Download - WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

Transcript
Page 1: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION

AND

NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL KJ-20. KRAFLA

Soeroso * UNU Geothermal Training Programme

National Energy Authority

GrensBsvegur 9, 108 Reykjavik

ICELAND

* Permanent address:

PERTAMINA

Geothermal Division

Head Office, p,a. Box 12, Jakarta

INDONESIA

Page 2: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

ABSTRACT

The reservoir engineering techniques dealing with interpretation

of well tests and simulation studies are presented for well

KJ-20 at the Krafla Geothermal Field , Iceland .

These teats are both fall-off and injection tests made at the

completion of the well, and build-up test after prolonged

production for more than a year . The interpretation methods used

consist of MDH, Horner and type curve matching. The results

indicate a transmissivity in the range 1.35 x 10- 8 m3 /P •• B to

1.89 X 10-8 m3 /P •. s.

A conceptual model was made of the drainage volume for well

KJ-20, Krafla. This model was then transformed for a solution

with a numerical simulator to simulate and predict the future

behaviour for the production from the well.

The numerical simulator, SHAFT 79 developed at the Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California was applied

for the prediction of the future reservoir behaviour in the

vicinity of well KJ-20, Krafla. The simulations were processed

on the VAX 11-750, VAX/VMS 4.2 computer, installed at the

National Bnergy Authority in Reykjavik, Iceland. Two cases

were considered in this study, one with the drainage volume

for well KJ-20 closed on all sides and the other with the

northern boundary for the drainage area open. In the closed

boundary case the depletion time for well KJ-20 is about 8

years which in that case is also the depletion time for the

drainage volume of the well. For the open boundary case the

depletion time for well KJ-20 is increased to about 13 years.

In that case the drainage volume has not been depleted.

Page 3: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope of work

1.2. Problem Statement

2. WELL TESTING THEORY

2.1. Basic Solution

2.2. Wellbore Storage and Skin

3. APPLICATION TO WELL KJ - 20 KRAFLA

3.1. Fall-off and Injection Tests

3.2. Build-up Test

3.3. Analysis and Result of Well Tests

4. SIMULATION ON WELL KJ - 20 KRAFLA

4.1. Conceptual Model ..

4.2. Numerical Simulation

4.3. Result of Simulation

4.4. Discussion

4.5. Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2

6

6

6

8

8

10

13

13

16

20

22

22

23

25

26

27

28

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. 29

Page 4: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1 Pressure build-up data for well KJ-20, Krafla.

Table 2 Wellbore simulation results for well KJ-20, Krafla.

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Fall-off and injection test in well KJ-20, Krafla.

Semilog plot of fall-off test in well KJ-20, Krafla.

Type curve matching with fall-off test in well

KJ-20, Krafla.

Semilog plot of injection test in well KJ-ZO,

Krafla.

Type curve match in, with injection test in well

KJ-20, Krafla.

Pressure 10, before well KJ-ZO, Krafla was shut-

in.

Temperature log before well KJ-20, Krafia was

shut-in.

Static temperature 10' in well KJ-20, Krafla.

Horner plot for well KJ-20, Krafla.

Type curve matching with build-up test in well

KJ-20, Krafla.

Loa log plot of fall-off and injection testa in

well KJ-20, Krafla.

Map showing the location of well KJ-20, Krafla.

Model used for simulation.

The South - North section of the simulation model.

A. Closed boundary ; B. Open boundary toward North.

Pressure behaviour for the closed boundary case.

Temperature behaviour for the closed boundary case.

Vapour saturation behaviour for the closed boundary

case.

Enthalpy behaviour for the closed boundary case.

Pressure behaviour for the open boundary case.

Temperature behaviour for the open boundary

case.

Page 5: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

Figure 21 Vapour saturation behaviour for the open boundary

case.

Figure 22 Bnthalpy behaviour for the open boundary case.

NOMENCLATURE:

A = area, ma

c = compressibility, Pa- 1

C = wellbore storage coefficient, m3 /Pa

• = acceleration of gravity, m/sec 2

h = thickness (reservoir), metre

k = permeability, ma

m = slope of semilog line, Pa/cycle

P = pressure, Pa

P = changes of pressure, Pa

q = flow rate, m3 /sec

r = radial distance, metre

t = time, second

t = changes of time,second

V = volume, m'

Greek symbols

~ = porosity, fraction

~ = dynamic viscosity, Pa.s

r = density, kg/m)

Subscripts:

a = apparent

A = area

D = dimensionless

f = flowing

i = initial

s = sf =

t = " =

shut-in

sandface

total

wellbore

Page 6: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

6

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope of work

This report is the final part of the author's work during the

six months trainina in reservoir engineering at the United

Nations University (UNU) geothermal trainin~ programme at the

National Energy Authority (NEA) in Reykjavik, Iceland.

The training programme as a whole included introductory

lectures in various disciplines of geothermal technology such

as; geology, geophysics, geochemistry, production and utiliz­

ation, and reservoir engineering, for approximately six

weeks. The next six weeks were spent on specialized lectures

in borehole geophysics and reservoir engineering.

Before commencing the specialized training in reservoir

engineering, two weeks of field excursion and seminars were

undertaken which included visits to both low and high temperature

geothermal fields with various types of utilization of geothermal

energy. The author also obtained a brief training in the use

of the IBM Personal Computer installed in the UNU.

1.2. Problem Statement

There are various types of tests which have been applied in

geothermal wells to enhance the understanding of the reservoir

behaviour. The first tests performed after well KJ-20 had reached

total depth were fall-off and injection tests, both of these

tests measured water level in the wellbore. The tests are

conducted to obtain data that can be analyzed to get an estimate

for the transmissivity and storativity in the reservoir

formation.

The other test called pressure build- up test reflects the

condition of a well. The results obtained from this test give

an idea of the average reservoir properties, i.e quantitative

value for the transmissivity in the drainage volume of the well,

Page 7: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

7

and mean reservoir pressure. The analysis of the test can also

indicate whether the well is damaaed or stimulated, and gives

quantitative information concerning the shape of the reservoir

either homogeneous or heterogeneous.

In order to make a prediction of the future possibilities of

the reservoir behaviour in the neighborhood of well KJ- 20, in

the Krafla Geothermal Field, a simple conceptual model was made.

The conceptual model was made on the basis of geology and data

from the tests. This model was then transformed to enable a

solution with a numerical simulator.

