The Value of Well Testing and Pressure Monitoring in Injection Site Characterization
A. Shchipanov, L. Kollbotn, R. BerenblyumInternational Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS)Contact: [email protected]
CO2GeoNet Open Forum, 24-25 April 2018, San Servolo Island, VenicePre-Open Forum workshop organised by ENOS, 23 April 2018:
Experience-sharing focus groups: Advanced techniques for site characterisation
Outline
› Introduction
› What is well testing and Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)?
› Testing wells to characterize injection site
› Well test designs
› Radius of investigation
› Interpretation of injection and fall-off responses
› An example of pressure monitoring helping in characterizing site boundaries
› CO2 injection at Tubåen formation of Snøhvit field
› Time-lapse injection and fall-off pressure responses
› Lessons learned from Snøhvit
› Acknowledgements
What is well testing and Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)?
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[psi
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Pressure Derivative
Build-up Build-up
2600
3100
3600
4100
4600
Pre
ssu
re [p
si]
Gauge
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Rat
e [S
TB/D
]
Time [hr]
Production
2600
3100
3600
4100
4600
Pre
ssu
re [p
si]
Gauge
Model
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Rat
e [S
TB/D
]
Time [hr]
Production
Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)
Well• Storage• Skin factor• Induced fracture(s) properties• Effective length (horizontal)
Reservoir• Flow capacity / permeability
(directional for horizontal well)• Areal heterogeneity• Dual porosity / permeability
Boundaries• Faults• Aquifer• Well interference
Parameters estimated from PTA
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[psi
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Pressure Derivative
Build-up Build-up
Model Model
Typical well test (an example from Kappa Eng.):Production and following pressure build-up
PTA is history matching of well test including pressure derivative
Pressure build-up and its derivative in log-log
Effective well length
Reservoir flow capacity
Wellbore storage
Well shut-in = pressure build-up
Testing wells to characterize injection site
A synthetic model of injection site (a fault block)
An aquifer fault-block (U-shape) confined by three faults (no-flow boundaries): West, North and South from the well
Pressure[bar]
N
Sealing fault =
no-flow boundary
Open for flow boundaryWell
280
330
380
430
Pre
ssu
re [
bar
]
1
10
100
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800
Rat
e [S
TM3
/D]
Time [hr]
1
10
100
Well test designs: from best to more feasible
› ‘100’ (day): Long injection
› 0.4% PV (of the model) injected, may be followed by fall-off, but not necessary
› All boundaries* covered during injection
› ’10’ (day): Shorter injection – Long fall-off
› 0.04% PV injected with long fall-off (100 day)
› All boundaries may be captured during injection, fall-off serves for confirmation
› ‘1’ (day): Short injection – Long fall-off
› 0.004% PV injected with long fall-off (100 day)
› Very small volume injected short-term
› No boundaries detected from injection, all boundaries covered by fall-off
*All boundaries = 3 boundaries in this U-shape example
Shorter injection
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Pre
ssu
re [
bar
]
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Rat
e [S
TM3
/D]
Time [hr]
Pressure
Derivative
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
1, 2, 4, 8…
Design ‘1’: Radius of investigation and flow regimes
1st day:end of
injection
2nd day
4th day
8th day: and similar
picture afterwards
Long pressure fall-off (100 day)
Short-terminjection (1 day)
Fall-off response: Pressure and derivativePressure evolution in U-shape reservoir
during well test. Pressure exceeding 302 bar is colored in red to highlight pressure
evolution deeper into reservoir
Interpretation of injection and fall-off responses
Pressure
Derivative
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
1 (injection) 1 (fall-off)10 (injection) 10 (fall-off)100 (injection) 100 (fall-off)Boundary 1, 2, 4, 8 day
Injection
› Boundary dominated flow regime started after ~40 hr
› Reliable boundary indication after additional ~40 hr
Fall-off
› Beginning of boundary dominated regime depends on injection duration prior to fall-off
› 100 day: after ~80 hr
› 10: ~120 hr
› 1: ~170 hr
› Reliable boundary indication after additional ~40 hr
› Flow barriers are most quickly captured from injection pressure interpretation(quick boundary indication = minimum test duration)
› If volume to be injected is limited, fall-off is an alternative (but longer test)
› Permanent Downhole Gauges (measuring P&T) must be installed
› A well test before the main injection phase may consist of a short water production or injection followed by long shut-in (to disclose distant flow barriers)
› Such a test gives information about critical geological features › Results may work as showstopper for the project!
