Interpreting Well And Reservoir Model Based On The Well Testing Approach For Constructing Well Productivity

  • Florentino L. S Amaral Soares Department of Petroleum Engineering, School of Petroleum Studies, Dili Institute of Technology, Dili, Timor-Leste
  • Octávio António Pinto da Silva Department of Petroleum Engineering, School of Petroleum Studies, Dili Institute of Technology, Dili, Timor-Leste
Keywords: well test, pressure transient analysis, inverse problem, well and reservoir model, IPR, well productivity

Abstract

Well testing is key to constructing the reservoir model, especially in the development of fields. Well test well-known as pressure transient analysis seeks the dynamic behavior of a reservoir in an inverse problem manner. The pressure transient analysis measures the change in pressure at the wellbore by altering the production rate that can provide a signature of reservoir properties typically in the build-up period. Availability of data is run into the first simulator Ecrin V4 thoroughly monitoring the change in pressure data to the production rate. Pressure and its derivative which is derived from the diffusivity equation are compared to reveal both models in a system of well production. Results show that the skin has negativity -3.43 to refer as no damage and 0.0125 bbl/d of wellbore coefficient at the vicinity wellbore. Further, dual porosity is identified as the reservoir model in which the derivative response showed the transitional dip at the middle time, and aside from that the infinite boundary act flattened at late time. To conclude, the initial pressure of 3915.35 psi in the matrix block flows into the fissure system with an average permeability of 100.8 md. An average pressure in the fissure system can be estimated using the transient flow equation which suits pressure drop depending on the radius and time. Once the reservoir pressure is estimated, 3900 psi. It is necessary to construct the well productivity. The second simulator Pipesim is used to design the inflow performance relationship and the tubing performance. The IPR was continued with Vogel to consider gas dissolved of 400 scf/stb and the tubing was assumed with an inside diameter of 2.735. Finally, the well production may be known as about 32% of AOF 18505.7 stb/d. This interpretation is simple and applicable to unlocking the well and reservoir model for constructing the well productivity-based computational model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbou-Sayed, A. S. (2001). Reservoir Stimulation.

Alimohammadi, H., Chen, S., Karimi, H., & Rahmanifard, H. (2020). Wavelet Modelling Approach for Reservoir Model Classification. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Europec Featured at 82nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, July. https://doi.org/10.2118/200555-ms

Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., & Pirard, Y. M. (1989). Use of pressure derivative in well-test interpretation. SPE Reprint Series, 57 PART 1, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.2118/12777-pa

Bourdet, D., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A., & Pirard, Y. M. (1983). A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis. World Oil, 196(6), 1–7.

Brown, K. E. (1977). The Technology of Artificial lift. In PennWell Books (Vol. 1). PennWell Books. 7623701

Clark, D. G., & Van Golf-Racht, T. D. (1985). Pressure-Derivative Approach To Transient Test Analysis: a High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example. JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 37(12), 2023–2039. https://doi.org/10.2118/12959-pa

Cobanoglu, M., & Shukri, I. (2020). Challenges of pressure transient analysis PTA: Uncertainty assessment and pitfalls in well test analysis-how much confidence does a PTA interpretation has? International Petroleum Technology Conference 2020, https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-20075-ms

Dake, L. P. (1978). Fundamentals for Reservoir Engineering. In Developments in Petroleum Science. Shell Learning and Development.

Evinger, H. H., & Muskat, M. (1942). Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor. Transactions of the AIME, 146(01), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.2118/942126-g

Fanchi, J. R., & Christiansen, R. L. (2017). Introduction to Petroleum Engineering (Vol. 15, Issue 2). john Wiley & Sons, In., Hoboken, New jersey.

Gilbert, W. E. (1954). Flowing and gas-lift well performance. Drilling and Production Practice 1954, May, 126–157.

Guo, B., Liu, X., & Tan, X. (2017). Petroleum Production Engineering. In Petroleum Production Engineering: Second Edition (Second).

Horne, R. N. (1997). Modern Well Test Analysis : A Computer-Aided Approach (second). Petroway, inc.

Houzé, O., Viturat, D., Fjaere, O., & Trin, S. (2011). Dynamic Data Analysis - Practice of Pressure Transient, Production Analysis, Well Performance Analysis, Production Logging and the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauge Data. Houston, TX.

Jahanbani, A., & Shadizadeh, S. R. (2009). Determination of inflow performance relationship (IPR) by well testing. Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2009, CIPC 2009. https://doi.org/10.2118/2009-086

Mireault, R., & Dean, L. (2008). Reservoir Engineering for Geologists.

Torcuk, M. A., Fakcharoenphol, P., Kazemi, H., & Kurtoglu, B. (2013). Theory and application of pressure and rate transient analysis in unconventional reservoirs. Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2(September), 999–1018. https://doi.org/10.2118/166147-ms

Vogel, J. V. (1987). Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, (Paper) SPE, 199–218.

Published
2024-07-23