You are on page 1of 41

.

USMS
019306 A Field

Example of Interference
Testing !.cross a
Partially
Communicating Fault
L.M. Yaxley, Shell Intl. Petr~leum Mij. B.V; J.M.
B1.aymires, Shell Intl Petroleum Mij. B.V.

*WWIW*W
ofPatmlaum En@maata
En@naersW diatdbution
Thi$manmptwa8t9
thesociatyof~
andpouibh@Mkation inanSPEjoumal. Thonwtorialiswb@ tocorrection
bytheauthor@).PmMm
tooopyi8ra8triotad tcmabatractofnd
mofethan
3oowofd8.wfitOsPE Sookofdortkpt,ubrary
Technidan,P.o.Box 833838,
Rkhardmn, 1% 7SOSMS36 U.S.A. TOIOX7S08SS SPEDAL.

A FIELD EXAMPLE OF iNTERFERENCE

TESTING

ACROSS A PARTIALLY COMMUNICATING

FAULT

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the design and analysis of an interference test which
was used to investigate the transmissibility of a fault in a producing North
Sea reservoir.
The prime objective ~f the test was to prove whether or not there was
any pressure communication across the fmtlt but it was also required to
measure the fault transmissibility, so that the rate of fluid leakage could
.,... -.. - .-.
.<
be estimated.
The test used one active well and two e+Mrvation wells, one of which
was on the same side of the fault as the active,, well, The a~ive well was
actually pulsed but the resultant pressure response was analyzed using rate
desuperposition, so that it could be matched to interference type curves.
Analysis of the test was also based on a mathematical model which
describes the effect of a partially communicating fault on transient
pressure behaviour2, Each observation well response yielded an estimate
for the fault transmissibility and the two values differed by only 8V0.

INTRODUCTION

,
0

interference and pulse tests can investigate reservoir properties over a


larger region of the reservoir than single-welltests. They can therefore give
information about reservoir chtiracteristics that is not available fwm
other sources. For example, the performance of a high];faulted reservoir

