This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Fikrl J. Kuchuk,

Research Center, SPE, Schlumberger-Doll Research Center, SPE, Schlumberger and LWS Ayestaran,

Richard

Technical

G. Carter,

Services,

NASA Dubai

Langley

5

F’E

1<

Summary. Determination of the inffuence function of a welllresewoir system from ihe deconvolution of weUbore flow rate and pre.ssare is prasented. Deconvolution is fimdamental and is pa&aiady applicable to system identification. A variety of different deconvolution algorithms are presented. The simplest algoritlrn is a dmect method that works we!J for data without measurement noise but that I%& in the me.sence of even small amounts of noise. We show. however. that a modified algorithm that inwoses constraints on the solution set works very welf, even with significant measurementenors.

introduction h reservoir testing, we ge”eratly know the characteristic features tion integral in connection with amfp”s of simukam.mrsly mea8of the sywtem tlom its mnstmt-flow-rate and constant-prsssure beured wellbore pressure and flow rate. Although we restrict our havior. ‘hrs it is important to determine the mnstaqt:rate or discussion mostly to determining influence functions for the -pressure behavior of the system for the identification of IIS charconstant-rate case, we do trsat the convolution integral in a generacteristic feature?.. For instance, identification of a one-half slope al manner. In other words, the influence function can also be the on a log-log plot of the pressure data may indicate a vertically fracsolution of the constant-pressure case. tured well, as two parallel straight limes on a Homer graph may k a linear causal system (reservoir), tie relationship behvssn indicate a fractured reservoir. The presence of either wellbore input (the Iime-depndent boundary condition that can be either the storage or flow-rate variations, however, usually masks characterflow rate or pressure) and output (the system response meamred istic system behavior, pardcufady at early tines. For many sysas either the flow rate or pressure) at the welfbore can be described tems, it is desirable to have a wellbore pressure that is free of as a convolution operation. 10We let the quantities measured at the wellbom-stmage and/or variable-flow-rate effects to obtain inforwellbore, above the sandface, be pti=wellbore pressure, mation about the welflreservoir geometry and its parameters. For Q~=mmdative wellbore production, and g~=wellbore flow example, the effects of partiaJ penetration, hydraulic bctures, sarate. lution gas within the vicinity of the weltbore, gas cap, etc., on the The convolution integral is wellbore pressure can k. masked entirely by wdfbore storage, flowrate vwiations, or both. g(t) = f’(r)K(t-r)dr Although deconvolution of pressure and flow rate has not been t commonly UWAfor reservoir engineering problems, one can still =K(0)f(t)-f@f(0)+ j fC(7)f(t-r)d~, . (1) fmd a few works on deconvolution (computing intluence function) in the petroleum engineering fiteraturs. Ffruchinson and SikOm, 1 where K(O)=&,. For th~ constant-flow-rate case, g(t) =&#(t)= Jones et al.,2 and Coats et al. 3 presented methcds for determinh,.f(r=O)-PM(Ol> K’(t) =APL(t), and jW=AqZJ(O=[q@(r=O) ing the influence function direcOy from field data. –%@kJ,, while for the constant-pressure case, sO)=AQ@ = Jargon and van PooUen4 were perhaps fxst to we tie dec&volQ@(t=O)-Q@(f)l, ~(t)=AQj (z), f(t)=~n(t)= ~ (z=o)lution of welfbore-flow-rate and pressure data to compute the –q~(t)[, aII~ K’(I)= constant-rate behavior (the influence function) of the formation in PW(Ol/P, or 8(~)=Aq~(t)=lq~(t=o) well testing. Bostic et al. 5 used a deconvolution technique to ob- ~j;~ #@)&:,tie t.~ K(OY(O-KW(0) can be replaced by ..taia a constant-rate solution &om a variable-rate and -pressure frisThe functions Apw(t) and Qw(t) or qw(t) are the solutions of the tory. They also extended the deconvolution technique to combine diilkivi~ equation for the ccmstant-tlow-mte or -prsssure case with production and buildup data as a single test. Pasca16 ako used or without wellbore-storage and skin effects. Although it is usualdeconvolution techniques to obtain a constant-rate solution from ly small, the deconvolved pressure will always be affectd by the variable-rate (measured at the surface) and -pressure measurements wellbore volume between the measurement point and the sandfice of a drawdown test. Kut”k and Ayestamm7 presented several because the sandface flow rate is different from the wellbore flow deconvolution methods inclding the Laplace transform and curve tit. Thompson et al. 8 and Thompson and Reynoldsg presented a rate, qti, when it is measured by the flowmeter at some wellbore location above the perforations. stable integration procedure for deconvolution. As shown by Coats et al.,3 the general solutions of the difdrsivThk paper focuses on deconvolution methcds. Mathematically, of internal IJOCOIIity WMtion with $e T$ and second w the deconvolution operation can be defined as obtaining solutions ditiom and nonpentic tidal and outer-bmmdaty conditions, satisfy for convolution-type, linear, Volterra integral equations. In resarthe constraints vou testing, it is defined as determining the pressure behavior (iifluence fiction or unit.respmse behavior) of a system from K(t)~OfOr 2~0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ...@) simultaneously measared downlole pressure and flow rate. In other K’(t) >OfOrt> O, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3) words, deconvolution computes the pressure behavior of a well/resemOir system as if the well were prcducing at a constant K“(t)SOf Orr 20, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4) rate. We calf the computed pressure behavior of the system “deand K’’’(f) aOforr> O, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5) ccmvolved pressure.”

