129 views

Uploaded by Boota from Toba

- SPE 028688 (Doublet) Material Balance Decline Type Curve An
- 01-Introduction to Well Testing
- Eclipse Tutorial1 2018 (2)
- Spe 75133
- Ried+Field
- LampungBlock History
- Production Forecasting
- Ipa Paper Proceedings
- CO2 Injection Monitoring
- AAPG_HC Generation Potential.pdf
- Differential Capacity Fractal Dimension and Water Saturation Fractal Dimension as Parameter for Reservoir Characterization : Shajara Formation of the Permo-Carboniferous Unayzah Group as a Case Study.
- Selecting Oil Wells for Hydraulic Fracturing
- PPE 2, Overview of Reservoir Eng (Lecture 2)
- 43f412c1-0341-4d2c-9529-6e1f2582c1d4-161208101810
- 11. SPE-18172-MS OK
- Chariot
- 10.1007%2Fs12594-014-0133-z
- Subsea Processing
- 15 Tr 12000405
- stratplaysukcs

You are on page 1of 79

TEXTBOOK SERIES

VOLUME 4

WELL TESTING

by

Zoltn E. HEINEMANN

Professor for Reservoir Engineering

Leoben, October 2003

www.petroman.ir

Only students of the University of Leoben may copy for studying purposes.

Edited by DI Barbara Schatz - October 2003

www.petroman.ir

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

1.5.

1.6.

1.7.

Methods .................................................................................................................................1

Evaluation of Formation Tests .............................................................................................. 6

Productivity Index ............................................................................................................... 11

Skin Effect ........................................................................................................................... 11

Principle of Superposition ................................................................................................... 15

Wellbore Storage ................................................................................................................. 17

Pressure Change .................................................................................................................. 21

1.7.1 Drainage Radius ........................................................................................................ 27

1.7.2 Multi-Phase Filtration ............................................................................................... 27

1.7.3 Equations for Gas-Flow ............................................................................................ 28

2.1. Semilog Plot ........................................................................................................................ 33

2.2. Type Curve Matching ......................................................................................................... 34

2.3. Reservoir Limit Testing ...................................................................................................... 35

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

Type Curve Matching ......................................................................................................... 45

Skin Factor .......................................................................................................................... 46

Reservoir Pressure ............................................................................................................... 47

Gas Producing Wells ........................................................................................................... 51

4.1. Interference Test ................................................................................................................. 55

4.2. Pulse Test ............................................................................................................................ 58

5 Nomenclature .........................................................................................................69

6 References...............................................................................................................71

7 Appendix.................................................................................................................73

www.petroman.ir

Table of Contents

www.petroman.ir

List of Figures

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Pressure drop in a production well inside a finite reservoir ..............................................2

Figure 1.2: Pressure distribution inside a quadratic reservoir with two wells (From Matthews and

Russel [11]) ........................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1.3: Production test at an increasing production rate ...............................................................3

Figure 1.4: Production test at an decreasing production rate ...............................................................4

Figure 1.5: Pressure buildup measurement .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 1.6: Pressure response for an interference test ......................................................................... 5

Figure 1.7: Pressure response for a pulse test ...................................................................................... 5

Figure 1.8: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite radial system. Solution

according to Equation 1.30 (no skin, no wellbore storage) .............................................10

Figure 1.9: Skin zone of finite thickness (after EARLOUGHER[4])..................................................12

Figure 1.10:Infinitely acting reservoir with several wells..................................................................15

Figure 1.11:Effect of wellbore storage on sand face flow rate ..........................................................19

Figure 1.12:Type-curves for a single well inside a homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and

skin effects (after BOURDET et al. [2] ) .......................................................................... 23

Figure 1.13:Log-log plot vs. (after BOURDET et al.[2]) ..................................................................24

Figure 1.14:Type curves - homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and skin

(after BOURDET et al.[2] )............................................................................................... 26

Figure 1.15:Dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of a closed circular reservoir, no

wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) ........................................30

Figure 1.16:Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems, no

wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) .......................................30

Figure 1.17:Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems, no

wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) .......................................31

Figure 2.1: Evaluation of the transient pressure drop (after MATTHEWS and RUSSEL[11])...........33

Figure 2.2: Semilog plot of pressure drawdown data ........................................................................ 39

Figure 2.3: Reservoir limit testing for pressure drawdown data........................................................40

Figure 3.1: Pressure buildup curve with skin effect and wellbore storage ........................................44

Figure 3.2: Pressure buildup curve with a limited drainage area.......................................................48

Figure 3.3: MBH dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of equilateral drainage areas

(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10]) ........................................................52

Figure 3.4: MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a square drainage area

(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10]) .......................................................53

Figure 4.1: Illustration of type curve matching for an interference test (after EARLOUGHER[4]) ..56

Figure 4.2: Schematic illustration of rate (pulse) history and pressure response for a pulse test ......59

Figure 4.3: Schematic pulse-test rate and pressure history showing definition of time and pulse

response amplitude. ......................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.4: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first odd pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 61

Figure 4.5: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first even pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 62

Figure 4.6: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all odd pulses

except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )................................................63

www.petroman.ir

List of Figures

Figure 4.7: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all even pulses

except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )................................................64

Figure 4.8: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first odd pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 65

Figure 4.9: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first even pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) ................................................................................. 66

Figure 4.10:Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all odd pulses except

the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7]) .........................................................66

Figure 4.11:Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all even pulses except

the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7]) .........................................................67

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-1

1 Introduction

In a well, which opens a hydrocarbon or water-bearing layers, the bottom-hole pressure can be

measured during production and during a following shut in period. From these data, conclusions

can be drawn about the reservoir, the efficiency of the sand face perforation and about the

quantitative relationship between production rate and bottom-hole pressure.

Wells interfere with each other. Opening or shut-in a well causes pressure changes in

neighboring wells. They can be recorded with high precision, whereby the permeability and

porosity of a reservoir can be determined.

Hydrodynamic well tests, also called formation tests, have a basic significance. They allow to

determine the state of reservoirs and wells and help to optimize production and recovery.

Formation tests can be carried out in an uncased bore-hole (this is a drillsteam test) as well as

in a completed well. The methods differ, but the basic principles remain the same.

In wildcat, exploration, and appraisal wells, economical, environmental and safety

considerations often constrain the applicable methods and the duration of the tests severely.

This can limit the knowledge we can gain from the well. However, tests performed before the

onset of field production have distinguished advantage because the reservoir may remain in a

single phase state throughout the test duration. When the first wells are drilled in a virgin

reservoir representative fluid samples can be collected. In most of the cases, only these samples

are representative for PVT (dependency of pressure-volume-temperature) analysis. Once the

field has been produced and the oil reservoir pressure has dropped below the bubble point or the

gas reservoir pressure below the dew point, it is not possible anymore to determine the original

fluid composition.

The two basic categories of well tests are transient and stabilized tests. The goal of the stabilized

tests is to determine a relationship between the average pressure of the drainage area, the bottom

hole pressure and the production rate, in other words, to determine the productivity index.

In this textbook, the most important methods of well tests and their evaluations are presented.

For the theoretical basis, reference is made to the textbook Fluid Flow in Porous Media[6].

For more in depth study, the SPE Monographs from Matthews and Russel[11], Earlougher[4] and

Lee[8] are recommended.

1.1. Methods

During the production of a well at a constant rate, the bottom-hole pressure decreases

continuously (Figure 1.1).

www.petroman.ir

1-2

Introduction

Bottom-hole pressure

pwf

pi

Transient filtration

Steady-state or pseudo

steady-state filtration

q = constant

Steady-state

Latetransient

Time

Pse ud

os

te ady

-state

At the beginning, the pressure decrease is especially quick, but with time becomes more and

more moderate. Beyond a certain point, the pressure curve can become linear. This point divides

the curve into two parts:

transient and

steady state or pseudo-steady state period.

The filtration is steady state if no more pressure changes occur. This indicates that the formation

has a boundary with constant pressure. The pressure distribution between this boundary and the

well casing is constant. A linear change of the bottom-hole pressure indicates a finite drainage

area. The production is the consequence of the fluid expansion within this area.

The drainage area of a well is determined by its share in the total production the formation. If

there is only one well, the drainage area is identical with the reservoir. In transient conditions,

the drainage area changes. Figure 1.2 shows the pressure distribution in a theoretically

homogenous square shaped reservoir with two production wells. The bottom hole pressures are

not shown for either well, these are far below the bottom of the sketch. The ratio of production

rates is 1:2.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-3

Pressure

Drainage Boundary

Well 1

Well 2

Relative Rate 1

Relative Rate 2

Figure 1.2: Pressure distribution inside a quadratic reservoir with two wells (From Matthews

and Russel[11] )

If the production rate is changing during the tests, the pressure change is also more complicated.

Fig 1.3 shows a test with a rate increasing in steps, whereas Figure 1.4 shows a test with a rate

decreasing in steps. If the time periods are short, the pressure change remains transient.

Production

rate

q4

q3

q2

q1

Bottom-hole

pressure

t

pi

Time

Figure 1.3: Production test at an increasing production rate

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

Production

rate

1-4

Bottom-hole

pressure

Time

Figure 1.4: Production test at an decreasing production rate

Production

rate

Among the possible tests, the pressure buildup test has a special significance. After producing

at constant rate, production is stopped and the pressure buildup is measured (Figure 1.5).

Bottom-hole

pressure

t1

pws

pwf

t1

Time

Figure 1.5: Pressure buildup measurement

Figure 1.6 shows an interference test. While the active well produces at a constant rate, the

observation well is shut in. The pressure in the observation well increases at first (in the case of

an earlier production) and then decreases due to the influence of the active well.

www.petroman.ir

1-5

Production

rate

Introduction

qA

qB =0

Bottom-hole

pressure

pwsB

Time

Figure 1.6: Pressure response for an interference test

Production

rate

It is possible to produce periodically from the active well, as shown in Figure , i.e. the well

pulsates. The pressure changes in the observation well are very small, but can still be recorded

by a differential manometer. The time lag between the pulse and the answer is in relation to the

product of porosity and total compressibility of the formation.

qA

qB =0

Bottom-hole

pressure

pwsB

Time

www.petroman.ir

1-6

Introduction

In Section 1.1 filtration states were characterized as transient, steady state and pseudo-steady

state. These terms are derived from theoretical hydrodynamics and designate the dependence of

these processes on time. For the purpose of evaluating a formation test, we need a mathematical

model which sets up a quantitative relationship between the production rate, the pressure and

the parameters of the reservoir and of the fluid.

