SPE 56487

Analysis and Interpretation of

Well Test Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia

Authors:
T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M U.
N.J. Kaczorowski, ExxonMobil (Indonesia)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
 Summary

 A comprehensive field case history of the

analysis and interpretation of well test data
from the Arun Gas Field (Sumatra, Indonesia).
 2-zone radial composite reservoir model is
effective for diagnosing the effects of conden-
sate banking at Arun Field.
 Summary

 Development and application of a new solution

for the analysis and interpretation for wells that
exhibit "well interference" effects.
 Outline

 Introduction
 Well Test Analysis Strategy
 Multiwell Model
 Regional Pressure Decline
 Analysis Procedure
 Field Example
 Conclusions
Arun Field Field Description
 Located in Northern part of
Ø
Ø Sumatra, Indonesia
Ø
 Retrograde gas reservoir
 One of the largest gas fields
Ø in the world
 Arun Field has 111 wells:
Ø
Ø  79 producers
Ø
 11 injectors
Ø  4 observation wells
 17 wells have been abandoned
N Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
 Major Phenomena in Arun

 Liquid accumulation near wellbore (conden-

sate banking)
 Need to know radial extent of condensate banking
for the purpose of well stimulation.
 Well interference effect
 This well interference effect tends to obscure the
radial flow response, and hence, influence our
analysis and interpretation efforts.
 Well Test Analysis Strategy

 Condensate banking phenomenon

 2-zone radial composite reservoir model is used,
where the inner zone represents the "condensate
bank," and the outer zone represents the "dry gas
reservoir." (Raghavan, et al, (1995) and then by
Yadavalli and Jones (1996) )
 Well interference effect
 Developed a new method for the analysis of well
test data from a well in multiwell reservoir where
we treat the "well interference" effect as a
"Regional Pressure Decline."
 Multiwell Model

n well
p D(xD,y D,t DA) = q
i=1
D,iu(t DA – t sDA,i)

 p D,i(xD,y D,[tDA – tsDA,i],xwD,i,y wD,i)

Bounded Reservoir
with Multiple Wells
Analytical Solution Matches Numerical Solution
3
10
Legend:
Numerical Simulation
Dimensionless Pressure, pD

Analytical Solution
2
10

1 pD
10

0
10 pD'

-1
10
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Dimensionless Time,tDA (Based on Drainage Area)
 Regional Pressure Decline Model

Issues:
 Arun Field has been produced for over 20 years and
currently in "blowdown" mode.
 Drawdown and buildup tests induce local transient
effects.
 Most of the well tests performed at Arun Field are
relatively short (< 5 hours producing time), and the
pseudosteady-state flow condition is not established
in the area of investigation given such short produc-
tion times.
 Regional Pressure Decline Model

Assumptions:
 All of the wells in the reservoir are at pseudosteady-
state flow conditions at the time the "focus" well is
shut-in.
 Any rate change at the focus well (including a
drawdown/buildup sequence) cause transient flow
conditions only in the vicinity of the focus well–not in
the entire reservoir.
 Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure at focus well:

p wD(tDA) = p D,1([xwD,1 + ],[y wD,1 + ],tDA,xwD,1,y wD,1)

+ 2tDA( D – 1)

Vpc t dp Vpc t
where:  D = = 
q1B dt q1B
 Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure buildup analysis relations:

p sD(t DA) + 2( D – 1)t DA = 1 ln 4 t DAe A2 + s

2 e rw

Vs.

Straight line on semilog plot

 Regional Pressure Decline Model

Pressure buildup analysis relations:

2
dp sD  t
t DAe = 1 – 2 ( D – 1) DA
dt DAe 2 t DAe

Vs.

Straight line on Cartesian plot

 Simulated Case

Offset wells are produced Offset wells are kept

on production.
Rate, q

at the same flowrate.

Focus well is shut-in Focus well is shut-in

Focus well is put on production

Time, t
Multiwell Response is Different than
Single Well Response
0.5
wf t=0)] format

0.3
0.0
t=0)] format

-0.3 pbar continues to decline.

-0.5 Pressure builds up to pbar
-pwf((

-0.8 (closed boundary)

wsp

-1.0
', [p-

Legend:
sDws

Multiwell, Single Well

-1.3
psD' p[p

-2
, tpDA=1x10
-3
-1.5 , tpDA=1x10
-4
, tpDA=1x10
-1.8 , tpDA=1x10
-5

-2.0 -3
0 10 20 30 40x10
ttDA
DA
 Straight Line on Cartesian Plot

1.00
format format

0.75
0.50
0.25 psDe' = 0.5 - 2(D - 1) tDA2/ tDAe
(t=0)]

0.00 psDe' = 0.5

- p t=0)]

-0.25
ws -pwf (wf

-0.50
-0.75
ws
', [p

Legend:
' [p

-1.00
psDe

-2
tpDA=1x10
-1.25
psDe

-3
tpDA=1x10
-1.50 tpDA=1x10
-4

-5
-1.75 tpDA=1x10

-2.00 -3
0 10 20 30 40x10
2
tDA / tDAe
tDA
2 /tDAe
Regional Pressure Decline Signature
May Not Be Unique
1
formatformat

0
This portion may be falsely
(D - 1) tDA2/ tDAe
(t=0)]

-1
pinterpreted
sDe' = 0.5 as
- 2regional
psDe' = 0.5
(t=0)]

pressure decline effect.

wfwf

-2
[pws--pp
[p',ws

Legend:
-3
psDep'sDe

-2
tpDA=1x10
-3
tpDA=1x10
-4 tpDA=1x10
-4

-5
tpDA=1x10

-5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 2
10 10 10 10
tDA
2 /tDAe
tDA / tDAe
Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

To analyze pressure buildup tests taken in multiwell

systems, we recommend the following procedures:

 Step 1: Plot te(dpws/dte) versus t2/te on a Carte-

sian scale. From the straight-line trend we obtain the
slope mc and intercept bc. We calculate permeability
using the intercept term as:

qB
k = 70.6
b ch
Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

 Step 2: The Horner plot [(pws+mct) versus

log((tp+t)/t)] can also be used to estimate formation
properties. From the straight-line trend observed on
the Horner plot, we obtain the slope msl as well as the
intercept term, (pws + mct) t=1hr.
Permeability
And the skin is
factor
estimated
is calculated
using: using:


(p wsk+=m162.6
t) qB– p
c t=1hr wf,t = 0
s = 1.1513 mm h
sl sl

tp k
– 1.1513 log + log – 3.22751
t p+1  c tr w
2
Analysis Procedures for Multiwell Reservoirs

 Step 3: In order to use standard single-well type

curves for type curve matching, we must make the
appropriate "corrections". These relations are:

Pressure function:
p ws,cor = p ws + m ct

Pressure derivative function:

dp ws dp ws t 2
t e = t e + mc
dt e dt e t e
cor
 Well C-I-18 (A-096)
[Test Date:
Well C-I-18 (A-096)28 September
[Test 1992]
Date: 28 September 1992]
3
10

Functions, psi

2
Pseudopressure Functions, psi

10
Infinite acting Reservoir
Improvement onModel
(Does not includederivative.
pressure non-Darcy flow)
Pseudopressure

1
10

Condensate banking
region.
0 Higher mobility
10
region.
Closed boundary at 160 ft?
(includes non-Darcy flow).
-1
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, tae, hrs
Effective shut-in pseudotime, hrs
 Well C-I-18 (A-096)
[Test Date: 28 September 1992]
Well C-I-18 (A-096) [Test Date: 28 September 1992]
1160
ppws , psia psia

1140
Condensate banking
Pseudopressure,

region.
1120
Shut-in Pseudopressure,

1100 Higher mobility

region.
1080

1060
Shut-in

1040

1020
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, (ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.56 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.56 hr)
 Well C-I-18 (A-096)
Pseudopressure, p , psia psia [Test Date:
Well C-I-18 (A-096)28
[TestSeptember 1992]
Date: 28 September 1992]
1150

1149 pp,bar = 1148.6 psia

pseudopressure,

Data deviate from the "Muskat line"

1148 --indicating an interference effect
pws

from surrounding
Onset wells.
of boundary
1147
dominated flow.
1146
"Transient flow"
1145
Shut-in

1144
Shut-in

1143

1142
0 2 4 6 8 10

dppwsdp/d/dtat ,, psi/hr
pws a psi/hr
 Well C-I-18 (A-096)
[Test Date:
Well C-I-18 28 Date:
(A-096) [Test September 1992]
28 September 1992]
15

10
, psi

5
(p(pp')')ttae, psi
p  ae

-5

-10

-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
ttaa2//tae, thrs
ae
Example 3: Log-log Summary Plot

Well C-IV-11 (A-084)

Well C-IV-11 [Test
(A-084) [TestDate:
Date:55 January 1992]
January 1992]
3
psi

10
Raw data
Functions,

Corrected
psi

Improvement on
Pseudopressure Functions,

2
10 pressure derivative.
Pseudopressure

1
10

Closed boundary atReservoir

Infinite-acting 150 ft? Model
(includes
(Doesnon-Darcy flow). flow)
not include non-Darcy

0
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, tae, hrs

Effective shut-in pseudotime, hrs
Example 3: Horner (Semilog) Plot
WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test
[TestDate:
Date: 55January
January 1992]
1992]
2100
Pseudopressure, ppws , psiapsia

