Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Model pulsing well reaches the observation well, the far end of the
As we mentioned in the Introduction, one of the main observation well should start producing fluid and the near end
objectives of this study is to develop a semi-analytical model should inject the fluid back into the reservoir. This indicates
that can be used to investigate the fundamental features of that the observation well serves as a high conductivity path for
interference testing between two horizontal wells and to the production from the pulsing well. Because in practice, the
calibrate numerical simulators. In this section, we discuss the observation well will not be very close to the active well, the
physical model considered and present the development of the contribution of the high conductivity flow path provided by
semi-analytical model. It should be noted that because of the the observation well may not be noticeable at the active well.
length of the derivations, we will only present the important (Note that the contribution of the observation well should be
steps. The details of the derivations can be found in Ref. 5. in the form of a reduction in the drawdown.) The pressure
responses measured at the heel of the observation well,
Physical Model. To develop the semi-analytical model, we however, may be significantly affected by the fluid flow in the
assume an anisotropic but homogeneous reservoir of observation well. This is the underlying physical phenomenon
thickness, h. The flow is single phase and isothermal. We of our semi-analytical model. Before presenting the semi-
consider a fluid of constant compressibility, c, and viscosity, analytical model, however, we briefly introduce the
µ. Although the derivations presented here are for liquid flow, dimensionless varibales.
they can be readily extended to single phase gas flow by the
pseudopressure concept. The reservoir pressure is uniform Dimensionless Variables. For convenience and generality,
initially and equal to pi. we present our results in terms of dimensionless variables in
Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the system considered in this this study. We define the dimensionless pressure and time by
paper. We use the convention that Well 1 is the pulsing well the following expressions, respectively:
and Well 2 is the observation well. Fluid enters and leaves kh
both wells along their length. At a point x, the flow rate in p D (t D ) = [ pi − p (x D , y D , z D ,t D )] , (2)
Well i, qhci, is given by the following relation: 141.2 qBµ
Li + x wi and
qhci ( x , t ) = ∫ qhi ( x' , t )dx' , (1)
x 6.328 × 10 −3 k
tD = t, (3)
where q hi (x , t ) is the flux entering or leaving the well at point φ ct µ l 2
x and time t (rate per unit length). A positive value for flux, for t in days. The term l in Eq. 3 is a characteristic length in
qhi, indicates influx (production) whereas a negative value the system that we choose as the half-length of the active well
corresponds to outflux (fluid leaving the well or injection).
in this study; that is, l = Lh1 2 . The permeability k is the
Note that the flux distribution along a well is a function of
time. harmonic average of the permeabilities in the x, y, and z
At the heel of the pulsing well (xw1), we set directions ( k = 3 k x k y k z ). The dimensionless distances in x,
qhci (x w1 , t ) = q = cons tan t production rate . Because there is y, and z directions are defined, respectively, by
no production from the observation well and we assume that
the wells are produced or shut-in at the sandface (for x k
xD = , (4)
simplicity, we do not consider the effect of wellbore storage), l kx
we impose the condition at the heel of the observation well
that q hci (x w 2 , t ) = 0 . The toes of the both wells (x = Lhi ) are
y k
sealed. yD = , (5)
l ky
Note that because there is no production from the
observation well, flux distribution along this well should be and
induced by the pressure gradients caused by the production of
the active well. Specifically, if there is a pressure gradient z
zD = . (6)
along the sandface of the observation well, the fluid will enter h
the wellbore at the higher pressure points and travel toward
We also define the dimensionless formation thickness,
the lower pressure points (because the wellbore has higher
dimensionless horizontal well length, and dimensionless
conductivity than the reservoir) where it will exit the wellbore.
wellbore radius by the following expressions, respectively:
By the requirement that the cumulative flux along the
observation well must be zero, the influx will be equal to the h k
outflux along the observation well. Therefore, until the radius hD = , (7)
l kz
of investigation for the pulsing well reaches the observation
well, the flux distribution along the observation well should be
uniform and zero. After the radius of investigation of the
SPE 71581 INTERFERENCE TESTING WITH HORIZONTAL OBSERVATION WELLS 3
ρ q hc (x ) ρ
N Re c ( x ) = 6.166 × 10 −2 (11) E = 9.117 x10 −13 . (16)
µ rw π 2 rw5
and By differentiating Eq.15 with respect to x, we obtain;
2
rw4
C hD = 7.395 × 1013 . (12) dPh1 2 df1
k h Lh = E qhc1 − 2 f1qhc1qh1 (17)
dx
2
dx
Note that the above definitions are used for both the active and
In Eq. 17, qhc1 is the flow rate in Well 1 (at point x) and qh1 is
observation wells. We use the subscript 1 with the above
the flux entering or leaving the well at the same point. In Eq.
definitions to indicate the property related to the active well
17, we have used the following relation between qhc1 and qh1:
and subscript 2 for the properties of the observation well.
