You are on page 1of 32

Petroleum Engineering 613

Natural Gas Engineering


Texas A&M University

Lecture 08:
Well Testing —
Historical Perspectives
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
Department of Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3116
+1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 1
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Well Testing — Historical Perspectives
Origin of the "Deliverability" (or Backpressure) Relation
 Empirical.
 Used to assess "open flow" potential of gas wells.
 Does not provide a "time-dependent" behavior.
Multi-Rate Testing
 Historically, VERY popular — still used quite often,
especially on new wells to estimate deliverability and
"non-Darcy" flow effects.
 Keep it simple — a "4-point" test is appropriate.
 Isochronal testing is very difficult to implement.
Pressure Transient Analysis
 Expected Results: Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA).
 Example Data Sets: PTA and Production data.
 Basic Plots: Lee Text Example 2.2 (Pressure Buildup).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 2
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation

Well Testing — Historical Perspectives


Origin of the "Deliverability"
(or Backpressure) Relation

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 3
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
History of the "Deliverability" Equation
Gas Well Deliverability:
 The original well deliverability
relation was completely empiri-
cal (derived from observations),
and is given as:

qg  C( p2  p2 )n
wf
 This relationship is rigorous (i.e.,
it can be derived) for low pres-
sure gas reservoirs, (n=1 for lami-
nar flow).

 From: Back-Pressure Data on Natural-


Gas Wells and Their Application to
Production Practices — Rawlins and
Schellhardt (USBM Monograph, 1935).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 4
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Multi-Rate Testing

Well Testing — Historical Perspectives


Multi-Rate Testing

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 5
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Deliverability Testing: Basics

a. "Standard" 4-point test deliverability test — note c. Modified "Isochronal" test sequence — note that
that the rates increase (to protect the reservoir). each "buildup" is not required to achieve pi.

b. "Isochronal" test sequence — note that each d. Governing equations for "deliverability" test
"buildup" is required to achieve pi. analysis/interpretation.

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 6
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Deliverability Testing: Orientation

a. Basic "pressure-squared" relation


that is presumed to describe gas b.Traditional "deliverability" plot —
flow — analogous form can be probably derived from empirical
derived from steady-state flow theory plotting of data.
(Darcy's law).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 7
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Deliverability Testing: Orientation

a."Rate-squared" (or velocity-


squared) formulation — analogous b. Modified "deliverability" plot —
form can be derived from steady- note that bqsc2 must be known (...
state flow theory (Forchheimer need alternative approach).
Eq.).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 8
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Origin of the "Deliverability" Relation

Well Testing — Historical Perspectives


Expected Results:
Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)
Production Analysis (PA)

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 9
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Expected Results from PTA
 Expected Results of Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA):
— "Conventional" PTA: Use of semilog and other specialized plots to
estimate reservoir properties from a particular "flow regime" (i.e., a flow
regime is a characteristic behavior derived from an analytical solution —
e.g., the constant pressure derivative function for infinite-acting radial
flow (IARF)). Examples of other specialized plots: square-root and fourth-
root of time plots for fractured wells.
— "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to
perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides estimates
of dynamic formation properties: (i.e., model parameters)
 Radial Flow: k, S, CD
 Fractured Wells: k, xf, FCD, CfD
 Horizontal Wells: kr, kr/kv, hwell, (effective length) zw (position), ChD
 Dual porosity reservoir properties: w, l
 Data Requirements/Assessment/Review:
— Typically involves very accurate measurements of bottomhole pressures
(this is a priority).
— Rate history is most often the weakest link — must perform "due
diligence" and obtain the best possible rate history.
— Should use downhole shut-in device to minimize wellbore storage.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 10
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Expected Results from PA
 Expected Results of Production Analysis (PA):
— "Conventional" decline curve analysis: (Arps, etc.) — empirical relations
used to provide estimates of recovery and forecasts of future
performance.
— "Model-based" analyses: Using analytical/numerical reservoir models to
perform simultaneous analysis/modelling procedures. Provides
estimates of dynamic formation properties (k, S, xf, dual porosity
properties, etc.)
— "Model-based" forecasting: A direct extension of model-based analysis
— generation of a time-dependent pressure and/or rate forecast.
 Data Requirements/Assessment/Review:
— Are production data available? (BOTH rates and PRESSURES!)
— Is the well completion history available? (review for issues)
— PVT and static reservoir properties? (must be assessed/included)
— Is the production "analyzable?" (can major issues be resolved?)

