You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 71
Next »
Despite of terminological similarity there is a difference in the way Dynamic Modelling (DM), Well Flow Performance (WFP) and Well Testing (WT) usually define formation pressure and productivity index.
| | | |
---|
DM | 9-cell formation pressure
(1) |
p_{e9, \ i,j} = \frac{1}{9} \sum_{k=i-1}^{i+1} \sum_{l=j-1}^{j+1} p_{k,l} |
(2) |
p_{e9, \ i,j} = \frac{1}{9} ( p_{i,j}
+ p_{i, \, j+1} + p_{i, \, j-1}
+ p_{i-1, \, j} + p_{i-1, \, j}
+ p_{i-1 \, j-1} + p_{i+1, \, j+1}
+ p_{i-1 \, j+1} + p_{i+1, \, j-1} ) |
for each fluid phase individually:
p_{e9,o}, \, p_{e9,g}, \, p_{e9,w} | | |
---|
WFP | Drainarea formation pressure estimate within the drainage area
A_e
(3) |
p_r = \frac{1}{A_e} \iint_{A_e} p(x,y,z) dS |
| | |
---|
WT | Boundary-average formation pressure estimate along the boundary of drainage area
A_e
(4) |
p_e = \frac{1}{L_e} \int_0^{L_e} p(x,y,z) dl |
where
L_e is the boundary of drainage area
A_e | | |
---|
Sometimes the wrong estimations of flowrate stem form the wrong inputs (
J or
p_e).
Petroleum Industry / Upstream / Production / Subsurface Production / Well & Reservoir Management
Subsurface E&P Disciplines / Production Technology / Productivity Index