ADPC-90

021340 Application of Pressure-Analysis and Inflow-Performance

Models on Horizontal Wells and Simulation of
Horizontal-Well Performance
Muhammed Juma, ADCO; Sami Bustami, ADCO

Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

SPE

2134 0

ADNOC/SPE
Abu Dhabi National Oil CompanylSociety of Petroleum Engineers

Application of Pressure Analysis & Int10w

Performance Models onADCO's Horizontal Wells &
Simulation of Horimntal Well Perfonnance
by Muhammed Juma and Sami Bustami
Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations

ABSTRACT
Further to the drilling of several horizontal
wells in ADCO's reservoirs, Part-one of
this paper, presents the Reservoir
Simulation approach to predict the Inflow
performance of the Horizontal wells in
ADCO's reservoir. An element model was
constructed to simulate their performance.
Indeed, the analytical approach cannot
properly handle horizontal well flow in a
layered reservoir.
The model was designed to include the
surrounding producers and set potential
wells at the boundaries to maintain
constant pressure. Special attention was
given in gridding and layering of the
model to monitor the flow along and
around the horizontal well.
In particular the well bore was represented
by a series of grid cells of same dimension
as actual hole in order to have the well bore
pressure same as well block pressure. The
total number of cells was consequently
9,548 (31 x 28 x 11).
The model was initialised to represent onp
horizontal well in Asab field.
After
matching of the production test data. the
following results were obtained from the
prediction runs:
- The model predicted productivity index
of horizontal well is in good agreement
with the one observed from the field
production test.
- Three prediction cases at 3 different
desired rates illustrate that the
horizontal well performance reaches

steady state conditions after a short

period.
- With
an
effective
pressure
maintenance, the productivity index of
horizontal well increases with the
penetration of horizontal hole until the
interference
occurs
with
the
surrounding producers.
The complex geometry associated with
Horizontal wells makes interpretation of
well tests a difficult task. Part-two of this
paper, presents the experience gained in
this respect through analysing the tests
performed in two producer drainholes
drilled in ADCO Fields.
First, the discussion touches briefly on the
subject of the Analytical Models available
in the literature, highlighting remarkable
similarities between two independent
works by KuchukIP Goode on the one hand
and Odeh/Babu on the other.
The
analytical solution presented thereafter,
combining both drawdown and build-up
interpretations, was considerably
enhanced by integrating the geological and
petrophysical information available.
Finally, suitable reservoir models were
applied to predict the inflow performance of
each well. Computing the analytical
results, the predicted performance was then
compared with actual field data providing
further verification to these results.

PART 1- RESERVOm
SIMULATION APPROACH
The recent advancement in the drilling
industry has eased the difficulties of

sPE

21340 .

Application ofPre.Uft Analyms Inflow Performance Models on ADeo's Hoe.rizontal Wells

Simulation ofHorizontal Wen Performance

drilling horizontal holes to increase the

productivity in tight formations and to
reduce coning and casping effect.
However, the advantages of horizontal hole
over vertical hole are related to the rocks
and fluid characteristics. Hence, the
feasibility of drilling horizontal well will
vary from one reservoir to another. In
ADCO, the available data of Asab
Thamama Zone B were sufficient - to
conduct a reservoir simulation study to
generate a model to predict the productivity
of the horizontal hole.
Sb-151 (US) completed vertically in BIV
was production tested prior to drilling the
horizontal section. Due to poor rock
characteristics of the lower pseudoreservoir, a horizontal hole was drilled in
B-Lower and the well was again production
tested.
Hence the well was a good candidate for
reservoir study to compare the vertical well
against the horizontal well productivity.

Layering

A total of eleven layers represented the

vertical lithological variation in the
element model.
Layers 1 to 4 of the element model
correspond to the same layering of the full
field study and represent subzones BI, BIl,
BlII(U) and BIII(L).
For the horizontal hole section, the upper
part of subzone (BIV), corresponding to
layer 5 of the full field study was further
divided to six finer layers, defined as layer
5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of element model.
Layer 6 of the full field model corresponds
to layer 11 of the element model remains
the same.
Layering system of the full field model vs
element model is shown in Figure 4.
Formation Permeability & Porosity

A 3D 3-phase reservoir element model

(3lx28xll blocks) was generated, to
simulate Sb-151 and nearby wells that
effect its productivity. The element model
input data were extracted from the full field
3D 3 phase model of Asab Thamama Zone B
reservoir.

Construction of the Element Model

Gridding
Figure 1A shows the full field areal grid
overlaid with the element model
boundaries. Since the grid used in full
field study is different from the element
model,
CPS-1
and
ECL
contouring/gridding programmes were
used to generate and digitise input data of
the element model. The final gridding
system of the element model is shown in
Figure 2A. Grid dimensions are tabulated
in Table 1A.
A schematic diagram in Figure 3A
illustrates fine griddings around the
horizontal well where flow is semispherical.

Permeability and porosity of the final

history match of the full field study were
extracted, reformatted and used for the
element model.
Horizontal Hole Permeability & Porosity
The horizontal hole (0.5 ft. diameter) of Sb151 was drilled 536 feet through the middle
of Subzone BIV.
Flow through the horizontal hole is
simulated using horizontal permeability
(}{x) of 1000 (Darcy) and porosity of 100(%).

Wells Locations & Completions

In the element model, Sb-l51 US is the only
well completed horizontally along the X
direction.
Producers locations and completions in
respect to the new X, Y and Z grid system
are tabulated in Table 2A.

Wells Rates
The element model areal distribution of
producers and potential injectors are
shown in Figure 5A. Producers flow at
actual field observed rates and potential

seE 21340
M Juma &: S BU8tami

injectors were completed through aU layers

to maintain outer boundary blocks
pressures.

Saturation & PYT Functions

The full field model's saturation and PVT
tables were extracted and used in the
element model.

Model Initialisation
The element model saturation and
pressure data were initialised according to
the current reservoir condition.
In
addition, aU the producers and potential
injectors that influence Sb-151 (LIS)
performance were included under normal
on-going field conditions.

Matching Production Test Data of

Vertical Well
The first simulation run of the element
model was conducted without any
adjustment in the input data. During the
production period the element model
pressure data were 30 psi lower than
observed field production test data and
during the build up the model pressure data
were slightly higher than observed
pressure data as shown in Figure 6A.
It was reasonable to tune vertical and skin
area permeability since they have not been
fully investigated during the full field
simulation study. Hence, the final run
was conducted by reducing the vertical
permeability by 50% and increasing
permeability around the well bore (3 ft.) by a
factor of 2 (due to acid effect) to obtain good
match as shown in Figure 7A.

Prediction Runs
Productivity of Horizontal Well
The element model was utilised to simulate
Sb 151 (LIS) horizontal well performance.
The model output results were in a good
agreement with the observed production test
data as shown in Figure SA.
The
productivity index of the horizontal hole
was four times grater than the vertical
hole.

S55

Horizontal Well Performance under

ezpected Field Operating Qmditions

Several sensitivity runs at different bottom

hole flowing pressure were conducted to
investigate the well performance under
expected field operating conditions. The
well was able to flow at steady state
conditions even at the minimum bottom
hole flowing pressure which is 150 psi above
the bubble point pressure. The horizontal
well performance versus different bottom
hole flowing pressures is shown in Figure
9A.
Optimum Penetration of the Horizontal
Hole

The frictional losses due to the horizontal

flow are assumed to be nil since the
simulator can not handle the frictional
loss. As this is of minor importanc( for Sb151 range of production rate. Several runs
were conducted to investigate the
productivity increase versus the
penetration of the horizontal hole. The
performance plot of these runs is shown in
fig lOA. The middle portion of the plot is
linear which illustrates that the
productivity index of the horizontal well is
directly related to the penetration of the
horizontal hole. The plot deviates from the
straight line behaviour at penetration
higher than 700 ft. which corresponds to the
limitations due to pressure interference
from the surrounding producers.

Findings
While tuning the element simulation
model to match actual field production test
data, the followings were noted.
The well performance during the
drawdown period was sensitive to acid
effect, whereas during the build-up, it
was sensitive to the formation
permeability change.
- The cnanges in vertical permeability
had greater effect on horizontal well
performance than on vertical well
performance.
- Fine layering and gridding are
essential near the horizontal weUbore
where semi-spherical flow behaviour is
expected.

