Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5
WELLBORE STORAGE:
HOW IT AFFECTS PRESSURE BUILDUP AND PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TESTS
W. John Lee, Mississippi State University
ABSTRACT
Pressure buildup and drawdown tests, including drill stem tests, are
frequently used to estimate formation characteristics such as permeability
and wellbore damage. Unfortunately, differences between sandface and surface flow rates during the initial part of these tests cause serious discrepancies, called wellbore storage effects, which cause serious interpretation
problems. Difficulties arise for two main reasons: (1) wellbore storage
effects in a buildup or drawdown test delay or prevent the appearance of the
ideal straight line region on a plot of test data--and the slope of this line,
which is related to formation permeability, is the key to proper analysis
of the test. (2) False straight lines appear in plots of the data distorted
by wellbore storage. If the analyst attempts to estimate formation permeability from the slope of a false straight line, serious error can result.
This paper presents techniques which allow the test analyst to distinguish between false straight lines caused by wellbore storage effects,
and straight lines which truly reflect formation permeability.
INTRODUCTION
Pressure buildup tests, including drill stem tests, have become
increasingly popular as formation evaluation techniques in recent years.
These tests are used to estimate the extent of damage around a wellbore,
the effectiveness of a stimulation treatment of a well,. and the permeability of the formation. Pressure drawdown tests have also been used for
these same purposes, but to a lesser extent. Interpretation of each of
these types of tests requires that we make a large number of assumptions
about a formation. In particular, flow must be essentially radial throughout the test; the formation must be reasonably uniform; and, in particular,
reservoir boundaries must not influence the test before sufficient data
Pw
Pj-
162,6 #
log (~-)
(1)
-1-
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
PWs
10
SYMPOSIUM,
ope m = 162.6 @
\
//
,/
y
I
100
10
t+At
()
At
Fig. 1. Plot of buildup test as suqgested by Homers theory .We measure the slop% m, of such a curve and thus estimate formation
permeability with the equation
k = 162.6 #
(2)
Further analysis 2 shows that we can use the data obtained during a
buildup test to characterize the extent of damage or the degree of stimulation by calculating the skin factor, s, with the equation
S = 1.151 [(
P
S;
+ 3.23]
(3)
w
where p$s is the pressure at any shut-in time At. The pressure p+s must
lie on the straight line whose slope is related to formation permeability
by eq. (2). Frequently, At is arbitrarily chosen to be 1 hour and pws is
The most important implication of our discussion to this
~~~~~e~spk~;~
If Homers ideal theory is obeyed, all data from the bufldup test should lie on a straight line if we plot the data as suggested by
his theory; if part of the data deviates from a straight line, then the
ideal theory does not describe this portion of the test. In practice when
we run a pressure buildup test and, armed with the ideal theory, plot the
data as suggested by Homer we usually observe a non-linear curve over at
least part of the time range (Fig. 2). Logical questions are: Why dont
we see an exactly straight line in practice? In what ways is the real
reservoir different from the ideal reservoir which was assumed by Homer
in his analysis? Complete answers to these questions are quite complicated,
but one important consideration is this: Homers analysis assumes that the
when a well is shut in for a pressure
flow at the sandface ceases immediately
buildup test. If flow at the sandface does not cease immediately, then we
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
c #.e--
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5,
P*
B
f
Pw
,oo~
t+At
(-)
At
Fig. 2. Typical actual buildup test
plot.
have no right to expect the ideal theory to apply. In practice, wells are
ordinarily shut in at the surface and flow continues into the wellbore for
some time. The additional fluid entering the wellbore compresses the liquid
and gas that were present in the wellbore at shut-in. This continued production in a buildup test is called afterflow.
Afterflow can cause serious interpretation problems, because it causes
all sorts of brief linear trends to appear in the buildup test plot. The
serious question thus arises in practice: Which one of these apparent straight
lines (if any) reflects formation permeability and which of these lines has
no relation at all to reservoir properties; i.e., which of these straight
lines is caused by afterflow? Of course , phenomena other than afterflow
also complicate the shape of pressure buildup tests. For example, if a
buildup test is run for a long period of time, boundary effects eventually
appear in the test; these boundary effects also cause deviations from the
idealstraight line whose slope is related to formation permeability and
thus further confuse the analysis of the pressure buildup test. Experience
and theory show that region A in Fig. 2 is dominated by afterflow; region
B is modeled by ideal theory; and boundary effects dominate region C. When
the buildup curve is extrapolated to (t+At)/At = 1, we call the pressure
p*);this pressure is related to, but usually somewhat higher than, average
pressure in the drainage area of the tested well.
Drawdown tests also present difficulties similar to those encountered
in pressure buildup tests. The equation describing drawdown tests (also
based on Homers analysis) is
P~f = Pi - 162.6 #
[log ~4Wc~~
3.23+
0.87s]
(4)
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
This equation suggests the flowing pressure at the sandface, pwf, be plotted
against the logarithm of flowing time, t; a straight line should result (in
the ideal case) with slope, m = 162.6 qpB/kh (Fig. 3). An assumption in this
equation is that the well started flowing at a constant rate at zero time and
0.1
10
t-4
Fig. 3. Plot of drawdown test as suggested by theory.
continued to flow at that rate. This constant sandface rate is difficult
to achieve in practice. We can (with some exercise of control) produce at
an essentially constant surface rate in a pressure drawdown test, but the
sandface rate may not become constant for some time. The amount of fluid
withdrawn at the surface is not equal to the amount of fluid entering the
wellbore from the formation for some time after the drawdown test is begun. This phenomenon is known as wellbore unloading. Once again, we
should expect deviation from ideal behavior at earliest times in drawdown
tests , and we should expect boundary effects to cause deviations from
ideal behavior at later times in the tests. Indeed, we see these deviations
in practice (l?ig.4). Wellbore unloading dominates region A on the curve;
!
Pwf
0.1
I
1
i
10
t~
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5,
c.
All these considerations lead us to the objective of this paper-to answer the following questions: How can we find the line whose slope
reflects formation permeability? How can we eliminate from further consideration false straight lines dominated by wellbore storage effects?
Unless we can find the correct line among the several straight lines that
may appear on a buildup or drawdown test plot , we cannot estimate formation
permeability accurately and we will be unable to estimate the extent of
wellbore damage. (Damage is usually characterized by the skin factor, s;
eq. (3) shows the correct straight line must be identified before s can be
calculated.) A detailed discussion of the time at which boundary effects
can be expected to appear in a pressure buildup or pressure drawdown test
is beyond the scope of this paper; useful ideas on boundary effects are
available in the literature3Sk. In this paper we will concentrate on
techniques which will help the analyst find the time at which afterflow or
wellbore unloading has ceased distorting pressure buildup or pressure drawdown tests.
(5)
aft =
For a liquid-filled wellbore (such as in a drill stem test or in an injectionfalloff test) , wellbore effects should end at time taft given by
aft
2X105
Pv
+
Clw
(6)
(7)
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
B
P - Pwf = 141.2p[ln(re/rw)-0.5]
(8)
keh
=
u
141.2[ln(re/rw)-0.5]JR = 1000JR
(9)
from which
this value
either an
both oil
per psi--
The permeability, ke, in eq. (8) is not the same as the permeability,
k, ineqs. (l)-(7). ke is greatly influenced by damage or stimulation near
the well; k is formation permeability away from the well. Thus, we alter
eqs. (5)-(7) when we replace k by kc--but this alteration proves beneficial.
In terms of productivity index, JR, the equation for a gas well becomes
aft =
(lo)
2X102 &
R
Vwclw
taft = 2X102
(11)
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5,
A
= 5.25x103 ~
aft
RPIw
(12)
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
P* - pwf -
0.87sm
(13)
P* - Pwf
Eq. (13) shows that flow efficiency should be greater than unity for a
stimulated well and less than unity for a damaged well. We frequently find
that a false straight line from the afterflow-dominated region will lead
to an apparent flow efficiency of 2 or greater for damaged wells. Such an
inconsistency is a reliable indicator that the wrong straight line has been
chosen.
A new curve-fitting technique by Ramey1 may prove to be the most
powerful method of all for dealing with wellbore effects. In addition to
allowing us to be reasonably certain about when wellbore effects have disappeared, the technique also helps us overcome practical difficulties in
estimating quantities such as the product of the fluid volume below the
packer and the compressibility of the packed-off mud (Vwclw)--a fo~idable
problem. The method deserves immediate evaluation by pressure test analysts.
aft =
Rplw
(5.25X10 S)(2.18X10-2)
(3.21x10-1)(5x101)
= ~ , ~r
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIU
4600. .
If
------4200. -
10 ;000
1000
t+llt
()
At
1(
Table 1
Data for Example Buildup Test Analysis
4
= 0.039
= 1.7x10-5psi-l
= 0.8cp
rw
= 0.198 ft
tubing)
= 1.136 RB/STB
= 69 ft
JR
= 0.321 RB/D/psi
Plw = 50 lb/ft3
Reservoir pressure in recent survey = 4700 psi
Producing time, t = 13630 hr
Wellbore partially liquid filled (produces mostly oil a
some gas)
Well believed to be damaged
-9-
SPWLA TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
than 1920 (i.e., shut-in time, At, less than 7.1 hr) are probably distorted
by afterflow; pressures at values of (t+At)/At less than 1920 are probably
free from the effects of afterflow. Thus, according to this test, the final
straight line is the most likely candidate for estimating formation properties. A significant assumption remains: If we estimate formation permeability
from the slope of the final straight line, we must assume that boundary effects
have not yet appeared in this buildup test. One final note on this technique:
One should by no means expect such remarkable agreement between calculated
values of taft and the beginning the true straight line in all cases.
In Fig. 5 we also note the S-shape at earliest shut-in times (largest
values of (t+At)/At); this shape is characteristic of a test influenced by
afterflow. Note, however, that if the very earliest data had been missing
we would have had the case in which these were simply two straight lines,
and the S-shape test would fail.
If we extrapolate each of the straight lines to (t+At)/At = 1, and
compare the extrapolated pressure, p*, with a recent estimate of average
reservoir pressure (4700 psig), we find that the initial line extrapolates
to p* = 4284 psi , which is low but reasonable; the second line extrapolates
to p* = 11,480 psi , which is quite unreasonable; and the third line extrapolates to p* = 4585 psi, which is the most reasonable value of all. With
this extrapolation technique, we can eliminate the second line, but we need
other techniques to choose between the initial and final lines.
To apply the flow efficiency check , we must first calculate apparent
permeability, k, and skin factor, s. For the initial straight line, we note
that
m = 157 psi/cycle
k = 162.6$=
(1.626x102 )(2.5x102)(0.8)(1.136) = s ~1 md
.
(1.57x102)(6.9x101)
From the buildup test plot, we read p~s = 3620 psi at At = 1 hr, or
(t+At)/At = 13631. Then
(P;s - Pwf)
s = 1.151
m-
= 1.151 (+-109
[
~)
10g $ucr~
(
+3.23
(3.41)(1)
(3.9x10-2)(0 .8)(1.7x10-5)(3 .92x10-2)
= -5.10
3.23
)+
1
Then
p*-pwf-0.87ms
E=
P*-Pwf
= 4284-3534-(0.87)(157)(-5.10) = , ~
.
4284-3534
Similar calculations show that apparent values of E are 2.2 for the second
straight line and 0.631 for the final straight line. Since E must be less
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5, 1
than one for a damaged well, and since the tested well is believed to be
damaged, only the third straight line leads to physically reasonable results.
Calculations described above are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Sunmary of Results of Example Buildup Test Analysis
Apparent Value from Straight Line
Parameter
Initial Line
2160
157
m, psi/cycle
3.41
k, md
s
-5.10
1.9
Final Line
70
0.25
-4.9
2.2
4284
p*, psi
Second Line
7.65
6.37
0.631
4585
11,480
This particular test would offer no great challenge to the professional buildup test analyst. He would, by inspection; probablyrecognize that the earliest data are dominated by afterflow. However,
certain real life tests are by no means obvious by inspection; in our
experience we have seen several tests misinterpreted by competent reservoir
engineers. Therefore, we feel that our suggestions for determining whether
afterflow dominates a particular portion of a buildup or drawdown test are
of considerably more than academic interest--particularly to the novice
pressure transient test analyst.
An example of a commonly misinterpreted test (Fig. 6) will help make
PWs
1000
100
10
(*)
Fig. 6.
SPWLA TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
CONCLUSIONS
False straight lines during the period in which wellbore storage
effects dominate the shape of a buildup or drawdown test can offer serious
obstacles to the beginning or even the experienced well test analyst. Aids
in finding the times at which wellbore effects have ceased distorting buildup and drawdown tests include (1) Rameys analytical equations which assume
no damage or stimulation in a well; (2) modified versions of Rameys equations which include damage and stimulation effects in a non-rigorous
but qualitatively correct way; (3) characteristic S shape or inverted S
shape that wellbore-storage-effect dominated tests often exhibit; (4) extra
polation of buildup test plots to infinite shut-in time and compassion of
the pressure p* at infinite shut-in time to an estimate of current static
reservoir pressure; (5) calculation of flow efficiency, E, and assessment
of the reasonableness of the result.
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5, 19
NOMENCLATURE
Wb = Area
area
Cw
CIW
h=
R
k=
ke
m=
Pi
Pwf
PWs
P
Ws
6=
p*
r
w
= Wellbore radius, ft
At
SPWLA
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
Vw
plW
+
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reservoir
Engineering,
Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1959.
8.
Wattenbarger, R. A. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Finite
Difference Treatment, SOG. pet, Eng. J. (Sept., 1970) 291-297.
9.
Agarwal, R. G., A1-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I.
Analytical Treatment, See. pet. Eng. J. (Sept.,1970) 279-290.
10.
1970)
11.
97-104.
SPWLA
ABOUT
W.
THE
TWELFTH
ANNUAL
LOGGING
SYMPOSIUM,
MAY 2-5, 19
AUTHOR
John Lee
-15-