Page 8: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

8

2. WELL TESTING THEORY

2.1. Basic Solution

The basic equation for transient flow in porous medium is the

diffusivity equation. The diffusivity equation is a combination

of the law for conservation of mass, an equation of state and

Darcy's law. The diffusivity equation in radial coordinates

can be written:

5r' 5r k

li 5t

(2.1)

Matthews and Russel present a derivation of the diffusivity

equation and point out that it assumes horizontal flow,

negligible gravity effect, a homogeneous and isotropic porous

medium and a single fluid of small and constant compressibility.

The parameters ~,~, Ct and k are assumed independen t of

pressure.

In dimensionless form, pressure drop can be written:

P. (t.,r.) = 2 x k h (~ - P (t,r))

q ~

(2.2)

In transient flow, PD is always a function of dimensionless time,

which is when based on wellbore radius:

tu = k t ( 2 • 3 )

or when based on drainage area

tu" = k t = ( 2 • 4 )

~ Il Ct A

Dimensionless pressure also varies with location in the

r eservoir, as indicated in equation (2.2) by dimensionless radial

distance from the operating well. The radial dimensionless

distant is defined as:

(2.5)

rw

Page 9: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

9

Substitution of these variables into the radial diffusivity

equation ~ive6:

§..a~J) + L ~D (2.6)

The dimensionless diffusivity equation can t hen be solved for

the appropriate initial and boundary condition (Earlougher 1977,

S.P. Kjaran 1982, Sigurdsson. 0, lectures),

During the initial transient flow period, it has been found

that the well can for most practical purposes be approximated

by a line source. This assumes that in comparison to the

apparently infinite reservoir, the wellbore radius is negligible

and the wellbore itself can be treated as line source. For

the infinite acting reservoir the boundary and initial condition

are give n as:

lim

r. o = 1

for all

for all

tD » 0

The solution to the radial diffusivity equation with these

boundary and initial conditions is the exponential integral

solution to the flow equation (also called the line source

or Theis solution). The exponential integral solution is:

PD (tD ,rD) ::; - i El (=--.!:.D2) ( 2 • 7 )

4 t.

or

PD (tD, rD ) ::; i [ In L.t"_) + 0.80907 1 ( 2 • 8 )

Page 10: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

10

The difference between equation 2.7 and equation 2.8 is only

about two percent, when tD/rD 3 ~ 5.

At the operating well (in a single well system) rD = 1, Ba

tD/rD Z = tD and equation 2.8 becomes:

P. (t.) - 9 = ! [In t. + 0.80907 1 ( 2 • 9 )

Substitution f o r the dimensionles8 parameters into equation 2.9.

(Pi - P (t,r)) = g u [ In k t ) + 0.80907 + 2 91

4 ~ k h Ii!i Ct rw a

(2.10)

or

Pw' = Pi ± 0.183 ll.....I.t [log t + log k + 0.3514 + 0.868691

k h IiJJlCt rw:i

where: + for injection

for production

2.2. Wellbore S tor age a nd Skin

We llbore Stora,e:

(2.11)

Wellbore storage also called after flow, after production,

after injection, and wellbore loading or unloading, has long

been recognized as effecting short time transient pressure

behaviour (Earlougher,1977). This effect exists in the well

when the well is opened for production, the fluid flow from

the well is larger than the c orresponding flow from the

reservoir into the well.

Similarly when the well is shut - in, fluid still continues to

pass through the sandface into the hole. Wellbore storage is

characterized by a wellbore constant, defined as:

Page 11: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

c = t:.v

t:.P

11

(2.12)

For the wellbore with chan.ing liquid level, the wellbore

constant is: C = Y. __ (2.13)

r /I where: V. is the wellbore volume per unit length.

The diaensionles8 wellbore storage coefficient, C. is defined

as:

c. = c (2.14)

2 " " et h r.a

The sand face flow rate at the foraation can be calculated

from the following equation:

q., = q + C dP. (2.15)

dt

and

q., = q [ 1 - C. ~ P. (t •• C ••••• )] (2.16)

dt.

In logarithaic term:

10" llo' = - 10/1 C. - log A P. + loaA t.

q

or

laiC At. = loa: A PI! + 1011 C. + 10/1 (9..,) (2.17)

q

At the beginning of a well test the sandface flow is

approximately zero , 80 the wellbore storage constant can be

found from a straight line with slope in the early time data

on a log log plot of preSBure change, A P versus elapsed time,

~t . The wellbore storage coefficient, can then be calcUlated

fro.:

Page 12: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

C = q L>t L>p

12

(2.18)

The diffusivity equation including wellhore storage in the well

was solved by Everdingen and Hurst (1949) for the infinite

reservoir case . In that case the inner boundary condition for

equation 2.6 are changed to:

lim (2.19)

r. o

Skin Effect.

The skin characterizes the condition of the well, in terms of

damaged or stimulated. These conditions can be described with

additional pressure drop in the reservoir near the well .

According to van Everdingen (1953) the additional pressure drop

close to the well is defined:

p = 069 11 S (2.20)

2 " k h

From the skin factor an apparent wellbore radius can also be

determined as:

rv. = rwe- I (2.21)

A positive skin factor therefore indicates that the well is

damaged or has solid deposition near the well face . A negative

value for the skin factor, on the other hand indicates that

permeability is higher near the well commonly due to sections of

oversized hole, removal of debris from permeable zones or

intersection of fractures .

Page 13: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

13

3. APPLICATION TO WELL KJ-20 KRAFLA

3.1. Fall-off and Injection Tests

Well KJ-20 was drilled during June - August 1982 with directional

drilling (N 12.6 E) and cut fracture at 1270 meter depth.

A 13 3/8 " casing were set to 212.5 meter depth, 9 5/9 " casing

to 650 meter depth and completed with 7 " blind and slotted liner

from 596.20 meter (liner hanger) to 1762.7 meter. The total depth

of well KJ-20 was 1823 meter. This well was finished with a

completion test. The test were both fall-off test and injection

test.

Well completion procedure: Before starting the completion test,

pressure gauge was lowered into the well to certain depth with

water still pumped into the well at a rate of 25.76 l/s. The

first fall-off test started on the 20tb of August 1982 at 17:08

with initial pressure 15.24 bar at 200 meters depth and finished

after approximately 8 hours (484 minutes). Then followed by an

injection test which started on August 21, 1982 at 01:26 with

an injection rate of 30.86 lis. This test was carried out for

approximately 7 hours (431 minutes). A second fall-off test was

performed after the injection was stopped which lasted for about

93 minutes. These tests are illustrated 8S shown in Figure 1.