SPE
356

21

Application ofPreaure Analysis" Inflow Performance Models on ADCO'. Hoarizontal Wells

" Simulation ofHorizontal Well Performance

- The horizontal well performance is also

Influenced by the surrounding wells
spacing and rate, in addition to the
reservoir pressure maintenance.

This part utilizes conventional well test

analysis methods to develop an
interpretation methodology based on two
principles:

CONCLUSIONS

- Careful test design based on available

well data and pre-knowledge of the
horizontal well transient behaviour.

The element model study was successful in

predicting Sb-151 horizontal well
performance as detailed below:
- The horizontal well productivity was 4
times greater than the vertical well
which is confirmed by recent field
production tests.
- The actual penetration of the horizontal
hole (536 ft) is slightly below of optimum,
since this was the first horizontal well in
the ADCO concession. The optimum
penetration of this well is around 700 ft
under the current field operating
conditions.
With current effective
pressure maintenance further increase
in the penetration will not be beneficial
due to interference with the surrounding
producers.
- Sb 151 (US) horizontal well can flow at
steady state condition even at minimum
allowable bottom hole flowing pressure
(2200 psi) as shown in Figure 9A.

PART-2: THE ANALYTICAL

APPROACH
Whilst several authors have proposed
specific methods to identify flow regimes
and their durations under ideal conditions,
yet very few have shown how to apply the
theory in interpreting real pressure data.
This part reviews some of the most
practical solutions to the subject; namely
those de\eloped by P GoodelKuchuck1, 2, 3
and by Odeh/Babu4. The paper then
presents the analyses of testing two actual
horizontal wells which exhibited two
different pressure behaviours.
The
presence of pressure support was indicated
during the transient phase in one of the two
tests, in which case the ideal no flow
boundary model could not be applied.

- Consistency between drawdown and

buildup results and the matching of these
results with the pertinent geological and
petrophysical information available.
Once the interpretation results were
obtained, the appropriate Inflow model
would then be applied and compared with
the actual performance.
The match obtained between the theoretical
results and the observed data was often
found remarkable.

Pressure Transient Mathematical

Models
Up to five flow regimes may occur during
the transient stage of the horizontal well
flow, depending on the system geometry
and properties.
P. Goode & Thambynayagam 1 were
pioneers in tackling the difficult task of
developing a practical solution to the
inverse problem (interpretation) of the
horizontal well. F Kuchuck 2 / 3 later on,
carried out some necessary refinements on
the original theory, taking into
consideration, real life situations such as
the horizontal well being influenced by a
constant pressure boundary (Fig 1). He
also predicted two flow regimes that may
occur and developed analytical equations
describing their behaviour.
Most recent publication by Odeh 4 on the
same subject, predicted the four flow
regimes already identified by Goode.
The five possible flow regimes in the ideal
case of a reservoir completely surrounded
by No Flow boundaries, are:
-

1st Early Radial

2nd Early Radial
Early Linear
-Intermediate Radial

'If

seE 21340
M Juma &: S Buatami

857

They are briefly presented in Appendix A.

with highlights on the consistencyl
discrepancy between Kuchuck's & Odeh's
solutions.

encountered by flow. The description of

this boundary (sealing or non sealing) was
appraised by the pressure analysis shown
later, but recognising its mere existence
was vital for maintaining interpretation
accuracy.

Pressure Constant Boundary Model

Early Radial Flow Regimes

Kuchuck 3 considered the case, as in real

life situations, of pressure support due to the
presence of a gas cap or an active aquifer,
where the last three flow regimes may not
develop. Instead, a steady state flow
regime would finally occur. He developed
an equation from which the inflow
performance of the lateral hole at steady
state could be derived. The application of
which will be presented in the Inflow
performance evaluation part of this paper.

The drawdown early time was masked by

the wellbore storage and early rate
instability. However, after about 1.5 hrs of
flowing time, the pressure derivatives
(dP/dlnt) in (Fig 4) showed some sort of
stabilization predicting a possible radial
flow region. The difficult task is to
determine which one, if any, of the three
radial flows it could be. Is it the early first,
2nd or the intermediate? It may be useful at
this stage to switch to the build-up phase and
observe early time behaviour of the
pressure response derivatives in (Fig 5).
The unexpected occurred. The electronic
gauge set down hole drifted for a few
minutes masking off critical minutes of
the shut-in. This sudden drop in pressure
was strictly due to the gauge drift and not
the wellbore pressure response, since the
Amerada, in tandem, did not record
similar anomaly.
Nevertheless, the
electronic gauge showed stabilization of the
derivatives at very early times. Another
stabilization was also noted to occur just
after the gauge'drift' subsided but this time
at a higher level. The fact that the second
stabilization level was double the first,
indicated that two radial flows might have
successively occurred with the latter's slope
being twice that of the first. The end time of
the second early radial flow and that of the
radial flow during drawdown, matched
well.

- Late Linear

Bu-208 Test Interpretation

Bu-208 well was originally drilled
vertically and completed as dual producer
in Shuaiba Units H+GU/GL. The well was
selected as one of two pilot producers for the
horizontal drilling application.
Its
objective was to improve the productivity of
Unit G-Lower. In July 1988, the lateral hole
was drilled with a horizontal departure of
530 ft in Unit G-Lower (Fig 2). The lateral
hole was then acidised with 3500 USG of
15% HCL. During November 1988, the well
was worked over to cure mechanical
communication in the completion. The
communication was cured and the lateral
hole was re-acidised with 1400 USG 15%
HCL.
A single rate production test was conducted
in January 1989 on the lateral hole of Bu208 in Unit G-lower. The testing sequence
comprised 3 days of flowing on 18/64"
choke, followed by a downhole shut-in for a
similar period.

Core Analysis
Bu-208 well was cored when initially
drilled in Feb 1982. The core data (Fig 3)
showed a dense streak around 8353 ft; only
16 ft below the now-existing lateral hole.
The minimum core permeability of that
dense limestone in the horizontal direction
is 0.28 mD and the minimum vertical
permeability is probably even less. It is
therefore expected to be the first boundary

From these observations the following can

be concluded. Firstly, the drawdown
suspected radial flow is in fact the second
early radial flow after which, the flow has
reached the boundary at that bottom dense
streak identified earlier from core data.
Secondly, and since the two early slopes
during build-up are exactly doubled, then it
is only true to assume that this dense streak
is sealing.
To further verify this
assumption, core results have indicated
that permeability below that dense streak is
much less than the bulk average
permeability in G-Iower and hence any
contribution to the flow from that lower

sPE 2134 0

. .
358

Application ofPreaure Analysi." Inflow Performance Model. on ADCO'. Hoarizontal WeI

.. Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance

interval would still be insignificant on the

pressure response.
Since the suspected first early radial flow
in the build up occurred in the very early
minutes, further verification to its
occurrence would be to estimate the expected
time duration of the wellbore storage
region. By computing the lateral hole
volume (20 bbls), expected total
compressibility and minimal geometrical
permeability into a conventional formula 6 ,
the wellbore storage region was estimated
to end within one minute of shut-in
allowing ample time for the 1st Radiai
Flow to develop. This was only possible due
to the pre:;ence of the downhole shut-in tool.
The analysis of; the second Early Radial
Flow during the Drawdown, the First and
Second Radial Flow during the build-up,
all provided consisteIl1.in.formation about
the reservoir, with ..JKvKh about 4.0 mD
and the mechanical skin (Sm) is in the
order of -2.0 (Figs 6&7). The equations
used and the results can be seen in
Appendix B.
At this stage of the analysis, the separate
component, of the geometrical mean
permeability, namely K v & Kh cannot be
accurately derived. However, it can be
estimated using the time taken for the no
flow boundary to be felt at the well; from the
Derivatives plot of the drawdown, the
furthest boundary 50 ft vertically away is
felt at around 2.30 hrs of flowing. Kv is
therefore in the order of 2mD (equation AS).
Fortunately this approach was fonowed
only to cross check the consistency of the
analytical results, since Kh can be
separately derived from linear & radial
flow regimes that are found to develop
during the draw-down phase.

