Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The primary objective of hydraulic fracturing is to create a
propped fracture with sufficient conductivity and length to
maximize or at least optimize well performance. In permeable
reservoirs where transient flow is short lived, a fracture with a
Dimensionless Fracture Capacity, FCD, of 2 is required to meet
the design objective. In low permeability formations where
transient flow can be extensive and where fracture fluid
cleanup requires additional conductivity, an FCD in excess of
10 is desired. As a result, reservoir permeability becomes/is a
key fracture design and analysis parameter. In higher
permeability applications, permeability is determined simply,
inexpensively, and routinely through conventional well testing
techniques. Conventional well testing in tight formation gas
reservoirs has not been proven as effective, can be expensive
(cost of lengthy tests and production deferment), and is quite
simply not routinely utilized. These reservoirs are often non
productive without fracture stimulation and post fracture
stimulation testing requires extensive shut-in time as the time
to pseudo radial flow is proportional to the square of the
fracture half-length. As a result, the development and routine
use of any technique to determine permeability in these tight
formation gas reservoirs has great value.
In addition, without adequate well testing techniques and
capabilities in tight gas reservoirs, the engineer is left with the
use of log derived values of permeability which can often
overstate in-situ permeability by factors of five to ten.
Determination of in-situ permeability not only aids the well
completion and stimulation but can be used to calibrate the log
and core derived estimates of permeability improving
performance predictions and field development. Prior papers
have developed the use of After Closure Analysis techniques
in permeable reservoirs, this paper will show the application
SPE 90865
SPE 90865
flowed for six days to clean-up prior to performing a singlepoint flow and buidup test. After the initial clean-up period,
the well was flowed for 30 hours then shut-in for an extended
pressure build-up test.
Figure 1 is a plot of the rate and pressure response for the
post fracture stimulation flow and build-up test. Note, the well
Figure 1: Rate and Pressure Response From Post Frac Build-Up (Test 1)
SPE 90865
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1200
1000
800
12 00 0
0 .6
10 00 0
0 .5
8 00 0
0 .4
6 00 0
0 .3
600
20
40
60
Time, Days
80
100
0 .2
4 00 0
P
Qs c (N )
2 00 0
R t (10^3
0
120
Fl
200
3/d)
400
Pressure (kPa)
Rate, MscfD
0 .1
0
0
20
40
60
80
10 0
12 0
T im e (H rs.)
SPE 90865
required. The TCP guns, packer, and other elements of the test
string were tripped in the hole. The cement displacement
water was circulated out of the hole and displaced with
nitrogen. Attempts were made to orient the perforating guns in
the direction of maximum horizontal stress and set the packer
simultaneously. After 2 days, the operation was stopped and
the packer was set with the guns in the incorrect orientation. A
wellhead isolation tool had to be installed at surface due to the
high pressures needed for the test. The well was pressured up
with nitrogen to well in excess of reservoir pressure. This
detonated the pressure actuated TCP guns and initiated the
test. Once again, there was no definitive indication that the
guns had detonated as no pressure losses were visible on the
surface gauges for the first several hours. The well was left
shut in for 6 days and remained in wellbore storage throughout
the test. As a result, no permeability information was obtained.
The cost of the test was $128,000. This cost included the
associated well work described previously in addition to the
rental of a tree saver for the extremely high test pressures.
