1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN:
PDF

Abstract

In geothermal wells, build-up phases of well tests are typically executed with a surface shut-in, rather than with a downhole shut-in. Therefore, wellbore physics may play a dominant, but undesirable, role in the system's pressure response as recorded by the downhole pressure gauge. Numerical simulations were carried out to investigate to what extent these effects complicate the analysis of the well test and the deduction of the reservoir characteristics. Numerical models, supported by analytical modelling of well tests of field cases, show that significant portions of the Bourdet derivatives of geothermal well tests are expressions of physical effects in the wellbore, rather than the reservoir's pressure response. These wellbore storage effects in low-enthalpy geothermal wells are more intense than commonly reported in the literature. In addition, they may last for a very long time and vary continuously during the build-up. They cannot be represented accurately with the known analytical solutions commonly available in analytical well-test software. In many cases the early, middle and late time regions of the reservoir response on the derivative plot have only developed partially, or might be completely missing. Due to their intensity and duration, the wellbore storage effects can obliterate the true reservoir response, thereby making a reliable analysis of the reservoir characteristics impossible. This will undoubtedly lead to incorrect interpretations of the skin or reservoir properties. It is therefore strongly recommended that well tests in geothermal wells are executed using a downhole shut-in device, such that the unwanted wellbore physics are fully eliminated and the downhole pressure gauges only measure the true reservoir response.

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE

[open-access]