Early I ,inear Flow Regime

As soon as flow reaches the furthest no-flow
boundary of Unit G-lower a linear flow
regime may exist. The deflection upwards
by the derivatives of the drawdown (Fig 4)
at a time just after the second Early Radial
Flow regime, indicates the region where
the linear flow may have occurred. Figure
8 shows that a linear relationship exists

between 2.5 & 8 hrs of flowing time. The

analysis yields Kb = 7 mD and skin due to
damage = -2.09 utilizing Odeh's model. If
Kuchuck's equations are utilized instead,
Kb will still be = 7 mD but 8m will become =
-1.95.
The average vertical permeability
therefore can be calculated from these two
simple equations:
if

=4.0mD

&

=7mD

then

Kv

&

Kv

=2.3mD

=33%

A cross-check using equations A-9 & A-10,

confirms the validity of this flow regime
based on the derived data.
The early linear flow regime in the Buildup was similarly plotted (Fig 9) but the
results obtained were somewhat different.
Kh derived was 5 mD compared to 7 mD.
and hence Kv would be = 3.6 mD instead of
2.3 mD but the skin was still within the
same order of magnitude.

Intermediate Radjal Flow Regime

This flow regime is expected to occur at a
very late time according to equation (A-17).
Kuchuck expected much more time to lapse
before this flow regime is developed. The
derivatives oscillatory behaviour during
late time, reflects the slight rate fluctuation
effect on the pressure response. On the
semilog plot (Fig 10) a straight line was
drawn along the late time pressure
drawdown, and the results concluded a Kb
= 7.1 mD, and a skin of -1.60 utilizing
Odeh's equation.
The build-up phase does not show any sign
of the intermediate radial flow and the
Homer plot at the end of the shut-in period
(Fig 11) yielded inconsistent data with Kb =
4 mD, 8m = -3.1 & l" = 2792 psi.

SPE
M Juma & S Bustami

Note the increasing diversion between the

build-up and the drawdown data at late
times which closely supports Kuchuck's
views 3 about the build-up data of a
Horizontal Well test.
Table-2 contains a summary of the
analytical results derived from Drawdown
as well as Build-up.
By combining
drawdown and build up analyses, the
following can be concluded:
=4.0mD
=7mD
Kv

= 2.3 mD

Sm

= -2.0

=33%

P* cannot be easily determined since the

Intermediate Radial Flow during the
build-up period did not develop.

Further verification to the analytical

results is available in the Inflow
performance evaluation section of this
paper.
~151 Test Interpretation

Sb-151 well is the other pilot producer for

horizontal drilling, it was originally a
conventional dual producer in Thamama
subzones BIIIUIBIV. A lateral hole of 560 ft
was drilled in BIV (Fig 12) during April
1988 and was later acidised and flowed to
clean in a rigless operation.
A single rate production test was carried
out in November 1988. Similar to Bu-208
test, high accuracy electronic pressure
gauge and a downhole shut-in tool were
used to eliminate the effects of wellbore
storage on the early time flow regimes in
the Build-up phase. Additionally, the well
was flowed, on 30/64" choke, for a
relatively long time (=4 days) in order to
confirm the presence of a pressure support
boundary within the well drainage area.
After only five hours of flowing, the
pressure derivatives of the drawdown (Fig

2134 0
359

13) started a downdip, indicating the first

sign of the pressure maintenance effect on
the well. (Due to a delayed start of the
electronic gauge, the draw down
derivatives plot is that of the Amerada
Mechanical Gcuge). The BHFP after about
22 hI'S of flowlRg reached a stable value of
2831.5 psi and virtually remained so till the
end of the test. Hence a maximum of 5 hrs
of transient time may be analyzed, the rest
was being masked off by the pressure
support effect.
The other information that can be obtained
from (Fig 13) is a region where the
derivatives are showing stabilization after
wellbore storage and early rate instability
effects subsided.
This stabilization
indicates a radial flow until about 5 hrs of
flowing. As in the case of Bu-208, reservoir
information from other sources are
essential.
The lateral hole location within Zone B as
produced by the CNULDL logs (Fig 12)
indicates that the lateral hole is off-centre.
On average, it is some 30 ft above the dense
limestone of Zone Band 64 ft below a
dolstone streak that may contain the flow
within. Hence, two successive radial flows
are expected to occur at early time.
The derivatives of the Build-up phase (Fig
14) clearly indicates the occurrence of the
first early radial flow, since with the
downhole shut-in device, the wellbore
storage was almost eliminated. The bottom
no flow boundary was felt after
approximately 35 minutes of the shut-in
period. This concludes that the Drawdown
Radial flow could only be that of the 2nd
Early Radial flow.
The analysis of the semilog of the 2nd early
radial flow during drawdown
(Fig 15) yields ~KvKb = 9 mD & 8m = -0.6.
The second early radial flow in the buildup
(fig 16) provided similar results with
.JKvKb = 8.6 mD & 8m = -0.8.
In the same plot, the first Early Radial
Flow Wbml.was also plotted and analysed.
The .JKvKh derived value from the first
early radial flow regime was = 5.6 mD and
the Sm = -2.5. (Table-3 summarizes the

360

Application ofPrflaure Analysis" Inflow Performance Models on ADCO's Hoarizontal Wells

" Simulation ofHorizontal Well Performance

above results.) The discrepancy between

the two early Radial Flow Analyses, could
be attributed, in part, to the fact that the
lower subzone of BIV is much tighter than
the upper one. The depth of investigation in
the vertical direction during 1st Radial
flow was 30 ft. which is within the boundary
of the tight area zone of BIV-lower. The
second early radial flow, on the other hand,
propagated further up into the higher
permeable subzones of BIV U & BIll.
The skin (Sm)is most accurately derived
from the interpretation of the 1st early
radial flow, since unlike the one derived
from any subsequent flow regime, the skin
value is not commingled with pseudo skins
due to boundary or partial penetration
effects. Furthermore, it is expected that the
2nd early radial flow propagating in the
higher permeable intervals of subzones
BIV & BIII would view the natural
reduction of permeability around the
lateral hole as damage. Consequently, the
derived skin appeared less negative.
The next expected flow regime, having two
no flow boundaries, is a linear flow
regime. The drawdown derivatives did not
show any sign of this flow regime, nor did
the build up derivatives. However, the
Build-up Homer plot (Fig 16), at the end of
the concluded second early radial flow,
showed an upward deflection which may
indicate its presence. This might have
been the case if it had not been found during
earlier communication test that while the
lateral hole was set to flow for a short
duration, the pressure gauge set across Bupper recorded a response of 15 psi that
commenced after approximately 1.5 hours
of flowing the lateral hole (Fig 17). The 1.5
hour lag time confirms the mechanical
isolation, but the magnitude of the response
indicates the subzonal communication
between B-upper and the lateral hole. The
response of 15 psi could mean a
contribution to flow by some 300 BblsID,
having learnt that the productivity of Bupper is in the order of 20 BID/psi.
Consequently, linear flow existence is
highly doubtful and the upward deflection
of the Homer plot simply reflects the
encountering of a non-sealing barrier such
as the Dolstone. The results of interpreting
thLihitd slope yield a smaller value of

~KvKb due to the reduction of the overall Kv

within the depth of investigation.
Therefore, we resort to estimating Kv, since
Kh cannot be separately derive:l from the
analysis as was the case in Bu-2U8. The Kv
is estimated from the pressure deflection on
the first (sealing) boundary, 30 ft away,
after 35 minutes of the shut-in period
utilizing equation (A-2): Which then
predicts K~ =31%.
Maintaining this percentage in the
analysis of the second early radial flow
produced reasonable result of Kb, compared
with previous tests when the well was
vertical.

= 9mD

Hence if

(From

Early
2nd
Radial flow)

and
Then
and

Kv

8m

= 31%
= 6mD
= 5mD
= -2.5 (From 1st
Early Radial
flow)

As in Bu-208 case, the concluded analytical

results were verified in the Inflow

performance evaluation part ofthis paper.
NB: The Analytical Equations utilized
and the calculations that followed are
presented in Appendix B.