The success of a formation test can be assured by the coordination of three elements:

the object,

the measurement,

the mathematical model.

None of these three elements is definitive. Measurements can be carried out at different states

of objective reservoirs and wells. A test should be conducted only if the states fulfill the

conditions of the mathematical model used for the evaluation. The tests should be accomplished

in such a way that the pressure change at the given location and during the evaluated time period

is determined by only one (or at least by only a few) unknown parameters of the system.

The evaluation always takes place on the basis of a solution of the mathematical model. The

application of dimensionless variables often makes the evaluation easier. These are

the dimensionless radius

rD = r r w ,

(1.1)

kt

t D = ----------------,

2

c tr w

(1.2)

or

2

r

t D A= t D -----w

A

(1.3)

pD ( t D ,r D ) = 2hk

------------- [ p(t ,r) pi ] ,

qB

where

www.petroman.ir

(1.4)

Introduction

1-7

ct

rw

A

h

q

B

pi

- the permeability

- the porosity

- the fluid viscosity

- the effective compressibility

- the radius of the well

- the drainage area surface

- the formation thickness

- the flow rate

- the formation volume factor

- the initial pressure

In field units Equation 1.2-Equation 1.4 are written in the following form:

0,0002637kt

t D = -----------------------------2

c tr w

(1.5)

0,60536 10 kt

t D A= --------------------------------------c t A

(1.6)

hk [ p (t ,r) p ] .

p D ( t D ,rD ) = 0,00708

------------------------i

qB

(1.7)

calculated from the model, therefore p D always refers to the solution and not to the measured

pressure difference.

In the case of formation tests, the pressure measured at the place of production (or of injection),

the bottom-hole pressure, has a special significance. Here r = r w , thereby r D = 1 , and these

conditions are specially designated for the dimensionless pressure:

p Dw ( t D ) = p D ( t D, r D = 1 ) + s

(1.8)

As a matter of fact, the permeability in the immediate vicinity of the well deviates from the

original one, due to the influence of the filtrate and the formation opening. Usually it is smaller

and causes an additional pressure drop. If pwf ( t ) is the bottom hole flowing pressure, Equation

1.4 and Equation 1.7 lead to the following definition:

------------- [ pw f ( t ) p i]

p Dw ( t D ) = 2hk

qB

(1.9)

This is the reason why p Dw ( t D ) is not equal to p D ( t D, r D = 1 ) . For field units, 2 has to be

replaced with the constant 0.00708.

www.petroman.ir

1-8

Introduction

Example 1.1

3

In an infinite acting reservoir, a well produces 40 m d [ 251,5 bbl d ] oil for five days. pwf

is to be calculated without considering a skin effect ( s = 0 ). The dimensionless pressure for

the homogeneous, infinite acting reservoir, with constant well rate is given in Figure 1.8.

The data are

pi

Bo

o

h

q

t

ko

ct

rw

= 1.52 [ ]

= 1.28x10-3 Pa s [1.28 cP]

= 12 m [39.37 ft]

= -40 m3/d = -0.463x10 -3 m3/s [-251.5 bbl/d]

= 5 d = 0.432x10-6 s

= 0.16x10-12 m2 [160 mD]

= 0.18 [ ]

= 3.86x10-9 Pa-1 [2.662x10-5 1/psi]

= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

Solution:

From Equation 1.2:

kt

t D = ----------------2

c t rw

12

0,1610

432000 m s Pa

t D = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

9

2

2

0,18 1,2810 3,86 10 0,1 Pa s m

6

t D = 7,77 10 [ ]

The dimensionless well radius is r D = 1 and ( t D r D ) = 7,77 10 . From Figure 1.8, the

dimensionless pressure can be read, p D = 8,0 . We use Equation 1.9 for computing the bottom

hole pressure:

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-9

(p w f )

ideal

qB p + p

= ------------i

2hk D

3

( p w f )ideal = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

2 12 0,1610

( p w f )ideal = 32,64 MPa

In field units:

251,5 1,28 1,52 8 + 4819,8 = 4732 psi

( p w f )ideal = -----------------------------------------------------0,00708 39,37 160

The index ideal implies that no skin effect was considered.

www.petroman.ir

1-10

Introduction

10

10

5 4

5 4

10-1

5 4

5

4

5

4

108

103

5

4

5

4

107

tD/rD

10-2 4

10

102

5

4

5

4

106

10

5

4

5

4

105

5

4

5

4

104

10

5 4

5 4

10-1

5 4

10-1

10-2

pD

Figure 1.8: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite radial system. Solution

according to Equation 1.30 (no skin, no wellbore storage).

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-11

A well produces or injects with rate q. As consequence, there is a potential difference between

the well bottom and an arbitrary point in the formation. For a horizontal formation this can be

expressed as a difference of pressures at the same depth:

p (t ) = pwf ( t ) p ( r, t ) .

(1.10)

q = f ( p )

(1.11)

and q 0 if p 0 .

The productivity index is defined as

J =

lim ----q--- .

p 0 p

(1.12)

For practical purposes, the productivity index can be approximated with finite values:

q

J = ------- .

p

(1.13)

The rock properties around a well normally deviate from the original ones, due to the influence

of the mud filtrate, the well completion and the formation opening (see Figure 1.9). This altered

zone is called "skin zone" and has a radius rs and a permeability k s . For this radius pseudo

steady-state flow can be assumed and therefore the Dupuit equation can be applied:

2hk ps

q = ---------------s ----------,

B

rs

ln ----rw

(1.14)

p ,

q = 2hk

------------- ----------B

r

ln -----s

rw

(1.15)

www.petroman.ir

1-12

Introduction

Finite skin

rw

rs

Wellbore

ks

where

p is the pressure drop over the radius r w r r s with the original permeability and

p s - the same with changed permeability.

Let be

p skin = ( p w f )real ( pwf ) ideal

(1.16)

the supplementary pressure drop over the "skin zone". It is evident that this can be expressed

by the pressure differences too:

p skin = ps p

(1.17)

qB s .

p skin= ------------2hk

(1.18)

Inserting p s , p and p skin from Equation 1.14, Equation 1.15 and Equation 1.18 into

Equation 1.16 it follows:

r

k

s = ---- 1 ln -----s .

ks

rw

(1.19)

Equation 1.19 is called Hawkins formula. Based on this equation the dimensionless skin factor

s could be calculated if both rs and ks were known. This is never the case, therefore traditionally

the supplementary pressure drop pskin will be regarded as it would occur just on the well

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-13

surface. This means that the altered zone is imagined as a skin on this surface. The skin factor

s is positive if k s k . If a formation treatment is carried out with success, it is possible that

ks > k , and then s is negative.

The values r s and k s cannot be determined from the value s simultaneously. This difficulty can

be eliminated by introducing an apparent well radius r w a . The radius r w a would cause the

same pressure drop without skin as the real well radius r w with a skin. For that, the following

condition must be fulfilled:

re

re

ln -------= ln ----- + s ,

rw

rw a

(1.20)

thus

s

r w a = rw e .

(1.21)

The values s and r w a are not descriptive enough, therefore a flow efficiency and a damage factor

are defined. Flow efficiency:

J actual

p p w f + pskin

FE = ---------------- = --------------------------------------- ,

J ideal

p pw f

(1.22)

where J is the productivity index defined in Equation 1.12 and p is the average pressure of the

drainage area (in an infinite-acting reservoir, p = pi ).

The damage factor:

J actual

p skin

DF = 1 ---------------- = ------------------- = 1 FE .

Jideal

p pwf

Example 1.2

In Example 1.1, the measured bottom-hole pressure was

( p w f )real = 30,82 MPa [ 4469 psi ] .

The following values are to be calculated:

the skin factor

www.petroman.ir

(1.23)

1-14

Introduction

the borehole damage factor.

Solution:

The supplementary pressure loss caused by the skin is calculated by Equation 1.16:

p skin = ( p w f )real ( pwf ) ideal = 30,82 32,64 = 1,82 MPa .

In field units:

p skin = 4469 4732 = 263 psi .

The skin factor according to Equation 1.18 is:

6

p skin

1,82 10

------------------------------------------s =

=

= 24,37 .

5

q B

0,746 10

------------2hk

In field units:

p skin

264

s = -------------------------- = ---------------- = 23,97 .

qB

10,97

------------------------0,00708hk

The flow efficiency according to Equation 1.22 is:

J actual

p pwf + p skin

33,24 30,82 1,82

0,60

---------------- = --------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------- = ---------- = 0,248 25% .

Jideal

p pwf

33,24 30,82

2,42

In field units:

J actual

4469 264

---------------- = 4819,8

------------------------------------------------= 0,25 = 25% .

Jideal

4819,8 4469

The damage factor is 1 minus flow efficiency, i.e. 75%.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-15

The first and second theorem of superposition were discussed in "Fluid Flow in Porous

Media"[6], Chap. 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. This is only a short summary of the conclusions drawn there.

In Figure 1.10, the formation is produced with three wells. Well 1 begins production at t 1 = 0

at a constant rate q1 , and causes a pressure decline in the observation well p 3, 1 ( t ) . Well 2

starts production later, at time t 2 . If well 2 was the only production well, the pressure change

in well 3 would be p3 , 2 ( t t 2 ) .

Well 1

q1

Well 3

p

r1

r2

Well 2

q2

According to the principle of superposition (second theorem), if both wells produce, the

pressure change can be calculated by adding these differences:

p 3 = p 3, 1 + p3 , 2 .

