1887

Abstract

Summary

Naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) account for a significant amount of the world conventional reserves but suffer from low recovery factors. Multiple techniques are, often in combination, used to detect the presence and extent of fractures in a reservoir. Of particular interest to this work is the use of dual-porosity model for analysis of well test data in order to identify and interpret the behaviour of fluid flow in NFR. This model, originally developed by Warren & Root (1963), has since been the industry standard for modelling NFRs and interpreting well-test data from NFRs. However, several studies have shown that the dual-porosity responses expected for naturally fractured reservoirs are not always observed where the wellbore intersect fractures, even for heavily and well-connected fractured network reservoirs. Our research aims to examine the reservoir features that cause the dual-porosity response to absent in some naturally fractured reservoirs and to be present in others. We demonstrate when dual porosity models are valid for well-test interpretation and can capture the key reservoirs features that characterise flow behaviours in NFRs. These features include the effect of fracture skin, network connectivity, and network size. The findings allow us to interpret well-tests in NFR more reliably.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700997
2017-06-12
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cinco-Ley, H., & Samaniego, V. F.
    (1977). Effect of wellbore storage and damage on the transient pressure behavior of vertically fractured wells. InSPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9–12th Oct 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Corbett, P. W. M., Geiger, S., Borges, L., Garayev, M., & Valdez, C.
    (2012). “The third porosity system: understanding the role of hidden pore systems in well-test interpretation in carbonates.” Petroleum Geoscience, 18(1), 73–81. http://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079311-010
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Egya, D., Geiger, S., Corbett, P., March, R., Bisdom, K., Bertotti, G., & Bezerra, H.
    (2015). Assessing the validity and limitations of dual-porosity models using geological well testing for fractured formations. In 78th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Vienna, Austria. (p. 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gilman, J. R., & Kazemi, H.
    (1983). Improvements in Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 23(4). http://doi.org/10.2118/10511-PA
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kuchuk, F., & Biryukov, D.
    (2015). Pressure-transient tests and flow regimes in fractured reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 18(2), 187–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lie, K.-A.
    (2015). An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation Using MATLAB: user guide for the Matlab Reservoir Simulation Toolbox (MRST). SINTEF ICT.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Morton, K. L., Nogueira, P. de B., Booth, R. J. S., & Kuchuk, F. J.
    (2012). Integrated Interpretation for Pressure Transient Tests in Discretely Fractured Reservoirs (SPE). 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition Incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark, 4–7 June 2012, 4–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Warren, J. E., & Root, P. J.
    (1963). The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 3(3), 245–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wei, L., Hadwin, J., Chaput, E., Rawnsley, K., & Swaby, P.
    (1998). Discriminating fracture patterns in fractured reservoirs by pressure transient tests. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Lousiana, U.S.A., 27–30 September 1998, SPE 49233.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700997
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700997
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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