The aim of completion test: The aim of the completion test (fall

off and injection) is to reveal the condition or characteristics

of the well. These conditions or characteristics of the well

can be shown from calculation result i.e transmissivity,

formation storativity, wellbore storage and skin factor. The

result can indicate whether the well has a good or poor potential

and also if the well is damaged or stimulated.

Analysis: The completion test of well KJ-20 Krafla was analyzed

using Miler, Dykes and Hutchinson (MDH) method. This method

involves graphing the pressure during the test versus logarithm

of the time. For comparision type curve match were also used

for this test.

Page 14: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

14

Fall-off test:

MDH method: Changes of pressure or declining pressure after

pumping was stopped are plotted versus logarithm of time as shown

in Figure 2. A straight line can be fitted to the data which

gives a slope m equal to 2.5 bar/cycle. From equation 2.11 the

transmissivity of well KJ-ZO can be calculated as follows:

equation 2.11:

P •• = PI -0.1832 ~ [log t + log ( ____ ~k~ __ ) + 0.3514 +

0.8686 sj

with the slope

k h

m = 0 . 1832 ~

k h

The injection rate prior to the fall - off test was 25.76 lIs

or 0.0257 m'/s.

The transmissivity : k h = 0.1832 -lL

~ m

k h = 0.1832 x 0.02576

~ 2.5 x 10-

1.89 X 10- 8 m3 /Pa.s

Type curve match: The changes of pressure (delta P) versus

changes of time (delta t) are plotted on log la, paper

(Figure 3). From type curve match for infinite acting reservoir

with skin and wellbore storage the following match points

were obtained:

CD = 1 E+05 p = 6.0 bar t = 47.5 minutes

s = - 5 t» = 4.0 X 10&

Page 15: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

15

Then from equation 2.2 we have:

P. = 2 x k h P

q "

" 2 • P

transmissivity: k h = 0.02576 x 3

~ 2 x 6.0 X 10,

And from equation 2.3:

storativity: ~ Ct h = k h (-!'-' t.

M.P

= 2.05 x 10- 8 m3 /Pa.8

M.P

'" Ct h = 2.05 x 10-' x 47.5 x 60 = 1.12 x 10' m/Pa

0.012 x 4.0 x 10'

Injection test:

MDH method: The MDH plot is shown in Figure 4, and the straight

line gives a slope m = 3.6 bar/cycle. Followina the same

procedure as for the fall - off test :

m = 0.1832 ~

k h

and the injection rate during the test was 30.86 lis or

0.03086 m'/s.

Page 16: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

16

Then the transmissivity is: k h

~

= 0.1832 -!L

m

k h = 0.1832 x 0.03086 = 1.57 x 10-' m'/Pa.s

3.6 x 10'

Type curve match: The changes of pressure (delta P) versus

the changes of time (delta t) during the injection test are

plotted on log log paper as shown in Figure 5. From type curve

match for infinite acting reservoir with skin and well bore

storage one obtains:

CD = 1E+05

s = - 5

P = 6.6 bar

PD = 3

t = 47 minutes

tD = 4.0 X 10&

with the same procedure as for the fall - off test using equation

2.2 and equation 2.3 one obtains:

transmissivity: k h

~

= LX> _) P M.P

k h

~

= 0.03086 x 3 = 2.23 X 10- 8 m3 /Pa.s

2 x x 6.6 X 105

and

storativity: ~ Ct h = k h (_t_)

t>

~ Ct h = 2.23 X 10- 8 x 47 x 60

4.0 x 10-

3.2. Build-up Test

M.P

= 1.3 x 10- 9 m/Pa

The production from well KJ-20, Krafla was initiated on

October 5, 1982 and continued for more than a year. A break

in electrical power generation from the Krafla Geothermal

Power Plant was planned beainnina from May to early September

Page 17: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

17

1984 (Sigurdsson et al.,1985). Therefore well KJ-20 was shut­

in on June 6,1984 and pressure build-up monitored.

Procedure: Before closing the well for build-up test, pressure

and temperature logs were made to determine the setting depth

for the pressure iauge to ensure the setting depth to be below

water level and the main feed point, see Figure 6 and Figure

7. This was done on June 1, 1984 and the well was shut in for

about one hour during each log and then put in production

again until June 6, 1982.

The aim of the teat: The aim of the build-up test was as for

the completion test to reveal the condition or characteristics

of the well after it had been producing for more than a year

and also to compare the results, with parameters determined

from the completion test. In this case Horner plot and type

curve matching method were used for determine reservoir para­

meters.

Data: The pressure build-up data is tabulated in Table 1.

Because of lack of flowing pressure at the feed zone at the time

of shut-in, a wellbore simulator (Ambastha wellbore simulation

program) was used to simulate the flowing condition of the well

before shut-in with total flow rate as 10.6 k~/s and discharge

fluid enthalpy as 1929 kJ/kg at 11.7 bar well head pressure.

The wellbore simulation results are shown in table 2.

For well KJ-20 the discharge enthalpy exceeds the enthalpy of

water at the maximum reservoir temperature of 302.S·C (see Fi~ure

8) i.e: hw = 1382 kJ/kg. It is therefore assumed that two

phase fluid mixture enters the well and for evaluating the

reservoir parameters the mixture density is used.

Horner plot:

When the well was shut-in, the response of the bottom-hole

shut-in pressure can be expressed by using the prinsiple of

superposition in time. For a well producing at rate q until time

t, and at zero rate thereafter. The effect of this on pressure

Page 18: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

18

build-up can be looked on as if an imaginary well located at

the same point started injecting with the same rate as the prior

production rate. Earlougher 1977 described that the pressure

at any time after shut-in as:

Pw. - PI = 2 m { PD (t t t.) )

From equation 2.9:

P. (t.) - s = t [ In t. + 0 . 80907 1

Assuming that the logarithmic approximation to the dimensionless

pressure solution applies, and the equation for the shut-in

pressure can be written as:

or

Where

Pw. - PI = m { log (t + t) - log

Pw f - PI = m [ log t + t]

t

m = - 0.1832 ~

k h

t 1

The static presBure during the build-up is plotted versus the

sum of production time and shut-

as shown in Figure 9. From

pressure can be found by

to log (t + t)/ t equal one .

logarithm of the time ratio (the

in time divided by shut-in time)

this graph the average reservoir

extrapolating the straight line

For well KJ-20 this pressure is

bar/cycle.

