Type Curves Matching: Fiki Hidayat, M.Eng
Type Curves Matching: Fiki Hidayat, M.Eng
2
𝑝𝐷 𝑘ℎ 𝑡𝐷 𝑟𝐷 0.0002637𝑘
= , and =
∆𝑝 𝑀𝑃 141.2𝑄𝐵𝜇 𝑡 𝑀𝑃 ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟 2
𝑞𝐵 ∆𝑡
𝐶= , USL refers to Unit Slope Line
24 ∆𝑝 𝑈𝑆𝐿
Full procedure for Ramey’s type curve can be seen from Pressure Transient
Testing (2003) by Lee, Spivey, and Rollins, page 79.
Application of Type Curves – Homogeneous
Reservoir Model, Slightly Compressible Liquid
Solution
• McKinley Type Curve
McKinley developed type curves with the primary objective of
characterizing damage or stimulation in a drawdown or buildup test in
which wellbore storage distort most of or all the data, thus making this
characterization possible with relatively short-term tests.
McKinley observed that the ratio of pressure change, Δp, to the flow rate
causing the change, qB, is a function of several dimensionless quantities:
∆𝑝 𝑘ℎ∆𝑡 𝑘∆𝑡 𝑟𝑒 ∆𝑡
=𝑓 , 2
, ,
𝑞𝐵 𝜇𝐶 ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤 𝑟𝑤 𝑡𝑝
Type curves with so many parameters would be difficult, if not
impossible, to use. Accordingly, McKinley simplified the problem with the
following assumptions.
McKinley’s Type Curve
1. The well has produced long enough (essentially to stabilization) so
that the last group, Δt/tp, is not important.
2. He ignored the boundary effects, thus eliminating the variable re/rw
in the logic used to construct the type curves.
3. His analysis of simulated buildup and drawdown curves showed
that, during the wellbore-storage-dominated portion of a test, the
parameter khΔt/μC was much more important in determining
Δp/qB that was kΔt/φμctrw2. accordingly, he let kΔt/φμctrw2 =
10x106 md-psi/cp-ft2 (an average value) for all his type curves.
4. To account for the remaining parameters that do have a significant
influence on test results, McKinley plotted his type curves as Δt vs.
5.615Δp/qB with the single correlating parameter kh/5.615Cμ.
McKinley’s Type Curve
5. The skin factor, s, does not appear
as a parameter in his curves.
Instead, they assess damage or
stimulation by noting that the
earliest wellbore-storage-distorted
data are dominated by the effective
near-well transmissibility (kh/μ)wb.
𝑡𝐷 0.0002951𝑘ℎ
= 𝑡
𝐶𝐷 𝜇𝐶
Gringarten et al. Type Curve
For Buildup
• It should be noted that all type curve solutions are obtained for the
drawdown solution.
• Therefore, these type curves cannot be used for buildup tests without
restriction or modification. The only restriction is that the flow period
(tp) before shut-in must be somewhat large.
• Agarwal (1980) empirically found that by plotting the buildup data pws
– pwf at t=o vs “equivalent time” te instead of the shut-in time t, on
a log-log scale, the type curve analysis can be made without the
requirement of a long drawdown flowing period before shut-in.
∆𝑡
∆𝑡𝑒 =
1 + ∆𝑡 𝑡𝑝
Gringarten et al. Type Curve
• Agarwal’s equivalent time te is simply designed to account for the
effects of producing time tp on the pressure buildup test.
• The concept of te is that the pressure change p = pws – pwf at time
t during a buildup test is the same as the pressure change p = pi –
pwf at te during a drawdown test.
• Thus, a graph of buildup test in terms of pws – pwf vs. te will overlay a
graph of pressure vs flowing time for a drawdown test.
• Therefore, when applying the type curve approach in analyzing
pressure buildup data, the actual shut-in time t is replaced by the
equivalent time te.
Gringarten et al. Type Curve
• The following two dimensionless parameters are used when applying the
Gringarten type curve in analyzing pressure buildup test data.
• Dimensionless pressure pD
𝑘ℎ
𝑝𝐷 = ∆𝑝
141.2𝑄𝐵𝜇
• Dimensionless ratio tD/CD
𝑡𝐷 0.0002951𝑘ℎ
= ∆𝑡𝑒
𝐶𝐷 𝜇𝐶
• A plot of actual pressure buildup data of log (Δp) vs. log (Δte) would have a
shape identical to that of log (pD) vs log (tD/CD).
Gringarten et al. Type Curve
• When the actual plot is matched to one of the curves, then:
𝑝𝐷 𝑘ℎ
=
∆𝑝 𝑀𝑃 141.2𝑄𝐵𝜇
Or:
0.0002951𝑘ℎ ∆𝑡𝑒
𝐶= for buildup
𝜇 𝑡𝐷 𝐶𝐷 𝑀𝑃
And:
0.8936 1 𝐶𝐷 𝑒 2𝑠 𝑀𝑃
𝐶𝐷 = 2 𝐶;𝑠 = ln
∅ℎ𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤 2 𝐶𝐷
Example 4.3 from Pressure Transient Testing (John Lee, Spivey, Rollins)
illustrates the type-curve matching procedure with the Gringarten type
curve.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Tiab and Kumar (1980) first introduced the use of pressure derivatives
for well-test analysis to the petroleum industry by using pressure
derivatives to identify sealing faults uniquely from interference tests.
