Well Test Interpretation

Course Content

‰ Introduction
‰ I t d ti to
Introduction t WTI
‰ Analysis Principle
‰ QA/QC
Reservoir Systems

3 ZK
10/11/2010
Reservoir Properties

‰ Reservoir Volume
Reserves in Place ‰ Porosity
‰ Fluid saturation

H d
Hydrocarbons
b properties
i ‰ PVT

‰ Permeability
Production capacity
‰ Pressure maintenance
4 ZK
10/11/2010
Introduction to Well Testingg
Content

‰ History
‰ Principles
‰ W ll Test
Well T Objectives
Obj i
‰ Types of tests
History
Initially: no study to understand why or how the oil flows
‰ Empirical link between production and P decline
1920’
1920’s ‰ P linked to rate
‰ Introduce PI and rate potential depending on WHP

‰ 1st BHP measurement, introduce relation between q & BHP

‰ AOFP
1929
‰ Theis works on mathematical models
to ‰ Effort on equations: start of diffusivity equation
1955 ‰ Millers, Dyes, Hutchison calculate k and s from Draw Down
‰ Horner analyses a Build Up
‰ I h
Isochronal
l ttestt tto gett th
the wellll potential
t ti l in
i a gas wellll

1960 ‰ Type curve and Derivative

Well Testing

Seismic Reservoir
Core / Geology Model Development
and
Testing + Management
Petrophysics / Logs Strategy
Economic
PVT Model
Well Test Principles

Estimation of parameters:
p
‰ amplitude : communication wellbore / reservoir
‰ decline: communication inside the reservoir
‰ time delay: distances to boundaries
P

t
P

t
Well Test Objectives

Well properties: Reservoir properties:

‰ Communication with reservoir
‰ Flowing capacity
‰ Drainage Area
‰ Evaluation of treatments
‰ Inter Wells connectivity
‰ Permeability: kv vs kh
‰ Reservoir Heterogeneities
‰ Nature of boundaries
‰ Distance to boundaries
‰ Average Reservoir Pressure

Sampling:
‰ Fluid properties
Well Test Objectives

Descriptive
p Testing:
g Productivity testing:
‰ Well Damage ‰ Dynamic Reservoir P
‰ Completion efficiency ‰ Dynamic Reservoir T
‰ Workover Evaluation ‰ Well Deliverability
‰ Sti l ti Evaluation
Stimulation E l ti ‰ Fl id Nature
Fluids N t
‰ Reservoir Parameters ‰ Respective Volumes
‰ Reservoir Heterogeneities ‰ Samples for PVT analysis
‰ Reservoir Extent & Geometry
‰ Interwells Communication
Monorate Well Tests
Drawdown Injection

Build Up Fall Off

Multi-rates Well Tests
Back Pressure

Isochronal Modified
Isochronal
Multi Well Tests
Interference

Pulse tests
Well Test Sequence
Pi

Pressure Test of equipment Pressure

Cleaning Up the Well

Clean Up Initial Shut-In Flowing Final Shut-In

Initial Shut-in for Initial PReservoir

Flow rate

Flowing at one or several rates

Take representative samples
Final Shut in for pressure build up
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (days)
16 ZK
10/11/2010
WTI Theoryy
Objectives

‰ Diff i it equation
Diffusivity ti
‰ Drawdown Analysis
‰ Build Upp Analysis
y
‰ Type / Diagnostic Curves
‰ Productivity
 Diffusivity Equation
Flow across a porous medium: Darcy’s law
Conservation of mass
Equation of state

Conditions for solution of fluid flow in the reservoir:

Reservoir: pporous medium, homogeneous,
g isotropic
p
negligible gravity effects, small pressure gradients
permeability and porosity independent of pressure
Fluid: monophasic
small compressibility
viscosity,
i it compressibility:
ibilit constant,
t t iindependent
d d t off pressure
19 ZK
10/11/2010
Darcy’s Law
k .2πrh ∂P qBμ re
q= . Pwf = Pr − ln
μ ∂r 2π .k.
k h rw

P
Pr

rw r re
Near wellbore: Skin
q.B.μ
ΔPskin = S
2.π .k .h
P
Pe ‰ Invasion of drilling or completion fluids
‰ Emulsions with the reservoir oil
‰ Cl swollen
Clay ll bby ddrilling
illi flfluids
id
‰ Precipitates with formation waters
‰ Turbulent gas flow
‰ Limited entry
rw ra re
‰ Low shot density
‰ Plugged perforations

qBμ ⎛⎜ re ⎞
Pwf = Pr − ln + S⎟ ‰ Acidizing
2π .k .h ⎜⎝ rw ⎟
⎠ ‰ Fracturing
Theory of Well Test Interpretation

