Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Halls method is a simple tool used to evaluate performance of
water injection wells. It is based on the assumption of steadystate radial flow. Besides historical injection pressures and
rates, Halls method requires information about the mean
ambient reservoir pressure, pe . In addition, it is assumed that
the equivalent radius, re , of the reservoir domain influenced
by the well is constant during the observation period. Neither
pe nor re are available from direct measurement.
Here we modify and extend Halls plot analysis, calling it
slope analysis. Our modification relies on the analysis of the
variations of slope of the cumulative injection pressure versus
cumulative injection volume. In particular, our slope analysis
produces an estimate of the mean ambient reservoir pressure,
and requires only the injection pressures and rates. Such data
are routinely collected in the course of a waterflood. Note that
the slope analysis method requires no interruptions of regular
field operations.
The proposed slope analysis method has been verified with
the numerically generated pressure and rate data, and tested in
the field. In both cases it proved to be accurate, efficient, and
simple. The obtained ambient reservoir pressure estimate can
be used to correct the Hall plot analysis or to map the average
reservoir pressure over several patterns or an entire waterflood
project. Such maps can then be used to develop an efficient
waterflood policy, which will help to arrest subsidence and
improve oil recovery.
Introduction
Monitoring and control of performance of each individual well
is an important component of successful oil recovery
operations. The dramatic progress in information technology
over the past decade has made it possible to collect and store
SPE 93879
p w = pe +
2 kH
ln
re
rw
Q .(1)
b=
2 kH
ln
re
rw
, (2)
Q
pw
pe
....(3)
( p
t0
t
r
=
p
d
)
w
e
t 2 kH ln rwe Q d ..(4)
0
t0
( ) d
and
1400
pe =1400 psi
pe =1300 psi
pe =1250 psi
1200
V ( t ) = Q ( ) d (5)
t0
1000
P re s s u re in te g ra l, p s i-d a y
800
600
400
200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
SPE 93879
p w ( t ) = p0 w + A
B
t
t
exp
t0
+ AQ1 Ei
Q ( ) d
+ 2 AQ ( t ) s ..(6)
t t0
where
A=
and
4 kH
B=
crw2
4k
.(7)
B
Ei
...(8)
t t0
whose cumulative integral is close to a linear function. The
linearity of a function of one variable can be measured by
the magnitude of its second derivative. If this derivative is
close to zero, then the function is almost linear. For the
exponential integral (8), one has
t
d2
B
d B
Ei
d = Ei
2
dt t0
dt t t0
t0
B
exp
t t0
=
t t0
d2
dt
Ei t t
t0
B B
.(10)
dt = exp
t t0 t t0
0
-Ei(-B/t)
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
t[days]
1.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Ei
0 t dt
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
(9)
t[days]
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
450
Q (bbl/day)
400
350
S=
dV
(11)
Hall plot
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
300
250
200
150
0
0.5
1.5
T (day)
2.5
3.5
200
1000
1200
S=
1015
pw
Q
.(12)
1010
1005
S=
1000
995
990
985
980
975
0
400
600
800
Cumulative injected volume (bbl)
1020
P (psi)
1000
Cumulative pressure difference (psi day)
Fig. 6 shows the Hall plot of the generated data. The plot
is practically a straight line (red line) only if pe in Eq. (4) is
exactly equal to the value the reservoir pressure used in the
simulations. If, instead of the exact value, an incorrect
reservoir pressure is used in Eq. (4), the plot is a broken line
(black and blue lines). The corners on the lines correspond to
the moments when the injection rates are changed by a step
increment. This picture is in full analogy with the illustration
presented in Fig. 1,
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
T (day)
pe
Q
+ b ....(13)
SPE 93879
5.5
5
Darcy- ft
1
0.14 (14)
r
b
cp
ln e
kH
4.5
4
Least squared fitting:
y = 957*x + 0.1323
--> ambient pressure~950
3.5
3
2.5
2
2
2.5
3.5
4.5
1/Q (day/bbl)
5.5
6
-3
x 10
rw
Thus, if b~0.14 [psi-day/bbl], rw~0.3 ft, re~121 ft, then T~6
[Darcy-ft/cp]. If the injected fluid is water, ~1 cp, and the
reservoir thickness is about 120 ft, then the effective
permeability of the rock is k=50 mD. Assuming 30% porosity
and 2010-6 psi-1 compressibility, the pressure diffusion at the
distance 121 ft is of the order of one hour. Thus, for sound
analysis, the measurements have to be collected over a time
interval much larger than 1 hour. Since the information about
reservoir rock properties is subject to high uncertainty, longer
time observation intervals are recommended for more robust
conclusions.
