EP0176410A1 - Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir - Google Patents
Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- EP0176410A1 EP0176410A1 EP85401719A EP85401719A EP0176410A1 EP 0176410 A1 EP0176410 A1 EP 0176410A1 EP 85401719 A EP85401719 A EP 85401719A EP 85401719 A EP85401719 A EP 85401719A EP 0176410 A1 EP0176410 A1 EP 0176410A1
- Authority
- EP
- European Patent Office
- Prior art keywords
- flow rate
- time
- pressure
- layer
- wellbore
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 45
- 230000035699 permeability Effects 0.000 title claims abstract description 25
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 76
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 claims description 30
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 claims description 25
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000010998 test method Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 230000003247 decreasing effect Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000002500 effect on skin Effects 0.000 claims description 2
- 239000010410 layer Substances 0.000 description 91
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 13
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 11
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 11
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 description 10
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 9
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 description 8
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 7
- 230000035945 sensitivity Effects 0.000 description 7
- 230000001052 transient effect Effects 0.000 description 5
- 239000002356 single layer Substances 0.000 description 4
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000013178 mathematical model Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000036962 time dependent Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000005514 two-phase flow Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000004888 barrier function Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002301 combined effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000007423 decrease Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 1
- XPYGGHVSFMUHLH-UUSULHAXSA-N falecalcitriol Chemical compound C1(/[C@@H]2CC[C@@H]([C@]2(CCC1)C)[C@@H](CCCC(O)(C(F)(F)F)C(F)(F)F)C)=C\C=C1\C[C@@H](O)C[C@H](O)C1=C XPYGGHVSFMUHLH-UUSULHAXSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000009499 grossing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000001788 irregular Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004445 quantitative analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004062 sedimentation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005204 segregation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000006467 substitution reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH DRILLING, e.g. DEEP DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
- E21B49/008—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells by injection test; by analysing pressure variations in an injection or production test, e.g. for estimating the skin factor
Abstract
Description
- The invention relates to well testing in general and in particular to a method for downhole measurements and recording of data from a multiple layered formation of an oil and gas well and for estimating individual permeabilities and skin factors of the layers using the recorded data.
- The estimation of parameters of stratified layers without crossflow of an oil and gas well is not a new problem. Over the years, many authors have investigated the behavior of layered reservoirs without cross flow. Much work has been done on estimating parameters of layered reservoirs because they naturally result during the process of sedimentation. Layered reservoirs are composed of two or more layers with different formation and fluid characteristics.
- One of the major problems for layered reservoirs is the definition of the layers. It has been found that it is essential to integrate all logs and pressure transient and flowmeter data in order to determine flow capacities, skin factors, and the pressure of individual layers. This invention relates primarily to two-layer reservoirs with a flow barrier between the layers (without crossflow). The production is commingled at the wellbore only.
- During a buildup test, fluid may flow from the high pressure zone to the low pressure zone through the wellbore as a result of a differential depletion. The crossflow problem becomes more severe if the drainage radius of each zone is different. Wellbore crossflow could occur while the pressure is building up. A straight line may be observed on the Horner plot. This behavior has been observed many times in North Sea reservoirs.
- The crossflow problem has been overlooked by the prior art because in many instances the pressure data itself does not reveal any information about the wellbore crossflow. Furthermore, the end of the wellbore crossflow between the layers cannot be determined either quantitatively or qualitatively. If fluid segregation in the tubing and wellbore geometry is added to the complication mentioned above, the buildup tests from even two-layer reservoirs without crossflow cannot easily be nalyzed.
- This invention relates to the behavior of a well in an infinite two-layered reservoir. If the well has a well-defined drainage boundary (symmetrix about the well axis for both layers), and if a well test is run long enough, the prior art has shown that it is possible to estimate the individual layer permeabilities and an average skin. However, cost or operational restrictions can make it impractical to carry out a test of sufficient duration to attain a pseudo steady-state period. Moreover, even if the test is run long enough, an analyzable pseudo steady-state period may not result because of non-symmetric or irregular drainage boundaries for each layer. It is also difficult to maintain a constant production rate long enough to reach a pseudo steady-state period.
- A major problem for layered systems not addressed by the prior art is how to estimate layer permeabilities, skins, and pressures from conventional well testing. In practice, the conventional tests (drawdown and/or buildup) only reveal the behavior of a two-layer formation which cannot be distinguished from the behavior of a single-layer formation even though a two-layer reservoir has a distinct behavior without wellbore storage effect. There are, of course, a few special cases for which the conventional tests will work.
- The effect of wellbore storage on the behavior of the layered reservoirs is more complex than that of single-layer reservoirs. First, the wellbore storage may vary according to the differences in flow contribution of each layer. Second, it has been observed that it takes longer to reach the semilog straight line than that of the equivalent single-layer systems.
- It is important for the operator of an oil and gas well having a multiple layer reservoir to be able to determine the skin factor, s, and the permeability, k, of each layer of the formation. Such information aids the operator in his determination of which zone may need reperforation or acidizing. Such information may also aid the operator to determine whether loss of well production is caused by damage to one layer or more layers (high skin factor) as distinguished from other reasons such as gas saturation buildup. Reperforation or acidizing may cure damage to the well while it will be useless for a gas saturation buildup problem.