• Bourdet et al. (1983) developed a type curve, which includes a
pressure-derivative function, based on the analytical solution derived
by Agarwal et al (1970) and plotted on the Gringarten type curves.
• Bourdet and his co-authors proposed that flow regimes can have
clear characteristic shapes if the “pressure derivative” rather than
pressure is plotted versus time on the log-log coordinates.
• Since the introduction of the pressure derivative type curve, well
testing analysis has been greatly enhanced by its use.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• The use of this pressure derivative type curve offers the following
advantages:
• Heterogeneities hardly visible on the conventional plot of well testing data
are amplified on the derivative plot.
• Flow regimes have clear characteristic shapes on the derivative plot.
• The derivative plot is able to display in a single graph many separate
characteristics that would otherwise require different plots.
• The derivative approach improves the definition of the analysis plots and
therefore the quality of the interpretation.
• Bourdet et al defined the pressure derivative as the derivative of pD
with respect to tD/CD as:
′
𝑑 𝑝𝐷
𝑝𝐷 =
𝑑 𝑡𝐷 𝐶𝐷
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• It has been shown that during the wellbore storage dominated period the
pressure behavior is described by:
𝑡𝐷
𝑝𝐷 = ; taking the derivative of pD with respect to tD/CD gives:
𝐶𝐷
𝑑 𝑝𝐷
= 𝑝𝐷′ = 1
𝑑 𝑡𝐷 𝐶𝐷
Since pD’ = 1, this implies that multiplying pD’ by tD/CD gives tD/CD, or:
′ 𝑡𝐷 𝑡𝐷
𝑝𝐷 = , this indicates that a plot of pD’(tD/CD) vs. tD/CD in log-log
𝐶𝐷 𝐶𝐷
coordinates will produces a unit-slope straight line during the wellbore
storage-dominated flow period.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Similarly, during the radial infinite-acting flow period, the pressure
behavior is:
1 𝑡𝐷
𝑝𝐷 = ln + 0.80901 + ln 𝐶𝐷 𝑒 2𝑠
2 𝐶𝐷
Differentiating with respect to tD/CD, gives:
𝑑 𝑝𝐷 1 1 ′ 𝑡𝐷 1
= 𝑝𝐷′ = , simplifying gives: 𝑝𝐷 =
𝑑 𝑡𝐷 𝐶𝐷 2 𝑡𝐷 𝐶𝐷 𝐶𝐷 2
• This indicates that a plot of pD’(tD/CD) vs. tD/CD on a log-log scale will
’ 1
produce a horizontal line at pD (tD/CD) = during the tranisent flow
2
(radial infinite-acting) period.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• The derivative plot of pD’(tD/CD) vs. tD/CD for the entire well
test data will produce two straight lines that are
characterized by:
• A unit-slope straight line during the wellbore storage dominated
flow;
• A horizontal line at pD’(tD/CD) = 0.5 during the transient flow
period.
• The fundamental basis for the pressure derivative approach
is essentially based on identifying these two straight lines
that can be used as reference lines when selecting the
proper well test data interpreting model.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Bourdet et al. Replotted the Gringarten type curve in terms of pD’(tD/CD) vs
tD/CD on a log-log scale as shown in Figure 1.53.
• It shows that at the early time during the WBS-dominated flow, the curves
follow a unit-slope log-log straight line.
• When infinite-acting radial flow is
reached, the curves become
horizontal value of pD’(tD/CD) = 0.5.
• In addition, notice that the
transition from pure WBS to infinite
acting behavior gives a “hump” with
a height that characterizes the value
of the skin factor s.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Figure 1.53 before illustrates that the effect of skin is only manifested
in the curvature between the straight line due to wellbore storage
flow and the horizontal straight line due to the infinite-acting radial
flow.
• Bourdet et al indicated that the data in this curvature portion of the
curve is not always well defined.
• For this reason, it useful to combine Bourdet’s derivative type curves
with that of the Gringarten type curve by superimposing the two type
curves on the same scale.
• The use of the new type curve allows the simultaneous matching of
pressure-change data and derivative data since both are plotted on
the same scale.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• The derivative pressure data provides, without ambiguity,
the pressure match and the time match, while the CDe2s
value is obtained by comparing the label of the match curves
for the derivative pressure data and pressure drop data.
• The procedure for analyzing well test data using the
derivative type curve can be found in Pressure Transient
Testing book (John Lee, Spivey, Rollins) page 89 or Advanced
Reservoir Engineering (Tarek Ahmed) page 1/75.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• A practical limitation associated with the use of the pressure
derivative approach is the ability to measure pressure transient data
with sufficient frequency and accuracy so that it can be differentiated.
