Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Al-Mohannadi et al. (2003, 2004) documented the use of Ding et al. (1998), proposed a method by modifying the
the conventional- and transient-well index concepts for transmissibility around the well grids to improve the flow
different grid structures and time step sequences for horizontal calculations. This approach, referred to as the corrected
wells. Their investigation used a three-dimensional, two-phase transmissibility, is applicable to off-center wells and to
flow simulator developed by Al-Mohannadi (2004). They flexible grids.
compared the simulated responses with the analytical Blanc et al. (1999) recognized that the pseudo-steady-state
pressure-transient solution for a horizontal well in a closed well index is not appropriate for simulating early transient
bounded reservoir given by Ozkan and Raghavan (1991). time behavior of well tests. To correct this problem, they
They concluded that the conventional well index should be derived a transient numerical productivity well index for
used with log-distributed grid to obtain a close match with the Cartesian grid using the following unsteady-state radial flow
analytical solution at early times. They also concluded that equation.
there was an upper limit to the well-grid coarseness for the
4π ( 0.006328 ) Δzk , (6)
conventional well index, beyond which the transient results TWI =
⎛ ro2 ⎞ ⎛ rw2 e −2 s ⎞
would loose numerical accuracy, but applying the transient Ei ⎜ − ⎟ − Ei ⎜ −
⎜ 4 × 2.637 × 10 kt ⎟
−4 ⎜ 4 × 2.637 × 10−4 kt ⎟⎟
well index in a coarse grid would yield a good match of the ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
analytical solution. In addition to the above studies, the other They also concluded that the Peaceman approach could be
pertinent references include Goktas and Ertekin (1999), Ding used as long as the following relation is fulfilled and only if
and Jeannin (2001), Archer and Yildiz (2001), Ozkan et al. the well is located at the center of a grid block surrounded by a
(1997), and Ozkan et al. (1989). minimum of 5x5 uniform nodes:
Several specific references about numerical modeling of
wells and analytical models for single and dual-lateral wells φμ ct ΔL2
deserve particular attention because of their direct relevance to t≥ , or t DL ≥ 2.6 (7)
10−4 k
this work. Peaceman (1977) conducted one of the first studies
concerning well representation in numerical models. He For early times, they also concluded that their transient
concluded that the bottomhole flowing wellbore pressure at numerical productivity index correction yielded much better
radius rw could be related to the block pressure calculated at an results than the conventional Peaceman approach.
equivalent radius ro by the following relation: An improved extension of Blanc et al (1999), is used in
this paper for application to horizontal and multilateral wells.
q To validate the accuracy of the simulated results, we compare
pwf = po − , (1)
WI them with analytical solutions. Below, we briefly present the
analytical solutions used in the comparisons.
where, WI is the conventional well index derived based on the
steady-state, radial flow assumption and given by
Analytical Models for Single- and Dual-lateral Wells
2πΔzk For single horizontal wells, we compare our numerical
WI = . (2) simulation results with the analytical solution of Ozkan-
μ ln ⎡⎣ ro (rw e− s ) ⎤⎦
Raghavan (1991) for a closed, rectangular reservoir. For dual-
Peaceman (1977) showed that for a square grid, the lateral wells, we use Ozkan et al. (1997) pressure-transient
equivalent radius is ro = 0.2Δx. For unsteady-state flow, ro can solution.
be derived from: In our comparisons, we focus on specific characteristics of
pressure-transient responses for single- and dual-lateral wells.
1/ 2 The flow regimes can be divided in two groups: infinite-acting
ro = ΔL ⎡⎣ 4t D exp ( −γ − 4π pDb ) ⎤⎦ . (3)
and boundary-dominated. Infinite-acting period is important
for estimating reservoir parameters while boundary-dominated
2π kh flow is important for productivity estimation and production
Where, pDb = ( pi − pb ) and γ = 0.5772 .
qμ forecast. Therefore, infinite-acting flow regimes are of interest
to this study.
In a later work, Peaceman (1983) extended the equivalent In a horizontal-well test, three major flow regimes may be
radius definition to a rectangular grid block given by: identified during the infinite-acting period: early-time radial,
1 intermediate-time linear, and late-time pseudoradial flow
ro = 0.14 ⎡ Δx 2 + Δy 2 ⎤ 2
. (4) (Ozkan et al., 1989, and Ozkan, 2001). Fig. 1 shows the
⎣ ⎦ fundamental characteristics of these flow regimes.