J’

.,”.,

Convolution

Integral

when the real time is >1 sezcmdand if the diffusivity constant,

Theconvolution integral, which is a special case of the Volterra integral equations, is widsly known for providing techniques for solving time-dependent boundary-value problems. It is also known as the superposition theorem (i.e., Dubamel’s principle) and has played an iqmrtant part in transient welf-tmt analysis. Jn recent years, there ba8 been more interest in the solution of the convoluCopwhht19908ccieiyal i%roleumEng[mers SPE Formation

EvahMiO!l,

kl@ct, is not very small. Coats et al. 3 amd linear programming with the above constmints to compute K(t) from measured g(t) and

f(r). Here we use these constrains ence function. to compute the system irdJu-

**Deconvolutkrn Without Measurement Noise
**

Deconvolution is the determination of the inffuence function, K, for the constan-ffow-rate case (or the constant-pressure case with 53

March 1990

. .- % ~ 1100. we chmse. ~o Xme. The form of the A matrix depends on the functions used to approximate Kaodj as well as the scheme used to represent K(I) in terms of the solution vector Z For example. .11 can be written as a lower-triangular linear system. 5 if~i=l. . . .. finear functions. . . A direct discretimtion soheme for numerical deconvolution5. . . . . 9 includes skin effwt. 2-DeconvoIved 3r. . . . t. In this work. Note that if the weflbore storage and skin are zero. . t%cture. -fi)(t-ti)/(ti+l –ti) fOr ti~t~ti+l ad K(t) by tie w=me ~nstant functionsK(t) =K(ti) for t. ..0 ..=% and to F@ 8 in Ref. .$ g 1300. 6 and 7 reduce to Eq... 7 if 0. .f(r) to be the piecewise. of measurement noise. . . . “. ~2 .. . . t? . . . . 4-Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate with 0. .@ lime.. 6 and 7. .0 E . . . . . ..: g 1200. . . deconvolution of welfbore pressure and flow rate does not require a prerequisite bMluence funodon.+. 1200. .. . . .. . . . but use more sophisticated approximating functions for K(t). . . . . .0 . . Substitution of the simple piecetiso functions for the approximation of K’ and fever the intervals [r+~ . . . . . .=1 ~. . . the computed influence function (deconvolve.0. . . . . . 23 in Ref. . . . . (10) –f(tn+. . . . . . . . . . . March 19S0 34 . .. . . . 1400. . . . . .. . . fftbe wellbore storage is zero with a nonzero skin. .(12) . Tree. .(6I . . The solution of this system afso can be written dizectly as n-1 org?(t. . . . .. . t. . . . . .)= K(r)f(tn . . .. . 1100. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . .0 g +“ . . (8) ff both the wellbore storage and skin are nonzero.1400. .f(tn)+ n-l Zi z ~ K’(T)f(tn –~)d~ i-l . . approximzdngf(t) by the piwewise linear timtioosf~t) =j +&i+.i-l 1500. . . .hr exact deconvolved 1100. . . as before. SPE Formation Evahradon. hr Fig.0 % 3! = 1200. . . .+ . ~ i 300. . .2 pressure for the flow rate with 0. . .0 ~/ i“: :/ + — + demnvolved 1[ . . . .% g 1400. .) with a constant-flow-rate boundary. history for a welfhesewoir system as though the well prcduces at a constant rate.0 6 : . . . . . . ~. . deconwlved 1000. . . hr + decunwlved Id .. Unfike the conventional and convolution imapretation methods. . . .t. . . F@._l x ] . dmcuss the selechon of smtable Oi WILWSin terms of a stable and nonosciflato~ deconvolution solution if the flow-rate data are free.+ + .“ . . l–Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate without erro the appropriate deftions off and g above) by computing the pressure behavior from any arbitmmy pressure and flow-rate. . b. . . . .0 c . .(13) 1 .. .. . . . 9 yields a Iower*$@r SYSkm eqtivdent to the deconvolution formufa given by ~S. . . . . .2 .0 . 1300. . . . . . . . . . . etc. . . .“ ~%’+ .~8. + q . . . . then K(f)=~ . t. . hr . . . . q +: — exact — exact 0. .. ‘H g(tn)=@. . . . . then K(t)=ti+&. . . -r)d~.+ . . . . .)]} and K(~o)=g(tl)/~(tl).0 I I . .0 . . . then K(t)=ti .1 t Fig.0 :.0 k the early-time approximation for the solution of the *ivity eWatiOn for anY ZYztmnthat is intemalfy bounded by a smooth surface (sphere. .d pressure) can Lwused directly for parameter estimation as welf as for system identification. .. (9) where Kin Eq. . . . –r..(11) ‘here ~=’’’’+’-i’=”’)’” ‘=O’’””:N’ ‘dose’s’” Thompson et al. . . . .s t= tj+ ~ io Eq.2J then yield linear system3 of tie form AX=Z . 1 as . .. ... .1% error with finite-element sw of 4At. . . . . . ... Thus. . Tree. . . . . . . cyfinder. . LT. . .. . . . witbtbe cm~ncnts of ~repmsenting the vafues of Kand the components of b representing the measured values of g at various dme points.(7) where F represents an approximation to Kand ~ contains the pressure measurements g(tn). . . A variety of deconvolution schemes can be generated by writing Eq. . .