Detailed interpretation of the obtained estimates can be
facilitated if additional information is available. For example,
the formation transmissivity estimated from transient
analysis11, 12 can help to sharpen estimates of the radius of
well influence. An example of such a calculation is presented
in the next section.
Examples
Jim, please look if you can elaborate here and here
This work is a part of the development of automatic
waterflood surveillance and control methods and software, and
the integration of these tools with the Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system in Lost Hills. Each water
injection string is equipped with a flow meter and pressure
gauge. The downhole injection pressure is calculated by
adding the hydrostatic pressure to the midpoint of perforations
to the gauge readings. The viscous pressure drop in tubing
flow is neglected because of the low flow rates. In fact, even
if this pressure drop were of importance, being proportional to
the flow rate, it would be automatically accounted for through
a small adjustment to the skin factor, or the coefficient b in
Eq. (2).
Data from several injection wells at Lost Hills oil field are
used in this section to illustrate the slope method. The
pressures and rates are measured and automatically collected
every minute. This high temporal resolution provides an
excellent opportunity for the subsequent data analysis.
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 display injection rates and injection
pressures collected from well A over 6 days of regular
operations. Except a spike on the fourth day, there are no
significant fluctuations in the flow regime.
First, the starting four days of data were selected for the
Hall plot analysis. The time interval was reduced to better
illustrate the appearance of kinks in the plot caused by the
injection rate change on the second day, Fig. 8. On a longer
time interval, these kinks become less noticeable because the
Q[bbl/D]
800
600
400
200
0
-1
Cumulative injection
800
600
T[Days]
400
P[psi]
200
1200
0
0 0.250.5 0.75 1 1.251.5 1.75 2 2.252.52.75 3 3.253.5 3.75 4
T[Days]
1150
1100
-1
T[Days]
Hall Plot
5000
4000
2000
1000
Slope plot
II
I, IV
Slope[psi-day/bbl]
3000
-1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Cumulative Q [bbl]
III
0
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
1/Q[Day/bbl]
Fig. 12. Well A: The slope plot. The blue dots are data
and the red line is linear fit. The ambient pressure
estimate, i.e., the line slope is 1075.56 psi, and the intercept
SPE 93879
b is 0.19 psi-day/bbl.
0.007
1/Rate
0.006
II
0.004
IV
P[psi]
0.005
0.003
1200
0.002
Injection Pressures
1250
III
1150
1100
0.001
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
1050
T[Days]
1000
950
-1
Hall Plot
125
Q[bbl/D]
Integral P[psi-day]
T[Days]
100
Injection Rates
1250
75
1000
50
750
25
500
250
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Cumulative Q [bbl]
Fig. 14. Well A: The Hall plot after correction for the
estimated ambient reservoir pressure. The blue line is
based on the data and the red line is linear fit. The red
and blue lines practically coincide.
T[Days]
0
6000
4000
1260
Hall Plot
Integral P[psi-day]
8000
Injection Pressures
P[psi]
injection.
1240
1220
1200
1180
1160
T[Days]
1140
-1 -0.5 0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
2000
0
0
200
400
600
Q[bbl/D]
Cumulative Q [bbl]
Injection Rates
400
300
200
100
800
600
Integral P[psi-day]
T[Days]
200
Cumulative Q [bbl]
0
200
0.5 1
1.5 2 2.5 3
3.5 4
4.5 5 5.5 6
6.5
400
-1 -0.5 0
400
600
Pressure [psi]
10
SPE 93879
1260
1240
1220
1200
1180
1160
1140
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Time [hours]
Slope[psi-day/bbl]
Fig. 21. Pressure curve fitting. The blue line are the data
and the dotted red line is the fitting theoretical curve. The
data between 25 and 125 hours of injection are used for
analysis, the fitting is carried out on the time interval
between 45 and 125 hours of injection. The fitting curve is
extended to the right beyond 125 hours.
10
Pressure falloff
8
2
0.00275
0.00375
0.00475
0.00575
0.00675
1/Q[Day/bbl]
184 ..(15)
Nomenclature
A = fitting parameter, psi-day/bbl
B= fitting parameter, day
c = fluid/formation compressibility, psi-1
H= reservoir thickness, ft
k = absolute rock permeability near the wellbore, Darcy
pw = wellbore pressure, psi
pe = average pressure in the formation, psi
pw0 = wellbore pressure at the beginning of data interval,
psi
re = influence zone radius, ft
rwb = wellbore radius, ft
rw = effective wellbore radius, ft
Q= injection rate, bbl/day
Q-1= pre-test injection/production rate, bbl/day
S= plot slope, psi
s= skin factor, dimensionless
= porosity, dimensionless
= fluid viscosity, cp
11