Figure 5: Log-Log diagnostic Plot (Test 4 CCDST)
102
Storage 1
BHP (MPa)
10-1
30.0
35.0
25.0
101
10-1
101
102
103
104
20.0
10-2
ta , hr
500
1000
1500
2000
T ime (min)
2500
3000
3500
SPE 90865
dP/dP'
dP'
5.0
dP
1.0
0.50
dP/dP'
2.0
5.0
0.20 0.50 1.0 2.0
0.20
0.020 0.050
10
19.5
50 100
PRes
20
0.0020
0.0100
0.050
5.0 10
20
50 100 200
More Smoothing
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
P(t) vs FL
828.9
0.53
0.01
0.003
P(t) MPa
30
35
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
19.20
Volume (CuM) = 0.34
dP
50000
dP/dP'
-0.007
0.000
0.007
0.014
FR or FL
0.021
0.028
0.035
20000
dP'
-0.014
5.0
20
25
0.042
2.0
1.0
0.50
dP/dP'
10000
5000
2000
0.20
1000
500
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
100
200
500
1/F-L^2
P(t) vs FR
P(t) vs FL
M-R (KPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
190070.0
5.32
0.11
0.008
25000
P(t) KPa
30000
Radial Flow
Pi (KPa) =
17999.97
Volume (CuM) =
2.00
20000
FR:828.9 FL:0.0
0.2
0.0
0.4
FR or FL
FR:190070.0
FL:0.0
0.6
SPE 90865
L). Below the knuckle joint is the power supply (MRPC), the
pump off (MRPO) and flow (MRF_C) controller, and the live
fluid analyzer (LFA). Below the flow analyzer are two TAM
packers (MRPA) that are one meter apart. Once run, the
packers are used to straddle the zone of interest (zero point of
the tool is between packer elements), formation fluids are then
produced or wellbore fluids injected in the formation and the
pressure monitored.
Multiple packer sets, flow, and build-up tests were
successfully conducted in the Ricinus well of interest.
However, only one of the Viking intervals tested is detailed in
this case history.
Figure 10 shows the bottom hole pressure versus time
chart for two flow and build-up tests conducted using the
MDT in the Viking conglomerate. As shown, the pressure was
drawn down from hydrostatic to 3900 KPa and built back up
to 10400 KPa during the first flow and shut-in sequence and
drawndown to 4900 KPa and built up to 10300 KPa during the
second sequence. The first flow period lasted only 5 minutes
and nearly 2.5 liters of drilling mud was produced during this
time period. Subsequently, the tool was shut-in and the
pressure build-up monitored for nearly an hour. Following this
test and to validate its results, the tool was opened up and an
SPE 90865
140
100
80
60
300
5000000
10
5.0
dP'
1.0
0.20
0.50
dP/dP'
0.50 1.0
2.0
2.0
dP/dP'
5.0
dP
9.9
additional 30.0 liters of drilling mud, gas cut mud, and gas
were produced during a 41-minute flow period. Next, the tool
was again shut-in and the pressure was allowed to build for
nearly three hours. During this time, the pressure built from
the instantaneous shut-in pressure of 4900 KPa to 10300 KPa.
Next, the second extended flow and build-up test was
interpreted to determine the reservoir permeability and
pressure. To evaluate the build-up test a log-log diagnostic
plot and conventional horner plot were developed. Note,
however,, the conventional interpretation of the data is made
more difficult because both drilling mud and gas were
produced during the extended flow period. Two methods were
employed for the analysis of this data. First, a downhole gas
flow rate was estimated and used in a conventional horner
analysis and secondly, the test was assumed to be an impulse
test even though the shut-in time to flow time (tsi/ti) ratio was
only 4.
Figures 11A and 11B show the log-log diagnostic plot and
horner analysis for method 1. As shown, the data was
transitioning from wellbore storage to pseudo-radial flow at
the end of the test. Further, the horner analysis with the
downhole gas flow rate assumption (Method 1) indicated a
reservoir permeability of 0.07md.
Next, method 2 was employed to interpret the data. Figures
12A and 12B show a flow regime identification plot and
pseudo-radial flow analysis plot, respectively for the impulse
assumption (Method 2). As shown the analyses resulted in an
estimated formation permeability of 0.10 md.
