Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Distinguished
Author Series
This paper reviews testing and interpretation methods for horizontal wells. Since Renney'sl article in 1941, many articles dealing
with reservoir engineering, PI, and well-testing aspects of horizontal wells have appeared in the literature. 1-12 In the last decade, many
papers have been published on the pressure behavior of horizontal
wells in single-layer, homogeneous reservoirs. I- 20 Recently,
numerous papers on interpretation of horizontal well test data21 - 26
and on the behavior of horizontal wells in naturally fractured 27- 29
and layered30,31 reservoirs have appeared.
Because of the uncertainty of regulating flow rate or keeping it
constant for drawdown tests in general and buildup tests (particularly
at early-times), the use of production logging tools to measure downhole flow rate during pressure well tests has increased in the last
decade. These tools have increased the scope of pressure-transient
well testing by providing new measurements. Drawdown tests, for
which it has often been difficult to keep the flow rate constant, can
now provide the same quality of information as buildup tests. Thus,
the possibility of obtaining reliable information about the welVreservoir system by using characteristic features of both transient tests
(drawdown and buildup) has increased considerably. This is particularly crucial for horizontal wells, where the early-time transient data
are the most sensitive to the vertical permeability and skin if the wellbore storage effect is minimized. Recently, production logging and
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper is SPE 25232. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive pa
pers that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent develop
ments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the area. these articles provide key references to more definitive work
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. A softbound
anthology. SPE Distinguished Author Series: Dec. 1981-Dec. 1983. is available from SPE's
Book Order Dept.
36
Let us consider a horizontal well (Fig. I) completed in an anisotropic reservoir, which is infinite in the x and y directions. The formation
permeabilities in the principal directions are denoted by kx = ky = kH
and kz = kv, with a thickness, h, porosity, fjJ, compressibility, Ct, and
viscosity,,u. The well half-length is 4,;, the radius is rw , and the distance from the wellbore to the bottom boundary is z.". The boundary
conditions at the top and bottom (in the z direction) of the system are
either no flow and/or constant pressure. For this horizontal well in
a single-layer reservoir, we provide simple equations for obtaining
permeabilities and skins. There are usually several flow regimes
with different durations because of the partially penetrated nature of
horizontal wells and mUltiple boundary effects. For instance, as Fig.
2 shows, we may observe three radial (pseudoradial) flow regimes
for a horizontal well in a vertically bounded single-layer reservoir.
The flow regimes for horizontal wells have been investigated by
many authors,I4-18 and specific methods have been proposed to
identify flow regimes and their durations under ideal conditions.
January 1995 JPT
10
I
I
ky
iI
pressure
~Lw
~E
Y
i
Lw~:
............................ ~.
k: HI
Ex. 2
~
................................
Ex. 3
derivatives
6
... 411
........ .~
. . . .- - - - - _...
."",.------_
l __ ,,"'Ex. l
Zw
I
."."",
~------------------
0.1
Third radial
.1...
10 -
Vv) (AA)]
4
kH
log - - #c,r ~
.. . .. . .. . . . ..... . (2)
OJ
.::::
(ii
>
.~
'r
Hemiradial
First radial
0.1L - - - - - - L - - - - - - I - - - -10"
10.2
100
--.J
1n
OJ"
Time
V -
#c,
00002637:m
where
tsnbe
snbe
.
2
2
mill [zw, (h - zw)] , .... . ....... (3)
k v -- 0.0002637:m
#c,
max [2
zw, (h - Zw )2] , .... ... . (4)
sjbe
where tsjbe is the time to feel the second (farthest) boundary effect.
In practice, Eqs. 3 and 4 may not be reliable because the #cr product may not be accurately known . Nevertheless, they can be used
qualitatively. Alternatively, because Eqs. 3 and 4 provide two pieces
of information, they may also be used to provide constraints on the
positions of the boundaries. This information is useful when the
TABLE 1-RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR
EXAMPLES SHOWN IN FIG. 3.
h
kH
kv
Example
J.!!l
(md)
(md)
1
2
3
4
5
100
100
100
40
200
100
100
100
100
200
10
1
5
5
Lw
Zw
J!!L J!!L
500
500
500
500
500
20
20
5
20
20
0.00146
0.00389
0.00194
0.00197
0.00530
+ / kflkVl
37
2mrl
..........
