Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Transient Calculations
After a well starts production, time is needed for the flow rate to stabilize. The period
before the rate stabilizes is known as transient period, when drainage boundaries do not
affect production. Depending on reservoir properties, the transient period may last from a
few days to several months. In low permeability reservoirs, the transient time may last
for years.
The transient flow solution is expressed in terms of dimensionless quantities. During the
transient stage, iterative calculations provide an exact mathematical solution of the
Laplace transform of the constant production rate equation (Eq. 6). The objective is to
calculate dimensionless pressure, pD, and dimensionless rate, qD, for different values of
dimensionless time, tD. Dimensionless numbers are easy to apply and provide simple,
general equations for any set of reservoir properties. These dimensionless numbers are
easily adapted to mathematical manipulation and superposition.
For any dimensionless time, tD, the dimensionless rate is calculated by solving for the
time to reach pseudo-steady state, tpss, (Eq. 8). The dimensionless rate and the
dimensionless time are then converted to the corresponding real rates and times (see Eqs.
2 through 5).
1. Horizontal Wells
Two key issues in determining horizontal well performance and ultimate recoverable
reserves are well length (L) and spacing. These issues are especially important in
reservoirs where pressure decreases with time. In a vertical well, the wellbore contacts
only the reservoir height. But depending on the length drilled, horizontal wells can have
much greater exposure to the reservoir.
Over an equal time interval, a long horizontal well can drain a significantly larger
reservoir volume than a vertical well. But closely spaced horizontal wells may interfere
with each other very rapidly, resulting in lower ultimate reserves per well. Thus,
optimizing well length and well spacing is important.
Several authors1-3 have presented analytic solutions for a horizontal well produced at a
constant rate in a closed rectangular reservoir. The basic procedure for generating well
response of a horizontal well producing at a constant bottomhole pressure in a closed (no-
flow boundary), rectangular reservoir is outlined here.
Given the constant rate solution, pwDL, for a horizontal well, one can generate the
dimensionless rate response, qD, by using Duhamel's principal. In real-time form, this
calculation would involve recursive integration procedures. Hence, the Laplace space
equivalent was used to derive the dimensionless rate, qD, as
where the 's' denotes the Laplace variable and the overline denotes the Laplace space
solution. And pwDL represents the Laplace space solution for a horizontal well produced
at a constant rate.
Note that Eq. (1) is the well-known superposition result of van Everdingen and Hurst.4
This equation tells us that given the Laplace space solution (i.e., pwDL), one can easily
generate the dimensionless rate solution for the constant-pressure production problem.
It is important to note that in order to obtain the real time solution for the dimensionless
rate, qD, a numerical inversion algorithm must be used. The Stehfest algorithm is used
for this purpose.
Next, the Laplace space solution for a horizontal well produced at a constant rate in a
closed rectangular reservoir is derived. Several researchers have presented the constant
rate solution in a closed rectangle. 1-3
It should be noted that the program assumes that the horizontal well is located centrally in
the drainage area. The following figure shows a schematic of the well placement in the
drainage area.
d2
d1 2ye
ky L
kx
2xe
For horizontal wells, the production rates and recoverable reserves depend on:
Drainage volume (well spacing), and the ratio of drainage area dimensions (2xe)/(2ye),
where 2xe is the well spacing distance parallel to the well, and 2ye is the well spacing
distance perpendicular to the well.
Well penetration ratio, L/2xe. This ratio accounts for the distance to be drained
beyond the well tips.
Dimensionless well length, LD, accounts for the changes in well productivity due to
reservoir anisotropy (kv kh). It also accounts for the influence of reservoir height on
well productivity.
For fractured vertical wells, the dimensionless pressure drop due to a planar fracture
located in a closed rectangle at a point xw, yw, was derived from the method of sources
and sinks discussed in Reference 5.
3. Equations
The following Figure illustrates the Physical Model for a bounded reservoir.
yw 2ye
xw
2xe
zw
2xe
Dimensionless Pressure
kh( pi pwf )
pD (2)
141.3qB
Dimensionless Rate
141.3Bq 1
qD (3)
kh( pi pwf ) ) pD
Dimensionless Time
0.001055kt
tD (4)
ct L2
.000264 kt
tD (5)
ct A
(where t is in hours)
x y ywD
tD
y
pD 2
0
1 2
0
exp n 2 2 eD cos n wD cos n D
yeD yeD yeD
2 xeD
y x xwD
1 x
1 exp n 2 2 eD sin n cos n wD cos n D
0
xeD xeD xeD xeD
1
1 2 0 exp n 2 2 h 2 cos nz D cos nz wD d (6)
D
where: = tD
JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 5
Appendix A Calculations and Procedures
NOMENCLATURE
The time to reach pseudo-steady state is defined, as the time required for the pressure
transient to reach all the drainage boundaries of the reservoir. For fractured vertical wells
and horizontal wells, the time to reach pseudo-steady state flow (tpss) is somewhat
arbitrary and no standard industry definition exists. JTI.Horizontal calculates the time to
reach pseudo-steady state (tpss) as follows. (See Nomenclature following Eq. (6).)