may dc~nd more on the transmissibility of the faults ?harithe formatictt


permeabilityas measured by core plug experiments or single-well
transient tests. indeed, the investigation of fault transmissibility would
seem to be an obvious application fo such tests.
However, when pulse testing was first introduced it was assumed that
it could only describe communication across faults qualitatively, because
the mathematical basis for any aria:ysis has depended on the assumption
of rese;voir homogeneity. The mathematical model is the infinite line
source solution which also requires that the reservoir fluid be single phase
and slightly compressible. When field data can be matched to this model
it will give estimates of two unknown parameters, i.e. the average .
formation transmissibility (T) and the average storativity (S) within the
~~~mtof influence of the test. The presence of a partially communicating
fault between the active and observation wells invalidates the assumption
of reservoir homogeneity and introduces a third unknown parameter,
which is the transmissibility of the fault. Consideration of this problem
has led to a new mathematical mode) which describes the effect of a
partially communicating fault on transient pressure behaviourz and
makes possible the quantitative interpretation of interference tests which
,.
.,.
are carried out across faults.
The fieldexample presented in this paper arose because of a specific
need to measure the transmissibility of a fault in a North Sea reservoir.
The reservoir, shown schematically in Figure 1, comprises a main blu:k
to the south and a smaller Graben block and H&st block to the north.
ln the Graben block, well A-1 is a water injector which supports the
producer B-1,

The Graben block was known tocommunicate with the main block
across the southern fault but seismic information suggested that the
northern fault had sufficient th?ow to isolwe the Horst block from the
Graben block. However, when well B-2 was drilled close to the fault on
the Horst block side it found that the fault throw was comparable to tile
gross formation thickness of the main producikigsand unit. This meant
that a crossflow path might exist between the Horst block and the Graben
block, as shown in Figure 2 for T,WO
possible cases of minimum and
maximum juxtaposition along the fauh plane.
To aid further development planning it wasconsidered necessaryto find
out if communication did exist between the Horst block and the Graben
block and if so,to estimate how much fluid leakage w&tld take place.

THEORY
Mathematical Model for a Partially Communicating Fault
The following is a summary of the mathematical model which is presented
more compre!lensively in Reference 2.
. .
The assumptions concerning reservoir and fluid properties are the same
as for the infinite, homogeneous reservoir model except that a linear
discontinti$ is included to represent the fault. T Ie following additional
assumptions are needed to model the fault itself
(1) The fault is linear and infinitely long,
(2) The fault plane acts as a vertictil, semi-permeable barrier.
(3) The fault zone has negligible capacity.

19306

Fluid leakage per unit length of the fault is therefore modelled by

1.1~7X]O-?~(~Z-.~,)

vX=
[ln S1 units K=

RB/D/ft

(la)

.640x 10-sfi(Pz -Pl)m3/d/m]

where ~is assumedto be a constant for the fault and represents its specific
transmissibilityy (i.e. its transmissibility per uriit length). Pz and pi are the
upstream and downstream pressures respectively, on opposite sides of the
fault (see Figure 3).
The fluid leakage can also be expressed in terms of a specific leakage
index (J) which is thv rate of crossflow per unit pressure difference across
the fault per unit length of the fault, i.e.
(lb)

K = Jj(P2 - PI)
so that
JJ = fi/887

RB/D/psi/ft

(lC)

[In S1 units Jf = ~/1 1570m3/d/kPa/m]


Separate sclutions were derived for the pressure drawdown distribution
on each side of the fault. They are expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates
such that the fauit direction coincides with the y-axis and an active well
is located in the half-plane x >0 (see Figure 4), The solutions are:

PdxD, yL3)= iiioM exp[2fxdlx~l

+ Ml

~[expi+u-a
(2)

For x >0,
mm,

YfJ) = - +Ei - (XD4::


{

+ i]]

fi~A

+ 1)]

eXF[2cx~(X~

x erfc 2Wv~ +
[

[
,0

(XD+ 1)
2G

[e++)
(3)

in which
(4)
Cx.d

= 7jb/T

(5)

and
T = kb/p

The parameters w and ~Aare referred to as the specific transmissibility


ratio of the fault,
ln Figure 4, the half-plane x <0 is labclled as the observation well
region but the active well region could also contain an observation well
(for which Eq, 3 is applicable), Figure 5 shows interference type curves
which are obtained for the observation wellregion using Eq. 2 whileTable
.,
.
1fistssome values for the same curves within the dimensionlesstime range
0.1 < tL)L< 2.S. Appendix A explains how to numerically evaluate the
integral in !Zq. 2 and Eq, 3.

Rate Desuperposition
The pressure response crettted by a pulse test cannot be matched directly

,..

against interference type curves, such as those in Figure 5. This disadvantage can be overcome by the method of rate desuperposition, which
converts the variabie-rate pulse test response to an equivalent constantrate interference response,
The rne!hod was originally proposed by Bostic et a/.3 for type curve
matching of pressure buildup dar.aon massive hydraulically fractured gas
wells, Hovwvcr, it is a completely general numerical technique which can
be applied to any type of transient testing.
The desuperposition algorithm for any period of the pulse testis given
by,
n-l

APc,(tJ = AP(tm)- ~-(qj+

j=]

I -

Ap.r(fn

hj)t

~ ~ 1

(6)

AP.,(t]) = AP(tt)

AP(/~) is the actual pressure change measured at any cumulative time


1during the mh period while APC,(I.)is the pressure change that would
Ilava been measured at time t.if the rate of the active well had been kept
constant at the initial rate 91, Each tojis the cumulative ~me to the end of
the Jth period.
Application of Eq. 6 requires some interpolation of the measured data,
which is best done logarithmically. It may also require extrapolation at the
beginning of a new period and towards the end of the final period.
Excessive extrapolation should be avoided by reducing the time range of
the desuperposed response, The desuperposed response may also show
excessivenoise if the data set is too dense. (The same problem occurs with
6

SEE 19306
numerical differentiation,) A smoother result can be obtained by filtering
thv data set to reduce the number of points.

TEST DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


Pulse Test or Interference test?
/
The first objective of the test was to prove qualitatively whether or not
therewas any communication across the fault. Therefore, a pulse test is
attractive because it has the advantage of producing a characteristic
pressure pulse which, in theory, should be distinguishable from any
...
background pressure trend. Unfortunately though, the simple graphical
analysis which can be applied to pulse tests in homogeneous reservoir~-
cttntmt be used to calculate the transmissibility of a partially communicanting fault. Consequently, to satisfy the second quantitative objective of
the test, it is preferable to do an interference test so that the pressure.
response can be matched against type curves for a partially communicating fault.
The answer to this apparent design dilemma is to do both. In other
words, pulse the acti,e well but make the first pulse long en-oughso that
its response can be matched against type curves, In addition, the following
supplementary procedures can be used for the analysis:
(a) Convert the pulse test response to an equivalent interference response
by the method of ra~e desuperposition,
(b) Verify the analysis by computer simulation.

..- .

.-.

=
Choice of Active and Observation Well.

Figure 1shows that any of the wellsA-1, B-1and B-2could have been used
as the active well but A-1 was chosen for the following reasons:
(a) it has the highest rate disturbance potential, i.e. 54,000 RB/D versus
33,000RB/D for B-1 or 36,000 RB/D for B-2,
(b) Well A-1 IScloser than B-1to well B-2, i.e. 3,973 feet versus 4,258 feet.
(c) Since .+-1 is a water injector the wellbore storage effect wouid be
minimals,
With A-1 chosen as the active well, it follows that B-2 has to be used
as the observat ion well on the Horst Mockside of the fault. However, well
B-1 was also used as an observation well for the following reasons:
(a) lt would kiaveto be shut-in throughout the tesi anyway.
,
.-.
(b) It would provide an independent measurement of the reservoir
transmissibility, which could be used to enhance the interpretation ui
any response observed in well B-2,
..
Test Timing and Background Pressure Trend
The test was scheduled to take place at the end of a four week shutdown
for platform maintenance, This timing offered the following advantages:
(a) It meant that the background pressure trend in the vicinity of the test
area would be quite stable after such a long shutdown of production
and injection,
(b) The background pressure trend could be directly measured, whhout

. .. .

19306

deferring any production, by installing pressure gauges in the


observation wells before the platform shutdown ended.
A declining background pressure trend was expected in the Graben
block area because the main reservoir block was still being produczd via
wells firomanother platform in the south of the field.

The ~c ventional tangent method for analysing pulse tests is supposed


to automatically rernovt the background pressure trend, This is strict!y
valid only when the backgiound trend is linear but it is often assumed that
the technique will also compensate ~m non=linew.background trends.
However, as stated previously, the conventional pulse test analysis
techniques are not applicable to a partially communicating fault. Therefore the direct measurement of the background pressure trend was a
critical design consideration that would ena~le the true transient pressure
change to be resolved for type curve matching,
.
.

DESIGN CRITERIA AND PULSE DURATION


When making design calculations it is fairly easy to estimate reasonable
values for the reservoir and fluid parameters (see Table 2). However, the
fault transmissibility is completely unknown, The fault may not act as a
barrier at ah or it may act as a perfect seal, The principle design criterion
should therefore be based on a minimum leakage rate which the test is
required to prove or disprove, Once that choice is made, Eq. 1can be used
to estimate the correspoking minimum specifictransmissibilhy which the
test is required to measure. (Equation 4 can be used, in turn, to calculate
the minimum specific transmissibility ratio,) Thereafter, Figure 5 or Table

WE

!9306

1can be used to estimate the minimum expected pressure response for any
initial pulse duration.
The criterion selected was that the test should be able to measure a
specific transmissibility ratio (CU)as low as 0,1, Combining this with th~j
design parameters.in Table 2 leads to the values given in Table 3 for
maximum pressure resp~nse versus initial pulse duration,
The finai choice of pulse duration was based onthe expected minimum
rartge of the pressure response during the iniiial pulse, because effective
type curve matching requires at least one to two log cycles of data. The
pressure response ran~e can be jud~ed by dividing the maximum pressure
response by the resolution of the pressure gauge (i.e. the minimum
detectable response), The pressure gauges selected for the test had
capacitive-type transducers with si field-proven resolution of 0,0S psi.
Therefore, the minimum desirable pulse duration was 72 hours (seeTable
3).

FINAL TEST DESIGN


The final test design consisted of two, 3-day injection pulses separated by
3=dayshut-in periods, Thus the full test sequence was planned to Iait ]2
days, during which the producer B-1 would have to be shut=in, Ideally,
the Horst block producur B-3 should also have been shut=infor the same
period. However, to minimize the total oil deferment, B-3was opened up
at the end of the first pulse. In this way it was hoped that the first pulse
would give sufficient response to determine the fault transmissibility,

10

>,.,

,+

b ME
while the second pulse would corroborate any conclusions qualitativelyeven if %3 caused additional interference,
Three electronic pressure gauges were installed downhole in each
observation well as soon as practicable, prior to the end of the shutdown,
In addition, two bourdon-tube gauges were installed at the wellhead of
A-1 so that its injection sequence could be monitored accurately.

RESULTS
Well B.1