10 is underdetennined. Doing this is somewhat complicated because For an evenly spaced partition. v — exact deconvolved 1( .olution algorithm. . and . finite radkd-resen’oti model with the reservoir and fluid properties given in Table 1 in Ref. .tl]. 6 1100. . . Sometimes errors can be verj large in flowmeter measurements.1 + 1U* E / Ig F $100. At the wellbore. . . . t.0 10“2 10“’ Tree. . .01 . . . t. errors in pressure measurements usualIy are smaller than errors in ffowmeter measurements. . . .ate th.=—gn– ‘( fl \ 1500. . . . . .. . . . = l. . . 55 SPE Formation Bvatuadon. .. BecauseEq. . . Note that the discretization gives a soIution that is abnost indistinguishable from the qmfytical solution. along with the procedure for reconstmcting K(t) from the sohmion vector X Fig. . . K is approbated by smcoth piecewise quadratic functions: The solution vector for K. . . This solution afso approximate.a m ~ 1200. K“(tI). “. March 19S0 . . .@ . 7—Deconvolved pressure for the f low rate with 2% normally dlstribtied error with the reduced-monotone option. given by RI.19 ?rrorwith finite-element size of 8At is the early-time approximation of the ftite welfbore solution with the wellbore-storage and skin effects. One way to make the solution uniaue is by defnim K. .0I 1[ . last coiti ment of z giving us an NxN finear system that we can solve with standard algorithms. Appendix A presents the details of the derivation. K’(tI). Such equal K“(t) values can be represented by a single variable in Z and the corresponding columns of A can be replaced by a siogle column that is the sum of alf the others in the group.(17) / 1500. . .1400.(14) for @O. S-Deconvolved pressure for the flow rate with 2% normally distributed error with the nonposiuve secondderivative option. . . Tree. . .: :1400. hr — exact + dewnvolved I I& & 51100. . . . K“(t2).- F“ ‘~ 1100.. .(16) g(t).0 : . . For afl other time intervals. . .0 ‘ 1u? . . . . Note afso that as it stands. Kuchuk12 . .0 .(t).. . . Another approach is to create an overdetermined system by increasing the size of the tinite elements. llds is equivalentto simply detinirig groups of adjacmt swondderivative values on the original mesh to be equal to each other. . To simpfify the computation. we solve the linear least-squares problem by minimizing 1%(~–AY)T(~-A7). t. (15) Deconvolution With NOISY Flow. . 1 thro. . 10’ t 000. . . . Let us assume that the dovmhole flowrate with noises can approximated by ~(r)=f(t) +. . . 1 demomtrates what happens when we use this discretization on synthetic test data with 100 points and no error in f(t) or the mesh forf(r) from the tial regions must match with the mesh for K(r) for the initiaf regions when we are integrating K’(T)f(tn –r). . . . This is a buifduu test case with C.0 . . .. 1 without the skin term: K. . . . .IJ.howed that tbe deco. no matter how carefufly obtained. . . 9 in the discrete form A 7= b. . . . Eq. . . 10 is now overdetennird. . .0- s : z 1300. . . .0k c . does not work if the downbole flow rate contains measurement noises. . Fig.o : S! Ef”-i+lKi ‘-’ i=. 7.. . hr — exact . . The wellbore pressure and flow rate used for deconvolution plots (Pigs. .0 -. . 6 or any other direct deconvolution method. where A is an NxN+ 1 matrix. . . . psi [30 MPa]. hr Fig. =4. . . . . ‘) . i~somewhat tedious. . . .0 . t.0 1500.0 j 0.0- . .COO. . 5–Deoonvolved pressure for the flow rate with 0. . . . . Ime.demnvclved . ~. An appropriate general approximation at early times is thus K(f)= at+~+AP.Rate Measurements All measurements. consider the Riemann SUMfor@. It is then straightforward. . . This mild conoiA qd the last eledition allows us to elii. ~oo.=0. .@ t 000. we will increase the mesh size only for K(t). . to express Eq. . are subject to errors. ..4W P.ewively coarser mesh for later-time values. . .. with a fine mesh for early-time values and a progr.K’’(tN-l). . . . . hr ?g. depending on wellbore geometries and fluid twe.* Tree. s=1O.2 $ 1400.seoondierlvafive option. X is given in terms of the unknowns Ap.! the case where the wellbore storage is tinite with a zero skin.gb 8) are computed from a fully penetrated. . 6—DeconvoIved pressure for the flowrate with 2% normallydistributed emorwith the monotone-increasing.10” 10’ Fig.