∂qhc1
Semi-Analytical Model. The semi-analytical model is based = −qh1(x,t) (18)
∂x ( x ,t )
on the superposition of two finite-conductivity horizontal well
solutions for the physical conditions discussed above. The Integrating Eq. 17, and using the boundary condition at the
development of the finite-conductivity horizontal well solution heel of Well 1 given by
has been discussed in Refs. 3 and 4 and involves coupling of
dPh1
the wellbore and reservoir flow equations. The reservoir flow = Ef t1 q 2 B 2 , (19)
equation [dimensionless pressure at a point (xD, yD, zD)] for a dx x = xw1
single horizontal well of length, Lh, located at (xwD, ywD, zwD) in
an infinite slab reservoir of thickness, h, is obtained by using where q is the surface production rate of Well 1 (constant) and
the method of sources and sinks and is given by ft1 is the friction factor at the heel of this well, we obtain the
following expression:
k2
PD (x D , y D , z D , t D ) =
1 x
dPh1 2 df1
4 kxky = Ef t1q 2 B 2 + E ∫ qhc1 '
-2 f1qhc1qh1 dx' (20)
dx x w1 dx
k
2 LD h D
tD kx (x − x wD − α )2 Integrating Eq. 20 once more, we have
∫ ∫ q hD ( α ,τ ) exp − D dα
0 0 4( t D − τ )
Ph1 ( x , t ) − Pwf 1 = Ef t1q 2 B 2 ( x − x w1 )
( y − y wD ) 2
exp − D x x'
2 df1
4( t D − τ ) +E ∫ ∫ qhc1 -2 f1qhc1qh1 dx" dx'
x w1 x w1 dx"
∞ n 2π 2 ( t D − τ ) dτ
1 + 2 ∑ exp − cos nπz D cos nπz wD (21)
( t D − τ )
2
n =1
hD
(13)
To obtain the dimensionless pressure because of two
horizontal wells, we superpose Eq. 13 as follows:
4 MOHAMMED AL-KHAMIS, ERDAL OZKAN, AND RAJAGOPAL RAGHAVAN SPE 71581
In terms of dimensionless variables, Eq. 21 can be written as: Development of the coupled flow equation for the
observation well follows the same lines as above except,
because the observation well is shut-in, the boundary
PwD 1 ( t D ) − PhD1 ( x D , t D ) =
N Re t1 f t1 π 2( x D − x wD 1 ) condition in Eq. 19 must be replaced by
16 C hD1 k
L D1 h D dPh1
kx =0 (27)
dx x = x w1
This yields the following expression for the observation well:
xD D1
xD '
q hD1 dx" dx 'D
1
− ∫ ∫ PwD 2 ( t D ) − PhD 2 ( x D , t D ) =
k x wD1 x wD1 N Re t1 f t1
L D1 h D xD xD'
kx π '
− ∫ ∫ D 2 q hD 2 dx" dx D
k x wD 2 x wD 2
(22) 16C hD 2 L D1 h D
kx
where we have used
df1 N Re 1 df (28)
N Re 1 1 k
− qhD1 = − + 2 qhD1 where
N Re t1 f 1 dx D 2l kx f1 dN Re 1
df 2
(23) D 2 = (N Re 2 )2 + 2 N Re 2 f 2 (29)
and defined dN Re 2
well problem, the computation of the pD2k term in Eq. 25 where qhDki is the flux of Well k at the center of the ith segment
requires the flux distribution for Well 2. Therefore, to be able (xDki).