The analysis was also extended to include anisotropic For dual-lateral wells, four flow regimes may be identified
permeability: during the infinite-acting flow period (Ozkan et al., 1997).
1
These flow regimes are shown in Fig. 2 and may be grouped
(
⎢ y x ( ) ) x y ( )⎥ (
⎡ k k 1 2 Δx 2 + k k 1 2 Δ y 2 ⎤ 2
) under two categories. The first category includes the flow
ro = 0.28 ⎣ ⎦ . (5) regimes during which the laterals do not have interference
from each other. These are the early-time radial flow in the
⎢⎣ y x (
⎡ k k 14 + k k 14⎤
x y ⎥⎦ ) ( ) vertical plane, intermediate-time linear flow in the horizontal
plane, and intermediate-time pseudo-radial flow in the
horizontal plane. The second category includes the late time
SPE 104581 3
Time Steps
Logarithmic time steps were used to run the simulations. To
generate the time steps, the following algorithm was used:
tn = Δt1e(
n −1) Δτ
(11)
for n = 1, 2 ,….Nmax,
Δtn = tn − tn −1 (12)
Fig. 1 - Pressure transient flow regimes for a horizontal well.
and
1 ⎛t ⎞
Δτ = ln ⎜ max ⎟. (13)
N max − 1 ⎝ Δt1 ⎠
Well Representation
The objective of this project is to use a transient well index for
horizontal laterals. The flow rate from a well is defined as
I well max
qtn = ∑ i =1
q in, +j ,k1 −
5.6146C
Δt / 24
(
pwell ni , +j ,1k − pwell ni , j ,k (14) )
where, q in, +j ,k1 is the flow rate at the sand face defined by
(
q in, +j ,k1 = WI in, j ,k p in, +j ,k1 − pwell ni , +j ,1k , ) (15)
Fig. 2 - Pressure transient flow regimes for dual-lateral wells and C is the wellbore storage coefficient. Thus,
⎧ I well max n ⎫
Numerical Model to Simulate Pressure-Transient
Response of Multilateral Wells
⎪
⎪ i =1 ∑ (
WI i , j ,k p in, +j ,k1 − pwell ni , +j ,1k )⎪⎪
qt = ⎨
n
⎬ , (16)
The numerical simulator used in this paper is a modification of
the single-phase simulator developed in Al-Mohannadi (2004).
⎪ 5.6146C n +1
(
⎪− Δt / 24 pwell i , j ,k − pwell i , j ,k
⎩
n
) ⎪
⎪
⎭
Modifications include dual-lateral well representation,
improved transient well-block radius calculation, and transient and
transmissibility for the well blocks. Cartesian grid system is
used for all simulations. n +1 n +1 ⎢
(
⎡ Di , j , k − Di +1, j ,k )⎤⎥
pwell = p + γ n
i + 2 , j ,k ⎢
1 . (17)
i , j ,k welli +1, j ,k
− HFi n+ 1 , j ,k ⎥
Finite-Difference Formulation ⎣ 2 ⎦
The single-phase, mass-balance equation for fluid flow in
porous media is given, in Cartesian coordinates, by In Eq. (17), HF is the friction head given by
2
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ Δxi + 1 , j ,k vwellt
− ( ρ vx ) −
∂x ∂y
( )
ρ v y − ( ρ vz ) − ρ qˆ = ( ρφ ) . (8)
∂z ∂t HFi n+ 1 , j ,k = fi n+ 1 , j ,k
2 i + 1 , j ,k
2
, (18)
2 2 2d pipe g
Where, vx, vy, and vz are the x, y, and z-components of Darcy
where,
velocity given by
4 SPE 104581
⎛ n ⎞ (Ozkan et al., 1989 and Clonts and Ramey, 1986) and is given
n
⎜ qwellti+1, j ,k Bi +1, j ,k ⎟ by
vwellt =⎜ ⎟ / 86400 , (19)