1 through 3 show us what happens when we use Eq.200 317. . . . . . . K’. h minimishoufd give the best result we can expxt z. is small. plus the single linear constraint N-1 K’(zN)=K’(tl)+At ~ K“(ti)zO. . . and 1%. K“(12). . 2. . Figs. We considered three techniques for ~g the effects of measurement noise. . Eq.. This can be fOrumfated as fOllows. /here M is any integer such that M(M+ I)>N and P-M+4. . Consequently. . +6P for K’rs O and monotoneoptions NM >(M+ 1 P+3(N+ 1) lnd Nu >2P J +3(N+ 1) +6P for the reduced-monotoneoption.033). We =fer to our dgoritbm that folfows constraints given by Eqs. . however. .e. It would. respectively. proximation to K is only twice continuously differ~tile. For very targe N. . Eq. Xiso .(23) Substituting Q. . . . . . .(18) (fl+q) i=l Each term in Eq. . 17 yields I n-1 E en-i+lKj. quadraticprograrmoiog method. for i> 3. . K“(rI). . the discretization gives a solution that is almost indistinguishable from the analytical solution. . 15 becomes a constrained finear least56 .PXP quadratic program. . .. .fcomputermemoryrequiredto storethe Matrix. t. @. . .. . . . the amount . 2 through 4 as the ‘‘ncmpa$itive secondderivative” option. . . 20 and 21 are satisfied. K“(tN)-K’’(tN_I).300 23. . For that reason. . i=I . it should be replaced by h general. where p is rOugMY fi (tie Precise definition of P is given io TabIe 1). . 1 woufdb relatively trivial except for the violent effects small amounts of flowrate noise.. . . .–K”(tl). 2 through 5.4 and associated mrk arrays) are defined as follows.. .1. . . 18. including Eqs. have on the solution. . . 6 and 7. Solving this problem thus involves a singfe or orthogonal factorization of Matrix A (A =QR.250 Monotone Reduoed monotone 317. . . The real problem.. The second technique was to restrict the solution space by boposing some or all constmimts given by Eqs.811 39.255 Method Monotone Reduced monotone K“SO 45 20 squares problem that can be solved with an active-set. . . With only 0. . . .. The last technique for deafing with measurement noise is a slight modification of the previous approaches and can be motivated by a detailed e xandnation of our least-squares fomudation. We found that the use of larger elements signitlantly helps our solutions when they are compared with the solutions given in Fig. . be better to tind the srnallost ~rturbation to f(t) (the flow-rate measurements) for which we cao s?lve the problem exactly. . .(23) K“(!) is monotone increasing for t>O.400 TIME AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS Memory CPU Time” Requirement. with Q being NxNor an ortbonormal matrix and R being an upyr tigular matrix) and the solution of a . . 5 is used also. is the last summation term in Eq. . K’(tI). .255 5. K“(!N-l) so that constraints given by Eqs.tion schemes were tied. 16 into Eq. 20 through 22. fn either case.800 56. . . . Appendix B presents the details Oi tills tomulation. 2 through 4 could be ‘Press~ a shpk bounds 011the elements of ~ x~20 . m VAX VMS bmause of @xcessivemmm. This scheme is called “reduced monotone. The monotonically increasing seconddexivative option MD be meated similarly if the components of Y are deiimxl as Ap. .. ” It simply ignores many of the rows of A for large t where things may not change significantly. the sOIutiOn of Eq. 23 is compwationafly intractable if Nis Large because it is nonlinear. 16 and find K(t) and e(t) that minimize I]@) II subject to g(t)=@~f(t)+@K’(r-r)dr 0 . . . ff the error.siogit ifit proved too smafl.000 4.(24) which we refer to as the’ ‘monotone-increasing secondderivative” option.. we may have reasonable results from deconvolution. Wit3 no error.. More precisely. . . .aticm problem givem by Eq. Algorithms for approximating the solution of F.. Eq. We used a mesh that kept the ncdes approximately equally spaced on a logarithmic scale and reduced the size of Eq. which includes the fmt flow-rate measurement and the associated error. .March 1990 *”V(7)+e(~)]K’(t”-r)d~. Treating Eq. 10 with equally spaced time points on test data with 100 points and errors in f @ of O. solving this problem is still fairly timeconmming even tier the savings given from larger titdte elements. The elements of 7 were specifically defined as Ap. The use of progressively larger linite elements for larger time. L&f be defined as in Eq. . 22 also tends to be satisfied in practice. . there is usually still some oscillation. ... . K’(tI). . we needed only mild safeguards in the program to prevent it from being violated.(2o) Monotone Reduced monotone K“SO 11. 122 for iS2. . . which makes deconvolution an unstable process. 15 fiOm NxN tO NxP. but all exhibit the same phenomenon. 16 and 23 for t=tn gives 8(tn)=&s~(~n)+~(tn)]+~ 0 SPE Fommtion Evaluation. 0. .WaJld not CM@!. . . of course. . .. . .rj .TABLE l–CPU dumber of Points 1. values was also highly signiikmt in making our pmbiem computationafly tractable. . 6n-i+lK. 4 and 5. times the error. 13.. K“(tI).. . n-l – x i=. 18 is divided by (ql +C1).Ttmlngesuilsrefora vu 111780 flmtlng r a With point amlerew. .. .300 1. .263.q. for larger errors and large N. ThiSterm isa summation of the solution. .. . With 1 % noise.248 570 50 850 .1 % noise. . and provisions were included for automatically increa.. . . the solution is obviously useless. a third scheme was considered as a modification to the monotone-increasing swondderivative option. . 22 was handled by adding a penal~ term that increased the objective function if the constraint was violati. .equlrmenls. . . . . Combining Eqs. . It ah shows thattbe reduced-monotone @ion reduces the storage requirements considerably. El.(19) and the constraints given by Eqs. . .14 Much care was needed to formulate the probIem so that it was numerically tractable for large data sets (N> 1. . 22 io this manner allowed us to we specialized. . .(21) “hememoryrequirements(NM) for each methcd(i. bigMy efftcient algorithms for quadratic programming problems subject only to simple constraints. Typical resuks of such smoothing are showo h Figs.. our solution starts to oscillate wildly. .. It grows as time increases. . . K“(t2) . . . 15 is ~e exWt solution to the overdetermined system AZ =b. . whero b @ the smafkst wssible perturbation in the least-squares sense of b (the vector of pressure measurements). . Unfortumtely. .. Such a reformuIation of he dwonvol”tion ~ ~ ~on~~~~-~ation problem Unfortunately. . The penalty comtant was chosen heuristically on tie basis of the element size of A. NM (seconds) 39. . Several other dmcretiza. when Eqs. and /here NM is the number of floating point words required for torage. . We have therefore made the following simpfitication. 15 is mOst aPPrOPMte if the m=SUrement nOise is ~ g(t) (~ P~ss~ UImmIementS). . . Because our apif &. though. The first was to increase the size of our tinite elements as previously discussed so that noise will tend to average itself out. Table 1 presents CPU time and storage requirements for three different numbers of data points.