InDow Perfonnanoe Evaluation

Now that all information obtainable from
the transient pressure analysis of the
Reservoir have been extracted, the
remaining objective will be to use these
results in order to evaluate each well
performance on the long TUn.
The transient pressure behaviour of both
wells were significantly different. Sb-151
lateral hole showed a marked strength of
the pressure support maintaining a steady
state flowing pressure since early time.
On the other hand, Bu-208 well did not show

SP.E 21340
361

M Juma &: S Bustami

any sign of pressure maintenance. Hence,

two different Models are applicable for each
case.

Bu-208 Int10w PerformaDM

Bu-208 lateral hole was completed in Unit
G-lower which is part of Unit G of Shuaiba.
Unit G offtake commenced in 1986 with an
average rate of 5000 BID sustained over
1986-1987 primarily to test performance.
Water injection commenced into Unit Gat
the end of 1986. A steady pressure decline
in Unit G producers has been observed over
1986-1987. Pressure maintenance by
peripheral water injection was not felt in
the producing area.
Conversely, the
pressure trends in the flank water
injection demonstrate a rapid build-up in
pressure since the commencement of
injection.
Based on these observations and due to the
flowing pressure falling below the bubble
point, all Unit G producers were closed at
the beginning of 1988 less than one year
before Bu 208 Lateral Hole was tested.
Since then, reservoir pressure monitored
in Unit G producers showed a steady buildup.
Bu-208 lateral hole was not planned to be the
sole producer on all of Unit G. The pseudoskin (SR) due to partial penetration in the
direction of the lateral hole would be too
high for the lateral hole productivity to
sustain any significant improvement over
that of the vertical well.
However, since all of the other Unit G
producers are currently closed in, Bu-208
lateral hole is, for the time being the only
drain hole in Unit G. In fact, the lateral
hole has already started to flow below the
bubble point when bottom hole flowing
pressure was recently monitored. As a
result, the flow had to be restricted to less
than 200 BOPD. The current PI, 2.0 BID/psi
is still in transient, since no lateral
boundary is yet expected to have been
reached.
The depth of investigation
(transient drainage area) of this over-ayear-flow, has approximately 2 km radius,
much further than the designed drainage.
The Flow is expected to reach pseudo state
in terms of years to come, rendering
further decline in the current performance.

This situation is temporary and the wells

offset to Bu-208 are drilled so as to be
producers, perhaps by other lateral holes.
Assuming, equal production from the offset
wells surrounding Bu-208L (See Fig 18) the
drainage geometrical dimensions can now
be estimated.
A general solution for a horizontal well of
arbitrary length producing from a closed
rectangular region with the well placed at
any location within the boundary, is best
presented by Odeh6 Prior formulae given
in the literature71111'9 were for special cases,
thin reservoir and well crosses the entire
drainage volume, or the well is located in
the centre of an elliptic drainage volume.
The application of Odeh's equations to
derive the inflow performance of this well
based on the assumption of equal
production from the offset wells, is
presented in Appendix C.
The derived productivity index, 3 BID/psi
is some five times that of the PI when well
was vertical. The PI during the transient
time of the test was 3.7 BID/psi, which
further verifies the consistency of the
analytical results.
~151 Int10w Perfonnance

Odeh's Model for the productivity

determination of the horizontal hole cannot
be applied in this situation, since it is only
applicable in the case of a closed boundary
system. The steady state flow condition,
maintained for the last 70 hrs of flowing,
confirmed the pressure support
predomination. Consequently, it is not
necessary to employ complex formula in
order to evaluate the well performance
since it can be directly obtained from the
field measured data._The well productivity
(Pl as ) is in fact q /(P-PwfIlS) 11 BID/psi,
where Pwfss is the bottom hole flowing
pressure at steady state.

However, in order to verify the analytical

results obtained earlier, the inflow
performance of a well under the influence
of pressure support is given by Kuchuck3 ;

JI--v:e~l....

iii

O&':::"_DW."'-~

_.o~

IS

Note from the above equation that the PIss

does not depend on its drainage area.

362

Application of'PreuuN Anal,.s" Inflow performance Models on ADCO's Hoerizontal Wells

.. Simulation of'Horizontal Well PerfCJl'lll8Jlee

being misinterpreted as another radial

flow regime.

By co mputing the analytical results for;

~;.g mD. Kv/Kb 31."

8m -2.5 .. H-94ft

PIss = 10 BID/psi which is found consistent

with the actual performance. The equation
was I pplied for dift'erent H. starting with 94
ft. and ending up with 150 ft.. since flow is
believed to propagate into B upper. It was
found that the PIss does not significantly
vary with H in that range. On the other
hand, the PIss increases linearly with the
geometrical permeability value. providing
that Anisotr~emains constant. For
instance, if -JKvKb increases to 12 mD, PIss
becomes 13 BID/psi.
Kuchuck's equation assumed that the
pressure constant is at the immediate
boundary to the lateral hole. In Sb-151, the
pressure support is not far, but not very
close either. since it took five hours of
flowing time before it became apparent.
Recently, the well performance was retested to find it had maintained its original
value.
However, average reservoir
pressure seemed to have declined over the
last year or so, which implies that the
current performance of Sb-151 falls
somewhere between a closed and a constant
pressure reservoir behaviour.

The downhole shut-in device in both tests

enabled the development of the first
early radial flow which further
enhanced the consistency of the
interpretation.
Actual Drawdown & Build-up data
provided almost the same reservoir
information at early Radial times. At
later times, however, they diverged from
each other.
lDftow Performance

Productivity indices from the theory

were found consistent with the actual
Field performance of each well. which
further verified the analytical results.
Lateral holes do not provide, but utilize
energy efficiently. Therefore, lateral
holes are most effective in reservoirs
under pressure support, as is the case of
ShoISI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authol'B thank ADCO Management for
pennissioo to publish this paper, and are grateful
to all who assisted in making this work
materialize.

CONCLUSIONS
Transient
Two Horizontal wells in ADCO Fields
were tested and analysed successfully
following conventional interpretation
methodology based on recently published
theories.

NOMENCLATURE
A

Drainage Area of the Horizontal Well

Extension of the drainage volume of

the Horizontal well in the X~rection.
so Extension of the drainage volume of
the Horizontal well in the Y~rection.
Oil formation volume factor
(RBISTB)
Geometric factor defined by equation
(4) in Ref: 5
Total Compressibility (Psi1)

The two No Flow Models developed by

Odeh and Kuchuck were found
remarkably similar deriving identical
values for permeability and similar
values for the skin due to damage. The
time of each flow regime duration
however were somewhat different.
The second Early Radial Flow was
found to occur in both tests during
drawdown and build-up. Hence. its
mere recognition by Knchuck. avoided it

.. aH

The abortest distance between the well

and the y-boundar,y, ft.
Fonnation thickness (ft)
Horizontal permeability (mD)
Vertical permeability (mD)

M Juma &: S Buatami

.. Horizontal penn_ability in the xdirection (mD)

.. Horizontal permeability in the ydirection (mD)
.. Half-length of the Horizontal lateral
hole (ft)
.. Total length of the Horizontal hole (ft)

Lw

.. Slope

P i " Initial Reservoir Pressure (psi)

p.

.. Extrapolated pressure from the Blup

intermediate Radial Flow Regime
(psi)
.. Average Reservoir Pressure (psi)

P
Pwf

.. Bottom hole flowing pressure (psi)

Pwfss

.. Bottom hole flowing pressure during

steady state (psi)
PUHR) .. Bottom hole pressure extrapolated to
1-HR shut-in 01' flowing (psi).
P.1s
.. Productivity index of the horizontal
well at steady state condition (bid/psi)
P.Isss .. Productivity index of the horizontal
well at pseudo steady state condition
(bid/psi)
.. Stabilized flow rate (STBID).
q
rw

.. Lateral Drainhole radius (ft)

8m

.. Mechanical skin in the lateral hole

SR

9r

.. Skin due to partial penetration in the Y

direetion
.. Total skin .. SR + 8m

Sz

.. Skin due to partial penetration in the

vertical direetion
.. time (Brs)

.. Oil viscosity (CP)

.. Porosity, fraction

363

.. Minimum Vel'tical Distance between

the horizontal well and the fint
(nearest) boundary (ft)
.. Maximum Vertical Distance between
the horizontal well and the second
(furthest) boundaty (ft).

