An example of constraining well test interpretation with .... Well test Illumination.pdf · An example of constraining well test interpretation with the help of seismic By ... A.

An example of constraining well test interpretation with the help of seismic

ByHamidreza Hamdi

Patrick CorbettAndrew Curtis (Edinburgh Uni.)

Colin MacBeth

1

“Joint Interpretation of Rapid 4D Seismic with Pressure Transient Analysis”, EAGE/SPE EUROPEC 2010

Outline

• Overview of Well Testing– Information obtained from well test– Importance of Model recognition

• An integration example– Stratigraphic discontinuity detection (4D seismic)– Numerical well-test interpretation

• Deterministic approach• Inverse approach

• Conclusions

2

Information obtained from well testing

• Reservoir Description– Permeability (horizontal and

vertical)

– Heterogeneities(fractures, layering, change of properties)

– Boundaries (distance to boundaries and shape)

– Pressure (initial and average)

3

• The inverse problem

• Model recognition (S)– Well test models are

different from the geomodels in the sense that they are dynamic models and also it’s an averagemodel.

Q vs t

Reservoir

P vs t

Well test transient pressure response plot

4

wb

wb wb

DD i

BU

P P P tP P t P t

∆ =∆ = ∆ =

- ( )( ) - ( 0)

∆P’=∂P/∂SupT for General multirate∆P’= ∂P/∂(LogT) for Draw-down∆P’= ∂P/∂[(tp+∆t)/∆t] for Build-up

∂P/∂

SupT

Time, hrLog

Log

Kh

∆p S=skin

Wellbore

Reservoir

Properties Boundaries

=f(rate and time)The trend of pressure derivative curve is important :1. Slope Flow regime indicator2. Value at stabilization =f(permeability, thickness, porosity, rate, viscosity and Bo)3. The separation of ∆P and ∂P/∂SupT indication of Skin( change of permeability in very near well bore area)

Importance of model recognition

5

∂P/∂SupT

Time

Log

Log

1. Linear barrier ( Fault, pinch-out, unconformity,...) 2. Composite reservoir (Linear /radial)

Porosity, Permeability, compressibility, viscosity and thickness change across an interface

Note: Transition is ,sometimes, quite long and make it even more difficult to interpret the test

Transition K2h, S, or Fault

K1h, S

∆p

outline

• Overview of Well Testing– Information obtained from well test– Uncertainty in model recognition

• An Integration Example– Stratigraphic discontinuity detection (4D seismic)– Numerical well-test Interpretation

• Deterministic approach• Inverse Approach

• Conclusions

6

7

Static DynamicWell test 4D seismic3D seismic

Resolution +noise+ throw

Flow effect Flow effect resolution +noise +P-effect

Some issues

1.Permanent seismic2.VSP- permanent data sensors3.Short interval surface seismicmonitoring

Surface seismicRequirements

Normal faults

Reverse faults

Strike-slip faults

Meandering(connectivity)

Transient Well testing and seismic :Exploration stage - seismic helps in WT interpretation

4D seismic capability of detecting a no-flow boundary

8

∆P Pw

4D seismic detectability

∆P>200 psi

Time

Radius

∆P4D seismic

detectability∆P>200 psi

P

Fault illumination by 4D seismic with time

t1 t2 t3

r =L

9

Time lapse monitoring of transient well test response

+∞-∞

L L

L

L2f

L= distance to no-flow boundaries2f= illuminated part of the no-flow boundaries( Distinguished length of boundary by 4D signal)f=n*L , n=0,1,...,5

Active wellImage well

2

_

1 0 1 02 2 2

1 10

( , ) ( , )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )2 (1 )2 [ ( ) ( )]

D

active well i

u t

P r t P P r t

J u Y ur Y u J urq e duT u J u Y uπ π

∞−

∆ = − =

−−

+∫

1( , ) ( , )T i

iP r t P r t

∞

=

∆ = ∆∑

w

rrr

= 2Dw

ttrη

=2

4ru

tη=

1. Single Flow boundary at distance “L”2. Single no-flow boundary at distance “L23. Two parallel no-flow boundaries (“2L”)

We then try :

Required lapsed time from base seismic to monitor in order to illuminate a specified part of the boundaries

10

56 112.37280.93

561.865

955.171

1460.85

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time,hr

Illuminated section index, FIIlluminated length (ft)=FI*200

Single flow boundaryL=100ft

5.51 11.0327.07

55.15

93.75

143.397

020406080

100120140160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time,hr

Illuminated section index, FIIlluminated length (ft)=FI*200

Single no-flow boundary

L=100ft

3.85.84

9.84

14.63

19.94

25.78

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time,hr

Illuminated section index, FIIlluminated length (ft)=FI*200

Parallel no-flow boundaries

2L=200ftSingle draw-downq=1500 STBDф=0.18h=100 ftμ=1.5 cpBo=1.25L=100 ft∆P=200 psia

2f=2L =200 ft

L=100 ft

FI=1Illuminated length= 0.5*1/100=200 ft

An Integration Example

∆P=200 psia

Required lapsed time from base seismic to monitor in order to illuminate a specified part

of the boundaries (sensitivity to permeability)

11

11.8 15.7 22.82 30.839.43

48.6758.5

42 46.2 52.41 59.1 65.8 72.77 80

141.6 145.25 151.35 157.65 164.1 170.42 176.9

020406080

100120140160180200

0 2 4 6 8

Time,hr

Illuminated section index, FIIlluminated length (ft)=FI*200

Parallel no-flow boundariessensitivity to permeability

K=45md

K=200md

K=700md

Single draw-downq=1500 STBDф=0.18h=100 ftμ=1.5 cpBo=1.25L=100 ft∆P=400 psia

Time Scale Practicality

<1-2 Days Inter-Survey

2 Days to 1 Month Not practical due to cost

1 to 3 Month Permanent survey

1 to 3 Years Surface seismic

Well testing and Seismic Example

• Seismic can help well test interpretation– Major Faults (3D Seismic)

– Sub-seismic faults (3D & 4D)

– Permeability baffles (4D)

• Numerical well test interpretation– Deterministic permeability profile+ seismic

– Inverse mobility and diffusivity map +seismic• Laplacian operator as a sectorization operator

12

Numerical Well Testing

Is the deviation is related to Faults, Boundaries or M contrast?