› Using CO2 for injection test leads to larger uncertainty with interpretation
› PTA of pressure dynamics during the main injection phase improves site characterization
Testing wells to characterize injection site
An example of pressure monitoring helping in characterizing site boundaries
CO2 injection at Tubåen formation of Snøhvit field
Difference amplitude map between baseline and monitor at base of the reservoir [from Hansen et al., 2011]
Depth map of top Fuglen formation (left) and geological cross-section N-S through the reservoir sections at Snøhvit (right) [from Hansen et al., 2013]
History of CO2 injection at Tubåen formation
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Pre
ssu
re [
bar
]
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
Rat
e [S
TM3
/D]
Time [hr]
Salt precipitation followed by treatment
History periodin focus
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Pre
ssu
re [
bar
]
Gauge
Model (Fall-offs)
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
Rat
e [S
TM3
/D]
Time [hr]
Time-lapse fall-off pressure transients
0.1
1
10
100
10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Pressure DerivativeFall-off 1 Fall-off 1Fall-off 2 Fall-off 2Fall-off 3 Fall-off 3Fall-off 4 Fall-off 4
Referencefall-off
Fall-off responses / derivatives
› All faults may be captured by the shortest fall-off (10 days fall-off is already enough)
› Follow exactly the same trend indicating no changes in sealing capacity of the faults
FO 1 FO 2 FO 3 FO 4
2-year history of CO2 injection at Snøhvitmay be reproduced with analytical models matched by PTA
Four pressure fall-off responses caused by well shut-ins
All fall-offs indicate U-shape reservoir
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Pre
ssu
re [
bar
]
Gauge
Model (Injection 1)
Model (Injection 3)
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
Rat
e [S
TM3
/D]
Time [hr]
0.1
1
10
100
10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Pressure DerivativeFall-off 1 Fall-off 1Injection 1 Injection 1Injection 2 Injection 2Injection 3 Injection 3
Time-lapse injection pressure transients
Referenceinjection
INJ 1 INJ 2 INJ 3
Injection responses / derivatives
› Rate fluctuations cause noisy pressure transients
› Spread of transients is observed even after smoothing, but they approach the same trend as fall-offs
The overall pressure build-up may be predicted with ~10% error based on the models matched to noisy injection data
Three injection pressure responses and longest fall-off response
› PTA of real-time pressure measurements (PDG) or continuous ‘well test’ is the most efficient tool to characterize and monitor site boundary conditions
› PTA of PDG data (analytical models)
› Uses gauge data available for the most of modern wells
› Fast and cheap: minimum time, computations and data input
› Efficient in characterizing large geological domains: pressure diffuses mainly in low-compressible saline aquifer, even after CO2 plume appearance
› Site monitoring
› The above advantages makes time-lapse PTA of PDG data a perfect tool for site monitoring, e.g. CO2 reservoir containment
Lessons learned from Snøhvit
Acknowledgements
A part of this presentation was prepared and presented at 2015 AnnualEAGE conference (paper published at EarthDoc*)The authors acknowledge Statoil Petroleum AS and the Snøhvit licensepartners for providing access to the Snøhvit data presented at the EAGEconference
*Shchipanov A., Kollbotn L., Berenblyum R. Pressure Transient Analysis in CO2 StorageProjects - From Reservoir Characterization to Injection Performance Forecast // 77th EAGEConference & Exhibition. IFEMA Madrid, Spain, 1-4 June 2015
Thank you for your attention!
Contact: [email protected]
Derivative
Pressure
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Reference
Total Compressibility (x2)
Closer Barrier (West 1/2)
Sensitivity to flow barriers and compressibility
Sensitivity to distance to West fault and total compressibility (U-Shape case)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pre
ssu
re a
nd
Der
ivat
ive
[bar
]
Elapsed Time [hr]
Pressure Derivative1: Single 1: Single2: Parallel 2: Parallel3: U-Shape 3: U-Shape4: Chamber 4: Chamber
Sensitivity of fall-off response to number of sealing faults (no-flow boundaries)
1: Single 2: Parallel 3: U-Shape 4: Chamber