REFERENCES
1.

Goode, P.A., Thambynayagam, R.K.:

"Pressure Drawdown " Build-up Analysis of
Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media" SPE14250.
Dec. 1987.
2. Kuchuck, F.J., Goode, P.A.: "Pressure
Transient Behaviour of Horizontal Wells
With" Without Gas Cap or Aquifer". SPE17413 Mareh 1988
3. Kuchuck, F.J., Goode, P .A.: "Pressure
Transient Analysis " Inflow Performance
For Horizontal Wells" (presented at the 1988
SPE Annual Technical Conference)
4. Odeh, A.S., Babu, D.K.: "Transient Flow
Behaviour of Horizontal Wells"
SPE-l8802.
5. Odeh, A.S., Babu, D.K.: "Productivity of a
Horizontal Well"
Mobil R" D Corp. SPE 18298.
6. Ram, A., AI Hussainy, R.: "An Investigation
of Wellbore Storage &: Skin Effect in
Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical
Treatment. Equation 19/ SPE 2466.
7. Joshi, S.D.: "Augmentation of Well
Productivity with Slant &: Horizontal Wells.
SPE 13375.
8. Giger, F.M.: "Horizontal Wells Production
Techniques in Heterogeneous Reservoirs"
SPE-13710.
9. Giger, F.M., "The Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Horizontal Drilling" SPEl3024.
10. Sherrard, D.W.: "Application of Horizontal
wells at Prudhoe Bay" SPE-15376.
11. Kumar, A.: "Strength ofWater Drive 01' Fluid
Injection From Transient Well Test Data"
Anil Kumar SPE-5054

APPENDIX A
Flow Regime equations by Odeh & Kucbuck
In a No Flow boundary model, the five possible flow regimes are the following:
1. First Early Radial Flow

This radial flow is equivalent to a fully penetrating vertical well in an infinite

reservoir of thickness IJr the lateral hole length.

364

Applieatian ofPrunre

SPE 213A 0

Anal"."

lntlow Perfonnance Model. on ADCO. Hoerizontal Wel1a

" Simulation ofHorizontal Well Performance

Both solutions by Odeh &: Kuchuck yield identical equations describing this flow
regime.

P; - Pwr=

~,UJl [Log .JK;Kj"t

- 3.23 + O.87Sm ]

(A-I)

0~r2
w

vKvKh.LT

The time this flow regime ends is when the nearest boundary is felt. The disagreement
between the time estimates by the two models is in the order of 50% since Odeh's allows
more time for flow to approach pseudo steady state at the boundary reached. The
equations used in each model are as follows;
ByKucbuck
2

tend = 1207 Zw 0J.1Ct/Kv

(A-2)

whereas, by Odeh;
2
tend = 1800 Z w 01.1 Ct/Kv

(A-3)

where Zw is the distance between the nearest horizontal boundary and the lateral hole.

2. SecondEarb' Radial Flow

This flow period may occur when the well is close to a no flow boundary. Kuchuck
identified this flow regime. The equation for this flow period is:
Pi - Pwf=

162.6 q.J.1.B

ILog ~t
0~Clr

-Log

(1+ .JKj,lKy )

3.23 + 0.434Sm

2...

Z,.l'~'

(A-4)

where LW is half the length of the lateral hole

It should be noted that the slope of the semiioc ~tr8iJ:hlline of this flow regime is twice that
of the first. It also includes a pseudo-skin duE.' to lh( early time flow period between the
well and the nearest boundary.
The time this flow regime starts and end!>
distance travelled.

I~

ol!oO related to Kv and the square of the

The start time is determined by equation!' (A2)

Clr (A-3).

tend = 1207 Z~ 0 1.1 Ct/Kv

(A5)

where ZF is the vertical distance between the horizontal well and the second nearest
boundary.
Note that Odeh did not refer to the above flow regime.

seE 21340

M Jumft & S Buatami

366

3. EaJV IJJMWP Flow

Once the preuure transient 1'eaches the upper and lower No Flow Boundaries a period of
lineal' flow may develop. It occurs when the lateral hole is generally long compared to
the formation thickness. The equation for this linear flow regime given by Kuchuck is
as follows:

Pwf=

8'13qB~
IJrH

141.2 qB J.L
(A-6)

Kn0Ct

The pseudo-skin 8 z may be visualized as the skin due to partial penetration in the
vertical direction and is equal to;

8z = -2.303 log

[n~w

(1+

n:w ]

) Sin

(113 - ZwfH + Z 2wl H2)

Kv

Lw

(A7)
,

Odeh's equation for this flow regime is as follows:

Pi - Pwf=

8.13 q J.LB
LT. H

[];;;
01l

CtKh

- In Sin (180 Zw I H) - 1.838 + Sm)

17.37H
+ I
-.J Kh K v

(In Hlrw+0.25 In Kh/Kv

(A-8)

The time duration for this flow is defined by Odeh as;

tstart = 1800 Zf 2 0 Il CtfKv

(A-9)

tend = 160 IJr 2 0 J.L CtfKh

(A-10)

It is clear that iftstart ~ tend, this period wiJI not occur.

Hence, a requirement on the we)) length lJr for this flow to occur
is given by;
IJr > 3.33 ZF ..JKh!Kv

(A-H)

Interestingly enough, for an Isotropic reservoir, Odeh's & Kuchuck's equations

converge to become identical. In the case of the normal range of Anisotropy, Kv/Kh
between 1 & 0.1, the variance between the two solutions in deriving 8 m is 0.36
maximum. The mathematical argument is as fopows:
At a first glance, equations A-6 & A-8 appears difTe1'ent, but it is not too difficult to notice
that the two equations are identical up to (8z + 8 m ) in Kuchuck's, and the terms within the

IPE

Application of Pre ure Annlysis & Innow Performance Models on ADCO. HOftrizontal Welle
& Simulation of Horizontnl Well Performance

366

last small bracket in Odeh's equation (A8). For simplification, let us set these terms
equal to (D+Sm ), so that;
D

=Ln Hlrw + 0.25 In KylKh - In Sin (180

zwlH) - 1.838.

Therefore, in order for the two equations to be identical, Sz of Kuchuck should equal D of
Odeh.
Let's ignore temporarily the terms in the second line of equation A-7, by Kuchuck, for
deriving Sz, and breakdown the rest of the terms as follows:

)F

n rw
= -2.303 log

(1+

= -In nrwlH - In (1

)"Kh)

Sin

+ ~Ky/Kh)' In Sin nZw/H

= -Inn + In Hlrw - In (1+ -JKy/Kh)' In Sin n Zw/H

Compare these terms with D which is;

=Ln Hlrw + 0.25 In Kh/Ky In Sin 180

ZwlH - In 2 n

where 1.838 was replaced by its equivalent value (1n

2n>

The variance, say X, between D of Odeh & Sz of Kuchuck, while still ignoring the second
line of A-7;

= 10.25 Ln KhlKy - In 2m

- (-In

(1+

vKh/Ky) - In nJ

=- In (Kh/Ky) 0.25 - In 2 - In n + In (1+ vKh/Ky) + Inn

K
Hence,
X

025"

lV\(I+JKv/K~ )/2.(Kv/K ..J

=~

--------.

y __. (KhlKy) .

(A-12)

Therefore, if Ky = Kh (full Isotropy) the resultant variance in the derivation of Sm from

equation (A12) = O.
and, for Ky/Kh = 0.1, X = 0.16, or in other words, Odeh's values
for Sm are 0.16 lower than Kuchuck's.
Let us now examine the effect of the second line of equation A-7 which has so far been
neglected. Again, for clarification purposes, let's call the effect by these terms, y.
Therefore;

The maximum effect (Ymax) will be when Zw -. 0,

so that,
Ymax = vKh/Ky HlL w (113)
From equation (A-l1), Early Linear Flow will not occur when;

A-13)

21340

Si::E

21340
367

II Juma" S Buatami

However, ZF is equal to H, since ZF + Zw = H & Zw ~ o.

Substituting IJr = 2 Lw = 3.33 H
Ymax

.JKhlKv into equation (A-13) we obtain;

= 2 x 0.33313.33 =0.2.

