STATE OF LIBYA

Sabratha University
Faculty of Engineering - Sabratha
Petroleum Engineering Department

Comparison of Well Testing and Production Data

Analysis for Estimating Reservoir Properties

The Thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
Bachelor of science in petroleum engineering

Submitted by
Esraa Ahmed Zahmoul

Supervised by
Mr. Tariq Rajab Alghouj

2022 - 2023
 ‫إهدإء‬
‫ى‬
‫المصطف عليه أفضل صالة‬ ‫الحمد هلل والصالة والسالم عىل الحبيب‬
‫وسالم أما بعد‪:‬‬

‫مسيتنا الدراسية ى يف‬ ‫ى‬

‫الحمد هلل الذي وفقنا للوصول لهذه الخطوة يف ر‬
‫َّ‬
‫ومشقة‪.‬‬ ‫المرحلة الجامعية إىل نهايتها بعد تعب‬
‫همة ونشاط‪ ،‬ممت ىُّ‬
‫ني لكل من كان له‬ ‫تخرجنا بكل َّ‬
‫وها نحن نختم بحث ُّ‬
‫ر‬
‫المستني لمن كان معنا‬ ‫السية العطرة‪ ،‬والفكر‬ ‫ى‬
‫ر‬ ‫مسيتنا‪ ،‬ألصحاب ر‬
‫فضل يف ر‬
‫باليسي‪.‬‬
‫ر‬ ‫وساعدنا ولو‬

‫العاىل (والدينا األحبة)‪ ،‬أطال‬ ‫التعليم‬ ‫بلوغنا‬ ‫ف‬ ‫األول ى‬

‫لمن كان له الفضل َّ‬
‫ي‬ ‫ي‬
‫هللا ى يف ُعمرهم ورحم من فارقنا‪.‬‬

‫إىل من وضعتننا عىل طريق الحياة إىل من وضع الموىل ‪ -‬سبحانه وتعاىل ‪-‬‬
‫َّ‬
‫الجنة تحت قدميها‪ ،‬و وقرها ى يف كتابه العزيز (أمهاتنا الحبيبات)‪.‬‬

‫كثي من العقبات والصعاب‪.‬‬ ‫ى‬

‫إىل إخوتنا؛ من كان لهم بالغ األثر يف ر‬

‫صياتة؛ ممن لم يتوانوا‬ ‫ى‬

‫إىل جميع أساتذتنا الكرام يف كلية الهندسة بجامعة ر‬
‫ى يف مد يد العون‪.‬‬
‫ُّ‬
‫نجلهم ون ر‬
‫حيمهم‪.‬‬ ‫إىل كل األصدقاء والمعارف الذين‬

‫نهدي لكم بحثنا‬

 ‫شكر وتقدير‬
‫األخية ى يف الحياة الجامعية من وقفة نعود‬
‫ر‬ ‫ال بد لنا ونحن نخطو خطواتنا‬

‫إىل أعوام قضيناها ى يف رحاب الجامعة مع أساتذتنا الكرام الذين قدموا لنا‬

‫كبية ى يف بناء جيل الغد‪.‬‬ ‫الكثي ر ى‬

‫باذلي جهود ر‬ ‫ر‬

‫نقدم أسىم آيات الشكر واالمتنان والتقدير والمحبة إىل الذين حملوا‬

‫أقدس رسالة ى يف الحياة إىل الذين أناروا لنا طريق العلم والمعرفة إىل جميع‬

‫صياتة‪.‬‬
‫أساتذتنا األفاضل بكلية الهندسة بجامعة ر‬

‫نتوجه بالشكر الجزيل إىل الذين تفضلوا ر‬

‫باإلشاف عىل هذا البحث جزاهم‬

‫الخي فلهم منا كل التقدير‪.‬‬

‫هللا عنا كل ر‬
 Abstract

Estimating reservoir characteristics and properties have long been a challenge. Pressure
transient analysis (PTA) is proved to be a reliable method of estimating reservoir
properties. However, PTA is usually costly. In additional, disruption to the well
production is often resulted when generating the pressure-time data required for PTA,
which cause additional loss to the company. On the other hand, Production Data Analysis
(PDA) has been widely as a valuable analytical tool for well performance evaluation,
production forecasting and reservoir characterization. also production data analysis has
been fast, practical, and inexpensive and many questions can be answered about the,
average permeability and skin. Therefore, investigating the applicability of rate transient
analysis (RTA) for production data analysis of reservoirs is necessary. In this study the
most important rate transient methods have been used to evaluate reservoir parameters in
Libyan reservoirs and the results have been compared to PTA. This proved that the
analysis can present acceptable estimates for permeability and skin values in oil reservoir.

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract I
List of Tables II
List of Figures III
Abbreviations IV
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem of Statement 3
1.3 Scope of Study 3
1.4 Objectives 4
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Types of Well Test 6
2.1.1 Drawdown Test 6
2.1.2 Buildup Test 8
2.1.3 Relevant Reservoir Properties 10
2.1.4 Wellbore Storage 10
2.1.5 Skin Factor 11
2.1.6 Permeability 12
2.1.7 Boundaries 13
2.1.8 Typical flow regimes 14
2.2 Pressure Transient Analysis 15
2.3 Production Data Analysis 16
2.3.1 Classification of Production Data Analysis 16
CHAPTER THREE: CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Methodology 25
3.2 Software Overview 26
3.2.1 KAPPA SAPHIR Software 26
3.2.1.1 Getting Started 27
3.2.2 FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A Software 32
3.2.2.1 Getting Started 33
3.3 Field Study 37
3.3.1 General Information 38
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUTION
4.1 Results of Pressure Transient Analysis
4.1.1 Result of Well KK1 41
4.1.2 Result of KK6 44
4.2 Result of Production Date Analysis 47
4.2.1 Result of Well KK1 47
4.2.2 Result of well kk6 49
4.3 Comparison of Results 51
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion 53
5.2 Recommendation 54
References
 List of Tables

Table 2 1 Time of Measurement Versus Type of Measurement 16

Table 2 2 Production Analysis Methods 17
Table 2 3 ARAPS Decline Equations 18
Table 2 4 Blasingame Type Curve Analysis Definitions: 20
Table 4 1 Input Data 41
Table 4 2 Model of well KK1 properties 44
Table 4 3 Well test KK1output 44
Table 4 4 Interpretation Result in well KK6 45
Table 4 5 Horner Plot Result 45
Table 4 6 Results for Blasingame Type Curve Analysis 49
Table 4 7 Results for Blasingame Type Curve Analysis 50
Table 4 8 Permeability and Skin Factor Determined by RTA Compare with PTA. 51

II
 List of Figures

Figure 2 1 Drawdown Test: Pressure And Flow Rate Versus Time (9). 6
Figure 2 2 Schematic Transient Drawdown Analysis Plot. [10] 7
Figure 2 3 Log-Log Pressure Drawdown Plot (11). 8
Figure 2 4: Pressure Buildup Test: Pressure Flow Rate Versus Time (9). 8
Figure 2 5 Horner Plot. [11] 9
Figure 2 6: Wellbore Storage Dominated Flow Period. [12] 11
Figure 2 7 Positive Skin. [6] 11
Figure 2-8: Negative Skin (6). 12
Figure 2 9: Constant Boundary (Left) And Closed Boundary (Right) (13) 13
Figure 2 10: Well Testing Process: Interpretation of Signal Response Into Reservoir
15
Propertie. [6]
Figure 2 11 Fetkovich Type Curve (16) 19
Figure 2 12 Typical Blasingame Type Curve 20
Figure 3.1: Research methodology 25
Figure 3 2 Saphir main screen 27
Figure 3 3 Well data upload environment 28
Figure 3 4 PVT data upload screen 29
Figure 3 5 History Plot 30
Figure 3 6 Plot Combination After Improving 31
Figure 3-7: Working procedure and sequence of software FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A 32
Figure 3 8 location map of field 39
Figure 4 1 History Plot of Well KK1 (Pressure [Psi], Liquid Rate [STB/Day], Time
42
[hr])
Figure 4 2 Log-Log Plot of Bourdet Derivative and Extracted Pressure Buildup
42
Versus Time of Well KK1
Figure 4 3 Semi-log plot: P [psi] versus Superposition time. 43
Figure 4 4 History plot of well KK 6 (pressure [psi], liquid rate [STB/day], Time
45
[hr])
Figure 4 5 Log-Log Plot of Bourdet Derivative and Extracted Pressure Buildup
45
Versus Time of Well KK6
Figure 4 6 Semi-Log Plot: P [Psi] Versus Superposition Time of well KK6 46
Figure 4 7 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Matching kk1 47

