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.

No abstract