A Capacitance Model To Infer Interwell Connectivity From Production and Injection Rate Fluctuations
- Ali A. Yousef (Saudi Aramco) | Pablo H. Gentil (U. of Texas Austin) | Jerry L. Jensen (Texas A&M U.) | Larry W. Lake (U. of Texas Austin)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- December 2006
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 630 - 646
- 2006. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 4.3.4 Scale, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 1.2.2 Geomechanics, 5.6.5 Tracers, 5.1.2 Faults and Fracture Characterisation, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 5.2 Reservoir Fluid Dynamics
- 5 in the last 30 days
- 1,814 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
This paper presents a new procedure to quantify communication between vertical wells in a reservoir on the basis of fluctuations in production and injection rates. The proposed procedure uses a nonlinear signal-processing model to provide information about preferential-transmissibility trends and the presence of flow barriers.
Previous work used a steady-state (purely resistive) model of interwell communication. Data in that work often had to be filtered to account for compressibility effects and time lags. Even though it was often successful, the filtering required subjective judgment as to the goodness of the interpretation. This work uses a more complicated model that includes capacitance (compressibility) as well as resistive (transmissibility) effects.
The procedure was tested on rates obtained from a numerical flow simulator. It was then applied to a short-time-scale data set from an Argentinean field and a large-scale data set from a North Sea field. The simulation results and field applications show that the connectivity between wells is described by model coefficients (weights) that are consistent with known geology, the distance between wells, and their relative positions. The developed procedure provides parameters that explicitly indicate the attenuation and time lag between injector and producer pairs in a field without filtering. The new procedure provides a better insight into the well-to-well connectivities for both fields than the purely resistive model.
The new procedure has several additional advantages. It
- can be applied to fields in which wells are shut in frequently or for long periods of time.
- allows for application to fields in which the rates have a remnant of primary production.
- has the capability to incorporate bottomhole-pressure (BHP) data (if available) to enhance the investigation about well connectivity.
Production and injection rates are the most abundant data available in any injection project. Valuable and useful information about interwell connectivity can be obtained from the analysis of these data. The information may be used to optimize subsequent oil recovery by changing injection patterns, assignment of priorities in operations, recompletion of wells, and infill drilling.
A variety of methods have been used to compare the rate performance of a producing well with that of the surrounding injectors. Heffer et al. (1997) used Spearman rank correlations to relate injector/producer pairs and associated these relations with geomechanics. Refunjol (1996), who also used Spearman analysis to determine preferential-flow trends in a reservoir, related injection wells to their adjacent producers and used time lags to find an extreme coefficient value. De Sant'Anna Pizarro (1998) validated the Spearman rank technique with numerical simulation and pointed out its advantages and limitations. Panda and Chopra (1998) used artificial neural networks to determine the interaction between injector/producer pairs. Soeriawinata and Kelkar (1999), who also used Spearman rank analysis, suggested a statistical approach to relate injection wells and their adjacent producing wells. They applied superposition to introduce concepts of constructive and destructive interference. See also the works of Araque-Martinez (1993) and Barros-Griffiths (1998).
Albertoni and Lake (2003) estimated interwell connectivity on the basis of a linear model with coefficients estimated by multiple linear regression (MLR). The linear-model coefficients, or weights, quantitatively indicate the communication between a producer and the injectors in a waterflood. Filters were adopted to account for the time lag between producer and injector.
In this work, as in Albertoni and Lake (2003), the reservoir is viewed as a system that converts an input signal (injection) into an output signal (production). However, we use a more complete model that includes capacitance (compressibility) as well as resistive (transmissibility) effects. For each injector/producer pair, two coefficients are determined; one parameter (the weight) quantifies the connectivity, and another (the time constant) quantifies the degree of fluid storage between the wells. This work shows that the new model better captures the true attenuation and time lag between injector and producer pairs.
The new procedure resolves several limitations of the previous methods and extends the applications to a wide range of real cases. It can be applied to fields in which wells are shut in frequently or for long periods of time, it allows for application to fields in which the rates have a remnant of primary production, and it has the capability to use BHP data (if available) to enhance the investigation of the well's connectivity.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||17|
Albertoni, A. 2002. Inferring Interwell Connectivity From Well-RateFluctuations in Waterfloods. MS thesis, U. of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Albertoni, A. and Lake, L.W. 2003. Inferring Interwell Connectivity OnlyFrom Well-Rate Fluctuations in Waterfloods. SPEREE 6 (1):6-16. SPE-83381-PA. DOI: 10.2118/83381-PA.
Araque-Martinez, A.N. 1993. Estimation of Autocorrelation and Its Use inSweep Efficiency Calculation. MS thesis, U. of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Barros-Griffiths, I. 1998. The Extreme Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficientin the Characterization of the North Buck Draw field. MS thesis, U. of Texas,Austin, Texas.
Belsley, D. 1991. Conditioning Diagnostics: Collinearity and Weak Data inRegression. New York City: Wiley.
Bruce, W.A. 1943. An Electrical Device for Analyzing Oil-Reservoir Behavior.Trans., AIME 151: 113-124.
Day, S., Griffin, T., and Martins, P. 1998. Redevelopment and Management of theMagnus Field for Post-Plateau Production. Paper SPE 49130 prepared forpresentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, NewOrleans, 27-30 September.DOI: 10.2118/49130-MS.
De Sant'Anna Pizarro, J.O. 1998. Estimating Injectivity and LateralAutocorrelation in Heterogeneous Media. PhD dissertation, U. of Texas, Austin,Texas.
Gentil, P. 2005. The Use of Multilinear Regression Models in PatternedWaterfloods: Physical Meaning of the Regression Coefficients. MS thesis, U. ofTexas, Austin, Texas.
Heffer, K.J., Fox, R.J., McGill, C.A., and Koutsabeloulis, N.C. 1997. Novel Techniques Show Links BetweenReservoir Flow Directionality, Earth Stress, Fault Structure, and GeomechanicalChanges in Mature Waterfloods. SPEJ 2 (2): 91-98.SPE-30711-PA. DOI: 10.2118/30711-PA.
Hocking, R. 1983. Development in Linear Regression Methodology.Technometrics 25 (3): 219-230. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1268603.
Hoerl, A. and Kennard, R. 1970a. Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation forNon-Orthogonal Problems. Technometrics 12 (1): 55-63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1267351.
Hoerl, A. and Kennard, R. 1970b. Ridge Regression: Application toNon-Orthogonal Problems. Technometrics 12 (1): 69-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1267352.
Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M., and Goggin, D.J. 2003.Statistics for Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
Marquardt, D.W. and Snee, R.D. 1975. Ridge Regression in Practice. TheAmerican Statistician 29 (1): 3-19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2683673.
Muskat, M. 1949. Physical Principles of Oil Production. New YorkCity: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Panda, M.N. and Chopra, A.K. 1998. An Integrated Approach to EstimateWell Interactions. Paper SPE 39563 presented at the SPE India Oil and GasConference and Exhibition, New Delhi, India, 17-19 February. DOI:10.2118/39563-MS.
Refunjol, B.T. 1996. Reservoir Characterization of North Buck Draw FieldBased on Tracer Response and Production/Injection Analysis. MS thesis, U. ofTexas, Austin, Texas.
Sabet, M.A. 1991. Well Test Analysis. Houston: Gulf PublishingCo.
Snee, R. 1983. Development in Linear Regression Methodology.Technometrics 25 (3): 230-237. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1268604.
Soeriawinata, T. and Kelkar, M. 1999. Reservoir Management Using ProductionData. Paper SPE 52224 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent OperationsSymposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 28-31 March. DOI: 10.2118/52224-MS.
Walsh, M.P. and Lake, L.W. 2003. A Generalized Approach to PrimaryHydrocarbon Recovery. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Yousef, A. 2005. Investigating Statistical Techniques to Infer InterwellConnectivity From Production and Injection Rate Fluctuations. PhD dissertation,U. of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Yousef, A.A., Lake, L.W., and Jensen, J.L. 2006. Analysis and Interpretation ofInterwell Connectivity from Production and Injection Rate Fluctuations Using aCapacitance Model. Paper SPE 99998 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium onImproved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-26 April. DOI: 10.2118/99998-MS.