You are on page 1of 4

Sci.Int.

(Lahore),25(4),1461-1464,2014

ISSN 1013-5316;CODEN: SINTE 8

1461

ADVANCES IN WELL TESTING ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL


WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION; A FIELD CASE
Ramin Mahyapour, Ghassem Zargar, Abdolnabi Hashemi
Petroleum Engineering Department, Petroleum University of Technology, Ahwaz, Iran. Po.Box: 6198144471
Tel: +98 611 5551019
* Corresponding author e-mail: ramin.sut@gmail.ir

ABSTRACT: There are different approaches in well testing which are practical. First of all, classical
well test analysis using line fits and type curve matching were applied. After developing computer
programs, computer-aided well test analysis by use of nonlinear regression became handy and more
efficient. Due to lots of restrictions, numerical well testing developed by use of simulation technology to
construct more accurate models. By means of reservoir geology and fluid properties and lots of available
choices this approach is considerably powerful. Construction of appropriate grid design and time intervals
is critical. We need to build a full simulation input deck and manipulate results into a form suitable for
analysis with well testing packages. In this study we apply numerical well testing in conjunction with other
methods. The best reservoir characterization result comes out of linking analytical well testing analysis and
numerical simulators. In this paper, field data of a fractured and complex reservoir in Iran is studied
through these approaches. This study resulted that numerical simulators is more powerful with detailed
reservoir rock, fluid and geology information.
Keywords: Well Testing, Pressure Transient Analysis, Numerical Analysis, Reservoir Simulation

INTRODUCTION
Well testing has developed to become one of the most useful
and powerful tool to characterize reservoir properties. Well
test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the
well. Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results
are used to build a reservoir model for prediction of 0the
field behavior and fluid recovery to different operating
scenarios.
There are two main approaches to handle and deal with
pressure transient analysis. At first, developments in well
testing have been achieved basically using analytical
solutions which assume reservoir properties throughout the
investigated area in a uniform manner. Analytical well
testing deals with lots of restrictions set by simplifying
when solving diffusivity equation [1].
Analytical solutions suppose homogeneous, isotropic,
isothermal, with no gravity, single phase and darcy flow
condition. These assumptions are far from the real cases.
The inability of analytical models to interpret complex wells
and reservoir structures necessitated moving to numerical
approaches.
Numerical Models
Since numerical models address problems far beyond the
reach of analytical and semi-analytical models, they are
becoming increasingly popular in well test analysis.
Nonlinearities, such as multiphase and non-Darcy flow, and
complex reservoirs or well geometries make us to use
numerical models. When the well pressure reaches below a
certain point numerical models can also be used to replace
rate by pressure constraints, thus we avoid the embarrassing
negative pressures often generated by analytical models [2].
The initial attempts at numerical well testing were done ad
hoc across the industry by engineers using reservoir
simulators with local grid refinement. Lately, developments
in automatic unstructured grids and the use of faster
computers have allowed such models to be generated in a
time that is acceptable to the end user. Using gradient
methods nonlinear regression is possible, and improved
well-to-cell models allow simulation on a logarithmic time
scale with little or no numerical side effects [2].

The main goal of numerical models is to address complex


boundary configurations, but this part of work is actually
easily done by any simulator. The problem is to also address
what is easily done by analytical models, i.e. the early time
response and the logarithmic sampling of the time scale.
This requires, one way or the other, to get more grid cells
close to well, and this has been done using local grid
refinement.
When the problem is nonlinear the numerical module is
used more like a standard simulator, with just a grid
geometry adapted to a logarithmic time scale. A numerical
model can also be used to change the well constraint in
time. For each well, a minimum pressure is set, below
which the simulator changes mode and simulates the well
production for this minimum pressure [2].
Double Porosity Reservoirs
The numerical models can simulate a double porosity (2)
medium by dividing each grid cell into two: the first half
represents the matrix and the second the fissure. Each subcell will occupy the same geometrical volume and the same
location. Hence the gridding is not affected. In the
simulation, the pore volume and the transmissibility of each
fissure and matrix sub-cell is computed using the model
storativity ratio () and interporosity flow parameter () [2,
3].
Furthermore, the matrix sub-cell is connected to its
corresponding fissure sub-cell. In other words, the model
input permeability k is the fissure permeability.
Double-porosity (2) reservoirs in numerical models may
be described with identical parameters as for analytical
solutions. We may use the same basic procedures to
graphically estimate and as in the analytical case.
The numerical simulation of double porosity behavior may
be combined with more complicated geometries and
heterogeneities, thus providing far more flexibility in terms
of problem definition than can be found in analytical
solutions. It is even possible to consider the combination of
different defined double porosity within different composite
zones [2, 3].

