Minimun Pore Volume in Well Test

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program
Primary funding is provided by
The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe
The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers
Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
The Determination of Minimum Tested Volume and

Future Well Production from the Deconvolution of
Well Test Pressure Transients
Tim Whittle
Bg Group
Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
Well Test Objectives

Fluid Characterisation (PVT)
Well Performance (Flow)

Reservoir Description (Model)
Reservoir Deliverability (Flow)
Flow Assurance (Facilities)
Clean Up (Production)
Types of Well Test
Fluid
Characterisation
Well
Reservoir
Reservoir
Flow
Description
Flow
Exploration
Appraisal
Extended
(EWT)
Production
Primary objectives depend on the type of test
Wireline Formation Tests

Objective
WT
WFT
Small Volume
Large Volume
Well Flow
Reservoir Flow
Versus Depth
Formation
Boundaries
Fluid
Reservoir Description
WFT and WT are not equivalent
Pressure, p
Well Performance
pr
pwf
Operating Point
Surface
Flow, qtest
PI
00
qtest
AOFP
Flow rate, q
Well
Productivity Index
PI
qtest
pr pwf
Bottom hole
Reservoir
Pressure, p and Flowrate, q
pwf
pr
How to Improve Well Performance?
Pressure, p
pr
00
Flow rate, q
Outflow 1 to Outflow 2 Change in completion (tubing, choke, artificial lift)

Inflow 1 to Inflow 2 Change in well/reservoir (perfs, acid, frac, well type)
Need to understand Inflow to see if improvement is possible
Reservoir Deliverability
t2
t3
4000
Pressure [psia]
t1
2000
t3> t2 > t1
Flow rate, q
Reservoir constrained
Complex boundaries
(e.g. channel sands)
Low permeability
20
Gas Rate
40
Production [MMscf/D]
THP [psia]
Pressure, p
pr
07-Nov-2008 09-Nov-2008 11-Nov-2008 13-Nov-2008 15-Nov-2008
Pressure [psia], Gas Rate [MMscf/D] vs Time [ToD]
Reservoir Deliverability
Pressure, p
pi
t1
t2
t3
Pressure History
Flow rate, q
Depletion
Hopefully not seen in a
well test!
pi
7000
5000
Depletion
4000
Pressure (psia)
t3> t2 > t1
8000
6000
5000
3000
4000
2000
3000
Oil Rate (STB/D)
6000
1000
2000
0
1000
-1000
0
22-Apr
23-Apr
24-Apr
25-Apr
Elapsed time (Date)
Pressure Transient Analysis
Pressure, p
pi
p
Transient
p(t)
Steady state
q
0
q(t)
Rate
Pseudo-steady state
Time, t
Flow, q, Pressure, p, and Time, t
10
Log-log Diagnostic Plot
Pressure Change, p (psi)

Derivative, p
100
Early Time
Near Well
Middle Time
Reservoir
Late Time
Boundaries
Storage
Skin
Fractures
Partial Completion
Homogeneous
2-Porosity
Multi-layer
No-Flow
Constant Pressure
10
Unit Slope
Depletion
Unit Slope
Well Storage
Slope
Linear Flow
Channel
0.1
0.01
Permeability thickness,
kh, and skin, S
0.1
10
100
Stabilisation
Infinite Acting
Radial Flow
1000
Elapsed Time, t (hrs)

p = dp/d(ln t) = t dp/dt
Assuming single constant rate drawdown...
11
Pressure Transient Derivative Response
WFT
PT
Wellbore
Storage
Spherical
Reservoir
Boundaries
Radial
Horizontal/Fractured
Well
0.01
0.1
10
100 seconds
Time (k = 750 mD)
10
100 hours
1
10
100
days
12
Scale
(Mini-frac)
Volumes
x-factor
Times
x-factor
Wireline
While
Drilling
Pressure Test
Sampling
1-10 cc
5-50 cc
10-100 l
1-10000 m3
10000
106-109
1-5 min
1-15 min
1-5 hr
12hrs 12days
1-3
60
720-20000
Well Test
13
Scale
Radius of investigation:
k/ = 10 mD/cp
ct = 0.15x10-5 1/psi
While
Drilling
Flow Time
k t
ct
ri
(Mini-frac)
Wireline
Pressure Test
Sampling/
Mini DST
Well Test
5s
10 s
15 min
12 hr
Flow Volume
5 cc
10 cc
3000 cc
40x106 cc (250 bbl)
Shut Time
30 s
3 min
5 min
24 hr
p/t (psi/min)
0.18
0.003
0.06
0.018
Theoretical ri (ft)
17
23
300
Practical ri* (ft)
15
250
h = 75 ft
* Assuming a gauge resolution/noise of 0.03 psi
14
Example Low Permeability Two Wells
kh=2.5 mDft
kh=6 mDft
kh=16 mDft
Derivative describes heterogeneity in time/space
15
Data Acquisition: Well Test Sequence of Events