• Generally, the derivative function will show severe oscillations unless
the data is smoothed before taking the derivative.
• Smoothing of any time series, such as pressure-time data, is not an
easy task, and unless it is done with care and know-how, a portion of
the data which is representative of the reservoir (signal) could be lost.
• Signal filterinf, smoothing, and interpolation is a very advanced
subject of science and engineering, and unless the proper smoothing
techniques are applied to the field data, the results could be utterly
misleading.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• In addition to the reservoir heterogeneity, there are many inner and outer
reservoir boundary conditions that will cause the transient state plot to
deviate from the expected semilog straight-line behavior during the infinite-
acitng behavior of the test well, such as:
• Faults and other impermeable flow barriers
• Partial penetration
• Phase separation and packer failures
• Interference
• Stratified layers
• Naturally and hydraulically fractured reservoirs
• Boundary
• Lateral increase in mobility
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• The theory which describes the unsteady-state flow data is based on
the ideal radial flow of fluids in a homogeneous reservoir system of
uniform thickness, porosity, and permeability.
• Any deviation from this ideal concept can cause the predicted
pressure to behave differently from the actual measured pressure.
• In addition, a well test response may have different behavior at
different times during the test.
• In general, the are four different time periods can be identified on a
log-log plot of Δp vs. Δt
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Many types of flow regimes can appear before and after the actual
semilog straight line develops, and they follow a very strict
chronology in the pressure response.
• Only global diagnosis, with identification of all successive regimes
present, will indicate exactly when conventional analysis, e.g., the
semilog plot technique, is justified.
• Recognition of the four different sequences of responses is perhaps
the most important element in well test analysis.
• The difficulty arises from the fact that some of these responses could
be missing, overlapping, or undetectable through the traditional
graphical semilog straight-line approach.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Selection of the correct reservoir interpretation model is a
prerequisite and an important step before analyzing well test
data and interpreting the test results.
• It should be pointed out that both the semilog and log-log plots
of pressure changes (Δp) versus time data (t) are often
insensitive to pressure changes and cannot be solely used as
diagnostic plots to find the interpretation model that best
represents the dynamic behavior of the well and reservoir during
the test.
• The pressure derivative type curve is the most definitive of the
type curves for identifying the proper interpretation model.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• The pressure derivative approach has been applied with
tremendous success as a diagnostic tool for the following reasons:
• It magnifies small pressure changes
• Flow regimes have clear characteristic shapes on the pressure derivative
plot
• It clearly differentiates between responses of various reservoir models,
such as:
• Dual-porosity behavior
• Naturally and hydraulically fractured reservoirs
• Closed boundary systems
• Constant pressure boundaries
• Faults and impermeable boundaries
• Infinite acting systems
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• It identifies various reservoir behavior and conditions that are not apparent
in the traditional well analysis approach.
• It defines a clear recognizable pattern of various flow periods.
• It improves the overall accuracy of test interpretation.
• It provides an accurate estimation of relevant reservoir parameters.
Lee (1982) suggested that the best approach of identifying the correct
interpretation model incorporates the following three plotting techniques:
1. The traditional log-log type curve plot of pressure difference Δp vs time.
2. The derivative type curve.
3. The “specialized graph” such as Horner plot for a homogeneous system
among other plots.
Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve
• Based on knowledge of the shape of different flow regimes, the
double plot of pressure and its derivative is used to diagnose the
system and choose a well/reservoir model to match the well test
data.
• The specialized plots can be used to confirm the results of the
pressure-derivative type curve match.
• After reviewing and checking the quality of the test raw data, the
analysis of well tests can be divided into following two steps:
1) The reservoir model identification and various flow regimes encountered
during the tests are determined.
2) The values of various reservoir and well parameters are calculated.
Model Identification
• The validity of the well test interpretation is totally dependent on two
important factors, the accuracy of the measured field data and the
applicability of the selected interpretation model.
• Identifying the correct model for analyzing the well test data can be
recognized by plotting the data in several formats to eliminate the
ambiguity in model selection.
• Gringarten (1984) pointed out that the interpretation model consists
of three main components that are independent of each other and
dominate at different times during the test and they follow the
chronology of the pressure response.
Model Identification
• Three main components:
• Inner boundaries. It is performed on the early-time test data. They are
only five possible inner boundaries and flow conditions in and around the
wellbore:
1. Wellbore storage
2. Skin
3. Phase separation
4. Partial penetration
5. Fracture
• Reservoir behavior. Identification of the reservoir is performed on the
middle-time data during the infinite-acting behavior and includes two
main types:
1. Homogeneous
2. Heterogeneous (double porosity reservoirs; multilayered or double-permeability
reservoirs)
Model Identification
• Outer boundaries. Identification of the outer boudaries is performed
on the late-time data. There are two outer boundaries:
1. No-flow boundary
2. Constant-pressure boundary
• Each of the three components exhibits a distincly different
characteristic that can be identified separately, and described by
different mathematical forms.