i + 1 , j ,k
2 ⎜⎜ π 2 ⎟⎟ ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
d
⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪
qB μ ⎪ ⎢ ro2 ⎥⎪
Δp = − ⎨ Ei ⎢ − ⎬
64 4π (0.006328) Lh k y k z ⎪ ⎢ ⎛ 2.637 × 10−4 k z ⎞ ⎥⎥ ⎪
fi n+ 1 , j ,k = , for N RE ≤ 2000 (20)
2 n
N REi ⎪ ⎢ 4 ⎜⎜ φ ct μ
t⎟ ⎪
⎟⎥
+ 12 , j , k ⎩ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎭
(28)
0.06157 ρin+ 1 , j , k ⎛ q n B n ⎞
In order to use this equation in the numerical model, it should
n
N REi = 2 ⎜ t ⎟, (21)
+ 12 , j , k
5.6146rw ⎜ μ ⎟ be adapted to the grid system used. This is done by replacing
⎝ i +1, j , k ⎠
Lh by the length of the well-grid Δxi. Using the Newton
Raphson method, we solve for ro as follows:
ρ ( p ) = ρb ⎡⎣1 + c ( p − pb ) ⎤⎦ , (22)
f (roi )
roi+1 = roi − , (29)
ρ f ′(roi )
γ= , (23)
144 where
And qt in stb/d in Eq. (21). ⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪
For horizontal wells, the steady-state well index is qB μ ⎪ ⎢ ro2i ⎥⎪
f (roi ) = − ⎨ Ei ⎢ − ⎥ ⎬ − Δp
expressed as 4π (0.006328)Δx k y k z ⎪ ⎢ ⎛ 2.637 × 10−4 k z ⎞ ⎥⎪
⎛ k ⎞ Δxi , j ,k
n
⎪ ⎢ 4 ⎜⎜ φ ct μ
t⎟ ⎪
⎟⎥
WI in, j , k = 2π ( 0.006328 ) ⎜ ⎟ ⎩ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎭
⎝ μβ ⎠i , j ,k ⎡⎛ ⎛ r ⎞ 2 ⎞ r ⎤ (30)
⎢⎜1 − ⎜ w ⎟ ⎟ ln o + s ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎝ ro ⎠ ⎟ rw ⎥ In Eq. (29), roi+1 and roi are the new and old estimates of the
⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦
(24) equivalent well-block radius and Δp = poi - po, where poi is the
and the transient well index is expressed as initial pressure and po is the pressure in the well-block.
The time-dependent well-block radius calculated by this
Δxi , j , k
n
⎛ k ⎞ approach is applicable for (Blanc et al, 1999):
TWI in, j ,k = 4π ( 0.006328 ) ⎜ ⎟
⎝ μβ ⎠i , j , k ⎧ ⎛ φ ct μ ro2 ⎞ ⎫
⎪ Ei ⎜⎜ − ⎟ ⎪ φ ct μ ⎧⎪ ( L 2 )2 z 2 ( z − h )2 ⎫⎪
⎪ ⎝ 4 × 2.634 × 10 k z t ⎟⎠ ⎪
−4
t≤
h w
min ⎨ ; w ; ⎬ (31)
⎪ ⎪ 10−4 ⎪⎩ k 5 k 5 kz ⎪
⎭
⎨ ⎛
( ) ⎞⎬
2 x z
−s
⎪ ⎜ φ c t μ r w e ⎟⎪
⎪− Ei ⎜ − −4 ⎟⎪ In Eq.(31), zw is the elevation of the horizontal well from the
⎪ ⎜ 4 × 2.634 × 10 k z t ⎟⎪
⎩ ⎝ ⎠⎭ bottom boundary of the formation (well eccentricity), and h is
(25) the formation thickness. After this time, ro becomes constant
given by Eq. (27).
where
k = k y kz . (26) Modifications for Dual-Lateral Wells
To simulate transient pressure responses of a dual-lateral well,
Eq. (25) is used in this paper to calculate the transient well two horizontal wells are introduced in the system. The
index with an equivalent well-block radius ro(t) that varies as a simplest approach to model dual-laterals in a Cartesian grid
function of time. This time-dependent equivalent well-block system is to place one of the laterals along the length of the
radius, ro(t), is different from the common steady-state flow grids and the other lateral along the diagonal of the grids as
definition of ro given by shown in Fig. 3.