Actual Case
Time
Log-log Plot
Entire Test
Elapsed Time
Pressure
Derivative, p
Pressure
Derivative, p
Rate
Rate
Pressure
Pressure
Ideal Case
Time
Log-log Plot
Only Build-up
?
Elapsed Time
In general, only shut-ins give sufficiently high quality pressure transients 16
Deconvolution
Rate
0
tmax
Time
No Model
Rate
Pressure
Pressure
tmax
Time
17
Deconvolution by Iteration using superposition
tmax
Time
Time
tmax
Rate
Pressure
Rate
Rate
Pressure
tmax
Time
Non-linear Least Squares Minimisation
Iterations
18
Example
Gas Rate, MMscf/d
Pressure, psia
265
hrs
5150
48 hrs
48 hrs
4950
4750
20
10
0
40
80
120
Time [hr]
160
200
240
19
Example - DST
Gas Potential and Derivative (psi2/cp)
1E+11
Deconvolved Data
1E+10
1E+9
Build-up Data
48 hrs 265 hrs
1E+8
1E-3
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Time (hrs)
Longer duration of deconvolved data larger radius of investigation?
20
Pressure Transient Analysis Workflow

Pressures
Pvt
Rates
qvt
Deconvolve
Diagnose
SPE 116575
Minimum
Tested
Volume
Model Select
Model
Catalogue
Simulate
Model
Parameters
Fit
Y
Done
Another
Model?
OK?
With Deconvolution
21
Minimum Tested Pore Volume
Pressure change and Derivative (psi)
1000
Unit
Slope
(pss)
Deconvolved Data
pmax
100
10
STOIPtested
1
0.001
0.01
Build-up Data
(1 S w )
t max
q
ct
pmax
(1 S w )
t max
GIIPtested
q
'
ct
nm p max
0.1
10
100
t max
1000
Time (hrs)
SPE 116575
22
Same Principle as Reservoir Limits Test (MBH)
pi
Pressure, p
Transient
p(t)
Pseudo-steady state
End of Test
?
q(t)
0
Rate
Minimum
Time, t
Flow, q, Pressure, p, and Time, t
23
Example 1 - Gas
GIIPtested
(1 S w )
t max 2 p
q
'
ct
m p max z
GIIPtested
(1 0.15)
93.6 / 24 2 8135.32
40.4
6.625E 5
2.30 E8 0.032 1.247
3534MMscf
3.53bscf
Input:
Sw = 0.15
ct = 6.62E-5 1/psi
q = 40.4 MMscf/d
pbar = 8135.32 psia
bar = 0.032 cp
zbar = 1.247
tmax= 93.6 hrs

m(p)max = 2.30E8 psi**2/cp
25
Example 2 - Oil
STOIPtested
(1 S w )
t max
q
ct
pmax
Max
STOIPtested
(1 0.129)
304 / 24
2380
9.44 E 6
20.6
139,39,843stb 135MMstb
Min
STOIPtested
(1 0.129)
304 / 24
2380
9.44 E 6
63.1
44,053,261stb 44.1MMstb
Input:
Sw = 0.129
ct = 9.44E-6 1/psi
q = 2380 stb/d
tmax= 304 hrs
m(p)max = 20.6 63.1 psi
Uncertainty in deconvolution uncertainty in connected volume
26
Example 3 - Gas
GIIPtested
GIIPtested
(1 S w )
t max 2 p
q
'
ct
m p max z
(1 0.1)
136 / 24
2 865.2
10.7
1.31E 3
2.37 E 5 0.0128 0.873
27,200MMscf
27.2bscf
Input:
Sw = 0.1
ct = 0.00131 1/psi
q = 10.7 MMscf/d
tmax= 136 hrs