- It is a general object of the invention to provide a well test method to estimate multi-layered reservoir parameters.
- It is a more specific object of the invention to provide a well test method to estimate uniquely .the permeability k and the skin factor s for each layer in a multiple layer reservoir.
- According to the invention, a well test method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for each of at least two layers of a reservoir includes the positioning of a logging tool of a logging system at the top of the upper layer of a wellbore which traverses the two layers. The logging system has means for measuring downhole fluid flow rate and pressure as a function of time. The surface flow rate of the well is changed from an initial flow rate at an initial time, tl, during a first time interval. The downhole fluid flow rate, ql(t), and downhole pressure, p1 (t), are measured and recorded during the first interval, t1 to t2, at the top of the upper layer.
- The logging tool is then positioned to the top of the lower layer where the downhole flow rate, q12, from the top of the lower layer is measured and recorded if possible at a stabilized flow. The surface flow rate is then changed at time t3, to another flow rate. The downhole fluid flow rate, q22(t), and downhole pressure, p2(t), are measured and recorded during the second interval, t3 to t4, at the top of the lower layer.
-
- k2 = permeability of lower layer
- h1 = known thickness of upper layer
- h2 = known thickness of lower layer
- The permeability, k2, of the lower layer and the skin factor, s2, of the lower layer are determined by matching the measured fluid flow rate, q22(t), with the convolution of the measured change in downhole pressure, Δp2(t) = p1 (t3) - P2(t), and an influence function, f(t), which is a function of the lower layer permeability, k2, and skin factor, s2. The parameters kl and s1 for the first layer are determined from estimates of k2, s2 and k and s.
- Testing regimes are defined for non-flowing wells and for flowing wells. Estimation methods are presented for matching measured values of pressure and flow rate with calculated values, where the calculated value changes as a result of changes in the parameters to be estimated, k and s.
- The objects, advantages and features of the invention will become more apparent by reference to the drawings which are appended hereto and wherein like numerals indicate like parts and wherein an illustrative embodiment of the invention is shown of which:
- Figure 1 illustrates schematically a two layer reservoir in which a logging tool of a wireline logging system is disposed at the top of the upper producing zone;
- Figure 2 illustrates the same system and formation as that of Figure 1 but in which the logging tool of the wireline logging system is disposed at the top of the lower producing zone;
- Figure 3A illustrates the sequential flow rate profile for a new well according to the invention;
- Figure 3B illustrates the downhole pressure profile which results from the flow rate profile of Figure 3A;
- Figure 4A illustrates the sequential flow rate profile for a producing well according to the invention;
- Figure 4B illustrates the downhole pressure profile which results the flow rate profile of Figure 4A;
- Figure 5 is a graph of measured downhole pressure as a function of time of a synthetic drawdown test according to the invention; and
- Figure 6 is a graph of measured downhole flow rates as a function of time of a synthetic drawdown test corresponding to the measured pressure of Figure 5.
- Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a two layered reservoir, the parameters of permeability, k, and skin factor, s, of each layer of which are to be determined according to the method of this invention. Although a two-layered reservoir is illustrated and considered, the invention may be used equally advantageously for reservoirs of three or more layers. A description of a mathematical model of the reservoir is presented which is used in the method according to the invention.
- The reservoir model of Figs. 1 and 2 consists of two layers that communicate only through the wellbore. Each layer is considered to be infinite in extent with the same initial pressure.
- From a practical point of view, it is easy to justify an infinite-acting reservoir if only the data is analyzed that is not affected by the outer boundaries. However, often a differential depletion will develop in layered reservoirs as they are produced. It is possible that each layer may not have the same average pressure before the test. It is also possible that each layer may have different initial pressures when the field is discovered. The method used in this invention is for layers having equal initial pressures, but the method according to the invention may be extended for the unequal initial pressure case.
- It is assumed that each layer is homogeneous, isotropic, and horizontal, and that it contains a slightly compressible fluid with a constant compressibility and viscosity.
-
- n = hydraulic diffusivity
- z = Laplace image space variable
- nl = number of layers = 2
- The other symbols are defined in Appendix A at the end of this description where the nomenclature of symbols is defined.
-
- Eqs. 1 and 2 give the unsteady-state pressure distribution and individual production rate, respectively, for a well producing at a constant rate in an infinite two-layered reservoir.
- For drawdown or buildup tests, Eq. 1 cannot be used directly in the analysis of wellbore pressure because of the wellbore storage (afterflow) effect (unless the semilog straight line exists). However, most studies on layered reservoirs have essentially investigated the behavior of Eq. 1 for different layer parameters. The principal conclusions of these studies can be outlined as follows:
- 1. From buildup or drawdown tests, an average flow capacity and skin factor can be estimated for the entire formation.
- 2. The individual flow capacities can be obtained if the stabilized flow rate from one of the layers is known and if the skin factors are zero or equal to one another.
- Estimating layer parameters by means of an optimum test design has been investigated by the prior art using a numerical model similar to that of
equation 1 except that skin factors were not included. Such prior art shows that there are serious problems with observability and the question of wellposedness of the parameter estimation for layered reservoirs. - The basic problem of prior art methods for estimating layer parameters is that the pressure data are not sufficient to estimate the properties of layered reservoirs. The invention described here is for a two-step drawdown test with the simultaneously measured wellbore pressure and flow rate data which provides a better estimate for layer parameters than prior art drawdown or buildup tests. Eqs. 1 and 2 will be used to describe the behavior of two-layered reservoirs.
- Certain aspects of the pressure solution for two-layer systems were discussed in the previous section; basically the constant rate solution was presented. In reality, the highly compressible fluid in the production string will affect this solution. This effect is usually called wellbore storage or afterflow, depending on the test type. It has been a common practice to assume that the fluid compressibility in the production string remains constant during the test. Strictly speaking, this assumption may only be valid for water or water-injection wells. The combined effects of opening or closing the wellhead valve and two-phase flow in the tubing will cause the wellbore storage to vary as a function of time. In many cases, it is difficult to recognize changing wellbore storage because it is a gradual and continuous change. Nevertheless, the constant wellbore storage case is considered here as well.
- The convolution integral (Duhamel's theorem) is used to derive solutions from Eq. 1 for time-dependent wellbore (inner boundary) conditions. For example, the constant wellbore storage case is a special time-dependent boundary condition. For a reservoir with an initially constant and uniform pressure distribution, the wellbore pressure drop is given by
where - Δpwf = Pi - pwf for drawdown tests
- Δpsf = pi - psf for drawdown tests
- Δpwf = pws - pwf for buildup tests
- Δpsf = psf - Pwf for buildup tests
- Δps = pressure drop caused by skin
- psf = sandface pressure of a well producing at constant rate
- qsf = sandface flow rate
- q t = reference flow rate
- ' = indicates derivative with respect to time
-
-
- Substitution of the Laplace transform of Eq. 5 and i Eq. 1 in Eq. 4 yields the wellbore pressure solution for the constant wellbore storage case.
-
- This condition can be interpreted as a special variable wellbore storage case. It is also possible that for some wells, Eq. 6 describes wellbore storage phenomena far better than Eq. 5. If the sandface rate is measured with available flowmeters, it is not necessary to guess the wellbore storage behavior of a well.
-
- The problem of identifiability has received considerable attention in history matching by the prior art. The purpose here is to give an identifiability criterion to nonlinear estimation of layer parameters.
- The identifiability principles given here are very general, and are also applied to other similar reservoir parameter estimations.
- The main objective of this section is to estimate layer parameters using the model presented by Eq. 1 and measured wellbore pressure data. For convenience, it is assumed that the measured pressure is free of errors.
-
- p? = measured pressure
- ηi = calculated pressure as a function of time, and β = (k1,k2,s1,s2)T = parameter vector
- k1,k2 = permeabilities of first and second layers, respectively
- sl,s2 = skin factors of first and second layers, respectively
- m = number of measurements
-
- r = m dimensional residual vector
- Assume that β* is the true solution to Eq. 8. The necessary condition for a unique minimum is:
- 1. g (β*) = 0 and
- 2. H(β*) must be positive definite where g the gradient vector with respect to β and H is the Hessian matrix of Eq. 8. A positive definite Hessian, also known as the second order condition, ensures that the minimum is unique. Furthermore, without measurement errors, or when the residual is very small, the Hessian can be expressed as:
where A is the sensitivity coefficient matrix with mxn elements - The positive definiteness of the Hessian matrix requires that all of the eigenvalues corresponding to the system
be positive and greater than zero. If an eigenvalue of the Hessian matrix is zero, the functional defined by Eq. 8 does not change along the corresponding eigenvector, and the solution vector β* is not unique. Therefore, the number of observable parameters from m measurements can be determined theoretically by examining the rank of the Hessian matrix H, which is equal to the number of nonzero eignevalues. - In the above analysis, it is assumed that the observations are free of any measurement errors. In presence of such errors and limitations related with the pressure gauge resolution, a non-zero cutoff value must be used in estimating the rank of the Hessian. Also, in order to compare parameters with different units, a normalization of the sensitivity coefficient matrix can be carried out by multiplying every column of the sensitivity coefficient matrix by the corresponding nonzero parameter value. That is,
- Furthermore, the largest sensitivity of the functional to parameters is along the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue. Each element of the eigenvector v. corresponds to a parameter in the n dimensional parameter space. The magnitude indicates the relative strength of that parameter along the eigenvector v..
- In this section an attempt is made to estimate layer parameters by minimizing Eq. 8. The eigenvalue analysis of the sensitivity coefficient is done for four cases.
- 1. Constant flow rate with no wellbore storage (C = 0.0 bbl/psi),
- 2. Constant flow rate with wellbore storage (C = 0.01 bbl/psi),
- 3. Periodically varying flow rate with a period of 0.1 hours,
- 4. Periodically varying flow rate with a period of 1 hours.
-
- The nonlinear least squares Marquardt method with simple constraints is used for the minimization of Eq. 8 with respect to k1, k2, sl, and s2.
-
- The results of Table 2 clearly indicate that in all cases only two of the eigenvalues are greater than 1 psi. Thus, only two parameters can be uniquely estimated from wellbore pressure data. The largest sensitive parameters are those of the high-permeability layer.
- The above analysis has also been done for different combinations of k1, k2, sl, and s2; and the conclusions essentially do not change. The periodical variable rate with 0.1 hours period improves the nonuniqueness problem somewhat. However, the uniqueness problem remains the same for the estimation of k1, k2, sl, and s2 for two-layered reservoirs without crossflow.
