Advertisement

Radius of Investigation in Pressure Transient Testing

  • T. S. RamakrishnanEmail author
  • M. D. Prange
  • F. J. Kuchuk
Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The spatial domain of interpretation in pressure transient and formation testing is constrained by its radius of investigation. A classical descriptor for this radius relies on the time derivative of pressure within a bounded domain becoming time independent. Another approach quantifies the radius of investigation based on the distance at which the pressure change is greater than the characteristic noise or resolution in the measurement system. In this paper, we postulate that the correct measure of radius of investigation is the distance at which the inversion of noisy test data is able to discern an anomaly within a given tolerance. This paper details the design requirements for a testing and measurement system suitable for a given investigation distance, measurement noise, and the confidence requirements for the inferred distance. The approach is demonstrated with two specific models. The first is a formation with a sealing fault in an infinite medium, and the second is a formation with a single-layer boundary vertically displaced from a production probe. With normally distributed random and correlated noise, computed results show that the measure of distance investigated is highly dependent upon the background over which the anomaly is imposed. Although the methodology is illustrated with particular models, the principles are applicable in general.

Keywords

Well and formation testing Boundary location Gauge error Likelihood 

Notes

References

  1. Bartel, T.W., Yaniv, S.L.: Creep and creep recovery response of load cells tested according to us and international evaluation procedures. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 102(3), 349 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besson, R.J., Boy, J.J., Glotin, B., Jinzaki, Y., Sinha, B., Valdois, M.: A dual-mode thickness-shear quartz pressure sensor. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 40(5), 584–591 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kuchuk FJ (2009) Radius of investigation for reserve estimation from pressure transient well tests. In: SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  4. Muskat, M.: The flow of fluids through porous media. J. Appl. Phys. 8(4), 274–282 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Papoulis, A., Pillai, S.U.: Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  6. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1993)Google Scholar
  7. Ramakrishnan, T.S., Dave, Y., Cappiello, A.: A laboratory investigation of permeability in hemispherical flow with application to formation testers. SPE Form. Eval. 10, 99–108 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schlumberger (1981) RFT Essentials of pressure test interpretation. SchlumbergerGoogle Scholar
  9. Van Poolen, H.K.: Radius-of-drainage and stabilization-time equations. Oil Gas J. 62(37), 138–146 (1964)Google Scholar
  10. Wilkinson, D.J., Hammond, P.S.: A perturbation method for mixed boundary-value problems in pressure transient testing. Transp. Porous Media 5, 609–636 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schlumberger-Doll ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations