A New Method for Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure: The Muskat Plot Revisited
- James G. Crump (Shell E&P Co.) | Robert H. Hite (Shell Intl. E&P Inc.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- April 2008
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 298 - 306
- 2008. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.3.4 Scale, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 5.4.6 Thermal Methods, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.6.11 Reservoir monitoring with permanent sensors, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.1.2 Faults and Fracture Characterisation
- 10 in the last 30 days
- 1,405 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
This paper describes a new method for estimating average reservoir pressure from long-pressure-buildup data on the basis of the classical Muskat plot. Current methods for estimating average reservoir pressure require a priori information about the reservoir and assume homogeneous reservoir properties or use empirical extrapolation techniques.
The new method applies to heterogeneous reservoirs and requires no information about reservoir or fluid properties. The idea of the method is to estimate from the pressure derivative the first few eigenvalues of the pressure-transient decay modes. These values are characteristic of the reservoir and fluid properties, but not of the pressure history or well location in the reservoir. The smallest eigenvalue is used to extrapolate the long-time behavior of the transient to estimate the final reservoir pressure. The second eigenvalue can be used to estimate the quality of the estimate.
Numerical tests of the method show that it estimates average reservoir pressure accurately, even when the reservoir is heterogeneous or when partial-flow barriers are present. Examples with real data show that the behavior predicted by the theory is actually observed.
We expect the method to have value in reservoir limits testing, in making consistent estimates of average reservoir pressure from permanent downhole gauges, and in characterizing complex reservoirs.
Several different methods of interpreting pressure-buildup data to obtain average reservoir pressure have been proposed (Muskat 1937; Horner 1967; Miller et al. 1950; Matthews et al. 1954; Dietz 1965) in the past, and in recent years some new techniques have appeared in the literature (Mead 1981; Hasan and Kabir 1983; Kabir and Hasan 1996; Kuchuk 1999; Chacon et al. 2004). Larson (1963) revisited the Muskat method and put it on a firm theoretical ground for a homogeneous cylindrical reservoir. Some of the existing techniques depend on knowledge of the reservoir size and shape and assume homogeneous properties (Horner 1967; Miller et al. 1950; Matthews et al. 1954; Dietz 1965). Such methods may result in uncertain predictions when reservoir data are unavailable or reservoir heterogeneity exists. The inverse time plot by Kuchuk (1999) is essentially a modification of Horner's method (1967) and works well in reservoirs that can be treated as infinite during the time of the test. The hyperbola method proposed by Mead (1981) and further developed by Hasan and Kabir (1983) is an empirical technique, not based on fundamental fluid flow principles for bounded reservoirs (Kabir and Hasan 1996). Chacon et al. (2004) develop the direct synthesis technique, in which conventional theory is used to derive an average pressure directly from standard log-log plots. Homogeneous properties and radial symmetry are assumed. Muskat's original derivation was a wellbore storage model. Larson reinterpreted Muskat's method and derived relationships showing how Muskat's plot could be used to estimate average reservoir pressure in a cylindrical, homogeneous reservoir. This paper revisits the ideas underlying Larson's paper. Similar ideas are shown to hold for heterogeneous reservoirs of any shape. A new analysis technique replacing the Muskat plot by a plot of the pressure derivative simplifies the determination of average reservoir pressure. It is shown that parameters from analysis of a long buildup on a reservoir can be used in subsequent buildup tests to shorten the required time of the subsequent buildups. Finally, estimates for time required for a buildup in homogeneous reservoirs of any shape are given.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||9|
Chacon, A., Djebrouni, A., and Tiab, D. 2004. Determining the Average ReservoirPressure From Vertical and Horizontal Well Test Analysis Using the Tiab'sDirect Synthesis Technique. Paper SPE 88619 presented at the SPE AsiaPacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18-20 October.DOI: 10.2118/88619-MS.
Cheng, S.-Y. 1975. EigenvalueComparison Theorems and Its Geometric Applications. MathematischeZietschrift 143 (3): 289-297. DOI: 10.1007/BF01214381.
Coats, K.H., Rapoport, L.A., McCord, J.R., and Drews, W.P. 1964. Determination of Aquifer InfluenceFunction From Field Data. JPT 16 (12): 1417-1424;Trans., AIME, 231. SPE-897-PA. DOI: 10.2118/897-PA.
Dietz, D.N. 1965. Determinationof Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up Surveys. JPT 17(8): 955-959; Trans., AIME, 234. SPE-1156-PA. DOI:10.2118/1156-PA.
Gavalas, G.R. and Seinfeld, J.H. 1973. Reservoirs With Spatially VaryingProperties: Estimation of Volume From Late Transient Pressure Data.SPEJ 13 (6): 335-342. SPE-4169-PA. DOI: 10.2118/4169-PA.
Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S. 1983. Pressure Buildup Analysis: ASimplified Approach. JPT 35 (1): 178-188. SPE-10542-PA. DOI:10.2118/10542-PA.
Horner, D.R. 1967. Pressure Build-Up in Wells. In Pressure AnalysisMethods. Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 9: 25-43.
Kabir, C.S. and Hasan, A.R. 1996. Estimating Average Reservoir PressureUsing the Hyperbola Approach: New Algorithm and Field Examples. Paper SPE36255 presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition andConference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 13-16 October. DOI: 10.2118/36255-MS.
Kuchuk, F.J. 1999. A New Methodfor Determination of Reservoir Pressure. Paper SPE 56418 presented at theSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October. DOI:10.2118/56418-MS.
Kuchuk, F.J., Habashy, T.M., and Torres-Verdin, C. 1996. A Nonlinear Approximation for thePressure Behavior of Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Paper SPEJ 1(3): 229-242. SPE-26456-PA. DOI: 10.2118/26456-PA.
Larson, V.C. 1963. Understanding the Muskat Method of Analyzing PressureBuild-Up Curves. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 2 (3): 136.
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P. 1954. A Method forDetermination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir. Trans.,AIME 201: 182-191. SPE-296-G.
Mead, H.N. 1981. A PracticalApproach to Transient Pressure Behavior. Paper SPE 9901 presented at theSPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 25-27 March. DOI:10.2118/9901-MS.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr. 1950. The Estimation of Permeability andReservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteristics.Trans., AIME 189: 91-104. SPE-950091-G.
Muskat, M. 1937. Use of Dataon the Build-Up of Bottom-Hole Pressures. Trans., AIME 123:44-48. SPE-937044-G.
Payne, L.E. and Weinberger, H.F. 1960. An Optimal Poincaré Inequality forConvex Domains. Archive for Rational Mechanistics and Analysis5 (1): 286-292. DOI: 10.1007/BF00252910.
Showalter, R.E. 1994. Hilbert Space Methods for Partial DifferentialEquations. Electronic J. of Differential Equations Monograph 01, Chap.3, 59-93.
Vega, L. and Wattenbarger, R.A. 2000. New Approach for SimultaneousDetermination of the OGIP and Aquifer Performance With No Prior Knowledge ofAquifer Properties and Geometry. Paper SPE 59781 presented at the SPE/CERIGas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 3-5 April. DOI: 10.2118/59781-MS.