2000
Pseudopressure,

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500
Shut-in

1400
Shut-in

Raw data
1300 Corrected
1200
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, (ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.62 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.62 hr)
Example 3: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test
[Test Date:
Date: 55January
January 1992]
1992]
1922
Pseudopressure, ppws , psia psia

pp,bar = 1920 psia

1920
Shut-inpseudopressure,

1918 Onset of boundary

dominated flow.
1916
"Transient flow"
1914
Shut-in

1912

1910
0 5 10 15 20
dppws /d/dtta, ,psi/hr
dp pws a psi/hr
Example 3: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well C-IV-11
Well C-IV-11(A-084) [TestDate:
(A-084) [Test Date:5 January
5 January 1992]
1992]
25

20 Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
15
pressure correction.
ae
, psi
p t
(p ')

10
(pp')tae

0 Presence of multiwell
interference effects is unclear
-5
0 5 10 15 20 25
2
ttaa/2/tae, hrs
tae
Example 4: Log-log Summary Plot

Well Well
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 [Test
(A-084) [TestDate:
Date: 4 May1992]
4 May 1992]
psi

3
10
Raw data
Functions,

Corrected
psi

Improvement on
Pseudopressure Functions,

2 pressure derivative.
10
Pseudopressure

Condensate banking
1
10 region.
Infinite-acting Reservoir Model
Closed(Does
boundary at 197
Higher
not include ft?
mobility
non-Darcy flow)
(includes non-Darcy flow).
region.
0
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, t , hrs
ae
Effective shut-in pseudotime, hrs
Example 4: Horner (Semilog) Plot

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test
[Test Date:
Date: 44May
May 1992]
1992]
1950
Pseudopressure, ppws , psiapsia

1900
Pseudopressure,

1850

1800
Condensate banking
1750 region.
1700 Higher mobility
region.
1650
Shut-in

1600
Shut-in

Raw data
1550 Corrected
1500
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, (ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.63 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.63 hr)
Example 4: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test
[Test Date:
Date: 44May
May 1992]
1992]
1884
Pseudopressure, ppws , psia psia

pp,bar = 1882.8 psia

1882
Shut-inpseudopressure,

1880 Onset of boundary

dominated flow.
1878

1876

1874 "Transient flow"

Shut-in

1872

1870
0 5 10 15 20
dppws /d/dtta, ,psi/hr
dp pws a psi/hr
Example 4: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well C-IV-11
Well C-IV-11(A-084) [TestDate:
(A-084) [Test Date: 4 May
4 May 1992]
1992]
40

30 Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
p'), t psi

Slope is used in the

 ae

pressure correction.
20
(pp')(tpae

10
(pp')tae >0, no clear indication of
multiwell interference effects.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
ta / tae
ta /2tae, hrs
 Flow Capacity (k h, md-ft)
from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
kh Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
View
 kh distribution ap- 15000 15000
A-103

pears reasonable.

30000
14000 14000

10000
A-101 A-081
A-036

30000
A-076 A-045 A-079ST

 3 major "bubbles" 13000 A-059 30000 13000

10000
A-074 40000 A-025ST
A-054 A-042
A-096 20000
A-104

of kh noted, pro- 12000 A-088 A-067 A-027 12000

x-position (relative distance)

A-092 A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021

30000
20000
bably erroneous.

20000
A-106 A-024
11000 A-082
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000

10000
A-022ST2 A-078
A-029
20000
40000
 kh shown is for the

20000
A-083
10000 A-033 10000

10000
A-089 A-073
A-040
30000

"outer" zone (when A-093

10000
9000 A-098 40000
9000

10000
A-058 A-071 A-015 A-080

20000
the radial compo-

20000
A-099 A-034
8000 A-077 8000

10000
A-016

site model is used). 7000

A-095

A-107
10000
A-017
A-035

7000

40000
50000
A-097

30000
A-070A-048
A-041 A-060

20000
A-108 A-085
A-084 10000
6000 A-062
50000 A-049 6000
A-110ST A-046 40000 40000
A-100
5000 10000 A-053 60000 5000
A-091
80000
Legend: (Well Test Analysis) A-051
50000
Flow Capacity (kh) Contour Plot 100000
A-109
4000 (10,000 md-ft Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Logarithm of the Non-Darcy Flow CoefficientD,( 1/MSCFD)
from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
D (Non-Darcy) Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
View
 This map indicates a 15000 15000
A-103
No Data
uniform distribution. 14000 A-101
A-036
A-081
14000
A-076 -4
A-045 A-079ST
-3.8
 "high" and "low" 13000 A-074
A-096
A-059 -3.8
A-054A-104
-5 A-042
A-025ST 13000
-4.8

-4.4
-4.6
regions appear to be 12000 A-088 -4.2
A-067 A-027 12000

x-position (relative distance)

A-092 A-032ST

-4.6
A-032
A-061 A-021
focused near a single 11000
A-106
A-082
A-024
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000

-4.2
A-022ST2 A-078
A-029
well.