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 11
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts

Well Testing — Historical Perspectives


Reservoir Performance Analysis:
PTA and PA Data Quality and Data Artifacts

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 12
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Production Data: Example 1
Sewell Ranch Well No. 1 — Barnett Field (NorthTexas)
1.E+04 2000
Gas Flowrate
Wellbore Pressure 1800
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Surface Pressure, psig


1600
1.E+03
1400
1200
1.E+02 1000
800
600
1.E+01
400
200
1.E+00 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Producing Time, days

 Production Example 1: Sewell Ranch No. 1 (North Texas (US))


 Rate and pressure data affected by water loading.
 Late-time data affected by line pressure (other wells in flow system).
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 13
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Production Data: Example 2
UPR22 Gas Well — Mid-Continent (US)
1.E+04 2000
Gas Flowrate 1800
Wellbore Pressure
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD 1600

Calculated BHP, psia


1.E+03
1400
1200
1.E+02 1000
800
600
1.E+01
400
200
1.E+00 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Producing Time, days

 Production Example 2: UPR22 Gas Well (Mid-Continent (US))


 Rate and pressure data affected by fluid loading.
 Seasonal cycles in demand/production.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 14
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Pressure Transient Data: Example 1
Bourdet Example (SPE 12777) (Dt Format) Bourdet Example (SPE 12777) (Dt e Format)
1.E+04 1.E+04
Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Pressure Drop Derivative Pressure Drop Derivative

1.E+03 1.E+03
D p and D p' , psi

D p and D p' , psi


1.E+02 1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E+01

1.E+00 1.E+00
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
Dt , hr Dt e , hr

a. No Rate History: (Dt format) Pressure drop and b.Rate History: (Dte format) Pressure drop and
pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time pressure drop derivative versus Agarwal
(Bourdet (SPE 12777)). superposition time (Bourdet (SPE 12777)).

 Pressure Transient Example 1: Bourdet (SPE 12777)


 Production history effects are obvious.
 Interpretation should consider "no rate" and "rate" history cases.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 15
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Pressure Transient Data: Example 2
DaPrat Example (Well Mach 3X, SPE 13054) (Dt Format)
1.E+04

1.E+03
D p and D p' , psi

1.E+02

Pressure Drop
1.E+01 Pressure Drop Derivative (L=0.2)
Pressure Drop Derivative (L=0.3)
Pressure Drop Derivative (L=0.4)
Simulated Pressure Drop
Simulated Pressure Drop Derivative
1.E+00
1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Dt , hr

 Pressure Transient Example 2: DaPrat (SPE 13054)


 Dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir (PSS interporosity flow).
 Illustrates the sensitivity of the pressure derivative function.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 16
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 1
Womack Hill Well No. 1633 — Womack Hill Field (Alabama)

1.E+04 2000
Oil Flowrate
Wellbore Pressure 1800

Production

(no pressure

Estimated BHFP Pressure, psia


Prorated

Depletion

support )

Conversion to
Recompletion
Oil Production Rate, STBD
1600

Stimulation
Initial

Jet Pump
Acid
1400
1.E+03
1200
1000
800
1.E+02
600
400
p wf assumed constant 200
1.E+01 0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000
Producing Time, days

 Data Artifacts Example 1: Womack Hill Field (Alabama (US))


 Note the various events (value of annotated production records).
 No pressure data (typical).
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 17
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 2
Well Told 3 — Colombia (South America)
1.E+04 2500
Oil Flowrate
Wellbore Pressure 2250
Oil Production Rate, STBD
p wf not synchronous
2000

Est. BHF Pressure, psia


with rate profile

Change
Pump
1750
1500
1.E+03 1250
1000
750
500
250
1.E+02 0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000
Producing Time, days

 Data Artifacts Example 2: Told Well 3 (Colombia)


 pwf NOT synchronous with qo (pwf from fluid levels).
 Note that effect of pump change is captured by pwf and qo.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 18
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 3
Gas Well (Poor Early Time Data) — (Canada)
1.E+05 3500
Gas Flowrate
Wellbore Pressure
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD
3000

Calc. BHF Pressure, psia


2500
1.E+04
2000

1500
1.E+03
increasing
qo and pwf

p wf variations not 1000


synchronized with q g
500

1.E+02 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Producing Time, days

 Data Artifacts Example 3: Canada Gas Well


 pwf NOT synchronous with qg at early/intermediate times.
 Dispersion in pwf at middle times not reflected in the qg function.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 19
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 4
Gas Well with Evolving Condensate — (Southeast TX (US))

