0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

74 vues9 pagesAnalysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test Data

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Analysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test Data

© All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

74 vues9 pagesAnalysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test Data

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

ANALYSIS

C. S. MATTHEWS SHELL DEVELOPMENT CO.

MEMBER A/ME HOUSTON, TEX.

infinite reservoir, psi (see Nomenclature for

Methods of using pressure build-up or flow tests to esti-

more general definition),

mate formation permeability, formation pressure and well q = oil-production rate at surface conditions, BID,

damage are reviewed. A number of phenomena which

fL = oil viscosity, cp,

cause actual pressure build-up behavior to differ from the B = oil formation volume factor,

idealized case, such as the effects of boundaries, skins, k = permeability of formation to oil, md,

inhomogeneities, partial penetration and two-phase flow, h = sand thickness, ft,

are discussed. It is concluded that the same method of t = flowing time of well, and

analysis of build-up curves can be applied with slight modi- At = closed-in time of well.

fication to oil reservoirs, gas reservoirs and reservoirs pro-

ducing both oil and gas. The calculations can be carried Derivation of the factor 162.6 is given in the Nomencla-

out on a form sheet, a copy of which is included in the ture. A graph of this equation is shown in Fig. 1, along

paper. Examples are worked out for four different types with actual field data for a new well in an oil reservoir. For

of reservoirs. this case, the theory and practice agree well. To analyze

this curve, note that the slope of the curve is equal to

the coefficient of the logarithm term in Eq. 1. Therefore,

Introduction

kh =

162.6 qfLB (2)

Although the basic theory of pressure build-up behavior slope in psi/cycle

in wells was developed many years ago, important con- Extrapolation of the straight-line section to an infinite shut-

tributions since that time have extended the original ap-

in time, [(t + b.t)/At] = 1, gives the value for Pi' as

plicability to a much wider variety of situations. The pur- shown.

pose of the present paper is to summarize the present

status of pressure build-up theory and of its applicability. Bounded Homogeneous Reservoir

The approach in this paper will be to start with the The pressure build-up behavior of a well in a bounded

simplest type of pressure build-up curve and to show how homogeneous reservoir is given by

reservoir rock properties, reservoir fluid properties and

p" = Pi -

qfLB[

162.~ log~+

t + b.t

well bore conditions tend to distort the idealized picture.

Methods for taking these distortions into account and for

determining values of reservoir formation properties from 1320r------------------------------------------,

1300

C>

Build-up Curves 'iii p,= 1280 psig

':1280 '~

Infinite Homogeneous Reservoir w

a:

:::>

/

"

The theory for the pressure build-up behavior of a well ~ 1260

producing a single, slightly compressible fluid from an w

a:

Q.

infinite homogeneous reservoir was presented by HorneL'

l;! 1240

According to him, the equation for build-up when oil is o

III

the only phase flowing is I

j 1220

162.6 qfLB t + b.t w

Pw = Pi - kh log ~ . (1) 3:

1200

where Pro = pressure in well during build-up, psi,

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office 10

Nov. 3, 1960. Revised manuscript received June 15, 1961. Paper pre (t+At)/At

sented at SPE Formation Evaluation Symposium, Nov. 21-22, 1960, in

Houston. Fig. I--Pressure build-up for a nearly ideal reservoir

'References given at end of paper. (from Horner').

SPE 1631-G

862 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Y(t + M) - Y(~t) - Y(t)] boundary fluid flows toward that well, and on the other

2.303 . (3) side toward another well. For some time after a well is

This equation differs from Eq. 1 only by the addition of closed in, it can be treated as if its drainage boundary

the term Y (t), which may be called the boundary effect still exists. Thus, a well surrounded by other wells will

and is a function of the shape of the drainage boundary have a build-up curve qualitatively similar to that of one

of a well and of the production time. For a square drain- well in a bounded reservoir. For very long closed-in times

age boundary, the boundary effect causes the pressure this is not true (see "Interference Tests").

build-up curve to bend over as shown by the field example' Values for the average pressure p for reservoirs which

in Fig. 2. The extrapolated value from the straight-line have not been closed in long enough for the "bend over"

section is called Pi; in a bounded reservoir, Pi is best shown in Fig. 2 to be observed may be obtained by the

defined as this extrapolated pressure (see Nomenclature). method of Ref. 3.

The final static value of the pressure is called 'p the average Wellhore Damage

pressure. A plot of (Pi - p)/(70.6qfLB/kh) is given in As just mentioned, the effect of production at other

Fig. 3 for one w,ell in the center of a square drainage area. wells is to flatten the build-up curve at long times. Quite

It may be seen that the difference between Pi and in- p logically then, the effect of well bore damage would be

creases as production time increases. to distort the curve at early closed-in time, as shown in

The function Y (t) is related to the function plotted in Fig. 4 (from Ref. 4). The effect of wellbore damage on

Fig. 3 by pressure distribution is to cause an extra drop right at

the wellbore, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (from Hurst'). This

Y(t) =

0.00331kt _ Pi + P extra drop in pressure has been called a skin effect. Shortly

CP.fLcA 70.6 qjJ-B/kh after shut-in, the well pressure should rise by the amount

The quantity (p - p)/(70.6 qfLB/kh) is plotted in Ref. ~P'kin shown on Fig. 5. Thus, the order of magnitude of

3 for a num'- of cases. In that paper it is called (P* - the skin effect should be evident from the difference be-

p)/(qfL/ 47Tkh ). tween flowing pressure and the pressure shortly after shut-

If there are other wells in a reservoir, the effect of pro- ting in. Quantitatively, the skin effect S as defined by van

duction at the other wells is to cause a well to be sur- Everdingen4 can be calculated from

rounded by a drainage boundary. On one side of this S = 1.151[ Plho",' - PI

6.p (1 cycle)

log (_k_._.