The numerical representation of the lateral along a grid
⎛ Δy Δz ⎞ −0.5 axis is the same as the single-horizontal well case discussed
ro = ⎜ ⎟e . (27)
⎝ π ⎠ above. However, for the lateral in the diagonal direction, it is
necessary to make adjustments to the well index, friction head,
We explain the time-dependent well-block radius below. and equivalent well-block radius. For a single horizontal well,
these parameters are calculated based on the distance between
Calculation of the Transient Well Block Radius each perforation (Δx). If the well is in a diagonal direction, the
The equation used to calculate the well-block radius is distance between perforations is Δl given by
obtained by considering radial flow around the axis of
horizontal well in the vertical plane. This equation is the same Δl = Δx 2 + Δy 2 . (32)
as the exponential integral solution for early-time radial flow
SPE 104581 5
Δxi , j ,k Δyi , j ,k
n
⎛ k ⎞
Tzn = 0.006328 ⎜ z ⎟ (37)
iwell , jwell ,kwell + 1
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i , j ,k + 12 Δzi , j ,k + 12 − ro ( t )
L h2
?l
Lo
?x
Lh1
Fig. 3 - Dual-lateral wells in Cartesian grid system The transmissibility modification significantly influences
the variation of the well-block radius, ro(t). Fig. 5 shows the
Thus, for the lateral in the diagonal direction, Δx is replaced behavior of the well-block radius, ro(t), which includes the
by Δl. In addition, the horizontal permeability normal to the effect of the transmissibility modification compared with the
well axis, ky, is replaced by k ŷ , given by well-block radius used in the original model (Al-Mohannadi,
2004) (denoted by ro(t) original in the figure). Both well-block
k yˆ = kwi = k y cos 2 θi + k x sin 2 θi . (33) radii are calculated with the Newthon-Rapshon method
explained earlier. When the well-block radius increases with
time, the distance between adjacent grids used in the
Transmissibility Modification for Grids with Perforations transmissibility terms decreases (Fig. 4). This causes an
Transmissibility terms for the grids with perforations should increase in the transmissibility values. Also shown in Fig. 5 is
be calculated accordingly with the well-grid conditions. the behavior of roT(t) used in the transmissibility terms.
Transmissibility terms [Eqs. (A9) through (A14) in the 1.E+02 ro(t) roT(t)
Appendix] are calculated between the mid-points of adjacent ro(t) Original Derivative
the end of the early-time flow period. Fig. 6 also shows the modification. This case was run using the grid and well
comparison between the steady-state well index (WI) and the structure described in Table 2. Fig. 7 shows the pressure drop
transient well index (TWI) using the well-block radius, ro(t). and its derivative for Case A1. Also shown, for reference, in
Note that the two well indices become close at the end of the Fig. 7 is the pressure response using the conventional, steady-
early-time flow period. In the following sections, it can be state well index denoted by NPI. Fig. 7 indicates that the use
seen that the transmissibility modification improves the match of both transient well indices yields better results than the
with the analytical solution at early times for both single- and conventional well index. Between the two transient well
dual-lateral wells. indices, the one with the transmissibility modification
improves the match with the analytical solution.
Dual-Lateral Cases
In this section, the transmissibility modification approach is
tested for dual-lateral wells. In addition, the new approach
proposed in this paper to represent dual-laterals in Cartesian
grid is validated. For the cases presented in this section, the
dual-lateral wells are placed with a 45º angle in the same
horizontal plane. Next section, explores the extension of this
Fig. 8 - Effect of permeability on the pressure-transient response approach to arbitrary phasing of the laterals.
of a horizontal well (Case A2)
all cases for dual-lateral wells. Table 5 shows the data for the uniform skin, laterals with different length, and formation
laterals and reservoir simulated in this case. These data with damage.
Set 1 permeabilities are also used as the base case for the other
simulated dual-lateral well cases in this section.
Skin
In this section, the effect of skin factor on dual-lateral well
responses is discussed. The cases run include uniform and
equal skin for each lateral, uniform but different skin for each
lateral, and non-uniform skin along each lateral. Semi-log
analysis is also demonstrated to validate the results obtained.