Conservation of Mass

∂ (q ρ ) ∂ρ
= 2 π rh
hφ
∂r ∂t

Compressibility: 1 ∂V ∂p ∂ρ
c=− cρ =
V ∂p ∂t ∂t
Theory of Well Test Interpretation

Diffusivityy Equation
q for radial flow:
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂ P ⎞ φμ c ∂ P
⎜r ⎟= .
r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ k ∂t
Conditions for the solution:
P (t = 0, r ) = Pi ‰ Initial condition:
Uniform initial pressure in the reservoir

∂P q .μ
lim r = ‰ Inner Boundary condition:
r → 0 ,t > 0 ∂ r 2 .π .k .h C t t flow
Constant fl rate
t att wellbore
llb
Reservoir Flow Regimes
rw re

Transient Flow Pe

Pwf Constant
Boundary not reached

Semi Steady State Flow

Pe
All boundaries
b d i reached
h d
Depletion
Pwf
Constant q, Pwf decreases

S bili d / Boundary
Stabilized B d Dominated
D i d
Pe
All boundaries reached
Depletion
Pwf
q decrease, Pwf constant

Steady State Flow Pe

Constant

24 ZK
Pressure support Pwf
10/11/2010
Apr-09
Transient Analysis

‰ W llb
Wellbore Storage
St
‰ Drawdown Analysis
‰ Build Upp Analysis
y
‰ Type / Diagnostic Curves
Transient

Pwf WBS
Transition
IARF
B d
Boundary

time
26 ZK
10/11/2010
Wellbore Storage
Expansion of fluid in the wellbore
Sampling of the reservoir not started
rate

rate

time time

qB
B
Δp = Δt C = V fluid .c fluid
24C

C = ΔV C in STB/psi
27 ZK
10/11/2010
ΔP
Log-Log Plot
qB
Δp = Δt log(Δp ) = log(Δt ) + cste
24C
Δp
psia

1000

1½ log cycles

100

End of unit Expected start of

slope line semilog straight line

1e-2 0.1 1 10 t, hours

28 ZK
10/11/2010
Infinite Acting Radial Flow
rate

Pi

Pwf

time

Wellbore storage is over

Outer boundary effects not acting
Reservoir acts as if it was infinite
29 ZK
10/11/2010
 MDH: IARF for Drawdown: Semi Log
qB o μ o ⎜⎛ ⎛
⎜ k ⎞ ⎞
⎟ − 3 .23 + 0 .869 .S ⎟
Pwf = Pi − 162 .6 log( t ) + log
kh ⎜⎜ ⎜ φ .μ .c .r 2
⎝
⎟
⎠
⎟⎟
⎝ t w ⎠
⎛ Pi − Pwf (1hr ) ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
Pwf = Pi − m . log( t ) + cste ⎜
S = 1 .151⎜ − log ⎜
k ⎟ + 3 .23 ⎟
⎜ m ⎜ φ .μ .c .r 2 ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ t w ⎠ ⎠
Δp
psia

1000
p, psia

1½ log cycles

100
6000
Start of semilog
straight line
End of unit Expected start of
slope line semilog straight line
5000
1e-2 0.1 1 10 t, hours

4000

3000

30 ZK p 1hr
10/11/2010
1e-2 0.1 1 10 t, hours
 Build Up Test
q

Superposition Principle
0 0
tp +Δt tp +Δt

rate
0 tp tp

tp -q
Δt 0
Δt
Pi

Pwf q

time
0 0
tp Δt tp Δt
31 ZK
10/11/2010
Build Up Test
q 0 tp tp

-q
0 0 Δt 0
tp +Δt tp +Δt Δt

q . B o .μ o ⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
Pws = Pi − 162 .6 ( )
⎢ log t p + Δ t + log ⎜
⎜
k ⎟ − 3 .23 + 0 .869 .S ⎥
k .h ⎢ ⎝ φ .μ o .c t .rw ⎟⎠
2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
q.Bo .μ o ⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
⎢log (Δt ) + log ⎜ k ⎟
+ 162 .6 − 3.23 + 0.869 .S ⎥
k .h ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝ φ .μ o .c t .rw ⎠
2
⎣ ⎦

q
q.Bo .μ o ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
Pws = Pi − 162.6 log⎜ ⎟
k .h ⎜ Δt ⎟
0 0
⎝ ⎠
tp Δt tp Δt
32 ZK
10/11/2010
 Build Up Test: Horner Plot

p, psia ⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
Pws = Pi − m. log⎜ ⎟
⎜ Δt ⎟
P* ⎝ ⎠
9000