(5)
and
- log (
,/o.kHkV2)}"
-r/lCtrw
fj;) ;:]
.......................... (6)
Eq. 11 is valid only for hD < 2.5. The full expression given by
Kuchuk et al. 18 should be used when hD ~ 2.5.
The start of this flow regime can be written as 18
tD
= 20,
...................................... (12)
j kH/kv and damage skin may be obtained from this flow regime.
Intermediate-Time Linear Flow Regime. If the horizontal well is
much long.. r than the formation thickness, this flow regime may
develop after the effects of the upper and lower boundaries are felt
at the wellbore. As Fig. 3 shows, the derivative for Example 4 exhibits a linear flow regime for almost one logarithmic cycle because the
formation thickness (Table 1) is short (40 ft). The slope of the linear
straight line (plot of pressure vs. the square root of time) is given by
mil
1og
[ nrw ( 1
...................... (14)
S = (2LwjkHkv/I41.2q/l)b..POhr
where b..pss is the pressure difference between the well pressure and
constant pressure at the boundary. The height of the formation may
be estimated from the time tcbp, at which the wellbore pressure
becomes steady state, as
+ 2.303
h
where b..POhr is the intercept. Note that if hD, jkv/kH (h/Lw), is not
small, then the linear flow regime will not take place because the
flow will spread out significantly from the ends of the well before
the effects of the top and bottom boundaries are seen.
Third (Intermediate) Radial Flow Regime. After the effects of the
top and bottom boundaries are felt at the wellbore, a third radial flow
pattern will develop (Fig. 2) in the x-y plane. This regime does not
exist for wells with a gas cap or aquifer. The semilog straight-line
slope is
mr3
fkv
Lw
S = 2.303 V~ h
[b..Plhr
m r3 -
kH)
log (/lcIL~,
+ 2.5267 ] -Sz,
(10)
---r::-Zw) fj;H]
kv'
8h ~)cot (nzw)
2h + (h -
+ ,;kv/kH
(11)
(15)
where tcbp is the time to reach the steady-state pressure at the wellbore. Alternatively, if h is known, this equation may be used to estimate the vertical permeability.
Interpretation
Horizontal test well data may be interpreted in two steps: the first is
the identification of the boundaries and the main features, such as
faults and fractures, of the model from flow regime analyses. Unlike
most vertical wells, well test measurements from horizontal wells
are usually affected by nearby shale strikes and lenses and by top
and bottom boundaries at early times. The second step is to estimate
well/reservoir parameters and to refine the model that is obtained
from flow regime analyses.
The graphical type curve procedure is practically impossible for
the analysis of horizontal well test data because usually more than
three parameters are unknown, even for a single-layer reservoir.
Thus, along with the flow regime analyses, nonlinear least-squares
techniques are usually used to estimate reservoir parameters. In
applying these methods, one seeks not merely a model that fits a
given set of output data (pressure, flow rate, and/or their derivatives)
but also knowledge of what features in that model are satisfied by
the data. Evaluation of model features can be done iteratively during
estimation and by the diagnostic tools mentioned above (identifying
flow regimes). However, if the uncertainties about the model can be
resolved with the diagnostic tools, the estimation can be carried out
with a greater confidence at a minimal cost. For instance, if the locations of the lower and upper boundaries are known or identified
January 1995 JPT
from the flow regime analyses, the horizontal and vertical permeaLilities and damage skin can be estimated with a greater confidence.
The well bore volume of horizontal wells is usually larger than
those of vertical wells. Field observations indicate that wellbore
storage may vary considerably as pressure builds up. The effect of
wellbore storage can be easily eliminated or reduced if the downhole flow rate is measured and analyzed with the bottornhole pressure. As stated, a downhole shut-in tool should be used for buildup
tests, particularly for low-productivity wells, to minimize the wellbore storage effect.
