This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SPE GCS Reservoir Study Group Houston Feb 25th 2010 Prof George STEWART Weatherford Geoscience Institute of Petroleum Engineering Heriot-Watt University
3rd Australian CSG (CBM) DST
Rate steps: 34.6, 32.8, 31, 27.8, 27.2 bbl/d
rw = 0.1573 ft h = 7.96 ft φ = 0.02 Bw = 1.013 µw = 0.475 cp cw = 3.03×10-6 psi-1 ct = 2.03×10-4 psi-1 T = 134.6oF
Log-Log Diagnostic of Final Buildup
Interpretation Based on 90o Intersecting Faults
Five rate points in history
Semilog Analysis of Final Buildup
L1 = 14.8 ft L2 = 20.8 ft
Radial Flow SL
pi = 1446.9 psia k = 3.53 md S = 9.42
Hemi2 Radial Flow
3rd QLD CSG DST
2nd NSW CBM Test
Classical Falling Liquid Level Slug Test
h = 23.2 ft φ = 0.01 rw = 0.1575 ft T = 71.6oF 0.951 cp ct = 1.59×10-5 psi-1 Bw = 1
NSW Falling Liquid Level (Slug) Test 540.4 psia pc 429 psia pi .
021 bbl/psi .Pressure Integral Log-Log Diagnostic Plot I(p) pi − po pi = 429 psia pc = 540.4 psia Cs = 0.
pi = 254 psia .
Diagrammatic Illustration of a Slump Block of Limited Volume Potential Leakage Path This block is charged up in pressure during the injection Only a possible geological explanation .
q (bbl/d) .005 ki = 15 md E = 125000 psi ν = 0.35 ft h = 100 ft Bo = 1 µo = 1 cp ct = 80.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia Skin. Sσ 4 3 Skin calculated from BU following a period of production 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Well Flow-Rate. Sσ 7 6 5 rw = 0.Stress Dependent Skin Contribution.3×10-5 psi-1 φi = 0.
Apparent Skin from Conventional Buildup Analysis 30 φi = 0.01 25 Total Apparent Skin. Sa Effect of True Skin is Magnified 20 15 10 Ss = 1.3725 Well “Chokes” 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 True Skin. S .
Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity (SDPP) .
In Start Pumping Formation Temp Inflate Packer 13 .CBM Evaluation: Injection Fall-Off Test Example: High Perm Reservoir Analysis Well Shut.
. Compaction of formation due to porosity change Separating the variables: dr 2πh (p i )[1 − φ(p i )] k (p ) =− dp r qµ 1 − φ(p ) . .Steady-State Radial Flow with Pressure Dependent Permeability and Porosity D’Arcy’s Law: q q k (p ) dp = = ur = − A 2πrh (p ) µ dr h eff h (p i )[1 − φ(p i )] = h ( p) = [1 − φ(p )] .
used in formulation of SDPP pseudopressure pw .Stress Dependent Height Compaction pi p h pi 1 − φ pi 1− φ p h(pw) heff = h(p) = bg h(pi) rw r re . . .
Integrating: dr 2πh (p i )[1 − φ(p i )] k (p ) ∫r= ∫ 1 − φ(p ) dp qµ rw pw re pe i.e.: re 2πk i h i [1 − φ(p i )] k (p ) ln = ∫ 1 − φ(p ) dp rw qµ k (p i ) p w pe Normalised Pseudopressure definition: 1 − φi ψ p = ki bg k p′ dp ′ 1 − φ p′ pb z p b g b g Reservoir Integral .
Reservoir integral may be expressed as the difference between two pseudopressures: k p′ k p′ k p′ dp = dp − dp 1 − φ p′ 1 − φ p′ 1 − φ p′ pw pb pb pe z b g b g pe z b g b g pw z b g b g re 2πk i h i ln = ψ pe − ψ p w rw qµ m b g b gr m b g b gr Inclusion of Skin and Conversion to Semi-Steady-State: re 3 2πk i h i ln − + S = ψ p − ψ pw rw 4 qµ .
Input Rock Mechanics Parameters k(p) 1 − φ(p) p E. ν. n Palmer-Mansoori Model pb Generate Pseudopressure Function by Quadrature k(p ) dp pb 1 − φ (p ) p p ψ(p) (psi) Generation of the SDPP Pseudo-Pressure Function p (psia) .
Well SSS Deliverability ψ(p) ψ(p) re 3 m ln − + S rw 4 M P qµ m= 2 πk i h i ψ(pw) pw p Well deliverability curve reflects the shape of the pseudopressure function Effect of Skin is magnified at low wellbore pressure .
Well Deliverability Curve p Single Phase Liquid (Water) Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (FBHP) pw Effect of Decreasing Reservoir Pressure SDPP Case 0 Flow-Rate. curved IPR .e. q AOF Similar to Gas Well Behaviour i.