The measured response for well B-1 i~shown in Figure 6. A strong pulse
was observed with a peak pressure chang~ of nearly 40 psi, which was
double the anticipated value,
The response of well B-1 was also rapid because the effect of !njection
into A-I is noticeable after about 30 minutes. During the first 3-day pulse,
A-1 injection was interrupted by three short process trips that often occur
during the re-start which follows a long platform shutdown, None of the
process trips was longer than 1.5 hours but they still caused a noticeable
distortion of the pressure response during the first injection period,
Figure 7 is an enlargementof the B=l pressure response during the first
injection periof,, It shows that the background pressure trend was linear
and declining at 1.34 psi/D, {Thebackground trend actually has an earth=
tide component but it can be neglected becavse the atnplhude is only about
0,02 psi,)

11

19304

19306

Well B-2

The measured response for well B-2 is shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In
Figure 8 the :sponse appears to lack character during the first injection
period but that is due to the vertical pressure scale. The enlargement
shown in Figure 9 clearly defines a linear background pressure trend,
which was recorded for 36 hours prior to the start of the test, It also shows
clearly that the initial declining pressure trend reversed after about
12 hours of injection into well A-1, With this observation the test was
qualitatively successful and proved that there is pressure communication
between the Graben block wtd the Horst block,
The declining background pressure trend of 1,36psi/D is almost
identicai to the value measured in B. 1, This is a significant observation
- which helps corroborate the conclusion that the fwtlt is not sealing,
However, by itself it is not wfficietu evidence, because other explanations
could have been found for a declining pressure trend in the Horst block
and it could have been coincidental that the rate oi decline was the same
as in the Graben block.
It was fortunate that the initial pulse gave such a clear indication of
communication between wells A=1 and B=2because the response of B*2
to the second pul~e was obliterated by the opening of the Horst block
producer B-3 (see Figure 8), This means that the first injection period and
part of the first shut=ht period are all that can be used to analyse the
@

interference response acrcss the fault.

A!iALYSIS
Graben Block Observation Well (B-l )

The first step in the analysis procedure is to calculate the transient pressure
change AP by subtracting the extrapolated background pressure trend
from the measured pressure response (seeFigure 7). Table 4 liststhe values
of AP versus At, which is the cumulative time since the ..art of %jection
into well A-1.
Table 4 also includes the desuperposed pressure change AP~,where it
has been possible to calculate it accurately using the algorithm defined
by Eq, 6 and the injection rate versus time sequence given in Table 5.
The useable desuperposed pressure response spans the time range 1.5
to 252 hours and is plotted in Figure 11. The type curves in Figure 11have
been calc~!ated from Eq. 3 for the fault and vwil orientations that are
defined in Figure 10. (Note that in Figure 1 the fault direction is
approximately perpendicular to a line of intersection joining weUsA-1 and
B-2.)
The bottom curve (W = ao) is the exponential integral solution for a
homogeneous reservoir while the top curve (w = O) represents a
homogeneous reservoir with a singlesealing fault. The intermediate curves
are for the partially communicating fault model. For dimensionless time
less than 0.7, all the cu:ves merge into the exponential integral solution,
which means that a reliable match for the formation transmissibility (T)
and storativity (S) can be obtained for the Graben block region
irrespective of the fault transmissibility.

13

It was not intended to evaluate the fault transmissibility from the


Graben block observation well response However, the desuperposition
technique was so successful that the type curve match in Figure 11
demonstrates by itself that the fault is not sealing and that it has a specific
transmissibility ratio (aA)of about 0.1 or 0.2,