m(p)max = 2.37E5 psi**2/cp
pbar = 865.2 psia

bar = 0.0128 cp
zbar = 0.873
27
Example 3b: Gas - DST versus EWT
Boundaries reduced anticipated tested volume
28
Example 4 - Oil
STOIPtested
(1 S w )
t max
q
ct
pmax
Max
STOIPtested
(1 0.15)
94 / 24
1220
1.5E 5
93.5
2,894,000stb 2.89MMstb
Input:
Min
STOIPtested
(1 0.15)
94 / 24
1220
1.5E 5
530
510,564stb 0.51MMstb
tmax= 136 hrs

m(p)max = 93.5 530 psi
Sw = 0.15
ct = 1.5E-5 1/psi
q = 1220 stb/d
Uncertainty in deconvolution uncertainty in connected volume
29
Example 5 Oil Design

STOIPtested
STOIPtested
(1 S w )
t max
q
ct
pmax
(1 0.15)
60 / 24
5000
3E 6
105
33708571 stb
33 .7 MMstb
Design Input:
Input:
Sw = 0.15
ct = 1E-5 1/psi
q = 5000 stb/d
k = 90 mD
h=7m
= 0.11
rw = 0.3 ft
= 0.5 cp
pi = 5300 psia
tmax= 60 hrs
m(p)max = 105 psi
(rinv = 5250 ft)

No Boundaries
30
Example 5 Oil Design

STOIPtested
STOIPtested
(1 S w )
t max
q
ct
pmax
(1 0.15)
60 / 24
5000
3E 6
683
5182138 stb
5.2 MMstb
Design Input:
Input:
Sw = 0.15
ct = 1E-5 1/psi
q = 5000 stb/d
k = 90 mD
h=7m
= 0.11
rw = 0.3 ft
= 0.5 cp
pi = 5300 psia
d1 = 500 ft
d2 = 1000 ft
tmax= 60 hrs
m(p)max = 683 psi
Channel Boundaries : Significantly reduces tested volumes
31
Coefficient of Reservoir Complexity (CRC)
Pressure Change, p (psi)

Derivative, p
100
CRC is similar to Dietz Shape Factor, CA

(inversely proportional?)
Unit Slope
PSS
10
pmax
pmax
pint
CRC
0.1
0.01
Stabilisation Infinite Acting Radial

Flow
0.1
1
10
100
1000
pint
Elapsed Time, t (hrs)
Applies to deconvolved data
32
Comparison of CRC with Dietz Shape Factor, CA

(Tom Street May 2009)
33
Comparison of CRC with Dietz Shape Factor, CA

(Tom Street May 2009)
Coefficient of Reservoir Complexity (ref. SPE 116575) vs. Dietz Shape
Factor
18
16
14
CRC
12
y = -0.3612x + 11.852
2
R = 0.6994
10
8
y = -2.274Ln(x) + 11.743
R2 = 0.8496
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Dietz Shape Factor
34
Pressure Transient Analysis Workflow

Pressures
Pvt
Rates
qvt
Deconvolve
Diagnose
SPE 122299
Model Select
Model
Catalogue
Simulate
Model
Parameters
Production
Forecast
Fit
Y
Done
Another
Model?
OK?
SPE 122299
35
Pressure Change and derivative (psi)
Extrapolation methods for Production Forecast

Unit slope
Worst
case
10000
Knowing
STOIIP/GIIP
1000
Most likely
100
10
0.001
-1 unit slope
Best case
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Elapsed time, dt (hrs)
Extrapolate with Different Cases
36
Example 6: Gas Prediction from DST

6000
14
13
5000
12
11
10
Pressure (psia)
9
3000
8
7
2000
6
5
1000
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)
4000
4
3
2
1
-1000
0
01-Jan
02-Jan
03-Jan
04-Jan
05-Jan
06-Jan
Elapsed time (Date)
37