(1.24)

By means of the dimensionless variables, Equation 1.25 can be written in the following way for

any number of wells:

p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

q j Bj pD (tD tDj, r Dj ) ,

(1.25)

j=1

where t D j are the dimensionless times of putting the individual wells into operation and r Dj are

the dimensionless distances of wells from the point of observation. If there is a producing well

at this point, one has to add to p according to Equation 1.24 the pressure loss p skin for this

(and only for this) well.

www.petroman.ir

1-16

Introduction

Imagine that n wells (j = 1, ...., n) are located at the same point, and each of them produces at a

constant rate q j beginning at time t j . Equation 1.25 remains valid, we have only to substitute

r D1 = r D2 = ... = r Dn = 1 .

If "all wells" are at the same location, it is sufficient to regard only one well whose rate changes

at the time t D j with q j (this change can be positive or negative). The pressure change caused

by one well producing at a varying rate can also be calculated by summarizing up the

elementary pressure changes:

B

p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

q j pD (tD tD j, r D j ) .

(1.26)

j=1

With the skin effect, Equation 1.26 is written in the following way:

B

p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

qj pD (t D tDj, r Dj ) + qn s

(1.27)

j =1

Example 1.3

3

The rate of well q 1 = 40 m d [ 251.6 bbl d ] in Example 1.1 and 1.2 is reduced after five

3

calculated.

Solution:

For the terms of Equation 1.26, there are:

t1

= 0

t2

6

= 5 d = 0,432 10 s

6

= 20 d = 1,728 10 s

3

q1 =

q 1 = 40 m d = 0,463 10

q2 =

q 2 q 1 = 15 m d = 0,017410

q2

m s [ 251,5 bbl d ]

3

m s [ 94,33 bbl d ]

3

3

= 25 m d = 0,000289 m s [ 157,23 b b l d ]

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-17

t D t D 1 = ----------------1

2

c tr w

6

In field units:

6

t D t D 1 = 20 1,554 10 = 3,108 10 [ - ],

6

t D t D 2 = 1,554 10 15 = 2,331 10 [ - ].

From Equation 1.8:

7

pD ( t D t D1 ) = p D ( 3,109 10 ) = 8,94

7

pD ( t D t D2 ) = p D ( 2,332 10 ) = 8,82

and the bottom hole flowing pressure after 20 days is:

B [ q p ( t t ) + q p ( t t ) + q s ]

pwf = pi + ------------1 D D

D1

2 D D

D2

2

2hk

3

pwf = 33,24 10 + ---------------------------------------------------- 12

2 12 0,1610

6

pwf

+ 0.17410

8,82 0,289 10

In field units:

1,28 1,52

pwf = 4819,8 + 141,2 ---------------------------39,37 160

pwf 3 ( 251,6 8,94 + 94,55 8,82 157,23 23,97 ) = 4593,71 psi.

In the mathematical model, the sandface flow is taken into account. It is equal to the production

rate, measured at the well head, only if the well flow is steady-state. If the bottom-hole pressure

changes - and this is always the case in hydrodynamic formation tests - the sandface flow is no

longer equal to the production rate. If the bottom-hole pressure increases (decreases), the fluid

content of the well increases (decreases) too. This after-production of after-injection should be

www.petroman.ir

1-18

Introduction

taken into consideration during the evaluation of the transient pressure change.

Ramey[14] defined the wellbore storage constant in the following way:

G

C = -------------p w

(1.28)

where

G - the fluid mass change in the well, kg [ lbm] ,

3

kg m [ lbm c u ft ] ,

p w - the bottom-hole pressure change, Pa [ psi ] .

This term can apply to filled up wells and to wells with free fluid level (see Example 1.4). Let

q be the constant well rate and q sf the sandface rate. Then

G = ( q q sf )Bt ,

(1.29)

After the substitution of Equation 1.29 into Equation 1.28, we obtain

p

dpw

-- ------------w = C

-- ----------q qsf = C

.

B t

B dt

(1.30)

We now divide this equation by q and introduce the dimensionless variables defined in Equation

1.2 and Equation 1.4:

2

c tr w

dt = ----------------dt D ,

k

(1.31)

qB

dpw = ------------- dp D w .

2hk

(1.32)

q B dp

------------q sf

Dw

dp D w

C

2hk

C

1 ------ = ------- --------------------------- = -------------------------------------.

2 dt

q

qB c r2

D

2c

hr

t w

t w

-----------------dt

D

k

(1.33)

We get

C

CD = ------------------------2

2c thr w

(1.34)

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-19

q sf

dpDw

C D ------------= 1 ------ .

q

dt D

(1.35)

5,6146C

C D = ------------------------2 .

2ct hr w

(1.36)

1

C1

qsf/q

C2

C3

0

0

tD

Figure 1.11: Effect of wellbore storage on sand face flow rate C 3 > C2 > C1

Figure 1.11 shows the ratio of sandface flow and production rate for that case where the

production rate is constant. If C = 0 , i.e. if there is no after-production, then q sf = q for any

time.

Example 1.4

The

tubings

of

the

well

2

Vu = 0,015 m m [ 2,875 10

in

Example

1.1

have

an

internal

volume

of

9

3

Pa

[ 8,97 10

density = 764 kgm [ 47,7 lbm cu ft] . The wellbore storage constant has to be

determined.

www.petroman.ir

1-20

Introduction

Solution:

a) On the assumption that the well is filled up:

G = V u Lc o po

and from Equation 1.28:

9

= 61 10

m Pa .

In field units:

2

C = Vu Lc o = 2,875 10

10252,6 8,97 10

= 2,664 10

bbl psi .

9

C

61 10

2

CD = ------------------------2 = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 1,1610 [ ] .

9

2

2c thr w

2 0,18 3,86 10 12 0,1

In field units:

3

2644 10 5,6146

2

CD = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 1,17 10 [ ] .

5

2

2 0,18 2,662 10 39,37 0,328

b) On the assumption that the oil level rises:

A pressure increase of p means a rising of the oil level by

p

h = ------- ,

g

therefore

G = V u h = V u p

------- ,

g

and

Vu

0,015

6 3

C = ------ = ------------------------- = 2 10 m Pa .

g

764 9,81

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-21

In field units:

2

2,87510

2

C = ---------------------------- = 8,679 10 bbl psi .

47,7 144

The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is

6

C

2 10

CD = ------------------------2 = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3817,76 [ - ] .

9

2

2ct hr w

2 0,18 3,86 10 12 0,1

In field units:

2

8,679 10 5,6146

CD = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3821,33 [ - ] .

5

2

2 0,18 2,662 10 39,37 0,328

The equations for the one-phase flow were derived in "Fluid Flow in Porous Media"[6], Chapter

2. The solutions for idealized cases are given in Chapter 3. It sufficient to repeat the most

important formulae here.

The pressure change caused by a well producing from an infinite acting, horizontal formation

with relatively small thickness at a constant rate can be calculated with the following formula:

2

r

D

1 --------p D ( t D, r D ) = -- Ei

4tD

2

(1.37)

or

2

1

p ( t , r ) -- ln t r + 0,80907

D D D

D

D

2

(1.38)

tD

-----> 10 .

2

rD

(1.39)

The solution for Equation 1.37 is shown in Figure 1.8. At the bottom-hole r D = 1 , therefore

the condition represented by Equation 1.39 is practically always fulfilled, and Equation 1.38 is

www.petroman.ir

1-22

Introduction

simplified to:

pD ( t D , r D = 1 ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 ] ,

2

(1.40)

pDw ( t D ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 + 2s ] .

2

(1.41)

In the case of CD > 0 , where CD is the dimensionless wellbore storage constant, Equation 1.41

can be written in the following form:

2s

(1.42)

Note that Equation 1.41 and Equation 1.42 are identical. By splitting the ln expressions CD

drops out. These equations are valid only if q sf = q and the wellbore volume has no influence

on the bottom-hole pressure.

At the start of a well, the whole amount of fluid will be produced from the wellbore volume.

That means, the sandface rate q sf is zero at a small t D . For this case we can write Equation 1.35

in the following form:

dpDw

CD ------------= 1,

dt D

(1.43)

tD

pDw = ------- .

CD

(1.44)

During the transition time, the sandface rate rises and converges to q. A dimensionless pressure

p Dw ( t D ) could theoretically be calculated for this period via superposition by using Equation

1.27.

Figure 1.8 shows the function Equation 1.37 in a log-log diagram. Figure 1.12 shows the same,

but also taken into consideration are the skin and the wellbore storage effects. Equation 1.42 is

valid only over the marked limit. All curves have a slope 1 for small t D .

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-23

Dimensionless pressure, pD

10

CDe

5

4

3

10

2s

30

20

10

3

10

2

10

7

5

4

3

0.3

106

104

10

1015

10108

10

0 .1

1

7

5

4

3

Approximate start of

semi-log straight line

2

-1

10

-1

10

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

Figure 1.12: Type-curves for a single well inside a homogenous reservoir with wellbore

storage and skin effects (after BOURDET et al.[2])

values. This is a consequence of Equation 1.44. Figure 1.13 is the same as the previous one, but

the derivates of the functions p Dw are also drawn in the form

dp Dw t D

tD

------------------------------- vs. ------.

d ( tD CD ) C D

CD

www.petroman.ir

(1.45)

1-24

Introduction

10

7

5

4

3

2s

CD e

2

30

10

pD'(tD/CD)

10

20

10

1015

1010

8

10

106

7

5

4

3

4

10

10

2

10

1

10

7

5

4

3

1

0.3

0.1

-1

10

10

-1

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

tD

tD

Figure 1.13: Log-log plot p' ------vs. ------(after BOURDET et al.[2] )

CD

CD

In view of Equation 1.44, it follows that

dpDw

------------------------= p' D w = 1 .

d ( tD CD )

(1.46)

Hence the function p Dw ( t D CD ) has the same slope of 1, as the function,p Dw if t D is small.

Contrary to large t D values all the functions pDw ( t D C D ) converge to

dpDw

------------------------= p' D w = 0,5 ( t D CD ) .

d ( tD CD )

(1.47)

qB [ ln t + 0,80907 + 2s ] =

pwf ( t ) = p i + ------------D

4hk

(1.48)

k

pwf ( t ) = p i + 2,3026qB

--------------------------- lgt + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .

4hk

c r2

(1.49)

t w

If the reservoir is not acting infinitely, but is bounded at a concentric circle rDe , then Equation

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-25

1.41 after van Everdingen and Hurst takes the following form:

p Dw ( t D ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 + 2s + Y ( tD , r D e )] ,

2

(1.50)

4t D

3

Y ( t D, r D ) = ( ln t D + 0,80907 ) + -------+ 2 ln r De -- +

2

4

r De

(1.51)

where,

n t D

e

J 1 ( n r De )

) + 4 ------------------------------------------------------------2 2

2

n [ J 1 ( n r De ) J 1 ( n ) ]

Y ( t D, r D

p wf ( t ) = pi + 2,3026qB

---------------------------

4hk

k

p wf ( t ) aa lgt + lg ----------------+ Y ( tD , r D e ) + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .

2

ct r w

(1.52)

If t D is small and the inflow radius is smaller than r e then Y ( tD , r De ) = 0 and the function

Equation 1.50 is equal to Equation 1.41. If t D is large, then the last term of function Equation

1.51 disappears and

2t D

3

p Dw ( t D ) = -------+ ln r De -- + s

2

4

r De

(1.53)

A

( p D w( t DA )) = 2t D A + 1-- ln -----2 + 1-- ln 2,2458

---------------- + s ,

2 r

2

CA

w

(1.54)

or

where

2

= r De

2

tD (r w

tD A =

A)

C A = 31,62

(see Equation 1.3), and

is a shape factor

The conversion into Equation 1.54 has the purpose to make the formula valid also for

www.petroman.ir

1-26

Introduction

non-circular finite formations. Only the shape factor CA -as was shown by Ramey and Cobb[15]

- will be different. Table 1.1 indicates the shape factors and the validity limits of Equation 1.54.

Converting Equation 1.53 into dimensioned variable:

re 3

qt

q ln ----pwf pi = --------------------2 + ------------ -- + s

r

2kh

w 4

c t hre

(1.55)

For production at constant rate, the average pressure in the reservoir is given by

qt

p = pi + ----------------------2 .

c t hre

(1.56)

Combining Equation 1.55 and Equation 1.56 and rearrange it, one obtains:

re 3

q ln ----pwf p = ------------ -- + s

2kh rw 4

(1.57)

1.8, Figure 1.13 and Figure 1.14 show a few examples. These curves are the so-called

type-curves.

2

10

CDe

5

4

3

1030

2s

10

3

10

102

7

5

4

3

0 .3

106

104

1020

15

10

10108

10

0.1

1

7

5

4

3

2

-1

10

10

-1

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

Figure 1.14: Type curves - homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and skin (after

www.petroman.ir

10

Introduction

1-27

BOURDET et al.[2])

The drainage radius r D , i.e. the extension of a pressure funnel (cone) in an infinite acting

formation, at the production time t can be estimated with the following formula:

kt .

r d 5,858 ---------- ct

(1.58)

kt .

r d 0,029 ---------- ct

(1.59)

For a bounded formation with symmetrical shape and with the well in its center, the transient

period will change into the pseudo-steady-state period when the radius r D has reached the

2

boundary. With A = r d , the stabilization time from Equation 1.58 is the following:

c t A

t s 0,1 --------------k

(1.60)

or in field units

c t A

t s 380 --------------.

k

(1.61)

Below the bubble point, the gas dissolves in the reservoir, and therefore the one-phase filtration

equations are, strictly speaking, not applicable. However, they may be used for multiple-phase

flow situations with some modifications (see MILLER et al. [12], PERRINE[13], MARTIN [9].

Neglecting the capillary forces the equations describe the multi-phase filtration in a precise way,

if the total compressibility c t and the total mobility ( k )t are substituted:

c t = c + So co a + Sw c w + Sg c g ,

(1.62)

k ro

-k-- = k ------+

t

o

(1.63)

k rg

------- +

g

k rw

-------- .

w

www.petroman.ir

1-28

Introduction

B o B g R s

1 --------coa = -----+ ------ -------- .

B o p B o p

(1.64)

This provides for the practical advantage that the evaluation of formation tests can be performed

in the case of multi-phase filtration in the same way as for single-phase filtration.

The viscosity and especially the density of the gas change vary significantly with pressure.

Therefore the filtration equation of the gas is not linear. This difficulty can be overcome by

introducing the real gas pseudo pressure according to AL-HUSSAINY, RAMEY and

CRAWFORD[1].

p

p

m( p) = 2 ----------------------dp

p b ( p )Z ( p )

(1.65)

where pb is a freely chosen reference pressure. By applying m ( p ) , the filtration equation of the

gas becomes formally equal to that of the low-compressible fluids. In this case, Equation 1.9

changes into the following form:

p scTq

m( pwf ) = m (p i ) + --------------------[ p (t ) + s + D q ] .

2hkTsc Dw D

(1.66)

The term D q is the dimensionless pressure drop caused by the turbulence in the well

environment.

After the introduction of the function m( p) , it is sufficient to discuss the liquid case. All

procedures can be adapted for gas-bearing formations by means of this modification.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-29

Table 1.1: Shape Factors for Bounded Drainage Areas (after RAMEY and COBB[15])

CA

ln C A

1 2 ln C 2,2458

A ---------------C

A

exact for

t

>

DA

for t

>

DA

solution with less than

1% error for t

<

DA

31.62

3.4538

-1.3224

0.1

0.06

0.100

31.6

3.4532

-1.3220

0.1

0.06

0.100

27.6

3.3178

-1.2544

0.2

0.07

0.090

27.1

3.2995

-1.2452

0.2

0.07

0.090

21.9

3.0865

-1.1387

0.4

0.12

0.080

0.098

-2.3227

+1.5659

0.9

0.60

0.015

30.8828

3.4302

-1.3106

0.1

0.05

0.090

12.9851

2.5638

-0.8774

0.7

0.25

0.030

4.5132

1.5070

-0.3490

0.6

0.30

0.025

3.3351

1.2045

-0.1977

0.7

0.25

0.010

21.8369

3.0836

-1.1373

0.3

0.15

0.025

10.8374

2.3830

-0.7870

0.4

0.15

0.025

4.5141

1.5072

-0.3491

1.5

0.50

0.060

2.0769

0.7309

+0.0391

1.7

0.50

0.020

3.1573

1.1497

-0.1703

0.4

0.15

0.005

in bounded reservoirs

60

www.petroman.ir

1-30

Introduction

=20

00

re / rw

=

2

re /r

20

w =

240 0

re /r

0

re /r w = 260

w =

re /r 2800 0

w =

30

00

14

re /r

13

12

pD

11

10

r e/rw

8

7

6

10

7 8

10

7 8

10

tD

Figure 1.15: Dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of a closed circular reservoir, no

wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5])

14

12

10

D

1

pD

4

2

0

-3

10

5 6 7 8

10

-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 8

tDA

Figure 1.16: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems,

no wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5])

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-31

14

12

10

D

2

pD

4

2

0

-3

10

5 6 7 8

10

-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 8

tDA

Figure 1.17: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems,

no wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY [5])

www.petroman.ir

1-32

Introduction

www.petroman.ir

2-33

2.1. Semilog Plot

A well is put into operation at the time t = 0 at a constant production rate. The bottom-hole

pressure change is shown in Figure 1.1. Two parts of this curve are especially significant: the

transient period and the pseudo-steady state period.

pwf [psi]

by wellbore effects

pIhr

Slope =

162.6 q B

kh

Beginning of deviation at

end of transient period

0.1

1.0

10

100

Figure 2.1: Evaluation of the transient pressure drop (after MATTHEWS and RUSSEL[11] )

Figure 2.1 shows this curve vs. lgt . During transient period ( t < t s ) , the drainage radius has not

reached the external boundary yet, therefore the formation can be considered as infinite and

Equation 1.49 is valid. The bottom-hole pressure p wf is a linear function of lgt . If the measured

points allow a reliable drawing of a straight line, the permeability capacity of the formation hk

can be calculated from the slope of the line. From Equation 1.49:

2,3026 q B

m = ---------------- ---------4

hk

(2.1)

hk = 0,183 qB

---------- .

m

(2.2)

and

www.petroman.ir

2-34

hk = 162,6 qB

---------- .

m

(2.3)

From the pressure drawdown curve the skin effect can also be calculated, provided that the

initial pressure is known. From the straight line one reads the value p wf at t 1 , and from

Equation 1.49:

p i p w f( t 1 )

k

s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 .

m

c r 2

t w

(2.4)

In field units

p i p w f( t 1 )

k

s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ----------------- 3,2275 .

m

c r 2

t w

(2.5)

In the case of small time values, the measured points deviate form the straight line because of

after-production. If the production time is not long enough, there is no possibility for the semilog

evaluation. Here the method of type curve matching can be applied.

This method is applicable for all transient measurements (pressure drawdown, pressure buildup,

interference, pulse test) if the p D ( t D ) -function is known for the given case.

Type curve matching is based on the fact that if the same events are represented in the log-log

coordinate system with the variables p D vs. t D CD and p = p pi vs. t the two curves will

be shifted apart from each other, but otherwise will be the same. This statement is caused by the

coordinates transformation Equation 1.2 and Equation 1.4. The shifting of log-log coordinate

systems can be calculated immediately from these equations.

k

C

C

lg( t D CD ) = lg t + lg ---------------- lg ---------------------------- = lgt lg ------------- ,

2

2

2hk

c r

2c hr

(2.6)

2hk

lgp D = lg p pi + lg ------------- .

qB

(2.7)

t w

a.) Selection of the type curve diagram (sheet A). In this case it is Figure 1.14.

b.) A transparent sheet of paper (sheet B) is positioned on the type curve diagram, and

the coordinate lines are drawn. In this way it is provided that both systems of

www.petroman.ir

2-35

c.) The measured p -values and the derivates p't are drawn vs. t on sheet B.

d.) By parallel shifting this series of points is adapted to one of the type curves.

e.) After the successful adaptation, a reference point is selected, i.e. the Match Point. Its

coordinates on sheet A and sheet B are

( p D ) M , ( t D CD ) M and pM t M .

2s

f.) From Equation 2.7 follows

can be determined.

qB ( pD ) M

k = ---------- ---------------.