-
- It is clear from the above discussion that using prior art methods, transient pressure data does not give enough information to determine uniquely flow capacity and skin factor for each individual layer.
- As indicated above, a drawdown test is best suited for two-layered reservoirs without crossflow. Ideally, a reservoir to be tested should be in complete pressure equilibrium (uniform pressure distribution) before a drawdown test. In practice, the complete pressure equilibrium condition cannot be satisfied throughout the reservoir if wells have been producing for some time from the same formation. Nevertheless, the pressure equilibrium condition can easily be obtained in new and exploratory reservoirs.
- For developed reservoirs, it is also possible to obtain pressure equilibrium if the well is shut in for a long time. However, in developed layered reservoirs, it is difficult to obtain pressure equilibrium within the drainage area of a well. On the other hand, it is very common to observe pressure differential between the layers.
- In addition to these fluid flow characteristics in layered reservoirs, cost and/or operational restrictions can make it impractical to close a well for a long time.
- With respect to these different initial conditions, two drawdown test procedures for two-layer reservoirs without crossflow are described according to the invention. Either the initial condition or the stabilized period is important in a given test because during the analysis, the delta pressure (p - Pbase) is used for the estimation of parameters. During the test, it is not crucial to keep the rate constant, since it is measured.
- The method according to the invention will work well for the wells in a new field or exploratory wells. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a two zone reservoir with a
wellbore 10 extending through both layers and to the earth's surface 11. Awell logging tool 14 having means for measuring downhole pressure and fluid flow rate communicates via logging cable 16 to a computerized instrumentation andrecording unit 18. - As indicated in Figure 1, the parameters kl, sl of
layer 1 and k2, s2 oflayer 2 are desired to be uniquely estimated. One layer, such aslayer 2, may have a damaged zone which would result in a high value of s2, skin factor oflayer 2, which if known by measurement by the well operator, could aid in decisions relating to curing low flow or pressure from the well. - For shut-in wells, before starting the test, pressure should be recorded for a reasonable time in order to obtain the rate of pressure decline or to observe a uniform pressure condition in the reservoir. Figure 3A shows the test procedure. First the
well tool 14 of Figure 1 should be just above both producing layers. At time tl, the well should be started to produce at a constant rate at the surface, if possible. Although production rate does not affect the analysis, a rapid rate increase can cause problems. A few of these are: - 1. Wellbore fluid momentum effect,
- 2. Non-Darcy flow around the wellbore, and
- 3. Two-phase flow at the bottom of the well.
- The third problem, which is the most important one, can be avoided by monitoring the flowing wellbore pressure and adjusting the rate accordingly. These three complicating factors should be avoided for all the transient tests, if possible.
- During the first drawdown, when an infinite acting (without storage effect) period is reached approximately, the test is continued a few more hours depending on the size of the drainage area.
- Next, the
well tool 14 is lowered to the top of the lower zone as illustrated in Figure 2 while monitoring measured flow rate and pressure. If there is a recordable rate from this layer, at time t2, the production rate should be changed to another rate. The rate can be increased or decreased according to the threshold value of the flowmeter and the bubble point pressure of the reservoir fluid. As can be seen in Figure 3A, the flow rate is increased. If the rate is not recordable the test is terminated. A buildup test for further interpretation as a single-layered reservoir could be performed. - If the rate is recordable, the test should be continued from t3 to t4 for another few hours until another storage-free infinite acting period is reached. The test can be terminated at time t4. The interpretation of measured rate and pressure data is discussed below after the test for a producing or short shut-in well is described.
-
- If the well is already producing at a stabilized rate, a short flow profile (production logging) test should be conducted to check if the bottom layer is producing. If there is enough production from the bottom layer to be detected, then as in Figure 1, the
production logging tool 14 is returned to the top of the whole producing reservoir and the test is started by decreasing the flow rate, ql(tl), as in Figure 4A to another rate, ql(t2). The well is allowed to continue flowing until time t2' when the well reaches the storage-free infinite acting period. At the end of this period, the tool string should be lowered just to the top of the bottom layer as in Figure 2. At the time t3, the flow rate is increased back to approximately ql(tl). During the test, the rates should be kept above the threshold value of the flowmeter, - If the test precedes a short shut-in, the procedure will be the same, but the interpretation will be slightly different.
- The test procedure described above is applicable for a layer system in which the lower zone permeability is less than the upper zone. If the upper zone is less permeable, then the testing sequence should be changed accordingly.
- In this section, the method according to the invention is described to estimate individual layer parameters from measured wellbore pressure and sandface rate data. The automatic type-curve (history) matching techniques are used to estimate kl, k2, s1, and s2. In other words, Eq. 8 is minimized with respect to parameters k l, k 2, s l and s2. An automatic type-curve matching method is described in Appendix B to this description of the invention. Unlike the semilog method, the automatic type curve matching usually fits early time data as well as the storage-free infinite acting period if it exists to a given model.