98 bar, for the slope m = 11.7

It is assumed that the fluid flow in the well is isoenthalpic

(the enthalpy of the fluid entering the well is equal to the

flowing enthal py

the steam tables)

at the surface). For that case one obtains (from

kJ/ki; r· = at 99 bara:

54.79 kg/m'; r· =

H. = 2726.5 kJ/kg;

690.15 kg/m'.

The mixture density is given by Grant et al.,1982

H. = 1403.2

Page 19: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

19

_1_ = -lL + 1 - x

r, r· r· And

x = H.t --=--1!w H. - H.

Where: x = steam fraction; Ht = total discharge enthalpy, kJ/kg;

H. = steam enthalpy, kJ/kgj Hw = water enthalpy, kJjkg,

For our case

x = 1929 - 1403.2 = 0.3973

2726.5 - 1403.2

_1_ = 0.3973 + ( 1 - 0.3973)

r, 54.79 690.15

r, = 123.08 kg/m'

Flow rate before the well was shut-in was 10.6 kg/s which

corresponds to (10.6)/(123.08) = 0.086 mats, and with the

slope m = 11.7 bar/cycle.

k h = 0.1832 ~ = 0.1832 x 0.086

ID 11.7 x 10'

k h = 1.35 X 10- 8 m3 /P •. 8

~

Type curve match:

From the type curve match shown in Figure 10, for infinite

reservoir with skin and wellbore storage the following is

obtained at the match point:

CD = lE+05

s = -5

to = 2.0 x 10 1

PD = 3.8

t = 3.0 X 10 2 hra

p = 64 bars

Based on equations 2.2 and 2.3 and following the same procedure

as for the completion test one obtains:

Page 20: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

20

Transmissivity: k h :::: ~ (~D) :::: 0.1832 x 3.8

Storativity

2 " p 2 x 64 x 10 5

k h :::: 0.832 x 10- 8 m'/P •• B

~

~ c. h = ~ ( t) rw :::: 0.1095 m

jJ rw"' tD

~ et h :::: 0.832 x 10- ' x 3.0 x lOa X 3600

0.012 X 2.0 X 10'

o Ct h:::: 3.744 X 10-- m/P.

3 . 3. Analysis and Result of Well Tests

The completion test both the injection and fall-off test indicate

that well KJ-ZO, Krafla is connected to a high conductivity

fracture.

This indication can be observed in the early time data on the

10' log plot of delta P versus delta t (10, la, strai,ht line

of half slope), see Figure 11.

The injection test in Figure 11 shows oscilation at a certain

point, which in this case may be caused of reservoir behaviour

(ioe temperature effect). Homogeneous behaviour can also been

seen in the log log shape durin, the completion test, which

corresponds to an in f inite acting behavior.

From the completion test it is very difficult to determine or

to predict the nature of the outer boundary from the late

time data, because of the short duration of the test.

The magnitute of transmissivity from the fall-off test is

2.36 x 10- 1 m3/Pa.s and f r om the injection test 1.57 x 10- 1

Page 21: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

21

m'/P •. s usina MDH method and the ma.nitute of transmissivity

from the pressure build up test is 1.35 x 10- 8 m3/Pa.S using

Horner plot which is not very different from the former two.

The formation storativity of the pressure build-up test is

approximately ten times .rester than from the completion

t e st, which in this case indicates the presence of more

compressible two phase fluid in the reservoir at the time of

the build-up test.

Page 22: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

22

4. SIMULATION ON WELL KJ-20 KRAFLA

4.1. Conceptual Model

In order to simulate the reservoir behaviour in the vicinity

of well KJ-20 Krafla a simple conceptual model was made. The

model is based on geological, production output and reservoir

parameters from the Krafla area (Sudurhlidar). An aerial overview

of the Krafla Geothermal field and the l ocation of well KJ-20

can be seen in Figure 12. Based on the conceptual model and the

output potential of well KJ-20 and its surrounding wells, the

simplified three dimensonal reservoir model, and the South -

North section used in the simulation were made as shown in Figure

13 and 14 respectively. Different boundary conditions were used

in order to give some ideas about the possible reservoir

behaviour that may occur in the future. Two cases were selected

as follow:

Closed boundary:,

To simulate the reservoir behaviour in the vicinity of well

KJ - 20, Krafla, a drainage area of fixed shape was selected. The

shape of the drainage area was selected in accordance with

the ratio of the today output potential for the neiahbourina

production wells at the Sudurhlidar Field. These neighbourina

wells confine the boundaries of the drainage area to the East,

South and West. To the North an existing East-West fracture marks

the northern boundaries for the drainage area. This model has

an area of 0.124 km2• The drainage volume is made up of 200 meter

thick caprock, and a 2000 meter thick reservoir rock. For this

case all the boundaries were taken as closed boundaries.

The reservoir domain is divided into four layers each 500 meter

thick. Circular elements with 50 meter radius are imbedded in

the cent er layers of the reservoir domain. Furthermore the lower

circular element encloses another circular element with 10 meter

radius and the sink is emplaced in it. The model for the

simulation study in this case consists therefore of three

materials for the three domains including atmosphere. They are

Page 23: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

23

divided into 9 elements varying in size from 1.0 x 10' ma to

1.0 x 10 20 m3 with 13 interface connections between them.

The initial conditions for this case are described in section

4.2.

Open boundary:

This model is the same as for the closed boundary case, but the

north boundary is now open and connects to a fracture which

is further open to a large reservoir element to the north. This

model therefore, consists of 4 materials for the various

reservoir domains. They are divided into 16 elements varying

in size and volume from 1 x 10' .' to 1 x 1030 mS with 32

interface connections between elements. The initial temperature

and pressure conditions of the large reservoir element used

in this study were put as 320 ' e and 114 bar. respectively.

4.2 . Numerical Siaulation

To run the simulation some assumptions were made as:

1. All of the material for the various reservoir domains is

assumed to have the same value for rock density and porosity.

2. The caprock thickness is assumed 200 m and reservoir thickness

is assumed 2000 m divided into 4 layers with the same

thickness (500 m).

3. Relative permeability in fractured media were assumed to

be linear functions of vapour saturation.

4 . No recharge is from the basement to the system.

5. Constant conditions are kept at the surface.

Page 24: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

24

Data for the nu.erical ai.ulation.