Based on Linear Elasticity φ p − pi = 1 + φi φiM Recommended by Mavor Code Porosity Cutoff φ = 0.00001 Does not handle permeability rebound very sensitive to φi φ 3 k = ki φi 1−ν M = E (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) M 1 + ν K = 3 1 − ν E = Young’s Modulus Constrained Axial Modulus Bulk Modulus ν = Poisson’s Ratio .Palmer and Mansoori CBM Rock Mechanics Model .
3×10-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft q = 500 STB/D µ = 1 cp Bo = 1 tp = 10 hr • • • • • Typical parameter values relevant to CBM (CSG) High total compressibility.natural fracture (secondary) porosity Note: setting ν = 0.SDPP Test Problem pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md φi = 0.5 reduces SDPP model to radial homogeneous behaviour .39 n=3 ct = 80. ct Test Design in well test software used to generate synthetic data Test declared as oil but given water properties This artifice allows access to pseudopressure option in software φ .25×105 psi ν = 0.005 E = 1.
CBM p' = d∆p dln t .25×105 psi ν = 0.3×10-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft φi = 0.39 ct = 80.Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md E = 1.005 n=3 q = 500 STB/D CRD ∆p p' Ideal DP kh = 1500 md.ft SDPP Model .
ψ(p) Analyse data as a liquid system Whole test can be analysed conventionally Similar procedure to gas well analysis Method 2 SDPP pseudomodel Flow and shutin periods handled separately Pseudopressure computed within model Rock mechanics variables become parameters in regression Especially φi and n Shutin period modelled as equivalent flow period Synthetic initial pressure required .Handling of SDPP in Pansystem Method 1 Rock mechanics and φi known a priori Generate and import pseudopressure function.
in fact.SDPP Pseudopressure • In gas well testing pseudopressure [ m(p) ] allows interpretation for k and S in the usual way on log-log or semilog plots • This is not the case in the SDPP situation • ki . φi and rock mechanics parameters (E. vary with pressure through φ • Is Agarwal pseudotime necessary? . ν. n) are required to generate a pseudopressure • SDPP pseudomodel allows all parameters to be included in the nonlinear regression process (Quickmatch and Automatch) • Pseudopressure is used to validate an interpretation once the parameters have been identified • Early work of Raghavan and Cinco showed that data generated using a numerical model could be transformed to the liquid solution using SDPP pseudopressure • Hence the pseudopressure method can be used to generate SDPP responses (if the above parameters are specified) • The term φct in the accumulation term of the diffusivity equation does.
StressDependPerm • Key feature is the embedding of the pseudopressure calculation in the model • This allows rock mechanics parameters to be estimated by regression • Constant rate model • Wellbore storage can be added in well test software • Finite wellbore radius (FWBR) solution which can handle negative skin • Variable rate convolution not allowed .SDPP Model .
pref • k and φ evaluated at pref • Parameters in red must be specified and not selected as iteration variables in nonlinear regression • pref may be pi but not necessary • Allows rock mechanics parameters to be determined by regression. are known independently • tp = 0 defines drawdown or injection at constant rate • tp > 0 defines buildup or falloff preceded by constant rate • Constrained by DLL facility in well test software • Buildup or Falloff treated as equivalent drawdown or buildup • In this case q +ve for Falloff and -ve for Buildup . φ. n • Most common regression subset is k. S. particularly the exponent. qref. ν. E.StressDependPerm Parameter List: k.SDPP Model . n. S and n • Usually the coal properties. E and ν. tp.
CBM Time.005 E = 1.35 ft µ = 1 cp B = 1 pwf (psia) pwf(tp) = 927.113 psia SDPP Model .39 n=3 ct = 80.Simulation of Constant Rate Production (Test Design) CRD pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md φi = 0.3×10-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft q = 500 STB/D rw = 0. t (hr) Last Flowing Pressure required for Buildup Simulation .25×105 psi ν = 0.
CBM Time. t (hr) Homogeneous Model Production .25×105 psi ν = 0.Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity pi = 1500 psia ki = 15 md E = 1.3×10-5 psi-1 h = 100 ft rw = 0.35 ft µ = 1 cp B = 1 φi = 0.005 SDPP Model n=3 q = 500 STB/D CRD ∆p (psi) ∆p p' SDPP Model SDPP Model .39 ct = 80.