2h ( p ) M

(2.8)

g.) The wellbore storage constant can be calculated from Equation 2.6:

tM

2hk

C = ------------- -------------------------.

( t D C D )M

(2.9)

Therefore,

C

C D = ------------------------2 .

2c t hr w

(2.10)

s = 0,5 ln [ ( C D e

2s

CD ) ] .

(2.11)

Type curve matching is less reliable than semilog evaluation and should only be applied if the

latter method is not usable. In field units Equation 2.8 and Equation 2.10 are:

( pD )

M

k = 141,2 qB

---------- ---------------,

h ( p ) M

(2.12)

5,6416 C

0,8936 C

C D = -------------------------= -------------------------.

2

2

2ct hr w

c t hr w

(2.13)

If the reservoir is bounded and the production time is sufficiently log, then Equation 1.54 will

describe the pressure change:

www.petroman.ir

2-36

A 1 2,2458

pDw ( t D ) = 2t D A + 1-- ln ---- + -- ln ---------------- ,

2 r 2 2 CA

w

or with dimensioned variables according to Equation 1.3 and Equation 1.4:

pwf = m t + b ,

(2.14)

qB

m = --------------- ,

c thA

(2.15)

qB ln ----A

2,2458

b = pi + ------------ 2 + ln ---------------- + 2s .

4hk r

CA

w

(2.16)

where

The measured p wf -values are drawn as function of t, and a straight line is positioned along these

points. From the slope m , the pore volume of the reservoir can be calculated:

qB

hA = ----------- .

c tm

(2.17)

In field units:

6 qB

hA = 5,37 10 ----------.

c t m

(2.18)

Theoretically, the shape factor CA could also be determined from b, but the unreliability is so

great that it should not be done.

Example 2.1

A pressure drawdown test was carried out in an undersaturated oil reservoir. The data and results

are the following:

pi

Boi

o

h

Swi

ct

= 1.32 [ ]

= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]

= 21 m [68.9 ft]

= 0.17 [ ]

= 0.26 [ ]

= 1.2x10-9Pa-1 [8.27x10-6 1/psi]

www.petroman.ir

pi

rw

q

2-37

= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

= -17.2 m3 /d [108.2 bbl/d]

On the basis of the transient pressure development, the following values are to be determined:

the permeability,

the skin effect,

the wellbore stoarage constant.

Solution:

a.) Semilog analysis

The measured pressure values are applied in Figure 2.2 to the semilog coordinate

sheet.

The gradient is

p

5

m = ------------- = 2,72 10 Pa cycle = [ 39,44 psi cycle ]

cycle

and the extrapolation of the straight line give at t 1 = 10 hour the pressure

p wf = 18,54 MPa [ 2688,3 psi ] .

From Equation 2.2,

3

k = 0,183 qB

---------- = 0,183 ----------------------------------------------------------5

hm

86400 ( 2,72 ) 10 21

From Equation 2.4, the skin effect is

p i p w f( t 1 )

k

s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ----------------- + 0,35173

m

2

ct r w

6

( 20,7 18,54) 10

ss = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------------+ lg36000 + x

5

0,27 10

12

0,074 10

s > + lg ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + 0,35137

0,17 9,210 3 1,2 10 9 0,1 2

In field units:

108,2 1,32 9,2 = 78,7 mD ,

k = 162,9 qB

---------- = 162,9 ----------------------------------------------hm

39,44 68,9

www.petroman.ir

2-38

3001,5 2688,3

s = 1,1513 --------------------------------------- + lg10 + x

39,44

78,5

3,2275

s > + lg -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

2

0,17 9,2 8,2710 0,328

s = 1,1513 [ 7,96 + 1,0 + 7,7514 3,2275 ] = 2,8 .

b.) Type curve matching method

In Figure 2.2, the measured pressure differences p and the product p't ,

depending on t , are applied to transparent log-log diagrams and matched by parallel

shifting with curves in Figure 1.15.

The matched curve corresponds to C D e

2s

= 10 .

pDM

(tD/CD )M

pM

tM

= 5.6

= 3.4

= 1 MPa [145 psi]

= 1 hour

3

p D M qB

5,6 17,2 9,210 1,32

12 2

k = -------------------- = ------------------------------------------------------------------= 0,1026 10

m ,

6

pM 2h

1 10 86400 2 21

12

tM

2 0,1026 10

21 3600

C = 2hk

------------- -------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= x

3

( t D CD ) M

9,2 10 3,4

6

C = 1,558 10

6

C

1,55810

CD = -----------------------= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5788,6 ,

2

2

9

2c tr w h

2 0,17 1,2 10 0,1 21

2s

8

CD e

s = 0,5 ln --------------= 0,5 ln 10

-------- = 4,8 .

CD

CD

In field units:

0,8936C

0,8936 0,06756

CD = -------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5793,1

2

6

2

c thr w

0,17 8,25 10 68,9 0,328

8

s = 0,5 ln 10

-------- = 4,87

CD

www.petroman.ir

2-39

Bottom-hole

pressure [MPa]

18.8

18.6

18.4

m=-0.272x10 Pa

18.2

18.0

10

5 6

10

5 6

10

Time [hrs]

Example 2.2

From the pressure drawdown measurement in Example 2.1, the pore volume and the original oil

in place (OOIP) are to be determined.

Solution:

In Figure 2.3, the measured bottom-hole pressure for t > 100 hours, depending on t, are drawn.

The slope of the straight line is

5

1

m = 0,0508 10 Pa hour = 1,41 Pa s = 0,7366 psi h .

qB

17,2 1,32

5

3

hA = ----------- = -------------------------------------------------------------= 1,55 10 pm .

c tm

86400 1,2 10 ( 1,41 )

The OOIP:

5

hA( 1 S w i)

1,55

10 ( 1 0,26)

3 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------N =

=

= 87,110 m .

Boi

1,32

www.petroman.ir

2-40

In field units:

6

hA = 5,37 10

108,2 1,32

-------------------------------------------------------= 126 ac ft ,

6

8,2710 ( 0,7366 )

hA ( 1 S w i)

7758 126 ( 1 0,26 )

5

N = 7758 -------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------- = 5,47 10 bbl .

1,32

Boi

19.0

Bottom-hole

pressure [MPa]

18.5

18.0

17.5

17.0

0

100

200

300

www.petroman.ir

2-41

p = pi - p wf

pt

Time

hour

105 Pa

[psi]

105 Pa

[psi]

105 Pa

[psi]

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

010

015

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

100

120

***

144

168

192

216

240

207.00

201.35

197.80

195.35

193.80

192.00

190.88

189.90

188.95

188.08

187.20

185.30

184.75

184.10

183.16

183.47

183.25

183.08

182.91

182.70

181.40

***.**

180.22

179.00

177.75

176.59

175.30

3001.5

2919.6

2868.1

2826.8

2810.1

2784.0

2767.7

2753.5

2727.4

2737.6

2714.4

2686.8

2678.9

2669.4

2664.5

2660.3

2657.1

2654.7

2652.2

2649.1

2630.3

****.*

2613.2

2595.5

2577.3

2560.6

2541.8

05.65

09.20

12.05

13.20

15.00

16.12

17.10

18.05

18.92

19.80

21.70

22.25

22.90

23.24

23.53

23.75

23.92

24.09

24.30

25.60

**.**

26.78

28.00

29.25

30.41

31.70

081.9

133.4

174.7

191.4

217.5

233.7

247.9

261.7

274.3

287.1

314.6

322.6

332.0

337.0

344.2

344.4

346.8

349.3

352.0

371.0

***.*

388.3

406.0

424.1

440.9

459.6

5.60

6.50

7.20

7.30

7.00

6.60

5.90

5.00

4.60

4.20

2.50

1.70

1.30

1.26

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.02

1.01

0.00

*.**

081.2

094.3

104.4

105.9

101.5

095.7

085.6

072.5

066.7

060.9

036.3

024.7

018.9

018.3

017.4

016.7

016.0

014.8

014.6

014.5

***.*

www.petroman.ir

2-42

www.petroman.ir

3-43

A well produces at constant rate during a time period t p . Then it is shut in. Figure 1.5 shows the

bottom hole pressure curve. The pressure development for the time t after shut in can be

calculated by means of the superposition principle. By this method, the pressure buildup caused

by an injection rate q starting at time t p will be superposed on the pressure decline caused by a

contious production at a rate q. By using Equation 1.27,

q B [ p ( [ t + t ] ) p ( t ) ] .

p ws p i = ------------Dw

D

D

2hk D w p

(3.1)

q B

p ws = p i + ------------- [ ln [ t p + t ] D + 0,80907 + Y ( [ t p + t D ] , rDe )

D

4hk

p ws ln t D 0,80907 Y ( [ t D, r De ] D r De ) ]

p + t

q B ln t---------------p ws = pi + ------------+ Y( [ tp + t ] , r D e) Y( t D, r De ) .

D

4hk t

(3.2)

This method for evaluation pressure buildup test was introduced by HORNER (1951). If the

reservoir is sufficiently large and the shut in time is short, from Equation 1.51 it follows that

Y ( [ tp + t ]D , r D e) Y ( t D p, rDe ),

Y ( t D , r De ) 0,

(3.3)

q B ln t---------------p + t

p ws = p i + ------------+ Y ( t D p, r D e)

4hk

t

t p + t

qB Y ( t , r )

p ws = 2,3026qB

--------------------------- lg ---------------+ p i + ------------4hk

t

4hk Dp De

t p + t

0,183 q

B (t , r )

p ws = 0,183 qB

---------- lg ---------------+ p i + -------------------------Y

Dp D e

hk

t

2,3026 hk

t p + t

m Y(t , r )

p ws = m lg ---------------+ p i + ---------------t

2,3026 D p De

www.petroman.ir

(3.4)

(3.5)

(3.6)

3-44

t p + t

pws = m lg ---------------+ p

t

(3.7)

Figure 3.1 shows a measured pressure buildup curve as a function of lg[ ( t p + t ) t ] The

slope of the straight part, according to Equation 3.7 is

p

m = --------------- = 0,183 qB

---------- .