1. Total production of well KJ - 20 is 10.6 kg/s, based on

measurement of the well output before shut-in with well

head pressure 11.7 bar gauge and total discharge fluid

entha1py 1929 kJ/kg.

2. The values used for rock density and porosity are 2650 ka/m3

and 5% (Bodvarsson et al., 1982) and are assumed the same

for all of the zones.

3. The initial conditions for pressure and temperature were taken

from average pressure and temperature profiles in the Krafla

field (Sudurhlidar). The values used correspond to the depth

to the center of each layer and it assumed that initially

there is no boiling in the reservoir. Then the initial

pressure and temperature conditions for the sink at 1350 meter

depth are 114 bar and 320 · C (Bodvarsson et al., 1982).

4. Permeability was taken from the result of the injection test

analysis (Bodvarsson et al., 1982),i.e: 2.0 x 10-15 ma,

and it assumed that horizontal and vertical permeability

are the same. This value is only valid for the reservoir

domains. For the caprock permeability was estimated 2.0 x

10- 18 ma, this value was used for both horizontal and

vertical directions.

Permeability of the fracture was guessed as 2.0 x 10-14 ma

in the horizontal direction and 1.0 x 10- 14 ma in the

vertical direction. The guessed values for the fracture

permeability were su.gested by Omar Sigurds8on.

5. The values of irreducible liquid saturation, irreducible

vapour saturation and perfectly mobile vapour saturation were

taken from Bodvarsson et al., 1982 i.e: 35% , 5% and 65%

respectively.

Page 25: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

25

6. Thermal conductivity of caprock is 1.5 J/m,s, ' C and 1.7

J/m.8 ,' C for fracture and reservoir rocks (Bodvarsson et

al.,1982).

7. Heat capacity of all materials for the various reservoir

domains were taken as: 1000 J/kg · C (BodvarsBon et al., 1982).

In these simulation studies, the computer program SHAFT 79

from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of

California (K. Pruess and R:C Schoeder, 1980) was used to

simulate the reservoir behaviour of the drainage volume

for well KJ-20 , Krafla i.e: pressure, temperature, vapour

saturation and discharge enthalpy. The simulation processing

was done on the VAX 11-750, VAX/VMS 4.2 computer, installed

at the National Energy Authority in Reykjavik, Iceland.

4.3. Result of Simulation

The chan.es in some of the reservoir parameters during the

simulation studies of well KJ-20 Krafla for both the closed

boundary and the open boundary cases are summarized in Figure

15 to Figure 22.

Closed Boundary

Pressure and temperature in the outer elements seem to decrease

slowly and vapour saturation inc reases gradually with time

but in the sink element pressure and temperature quickly drop

within the first few months of production and continue to

decrease drastically with time. From the initiation of production

in the s ink element, vapour saturation falls rapidly and

fluctuates up to a period of 1 year. This is due to encroachment

of fluids from outer element into sink element at the initiation

of production.

Vapour saturation and enthalpy behaviour in the sink element

remains constant from the fourth year until the eighth year.

This is because boiling is depressed in the sink element due

Page 26: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

26

to increasing flow of cooler fluid from the layer above, and

decreasing of lateral fluid flow from the surrounding,

The vapour saturation for both outer element and sink element

representing well KJ-20 Krafla reaches a maximum value (100%)

in 8.3 years, see Figure 17. At that time the pressure in the

sink element has dropped to 3.62 bar as shown in Figure 15,

and well KJ-20 is depleted.

Open Boundary

The simulation results for the open boundary case are

characterized by slowly decreasing pressure and temperature

in the outer element which continuous until the end of simul­

ation. Maximum pressure drop in the outer element from the

beginning to the end of simulation is 28 bar and maximum

temperature drop is 21·C. In the sink element both pressure

and temperature rapidly drop from the beginning to the end of

simulation.

From Fi~ure 21 vapour saturation in the outer element reaches

a maximum value of 80.17% but vapour saturation in the sink

element reaches a maximum value of 100% in 13 years. When the

vapour saturation in the sink element has reached 100% the

pressure quickly drops as well KJ-20 is depleted, as shown in

Fi.ure 19.

4.4. Discussion

In the simple mode l used in this simulation studies, the sink

element was embedded within a larger circular element, which

in the open boundary case had a small common interface with the

fracture, Actually from drilling reports for well KJ -20, Krafla,

the well intersects fracture at 1270 m depth. If the sink element

would have been placed interface with the fracture or in the

fracture itself the result would most likely indicate a longer

depletion time for well KJ-20 than the present study gives.

Page 27: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

27

From the initiation of production in the sink element for both

the closed and the open boundar y case the pressure and

temperature drop rapidly. This is because the model used in the

simulation study is very coarse, especially for the open boundary

case where the large reservoir to the north is simulated by one

element. These pressure and temperature behavior would be

smoother if the large reservoir element in the north would be

divided into layers like for the main drainaie volume.

4.5. Conclusion

The results of the simulation study indicate that well KJ-20

in the Krafla Geothermal Field has a depletion time of 8

years for the closed boundary case and 13 years for the open

boundary case under the condition of no recharge from the

basement to the production element, 5% porosity (BodvarsBon

et al., 1982), and a 500 meter thick production zone.

The simulation study gives also information or ideas about the

reponses for well KJ-20 in the Krafla Geothermal Field

(Sudurhlidar) that may occur in the future.

Page 28: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to convey my deep gratitude to Mr. Omar Sigurdsson

for his diligent supervision and guidance in the specialized

training, the National Energy Authority of Iceland for releasing

the data from the Krafla Geothermal Field (well KJ-20), Mr. Jen

Steinar GuOmundsson the Director of United Nations University

Geothermal Trainina Programme for his excellent organization

of the 1986 training session.

Special thanks are due to the PERTAMINA management for granting

me si x months leave of absence to pursue this valuable trainin,.

Page 29: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

29

REFERENCBS

1. Abaneth Wale (1985): Reservoir Engineering Study of The Krafla

- Hv i tholar Geothermal Area, Iceland., Report 1985.

2. Asgrimur Gudmundsson, Benedikt Steingrimsson, Gudjon

Gudmundsson, Gudmundur O. FreidleifssoD, Hilmar Sigvaldsson,

Omar Siaurdsson, Steinar P. Gudlauasson and Valgardur Stefansson

(1983) : Krafla Well KJ-20 Report; val 1 - 4, in Iceland.,

Desember 1982 - February 1983.

3.Charles B. Haukwa (1985): Analysis of Well Test Data in The

Olkaria West Geothermal Field Kenya" Report 1985.