Therefore, simulation was used to fine-tune the estimate for w. The
formation transmissibility and storativity obtained from the type curve
match were kept constant while w was varied by trial and error, Figure
12shows the best match which was obtained for LW= 0.2. The sensitivity
y
of the match to the nature of the fault is demonstrated in Figure 13. The
measured response lies between the simulated response for a sealing fault
and the simulated response for a homogeneous reservoir with no fault.

The transient change at well B-2 was also calculated by subtracting the
.
extrapolated background trend from the measured response (see Figure
9). The resulting values of AP versus At are listed in Table 6. Desuperposition was not applied to this data because the opening-up of well B-3
restricted the useable pressure response to At c 100hours. Furthermore,
the process trips which affected the B-1 response were too short to be
noticed at B-2.
The AP versus At response is plotted in Figure 14 together with type
curves which have been calculated from Eq. 2. It is immediately obvious
that a.unique match for the three parameters T, S and cu is impossible for
this data set alone. However, the average formation transmissibility
14

SEE 19306
obtained from the analysis of B-1 can be used to constrain the type curve
match for B-2. Hence, Figure 14 has the sarr.e dimensionless pressure
match as Figure 11and the final type curve fit is only required IQestimate
the two parameters S and cw.
The final anal::sis was verified by simulation, as shown in Figure 15.The
simulated response matches the measured response even during the first
30 hours of the first shut-in period, which means that the producer B-3
had negligible effect until 30 hours after it had commenced production.
Figure 15 ~lso shows how B-2 would have responded during the rest of
the test sequence if B-3 had remained shut-in.

Comparison of the Two Analyses nd Final Interpretation

Table 7 compares the reservoir and fault parameters that were obtained
by analysing each observation well response.

The total compressibilityy obtained for well B-1 wa,sunexpectedly low


since the average total compressibility of the reservoir at initial conditions
is 25 x 10-6 psi- 1. The low measured value (8.96 x 10-6psi-1, had to
mean that the waterflood in the Graben block was very advanced. This
interpretation was confirmed soon after the test was completed because
B-1 developeda water-cut which rose to 50~o within three weeks.
Furthermore, the waterflood must have been more advanced in the
direction of B-1than towards the Horst block, because of the wellspacing
and structural Iocatiotts (see Figure l). Thus the average total compressibility
y obtained for B-2 (17.4 x 10-6 psi,-1, is plausible because it is still

15

19306

less than the average total compressibility for unfwept reservoir


.
(i.e. 25 x 10-6psi-1).
The assumption that the average formation transmissibility is the same
for both wells could be questioned. However, it seems a reasonable
approximation because the two analyses give estimates for the specific
~:ansmissibility of the fault which differ by only 8~o. This consistency
helps to support the assumptions and methods of analysis.
The average specific transmissibility of 15.1md/cp is equivalent to a
\,

specific leakage index of 0.017 RJ3/D/psi/ft (see Eq. 1b). For a total fault \,length of 4,000 ft (see Figure 1) the oil or water leaktige rate at steady
conditions would be 68 RB/D for each 1psi average pressured: ferential
across the fault.

CONCLUS1ONS
The field example presented in this paper demonstrates that with careful
design and appropriate analysis techniques it is possible to measure the
transmissibility of a fault by interference testing.
The success of the test was largely due to the use of two observation
\vells, one of which was on the same side of the fault as the active well.
The test analysis and interpretation was greatly enhanced by the
technique of rate desuperposition. This was used to convert a variable-rate
*
pulse response to an equivalent constant-rate interference response, which
could subsequently be compared to interference type curves.

=
NOMENCLATURE
b = 1perpendicular distance from the fault to the active well, ft [m]
