Numerical-Well-Testing Interpretation of Injection/Falloff Testing for Coalbed Methane Well in Hedong Coalfield
Author:
Fang Shiyue1, Zhang Xujing1, Li Xinzhan2, Chen Yue1, He Baiyi3, Bao Yuan1, Ma Dongmin1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. College of Geology and Environment, Xi’an University of Science & Technology, Xi’an 710054, China 2. National Pipe Network Group United Pipeline Co., Ltd., West East Gas Transmiss Gansu-Shaanxi Branch, Xi’an 710021, China 3. National Pipe Network Group United Pipeline Co., Ltd., West East Gas Transmiss Yinchuang Branch, Yinchuang 750001, China
Abstract
Numerical well testing is used mostly in oil/gas, geothermal, and coalbed methane injection/falloff well-testing interpretations while few published studies have been presented on how to adjust the models and numerical experiments parameters. Meanwhile, there is no simple and highly applicable evaluation standard on the approximation degree between the simulated and field-measured pressure response. In this paper, seven groups of numerical experiments were conducted to obtain the simulated pressure response. The Pearson correlation coefficients and the grey correlation between the simulated and field-measured pressure response were calculated to evaluate the approximation degree. In homogeneous, stress-independent, multi-layered, heterogeneous and integrated models, the simulated pressure response curves all fit to the field data well at the early and late time of the falloff period. However, the highest approximation degree was only found in the integrated model. Finally, the permeability, initial pressure, skin factor and investigation radius of the tested CBM reservoir were determined. The results show that, to obtain a reliable interpretation result, it is best to give an approximation degree evaluation standard on the approximation degree between the simulated and field-measured pressure response, build an integrated numerical model, and input the correct parameters, such as the effective thickness and the testing fluid viscosity. Otherwise, it will also drop into a pitfall of multi-results. The method we used is very relevant to CBM exploration and safe mining in Hedong coalfield.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Subject
Energy (miscellaneous),Energy Engineering and Power Technology,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Electrical and Electronic Engineering,Control and Optimization,Engineering (miscellaneous),Building and Construction
Reference29 articles.
1. Zuber, M.D., Sparks, D.P., and Lee, W.J. (1990, January 23–26). Design and Interpretation of Injection/Falloff Tests for Coalbed Methane Wells. Proceedings of the Spe Technical Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA. 2. Hopkins, C.W., Frantz, J.H., Flumerfelt, R.W., and Spivey, J.P. (1998, January 25–27). Pitfalls of Injection/Falloff Testing in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. Proceedings of the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, USA. 3. Seidle, P. (2011). Fundamentals of Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, Penn Well Corporation. 4. Yao, J., and Wu, M.L. (2011). Streamline Numerical Well Test Interpretation, Elsevier. 5. Advances in well testing analysis using numerical well testing and reservoir simulation; a field case;Mahyapour;Sci. Int.,2014
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|