion technique employed.
An additional factor in cost determination is drilling experience

in the given area. As more and more wells drilled in the given area a
significant reduction in drilling costs over time and experience, and
produce reserves in a shorter time span a vertical well.
1.3 Horizontal Well Applications:

One
Horizontal wells have been used effectively in the following applications:
1. In naturally fractured reservoirs, used to intersect fractures and

drain them.
2. In reservoir with water and gas coning problems, to
minimize conning and enhance oil production.
3. In gas production, horizontal wells can be used in low permeability

as in high permeability, in low permeability reservoirs horizontal
wells can improve drainage area per well. In high permeability
reservoirs, where near-wellbore gas velocities are high in
vertical wells, horizontal wells can be used to reduce near-
wellbore velocities. Thus, horizontal wells can be used to reduce
near-wellbore turbulence and improve well deliverability in high-
permeability reservoirs.
4. In EOR applications, especially in thermal EOR, because of
large contact area and therefore enhances injectivity of an
injection well, this especially beneficial in EOR applications.
5. Offshore wells (drain from one platform), In remote locations and

in environmentally sensitive areas (under cities reservoirs).
1.4 Advantages Of Horizontal Well:
1. High rates and reserves as compared to vertical well.

2. Expose more reservoir with single wellbore.
3. Reduce WOR (water oil ratio) in water drive reservoirs by parallel to
high Permeability trends.
4. Eliminate or reduce water or gas coning by reducing localized
pressure draw down.
5. It can be used for injecting steam for improving mobility of heavy
oil.
6. It improves the productivity of wells as the well cover a long
horizontal length inside the reservoir.
One
1.5 Disadvantages Of Horizontal Well :
1. High cost as compared to vertical well .

2. Generally only one zone at a time can be produced using a horizontal
well.
3. cementing of casing in horizontal wells is more complex as compared
to a vertical well.
4. Effective cementing of liners is difficult because cement settles to low
side of hole.
5. perforating ,if requires special tools and is costly due to long intervals.
6. Wire line work is costly as special equipment is required.
7. future workover are more complex because of the need for
specialized equipment.
8. Specialized artificial lift equipment may be required.
1.6 DrillingTechniques:
The drilling techniques to drill horizontal wells and drainholes are

classified into four categories, depending upon their turning radius.
Turning radius is the radius that is required to turn from the vertical to
horizontal direction. The four categories are:
1. Ultra-short: Turning radius is 1 to 2 ft, build angle is 45o to

60o/ft. In this technique, (100-200) ft long drainholes are drilled
using water injection.
2. Short: Turning radius is 20 to 40 ft, building angle is 2o to 5o/ft,

in this technique, and drain holes are drilled either through a cased
or through an uncased vertical well.
3.Medium: Turning radius is 300 to 800 ft, building angle is

6o to 20o/100ft this is becoming a predominant method to drill
horizontal wells; Because of the generous turning radius.
4. Long: Turning radius in 1000 to 3000 ft, build angle is 2o to
6o/100 ft. very long wells can be drilled using this technique.
One
Figure (1-2): A Schematic of different drilling techniques.
Ultra short R=1-2 ft L=100-200

Short radius R=20-40 ft L=100-
Medium radius R=300-800 L=1000-
Long radius ft 4000ft
From reservoir standpoint the turning radius is very important

because certain acreage and lease size restrict the use of certain technique,
for example, in 40- radius
well.
1.7 Completion Techniques:
The completion phase of a well development is a term generally

One
used for a well that is prepared for production after drilling is
completed. It follows therefore that during the exploration, appraisal and
development testing of wells, a temporary completion is used as the
well is temporarily produced to gain valuable reservoir data for the future
development of the field.
The completion design engineer has to tailor each completion,

not just to a specific reservoir but often to a specific well. Completion
design is influenced by numerous factors such as, temperature,
pressure, effluent type / characteristics, reservoir type / characteristics,
expected productivity and so on. It is therefore no surprise that the
completion has an enormous impact on the productivity potential of a
well and its life throughout the production cycle.
There are two main categories of completions to consider with, of course;
1. Open hole Completions.

2. Cased hole Completions
1. Open hole Completions:
An open hole completion is when the well is drilled to the top of

the target formation and the casing is cemented at this stage. Drilling is
continued across the target formation and then the well is completed
and produced. Open hole completions are only possible in compete
rocks that will hold their form and not cave in or crumble, so called hard
rock environments. This technique is generally associated with many
apparent disadvantages:
1) No possibility for selectively producing or treating different

zones.
2) Limited control of water or gas encroachment.
One
2. Cased Hole Completion:
A cased hole completion is when the well has been cased and
cemented across the target formation and requires shaped charge
perforation to achieve communication between the formation and the
wellbore. This is the most common form of completing wells.
Completion Types in Horizontal Wells:
As mentioned before, it is possible to complete horizontal wells as

open hole, with slotted liners, liners with external casing packers, and
cemented and perforated liners. The choice of completion method
can have a significant influence on well performance
1.7.1 Open Hole Completion:
Open-hole completion is inexpensive but is limited to competent

rock formations. Additionally, it s difficult to stimulate open-hole wells
and to control either injection or production along the well length. A few
early horizontal wells have been completed open hole but the present
trend is way from using open hole completions, except in formations such
as Austin chalk.
Figure (1-3): Open hole completion.
1.7.2 slotted liner completion:

One
The main purpose of inserting a slotted liner in a horizontal well
is to guard against hole collapse. Additionally, a liner provides a
convenient path to insert various tools such as coiled tubing in a
horizontal well. Three types of liner have been used:
a. Perforatedliners, where holes are drilled in the liner.
b. Slotted liners, where slots of various width and depth

are milled along the liner length.
c. Prepacked liners, Slotted liners are susceptible to

lugging. In unconsolidated formations, wire wrapped
slotted liners have been used effectively to control sand
production.
The main disadvantage of a slotted liner is that effective

well stimulation can be difficult, due to the open annular space
between the liner and the well. Similarly, selective production and
injection is difficult.
Figure (1-4): Slotted liner completion.
1.7.3 Liner with Partial Isolations:
There are external casing packers have been installed outside the
slotted liner to divide a long horizontal wellbore into several small
sections. This method provides limited zone isolation, which can be used
for stimulation of production control along the well length.
One
Normally horizontal well are not horizontal, rather, they have
many bends and curves. In a hole with several bends, occasionally
it may be difficult to insert a liner with several external casing packers.
Figure (1-5): Liner with partial isolation.
1.7.4 Cemented and Perforated Liners:
It is possible to cement and perforate medium and long radius wells.

As noted earlier, at the present time, it is not economically possible to
cement short radius wells, cemented used in horizontal well completion
Should be have significantly less free water content than that used for
vertical well cementing. This is because in a horizontal well, due to gravity,
free water segregates near the top portion of the well and heavier cement
settles at the bottom. This results in a poor cement job. To void this it is
important to conduct a free water test for cement at least at 45 o, in addition
to or instead of, the conventional API free water test, which is conducted
in the vertical position.
Figure (1-6): Cemented and perforated liners.

