When Does a Longer Shut-in Lead to a Larger Radius of Investigation?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
When Does a Longer Shut-in Lead to a Larger Radius of Investigation? Steve David Ewens; Steve David Ewens Fekete Associates Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Mehran Pooladi-Darvish Mehran Pooladi-Darvish U. of Calgary Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, September 2006. Paper Number: SPE-103608-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/103608-MS Published: September 24 2006 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Ewens, Steve David, and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish. "When Does a Longer Shut-in Lead to a Larger Radius of Investigation?." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, September 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/103608-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractWhile the concept of radius of investigation is better understood for drawdown tests, its applicability to buildup tests is less certain. For example, a rule of thumb is that "one cannot see a particular feature in a buildup unless the radius of investigation during the preceding flow period has seen that feature". In this paper, we clearly illustrate that the radius of investigation of a buildup can be larger than that of its previous flow period.Another common contention is that the radius of investigation of a buildup is limited by noise dominating the late time pressure behavior. Oliver1 and later Thompson and Reynolds2 defined the radius of investigation based on the distance from the well to the region of the reservoir which has the greatest impact on the pressure derivative. We have used this approach to calculate the derivative and show that the ratio of noise to the signal from the reservoir does not necessarily increase. We show that when data is sampled appropriately, the radius of investigation of a buildup can easily go beyond that of the preceding flow period, and clearly demonstrate when this may remain unaffected by noise.IntroductionRadius of Investigation is a well known, albeit poorly defined concept in pressure transient analysis. A pressure transient is created when a disturbance such as a change in rate occurs at a well. As time progresses, pressure transients advance further and further into the reservoir. The practical concept of radius of investigation does not address the particular behavior of the linear diffusivity equation which indicates an infinitesimal change in pressure everywhere in the reservoir, following a disturbance at the wellbore. The purpose of radius of investigation is to quantify the distance that a significant pressure change has advanced into the reservoir at any specified time. It is often defined as the furthest distance from the wellbore where there is a significant change in pressure due to a change in rate at the wellbore. The term significant is open to a wide range of interpretations and, as a result, there exists a variety of approaches to quantifying the radius of investigation (many have been summarized in Refs. 3 and 4).An alternate definition has been proposed1,2 and is based on the idea that the radius of investigation is the distance from the well to the region of the reservoir which has the greatest impact on the pressure data being measured at the wellbore. The pressure derivative plot is used to identify the dominant flow regimes during a test period. Therefore, the region of investigation can be defined as the portion of the reservoir which influences the pressure-derivative the most. Oliver1 derived a novel relationship between the permeability estimated from the pressure-derivative analysis and the region of the reservoir that affects the permeability estimate. Later on, Thompson and Reynolds2 presented a similar relationship between the magnitude of the pressure derivative and the permeability distribution within the reservoir. They showed that for a cylindrical reservoir with a single-phase slightly compressible fluid, the permeability estimate from a pressure-derivative plot is a harmonic average of the radial permeability distribution with a particular spatial weighting function. The weighting function represents that region of the reservoir where the flow rate is changing the fastest with respect to the natural-log of time. When a well is opened to flow, a pressure transient is created and this transient propagates throughout the reservoir, leading to pressure changes away from the wellbore. These pressure changes affect the fluid inflow, which in turn affects the measured pressure. It is this dependency between the measured pressures in the wellbore and the flow within the reservoir that allows the use of well testing for reservoir characterization.The advantages of the definition given in Refs. 1 and 2 are twofold. The criterion used to determine what is significant is that a feature at a distance from the wellbore must be observable on the pressure derivative plot. The second advantage is that it illustrates the region of the reservoir which influences the pressure derivative, i.e. the region of investigation. Keywords: pressure transient testing, buildup test, logarithmically, noise, Upstream Oil & Gas, drawdown transient, investigation, derivative, signal ratio, reservoir Subjects: Formation Evaluation & Management, Pressure transient analysis, Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2006. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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) | 0,000 | 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 ».