III
Figure 4 8 Blasingame type curve analysis in Well “KK1”. 48
Figure 4 9 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Matching kk6 49
Figure 4 10 Blasingame type curve analysis in Well “KK6”. 50

IV
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
Reservoir characterization is a process which starts in early stages the beginning of the
oil field exploration and continuous until the field’s deplation . It quantitatively or
qualitatively describes the reservoir characteristics using data available. Production and
pressure transient data are two main data sources for reservoir characterization. While
the well is flowing, a long-term record of pressure behavior can be provided by a
permanent gauge. Recorded pressure and flow rate data are usually used for production
data analysis (PDA). Pressure transient analysis (PTA) can be performed on pressure
buildup (PBU) transients acquired whenever the well is shut in for a few hours or few
days. PTA and PDA usually are performed independently, and differences in the data
collection for PDA and PTA may results in different interpretations of the data. This
causes some inconsistency during the analysis and leads to multiple models for the same
reservoir; unification of these interpretations could improve the accuracy and
confidence of the model and make it more meaningful.

PTA , which is also commonly known as well testing, is a routine method reservoir
engineers use for reservoir evaluation and characterization. All of the equations used in
well testing are derived from the constant terminal rate)CTR (solution of the Radial
Diffusivity Equation (RDE) with different boundary conditions. There are a number of
well testing methods, such as Pressure Buildup (PBU), Pressure Drawdown (PDD), and
Injection Fall-Off (IFO) etc. All of these methods are based on the same principle:
manipulating the production rate of the well and recording the pressure versus time
data. The data collected can then be interpreted using various techniques such as Type
Curve matching, Horner, MDH etc. The purpose of well testing is to determine the
permeability (k), skin (s), drainage area (A), distance to boundary/fault of the reservoir
etc. Reliable results can be obtained if the data collected are of good quality and the
analysis are properly done.

Rate transient analysis(RTA) is modern decline analysis which combines type curve
analysis and traditional decline curve analysis by using good quality of readily available
flowing pressure and production data. It uses pressure transient theory and incorporates
the effect of flowing pressure into conventional Decline Curve Analysis (DCA). Unlike
conventional DCA, RTA is an analytical method, which uses the normalized rate,
material balance time concept and are independent of production constraints.[1]

1
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

However, it is usually valid only at single phase, homogenous volumetric reservoir and
boundary dominated flow condition (Agarwal))Rate transient analysis is able to
provide estimated hydrocarbon in place, reservoir permeability, skin effect, fracture
length and conductivity without the need to shut in the well. [2]

Blasingame typecurves is developed in 1993 by Palacio and Blasingame. It improvises

from Fetkovich type curves, using the concept of rate integral and rate integral
derivative to provide more accurate result compared to flow rate data alone and allows
the relatively smooth derivative typecurve to be produced. However, Blasingame
method is sensitive to early time errors and unable to show different type of flow
regimes. [3]

On the other hand, Agarwal-Gardner method uses inverse-pressure derivative method,

which allows flow regimes to be easily identified. Besides that, it can accurately
determine transition of flow to boundary dominated flow from the plot. However,
Agarwal-Gardner method tends to produce non-unique answer, and consists of too
much noise to be interpreted. Both type curves are equally important and necessary for
different types of reservoir data.

Normalized Pressure Integral (NIP) Type curves use normalized pressure instead of
normalized rate. Analysis is the inverse of Agarwal-Gardner Rate-Time Type curves
.[4]

There are also modern analytical methods that do not use type curves. One such method
is called the dynamic Material Balance (DMB. This is a new production data analysis
method, based on a modified version of the Agarwal-Gardner Rate-Cumulative type
curves. The method is similar to a conventional material balance analysis, but requires
no shut-in pressure data (except initial reservoir pressure). Instead, it uses the concepts
of ressure normalized rate and material balance time to create a simple linear plot,
which extrapolates to fluids-in-place. [5]

2
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.2 Problem of Statement

Estimating reservoir characteristics and properties has long been a challenge in the
petroleum industry. Traditionally, PTA or pressure surveillance has been widely used
by oil and gas companies in estimating the reservoir properties, average reservoir
pressure such as permeability (k), skin factor (s), drainage area (A), etc. PTA is proved
to be a reliable method of estimating reservoir properties. However, PTA is usually
costly. In additional, disruption to the well production is often resulted when generating
the pressure-time data required for PTA, which cause additional loss to the company.

RTA provides a mean of estimating reservoir properties. Differ from PTA which
required short pressure-time data, RTA required only rate-time data which are readily
available and does not cause disruption to well production. However, RTA are only
applicable when there is natural decline in the production rate of the well. RTA which
requires single phase condition are still applicable in the current case study which
involve oil above bubble point pressure.

The equations for both PTA and RTA are derived from RDE. Thus, theoretically both
methods are expected to yield close results. It is therefore of interest to study whether
in real case, these two different approaches could be utilize to obtain sufficiently close
reservoir properties. If the results are reasonably close with each other, RTA may
emerge as a replacement method for well test in determining reservoir properties.

1.3 Scope of study

This study integrates basic production and reservoir data through different platforms
and methods including Diagnostic plots PTA RTA , and DMB are extensively used to
explain the reservoir behavior through PDA. It validates RTA and DMB as an approach
for reservoir characterization and reserve estimation without the need to shut-in the
well, and defer the production. The benefit of continuously monitoring Flowing Bottom
Hole Pressure (FBHP) using Permanent Downhole Gauge (PDG) and applying PTA to
detect well reservoir boundaries and flow regime is also discussed. We have also looked
at the limitation and advantage of each method and how the integration of those can
provide a full picture and enhance the results.

3
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.4 Objectives

1. Applying the well-established techniques for reservoir characterization such as

PTA & PTA in the real case based on the real data.

2. Perform a reservoir characterization by estimating of the reservoir properties

such as skin, permeability, and average reservoir pressure.

3. Investigate whether the two independent methods (Rate Transient Analysis and
Pressure Transient Analysis) yield close results on reservoir properties such as
permeability (k) and skin (s).

4. To assess the suitability of Rate Transient Analysis as a substitute for Pressure

Transient Analysis.

4
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

2.1 Types of Well Test

Several types of test are presented and each one is dedicated to a specific stage. During
appraisal stage and exploration, Wire line formation test and Drillstem tests (DSTs) are
usually run. While during primary, secondary and enhanced recovery stages, the
conventional transient well tests are used such as buildup test and drawdown test.
Falloff, injectivity and interference tests are used only in secondary and enhanced
recovery. Moreover, there are tests that are executed throughout the life of the reservoir
like for instance vertical and multilayer permeability tests. However, the focus in this
thesis will be on buildup test since the well testing achieved in next chapter will be
executed during production phase for a well that have been ideally producing at
constant rate. [7]

2.1.1 Drawdown Test

The drawdown test is the measurement of the surface or downhole pressure and flow
rate as a function of time in the wellbore. In fact, it consists of analysing pressure data
taken after a well is switched to production either after very long shut-in (till pressure
reaches static level) period or initially like shown in 1. [8]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Drawdown Test: Pressure

And Flow Rate Versus Time (9).

