GEOLOGICAL WELL TESTING

HAMIDREZA PHILIPPE PIERRE PATRICK MARIO COSTA 1UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, 2TOTAL, 3HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY 1E-Mail: hhamdi@ucalgary.ca Web: http://ires.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/
1 HAMDI , 2 RUELLAND , 2 BERGEY , 3 CORBETT , 1 SOUSA

BACKGROUND
The term geological well-testing, in a broader sense, can be used instead of numerical well-testing. This is referred to the numerical simulations of transient tests by setting up the detailed geological models within which different heterogeneity scales are spatially distributed in the model. The complex fluid implications can also be deliberated, which gives the unique opportunity to investigative the competing effects of the geology and fluid in altering the dynamic behaviour of the well. This process requires a geoengineering workflow (Corbett,2009) in order to integrate the multi-domain information (e.g. Geology, Geophysics and Engineering) and to constrain the well-test modeling and interpretation within a unified framework (i.e. a geological model). Meanwhile, the analytical methods are the pre-steps to numerical well-tests and are still relevant for most of the realistic petroleum reservoirs

A geoengineering approach aims at incorporation of the production data (e.g. well-test data and 4-D seismic data) into static model to validate the static model which leads towards a better reservoir model for future prediction. This process requires the ranking and the updating of heterogeneities based on their ability to revamp the output of geological model. A visual steering for geological well-testing provide a tool to visualize reservoir model and different simulation and data, and to visually update simulation model.

(B) Training Image and MPFS Modeling

Satellite Image

Training Image

Stochastic Model

(C) Multiple Facies Realizations

Pressure [psi]

1000

100

Facies realization mps.ks3 - real1 1 Facies realization mps.ks3 - real2 2 Facies realization mps.ks3 - real3 3 mps.ks3 - real4 4 Facies realization mps.ks3 - real5 5 Facies realization kessog_shifted_total_new.ks3 - Analysis 1 (ref) Real well test data
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 Time [hr] 1 10 100 1000

10 1E-5

PURPOSE
The well-test interpretation is an inverse problem with non-unique solutions. This is partly related to sparse data over large 4-D domain. However, the external information (e.g. well-log, core, production log, spatial pressure measurements and seismic data) can be employed to reduce the non-uniqueness nature of the solution. This is possible by applying geological well-testing and a geoengineering workflow rather than the classical analytical well-testing. A novel geoengineering approach is implemented to integrate the multi-domain information (e.g. outcrop, core and log data) to describe the well-test response of certain geological deposits. Comprehensive modeling and numerical simulations are then employed to study the dynamic behaviour of such systems.

(D) Facies Hybridization Matching

Facies Realization mps.ks3 - real4 4 mps.ks3 - real5 5 Facies Realization kessog_shifted_total_new.ks3 - Analysis 1 (ref) Real well test

Pressure [psi]

1000

100

10 1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1

1 Time [hr]

10

100

1000

Facies realization 5

Facies realization 4

RESULTS
An example of a geoengineering workflow is to interpret a real well-test data using sophisticated multi-point facies statistics (MPFS) approach (Hamdi et al. 2012). The MPFS approach was successfully implemented to read the key patterns from a 3-D training image and to generate the geologically realistic features in stochastic geological model.
(A) Analytical Well-Test
Real well test data kessog_shifted_total_new.ks3 - Analysis 1 (ref)
1000

The final quality match to the real test is obtained by generating multiple facies and petrophysical realisations and applying hybridization algorithm to combine different models.

METHODOLOGY
The geoengineering workflow adopted for geological welltesting assists in dynamic illumination of geological and fluid heterogeneities. This is a forward/inverse modeling approach to analyse the independent or combined effect of reservoir and fluid properties and/or validate the static model based on the well-test dynamic data. The outcrop data, experimental laboratory fluid data, seismic data, core and log date along with considerable uncertainties are integrated within a geological model to build a spatial static model.

Final hybrid model mps6a.ks3 - mps6_real1_n Real well test kessog_shifted_total_new.ks3 - Analysis 1 (ref)

K~0.03 md

K~4 md Unit slope: compartmentalized or Composite

Pressure [psi]

1000

100

10 1E-5

1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1 Time [hr]

10

100

1000

100

K~30 md
10 1E-5

Half slope: w~74 m

1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1 1 Time [hr]

10

100

1000

Corbett, P.W.M., 2009, Petroleum Geoengineering: Integration of Static and Dynamic Models, EAGE/SEG, 90 p. Hamdi, H. Ruelland, P.J., Bergey, P., 2012. Dynamic Validation of a Multi-Point Statistics Model using Extended Well Test Data, EAGE Integrated Reservoir Modelling