One
1.8 Skin Damage in Horizontal Wells:
While drilling the well a drilling fluid invasion near wellbore

zone and cause a zone of reduced permeability around the wellbore.
After the well putting on the production, it found the measured

bottom-hole flowing pressure was less than that calculate
theoretically. This indicates to an additional pressure drop over that
calculated theoretically. Moreover, that pressure drop was found to be
independent of time. This term is called skin factor . That skin factor
caused in pressure drop formed due to a small zone of changed or
reduced permeability around the wellbore.
Normally skin factor are estimated using Drill Stem Test (DST) or
pressure build up test. The pressure loss in the skin region in a
horizontal well is smaller than that in a vertical well, see Figure (1-8),
this is because the fluid entry into wellbore per unit length of
horizontal well is much smaller than that for a vertical well.
The pressure drop in the skin region for a horizontal well is

considerably small than that for a vertical well. This shows the
stimulation treatment to remove near-wellbore damage would have less
effect on the productivity of a horizontal well than on the productivity
of a vertical well. It is important to estimate pressure loss in the skin
zone and compare it with the overall pressure drop from the reservoir to
the wellbore pressure. This comparison can be used to determine a need
for horizontal well stimulation.
In many reservoirs, especially in low-permeability reservoir, the

damage form from drilling vertical well can be removed by fracture
stimulation, but the damage due to horizontal wells will be larger than
that in vertical drilling, resulting in a conical shape damage zone,
Figure (1-8), the damage zone can significantly reduce productivity of
a horizontal well.
One
Figure (1-8): Ideal and actual damage zone.
1.9 Pressure Transient Analysis (Well Testing):
One of the greatest problems facing the petroleum engineer is that of

characterizing the physical nature of the subterranean reservoir from which
the crude oil or gas is produced. There are several ways by which it is possible
to gain information about the reservoir characteristics; the most important are
transient pressure testing of wells, core analysis and well logs interpretation.
One
Different types of well tests and the type of parameters measured or
calculated. A well test essentially consists of recording the down-hole
pressure response due to changes in flow rate. A disturbance is created in the
reservoir by changing the flow rate, and measuring the associated pressure
response.
Figure (1-8): Pressure response to change of the flow rate.
The pressure response, which is a function of reservoir characteristics

and the production history, can be interpreted by combined the pressure
change with time for fluid flow in the reservoir rock surrounding the well,
allows parameters of the flow system such as permeability to be established
by inference, and by matching of the characteristics of the response to a known
model is the basis of well test interpretation. Moreover the information gained
is not restricted in scope to the immediate vicinity of the well-bore as is the
case for data from logs. One of the advantages of transient pressure testing is
that it yields average values of permeability taken over substantial volumes of
rock.
One
Chapter Two Oil Field (over view)
2.1 Introduction:-
The Dahra (PL-7) reservoir is located in the southern part of the
Concession 32. Figure (2-1) is the structure map on top of the Upper Satal or(
PL-7) carbonate of the Lower Paleocene and is divided into three layers with
effective vertical and lateral communication between each layer. This
communication along with the presence of the regional aquifer has resulted in the
lateral encroachment of the water with an effective water drive. The average
depth of the reservoir is about 2500 feet, while the original oil-water contact was
at 2556 feet. The average net pay, porosity and water saturation were 56.3 feet,
28.7% and 59.8%, respectively. The booked original oil-in-place (OOIP) is 1122
MMSTB and the recoverable reserves is 316 MMSTB based on a recovery factor
of 28 %.
Figure(2-1):- Dahra PL-7 top satal structure map
A total of 95 wells were drilled in this reservoir as it shown on Figure (2).

Figure(2-2):- Dahra( PL-7) reservoir well Location map
the classification of these wells as of December 2011 is shown in Table (1).
Table(2-1):- Well classification of dahra(pL-7) reservoir as of december 2011
In order to produce the remaining oil, accelerate the oil production,

and produce the remaining reserves in timely manner, drilled horizontal
wells in this reservoir and the current average well spacing is 313
acres/well.
Total Re-completed in Converted to
Shut- Observati Re-completed in
Wells Producing P&A PL5 Res. (Gas water source
in on Well DPL-6 Res.
Drilled Wells) wells
96 24 26 37 4 1 1 3
2.2 Production History :-
The first well tested oil in the PL-7 formation was B-1 in November
1958. Commercial production started in July 1962 at an oil rate of 29,000
BOPD as shown in Figure (3). The oil production peaked in the fourth
quarter of 1966 at 44,600 BOPD and declined to 6,500 BOPD as of
December 2011.
FIGURE (3)
DAHRA PL - 7 Reservoir Production Performance As Of December 2011
1300
Reservoir Pressure
1200
Pi = 1129 psi
1100
Avg. BHP = 972 psi
1000
900
800
700
100
Wells in Production
80 W.C % Avg. WC =88%
60
24 Wells
40
20
1.E+06
Cum. Oil = 287.5 MMSTB
1.E+05
Oil Rate = 6,500 BOPD

1.E+04
1.E+03 Cumulative Oil Produced (Mbbls)
Oil Rate ( Calender Day) (bbls)

1.E+02
Figure(2-3):- Dahra(pL-7)reservoir production performance as of December 2011.

The reservoir data summary is shown in Table (2).
Basic reservoir data

1 Formation Producing PL-7
2 Top 3,700 Ft. KB
3 Datum depth 2,480 Ft. SS.
4 Total producible wells 49
5 Wells currently producing 24
6 Productive average 30,060 Acres
7 Current Average well spacing 313 Acres/well
8 Average net pay 56.3 Ft
9 Original BHP at datum 1129 Psig
10 Reservoir temperature at datum 151 deg F
Average rock properties
11 Porosity 28.7 %
12 Permeability (horizontal) 34.5 md
13 Water saturation 59.8 %
Fluid Properties
14 Saturation pressure 398 psig
15 Differential Solution GOR 149 Scf/STB
16 Flash solution GOR 140 Scf/STB
17 1.133 RB/STB
F.V.F at Original pressure
18 Current reservoir pressure 972 psig
19 API Gravity at 60 deg F 39.8 deg API

Reserves
20 Original oil in place 1122 MMSTB
21 Original gas in place 157.080 BScf
22 Recovery mechanism Water Drive
23 Oil recovery factor 28.2 %
24 Gas recovery factor 28 %
25 Recoverable oil 316 MMSTB
26 Recoverable gas 44.240 BScf
27 Cum. Oil Production 287 MMSTB
28 Cum. gas Production 40,245 MMScf
Table (2-2):- Dahra( PL-7)reservoir Data summary December 2011.
As of December, 2011, the cumulative oil production was 287.5

MMSTB which represents a recovery of 25.6 % of the OOIP and 90.8 % of
the recoverable reserve. The cumulative water production was 806.4
MMBBL; the Water cut as of December, 2011 was 88 %. Figure (4). shows
the water cut map.
Figure(2-4):- Dahra( PL-7)reservoir water cut map as of December 2011.
2.3 Shut - in wells & worover plan review:

