Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Pressure Buildup Tests

1972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Kazemi
Keyword(s):  
Reservoir Pressure ◽  
Well Test ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Gas Well ◽  
Pressure Buildup ◽  
Production History ◽  
Calculated Average

Abstract Two simple and equivalent procedures are suggested for improving the calculated average reservoir pressure from pressure buildup tests of liquid or gas wells in developed reservoirs. These procedures are particularly useful in gas well test analysis irrespective of gas composition, in reservoirs with pressure-dependent permeability and porosity, and in oil reservoirs where substantial gas saturation has been developed. Long-term production history need not be known. Introduction For analyzing pressure buildup data with constant flowrate before shut in, two plotting procedures are mostly used: The Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH) plot (1,8) and the Horner plot (2,8). The Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson plot is a plot of pws vs log Δt. The Horner plot consists of plotting the bottom hole shut-in pressure, pws vs log [(tp + Δt)/Δt]. Δt is the shut-in time and tp is a pseudo-production time equal to the ratio of total produced fluid and the last stabilized flowrate prior to shut in. This method was first used by Theis (3) in the water industry.

Determining Average Reservoir Pressure From Pressure Buildup Tests

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Kazemi
Keyword(s):  
Oil Reservoirs ◽  
Reservoir Engineering ◽  
Reservoir Pressure ◽  
Well Test ◽  
Gas Well ◽  
Pressure Buildup ◽  
Line Section ◽  
Straight Line ◽  
Buildup Curve

Abstract Two simple and equivalent procedures are suggested for improving the calculated average reservoir pressure from pressure buildup tests of liquid or gas wells in developed reservoirs. These procedures are particularly useful in gas well test procedures are particularly useful in gas well test analysis, irrespective of gas composition, in reservoirs with pressure-dependent permeability and porosity, and in oil reservoirs where substantial gas porosity, and in oil reservoirs where substantial gas saturation has been developed. A knowledge of the long-term production history is definitely helpful in providing proper insight in the reservoir engineering providing proper insight in the reservoir engineering aspects of a reservoir, but such long-term production histories need not be known in applying the suggested procedures to pressure buildup analysis. Introduction For analyzing pressure buildup data with constant flow rate before shut-in, there are two plotting procedures that are used the most: the procedures that are used the most: the Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH) plot and the Horner plot. The MDH plot is a plot of p vs log Deltat, whereas the Horner plot is a plot of p vs log [(t + Deltat)/Deltat]. Deltat is the shut-in time and t is a pseudoproduction time equal to the ratio of total produced fluid to last stabilized flow rate before shut-in. This method was first used by Theis in the water industry. Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson presented a method for calculating the average reservoir pressure, T, in in 1950. This method requires pseudosteady state before shut-in and was at first restricted to a circular reservoir with a centrally located well. Pitzer extended the method to include other Pitzer extended the method to include other geometries. Much later, Dietz developed a simpler interpretation scheme using the same MDH plot: p is read on the extrapolated straight-line section of the pressure buildup curve at shut-in time, Deltat,(1) where C is the shape factor for the particular drainage area geometry and the well location; values for C are tabulated in Refs. 5 and 13. For a circular drainage area with a centrally located well, C = 31.6, and for a square, C = 30.9.Horner presented another approach, which depended on the knowledge of the initial reservoir pressure, pi. This method also was first developed pressure, pi. This method also was first developed for a centrally located well in a circular reservoir.Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) introduced another average reservoir pressure determination technique, which has been used more often than other methods: first a Horner plot is made; then the proper straight-line section of the buildup curve is proper straight-line section of the buildup curve is extrapolated to [(t + Deltat)/Deltat] = 1 (this intercept is denoted p*); finally, p is calculated from(2) m is the absolute value of the slope of the straightline section of the Horner plot:(3) pDMBH (tDA) is the MBH dimensionless pressure pDMBH (tDA) is the MBH dimensionless pressure at tDA, and tDA is the dimensionless time:(4) tp k a pseudoproduction time in hours:(5) PDMBH tDA) for different geometries and different PDMBH tDA) for different geometries and different well locations are given in Refs. 6 and 13.The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. 2 is a correction term for finite reservoirs that is based on material balance. Thus, for an infinite reservoir, p = pi = p*, where pi is the initial reservoir pressure. SPEJ P. 55

