一种估算地层渗透率的新方法及DFIT后闭合分析

HanYi Wang, M. Sharma
{"title":"一种估算地层渗透率的新方法及DFIT后闭合分析","authors":"HanYi Wang, M. Sharma","doi":"10.2118/194344-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Estimating reservoir flow capacity is crucial for production estimation, hydraulic fracturing design and field development. Laboratory experiments can be used to measure the permeability of rock samples, but the results may not be representative at a field scale because of reservoir heterogeneity and pre-existing natural fracture systems. Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT) have now become standard practice to estimate formation pore pressure and formation permeability. However, in low permeability reservoirs, after-closure radial flow is often absent and this can cast significant uncertainties in interpreting DFIT data. In addition, the established methods for analyzing DFIT data make two oversimplified assumptions: (1) Carter's leak-off and, (2) Constant fracture compliance (or stiffness) during fracture closure. However, both assumptions are violated during fracture closure and this is why G-function based models and subsequent related works can lead to an incorrect interpretation and are not capable of consistently fitting both before and after closure data coherently (Wang and Sharma 2017). Moreover, current after-closure analysis relies on classic well-test solutions with constant injection rate. In reality, a \"constant injection rate\" does not equal \"constant leak-off rate into the formation\", because over 90% of the injected fluid stays inside the fracture at the end of pumping, instead of leaking into formation. The variable leak-off rate clearly violates the constant rate boundary condition used in existing well-test solutions.\n In this study, we extend our previous work and derive time-convolution solutions to pressure transient behavior of a closing fracture with infinite and finite fracture conductivity. We show that G-function and the square root of time models are only special cases of our general solutions. In addition, we found that after-closure linear flow and bilinear flow analysis can only be used to infer pore pressure reliably, but fail to estimate other parameters correctly. Most importantly, we present a new approach to history match the entire duration of DFIT data to estimate formation flow capacity, even without knowing closure stress and the roughness properties of the fracture surface. Our approach adds tremendous value to DFIT interpretation and uncertainty analysis, especially in unconventional reservoirs where the absence of after-closure radial flow is the norm. Two representative field cases are also presented and discussed.","PeriodicalId":10957,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Novel Approach for Estimating Formation Permeability and Revisit After-Closure Analysis from DFIT\",\"authors\":\"HanYi Wang, M. Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/194344-MS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Estimating reservoir flow capacity is crucial for production estimation, hydraulic fracturing design and field development. Laboratory experiments can be used to measure the permeability of rock samples, but the results may not be representative at a field scale because of reservoir heterogeneity and pre-existing natural fracture systems. Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT) have now become standard practice to estimate formation pore pressure and formation permeability. However, in low permeability reservoirs, after-closure radial flow is often absent and this can cast significant uncertainties in interpreting DFIT data. In addition, the established methods for analyzing DFIT data make two oversimplified assumptions: (1) Carter's leak-off and, (2) Constant fracture compliance (or stiffness) during fracture closure. However, both assumptions are violated during fracture closure and this is why G-function based models and subsequent related works can lead to an incorrect interpretation and are not capable of consistently fitting both before and after closure data coherently (Wang and Sharma 2017). Moreover, current after-closure analysis relies on classic well-test solutions with constant injection rate. In reality, a \\\"constant injection rate\\\" does not equal \\\"constant leak-off rate into the formation\\\", because over 90% of the injected fluid stays inside the fracture at the end of pumping, instead of leaking into formation. The variable leak-off rate clearly violates the constant rate boundary condition used in existing well-test solutions.\\n In this study, we extend our previous work and derive time-convolution solutions to pressure transient behavior of a closing fracture with infinite and finite fracture conductivity. We show that G-function and the square root of time models are only special cases of our general solutions. In addition, we found that after-closure linear flow and bilinear flow analysis can only be used to infer pore pressure reliably, but fail to estimate other parameters correctly. Most importantly, we present a new approach to history match the entire duration of DFIT data to estimate formation flow capacity, even without knowing closure stress and the roughness properties of the fracture surface. Our approach adds tremendous value to DFIT interpretation and uncertainty analysis, especially in unconventional reservoirs where the absence of after-closure radial flow is the norm. Two representative field cases are also presented and discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/194344-MS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Tue, February 05, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/194344-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

储层流量估算对于产量估算、水力压裂设计和油田开发至关重要。实验室实验可以用来测量岩石样品的渗透率,但由于储层的非均质性和已有的天然裂缝系统,结果可能在现场规模上不具有代表性。诊断性裂缝注入测试(DFIT)现在已经成为估计地层孔隙压力和地层渗透率的标准方法。然而,在低渗透油藏中,关闭后的径向流动往往不存在,这给DFIT数据的解释带来了很大的不确定性。此外,现有的分析DFIT数据的方法有两个过于简化的假设:(1)Carter泄漏;(2)裂缝闭合过程中的裂缝柔顺度(或刚度)恒定。然而,在裂缝闭合过程中,这两个假设都被违反了,这就是为什么基于g函数的模型和随后的相关工作可能导致错误的解释,并且无法一致地拟合闭合前后的数据(Wang and Sharma 2017)。此外,目前的闭井后分析依赖于恒定注入速率的经典试井方案。实际上,“恒定注入速率”并不等于“恒定漏入地层速率”,因为在泵注结束时,超过90%的注入流体留在裂缝内,而不是泄漏到地层中。可变泄漏率显然违反了现有试井方案中使用的恒定速率边界条件。在这项研究中,我们扩展了之前的工作,并推导了具有无限和有限裂缝导流能力的闭合裂缝的压力瞬态行为的时间卷积解。我们证明了g函数和时间的平方根模型只是通解的特殊情况。此外,我们发现闭合后线性流动和双线性流动分析只能可靠地推断孔隙压力,而不能正确估计其他参数。最重要的是,我们提出了一种新的方法,可以在不知道闭合应力和裂缝表面粗糙度的情况下,对DFIT数据的整个持续时间进行历史匹配,以估计地层流动能力。我们的方法为DFIT解释和不确定性分析增加了巨大的价值,特别是在非常规油藏中,关闭后径向流是常态。提出并讨论了两个有代表性的现场案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Novel Approach for Estimating Formation Permeability and Revisit After-Closure Analysis from DFIT
Estimating reservoir flow capacity is crucial for production estimation, hydraulic fracturing design and field development. Laboratory experiments can be used to measure the permeability of rock samples, but the results may not be representative at a field scale because of reservoir heterogeneity and pre-existing natural fracture systems. Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT) have now become standard practice to estimate formation pore pressure and formation permeability. However, in low permeability reservoirs, after-closure radial flow is often absent and this can cast significant uncertainties in interpreting DFIT data. In addition, the established methods for analyzing DFIT data make two oversimplified assumptions: (1) Carter's leak-off and, (2) Constant fracture compliance (or stiffness) during fracture closure. However, both assumptions are violated during fracture closure and this is why G-function based models and subsequent related works can lead to an incorrect interpretation and are not capable of consistently fitting both before and after closure data coherently (Wang and Sharma 2017). Moreover, current after-closure analysis relies on classic well-test solutions with constant injection rate. In reality, a "constant injection rate" does not equal "constant leak-off rate into the formation", because over 90% of the injected fluid stays inside the fracture at the end of pumping, instead of leaking into formation. The variable leak-off rate clearly violates the constant rate boundary condition used in existing well-test solutions. In this study, we extend our previous work and derive time-convolution solutions to pressure transient behavior of a closing fracture with infinite and finite fracture conductivity. We show that G-function and the square root of time models are only special cases of our general solutions. In addition, we found that after-closure linear flow and bilinear flow analysis can only be used to infer pore pressure reliably, but fail to estimate other parameters correctly. Most importantly, we present a new approach to history match the entire duration of DFIT data to estimate formation flow capacity, even without knowing closure stress and the roughness properties of the fracture surface. Our approach adds tremendous value to DFIT interpretation and uncertainty analysis, especially in unconventional reservoirs where the absence of after-closure radial flow is the norm. Two representative field cases are also presented and discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信