Following the MDT, production casing was run and the
well was completed in the Viking Formation interval of
200
Time (min)
0.0100
100
P* = 10469.715 KPa
kh = 0.234 md-ft
k
= 0.071 md
Skin = 71.456
Flow Eff = 0.078
120
20000
12000
0 4000
0.50
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
20
1/F-L^2
Less Smoothing
More Smoothing
13
P(t) MPa
20
10
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
0.4
22.40
0.34
0.102
11
5.0
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
9.88
Volume (Liters) = 30.00
10
2.0
0.50 1.0
50
14
100 200
P(t) vs FL
12
Pressure (KPa)
28000
160
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
FR or FL
0.0020 0.0050
1.0
2.0
5.0
FR:0.4 FL:0.0
2.0
2.5
SPE 90865
0.20
5.0
0.50
10
1.0
dP/dP'
20
2.0
dP'
5.0
50
dP/dP'
cost justify this application of the MDT as its use saved nearly
$1,500,000.
Though extremely beneficial, there still is some inherent
difficulty in interpreting the results of the data collected with
the tool. What is the correct/appropriate downhole gas flow
rate to utilize in the interpretation? This multi-phase
interpretation problem can be negated in future MDT tests,
however, by using the MDT tool in an Impulse-Fracture
Injection Test mode to breakdown the formation and monitor
the decline to pseudo-radial flow using the instantaneous
source solutions developed by Gu et al38 and Nolte40-41.
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
1/F-L^2
L
thi
thi
25
Radial Flow
Pi (MPa) =
11.70
Volume (CuM) = 33.66
M-R (MPa) =
kh/mu =
kh (md-ft) =
k (md) =
43.1
429.50
6.44
0.131
15
20
P(t) MPa
30
35
P(t) vs FL
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
FR or FL
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
FR:43.1 FL:0.0
10
SPE 90865
2.0
dP/dP'
1.0
10
0.20
20
50
0.50
100 200
500 1000
dP'
5.0
5000
dP/dP'
5.0
2.0
5.0
10
20
50
1/F-L^2
100
200
500
1000
P(t) vs FL
8500
7500
6500
7000
P(t) psi
8000
6000
Radial Flow
Pi (psi) =
5610.00
Volume (M-Gal) = 0.43
M-R (psi) = 106261.0
kh/mu =
1.37
kh (md-ft) =
0.03
k (md) =
0.003
-0.2
0.0
0.2
FR or FL
0.4
0.6
FR:106261.0 FL:0.0
2.
0
100
GR, API Units
200 0
0 .5 0
Ne utro n, Phi
1 .0 0 0
5 0 .0 0
Re s is tivity, Ohm s
100
3.
4.
5.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of BP and BPCanada Energy Company for permission to publish this work.
In addition, the authors wish to thank Dr. Ken Nolte for his
SPE 90865
11
k = permeability, L2
x = distance from wellbore, L
w = fracture width, L
m H = Horner slope, M / LT 2
m L = linear-flow slope, p vs F, M / LT 2
m LL = log-log slope, App. D (dimensionless)
m R = radial flow slope, p vs F2, M / LT 2
p = pressure, M / LT 2
F * (t ) =
p f = fracture pressure, M / LT 2
h f = fracture height, L
12
SPE 90865
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
SPE 90865
13
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
14
SPE 90865
Table 1: Case History One- Summary of Tests, Results, Costs, And Assessment of TFG Permeability Test Criteria
Tst
#
Test Type
Perm
md
Core
Perm
md
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.011
0.011
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.0078
0.008
0.0068
0.0125
0.0047
0.007
0.0552
0.010
0.015
0.008
0.076
Actual
Cost
M$
5
0
84
128
106
62
15
15
7
7
7
7
7
Cost
Production
Deferrment
Timeliness
Operational
Simplicity
Very Good
Excellent
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Poor
Excellent
Fair
Fair
Very Poor*
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Very Poor
Very Poor
Good
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Excellent
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
* PID was aborted without results, extension of shut-in time to nearly seven months resulted in significant production deferment
Injection
Rate,
BPM
Injection
Time,
min
Cumulative
Time,
min
Stage
Volume,
Bbls
Cumulative
Volume,
Bbls
1
2
3
4
2.00
1.00
0.67
0.50
1
2
3
4
1
3
6
10
2
2
2
2
2
4
6
8