Pressure-Transient Test Design in Dual-Porosity Tight Gas Formations

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Sadeq Shahamat ◽  
Roberto Aguilera
Keyword(s):  
Dual Porosity ◽  
Test Design ◽  
Tight Gas ◽  
Pressure Transient ◽  
Pressure Transient Test

A New Approach for Wireline Formation Testers (WFT) Interval Pressure Transient Test Design

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasanna Kumar Tellapaneni ◽  
Sourabh Shukla ◽  
Richard Robert Jackson ◽  
James Dunlap ◽  
Harshad Dixit
Keyword(s):  
Test Design ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Pressure Transient ◽  
Pressure Transient Test

Diagnostic Plots of Pressure Transient, Rate-Transient, and Diagnostic Fracture-Injection/Falloff Tests

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Craig ◽  
Thomas Blasingame
Keyword(s):  
Flow Regimes ◽  
Horizontal Stress ◽  
Test Theory ◽  
Pressure Transient ◽  
Diagnostic Plots ◽  
Diagnostic Plot ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
Pressure Transient Test ◽  
Minimum Horizontal Stress

Abstract All transient test interpretation methods rely on or utilize diagnostic plots for the identification of wellbore or fracture storage distortion, flow regimes, and other parameters (e.g., minimum horizontal stress). Although all "test" interpretations of interest are transient test data (i.e., those involving an "event"), the associated diagnostic plots are not interchangeable between such tests. The objective of this work is to clearly define the appropriate diagnostic plot(s) for each type of transient test. The work applies the appropriate transient test theory to demonstrate the applicability of each diagnostic plot along with clearly defining the characteristic features that make a given plot "diagnostic." For pressure transient testing, the material is largely a review, but for rate transient tests and diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests, new ideas are introduced and documented to justify appropriate diagnostic plots. Data examples are provided for illustration and application. In general, pressure transient test diagnostic plots are not misused, but the same cannot be said for diagnostic fracture-injection/falloff tests (or DFITs) where it is common to ascribe flow regimes and/or draw other erroneous conclusions based on observations from an inappropriately constructed or interpretated diagnostic plot. The examples provided illustrate both the correct diagnostic plot and interpretations, but also illustrate how data can be easily misinterpreted in common practice.

Pressure-Transient Tests and Flow Regimes in Fractured Reservoirs

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 187-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fikri Kuchuk ◽  
Denis Biryukov
Keyword(s):  
History Matching ◽  
Fractured Reservoirs ◽  
Flow Regimes ◽  
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs ◽  
Dual Porosity ◽  
Hydraulic Fractures ◽  
Fractured Reservoir ◽  
Pressure Transient ◽  
Matrix Block ◽  
Naturally Fractured

Summary Fractures are common features in many well-known reservoirs. Naturally fractured reservoirs include fractured igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks (matrix). Faults in many naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs often have high-permeability zones, and are connected to numerous fractures that have varying conductivities. Furthermore, in many naturally fractured reservoirs, faults and fractures can be discrete (rather than connected-network dual-porosity systems). In this paper, we investigate the pressure-transient behavior of continuously and discretely naturally fractured reservoirs with semianalytical solutions. These fractured reservoirs can contain periodically or arbitrarily distributed finite- and/or infinite-conductivity fractures with different lengths and orientations. Unlike the single-derivative shape of the Warren and Root (1963) model, fractured reservoirs exhibit diverse pressure behaviors as well as more than 10 flow regimes. There are seven important factors that dominate the pressure-transient test as well as flow-regime behaviors of fractured reservoirs: (1) fractures intersect the wellbore parallel to its axis, with a dipping angle of 90° (vertical fractures), including hydraulic fractures; (2) fractures intersect the wellbore with dipping angles from 0° to less than 90°; (3) fractures are in the vicinity of the wellbore; (4) fractures have extremely high or low fracture and fault conductivities; (5) fractures have various sizes and distributions; (6) fractures have high and low matrix block permeabilities; and (7) fractures are damaged (skin zone) as a result of drilling and completion operations and fluids. All flow regimes associated with these factors are shown for a number of continuously and discretely fractured reservoirs with different well and fracture configurations. For a few cases, these flow regimes were compared with those from the field data. We performed history matching of the pressure-transient data generated from our discretely and continuously fractured reservoir models with the Warren and Root (1963) dual-porosity-type models, and it is shown that they yield incorrect reservoir parameters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document