1462

ISSN 1013-5316;CODEN: SINTE 8

METHODOLOGY
Numerical well test analysis has been used for years but
construction of the correct simulation grid design is
problematic and critical. We need to manipulate results into
a form suitable for analysis with well testing packages.
Ecrin by ETS Company offers analytical and numerical well
testing in a common and fully integrated environment.
We apply numerical well testing in conjunction with other
analysis methods. First of all we used traditional methods,
analytical well testing, to come up with first parameter
estimates and then we refined the matches. By means of
numerical well testing, we analyze more complex reservoirs
and complicated well trajectories.
We use numerical simulation as a tool to illustrate pressure
response of the reservoir when analytical models are not
available and also they are too simplistic and also when well
tests should be designed in well-developed fields.
Since there is not always a partial approach to observe any
changes in reservoir and also to devise efficient plans,
simulation is a simple and effective method to this purpose.
In petroleum engineering such as other majors, various
software in case of each section as for the specific output
have been designed. One of the most developed and also
used reservoir simulation software is Eclipse package
created by Schlumberger Company. Eclipse uses the FVM
(finite volume method) to solve energy and material balance
equations and then models a subsurface oil reservoir [4].
As Eclipse is providing the latest developments in
modeling, uncertainty quantification advanced field
management. It reduces risks and helps to enhance field
economics and ultimately maximizes efficiency of the plans
and recovery of the reservoir.
If we want to use this simulator as a tool for numerical well
testing, we should regard for some points, for example grid
sizes and time step intervals must be different from the case
of full field simulation. It means we must observe all flow
regimes by controlling the parameters.
Designing Well Testing Conditions and Time Intervals
In order to design well test conditions for the model, several
conditions should be specified, by preserving assumed
terms such as well test period and flow rate to avoid
pressure decline to the reservoir boundaries.
In this part of simulation, also the well completion is
designed and the well testing time interval is determined
which the numerical simulator does calculations in the time
intervals.
To obtain the most accurate results and also least error
yields, it is compulsory to the specified time steps to follow
a logarithmic pattern. Also as pressure decline curve moves
in the near of the wellbore in a faster mode therefore well
testing time interval at the beginning of the pressure
transient analysis test should be a short interval to record
more pressure response points.
Having a few pressure response data in near wellbore area
at the beginning of the time makes lots of errors in the
results. The output type should be determined in the model
itself, otherwise, only a visual result is obtained by the
numerical simulator.

Sci.Int.(Lahore),25(4),1461-1464,2014

RESULTS
The numerical data obtained from the simulator, pressure
versus time data, are used as input data of the well testing
analyzer package, Saphir, Ecrin by ETS Company. We
examine the pressure versus time and pressure derivative
plots to validate numerical simulation and if there exists
noises in early time or other parts of the plots we try to
eliminate these inconsistencies by changing grid types and
conditions and also time intervals.
Then we compare reservoir parameters which are output
data of well testing analyzer with input data of simulator to
achieve error of the model, and if the error is somehow
unusual and large, the model should be revised and
examined to obtain the best results and also the least errors.
Analysis Steps: In order to perform a pressure transient
analysis and obtain acceptable results, the general data of
the well and reservoir fluids such as porosity (It is not
important initially), wellbore radius, thickness of the layer,
producing fluid and fluid formation volume factor and also
its viscosity are available. The pressure versus time data and
the flow rate of each period of the tests (drawdown test and
build up test) must be important to the well test analyzer.
The analyzer provides a well test history diagram, after that
pressure response period is selected to gain pressure
derivative plot. The Well Testing analyzer makes an initial
guess of the parameter after specifying the initial condition
and also using correlations in the analyzer to match the most
reliable result.
In each following models we try to make more complicated
models to observe into pressure response plots and examine
and validate using Eclipse as a numerical producer of the
models to use in Well Testing.
Analysis of well A
The well was shut-in after production of 2000 STB per day
with an equivalent production time of 303163 hours for the
build-up test. The essential information to analyze pressure
response of the well is in Table 1. The shut-in time is 46
hours. Figure 1 illustrates the rate and pressure changes. The
main build-up was achieved in about just a few minutes and
total pressure build up has been 192 psi.
Analytical Analysis
An analytical model was prepared in Saphir well test
analyzer. The model is made up of a vertical well with
constant wellbore storage, dual porosity reservoir, and an
infinite boundary. By means of non-linear regression final
matched model is obtained and illustrated in Figures 2. A
good match but not an excellent one between model and real
data is observed here.
Numerical Analysis
A numerical model was prepared in Saphir well test
analyzer. Importing underground contour map into the
software and setting a fault, a Perpendicular bisection grid
was created as illustrated in Figure 3. The values of net pay
thickness and total porosity for wells in east section of
Asmari formation was imported into the model.