CPfLcr"

w

)+ 1.07]. (4)

3oo,.--------------------,,..

and the pressure drop in the skin or damaged zone near

the well by

1200

6.p = 6.p (l cycle) X 0.87S

S';'1 (5)

.~ 1100 The value for Pi hon>' must be taken on the straight-line

w .6 t I hours

a: 100

~ 1000 I 10

en

w

a:

a. 900

w

--'

o

7 800

~

o

f-

f-

om 700

600

50~~04~~~~~IO~3~~~-~IO~2~-L~L--I~oULLL~L--J

(t + L:.t)/L:.t

Fig. 2-Pressure build-up showing boundary effect (from

Mead2 ) .

7r--------------------~

(t+l>!l/l>t

6

Fig. 4-Pressure build-up showing effect of wellbore dam-

age and after-production.

:C5

.>t: BORE

"-

m

;'4 ------=~-_p~~~~IJRE

'"0

....

~3

G SKIN

PRESSURE IN

FORMATION

la. OR

I ZONE OF

52 DAMAGE

p PRESSURE DROP

~

t; 0

.000264 kt / CPfLCA Fig. 5-Pressure distribution in a reservoir

Fig. 3-Correction to Pi for well in square drainage area. with a skin (from Hurse).

pomon of the pressure build-up curve. If the build-up Fissured limestone reservoirs also show this type of

curve is not straight at one hour, it is necessary to extrapo- build-up." In fact, it appears that most reservoirs with

late the straight-line portion backwards, as shown in Fig. two distinct types of permeability can show such behavior.

4. Note that a scale for (t + t::..t)/t::..t and also a scale for The tail is greatest when the permeability difference is

t::..t are used to facilitate extrapolation to P, bon" A meas- greatest, as shown by the example for a fissured lime-

ure of the efficiency of completion can be obtained by stone in Fig. 9.

comparing the actual productivity index J and the ideal

Gas Wells

(no skin). The ratio of these two quantities is

Aronofsky and Jenkins" have shown that gas wells be-

. J actual Pi - Pi - t::..p 'kin (6) have in a manner very similar to oil wells. With acceptable

Flow Effi clency = --- = ~---=-'-----=---

J id"n Pi - Pi accuracy, the build-up equation is given by

This is quite similar to the condition ratio of Gladfelter,

P = Pi 162.6 qy/LgBYlogt -I- t::..t (7)

et al: Although the use of Pi in this equation is strictly k,J7 t::..t

correct only for an infinite r,eservoir, the error introduced

where

is small.

Well Fill-up Effect B ,,= Z TT [ P"

-~--, - -J =

gas f ormatIOn

. volume factor

" (p, T p) /2

at arithmetic average reser-

The idealized theory, as exemplified by the straight line

on Fig. 1, assumes that a well is closed in at the sand face voir pressure.

itself and that, after closing in, no production at all enters Note that Bo is computed at the arithmetic average reser-

the wellbore. In practice, howev,er, a well is closed in at voir pressure. This av,erage changes during build-up, so the

the surface, and for an instant after this time fluid con- slope of the curve of P vs log [( t + t::..t) / t::..t] should also

tinues to flow into the well bore at an unchanged rate. Only change slightly. This change will usually be negligible, and

after this fluid accumulates in the bore is the effect of it will usually be satisfactory to approximate P by Pi in the

closing-in at the surface transmitted to the formation. For equation for Bg. When the gas ,equation is used in the form

this reason there is a lag in the build-up at early times, of Eq. 7, its analogy with the oil equation (Eq. 1) is em-

as shown by Fig. 6 (adapted from Ref. 7). If both gas phasized. In Eq. 7, the gas flow rate needs to be expressed

and oil are flowing into the well bore , the rise of gas to in barrels per day at standard conditions. Trube13 has

the top of the well during shut-in and the fall of oil to the giv,en curves for gas compressibility Cg An example of a

bottom can cause the pressure to "hump", as shown in gas-pressure build-up curve is shown in Fig. 10. The form

Fig. 7 for an example well from South Texas. s One of of the gas equation used by many authors may be obtained

the ways of decreasing these well bore effects is to use a by substituting for Bg in Eq. 7.

recently developed tool which closes in the well at the 7 0 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -__________- ,

bottom" This tool allows interpretation of a pressure

build-up curve after a much shorter closed-in time.