to evaluate the coupled flow equation for the active well, we The discretized forms of Eqs. 22 and 28 with Eqs. 30 and
need to know the flux distribution for the observation well. 31 provide 2M+2 equations in 2M+2 unknowns. This system
This can be accomplished by developing the coupled flow of equations needs to be solved by an iteration process (we
equation for the observation well. have used Newton-Raphson method) because Eqs. 22 and 28
SPE 71581 INTERFERENCE TESTING WITH HORIZONTAL OBSERVATION WELLS 5
are non-linear (D1 and D2 are functions of qhD1 and qhD2, have negative flux (injection). That means, the portions of the
respectively). The solution procedure is similar to that observation well far away from the active well produces the
discussed in Ref. 4 and the additional details can be found in fluid from the reservoir and transfers it to the sections closer to
Ref. 6. the active well where the fluid exits the observation well to
This completes the discussion of our semi-analytical converge toward the active well. This observation is consistent
model. In the following section, we will consider the results with our physical expectations discussed earlier. Note that to
generated by this model to investigate the fundamental capture the details of the flux distributions (or flow in the near
features of interference testing with horizontal wells. Before vicinity of the wellbores) shown in Fig. 2, rigorous models
passing, however, we present some data generated by our such as the one presented here should be used.
model. This data should be useful to calibrate reservoir Fig. 3 shows the effect of the axial separation (∆xw) of the
simulators. active and observation wells at t = 128 days. There is
Table 1 shows the data used as our base case. In most of practically no effect of the axial distance between the two
our discussions in this paper, we only change the relative wells on the active well responses and a small effect on the
location of the observation well with respect to the pulsing observation well responses. The separation in the normal
well. Also, for simplicity, we always assume that the direction (∆yw), however, has a more significant influence.
properties of Wells 1 and 2 are the same. Table 2 presents the This result should be attributed to the fact that the y-direction
pressure and logarithmic derivative responses computed at the permeability is twice as large as the x-direction permeability.
active and observation wells for the base case. Here the heel of Fig. 4 displays the influence of vertical distance (∆z) for
the observation well is located halfway the length of the active stacked laterals (active and observation wells are aligned in
well and the two wells has a separation of one-and-a-half the vertical plane). In this case, the observation well pressures
times the length of the wells in the normal (y) direction. Table are affected slightly by the distance between the wells. More
3 is considers a case of stacked laterals. The active and significant effect, however, is on active well responses. Fig. 4
observation wells in this case are aligned in the vertical plane indicates that the drawdown at the active well increase as the
and the vertical distance between the wells is ∆z = 33.3 ft. distance between the wells increases. This is a result of the
Tables 2 and 3 may help those who would like to reproduce fact that when the stacked laterals are closer to each other, the
our results analytically or calibrate their numerical models. observation well helps the production of the active well (by
providing a high conductivity flow path). This statement is
Results and Discussion supported by the flux distributions shown in Fig. 5. The tips of
Here we consider some example cases of interference testing the observation well withdraw from the reservoir and the
with horizontal wells. We first highlight the significance of central segments inject the fluid into the reservoir toward the
modeling the observation well as a horizontal well. We, then, active well.
consider the effect of the separation between the pulsing and We, now, consider some examples of transient pressure
observation wells in the x (axial) and y (normal) directions. and derivative plots to discuss the characteristics of active and
General discussion of the transient pressure characteristics observation well responses. We begin with the base case
follows. We, finally, consider the effect of finite wellbore responses shown in Fig. 6. As expected from the discussion of
conductivity. the flux distribution and drawdown at the active and
In order to emphasize the importance of rigorously observation wells (Figs. 2-5), the active well responses are not
modeling the active and observation wells, in Fig. 2, we show affected by the existence of a horizontal interference well.
the flux distributions along the active (Well 1) and observation Especially the derivative responses of the active well clearly
(Well 2) wells for the base case given in Table 1. In this display the characteristic flow regimes (early-time radial flow,
example, the distance between the heels of the wells in the x intermediate- time linear flow, and late-time pseudoradial
direction is ∆xw = 1000 ft and the separation of the wells in the flow) of horizontal wells. We have seen in Fig. 2 that,
normal direction is ∆yw = 3000 ft. As expected, Fig, 2 shows although small, some influx (production) and outflux
that the flux distribution is uniform at early times for the (injection) takes place along the observation well. Fig. 6,
active well and it takes a u-shape at late times. This is the however, indicates that the pressure responses measured at the
characteristic behavior for infinite-conductivity horizontal observation well display characteristics more in line with
wells. (Note that the wells in the examples discussed here are radial or pseudoradial flow. We will investigate this
all infinite-conductivity except for the section where we observation in further detail later.
