Well Testing

EE058-3-3-WT

Title Absolute Open Flow Estimation

In Gas Well Testing
Student Name Abdulmajeed Hamad Abduallah
Student ID TP048614
Intake APU3F2001PE
Lecturer Name Harvin Kaur A/P Grchran Singh
Submission Date 25/9/2020
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Importance of vertical and horizontal gas well testing in industry....................................................3
2.0 Reservoir properties & PVT properties..................................................................................................4
3.0 Vertical and horizontal IPR determination.............................................................................................6
3.1 Constructing the IPR curves...............................................................................................................9
4.0Predicting the problems of horizontal well and the solutions..............................................................19
4.1 Innovation design solution..............................................................................................................20
4.2 Cost assessment..............................................................................................................................20
4.3 Analyzing and comparing the vertical and horizontal calculations..................................................21
5.0 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................23
References.................................................................................................................................................24
List of figures
Figure 2.0.1: Range of pressure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Figure 2.0.2: PVT table…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

Figure 3.1.1: IPR curve vertical well (laminar)………………………………………………………………………………………..10

Figure 3.1.2: IPR curve vertical gas well with D effect………………………………………………………………………….…14

Figure 3.1.3: IPR curve Horizontal well without the turbulence effect…………………………………………………...16

Figure 3.1.4: IPR curve Horizontal well with the turbulence effect………………………………………………………...18

List of tables
Table 2.0.1: Reservoir properties…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Table 2.0.2: chemical composition…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

Table3.1.1: flow rate values for vertical well without the turbulence effect…………………………………………..10

Table3.1.2: D values for vertical well …………………………………………………………………………………………………….12

Table3.1.3: A values for vertical well …………………………………………………………………………………………………….12

Table3.1.4: B values for vertical well …………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Table3.1.5: Gas flow rate of vertical gas well with the turbulence effect……………………………………………….13

Table3.1.6: Gas flow rate of horizontal gas well without the turbulence effect……………………………………..15

Table 3.1.7: D values for horizontal gas well………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Table 3.1.8: A values for horizontal gas well………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Table 3.1.9: A values for horizontal gas well………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Table3.1.10: Gas flow rate of horizontal gas well with the turbulence effect…………………………………………18

Table 4.3.1: AOF comparison…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Abstract
The objective of this paper was to evaluate the gas flow rate in vertical gas well as well as
horizontal gas well. A calculation was conducted to determine the absolute open flow for both
gas reservoirs along with constructing the IPR curves. The turbulence effect towards the gas
wells and its productivity was introduced, two main assumption were taken in terms of the
calculation part. The first assumption was to determine the gas flow rate without the turbulence
effect for both wells, the second assumption was to determine the gas flow rate considering the
turbulence effect on the gas production. Several problems were predicted for horizontal gas
reservoirs and the solutions for them. Analytical comparison was made between the gas wells
IPR and AOF with and without the turbulence effect.

Page 1 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

1.0 Introduction
In oil and gas industry gas wells are tested for the purpose of measuring its ability of producing
gas under several condition of surface or sandface. Petroleum industry determining gas wells
capabilities of producing under specific condition of reservoir and bottom hole flowing pressure
through deliverability testing. AOF or absolute open flow is the main indicator that can be
obtained by applying deliverability testing, AOF is the maximum flow rate that a well can
achieve when the bottom hole pressure equals to zero. Moreover, IPR curve which is the inflow
performance curve is the second indicator that can be obtained by using deliverability testing,
IPR curve shows the relation between the surface production rate with the bottom hole flowing
pressure at a given value of reservoir pressure. The reservoir pressure could be the original
reservoir pressure in the reservoir or the current average pressure at that point. IPR curve can aim
in the sense of predicting the future production at any stage in the reservoir life. There are three
deliverability testing methods used to evaluate and test the gas well, these methods are:

 Flow After flow testing:

This method is used by letting the gas well produce at series of different stabilized flow rates and
measuring the stabilized bottom hole pressure, flow rates are established in succession without
any intermediate shut-in period. This method was design to overcome the limitation of long
testing times required to reach stabilization at each rate in flow after flow test.

 Isochronal & modified isochronal

These two methods were developed to shorten test times for wells that needs long time for
stabilization due to many reasons such as low permeability formation. However, the difference
between these two methods is that in modified isochronal test the shut-in periods separating the
flow periods are equal to or longer than the flow periods. The two methods used by producing
the well and then shutting in the well which allows the average pressure inside to build up.
Modified isochronal test is used widely since this test mainly developed for the purpose of
saving time and money since it gives a highly reliable results which are very similar to the true
isochronal test.