600

Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity

A reservoir consisting of stratified layers of different '"0.500

permeability was shown theoreticallylO to have a "tail" a:-

=>

o

to the build-up curve. An example of this for a well ..J 400

:;

which is completed in two strata of different permeability <D

:::>

both layers at early times, giving a straight-line section (f)

(f)

as shown. The slope of this straight-line section gives the ~ 200

total kh for both layers. After build-up is complete in the Q.

is at a higher average pressure - begins to feed fluid into

the more permeable layer. This causes the rise above the

straight-line section. Finally, an equalization will occur, O~I-===~~ilil~O--~~~~IO~O~L-~~~IO~O-O--L-LL~I~~OOO

CLOSED-IN TIME, minutes

and the curve will flatten as indicated by the dotted line.

Fig. 7-Hump due to rise of gas in tubing after closing in.

2ooo,-------------------------______________-,

1800

3000 -

~

'" 1400

':

w

a: __-"::0----

:::>

w :il2900

a:

=>

~ 1200 '"

a:

Q.

w w

a: ..J

Q.

o

1000 :t:

~ 2800

f0-

800 b<D

,0001 ,001 2.01 ,I

,000264 kl1t1</:>fLcre 2700~1--~~~~10~-L-L~~~IOO~-L-LLL~I~0700~~--~I~~000

SHUT-IN TIME, minutes

Fig. 6-Well fill-up effect (after Miller, Dyes and

Hutchinson'). Fig. 8-Build-up in a two-layer reservoir.

Two-Phase Flow Effect Fall-off Curves

The shape of the pressure build-up curves when both In water-injection wells it is natural to determine forma-

oil and gas are flowing is very much the same as when tion properties from a fall-off curve determined by closing

only one phase flows. The interpretation is also much the in the well." The methods already discussed in this paper

same. Eq. 2 is also applicable during two-phase flow, as for analysis of build-up curves can also be used for fall-off

was justified by Perrine." The skin effect and wellbore curves if the mobilities (k//-t) of water and oil are about

damage can be calculated from Eqs. 4, 5 and 6, provided the same. However, when the data for a fall-off curve are

that the total mobility (k o / /-to + kg//-tg + kwl/-tw) is used plotted in the usual manner, it is often difficult to deter-

instead of k o / /-to and provided the total compressibility of mine just where the straight-line section begins and ends,

oil, gas and water is used instead of that for oi!." Similar as in the example in Fig. 2. A better method for analysis

methods can be used for obtaining average pressure. of these curves is to use the log (p - p) -vs-!::..t plot, as

At high drawdown, the flow of gas can introduce an shown in Fig. 12. This same plot may be used both when

apparent skin effect even when there is none. An example oil and water differ widely in properties and when they

of a pressure and a saturation distribution curve for a do not.

reservoir in which both oil and gas are flowing is shown The method of plotting these curves is similar to that

in Fig. 11. A flow efficiency of about 70 per cent is calcu- for layered reservoirs. It depends on finding, by trial and

lated for this well, when actually there is no skin at all.

The higher gas concentration around the well bore causes

p

error, a value of which makes the fall-off curve linear at

large time. This value is shown to be 230 psi in Fig. 12.

the apparent damage, as was shown by Perrine." This type of plot works at large times because the well

Partially Penetrating Wells

pressure is approaching the average pressure exponentially.

Values of kh and skin factor can be obtained from the

Nisle" and Brons and Marting" have studied the pres- slope {3, and the intercept b,. Ref. 17 should be consulted

sure behavior of such wells. Their work shows that the for details of the method.

effect of partial penetration is to introduce an apparent

well bore damage. The amount of extra pressure drop Interference and Flow Tests

caused by partial pcnetration can be found from Ref. 16.

Interference Tests

When one well is shut in and its pressure is measured

2000~------------------------------------~--, while others in the reservoir are produced, the test is

termed an interference test. This type of test can give in-

1900 formation on reservoir properties that cannot be obtained

iii from pressure build-up tests. In particular, values of the

Co

::>

(I)

cannot be obtained from pressure build-up. The simplest

(I)

l:! 1700

method of interpretation is based on superposition of the

0.. effects of each of the producing wells at the well in ques-

'"c!x 1600 tion. When the boundary of the reservoir is near, it also

needs to be taken into account (for example, by imaging

2 the producing wells). Collins" has described a method for

~ 1500

b analysis of interference tests. Another method is given as

ID follows.

1400

When the outer boundary effect can be neglected, the

1300L-~-L~~~--~-LLU~--~~~~L-~~~~W

pressure at the observation well is given by

.1 1.0 10 100 1000 162.6q/-t B I t +!::..t 70.6/-t B

CLOSED-IN T1 ME, l> t, hours

P = Pi - kh og~+kh

Fig. 9-Build-up in a fissured limestone reservoir (from

Pollard")

[q, E{ ~O~~~:;)+ q, E{~O;;; ~::)+ 1(8)

6t, hours

.B2~-------------------------------,

.BO - 1400

~.7B 1200

;:: iii

l.)

<I 0-

:::76 1000 _

UJ

n:

:::>

(f1

BOO ~

n:

0..

-- 600

400

10" RADIAL DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF WELL, It

(1+61)/61

Fig. II-Pressure and saturation distribution when both

Fig. IO-Build-up in a gas well. oil and gas are flowing.

