Review of Different Methods for Identification of Transients in Pressure Measurements by Permanent Downhole Gauges Installed in Wells

Boyu Cui (), Lejun Chen, Nan Zhang, Anton Shchipanov, Vasily Demyanov and Chunming Rong
Additional contact information
Boyu Cui: Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021 Stavanger, Norway
Lejun Chen: Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021 Stavanger, Norway
Nan Zhang: Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021 Stavanger, Norway
Anton Shchipanov: NORCE, Norwegian Research Center, 4021 Stavanger, Norway
Vasily Demyanov: Institute of GeoEnergy Engineerin, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
Chunming Rong: Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021 Stavanger, Norway

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 4, 1-17

Abstract: Permanent downhole gauges (PDG) are massively installed in injection and production wells operated in different industries such as oil and gas, geological CO 2 storage, and the geothermal industry. These gauges provide a vast amount of real-time pressure measurements. The pressure measurements may be divided into periods with a predominantly monotonic change of pressure in response to a sudden change of rate, called transients. These transients are caused by well operations, such as variation of injection or production rate and well shut-ins. Transient identification is one of the important steps in processing and interpreting the PDG data. Traditional transient identification is performed by processing and analyzing with human involvement, which is a step in post-operation well analysis. In modern well surveillance technology, permanent and reliable data transmission from the wellbore to the surface provide the possibility to analyze well performance in real time or proactively. So automated transient identification is a practical demand, but a challenge at the same time. This article starts with the definition of a transient, then reviews and compares seven methods for transient identification proposed by previous works available in the literature. A comparative analysis of these methods is carried out accounting for the detection algorithm and procedure, results of testing, and general positive and negative sides of performance and application of these methods. The results of this review facilitate further developments of field data interpretation techniques by the R&D community and academia and may help in the selection of a proper method for further application in well surveillance workflows developed in the industry.

Keywords: permanent downhole gauge; pressure transient; break point; transient identification; well surveillance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/4/1689/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/4/1689/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:4:p:1689-:d:1061876

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().