تحلیل عددی چاه‌آزمایی با داده‌های سرچاهی

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد، گروه مهندسی نفت، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران

2 کارشناسی ارشد، گروه سیستم های انرژی، دانشگاه خواجه نصیر، تهران

3 دانشیار، گروه مهندسی نفت، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران

چکیده

عملیات چاه‌آزمایی تجزیه و تحلیل رفتار مخزن و چاه بر‌‌ اساس زمان و تخمین پارامترهای مخزنی است؛ برای دستیابی به یک مدل دقیق و به‌روز از مخزن، مهم‌ترین پارامتر مورد بررسی، فشار است که به وسیله‌ فشارسنج درون‌چاهی اندازه گرفته می‌شود. استفاده از ابزار فشارسنج درون‌چاهی مشکلات عملیاتی و هزینه اضافه برای شرکت کارفرما ایجاد می‌کند. روش دیگر چاه‌آزمایی سطحی است که در آن ابزار اندازه‌گیری دبی و فشار در سر چاه نصب می‌شود. از مزایای این روش کاهش قابل توجه هزینه‌ها، سهولت نصب و داده‌‌گیری، عملیات ساده‌تر و ریسک کمتر و امکان داده‌‌گیری برای بازه‌های زمانی طولانی و دیدن اثر مرز در مخازن بزرگ است. مهم‌ترین ایراد آن هم پیچیده شدن محاسبات و ورود خطای ناشی از تاثیر شرایط ستون چاه در داده‌های ثبت شده است. در این پژوهش به کمک نرم‌افزار پایپسیم داده‌های سرچاهی به دست آمده از یک چاه واقع در یک مخزن متعارف نفتی و زیر اشباع، تبدیل به داده‌های ته چاهی شده و سپس آنالیز چاه‌آزمایی بر روی آن‌ها انجام می‌شود و خواص مخزن به دست می‌آید. نتایج به دست آمده از چاه‌آزمایی‌ سطحی با نتایج آزمایشگاهی و نتایج حاصل از چاه‌آزمایی معمولی مقایسه و عملکرد روش چاه‌آزمایی سطحی بررسی می‌شود. مقایسه‌ نتایج، نشان می‌دهد که روش چاه‌آزمایی سطحی قادر است تراوایی، ضریب پوسته، ضریب بهره‌دهی، فشار متوسط و شعاع مخزن را به ترتیب با خطای 2/6، 3/17، 4، 7 و 3/13 درصد نسبت به روش چاه‌آزمایی معمولی پیش‌بینی کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Numerical Analysis of Well Testing Using Flow Data Taken at the Surface

نویسندگان [English]