Dahra PL-7 shut-in wells and the recommended actions are summarized
in Table (3).
Shut-
Well Last Prod. Test Shut-in Recommended Expected Rate
in
No. Date Date Bopd WC% Reason action Bopd WC%
Mar.
B-05 Jan. 09 45 95 ODH Install Pump 45 95
09
Dec. Dec.
B-28 22 99 HWC To be tested in overlaying DPL6 22 99
07 07
B-32 Jul. 07 Jul. 04 83 90 ODH Install Pump 90 90
May. May.
B-33 30 99 HWC Under Evaluation 100 95
10 10
Mar. Feb.
B-47 4 99 Low PI & HWC To be tested in overlaying DPL6 4 99
09 09
B-48 Jul. 97 Oct. 96 60 96 HWC Workedover & No flow line 60 96
Mar. Mar.
B-59 111 94 ODH Install Pump 111 94
09 09
Sep.
B-62 Oct. 06 28 91 ODH Underevaluation 80 91
06
Aug.
B-69 Jul. 10 30 90 ODH Under Evaluation 50 90
10
Feb.
B-77 Jan. 05 168 92 Fish in hole Recover Fish 168 92
05
Mar. Feb.
B-84 132 89 ODH Install Pump 132 89
09 09
Sep. Sep.
B-85 34 99 Pipe stuck in hole Recover Fish 150 89
06 06
Aug. 800-
B-89 Jul. 10 23 98 HWC Under Evaluation 40
10 1200
B- 800-
Jan. 11 Jan. 11 18 98 HWC Under Evaluation 40
91H 1000
14 1012
Table(2-3):- Dahar (pL-7) reservoir status of shut in wells as of December 2011
2.4 Pressure history :
The original reservoir pressure was 1129 psig at 2480 ftss as reported in
1962. The weighted average static bottom hole pressure in the 2011 was
calculated as 972 psig at a datum depth of 2480 ftss. Figure (5), shows the
isobaric map. This pressure represents a decrease of only 157 psig from the
initial reservoir pressure and indicates that the reservoir is producing under a
strong bottom water drive mechanism.
Figure(2-5):- Dahra( PL-7) reservoir isobaric map Survey last Quarter 2011
The Table (4), Shows the history of the static bottom hole pressure and
production data for the last ten years.
Aug. Aug. Sep. Jun.

Date of survey Aug.06 Dec.07 Dec.08 Dec.09 Dec.10 Dec.11
02 03 04 05
No. of wells surveyed 30 26 7 10 22 36 27 44 30 24
Average SBHP @ datum 975 963 997 954 953 980 986 980 968 972
Pressure change (psi) 2 -12 34 -43 -1 27 6 -6 -12 4
Oil prod. rate (BOPD) 6,215 7,100 5,871 5,965 6,875 6,420 5,696 5,782 6,401 6,500
Water prod. rate (BWPD) 47,440 60,249 48,084 45,103 54,963 53,400 45,676 42,328 46,310 42,629
Total fluid rate (BFPD) 53,655 67,349 53,955 51,068 61,838 59,820 51,372 48,110 52,711 49,129
Cum. oil prod. (MMSTB) 270 272 275 277 279 282 284 285 287 287
Cum. water prod. (MMSTB) 662 680 704 721 741 759 777 788 803 806
Cum. fluid prod. (MMSTB) 932 952 979 998 1,021 1,041 1,061 1,073 1,091 1,094
Table(2-4): Ten years sbhp survey and production data comparison Dahra (pL-7)reservoir
2.5 Future plan:

The production rate forecast for PL-7 reservoir is shown in Figure (6).
as illustrated in Table (5), The future plan consists of the following:
*Evaluation and Reactivation of shut-in wells.
*Complete the reservoir simulation study which was suspended due to

Teknica office has been closed in January 2008.
The objectives of the study are as follows:
Update reservoir description, OOIP and reserves.
Recommend optimum depletion strategy technically and

economically.
Investigate the feasibility of optimum EOR process to further
improve the reservoir oil recovery.
The implementation and recommendations of the Study.

Figure(2-6):- Dahra (pL-7)reservoir oil production rate forecast.
Work Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Evaluation & Reactivation of the shut-in

wells.
The Study Implementation And

Recommendation.
Table(2-5):- Dahra (pL-7)reservoir five years plan.

Chapter Three Productivity Index
Productivity Index
3.1 Introduction:
I the ability of the well to produce; the productivity index
is the ratio of the total liquid flow rate to the pressure drawdown.
The productivity index is generally measured during a production test

on the well. The well is shut-in until the static reservoir pressure is reached.
The well is then allowed to produce at a constant flow rate of (q) and a
stabilized bottom-hole flow pressure of ( Pwf).In order to accurately measure
the productivity index of a well, it is essential that the well is allowed to
flow at a constant flow rate for a sufficient amount of time to reach the
pseudo steady-state as illustrated in Figure (3.1). The figure indicates that
during the transient flow period, the calculated values of the productivity
index will vary depending upon the time at which the measurements of (P wf)
are made.
The main assumption is the relationship between the drawdown and

the rate are often assumed to remain constant with time. These ideas have
been used to predict the production rate under various operating condition,
we will see that this assumption is true only under special conditions (Steady
State Flow).
In practice the relationship between the drawdown and the flow rate
Depending on the boundary effects of the well drainage (flow regimes).
When a reservoir is bounded with a constant pressure boundary (such

as a gas cap or an aquifer), flow reaches the steady-state regime after the
pressure transient reaches the constant pressure boundary. Rate and pressure
become constant with time at all points in the reservoir and wellbore once
steady-state flow is established (Figure (3.1)). Therefore, the productivity
index during steady-state flow is a constant (i.e. dP 0 , dJ 0
dt dt
28
During the pseudo steady-state regime, (no-cross flow boundaries in
other words when the pressure transient reaches all boundaries after
drawdown for a sufficiently long time), the rate of pressure decline is almost
identical at all points in the reservoir and wellbore. Therefore, the difference
between the average reservoir pressure and pressure in the wellbore
approaches a constant (not changing with time) as shown in Figure (3.1),
(i.e. ), and ( ). In the
definition of pseudo-steady state productivity index, the average reservoir
pressure is used instead of the initial reservoir pressure and hence the
productivity index is basically constant.
Each flow regimes are applicable at different times after the start of
production and for different, assumed boundary conditions, hence several
solutions are available in the literature for the productivity index under each
flow regime in vertical or horizontal well either in isotropic reservoir and/or
anisotropic reservoir
Figure (3-1). Productivity Index during Flow Regimes.
29
Since most of the well life is spent in a flow regime that is
approximating the pseudo steady-state the productivity index is a valuable
methodology for predicting the future performance of wells. Further, by
monitoring the productivity index during the life of a well, it is possible to
determine if the well has become damaged due to completion, workover,
production, injection operations, or mechanical problems. If a measured (J)
has an unexpected decline, one of the indicated problems should be
investigated.
3.2 Productivity Index in Vertical Wells:
The productivity index can be numerically calculated for vertical well

in a center of circular drain .
1. Stead-State Flow:
Steady-
any point in the reservoir remains constant over time.
This solution is the simplest form of solution because:
1. They are easily to derive analytically.
2. It is fairly easy to convert the steady-state results to either transient of

pseudo steady-state by using concepts of expanding drainage
boundary over time and effective well bore radius and shape factors.
3. Steady state mathematical results can be verified experimentally by