Cycle

hk

(3.8)

From this,

qB

hk = 0,183 ---------- .

m

(3.9)

In field units:

hk = 162,6 qB

---------- .

m

(3.10)

15.0

p* = 14.594

14.7

r) = 14.

pws(1 hou

14.4

272

14.1

13.8

pwf = 13.534

13.5

5

10

5 4 3

10

5 4

10

5 4

10

5 4

(t+ t)/ t

Figure 3.1: Pressure buildup curve with skin effect and wellbore storage

www.petroman.ir

3-45

Pressure buildup curves can also be evaluated by type curve matching and the same type curves

as for the pressure drawdown analysis are used. We plot:

(i) pws = p ws ( t ) pw f ( t p ) vs t

t p + t

(ii) p'ws t ---------------vs t

tp

The reason for that can be shown in the following way. From Equation 1.4,

qB p ( t ) .

p wf ( t p ) p i = ------------2hk Dw Dp

(3.11)

q B

p ws = ------------- [ p D w( t D ) + p D w( t D p) p D w( [ t p + t ] D ) ]

2hk

(3.12)

p Dws ( t D ) = p Dw ( t D ) + pDw ( t Dp ) p Dw ( [ t p + t ]D ) .

(3.13)

or

In the case of

p Dw ( t D p ) p Dw ( [ t p + t ]D ) p D w( t D ) ,

(3.14)

pDws ( t D ) = p D w( t D ) ,

(3.15)

where pDw will be calculated by Equation 1.43. The requirement in Equation 3.14 is met if t p

is long and t is short.

Just after shut in (for very small t ), the sandface flow rate q sf is equal to the last well rate,

notified with q. The actual well rate is now zero. Equation 3.13 becomes

( t p + t )

t D

t pD

2s

pDws = 0,5 ln --------- + ln -------+ ln -------------------------D + 0,80907 ln ( CD e ) .

CD

CD

CD

Derivate to respect t D CD :

www.petroman.ir

(3.16)

3-46

tp D

t D

p'Dws = 0,5 ( t D CD ) 0,5 ( ( t p + t ) D CD ) = 0,5 ----------------------- --------, (3.17)

t p D + t D CD

or after recordering,

t p D + t D t D

-------------------------------- p' Dws = 0,5 .

tp D

CD

(3.18)

From the pressure buildup curve, the skin factor can also be determined. If the well were closed

at the bottom, the pskin pressure difference would have to disappear at once and the curve

would have to follow Equation 1.52 during this short time:

k

q B

pwf = pi + 0,183 ---------- + lg( t p + t ) lg ---------------- +x

hk

c r2

t w

p

(3.19)

+ 0,35137 + Y ( [ t p + t ] D, r De ) + 0,86859 s .

If Equation 3.19 is subtracted from Equation 3.5 and if it is taken into consideration that

Y ( t p + p D , rDe ) = Y ( tDp , rDe ) , then

k

pws p w f = 0,183 qB

---------- lg t + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .

hk

c r 2

(3.20)

t w

p ws( 1) pw f ( t p )

k

.

s = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------- + lg ---------------- + 0,35137

m

c r2

t w

(3.21)

Using field units, two constants have to be changed in Equation 3.19 and Equation 3.20:

k

pws p w f = 162,6 qB

---------- lg t + lg ---------------- + 3,2275 + 0,86859s .

hk

c r 2

t w

www.petroman.ir

(3.22)

3-47

pws ( 1 hour) p w f( t p )

k

s = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------------------- + lg ----------------- 3,2275 .

m

c r 2

t w

(3.23)

Production is rarely constant before shut in. The time t p is therefore calculated from the

cumulative production Np and from the last production rate:

Np

t p = ------ .

q

(3.24)

In an infinite acting reservoir Y ( t D p ) is 0, therefore the straight line extrapolated to

( t p + t ) t = 1 , according to Equation 3.6, gives the initial reservoir pressure pi . For a

bounded reservoir, this value is equal to

m Y(t , r ) .

p = p i + ---------------2,3026 D p D e

(3.25)

p is smaller than p i , (m is negative!), but larger than the average reservoir pressure p , as is

shown in Figure 3.2.

If the shut in time is long enough, a complete pressure equalization takes place in the reservoir:

lim p ws = p .

(3.26)

It would be very important to know the mean reservoir pressure. Usually, the shut in time is too

short to draw the last part of the curve. But the mean pressure can also be determined on the

basis of the value p* by means of the MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10] method,

(MBH-plot).

The authors have compiled a series of diagrams, illustrated in Figure 3.3 - Figure 3.4 from which

for different shapes of drainage areas the dimensionless pressure value

2,3026 ( p p)

p DMBH ( t p D A ) = -----------------------------------m

(3.27)

kt p

t pDA = --------------- .

c t A

(3.28)

www.petroman.ir

3-48

In field units:

kt p

t pDA = 0,60536 --------------.

c t A

(3.29)

13.0

12.6

12.2

p

Slo

.2

=0

m

e

9*1

e

ycl

er c

p

6

a

0 P

11.8

11.4

11.0

5

10

7 54 3

10

7 54 3

10

7 5 4 3

10

7 54 3

10

7 54 3

(t+ t)/ t

Example 3.1

The permeability of the reservoir and the skin factor should be determined on the basis of Figure

3.1 which shows a pressure buildup curve.

Data:

Np

q

Boi

pi

o

= 38.3 m3/d [241 bbl/d], production rate before shut in

= 1.28 [ ]

= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]

= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]

www.petroman.ir

Swi

ct

rw

3-49

= 21 m [68.9 ft]

= 0.17 [ ]

= 0.26 [ ]

= 1.2x10-9 Pa -1 [8.27x10 -6 1/psi]

= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

Solution:

The production time according to Equation 3.24, is

Np

21409

7

t p = ------ = --------------- = 559 days 13400 hours 4.824 10 s .

q

38,3

The slope of the straight line in Figure 3.1 is

p

6

3

m = --------------- = ( 14,378 14,456 ) 10 = 78 10 Pa [ 11,31 psi ] .

Cycle

From Equation 2.15:

3

k = 0,183 qB

---------- = 0,183 ----------------------------------------------------------3

hm

86400 21 ( 78 10 )

The skin effect from Equation 3.21 is for

pws ( 1 hour ) = 14,272 MPa ,

pwf = 13,534 MPa ,

6

( 14,272 13,534 ) 10

s = 1,1513 ---------------------------------------------------------+ lg3600 + x

6

0,078 10

12

0,583

10

s + lg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + 0,35137

0,17 9,2 10 3 1,210 9 0,12

www.petroman.ir

3-50

In field units:

qB

241 1,28 9,2

k = 162,6 ---------- = 162,6 ------------------------------------------ = 593,3 md .

hm

68,9 ( 11,31 )

The skin effect form Equation 3.23 is for

pws ( 1 hour ) = 2070 psi ,

pwf = 1962 psi ,

( 2070 1962 )

592,2

3,2255

s = 1,1513 ---------------------------------- + lg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11,31

4

2

0,17 9,2 1172 10 0,3281

s = 1,1513[ 9,54 + 8,6297 3,2275] = 4,77 .

Example 3.2

The straight line of the pressure buildup curve from Figure 3.1 extrapolated to

t p + t ( t ) = 1 , yields p = 14,594 MPa [ 2116,1 psi ] .

Data:

Np

q

Boi

pi

o

h

Swi

ct

rw

= 38.3 m3/d [241 bbl/d], production rate before shut in

= 1.28 [ ]

= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]

= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]

= 21 m [68.9 ft]

= 0.17 [ ]

= 0.26 [ ]

= 1.7x10-8Pa-1 [1.172x10-4 1/psi]

= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

6

The drainage area is a square with a surface A = 0,42 10 m [ 103,8 acre ] . The well is

placed in the center. The mean pressure of the drainage area is to be determined.

www.petroman.ir

3-51

Solution:

According to Equation 1.3,

12

7

kt p

0,583 10

4,824 10

t pDA = --------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 2,518

3

8

6

c t A

0,17 9,2 10 1,710 0,4210

pDMBH = 2,3026 ( p p ) m = 4,35 .

From Figure 3.1

p

m = --------------- = 0,078 MPa ,

Cycle

and therefore

6

m pDMBH

6 ( 0,078 10 ) 4,35

6

p = p + ----------------------------- = 14,594 10 + -------------------------------------------------- = 12,3 10 Pa .

2,3026

2,3026

In field units:

8

0,60536 10 kt

0,60536 10 592,2 13400

t pDA = --------------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------= 2,52 ,

4

c tA

0,17 9,2 1,17210 103,8

p

m = --------------- = 11,31 psi .

Cycle

Therefore,

m pDMBH

( 11,31 ) 4,35

p = p + ----------------------------- = 2116,1 + -------------------------------------- = 2094,7 psi .

2,3026

2,3036

Below the bubble point, the gas is dissolved in the reservoir. The evaluation of the pressure

buildup curve is carried out as before. However, the total two-phase compressibility and the

total mobility are applied.

www.petroman.ir

3-52

From the slope of the pressure buildup curve one can also determine hk g :

q g f g f Bg

hkg = 0,183 ---------------------,

m

(3.30)

where

qgf = q g qo Rs .

After shut in however, the pressure increases in the vincinity of the well, whereas the gas

saturation decreases. This fact is expressed by an apparent skin. If this effect is disregarded, one

could easily fail and order unnecessary formation treatments.

For gas wells, an apparent skin factor s' is determined and includes the influence of the

turbulent flow. According to Equation 1.64,

s' = s + D q .

(3.31)

In both cases, the actual skin factor can be determined from two pressure buildup curves with

different production rates. s' is drawn as a function of q, and the value extrapolated to q = 0

gives the correct skin factor.

6

Hexagon and circle

Square

5

pDMBH=2.303 (p*-p)/m

Equilateral triangle

4

Rhombus

Right triangle

2

*(t DA)pss

1

0

-2

10

5 6 78

-1

10

5 6 7 8

5 6 78

10

Figure 3.3: MBH dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of equilateral drainage areas

(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10])

www.petroman.ir

3-53

pDMBH=2.303 (p*-p)/m

4

3

2

1

*(t DA)pss

0

Well 1/8 of height away from side

-1

10 -2

5 6 78

10-1

5 6 7 8

5 6 78

10

Figure 3.4: MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a square drainage area

(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10] )

www.petroman.ir

3-54

www.petroman.ir

4-55

Two or more wells are required for the test. One well is active, the others serve as observation

wells. In the active well, production (or injection) takes place in the given way. The observation

wells are closed. The pressure changes in these wells are recorded.