- Figure 5 presents the wellbore pressure data for synthetic sequential drawdown tests, and Figure 6 presents sandface flow rate data for the same test using the reservoir and fluid data given in Table 1. As can be seen from Figure 6, the test is started from the initial conditions and the well continues to produce 1,500 bbl/day for 12 hours. For the second drawdown, the rate is increased from 1,500 bbl/day to 3,000 bbl/day. Figure 6 shows the total and individual flow rates from each zone. In an actual test, during the first drawdown, only total flow rate, q1 (t), will be measured. During the second drawdown, only the rate from the bottom zone will be measured. It is also important to record the flow rate from the lower layer for a few minutes just before the second drawdown test.
- The automatic type-curve matching approach is suitable for this purpose. If it is applicable, the semilog portion of the pressure data should also be analyzed. In general, type-curve matching with the wellbore pressure and sandface rate is rather straightforward. A brief mathematical description of the automatic type-curve matching procedure is given in Appendix B. In any case, the automatic type-curve method that is used fits the first drawdown data to a single layered, homogeneous model. The estimated values of k and are
- k = 54.69 md
- = 5.51 where
- At the end of the first drawdown test, the rate from the bottom layer, q12, should also be measured before starting the second drawdown test.
- Strictly speaking, from the first test, kl, k2, s1, and s2 can be calculated by using deconvolution methods. However, the deconvolution process is very sensitive to measurement errors, particularly errors in flow rate measurements. On the other hand, the convolution process, Eq.3 is a smoothing operation, and it is less sensitive to measurement errors. Thus, the second drawdown test described below almost assures an accurate estimation of the layer parameters. Furthermore, the second transient creates enough sensitivity to the parameters of the less permeable layer.
- During this test, the wellbore pressure for the whole system and flow rate for the bottom layer are measured. Figures 5 and 6 present wellbore pressure and rate data respectively for the second as well as the first drawdown. These data are analyzed using the automatic type-curve matching method described above.
-
- qo 22i (ti) = measured sandface rate data from the bottom layer
- ηj (β,tj) = computed sandface rate for the bottom layer
- Two different methods can be used for the minimization of Eq. 15.
-
-
- The function f(z) in Eq. 17 is only a function of the lower layer parameters, k2 and s2. From the convolution of f(t) and Δpwf (t) , n(B,t) can be obtained by automatic type-curve matching. Thus, using η (β,t) and measured q22 (t) , Eq. 15 is used to estimate k2 and s2. The estimated values are:
- k 2 = 8.4 md
- s 2 = 7.7
- These estimated values of k2 and s2 are somewhat lower than the actual values (k2 = 10 and s2 = 10) which raises the question of whether or not Eq. 16 is indeed a correct solution. The direct solution of Eq. 16 gives correct values of the sandface flow rate for the constant wellbore storage case.
- The f(z) function is the Laplace transform of the dimensionless rate, qD, for a well producing a constant pressure in an infinite radial reservoir. The flow rate qD changes very slowly with time. In other words, f(t) is not very sensitive to change in k2 and s2. This ill-posedness becomes worse if the sandface rate is not accurately measured at very early times. Thus, an alternate approach for the estimation of k2 and s2 is used to produce a more accurate estimate.
-
- In order to compute η (β,t), the total rate, qD, must be measured. The total rate cannot be measured unless two flowmeters are used simultaneously. This is not practical using currently available logging tools. Thus, qD must be determined independently. This is not difficult since during the first drawdown, the behavior of the wellbore storage is known. The sandface flow rate can either be approximated by Eq. 5 or 6 or any other form. It is also important to measure total flow rate just at the end of the second drawdown test. If the wellbore storage is constant, the problem becomes easier. The Laplace transform of n(B,t) can be written from Eq. 18 as,
- Since k and s are known from the first test, k2 and s2 can be estimated by minimizing Eq. 15 with respect to measured rate, q22(t), and calculated rate, n (β,t) , from Eq. 19.
- For the test data presented by Figures 5 and 6, the estimated k2 and s2 are:
- k 2 = 10.5 and
- s 2 = 10.8
- These values are very close to the actual values. The eigenvalues for k2 and s2 are λ1 = 3244 psia and a2 = 3771 psia, respectively. As can be seen from these two eigenvalues, the sensitivity of each parameter to the model and the measurement is very high.
- Because no a priori information is assumed about the wellbore storage behavior during the analysis of the second drawdown, the first method can be used to estimate the lower limit of k2 and s2 in order to check the values calculated from the second method.
- Thus there has been provided according to the invention a method for testing a well to estimate individual permeabilities and skin factors of layered reservoirs. A novel two-step sequential drawdown method for layered reservoirs has been provided. The invention provides unique estimates of layer parameters from simultaneously measured wellbore and sandface flow rate data which are sequentially acquired from both layers. The invention provides unique estimates of the parameters distinguished from prior art drawdown or buildup tests using only wellbore pressure data.
- The invention uses in its estimation steps the nonlinear least - squares (Marquardt) method to estimate layer parameters from simultaneously measured wellbore pressure and sandface flow rate data. A general criterion is used for the quantitative analysis of the uniqueness of estimated parameters. The criterion can be applied to automatic type-curve matching techniques.
- The new testing and estimation techniques according to the invention can be extended to multilayered reservoirs. In principle, one drawdown test per layer should be done for multilayered reservoirs. During each drawdown test, the wellbore pressure and the sandface rate should be measured simultaneously.
- The new testing technique can be generalized straightforwardly to layered reservoirs with crossflow.
