Simulation and interpretation of the pressure response for formation testing while drilling

Abstract The most important stages of formation testing while drilling (FTWD) are mainly the pressure drawdown and build-up. Therefore, the main objectives of this research are to propose analytical solutions of the pressure response, verify the validity of the analytical model, and analyze the characteristics of the pressure response of FTWD tools via theoretical and experimental tests. The mathematical model of the pressure response is proposed, and the analytical solutions are obtained by application of successive integral transforms; the influences of heterogeneity, skin effect, storage effect, and supercharging effect are used to modify the analytical solution. The experimental apparatus was designed to verify the validity of the analytical model; the laboratory experiments of four types of representative samples were conducted. Finally, the characteristics of pressure response with varying formation permeability, heterogeneity, skin effect, storage effect, drawdown flow-rate, supercharging effect, etc. are discussed. The results indicate that the simulated pressure response curves are in good agreement with the laboratory experimental results, although the error is higher in the initial stage of pressure build-up (the maximum error is less than 20% for the ultra-low permeability formation), but the error of the calculated pore pressure, less than 10%, belongs to an acceptable range of error, i.e., the analytic model could be applicable in a wide permeability with the range from 1 mD to 100 mD. The pressure drawdown declines rapidly in the stage of withdrawing formation fluids and then recovers slowly to the original pore pressure during FTWD testing. The formation permeability and drawdown flow-rate have strong impacts, and the supercharging effect, skin effect, and heterogeneity have significant impacts; however, the storage effect has a relatively smaller impact on the pressure response of the FTWD tools. This analytical model is different from, but more practical than, the conventional method.

[1]  Yang Xuechang.  Research on prediction model for formation pressure in compression structure , 2009 .

[2]  M. Biot.  General Theory of Three‐Dimensional Consolidation , 1941 .

[3]  M. Hooper,et al.  Applications for an LWD Formation Tester , 1999 .

[4]  Cnpc Changqing.  Mechanism Research of Supercharging Effect Response in Formation Pressure Testing While Drilling , 2013 .

[5]  R. Thambynayagam,et al.  A Method for Analysis of Pressure Response With a Formation Tester Influenced by Supercharging , 2006 .

[6]  Pablo Ruiz,et al.  Drill Stem Test Design Optimization Improves Quality of Reservoir Data and Time Requirements for Deep and Ultra Deep Water Well Testing , 2012 .

[8]  M. Gutierrez,et al.  Calibration and ranking of pore-pressure prediction models , 2006 .

[9]  John F. Jones,et al.  Predrill pore-pressure prediction and pore pressure and fluid loss monitoring during drilling: A case study for a deepwater subsalt Gulf of Mexico well and discussion on fracture gradient, fluid losses, and wellbore breathing , 2014 .

[10]  K. Terzaghi,et al.  Soil mechanics in engineering practice , 1948 .

[11]  T. Shazly,et al.  Determination of Some Reservoir Characteristics of the Bahariya Formation in Bed-1 Field, Western Desert, Egypt, by Using the Repeat Formation Tester , 2013 .

[12]  A. Chen.  The practice of graphical fluid-gradient interpretations of formation tester pressure data , 2014 .

[13]  Marcus Turner,et al.  Rank Wildcat Drilling Risks & Drilling Time Reduced in Ultra Deepwater Offshore Namibia with the Application of Seismic & Formation Pressure While Drilling Technology , 2013 .

[14]  Hee Jae Lee,et al.  Simulation and interpretation of formation-tester measurements acquired in the presence of mud-filtrate invasion and geomechanical deformation , 2008 .

[15]  Guo Tao,et al.  Numerical analysis of the effects of downhole dynamic conditions on formation testing while drilling , 2014, Petroleum Science.

[16]  A. Koesoemadinata,et al.  Predrill prediction of subsalt pore pressure from seismic impedance , 2014 .

[17]  Godwin.  PORE-PRESSURE PREDICTION FROM SEIMIC DATA IN PARTS OF THE ONSHORE NIGER DELTA SEDIMENTARY BASIN , 2013 .

[18]  Li Xin-yu.  Numerical simulation of response for wireline formation tester in permeability anisotropic formation , 2009 .

[19]  C. Longis,et al.  An LWD Formation Pressure Test Tool (DFT) Refined the Otter Field Development Strategy , 2004 .

[20]  Jincai Zhang,et al.  Pore pressure prediction from well logs: Methods, modifications, and new approaches , 2011 .