tn_l] to be constant and eqwal to en. we can do the following mani@adon. . Therefore. . computed with the con?.Tcornponents initially “fwed” and how they were chosen).(tn–~)dr 1 . reduced-monotone option. . . with the derivadve of tie amlyticaf solution. . Kn-2.40-r 10+ . . . A fdgher+rder discredzation. 10-Derivative md flow rate given In Ffg.. . prodnced results that were not 2.. 0. The reducedmonotoneoption.. Kn+2. a given data set should be partitioned and that deconvolution should be carried out in a sequential mmner. . Pressure . 8 presents computed deccmvolved weflLmre pressure drop using the nonpaitive secondderivadve option.xdb as we desired.s of the convolution integml are prezented to compute the influence funcdon (the umst. Because it is only a slightly cmde approximation.. . f-et us fix the vahe of K.+3 .e.OO ““k. ..l. The weflbore flow-rate &ta.. . . . all computed values of K affect each other. .-~. Flow Rate . and Km. Fig. ..ce function of real systems Wiwdfy can be much more complicated than the Miite did system that is used for the above deconvolution examples (Tigs. It can be seen from these figures that the deconvohmion with the monotoneXncreasing K“ constraints gives the best resuft starting from a very early time.2 % .+”% “. . 6 presents cmmputed dewnvolved and actual (analydcafly computed) welbre pressure drop using the monotone-increasing secondderivative option.80- 8 0. . . . 9). which can be rewritten of deconvolved pressure for the presmm ‘lg. 23 by the mucbsimpler Eq.. .(2Q t=z ti_* dominated by the term .. .: “% +. the computed value of Kn is not affected by Km+. .(tn-r)dr. . .. 7 presents the computed deconvolved pressure drop using the 8PE Formation Evaluation.we 4350 3750 if L “ “ ““””””””””%. the mathematical analysis becomes slightly more complicated. . 4000 E 3000 2000 . given by Eqs.– [J @sfn+ 0 . 10 compares tbe derivative of the deconvolved pressure. etc. . 5 in Ref.mt-mto or -pmmure solution) of a system from the measured wellbore pressure and flow rate. which was based on cubics and which bamdtbe third derivative to be =0. @a 6000 $ 5000 * 1. which bound ordy the first derivative to be >0. . the mend (shape) of the deconvolved-pressure derivative is almost identkaf to that of the a.. f(T)K (tn–r)d~ 1 =enKI. . 10000 -. 15. In weU testing.”’ o. . i. . . 15 if we “freeze” Omfirstfewvafuezof XTbese values can be determined by solving our discretization once with use of an N stroll enough so that ourf(t) data are still essentially exact.~ points were used.. Some typical results for tkse different methods are shown in Figs. “ .. .. h other words. K. 1 through 8). may stUf be acceptable if computational spfed is a factor. with the exception of a few points at early time. 10$ 1000 0 . . .V2 # .(28) cyofKn is affected by Kn+l. . the derivative of the deconvolved pressure agrees well with the analytical derivative. . we recommend that. : :% . new deconvolution techniques that am numerical wIution. 10 shows. 15) and the flow-rate data (real measurements) shown in F]g. .fn+ o ‘“f(~)K. . . Fig. . Conclusions fn this paper. . . as shown in Fig. bad a 2% normally distributed error induced into it.. K. to be a constant. is a recursive algoritlun in which K. . . Versions that did not use the square-root term in the timt interval usually were a bit less accurate for a few timesteps. . This is particularly necessay for early time.. . 1. . . . . .s king $''K'(r). ..oo- :. . As a result. 9 to compute wellbore pressure. This horizontal weU example is used because it has few diferent flow psricd. . . 6 tiuough 8. With these simplifications Eq. in practice. that we can replace the ~ “on problem defined by Eq. . The constmineddeconvoludon afgoritbm mmputes the deamvolved pressure in a nonrecursive manner.. we can discard the term n E 8. and 1. . the accura- Now recall hat K’(O)= m for the constant-rate case. . . 9.: . .. where an=gn– [1 Ap. Then we minimize Z#=lc~.. As Fig.ssm.. . The best choice seemed to be to fix the fust three elements. . . As in the zolution of a syztem of linear equations. Kn_l. . and can consider e over tie intervaf [In. . The direct deconvolution formula. .traineddeconvolution method with partition for the pressure and flow-rate data set (Fig.(27) ~tiKr(r). . .(29) ff we include more terms from W. It sdU suggests. wbife not as accurate. .z. also shown in Fig.f(t).60o exact dernn. . 26.(tn-~)d~ ". Now let us use the amlyticaf solution for a horizontal welf (Example 3 in Ref.. . A Iower+rder discretization.. .olved . 23 becomes h g. .nalydcaf derivative. ~2 .. A large number of test runs were made to determine about how much of T to “fieezc before solving the full discretization.+* is computed with all previous computed K values (Kn. 9–Downhole pressure and flow rate of a drawdown test for a horizontal well. however. Note that ewm at early dine. . 6 and 7.. ..). . 10’ 10’ I 100 1 1Ot hr Fig. while Fig. 2s Dlscusslo6f Ducredzatiom other than the ones listed above were also tried. March 1990 K. . which is equivzfent to minimizing E:= I $.. . 9. turned out to be bigfdy sensitive to heuristic details (such as the number of .. It is shown 57 — . Fig.1 to 1d 100 Xme. the idlue. ..20 11000 9000 8000 7200 s . . .