The data used to run these cases are shown in Table 5 and
the skin values are shown in Table 9. Fig. 15 shows the
simulated pressure-transient responses for dual-lateral wells
with uniform and equal skin for each lateral. As expected, the
o
Fig. 13 - Pressure responses for dual-lateral wells with 60 angle pressure drop is higher than the undamaged well case and the
in rectangular grids simulated responses yield a good match with the analytical
model.
Laterals Placed in Different Layers It must be noted that the skin effect is modeled differently
In this case, a square grid with five layers is used as shown in the analytical and numerical models considered here. The
in Table 8. The laterals are placed in the top and bottom analytical model uses a skin value which is scaled with the
layers. The well location, zw is incorporated into the simulator ratio of the horizontal well length to the formation thickness.
with the following equation: Also, for anisotropic formations, the scaling includes the ratio
of directional permeabilities. The input skin values used to
Δz
zw = ( h − Δz × k well ) + , (38) compute the analytical and numerical results shown in Fig. 15
2 are related by the following expression:
and is also used in Eq. (31) to calculate the end of the early
kx k y kz h
time radial flow. In Eq. Error! Reference source not found., s( analytical ) = s( numerical ) . (39)
kwell is the layer number where the lateral is placed. Fig.14 k y k z Lh
shows that the pressure-transient responses for this case match
the analytical model very well.
10 SPE 104581
TABLE 9 - THE RESULTS OF THE SEMI-LOG ANALYSIS FOR solution used in this study does not include the option for non-
SKIN ESTIMATES
uniform skin distribution.
Numerical Input Semi-log Analytical Input Semi-log
Δpw 3.7703 Δpw 11.19088604
t 1.43E-04 t 3.50E-02
S1=1, S2=1 8.63E-01 S1=0.22, S2=0.21 1.01E+00
mer 2.922776 mer 2.942913
keff 7.206281156 keff 7.156971315
Eq. (40) is the skin equation for a vertical well with keff Different skin
Different skin
per well Semi-log Semi-log
calculated from the slope of the early-time semi-log straight per perf.
line for a dual-lateral well. Eq. (40) assumes that each Δpw 6.0107 Δpw 8.8073
perforation is a small vertical well in a slab of thickness ∆x, t 1.43E-04 t 1.43E-04
which is the grid size along the horizontal well axis. The skin Skin S1=1 S2=5 1.54E+00 Diff. Skin per perf 2.83E+00
factors calculated for the numerical and analytical pressure mer 2.922776 mer 2.942913
responses are shown in Table 9. The agreement between the keff 6.394832969 keff 7.158351609
input and calculated values are in reasonable agreement for the
simulated responses. It is possible to run an additional case using the skin value
Fig. 17 shows the results for cases in two categories: The calculated with the semi-log analysis as a uniform skin value
first category is for uniform but different skin values (1 and 5) to check if the semi-log estimated values may be interpreted as
in each lateral. The other category considers non-uniform (U- an average skin for the system. Figure 19 shows that for non-
shape) distributions of skin factor along each lateral as shown uniform skin along each lateral, the skin calculated from the
in Table 10. The results for the non-uniform skin case are not semi-log analysis is close to an average skin for the system.
compared with the analytical solution because the analytical On the other hand, for uniform but different skin values for
SPE 104581 11
each lateral, the skin calculated with semi-log analysis and consider different permeability ratios for the layers including
used as uniform skin for the system does not match the the laterals. In the first case, the layers with the laterals have a
pressure drop in the original case. Therefore, this value cannot smaller permeability contrast than the second case (Table 12).
be interpreted as an average value for the system.
Greek Symbols
εD relative roughness of the well surface.
Figure 21 - Pressure-transient responses of dual-lateral wells in a γ density gradient, psi/ft.
layered reservoir φ porosity, fraction.
μ viscosity, cp.
Conclusions ρ density, lbm/ cf.
A numerical well model has been developed to accurately Δl diagonal horizontal length, ft.
simulate the pressure transient behavior of single- and dual-
Δx gridblock dimension in x-direction, ft.
lateral wells. The model equations can be easily implemented
in conventional simulators. The main conclusions are:
Δy gridblock dimension in y-direction, ft.