Commingled braided Fluvial reservoir (Complex pressure

response)

How to limit our well test interpretation based on the available seismic data?

13

WELL-AX

Z

Y

0 250 500 750 1000

PERMX

Major faults

1

10

100

1000

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

PRES

SURE

& P

RESS

URE

DER

IVA

TIV

E

TIME,hr

Complicated Pressure Response

Quarter Slope

Half Slope

UnitSlope

1. Channel behaviour? Too short?2. Derivative trend between 1/4 and 1/5 ? 3. Structural Framework or property effect?4. Validation of Interpretation

1

10

100

1000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

∆P &

d∆P

/dln

t

Time,hr

Far Parallel faults

Near Parallel fault

0.5 Slope

Idea: Can seismic help in Interpretation: Synthetic seismic

14Without K-bafflesWith K-baffles

RMS amplitude map of 4D response

1. No-flow boundary2. Pressure effect on 4d seismic

A monitor as close to the end of test

To detect:

We need:

15

m*=∂P/∂lnt

Ki (t)h=qμB/m*Radius of investigation

2

1 2 1( )

ri

i i rw

rdrk r k r= ∫

∆P’

t t /r

Ki

Instantaneous permeability

Deterministic well test permeability profile

Few

ft

1000

ft

0.032invt

ktrcϕµ

=

Well test composite regions

Seismic “bin”

Well test investigation radius: few ft to ∞Seismic bin size ~ 82 ft

A. Seismic Integration Into WT interpretation:Deterministic approach

P’

t

K

R

K-Map

K-Map & Seismic Structure

P’

t

GriddingSingle-Phase Sim.

16

A. Seismic Integration Into WT interpretation:Deterministic approach- Matching...

1. Poor quality of match at least before fault effect2. Permeability (or M ratio)of each sector is within the range

used in the reservoir modelling (<1000 md) and obtained based on the MYA

17

An Integration Example

B. Seismic Integration Into WT interpretation:Seismic Sector MAP

P’

t

P’

t

Tested well

Tested well

Sector-Map & Seismic Structure∆RSM-A

Sector-Map & Seismic Structure

18

GriddingSingle-Phase Sim.

Base K =190md

1. Good quality of match2. Permeability (or M ratio)of each sector is within the range

used in the reservoir modelling (<1000 md)

B. Seismic Integration Into WT interpretation:(Seismic Sector MAP)-Matching...

19

( / )( / )

t b

t i

kh cDkh c

φµφµ

=

( / )( / )

b

i

khMkh

µµ

=

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250 -2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

B. Seismic Integration Into WT interpretation : sectorization by Laplacian

1. Laplacian is Local average operator: If Laplacian is positive then is locally less than the nearby average value.

2. Laplacian shows the front of higher changes!

3. It can be used as a reagonidentifier to be used in sector composite map (NWT)

20

outline

• Overview of Well Testing– Information obtained from well test– Uncertainty in model recognition

• An Integration Example– Stratigraphic discontinuity detection (4D seismic)– Numerical well-test Interpretation

• Deterministic approach• Inverse Approach

• Conclusions

21

Conclusion

• Well test interpretation was constrained• Larger faults mapped out using 3D & 4D seismic • Permeability baffles were realized by 4D signal• Numerical well testing was performed using the information

from seismic data – reduce the uncertainty in model detection

• 4D& 3D seismic help sectorize the map used in numerical well testing software

• reasonable match obtained by integration of numerical well testing and seismic

22

Acknowledgements

• Schlumberger

• Weatherford

• Kappa

23

References

• Boutad de la Comb, J.L., Akinwunmi, O., 2005. Use of DST for effective dynamic appraisal: case studies from deep offshore west Africa and associated methodology, SPE 97113

• Gringarten, A., 2009. From straight lines to deconvolution - the evolution of the state-of-the-art in well test analysis, EAGE/SPE joint workshop of well testing and seismic, Berlin

• Feitosa,G.S., Lifu, C., Thompson, L.G. and Reynolds, A.C.,1994. Determination of permeability distribution from well-test pressure data, SPE 26047

• MacBeth, C., Floricich, M. and Soldo, J., 2005. Going quantitative with 4D seismic analysis, Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 303–317

• Sahni, A., Kelsch, K., Samorn, H., Boonmeelapprasert, C., 2007. Integrating pressure transient test data with seismic attribute analysis to characterize an offshore fluvial reservoir, SPE 110272

• Zheng, S.Y, Corbett, P.W.M. and Emery, A., 2003.Geological interpretation of well test analysis: case study from a fluvial reservoir in the gulf of Thailand, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 26(1)

• Zheng, S.Y, Legrand,V.M. and Corbett, P.W.M. ,2007. Geological model evaluation through well test simulation: a case study from the Wytch Farm oilfield, southern England, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 30(1), pp 41-58

24