Deconvolution
Log-Log Deconvolution - Flow Period 15
100000
Unit Slope
WBS
Unit Slope
PSS
nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)
10000
21 years
1000
2
?
100
1 year
Extrapolation
10
1
0.0000001
GIIP = 150 bcf

0.00001
0.001
0.1
10
1000
Elapsed time (yrs)
Deconvolved pressure derivative extrapolation defines dynamic response
38
Cumulative Gas (bcf)

Rate (MMscf/d)
Production Forecast
(pwf = 1500 psi)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Case 1 Rate "

Case 1 Cum
Case 2 Cum
Case 2 Rate
50%
10
15
Time (years)
39
Example 7: Sensitivity to Initial Pressure

6000
Pressure (psia)
5000
4000
3000
140
2000
Min Tested Volume
1000
120
Recovery after ten years

(pwf = 1500 psia)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
100
Gas Volume (bscf)
Time (days)
Pseudo-pressure Change and

Derivative
1.00E+09
80
60
40
1.00E+08
pi = 5495
20
pi = 5490
pi = 5486
0
5484
1.00E+07
5486
5488
5490
5492
5494
5496
5498
5500
5502
Initial Reservoir Pressure (psia)

1.00E+06
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
Elapsed Time
40
Example 7: Gas Prediction from Initial Production Test
Pressure History
2930
250
2920
Pressure (psia)
2910
2900
150
2890
100
2880
2870
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)
200
50
2860
2850
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 100 110 120 130
Elapsed time (hrs)
41
Pseudo-pressure Change and Derivative (psi2/cp)

Extrapolated
Observed
1E+8
Worst
Most
Likely
1E+7
1E+6
Best
1E+5
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Elapsed Time (hrs)
42
Cumulative production (bcf)
14
Best
Most likely
12
Worst
Actual
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (years)
0.8
43
Example 8: Gas Prediction from Permanent Gauge Data
250
Prediction at day 142

4000
200
Pressure (psia)
3000
2000
150
1000
100
0
-1000
50
-2000
-3000
0
Measured Gas Rate (MMscf/D)
5000
0
9
Elapsed time (yrs)
44
Pseudo-pressure change and Derivative (psi2/cp)
Constrained
1E+9
Day 142
Day 379
Day 507
1E+8
1E+7
1E+6
0.1
10
100
Elapsed Time (hrs)
1000
10000
100000
45
Cumulative Gas (bcf)
250
Measured
200
Predicted at day 142

150
Predicted day 379
100
50
Predicted at day 142

Constrained to GIIP
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Producing Time (years)
46
Limitations
Deconvolution assumes single phase flow in the reservoir
and therefore cannot be used to predict e.g. water
breakthrough.
Deconvolution currently only works for single wells; i.e. it
does not take into account the influence of nearby
producers and injectors.
(These limitations do not prevent the use of deconvolution
but need to be considered when examining results).
47
Conclusions
With the availability of robust deconvolution, it is possible to
extract important information from well test data quickly and
easily prior to any further analysis or models.
Uncertainty in the deconvolution carries through to uncertainty
in results.
The deconvolved derivative provides the signature of the

dynamic behaviour of a well which can be extrapolated to
predict future well production.
The late time derivative response defines the long term well
and reservoir performance.
Permanent downhole pressure gauges allow continuous
updating of the deconvolution which reduces the uncertainty in
future well performance.
48
Summary
Tested volumes and future well production can be

estimated from pressure transient data prior to
building complex models.
Use the rate normalized log-log derivative plot to
compare the response between build-ups and
between wells
49
Derivative Comparison Oil and Water

RubyJo #4 DST #1_standard_tmw.ks3 - Diagnosis (ref)
RubyJo #4 DST #2_standard_tmw.ks3 - Diagnosis
16-29a-15_tmw.ks3 - Diagnostic
17-12-4A_Working_File_tmw.ks3 - Main BU
20-6-3-DST1_TMW.ks3 - Diagnostic
DST1aCompleteSimplified_tmw.ks3 - Diagnostic
Guara-1 DST-1 Analysis-3_tmw.ks3 - Diagnostic
Jorbaer_DST3update_tmw.ks3 - Diagnostic
Peebs #1 (core hole) DST #2_tmw.ks3 - Diagnosis
RJS-628A_BG_TW_AllRates.ks3 - PostFrac PP
1000
100
Pressure [psi]
10
0.1
0.01
1E-3
1E-4
1E-3
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
1E+5
1E+6
Time [hr]
Compare files: Log-Log plot (dp and dp' normalized [psi] vs dt)
50
Derivative Comparison - Gas
1E+12
Gas potential [psi2/cp]
1E+11
1E+10
1E+9
A15_July 02 2010_tmw.ks3 - No Partial Completion

Bounty_DST1a2010.ks3 - GC Main (ref)
BUpMoran27-6_tmw.ks3 - Horizontal DP
BUpOdenHeirs_tmw.ks3 - Analysis 4
ca48Canal1_tmw_new.ks3 - Channel
DST1c.ks3 - Analysis 1
Hasdrubal A1_v2.ks3 - 1-P Closed
HBH-4DST_tmw_2.ks3 - Partial Completion + Increasing h
Horseshoe-1 Interpretation_TMW.ks3 - 3 Zones
PA_v17.ks3 - Analysis 14
Endeavour_NR_v11_tmw.ks3 - homogeneous
DAP-3_CR_July2010data_5sec data_1stSept2010.ks3 - Analysis 1
1E+8
1E+7
1E+6
1E-4
1E-3
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
1E+5
1E+6
Time [hr]
Compare files: Log-Log plot (dm(p) and dm(p)' normalized [psi2/cp] vs dt)
51

Minimun Pore Volume in Well Test

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Minimun Pore Volume in Well Test

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

Additional support provided by AIME

The Determination of Minimum Tested Volume and

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Well Test Objectives

Well Performance (Flow)

Types of Well Test

Primary objectives depend on the type of test

Wireline Formation Tests

WFT and WT are not equivalent

Pressure, p and Flowrate, q

How to Improve Well Performance?

Outflow 1 to Outflow 2 Change in completion (tubing, choke, artificial lift)

Need to understand Inflow to see if improvement is possible

07-Nov-2008 09-Nov-2008 11-Nov-2008 13-Nov-2008 15-Nov-2008

Pressure [psia], Gas Rate [MMscf/D] vs Time [ToD]

Oil Rate (STB/D)

Elapsed time (Date)

Pressure Transient Analysis

Flow, q, Pressure, p, and Time, t

Log-log Diagnostic Plot

Pressure Change, p (psi)

Elapsed Time, t (hrs)

Pressure Transient Derivative Response

Time (k = 750 mD)

40x106 cc (250 bbl)

Practical ri* (ft)

* Assuming a gauge resolution/noise of 0.03 psi

Example Low Permeability Two Wells

Derivative describes heterogeneity in time/space

Data Acquisition: Well Test Sequence of Events

In general, only shut-ins give sufficiently high quality pressure transients 16

Deconvolution by Iteration using superposition

Non-linear Least Squares Minimisation

Gas Rate, MMscf/d

Gas Potential and Derivative (psi2/cp)

Longer duration of deconvolved data larger radius of investigation?

Pressure Transient Analysis Workflow

Minimum Tested Pore Volume

Pressure change and Derivative (psi)

Same Principle as Reservoir Limits Test (MBH)

tmax= 93.6 hrs

Uncertainty in deconvolution uncertainty in connected volume

tmax= 136 hrs

pbar = 865.2 psia

Example 3b: Gas - DST versus EWT

Boundaries reduced anticipated tested volume

tmax= 136 hrs

Uncertainty in deconvolution uncertainty in connected volume

Example 5 Oil Design

(rinv = 5250 ft)

Example 5 Oil Design

Channel Boundaries : Significantly reduces tested volumes

Coefficient of Reservoir Complexity (CRC)

Pressure Change, p (psi)

CRC is similar to Dietz Shape Factor, CA

Stabilisation Infinite Acting Radial

Elapsed Time, t (hrs)

Applies to deconvolved data

Comparison of CRC with Dietz Shape Factor, CA

Comparison of CRC with Dietz Shape Factor, CA