Page 2 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

1.1 Importance of vertical and horizontal gas well testing in industry

In petroleum industry natural gas reservoirs with higher permeability can have higher chances of
turbulence effect on the flow of its fluid. The phenomenon of turbulence effect occurs mostly
near the wellbore region which lead to an extra pressure drop. Vertical wells turbulence effect
has been highlighted in the past by adjusting the deliverability equation and a correlation have
been made, the non-Darcy coefficient obtained by establishing field testing technique. However,
this was not the case for horizontal wells due to many reasons such as in low permeability
horizontal reservoirs the turbulence effect on the reservoir is neglected which is the case for
many low permeability gas reservoirs in north America. After a long investigation in low
permeability horizontal gas reservoir it was concluded that the turbulence has larger length
compared to vertical wells which will reduce the chances of turbulence effect. Nevertheless,
petroleum industry these days are looking towards horizontal gas reservoirs with a high
permeability in which the turbulence effect in these reservoirs can not be ignored any more.
(Wang & Economides, 2009)

Turbulence effect will lead to a reduction in the production rate for both horizontal and vertical
wells especially when the permeability of the reservoir is high. To be more specific if the
permeability is 1 md the impacts of turbulence in horizontal wells would be less than 2% while
in vertical wells the impact can achieve 5%, however, if the permeability increases the
production losses due to the turbulence effect would increase as well taking into account the
higher productivity of horizontal will which will result to a higher production losses. The more
the permeability value increase the more production rate decline occur. Horizontal wells have
higher efficiency than vertical wells even with the existing of turbulence effect. (Wang &
Economides, 2009)

In general, horizontal wells has higher productivity and is becoming more popular and
economically viable especially with the technology improvements that the world is witnessing
nowadays. However, the well performances have not been well defined and addressed yet.
Nowadays, new equation and correlations are being modified and adjusted to fully characterize
the horizontal well reservoirs including the turbulence effect to reduce the effect to the minimum
limits. In the next sections of this paper four IPR curves would be generated for both vertical and
horizontal wells with and without the effect of turbulence for a better comparison.

Page 3 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

2.0 Reservoir properties & PVT properties

Most of the data reservoir properties were given in the assignment except few in which it had to
be assumed, the table below shows the reservoir properties:

Table 2.0.1: Reservoir properties

Reservoir Properties
Formation type Sandstone
Reservoir Temperature 226oF
Depth 9233 ft
Gas gravity 0.681
Reservoir pressure 1881 psia
Pseudocritical Temperature 370.010
Reservoir thickness 88 ft
Pseudo critical Pressure 650.59 psia
Average reservoir permeability 15 mD
Base temperature 520oR
Vertical permeability 1.0 mD
Base pressure 14.65 psia
Well spacing 335 acres
Average porosity 0.146 fraction
Wellbore radius 0.365 ft
Drainage area vertical well 670 acres
Drainage area horizontal well 2010 acers
Skin factor 1

The parameters highlighted in yellow were assumed for the purpose of proceeding with the
calculation of gas flow rates in both wells. As it is known the drainage area of horizontal well is
larger two to three times the drainage area of vertical well, the well spacing parameter was
considered in assuming drainage areas values. The skin factor was assumed to be 1 for both
wells for making the comparison more accurate and interesting.

Page 4 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

 Chemical composition:

The chemical composition table was taken from a gas field online for the purpose of obtaining
the PVT data as its essential properties for the calculation part.

Table 2.0.2: chemical composition

Component wt percentage %
H2O 0.00313
Co2 0.771
N2 2.790
C1 86.704
C2 6.152
C3 1.684
iC4 1.040
nC4 0.296
iC5 0.215
nC5 0.0899
C6 0.254

The PVT properties was generated based on gas field chemical composition table that was found
online by using The PVTP software as shown in figure 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 below:

Figure 2.0.1: Range of pressure

Page 5 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Figure 2.0.2: PVT table

3.0 Vertical and horizontal IPR determination

In this section four IPR are curves would be constructed to obtain the absolute open flow (AOF)
and compare the results between vertical and horizontal wells including and excluding the effect
of turbulence. The equations below used for calculating the flow rate for all cases:

 Vertical well without turbulence:

The drainage radius formula re

ℜ=
√ 43560 A
π

kh( Pr 2−Pwf 2 )
Qg=
1422T ( µg z ) [ln ( )
ℜ
rw
−0.75+ s ]

 Vertical well with the turbulence effect:

The D is a representation of the turbulence factor:

4.18 x 10−5 yg
D=
( K 0.47) x (Ø ¿¿ 0.53) x (h)x (rw ) x (µg)¿

Page 6 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Calculating for a which is the laminar flow coefficient:

a= ( 1422khT µg z )[ln ( rwℜ )−0.75+ s]

Calculating b which is inertial-turbulent flow coefficient:

b= ( 1422khT µg z ) D
Calculating gas flow rate Qg

−a+ √ a +4 b( P r −Pwf )
2 2 2
Qg
2b

 Horizontal well without turbulence effect:

Since horizontal wells would have a different area comparing with vertical wells the drainage
radius would be calculated again. In horizontal well the drainage radius is calculate using the
similar equation for drainage radius as vertical wells. Also, in calculating the gas flow rate for
horizontal wells Joshi introduced the concept of effective wellbore radius into the gas flow
equation. (Ahmad, 2001)

reh=
√ 43560 A
π

Calculating a which is half the major axis of drainage ellipse, ft

L 0.5
a= x¿
2

Calculating the effective wellbore radius rw for horizontal gas wells

rw=
reh ( L2 )
a¿¿

In calculating the flow rate without the turbulence effect the same equation used for vertical well
without the turbulence effect would be used for horizontal

Page 7 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

2 2
kh( Pr −Pwf )
Qg=
1422T ( µg z ) [ln
ℜ
rw ( )
−0.75+ s ]

 Horizontal well with the turbulence effect

The D is a representation of the turbulence factor:

−5
4.18 x 10 yg
D= 0.47
( K ) x ( Ø ¿¿ 0.53) x (h) x (rw )x (µg)¿

Calculating for a which is the laminar flow coefficient:

a= ( 1422khT µg z )[ln ( rwℜ )−0.75+ s]

Calculating b which is inertial-turbulent flow coefficient:

b= ( 1422khT µg z ) D
Calculating gas flow rate Qg

−a+ √ a2 +4 b( P r 2−Pwf 2 )
Qg
2b

As it can be seen from the equation above, the gas flow rate of the horizontal well turbulence
effect would use the same equations used for vertical well with the effect of turbulence.
However, some of the properties would change such as the value of wellbore radius, the
permeability as horizontal wells are affected directly with the vertical permeability and the
drainage radius since the horizontal well has bigger drainage area. The next section shows the
calculation procedures for every single case, the calculation was done manually and the IPR
obtained using excel Microsoft.

Page 8 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

3.1 Constructing the IPR curves

 IPR for vertical well without the turbulence effect
The first step in calculating the gas flowrate in gas vertical wells is to determine the drainage
radius, the drainage area for the vertical well was assumed to be 670 acers based on the fact that
the well spacing between the wells is 335 acers, the well spacing x 2 = 670 acers.

ℜ=
√ 43560(670)
π

re = 3047 ft

The flow rate would be calculated under several values of bottom hole pressure, Microsoft excel
used to generate the IPR curve for all four cases. The compressibility factor along with viscosity
was generated using PVTP software. The reservoir temperature converted from 226 OF to 686oR,
the next table shows the flow rate values by using the gad flow rate equation without turbulence
effect which is shown below:

K = 15 md, h = 88, T = 686 oR , S = 1 , re = 3047 , rw = 0.365

kh( Pr 2−Pwf 2 )
Qg=
( )
1422T ( µg z ) [ln
ℜ
rw
−0.75+ s ]

2 2
(15)(88)(1881 −0 )
Qg=
1422(686)¿ ¿

AOF = 38705.41 mscf/day

Showing for the first calculation, the compressibility, viscosity, and bottom hole flowing
pressure will keep changing with multiple times for the purpose of finding the gas flow rate
value respected to every bottom hole pressure.