Hence for any Anisotropy, the total maximum variance, say Xmax' between Odeh's and
Kuchuck's derived Sm will be equal to (0.2 + X).
or Xmax = 0.2 + In (l + ..JKv!Kh) / 2 (Kv!Kh) 0.25

(A-14)

Hence when Kv/Kh 0.1, for example, the total variance 0.2 + 0.16 0.36 at most. In the
case of higher Anisotropy say Kv/Kh = 0.01, the maximum variance will increase to
0.75. However, a reservoir with such an extremely high Anisotropy will not be
horizontally drilled in the first place.
As for the derivation of permeability from the slope of the linear plot, the two solutions
yield identical results.

4. Intermediate Radial Flow

This is the third radial flow that could develop; this time in the X-Y plane. This flow
regime is analogous to the radial now of the conventional well. However, much longer
time is needed, for the pressure pulse has travelled far compared to the length of the well
and so that the effects of the upper and lower boundaries are fully seen.
The equation that describes the flow period by Kuchuck, is as follows;

Kht

162.6q IlB [
Pi - Pwf =

Log

141.2 qJ.1B

_ _ _" 2.5267]+

(Sz+Sm)

(A-15)

01lCtL2.
where Sz is derived from equation (A7).
Alternatively, the equation developed for this flow regime by Odeh is:

Pi-Pwf

162.6 q IlB

- 1.76 + 0.87

Log

KhH

..J Kh/Kv.HILT

01lCt L~

(In Hlrw + 0.25 In KhJKv Ln Sin (1800 ZwIH) - 1.838 + Sm)

(A-16)

The above two equations are not very similar as in the previous ones. In fact, it can be
shown that they would have been so, if the constant 1.76 ofOdeh's equation is replaced by
1.93. Nevertheless, the two equations result in the same value for Kh.
The start and end of this flow period by Odeh are:

tstart = 1480 IJr 2 0Il Ct/Kh

(A-I?)

tend = 2000 "IlOt (dy+IJrI4)2!Kh

(A-18)

368

SPE

Application of Preuure Analysis Ii: InOow Perfonnance Models on ADCO's Hoorizontal Wens
.. Simulation of Horizontal Wen Performance

2134 0

dy being the closest lateTal boundary encountered,

In temlS of the dimensionless time (to

=0.000264 Khtl ~ J.LCtLW),

Odeh's tstart is at to = 1.6. Kuchuck, on the other hand, predicted a much more restrictive
condition for this flow to fully develop with to approaching 100, practically eliminating
the possibility of its existence during real life tests.

6. Late Linear Flow

The pressure transient has now reached the lateral extremities of the reservoir thus
yielding the second linear and final flow period during transient time.
This flow regime does not usually occur during normal short testing durations.
however, for the sake of completeness, P Goode equation is as follows;

Pi - Pwf

8.131"1B
bH

141.2 qB J.L
(Sz+Sm+SR) (A-19)

Kn0Ct

IJr.JKyKh

qr

Odeh's equation on the other hand is;

Pi - Pwf

= 8.13~B[E
bH
o IlCt Kh

17.37 H

(1n Hlrw+O.25)l Kh/Kv

"KvKh

- In Sin (180 ZwJII) - 1.838 + Sm bilJr + SR) ]

(A-20)

Again the two equations are very similar provided that SR (the skin due to partial
penetration in the Y direction) is equally derived from both solutions.

APPENDIXB
Calculations ofResults

0::

6.95mO

:0::

-2.09

I.e) Intermediate Radial Flow (DO)

From Plot in fig (10)

B.I Bu-208

The slope (M)

72.7
Ii: P(l HR)
2760.6 psi
utilizing equations (13 It 140fRef-4)

108) 2nd Early Radial Flow (DO)

From Plot in fig (6)

The slope (M)
32
&: P(l HR)
2722 psi
utilizing equations (B.3 Ii: B.4 of Ref-3)

4.01 mO
-1.9

l.b) Early Linear Flow (DO)

From Plot in fig (8)
The slope (M)
17.54
It P(l HR)
2719.3 psi
utilizing equations (8 It 90fRef-4)

:0::

7.08 mO
-1.60

l.d) 1st Early Radial Flow (B/up)

From Plot in fig (7)
The slope (M)
15.6
It P(l HR)
2660.4 psi
utilizing equations (3 Ii: 6ofRef-4)

4.13mO
-2.65

SFE

21340

MJuma I: S Buatami

I.e) 2nd Early Radial Flow (BIup)

From Plot in fig (7)

B.2 SbU1
2.a) 2nd Early Radial Flow (DD)
From Plot in fig (15)

The slope (M)

.. 30.7
" P(l HR)
0:
2666.6 psi
utilizing equations (B.3 " B.4 [acijusted to
Build-up] of Ref-3)
0:
0:

869

The slope (M)

0:
52
.
&: P(l HR)
.. 2877.8 psi
utilizing equations (B.3 &: B.4 ofRef-3)

4.18mD
-2.47

.. 9mD
= -0.6

1.t) Early Linear Flow (BIup)

From Plot in fig (9)

2.b) 1st Early Radial Flow (Blup)

From Plot in fig (16)

The slope (M)

.. 21
" P(l HR)
.. 2722.2 psi
utilizing equations (8 &: 11 ofRef-4)

The slope (M)

.. 41.9 psi/cycle
&: P(l HR)
0:
2929.6 psi
utilizing equations (3 " 6 of Ref-4)

.. 4.75mD
== -2.65

5.61mD
.. -2.48

1.g) Late Intermediate Radial Flow (B/up)

From Plot in fig (11)

2.c) 2nd Early Radial Flow (Blup)

From Plot in fig (16)

The slope (M)

.. 128
&: P(l HR)
.. 2555.2 psi
utilizing equations (13 &: 16 of Ref-4)

Kb

The slope (M)

.. 54.3 psi/cycle
&: P(l HR)
.. 2931.05 psi
utilizing equations (B.3 &: B.4 [acijusted to
B/up] ofRef-3)

== 4.06mD
.. -3.11
2792 psi

8m

p*

.. 8.6mD
-0.8

0:

NB: Fluid &: Reservoir parameters, Rates

&: pressures of both tests are presented in
Table-I.

APPENDIXC
Productivity Index Evaluation
Bu-208
From (Ref. 5)

Pl sss =

7.08 X 10-3 x b ....KvKh

Equation-3, Ref-5
B. J..l Ln(CHAlrw) -075

ST

a & b are estimated to be 2320 ft & 2850 ft respectively based on the geometrical distances
between Bu-208 and the relevant offset wells as shown in (fig 18). It is assumed that all offset
wells are producing equally from Unit G-lower, although all Unit G producers, with
exception to Bu-208, are presently closed in. Otherwise, the drainage area will be all of Unit
G reservoir.
InCH was calculated to be = 7.9 using equation 4IRef-5.
SR = 53.9 using equations 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/ Ref-5.

SP.E 21340
Application of Preuure Analysi. a: Inflow Performance Model. on ADCO'. HC81'izontal Wells
a: Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance

370

Since,
Sm = -2 (from Analysis)
and &r = SR+Sm
Hence,

&r = 53.9-2=51.9
and since
..JKvKh

4.0 mD (from analysis)

Hence,
PIsss

= 3.0 BID/psi

The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index of this lateral hole.

Table 1A: Numbers and Dimensions of Grids in X Direction

I~;Feet
I~~Feet
I~;Feet
I~;Feet
I~~Feet

6960

2.'r}J)

2320

8
57D

10

400

150

11
64

16
105

17
155

18
155

Z3
50

24
150

25
414

ai
773.3

29

30

2320

2320

31
2320

15

22
10

4
2320

773.3

773.3

773.3

12

16

13
4

14
1

19

2)

100

15

21
5

Z1
773.3

773.3

Numbers and Dimensions of Grids in Y Direction

I~iFeet 1~5 I~5 I~;.5

I~iFeet I~73.3 I~3.3 1~3.3

1~.5

I~1

I~

I~~

I~ I~o I~ I~

28

SP.E 21'.0
371

M Juma" S Bustami

Table 2A: Wells LocatiODS and Completions in The Element Model .