Since the test is executed after long shut-in or for new wells there is no production lost,
so economically speaking this test might be the most suitable. However, the main
disadvantages of this method are maintaining constant production rate and introducing

6
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

scatter in measured flowing bottom whole pressure. In an infinite reservoir while flow
rate is constant, the simplification of pressure behavior can be given by:

𝑞𝑢𝐵 𝑘𝑡
𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 𝑝𝑖 − 162.6 (log Ø𝑢 𝑐𝑟𝑤2 − 3.23 + 0.87𝑠) (2.1)
𝑘

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.- shows a schematic transient

drawdown analysis plot, which is log time t versus semi log plot bottom hole pressure
pwf that has a linear shape with slope m. In fact, the product kh can be estimated from
the equation below:
𝑞𝑢𝐵
kh=162.6 (2.2)
𝑚

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2 Schematic Transient

Drawdown Analysis Plot. [10]

Once the slope is calculated, skin factor can be derived from the intercept at time
equals to one (log t equals to zero) by rearranging:

𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝1ℎ𝑟 𝑘
𝑠 = 1.15 ( log ) (2.3)
𝑚 Ø𝑢𝑐𝑟𝑤 2

The nonlinear part of the plot shown in figure 2-2 can be analyzed using a plot of log
(pi-pwf) versus log t to calculate wellbore storage coefficient C given by:

𝑞𝐵 ∆𝑡
c= (2.4)
24 ∆𝑝

7
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-3 Log-Log Pressure

Drawdown Plot (11).

2.1.2 Buildup Test

During buildup test, the well is first produced at constant pressure and once it is
stabilized the well is shut in as shown in 4 below. In fact, this test is the most preferable
since it is much easier to get high quality data from it than from drawdown test because,
obviously, maintaining zero rate is trivial when compared to maintaining a fixed flow
rate (drawdown test). Besides, wellbore storage effect is reduced by using a downhole
valve. On the other hand, from an economic perspective, this test has also a
disadvantage since the well will not generate income when it is closed, that is why the
shut in period has to be as short possible.

8
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-4: Pressure Buildup

Test: Pressure Flow Rate Versus Time (9).
Horner method is the common method to analyze pressure response within a buildup
test, which introduces Horner time that is the superposition in time for radial, single,
constant flow rate followed by a shut in (build up).This method shows a linear
relationship between shut in pressure ws p and Horner time (tp+Δt)/Δt presented in
figure 2-6 during middle transient region.[11]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-5 Horner Plot. [11]

However, the slope of this straight-line m is used to estimate permeability

9
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

based on the formula below:

𝑞𝑢𝐵
Kh=162.6 (.2.5)
𝑚

This is itself derived from equation that describes the pressure response in a build up
period assuming infinite acting reservoir, slightly compressible, homogenous and
single-phase fluid flow.

𝑞𝑢𝐵 𝑡𝑝+∆𝑡
𝑝𝑤𝑠 = 𝑝𝑖 − 162.6 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (.2.6)
𝑘 ∆𝑡

The non-linear part of the plot represents the wellbore storage and skin effect that
explains the early time deviation, while the late time region shows the presence of
boundaries or the interference of wells nearby wells. The duration of after flow effect
in a buildup test depends mostly on the configuration and size of the wellbore. The
simplified equation for skin estimation is as follow:

𝑝1ℎ𝑟−𝑝𝑤𝑓(∆𝑡=0) 𝑘
𝑠 = 1.15 ( − log Ø𝑢𝑐𝑟𝑤2 ) (2.7)
𝑚

2.1.3 Relevant Reservoir Properties

Typical pressure transient test (PTT) is normally divided into three periods; the first
period represents early time wherein wellbore storage and skin factor can be estimated.
The second period is middle time (MTP) during which the direct effect of reservoir
heterogeneities and well geometries vanished, wellbore storage become negligible and
the flow may reach a state defined as infinite acting radial flow (IARF). Actually, IARF
is considered as the main flow regime of interest in pressure transient test analysis. Its
response on selected semi log plot will show linearity from which the interpreter will
be able to estimate flow capacity (kh). The last period is known as late time where
boundaries can be defined.

2.1.4 Wellbore Storage

When the well is shut in to make transient tests, the production at the surface is stopped
but the formation keeps producing for a while until the completely wellbore is full of
fluid, which will be then stored in it. This phenomenon is called wellbore storage or
also called after flow, wellbore loading or unloading, after injection and after

10
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

production. It is necessary that wellbore storage is taken into consideration while

analysing transient test otherwise the pressure will be influenced and a wrong
estimation of reservoir properties will be done. The wellbore storage dominated flow
period, shown in Figure 2 6 is explained by the compressibility of the fluid within the
wellbore. Actually, the constant or variable flow rate applied at the surface will not be
able to propagate to the sand face instantaneously because of the compressibility of the
fluid. Consequently, the sand face rate starts to increase gradually or decreases in case
of buildup test until it becomes equal to a constant rate or zero. [8]

11
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

A coefficient called C is used to quantify wellbore storage effect. C is defined as the

ratio of the volume of fluid produced from the well alone, V, to unit pressure drop:

𝑣
C= 𝑚3 𝑃𝑎−1 (2.8)
𝛥𝑝

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-6: Wellbore Storage

Dominated Flow Period. [12]

2.1.5 Skin Factor

Well completion or drilling activities often lead to a small zone of altered permeability
near the well, which is called 'skin '. Actually, this zone has a significant impact on the
performance of the well as it defines the well conditions and the degree of connectivity
between the well and the reservoir. The higher the skin value the higher the damage.
For a positive skin, a flow restriction exists between the reservoir and the well, with an
increase in pressure drop this could be due to some plugged perforations or insufficient
numbers, partial penetration or mud invasion. 7 shows Δps which is the difference
between the actual well flowing pressure and the one that would be measured in case
the well was undamaged. To reduce this skin effect, different treatments can be used
such as making new perforations, hydraulic fracturing and acidification (skin factor).

12
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-7 Positive Skin. [6]

In case of negative skin, the interface between the wellbore and the reservoir is
increased and thus a reduction in pressure drop occurred shown in 8. Small negative
skin values are explained by the presence of fissured or natural fracture or acidification
while
large negative skin values are explained by hydraulic fracture. Generally, a skin value
equals to -3.5 to -4 is considered as excellent.[16]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-8: Negative Skin (6).

The magnitude of the skin effect can be quantified by the dimensionless so-called skin
factor, which can be expressed as follows:

2𝜋𝑘ℎ
𝛻ps (2..9)
𝑞𝐵𝑢

Assuming that skin effect is caused due to a reduced permeability Ks and damage zone
of radius rs the skin effect can be expressed also by:

𝑘 𝑟𝑠
S=(𝑘𝑠 − 1)ln( ) (2.10)
𝑟𝑤

Alternatively, in terms of effective wellbore radius:

rw,eff= 𝑟𝑤𝑒 −𝑠 (.2.11)

2.1.6 Permeability

Permeability describes the property of rock that indicates the ability of one fluid to flow
through it. Actually, it is considered as the most important parameter that may be
retrieved during well testing as it plays a major role in controlling reservoir

13
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

performance. However, there are several methods to measure permeability, as for

example logs, cores and wireline formation testing, but the main source for effective
permeability is production tests and well tests. The value of permeability is essential to
estimate well performance, different well stimulation processes and recovery potential
(secondary and tertiary).

