Unsteady-State Analysis Improves Stimulation Sizing - Oil & Gas Journal

4/4/2019 UNSTEADY-STATE ANALYSIS IMPROVES STIMULATION SIZING - Oil & Gas Journal
Aging paper and print quality made scanning dif cult on some of the older magazines.
Please excuse any misprints or typos.
UNSTEADY-STATE ANALYSIS
IMPROVES STIMULATION SIZING
08/13/1990
David A. Rowland
University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Odessa, Tex.
For maximizing well stimulation pro tability, unsteady-state ow pressure-transient

analysis methods yield more accurate predictions of productivity increases than do steady-
state methods.
This technique appears to be superior in representing actual eld conditions.
In designing stimulation treatments to improve production capacity of a well, the oil and gas
industry traditionally uses empirically derived graphs based on steady-state ow. These
graphs usually relate increased productivity with all well damage removed. Thus, the nal
skin-effect value equals zero.
A more realistic approach is to relate increased productivity with any amount of well
damage removed. That is, the optimum condition may be a skin effect other than zero, and
may be either positive or negative.
PREDICTING PERFORMANCE
To predict reservoir performance and make economic analyses, the industry has long
observed pressure performance of oil and gas wells. The theoretical basis of testing
procedures and interpretations has steadily improved.
Pressure build-up and drawdown testing practices have frequently been used for evaluating
both reservoir and individual well performances. Pressure testing can reveal the extent of
well damage caused during the drilling process.
https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-88/issue-33/in-this-issue/production/unsteady-state-analysis-improves-stimulation-sizing.html 1/11
In most instances, some form of treatment is applied to remove this damage, either while
the well is being completed or when it is producing. These treatments traditionally involve
acidizing or formation fracturing, or a combination of both. Such costly treatments can
greatly reduce the pro tability of the well. The cost must be offset by increased producing
rates and even increased recovery from the drainage area being affected by the well.
The main problem facing the completion engineer is to determine how much treatment is
required for a given well or situation. Excessive treatment adds to the cost whereas too
little treatment may be ineffective. More often than not the engineer lacks a method for
determining the degree of the treatment and must rely on experience.
Well stimulation may be divided into two main classes: matrix acidization and hydraulic
fracturing. The former is used primarily to remove well damage caused by drilling, whereas
the latter is generally required to improve the productivity of low-permeability formations.
Transient-pressure analysis is ignored by all of the methods currently used for predicting
production increases with either treatment method.
Many authors have used the steady-state approach for evaluating productivity increases
resulting from matrix-acid treatments. In general, these methods relate the increase in
productivity to the removal of all well damage, where skin(s) becomes zero. Of greater
interest, however, is to measure the increase in productivity with differing values of well
damage reduction--not necessarily just where the skin effect is reduced to zero. Clearly,
optimum pro tability could very well occur at a treatment size designed for some value of s
other than zero.
A general expression relating the increase in production with a decrease in skin effect may
be derived by comparing the steady-state equations at varying values of s. The general form
of the equation for steady-state ow with skin effect included may be used (see Equation 1
in Equation box). Vogt and Anderson 1 employed a special case of this equation by setting
S2=0. Their equation (Equation 2) implies that productivity increases linearly with well
damage removal for given drainage and well bore radiuses. Note that Equation 2 is
analogous to the inverse of the Hawkins 2 productivity ratio equation for steady-state ow,
Equation 3.
The above equations contain a serious shortcoming in that neither the drainage radius nor
the well bore radius is clearly delineated. Even though the effects of using uncertain values
of re and rw are masked by the logarithm, the calculation of productivities can vary
considerably. Another objection to using the steady-state method is the fact that early time
pressure transients are excluded.
Traditionally, well damage is evaluated using pressure-transient analysis. Including these

transients allows for a more accurate estimate of productivity increases.
For the case of fracture-treatment analysis, industry commonly uses the method
introduced by McQuire and Sikora 3 that involves empirically derived graphs. The ordinate
of their graphs is the ratio of productivity indexes for fractured-to-unfractured cases
multiplied by a scaling factor. The abscissa, designated as the relative conductivity, is
de ned as the ability of the fracture to transmit uid relative to that of the formation.
These curves are used by some service companies offering fracturing services.4 They do not
take into account pressure-transient analyses.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
The early work of Van Everdirgen and Hurst 5 provided an approximate solution to the
diffusivity equation representing the ow of uids through porous media. In separate
papers, 6 7 they also introduced the concept of skin effect and presented a general equation
of the form listed as Equation 4.
For given reservoir uid and rock characteristics, Equation 4 represents that the bottom
hole owing pressure varies linearly with the logarithm of time. Thus, a plot of pwf vs. In t
will result in a straight line having a slope equal to m.
For pressure drawdown tests, the slope m is negative. Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram
representing a typical pressure drawdown plot. Note that the presence of well damage
tends to lower the level of the curve by a constant amount equal to _ps. The term _ps
represents the pressure loss due to well damage and is given by Equation 6.
For convenience, we will rearrange Equation 4 to obtain Equation 7. The symbol Cb

represents a constant for a particular reservoir system and is de ned as shown in Equation
8. It is customary to select the time t as unity. However, caution is noted that the value of
pwf at this time must be read from the extrapolated portion of the straight line on the
drawdown plot.
Matthews 8 introduced a useful representation of the effect well damage has on well
performance. He de ned " owing ef ciency" as the ratio of actual productivity index (Ja) to
ideal productivity index (Ji), the latter being the case with no well damage.
Equation 10 is the expression of owing ef ciency evolving from this de nition. However,
this relationship suffers from the shortcoming of being time dependent, as do most other
representations of well damage extent, such as damage factor, damage ratio, completion
factor, completion ratio, etc. This dependence can be easily illustrated by combining
Equations 7 and 10, leading to an alternate expression for owing ef ciency given by
Equation 11.
It is clear that as time increases, and _pt increases, the second term in Equation 11
decreases. Thus, the value of owing ef ciency increases proportionately because the
pressure loss due to well damage remains constant at uniform owing rate.
It should be pointed out that well damage, hence _ps, may be either positive or negative, For
positive well damage, the owing ef ciency increases with time, whereas for negative well
damage it decreases with time. In both instances the value of owing ef ciency approaches
unity asymptotically. Furthermore, in the case of zero well damage (s = 0) owing ef ciency
is unity for all times.
As mentioned above, the main purpose of stimulating a well is to increase its productivity by
reducing or removing the damage to the formation caused by drilling. To determine the
optimum treatment, we need to know how much the production will increase with
successive reductions in well damage. This increase can be arrived at by comparing the
results of a pressure drawdown test performed prior to treatment with what might be
expected after treatment.
Fig. 2 illustrates typical results of pressure drawdown tests performed on the same well
before (Curve 1) and after (Curve 2) treatment. Equation 7 can be used to compare the two
curves if we rearrange it as given in Equations 12 and 13. At any given time, tx, we can
divide the two expressions as shown in Equation 14. Furthermore, by using Equation 6 we
may write equations for pressure loss due to well damage for the before and after
treatment cases given by Equations 15 and 16, respectively. Combining Equations 12-16
leads to Equation 17.
There are three unknowns in this equation: q2, Pwf2, and S2. Equation 17 represents q2 in
terms of Pwf2 and S2. The other two unknowns can be expressed as given in Equations 18
and 19.
Because Equation 17 is cumbersome to use in its present form, it can be modi ed to

Equation 22. It is signi cant to note that the constant Cm depends only on the oil viscosity
and the formation capacity or conductivity, de ned as the permeability-thickness product.
The above derived equations are expressed in the darcy system of units. For practical oil
eld units, where pressure and rates are express in psi and b/d, respectively, Equation 22 is
modi ed to Equation 24.
It is signi cant to note that the _p/Q terms represent the inverse of the well known
productivity index, PI. For convenience, we will designate these reciprocal productivity
index terms to be "Resistivity index" and use the label RI. Equation 24 is then written as
Equation 26.
Equation 26 expresses in a compact and useful way the relationship between productivity
increases and changes in well damage, expressed as skin effect. There are a variety of ways
for representing this equation graphically. One of the simplest and possibly most useful
forms is to plot RI2 VS. the Cm_s product on Cartesian coordinate graph paper.
The result is a family of straight lines having a slope equal to minus unity as illustrated in Fig.
3. Thus, for any incremental value of well damage removed, the resulting ow rate can be
predicted.
This increase in production can then be used to evaluate the expected increase in income
and compared with the cost of the workover operation. An optimum workover size can then
be predicted using appropriate economic factors for a given operation.
As indicated above, the values of _P1 and _P2 Must be selected at the same time, tx. The
question arises as to when is the ideal time to make this calculation. In a reservoir being
treated as in nite, some value of maximum time should be stipulated. In a nite reservoir
the drawdown will eventually be affected by the boundaries of the ow regime, at which
time the ow will transit to pseudo-steady state.
After this time the respective drawdowns, _P1 and _P2, will remain constant until the
bottom hole owing pressure reaches some minimum value. Thereafter the rate will decline
as a result of continued depletion of the drainage area.
Note that the time to reach this declining rate condition will vary with both the amount of
drawdown and the producing rate. Consequently, cash- ow calculations will necessarily
have to include this factor.
In selecting the best time to use for tx, we propose using the end of the unsteady-state
period for nite drainage areas. If the drainage pattern is unknown, we recommend
assuming some limiting value, say 1,000 acres. The time it takes to reach pseudosteadystate
condition for various drainage con gurations is well documented in the literature.9 10
Matthews, Brons, and Hazebroek 9 have shown that for many well-centered regular
drainage patterns, such as a circle or a square, the pseudosteady-state condition begins at a
dimensionless time approximately equal to 0.1. Moreover, their charts indicate that the end
of unsteady-state ow occurs at a dimensionless time approximately equal to 0.02.
Dimensionless time is de ned in Equation 27, where A is the drainage area. The time tx, may
be obtained by solving this equation for t, which in practical oil eld units is approximated
by Equation 28 where A is in acres.
Using the value tx computed from Equation 28, the bottom hole owing pressure is
computed using Equation 29. In the unlikely event that both m and tx are large, the
calculated value of px could be negative. In such instances, a value of px equal to 100 psia
could be assumed.
It is not necessary that the production increase calculations be made using the same
drawdown pressure used in evaluating the pressure test data. That is, the preferred
drawdown after completing the well may be more or less than that used during the testing
procedure.
To correctly establish the relationship between production increases with well damage
removal, we must rst compute the new rate expected if no treatment were applied, but
with the new drawdown. To do this we rst calculate a base rate Qo by setting _s equal to
zero and then solve Equation 24 for Q2 as indicated by Equation 30. The incremental
production is then the difference between Q2, from Equation 24, and this base rate
(Equation 31). In this manner the production increases resulting from varying stages of
well-damage removed are determined.
APPLICATION
To demonstrate the utility of Equation 24, we have selected the results of both drawdown
and build-up tests conducted on a West Texas well producing from the San Andres
formation. The well produced at a constant rate for 72 hr, and then it was shut in for a like
period. Pertinent reservoir and pressure data are listed in Tables 1, 2, and 4.
Pressure drawdown The pressure drawdown data listed in Table 2 are plotted on semilog
paper as shown in Fig. 4. The slope of the straight line is calculated to be equal to - 101
psi/log cycle and the pressure at t = 1 hr (obtained from the straight line) is 2,903 psia.
Calculations of pressure loss due to well damage, skin effect, and owing ef ciency are
made using a computer model. The sequence of the calculations made by the model are
illustrated in the box of sample calculations using actual eld data listed in Table 1.
Results of calculations of owing ef ciency at various times are listed in the example
calculations box. These values of E* are included in Fig. 4 for illustration.
Calculations of RI, producing rate, and incremental increase in production are made for
various treatment sizes. These values are measured as a function of incremental well-
damage removed.
For purposes of illustration, calculations made assuming the value of As to be equal to 7 are
included in Table 3. The results show that if the skin effect is reduced from 9.02 to 2.02 as a
result of well treatment, then the producing rate increases from 117.7 to 205.1 b/d.
Thus, the producing rate for the well will increase approximately 75% for this size of
treatment. If all the well damage is removed, the resulting increase in production will be
around 122%.
After making these initial calculations, the model was used to compare results using the
steady-state equation (Equation 1) with the unsteady-state equation (Equation 24) for
various drainage areas. For this comparison, the value Of S2 was assumed to be zero. The
size of drainage areas ranged from 10 to 5,160 acres.
The results are listed in Table 5 and presented graphically in Fig. 5. They indicate that a
higher producing rate is predicted using the unsteady-state ow equation. The percent
difference between the two methods for each drainage area are computed and included in
Table 5 and Fig. 5. The increase ranges from 5% for the wide spacing to 9% for the low
drainage area.
It should be pointed out that as the drainage area increases, the time to reach the end of
unsteady-state ow also increases. Hence, the drawdown pressure at time t, increases
proportionately. Because of this higher drawdown pressure, the calculations of PI decrease
as drainage area increases.
The next series of calculations was made using the model to determine the effects different
amounts of well damage removed had on producing rates. For these calculations, the
drainage area was assumed to be 160 acres, and the assigned drawdown at time tx was
assumed to be 2,000 psi. The results are summarized in Table 6. Again, the calculations
included the case for steady-state ow using Equation 1 for comparison.
Fig. 6 is a plot of _Q vs. _s and illustrates the rapid increase in productivity as the amount of
well damage removal is increased. This re ects the great importance of not only removing
all well damage caused by drilling, but also creating a negative skin if economically feasible.
The results illustrate also that a much greater improvement is re ected when using the
unsteady-state equation (Equation 24) as opposed to the steady-state equation (Equation
1).
A plot of RI is included in Fig. 6. As expected, this parameter plots as a straight line having a
slope equal to cm.
PRESSURE BUILDUP
In many instances, the engineer has only pressure build-up test data to work with. The same
equations and procedures described for drawdown tests will apply for pressure build-up
data as well. In this case, the Horner" plot is used to obtain the slope m. Also used is the
extrapolated pressure to in nite build-up time (Horner time ratio equal to unity), p*, in place
of pi.
In applying the Horner technique it is customary to use a pseudo producing time de ned as
the ratio of cumulative production during drawdown to the last stabilized rate. In
mathematical terms, the pseudo producing time is de ned by Equation 32.
Occasionally, the pressure test is conducted with a long producing time to the extent that
the owing pressure may be in uenced by boundary effects such as faults or permeability
pinchouts. In the absence of pressure drawdown test data, the in uence of these
boundaries may be indeterminable.
For this reason, we propose adopting an alternate technique for build-up calculations. First,
we calculate the time tx using Equation 28. If tx is greater than tff, then the drawdown is still
in unsteady-state ow and we may calculate px using Equation 33.
Conversely, if tx is less than tff, then the owing system is beyond unsteady-state conditions
and the nal owing pressure will be affected by the drainage boundaries. Fortunately, the
magnitude of this effect will be re ected on the Horner plot as well. Consequently, the
value of px in establishing the drawdown at the end of unsteady-state ow is the same as
pwff.
it should be pointed out that some authors recommend using the average reservoir
pressure PR in place of either pi or p* in the above equations. It is believed that the results
will not vary signi cantly using either the average pressure or the extrapolated pressure.
The build-up data used in the example are listed in table 4. They appear graphically on the
Horner plot, Fig. 7, indicating a slope m equal to 103 psi/log cycle. The extrapolated
pressure to in nite build-up time is shown to be 4,090 psia, and the pressure at a time ratio
representing a build-up time of 1 hr is determined to be 3,894 psia.
Calculations were performed using a computer model similar to the one used for the
drawdown case. The sequence of calculations for this case are recorded in the example
calculation box. The equation required for calculating the pressure loss due to well damage
for buildup is slightly different than the one used for drawdown. It is easily derived and
takes the form given in Equation 34.
The results for the build-up test data assuming a drainage area of 160 acres are presented
in Table 7. It may be observed that these results are very similar to those obtained for the
drawdown case, con rming that the method applies for build-up test data as well as for
drawdown data.
GAS RESERVOIRS
The technique described for oil wells will apply for gas wells as well. There are three
methods for analyzing pressure transient data that apply for the particular conditions for
which they were designed. These are p-method, p2_method, and the m(p)method. The
appropriate equations may be developed using the same procedure as outlined above for oil
production.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
It was pointed out earlier that Equation 24 may be presented in several different forms. For
economic evaluations, two forms of this equation appear to be useful. In the rst instance
we may rearrange Equation 24 to read as listed in Equation 35, Taking the derivative with
respect to _s yields Equation 36. This equation plots as a straight line through the origin as
illustrated in Fig. 8.
The slope of the line is a dimensionless constant given by the right-hand side of Equation 36.
Using the drawdown data for the example problem, the value of the slope is calculated to be
0.061.
It is important to note that in applying Equation 36 there appears to be no limiting value for
the well treatment size. Obviously, this would not be a valid conclusion when treatment
costs are included in the analysis.
A more useful expression in an economic analysis may be developed by rst rearranging

Equation 24 leading to Equation 37. Again, taking the derivative with respect to _s and
performing the necessary algebraic steps leads to Equation 38. Integrating Equation 38
yields Equation 40 which plots as a straight line on log-log scales having a slope of -1. If the
y-intercept is assumed to be where a -_s = 1, then the constant b is represented by the value
of Q2 at this point.
Fig. 9 illustrates this plot for the drawdown case for the example problem given above.
Values of a and b for the example problem are computed to be 16.4 (dimensionless) and
1,934 b/d, respectively. These calculations are illustrated in the example calculations box.
Still another useful variation of Equation 40 is given by Equation 42. In this expression it
may be observed that as _s increases, the producing rate Q2 approaches in nity. Again, it is
clear that there must be some limiting value of _s which controls the size of the treatment.
That is (O _s
The value of a for the example problem is 16.4. Thus, the design of the treatment size for
this well should be for _s to be something less than 16.4. As mentioned above, the optimum
well treatment design is governed by economics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks are due Paul E. Hodges, associate professor of economics, University of
Texas of the Permian Basin.
REFERENCES
1. Vogt, T. C., and Anderson, M.L., "Optimizing the Pro tability of Matrix Acidizing
Treatments," JPT. September 1984.
2. Hawkins, Murray F., Jr. "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans. AIME 1956. p. 207.
3. McGuire, W. J., and Sikora, V. J., "The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity,"
Trans. AIME, 1960, p, 219.
4. "Production Stimulation for the Permian Basin," Halliburton Services Manual.
5. Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W., "The Application of the Laplace Transformation
to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. AIME, 1949, p. 186.
6. Van Everdingen, A. F., "The Skin Effect and Its In uence on the Productive Capacity of
a Well," Trans. AIME, 1953, p. 198.
7. Hurst, William, "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to Fluid Flow
Into a Well Bore," Petroleum Engineering, October 1953.
8. Matthews, C. S., "Analysis of Pressure Buildup and Flow Test Data," JPT September
1961.
9. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P., "A Method for Determination of Average
Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir," Trans. AIME, 1954, p. 201.
10. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G., "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells,"
Monograph Series Vol. 1, SPE, 1967.
11. Horner, D. R., "Pressure Buildup in Wells," Proc. Third World Pet. Cong., E. J. Brill,
Leiden, 1951.
Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
    
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
© 2019 Endeavor Business Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

Unsteady-State Analysis Improves Stimulation Sizing - Oil & Gas Journal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Unsteady-State Analysis Improves Stimulation Sizing - Oil & Gas Journal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

4/4/2019 UNSTEADY-STATE ANALYSIS IMPROVES STIMULATION SIZING - Oil & Gas Journal

For maximizing well stimulation pro tability, unsteady-state ow pressure-transient

This technique appears to be superior in representing actual eld conditions.

Traditionally, well damage is evaluated using pressure-transient analysis. Including these

For convenience, we will rearrange Equation 4 to obtain Equation 7. The symbol Cb

Because Equation 17 is cumbersome to use in its present form, it can be modi ed to

A more useful expression in an economic analysis may be developed by rst rearranging

4. "Production Stimulation for the Permian Basin," Halliburton Services Manual.

Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions

© 2019 Endeavor Business Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

Potrebbero piacerti anche