Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. Injection period (pumping data): Used to evaluate the with k, h, µ expressed in oil field units, tc in minutes and Vi is
nature of fracture propagation. injected volume (bbl). (Note, all other equations are either
2. The fracture closing period: Used to quantify fluid dimensionless or in consistent units.)
efficiency, fracture geometry, non-ideal events such as
post injection fracture propagation, pressure dependent Field Application
leak-off, height recession during closure and the existence The primary objective of MFO application in Jonah field is to
of a near well-bore choke. Though these non-ideal assess the current level of depletion, by testing multiple sands
fracturing characteristics can sometimes be identified in a series of 20 acres infill-wells. The available open-hole and
while the fracture is closing, it is unlikely given the small cased-hole log correlations could not correctly predict or
fluid volumes, low viscosity fluid, and pump rate used in determine the presence of depletion. The secondary objective
these tests. is to use the technique to determine the permeability to gas
3. The after closure period (transient reservoir pressure and validate the formation evaluation neural network model
near well-bore) contains: from logs. The technique is also used to estimate stress
i. Pseudo-linear flow period: Can be used to profiles and validate the log generated stress profile for
determined closure time, spurt loss and fracture improving fracture design.
length.
ii. Pseudo-radial flow period: The presence of this Minimum Requirements for Field Application
period depends on the allowed decline time. The late The following are the minimum requirements that need to
time pseudo-radial pressure decline can be analyzed in be met for a successful application of MFO technique:
a manner similar to traditional well test methods to 1. Static reservoir condition where reservoir pressure is
determine transmissibility and reservoir pressure greater than hydrostatic pressure is desired. Not
(basis of MFO technique). applicable for wells that will not support a full column of
fluid.
Literature Review 2. The wellbore must be free of gas. Otherwise, incorrect
It is not the objective of this paper to provide a technical values for hydrostatic pressure and injected volume will
review of the after-closure analysis. The reader is referred to be utilized. After perforating, it is important to ensure that
Gu et al1 and Nolte et al3 for such a review, however a brief gun movement does not pull/swab reservoir fluids into the
synopsis describing the basic equations associated with the wellbore.
pseudo-radial flow period will be described in the following 3. Single known fluid must be present in the wellbore.
section. 4. An estimate of the reservoir pressure should be known
prior to the test for competent interpretation of pseudo-
After-Closure Pseudo-Radial Flow radial flow regimes. Specifying reservoir pressure
The late-time pressure decline evolves from the pseudo- eliminates uniqueness considerations from the analysis.
linear flow period to pseudo-radial flow allowing reservoir 5. In deep, hot reservoirs, bottomhole gauges will be
pressure and transmissibility to be determined using a method required because wellbore fluid expansion from
similar to a Horner analysis. After-closure radial-flow is a decreasing pressure and heating of the fluid will decrease
function of the injected volume, reservoir pressure, formation the hydrostatic pressure. Excessive expansion of the fluid
transmissibility, and closure time. Their relationship is may also violate the no-flow condition and could require
provided in the following equations using the radial-flow time bottomhole shut-off.
function, FR, 6. Large zones of varying lithology will reduce the
likelihood of successful application of the technique. The
p(t ) − p r = m R FR (t , t c ) (1) analysis assumes equal fracture penetration and
communication over the complete interval. Therefore, it
where tc is the time to closure with time zero set as the is best suited for relatively thin, or somewhat single
beginning of pumping, pr is the initial reservoir pressure, mR is homogeneous zones and not valid for multi-zone reservoir
functionally equivalent to the Horner slope for conventional without proper zonal isolation.
testing, and 7. Volume has minimal effect on the time for development
of radial-flow (see next guideline). However, a minimum
1 ⎛ χt c ⎞ 16 volume of fluid should be pumped to insure accuracy of
FR (t , t c ) = ln⎜ 1 + ⎟, χ= ≅ 16
. (2)
4 ⎝ t − tc ⎠ π2 the volume injected through the perforations because the
calculated transmissibility is proportional to volume (Eq.
#3).
Thus, a Cartesian plot of pressure versus the radial-flow
8. To attain radial-flow within a reasonable time frame use
time function yields reservoir pressure from the y-intercept
a fluid with minimal fluid loss control and adhere to the
and the slope (mR) that permits determination of
following rate criterion:
transmissibility.
SPE 90455 3
References
7000 600
500
400
6000 300
200
100
5000
0 10 20 30 40
G fu n c tio n
Pres(psi) Rate(bpm)
4000 1.2 4920
1.0
3000 4900
0.8
late-WBS diagnostic:
2000 0.6 linearly increasing
4880 values of "res press"
0.4 begins at ~ 1000 min
1000 and eff stress ~ 3000 psi
0.2 4860
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 0.0 ( t- t_c) / t_c
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 res_pr match match dp_R
time (min) 4913 8851
kh / µ C_L / C_R
4.6 2.6
Figure 5 – Jonah Lance Sand Pressure Fall-off Data Figure 7 – MFO Horner’s Analysis
6 SPE 90455
<<P re s s d i ff <<P re s s d e ri v
<<P re s s d i ff(T C ) <<P re s s d e ri v (T C )
S l o p e (T C ) >> S l o p e >>
p s i P g De riv
10000 0.9
Slope = 0.8 approaching unit
slope (radial flow)
1000 0.8
100 Tp =0 . 0 0 7 4 0.7
M a tc h d e r = 6 1 1 0 p s i
P Cl =8 2 1 5 p s i
P re s =4 9 1 3 p s i
k h / m u = 4 . 6 0 m d . ft/ c p
M a tc h d e r+ P re s > IS IP !
10 0.6
1 10 100
f(t) = 1 / F l^2
B Zone 1 23 13.46 3 - 0.5 11.3 1300 0.0007 5875 0.006 7076 Yes
Zone 2 22 21 1 - 0.5 10.75 1400 0.055 5374 0.049 4443 Yes
Zone 3 8 11.8 2.2 - 0.75 14 1400 0.017 5057 0.082 4860 Yes
Zone 4 20 13 3 - 2.1 12 50 0.0351 4873 0.057 3025 Yes
C Zone 1 26 10.6 2.5 - 0.75 12 1450 0.0015 6168 0.004 4700 Yes
Zone 2 21 17.4 3 - 0.75 10 1250 0.0144 5612 0.031 4503 Yes
Zone 3 12 14.5 2.5 - 0.6 10 16 0.0008 5276 - - No - too depleted for effective analysis
Zone 4 26 10 2.5 - 0.6 10 NA 0.0125 4719 - - No - pressure gauge malfunction
D Zone 1 22 11.7 2.5 - 0.6 10 1050 0.0071 6991 0.0066 7104 Yes
Zone 2 28 8.3 2 - 0.5 10 80 0.0062 6377 0.00885 3719 Yes
Zone 3 17 16.4 3 - 0.75 10 816 0.0577 5864 0.025 3793 Yes
Pressure vs Depth
0.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
-500.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0
Permeability(MFOvsLog)
0.0900
0.0800
0.0700
0.0600
0.0500
0.0400
0.0300
0.0200
0.0100
0.0000
8124
8296
8431
8959
9107
9143
9353
9772
9783
9794
Klogmd
10285
10372
10580
10647
11587
11647
Klogmd
Kmfomd