Pws ⎯Δ⎯
t →∞
⎯→ P *
8000
⎛ PΔt =1hr − Pwf (tp) ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜
S = 1.151⎜ − log⎜
k ⎟ + 3.23 ⎟
⎜ m ⎜ φ .μ.c .r 2 ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ t w ⎠ ⎠
7000

100 101 102 103 104

33 ZK (tp+Δt)/Δt
10/11/2010
 Drawdown vs Build Up Analysis

D
Drawdown
d B ild Up
Build U
Log Log
Log-Log Log Log
Log-Log
WBS
ΔP (log scale) vs Δt (log scale) ΔP (log scale) vs Δt (log scale)

Semi-Log
Semi Log Horner
IARF P vs Δt (log scale) P vs Horner time (log scale)
k S
k, k S,
k, S P*
P

34 ZK
10/11/2010
Type Curves
Dimensionless variables:

k .h
PD = ΔP
141.2.q.B.μ Type Curve on Log-Log Scale:

⎛t ⎞
tD =
0 .000264 .k .t PD = f ⎜ D ⎟
⎝ C D ⎠
φ .μ .ct .rw2
0 .8936 .C
CD =
h.φ .ct .rw2

35 ZK
10/11/2010
MDH vs Derivative
1

3
4
6
3
5
2
4 5
7 6 7
1

Semi Log Plot: P vs logt Log Log Plot: PD’ vs logtD

IARF: Straight Line Horizontal stabilization

36 ZK
10/11/2010
Type Curves and Derivative
Dimensionless variables: Plot on LogLog
g g scale:
k .h
PD = ΔP Pressure:
141.2.q.B.μ ⎛ ⎞
PD = f ⎜ t D ⎟
⎝ C D ⎠
0 .000264 .k .t
tD = Derivative:
φ .μ .ct .rw2
dPD dPD
PD ' = PD ' =
0 .8936 .C t P + Δt
CD = d ln t D d ln
h.φ .ct .rw2 CD tP

Pressure derivative PD’: Rate of change

g of P vs function of t
37 ZK
10/11/2010
 Type Curve Match
Pressure Match:
CDe2s ⎡P ⎤
kh = 141.2.q.B.μ ⎢ D ⎥ k
1030 ⎣ ΔP ⎦ match
1012
103 Time Match:
106 0.000295.k .h
C=
102 ⎡ tD ⎤
⎢ CD ⎥ C
10-1 μ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δt ⎥
102 ⎣ ⎦ match
C gives: 0.8936.C
CD =
φ.ct .h.rw2
Curve Match:
101
10-3 10-2 10-1 100
[
⎡ C D e 2S
S = 0 .5 . ln ⎢
]match
⎤
⎥ S
⎢⎣ CD ⎥⎦
38 ZK
10/11/2010 PD and P’D vs tD/CD
Diagnostic Plot
nge, Derivattive, psi
essure chan

Early-time Middle- Late-time

Pre

region time region

region

39 ZK Elapsed time, hrs

10/11/2010
Different Models
Wellbore Well Reservoir Boundary
No WBS Vertical Double Porosity Linear Boundary

Constant WBS Partial Penetration Double Permeability Intersecting Fault

Increasing WBS Fractured Radial Composite Channel

Decreasing WBS Horizontal Linear Composite Closed Circle

40 ZK
10/11/2010
Gas Wells

‰ Diff i it equation
Diffusivity ti
‰ Skin
‰ Productivityy
 Gas Wells
Gas properties depend on Pressure
p 2 p.dp
Gas Pseudo Pressure: m( p ) = ∫p
o μ ( p).z ( p)
E
Experimental
i t l Determination:
D t i ti pV
Z=
14.7.Vo
Standing and Katz correlation:

pseudo critical pressure

p
p pc = ∑ ni p ci p pr =
i p pc
pseudo critical temperature
T
42 ZK T pc = ∑ ni Tci T pr =
10/11/2010 T pc
i
Skin for Gas Wells

High velocities near the wellbore leads to additional pressure drop

Stotal = S0 + D.q

skin
S4

S3
S2

S1

S0

q1 q2 q3 q4
rate
43 ZK
10/11/2010
 Well Performance – Productivity Index

Semi Steady State Flow:

PI is the ratio between flowrate and drawdown
Pwf
−3
qo 7.08 × 10 × k .h
PI = J = =
Pr − Pwf ⎡ r ⎤ X
μ .Bo ⎢ln − 0.75 + s ⎥
⎣ rw ⎦
Flow rate

-> Simplest and most widely used relationship

-> Not applicable to gas wells
44 ZK
10/11/2010
-> Inflow curve equation: straight line
Well Deliverability for Gas Wells

[
q = C m ( p av )− (
m p wf )]
n C performance
C: f factor
f t
n: turbulent flow exponent