!'jEPTEMRER, 19fil

where q, is the production rate of Well No.1, q, the pro- Interference tests require considerably mo.re time than

duction rate of Well No.2, etc.; t, and t, are production pressure build-up tests, especially in low-permeability reser-

times of these wells; a, and a2 are distances from Wells 1 voirs. Note that a minimum of two mo.nths was required

and 2 to the observation well. Variations in rates q, and q, for the case shown in Figs. 13 and 14. This reservoir had

may be taken into account by the principle of superposi- a permeability o.f a few millidarcies.

tion. ' Eq. 8 is strictly applicable only to single-phase flow

Flow Tests

and, thus, is best used when reservoirs are above the

bubble point. The log term in this equation gives the effect Flow tests can be interpreted in much the same manner

of producing and shutting-in the o.bservatio.n well itself. as pressure build-up tests. In particular, the slo.pe o.f the

The Ei terms give the pressure drop at the distance a1 or a, curve o.f flowing pressure vs flo.wing time is the same as

fro.m the pro.duction Wells 1 o.r 2. Elkins" has presented the slope o.f the curve o.f shut-in pressure vs shut-in time.

a go.o.d example of u&e o.f interference tests. In tight rocks Wellbo.re damage can also. be determined in a similar

it may be necessary to. shut-in a well fo.r a Io.ng time to. manner. A metho.d fo.r determining reservoir size from a

observe the eflects o.f interference. An example is sho.wn flow test has been described by Jo.nes." The method de-

in Fig. 13. The do.tted line in this figure was o.btained pends o.n determining the point at which the plo.t o.f pres-

by extrapolating the linear portio.n o.n the log [(t+ M)/b.t] sure vs Io.g (flowing time) departs from linearity. The

plo.t, as shown o.n Fig. 14. To. determine the magnitude o.f method is useful for estimating minimum size of o.il ac-

cpp.c/k by this proposed metho.d, it is necessary that the cumulatio.ns without sacrifice o.f pro.duction, as is necessary

difference between the extrapolated curve and the observed if a well is clo.sed in fo.r determinatio.n of average pres-

points be measurabIe with reasonable accuracy - the sure.

magnitude o.f this diflerence is equal to. the interference

terms (the Ei terms) in Eq. 8. If the difference is zero, Discussion

then the co.ntribution o.f the Ei terms is zero and cpp.c/k Time Required for Build-up

canno.t be determined. A difference o.f 40 to. 50 psi is and Interference Tests

necessary in order for .cpp,c/k to. be determined with some A well should be clo.sed in fo.r pressure build-up Io.ng

reliability. enough to. allow the straight-line section indicated o.n Fig.

The quantitycpp.c/k can be o.btained by assuming values 6 to. be clearly delineated. The longest time will be re-

fo.r this quantity, substituting in Eq. 8 and computing the quired fo.r deep, low-productivity, pumping wells no.t

o.bserved pressures. The value o.fcpp.c/k which gives the equipped with packers, because in these a Io.ng period o.f

best fit to. the observed pressures is assumed to. be ap- "after-production" will be needed to. fill the wellbore with

plicable to the reservoir. From known values o.f p, and c, liquid and co.mpressed gas. Only after the influx into. the

a value fo.r cp/k can be o.btained. Since kh can be o.btained

from the slo.pe o.f the pressure build-up curve, a value fo.r

cph can be o.btained as the product o.f these two quantities.

'"a.2000

1000~----------------------------------------.

W

800

!3

I/)

1900

I/)

~ 1800

600 Q.

--

42 psi

400

b, = 360 psi

i3, =

(log 360-log 21) 2,303 .."',., ."' ."',

I

t!-

1

.."' ."'

,

,

"'"', "'

'?

~

250 x 10' T

m &; 2 ~ .'..

= 1.14 x 10- 0 sec-'

200 0,

" '0,

0, 40 80 120 160 20e

x,, CLOSED-IN TIME, days

0,

'00 x, '0 Fig. 13-Interference test in a low-permeability reservoir.

a. , ....

..::

,a. 100

x,, 0

I

a.

x, 'O'Q 2000r-----------------------------------------,

80 'x,, '0'0 CURVE B

.... 0 p = 200 psi 1900

60

'x\ "'0

"'0,0 EXTRAPOLATED BUILDUP PRESSURE .-

\

, '"'b'o

0>

'in

a. ~ ."""","-

x,, W 1800

, Q: ,,"

40 x,, :::>

I/)

.-"

, ~ 1700

x, Q:

Q.

