1 / 32

T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843

Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering Texas A&M University. Lecture 08: Well Testing — Historical Perspectives. T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu.

amergin
Download Presentation

T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering Texas A&M University Lecture 08: Well Testing — Historical Perspectives T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu PETE 613 (2005A)

  2. Well Testing — Historical Perspectives • Origin of the "Deliverability" (or Backpressure) Relation • Empirical. • Used to assess "open flow" potential of gas wells. • Does not provide a "time-dependent" behavior. • Multi-Rate Testing • Historically, VERY popular — still used quite often, especially on new wells to estimate deliverability and "non-Darcy" flow effects. • Keep it simple — a "4-point" test is appropriate. • Isochronal testing is very difficult to implement. • Pressure Transient Analysis • Expected Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA). • Example Data Sets: PTA and Production data. • Basic Plots: Lee Text Example 2.2 (Pressure Buildup). PETE 613 (2005A)

  3. Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation Well Testing — Historical Perspectives Origin of the "Deliverability" (or Backpressure) Relation PETE 613 (2005A)

  4. History of the "Deliverability" Equation Gas Well Deliverability: • The original well deliverability relation was completely empiri-cal (derived from observations), and is given as: • This relationship is rigorous (i.e., it can be derived) for low pres-sure gas reservoirs, (n=1 for lami-nar flow). • From: Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices — Rawlins and Schellhardt (USBM Monograph, 1935). PETE 613 (2005A)

  5. Multi-Rate Testing Well Testing — Historical Perspectives Multi-Rate Testing PETE 613 (2005A)

  6. Deliverability Testing: Basics a. "Standard" 4-point test deliverability test — note that the rates increase (to protect the reservoir). c. Modified "Isochronal" test sequence — note that each "buildup" is not required to achieve pi. b. "Isochronal" test sequence — note that each "buildup" is required to achieve pi. d. Governing equations for "deliverability" test analysis/interpretation. PETE 613 (2005A)

  7. Deliverability Testing: Orientation a. Basic "pressure-squared" relation that is presumed to describe gas flow — analogous form can be derived from steady-state flow theory (Darcy's law). b.Traditional "deliverability" plot — probably derived from empirical plotting of data. PETE 613 (2005A)

  8. Deliverability Testing: Orientation a."Rate-squared" (or velocity-squared) formulation — analogous form can be derived from steady-state flow theory (Forchheimer Eq.). b. Modified "deliverability" plot — note that bqsc2 must be known (... need alternative approach). PETE 613 (2005A)

  9. Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation Well Testing — Historical Perspectives Expected Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) Production Analysis (PA) PETE 613 (2005A)

  10. Expected Results from PTA • Expected Results of Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA): • "Conventional" PTA: Use of semilog and other specialized plots to estimate reservoir properties from a particular "flow regime" (i.e., a flow regime is a characteristic behavior derived from an analytical solution — e.g., the constant pressure derivative function for infinite-acting radial flow (IARF)). Examples of other specialized plots: square-root and fourth-root of time plots for fractured wells. • "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides estimates of dynamic formation properties: (i.e., model parameters) • Radial Flow: k, S, CD • Fractured Wells: k, xf, FCD, CfD • Horizontal Wells: kr, kr/kv, hwell, (effective length) zw (position), ChD • Dual porosity reservoir properties: w, l • Data Requirements/Assessment/Review: • Typically involves very accurate measurements of bottomhole pressures (this is a priority). • Rate history is most often the weakest link — must perform "due diligence" and obtain the best possible rate history. • Should use downhole shut-in device to minimize wellbore storage. PETE 613 (2005A)

  11. Expected Results from PA • Expected Results of Production Analysis (PA): • "Conventional" decline curve analysis: (Arps, etc.) — empirical relations used to provide estimates of recovery and forecasts of future performance. • "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides estimates of dynamic formation properties (k, S, xf, dual porosity properties, etc.) • "Model-based" forecasting: A direct extension of model-based analysis — generation of a time-dependent pressure and/or rate forecast. • Data Requirements/Assessment/Review: • Are production data available? (BOTH rates and PRESSURES!) • Is the well completion history available? (review for issues) • PVT and static reservoir properties? (must be assessed/included) • Is the production "analyzable?" (can major issues be resolved?) PETE 613 (2005A)

  12. PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts Well Testing — Historical Perspectives Reservoir Performance Analysis: PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts PETE 613 (2005A)

  13. Production Data: Example 1 • Production Example 1: Sewell Ranch No. 1 (North Texas (US)) • Rate and pressure data affected by water loading. • Late-time data affected by line pressure (other wells in flow system). PETE 613 (2005A)