• The numerical well model is practical and produces
Δz gridblock dimension in z-direction, ft.
accurate pressure-transient responses of single- and Δt time step, hr.
dual-lateral wells without the need for grid
refinement around the well. Subscripts
D dimensionless.
• The representation of dual-lateral wells proposed in
eq equivalent.
this study is simple for easy implementation in
i x-direction.
different simulators for different applications.
j y-direction.
• The combination of analytical and numerical models
k z-direction.
used to calculate the well-block radius can be used as
n old time.
the foundation for more complex situations, such as
n+1 current time.
detailed well completions, and multilaterals with
t total.
branches.
x x-direction.
• The transmissibility modification presented in this y y-direction.
paper improves both the simulation of early-time z z –direction
pressure-transient responses, and the calculation of
the flow convergence around the well..
SPE 104581 13
( )
Middle East Oil Show in Bahrain, November 16-19, 1991. ⎡ p n +1 − p n +1 ⎤
Besson, J.: “Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an ⎢ i+1, j ,k ⎥
Δ xTx ( Δ x p − γΔ x D ) = Tx
i , j ,k
Anisotropic Medium,” Paper SPE 20965 presented at ⎢ ⎥
EUROPEC 90, The Hague, Netherlands, October 22-24, 1990.
i + 1 , j ,k
2
(
⎢⎣ −γ Di +1, j ,k − Di , j ,k ) ⎥⎦
Blanc, G., Ding, D.Y., Ene, A., Estebenet, T. and Rahon, D.:
“Transient Productivity Index for Numerical Well Test
Simulations,” in R. Schatzinger and J. Jordan, eds., Reservoir −Tx
(
⎡ p n +1 − p n +1
⎢ i , j ,k )
i −1, j ,k
⎤
⎥
⎢ ⎥
Characterization-Recent Advances, AAPG Memoir 71, 1999, p
163.
i − 1 , j ,k
2
⎣⎢ (
−γ Di , j , k − Di −1, j ,k ) ⎦⎥
Clonts, M. D. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: “Pressure Transient Analysis for (A2)
Wells with Horizontal Drainholes,” Paper SPE 15116 presented
at the 56th California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA, April 2-
4, 1986.
( )
Δ yTy Δ y p − γΔ y D = Ty
(
⎡ p n +1 − p n +1
⎢ i , j +1,k )
i , j ,k
⎤
⎥
Ding, Y. and Renard, G.: “A New Representation of Wells in ⎢ ⎥
Numerical Reservoir Simulation,” SPE Reservoir Engineering,
i , j + 1 ,k
2
⎣⎢ (
−γ Di , j +1,k − Di , j ,k ) ⎦⎥
May 1994, p 140.
Ding, Y., Renard, G., and Weill, L.: “Representation of Wells in
Numerical Reservoir Simulation,” Paper SPE 29123 presented −Ty
(
⎡ p n +1 − p n +1
⎢ i , j ,k )
i , j −1,k
⎤
⎥
⎢ ⎥
at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held in San
Antonio, February 12-15, 1998.
i , j − 1 ,k
2
⎣⎢ (
−γ Di , j , k − Di , j −1,k ) ⎦⎥
Ding, Y. and Jeannin, L.: “New Numerical Schemes for the Near- (A3)
Well Modelling with Discretization Around the Wellbore
Boundary Using Flexible Grids,” Paper SPE 66360 presented at
the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium in Houston, TX,
Δ z Tz ( Δ z p − γΔ z D ) = Tz
(
⎡ p n +1 − p n +1
⎢ i , j ,k +1 )
i , j ,k
⎤
⎥
⎢ ⎥
February 11-14, 2001.
Goktas, B. and Ertekin, T.: “Implementation of a Local Grid
i , j ,k + 1
2
⎣⎢ (
−γ Di , j ,k +1 − Di , j , k ) ⎦⎥
( )
Refinement Technique in Modeling Slanted, Undulating
Horizontal and Multi-Lateral Wells,” Paper SPE 56624
⎡ p n +1 − p n +1 ⎤
−Ty ⎢ i , j ,k i , j ,k −1 ⎥
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and ⎢ ⎥
Exhibition in Houston, Texas, Octuber 3-6 1999.
i , j ,k − 1
2
⎣⎢ (
−γ Di , j ,k − Di , j ,k −1 ) ⎦⎥
Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Joshi, S. D.: “Horizontal Well Pressure
Analysis,” SPE Formation Evaluation December, 1989, p567. (A4)
Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: “New Solutions for Well-Test-Analysis The right hand side is defined as:
Problems: Part 2 - Computational Considerations and
Applications,” SPE Formation Evaluation September 1991, p
369.