There exists a variety of multiple well testing methods, two of them are discussed here:

interference test (long time interference testing),

pulse test.

With an interference test, the rate of the active well is modified. For example, the well is closed

or put into operation and the effects on the observation wells are measured (Figure 1.6). From

this, information about the formation properties between the wells is derived. The same purpose

is achieved with pulse tests, but within a considerably shorter time (Figure 1.7). the pressure

changes are small, sometimes only to an extent of kPa, therefore sprecial differential pressure

gauges are needed.

The distance between the active well and the observation wells is r. The simplest, of course, is

to have the active well closed for an extended period of time and then put it into operation (at

time t = 0). Equation 1.37 gives the dimensionless pressure function. For this case, it is

presented graphically in Fig. 1.8. For a more complicated production history, the superposition

principle must be used for constructing a type curve.

The measurement is evaluated with the type curve matching method, similarly as in section 3.2.

In this case, the type curve is identical to Fig. 1.8.

Fig. 4.1 illustrates the procedure.

www.petroman.ir

4-56

10

102

7

5

4

3

2

1

7

pD

5

4

3

2

10

-1

7

5

4

3

scale as Fig 1.8

Match Point

10

tM=100 hrs

2

(tD/r D)M=50

pM =10 PSI

(pD )M=0.80

1

1

102

10

103

2

-2

10

-1

10

3 45 7

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

t D/rD

Figure 4.1: Illustration of type curve matching for an interference test (after

EARLOUGHER[4])

From the match point:

( p D )M

k = qB

---------- ---------------,

2h p M

(4.1)

tM

k -----------------------c t = -------.

2

2

r ( t D r D )M

(4.2)

In field units:

( p D)M

k = 141,2 qB

---------- ---------------,

h p M

(4.3)

tM

c t = 0,0002637k

---------------------------- -----------------------.

2

2

r

( tD r D) M

(4.4)

If the active well is shut in at time t 1 , a pressure buildup follows in the observation well. The

difference between the extrapolated pressure curve from the production period and the

measured values is now drawn as a function of t t 1 and evaluated as above. The same

procedure is followed if the interference is caused by the shut in of an active well.

www.petroman.ir

4-57

Example 4.1

During an interference test, water was injected in the active well for 22 days. The distance to

the observation well is 112.4 m [368.8 ft]. The measured pressure changes are given in the

following table:

Time t

hours

001.70

002.35

003.40

005.40

008.40

013.00

022.00

036.00

072.00

132.00

216.00

528.00

p

kPa

0560

0710

0930

1150

1400

1650

1920

2300

2750

3050

3400

3900

psi

08120

10295

13485

16675

20300

23925

27840

33350

39875

44225

49300

56550

= 0.82x10-3 Pas [0.82 cp]

Bw = 1.0

h = 12 m [39.4 ft]

r = 112.4 m [368.8 ft]

The permeability and the product c t of the reservoir are to be determined.

Solution:

The measured p-values are drawn on a transparent sheet vs. t (hour), and matched by parallel

shifting in Figure 4.1 with the type curve in Figure 1.8. In the match point:

tM

= 100 hours,

( t D r D ) M = 50,

= 0.80.

www.petroman.ir

4-58

3

( p D )M

1,0 0,8210 -------0,8 = 0,302 10 12 m 2 ,

k = qB

---------- ---------------= 300

-----------------------------------------------------2h p M

86400 2 12 105

12

tM

9

1

k

0,302

10

100 3600

c t = -------- ------------------------ = -------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0,21 10 Pa .

2

2

3

2

50

r ( t D r D )M

0,82 10 112,4

In field units:

1,0 0,82 ---------0,8 = 306 mD ,

k = 141,2 1887

-----------------------------------------39,4

14,5

6

1

306 100

c t = 0,0002637

------------------------------------------------ = 0,15 10 psi .

2

0,82 368,8 50

In this process the active well produces at short intervals (Figure 4.2). The production and shut

in periods are different, but the cycles must be the same. The ratio of pulse time t p and cycle

time t c is

t p

F' = -------- .

t c

(4.5)

www.petroman.ir

4-59

Pulses

tp

tp

t1

Time

Pressure at

responding well, pw

Pulse 4

3

Pulse

Pu lse 2

Pulse

Pulse responses

Established trend

t1

Time

Figure 4.2: Schematic illustration of rate (pulse) history and pressure response for a pulse test

The pressure change in the observation well is the result of a general trend and the pulsation. A

tangent is drawn to the maximum and the minimum of the pressure waves, as shown in Figure

4.3, and the time lags t L1, t L2, t L 3 and the pressure differences p 1, p 2, p 3 are measured.

If the cycle time t c is short, the evaluation will be very unreliable. If it is long, however,

unnecessary costs are incurred. Therefore, the pulse test must be carefully planned.

Since the pulse times are short, the formation can be considered as infinite. The dimensionless

pressure function is calculated by the superposition of the elementary solution according to

Equation 1.37.

www.petroman.ir

4-60

7

3

Pressure

tL1

1

p1

p4

4

tL4

Rate

Pulse number

q>0

q>0

tp

Start of

pulse test

4

q>0

6

q>0

8

q>0

Time

tc

Figure 4.3: Schematic pulse-test rate and pressure history showing definition of time

and pulse response amplitude.

KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7] have carried out this task, the results are comprised in the diagrams

Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.11. There are special diagrams for the first and second pulses and for all

following odd pulses (3., 5., ...) and even pulses (4., 6., ...).

2

The evaluation is very simple. On the basis of t L t c and F' , the value p D t L t c can be

read from Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.7 and from Equation 4.1

2

qB ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig

k = ----------------------------------------------------------.

2

2hp [t L t c]

(4.6)

From Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.11, [ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g can be read, and from Equation 4.2 to Equation

4.4 follows:

kt L

c t = --------------------------------------------,

2

2

r [ ( t L ) D r D ] Fig

(4.7)

qB ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig

k = 141,2 ----------------------------------------------------------2

hp [ tL t c ]

(4.8)

0,0002637kt L

c t = --------------------------------------------2

2

r [ ( t L ) r D ]

(4.9)

Fig

www.petroman.ir

4-61

0.0035

0.0030

F'=0.7

0.6

0.8

0.0025

0.5

0.4

0.0020

0.9

0.0015

0.3

0.0010

0.2

0.0005

0.1

0.0000

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.4: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first

odd pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])

The evaluation is performed for all cycles and the mean value of the results is calculated.

Example 4.2

A pulse test is to be carried out in an undersaturated oil reservoir. Distances of wells are r = 175

m [574 ft].

The reservoir data:

h = 20 m [65.6 ft]

Bo = 1.10

o = 2x10-3 Pas [2 cp]

rw = 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

The following values are estimated:

ct = 10-9Pa-1 [0.6896x10-5 1/psi]

= 0.2

k = 0.1x10-12 m2 [100 mD]

www.petroman.ir

4-62

0.0045

0.4

F'=0.3

0.0040

0.2

0.0035

0.5

0.0030

0.6

0.0025

0.0020

0.7

0.0015

0.0010

0.1

3

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.5: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first even pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )

Solution:

a.) Planning of the test: the cycle time and the production rate are to be determined. Based on

experience, it is favourable if the time lag is 1/3 of the cycle time:

tL tc = 1 3 .

We select

t p

F' = -------- = 0,5 ,

t c

and from Fig. 4.8

2

[ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g = 0,09 .

From Eq. 4.7

2

c tr [ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g

t c = 3t L = 3 ----------------------------------------------------k

9

t c = 3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

0,1 10

www.petroman.ir

4-63

0.0035

0.0030

except the first

0.8

F'=0.7

0.6

0.0025

0.5

0.0020

0.4

0.0015

0.9

0.3

0.0010

0.2

0.0005

0.1

0.0000

5 6 7 8

10

-1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.6: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all odd pulses

except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7])

In field units:

5

t c = 3t L = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 9,3 hours .

0,0002637 100

The occurancy of the used differential pressure gauge is 20 Pa [0.003 psi], therefore the pressure

differences have to be at least 2000 Pa [0.3 psi] in order to be sure that the error is less than 1%.

From Figure 4.4

2

p D [ t L t c ] = 0,00238

and from Equation 4.6

2

2hkp [ tL t c ]

q = -------------------------------------------------------= x

2

B ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig

12

2 20 0,1 10

2000 ( 1 3 )

4 3 1

3

q = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5,33 10 m s = 46 m d .

3

1,1 2 10 0,00238

In field units:

www.petroman.ir

4-64

hkp [ t L t c ]

q = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= x

2

141,2 B ( p D [ t L t c ] )F i g

2

q = --------------------------------------------------------------- = 295,8 bbl d .

141,2 1,1 2 0,00238

0.0045

0.0040

except the first

0.2

F'=0.3

0.4

0.0035

0.5

0.0030

0.0025

0.6

0.0020

0.7

0.0015

0.8

0.0010

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.7: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all even pulses

except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])

Cycle time:

8 hours

Rate:

t L1

12860

-------= --------------------- = 0,446 .

t c

8 3600

From Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.8,

2

p [t L t c ] = 0,002175 ,

www.petroman.ir

4-65

( t L ) r D = 0,086 ,

D

and from Equation 4.6 and Equation 4.7,

3

48 1,1 2 10 0,002175

12

2

k = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 = 0,062 10

m ,

86400 2 20 1700 0,446

12

0,062 10

12860

9

1

c t = ------------------------------------------------------= 0,153 10 Pa .

3

2

2 10 175 0,086

In field units:

302 1,1 2 0,002175

k = 141,2 ------------------------------------------------------------ = 63,6 mD ,

2

65,6 0,246 0,446

0,0002637 63,6 3,572

5

1

c t = -------------------------------------------------------------= 0,105 10 psi .