Location
Well
No.
Sb-10
Sb-16
Sb-18
Sb-20
Sb-25
Sb-102
Sb-l34
Sb-151
Sb-151
Sb-l63
Sb-169
Sb-179
Sb-l82
Sb-201
Sb-211

31
4
6

5
5

Completion
Long String
Short String
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

25

3)

29
29
12
14tD20

23
25

3
14
14
3

14
29

'Z1
'Z1

25

3
2
3
3
2
2
2

2i)

3)

23

'Z1

29

18

Table 1: Fluid and Reservoir Parameters

(Rates & Pressures)

Ct
H

LT

o
-

Bu 208 L

Sb151L

1.54

1.625

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Formation volume factor

Total compressibility
Formation thickness
Length of the lateral hole
Porosity
Wellbore Radius
Viscosity
Oil Rate

Assumed equal to stabilized pressure prior to the test

=
2769 psi
Flowing pressure at 0 shutin
=
2625.5 psi
Flowing pressure at steady state =

Pwf =
Pwfss =

=
=
=

=
=
=
=
=

(19 x 10~ psr 1)

66ft.
530ft
0.23
0.245ft.
0.26cp
523 BOPD

94ft.
560ft.
0.285
O.245ft
0.30cp
1655BOPD
2978 psi
2831.5 psi
2831.5 psi

5tD10
5tD10
5tD10
5tD10
5tD10
5tD10
5tD10

8 horizontally

4
5tD10

5tDIO
4tD10

4tDIO
4tD10

SPE
372

21'.0

Application ofPre.Uft Analym. It Inflow Performance Modela on ADCO'. Hoarizontal Wella

It Simulation of Horizontal Wen Performance

Table 2: ADalytical Results ofBU208 Lateral Hole Test

PERMEABILITY
DEFINITION

FLOW REGIME
DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS
First Early Radial (DD)
Second Early Radial (DD)

(Not Developed Due to Storage)

Early Linear (DD)

In term. Radial (DD)
BUILD-UP ANALYSIS
First Early Radial
(B/up)
Second Early Radial
(B/up)
Early Linear (B/up)

"KvKh
Kh
Kv
Kh
Kv

4.0
7.0
2.3
7.1
2.3

-JKyKh

4.1
4.2

-2.7
-2.5

5.0
3.6
4.1
4.0

-2.6

~KvKh
Kh
Kv
Kh
Kv

Interm. Radial (B/up)

NB: It is assumed that Kx =Ky

SKIN
Sm

PERMEABILITY
mD

-1.9
-2.1
-1.6

-3.1

=Kh

Table 3: Analytical Results ofSb-15I Lateral Hole Test

FLOW REGIME

PERMEABILITY
DEFINITION

PERMEABll.ITY
mD

SKIN
Sm

DRAWDQWN ANALYSIS
First Early Radial (DD)
Second Early Radial <DD)
BUILD-UP ANALYSIS
First Early Radial
(B/up)
Second Early Radial
(B/up)

(Not Developed Due to Storage)

"KvKh

9.0

-0.6

-JKvKh

5.6

-2.5

8.6

-0.8

-JKyKh

NB: It is assumed that Kx = Ky = Kh

SP,E

21340
3111g

Boundar1es of Ele.ent Model (Sb-151) and Grldd1ng of Aaab

Thamama Zone B Full Field Model

-.

..

:+

Iot+ .~+

::
5

"'-

....

; E+-~

~-

1-0-

_.

~ :+
::;
~
::: ~ 100+
~~

,,-

Ie-

~-

:.. -

......

~~+
~
!
~
:
~+ +

t,.

~-

v,-

~-

Sb-151

h+

1--+

~+
~

... .+

.. --

~+

:0+-

~:+

,,I

~.

:+

h-

:0+~+

~.

,,-

- - .-

,-

10>-

".

I=>

...

..

~+

1-.

.....

:+

..... ,,+
",

..+ :+
~

",.

~.

...

,,-

",'"

I=>

Ir-

tn

~'t

~+

......

",.

i'o+

10-+

h+

rw+

",4-

II'

~+

-~'t ~- --'t -~+ ~'t

Ie+

:+
:+

....

j..

tn

~-

I.-

Ito'
p- "

lot

1"-

~.

lot

..

::: .~
:

:..

:+

1,.+

p;.

~. ~

.... ,,-

~+ ~+

:+

1-0+
1It+""

Elerent~~

1--'-

".

...

...

",

~-

~~ p.

~.

1-'"
:+

fo-

- -.-.-

:;

~.

:+

~.

;;

=:

~+

;~-

",- ~.

[10'" lr!+

-..-

...- 1-0-

;: ~I=>

Boundries of

LU

f.,:+

Ie-

1-0.

~=-

:~

100-

1-'"

~.

~Z

.. ~

:t ~

~:+

:'.

:;5+ !!...

"s: ':+

~+

:~ -~

k+

:;.

...+

:ii+-

..

!!

~+

:~

.. - .

= ...

::1-

-+ .....

1A

SPE 21340

374

fit. J.

s , ,

.2JJI

JD

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM Of ANE GRlDlNGS TO NOOEL FLOW

INTO HORIZONTAL WELL (58-1511

10' .

. ..i

I
I-- I - -

M.-

- I~
......

.... ,....."f'"..

H- -1- 1--1
-t
I -1- -1.. ..

VI

--l-

r~ ~

I--I~

.r~:;

iooo-...

,I

:--}
j

A" 'LOW

AShB TIlAMAHA ZONE B

SUBlONES

UNITS

LATEniNG

TIE

HORIlONT4L
IlELL ELEMENT

fULL fJEUJ
MODEL

HI

81

LAYERING

f--AIA--

MOOEL

,,

Ill.

IS

II

'"

I- D. S"UlLIIE

la

AI&-

M2
2

811

R2

III

.)AU'

-Ill

IM)... ......:A If

MJAUZ
IH]A

~A

J"-

21

8111

........................

II

II
I'

N34L

~O) SItLCLUf

LM2
........................

.. !

10"

--

I-

t- r-

101

5
5

LN]

B
Ill_ _

81v

.........................
LN'

I
I

IN]A LOOIEAI

LNI

rs,

I'

-'",.

."

S"\.la.IIE

10

II

I. I

aPE 21340
375

ASAI VERTICAL WELL ELEMENT HOIIEL 131.21.1SI NO CIWlGE

31100
31000

17
!

2100

:,

2100
2700

HOdel prodUction test

21DO
2500

lIEU. .1!lILS

OlIserved pressure

0'

product ion test

31200

2300

2200

.... ...

,~

2100

AIU
~-

1100

!!

DAY

10

l!

I!!
~

:: I

1700
1600
-0

2400
2200
2000

2000

IlIDO

JOOO

2100
2100

1200

Fig. 6.1.

ASAI VERTICAL IIELL ELEMENT MODEL 131.28.111 KV.0.5UCI0.2

2900

2100

WELL
SI151LS
=....;.........;....;.._--,

3100r---......;......;-.;.;.,..;;....~~;:.;:...;;....-~::...;,:;......;:..:.-;:.;:.._......;...;.;._;...;;

3000

MOde I O'OduC lion lesl

2700
III

.!!:

2300

Observed pressure

2600

0'

produc lion tesl

2500

2200

If------,I
,.,

..

'

21UO ,
2000
1900
IBOO

3200
31000
2100
2100

04i~

I!!

2000

!...

DAY

3.00

AS'O

7&

II[LL SOISIU

_UllNtAL II[LL lLlNINT NOOH 1J'.".111

3)00 i

1200j

i
~

3100

:1000

- -..-------------"""'1\
~

/_.

,-

,
\

'.00

Mode I prenure

-.

II lOt

"

ef

.i

!!

-i
1100

OlIn'.toO lI'"eliure 01 prOdu,tlon lesl

loor,

2100

700

,
FlQ. 0&

100

SOD

10

"...

!!

2AOO
2200

1100
1100
1700
IAOO
1200
1600-0L---~L-----~---~------"":"I------"'"':'-------;t
2

10
I

r 19

..

i...

376

ASAB - 151
BOROZONTAL WELL PERFOlUUNCE
.tODD

3800 -

3600 3400 ;::::;

UI
e,
UJ

3000

UI
UI

UJ

a:

Q.

