Tutorial 2 – Analyzing a Well

Prerequisites:

- User should have completed Tutorial 1

-
User should be familiar with basic analysis and plot functionality within
F.A.S.T. RTATM

Objectives:
-
Learn how to assemble key information, load it into the program and
prepare the file for analysis
-
Learn how to use the Wellbore and Production Editor modules
-
Perform an objective interpretation, analysis, model history match and
forecast for the well.

Resources:
-
ASCII production file entitled Production T2.xls
-
Well Schematic / completion details file entitled Wellbore Diagram T2.xls
-
Data Sheets containing reservoir and fluid properties entitled
Petrophysical Parameters T2.xls

Background Information:
-
South Texas tight gas field
-
Deep, multiple producing horizons
-
Slightly deviated well, completed with multiple stage fractures

Procedure:

Importing ASCII Columnar Production from a Spreadsheet

In this section, we will load columnar production data into RTA from a
spreadsheet.

1. From a new (blank) RTA file, click “Import” from the File menu
2. Select the Production T2.xls file
3. Assign column headers to each of the columns by either:
a. Dragging and dropping items from the left-hand panel onto the
column headers. Note: “drill down” into the header items to find the
desired units.
 b. Use the pull down menus at the top of each column to select the
desired data type and unit (New feature of Version 3.5)
4. View the Preview Graph to ensure the ASCII file has been interpreted
correctly. Click on the “Import” (Apply) button to upload the data to RTA

Specifying Petrophysical and Fluid Parameters

In this section we will input important reservoir and fluid properties into RTA. It is
important to have (at least) a basic understanding of the underlying geology,
petrophysics and fluid properties relating to the reservoir you wish to analyze. In
this case, the relevant information has been summarized in the Petrophysical
Parameters T2.xls file. Note that parameters are provided for each of six (6)
individual producing horizons. A “total” column provides the weighted average
for each parameter.

5. Enter Bottomhole Pi, h, Reservoir Temperature, porosity and Sg into the

Properties page in RTA. Use data provided in the “total” column. RTA
will assume a single, homogeneous layer having these properties, for the
purposes of performance analysis. Note, be aware that this may have
implications on how we interpret permeability, x f and drainage area.

Specifying Well bore Properties

In this section we will provide the information necessary for RTA to convert
pressures measured at the surface to sandface (bottomhole) conditions. The
difference between surface and bottomhole conditions is the sum of hydrostatic
and friction pressure losses in the well. These pressure losses are functions of
well properties such as formation depth and tubing diameter. They also depend
on the total composition of the fluid(s) being produced, and are therefore affected
by produced gas gravity, liquid density and producing liquid to gas ratio. Use the
Wellbore Diagram.xls file to complete the following steps.

6. Click on the Wellbore Page. Specify the pressure source and flow path
as “tubing”. Note that if the pressure were measured on the casing side,
the pressure loss calculation would not include any frictional components.
(That is not the case, here).
7. Enter the wellbore parameters MPP depth, tubing ID/OD, tubing depth,
casing ID and casing depth (use PBTD), based on the information in the
wellbore diagram. For MPP depth use the formula: (top perforation +
bottom perforation) divided by two.
8. Assume Flowing and Static temperature at surface to be 120 and 75
degrees F, respectively.
9. Click on the Pressure Loss Correlation tab. Select “Gray” correlation.
(the Gray correlation is more robust for high pressure, high temperature
environments.
 10. Click on Wellbore Data and click the “Calculate” button at the bottom of
the page. RTA will calculate the bottomhole pressures and shift the
analysis datum from surface to bottomhole.

Data Validation

11. Inspect the full production and pressure graph carefully on the Raw Data
page. You will note that, for the most part, the rate and pressure data are
“clean”, devoid of any major disturbances or noise/scatter.
12. Test the rate and pressure data for correlation (actually, what you want to
see is inverse correlation). It is difficult to find any correlation in this file.
This is due to two factors: 1. the original measured pressure data has
poor resolution and 2. The drawdown is very high (thus rate sensitivity to
pressure is low).

In spite of the above, there is (at least) one location where there is a clear
disconnect between pressure and rate. This happens on January 15, 2004.
If you refer back to the wellbore details, you will note that a capillary string
(1/4” diameter) was installed on that day. It is likely that the pressure loss in
the well increased as a result of the presence of this string in the flow stream.

If you are using Version 3.5 and above, this can be accounted for in the
production editor (steps 13 to 16). If not, then skip steps 13 to 16.

13. Click on the Production Editor page. On the bottom-left plot, click on the
point of discontinuity located on the bottomhole pressure stream. Note
that the production editor table advances to the point in time that you have
selected.
14. Scroll the production editor table across (use the scroll bar on the bottom)
until you see the “Tubing ID” column. Change the Tubing ID on Line 225
to 1.849 “(this new ID is calculated by subtracting the cap string area from
the tubing area and calculating a new diameter from that area).
15. Click on the “Calculate BHP” button. Note that the discontinuity
disappears upon making this correction.
16. Click on the “Apply Changes” button. Click on the Analysis page.

Analyzing the Well

In this section, we will use each of the analysis methods to evaluate the well
performance and characterize the reservoir. Specific results to be determined:
-
Transient or boundary dominated flow?
-
OGIP, reserves and drainage area
-
Permeability and fracture half-length
17. Traditional
Create three “best-fit” scenarios to capture a practical range of
possible EURs. One way to do this is to use the points selection
toolbar on three progressively larger segments of the data, working
your way back from the end of the data set. Make sure the
“Automatically Calculate Variable” button is active for the “b” value.
When using this procedure, you will note that the more data used from
earlier in the well’s producing life, the more hyperbolic the best-fit
becomes (and thus the longer the reserve life is and the larger EUR
is). EURs may range anywhere from 5.5 bcf to 11 bcf. b values may
range anywhere from 0 to 1.

18. Fetkovich
Try to match the data to the Fetkovich typecurves. You will notice that
it does not properly fit anywhere on the plot. This suggests that the
production response cannot be analyzed as a vertical well in the center
of a circular reservoir. (RTA does not include a Fracture model for
Fetkovich)

19. Blasingame
a. Select the Fracture model. Try to match the data to the typecurves.
Stable production effectively begins on July 28, 2003. You will
notice that the data from July 28th to August 5th do not properly
match the typecurves. However, the rest of the data yields an
excellent match on the reD = 2 stem.
b. Click on the “Calculate” button. We will use this module to calculate
the ideal recovery factor and EUR. Select the “Calculate bhp”
checkbox. Enter a qab and pwf of 0.05 MMscfd and 1000 psi,
respectively. Note this calculation will transfer among Agarwal-
Gardner, FMB, NPI and Transient modules.
c. Choose “Finite Cond Fracture” from the Model drop down menu.
Upon doing a proper match with the focus on doing a proper match
on the harmonic stem portion of the plot, you will notice the closest
family of transient curves to the early time data points is FCD of
500 with xED of 2.

20. Agarwal-Gardner
a. Select the Fracture model. Since the data are quite smooth, we will
try to use the “Raw Data Derivative”. From the Derivative pulldown
menu on the main toolbar, select “Bourdet”. Change the number
beside the pulldown menu to “0.1”. This will improve the
smoothness of the derivative curve. It is rare that this type of
derivative will “work” for production data analysis. In this case, it
works quite well.
 b. Complete the typecurve match, noting that the best match position
is obtained using reD of 2.
c. It is clear that this well is in boundary dominated flow. Use the “red
arrow” on the main toolbar to locate the “time to PSS”, as follows:
Move the red arrow along the typecurve data by dragging it with the
mouse, until you have reached a dimensionless time of 0.08 (read
off the x-axis, not the arrow annotation). The time listed in the
arrow annotation box shows the approximate time to PSS. It
should be in the order of November 27, 2003.
d. From Options menu/ Typecurve settings, enable “Agarwal Transient
/ Boundary Diagnostics”. Note that red normalized rate data points
are turned to blue on the right side of dimensionless time of
0.08.blue data points are indicative of boundary dominated flow
conditions in the reservoir. This flow regime identification tool is new
to version 4.0

21. Flowing Material Balance

Using the “Flowing p/z” , “AG FMB” and “Productivity Index” plot
options, determine the OGIP. Note, you can also use the “best fit” tool
on the straight-line portion of the flowing p/z data. Make sure you
include data points after December 2003 only. The productivity index
plot should approach a straight, flat line if the interpretation is correct.
The OGIP should be in the order of 7.7 bcf.

22. NPI
This analysis is very similar to Agarwal-Gardner, only it is the inverse.
You will have to use the “Derivative” (which is actually a pressure-
integral derivative) here.

23. Transient
Select the “Finite Conductivity Fracture” model. Perform a typecurve
match. You will notice that there are more options in this model, in
terms of available curves. There is also more potential for non-unique
results. This is mostly because there is not enough early-time data to
uniquely characterize the fracture conductivity. In this case, we have
no external information leading us to use a particular FCD value.
Therefore, we will assume an FCD of 500 (effectively infinitely
conductive). The most suitable xeD stem is 2.

24. Comparison of results

a. Compare your results for EUR. This should give you a good idea of
which hyperbolic decline curve is most suitable in Traditional. It
should be in the range of 0.4 to 0.5
 b. Compare your results for OGIP and drainage area. The high
quality and quantity of data should yield minimal uncertainty here.
The OGIP should be in the range of 7.5 to 7.8 bcf. Drainage area =
25 to 27 acres.
c. Compare your results for permeability and fracture half-length. As
in (b), the range should be minimal. k = 0.007 to 0.008 md. xf =
275 ft to 310 ft.

Note that uncertainty in petrophysics flows through to performance

analysis in terms of permeability, fracture half-length and drainage area,
but NOT OGIP. Interpretation of OGIP is independent of petrophysical
properties.

Tip: You can easily export any of your input or analysis data to third party
applications that support clipboard functions (ie: MS Office apps). Simply click on
any plot and use the standard shortcut keys “ctrl + C” for copy and “ctrl + V” for
paste. Use “paste special” in MS Office applications to choose between pasting
an “Enhanced Metafile” (vector image of the plot) or “Unformatted text” (all data
comprising the plot).

Modeling
In this section, we will create a Fracture with boundaries model and history
match the performance data to validate our interpretation.

25. Click on the “Fracture” model tab.

26. Click on the “Auto Calculate Model” button on the model toolbar.
27. Click on the “D” (Reset to Default Model) button on the model toolbar.
This will upload all results parameters from Blasingame into the model.
28. View the top right (Typecurve) and bottom left (History Match) plots and
visually evaluate the quality of the match.
a. If the pressure match is slightly “off” use the “Automatic Parameter
Estimation” feature to fine-tune the model. Check the
“Automatically Calculate Variable” box beside k, xf and OGIP, then
click on the APE button on the model toolbar.

Advanced modeling note: because there is minimal “range” in

these parameters, there ought to be a robust solution that APE can
find quickly. This is not always the case. In fact it is the exception
rather than the rule. In many analyses, you will have to impose
external constraints on the APE, to mitigate instabilities due to non-
uniqueness and local minima in the parameter space objective
function.

b. If you are satisfied with the match, as is, then modeling is complete.
 If you are using Version 3.5 or above, continue to steps 29 and 30.

29. Click on the “q” (Calculate Rates) button on the model toolbar. This will
run the model with reversed constraints. i.e.: the measured pressures will
be used to calculate simulated production rates.
30. Click on the “qp” (Calculate Both) button on the model toolbar. This will
run the model as a pressure constrained system and as a rate constrained
system, separately, but display the results together. This is the most
rigorous setting for validating your model as it considers both data streams
with equal weighting.

Forecast

In this section, we will create a production forecast for a supplied set of

constraints.

31. Click on the Forecast page. Select “Fracture Model” from the list of
available models. Note: You can base your forecast from any
model/method on the list, provided that it has valid parameters.
32. Enter the following parameters into the forecast editor:
a. Qab = 0.05 MMscfd
b. Time = 240 months
c. Pwf = 1750 psi
Note: If you click on the “Step” checkbox, the flowing pressure for the
forecast will be constant at the value you have provided in “pwf”. Leaving
it unchecked enables the pressure constraint to vary from the final flowing
pressure to the value you have provided over the time period specified.
33. Click on the “Table” button to view the forecast data.