i=* .. J. L. . 8.: ‘<CombinedAnalysis of Postfrachuin8 Performance and Pressure Buildup Data for Evaluating an MHF Gas Well. New York City (1973) 375-77.” JPT(Feb. 4.: “A Generalized Mc-M for Predicdng the Performance of G8sReservoirs Subjectto WateI Drive. Murray. “ ‘ 13. Kj=Kj-l+(Af/2)(Kj+Kj_ +At j–1 ~ KY.(A-2) 4 = pormi~ Subscripts D = dimmsionJess i.” SPEJ?E (Oct. . cp [Pa.fuctim to Mmix Computations. .QME. . (A-1) where fj denotes f($) and At is the dtiferemce between successive time points (assumed constant).1. a H 1983) 323-34.$..: “Application of the LapPace Transformationto Flow Fmbkms in R&moirs.$1.W.F. Kuchuk.R. AJME.. .. from Eqs.xN)T defined by Eq. R. R..C. .’. . Katz. for j> 1. Denvm.: ‘-Analysisof Fres- b = vector c. Jones. .G.s] defined by Eq. . N. md influence function lower trianguk mshix number of measurements number of memory requirement pressufe original pfessure. Da~. comtrained-miniiation methods are used for the d~onvolution of measured weJJbore pressure and flow-rate data ifermrs are significant in these measurements. Appendix A—PlecewIse Linear Approximation To derive Eq.. .&mwd Mcaing. 2. L. = total compressibdity. F.D. Tnm. SPE Formation Evaluation. The constraints used here satisfy the general solutions of the diffusiviw equation. j> 1.s. A. 1-10 .: Practical Optitition.j.: Numerical Methods for Sciem”sts.fjl.R. 12. M. .: Whit Response Function From V=Y@-~1. McGraw-Hill Book Co..k.n.J. 234. Academic Press.: “Analysis Simultaneously of Measured pressurendSandface OWRateinTmmimtWeUTesfing. eraL. 1986) 453-69. . Jones. P. wellmre weJlbore flowing K~=Kj_l+AtK~-l=Kl Furthermore.: “Advances in Evafuadm Gas W. H.= 2 ~~-l+[(T-V-i)/MI(K}-Kj-l)} References 1. we afso have K’(r) =Kj_. ]. !~lK(.~(tn-r)d. J. It is shown that deconvolution with the monotom?increasing second derivative of the intluence function (deconvolved pressure) yields the best results.C. Denver. Bosfic.S. May 7.(A4) 8.’.xdlen. D.W.J. andCarter. L. AQ.: “New Methods for Estimating Parameters of LowPermeabiliy Reservoirs.” paper SPE 428 presented a! tbe 1962 SPE . AIME (1949) 186. . 1986) 435-52 Tmm. A. AJME. (A-6) Hence. .m = summation indices .GIO. .: – perturbation to flow rate ‘ = derivative In the time intewaJ r.” paper SPE 16394 presented at the 1987 SPEI130E SvmKQsium Low Permeabilih’ Resewoirs. IO. K. . 29 d-y integration vsriabIe Test Pressure Data UsinS Dubamd’s Principle. Because of the stabdity problem associated with measurement errors. Nomenclature o ~ = ~1~~~~~f ~trix ~ = ma~ix 7. Now.. 9. which can be expressed as K(r)=Ap. . .skwart. LO. and Tek. and Reynolds. +2AfK{’)-4A#n~K~’ T = tIWpOSe Acknowledgments We thank SchJumberger for permission to pubJish tfds paper. Agarwal.. . Hutcb!nsnn. London (1973). ” JPT (Oct.” Trans.7-?Q. March IWO . . JPT (Dec. 216. (A-7) X{ Yn-j+[($–l–r)/~l(fn-j–f.Wd by Skill defined in Table 1 sure Buildup Data Influenced by We!JLmrePhase Redishibution. Thompson. However. . ~u~”. particularly in flow rate.: “AMIYSSof VariableJ?a@WeJl- q = flow rate Q = cumulative flow rate R = upper trisnguk mshix ~ = $&* t = At = F= fJ = W = a = y = 6 = e = p = u = ~ = time timestep vector of (xl. and Ayestaran. and Wdght.f(tn-~)=~n-j+[(~-l -~)/At](~n_j--~n_j-t). 15. 14. . K is approximated Ap. and Fqnolds.T... For each time intewal T@. M. W. the direct techniques fail if even smaJl amounts of measurement noise are present.. R. March 23-25. ‘s~tion Field Data.tl].U Deliverability Using Variable RateTests Under Non-Darcyhow.” paper SFE 9841 p“-ti at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Sympasium. .” JpT (Au8. 10 in terms of the discredzd forms off(t) and K(t). paper SPE 17413 presented at the 1988 SPE California Regional Meztimg. F.. F. 1980) -. Jarson. Oct. ~’fl --6. G. E. V.s.(A-3) I). London (19gl). 19&) 1417-2* Tmns. . Kuchuk. 5. C. 305-24. G. 11. and Hurst. Hamming. . . GiU. + (A-5) superscripts . ” SPEFE (Oct. 8eIes.. et UL: ‘Wessure Transient Behavior for Ho&ontal WelJs With Gas Cap or Aquifer. W. L.. S.. MN@ 231.: buro. A-1 and A-2.= N = r = w = @= normahzed refe*e”ce weJJ. . . psi KPa] PE5SUE drop Ca.I.that deconvolution of the welbore flow rate and pressure is sh’aightforward with direct integration methods if the data afe ffee of measurement errors. . so we have for TE[tj-l.. f(r) is taken to be piecewise linear.R..@ Engineers.G. . . . Jmn8 Beach.H. and Sikma. CD = f = g = k = K = L = N = NM = p = PO = AP. .. 1963) 965-6% Tr~. and +[(r–fi_I)/&](Kj -K}_I) .-. 7-10. H. K. We dso think Jeffrey Joseph of SchJmnberger WeJJ Services for providing helpful discussions. B-3 deiinti by 3?+ A-12 constant Comtsnt noise in flow-rate measurement constant oil viscosity. = P = psi – 1 &Pa-1] dimensionless welJbore storage input to system system output permeabdity. Pascal. 2S3. we MUSTevaluate Wch krm of the summation in Eq.Academic press. A.+r(Ki or KI(T)=Ki+2NKfJ-2N3/2 T–l~Kfr. . ‘fhcmpson.: “A Gem=dized Water-Drive AmJysis.xt-!-d . van Everdingem. . . and van P. JPT (July 1959) 169-77. 8. C@at. X2. . of Aquifer Jatluenct Fumdons Fmm 3. MaY on 18-19. 58 J J -J-1)}dT.U.

