Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates

In many testing situations a strictly constant producing rate is impractical,

or even impossible to maintain.

If rate varies during the flow test, results obtained by use of the technique
based on constant flow rate can lead to interpretations that are seriously in error.

Winestock and Colpitts show that, even when Pwf and q vary with time, the
following equation can be used to model variable-rate tests as long as the rate is
changing slowly and smoothly:

Pi  Pwf 162.6 B   kt  
 log    3.23  0.87 s 
q kh   ct rw2  
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates

Pi  Pwf 162.6 B   kt  
 
log 
2 
 3.23  0.87 s 
q kh   ct rw  

Pi  Pwf
Plot vs t on semi-log paper to get slope m’
q

B
m'  162.6
kh
 1  Pi  Pwf  k 
S  1.151    log 2
 3.23
 m'  q 1hr ct rw 
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates

Example

Analyze the drawdown test data given below with the Winestock and
Colpitts variable-rate method.

μ 0.8 cp
h 69 feet
Pi 4412 psi
B 1.136 rb/stb
Φ 0.039
-1
ct 1.70E-05 psi
rw 0.198 feet
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates

Example
Analyze the drawdown test data given below with the Winestock and
Colpitts variable-rate method.
time Pwf q
(hours) (psi) STB/day)

8.32 3927 147

9.99 3928 145
14.4 3931 143
20.7 3934 140
29.8 3937 137
43 3941 134
61.8 3944 132
74.2 3946 130
89.1 3948 129
107 3950 127
128 3952 126
154 3954 125
185.9 3956 123
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates

Example
Analyze the drawdown test data given below with the Winestock and
Colpitts variable-rate method.
time Pwf q P i  P wf
(hours) (psi) STB/day) q
Calculate
Pi  Pwf 8.32 3927 147 3.30
9.99 3928 145 3.34
q 14.4 3931 143 3.36
20.7 3934 140 3.41
29.8 3937 137 3.47
43 3941 134 3.51
61.8 3944 132 3.55
74.2 3946 130 3.58
89.1 3948 129 3.60
107 3950 127 3.64
128 3952 126 3.65
154 3954 125 3.66
185.9 3956 123 3.71
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates
Example
Variable rate testing with smoothly changing rates
Example

m‘ = 0.31

K = 6.9 md

S = 5.0
Flow Regimes – Drawdown Test
Early time Middle time, Late time
Pi infinite acting region
(wellbore (boundary
dominated) (reservoir dominated) dominated)

Pwf

Time - hours
8
 Reservoir Boundary Response
• IARF cannot last indefinitely.
• Eventually the reservoir boundaries will be felt as the well is
being tested.
• The time at which the boundary is felt is dependent on
several factors:
– Distance
– Formation Properties
– Fluid Properties

9
 Types of boundaries
• Two types of reservoir boundaries are
normally considered:
• Impermeable boundaries:
– Also known as closed boundaries – these occur
where there is a seal and NO flow occurs across
them. No flow boundaries can also arise from
interference between wells

10
 Types of boundaries Cont’d
• Constant Pressure Boundaries:
– This rarely occurs in practice; however in many
cases aquifer support; a balanced injection pattern
or the presence of a large gas cap can cause an
effect that resembles that of a constant pressure
boundary.

11
Closed Boundaries
• When a reservoir is
“closed” the pressure
transient will be
transmitted until it
reaches all sides; after
which the reservoir
depletion will enter a
state known as
pseudosteady state.

12
 Pseudosteady State
• The pressure in the reservoir will decline at the same rate
everywhere.
• Thus a pseudosteady state is not really steady.
• The condition of the reservoir during pseudosteady state is
that the pressure drop everywhere is due to the
decompression of the reservoir fluid as fluid is produced
from the well.