4. Gudmundur S. Bodvarsson and Sally M. BensoD, Omar Sigurdsson

and Vol~ardur Stefansson, Einar T. E1i8880n (1984): The Krafla

Geothermal Field, Iceland val 1 - 4., Water Resources Research.,

Novenber 1984.

5. H. J. Ramey. Jr: Reservoir Engineering Assessment of

Geothermal System, Department of Petroleum Engineering Stanford

University.,1981.

6. Jaime Ortiz - Ramizes (1983); Two Phase Flow in Geothermal

Wells: Development and Uses of a Computer Code., June 1983.

7. Kjaran S.P and Elliason J. (1983): Geothermal Reservoir

Engineering Lecture notes UNU, Iceland.

8. K. Pruess and R.C Schroeder (1980): SHAFT 79 User's Manual,

Lawrence Berkely Laboratory University of California Berkely,

California 94720., March 1980.

9. Malcom A. Grant, Tony Donaldson, Paul F. Bixley (1982):

Geothermal Reservoir Eniineering.,1982.

10 . Omar Sigurdsson, Benedikt S. SteingrimsBon and SteffansBon

(1985): Pressure Build Up Monitoring of The Krafla Geothermal

Page 30: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

30

Field, Iceland, Tenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir

Engineering Standford University, January 22 - 24., 1985.

11. Pratomo Harry (1979): Build Up Test Analysis of Niawha and

Kamojang Wells, report., November 1979.

12. R.A. Dawe and D.e. Wilson (1985): Development in Petroleum

Engineering - 1., 1985.

13. Robert C. Harlouger. Jr (1977): Advances in Well Test

Analysis. J t977.

14. Sulaiman Syafei (1982): Kawah Kamojang Reservoir Simulation,

report., November 1982.

Page 31: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

31

Table 1: Pressure build up data for well KJ - 20

Date Time Pressure Depth Temperature Flowrate bar m ·c lIs

840606 111 2 ----- ------ 268.70 13.80

840606 1230 43.50 1300.00 268.70 0.00

840606 1655 56.54 1300.00 268.70 0.00

840607 1850 66.50 1300.00 268.70 0.00

840608 1120 69.44 1300.00 268.70 0.00

840613 1105 76.43 1300.00 294.40 0.00

840621 0132 79.84 1300.00 294.90 0.00

840715 1123 84.54 1300.00 299.90 0.00

840809 1734 86.83 1300.00 299.90 0.00

Page 32: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

32

dlh T\II rIP (flrh·...,

"l"IIt MTA AS nul*':

!MIlt g;AVm , .... TG1 111. )lASS tLQI.'fI1![ ,lMII ~ U(J.~ I(U TlN!SI' CD£r,.~!uII«/~ &,O~I)/J

., III IlElll(AD ,

.EtlM,FT O.O~

rtt!~£.tl" 1I4.l'O llKr1AAltllt,' m,rT

rIf[ t'N(UI 11$(' as fOlltN:

, .. 1.0 rT " 1,.....&.1 n. till ~Tlt!lr[t ITIJ • ..r.<M IllS '.DUtlliaS rH! • t . ...,

, .. IY.>6,\ H " 1]&:; .0 rI. r ltF DIIJ1(T(I IrH " o.=m • m "QUG:l!ESS ItIJ • o.m& ~

~

• 10TM. lfY,IN tlV1l'1£I IW ~ Im~\W.5 " '" ttMMU SIIJl-11 mrtUIIKl AS fOllllll: " Pl£Sstn MIIIlms n " IUIR,n """,, lDUt ttltTI tl', U"JlI •• ~ 'Sf

N , TOlIl I'II'(IfIUI. , 1I111TI 1.0000 "' ..,

Im ... t ,c.1t

'" "",041 410.60 IOIIl ,t,tTltl', T'IH'I/IIIst n.m. "' U15.00 ~IUO TOIIl NlI[~TlIl, 1'iII-flljI!iI; n. tJJ7 tSI l~I." m.M 10lll mu., MH'IIoI!it: 1.&716 f!1 360'-00 m.oo 0 lW,Of YUO ,

" 0 '-

t 'II.,.,. ... S( FltJI I ' ~ICIl(ll ~.!1t. r~lI.I/At w" tI" IIEflMI ms,",. TU,.., tW.I'Ull1 ',l/lOOft tll11011I1 'IIIII)/Jrt n~ , 'uc '1GIt:( rill IVo 00 ., '.H ne. le nUl m.70 Mm n .• IIS. ft m.l? ,:>9." ' ,1M2 ' .reS& t.lZI, 0.50\51 11. •• UI1 7l ,r.>6!

, 170.&. TU.59 315." 1!t.2t 0.711" O.01.'l:i 0.411} Mm "Q '.4In 71.1;00 .. ",." "'.n Pi,.' '1\1.2t 1,71" O.Cffi e .I~I' Mm IIM Mm 7um 0 lU.1O In,,. m.02 '''',11 1,71» t.oo:;, Mm

c '.:;IoU , ... t. l tt2 n,Utt

m.se "0.11 m,~ 127.:'0 1.7114 '.MS' 0.1122 Mm 11. 1.1..01 71,t!. '11," UI.:U 171.01 '1\1.10 "ml 0.0052 0.4171 MID ". 0.4211 It .4'02 mole 17MI m.SI ';!f.1O I.m. um 0.1210 I.me UI.II' •. uu -7Ul?6 " lotO UP] m,Of m.le 0.1160 o.ma t,ms "m, ". Mnl 70.(m 11/,70 nUl 17".0 '..,.10 I,m, o.ooso 0,1~42 Mm IU~ 0.11:" u. nil 0 15]," '''.10 310,Of m.le t .lm f,O", I,me MUI 1t.1II! I,mo ",~I nl.n U1.:t 3:!M' ':>f.ZO '.7701 '.001' ' . I:!'"A Mm ,,~ 1.lm n.1041 ,