bD = (dimensionless distance, b/L
B= formation volume factor, RB/B [res m3/stock-tank m3]
c = (compressibility, psi-l [Pa-]
II

formation thickness, ft [m]

Jf

specific leakage index, B/D/psi/ft [m3/(kPa.d.m)]

h=

formation permeability, md.[#m2]

L = interwell distance perpendicular to fault, ft [m]


P= pressure, psi [kPa]

AP= transient pressure response, psi [kPa]


APC,= desuperposed pressure response (see Eq. 6), psi [kPa]
PO = dimensionless pressure 2rrknAP/qB# (see footnote)
q = production or injection rate, B/D [m3/d]
s = storativity @ch,ft/psi [m/kPa]
! = time, hours
At = cumulative time since start of test, hours
tp = pulse duration, hours
tDA= dimensionless time defined by @/b2
tDL= dimensionless time defined by flt/L2
T= formation transmissibility kh/~, md-ft/cp [pm2.m/Pa.s]
q=

specific transmissibilityy of fault (see Eq. 1), md/cp [pm2/Pa.s]

h=

leakage per unit length of fault (seeEq. 1), RB/D/ft [resm3/d/m]

x= distance perpendicular to the fault, ft [m]


x~ = dimensionless distance, x/L

17

19306

Y = distance from the active well parallel to the fault, ft [m)


YD

= dimensionless distance, Y/L

CY =

specific transmissibility ratio (see Eq 4 and Eq. 5)

h = hydraulic diffusivity, k/@c4 sq ft/hr [mm2/s] (see footnote)


p.

viscosity, cp [Pas]

4= porosity, fraction
Subscripts
A = with respect to the active-weli distance from the fault

D = dimensionless
~ = fauit
f, = with respect to interwell distance
r = totai

Special Functions
m

-Ei(-x)

[
,.?

(e-/u) du

erfc(x] = 2/~n

= exp(- U2)du

[
x

Note:

If using customary units, replace the consistent groups q@2 trkh and
k/tpc# with 141.2q#/kh psi and 2.637 x 10-4 k/@c~ sq ft/hr respectively.
If using S1 units, repiace the same groups with 1,842q~/kh kPa and
0.0036 k/@cpmm2/hr) respectively.

18

S=

29306

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the managements of Shell UK Exploration and


Production Ltd. Shell htternationale Pe;roiewrt Maatschappij and Esso
Exploration and Production UK Ltd for their permission to publish this
paper. They also thank J. Gdula for contributing Figure 2.

REFERENCES
1.

Johnson, C. R., Greenkorn, R. A, and Woods, E. G.: Pulse


Testing: A New Method for Describing Flow Properties Between
Wells, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 1599-1604; Trans., AIME, 237 (December
1966),

2. }axley, L. M.: The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on


Transient Pressure Behavior,

Paper SPE 14311 presented at the

60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, 22-25


September, 1985.
3. Bostic, J. N., Agarwal, R. G. and Carter, R. D.: Combined Analysis
of Post Fracturing Performance and Pressure Buildup Data for
Evaluating an MHFGas Well, Paper.SPE 8280presented at the 54th
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, 23-26
September, 1979.
4.

Brigham, W.E.: Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests, J. Pet,


Tech., pp. 618-624; Trans., AIME, 249 (May 1970).

5. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W. E.: Designand Analysis of Pulse Tests


with Unequal Pulse and Shut-in Periods, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 205-212
(February 1976).

19

6. Rathbone, M. J., Unneberg, A. and Cull, G. W. L.: Pulse Testing


in the Statfjord Field, Paper SPE 10267 presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 5-7
October 1981.
7. Culham, W. E.: Amplification of Pulse-Testing Theory, J. Pe?.
Tech., pp. 1245-1247 (October 1969).

8. Prats, M. and Scott, J, B.: Effect of Wellbore Storage on Pulse-Test


. ..
Pressure Response, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 707-709 (June 1975).
9. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A.: Handbook of Mathematical
Functions, National Bureau of Stan, ds, pp. 299 and 316 (1968).
APPENDIX A
Numerical Evaluation of the Integral in Kq. 2 and Eq. 3

The integral given by


I(cx,?) = \/rrcxe~p[2a(x + b)]

x {exp(4a2u - y2/4u) erfc[2aJu + (x + b)/2du]/duldu


I
,0
(A,l)
can be written in the form

I(a, I) = dm

IF(Z) exp(- r2/4u)/[4cxu + x + b]] du


,0
\

where
Z = 2(IJu

F(z/

+ (x+

b)/2du

exp(z2)erfc(z)

r2=(x+b)2+#

(A.2)

19306

The function F(z) can be evaluated by the following polynomial


approximations9