It is well known that the estimated parameters for horizontal wells
are strongly correlated. For instance, vertical permeability and wellbore storage are strongly correlated. Skin is correlated to both kH
and ky. As recommended by Kuchuk et al.,21 it may be necessary to
conduct a short drawdown test and a long buildup test for flowing
wells to estimate these parameters confidently. These two tests
should be carried out sequentially. For shut-in wells, the drawdown
should be long enough to minimize the effect of producing time.
Fig. 4 presents pressure derivatives for two drawdown and two
72-hour buildup tests with a 24-hour producing time for the same
system with different vertical permeabilities. For the drawdown
tests, derivatives are taken with respect to the logarithmic of the test
time. For buildup tests, derivatives are taken with respect to the logarithm of the Homer time [(tp+dt)/dt, where 1> is the producing
time and dt is the test time].
As Fig. 4 shows, even for a 24-hour producing time, the effect is
visible. The behavior of the low-vertical-permeability case is not
drastically different from that of the high-vertical-permeability
case. A 24-hour producing time is about the minimum time required
to flow the well for these two systems. The drawdown derivative
type curves without skin and storage for these two systems are presented in Fig. 3 as Example I (ky = 10 md) and Example 2 (ky = I
md). Note that none of the flow regimes that are clearly visible in
Fig. 3 can be identified in Fig. 4 because of the wellbore storage and
skin effects. Although these are noise-free synthetic data, the third
radial flow regime is hardly identifiable even at 72 hours. This problem would become much more pronounced for real tests. If the
downhole flow rate is measured or a downhole shut-in device is
used, the identifiable data interval would then be increased.
Layered Reservoirs. Most oil and gas reservoirs are often layered
(stratified) to various degrees because of sedimentation processes
over long geologic times. The geologic characterization of layered
reservoirs and their evaluation have received increasing attention in
recent years because of the widespread use of 3D seismic and highresolution wireline logs.
Understanding the pressure-transient behavior of layered reservoirs is important because of the strong influence that layering has
on the productivity of horizontal wells. 12 However, single-layer
models are often used for the interpretation of well-test data from
layered reservoirs. Recently, an interesting example 34 was presented to examine the behavior of a horizontal well in a nine-layer
reservoir and in two equivalent single-layer reservoirs. The ninelayer system consists of nine different-thickness horizontal layers
with high and low horizontal and vertical permeabilities randomly
distributed among the layers (Fig. 5). In this nine-layer reservoir.
each layer is a laterally and vertically continuous flow unit that communicates vertically (formation crossflow) with adjacent layers
in the z direction. The horizontal well is completed in the middle
of the fifth layer. For computation of the single-layer response,
we used the thickness-weighted arithmetic average horizontal
permeability < kH > = [~7= j(kH);h;j/h t and the harmonic average vertical rmeability < kv > = ht7~7= jhJ(kvl; or < kv > =
~7= j (kHkvl;hJht (the < kHkV > curve in Fig. 6), where hr =
~7=A
As shown in Fig. 6, the derivatives for these three cases clearly
indicate the first radial flow regime before the effects of the bottom
20
10
.:t: 5
<Il 15
Q)
s::
~ 20
u
....
...c::
.... 5
""Q)~ 10
113
5
15
<Il~
~ kH
[] kv
20
40
60
80
100
permeability, md
Fig. 5-The permeability and thickness distributions for the
nine-layer reservoir.
1000
100
'R
g)
.~
.~...
100
harmonic <kv>
-----harmoni( <kHkV>
10
101
time, hr
time, hr
39
and top no-flow boundaries. After a transition period, all curves flatten, indicating a late-time radial flow regime. This occurs because
during this period the horizontal well behaves as a point-source well
in the x-y plane. As Fig. 6 shows, the behavior ofthe nine-layer reservoir is completely different from that for a reservoir with two
equivalent single layers, except for the late-time radial flow regime,
which evolves in 100 hours. Note that the shape of the derivative of
the nine-layer case is similar to that of the single-layer case given
by Example I (Fig. 3). Consequently, identification of such a layer
system may not be possible and may also lead to an incorrect interpretation, particularly in estimating the vertical permeability and the
distance to the boundaries. As Fig. 6 also shows, it is difficult to say
which averaging techniques work better for vertical permeability.