  • A. Soleimanzade 1
  • M. Yeganehfar 2
  • S. Jamshidi 3
1 M.Sc, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 M.Sc, Dept. of Energy Systems, Khajeh Nasir Tusi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Well-testing is the analysis of reservoir and well behavior based on time. Obtaining the true value of changes in reservoir parameters plays a major role in creating an accurate and current model of the reservoir. The most crucial factor in achieving this objective is pressure, which is determined by a downhole pressure gauge. Operational issues and additional expenses are brought on by the use of pressure gauges at the well's bottom for the employer company. Surface well testing, which installs flow and pressure measurement devices at the wellhead, is another approach to well testing. The benefits of this technology include a significant cost reduction, ease of installation and data collection, easier operations, reduced risk, the ability to collect data for extended periods of time, and the ability to determine the impact of borders in large reservoirs. The difficulty of calculations and the insertion of errors as a result of the impact of well-column circumstances on the recorded data are the method's most significant issues. In this study, using Pipesim software, data obtained at the surface of a well located in a conventional undersaturated oil reservoir is converted to bottom-hole data, then analyzed, and finally, the properties of the reservoir are obtained. In comparison to the conventional well test method, the results demonstrate that the surface well test method can accurately forecast permeability, skin, productivity index, average pressure, and reservoir radius with error rates of 6.2, 17.3, 4, 7, and 13.3%, respectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Well testing
  • In situ pressure gauge
  • Surface well testing
  • Pipesim
  • Two-phase flow calculation
  1. Sabet, M. (1991). “Well test analysis”. Huston, Gulf Publishing, pp. 23.
  2. Tarek, A. (2006). “Reservoir engineering handbook”. 3nd Ed., Elsevier, pp. 481.
  3. Pityuk, Y. A., Akmurzina, G. R., and Davletbaev, A. Y. (2020). “Development of an approach for well testing in real time”. SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, SPE-201898-MS.
  4. Cobb, W. M., and Dowdle, W. L. (1973). “A simple method for determining well pressure in closed rectangular reservoirs”. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 25: 1305-1306.
  5. Dake, L. P. (1978). “Fundamentals of reservoir engineering”. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, pp. 180.
  6. Baranyi, B. (2015). “New development and special experiences in geo inform ’s well testing services”. SEE Upstream, Bucharest, pp. 11.
  7. Vo, M., Yu, Y., Lv, J., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Surface pressure data for well-test analysis at a joint venture gas project in Sichuan”. Proceedings of the International Field Exploration and Development Conference, 10: 1896-1909.
  8. Khamehchi, E., and Bemani, A. (2021). “Prediction of pressure in different two-phase flow conditions: Machine learning applications”. Measurement, 173: 665-679.
  9. Ruiz, R., Brito, A., and Marquez, J. (2014). “Evaluation of multiphase flow models to predict pressure gradient in vertical pipes with highly viscous liquids”. Paper presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Maracaibo, Venezuela.
  10. Peng, L., Guoqing, H., Zhangxing, C., Landjobo, P., Liying, Z., and Abdoulaye, M. (2022). “Dynamically coupled reservoir and wellbore simulation research in two-phase flow systems: a critical review”. Processes, 10: 1778-1797.
  11. Horner, D. R. (1951). “Pressure build up in wells”. Proceedings of the 3rd World Petroleum Congress, 25-43.
  12. Ramey, H. J., and Cobb, W. M. (1971). “A general pressure buildup theory for a well in a closed drainage area”. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 23: 1493-1505.
  13. Khalaf, M. S., Banbi, A., Maraghi, M., and Sayyouh, H. (2020). “Two-step deconvolution approach for wellbore storage removal”. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 195: 107827.
  14. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M. J., and Stewart, G. (1985). “Interpretation of pressure Buildup Tests Using In-Situ Measurement of After flow”. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 37: 143-152.
  15. Sulistyarso, H. B. (2021). “Determining reservoir model based on well test analysis for production forecasting”. American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 6: 99-109.
  16. Bergles, A. E., Collier, H. G., Dlhaye, J. M., Hewitt, G. F., and Mayinger, F. (1981). Two-phase flow and heat transfer in the power and process industries”. 1st Ed., McGraw-Hill, pp. 431.
  17. Brill, J. P., and Begs, H. D. (1991). “Two-Phase flow in Pipes”. 6nd Ed., Gulf Publishing, pp. 16.
  18. Nwanwe, C. C., and Duru, U. I. (2022). “Comparison and performance analysis of models for predicting multiphase flow behaviours in wellbores”. International Journal of Petroleum and Geoscience Engineering, 2022: 1-20.
  19. Hollaender, F., Shumakove, Y., and Karacali, O. (2019). “Well testing to full potential: lessons learned and best practices for high rate wells”. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, SPE-197754-MS.
  20. Moosavi, S. R., Qajar, J., and Riazi, M. (2018). “A comparison of methods for denoising of well test pressure data”. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 8: 1519-1534.
  21. Larsen, L., and Hovdan, M. (1987). “Analyzing Well Tests data from linear reservoirs by conventional methods”. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, SPE-16777-MS.
  22. Salem, A. (2020). “Determination of average reservoir pressure using pressure build up test: analytical and simulation approach for egyptian oil fields”. Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, 21: 1-8.
  23. Mikhail, S. T., Evgeniy, A. G., and Vladimir, V. P. (2022). “Permeability evolution of porous sandstone in the initial period of oil production: comparison of well test and core flooding data”. Energies, 15: 37-61.
  24. Chaudhry, A. U. (2004). “Oil well testing handbook”. Elsevier, Advanced TWPSOM petroleum system, Inc. Houston, Texas, pp. 180.
  25. Fair, C., and Redman, M. (2002). “Gas condensate and oil welltesting from the surface”. SPE Annual Technical Conferene and Exhibitation, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September- 2 October.