Impulse, Perforation, And Closed Chamber Testing: Simple, Quick, Cost-Effective Snapshots of Reservoir Inflow Characteristics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Impulse tests, Perforation Inflow Diagnostic (PID) tests and Closed Chamber tests are all similar in methodology. By whatever name, they provide simple, quick, cost-effective snapshots of maximum reservoir inflow characteristics. In a matter of minutes a field Engineer can provide estimates of the maximum AOF or IPR capability, the skin effect and flow capacity of a zone. Liquid influx can also be quantified. Applications include pre-frac reservoir assessments, multiple-layer perforation inflow distribution diagnostics (PIDD), establishing initial reservoir pressures, evaluating moveable gas in shaley zones or very low permeability horizons (reserves additions), flowing or pumping oil well tests, closed chamber drillstem tests (CCDST), and surface casing vent tests. With some conventional flow &buildup tests and production history as background, PID response can be correlated to stabilized gas rates for instantaneous tie-in or frac decisions, a benefit to expedient shallow gas exploitation. For all of these tests, data has been recorded in realtime at surface. Rigorous testing utilizes modern electronic surface data acquisition equipment and various software. A proprietary hardware &software system is also available. In it's simplest, most cost-effective and exploitive form, measurements with a hand-held pressure gauge are known to be 'good enough'. Analytical theory for these tests is well documented. While the tests have been around for some time, the techniques are under-utilized in Western Canada. Introduction The primary purpose of this paper is to illustrate various applications and usefulness of impulse testing with working field examples. Over the past several years the authors have experienced growth in the number of requests for these tests and success in their application in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin gas fields. Surging interest in impulse testing is due to technological advancements, present-day economics, modern business interests and changing strategies where exploitation has become a new Petroleum Engineering discipline. Impulse testing has been around for some time and analytical theory is well documented. A comprehensive analytical process, however, does not presently exist. Hence, a secondary purpose of this paper is to bring together the various test types and references to illustrate the practicality of developing impulse analysis software. Better analytical tools are required to fully appreciate and maximize benefits of these quick, simple cost-effective techniques. EXPANDING APPLICATIONS Over the past several years impulse testing applications have been expanding, concurrent with ever increasing gas development and primarily for by-passed pay evaluation. Technological advancements with electronic surface data acquisition equipment (surface pressure recorders) has made impulse testing more practical. Surface recorders are now becoming commonplace tools for companies to access. Advanced completion strategies and underbalanced perforating technology means that accurate and viable impulse data can be collected at surface. Introduction of coiled tubing frac's has allowed companies to specifically target very thin low permeability streaks where an impulse test may provide the only feasible pre-frac assessment tool. Lower and lower stabilized flow rates are a reality of present-day and future economics. As well, ultimate recoverable reserves are more important then ever to a companies net present value. Hence, companies are pursuing by-passed pay in very low permeability horizons.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».