Page 9 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Table3.1.1: flow rate values for vertical well without the turbulence effect

Qg mscf/day Pwf, psia

0 1881
9455.92 1612.29
17962.15 1343.57
25239.25 1074.86
31040.12 806.143
35174.53 537.429
37530.69 268.714
38075.41 0

IPR
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Pwf/ psia

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Qg scf/day

Figure 3.1.1: IPR curve vertical well (laminar)

Page 10 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

 IPR curve for vertical well with turbulence effect

The second IPR curve would be for the vertical well with the effect of turbulence, when
calculating the gas flow rate for a vertical well with the effect of turbulence several equations
would be used to do so. At this point, the calculation performed previously was under the
assumption that laminar flow condition is being observed during the gas flow. However, during
the radial flow the gas flow velocity might increase which can develop the turbulence flow
around the wellbore. The turbulent will cause an additional pressure to drop like the pressure
drop caused by the skin effect. The equations used to calculate and obtained the gas flow rate
values during the laminar condition will not be effective in the turbulence condition as they do
not explicitly represent the calculation for gas flow rate at this stage. Hence, there was a need for
developing and modifying the equations of calculating gas flow rate under the turbulence effect,
two treatment method were modified for calculating gas flow rate with turbulence effect which
are:

 Simplified treatment approach

 Laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) treatment

In this paper the laminar-inertial-turbulent approach was used, the calculation procedures for
vertical gas well flow rate with the turbulence effect is shown below. (Ahmad, 2001)

Note: This approach is applicable for both vertical and horizontal gas well under the effect of
turbulence

Finding D for the first bottom hole pressure = 0

−5
4.18 x 10 yg
D= 0.47
( K ) x (Ø ¿¿ 0.53) x (h)x (rw ) x (µg)¿

−5
4.18 x 10 (0.681)
D= 0.47
(15 ) x (0.146¿¿ 0.53) x(88) x (0.365) x (0.0135651)¿

D = 5.07x10-5

Page 11 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Table3.1.2: D values for vertical well

Pwf DQg value

0 5.07x10-5
268.71 5.00x10-5
537.429 4.92x10-5
806.143 4.81x10-5
1074.86 4.69x10-5
1343.57 4.54x10-5
1612.29 4.39x10-5
1881 4.22x10-5

Calculating for a which is the laminar flow coefficient when the pressure = 0:

a=
( 1422 x 686 x 0.0135651 x 0.998902
( 15 ) (88)
[ln
) (
3047
0.365 )
−0.75+ 1]

a = 92.42
Table3.1.3: A values for vertical well

Pwf a value
0 92.92
268.71 92.34
537.429 92.37
806.143 93
1074.86 94
1343.57 96.48
1612.29 99.29
1881 102.84

Page 12 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Calculating b which is inertial-turbulent flow coefficient when the pressure = 0:

b=
( 1422 x 686 x 0.0135651
( 15 ) ( 88 )
x 0.998902
)¿
b = 5.07x10-4
Table3.1.4: B values for vertical well

Pwf b value
0 5.07x10-4
268.71 4.97x10-4
537.429 4.89x10-4
806.143 4.82x10-4
1074.86 4.77x10-4
1343.57 4.72x10-4
1612.29 4.69x10-4
1881 4.67x10-4

Calculating gas flow rate Qg when bottom hole pressure = 0

−92.92+ √ 92.922+ 4 (5.07 x 1 0−4 )(18812−02)

Qturb −4
2 x (5.07 x 1 0 )

AOF= 32362 mscf/day

Table3.1.5: Gas flow rate of vertical gas well with the turbulence effect

Qturb mscf/day Pwf, psia

0 1881
9065 1612.29
16612.02 1343.57
22728 1074.86
27217.54 806.143
30312.90 537.429
32017.30 268.714
32362 0

Page 13 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

IPR
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Pwf,psia

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Qturb,mscf/day

Figure 3.1.2: IPR curve vertical gas well with D effect

 IPR curve for horizontal well without turbulence effect

For calculating the flow rate at different bottom hole pressure, the drainage area of the horizontal
well depends upon the length of the horizontal well, the horizontal gas reservoir length is 1700 ft.
As a rule of thumb 1000 ft long horizontal well can drain twice the area of a vertical well while a
2000 ft long well drain three times a vertical well. Based on the properties given in the
assignment the horizontal well drainage area was triple the vertical well drainage area as the
length is 1700 ft of the horizontal well which is technically can have a drainage triple that of
vertical well.

reh=
√ 43560( 2010)
π

reh = 5279.18 ft

Obtaining a to calculate the effective wellbore radius

L 0.5
a= x¿
2

1700 0.5
a= x¿
2

Page 14 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

a=5313.50

Now, calculate the effective wellbore radius:

rw=
reh ( L2 )
a¿¿

rw=
(5279.18) ( 1700
2 )
(5313.32)¿¿

rw = 331.63 ft

kh( Pr 2−Pwf 2 )
Qg=
1422T ( µg z ) [ln
ℜ
( )
rw
−0.75+ s ]

Calculating for the first flow rate when the bottom hole pressure = the reservoir pressure the
vertical permeability was the selected permeability for horizontal gas reservoir since the flow
rate flowing in this well affected by the vertical permeability. The effective wellbore radius
along with drainage radius for horizontal well were obtained and inserted in the equation

K = 1 md, h = 88, T = 686 oR , S = 1 , re = 5279.18 , rw = 331.63

(1)(88)(18812−0 2)
Qg=
1422( 686)¿ ¿
AOF=7806.25 mscf/day
Table3.1.6: Gas flow rate of horizontal gas well without the turbulence effect

Qg mscf/day Pwf, psia

0 1881
1938.06 1612.29
3682.31 1343.57
5189.50 1074.86
6363.86 806.143
7211.51 537.429

Page 15 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

7694.57 268.714
7806.25 0

IPR
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Pwf, psia

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Qg mscf/day

Figure 3.1.3: IPR curve Horizontal well without the turbulence effect

 IPR curve for horizontal well with turbulence effect

Calculating D:

−5
4.18 x 10 yg
D= 0.47
( K ) x (Ø ¿¿ 0.53) x (h)x (rw ) x (µg)¿

4.18 x 10−5 (0.681)

D=
( 10.47) x (0.146¿¿ 0.53)x (88) x (331.63) x (0.0135651)¿
D = 1.99x10-7
Table 3.1.7: D values for horizontal gas well

Pwf DQg value

0 1.99x10-7
268.71 1.96x10-7
537.429 1.93x10-7
806.143 1.89x10-7
1074.86 1.84x10-7
1343.57 1.78x10-7
1612.29 1.72x10-7

Page 16 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

1881 1.66x10-7

Calculating for a which is the laminar flow coefficient when the pressure = 0:

a= ( 1422 x 686 x 0.0135651 x 0.998902

( 1 ) (88)
[ln) (
5279.18
331.63
−0.75+1] )
a = 453.24
Table 3.1.8: A values for horizontal gas well

Pwf a value
0 453.24
268.71 450.44
537.429 450.57
806.143 453.85
1074.86 460.48
1343.57 491.58
1612.29 484.34
1881 501.64

Calculating b which is inertial-turbulent flow coefficient when the pressure = 0:

b=
( 1422 x 686 x 0.0135651
( 1 ) ( 88 )
x 0.998902
)¿
b = 2.98x10-5
Table 3.1.9: B values for horizontal gas well

Pwf b value
0 2.98x10-5
268.71 2.92x10-5
537.429 2.88x10-5
806.143 2.84x10-5
1074.86 2.80x10-5
1343.57 2.77x10-5
1612.29 2.76x10-5
1881 2.75x10-5

Page 17 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Calculating gas flow rate Qg when bottom hole pressure = 0

−453.24+ √ 453.24 + 4(2.98 x 1 0 )(1881 −0 )

2 −5 2 2
Qturb −5
2 x (2.89 x 1 0 )

AOF= 7802.37 msfc/day

7802.37

Table3.1.10: Gas flow rate of horizontal gas well with the turbulence effect

Qturb mscf/day Pwf, psia

0 1881
1937.85 1612.29
3524.62 1343.57
5173 1074.86
6361.45 806.143
7208.27 537.429
7690.76 268.714
7802.37 0

IPR
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Pwf, psia

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Qturb, mscf/day

Page 18 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

Figure 3.1.4: IPR curve Horizontal well with the turbulence effect

4.0 Predicting the problems of horizontal well and the solutions

There are several problems that might occur during the horizontal gas well testing, this section is
mainly discussing the problems that might happen during well testing operations in horizontal
well. In horizontal well, the data tested can be interpreted in two ways which are the
identification of boundaries and the main features as horizontal well test measurement are
affected by the nearby shale strikes and lenses as well as the top and bottom boundaries at early
time. The second method of interpreting the well data is by estimating well reservoir parameters
and refining the model obtained from flow regime analyses. One of the issues that horizontal
well testing encounter is the difficulty of analyzing the graphical type curve procedures because
more than three parameters are unknown even for a single layer reservoir. Another issue that
might arise which is the uncertainty of knowing the features of the model that can fit the given
set of output data such as pressure, flowrate, and their derivatives. Another, issue that may
considered which is the effect of wellbore storge during pressure buildup as horizontal wellbore
volume is greater than that of vertical wells. Double porosity reservoirs model works only for
late time behavior, this is another issues that horizontal wells encountering in naturally fractured
reservoirs as the model does not work for middle and early time intervals except if the fracture
density is extremely high with lower conductivity. (Kuchul, 1995)

Geological characterization of layered reservoirs brings lots of attention in oil and gas industry
recently because of the widespread use of 3D seismic and high-resolution wireline logs.
Pressure-transient behavior of layered reservoirs is very essential due to the strong influence that
layered reservoir has on the productivity of horizontal wells which made it very important to
understand it deeply by examining the effect of layered reservoir on interpreting the horizontal
well test data. Multilayer reservoir for horizontal well testing is difficult to interpret because of
different reservoir thickness for every horizontal layer with variety of high and low
permeabilities distributing among the layers. Also, estimating the vertical permeability and the
distance to the boundaries which make it difficult to determine which averaging techniques
works best for vertical permeability. Therefore, identification of such a layer system might lead
to inaccurate results. Single layer models are often used in interpreting the well-test data from
layered reservoir in oil and gas industry. Field experience has shown that the interpretation of
Page 19 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

well test from horizontal wells is a lot more difficult than vertical wells, the unknown distance
along with anisotropy ratio and the existing of multiple boundaries increase the complexity of the
interpretation (Kuchul, 1995)

4.1 Innovation design solution

To overcome the issue of the difficulty of analyzing the horizontal well test data of graphical
type curve procedures due to the unknown reservoir parameters, flow regime analysis along with
nonlinear least-squares techniques are used for the purpose of estimating the reservoir parameter.
By using the diagnostic tools for identifying the flow regimes the estimation would be more
accurate with the minimal cost. For example, if the reservoir boundaries are known or identified
from the flow regime analysis, both horizontal and vertical wells permeabilities along with skin
can be estimated with greater accuracy. The effect of wellbore storage can be removed or
reduced, the reduction of the wellbore effect would depend on the measurement and analysis of
the downhole flowrate with the bottom hole pressure. A downhole shut-in tool should be bused
for build up pressure especially for low productivity wells to reduce the wellbore storge effect.
(Kuchul, 1995)

As it was mentioned in the prediction section, the double porosity model in fractured reservoir
for a horizontal well will not be effective for middle and early time interval. Overcoming, this
issue can be achieved by simply extension of the homogenous single-layer solution or if the
density is extremely high with lower conductivity. In addition, several testing equipment of
vertical wells have been used in horizontal wells and it was proven the high efficiency in a well
testing operation. Acquiring reliable pressure and rate data for both drawdown and buildup
pressure would be obtained using production logging tools along with coiled-tubing system.
Pressure derivative was proven to be an effective system identification tool in which it has the
ability of provide initial approximations of the non-liner estimation. (Kuchul, 1995)

4.2 Cost assessment

The well-testing market is known of considering the existence of the services dependent on
callouts, to be a highly fixed cost sector, whereby equipment is bought and stacked up until a
demand occurs on the industry. Most components are made from steel (carbon and low-permit
steel) in well testing equipment, and highly skilled production procedures and processes are

Page 20 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

required. In addition, down hole equipment, operated by some companies, involves precision
engineering and processing in specific applications in certain applications. (Servies, 2020)

Operators are looking for smaller, more integrated equipment that can have the same function
with more efficiency sometimes by requiring less space and cost. Compact remote well testing
solution is one of the scenarios in reducing the cost, the results obtained would be the same as
with 21 valves and a test separator. Using a compact package with only seven valves, a multiport
flow selector, multiphase flow meter, with smaller skid size would reduce the installation time
and cost. By doing so each individual flow rate of oil, gas and water would be fully measured
without the need for separation. The turbulence effect it self can be reduced as well by
controlling the size of the down hole equipment used such as the tubing size, reducing the tubing
size would reduce the gas flow rate hence the turbulence effect would be reduce as well since it
cannot be totally eliminated. (testing, 2013)