Ozkan, E., Yildiz, T., and Kuchuk, F. J.: “Transient Pressure
Behavior of Dual-lateral Wells,” Paper SPE 38670 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in San
Antonio, TX, October 5-8, 1997
14 SPE 104581
⎡ n⎛ Δb⎞ ⎤ ⎛ k ⎞
n
Δxi , j ,k Δyi , j ,k
⎢φ ⎜ t ⎟ ⎥ Li , j , k = Tzn = 0.006328 ⎜ z ⎟
⎢ ⎜⎝ Δ t p ⎟⎠ ⎥ i , j ,k + 1
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i , j ,k + 12 Δzi , j ,k + 12
Δ t (φ b) = φ n Δ t b + b n +1Δ tφ = ⎢ ⎥ Δ t pi , j ,k
⎢ n +1 ⎛ Δt φ ⎞ ⎥ (A14)
⎢ +b ⎜⎜ Δ p ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ t ⎠ ⎥⎦ i, j ,k
{
Ei , j ,k = − Ai , j ,k + Bi , j , k + Di , j , k + Fi , j , k + H i , j , k + Li , j , k + WI in, j , k
(
φ bct Δ t pi , j , k φ bct p in, +j ,k1 − p in, j ,k ) +24
VRi , j , k ⎡ n ⎛ Δ t b ⎞ n +1 ⎛ Δ tφ ⎞ ⎤
⎢φ ⎜ ⎟ +b ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎫
⎪
⎬
(A5) Δt ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ Δt p ⎟⎠ ⎜ Δt p ⎟ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎦ i , j , k ⎪⎭
And the rock volume is: (A15)
VR i , j ,k = Δx i , j ,k Δy i , j ,k Δz i , j ,k (A6) And the right hand side is given by:
where WI is the well index and has two expressions for steady-
state and transient period. The corresponding equations are
⎡Txn γ n 1 (
D
⎢ i+ 12 , j ,k i + 2 , j , k i +1, j , k
− Di , j ,k ) ⎤
⎥
given in the well representation section. +⎢ ⎥
Eq. (A1) can be rearranged in terms of transmissibility ⎣ 2
(
⎢ −Txi− 1 , j ,k γ i − 12 , j ,k Di , j ,k − Di −1, j , k
n n
) ⎥
⎦
coefficients and pressure, known as the node pressure
equation: ⎡Tyn γn 1 D (
⎢ i , j+ 12 ,k i , j + 2 ,k i , j +1,k
− Di , j ,k ) ⎤
⎥
+⎢ ⎥
Ai , j ,k pin, +j ,1k −1 + Bi , j ,k pin, +j −11, k + Di , j , k pin−+1,1 j , k
⎣
n n
(
⎢ −Tyi , j − 1 ,k γ i , j − 12 , k Di , j ,k − Di , j −1, k ) ⎥
⎦
+ Ei , j ,k pin, +j ,1k
2
n
⎛ ky ⎞ Δxi , j ,k Δzi , j , k
Bi , j ,k = Tyn = 0.006328 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
i , j − 1 ,k
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i , j − 12 ,k Δyi , j − 12 ,k
(A10)
⎛ k ⎞ Δyi , j ,k Δzi , j , k
Di , j ,k = Txn 1 = 0.006328 ⎜ x ⎟
i − , j ,k
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i − 12 , j , k Δxi − 12 , j , k
(A11)
Δyi , j ,k Δzi , j , k
n
⎛ k ⎞
Fi , j ,k = Txn 1 = 0.006328 ⎜ x ⎟
i + , j ,k
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i + 12 , j ,k Δxi + 12 , j ,k
(A12)
n
⎛ ky ⎞ Δxi , j ,k Δzi , j , k
H i , j ,k = Tyn = 0.006328 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
i , j + 1 ,k
2 ⎝ μ B ⎠i , j + 12 , k Δyi , j + 12 , k
(A13)