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
2025-02-05
2026-02-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/geoenergy/3/1/geoenergy2024-020.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adrian, P.M. and Moreno, R.B.Z.L.2016. Second semilog pressure derivative in pressure transient analysis of gas-condensate wells with strong phase redistribution: Field case study. Paper SPE-180771 presented at theSPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference, 13–15 June 2016, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, doi: 10.2118/180771-MS10.2118/180771‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/180771-MS [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed, T. and McKinney, P.2004. Advanced Reservoir Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Almehaideb, R.A., Aziz, K. and Pedrosa, O.A., Jr1989. A reservoir/wellbore model for multiphase injection and pressure transient analysis. Paper SPE-17941 presented at theSPE Middle East Oil Show and Conference, March 11–14, 1989, Bahrain, doi: 10.2118/17941-MS10.2118/17941‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/17941-MS [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdarot, G.1998. Well Testing: Interpretation Methods. Technip, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A. and Pirard, Y.M.1984. Use of pressure derivative in well-test interpretation. SPE Fonnation Evaluation, 4, 293–302, doi: 10.2118/12777-PA10.2118/12777‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/12777-PA [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruijnen, P.M.2024. Impact of lift methods and shutin techniques on welltest analysis in geothermal wells. In: Fifth EAGE Global Energy Transition Conference & Exhibition (GET 2024). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20242106610.3997/2214‑4609.202421066
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202421066 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fair, W.B.1981. Pressure-buildup analysis with wellbore phase redistribution. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 21, 259–270, doi: 10.2118/8206-PA10.2118/8206‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/8206-PA [Google Scholar]
  8. Gholamzadeh, Y., Sharifi, M., Karkevandi-Talkhooncheh, A. and Moraveji, M.K.2020. A new physical modeling for two-phase wellbore storage due to phase redistribution. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 195, doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.10770610.1016/j.petrol.2020.107706
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107706 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, S., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R. and Whittle, T.M.2000. Well test analysis in gas-condensate reservoirs. Paper SPE-62920 presented at theSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 1–4, 2000, Dallas, Texas, USA, doi: 10.2118/62920-MS10.2118/62920‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/62920-MS [Google Scholar]
  10. Hegeman, P.S., Hallford, D.L. and Joseph, J.A.1993. Well test analysis with changing wellbore storage. SPE Formation Evaluation, 8, 201–207, doi: 10.2118/21829-PA10.2118/21829‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/21829-PA [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes, J.A., Barkve, T. and Lund, Ø.1998. Application of a multisegment well model to simulate flow in advanced wells. Paper SPE-50646 presented at theEuropean Petroleum Conference, October 20–22, 1998, The Hague, Netherlands, doi: 10.2118/50646-MS10.2118/50646‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/50646-MS [Google Scholar]
  12. Horne, R.N.1990. Modern Well Test Analysis – A Computer-Aided Approach. Petroway, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Houzé, O., Viturat, D. and Fjaere, O.S.2021. Dynamic Data Analysis, V5.40.01. KAPPA Engineering, Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KAPPA Engineering2024. Saphir – Pressure Transient Analysis Software. KAPPA Workstation v5.50.02. KAPPA Engineering, Paris.
  15. Khadivi, K. and Soltanieh, M.2014. Numerical solution of the nonlinear diffusivity equation in heterogeneous reservoirs with wellbore phase redistribution. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 114, 82–90, doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2014.01.00410.1016/j.petrol.2014.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, J.1982. Well Testing. Textbook Series, 1. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mattar, L. and Santo, M.1992. How wellbore dynamics affect pressure transient analysis. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 31, doi: 10.2118/92-02-0310.2118/92‑02‑03
     https://doi.org/10.2118/92-02-03 [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller, C.W.1979. Wellbore Storage Effects in Geothermal Wells. LBNL Report LBL-8844. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller, C.W.1980. Wellbore storage effects in geothermal wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 20, 555–566, doi: 10.2118/8203-PA10.2118/8203‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/8203-PA [Google Scholar]
  20. Miller, C.W., Benson, S.M., O'Sullivan, M.J. and Pruess, K.1982. Wellbore effects in the analysis of two-phase geothermal well tests. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 22, 309–320, doi: 10.2118/9922-PA10.2118/9922‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/9922-PA [Google Scholar]
  21. NLOG2024, NLOG – Dutch Oil and Gas Portal. Geological Survey of The Netherlands, Utrecht, The Netherlands, https://www.nlog.nl [last accessed November 2024].
  22. Pan, L. and Oldenburg, C.M.2014. T2Well – an integrated wellbore–reservoir simulator. Computers & Geosciences, 65, 46–55, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2013.06.00510.1016/j.cageo.2013.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pitzer, S.C., Rice, J.D. and Thomas, C.E.1959. A comparison of theoretical pressure buildup curves with field curves from bottom-hole shut-in tests. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 11, 49–52, doi: 10.2118/1113-G10.2118/1113‑G
     https://doi.org/10.2118/1113-G [Google Scholar]
  24. Salem, A.2016. Distorted pressure-buildup tests by phase redistribution – changing wellbore storage effects. Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and Engineering & Technology, 3, 10–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Schlumberger2002. Well Test Interpretation. SMP-7086-5. Schlumberger, Houston, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. SLB2024. Eclipse 300 Industry-Reference Reservoir Simulator. Reference Manual Version 2024.2. SLB, Houston, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. S&P Global2024. The Practice of Well Test Interpretation. S&P Global, London, https://cdn.ihs.com/www/pdf/Practice-Well-Test-Interpretation.pdf [last accessed November 2024].
  28. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.1958. A study of anomalous pressure- buildup behavior. Transactions of the AIME, 213, 44–50, doi: 10.2118/927-G10.2118/927‑G
     https://doi.org/10.2118/927-G [Google Scholar]
  29. Stewart, G.2011. Well Test Design & Analysis. PennWell, Tulsa, OK.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Tonkin, R.A., O'Sullivan, J., Gravatt, M. and O'Sullivan, M.2023. A transient geothermal wellbore simulator. Geothermics, 110, doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2023.10265310.1016/j.geothermics.2023.102653
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2023.102653 [Google Scholar]
  31. Winterfeld, P.1989. Simulation of pressure buildup in a multiphase wellbore/reservoir system. SPE Formation Evaluation, 4, 247–252, doi: 10.2118/15534-PA10.2118/15534‑PA
     https://doi.org/10.2118/15534-PA [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhuang, H.2013. Dynamic Well Testing in Petroleum Exploration and Development. Petroleum Industry Press. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
Loading
Numerical and analytical modelling of wellbore storage effects in low-enthalpy geothermal well tests
Geoenergy 3, geoenergy2024-020 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2024-020
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error