1.E+05 7000
Gas Flowrate 6500
Wellbore Pressure
6000

Flow up Annulus
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD
5500
Flow up Casing

Surface Pressure, psig


5000
1.E+04
4500
Flow up Tubing 4000
3500
3000
2500
1.E+03
2000
1500
1000
500
1.E+02 0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600
Producing Time, days

 Data Artifacts Example 4: Southeast TX Gas Well (US)


 Multiple completion changes.
 Issues related to pressure profile — measure bottomhole pressure?
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 20
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 5
Sanger Gas Well Case (South Texas (US))
5000 Sanger Gas Well Case (South Texas (US))
Pressure
4500 1.E+04
Pressure Drop
4000 Pressure Drop Derivative
3500 1.E+03

D p and D p' , psi


3000
pwf , psia

2500 1.E+02
2000

1500 1.E+01
1000

500
1.E+00
0 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Dt , hr
Dt , hr

a. Semilog Plot: (Dt format) Pressure versus shut- b.Log-log Plot: (Dt format) Pressure drop and
in time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) — Packer pressure drop derivative versus shut-in time
leak (most likely cause). time (South Texas Gas Well (US)) — Packer
leak (most likely cause).

 Data Artifacts Example 5: South Texas Gas Well (US)


 Gas well with anomalous pressure "jump" — packer leak?
 No "reservoir" mechanism (other than injection) could produce feature.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 21
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Data Artifacts: Example 6
Dunn Prefracture Pressure Buildup (Condensate Banking)
(Mid-Continent (US))
1.E+04
Pressure Drop

Pseudopressure Drop, D pp and D pp' , psi


Pressure Drop Derivative

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
Shut-In Pseudotime, Dt a , hr

 Data Artifacts Example 6: Mid-Continent Gas Well (US)


 Changing wellbore storage and condensate banking (very high skin).
 Interpretation depends on understanding of reservoir and fluids.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 22
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Well Test Analysis — Basic Plots

Well Testing — Historical Perspectives


Well Test Analysis — Basic Plots

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 23
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Well Test Analysis: Basic Plots (Lee Text Example)

a. Log-log "preliminary analysis" b. Cartesian "early-time" plot — c. Cartesian "Arps" plot — used
plot — wellbore storage and used to analyze wellbore to estimate average reservoir
radial flow (Cs, k). storage (p0, Cs). pressure.

d. Semilog "middle-time" plot — e. Horner "middle-time" plot — f. Log-log "summary" plot —


used to analyze radial flow used to analyze radial flow summary of all analysis (Cs, k,
behavior (k, s). behavior (k, s, p*). s, A, etc).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 24
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-log Plot

 Basic Plots: "Preliminary" Log-Log Plot


 Pressure drop function does not give much resolution.
 Pressure drop derivative function shows wellbore storage/radial flow.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 25
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot

 Basic Plots: Early Cartesian Plot


 Used to estimate wellbore storage coefficient (slope of trend).
 Pressure at start of the test estimated from extrapolation.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 26
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (PBU)

 Basic Plots: Late Cartesian Plot (Pressure Buildup)


 NOT a universally valid plot (ONLY valid for very late times).
 Average reservoir pressure estimated from extrapolation.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 27
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (MDH)

 Basic Plots: Semilog Plot (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson)


 NOT corrected for rate history.
 Can be difficult to interpret (semilog straight line needs orientation).
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 28
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot

 Basic Plots: Horner Semilog Plot


 CORRECTED for rate history.
 Used to estimate permeability, skin factor, average reservoir pressure.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 29
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-log Plot

 Basic Plots: "Summary" Log-Log Plot


 Used to show simulated reservoir response (based on analysis).
 Multiple data functions used to orient analysis/interpretation.
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 30
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Module 4: Well Test Analysis — Work Relations

 Given data — Lee text (1st edition),  Working relations — Lee text (1st
Example 2.2. edition), Example 2.2).

PETE 613 Well Testing —


Slide — 31
(2005A) Historical Perspectives
Petroleum Engineering 613
Natural Gas Engineering
Texas A&M University
Lecture 08:
Well Testing —
Historical Perspectives
(End of Lecture)

T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.


Department of Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3116
+1.979.845.2292 — t-blasingame@tamu.edu
PETE 613 Well Testing —
Slide — 32
(2005A) Historical Perspectives

You might also like