1\ W

c5 1600

\ :r,

\

20 :::;;

X

\

, i? 1500

\

A

5

m

X CURVE

\

\ Ii = 260 psi

\

I

10

0 50

X

100 150 200 250

CLOSED-IN TIME, thousand seconds (t+~t)/llt

Fig. 12-Pressure fall-off in a water-injection well. Fig. 14--Interference test in a low-permeability reservoir.

well bore becomes small can the simple theory of pressure TABLE I-EXAMPLE OF SUBSURFACE PRESSURE CALCULATIONS FOR

RESERVOIR ABOVE BUBBLE POINT.

build-up be applied. A simple method of determining when Test Data:

the rate of influx has become small is to determine casing- Test Dale Jan. 4, 1951 Company Shell

head pressure (CHP) and tubing head pressure (THP), Producing :OFo~r~m--:aI7io~n--------;D::-o'-:-lo~m-;Cit:-e Lease Lend

as well as bottom-hole pressure (BHP) during build-up. riole Size (in.) . 4 3/, Well No. 1

Cum. Prod. N p oo(b-o-b~I)----------:-14~2cc,OoOl~0 Field Center

The difference between BHP and THP or CHP is directly

~~:~:~~z:~r~~~I~i:~Otdih:~~s~I~~200-4O-:-N:-p"/q-~1:-::3C-=,!:-::~~~

State Texas

proportional to the mass of fluid between these two levels.

A curve showing (BHP-THP) and (BHP-CHP) can be

I. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (md)

plotted. When the slope of this difference curve falls to, say,

only 10 per cent of its initial value, the influx is probably kh = 162.6 q/L B . k = J<"-

tlp (1 cycle) , h

small enough that the simple theory can be applied. At h 69.0 It /L 0.80 cp

this time, the influx rate into the wellbore is only 10 per q 250 B/D B 1.136

tlp (1 cycle) _ _ _ _ _--'7c.:0'-'p:.:.:si

cent of the production rate at time of closing-in.

kh = 162.6 X (250) X (0.80) X (1.136)

Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson' have shown that boundary (70) = 527.75 md-It;

(69) .

section of a pressure build-up curve at a time 1:"1 iI =

0.000264kt:..t/1>fLCr', of the order of 0.1. This gives an II. Calculation of Skin Effect S; and Pressure Loss Due to Skin .6.p skin

(psi)

upper limit to required shut-in times. Most of the points

which will be used in pressure build-up analysis should fall 5 = 1.151 [p;ph~lurCY~I~1 ~ log (l'>/Lc r2

k

J + 1.07].

in the range of dimensionless time t:..t D from 0.005 to 0.1. !J.p 'kin = !J.p (1 cycle) X 0.87 S.

k 7.65 md rw 2.375 in.

Interference tests will normally require that the observa-

I'> 0.039 P ho"r 4295 psig

tion well be closed in for a time t:..t D = 0.2 to 0.3.

1

6.8 X 10 "vol/vol/psi !J.p (1 cycle) _ _ _ _ _ _7~0~p'--si

Selection of Wells for Production Stimulation

5 = 1.151 X

As discussed by Gladfelter, et al," there are three main (4295) ~ (3534) I (7.65) 1

causes of low-productivity wells - (1) a "skin" near the [ (70) ~ .og (0.039) (0.80) (0.0000068) (5.64) + 1.07

wellbore, (2) low permeability throughout the reservoir = 5.91.

and (3) lack of pressure. By taking a pressure build-up !J.p ,k;n = (70) X 0.87 (5.91) = 360 psi.

on a well prior to a well-stimulation treatment, it is possible III. Calculation of Productivity Index (BID/psi) and Flow Efficiency

to determine which of these three are causing the low J (actual) = -~q-. ) (;"'" I)

q

= -,-----C- - ; - -

productivity. If the trouble is a skin, then a wash treat- Pi - PI (Pi - PI) - ~p skin

~p skin 360 psi Pi 4585 psig

ment or a small-volume fracture treatment is in order. If q 250 B/D PI 3534 psig

the formation has a low average permeability then a deep- (250)

penetrating, large-volume fracture will be required. If the J (ootu.1) = (4585) ~ (3534) = 0.238 B/D/pSl

difficulty is due to lack of pressure, some type of injection (250)

) (;de.1) = (1051) ~ (360) =

.

0.362 B/D/pSl

such as of water or gas will be required to expel the oil.

. J (actual) 0.238

Because they aid in diagnosis of the difficulty, pressure Flow EffiCiency = J (i(Ical) = 0.362 = 0.657

build-up curves greatly aid those involved in selecting wells

for production-stimulation treatments. To check on whether the correct section of the build-up

curve was used, the maximum dimensionless time of shut-

Relative Importance of Various Types of Build-Ups in t:..t D is calculated.

So many variations from ideal behavior have been dis- 0.000264 (7.65) 136

cussed that the reader may begin to feel that the un- t:..t D = 0.039 (0.80) 6.8 X 10- 6 (2,640)" = 0.19.

tangling of real situations is hopeless. This is not true.

Most pressure build-up curves will look like that shown Since most of the points used in the analysis are within

the interval 0.005 to 0.1, it appears that the correct portion

in Fig. 4 and can be analyzed very simply on a form

sheet which will be explained in the next section. Far less of the build-up curve was analyzed. Casing and tubing

frequent are the "hump" build-ups shown in Fig. 7. This pressures were not taken during build-up, so it was not

type usually occurs in deep, permeable flowing wells equip- possible to compute by this method whether the correct

ped with packers. The heterogeneous type shown in Fig. 8 build-up section was analyzed.

may be mOT>e common than is generally supposed. To ob-

serve the tail, it is often necessary to shut-in the well for a

considerable portion of time. If reservoir pressures seem

to give incorrect results when used in the material balance,

it may be helpful to close-in one well for a week or two

to see whether low-permeability, relatively un depleted lay-

ers are present which may give a significant tail to the

build-up curve. The example calculations shown in the

following section and tables should help clarify the hand-

ling of actual pressure build-up curves.