-4.4
-4.6
A-083
10000 A-033 10000
A-089 A-073
A-040

 Relatively small data

A-093

-4
-4.2
9000 A-098
9000
-4.6
A-058 A-071 A-015 A-080
set (30 points). 8000 A-099
-4.8
-4.6 A-077
A-034
8000

-4.2
-5 A-016

-4.4

-3.8
-4
A-095 A-035
-4.8 A-017
7000 A-107 7000

-4.2 -4
A-097 A-070A-048

-3.6
A-041
-4 A-060 A-085
A-108

-3.8
A-084
6000 A-062 A-049 6000

-3.6
-3.8
A-110ST A-046

-3.4
A-053 A-100
5000 Legend: (Well Test Analysis) 5000
A-091
Logarithm of the Non-Darcy A-051
Flow Coefficient A-109
4000 (log(10) Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Condensate Bank Radius (ft) from Well Test Analysis
(Arun Field, Indonesia)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Condensate Radius Map 16000 16000
1x2 Perspective

 Good distribution of 15000 View 15000

No Data A-103

values—"high" spots 14000 A-101

A-036
A-081
14000
A-076
probably indicate 13000 A-074
A-059
A-054A-104 25
A-045 A-079ST

30
A-042
A-025ST 13000
A-096

need for individual 12000 A-088 A-067 A-027

25

15 12000

x-position (relative distance)

25
A-092 A-032ST
A-032
well stimulations.

40
A-061 A-021

30
A-106 A-024

10
11000 A-082 11000

35
A-105ST2A-102 A-068
A-022ST2 A-078

10
A-029
 Relatively small data

15 20

15
A-083

5
10000 A-033 10000

25 30
A-089 A-073
A-04030
set (32 points).

7
A-093
5

20
9000 9000

25
A-098 35

5
A-058 A-071 A-015 A-080

3
A-099 A-034
8000 A-077 8000
A-016

25
A-095 A-035

10
20A-017
7000 A-107
10
7000

25
A-097 A-070A-048

7
A-041 A-060 A-085
A-108

20
A-084
6000 A-062 A-049 6000

7
10

15
5
5
A-110ST A-046

10
7
A-053 A-100

3
5000 5000
A-091

1 3
Legend: (Well Test Analysis) A-051 25
Condensate Bank Contour Plot

20
A-109
4000 (Various Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
D (Non-Darcy)—kh Crossplot

Comparison of Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (D) from Well Test

Analysis versus Flow Capacity (kh) from Well Test Analysis
 D-kh crossplot indi- 10
3
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
10
4
10
5
10
6
-3 6
cates an "order of 10 10

magnitude" correla-

from Well Test Analysis ( D at Time of Well Test)

Slope = 2

Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient ( D, 1/MSCFD)

tion.
 Verifies that non- 10
-4 5
10

Darcy flow effects are

systematic.
-5 4
10 10

Legend: DWT vs. khWT

Comparison of D from Well Test Analysis
versus kh from Well Test Analysis
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
-6 3
10 10
3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10
Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)
from Well Test Analysis ( kh at Time of Well Test)
 Conclusions

 The new "multiwell" solution has been

successfully derived and applied for the
analysis of well test data taken from a
multiwell reservoir system.
 The appearance of "boundary" effects in
pressure buildup test data taken in multiwell
reservoirs can be corrected using our new
approach. Care must be taken so as not to
correct a true "closed boundary" effect.
 Conclusions

 The 2-zone radial composite reservoir model

has been shown to be representative for the
analysis and interpretation of well test data
from Arun Field (most of the wells exhibit
radial composite reservoir behavior).
 Conclusions

 The effect of non-Darcy flow on pressure

buildup test analysis seems to be minor for
the wells in Arun Field. Although not a focus
of the present study, our analysis of the
pressure drawdown (flow test) data appear to
be much more affected by non-Darcy flow
effects.
 SPE 56487

Analysis and Interpretation of

Well Test Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia

Authors:
T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M U.
N.J. Kaczorowski, ExxonMobil (Indonesia)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
 The "Regional Pressure Decline"
Improves The Derivative
Functions
format

0
10
sDc' , [pws-pwf (t=0)]

tpDA=10-5
' or psDe' or pDerivative

tpDA=10-4 tpDA=10-3tpDA
Shut-in =10-2
time
-1
10
Agarwal eff.
psDPressure

shut-in time

-2
10
Dim.

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10
tDA or tDAe
tDA or tDAe
 formatformat
9

tpDA=10-2
-5
-4
-3
8
(t=0)]

7
(t=0)]
wfwf
[pws--pp

6 MDH
[p, ws
or psDc

5
psD orpsDpsDc

4
Agarwal effective time
3
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10
tDA or tDAe
tDA or tDAe