constructing physical models in laboratory.
This flow condition prevails when has propagated to a constant

pressure boundary. The constant-pressure boundary can be an aquifer or a
water injection well. A sketch of the reservoir model is shown in
Figure(3.2), where (Pe) represents the pressure at the constant-pressure
boundary. Assuming single-phase flow, the following theoretical and actual
productivity index under the
steady-state flow condition.
30
Figure (3-2). A sketch of a reservoir with a Constant-Pressure Boundary.
.................(3-1)
Where:
ko=effective oil permeability (md)

h= formation thickness (ft)
o= oil viscosity (cp)
Bo=Oil formation volume factor (bbl/stb)
re=radius of the drainage area (ft)
rw=radius of the well bore (ft)
S=Skin damage (dimensionless)
Pe=pressure of the drainage area (Psi)
Pwf=bottom hole flowing pressure (Psi)
q=well flow rate (STB/D)
The oil relative permeability concept can be conveniently introduced

into equation (3-1) to give:
31
................. (3-2)
2. Pseudo steady-State Flow:
steady-
pressure at any point in the reservoir declines at the same constant rate over
time. This flow condition prevails after the pressure funnel shown in Figure
(3.1) has propagated to all no-flow boundaries. A no-flow boundary can be a
sealing fault, pinch-out of pay zone, or boundaries of drainage areas of
production wells a sketch of the reservoir model is shown in Figure(3.3),
where (Pe) represents the pressure at the no-flow boundary at time (t4).
Assuming single-phase flow, the following theoretical and actual relation
productivity index under pseudo
steady-state flow condition.
. ............ (3-3)
Where:
ko = effective oil permeability (md)

h = formation thickness (ft)
o = oil viscosity (cp)
Bo = oil formation volume factor (bbl/stb)
re = radius of the drainage area (ft)
rw =radius of the well bore (ft)
S = Skin damage (dimensionless)
Pe = initial reservoir pressure (Psi)
Pwf = bottom hole flowing pressure (Psi)
q = well flow rate (STB/D)
32
One unfortunate aspect concerning the application of this equation is
that, while both ( q ) and ( ) can be measured directly, the outer boundary
pressure cannot. It is therefore more common to express the pressure
drawdown in terms of ( ) instead of ( ), the following
expression using the average reservoir pressure is more useful:
..................................... (3-4)
Where:
ko = effective oil permeability (md)

h = formation thickness (ft)
o = oil viscosity (cp)
Bo = oil formation volume factor (bbl/stb)
re = radius of the drainage area (ft)
rw = radius of the well bore (ft)
S = skin damage (dimensionless)
= average reservoir pressure (Psi)
= bottom hole flowing pressure (Psi)
q = well flow rate (STB/D)
33
Figure (3-3). A sketch of a reservoir with No-Flow Boundary.
-3)
can be rewritten as:
....... ......... (3-5)
Equation (3-5) indicates that the relationship between q o

straight line passing through the origin with a slope of (J)
Hint:
If the no-flow boundaries delineate a drainage area of noncircular
shape, the following equation should be used for analysis of pseudo steady-
state flow:
......................................... (3-6)
Where:
A = drainage area, ( ft2)
CA = drainage area shape factor, 31.6 for a circular boundary.

34
A comparison of productivity indices of different wells in the same
reservoir should also indicate some of the wells might have experienced
unusual difficulties or damage during completion. Since the productivity
indices may vary from well to well because of the variation in thickness of
the reservoir, it is helpful to normalize the indices by dividing each by the
thickness of the well; this is defined as the Specific Productivity Index (Js),
or:
.... ........... (3-7)
3.3 Productivity Index in Horizontal Wells:
Reservoir Engineering Concepts:
Figures(3.4) and (3.5) show a drainage area for a vertical well and a
horizontal well. A vertical well drains a cylindrical volume, whereas a
horizontal well drains an ellipsoid, a three-dimensional ellipse. In general,
we expect a horizontal well to drain a larger reservoir volume than a vertical
well.
Figure (3-4). Vertical Well Drainage Area.
35
Figure (3.5-A). Horizontal Well Drainage Area.
Figure (3.5-B). A three-Dimensional Ellipse of Horizontal Well.
The above discussion is for a single horizontal well or drainhole.

However, using some drilling techniques, it possible to drill several
drainhole through one vertical well, some drilling techniques facilitate
drilling drainholes at different elevations or multiple drainhole at a given
elevation.
36
Figure (3.6) Multi-lateral and Multi-Drain Hole Well.
Horizontal Well Drainage Area:
Due to longer well length, a horizontal well would drain a larger

reservoir area than vertical well. A horizontal well can be looked upon as a
number of vertical wells drilled to next to each other and complete in limited
pay zone thickness.
Figure (3.7) shows the drainage area of a horizontal well of length (L)
in a reservoir with a pay zone thickness of (h). Each end of the horizontal
well would drain a half-circular area of radius (b), with (a) rectangular
drainage shape at the center of the horizontal well.
Assuming that each end of the horizontal well is represented by a

vertical well that drains an area of a half circle with (a) radius of (b) and the
two wells are connected by fracture, so horizontal well assumed as vertical
well with infinite conductivity facture (i.e. the pressure drop across the
fracture is negligible, in other words the pressure in the vertical wellbore and
at every point within the fracture is the same).
37
Figure (3-7). Joshi (1991) proposed the two methods for calculating the drainage area of
a Horizontal Well.
Method 1:
Joshi proposed that the drainage area is represented by two half circles
of radius (b), (equivalent to a radius of a vertical well r ev) at each end and (a)
rectangle, of dimensions L (2b), in the center. The drainage area of the
horizontal well is given then by:
............. .(3-8)
Where:
A = drainage area, (acres)

L = length of the horizontal well, (ft)
b = half minor axis of an ellipse,( ft)
38
Method 2:
Joshi assumed that the horizontal well drainage area is an ellipse and
given by:
............... .....(3-9)
With
.............. .. ...(3-10)
Where (a) is the half major axis of an ellipse
Joshi noted that the two methods give different values for the drainage
area (A) and suggested assigning the average value for the drainage of the
horizontal well (depending upon the sufficient time of flow regime). Most of
the production rate equations require the value of the drainage radius of the
horizontal well, which is given by:
...... -11)
Where (reh) is the drainage radius of the horizontal well, ft
From a practical standpoint, productivity index calculations for

horizontal wells are presented here under the following two flowing
conditions:
I. Steady-State Solution.
II. Pseudo-Steady State Solution.
I. Steady-State Solutions:
The steady-state analytical solutions are the simplest form of

horizontal well solutions. These equations assume steady state, (i.e., pressure
at any point in the reservoir does not change with time).
39
The flow rate equation in a steady-state condition is represented by:
............... .(3-12)
Where:
qoh = horizontal well flow rate, (STB/day)