Postfracturlng Gas-Well-Test Analysis Using Buildup Type Curves

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (03) ◽  
pp. 393-400
Author(s):  
D.M. Walsh ◽  
K.H. Leung
Keyword(s):  
Well Test ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Gas Well ◽  
Type Curves

scholarly journals Well Test and Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests Analyses to Successfully Hydraulic Fracturing Program of Block X

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Dimas Adiguna ◽  
Muhammad Taufiq Fathaddin ◽  
Hari Karyadi Oetomo
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Data ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Well Test ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Pressure Buildup ◽  
Skin Factor ◽  
Oil Flow ◽  
Rate Test

<p>Well test analysis was conducted to determine the characteristics of reservoir rocks. From the well test analysis it is obtained information such as permeability and skin factor. The skin factor is a quantity indicating the presence of disturbance in the formation as a result of drilling operations, production operations, perforating casing, gravel pack installation, remedial well work, acidizing operation, and hydraulic fracture operation. The objective of this research is to determine the relationship of multi rate test method of Jones, Blount, and Glaze and the comparison result among pressure buildup test and pressure drawdown test analyses, using Kappa software or manually calculation. Therefore, in this paper will study the method of Jones, Blount, and Glaze and the well test analyses to determine further work of the wells on block X. The data used in this paper is secondary data, namely the results of well test from three wells.Applying drawdown test analysis of A, Y, and Z wells yield skin factor values of 3.37; 27.10; and -1.39. Where in buildup pressure Horner method analysis of A, Y, and Z wells yield skin factor values of 16.10; 11.18; and -2.07. In the method of type curve derivatives the drawdown analysis of A, Y, and Z wells yield skin factor values of 7.04; 11.18; and 4.20. The analysis of pressure buildup, of A, Y, and Z wells yield skin factor value of 25.11; 14.47; and 1.93. In the analysis using <br /> Kappa software of A, Y, and Z wells yield skin factor values of 5.56; 10.2; and 2.00. The skin results of these wells indicate the formation damages. The Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests analysis using Jones, Blount, and Glaze method from the plots of Δp/q versus oil flow rate (q) are b’ high and b’/b low. These indicate that the three wells are encountering formation damages. The Jones, Blount, and Glaze method as well as the pressure buildup and pressure drawdown test analyses in block X indicate that these wells require to be stimulated.</p>

Pressure Buildup for Wells Produced at a Constant Pressure

1981 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 105-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.A. Ehlig-Economides ◽  
H.J. Ramey
Keyword(s):  
Constant Pressure ◽  
Variable Rate ◽  
Reservoir Pressure ◽  
Well Test ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Pressure Flow ◽  
Value Analysis ◽  
Pressure Buildup ◽  
Constant Flow Rate ◽  
Constant Rate

