IPTC 17421

What happened to all my Gas? P/z plots in Layered Reservoirs

Fraser Ross, Qatargas

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 20–22 January 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract

P/z plots for low permeability or layered reservoirs do not yield a straight line which extrapolates to the
IGIP; they are curved and deviate strongly from the theoretical straight line. Consequently, the
interpretation of the P/z plot is often grossly misleading and typically significantly underestimates the
IGIP, leading to erroneous production forecasts and reserve estimates. The problem with the simple P/z
material balance plot is that the pressure measured using a pressure build up test is not representative of
the drainage volume of the well. When P/z plots cannot be analysed quantitatively, typically a numerical
reservoir simulator is used to match the shut-in bottom-hole pressures and the continuously measured
wellhead rates and pressures. However, a simple multi tank material balance method can provide
valuable insights into the reservoir behavior and can be used either as a precursor to, or to replace
numerical simulation. This paper describes a technique that can be used for medium to high permeability
reservoirs.

Introduction

This paper discusses the problems associated with applying the simple P/z technique to layered
reservoirs; plotting the downhole static pressure vs cum production will always give the wrong value of
the IGIP. This paper presents how pressure transient data and PLT data can be combined with a simple
multi tank model, which can be programmed in a spreadsheet, to provide a good understanding of the
impact that reservoir layering has on the pressure behavior of the reservoir.

In order to provide pressure data for this analysis, a 2 layer, dry gas reservoir model was constructed
using a reservoir simulator. The details of this model are shown in Appendix 2. Because a model was
used to generate the data used in the interpretation, the model inputs of IGIP, kH, re, skin and non-Darcy
coefficient are known so the results of the interpretation can be compared to the model inputs. In other
words, are the calculated layer volumes consistent with the input values?
The pressures used for this presentation were obtained by shutting in the well (in the simulator) every
year for a simulated 4 day pressure build up. The pressure transient data for the first pressure build-up
were plotted using the conventional log-log plot and is shown on Figure 1.
2 IPTC 17421

Figure 1 Log-Log plot of the initial PBU.

This plot shows a very clear radial flow for the duration of the 4 day build up and the interpreted value
of the kh are correctly determined, i.e. equal to the total input model kh. This transient signature is
characteristic of a homogeneous reservoir and the downward dip in the pressure differential which
should be expected in a layered system1 is not observed. The final pressures from the build-ups for the
first 10 years are plotted on P/z vs cum plot as shown on Figure 2.

5,000

Pressure /z
4,000
P/z (psia)

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gp/G

Figure 2 P/z vs Recovery Factor using the PBU pressures.

IPTC 17421 3

The resulting plot shows an early straight line which runs through the initial pressure/z and would
extrapolate to 40% of the true IGIP. After 4 years a second straight line which does not run through the
initial pressure/z and extrapolates to 80% of the true IGIP. The blue line which runs through the initial
pressure/z is the line which runs from the Pi/z to P/z at zero which is 100% depletion. Both apparent
straight lines from the pressure data are wrong.
Despite many papers which have been written warning engineers of the pitfalls of simple P/z plots in
tight gas and layered reservoirs, this simple material balance method is often still be applied. The
problem with the interpretation that is shown above is that the pressure at the end of the four day build
up is not representative of the average pressure for the drainage area of the well. It was explained by
several authors that in a layered system, the shut-in time to reach the correct static pressure is many
years2.

Figure 3 Log-Log plot of the initial PBU with an extended build up period.

Using the model example above, a pressure build-up of 100 years was simulated, and is shown on
Figure 3. In this case, the downward dip in the pressure differential is observed after 8 days and the drop
in the differential defining the final static pressure is not reached until after 20 years. (And this is with a
reservoir kh of 370 md-ft.)
In 1990, Fetkovich4 et al discussed the subject of the depletion and long term production forecasting to
non-communicating two layer single phase gas reservoirs. The authors presented a plot, based on model
data, of the Cum Production vs Pressure/z for each of the layers. An example of this plot is shown on
Figure 4 below.
4 IPTC 17421

5,000
Pressure/z vs Cum Gas Production

4,000 Layer 1

Pressure /z (psia) Layer 2

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Gp/G
Figure 4 P/z by layer from the model layer average pressure.

100%
Gas Recovery Factor by Layer vs Time

80%
Gp/G)

60%

40%

Layer 1
20%
Layer 2
Well
0%
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Days
Figure 5 Recovery Factor with time by layer and for the well.

This plot demonstrates that in the early part of the well life, the production comes mostly from the
higher permeability Layer 1. At 30% of the gas produced the above chart shows that the pressure
difference between the two layers is at a maximum, and then the lower perm layer 2, produces the bulk
of the gas and the pressure difference between the layers begins to drop. The P/z plot using the
simulated 4 day pressure build up would follow the sharp decline as seen on Figure 2. Although the
figure described by Fetkovich is a very good plot for understanding the pressure behaviour of a layered
system, it is based on model data, and so a method to measure the pressures in each layer is required.
IPTC 17421 5

SIP

The SIP method was introduced by Stewart7 et al and provides a mean of establishing the IPR curve for
each layer. The well is flowed at several different rates and for each rate a production log is run across
the producing interval to record simultaneous profiles of the downhole rates and pressure.

3,500 100,000
PLT Schedule

3,000 80,000

PBU

Gas Rate (Mscf/D)

2,500 60,000
BHP (psia)

PLT
Pass
PLT
Pass
2,000 40,000

BHP
Gas Rate
1,500 20,000
PLT
Pass

1,000 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (Days)

Figure 6 SIP schedule of rate and pressure vs time

The pressures can then be plotted against the rate to give the IPR curve for each layer.
6 IPTC 17421

4,500

SIP IPR
4,000

Layer 1
3,500
Layer 2
Flowing BHP (psia)

3,000

2,500

2,000
Negative Rate shows
cross flow from
Layer 2 to Layer 1
1,500 under shut-in
conditions.

1,000
-30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Gas Rate from PLT (Mscf/D)
Figure 7 IPR for each layer using the SIP rates and pressures.

Solid lines on Figure show the fit to the inflow data using the LIT equation,
m( p )-m(pwf)=aq+bq2
The layer pressures can be read from the intercept where the flow is zero. The SIP can therefore be used
to populate the P/z plot as shown on Figure 8. It should be noted that inherent in the SIP method is the
assumption that the system is at semi-steady state, which it clearly is not. In the case shown above the
duration of each of the multi-rate flow periods was 12 hours, and so it is reasonable to assume that the
SIP pressures would represent the layer pressure after a shut-in period of 12 hours.
IPTC 17421 7

5,000
Pressure/z vs Cum Gas Production

4,000
Layer 1
Pressure /z (psia) Layer 2
Well
3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Fraction of Initial Gas Produced
Figure 8 Well Pressures from the PBU and Layer Pressures from the SIP

Although we now have measured data with which to plot the Fetcovich plot, unfortunately, this
information can still not be used directly to define the IGIP for each layer.

Reservoir Modelling

In order to define the gas in place by layer using the well p/z, and the layer pressures from the SIP plots,
a reservoir model is required. The analysis which will be described in this paper uses a simple
spreadsheet model using a multi block concept6, 8,9,10 as shown on Figure 9.

Cross-Section
qt = q1 + q2

3 2 1

T3,2 T2,1 Layer 1 q1

2

6 5 4
Layer 2 q2 1
T6,5 T5,4

Well Rate qt= q1+q2

Layer Inflow m(P)1-m(Pwf)1 = aq1+bq12

Inter Block q3,2= T3,2(m(P)3-m(P)2)

Block Volume
𝑷𝒊 𝑮𝒑
𝑷 = 𝒛( )(𝟏 − )
𝒛𝒊 𝑮 Areal View

Figure 9 Schematic of the Spreadsheet Reservoir Model

8 IPTC 17421

This model has two layers and each layer has 3 three radial cells. The layers are connected only by the
wellbore. The equations describing the well inflow, the cell material balance and the inter cell flows are
shown in appendix 1. A conventional simulator could also be used, or a commercial multi-block
material balance package could be used using the inter-block transmissibility’s as defined in appendix 1.
The inputs to the model are the gas properties, kh, s, D, Re, φ and h for each layer and the well
production history; the data to be matched are the SIP pressures, the BHP history and the inter-layer
cross-flow rates. The spreadsheet model was used to match the simulated data from Eclipse, and the
match is demonstrated below:

5,000
Block Pressures vs Cum Well Production

4,000
Block Pressure (psia)

3,000

Well
2,000
1
2
3

1,000 4
5
6

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
G/Gp
Figure 10 Spreadsheet cell pressures, PBU pressure and SIP pressures

Figure 10 shows that the SIP calculated pressures do not represent the static pressure for the layer;
blocks 4,5 & 6 which are the blocks in the low perm layer, 4 being the block containing the well and 6
being the outer radial block. There is a significant pressure difference between cell 6 and cell 4, this
difference would not be evident if a single radial block was used for each layer and the model would
under predict the GIP. The transient pressure which is determined by the SIP is accurately represented in
the multi-block model.
IPTC 17421 9

100,000

Gas Rates
80,000
Total
Layer 1
60,000
Gas Rate (Mscf/D)

Layer 2
40,000

20,000

-20,000

-40,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Time (Days)
Figure 11 Gas Rate for the Well and the Individual Layers.

Figure 11 shows the well and layer production rates with time; each year the well is shut in for the
PLT/PBU/SIP survey. The cross-flow from the low perm, high pressure layer to the high perm, low
pressure layer is evident. It is also evident that the system is never at steady state and the layer
contribution varies throughout the well life.
It is also interesting to compare the pressure transient at 1,500 days when there is 30,000 Mscf/D cross-
flows from Layer 2 to Layer 1 with the pressure transient under initial conditions that was shown on
Figure 12. The shape of the buildup is unchanged despite the cross-flow.
Gas potential [psi2/cp]

1E+8

1E+7

1E+6
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time [hr]

Figure 12 Log-Log plots of the initial PBU and the after 3 Years of Production.
10 IPTC 17421

CGR Prediction
For gas-condensate reservoirs, the condensate/gas ratio (CGR) declines with time due to liquid drop out
in the reservoir. The CGR decline for a layered reservoir will therefore be significantly different when
compared to the same reservoir fluid producing from a single layer, due to the differential pressure
depletion. Figure 13 shows the model predicted CGR for a layered vs homogeneous reservoir.

50 CGR vs Gas Recovery

2 Layers
Single Layer
40

30

20

10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 13 Effect of Reservoir Layering on the Expected CGR

Static Pressures
In many cases in PLT/PTA data gathering, which is discussed in this paper, is not available and only
static data are available. In this case, can any information about the individual layer pressures be
extracted?
Figure 14 shows that the difference between the Layer 2 pressure and the measured static pressure is
defined as A and the difference between the Layer 1 pressure and the measured static pressure is defined
as B.
IPTC 17421 11

5,000
Pressure/z vs Cum Gas Production

4,000
Layer 1
Layer 2
Pressure /z (psia)

Well
3,000

A
2,000

B
1,000

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Fraction of Initial Gas Produced
Figure 14 Pressure ratio vs gas recovery.

0.5
Ratio of Layer Pressure to Well Shut-in Pressure

0.4
Pressure Ratio

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Gp/G
Figure 15 Pressure ratio vs gas recovery.

The ratio of A/(A+B) from the model is then plotted vs gas recovery on figure 15. The fraction of φh is
0.82 for layer 2 and the fraction of kH for Layer 2 is 0.3. For the reservoir description described in this
paper, the pressure ratio shown in figure 15 is close to the ratio of kh (and PI). The PI weighting has
been described in previous papers5,9. Unfortunately, without a PLT, the magnitude of the pressure
difference between the layers is unknown and the crossflow rate is unknown, and so the static pressure
will yield no information about the pressure of the individual layers.
12 IPTC 17421

Appendix 1

Inter-block Flow Calculations

q3,2 = T3,2(m(p)3-m(p)2)
Transmissibility Calculations for Radial Models13:
0.001127
𝑇𝑟 = 1 1
( + )
𝑇 𝑇 𝑖 𝑗
2𝜋𝑘𝑧
𝑇𝑖 = 2
𝑅1 𝑅1 1
2 2 𝑙𝑛 �𝑅 � + 2
𝑅2 − 𝑅1 2

2𝜋𝑘𝑧
𝑇𝑗 =
𝑅22 𝑅2 1
2 𝑙𝑛 �𝑅 � +2
𝑅32
− 𝑅2 3
Gas Influx from block 2 to Block 1
𝑇𝑟
𝑞12 = 5.038 (m(p1)-m(p2))
2𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝

Material Balance Calculation

𝑃 𝑃𝑖 𝐺𝑝
= ( )(1 − )
𝑧 𝑧𝑖 𝐺
Well Calculations
Inflow Equation
𝑞 = 𝐽(𝑚(𝑝) − 𝑚�𝑝𝑤𝑓 �)
𝑘ℎ 𝑟𝑒 1
𝐽= (ln( ) − + 𝑠 + 𝐷𝑞)
1422𝑇 𝑟𝑤 2

The production rate by layer can be defined using the individual well potentials:
𝑃𝑜𝑡1
𝑞1 =
𝑃𝑜𝑡1 + 𝑃𝑜𝑡2
Where Pot1 and Pot2 are the well potentials calculated for each layer, with pressure P1 and P2 and the
minimum flowing bottom hole pressure.

When the well is shut in, the static pressure (and therefore the crossflow rate) can be calculated using:
𝐽1 𝑃1 +𝐽2 𝑃2
𝑃𝑤𝑠 =
𝐽1 + 𝐽2
IPTC 17421 13

Appendix 2
Reservoir Simulation Model used to create the well pressures for this study.

Layer 1 Layer 2 Well

h (ft) 50 150 200
k (md) 20 3 7.25
φ 0.1 0.15 0.1375
Sw 0 0 0
re (ft) 5,000 5,000 5,000
s 0 0
-1
D (Mscf/D) 1.00E-05 1.00E-05
Pi (psia) 5,000 5,000 5,000

References
1. Domininque Bourdet, “Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models” Elsevier
2002.
2. Lefkovits, H.C., Hazebroek, P. and Matthews, C.S. : “A Study of the Behaviour of Bounded
Reservoirs Composed of Stratified Layers,” SPE 1329 (March 1961)
3. Cobb, W.M., Ramey, H.J., and Miller, F.G. : “Welltest Analysis for Wells Producing Commingled
Zones.” SPE 3014 (January 1972)
4. Fetkovich, M.J., Bradley, M.D., Works, A.M., and Thrasher, T.S. : “Depletion Performance of
Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow,” SPEFE, September 1990, 310-318.
5. Kuppe, F., Chugh, S. and Connell, P. :” Material Balance for Multi-Layered, Commingled, Tight
Gas Reservoirs,” SPE 59760 (April 2000)
6. Payne, D., :” Material Balance Calculations in Tight Gas Reservoirs: The Pitfalls of p/z Plots and a
More Accurate Technique,” SPE Reservoir Engineering (November 1996)
7. Stewart, G., and Wittmann, M.,: ”Well Performance Analysis; A Synergetic Approach to Dynamic
Reservior Description” SPE 10209 (October 1981)
8. Fox, M.J., Chedburn, A.C.S., and Stewart, G. :”Simple Characterization of Communication
Between Reservoir Regions” SPE 18360 (October 1998)
9. Hagoort, J., Sinke, J., Dros, B. and Nieuwland, F. :“Material Balance Analysis of Faulted and
Stratified, Tight Gas Reservoirs,” SPE 65179 (October 2000)
10. Hagoort, J. and Hoogstra, R. :”Numerical Solution of the Material Balance Equations of
Compartmented Gas Reservoirs” SPE 38082 (April 1997)
11. Jackson, R.R. and Banerjee, R. :”Advances in Multilayer Reservoir Testing and Analysis using
Numerical Well Testing and Reservoir Simulation,” SPE 62917 (October 2000)
14 IPTC 17421

12. Hegeman, P. and Pelissier-Combescure, J. “Production Logging for Reservoir Testing”

Schlumberger Oilfield Review Summer 1997
13. Eclipse Technical Manual P.1112