- The testing method according to the invention also can be used to estimate skin factors for each perforated interval of a well in a single layer reservoir.
- If the initial pressures of each layer are different, the analysis technique has to be slightly modified. For new wells, the initial pressure of each layer can be obtained easily from wireline formation testers.
- Nonlinear parameter estimation methods used in the testing method according to the invention provides a means to determine the degree of uncertainty of the estimated parameters as a function of the number of measurements as well as the number of parameters to be estimated for a given model. Prior art graphical type-curve methods cannot provide quantitative measures to the "matching" with respect to the quality of the measured data and the uniqueness of the number of parameters estimated.
by matching the measured change in downhole pressure, p1(t), with the convolution of the measured fluid flow rate q1 (t) and an influence function Δpsf (t) which is a function of combined-layered permeability, k, and skin effect s.
Claims (7)
by matching the measured change in downhole pressure, Δp1 (t) = p1 (t1) - p1 (t) , with the convolution of the measured fluid flow rate, q1 (t), and an influence function, Δpsf(t), which is a function of combined-layered permeability, , and skin effect, ,
determining the permeability,k2, of the lower layer and the skin factor, s2, of the lower layer by matching the measured fluid flow rate, q22(t), with the convolution of the measured change in downhole pressure Δp2 (t) = p1 (t3) - p2 (t) and an influence function f (t) which is a function of the lower layer permeability, k2, and skin factor, s2, and
determining k1 and s1 from estimates of k2, s2 and and .
where q'D = total normalized rate and the Laplace transform of the relation is,
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
AT85401719T ATE39159T1 (en) | 1984-09-07 | 1985-09-05 | METHOD OF DETERMINING THE PERMEABILITY AND WALL FACTOR OF AT LEAST TWO LAYERS OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE INDIVIDUALLY. |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US64811384A | 1984-09-07 | 1984-09-07 | |
US648113 | 1984-09-07 |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
EP0176410A1 true EP0176410A1 (en) | 1986-04-02 |
EP0176410B1 EP0176410B1 (en) | 1988-12-07 |
Family
ID=24599492
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
EP85401719A Expired EP0176410B1 (en) | 1984-09-07 | 1985-09-05 | Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
EP (1) | EP0176410B1 (en) |
AT (1) | ATE39159T1 (en) |
AU (1) | AU579182B2 (en) |
DE (1) | DE3566702D1 (en) |
Cited By (16)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
FR2585404A1 (en) * | 1985-07-23 | 1987-01-30 | Flopetrol | Method for determining the parameters of formations having several layers producing hydrocarbons |
EP0217684A1 (en) * | 1985-07-23 | 1987-04-08 | Flopetrol Services, Inc. | Process for measuring flow and determining the parameters of multilayer hydrocarbon-producing formations |
AU579182B2 (en) * | 1984-09-07 | 1988-11-17 | Schlumberger Technology B.V. | Testing technique for layered reservoir without crossflow |
EP0429078A1 (en) * | 1986-05-15 | 1991-05-29 | Soletanche | Method and apparatus for measuring ground permeability |
EP0481866A2 (en) * | 1990-10-19 | 1992-04-22 | Schlumberger Limited | Method for individually characterizing the layers of a hydrocarbon subsurface reservoir |
FR2678679A1 (en) * | 1991-07-05 | 1993-01-08 | Services Projets | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ASSESSING THE PRODUCTION QUALITY OF A WELL, ESPECIALLY OIL. |
WO1998048146A1 (en) * | 1997-04-23 | 1998-10-29 | Shore-Tec As | A method and an apparatus for use in production tests, testing an expected permeable formation |
US6330913B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2001-12-18 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for testing a well |
US6347666B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-02-19 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
US6357525B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-03-19 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for testing a well |
US6382315B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-05-07 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
GB2484381A (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2012-04-11 | Schlumberger Holdings | A method of determination of fluid influx profile and near-wellbore space parameters |
GB2484574A (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2012-04-18 | Prad Res & Dev Ltd | A Method of Determining Relative Flow Rates and Skin Factors in a Multi-Layer Well |
US9250346B2 (en) | 2011-05-31 | 2016-02-02 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method for determining geometric characteristics of a hydraulic fracture |
CN110486009A (en) * | 2019-09-02 | 2019-11-22 | 合肥鼎盛锦业科技有限公司 | A kind of automatic reverse method of parameter and system on infinity stratum |
CN114165217A (en) * | 2020-09-11 | 2022-03-11 | 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 | Method and device for determining effective permeability, computer equipment and storage medium |
Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US3321965A (en) * | 1964-10-08 | 1967-05-30 | Exxon Production Research Co | Method for testing wells |
US3636762A (en) * | 1970-05-21 | 1972-01-25 | Shell Oil Co | Reservoir test |
FR2434923A1 (en) * | 1978-08-30 | 1980-03-28 | Schlumberger Prospection | WELL TEST PROCESS |
US4328705A (en) * | 1980-08-11 | 1982-05-11 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method of determining characteristics of a fluid producing underground formation |
Family Cites Families (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP0176410B1 (en) * | 1984-09-07 | 1988-12-07 | Schlumberger Limited | Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir |
-
1985
- 1985-09-05 EP EP85401719A patent/EP0176410B1/en not_active Expired
- 1985-09-05 AT AT85401719T patent/ATE39159T1/en not_active IP Right Cessation
- 1985-09-05 DE DE8585401719T patent/DE3566702D1/en not_active Expired
- 1985-09-06 AU AU47133/85A patent/AU579182B2/en not_active Ceased
Patent Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US3321965A (en) * | 1964-10-08 | 1967-05-30 | Exxon Production Research Co | Method for testing wells |
US3636762A (en) * | 1970-05-21 | 1972-01-25 | Shell Oil Co | Reservoir test |
FR2434923A1 (en) * | 1978-08-30 | 1980-03-28 | Schlumberger Prospection | WELL TEST PROCESS |
US4328705A (en) * | 1980-08-11 | 1982-05-11 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method of determining characteristics of a fluid producing underground formation |
Non-Patent Citations (4)
Title |
---|
OIL & GAS JOURNAL, vol. 81, no. 17, April 1983, pages 96-100, Tulsa, Oklahoma, US; N.N. MOLINA: "Relative permeability-2. How to use relative permeability correlations" * |
PETROLEUM ENGINEER INTERNATIONAL, vol. 51, no. 12, October 1979, pages 81-92, Dallas, Texas, US; L. DOUGLAS PATTON et al.: "Well completion and workover. Part 5 - Pseudodamage" * |
PETROLEUM ENGINEER INTERNATIONAL, vol. 51, no. 7, June 1979, pages 129-130, Dallas, Texas, US; E.H. TIMMERMAN: "Various methods used to average permeability" * |
PETROLEUM ENGINEER INTERNATIONAL, vol. 52, no. 11, September 1980, pages 80-90, Dallas, Texas, US; L. DOUGLAS PATTON et al.: "Well compltions and workovers - Part 10. The systems approach to well testing (feedback)" * |
Cited By (29)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
AU579182B2 (en) * | 1984-09-07 | 1988-11-17 | Schlumberger Technology B.V. | Testing technique for layered reservoir without crossflow |
FR2585404A1 (en) * | 1985-07-23 | 1987-01-30 | Flopetrol | Method for determining the parameters of formations having several layers producing hydrocarbons |
EP0217684A1 (en) * | 1985-07-23 | 1987-04-08 | Flopetrol Services, Inc. | Process for measuring flow and determining the parameters of multilayer hydrocarbon-producing formations |
EP0429078A1 (en) * | 1986-05-15 | 1991-05-29 | Soletanche | Method and apparatus for measuring ground permeability |
EP0481866A2 (en) * | 1990-10-19 | 1992-04-22 | Schlumberger Limited | Method for individually characterizing the layers of a hydrocarbon subsurface reservoir |
EP0481866A3 (en) * | 1990-10-19 | 1993-02-03 | Schlumberger Limited | Method for individually characterizing the layers of a hydrocarbon subsurface reservoir |
FR2678679A1 (en) * | 1991-07-05 | 1993-01-08 | Services Projets | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ASSESSING THE PRODUCTION QUALITY OF A WELL, ESPECIALLY OIL. |
WO1993001391A1 (en) * | 1991-07-05 | 1993-01-21 | Services Aux Projets (Serpro) | Method and device for evaluating the production quality of a well, particularly an oil well |
WO1998048146A1 (en) * | 1997-04-23 | 1998-10-29 | Shore-Tec As | A method and an apparatus for use in production tests, testing an expected permeable formation |
AU726255B2 (en) * | 1997-04-23 | 2000-11-02 | Shore-Tec As | A method and an apparatus for use in production tests, testing an expected permeable formation |
US6305470B1 (en) | 1997-04-23 | 2001-10-23 | Shore-Tec As | Method and apparatus for production testing involving first and second permeable formations |
US6575242B2 (en) | 1997-04-23 | 2003-06-10 | Shore-Tec As | Method and an apparatus for use in production tests, testing an expected permeable formation |
US6357525B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-03-19 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for testing a well |
US6352110B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-03-05 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
US6347666B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-02-19 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
US6382315B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-05-07 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
US6457521B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2002-10-01 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for continuously testing a well |
US6330913B1 (en) | 1999-04-22 | 2001-12-18 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method and apparatus for testing a well |
US8701762B2 (en) | 2010-09-30 | 2014-04-22 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method of determination of fluid influx profile and near-wellbore space parameters |
GB2484574A (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2012-04-18 | Prad Res & Dev Ltd | A Method of Determining Relative Flow Rates and Skin Factors in a Multi-Layer Well |
US8656994B2 (en) | 2010-09-30 | 2014-02-25 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method for determination of fluid influx profile and near-wellbore area parameters |
GB2484381A (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2012-04-11 | Schlumberger Holdings | A method of determination of fluid influx profile and near-wellbore space parameters |
GB2484381B (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2015-03-11 | Schlumberger Holdings | A method of determination of fluid influx profile and near-wellbore space parameters |
NO344907B1 (en) * | 2010-09-30 | 2020-06-22 | Schlumberger Technology Bv | Method for determining fluid inflow profile and near-well drilling spatial parameters |
US9250346B2 (en) | 2011-05-31 | 2016-02-02 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method for determining geometric characteristics of a hydraulic fracture |
CN110486009A (en) * | 2019-09-02 | 2019-11-22 | 合肥鼎盛锦业科技有限公司 | A kind of automatic reverse method of parameter and system on infinity stratum |
CN110486009B (en) * | 2019-09-02 | 2023-10-31 | 合肥鼎盛锦业科技有限公司 | Automatic parameter reverse solving method and system for infinite stratum |
CN114165217A (en) * | 2020-09-11 | 2022-03-11 | 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 | Method and device for determining effective permeability, computer equipment and storage medium |
CN114165217B (en) * | 2020-09-11 | 2023-09-26 | 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 | Method and device for determining effective permeability, computer equipment and storage medium |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
AU4713385A (en) | 1986-03-13 |
EP0176410B1 (en) | 1988-12-07 |
AU579182B2 (en) | 1988-11-17 |
ATE39159T1 (en) | 1988-12-15 |
DE3566702D1 (en) | 1989-01-12 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US4799157A (en) | Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir | |
EP0520903B1 (en) | Determining horizontal and/or vertical permeability of an earth formation | |
EP0176410A1 (en) | Method for uniquely estimating permeability and skin factor for at least two layers of a reservoir | |
US7032661B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for combined NMR and formation testing for assessing relative permeability with formation testing and nuclear magnetic resonance testing | |
EP0698722B1 (en) | Method for testing low permeability formations | |
EP0530105B1 (en) | Apparatus for determining horizontal and/or vertical permeability of an earth formation | |
RU2362875C2 (en) | Method of evaluating pressure in underground reservoirs | |
US7059179B2 (en) | Multi-probe pressure transient analysis for determination of horizontal permeability, anisotropy and skin in an earth formation | |
US5770798A (en) | Variable diameter probe for detecting formation damage | |
EP1649140B1 (en) | Improved downhole pv tests for bubble point pressure | |
US20030213591A1 (en) | Well testing using multiple pressure measurements | |
US7849736B2 (en) | Method for calculating the ratio of relative permeabilities of formation fluids and wettability of a formation downhole, and a formation testing tool to implement the same | |
US11230923B2 (en) | Apparatus and method for determining properties of an earth formation with probes of differing shapes | |
WO2006120366A1 (en) | Methods for analysis of pressure response in underground formations | |
Kuchuk | Interval pressure transient testing with MDT packer-probe module in horizontal wells | |
WO2019219153A2 (en) | Estimation of free water level and water-oil contact | |
US7021405B2 (en) | Determining gradients using a multi-probed formation tester | |
US9988902B2 (en) | Determining the quality of data gathered in a wellbore in a subterranean formation | |
US20070157719A1 (en) | Practical Methods to Estimate Horizontal and Vertical Permeabilities | |
US8919438B2 (en) | Detection and quantification of isolation defects in cement | |
Partouche et al. | A Technology Update in Wireline Formation Testing | |
CN110700821B (en) | Offshore reservoir connectivity evaluation method and application thereof in reserve calculation | |
US20080230221A1 (en) | Methods and systems for monitoring near-wellbore and far-field reservoir properties using formation-embedded pressure sensors | |
CA2424112C (en) | A method and apparatus for combined nmr and formation testing for assessing relative permeability with formation testing and nuclear magnetic resonance testing | |
Yildiz et al. | A reservoir model for wireline formation testing |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
PUAI | Public reference made under article 153(3) epc to a published international application that has entered the european phase |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009012 |
|
AK | Designated contracting states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AT DE FR GB IT NL |
|
17P | Request for examination filed |
Effective date: 19861001 |
|
17Q | First examination report despatched |
Effective date: 19870504 |
|
GRAA | (expected) grant |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009210 |
|
AK | Designated contracting states |
Kind code of ref document: B1 Designated state(s): AT DE FR GB IT NL |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: IT Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT;WARNING: LAPSES OF ITALIAN PATENTS WITH EFFECTIVE DATE BEFORE 2007 MAY HAVE OCCURRED AT ANY TIME BEFORE 2007. THE CORRECT EFFECTIVE DATE MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE RECORDED. Effective date: 19881207 Ref country code: FR Free format text: THE PATENT HAS BEEN ANNULLED BY A DECISION OF A NATIONAL AUTHORITY Effective date: 19881207 Ref country code: AT Effective date: 19881207 |
|
REF | Corresponds to: |
Ref document number: 39159 Country of ref document: AT Date of ref document: 19881215 Kind code of ref document: T |
|
REF | Corresponds to: |
Ref document number: 3566702 Country of ref document: DE Date of ref document: 19890112 |
|
EN | Fr: translation not filed | ||
PLBE | No opposition filed within time limit |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009261 |
|
STAA | Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent |
Free format text: STATUS: NO OPPOSITION FILED WITHIN TIME LIMIT |
|
26N | No opposition filed | ||
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: DE Effective date: 19900601 |
|
PGFP | Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: NL Payment date: 19910930 Year of fee payment: 7 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: NL Effective date: 19930401 |
|
NLV4 | Nl: lapsed or anulled due to non-payment of the annual fee | ||
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: GB Ref legal event code: IF02 |
|
PGFP | Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: GB Payment date: 20040901 Year of fee payment: 20 |
|
PG25 | Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo] |
Ref country code: GB Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF EXPIRATION OF PROTECTION Effective date: 20050904 |
|
REG | Reference to a national code |
Ref country code: GB Ref legal event code: PE20 |