Example Calculations

Oil Reservoir

A pressure build-up curve for an oil reservoir above the

bubble point is given in Fig. 4. After the slope of the curve

is measured and other pertinent data are entered on the

example calculation of Table 1, the calculations for k, S {I + L>tl / L>t

and flow efficiency can be carried out as shown. Fig. IS-Pressure build-up in a heterogeneous reservoir.

Two-Type Permeability Reservoir Gas Reservoir

The type of pressure build-up curve shown in Fig. 15 The form sheet used for oil reservoirs can also be used

cannot be analyzed completely by the foregoing method. for gas reservoirs. It is only necessary to convert the gas

In particular, the curve cannot be extrapolated to give p, rate in cubic feet per day to barrels per day by dividing

as was the build-up on Fig. 4. This extrapolation should by 5.615. The gas formation volume factor is obtained

be made by using the type of plot shown on Fig. 16. A from

value for the average pressure p is estimated, and log

B = Z~ po

(I) - p) is plotted vs t::.t the closed-in time. The value of p y Ta (p, + pf)/2

which gives the best straight line is the value for the average The method of obtaining Bu, C g and fly is shown in Table

pressure in the drainage radius of the well. Note that, for 3A. The rest of the analysis for Fig. lOis straightforward.

values of p which are too small, the plot of log (p - p) For this example,

vs t::.t bends down. For values which are too large, the 0.000264 (6.9) 24 = 0.0056.

curve bends upward. Sometimes this upward bend is diffi- t::.t D = 0.16 (0.02) 3.5 X 10-' (2,640)'

cult to detect, and all the plots appear to be straight when Although many of the build-up points are outside the

p is above a certain value. In such case it is usually satis- recommended interval, a study of Fig. 10 leaves little doubt

p

factory to take as the lowest value for which the curves that the correct section was analyzed. In cases such as

become straight. A value of kh for both layers is obtained this it is often valuable to plot (BHP-THP) vs time to

from the slope of the earlier straight-line section indicated ensure that the influx rate is small at the end of build-up.

in Fig. 15. An approximation for the skin effect is ob-

Reservoir Producing Below Bubble Point

tained from the same equations as for a homogeneous reser-

voir. Calculations for these reservoirs can be handled on the

same form sheet as that for the oil reservoir. The only

An example calculation for a two-type permeability

reservoir is shown in Table 2. For this case Pi and pare TABLE 2-EXAMPLE OF SUBSURFACE PRESSURE CALCULATIONS FOR

approximately equal, but this is often not true. It should be TWO-TYPE PERMEABILITY RESERVOIR.

Te!o;t Data:

emphasized that the skin effect and flow efficiency obtained Hole Size (in.) 5

by the method shown are only approximately correct for Cum. Prod. N" (bbJ)------ - ---------------2390

the two-type permeability reservoir. The maximum dimen- Stabilized Daily Prod. q(bb-I) 130

sionless shut-in time is Effective Prod. life t (hours) = 24N p /q 441

t::.t D = 0.12 (0.37) 1.5 X 10' 2,640), = 0.066. h 27 It iJ. 0.37 cp

~ 130B/D B 1.39

This is within the interval 0.005 to 0.1, so the correct IIp (1 cycle) 17 psi

portion of the build-up was used. ~h = 162.6 X (130) X (0.37) X (1.39) = 39 .f. k = (639.5)

(17) 6 .5 md t, (27)

= 23.68 md.

100,---------------------------------------------,

------;I-.5;--:-X-;-c:l0;;-;c5-vo""I~/vc-:o-;.I/'p~si llr:> (1 cycle) 17 psi

S -- 1.51 (17) 109(0.12) (0.37) (0.000015) (6.25) .

= 68.14.

IIp "kin = (17) X 0.87 (68.14) = 1008 psi.

q

J (actual) =- ---q--. J (i tl"l1 1) ,-jII

= :-(P-i---P""f)~_----C.:lC--p-,-_

Pi - PI

-----------~ PI

q 2620 psig

(130) .

J (actual) = (3775) _ (2620) = 0.1125 B/D/pSl

(130)

J (idcal) = (1155) _ (1008) 0.8844 B/D/psi

J (id('al) 0.8844

TABLE 3A-~XAMPLE

SHOWING CALCULATION OF

p ~ 3775 Bg , /La and c" FOR A GAS WEll

T p. Ta = 520 o R.

20 Bo = Z - - - - - -

Ta Pi + PI pa = 14.65 psia.

---2--

Pseudocritical temperature Tc = 420oR.

PseudocriticaI pressure pc = 663 psia.

Reservoir temperature T = 200 ;- 460 = 660<'R.

Pi + PI = (2910) + (2422) = 2666 psig = 2681 psia.