Im .60 Ita." l8I.O'I ' 1'.10 G.7U3 o.om o.ms Mm ". Mm a ,6Sst E 110 .... ," ,11 JRI-5I' m.zo '.7641 uw 0.1211 Mm , ... 0,4241 61.ma ." UU.ZO ,.. .. ltU, 11'.:'0 O.I~ 12 1.0041 t.l2U 0.:;&01 '''' I.nu 61.?ln "-un,so 1'11." m,SI m,zo t.ml '.iI'I" I ,ml Mm "" o, lr.» 61.]714 Ill .... tt l .t1 HM' ." .• 0 ,7~1 O.H~ O,I)~' o.~ 11. 0.11"...8 IUS!S < .. mot , 10 lOl ,ll 18'.~ ,n.:o 0.1'171 •. cm O. l lIt "nu "" •• Im U.5J1! 0 15]j.1t 20M2 HI,a. 12t," I,rnt '.OO~I a.1ll1 M~fJ IWI G.IW u.tm "" 1&]0,11 ~." lIl.1t m,:'O '.Xl' 1,0')11 '.ll1S •• ~ta I '.'" •. m! 15.1192 170..00 201.S1 H..,e 12'9.20 1,1515 1.00ll •. ~m Mm ,., I.lm Is.ml 17f1.30 10M3 lIS"1 m,to I,m! o.om "m! M'>!I IlAiI ',12110 "."~J • 1116.60 210,21 la •. ,. tlt.10 o.ml um o.tl ., o.sm ". 0,1:'85 U.~4R7 ~ ItU ,tO m.JI !1~," ,n,1O • . 11SO '.e041 0,4405 Mm lUll ',4~A' 44 . I6~l

201/,tt m,,, m.3t m,2' 2,0300 '.om 0.1970 I,m! m! 0,7110 !o~ .m' lIlMO m .ll ... n m.:o 1 .1If~ I,C111 o,:SeJ< 1I.5:U1 ~!51 •. ms 1~1 . m1

221 /.10 218./1 H9,]] '2Mt 1,'602 "om MO'I I M~ NISI 101110 102.111' '" 2301,1' 211022 l'1O,2f m.tt I.UOI Mm ..,152 ..,:;51 ml I.m~ 101.117] 2l11,~ 223," 111.21 r.t.lt I,ml um '.5210 Mm ..sf t.m. 11)0.]501

, 241J.7I 271.0. m." m,~ t.taU "O~ t.S:iO .. ",. ~Is! O. im ",2~:' ~ 2S~t," 22'. U 111.04 t2f.;t I .n&l t.Ol" Ml:'t .sm ~m ,./It, n.m' 2411 , )1 uo." JfJ ." "' .~ , .... t .ml e."" t.sm ~nT t.illl ".tlU mM' m.2t 19U2 m , tt I •• m o.ollfJ M~I t.ml "151 '.712' r.;·em ltll,,. :.n.1O m.lI ':'9,:'0 I ,mo Mltl ' .S11O Mm IIm t,1241 'I.ml 2f~.2t m,,. ",",0 m,2t 1.1l1I Mill 0.:; ....... M'm '''' '.m3 'MOO! ,.., .• " •. It :no1.I' "'.~ '"14" 0.0111 Mm t.l~, l~oUI t.;'" '2.;!zt ' Oi .... m.12 lt~.'1 • ..,. ~o l.om '.0192 •. ml M I" I~III! ', I:OU ".uu 11:'4.'0 m,1t m ,Il ,,,'.10 2.1111 Mm "':'Cl t,:". I~M' I.m' ".ms ' 211,10 111.1<1 100.11 m,2t 1. 2t1l 0.0201 MI~~ M!I] It. O.7ll5 !~,Im

1m,}0 lSl,g, "",~I m ,1O 2.116] 0,0701 U7JI 0.5471 !Rn O.IIIl '~.1ll1 JIlM' m,o. IOU I 129,2' MJil um 1,1O!~ I,me It. O,WA 11.lr~ lm. JO T.i~,1I ~J.ll ':'9,:0 t.m, o.om 0. 11:0 1.:160 IR_" PIU 15.949J mu o '61," ~~,ao 12'.20 2.lm o.om O. 7m I,Stsl ''''' 0.m7 '1.1I~

JUl." m." 106.~ ':'9,20 J.I1'}O o.o~~ "'011 '.5111 ". 1,1104 n. lI?! m,.1O m,]j 107,:J(I ." .• l.m. ' ,.:OZ1 um MI]j ,'" 1,1411 t1.2:'n lI~.se m.:09 .... n r.t',~ ldm •. om um Mm "" '.7117 IO,"~. Jfll.lO m.J1 .,o.t' m,zo l.Jlt! u:t .... e."" 0,5111 "" •• 116' n.m' 1,,".11 :131 ,60 m.~ r.t',2t 1.Jn. 1,,::'1 "'''' MtOI ". ,."" 11. 1:'91 "'1.10 m." m.n 12't . ~ l . I~ 1l 0,0:'29 1.0111 f,Sltt '''' ,,~u 7/.1~?1

IIn,11 no,n ,".U L't , l'O J .5"S t.tm 1.00141 Mm '''' I.;''' 15,1211 mS.M :In." 415 .7/ I2t .l'O Mm •• Or.1 1.1187 I.Wt "" t."" 1I,ltn

Page 33: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

33 20'~ ____________________________________________________________ -.

Well J(J-20

15

10

c '"

5

,.

0+----.----,----,-----,----,----r----,----,----.----,~

TiMe (Minute)

Figure 1 Fall - off and injection test in well KJ - 20, Krafla.

Page 34: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

34

dt iminutes)

Figure 2 Semi log plot of fall-off test in well KJ-20, Rrafls .

. ',---,-------,--- ,--------,

.. '\-- ------1I----- --j--- -t;;-;:-;--c-;-;-;;;-;= It., . • •.• • 11' " . 1 • • I.'

' '', •. n .' .1. I.'" .•.•••. e. · ,.... . .. • ? . r. :!;:: .

' . 01 . I. "' •• f • • • •

• , ••• U '~I . • "f, " ., I ,

1." • , ..... " ,

"'i--r--==:=+=====ll V V- _\.~

7~------_7.------_7 .. ,------_7.,------~.

Figure 3

lit (minute.s )

Type curve matching with fall-off test in well KJ-20, Rrafls .

Page 35: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

Figure 4

35

At (m inu tes)

Semilog plot of injection teat in well KJ - 20, Krafla.

, ... r-------r-------.------,----~

··I~t=~-:::;:;;;;=-~~ ",I •••.• • 't" •• h • I.' I." . . " .,., •• , . ...... .

=:~-;: v.· ··~· \'!'~P .. t ;':;; ':';~:: • • • o. ~ '.n. ,.-. ,' '', ..

'" ··U'~I . • •• • ' I .,' , ,.' . \' -.. , ..