0.00634 kt pss
t DA 0.1 (7)
ct A
A
where t pss 15.77ct
k
(8)
For isotropic reservoirs, the well drainage area and the horizontal permeability can be
used in the above equations to calculate the time to reach pseudo steady state.
However, if the reservoir is anisotropic, then the well will drain different distances in the
x, y, and z directions. In such situations, the time to reach to pseudo-steady state is
calculated separately in each of the x, y, and z directions, and the maximum value is
chosen.
Ax
t pss ( x ) 15.77ct (9)
kx
Ay
and t pss ( y ) 15.77ct (10)
ky
In equations (7) and (8), two of the parameters which will vary due to anisotropy are the
drainage area and the permeabilities in the x and y directions. The calculated values can
then be substituted in Eq. (9) and (10). The steps involved in these calculations are
summarized below. (Refer to Figure on page 44.)
1. Calculation of Ax and Ay
d1 = xe - L/2 (11)
d2 = ye (12)
Ax = 4d12 (13)
Ay = 4d22 (14)
2. Calculation of kx and ky
Also, kh kx k y (16)
and kx and ky are determined by solving equations (15) and (16) simultaneously.
d1
If 0.5 2, (17)
d2
Depletion Calculations
This option can be used if the annual percent decline is known from surrounding well
field production histories. This option is recommended only for larger transient times
(i.e., if tpss is > 100 days).
2. Arps' Decline
In 1945, Arps made a detailed study of field production data and postulated that all
conventional depletion declines can be expressed by the following equation.
qi
q ( 1/ b ) (18)
[1 bDi t ]
Calculation of Di
The following equation can be used to calculate Di, which represents the initial decline
rate at the beginning of the depletion state. As the area drained by a well increases, re/rw
becomes large and the Di is reduced (Eq. 19). This indicates that, for a given economic
cutoff rate, the well having greater spacing will show a slower decline rate, and hence
higher cumulative oil recovery.
0.00634 k / ( ct rw 2 )
Di (19)
0.5[(re / rw ) 1][ln(re / rwe ) 0.5]
2
And the following equations are used to calculate the effective wellbore radius.
Horizontal Well8
0.5reh L / a
rwe
1 1 ( 0.5L / a [ln( rr / rwe ) 0.5]
(20)
where
0.5
a = 0.5 L 0.5 0.25 (2reh / L) 4 (21)
= kh / k v
kh = horizontal permeability, md
kv = vertical permeability, md
Calculation of b
The analytical solution in the depletion period represents an exponential decline of well
flow rates. This is simply because the analytical solution in a closely bounded drainage
volume assumes that the total compressibility of the rock and fluids is the only
mechanism that provides pressure support to the reservoir.
In practice, during the decline phase, in addition to pressure support from total
compressibility of the system, the reservoir may get additional pressure support that
depends upon the reservoir mechanism. For example, in a solution-gas drive reservoir,
the gas released from the oil could provide extra pressure support. Similarly, a large gas
cap or aquifer can also provide pressure support.
Thus, during the depletion phase, the extra pressure support will slow a well's production
rate decline over time (i.e., producing more than the exponential decline predictions).
The following table shows factors for converting Annual Percentage Decline and 'b'
factor to Decline Index, Di, for use in JTI.Horizontal.
SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS
i. for b = 0
Di = -[ ln ( 1 - CPD )] / 365
(26)
ii. 0<b<1
q/qi = 1 / [ ( 1 + b Di t)(1/b) ]
= 1 - CPD (27)
The depletion calculations are highly sensitive to the value of Di. JTI.Horizontal
provides the user with the option of inputting the value of Di, or entering '0'. If '0' is
entered, the program uses Eqs. 19 through 23 to calculate Di.
The most accurate way to determine Di is by type curve matching any available
production history of the well, or a nearby well, on a Fetkovich Decline Type Curve.
From the type curve match, a Di value can be determined directly.
In the calculation of Di, two variables which are the most difficult to estimate are rwe and
re. If the skin factor, s, is known from a well test, then the following equation can be used
to calculate rwe.
The following figure illustrates the principle of superposition applied to constant pressure
production experiencing a change in back pressure.
pwf1
pwf2
t1 time
Oil Rate, qo
qo = qo1 + qo2
qo1 due to pi - pwf1
qo2 due to
pwf1 - pwf2
t1 time
rwe = xf / 2 (32)
where xf = 2 rw exp(-s)
rw = wellbore radius, ft
xf = half fracture length, ft
rwe = effective wellbore radius, ft
Based on the equation for xf , infinite conductivity fracture lengths can be calculated for
different skin factors and rw values. It can be seen that for skin factors less than -6 and
typical wellbore radii of 2.5 to 4 inches, the equivalent fracture lengths are greater than
300 ft. (Skin factors less than -6.5 are unrealistic.) The user should ensure that the
calculated equivalent fracture length is not greater than the drainage area dimensions.