discuss the effect of finite-wellbore conductivity). The Fig. 7 considers a different orientation of the wells. This is
observation well flux distribution, on the other hand, is zero at a stacked laterals case and the vertical distance between the
early times because the radius of influence of the active well wells is 33.3 ft. Similar to Fig. 6, the active well responses do
does not cover the observation well at these times. When the not display any signature of interference. The observation well
effect of production is felt at the observation well location (at responses, however, becomes significant much earlier
late times), a different flux profile develops. Approximately compared to the case shown in Fig. 6. More importantly, in
half of the horizontal well segments (Segments 6-10) have this case the derivative responses of the observation well
positive flux (production) and the other half (Segments 1-5)
6 MOHAMMED AL-KHAMIS, ERDAL OZKAN, AND RAJAGOPAL RAGHAVAN SPE 71581
display an almost linear flow regime (the intermediate-time responses. No noticeable effect was observed in the
data follow a one-half slope straight line). observation well responses even when the two laterals were
We examine the interference test responses of opposing reasonably close. This indicates that the distortion of the
dual laterals in Figs. 8 and 9. In Fig. 8, the distance between equipotential lines because of finite conductivity is only
the laterals is 1000 ft and in Fig. 9 the distance is 2000 ft. The effective in the near vicinity of the wellbore and does not
characteristics of the active and observation well responses are reach into the reservoir. Also, because the flow rates in the
similar to those shown in Fig. 6. As expected, it can be seen observation well were normally small, no frictional pressure
from Figs. 8 and 9 that, as the distance between the wells drop can be expected.
increases, the observation well responses are delayed. The
general characteristics of the responses remain the same. Conclusions
We have also investigated the effect of skin distribution In this study, we developed a semi-analytical model and
around the active and observation wells. Fig. 10 shows three investigated the general characteristics of interference test
cases for the active well: no-skin, uniform skin (S=0.5) and responses with horizontal wells. The semi-analytical model
conical skin ( 0.05 ≤ S ≤ 0.5 ). As discussed in Ref. 7, the presented is a rigorous model for reasonably homogenous
conical skin distribution causes some distortion of the early- reservoirs and can be used to analyze interference well tests
and intermediate-time flow regimes. When we considered the with horizontal wells. The model can also be used to calibrate
observation well responses, however, (the results are not the numerical simulators. The results generated by the semi-
shown) we did not see any noticeable effect of the skin analytical model indicate that the vertical interference well
distributions in both wells. This result is explained by the assumption is not always valid for interference testing
small magnitude of the flux on the surface of the observation between two horizontal wells. Similarly, the horizontal
well. observation well responses do not follow the exponential
In Figs. 11 and 12, we investigate the possibility of integral solution. These results indicate that the interference
interpreting the observation well responses as if the well was tests between two horizontal wells should be analyzed by
vertical (practically, in this case the observation well is point using either semi-analytical models such as the one presented
in the reservoir). In Fig. 11, the actual horizontal wells are in this study or by reservoir simulators.
aligned in the horizontal plane and in Fig. 12, they are axially
displaced. It is interesting to note that when the horizontal Nomenclature
observation well is aligned with the active well, its responses C hD = dimensionless horizontal well conductivity
can be closely correlated by those of a vertical well located at c t = total compressibility, psi-1
the heel of the actual horizontal observation well. When the
horizontal observation well is displaced in the axial direction, h = formation thickness, ft
however, no correlation is possible with the vertical k = permeability, md
observation well case. This result can be explained by the fact p = pressure, psi
that the axial displacement of the horizontal well causes more q = production rate, stb/d
distortion of the pseudoradial flow characteristics. q DND = dimensionless flow rate constant
As we briefly mentioned before, the observation well re = reservoir radius, ft
responses display characteristics similar to those of radial or
pseudoradial flow. In Figs. 13 and 14, we compare the r′w = effective wellbore radius, ft
observation well responses with the exponential integral t = time, hr
solution for the base case and the opposing dual laterals. In Z = gas compressibility factor
both figures, we consider the radial distances measured from S = Skin
the heel of the active well to the heel of the observation well
and to the mid-point of the observation well. It is clear that, Greek symbols
although the characteristics are similar, no correlation between φ = porosity
the interference and exponential integral solutions is possible. γ = Euler’s constant (=0.5772)
For completeness, in Fig. 15, we show the derivative µ = viscosity, cp
responses for the opposing dual laterals case. This figure
indicates that at late times, the horizontal interference well
responses display radial flow characteristics as the exponential Subscripts and superscripts
integral solution. At earlier times, however, no resemblance D = dimensionless
can be found with the known flow regimes. f = fracture
Before closing this section, we also comment on the effect i = initial
of finite wellbore conductivity. In this study, we have also w = wellbore
considered cases where the wellbore conductivity was finite. wf = flowing wellbore
In all the cases we examined, we found that the effect of ws = shut-in well
finite-conductivity was only noticeable in active well
SPE 71581 INTERFERENCE TESTING WITH HORIZONTAL OBSERVATION WELLS 7
350
Z t= 128 days
zw2
1.2
0.9
qhD1 and q hD2 0.9
Lh= 2000 ft
0.6 Lh = 2000 ft 0.6 ∆ z= 33.3 ft
∆ xw= 1000 ft Well 2, t D=1E2
0.3 ∆ yw= 3000 ft 0.3 Well 2, t D=1E2
0.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Well Segment, i -0.3
Well Segment, i
Fig. 2 – Flux distributions for the active (Well 1) and observation Fig. 5 – Flux distributions for vertically parallel dual laterals.
wells (Well 2).
300 10.00
PwD1
Well 1 P'wD1
250
pwD and p'wD
PwD2
t= 128 days
∆pw1 and ∆pw2 , psi
10.00 10.00
PwD1 Well Location
P'wD1
PwD2
P'wD2
1.00 1.00
0.10 0.10
Well Location PwD1
P'wD1
h PwD2
P'wD2
0.01 0.01
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03
tD tD
Fig. 7 – Dimensionless pressure and derivative responses of Fig. 9 – Dimensionless pressure and derivative responses for
stacked laterals in interference testing. ∆ xw=2000 ft).
opposing dual laterals (∆
10.00 10.00
PwD1 Well Location Well Location
P'wD1
PwD2 pwD1
P'wD2
pwD and p'wD
1.00 1.00
p'wD1
0.10 0.10
PwD1
PwD1(Skin= 0.5)
PwD1(Skin= 0.5-0.05)
0.01 0.01
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03
tD tD
Fig. 8 – Dimensionless pressure and derivative responses for Fig. 10 – Skin effect on active well response for the base case.
∆ xw=1000 ft).
opposing dual laterals (∆
10 MOHAMMED AL-KHAMIS, ERDAL OZKAN, AND RAJAGOPAL RAGHAVAN SPE 71581
10.00 100.00
H-V Well Location
H-H
10.00
1.00
pwD2
pwD2
1.00
H-H
0.10 Exp(rD=2.12)
0.10
Well Location Exp(rD=2.34)
0.01
0.01 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07
0.1 1 10 100 1000
tD tD
Fig. 11 – Comparison of the dimensionless pressure responses Fig. 13 – Comparison of the observation well responses with
of horizontal and vertical observation wells. Active and exponential integral solution for the base case.
observation wells are aligned.
10.00 100.00
H-V Well Location
H-H
10.00
1.00
pwD2
pwD2
1.00
0.10
Well Location
0.10 H-H
Exp(rD= 1)
Exp(rD= 2)
Exp(rD= 3)
0.01
0.01
1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07
0.1 1 10 100 1000
tD tD
Fig. 12 – Comparison of the dimensionless pressure responses Fig. 14 – Comparison of the observation well responses with the
of horizontal and vertical observation wells. Active and ∆ xw = 1000
exponential integral solution. Opposing dual laterals (∆
observation wells are axially separated. ft).
SPE 71581 INTERFERENCE TESTING WITH HORIZONTAL OBSERVATION WELLS 11
100.00
Well Location
10.00
pwD2 and p'wD2
1.00
0.10 PwD(H-H)
P'wD(H-H)
PwD(Exp(rD= 2))
P'wD(Exp(rD= 2))
0.01
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
tD