E. φi.25 are “good” values for coal seams Iteration is required to find stress dependence of permeability .000 psi and ν = 0. to use in the Palmer and Mansoori model E = 500. ν.SDPP Pseudopressure Import • • • • • • • • • • Rock mechanics model assumed known i. vertical fracture and radial composite effects have been observed in CBM tests Main problem is defining the initial porosity. S Any well test model can be used to interpret the transformed data No-flow boundary.Method 1 .e. n and φi are specified a priori Normalised pseudopressure function generated and imported into well test software Test analysed in terms of transformed pressure Stress dependent effect is implicitly backed off Interpretation yields ki and true skin.
t (hr) CBM Data .Analysis of CRD using Normalised SDPP Pseudopressure Liquid Solution k = 15 md S = 0 ∆ψ(p) Pseudopressure Transform of Figure 2.6 (psi) q = 500 STB/D Production Time.
q .Critical Conditions in Production (Drawdown) • • • • • Condition where permeability at the sandface has reduced to zero Sandface closure Unique to production (drawdown) Flow-rate. q.crit for specified flow-rate. cannot be larger than the critical (specified fi . pi and kh) Or fi must be greater than fi.
35 ft µ = 1 cp Bo = 1 pi = 1500 psia ct = 80.000 psi q = 500 bbl/d ν = 0.25 φi = 0.0025 k = 15 md n=3 S=0 h = 81 ft Sandface Closure At h = 80 ft a simulation “crashes” .3×10-5 psi-1 E = 500.Critical Conditions in Production (Drawdown) rw = 0.
000 psi ν = 0.Choking Condition in Production (Drawdown) Parameters from Mavor IFO Field Example (q = -96 bbl/d) rw = 0.003×10-3 psi-1 E = 500.5 ft µ = 0.25 n = 3 pi = 734 psia ki = 11.65 cp Bo = 1.001 CRD tp = 10 hr qcrit = 7 bbl/d .26 ft h = 2.3 md φi = 0.005 ct = 3.
Rock Compressibility. φ or ν are changed by regression cf is not pressure dependent .39 3(1 − 2υ) cf = Eφi ct = cwSwc + co(1 .Swc) + cf or ct = cw + cf ct should be updated if E. cf Palmer and Mansoori (Pore Volume) Van den Hoek 1 cf = 2Eφi Almost identical when ν = 0.
Use of Effective Young’s Modulus. φi. E′ Palmer and Mansoori φ p − pi p − pi = 1− = 1− φi φi M φi E′f (ν ) • • • • 1− ν f (ν ) = (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) Enter log porosity. into Pansystem parameter set Calculate rock compressibility from accepted value of E Use effective E′ to achieve variation in SDPP model This maintains correct diffusivity in the simulation .
35 ft h = 100 ft ki = 15 md φi = 0. ∆t (hr) µ = 1 cp q = -500 STB/D Bo = 1 ct = 80.113 psia ∆p = pws − pwf(tp) DP k = 15 md Elapsed Time.005 E = 1.3×10-5 psi-1 rw = 0.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia .25×105 psia ν = 0.Stress Dependent Permeability and Porosity Buildup Following Constant Rate Production CRB ∆p (psi) tp = 10 hr ∆p d ∆p p′ = t + ∆t d ln p ∆t LM N b g OP Q p' pwf(tp) = 927.
Injection Well Falloff tp = 10 hr pwf(tp) = 1719.39 n = 3 pi = 1500 psia .005 E = 1.ft p' Equivalent Time.25×105 psia ν = 0.58 psia CRS (IFO) ∆pFO (psi) d ∆p p′ = t + ∆t d ln p ∆t LM N b g OP Q ∆p Ideal DP kh = 1500 md.35 ft h = 100 ft ki = 15 md φi = 0. ∆te µ = 1 cp q = -500 STB/D Bo = 1 ct = 80.3×10-5 psi-1 rw = 0.
56 psia pw (psia) Injection Falloff q = −96 bbl/d Time (hr) .Mavor Field Example Data (Unreduced) pwf(tp) = 1504.
Mavor Field Example (Injection and Falloff) Falloff period ∆p (psi) (IFO) q = -96 bbl/d pwf(tp) = 1504.005 .56 psia tp = 8. ∆t (hr) rw = 0.5 ft m = 0.6458 hr Elapsed Time.65 cp cw = 3.0×10-6 psi-1 Bw = 1.26 ft h = 2.
1 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.3 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.5 0.10 Derivative Fingerprints for IFO Shrinking Fracture Model After Van den Hoek SPE 84289 1 tD*dpD/dtD pD′ 0.8 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.1 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.01 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.001 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 D tD t 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 .7 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.95 0.9 dp01/s1 = dp02/s2 = 0.
very high rock compressibility . ct ct = cf + cw 3 1 − 2ν cf = φi E For coal : b g φi = 0. .Total Compressibility.001 ν = 0. .e ct = 3.25 E = 5×105 psi cf = 3×10-3 psi-1 i.003×10-3 psi-1 .