Therefore, a multilayer reservoir generally cannot be treated as an
equivalent single-layer system, except when the permeability variations are small. 30 .
In addition, the behavior of the gas and water zones may differ
from that of the constant-pressure boundary condition, and the
effect of a gas cap or a water zone should not automatically be
assumed as a constant-pressure boundary.30
Conclusions
Over the last decade, significant progress has been made in developing forward analytical models and interpretation techniques for horizontal wells. The effects of the top and the bottom boundaries, such
as no-flow and/or constant-pressure boundaries, on the transient
behavior of horizontal wells have been recognized. Flow regimes
have been presented for system identification and for estimation of
a number of reservoir parameters.
A wide variety of testing equipment (hardware) for vertical wells
has been adapted for testing horizontal wells. Production logging
and/or downhole shut-in have been used successfully to acquire reliable pressure and rate data for drawdown and buildup tests. Production logging tools usually have been run with a coiled-tubing system.
Field experience indicates that the interpretation of well tests
from horizontal wells is much more difficult than for vertical wells.
A large anisotropy ratio and the existence of multiple boundaries
with unknown distances to the well bore increase the complexity of
the interpretation. Minimizing the well bore storage effect is crucial
for system identification and parameter estimation.
The pressure derivative is shown to be an effective system identification tool that can also provide initial approximations of the nonlinear estimation. Relying solely on nonlinear estimation without
diagnostics may lead to an erroneous model and estimates.
The behavior of a multilayer reservoir with a horizontal well cannot be treated as an equivalent single-layer system with average
properties.
Nomenclature
Ct
h = thickness, L, ft
k= permeability, L2, md
L = length, L, ft
m= slope
n = number of layers
r=
S=
t=
x, y, z =
/1 =
=
Subscripts
D=
H=
hr=
i=
1=
0=
40
radius, L, ft
skin
time, t, hours
coordinates, L, ft
viscosity, mILt, cp
porosity, fraction
dimensionless
horizontal
hour
layer number
linear
initial or original
p = producing
r= radial
ss = steady-state
t= total
V= vertical
w= well
wf= flowing pressure (drawdown)
x, y, z = coordinate indicator
Acknowledgments
24. Rosenzweig, U., Korpics, D.C., and Crawford, G.E.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of the JX-2 Horizontal Well, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," paper SPE 20610 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
25. Shah, P.C., Gupta, D.K., and Deruyck, B.G. : "Field Application of the
Method for Interpretation of Horizontal-Well Transient Tests," SPEFE
(March 1994) 23.
26. Suzuki, K. and Nanba, T.: " Horizontal Well Test Analysis System," paper SPE 20613 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
27. Carvalho, R.S. and Rosa, A.J.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for Horizontal Wells in Naturally Fractured Reservoir," paper SPE 18302 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 2-5.
28. Williams, E.T. and Kikani , 1.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Horizontal Wells in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir," paper SPE 20612 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
29. Aguilera, R. and Ng, M.C.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Horizontal
Wells in Anisotropic Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEFE (March
1991) 95.
30. Kuchuk, F1.: "Pressure Behavior of Horizontal Wells in Multilayer
Reservoirs With Crossflow," paper SPE 22731 presented at the 1991
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
31. Suzuki, K. and Namba, T.: "Horizontal Well Pressure Transient Behavior in Stratified Reservoirs," paper SPE 22732 presented at the 1991
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
32. Domzalski, S. and Yver, J. : "Horizontal Well Testing in the Gulf of
Guinea," Oil Field Review (April 1992) 42.
33. Bourdet, D. et al.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis," World 011 (May 1983).
34. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kader, A.S: "Pressure Behavior of Horizontal Wells
in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," paper HWC94-25 presented at the 1994
ft x 3.048*
md x 9.869 233
psi x 6.894 757
E-OI =m
E-04 =,um 2
E+OO =kPa
41