t. . . . . .. ..1939.. . + l/6fl .l/3(5f2 . . . . . . .. . ah2 = l12(fN +5i3ftJ_. .(A-1I) a function W We can simpli& the above expression by deftig and where Wj is given by Eq.)+u] .. .. . a31 ‘f3. ._&2 ) > . . Using Eq. . Revlsad mamscr[pt wived April 28. . U4Z 1/2(f4 +5/3f3 + l/3fZ) + 1/2W3+ l/6fl. . u&~..-l j=2 ( a33 = . . . . : GN. . aN4 x{~n-j[(~–I –T). ..+At ~ :.&1+. .. . . .(A-14) h Both Eqs. . . . . . Reversing the order of the double summation and ccdlecdng terms in Eq.~-7 and A78 and substiming At +~ 2 ~fn-1 +~fn_2 ~ ) into Eq.+ ~ f. . .. .. . %2 1 matrix. Ki +A#(fn +fn-l)K~’ –>12(2fn +fn_l)K{’. . . .(A-l5) March 1990 original SPE nmnuwbt mceiwd far rav(w Feb. . Use Eqs.. ..894757 E–01 = m3 E+OO = kpa where.. . .) 0. . a~= 1/2 W2+ 116fI.. . Z’=(Ap.sein Matrix A in Eq. @rY. 1{2WZ+ l/6f1... . . . . . ~ (A-Q 034 %4 . The remaining elements are defined as a~~ = -(5/3y1 a~j ==. . . . .. Eq. ..*( ii. . +1/6f1. ... . defined as Q13”OO0. . . .. . . . +fn-1 ) % = . 22and B-4 can be handled by adding a psnalty term to the optimization problem. . . . . . @4) w. . . ..(A-lO) –K~-2)]T.. . .. aN4= 1/2 N-2 + l/6fl.f. . U3. . . a34= l/2Wi + l/6fl . . . . )}dr.(A-16) 2 +:fn_j+:fn-j+. .— For j=l. . . 19. . . .. aN4=uN-~. . .. 13.(B-l) To make Eq. . . we must do sonic further manipulation. ..j+l I Kj+~ )IN(2 yfo+ ~fl 1).+ 22.. alz=fll% a. U32 ‘]/2(f3 +5/3f2 + l/3f.. . and W aNj=l/2wN-j+z +l/6fl fOr J2’t.. . .. (B-2) A$ +— 2 n-2 ~ fi+ i=2 [( K:’ j=2 ~ :&+:t-l +:3-2 where Um= mll Z -Wj+~fl j=l 2 . .” .*n-r)d- a2i a72 a23 a33 U43 . . . . . ‘Apsfn ( Ki +— j=2 ~ E ( ~fn-j-l am ‘fz. A-10 yields At g“=APsfn+~ 5 1 fn+yfn-l+. K.l/3(5fN+fN-.lncreashrg Sec03rd. . .j+~ f0rj24... = a43= .. . an ‘1/2(f2+2fl). . . . The constraints are then xi 20 for i#3. . Paper (SPE 13330] accepted la publlc%trcm S@. ... and A is the NxN+ all a 12 032 a42 . . . . . .. . . . A-10 computationafly tractable.) + 1/2WN_.N+ 1 o 0 0 aU =f.. . . we can then obtain At 8n=&fn+y ( 2 . . . . . . g. . . . . SPEFonnatim. . . . hemce.l/3(5ffi+fN_. aim = .g2. E ~fi+. . A-12. CA-12) where W1=O. . . 1989...l/3(5f4+f3)+l12 W3+ 1/6fl. aN6 ..f. . At2Kl)T. . . 59 . .= . . .@Kfi_l X K~+At ( ~ K~’ +.. aN=UI.. . . ._l+:fn_2 At ) rl+— n-l z j=z ~ ( ~fn-j-l ON1‘fN...fi+.AtKi. a43 = - l/3(5 f4+fJ+ a43=Ul... . . we have ~-~ “ (K~+UtKff-Ut327-I/2K. .. .. . The first two columos of MatiA +f. Q41‘f4. 8 yields “-l ~ . A-12 and A-13 and put everything nmtzixnotationin Eq. . . . . .’ +7 ) ‘*(2 ~fo+.0erlw3tlveOption Thevector Z for the monotone-increasingsecond-derivativeoption is expressed in terms of differences in successivesecondderivaiive values as Z=[Ap~. . a23= 1/3(5f2 +fl) + l/2Wl + l/6f1.(A-13) . A-n to reach . . . . . . . )( K.. X3 sO.E valuation. a~=U2.. .. and N-1 30 that K“(tN-l)=K’’(tI)+ 14 1’ E i-z (Ki’–K~-I)=O.. . . . (B-3) ~fo+ifl E K:’. A-3.. 33..l/3(5f3 +fd + 1/2 WZ+1/6fl.)+ a13d0Nj=UN-. . A-9. . . j=2 ( . (A-9) a~~= 112WI + 116f1.A&Ki’.. % o 0 0 a45 aN5 0 0 o . . . The ~vector is the same as that given in I@ A-15... . ._2+ [ n-l ~ are tbe same as Om. . . . ... . .)+ 4 + ~fn-j + .. . +:$-z (5’) )21’ )1 +y 1):: “2(2 +~fl+~f: KI–A$ ~fn+yfn-1 Ki’ am= . .f.. . . + l/3fN-2) + 1/2WN-.A2Ki. ...)T. . . . . . . . . WEFB . . ...A# (Kf-Ki’).. a31 041 .~l(~..~ = –513fl..U3(5f3 +f2)+ UZ..1985. .589873 psi x 6. .-j–~m-j-l [ where aNl fntegratig”Eqi. .4==E . .1. .. . 15 can SW be solved by the zmne spwialized zfgorithmz used previously that treat onfy zimple constraints on the idvidual mmponents of X S1 Metric Conversion Factors bbl X 1.@Ki’ ~=(g1. .fl 1 ) Appendix B—Monotorre. .gN)T. . ::)’7 fn+fn_l ) Ki+A#(fn+fn_I)K~’ -~@(2fn+fn_1)Ki' . .

