Liannethea Nariska Putri

ANALISIS HASIL UJI SUMUR LNP-3 DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN PERANGKAT LUNAK ECRIN V4.02

Introduction

Analisis hasil uji sumur lnp-3 dengan menggunakan perangkat lunak ecrin v4.02. Analisis uji sumur gas LNP-3 menggunakan ECRIN V4.02 untuk karakterisasi lapisan dan evaluasi produktivitas. Menjelaskan PBU, MIT, permeabilitas, dan AOFP.

Abstract

AbstrakProduktivitas dari suatu sumur pada umumnya dinyatakan secara grafis dalam kurva inflow performance relationship (IPR). Maka dari itu, apabila ingin mengetahui kemampuan suatu lapisan untuk berproduksi, dapat dilakukan analisis hasil uji sumur. Pada sumur lapangan “L”, yaitu sumur LNP-3, dilakukan uji sumur dengan Pressure Buildup Test (PBU) sertaModified Isochronal Test (MIT) untuk mengetahui karakteristik suatu lapisan serta produktivitas dari lapisan tersebut. Sumur LNP-3 ini merupakan sumur dengan formasi batupasir yang belum mencapai batasan dari reservoirnya sehingga masih terus mengalami radial flow sampai dengan batas akhir pengujian sumur. Sumur LNP-3 memiliki tekanan reservoir (Pr) sebesar 852.089 Psi dan memiliki permeabilitas yang tergolong baik yaitu 14.6 mD. Sumur ini diperkirakan telah mengalami pekerjaan stimulasi dikarenakan nilai skin (S) sebesar -0.592 dengan radius investigasi (ri) sejauh 697 ft. berdasarkan uji deliverabilitas yang dilakukan, Sumur LNP-3 ini memiliki nilai koefisien performance (C) sebesar 0.156289 Mscf/D/Psi dan bilangan eksponen (n) sebesar 0.711172 sehingga berdasarkan nilai-nilai tersebut, diperkirakan laju maksimum (AOFP) dari sumur gas ini sebesar 2311.93 Mscf/D.Kata kunci: Uji Sumur, PBU, MIT, Pr, k, S, ri, C, n, AOFP. AbstractProductivity of a well is generally expressed graphically in an inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve. Therefore, if we want to know the ability of a layer to produce, analysis of well test results can be carried out. A well of field "L", which is LNP-3 well, has done well tests using Pressure Buildup Test (PBU) and Modified Isochronal Test (MIT) to determine the characteristics of a layer and the productivity of the layer. This LNP-3 well is a well with sandstone formation that has not reached the boundary of its reservoir so that it continues to have radial flow up to the end of well testing period. The LNP-3 well has a reservoir pressure (Pr) of 852,089 Psi and has a relatively good permeability (k) of 14.6 mD. This well is predicted to have stimulation work due to the skin (s) value of -0,592 with its investigation radius (ri) of 697 ft. Based on the deliverability test, this LNP-3 well has a performance coefficient (C) of 0.156289 Mscf / D / Psi and the exponent number (n) is 0.711172 so that based on these values, it is estimated that the maximum flow rate (AOFP) of this gas well is 2311.93 Mscf / D. Keywords: Well Tests, PBU, MIT, Pr, k, S, ri, C, n, AOFP

Review

This manuscript, "ANALISIS HASIL UJI SUMUR LNP-3 DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN PERANGKAT LUNAK ECRIN V4.02," presents a focused and practical analysis of well test data from the LNP-3 well in field "L." The core objective of determining reservoir characteristics and well productivity through Pressure Buildup (PBU) and Modified Isochronal Test (MIT) is clearly articulated and highly relevant to petroleum engineering and reservoir management. The application of industry-standard software, ECRIN V4.02, lends credibility to the methodology, positioning the study as a valuable example of real-world well test interpretation aimed at understanding the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas well. The abstract effectively highlights key findings, providing crucial quantitative data that underscores the well's performance. The reported reservoir pressure (Pr) of 852.089 Psi, a permeability (k) of 14.6 mD, and a negative skin factor (S) of -0.592, along with an investigation radius (ri) of 697 ft, offer immediate insight into the reservoir and wellbore conditions. The interpretation of the negative skin value suggesting prior stimulation is a pertinent observation. Furthermore, the deliverability test results, specifically the performance coefficient (C) of 0.156289 Mscf/D/Psi and exponent (n) of 0.711172, culminating in an estimated Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOFP) of 2311.93 Mscf/D, are well-presented and provide a tangible measure of the well's productive capacity. While the abstract provides a strong overview of the analytical results, the full paper would benefit from further contextualization and discussion. Elaboration on the specific geological characteristics of the sandstone formation, beyond merely stating its type, could enrich the understanding of the reservoir's behavior. A more detailed discussion on the implications of the "radial flow up to the end of well testing period," especially concerning reservoir boundaries or the effective drainage volume, would be valuable. Additionally, while the quantitative results are excellent, a brief discussion on the uncertainty or sensitivity of these parameters, given the inherent assumptions in well test analysis and software models, could enhance the robustness of the study. Overall, this paper appears to be a solid contribution, offering a clear and concise case study of well test analysis for reservoir characterization and productivity assessment.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.