Sci.Int.(Lahore),25(4),1461-1464,2014

ISSN 1013-5316;CODEN: SINTE 8

Figure 1. Pressure and rate history during test of well A

Figure 2. Analytical model and measured data on log-log plot of


test of well A

1463

Figure 4. Numerical model and measured data on log-log plot of


test of well A
Table 1. Summary of data required for well test analysis of well
A.
Variable
Unit
Value
Net pay thickness (hnet)
ft
675.5
fraction
0.095
Total porosity ()
Wellbore radius (rw)
ft
0.3
Oil FVF (Bo)
Res. bbl/STB
1.33
cP
0.9
Oil viscosity (o)
Total compressibility (ct)
Psi-1
1.00 E-5
Oil compressibility (co)
Psi-1
1.02 E-5
Rock compressibility (cr)
Psi-1
2.23 E-6
Water compressibility (cw)
Psi-1
2.1 E-6
Oil saturation (So)
fraction
0.68
Last flow rate (qlast)
STB/d
2000
Equivalent production time (tp)
hr
303163

We obtained a satisfactory and good match. Figures 3 and 4


illustrate the model. Compared to analytical one obtained
from the software, the numerical model is considerable and
successful.

Figure 3. PEBI gridding for well A generated by Saphir

Figure 5. The location of the wells on UGC map of Asmari


formation

1464

ISSN 1013-5316;CODEN: SINTE 8

Sci.Int.(Lahore),25(4),1461-1464,2014

CONCLUSIONS
In this study we implemented analytical and numerical well
testing and we applied numerical simulator to extend use of
numerical modeling of the reservoir in pressure transient
analysis. A complex naturally fractured reservoir is chosen
and analyzed in different approaches. In these analyzing
procedures lots of attempts were made to achieve the results.
The following conclusions are possible from this study:

Figure 6. Reservoir sector illustrating the location of the well


A

Figure 7.Pressure response of the simulated model (blue and


yellow) and measured data (red and green) on log-log plot of
test of well A

Table 2 has listed the results of the approaches to


interpret well testing data of the well.
Table 2. Comparison of analytical and numerical interpretation
results of well A.
Saphir
Saphir
Simulator
Variable
Unit
analytical numerical numerical
Wellbore
storage
STB/psi
0.023
0.023
0.02
coefficient (C)
Effective
permeability
md
48.8
48.8
50
(k)
Total skin
---2.17
2.17
2.2
factor (S)
Interporosity
flow
---5.54 E-8
5.0 E-8
4.63 E-8
coefficient
()
Storativity
---0.009
0.007
0.0062
ratio ()

1- Using numerical simulation as a toolkit to extend use of


numerical well testing came up with powerful and
efficient capability and ability which contains more
detailed and accurate information of static structure of
the reservoir that close matches with obtained pressure
responses are achieved.
2- The most precise match has been obtained by applying
numerical well testing in conjunction with initial values
from analytical analysis. Numerical simulator`s input
data should be parameters obtained from the most
reasonable match achieved as without initial guess it
takes a long time to converge.
3- According to the shape of dual porosity derivative plots,
flow between the two porosities (matrix to fractures) is
in pseudo-steady state condition. Therefore, restricted
interporosity condition known as Warren and Root
(1963) model is the observed model.
4- A sensitivity of grid construction is required to design
the most efficient grid design. The key to reach to a
reasonable and satisfying match lies in the way we
construct the grids.
5- A comprehensive understanding of the flow regime and
its effect on well test plots in the well or reservoir
should be perceived as the optimum grid reflects the
flow profiles diagnosed from well testing plots.
6- It should be noted that time intervals should be in
logarithmic pattern in increasing order.
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Thawad, F.M., et al., A simple approach to numerical
analysis of complex well tests. Middle East Oil Show,
2003.
[2] Houz, O., D. Viturat, and O.S. Fjaere, Dynamic Flow
Analysis. KAPPA Corporation, Paris, 2007.
[3] Gringarten, A.C., Interpretation of tests in fissured and
multilayered reservoirs with double-porosity behavior:
Theory and practice. Journal of petroleum technology,
1984. 36(4): p. 549-564.
[4] Schlumberger, Eclipse Reference Manual. 2005.

You might also like