2 2

Til = T = 660

To 420 = 1.57 ~

Z = 0.809 (from Ref. 22).

pl/ = (Pi + P/)/2 =

2681 = 4.04 I

pc 663 ,

660 14.65

1o0L-------".O------,-'-0------,L- - - - - 0

O 4 50 60 70

Bo = 0.809 X 520 X 2681 = 0.005611.

t::. t, hours Us.ing TR and PR and a gas gravity of 0.8, J.Lg i'i obtained from Ref. 21, figs.

4 and 6, as /Lo = 1.7 X 0.01185 = 0.0201 cpo Also, Co is obtained from

Fig. 16--Pressure build-up in a heterogeneous reservoir. Trube'" as 0.23/663 = 0.000347 psi- ' .

tABle 3-5U8SURFACE PREs~URE CALCULATIONS FOR A GAS whl. 1; corresponds to infinite shut-in time in

Test Data:

an infinite reservoir, psi

Hole Size (in.) ______________7_ _ _ _

Cum. Prod. N" (bbl) 1.[38 X 10' (6390 MMcf)

pw = pressure in well, psi

Stabilized Daily Pwl. q (bbl) 536,900 (3.01 MMcf/D) P1 hou, = pressure read from linear portion of pres-

Effective Prod. Life t (hour) - 24N plq 50.8 X 10' - sure build-up curve at one hour closed-in

r. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (md)

time, psi

h 84 fl I'" 0.0201 cp PI = flowing pressure prior to closing-in well

q--536.900--=_-B/D By 0.005611 for a build-up, psi

!J.p (1 cycle) 17 psi

p= average pressure in drainage area of a well,

kh = 162.6 X (536,900) X (0.0201 )~.005612l 579.2 md.ft; psi

117)

~_7~2) = 6.90 md.

j,p (1 cycle) = slope of linear portion of pressure build-up

184) curve in psi/logw cycle

Tht.., remainder of tie analysis is straigj,!forword. j,p ,kiu = pressure drop in "skin" region next to well-

change necessary is to calculate the total mobility and total bore

compressibility. Calculations for the curve shown in Fig. q = production rate prior to closing-in well for

17 are made in Table 4A. The total mobility and the total a build-up, B/D at suface conditions

compressibility are then used on the form sheet in calcu- r", = well bore radius, in.

lasting S. These steps are exemplified in the example calcu- re = drainage radius, ft

lation of Table 4. In this case, S = skin factor

0.000264 (92.9) 24 t = time of flowing, hours

6.t IJ = --- -- --------------- = O.OIS. j,t = closed-in time, hours

(0.15) S.5 X 10' (500)-

6.t II = closed-in time, dimensionless

Since this time is in the interval 0.005 to 0.1, the correct 0.000264k6.t

portion of the data was used in build-up analysis.

CPfLc r/

Y (t) = boundary effect

Conclusions cP = porosity, fraction

It appears that a single form sheet can be adopted with

slight modification to the analysis of nearly any pressure - Ei ( - x) = J" Cds

s

build-up curve. Pressure build-up behavior now appears to

be reasonably well understood.

TABLE 4A-EXAMPLE SHOWING CALCULATION OF TOTAL MOBILITY Ik/I-') ,

AND TOTAL COMPRESSIBILITY C1' FOR A RESERVOIR BELOW BUBBLE POINT.

Nomenclature

( J<..)=~+!<.u.+~.

A = drainage area of well, sq ft '" JLo JLy

I J1.w

{/" a, = distance between observation well and pro- ( -;) t = l!J.p~~~~~e) h [ Boqo + B'I ( qa - qvR, ) + Bwqm 1

duction well (No.1 or No.2), ft

162.6 [

B = oil formation volume factor = (135) 120) 1.2271924) + 12.9 X 10- 3 12.740 X 10 - 924

By = gas formation volume factor,

X 53.1) + 0] = 2159.

z-T ------p"

Bo dR, 1 dBo 1 2.9 X 10 3 1

T a (Pi+Pf)/2 c" = BodP - S;; dP = 1.227 (0.0455) -- 1227

C = compressibility, psi' (0.0001425) = 0.0003622.

h = formation thickness, ft Cg

0.55

= 644 = 0.000854 psio- 1

IRef. 131 .

.I = productivity index, B/D/psi

Cw = 10- 6 pSi-I.

k = formation permeability, md ct = S"C() + sgey + 5wCw.

p, = pressure obtained when linear portion of 01' = 0.546 (0.00036223) + 0.20410.000854) + 0.25110- 6 ) = 0.000372

pressure build-up curve, P vs log [( t + TABLE 4-SUBSURFACE PRESSURE CALCULATiONS FOR RESERVOIR

6.t)/6.t], is extrapolated to (t + 6.t)/6.t BELOW BUBBLE POINT.

Test Data:

6t, hours Hole Size (in.) 12

I

Cum. Prod. N p Ibbl) 33.300

Stabilized Daily Prod. q (bbl) 924 oil, 15.38 MMcf gas 12.740 MM bbl gas)

Effective Prod. Life t (hour) = 24N p /q 865

J. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (nHI)

h 20 It Ba 12.9 X 10-3 bbl/bbl

q 92~. B!'.D R, 298 cu ft/bbl or 53.1 bbl/bbl

1-'0 0.675 cp

80 1.227

!J.p 11 cycle) 135 psi

h _ 162.6 X 1924) X (0.675) X 11.227) 1922)

k -1135) 922 mdft; k '

120)

= 46.1 md.