.. f------+------+-- ---l-----

,." L,---------'.c. --------'.,.-- - -----,L,..-'-------.J, ..

Figure 5

Cl! (minutes)

Type curve matching with injection test in well KJ-20, Krafla.

Page 36: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

'" ~ ..!I " S d

,~

od ~

'" " 0

36

o ~--~-------------------------------------

- 200

- 400

-600

-800

- 1000

- 1200

-1400

- 1600

- 1800

-2000 +-------.-------r------.-------,-------r------~ 20 30

Figure 6

40 50 Pressure in bars

60 70 80

Pressure log before well KJ-20, Krafla was shut - in.

Page 37: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

~ ~ ~ ~

~ e ~

.~

.Q ~

"-~

Q

37

0,---------------------------________________ ___

-200

-400

- 600

- 800

-1000

- 1200

- 1400

- 1600

- 1800 + ________ .-______ -r ________ r-______ ,, ___ '_~ ___ JI -2000

240 250

Figure 7

260 270 280 290 Temperature in celcius

Temperature log before well KJ-20,' Krafla was shut - in.

Page 38: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

38

0,--------------------------------------------------,

-200

-400

- 600

" - 800 ... oS ~

S d - 1000 .~

.d .. Cl.

-1200 ~ Q

-1400

-1600

- 1600

-2000 +-------,-------,--------.-------r-------r------~ 200 220 240 260 260 300 320

Temperature in celcius

Figure 8 Static temperature log in well KJ - 20, Krafla.

Page 39: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

39

Figure 9: Horner plot for well KJ-20, Krafla .

.. i------+------j------t.;;;-;-;:;-;w;;:;:-:-c:;-i " . 1 ••• •• • '0'1'01 • • • . • ,,,, ..•••• " ,.rI . . ..... . e. " .· .. . . _ • ........... I~. I . ....... 10' · • , . I''' ' •. , •. .•

• • Lb. ' -l.11, • , .. " .. , . .. ,,' • 11-' " ' ,

.. I---~I-----II-----II-------I

.. '-----!r------,~--____;s__--~ -;: .. ' 00'

Figure 10

lit [hours)

Type curve matching with build-up test in well KJ-20, Krafla.

Page 40: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

40

",,"clioft 1nl

,,' L------+-------r----:-:-:~-_t_;:~_:::;_--___j I hn.tt I •• r

/' '.

Figure 11

... ...

• .' At !miMeS)

Log log plot of fall-off and injection tests in well KJ-20, Kraf l a.

Page 41: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

HOLUR SEM SOFNUOU GASI

SUMARIO 1984

N

Cl) ;

~, .

41

-'

+

, $KYRINGAR

/"":) Sprengl9'gur

-;'--MiSgel'lQi

_- GossPN'l9"

i ........ j , \ ,~

, iut mQbltfg Ira Iokum $100;1$10 jO klllskeib, ('0 12.000 g'ol

r" I } Holur. sem sofnuC,u gosi 1984 'J

:I~

MYND6

Figure 12: An aerial overview of the Krafla field and the location of well KJ - 20.

Page 42: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

42

~===~,-,.. fracture

impermeable

boundar y

~1odel used f o r simu l a 1:.)on .

Page 43: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

43

close boundary

reservoir

sink element

A

~ open boundary

t"""'" ' -""""'''';

Figure 14

.,"'" -,--~ , , " , , ".:: - - - --

reservoir : ~ r eservoir I I/,

u, ~ " ' " B sink element fl"~C~'

The South - North section of the simulation model. A. Closed boundary i B. Open boundary toward North.

Page 44: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

44

120

80

~ ~

'" .0

9 60 v a ~ ~ v ~

'"

r\ .~

.~ IS-.:.

"'" ~ .~

f'\

\ ~ I'

"

100

40

'\ 20

o o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year o Outer Element + Sink Element

Figure 15 Pressure behaviour for the closed boundary case.

Page 45: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

350

325

'\

300 00 ~ ,~

~ ~

~ 0

,8 ~

275 ~ ~ ." ~ ~ ~

'" S ~ 250 ...

225

200 o J

Figure 16

--~,

2 3

45

\ ~~

4

"

5 Year

~ ['I;, \

6 7 8

o Outer Element + Sink Element

\

--.j 9 10

Temperature behaviour for the closed boundary case,

Page 46: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

100

90

80

70

:B 60

~ .~

~ 50 0

:;l ~ ~ 0 40 ~

~ f/)

30 ~ ~

20

/

j 10

o o

Figure 17

46

/ d'

/ /'

.I' ~

; H-t- J

if I!

/ r! VI [l

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Year

o Outer Element + Sink Element

Vapour saturati on behaviour for the c l osed boundary c ase .

10

Page 47: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

47

3000

2750

2500

~

'" ~ "'- 2250 i;! ~

r ~ .~

>-

'" 2000 ~

" :!3 c '"

1750

/ ~

I \ /

1500

1250 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year o Sink Element

Figure 1 8 Entha l py behaviour for the closed boundary case.

Page 48: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

48

120

~ ""

80

~ ~ ~ .0

100 t ~ fl-

T

~ .,.

~ --~

<I .~

60 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'" 40

~

~ ~

'" f\ , 20

o o 3 6 9 12 15

Year <> Outer Element + Sink Element

Figure 19 Pressure behaviour for the open boundary case.

Page 49: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

49

320

It '" "'-

~ 300 ~

260 m ;; .~

" ~ ~ " C

.~

~ 260

~~ "..

~ ;; .. " ~ ~

"" E ~ 240

'""'

1\ 220

,. 200

o 3 6 9 12 15 Year

o Outer Element + Sink Element

Figure 20 Temperature behaviour for the open boundary cas e .

Page 50: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

100

60

!J d 60 ~ ~ ... ~

'" .9 d 0

:;:l ~ 40 ...

A :l ~ Ul

20

o o

Figure 21

50

lA / J

I

3 6 9 12 15 Year

<> Outer Elemen t + Sin k Element

Vapour saturation behav iour for the open boundary case.

Page 51: WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ... · WELL TESTING INTERPRETATION AND NUMERICAL SIMULATION STUDY ON WELL ... University of California was applied ... of

51

3000

~

2600

~...I-¥I' /

..vi'

~

'" .. "'-~ ~

<I 2200 .~

,.., ... -• :S I1 d

'"

1800 I

1400 o 3 6 9 12 15

Year + Sink Element

Fi ture 22 Enthalpy behaviour for the open boundary case.