13
 Pseudosteady State
• This volumetric pressure loss is given simply from the
definition of compressibility:

1 V
ct  
V p
or ,
1 q t
p 
V ct

• Where V is the reservoir total volume and cumulative

production ∆V is replaced by q∆t
14
 Pseudosteady State Pressure Drop

• Directly proportional to time – hence

identifiable as a straight line.
• Dependent on reservoir volume – hence very
useful in estimating reservoir size.

15
 Pseudosteady State Pressure Drop Equation

• In terms of dimensionless variables, skin and

reservoir shape:

16
Shape factors for various Reservoirs Shape

17
 Pseudosteady State Pressure Drop
Equation
0.2342qB qB   2.2458 A  
p  t  70.65 ln    2s 
ct h A kh 2
  C A rw  

• The slope of the line ∆p vs. t will be:

0.2342qB
mCartesian 
ct h A
• Where:
– A = reservoir drainage area, Acres
– CA= Shape Factor
• Note that there is a transition period between IARF and PSS
flow!

18
 0.2342qB
mCartesian 
ct h A

Pore Volume, PV = AhΦ

0.2342qB
PV 
ct m
Example
 Example

IARF - Transient Flow

3000

2900

End of Transient flow

2800
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure (psia)

Pseudosteady state flow

2700

2600

2500

2400

2300
1 10 100

Flowing time (hours)

Example

m = 61 psi/log cycle

K = 240 md

S = 4.5
Example
Example

0.2342qB
mCartesian  m' 
ct h A
= -5.13 psi/hr

0.2342qB
A
ct h m'
= 36.24 acres
Example
 Boundaries Con’t

• Fault boundaries:

• These are impermeable barriers

• The well will see itself as a mirror and the

response would be that of two identical well.

26
 Fractured Wells

• Pressure response of well is influenced.

27
 Fractured Wells

• Dimensionless time:

• Relationship between Dimensionless

time for a fractured well and a normal
well:
–

28
 Fractured wells

• Types of Fractured wells:

– Finite Conductivity
– Infinite conductivity
– Uniform flux fractures

29
 Fractured wells

• Flow Regimes for a fractured well:

30
 Fractured wells

o Bilinear Flow:

– Dimensionless fracture permeability:

– Fracture Width:

31
 Fractured wells

• Infinite conductivity fracture:

• If product of >300
• Highly possible in practice especially when
permeability is low
• Response identical to flow for finite conductivity
flow except bilinear flow does not exists
• Pressure drop is given by:
• Response is represented by graphical log-log plot
of change in pressure vs. time

32
 Fractured wells

• Uniform flux fracture:

• Earliest mathematical solution for fracture
• Assumes uniform flow across a fracture
• FAR FROM THE TRUTH!

33
 Double Porosity difference

• Reservoirs behave as they were

homogenous
• Certain heterogeneities are identified by
the pressure response produced
– Commonly scene in naturally fractured
wells
– In a dual porosity matrix where two matrix
of varying porosity are adjacent to each
other
34
 Fractured wells

• Dimensionless pressure:

• Dimensionless time:

35
 Fractured Wells
• Two parameters that relate primary
porosity and secondary porosity (dual
porosity)
– Storativity ratio:

– Transmissivity ratio:

36
 Fractured Wells

• Alpha depends on geometry of

interporosity flow between matrix and
fractures

37
 Fractured Wells
• If matrix block is a cube or sphere then:

• For a spherical block:

• For a cylinder:

38
Fractured wells

39
Principle of Superposition

40
Principle of Superposition

41
Principle of Superposition

42
Principle of Superposition

43
Principle of Superposition

44
Principle of Superposition

45
Principle of Superposition

46
Principle of Superposition

47
Principle of Superposition

48
Principle of Superposition

49
Principle of Superposition

50
Pressure Buildup Survey

Pskin  0.87 ms

51
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

52
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

53
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

54
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

55
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

Horner Plot
4800

4780

4760

4740

4720
Pws

4700

4680

4660

4640

4620
1000 100 10 1

(tp+delt)/delt
56
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

= 5.9
57
 Pressure Buildup Survey
Example

Pi = 4800 psi

58