II. Calculation of Skin Effect oS; and Pres~ul"e Loss Due to Skin

..'ll' skill (psi)

!-/I-' ~ ______ --"'<J fro 6 in.

~0~.1~5_____________ PI hour 1195 psig

cp PI 240 ~-=-- psig

0.000372 vol/vol/psi !J.p 11 cycle) 135 psi

100,000 10.000 1000 100 . 1135) - log 10.15) 11) 10.000372) 136) + 1.07

It + 6t) It ~ 2.43 .

1135) X 0.87 (2.43) 285 psi. =

and gas are flowing. Tho remainder of the analysis is~jghtforword.

Subscripts 10. Lefkovits, H. c., Haz.ebroek, P., Allen, E. E. and Matthews,

a = 0

atmospheric (60 P, 14.65 psia) C. S.: "A Study of the Behavior of Bounded Reservoirs Com

posed of Stratified Layers", Soc. Pet. Eng. Jour. (March,

f = flowing 1961) 43.

i = infinite time ll. Pollard, P.: "Evaluation of Acid Treatments from Pressure

0, w, g = oil, water, gas BUild-Up Analyses", Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 38.

12. Aronofsky, J. S. and Jenkins, R.: "Unsteady Radial Flow of

Dimensionless Quantities Gas Through Porous Media", Jour. Appl. Mech. (1953) 20,

Dimensionless time in the Darcy System of Units (darcy, 210.

sec, cp, em, atm) is t D = kt/</>p,c r2e. In the system of units 13. Trube, A. S.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases", Trans ..

in this report (md, hr, cp, ft, psi), this quantity is t D = AIME (1957) 210, 355. .

0.000264 kt/<pp.c r'e. The constant 0.00105 in Eq. 8 is 4 14. Perrine, R. L.: "Analysis of Pressure BuildUp Curves", Drill.

(0.000264). In the Darcy System of Units, the flow rate is and Prod. Prac., API (1956) 482.

usually written qp./47rkh, when it is desired to express it in 15. Nisle, R. G.: "The Effect of Partial Penetration on Pressure

Build-Up in Oil Wells", Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 85.

units of atmospheres. In units in this report, this quantity

l6. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted Fluid

is 70.6 qp.B/kh. Also, Entry on Well Productivity", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1961)

qp.B 17~ ,

70.6--rhloge t = l7. Hazebroek, P., Rainbow, H. and Matthews, C. S.: "Pressure

Fall-Off in Water-Injection WelIs", Trans. AIME (1958) 213.

250. "

References 18. Collins, R. E. and Kolodzie, P. A., Jr.: "Effect of Interfer-

ence on Pressure Buildup - A Method of Calculating

1. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells", Proc., Third

Porosity.Thickness Product", Paper 1333-G presented at 34th

World Pet. Congo (1951) Sect. II, 503. Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Dallas (Oct. 4-9, 1959).

2. Mead, H.: "Another Concept for Final Buildup Pressure",

19. Elkins, L. F.: "Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing,

Paper Illl-G presented at 33rd Annual Fall Meeting of SPE Spraberry Trend Area Field of West Texas", Trans. AIME

m Houston (Oct., 1958).

(1953) 198, 177. '

3. Matthews, C. S,' Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method 20. Jones, P. J.: "Gulf Coast Wildcat Verifies Reservoir Limit

for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reser- Test", Oil and Gas Jour. (June, 1956) 54, 184.

voir", Trans .. AIME (1934) 201, 182,

21. Carr, N. L., Kobayashi, R. and Burrows, D. B.: "Viscosity of

4. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure", Trans., AIME (1954)

the Productive Capacity of a Well", Trans., AIME (1953) 201, 264.

198, 171.

22. Standing, M. B. and Katz, D. L.: "Density of Natural Gases",

5. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impedi-

ment to Fluid-Flow Into a Well Bore", Pet. Eng. (Oct., 1953)

Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 140. ***

25, B-6.

(). ('iadteltcr, R. E., Tracy, G. W. and Wilsey, 1. E.: "Selecting

Wells Which Will Respond to Production-Stimulation Treat-

r"lenls", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1955) 117.

~\liller, C. c., Dyes, A. B. and I-Iutch;nscn, C. A., Jr.: "Esti-

mation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom C. S. MATTHEWS, f Jrmerly chief res-

Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteristics", Trans., AIME (1950) ervoir engineer for Shell Oil Co.'s Tech-

189, 91. nical Services Div., is now senior reser-

g, Stegemeier, G. 1. and Matthews, C. S.: "A Study of Anomal- voir engineer with Shell Development

ous Pressure Buildup Behavior" Trans. AIME (1958) 213 Co. in Houston. He joined Shell Oil as

44. " ,

a chemical engineer immediately fol-

9. Pitzer, S. S.,

Rice, J. D. and Thomas, C. E.: "A Comparison

lowing his graduation from Rice U.

of Theoretical Pressure Build-Up Curves with Field Curves

Obtained from Bottom-Hole Shut-In Tests" Trans. AIME with a PhD degree in r:hemistry.

(1959) 216, 416. ' ,