5 k = 11. pi IFO Semilog (Horner) Graph pws (psia) S = 4. p* = 734 psia Horner Time Function tp = 8.3 md Extrapolated pressure.Determination of Initial Reservoir Pressure.6458 hr .
∆t (hr) .Permeability Range in IFO Data ∆p (psi) DP k = 11.3 md DP k = 26 md tp = 8.6458 hr Elapsed Time.
0009 Cs = 3×10-5 bbl/psi t = 0.25 n=3 .5 φi = 0.6458 hr Elapsed Time. ∆t (hr) E = 5×105 psi ν = 0.075 hr Cf = -6900 psi tp = 8.Manual Match of Mavor Data SDPP + NIWBS Model ∆p (psi) (Hegeman) k = 11 md S = 4.
000 psi ν = 0.001 pi = 734 psia E = 500. y(p) (psia) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 500 ki = 11.3 md φi = 0.25 n = 3 600 700 800 900 1000 Pressure (psia) .Field Example Pseudopressure Function 700 Pseudopressure.
Falloff Log-Log Diagnostic Based on Pseudopressure Mavor Field Example ∆ψ(p) (psia) Elapsed Time. ∆t (hr) .
079 pi = 754 psia tp = 8.15 md S = 0.6458 hr .Falloff Semilog Analysis Based on Pseudopressure Mavor Field Example ψ(p) (psia) Horner Time Function k = 10.
001 E = 5×105 psi ct = 3×10-3 psi-1 .3 md Cs = 0 DP k = 54 md “False” Plateau tp = 8. ∆t (hr) φi = 0.Revised Permeability Range in IFO Data ∆p (psi) Cs = 0 DP k = 11.6458 hr Elapsed Time.
5 SDPP + NIWBS Model ∆p (psi) ki = 7 md φi = 0.0×105 psi ν = 0.0×10-5 psi-1 E = 5.001 S = 13 Cφ = −7900 τ = 0.6458 hr .25 n = 4. ∆t (hr) tp = 8.5 Elapsed Time.075 hr Cs = 3.Improved Match with n Increased to 4.
6458 hr . extended FO tp = 8.5 50 Elapsed Time.Permeability Range of Revised Model ∆p (psi) DP k = 7 md DP k = 70 md ki = 7 md φi = 0.0×105 psi ν = 0. ∆t (hr) Wellbore storage removed.001 S = 13 Cs = 0 E = 5.25 n = 4.
001 Cf = -7900 t = 0.466 Minimisation of χ2 φi = 0.25 Elapsed Time.8 md S = 2.Nonlinear Regression for Three Parameters SDPP + NIWBS Model ∆p (psi) k = 10.6458 hr . ∆t (hr) χ2 based on pressures only tp = 8.075 hr Cs = 3×10-5 psi-1 E = 5×105 psi ν = 0.0 n = 2.
466 pi = 734 psia pwf = 500 psia Constant BHFP Flow-Rate. 5 4 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Time. t (hr) .8 md S = 2 n = 2.Production Forecast (Dewatering) 6 k = 10. q (bbl/d) Rate.
Mavor Field Example Analysed with 90o Fault Boundary Model (No Stress Dependency) RH+NIWBS φ = 0.4 md S = -1.477 L1 = 175 ft L2 = 80 ft pi = 719 psia Results from Nonlinear Regression .131×10-5 bbl/psi τ = 0.4 md Cs = 2.001 DP k = 26.0876 hr Cφ = -11000 psi k = 28.
0742 hr Cφ = -1000 psi k = 30.789×10-4 bbl/psi τ = 0.0105 L1 = 24 ft L2 = 54.Mavor Field Example Analysed with 90o Fault Boundary Model (No Stress Dependency) φi changed from 0.5 ft pi = 723 psia Results from Nonlinear Regression .63 md S = -0.001 to 0.01 Cs = 1.
Structure • • • • • Formation Geometry Natural Fractures Faulting Folding Stress/Compression Well A Permeability Facies Change Well B Well C Channel Sandstone Belt Coal Pinch Out Fault Offset Schematic Diagram of Coalbed Reservoir Geometry Components that affect lateral continuity. permeability. and porosity . cleat properties.
Testing Strategy for CBM Wells Buildup Following Production Derivative L-L Diagnostic CRB Falloff Succeeding Injection Derivative L-L Diagnostic IFO Apparent DP ki DP Apparent DP ki DP Ideal SDPP Alone Including Storage and Boundary Effect Buildup Identifies Presence of Boundary Effects In Falloff SDPP and Boundary Effects are Similar and Combine to Give Steep Derivative Response .
Resolution of Lack of Uniqueness Problem • Carry out a production test • On drawdown the stress effect will be much stronger • Choking may occur .
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.