For the constant pressure case, the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop, pD, is analogous
to the reciprocal dimensionless rate, 1/qD. Therefore, if we substitute qD = 1/pD, then
1 1 s
(34)
qD qD 2 LD
s 0
A moderately damaged well, for example, s = 4 to 5, would reduce the horizontal well
productivity by about 50%.
The following equations summarize the calculation procedure for gas well production
forecasting. (See p. 57 for Nomenclature.)
1,418T
qD qg
kh m( pi ) m( pwf ) (35)
pD
kh m( pi ) m( pwf ) (36)
1,418Tqg
1,418T
A pD (38.1)
kh
1,418T
B D
kh
(38.2)
Constant Rate Solution
Rearranging equation (38) gives the following equation to forecast pressure, pwf, versus
time for a constant gas flow rate, qg.
For this case, pD is replaced by (1/qD) in Eq. (38.1) and equations (38), (38.1), and (38.2)
are rearranged as shown below.
kh m( pi ) m( pwf )
1
q Dqg2 (40)
1,418T qD g
Equation (41) and Equations (41.1), (41.2), and (41.3) can be used to calculate the gas
flow rate in the presence of turbulence.
Turbulence Coefficient, D
NOMENCLATURE
hp = perforated interval, ft
(for horizontal wells, hp = well length, ft)
ka = permeability in the near wellbore region, md
k = permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
p = average reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = well flowing pressure, psia
m(p) = pseudo pressure, psia2/cp
qg = gas rate, MCFD
T = reservoir temperature, oR
m = gas viscosity evaluated at some average pressure between p and pwf, cp
mpwf = gas viscosity at well flowing conditions, cp
z = gas compressibility factor evaluated at some average pressure between p
and pwf
b' = high velocity flow coefficient, 1/ft
gg = gas gravity, dimensionless
rw = wellbore radius, ft
ko = kro * k
For forecasting production of both phases, e.g., oil and water, two separate runs should be
made. One run should be made with an absolute permeability. The second run should be
made using permeability to oil, ko. The difference in the rates, in reservoir barrels, from
the two forecasts gives the water production rates as a function of time.
Often, initial rates predicted by the program are higher than those obtained in actual
practice. This is usually due to the following optimistic assumptions:
The user has the option to input a mechanical skin factor for horizontal wells and also an
option to set a maximum well allowable.
Total Compressibility
A. Oil Wells
Sg = 0 So = (1 - Sw) (45)
B. Gas Wells
Assume cg >> co or cf
NOMENCLATURE
Units Nomenclature
BO = Barrels of oil
BOPD = Barrels of oil per day
BW = Barrels of water
BWPD = Barrels of water per day
CF = Cubic feet
CF/D [CFPD] = Cubic feet per day
cp = Centipose
o
C = Degrees Centigrade
o
F = Degrees Fahrenheit
ft = Feet
ft2 = Square feet
kPa = Kilo Pascals
M = Thousand (1e3)
MM = Million (1e6)
m = Meters
m2 = Square meters
m3 = Cubic meters
md = Milli - darcys
Psia = Pounds per square inch absolute
Psig = Pounds per square inch gauge
RB = Reservoir barrels
Res. m3/Std. m3 = Cubic meters at reservoir conditions per cubic meter
at standard conditions
STB = Stock tank barrels
REFERENCES
1. Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W., and Thambynayagam, R.K.M., Pressure
Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells, paper 18300, presented at the 63 rd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.
2. Babu, D.K., and Odeh,A.S., Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp.
417-421, Nov. 1989.
3. Mutalik, P.N., Godbole, S.P., and Joshi, S.D., Effect of Drainage Area Shapes on the Productivity of
Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 18301, presented at the 63 rd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.
4. van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W., The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow
Problems in Reservoirs, Transaction, AIME, vol. 186, pp. 305-324, 1949.
5. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, Jr., H.J., and Raghavan, R. Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created
by a Well with a Single Infinite-conductivity Vertical Fracture, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp. 347-360, August 1974.
6. Arps, J.J., Analysis of Decline Curves, Transaction, AIME, vol. 160, pp. 228-247, 1945.
7. Fetkovich, M.J., Decline Curve analysis Using Type Curves, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp.1065-1077, June, 1980.
8. Joshi, S.D., A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology, paper SPE 16868, presented
at the 1987 Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, TX. A revised version was presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY, May, 1988.
9. Joshi, S.D., Production Forecasting Methods for Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 17580, presented at
the SPE Intl. Meeting, Tianjin, China. Nov. 1-4, 1988.
10. Joshi, S.D., Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK, 1991.
12. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., and Bourdarot, G., Pressure Analysis for Horizontal Wells, SPE 14251,
paper presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, September
22-25, 1985.
13. Mutalik, P.N., and Joshi, S.D., Decline curve analysis predicts oil recovery from horizontal wells,
Oil and Gas Journal, September 7, 1992, pp. 42-48.