Jh = productivity index, (STB/day/psi)
(psi)
The productivity index of the horizontal well J h can be always

obtained by dividing the flow rate (q oh) over the
. ................ 3-13)
3.3.1 Productivity of Horizontal Wells under Steady-State:
There are several methods that are designed to predict the productivity
index from the fluid and reservoir properties for isotropic and/or anisotropic
reservoir. Some of these methods include:
1.
2. The Giger-Reiss-Jourdan Method.
3. J
4. The Renard-Dupuy Method.
3.3.1.1 :
Borisov (1984) proposed the following equation for predicting the

productivity index of a horizontal well in an isotropic reservoirs, i.e., (kv =
kh)
.................. (3-14)
40
Where:
h = thickness, ft
kh = horizontal permeability, md
kv = vertical permeability, md
L = length of the horizontal well, ft
reh = drainage radius of the horizontal well, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
Jh = productivity index, STB/day/psi
3.3.1.2 The Giger-Reiss-Jourdan Method:
For an isotropic reservoir where the vertical permeability (k v) equals

the horizontal permeability (kh), Giger et al. (1984) proposed the following
equation for determining (Jh):
. .......... 3-15)
With
....... 3-16)
To account for the reservoir anisotropy, the authors proposed the

following relationships:
.............. . (3-17)
s defined by:
41
............... -18)
Where:
kv = vertical permeability, md
L = Length of the horizontal section, ft
3.3.1.3
Joshi (1991) presented the following equation for estimating the

productivity index of a horizontal well in isotropic reservoirs:
.......... -19)
With
...... -20)
And (a) is half the major axis of drainage ellipse and given by:
.......... (3-21)
Joshi accounted for the influence of the reservoir anisotropy by

introducing the vertical permeability (k v) into equation (3-19), to give:
42
.......... (3-22)
-18) and (3-

20), respectively.
3.3.1.4 The Renard-Dupuy Method:
For an isotropic reservoir, Renard and Dupuy (1990) proposed the

following equation:
.......... -23)
Where (a) is half the major axis of drainage ellipse and given by equation (3-
21).
For anisotropic reservoirs, the authors proposed the following

relationship:
.......... -24)
Where:
............. -25)
-18).
The comparison of various equations, (3-14) through (3-24), shows a
43
the denominator of the flow equations. However, the effect of this small
difference on the calculations of production rate is normally minimal.
If the length of a horizontal well is significantly longer than the

reservoir thickness, i.e., (L>>h), then the second term in the denominator of
equation (3-14) is negligible and the solution reduces to:
.............. -26)
Or,
........... -26-A)
Thus, for a long horizontal well, the effective wellbore radius (

) is the same as that for a fully penetrating infinite-conductivity
vertical fracture.
Similarly, equations (3-15) through (3-24) would reduce to equation

(3-26) if well length (L>>h) and also if well length (L) is small as compared
to drainage radius (reh). In equation (3-19) one would also have to assume
that well length (L) is smaller than the half-length of the major axis of
drainage ellipse (a) Thus, in a limiting case, at least for a single-phase flow,
productivity of horizontal well approaches that of a fully penetrating,
infinite-conductivity vertical fracture.
II. Pseudo-Steady State Flow:
Pseudo-steady state begins when the pressure disturbance created

by the producing well is felt at the boundary of the well drainage area. In
other words, when the fluid mass situated at the drainage boundary starts
moving towards the producing well, pseudo-steady state begins. This
pseudo-steady state is also described as semi-steady state or depletion state.
The name depletion state is probably the most appropriate, because it tells us
that the reservoir has reached a point where the pressure at all the reservoir
44
boundaries and also the average reservoir pressure will decrease over time as
more and more fluid is withdrawn from the reservoir.
3.3.2 Productivity of Horizontal Wells under Pseudo Steady State:
The main assumption apply here, we have a single phase flow of a

slightly compressible fluid, a homogenous reservoir and is assumed to be
bounded in all directions and the horizontal well is located arbitrarily within
a rectangular bounded drainage area, with uniform thickness, and gravity
and capillary effects are negligible with impermeable upper and lower
boundaries for the reservoir. Porosity and absolute permeability are
independent of position and pressure. Uniform flux along the wellbore and
the initial condition throughout the reservoir pressure is uniform.
The available solutions to calculate pseudo-steady state productivities

of horizontal wells can be divided into three broad categories, namely:
1. Infinite-Conductivity Solution.
2. Uniform Flux Boundary Solution.
3. Infinite-Conductivity Solution; where the constant wellbore pressure

is estimated by averaging pressure values of the uniform-flux solution
along the wellbore length.
Figure (3-8) shows a schematic of a horizontal well drilled in a

bounded reservoir. The difference between the three solutions is in their
mathematical solution methods and boundary conditions used.
45
Figure (3-8). A Schematic of a Horizontal Well located

in a rectangular drainage volume
There are several methods that are designed to predict the productivity
index in the horizontal well for single phase flow some of these methods
include:
1. Mutalik et al. Method.

2. Babu and Odeh Method.
3. Kuchuk et al. Method.
3.3.2.1 Mutalik et...al. Method:
Mutalik et al. (1988) have presented an Infinite-conductivity solution

for horizontal well productivity, in rectangular drainage areas with (b/ a) =1
to 20; where they reported the shape factors which depend upon:
1. Drainage area shape, i.e., ratio ( b / a )

2. Well penetration, ( L/b )
3. Dimensionless well length,
46
And the corresponding equivalent skin factors S CA,h for horizontal
wells located at various positions within the drainage volume. The skin
factors (SCA,h) for centrally located wells within drainage area with ratio of
sides, ( b / a )=1, 2 and 5 are plotted in Figures (3-9) through (3-11) and are
summarized in Table (3-1).
The following equation can be used to calculate the productivity of

horizontal well:
.......... (3-27)
With
.. ............ -28)
Where, (reh) can be calculated by using equation (3-11).
And
Sf = skin factor of an infinite-conductivity, fully penetrating
fracture of length, L
C' = shape factor conversion constant=1.386
SCA,h = shape-related skin factor,
D= non-Darcy flow coefficient.
Furthermore, A' = 0.750, for a circular drainage area and A' = 0.738,
for square (and rectangular) drainage areas. The calculation of productivity
of a horizontal well using equation (3-27) involves the following steps:
1. Calculate the negative skin factor for a fully penetrating, infinite-

conductivity vertical fracture by using equation (3-28).
2. Determine the value of (SCA,h) from Figures (3-9) through (3-11).