Abstract Conventional well test analysis has been developed primarily for production at a constant flow rate. However, there are several common reservoir production conditions which result in flow at a constant pressure instead of a constant rate. In the field, wells are produced at constant pressure when fluids flow into a constant-pressure separator and during the rate decline period of reservoir depletion. In geothermal reservoirs, produced fluids may drive a backpressured turbine. Open wells, including artesian water wells, flow at constant atmospheric pressure.Most of the existing methods for pressure buildup analysis of wells with a constant-pressure flow history are empirical. Few are based on sound theory. Hence, there is a need for a thorough treatment of pressure buildup behavior following constant-pressure production.In this work, the method of superposition of continuously changing rates was used to generate an exact solution for pressure buildup following constant-pressure flow. The method is general. Storage and skin effects were incorporated into the theory, and both bounded and unbounded reservoirs were considered. Buildup solutions were graphed using conventional techniques for analysis. Horner's method for plotting buildup data after a variable-rate flow was found to be accurate in a majority of cases. Also, the method by Matthews et al. for determining the average reservoir pressure in a closed system was determined to be correct for buildup following constant-pressure flow. Introduction When a flowing well is shut in, the pressure in the wellbore increases with time as the pressures throughout the reservoir approach a static value. Analysis of the pressure increase, or pressure buildup, often provides useful information about the reservoir and the wellbore itself. Techniques exist for determination of wellbore storage, skin effect, reservoir permeability and porosity, and either the initial reservoir pressure or the volumetric average reservoir pressure at the time the well was shut in. Effects of fractures penetrated by or near the wellbore also can be detected, as well as nearby faults or reservoir drainage boundaries.Most of the techniques for pressure buildup analysis were developed for wells which, prior to shut-in, were produced at a constant rate. When the production rate before shut-in changes rapidly, conventional analysis is often suspect. If the exact rate history is known, the theory of superposition in time of constant-rate solution leads to the method derived by Horner which compensates for changing production rates. This method results in long calculations. However, in the same paper Horner proposed a simplified procedure in which the last established rate was assumed constant and the flow time was set equal to the cumulative production divided by the last established rate. Other methods for analysis of pressure buildup after a variable-rate production history were proposed by Odeh et al.A special case of variable-rate production results when a well is produced at constant pressure. The first published application of pressure buildup analysis for a well produced at constant pressure prior to shut-in was by Jacob and Lohman. Their graph of residual drawdown vs. total time divided by shut-in time results in a semilog straight line. SPEJ P. 105^

scholarly journals ANALISIS PRESSURE BUILD-UP RESERVOIR GAS KONDENSAT DALAM FORMASI KARBONAT

PETRO ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 153
Author(s):  
Jodica Jodica ◽  
Onnie Ridaliani ◽  
Ghanima Yasmaniar
Keyword(s):  
Initial Pressure ◽  
Flow Region ◽  
Homogeneous System ◽  
Carbonate Reservoir ◽  
Gas Condensate ◽  
Reservoir Pressure ◽  
Well Test ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Carbonate Formation

<p><em>Different flow region will form in the reservoir when the gas condensate fluid flows with a bottom</em><em> </em><em>hole</em><em> </em><em>pressure</em><em> </em><em>below</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>dew</em><em> </em><em>point</em><em> </em><em>pressure.</em><em> </em><em>This</em><em> </em><em>flow</em><em> </em><em>region</em><em> </em><em>can</em><em> </em><em>be</em><em> </em><em>identified</em><em> </em><em>by</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>pressure build-up test analysis. This analysis can be done well on reservoir with homogeneous system and becomes</em><em> </em><em>more</em><em> </em><em>complex</em><em> </em><em>on</em><em> </em><em>reservoir</em><em> </em><em>with</em><em> </em><em>heterogeneous</em><em> </em><em>system.</em><em> </em><em>The</em><em> </em><em>purpose</em><em> </em><em>of</em><em> </em><em>this</em><em> </em><em>study</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>find informations and characteristics about carbonate reservoir with gas condensate. Reservoir parameters that can be obtained are initial reservoir pressure (</em><em>pi</em><em>), </em><em>permeability (k), skin factor (s), reservoir boundary (boundary), drainage area, and average reservoir pressure ( </em><em>pr </em><em>). "JD-1" exploratory well penetrated the carbonate formation with the gas condensate hydrocarbon content. The well test analysis conducted is pressure analysis with pressure build-up testing and theanalysis results show a reservoir with a two-layer model, permeability value of 154 md, skin 13.8, initial pressure 3286.3 psia, and average reservoir pressure of 3285.7</em><em> </em><em>psia</em><em>.</em></p><p><em> </em></p><p> </p>

Determination of Infinite-Acting Period for Well-Test Analysis

1986 ◽  
Vol 1 (04) ◽  
pp. 383-388
Author(s):  
B.D. Gobran ◽  
M.D. Abbaszadeh ◽  
S.L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Well Test ◽  
Well Test Analysis ◽  
Test Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document