2

2 574 0,086

The following pulses are evaluated in the same way. The mean values of k and c t can be used

as the best estimates.

0.200

0.175

F'=0.9

0.150

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.125

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.1

3

5 6 7 8

10-1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.8: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first odd pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7] )

www.petroman.ir

4-66

0.200

F'=0.1

0.175

0.150

0.2

0.125

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.9

0.025

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.9: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first even pulse

(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )

0.200

except the first

0.175

F'=0.9

0.150

0.8

0.125

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.10: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all odd pulses except

the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])

www.petroman.ir

4-67

0.200

0.175

except the first

F'=0.1

0.150

0.2

0.125

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.9

0.025

5 6 7 8

10-1

5 6 7 8 91

Figure 4.11: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all even pulses

except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7])

www.petroman.ir

4-68

www.petroman.ir

Nomenclature

5-69

5 Nomenclature

A

B

Bg

Bo

C

CA

CD

c

ct

D

DF

-Ei(-z)

FE

G

g

h

J

k

kg

ko

krg

kro

krw

kw

L

m

m(p)

Np

pi

pw f

pw s

q

qD

qo

qw

Rs

r

re

rw

Sw i

s

t

t

c

area

formation volume factor

formation volume factor, gas

formation volume factor, oil

wellbore storage constant

shape factor (Eq. 1.46)

dimensionless wellbore storage constant

compressibility

L2

total compressibility

turbulence factor

damage factor

exponential integral, x positive

flow efficiency

fluid mass

acceleration of gravity

bad thickness, individual

productivity index

Lt2/m

t/L3

L2

L2

effective permeability to oil

relative permeability to gas

relative permeability to oil

relative permeability to water

effective permeability to water

distance, length, or length of path

slope

real gas pseudo pressure

cumulative oil production

pressure, initial

pressure, bottomhole flowing

pressure, bottomhole, at any time after

shut-in

production rate or flow rate

production rate, dimensionless

production rate, oil

production rate, water

solution gas / oil ratio

radius

outer radius

well radius

initial water sautration

skin effect

time

shut in time

cycle time

www.petroman.ir

L4 t/m

Lt2/m

m

L/t2

L

L4 t/m

L2

L2

L

m/Lt2 or m/Lt3

L3

m/Lt2

m/Lt2

m/Lt2

L3 /t

L3 /t

L3 /t

L

L

L

t

t

t

5-70

Nomenclature

tD

tD

tDA

time, dimensionless

dimensionless time (Eq. 1.3)

time well was on production prior

to shut-in, equivalent (pseudotime)

log time

volume

L3

g

o

w

viscosity, dynamic

viscosity, gas

viscosity, oil

viscosity, water

m/Lt

m/Lt

m/Lt

m/Lt

density

porosity

m/L3

tp

tL

t

t

L3

Greek letters

Subscripts

D

g

gf

i

o

r

s

sc

sf

w

w

wf

ws

dimensionless

gas

free gas

initial

oil phase

relative

skin

standard condition

sand face

water

well

well under flowing condition

well under shut-in conditions

www.petroman.ir

References

6-71

6 References

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. JR. and Crawford, P.B. (1966): "The Flow of

Real Gases Through Porous Media," J.Pet.Tech. (May 1966) 624-626, Trans.,

AIME (1966) 237.

Bourdet, D. et al. (1983): "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test

Analysis," World Oil (May 1983), 95-106.

Bourdet, D. et al. (1984): "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone

Well Tests," World Oil (April 1984).

Earlougher, R. C., Jr. (1977): "Advances in Well Test Analysis," Monographs

Series, Soc. Pet. Eng. (1977), Trans., AIME, 5, Dallas.

Earlougher, R.C., Jr., and Ramey, H.J., Jr. (1973): "Interference Analysis in

Bounded Systems," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1973) 33-45.

Heinemann, Z.E.: "Fluid Flow in Porous Media" Texbook, Montanuniversitt

Leoben, (2003) p.190.

Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E. (1975): "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal

Pulse and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410, Trans.,

AIME, 259.

Lee, John: "Well Testing," SPE Texbook Series, Vol.1. Dallas (1982), p. 159.

Martin, J.C. (1959): "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs

and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses,"

Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.

Matthews, C.S., Brons; F., and Hazenbrock, P. (1954): "A Method for

Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, "Trans., AIME

(1954) 201, 182-189.

Matthews, C.S. and Russel, D.G. (1967): "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in

Wells," Monograph Series, Soc. of Pet. Eng. of AIME, 1, Dallas.

Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A., Jr. (1950): "The Estimation of

Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up

Characteristics," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.

Perrine, R.L. (1956): "Analysis of Pressure Buidup Curves," Drill. and Prod.

Prac., API (1956), 482-509.

Ramey, H.J., Jr. (1965): "Non Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in

Pressure Build-up and Drawdown of Gas Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965)

223-233, Trans., AIME, 234.

Rammey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W., M. (1971): "A General Buildup Theory for a

Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J.Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971), 1493-1505.

www.petroman.ir

6-72

References

www.petroman.ir

Appendix

7-73

7 Appendix

www.petroman.ir

7-74

Appendix

www.petroman.ir

- SPE 028688 (Doublet) Material Balance Decline Type Curve AnUploaded byVladimir Priescu
- 01-Introduction to Well TestingUploaded byDuong Duong
- Eclipse Tutorial1 2018 (2)Uploaded byKonul Alizada
- Spe 75133Uploaded bykurtbk
- Ried+FieldUploaded byRadu Chibzui
- LampungBlock HistoryUploaded bydefriza
- Production ForecastingUploaded bymanish.7417
- Ipa Paper ProceedingsUploaded byasya
- CO2 Injection MonitoringUploaded byabet133
- AAPG_HC Generation Potential.pdfUploaded byMuhamad Alwi
- Differential Capacity Fractal Dimension and Water Saturation Fractal Dimension as Parameter for Reservoir Characterization : Shajara Formation of the Permo-Carboniferous Unayzah Group as a Case Study.Uploaded byKhalid Al-Khidir
- Selecting Oil Wells for Hydraulic FracturingUploaded byfrancisco_pazv_59954
- PPE 2, Overview of Reservoir Eng (Lecture 2)Uploaded byElvis Ansu
- 43f412c1-0341-4d2c-9529-6e1f2582c1d4-161208101810Uploaded byFarhad Ali Safi
- 11. SPE-18172-MS OKUploaded byleonelz6a
- ChariotUploaded byTricky Dicky Two
- 10.1007%2Fs12594-014-0133-zUploaded byDaniela Becerra
- Subsea ProcessingUploaded byMohammad Abdul Rashid
- 15 Tr 12000405Uploaded byPraveen Nayak Bhukya
- stratplaysukcsUploaded byBabalola Shola M.
- 31647 Pressure Pumping Technology Center_Technology GroupUploaded byNestor Cortes
- of2008-1296Uploaded byJim Hung
- The Effect of Anisotropy in Formation Permeability on the Efficiency of Cyclic Water FloodingUploaded bySilmi Kaffah
- Matrix Acidizing CarbonateUploaded byAdriyan Syah
- Spe 11182Uploaded bytomk2220
- AbstractUploaded byLorena Campos
- A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE PRODUCTIVITY INDEX OF A WELL_DISERTASI DINARA KHALMANOVA.pdfUploaded byBayu W Kuncoro
- Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation of Highly PermeableUploaded bySalinas Salcedo Jorge Karol
- SPE 75156 Control and Monitoring Techniques of Miscible Gas Injection Project in El FurrialUploaded byEdgar Gonzalez
- 00065429_Reservoir Characterization Constrained to Well-Test Data_A Field Example .Uploaded byegv2000

- Thermal method eclipse 2001 dataUploaded byBoota from Toba
- 236216981 Asian Paints Ltd Global Expansion Case StudyUploaded byBoota from Toba
- The Chemical Industry in the NorthwestUploaded byayubkara
- Chemical Engineering Expertise DiagramUploaded byBoota from Toba
- General Covering Letter Sample 1Uploaded byBoota from Toba
- Oil and Gas Exploration and Drilling TechnologyUploaded byAditi Phalak

- filter an filt handbook deo knjige o vodiUploaded byMilan Djuric
- Gas DynamicsUploaded byBhavesh Pipaliya
- WHAT IS LUBRICANTUploaded byGeetha Ramanathan
- Mach Number CalculationUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- 2014-4800-9U-0001 Rev G Process Line List for ST-PIPUploaded byanon_579964147
- Preview of the Delft Head Loss Limit Deposit Velocity FrameworkUploaded byAnonymous K3FaYFl
- Separations Based on the Motion of Particles ThroughUploaded byRA Memije
- Design and Fabricatino of Liquid Dispensing Machine Using Automatic Control for Engg IndustryUploaded byChristian Mavarez
- 4 - Pipe Fitting LossesUploaded bystaryklt
- Pre-lab Report (1)Uploaded byTintin Brusola Salen
- Adg OnlinexUploaded bysantiagovb
- te_civil2008.pdfUploaded byjjmanoj007
- Basic Principles of HydraulicsUploaded byvelavansu
- Unichem Lab 2Uploaded bydebendu nag
- l 813083Uploaded byZulfansyah Muchtar
- introductionUploaded byrenato
- Framo Ballast Operation ManualUploaded byspamalstublieft1832
- 02.pdfUploaded bykrishnabr
- Burkhardt.pdfUploaded bymuco
- 1.10 Abnormal PressureUploaded bylilim020776
- Introduction to Antifriction Bearings and LubricationUploaded byMohsin Murtaza
- Frac Water Treatment SystemsUploaded byBob Smith
- Chapter 2_student CopyUploaded byMuhammad Nizam
- Axial Pump YgsUploaded byMichael Adrian
- CFD Analysis - Hydro TurbineUploaded byDR PRIYABRATA ADHIKARY
- Pipe FlowUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- MMAN2600 FormulaeUploaded byAbhishek Sharan
- South OC Interim Hydromod Tool TrainingUploaded byabouzouz
- Beggs (SPE 5434) Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil SystemsUploaded byOnur Deniz Narin
- Agar WetGasPaper5Uploaded bymaylabinoti