4.3 Analyzing and comparing the vertical and horizontal calculations

In this section all the calculations performed along with the values obtained would be discussed
and analyzed. The aims of the calculation were to construct the IPR curve for every scenario
given, vertical and horizontal wells were assumed to have two cases which are gas flow rate
without any turbulence interference and with the turbulence interference. In the first scenario the
vertical well was assumed to have laminar flow and the gas flow rate calculation started with
calculating the drainage radius, the gas flow rate than was obtained using Darcy equation for
compressible fluids under the pseudo steady-state flow condition. The gas flow rate obtained for
every corresponding bottom hole pressure and the absolute open flow was AOF = 38705.41
mscf/day obtained. Second scenario was to calculated the gas flowrate in vertical well with the
turbulence effect using the Laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) treatment and the value of AOF
32362 mscf/day obtained. It can be seen when comparing the two AOF values that the gas flow
rate has dropped to more than 5000 mscf/day when the turbulence effect introduced to the
system. The third and forth scenarios assumed a horizontal well with and without the turbulence
effect, respectively. Worth to mention is that the equations used for horizontal well without the
turbulence effect was the same as vertical except for finding the effective wellbore radius.
Moreover, the LIT approach which was introduced for calculating the gas flow rate in vertical
well with the turbulence effect was also used for the horizontal well with the turbulence effect.
The horizontal well without the turbulence effect has an AOF value of 7806.25 mscf/day while

Page 21 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

the AOF of the horizontal well with the turbulence effect was 7802.37 mscf/day. After
calculating the gas flow rate and obtaining all the AOF values it was clearly seen that the
turbulence effect will cause a reduction in the production for both wells. Moreover, the reduction
in vertical was larger than the horizontal well, horizontal well has a small reduction in the flow
rate of gas. The reason behind that is due to the permeability effect as vertical permeability used
in horizontal well is smaller than the average reservoir permeability used in the vertical well
calculation. Although, the horizontal gas well has larger drainage radius due to the large drainage
area the production of gas was lower comparing to vertical gas well because of permeability
affect. Vertical well has a permeability of 15 md which make the well perforation receiving
larger amount of gas unlike the horizontal well where it has a vertical permeability of 1 md in
which it restrain high amount of gas to enter the producing interval in the well. In such a case
vertical wells are more likely to be drilled instead of horizontal wells since the horizontal well
productivity was marginalized because of the reservoir obstacles such is the lower permeability.

Turbulence effect is highly dependent on the reservoir properties and characteristics in which in
reservoirs with higher permeability the rate dependent skin (turbulence) will increase as the flow
rate increases cause larger production reduction, and in low permeability formation the
turbulence factor will have a smaller effect due to the lower flow rate which will decrease the
reduction in the gas produced .

The table below shows the AOF for all scenarios:

Table 4.3.1: AOF comparison

Vertical has well Horizontal

K = 15 md K = 1 md
AOF without turbulence effect 38705.41 AOF without the turbulence 7806.25
mscf/day effect mscf/day

AOF with the turbulence effect 32362 AOF with the turbulence effect 7802.37
mscf/day mscf/day

Page 22 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

5.0 Conclusion
To sum up, based on the results and outcome of the assignment it was proven that the features
and the reservoir formation characteristics would effect the productivity of a well regardless of
the larger drainage area that may have as the case with horizontal well comparing to the vertical
one. Turbulence effect would reduce the production rate in both wells to a certain degree
depending on the permeability effect. Turbulence effect occurrence have been highlighted as the
chaotic changes in pressure and flow velocity which is known if its high irregularity movement.
Serval predictions scenarios have been discussed that may cause issues in the horizontal well
such as the lack of information in knowing and estimating the reservoir features and the effect of
wellbore storge. Several solutions were presented and proposed to overcome the predicted issues.

Page 23 of 24
EE058-3-3WT Individual Assignment 2020

References
Ahmad, T., 2001. Reservior Engineering Handbook. 2nd ed. Houston: Gulf Professional .

Kuchul, F. J., 1995. Well Testing and Interpretation for horizontal wells, s.l.: Distinguished Author Series.

Servies, W. T. &. f. S., 2020. Daleel Oil and Gas Supply Chain Portal. [Online]
Available at: https://scmdaleel.com/category/well-testing-fluids-sampling-services
[Accessed 21 September 2020].

testing, C. r. w., 2013. Emerson Process Management. [Online]

Available at: https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/case-study-reduce-cost-size-for-well-
testing-business-brief-en-us-91386.pdf
[Accessed 24 September 2020].

Wang, X. & Economides, M. J., 2009. Horizontal Well Deliverability with turbulence effects, Netherlands:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Page 24 of 24