  14. Production Data: Example 2 • Production Example 2: UPR22 Gas Well (Mid-Continent (US)) • Rate and pressure data affected by fluid loading. • Seasonal cycles in demand/production. PETE 613 (2005A)

  15. Pressure Transient Data: Example 1 a. No Rate History: (Dt format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time (Bourdet (SPE 12777)). b. Rate History: (Dte format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus Agarwal superposition time (Bourdet (SPE 12777)). • Pressure Transient Example 1: Bourdet (SPE 12777) • Production history effects are obvious. • Interpretation should consider "no rate" and "rate" history cases. PETE 613 (2005A)

  16. Pressure Transient Data: Example 2 • Pressure Transient Example 2: DaPrat (SPE 13054) • Dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir (PSS interporosity flow). • Illustrates the sensitivity of the pressure derivative function. PETE 613 (2005A)

  17. Data Artifacts: Example 1 • Data Artifacts Example 1: Womack Hill Field (Alabama (US)) • Note the various events (value of annotated production records). • No pressure data (typical). PETE 613 (2005A)

  18. Data Artifacts: Example 2 • Data Artifacts Example 2: Told Well 3 (Colombia) • pwf NOT synchronous with qo (pwf from fluid levels). • Note that effect of pump change is captured by pwf and qo. PETE 613 (2005A)

  19. Data Artifacts: Example 3 • Data Artifacts Example 3: Canada Gas Well • pwf NOT synchronous with qg at early/intermediate times. • Dispersion in pwf at middle times not reflected in the qg function. PETE 613 (2005A)

  20. Data Artifacts: Example 4 • Data Artifacts Example 4: Southeast TX Gas Well (US) • Multiple completion changes. • Issues related to pressure profile — measure bottomhole pressure? PETE 613 (2005A)

  21. Data Artifacts: Example 5 b. Log-log Plot: (Dt format) Pressure drop and pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) — Packer leak (most likely cause). a. Semilog Plot: (Dt format) Pressure versus shut-in time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) — Packer leak (most likely cause). • Data Artifacts Example 5: South Texas Gas Well (US) • Gas well with anomalous pressure "jump" — packer leak? • No "reservoir" mechanism (other than injection) could produce feature. PETE 613 (2005A)

  22. Data Artifacts: Example 6 • Data Artifacts Example 6: Mid-Continent Gas Well (US) • Changing wellbore storage and condensate banking (very high skin). • Interpretation depends on understanding of reservoir and fluids. PETE 613 (2005A)

  23. Well Test Analysis — Basic Plots Well Testing — Historical Perspectives Well Test Analysis — Basic Plots PETE 613 (2005A)

  24. Well Test Analysis: Basic Plots (Lee Text Example) a. Log-log "preliminary analysis" plot — wellbore storage and radial flow (Cs, k). b. Cartesian "early-time" plot — used to analyze wellbore storage (p0, Cs). c. Cartesian "Arps" plot — used to estimate average reservoir pressure. d. Semilog "middle-time" plot — used to analyze radial flow behavior (k, s). e. Horner "middle-time" plot — used to analyze radial flow behavior (k, s, p*). f. Log-log "summary" plot — summary of all analysis (Cs, k, s, A, etc). PETE 613 (2005A)

  25. Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-log Plot • Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-Log Plot • Pressure drop function does not give much resolution. • Pressure drop derivative function shows wellbore storage/radial flow. PETE 613 (2005A)

  26. Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot • Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot • Used to estimate wellbore storage coefficient (slope of trend). • Pressure at start of the test estimated from extrapolation. PETE 613 (2005A)

  27. Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (PBU) • Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (Pressure Buildup) • NOT a universally valid plot (ONLY valid for very late times). • Average reservoir pressure estimated from extrapolation. PETE 613 (2005A)

  28. Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (MDH) • Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson) • NOT corrected for rate history. • Can be difficult to interpret (semilog straight line needs orientation). PETE 613 (2005A)

  29. Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot • Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot • CORRECTED for rate history. • Used to estimate permeability, skin factor, average reservoir pressure. PETE 613 (2005A)

  30. Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-log Plot • Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-Log Plot • Used to show simulated reservoir response (based on analysis). • Multiple data functions used to orient analysis/interpretation. PETE 613 (2005A)

  31. Module 4: Well Test Analysis — Work Relations • Given data — Lee text (1st edition), Example 2.2. • Working relations — Lee text (1st edition), Example 2.2). PETE 613 (2005A)

  32. Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering Texas A&M University Lecture 08: Well Testing — Historical Perspectives (End of Lecture) T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U. Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 +1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu PETE 613 (2005A)

More Related