- Magcobar.-mud Chemistry Book
- SPE-124441-MS
- API-44-053
- SPE-936033-G
- SPE-16484-MS
- SPE-71726-MS
- PETSOC-99-44
- SPE-54006-MS
- SPE-38855-MS
- SPE-18276-MS
- API-38-435
- admin-A-10-1-24-3990618
- SPE-172359-MS
- SPE-172359-MS.pdf
- SPE-57886-PA.pdf
- SPE-16036-MS
- SPE-124-PA
- SPE-6721-PA
- Humphreys.-the Material Balance Equation for a Gas Condensate Reservoir With Significant Water Vaporization
- SPE-56850-PA
- NM(Carito-Mulata)Khan Et Al.-field Operations Strategy Under Uncertainty in El Carito Field, North of Monagas, Venezuela
- A(San Joaquin)Almeida, Todd, et al.-Reservoir Engineering Study of C02 Enhanced Oil Recovery for the Nipa 100 Field, Venezuela.pdf
- El-Banbi, Sayyouh, Nassar.-modified Black Oil PVT Properties Correlations for Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoirs
- SPE-5052-PA.pdf
- IPTC-13784-MS-P

- asl410-07
- PHYSICAL AND GEOMETRICAL INTERPRETATION OF GRUNWALD-LETNIKOV DIFFERINTEGRALS-MEASUREMENT OF PATH AND ACCELERATION
- Level Technology
- Section 5.5 HW
- Sample2012-mathEPm1 (2).pdf
- Articulo a Derivative Estimation Toolbox Based on Algebraic Methods
- Lab3
- 05a_maths1
- Wikibooks - Calculus
- 90620_1_112.pdf
- Derivatives of products, quotients, sine, cosine
- 14-Feature Extraction 2
- Math
- diffeq
- Newton's method and other applications
- Engineering Math
- Math - Integration
- Definite Integral Synopsis
- Cal162 Iterated Integrals
- Ad Second Order
- 01_7.1_Distributions_13-14
- Apcalcprobbook Mccaffrey Revised
- AP Calc Prob Book
- Center of Pressure and Hydrostatic Force on a submerged body-Rev
- 2013-12-02 Product Rule, Why You Should Believe It
- 23145129TableofContents.pdf
- 1977_RA-220
- Calculus, Applications and Theory
- Blast Pressure
- Malliavin
- SPE_13960

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd