Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Distinguished
Author Series
I
I ky
: Z L
h
~Lw
iI k
0
~E
Y
Lw~:
i
k: HI
x
Ex. 3
............................ ~.
~
................................
."",.------_
Ex. 2
... 411
6
........ .~
derivatives
. . . .- - - - - _...
l __ ,,"'Ex. l
: Zw
I
."."",
~------------------ 0.1
.:::: where q is the constant flow rate, 6.Plhr = Po - Pw(t = 1 hour) for
(ii
> drawdown tests, and 6.Plhr = Pw(6.t= 1 hour) - (6.t- 0) for buildup
.~
'r tests. Pw at 1 hour for both tests is obtained from the semilog, Horner,
f
o
or derivative plot.
Hemi·radial
In principle, the geometric mean permeability jkHkv and damage
skin may be obtained from the first radial flow regime, provided that
"" 'r '"
First radial
the well bore pressure during this regime is not affected by wellbore
storage and/or boundaries. The anisotropy ratio is needed for calcu-
0.1L - - - - - - L - - - - - - I - - - -- --.J •
10" 10.2 100 1n
OJ"
lati"l damage skin from Eq. 2. However, because the dependence
Time on kH/kv is logarithmic, its effect on the damage skin estimation
will usually be small.
The vertical permeability may be obtained from the time of onset
Fig. 2-Radial flow regimes for a horizontal well.
ofthe deviation of the pressure or pressure derivative from this flow
regime as (in oilfield units)
Log·log plots ~f the change in the wellbore pressure, 6.Pw,
associated with type curves have been used extensively as diagnostic k - ¢#c, . 2 2
V - 00002637:m mill [zw, (h - zw)] , .... . ....... (3)
and interpretation tools since the early 1970's.9In the early 1980's, • snbe
Bourdet et al.33 showed that a combined log-log plot of pressure and
where tsnbe is the time to feel the effect of the nearest boundary, or
pressure derivative is a better diagnostic and interpretation tool than
a pressure plot alone for comparing measured transient data with the k v -- 0.0002637:m
¢#c,
model responses. In this paper, the pressure change and pressure zw, (h - Zw )2] , .... •• •... . • (4)
max [2
sjbe
derivative are denoted by 6.Pw and dPw/d In t, respectively.
where tsjbe is the time to feel the second (farthest) boundary effect.
First Radial Flow Regime. The first flow pattern for horizontal In practice, Eqs. 3 and 4 may not be reliable because the ¢#cr prod-
wells is elliptic-cylindrical. After some time, the elliptic-cylindrical uct may not be accurately known . Nevertheless, they can be used
flow regime becomes pseudoradial, as shown in Fig. 2. This radial qualitatively. Alternatively, because Eqs. 3 and 4 provide two pieces
flow around the well bore may continue until the effect of the nearest of information, they may also be used to provide constraints on the
boundary is felt at the wellbore. It may not develop if the anisotropy positions of the boundaries. This information is useful when the
ratio, kH/kv, is large. The behavior ofthis regime is similar to the ear-
ly-time behavior of partially penetrated wells. The derivatives for TABLE 1-RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR
all examples, for which the well/reservoir parameters are given in EXAMPLES SHOWN IN FIG. 3.
Table 1 (see Ref. 18), clearly indicate (Fig. 3) the first radial flow
regime. The slope of the semilog straight line can be expressed as Example
h
J.!!l
kH
(md)
kv
(md)
Lw
J!!L J!!L
Zw
~
.
1 100 100 10 500 20 0.00146
mrl = 162 .6q#/2 j kHkvLII' . ... .. . .. ... .. ... . ..... . , (1)
2 100 100 1 500 20 0.00389
and the damage skin as 3 100 100 5 500 5 0.00194
4 40 100 5 500 20 0.00197
+ / kflkVl
500 20 0.00530
Second Radial Flow Regime. This is a hemicylindrical flow tD = 20, ...................................... (12)
regime, as shown in Fig. 2, that follows the first radial flow. This
flow regime may occur when the well is not centered with respect where tD = 0.0002637kHt/¢/lctL~ . ................... (13)
to the no-flow top and bottom boundaries. In some cases, only this
flow regime may be observed without the first flow regime. The The start ofthe third radial flow regime defined by Eq. 12 is some-
slope obtained from this flow regime is two times larger than that what subjective. Clonts and Ramey,13 Goode and Thambynaya-
obtained from the first regime. Thus, gam,14 Ozkan et al.,16 and Odeh and Babu 17 presented different
expressions for the start of the third regime. Although it can be used
mr2 = 2mrl .....•..••••...•••••••••••••••••••••• (5) only qualitatively to determine an upper bound to the horizontal
permeability (see Fig. 3), Eq. 12 is a good approximation for the
and
start of the third radial flow regime. However, for hD ~ 1, Eq. 12
becomes crude, as shown by Curves 2 and 5 in Fig. 3. For these two
where tcbp is the time to reach the steady-state pressure at the well-
where b..POhr is the intercept. Note that if hD, jkv/kH (h/Lw), is not bore. Alternatively, if h is known, this equation may be used to esti-
small, then the linear flow regime will not take place because the mate the vertical permeability.
flow will spread out significantly from the ends of the well before
the effects of the top and bottom boundaries are seen. Interpretation
Horizontal test well data may be interpreted in two steps: the first is
Third (Intermediate) Radial Flow Regime. After the effects of the the identification of the boundaries and the main features, such as
top and bottom boundaries are felt at the wellbore, a third radial flow faults and fractures, of the model from flow regime analyses. Unlike
pattern will develop (Fig. 2) in the x-y plane. This regime does not most vertical wells, well test measurements from horizontal wells
exist for wells with a gas cap or aquifer. The semilog straight-line are usually affected by nearby shale strikes and lenses and by top
slope is and bottom boundaries at early times. The second step is to estimate
mr3 = l62.6q/l/k Hh ............................... (9)
well/reservoir parameters and to refine the model that is obtained
from flow regime analyses.
and the skin is The graphical type curve procedure is practically impossible for
the analysis of horizontal well test data because usually more than
Lw
S = 2.303 V~ h fkv [b..Plhr
m r3 - log (¢/lcIL~,
kH) + 2.5267 ] -Sz,
three parameters are unknown, even for a single-layer reservoir.
Thus, along with the flow regime analyses, nonlinear least-squares
techniques are usually used to estimate reservoir parameters. In
(10) applying these methods, one seeks not merely a model that fits a
given set of output data (pressure, flow rate, and/or their derivatives)
but also knowledge of what features in that model are satisfied by
where S, ~ - 2.30310.[~~. (1 + ~)'in (~~.)] the data. Evaluation of model features can be done iteratively during
estimation and by the diagnostic tools mentioned above (identifying
flow regimes). However, if the uncertainties about the model can be
resolved with the diagnostic tools, the estimation can be carried out
- fj; L(t - ~' + ~~) ................ (11)
with a greater confidence at a minimal cost. For instance, if the loca-
tions of the lower and upper boundaries are known or identified
lem would become much more pronounced for real tests. If the
.... 5
...c::
100
'R
g)
.~
.~... 100
~ • harmonic <kv>
-----harmoni( <kHkV>
10° 101
time, hr time, hr
Fig. 4-Comparison of derivatives for drawdowns and buildups Fig. 6-Comparison of derivatives for layered and equivalent
for different vertical permeabilities. homogeneous single-layer systems.