47
3. Knowing (Sf) and (SCA,h), the productivity can be then calculated
using equation (3-27).
Figure (3-9). Shape related skin factor, S CA,h for horizontal

well in a square drainage area ( b / a ) =1
Figure (3-10). Shape related skin factor, SCA,h for horizontal

well in a square drainage area ( b / a ) =2
48
Figure (3-11). Shape related skin factor, SCA,h for horizontal

Well in a square drainage area ( b / a ) =5
Table (3-1): (Shape related skin factor SCA,h for horizontal wells for various
well penetration and different rectangular drainage areas).
L/ b
LD 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 3.772 4.439 4.557 4.819 5.250

2 2.321 2.732 2.927 3.141 3.354
3 1.983 2.240 2.437 2.626 2.832
5 1.724 1.891 1.948 2.125 2.356
10 1.536 1.644 1.703 1.851 2.061
20 1.452 1.526 1.598 1.733 1.930
50 1.420 1.471 1.546 1.672 1.863
100 1.412 1.458 1.533 1.656 1.845
49
1 4.425 4.578 5.025 5.420 5.860

2 2.840 3.010 3.130 3.260 3.460
3 2.380 2.450 2.610 2.730 2.940
5 1.982 2.020 2.150 2.310 2.545
10 1.740 1.763 1.850 1.983 2.198
20 1.635 1.651 1.720 1.839 2.040
50 1.584 1.596 1.650 1.762 1.959
100 1.572 1.582 1.632 1.740 1.935
1 5.500 5.270 5.110 5.140 5.440

2 3.960 3.720 3.540 3.650 3.780
3 3.440 3.190 3.020 3.020 3.250
5 2.942 2.667 2.554 2.493 2.758
10 2.629 2.343 2.189 2.155 2.399
20 2.491 2.196 2.022 2.044 2.236
50 2.420 2.120 1.934 1.925 2.150
100 2.408 2.100 1.909 1.903 2.126
3.3.2.2 Babu and Odeh Method:
Odeh and Babu (1989) have presented a uniform-flux solution for

horizontal well pseudo-steady state productivity. Where, derived the
following equation:
.......... -29)
Where (kx) is the horizontal permeability in the direction perpendicular to

the wellbore;The value (SR) accounts for the skin factor due to partial
50
penetration of the horizontal well in the areal plane. (S R = 0) when (L=b). CH
is the shape factor. (A1) is horizontal well drainage area in the vertical plane
(A1 = a×h).
The values (b) and (a) are reservoir dimensions shown in Figure (3.8);
equation (3-29) includes no formation damage, but it can be included as an
additive term in the denominator.
In this method, a horizontal well problem is looked upon as a problem

similar to that for a partially penetrating vertical well. If this partially
penetrating vertical well problem is turned sideways, it results in a
horizontal well problem.
The calculation of productivity of a horizontal well using equation (3-

29) involves the following steps:
Calculation of (lnCH):
....... (3-30)
Where (zw) is the vertical distance between the horizontal well and the
bottom boundary and as noted in Figure (3.8), (xw) denotes the distance from
the horizontal well to the closest boundary in the x- direction.
Calculation of (SR):
As stated previously, (SR = 0) when (L=b). If (L < b), then the value
of partial penetration skin factor S R depends upon the following two
conditions:
Case 1: >>
Case 2: >>
51
Case 1:
............... -31)
The PXYZ Component
... -32)
The PXY' Component
.. ........... -33)
Where ( f ) represents a function. The terms in parenthesis after ( f ) are their

arguments defined as:
, , and
Where (yw) is the distance from the horizontal well mid-point to the closest
boundary in the y-direction as shown in Figure (3.8); additionally, pressure
computations are made at the mid-point along the well length, and function f
(x) is defined as:
.. .... . (3-34)
The evaluation of (f (y1)) and (f (y2)) depends upon their arguments,

and respectively. If the argument, (
y1and/or y2 equation (3-31) is used by replacing (x with (y 1 or y2)). On
other hand, if (( y1and/or y2 ) is > 1), then, the following equation can be
used.
52
........ -35)
Where:
y= y1 or y2
Case 2:
................. . (3-36)
The definitions of the three components in equation (3-36) are given below.
The PXYZ Component
This is calculated using equation (3-32).
The PY Component
. (3-37)
Where: (yw) is the mid-point coordinate of the well.
The PXY Component
............. (3-38)
For
The equation (3-30)is an approximation of the rigorous solution given

below:
53
.... (3-38-A)
Although equation (3-38-A) gives more accurate results, equation (3-38) is

an adequate approximation for many field applications
3.3.2.3 Kuchuk et...al. Method:
Kuchuk et al. (1991) used an approximate infinite-conductivity

solution, where the constant wellbore pressure is obtained by averaging
pressure values of the uniform-flux solution along the well length. Their
productivity equation is expressed as:
........... -39)
(F) is a dimensionless function and depends upon [x w / a], [yw / b] [L/

(2b)] and [(a/b) ]. Typical values of the function (F) are listed in
Table (3-2). The values (Sx) are calculated using the following equation.
...... (3-40)
54
Table (3-2): (Values of dimensionless function, F, for calculation of

productivity of horizontal wells).
xw / a = 0.50 , yw / b = 0.50
L/(2b)
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
0.25 3.80 2.11 1.09 0.48 0.26
0.50 3.25 1.87 1.12 0.69 0.52
1.00 3.62 2.30 1.60 1.21 1.05
2.00 4.66 3.34 2.65 2.25 2.09
4.00 6.75 5.44 4.74 4.35 4.19
xw / a = 0.25 , yw / b = 0.50
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
0.25 4.33 2.48 1.36 0.70 0.46
0.50 3.89 2.42 1.58 1.10 0.92
1.00 4.47 3.13 2.41 2.00 1.83
2.00 6.23 4.91 4.22 3.83 3.67
4.00 9.90 8.54 7.88 7.49 7.33
xw / a = 0.25 , yw / b = 0.25
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.25 9.08 7.48 6.43 5.65 5.05
0.50 6.97 5.56 4.71 4.12 3.71
1.00 6.91 5.54 4.76 4.24 3.90
2.00 8.38 7.02 6.26 5.76 5.44
4.00 11.97 10.61 9.85 9.36 9.04
xw / a = 0.50 , yw / b = 0.25
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.25 8.44 6.94 5.98 5.26 4.70
0.50 6.21 4.83 4.02 3.47 3.08
1.00 5.86 4.50 3.73 3.23 2.90
2.00 6.73 5.38 4.62 4.12 3.81
4.00 8.82 7.46 6.71 6.21 5.89
55
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
Results And Discussion

4.1 Productivity Index Calculation For Well B-88-H:
General Information
Company Waha Oil Company..

Field Name Dahra PL-7
Well No B-88-H
Well Information
Well Orientation Horizontal

Well Completion Open Hole
Last Oil Production Rate, q 596 STB/day
Well Drilling Length, L 1500 ft
Well Radius, rw 0.541 ft
Vertical Well Location, zw 46 ft
Vertical Section Spacing, A 313 acres
Rock and Fluid Properties
Layer Net Thickness, h 56.3 ft

Oil Formation Volume Factor, Bo 1.133 res bbl/STB
Oil Viscosity, o 1.2498 cp
Reservoir Properties:
Parameter Result Unit

kv 3.45 Md
kh 34.5 Md
kv /kh 0.1 Ratio
S 0 Unitless
P* 1058 Psia
Pwf 849 Psia
rev 2083 ft.
A1=456 acres.
1 50 0
= 2 08 3 28 33ft.
2
A2=426 acres.
Aavg. =441 acres.
reh= 2473 ft .
Productivity Index Actual
Jh = 2.852 STB/day/psi
4.1.1 Productivity Index Calculation under Steady-State Condition:
1.
For Isotropic Reservoir
4.88× (1058 - 849) = 1019.13 STB/day
qoh = 1019.13 STB/day
2. The Giger-Reiss-Jourdan Method:
4.72× (1058 - 849) = 986.82 STB/day
For Anisotropic Reservoir
2.86 × (1058 - 849) = 598.42 STB/day
3.
=
4.77 × (1058 - 849) = 997.47 STB/day
2.88 × (1058 - 849) = 602.33 STB/day

4. The Renard-Dupuy Method:
4.88 × (1058 - 849) = 1019 STB/day
qoh = 1019 STB/day

4.28 × (1058 - 849) = 894.40 STB/day

Condition:
1. Mutalik et al. Method:
b / a = 4383.3 / 4383.3 = 1.
L / b = 1500 / 4383.3 = 0.342
Sf = -6.541
= 2.3404
4.62 × (1058 - 849) = 965.29 STB/day

2. Babu and Odeh Method
A1= a×h = 4383.3×56.3 =246780.5 ft2
lnCH = 10.79
= = 746.26
= = 559.69
= =7.18
746.28> 559.69>> 7.18
SR = PXYZ+PXY'
The PXYZ Component:
PXYZ= 6.532
The PXY' Component:

Where:
And,
f (y1)= -0.113
f (y2)= 0.113
PXY'=23.68
SR = PXYZ+PXY' =6.532+23.68=30.21
0.6101× (1058 - 849) = 127.52 STB/day
3. Kuchuk et al. Method:
L / 2b = 1500/ 2 × 4383.3 = 0.171
F = 2.01
Sx = 3.296
6.97 × (1058 - 849) = 1457.5 STB/day
qoh = 1457.5STB/day
4.2. Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-90-H :-
General Information

Well No B-90-H
Well Information
Well Orientation Horizontal

Layer Net Thickness, h 56.3ft

Oil Formation Volume Factor, Bo 1.133res bbl/STB
Oil Viscosity, o 1.2498 cp
Reservoir Properties

kv 3.6 Md
kh 30 Md
kv /kh 0.12 Ratio
S 0 Unitless
P* 968 Psia
Pwf 780 Psia
rev 2083 ft.
A1= 437 acres.
A2= 411 acres
Aavg. = 424 acres.
reh= 2425 ft .
a=b= =
a = b = 4297.6 ft .
=
xw = yw = 2148.81 ft.
Productivity Index Actual
1.
3.96× (968 - 780) = 744.95 STB/day
=
3.84 × (968 - 780) = 722.22 STB/day
2.45 × (968 - 780) = 459.74 STB/day
3.
=
3.87 × (968 - 780) = 727.96 STB/day
2.46 × (968 - 780) = 462.06 STB/day
3.96× (968 - 780) = 744.9 STB/day
qoh = 744.9 STB/day

3.50 × (968 - 780) = 658.71 STB/day

Condition:
b / a = 2497.6 /2497.6 = 1.
L / b = 1300 / 2497.6 = 0.302
Sf = -6.398
= 2.3032
3.86 × (968 - 780) = 725.33 STB/day
2. Babu and Odeh Method:
A1 = a × h = 2497.6 × 56.3 = 241956 ft2
ln CH = 11.71
= = 455.99
= = 341.99
= = 7.70
455.99>341.99>7.70
SR = PXYZ + PXY'
The PXYZ Component:

PXYZ= 9.058
The PXY' Component:
Where:
And,
If (y) >1 then,
f (y1) = - 0.100
f (y2) = 0.100
PXY' = 28.73
SR = PXYZ+PXY' = 9.058+ 28.73= 37.79
4.02 × (968 - 780) = 755.63 STB/day
L / 2b = 1300 / 2 × 2497.6 = 0.151
F = 2.01
Sx = 3.279
5.98 × (968 - 780) = 1124.8 STB/day
qoh = 1124.8STB/day
4.3 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-92-H :-
General Information

Well No B-92-H
Well Information
Well Orientation Vertical

Layer Net Thickness, h 56.3 ft

Oil Formation Volume Factor, Bo 1.133 res bbl/STB
Oil Viscosity, o 1.2498cp
Reservoir Properties

kv 0.6 Md
kh 5 Md
kv /kh 0.12 Ratio
S 0 Unitless
P* 940 Psia
Pwf 614 Psia
Productivity Index Calculation under Steady-State Condition:
rev=
A1= 428acres.
A2= 403 acres
Aavg. = 415 acres.
reh= 2400 ft .
a=b= 43560 A avg =
a = b = 4254.1 ft .
=
xw = yw = 2127.06 ft.
1.
0.64× (940 - 614) = 207.51 STB/day
qoh = 207.51 BSTB/day

=
=
0.62× (940 - 614) = 201.23 STB/day
0.39 × (940 - 614) = 126.06 STB/day
3. J
5
= 2.887
0.6
0.62× (940 - 614) = 202.57 STB/day

0.39 × (940 - 614) = 129.59 STB/day
5
= 2.887
0.6
Jh =0.64 STB/day/psi
0.64× (940 - 614) = 207.5 STB/day
qoh = 207.5 STB/day

0.56 × (940 - 614) = 182.56 STB/day

Condition:
b / a = 4254.1 /4254.1 = 1.
L / b = 1200 / 4254.1 = 0.282
Sf = -6.318
= 2.2865
0.63 × (940 - 614) = 204.65 STB/day
2. Babu and Odeh Method
A1 = a × h = 4254.1 × 56.3 = 239507 ft2
ln CH = 11.57
= = 1902.49
= = 1426.86
= = 54.51
1902.49>1426.86>54.51
SR = PXYZ + PXY'
The PXYZ Component:

PXYZ= 9.997
The PXY' Component:
Where:
And,
If (y) >1 then,
f (y1) = - 0.093
f (y2) = 0.093
PXY' = 30.31
SR = PXYZ+PXY' = 9.997+ 30.31= 40.31
0.6359× (940 - 614) = 207.30 STB/day
L / 2b = 1200 / 2 × 4254.1 = 0.141
F = 2.01
Sx = 3.275
× (940 - 614) = 317.5 STB/day
qoh = 317.5 STB/day

Results for Well B-88-H
Method Steady State Solution

Isotropic Reservoir Anisotropic Reservoir
Jh qoh Jh qoh
STB/day/Psi STB/day STB/day/Psi STB/day
Actual 2.852 596 2.852 596
Borisov. 4.876 1019 # #
The Giger- 4.722 987 2.863 598
Reiss-
Jourdan.
Joshi. 4.773 997 2.882 602
The 4.876 1019 4.279 894
Renard-
Dupuy.
--- Pseudo Steady State Solution
Mutalik et # # 4.619 965
al. Method.
Babu and # # 4.963 1037
Odeh.
Kuchuk et # # 6.973 1457
al. Method.
From these results

In case under steady state for isotropic is unrealistic because the
reservoir is not homogenous (i.e) kv h , thus , the flow rate
value obtained by using Giger-Reiss-Jourdan & Joshi method for
anisotropic was confirmed by actual flow rate
Results for Well B-90-H

Jh qoh Jh qoh
Actual 2.479 466 2.479 466
Borisov. 3.962 745 # #
The Giger- 3.842 722 2.445 460
Reiss-
Jourdan.
Joshi. 3.872 728 2.458 462
The 3.962 745 3.504 659
Renard-
Dupuy.
Mutalik et # # 3.858 725
al. Method.
Babu and # # 4.019 756
Odeh.
Kuchuk et # # 5.983 1125
al. Method.
From these results

Results for Well B-92-H:

Jh qoh Jh qoh
Actual 0.334 109 0.334 109
Borisov. 0.637 208 # #
The Giger- 0.617 201 0.387 126
Reiss-
Jourdan.
Joshi. 0.621 203 0.388 127
The 0.636 207 0.560 183
Renard-
Dupuy.
Mutalik et # # 0.628 205
al. Method.
Babu and # # 0.636 207
Odeh.
Kuchuk et # # 0.974 318
al. Method.
From these results

Chapter Five Conclusion & Recommendations
Conclusion
The main Conclusion of this project can be summarized as follows:
1. During our study of the field case (DAHRA field); the location
and direction or distribution of horizontal wells in the reservoir
clearly effected by distribution of injection wells; therefore
effected on results of:
The results of well test interpretation and its model used.