Ab l t O
Absolute Open Fl
Flow P
Potential:
t ti l Pwf=P
Patmc 0 5 turbulent to 1 laminar
0.5

x
x
x x
Logg(q)

C and n

45 ZK Log[m(pav)-m(pwf)]
10/11/2010

NA
46 ZK
10/11/2010
QA/QC of WTI data
QA/QC Pressure data
Load Data Review Data

Difference Plot

Time Synchronization

Differential Pressure Analysis

D fi Fluid
Define Fl id phases
h for
f Pressure
P correction
i

Selection of the most Validity of Data for

48 ZK
10/11/2010
representative data set Transient Analysis
 QA/QC
Three systems
y contribute to the Pressure answer:

‰ Acquisition ‰ Wellbore
A
Acquisition
i iti problem
bl Phase segregation
Electronic malfunction Phase recombination
‰ Reservoir
O
Operational
i l problem
bl Liquid Influx
Wrong calibration Liquid Efflux
Temperature anomaly Clean up consequences
Gauge out of specification Hydrates / Wax deposition
Gauge
49 ZK
drift Tidal effect
10/11/2010
Methodology for WTI
Finalized
Data loaded

Data Consistency
Synchronization Log-Log Specialized
Analysis
y Results Analysis Results
Differential
QA Pressure
Identification of
Analysis
Interpretation
/ M d l
Model INTERPRETATION
Identification
QC of Valid data
Pattern
Recognition
Choice of
data set
Generation of Generation of
Log-Log Specialized Plot
Choice of Diagnostic Plot
Flow Period
50 ZK
10/11/2010
 Difference Plot
1700
e [psia]

1600
Pressure

1500
Pressure (difference) [psi]

10

-10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Pressure [p
[psia],
] Pressure [psi]
[p ] vs Time [hr]
[ ]

51 ZK
10/11/2010
Difference Plot
5000
essure [psia]

4500
Pre

4000
Pressurre (difference) [psi]

-5

-10

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

Pressure [psia], Pressure [psi] vs Time [hr]

52 ZK
10/11/2010
 QA/QC Rate Synchronization

4200

3200

1000

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

100

3500

1
production #1 build-up #1 (40.0298 hr - 189 data points)

1000

19.92 19.94 19.96 19.98 20 20.02 20.04 20.06 20.08

Pressure [psia], Not a unit, Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr]

10
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10

3500

2 Log-Logplot: p-p@dt=0andderivative[psi] vs dt [hr]

production #1 build-up #1 (39.9856 hr - 163 data points)

53 ZK
1000

19.92 19.94 19.96 19.98 20 20.02 20.04 20.06 20.08

1 22
10/11/2010 Pressure [psia], Not a unit, Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr]
QA/QC Wellbore Storage effect

100

10

1
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
100

Log Log plot: p

Log-Log p-p@dt=0
p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

54 ZK
10/11/2010
QA/QC Gauge resolution
0 psi

1 psi

55 ZK
10/11/2010
QA/QC Gauge Noise

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

4990

4940

56 ZK
Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]
10/11/2010
Tidal Effect

57 ZK
10/11/2010
QA/QC Gauge Drift

True
Drift

Log-Log plot: dp and dp' [psi] vs dt [hr]

58 ZK
10/11/2010
Lack of information: Multi interpretations

59 ZK
10/11/2010
Impact of Fluid Properties errors

Surface measurements : Viscosity, GOR

Conversion: Correlation, FVF
Bad Samples: Contaminated / Unrepresentative, Wrong recombination

GOR or FVF Conversion of surface to downhole flow rates

Errors similar to wrong rates (error in permeability)

Viscosity Mobility estimates (permeability)

Diffusivity (distance to boundaries)

Compressibility Diffusivity and calculations of pseudo-pressure in gas wells

Samples Fl id nature
Fluid t andd properties,
ti processes, ffacilities
iliti design,
d i …
60 ZK
10/11/2010
 Test Design
‰ Downhole shut-in
‰ Resolution: low kh/μ,
kh/μ radius investigation,
investigation interference
‰ Stability for long duration test
Hardware:
‰ Mechanical gauges only for very hot wells
‰ Placement of pressure gauges
‰ Procedures adapted to well and completion

‰ Reach the test objectives (boundary, productivity)

‰ Avoid undesired wellbore effects, proper P range
Program:
‰ Downhole Flowrate measurement
61 ZK
10/11/2010 ‰ Realtime monitoring if needed
Formation Testers
MDT overbalance

drawdown

ksp
sph = kh * (kv)0.5 khh/μ
/μ
XPT
Core

MDT

Well Test

0.1 1 10 100 1000 Log(m)

62 ZK
10/11/2010