2.1.7 Boundaries

The first thing to do when discovering a reservoir is to estimate the amount of oil
recoverable from it. Therefore, the size of the reservoir is very important, that is why
engineers aim to locate and define the type of boundaries. In fact, the effects of
boundaries appear during late time period within a PTT that is why the more long the
test is, the more the engineers are able to understand the nature of the boundaries. In
other words, this encounter is inevitable during long-term production data and
deliberate or accidental in limited testing ((Oliver houzé, 2008). There are two common
types of boundaries shown in Figure 2-9; the first one is closed or no flow boundaries
which means that there is no flow is possible through it like for example faults,
intersection of wells and juxtaposition of low permeability rocks along the fault. This
behavior can be described by a state known as pseudo-steady state during late time
region in PTT. The second type is open boundaries, which means that a constant
pressure exists which is supported either by a fluid injection or an aquifer. [13]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Constant Boundary (Left)

And Closed Boundary (Right) (13)

14
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

2.1.8 Typical Flow Regimes

Flow regime is considered as a period during which pressure shows specific behavior
with respect to the elapsed time. This pressure change behavior has three different
known types; the first one is steady state during which the pressure does not change
with time so it is constant at every location of the reservoir because of strong water
drive or a powerful gas cap. [21]
Mathematically, it can be expressed as follows:
δp
=0 (2.12)
δt

The second regime is pseudo steady state where the pressure change is declining
linearly as a function of time at different locations of the reservoir and thus considered
as constant. This type of flow is observed during pure wellbore storage or in closed
reservoir where all boundaries are reached:

δp
= 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 (2.13)
δt

The third flow regime is transient state where pressure changes are governed
by the reservoir characteristics and the well geometry so the rate of change is
not constant nor zero at any location of the reservoir. it can be expressed as
follows:

δp
= 𝑓(𝑖, 𝑡) (2.14)
δt

A complete reservoir model is determined usually by a sequence of flow regimes, each

one shows a characteristic pressure behavior. Besides, the time limits and the
chronology of this several regimes help later to realize the interpretation model which
is basically made of three legs; early time which is characterized by well response,
middle time characterized by reservoir reponse and late time characterized by
boundaries response. [21]

15
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

2.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

Well testing, known also as pressure transient test, is a fundamental operation wherein
pressures and flow rates are manipulated and monitored in one or many wells so that
an information about sub surface reservoir is obtained. That is why during well tests, in
spite of the name, the reservoir is actually tested not the well production. However, well
testing is not limited to petroleum engineering disciplines only but it includes also
pollution control, geology, waste disposal and ground water hydrology. Its process,
shown in the Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-20 below, consists
briefly in sending a signal from the well into the reservoir through changing well
pressure or production rate and once we receive the response engineers is capable then
to estimate reservoir properties. [6]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-20: Well Testing Process:

Interpretation of Signal Response Into Reservoir Propertie. [6]

The properties obtained may be classified under different classes (shown in Table
Error! No text of specified style in document.-1) which are organized according to
time due to the transient nature of pressure front traveling throughout the reservoir. [6]

16
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Time of Measurement

Versus Type of Measurement
Early time Middle time Late time
Skin Permeability Reservoir volumes
Wellbore storage Heterogeneity Faults
Fractures Dual porosity Boundaries
Dual permeability

The main purpose of well testing is to provide sufficient data in order to model and
describe the reservoir so that an estimation of the reserves, a forecast of the future
performance and optimization of the production are possible. Besides, well testing
gives also information about the near wellbore reservoir volume which will be, later,
used to know whether a well stimulation is required or not. One of the most important
advantages of these well tests is its capability to provide a large area of investigation,
which can reach 50-500 meters unlike cores and logs that provide respectively an
estimated investigation of 10 cm to 50 cm. [7]

2.3 Production Data Analysis

Production Data Analysis uses of production date (Flow rate and flowing pressure) to
do some analysis aiming to have information about the reservoir characteristics.
Production Data Analysis has been developing through time starting from the explicit
concept of PA (Production Analysis) to PTA (Pressure Transient Analysis) , Here we
provide a closer focus on RTA starting from the discussion of Decline curve Analysis
started by Arps in 1945 and developed by Fetkovich and Blasingame to provide type-
curves working for different production scenarios and then the development of these
type-curves by. Then will be discussing the literature regarding dynamic material
balance and Diagnostic methods for production data analysis. [2]

2.3.1 Classification of Production Data Analysis

According to Mattar and Anderson (2003), PDA is the main area that includes:
traditional production data analysis and modern or advanced production data analysis.
The first group is includes Arps and Fetkovich methods which considers constant
bottomhole pressure and analyze flow rate data. The second group, which is the focus

17
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

of this work, is characterized because they were developed for variable rate/variable
pressure production and they analyze bottomhole pressure along with flow rates. The
best-known methods that belong to this group are NPI, Blasingame type curve,
Agarwal-Garner type curve and dynamic material balance.
These authors also classified PDA into two major categories based on the use of type
curve technique: the type curveless and type curve methods. Although the type
curveless methods are also referred as specialized plotting techniques in pressure
transient analysis, in this work we maintained the original terms. In Table Error! No
text of specified style in document.-2it is presented the main methods of each category
which will be described in the next section.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2 Production Analysis
Methods
Categories Method Year
Arps (Decline Curve Analysis) 1945
Type Curveless Analysis
Dynamic Material Balance 2005
Fetkovich 1973
Type Curve Analysis
NPI (Normalized Pressure 1989
Blasingame 1993
Integral)
Agarwal-Garner 1999

1. ARPS Decline Analysis (Exponential and Hyperbolic)

The first major breakthrough in production data analysis was due to Arps (1945). He
reviewed the work that had been done for 40 years on production data analysis, and
codified it as Decline Curve Analysis (DCA). He fit the production vs. time data to one
of several mathematical models that could be used to predict the well future
performance. He developed mainly two models, exponential and hyperbolic decline
based on the loss ratio.

∆𝑝
𝑞
𝐷= (2.15)
∆𝑡

Exponential decline occurs when the decline rate, D, is constant (exponent b = 0).
Otherwise, the decline is considered to be either hyperbolic or harmonic. If D varies,
the decline is considered to be either hyperbolic or harmonic; in this case, an exponent
"b" is incorporated into the equation of the decline curve, to account for the changing

18
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

decline rate. Harmonic decline is a special case from the hyperbolic decline with an
exponent "b" equal to unity. Equations summarize Arps decline equations.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-3 ARAPS Decline Equations

Type of Decline Equation
Exponential Decline 𝑞 = 𝑞𝑖 𝑒 −𝐷𝑖𝑡
1
Hyperbolic Decline 𝑞=
1
(1 + 𝑏𝐷𝑖𝑡)
𝑏
Harmonic Decline 1
𝑞=
(1 + 𝐷𝑖𝑡)

One of the most attractive features of the Arps technique is its simplicity: It does not
require any prior knowledge of the reservoir or well information. Because of this
simplicity, ARPS’ decline curves remain popular in the petroleum industry for
estimating time to economic limit and predicting future reserves for oil and gas
wells.The limitations of decline curves are relatively major, however, in that they
assume constant bottom hole flowing pressure, the well operating conditions will
remain constant in future, and applicability during boundary dominated flow only. It
should be noted that though Arps developed his relations on an empirical basis only, in
recent years Blasingame et al. (1993) demonstrated that, ARPS exponential model is
actually the solution for a well producing a slightly compressible fluid from a closed
reservoir during boundary dominated flow . Similarly, Blasingame et al. (1994) proved
that the Arps hyperbolic model is just an approximate solution for both the dry gas and
oil reservoir cases. [17]

2. Fetkovich Type Curve Analysis

As mentioned earlier, one of major drawbacks with ARPS’ method is that it only applies
for boundary dominated flow (BDF). This implies that the early production data during
the infinite acting period is not analyzable by conventional Arps techniques. Fetkovich
(1980) developed a new kind of type curve which extended the ARPS’ type curves into
the transient flow region (Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-20)
Fetkovich developed a type curve in which he combined the early time period (transient
flow) and the late time period (boundary dominated flow). He demonstrated that
transient solutions for a well in a bounded reservoir, producing at a constant bottom

19
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

hole flowing pressure could be combined with Arps’ empirical solutions during
depletion period to give a single type curve represented by an exponential decline stem
(b=0). Fetkovich provided a theoretical basis to Arps’ empirical exponential decline
curve by demonstrating that the decline coefficient D is independent of the wellbore
flowing pressure, and it is controlled by rock and fluid properties. [16]

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-3 Fetkovich Type Curve (16)

Fetkovich gave this equation for computing the initial decline coefficient, D (Eq. 2.2):
The advantage of Fetkovich’s work is that it allows the use of all of the data in the
analysis process. The transient data is used to estimate reservoir properties (i.e. flow
capacity (kh) and skin factor (s), and the Boundary-Dominated Flow data is used to
determine the drainage area and the ultimate recovery. Fetkovich’s work was a major
step, paving the way for all the modern work in the area of production data analysis.

3. Blasingame Type Curve Analysis

The previously discussed type curve methods did not account for changes in bottom
hole flowing pressure. They were developed for the constant flowing pressures
scenario. Consequently, they can underestimate or overestimate the reserves if used to
analyze variable rate/variable pressure production data.To address the limitations of
conventional type curves, Palacio and Blasingame (1993). (for gas wells) and Doublet

20
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

and Blasingame (1994) (17) (for oil wells) developed modern type curves. These curves
are similar to the Fetkovich type curve format, yet they have the ability to handle all
the operating conditions for the oil and gas reservoirs, as well as to account for the
change in gas properties during reservoir depletion.Instead of real time, they use
superposition time functions, namely material balance time for oil reservoirs and
material balance pseudo time for gas wells. Another result of the use of superposition
time is that the depletion data (during BDF) lies upon the harmonic stem curve.
Blasingame et al. also introduced rate-integral and rate-integral-derivative type curves with
their inherent smoothing nature to better handle noisy production data. The only concern
with these modern type curves, is that do not readily display the flow regimes. Blasingame
type curve analysis parameters are shown in Table Error! No text of specified style in
document.-4. [4]

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-4 Blasingame Type Curve

Analysis Definitions:
Method Type curve Data –oil
Normalized Rate 14102𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟𝑒 𝑞
𝑞𝐷𝑑 = (ln ( ) − 0.5) Δp
𝐾ℎ∆𝑝 𝑟𝑤
Rate Integral 𝑞𝐷𝑑𝑖= 1 𝑡𝐷𝐴
𝑞 1 𝑡𝑐𝑎 𝑞
𝑡𝐷𝐴 ∫0
𝑞𝐷𝑑(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 ( )𝑖 = ∫ 𝑑𝑡
∆𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑐𝑎 0 ∆𝑝𝑝
Rate-integral- 𝑞
𝑡𝑐𝑎 𝑑(∆𝑝 )𝑖
derivative 𝑞 ∆𝐷𝐴 𝑞 𝑝
𝐷𝑑𝑖𝑑=𝑡𝐷𝐴 ( )𝑖𝑑 =
𝑑𝑡𝐷𝐴
∆𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑡𝑐𝑎

Figure 2 12 shows a typical Blasingame type-curve, a loglog plot of pressure

normalized rate, its integral and derivative of the integral against material balance time.
The normalized rate versus material balance time follows a negative unit slope line on
the log-log scale indicating the boundary dominated flow period [19].

21
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-4 Typical Blasingame Type

Curve

Blasingame Type curve Analysis Transient Calculations:

For oil permeability K is obtained from rearranging the dimension of

𝑞 141.2𝛽𝜇 𝑒 𝑟 1
𝑞𝐷𝑑 = ∆𝑝 ( )((ln (𝑟𝑤 ) 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ − 2) (2.16)
𝑘ℎ

𝑞
∆𝑝 141.2𝐵𝜇 𝑟
𝑘 = ( 𝑞 )𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ ( )((ln(𝑟𝑒 )𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ − 0.5) (2.17)
𝐷𝑑 𝐾ℎ 𝑤

Solve for rwa from the dimension of

1
𝑡𝐷𝑑 = 1 2 ((𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 ) 𝑟 (2.18)
∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤𝑎 −1)(ln( 𝑒 )𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ −0.5)
2 𝑟𝑤𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑟𝑤𝑎

𝑡 0.006328𝑘
𝑟𝑤𝑎 = √(𝑡 𝑒 )𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 1 𝑟 𝑟 (2.19)
𝐷𝑑 ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 (( 𝑒 )2 −1)((ln( 𝑒 )𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ −0.5))
2 𝑟𝑤𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑟𝑤𝑎

𝒓
𝒔 = 𝒍𝒏(𝒓 𝒘 ) (2.20)
𝒘𝒂

4. Agarwal-Gardener Type Curve Analysis

22
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Agarwal and Gardner have compiled and presented decline type curves for analyzing
production data. Their methods build upon the work of Fetkovich, Palacio, and
Blasingame, using the concepts of the equivalence between constant rate and constant
pressure solutions. Agarwal and Gardner present type curves with dimensionless
variables based on the conventional well test definitions, as opposed to the Fetkovich
dimensionless definitions used by Blasingame et al. They also include primary and
semi-log pressure derivative plots (in inverse format for decline analysis). Furthermore,
they present their decline curves in additional formats to the standard normalized rate
vs. time plot.[5]

The Agarwal-Gardner rate-time analysis plot includes dimensionless type curves, based
on the constant rate solution. Unlike Blasingame, these type curves are graphed using
the well-test variables dimensionless rate and dimensionless time. Agarwal and
Gardner also include type curves for the primary pressure derivative and semi-
logarithmic (well-test) derivative (plotted as an inverse). The result is a diagnostic
analysis that clearly shows the transition point from transient to boundary-dominated
flow. The dimensionless pressure for standard well-test analysis is defined as:

𝑘ℎ(𝑝𝑖−𝑝𝑤𝑓)
𝑝𝐷 = (2.21)
141.2𝑞𝐵𝑢

he dimensionless flow rate is simply the inverse of the previous equation (note that in
the well-test literature, dimensionless rate has a slightly different definition):

1
𝑞𝐷 = 𝑝𝐷 (2.22)

23
CHAPTER THREE
CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Methodology

All calculations and analysis are performed using computer based software, including
KAPA SAPHIR and KETE, where the methodology for this work following the
sequence shown in Figure 3.1.

Step 1 Bibliographic Research and establishment of problem statement

Step 2 Selection of methods and deepening of models

Step 3 Data analysis and preparation

Step 4 Using Ecrin Saphir software for PTA calculation

Step 5 Using FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A software for PDA calculation

Step 6 The results from both the methods were compared and analyzed

Step 7 Conclusion, observations, and project documentation

Figure 3.1: Research methodology

The workflow of the proposed methodology is explained in details in the following

steps:

1. Collecting basic data and information: including well history, petrophysics

properties (porosity, net thickness), initial pressure on interest data segment,
rock compressibility and lab PVT.
2. Gather well test data (bottom-hole pressure survey) of ,KK1,and KK6
3. Determine Permeability, skin factor, boundary of drainage area by PBU analysis
using commercial software Ecrin (Saphir).
4. Gather historical data (pressure, rate for producing time) of KK1, KK6.
5. bottom-hole pressure: Wellhead data like THP is generally available to
engineers, but for performing RTA bottom hole pressures are needed, thus
THP is converted to flowing BHP using appropriate correlations, in our case "
hagedorn and Brown was used; This correlation is applicable for oil wells. The
frication factor is also took into account appropriate pressure gradient

25
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

accounting for liquid presence. The calculated BHP was calibrated with
available historical flowing BHP data points which were measured while doing
production logging.
6. Data consistency checking: This requires collecting daily rate and bottom-hole
flowing pressure data, making q vs t, p-t and q-p relation graph, and checking
the data consistency, filtering out the unreliable data and then removing data
with lack of correlation in rate and pressure.
7. Identifying the transient flow and boundary dominated flow region: This is
similar to pressure derivative curve in PTA, drawing Blasingame and (Log- Log
type-curves) and (Kabir & Izgec), finding out the transient flow and boundary-
dominated flow region and then matching the actual data with type-curves.
8. Carryout production data analysis (mainly decline curve analysis) on well
KK1,KK4,KK6,YY1 production well and by type curve matching ( Fetkovich
and Blasingame and Agarwal-Gardner Typecurve Analysis, Normalized
Pressure Integral decline curve) determines the reservoir properties
(Permeability, skin factor, boundary of drainage area) estimate initial in place
per well . Commercial software F.A.S.T. RTA™ will be used for this work.
9. Compare permeability , skin with well testing result and OIIP with classical and
Dynamic material balance.

3.2 Software Overview

3.2.1 KAPPA SAPHIR Software

KAPPA is a software engineering company whose integrated software platform is

Ecrin. Ecrin is a dynamic flow analysis software and it includes Saphir for pressure
transient analysis and Topaze for production analysis.

For this study, Saphir is used. Saphir uses the Bourdet derivative method as the main
diagnostic tool. The capacity of Saphir has expanded due to the increasing processing
power of computers. As a result, fast and extensive numerical models were developed
which has extended to solutions of non-linear problems. Saphir is available in a non-
linear variant called Saphir NL. Saphir v4.02 has recent developments in de-
convolution

26
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.2.1.1 Getting Started

Installation of Saphir was carried out and launched. On the main screen, tabs found on
the top most part include; file, action, view, WEB and help. Tabs located on theleft are;
settings, QA/QC data, rates, interpretation, more tools and output. Icons located under
the setting tab include ; Applications , interface, plot aspect, PVT, interpretation,loading
data and default units.

Figure 3-2 Saphir main screen

Above is the first screen once Saphir is launched. To create a project, click on file and
select new by clicking on new. Below is the next screen after creating a project. Enter
rock, fluid and rock/fluid properties as well as well properties into the text boxes. The
well data entered below are for A83.

27
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-3 Well data upload

environment

The figure below (fig 3.4) is obtained by clicking next on the screen in the above figure
(fig 3.5). Enter the fluid properties is into the text boxes. Click create.

28
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

Figure 3-4 PVT data upload screen

The environment below comes up after clicking create on the previous screen. Click
Load Q and import data from an excel sheet (or any other saved file source). Then, click
load P and pressure alongside (t_p+ ∆t) is inserted into the table provided. The
environment presents a history plot containing both the flow rate and the pressure
obtained from the file imported.

29
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

Figure 3-5 History Plot

The next procedure is to click on the extract ∂p icon in order to obtain the model that
will match the data. Two dialog box appears concurrently. The first dialog offers the
choice of which period is to be extracted, in this case build up #1 is picked and “ok”,
clicked. The second dialog presents a setting option on the filtration smoothing of the
derivative as well as the starting pressure (bottom hole flowing pressure Pwf). These
settings have been picked by Saphir and the default setting is chosen by clicking “ok”,
This brings up a screen with a combination of the log log plot and semi log plot.

Modelling is done thereafter, to assist the interpreter choose a model containing all flow
regimes. To model, click on the model icon. A dialog box with default set properties
would show containing reservoir, boundary, well and wellbore models. The parameters
can be modified manually but it is advised to keep the wellbore storage coefficient and
formation capacity on default value. Click generate and a model is generated. If there
exists a mismatch the previous dialog box will be recalled and the correct values of skin
and other parameters are put to get an accurate interpretation.

30
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

Figure 3-6 Plot Combination After Improving

The next step is to improve, a linear regression is run in order to improve the match
between the imported data and the model. To do this, click on the icon improve. On the
dialog box, click run and a regression plot is shown as in fig 3.6.

The last step involves clicking the sensitivity icon. The dialog that appears gives a
provision to manually specify parameters. After all specifications, your desired plot
would be created after generate is clicked.

In this study, build up test is considered. A horner plot is required for a build-up test.
To obtain the horner plot, click on more tools tab and the flexible plot icon was then
clicked. A flexible type dialog box appears, choose horner on the drop down textbox
titled type and click OK.

31
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.2.2 FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A Software

FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A™ is a cutting edge decline analysis tool that analyzes

production rates and flowing pressures. Methods include traditional decline analysis,
Fetkovich, Blasingame, Agarwal-Gardner, NPI, Transient and Wattenbarger type
curves, specialized analysis and flowing material balance. Reservoir models include
volumetric and water-drive. Well models include horizontal, vertical, and hydraulically
fractured wells. F.A.S.T. RTA™ analyzes production data, yielding permeability. It
allows users to evaluate infill potential, characterize the reservoir. Figure 3-6 show the
working procedure and sequence of software calculation.

Figure 3-7: Working procedure and sequence of software FEKETE F.S.T.A.R.T.A

32
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.2.2.1 Getting Started

Installation of F.S.T.A.R.T.A was carried out and launched and the steps are hown
bellow:

1. Importing Data

2. The production data

33
CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3. Reservoir Properties and Data Checking

34
CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

4. Wellbore Calculations and Production Editor

5. Fetkovich Analysis

35
CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

6. Blasingame Analysis

36
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.3 Field Study

A production well, known as well is selected such that it has produced for a long period
of time and have undergo naturally decline in its production rate. Historical pressure
and rate data of well (a production well) is gathered.

Bu-Attifel field namely KKYY block is selected as a case study, where it is located in
the Sirte Basin (Libya) Area A, Concession 82, about 20 Km S-E of Bu-Attifel and 15
Km south of XX-UU field

37
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

3.3.1 General Information

KK-YY structure is represented by NW-SE faulted anticlines separated by at least two major
faults having the same trend which divide the field into three main blocks hydraulically
separated, and minor conjugate elements WNW-ESE and NE-SW oriented.
The targets of the field are the RakbC VIII Mb (from Upper Pool to Lower RakbC Fm)
and the Reworked Sequence Fm. (Turonian – Late Cretaceous).
The field has been divided in three main blocks bounded by major faults and named
respectively from north to south: KK-North, KK-South, YY-Block. Another block
called “North of reservoir” has been modeled in the present study despite its non-
reservoir characteristics to improve the geologic framework. In fact, from the structural
point of view, the huge displacement related to the main faults bounding this block,
seems pointed out the interest in the other ones. Seven wells has been drilled in the
field:
 Well KK1 (1980) and KK6 (2013) in the KK-North block.
 Well KK2 (1981/82), water bearing with few oil traces in the Rakb Gr. C VIII
Member. The D.S.T. confirmed the presence of oil and water bearing zones
with poor permeability in the sandstone with shale intercalations of the Upper
Nubian Sandstones Fm.
 KK3 (1981/1982) which never reached the top of the target formation (RakbC
VIII Mb.) due to technical reasons.
 Well KK4 (November 2006) and KK5 (2012) in the KK-South block.
 Well YY1 (April 2008) in YY-Block.

The field was in production since 2002 from KK1, KK4. The under-saturated oil
bearing reservoir is characterized by 4 vertical separated pools: Upper Pool and
Middle Rakb C, Lower Pool, Lower Rakb C and the Reworked.A well location map
and a section of the field are shown in (Figure 3-(

38
 CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY & METHODOLOGY

Figure 3-8 location map of field

 The blocks identified by the major faults: KK-North, KK-South, YY Block are
hydraulically separated as recognized by MDT analysis;
 The vertical reservoir communications can be sketched as follows:
Partial communication between Upper Pool and Middle Rakb C;
Lower Pool is isolated;
Vertical separation between Lower Rakb C and Reworked Sequence has to be duly
assessed.
 The estimated original oil in place of the entire KK-YY structure is of OOIP
= 127.9 MMSTB.
 The cumulative oil production from the KK-YY area @31/12/2013 is 8.35
MMSTB

39
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT AND DISCUSION
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

4.1 Results of Pressure Transient Analysis

In this section, the analysis is discussed and interpretation of pressure buildup cases
taken from wells in KK field ,Log-Log Derivative Plot implemented in PTA is based
on both pressure and the Bourdet derivative used for the diagnostics and the match with
the selected models. PTA model success depends on the availability of adequate
pressure build up periods to allow the determination of average permeability, average
reservoir pressure, skin factor, transmissibility, seal and non-seal faults, and in some
cases reservoir boundaries . Using the parameters found in PTA (distance to faults, and
sealing or non-sealing fault behavior, permeability and boundaries.

4.1.1 Result of Well KK1

A pressure build-up test was conducted on a vertical well KK1for 97 hours from
9/11/2001 at 16h to 13/11/2001at 12h. Afterwards, the results of pressure data versus
time as well as flow rates were brought as an input to be used on Saphir (Ecrin). In
addition, properties such as well radius, thickness of the productive layer and fluid type
was also added to the model. However, the following table summarizes all the
properties used as an input.

Table 4-1 Input Data

Reservoir properties (Unit) value
Thickness (ft) 103
Well radius (in) 3
Formation volume factor (cf/stb) 2.12
Porosity % 13
GOR (scf/bb) 1900
Compressibility (psi-1) 4.228
Temperature (°F) 297
Pressure (psi) 5860
Viscosity (cp) 0.173

After loading pressure and flow rates data, the software shows the history plot including
both flow rate and pressure as shown in figure 4.1. Pressure build up is the subject of
this transient test analysis, and as we can see, there is build-up periods.

41
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

6000

Pressure,psi 4000

2000

0
Rate ,bbl/d

4000

2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

Time ,hour

Figure 4-1 History Plot of Well KK1 (Pressure [Psi], Liquid Rate [STB/Day], Time
[hr])

The Bourdet derivative displayed together with the extracted pressure build up on log-
log plot exhibit three different regions shown in the Figure 4-2
Pressure [psi]

Time [hr]

Figure 4-2 Log-Log Plot of Bourdet Derivative and Extracted Pressure Buildup
Versus Time of Well KK1

From the early time region, the information can be got (deduced from the straight line
and the following hump) about the wellbore storage (WBS) and skin as explained in
the literature part. However, In the figure can be seen ,the Bourdet point values in the
beginning do not fit perfectly the straight line, so in our case WBS have been changed.
This could be the consequence of phases redistribution. This phenomenon occurs when

42
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

gas and liquid are flowing simultaneously within tubing during shut-in. In this situation,
the gravity effect will cause the gas to rise to the surface and the liquid to fall down and
hence a perturbation in pressure gauge. After the wellbore storage effect has vanished,
the middle time region takes place, which describes the radial flow regime where
information can be got about kh product. In addition, on a semi log plot it exhibit
linearity where
Pressure [psi]

Superposition time

Figure 4-3 Semi-log plot: P [psi] versus Superposition time.

The mobility can be estimated from calculating the slope or estimate well productivity
from the intercept with Y-axis as sown in Figure 4-3

During the late time region, the log-log plot shows upward deviation this could be
explained by the presence of a intersecting fault. In general, the existence of fault is
described by the doubling of radial flow slope, however the full doubling rarely
occurs since it requires long tests (one and a half log cycles in time after the initial
deviation from the first radial flow) which is not the case here. To run the model with
the best possible fit, intersecting fault model is considered even though the slope is
less than double because it is the simplest boundary model that provides association
between distance and time. The

43
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Table 4-2 summarizes the parameters selected for the model.

44
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Table 4-2 Model of well KK1 properties

Model properties
Wellbore model Constant wellbore storage
Well model Vertical
Reservoir model Homogenous
Boundary model Intersecting fault

The transient test with the possible best model has given the following results:

Table 4-3 Well test KK1output

Well testing final results
Well type Vertical
WBS type Constant wellbore storage
Reservoir Homogenous
Boundary Intersecting fault
Initial pressure (psi) 6261
Kh product (ft.md) 4326
Permeability (md) 42
Skin -0.3
Wellbore storage coefficient C bbl/psi 0.0187

4.1.2 Result of KK6

A pressure build-up test was conducted on a vertical well KK6 for 144 hours from
3/05/2006 to 9/05/2006. Afterwards, in KK6 well is using the Horner plot and pressure
derivative plot. The first approach is to make a well history plot using software Saphir
(Ecrin)by inputting reservoir data, petro physics, and well flow rate data. History plot
is made to interpret the state of the actual reservoir. Figure 4-4 represents that the top
graph shows pressure vs time while the bottom graph shows the oil flow rate vs time.

45
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Pressure,psi
Rate ,bbl/d

Time, hour

Figure 4-4 History plot of well KK 6 (pressure [psi], liquid rate [STB/day], Time [hr])

The next approach is to make log-log plot to see derivative curve from the well KK6.
Figure 4-5 shows the derivative plot of KK6 well and wellbore storage from the well
can be seen when the well is shut-in or at the beginning of pressure build up test. From
this log-log plot as it can be seen in the derivative plot of the data clearly shows a closed
system and presence of no flow boundaries. The Bourdet derivative displayed together
with the extracted pressure build up on log-log plot exhibit three different regions
shown in the Figure 4-5:
Pressure ,psi

Time [hr]
Figure 4-5 Log-Log Plot of Bourdet Derivative and Extracted Pressure Buildup
Versus Time of Well KK6

46
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

This table shows the interpretation result by using software Ecrin in Well- KK6

Table 4-4 Interpretation Result in well KK6

Interpretation Model Reservoir
Main Model Parameters
C 0.0111
Skin 30
Reservoir & Boundary Parameters
Pi 5860
Kh 6400

From the software, the Horner plot also can be made from semi-log plot as shown in
Figure 4-6
Pressure,psi

Superposition time

Figure 4-6 Semi-Log Plot: P [Psi] Versus Superposition Time of well KK6

reservoir parametes can be obtained as shown inTable 4-5

Table 4-5 Horner Plot Result

Interpretation Result
K 64 (md )
S -2
Kh 6400(md.ft)

47
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

4.2 Result of Production Date Analysis

The objective for performing production analysis at KK Field to provide regarding rock
and fluid properties (e.g., effective permeability to oil and skin factor)
For analysis of production data Blasingame type curve, Agarwal-Gardner Type curve
the Normalized Pressure Integral (NPI) were used and Dynamic material balance.
the sequence of our analysis including:
 Production history plot –oil rate behavior with time.
 Check data quality and Correlation
 Production performing plot -total oil flowrate and flowing bottom hole
pressure with time .
 Reservoir Compartmentalization and Flow regime identification
 Type curve plot –used to estimate volumetric and flow properties .
In this section we present the analysis of KK1 in order to illustrate the sequence of
production data analysis that the well performance was used data obtained from kk
field.

4.2.1 Result of Well KK1

 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Analysis

The matching and analysis results of Fetkovich’s Type Curve Analysis were presented
in Figure 4.7

Figure 4-7 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Matching kk1

48
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

We can’t match this data set because Fetkovich analysis assumes that production occurs
under constant bottomhole flowing pressure conditions. Pressure Cumulative data chart
shows that it is not the case.

 Blasingame Type Curve Plot

The data plotted in the Blasingame plot uses Normalized rate integral and a derivative
function to reduce the noise level. From the Blasingame it is obvious that the production
response consists of two distinct flow periods, a transient production followed by a
pseudosteady state (boundary dominated). The transient flow period was used to
calculate permeability thickness product of the well’s drainage volume, skin factor, and
drainage radius. The pseudo-steady state period was used to identify remaining
reserves. The data plotted in Blasingame type curve was moved vertically and
horizontally until a match is obtained with one set of curves. After the proper type curve
matching a match point was used to calculate original oil in place and other
parameters.The plot is shown in Figure 4 8.

Figure 4-8 Blasingame type curve analysis in Well “KK1”.

The results of Blasingame type curve analysis are summarized in Table 4-6

49
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Table 4-6 Results for Blasingame Type Curve Analysis

Parameters Value
Well type Vertical well
K, average permeability 40
Skin -0.379

the impacts of nearby wells have been included in our Evaluation by comparing the
single well analysis. Rate transient analysis allows estimation of connected volume,
skin factor (s), and permeability (k). PTA was used for the k and s estimation and
integrated with RTA for better accuracy. Due to data scattering the results of analysis
for skin and permeability from RTA are not unique and need to be guided by PTA
results if available. In pressure build up analysis, permeability and skin can be estimated
more accurately. The gap between pressure curve and pressure derivative curve in PTA
controls the skin factor. Permeability can also be calculated confidently by matching
the mid time region and radial flow regime.

4.2.2 Result of well kk6

 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Analysis

We also can’t match this data set because Fetkovich analysis assumes that production
occurs under constant bottom hole flowing pressure conditions. Pressure Cumulative
data chart shows that it is not the case.

Figure 4-9 Fetkovich’s Type Curve Matching kk6

50
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

 Blasingame Type Curve Plot

The matching and analysis results of Blasingame’s Type Curve Analysis were
presentedin Figure 4.10 below.

Figure 4-10 Blasingame type curve analysis in Well “KK6”.

Figure 4.18 shows the results of Rate Transient Analysis by Blasingame’s Type Curve
matching. As shown in Figure 4.10, a good match between the observed data and the
type curve is obtained. The dimensionless flow rate, qDd and its integral, qDdi could
be closely match with the type curve. The derivative of the integral of dimensionless
flow rate, qDdid, however, slightly deviate from those on the type curve. This mismatch
of qDdid is mainly because of the noise in the production data. The results obtained
from Blasingame’s Type Curve Matching is presented in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4-7 Results for Blasingame Type Curve Analysis

Parameters Value
Well type Vertical well
K, average permeability 64
Skin -1.33

51
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

4.3 Comparison of Results

Table 4-8 shows the comparison of the reservoir parameters obtained by applying
pressure transient analysis and rate transient analysis on Wells.

Table 4-8 Permeability and Skin Factor Determined by RTA Compare with PTA.
k, MD Skin(s)
Well No.
PTA B. TC, PTA B. TC,

KK1 42 40 -0.3 -0.3

KK6 64 68.3 -2 -1.33

permeability values ware obtained from wells ( KK1 , KK6)which is compared with
pressure transient results. Results show that Blasingame models can present
acceptable estimations, and implicitly indicates that the data preparation procedure
proposed in the study.

A comparison of skin factors ware also obtained from wells (KK1, KK6) . The results
are in agreement with those of pressure transient . It must be mentioned that the amount
of RTA skin factor must be considered qualitatively rather than quantitatively, i.e., the
sign- negative or positiveis more important than the value. It must be also noted that
it is not so reasonable to compare RTA skin values to those of the well test analysis
because well test values show the condition of producing well in a short time span and
the values may change with time due to damage or stimulation, while RTA values are
results of analyzed data of a long time span. The results obtained from wells clearly
show that RTA allows inexpensive production tests to replace expensive transient tests.
It is not required to shut in the producing wells and furthermore wellbore storage effects
do not exist.

52
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

5.1 Conclusion

The following conclusions are derived from this study:

1. this study shows an integrated between pressure transient and production data
analysis . Each method was carefully used and compared with others in order to
have the right picture from the connected volumes to the wells and characterize
the reservoir.

2. The limitations of each method were acknowledged and conclusion was made
considering those constraints. RTA was the key technique as it applied
successfully in the conventional reservoirs and evaluated besides other methods.
It was found robust, fast and accurate as it only requires flowing production data
rather than lengthy and inconclusive shut in surveys.

3. Rate transient analysis (Blasingame, Agarwal & Gardner) were capable of

predicting reservoir properties with an acceptable accuracy, The results are
validated with the results form well testing (Pressure built up analysis), and it
shows a good agreement.

4. From literature, the oil in place can be estimated using type and dynamic
material balance without need to shut-in the well, and the results show on
acceptable agreement with convectional material balance.

53
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

5.2 Recommendation

1. Installation of down-hole pressure and temperature gauge during well

completion operation is recommended. This way high frequency down-hole
data can be collected and can be used for decline analysis.
2. Applying the other method in reservoir characterization and compare the results
with the current study.

54
REFERENCES
[1] L. W. Lake, Reservoir Characterization, April 21, 1986.
[2] M. M. Kamal, Transient Well Testing, Society of Petroleum, 2009.
[3] D. Anderson and L. Mattar, "A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for
Advanced Analysis of Production," Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003.
[4] R. G. Agarwal, c. D. Gardner, W. S. Kleinsteiber and D. D. Fussell, "Analyzing
Well Production Data Using Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Analysis
Concepts," Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998.
[5] J. C. Palacio and A. T. Blasingame, "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves— Analysis of Gas Well Production," paper SPE, 14 12 1993.
[6] Rietman and D. Noel, "Determining Permeability, Skin Effect and Drainage Area
from the Inverted Decline Curve (IDC)," SPE 29464 Production Operations Symposium,
2-4 1995.
[7] Doublet, E. L, K. P. Pande, J. T. McCollum, Blasingame and T. A, "Decline
CurveAnalysis Using Type Curves Analysis of Oil Well Production Data Using Materia
lBalance Time: Application to Field Cases," paper SPE 28688 presented at the 1994
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in Veracruz, Mexico, 10-13
October 1994.
[8] Teo Chun Tat, "Comparison of Well Testing and Production Data Analysis for
Estimating Reservoir Parameters," Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, TRONOH,
PERAK, 2015.
[9] J. P. Spivey and W. J. Lee, Applied Well Test Interpretation, SPE Textbook, 2013.
[10] A. slotte, "Lectures note in well testing," 2017.
[11] kuiper and I, "well testing in the framework of system identification," 2009.
[12] m. a. Asser, Simulation and interpretation of well test in pressure sensitive
reservoir, 2015.
[13] M. Onur , F. Kuchuk and F. Hollaender, "pressure transient formation and well
testing. Netherlands," 2010.
[14] S. C. Matthews, "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells," 1967.
[15] U. A. Chaudhry, Oil Well Testing Handbook, USA, 2004.
[16] P. ferrero, "pressure transient analysis. houston," 2001.
[17] G. Bourdarot, "Well testing interpretation methods," 2010.
[18] O. Houze, D. Viturat and O. S. Fjaere, Dynamic Data Analysis; The theoryand
practice of Pressure Transient, Production Analysis, Well Performance Analysis,
Production Logging and the use of Permanent Downhole Gauge Data,KAPPA, 1988-
2012.
[19] M. D. Pesendorfer, "Boundary response," 2015.
[20] "Fekete Associates Inc, 2010," [Online]. Available: https://ihsmarkit.com..
[21] rossito d and D M, "well test analysis.," 2003.
[22] P. M. A. Herbas, "AdrAdvanced production data analysis in naturally fractured
reservoirs," University of Campinas, Campinas, 2015.
[23] Arps and J. J, "Analysis of Decline Curves," Transactions of the American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 160,228-247, 1945.
[24] FASTRTA, "Fekete Software Training Course," FASTRTA, 2014.
[25] PetroWiki, "Types of decline analysis in production forecasting," 2012. [Online].
Available: http://petrowiki.org/Types_of_decline_analysis_in_production_forecasting.
[Accessed September 2017].
[26] T. A. M, T. L, L. W. J and Blasingame, "Decline Curve Analysis for Variable
Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate Systems," OnePetro, 1 January 1991.
[27] J. A and T. B. Palacio, "Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves - Analysis of
Ga sWell Production Data," SPE Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, 1993.
[28] D. A. J, J. A, P. Y. M and Bourdet, "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well Test
Interpretation," OnePetrono. Paper SPE 12777, 1 June 1989.
[29] H. Sun, Advanced Production Decline Analysis and Application, Wyman Street,
Waltham, MA 02451, USA: Elsevier Inc, 2015.
[30] Z. Chen, Reservoir simulation mathematical techniques in oil recovery university
of, Calgary, Canada, 2007.
[31] "Transient type curve analysis," 2014.
[32] L. Mattar and R. McNeil, "The 'Flowing' Gas Material Balance," Journal of JCPT,
1998.
[33] D. &. M. L. Anderson, "Practical Diagnostics Using Production Data and Flowing
Pressures," Presented at SPE, 24 9 2004.
[34] D. Anderson, L. Mattar, D. Ilk and T. Blasingame, "Production Data Analysis-
Challegenges, Pitfalls, Diagnostics,"," SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
2006.
[35] C. Kabir and B. Izgec, "Diagnosis of reservoir Behavior From measured Reservoir
Pressure/Rtae Data," SPE Gas Technology Symposuim, 2006.