3200 -

~~

2800 -

2600 -

2400=

Mini.u. flowing preseure

2200 -

~ ~

-.::,:

.
~

2000
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

BOOO

RATE (STBIDI
FIG. 9A

ASAB-151
EFFECT OF HORIZONTAL BOLE PENETRATION ON PRODUC1'ION RATE

6000
UJ

a:

:::l

5000

...
t!l

3:
0

...J
LA..

.....
Z

.....
Ul

4500
4000

0
U

11/

3500

S
......
ID
.....

3000

!!!

FL01f1NG PRESSURE

5500

Ul
Ul

a:
Q.

CON~ANT

ll
~

UJ

.....

oe

E:

2500
2000
300

.too

500

600

PENETRATION OF HORIZONTAL HOLE

FIG. lOA

700
(FT)

BOO

SPE 2134 0
377

/'
/'
/ '

No-flow

Cl)"~I""1 I',r;:..,o

/
lIou.ut;uy

1----- -l-- --~ - - -

tiorizonlal-

- - ;:;--,

Well_I____

---- - - - - -

l..,

_ .... _

--1' ....
I ~O

, W,,,,""'"

,,'"

l----::...=...:::~:J

Fig. 1: 110. ;1011101 .. dl lIIod,l.

200

400

8200
8220
8240
8260
~

W
W

8280 -

I.J....
...........

8300

8320

>:

I-

8340

UINT G (L)

8360
8380

8400
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

eNl. (Z)

FIG.2:

au

208 (LATERAL "OLE)

600

seE 213lt 0
378

"

PERMEABlLITY (!'tD)
1(3
1.0
1lara
1~

DR1LLERS
1~13~

. POROSITY
24
12
19

(~.

OEP1H
1/2rald

3~

E.

G-Upper
L.-....l

1--- ..

.~
,

,r

8300

~
... -

,--

1\

G-LoNer

fJ

.~

or'

,---J

I;

l-' .

,
L

t:::b=

Ii

or"

& .........
,

c2

,.

I
I

Iyl/ /
~

-- ---If

--'

IJ
fi.iJl

f--

---

~~

:::J

I!

3
h

It

I:
!:
i,

I
I

,I
I

-- I~!P
~,'

'I

!I

I,I~

',
'

I:

~~

.r-

I~

Ii

i\---, !

Ii

I I

Unit F

Fig. 3: Bu 20B CORE DA.TA PIDI' OF

I
r,...~'ER

P
"

'.-

10'

'1----------------------- ~'.~' nM.

EMLY IlNl

!
i

..,.,....,..

nM.

Lt'JD,

..................~

"

./
,
:.I "",

.,.

I <:::::::::

2700.

..

.,

.'

10'

2750.

wm.

_,'

-.~,

I
I

.,
I

I
I

2650.

I
I

I
I

IN! OF D\IlLY

MDlAL I1.lJI

--J,'--__:

10'10;;:.7.
!

_--'-- ----------

..

10'

10'

:?'300.!
-500.0

10'

ll..U'l!ll TIM!
FIG.~:

~U

0.000

500.0

1000.

-..op F\IoC. 'P:

2011 DERIVA!lvES PLOT ( DRAWDOWN)

FIG.6:

10'il---------~-
I

BU 20B ~ORNER (2ND EARLY RADIAL FLOWI

DRAWOOWN

~~I

.~

...Dr1!~

i
!

2750.

,
\

- ' Y MDlAL !l'lMlLllArl(ll Ir.vtt. 11),2

00'

- ... IlNllAL !l'lMILlZATI(II u.vn. 11),.

____
__ ._ --r

~..-t._

..
..

2700.

(I

2650
1M) OF!MU'

10"
10"

10'

10"

10"

10"

10'

~T1M!

FIG.5: BU l!Oll DERIvATIVES PLOT I BUILD uP I

10'

...

I\l

MDlAL nDI

10'

2600.'
o .000

1000 .

.'""............
2000
3000
-.uP

ruoe.'''' ,

f1G.7 : BU 2011 HORNER PLOTS !SST l: 2ND EARLY RADIAL FLOIII

BUILD uP

I
~~
4000. CO . .

2750'1"

.........,

rno

~
rna

E
2700

! -

'" , .....
~~

1710

.....

.....

I
I.'

~ .....

~I

2600. I
-500.0

PIN:.'"

FIG .10 :BU 209 HORNER I INTERH. RADIAL FLDM I

DRAWOOIIN

!lIIIT "lIE! lJiilSI

evla.

500.0

_
3.'

J.~

2.

I
1000.

0.000

...
1.1

FlG. "

.......

2650.

........

1170

I. ~

, .......

1000

2IllO

.........

2700.

....
...........

LINEAR nOll IDA_WOOllNl

2800. r

1710

1710

2750.

'-,.,

1700

.........

i-

"-. ~

~~

'-,.,.

1000

II7lI

I8lIO

II.'

2700.

'.1

..

IT oa TAT -

Jiiii3Ai

lSIII.lIT. TIlE!

FII. I: Ill 101 LINEAR nllll lIUlLD IA

2650.

7.1

"

7.~

2600. '
0.000

7.'

1000.

....... ...

I\)

2000.

_'IM:.'"

3000.
I

FIG.II :BU 208 HORNER I INTERH. RADIAL FLOII)

BUILD uP

I'"
.coo. \II
.D-

21

SP.E

---------~~

8060

10','

58-151

......
u.
.....,.

LDL LOG
CNL LOG

810G
I..... T..' r----::::.. Oolslone

o 81?-0

00'

I
I

....cr:

I
I1
I

__

1:

-m

8156

lLJ

> 8160

w
I-

.......... ~ .......
.....,._. t.
I.
I
,II ....- ,

tl,'

EMLY IWI. S'Il\II. ILVI1

~ 8140

a:::

._

..J
<{

::>

LA.TER.A.L HOLE

W
8080
w
....Q.J:

,It 0

NCJQl

I
I

,.,

;)1-~
':u

JIftIDaJ)

1
1
1

100 I

oJ

8179

10

10'

" .
t 0.56 lin. 10
10'

I
10'

EUPSOl flIC

8200

100

200

.300

50C

400

FIG.

600

I~:

SB 151 DERIVATIVES PLOT I BUILD UP I

DISPLACEMENT
FIG.12

I----~--------------------
I

10'.

3000.

EMLY iWl. S'IM. ILVI1

- - .. -:-; ............ ~-,. .&1------

1'r "

...

_
,-

SUPI'CIRI'

10'

2900.

~I8lIQl

1
I
1
1
1
1
1

2850.

1
10- 11

-fI

10'

10"

1 .__'---_

, _ _ ..

10'

n_

t-5

lin.

10'

TIlC

FlO. 13: SB 151 DERIVATIVES PLOT I ORANOOWN I

AMERADA OAUGE MEASUREMENTS

"'

10

..

I
I
~

2!0)0. I
-~OOO.

. ..
,

-2000.

0.000

........ ,\JlIC.'''=

"

2000.
I

FIO.15: SB 151 HORNER (2ND EARLY RADIAL FLOWl

ORANOOIIN

I
40001:

...

382

2970
2960
2950
iii

2940

a..

IoJ

2ND EARLY RADIAl.. flOW

a::

::l

en
en

2930

IoJ

a::

a..

z
T

2920

~
::I:
en

2910
2900
2890
2880
10

100

1000

LOG T+DELTA T/DELTA T

nG. 16: 58 151 BORNER (1ST. 2ND EARLY RADIAL noW)
BUILD UP

16

1.
12

10

PO

UI

CL.

!i
6

2
0

f
o

10

100

TIME. MIMITES
fIG. 17: 58 151 BIIIU RESPONSE MHILE flOWING THE LATERAL HOLE

1000

730

120

;/

COl RES

au

610

740

71=

7!lC

~+ )g~

ENG CEF'T

HASA FIELD

SHUAIBA
UNIT G DEVELOPMENT
STATUS AT 1-1-90
ALE

I! 1

"

(/41/,.

o~
G

I
I

56
fT1

...'"
\,II

FIG_I"

.J

l::-

EO