The productivity index evaluation under steady state
or pseudo-steady state.
2. In the fortunate case where most of the flow regimes are evident, it
would be possible to calculate more than one value for the
permeability perpendicular to the horizontal section (kx) and for the
mechanical skin (Sm), and checked against each other. This
advantage is not available in case of vertical wells.
3. The flow rate value obtained by using anisotropy Giger-Reiss-

Jourdan method was confirmed by the actual flow rate that means
the reservoir is anisotropic reservoir under steady-state condition.
4. Integrated model (nonlinear regression) technique is very useful to

analyze pressure data.
Chapter Five Conclusion & Recommendations
Recommendations
From our study in project we offering the following recommendations
bellow:
1. using the horizontal drilling technique in drilling wells due to its
advantage and less expenses.
2. in case of steady state isotropic solution there is more flow rate and
productivity index with Borisov & the Renard-Dupuy models in all of
wells we studying so, we recommend to using these models.
3.for anisotropic reservoirs in steady-state case the Renard-Dupuy
is most effective in flow rate and productivity index.
Chapter Five References
References
1. Urayet, A. A.: "Advanced Topics in Transient Pressure

Analysis", Part of the Technical Program Organized for the
Petroleum Research Center, Tripoli, 2004.
2. Odeh, A. S. and Babu, D. K.: "Transient Flow Behavior of

Horizontal Wells, Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis",
SPE Formation Evaluation, pp.7-15, March 1990.
3. Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., and Jourdan, A. P.: "The

Reservoir Engineering Aspect of Horizontal Drilling", Paper
SPE 13024 presented at the SPE 59th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
4. Borisov, Ju. P.: "Oil Production Using Horizontal and

Multiple Deviation Wells", Nedra, Moscow, 1964. Translated
by J. Strauss, S. D. Joshi (ed.), Phillips Petroleum Co., the R &
D Library Translation, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 1984.
5. Renard, G. I. and Dupuy, J. M.: "Influence of Formation

Damage on the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells", Paper
SPE 19414, presented at the Formation Damage Control
Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 22-23, 1990.
6. Mutalik, P. N., Godbole, S. P., and Joshi, S. D.: "Effect of

Drainage Area Shapes on Horizontal Well Productivity", Paper
SPE 18301, presented at the SPE 63rd Annual Technical
Conference, Houston, Texas, Oct. 2-5, 1988.
Chapter Five References
7. Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A. S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal
Well", SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 417-421, November
1989.
8. Joshi, S. D.: "A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole

Technology", Paper SPE 16868, presented at the 1987
Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas. A revised version
was presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
Casper, Wyoming, May 1988.
9. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P. A., Brice, B. W., Sherrard, D. W., and

Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis and
Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells", Paper SPE 18300,
presented at the SPE 63rd Annual Technical Conference,
Houston, Texas, Oct. 2-5,1988.
10. Odeh, A. S. and Babu, D. K.: "Transient Flow Behavior of

Horizontal Wells, Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis",
Paper SPE 18802 presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting held in Bakersfield, CA, Apr. 5-7, 1989.

Well Testing in Horizontal Well For Calculation Productivity Index

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Testing in Horizontal Well For Calculation Productivity Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIPOLI UNIVERSITY

Well Testing In Horizontal Well For Calculations

Fouad Aghill Abdaullah Eqswella & Mohammed Ali Sasi

& Abdelraouf Mohammed Bin Halim

First of all we would like to thank ALLAH the Merciful and

Special thanks to Engineering Planning Department in Waha Oil Company

We would like to extend my gratitude to the faculty staff and colleagues in

This project is dedicated with all our heart to our beloved

General Overview of Horizontal Wells

Oil Field (Over View)

Productivity Index Calculations

4.1 Productivity Index Calculation for Well B-88-H....................... 57

2.1 Well classification of dahra(pL-7) reservoir as of december

4.1 Productivity Index Calculation For Well B-88-H 57

1.1 A Schematic of a vertical well drilled perpendicularly

1.5 Liner with partial isolation.......................................................... 11

2.1 Dahra PL-7 top satal structure map.................................... 17

3.1 Productivity index during flow regimes................................ 29

General Overview of Horizontal Wells

Higher sweep efficiency and larger injected area.

During the period of 1980 to1984, only one or two horizontal

The horizontal drilling started in Libya (1995), many

Now in Libya, Some of the horizontal wells are cased or completed

In general, a horizontal well is drilled parallel to the reservoir

Figure (1-1): A Schematic of a vertical well drilled perpendicularly to the

Some reservoir bedding planes are almost vertical. Thus, while

A typical horizontal well is different from a vertical well because

The other important consideration is well completion scheme; one

different drilling techniques and appreciate different factors that influence

1.2 Limitation of Horizontal Wells:

As mentioned before, the major advantage of horizontal well

1. One can drill a "staircase'' type well where long horizontal

2. One can cement the well and stimulate it by using propped

The vertical fractures perpendicular to the wells could intersect more

The other disadvantages of horizontal wells are their cost.

An additional factor in cost determination is drilling experience

1.3 Horizontal Well Applications:

Horizontal wells have been used effectively in the following applications:

1. In naturally fractured reservoirs, used to intersect fractures and

3. In gas production, horizontal wells can be used in low permeability

5. Offshore wells (drain from one platform), In remote locations and

1.4 Advantages Of Horizontal Well:

1. High rates and reserves as compared to vertical well.

1. High cost as compared to vertical well .

The drilling techniques to drill horizontal wells and drainholes are

1. Ultra-short: Turning radius is 1 to 2 ft, build angle is 45o to

2. Short: Turning radius is 20 to 40 ft, building angle is 2o to 5o/ft,

3.Medium: Turning radius is 300 to 800 ft, building angle is

Figure (1-2): A Schematic of different drilling techniques.

Ultra short R=1-2 ft L=100-200

From reservoir standpoint the turning radius is very important

1.7 Completion Techniques:

The completion phase of a well development is a term generally

The completion design engineer has to tailor each completion,

There are two main categories of completions to consider with, of course;

1. Open hole Completions.

1. Open hole Completions:

An open hole completion is when the well is drilled to the top of

1) No possibility for selectively producing or treating different

2. Cased Hole Completion:

Completion Types in Horizontal Wells:

As mentioned before, it is possible to complete horizontal wells as

1.7.1 Open Hole Completion:

Open-hole completion is inexpensive but is limited to competent