For x <2,
(A.3)

where
w =

1/(1 + pz)

p = 0.3275911

and

Also
al = 0.254829592

a~ = -1.453152027

az = - 0.28M96736

as = 1.061405429

aj = 1.421413741

For x >2,
(A.4)
where
w =

1/z2

bo =

0.56418944

b~ = -2.42070420

bl =

0.28205027

bs =

b2 = -0.42010034
bj =

4.48992450

bb = -4.02222430

0.97246791

The above method ensures that the integrand is always calculated with
sufficient accur~cy, Numerical evaluation of the integral itself can then .
be accomplished by a straightforward application of Simpsons Rule to
Eq. (A.2).
21

TABLE1
Valuesof the ObservationWellDrawdownFunction(Eq. 2)
PAXD,YD) for lx~[ + b~ = 1 and YD= O
ID,
O,1o

0,15
0,20
0.25
0.30
0.40
0,50
0.60
0.70
0,80
0,90
I.00
1so
2.00
2.50

I CU=o.1
0,0003
0.0014
0,0033
0.0057
0,0085
0.0149
0.0219
0.0292
0.0366
0.0440
0.0514
0.0587
0,0936
0.125S
0.1547

CYL=O.2

CU=O.5

000007
0.0028
0.0063
0,0108
0.0161
0.0279
0.0408
0.0540
0.0672
0.0804
0.0934
0.}061
0.1656
0.2184
0.2657

0,0015
0.0063
0,0140
0,0237
0,0348
0,0590
0,0844
0,1099
0,1349
0.1592
0,1826
0.:352
0.3064
0.3913
0.4639

CU=lo
0,0028
0.0109
0.0237
0,0393
0.0567
0.0935
0.1308
0.1672
0.2020
0.2351
0.2666
0.2964
0,42S4
0.5290
0.61S1

TABLE2
Reservoir,Welland FluidParametersUsed for Test Design
Permeability
Viscosity
Average Porosity
Total Compressibility
Average Formation Thickness
Water Injcc[ion Rate
Water Formation Volume Factor
Interwell Distance (A-1 to B-2)

1000md
0.3 Cp
0.25
25 x 10-spsi-
7s ft
50,000 B/D
1.03 RB/B
3,873 f[

,,

TABLE3
Design Calculations fOr W = O.I
Pulse
Duration
(hours)

~DL

24
48
72
96

0,226
0,451
0.677
0.903

i+Y

Pressure
Response
AP (psi)

Ratio of AP
to Gauge
Rcsoltttion*

0.0045
0,0184
0,0349
0.0516

0,13
0,54
1,0
1,5

2,6
11
20
30

*0.05 psi for a capacitive-type transducer

19306

TABLE4
Well B-1 Pressure Versus Time Response

At
(hours)

AP
(psi)

A P,,
(psi)

AI
(hours)

AP
(psi)

AP.,
(psi)

1.459
I ,959
2.459
2.959
3.459
3.959
4.4s9
4,959
5.459
5.959
6,959
7.4s9
7,9s9
8.4S9
8.959
9,459
9,959
10.459
10.959
11.439
11.%7
12.459
12S67
13,459
13.959
14.959
15.9s9
16.9:9
17,959
18,959
19,959
20,959
21,9S9
22,459
23,959
24,959
26,459
27.959
29.959
31.959
33.959
35,459
37.459
39,959
42,4S9

0.06

0,06

44,959
47,4s9
50.459
53.459
55,75G
56.459
S6,817
58,959
60.184
60.4s9
61.451
61.959
62,184
63,459
66.959
70,9s9
76,817
77,959
79.9s9
84.459
89,459
94,4s9
99.959
106.4s9
112,459
119.459
125.9S9
133,959
141,959
150,459
IS2.200
1!32,9S9
159,4s9
168,459
178,459
189,4S9
20Q4S9
212,459
224,317
231,959
238,459
2S2,459
267.459
282.959
296,4S9

32,95
34.28
35,69
36,99
37.99
38.22
38,20
37.98
37.87
37,83
37.94
38,(K)
37,98
37.%
39,05
39.51
42,00
42.25
41.31
38,57
35.52
32.87
30,46
28.05
25,97
23.89
22,1!!
20,30
18,49
16,98
16,65
16,63
22.24
29,40
3S.85
4!,.49
46,14
50,18
53,01
48,0S
43.05
34,67
28,42
23,93
20,95

33,34
34,66
36.03
37,31
3$,30
38.54
38.54
39,24
40.00
40.06
40,61
40.86
40,91
41.21
42.63
42.66
44.82
45.Q8
4s.08
47.19
48.83
SO.14
51,92
53,97
5S,61
37.38
58,46
60,16
61.20
62.03
62,17
62.31
64,07
65,59
67.16
68.32
69.58
70,74
71.87
72,03
72,15
72,46

0,31
0,71
1.15
i .68
2,22
2.78
3.33
3.87
4.42
5,49
S.98
6.50
703
7.49
7,99
8.49
8.92
9.46
9.94
10,39
10.83
0.94
1.6S
1,81
2.28
3.06
3.93
4,72
15,61
16.44
17,28
18,09
18S0
19,6S
20.41
21,4?
22.57
23.95
2S,28
26.60
27.79
28.%
30,26
31.60

0.31
0.7 I
1.15
1.68
2,22
2.78
3,33
3.87
4.42
5.49
5.98
6.50
7.03
7.49
7,99
8.49
8.92
9.46
9.94
10,39 ~
10.83
0.95
1.73
1.98
2.75
3.80
4.61
5.41
16,25
17,07
17.89
18.68
19,07
20,19
20,93
21,98
23.07
24.46
25,75
27.07
28,24
29,40
30.69
32.01

WE

TABLES

WellA-1 Injection Rate Versus Time Sequence


Period
J
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II

Time, toj
(hours)

Rate, qj
(B/D)

0,0

0
52,500
0
52,500
0
30,000
52,500
0
52,500
0
52,500
0

ll,9bi
12,567
55.750
56,817
60,184
61.4S1
62,184
76,817
152,200
224.3!7
296.459

TABLE6
Well B-2 Pressure 1 sus Time Response
At
(hours)
10s0s9
11.059
11.%7
12,S67
13.059
14,s59
16,309
17s39
19,059
20S39
23,059
25,059
27,0S9
29.059
31,309
32 SS9
33,809
35.309
36S59
38.OS9
39,559

AP
(psi)
0,05
0,09
0,11
0,12
0,15
0,20
0,23
0,32
0.36
0.43
0.58
0,68
0,78
0,90
I*OO
1.12
1,21
1.30
1,40
1,51
I.60

At
(hours)

(psi)

41.0s9
42.809
44.309
46.059
47.809
49.809
S1,809
53.809
5s,750
58.059
61,451
65.059
70.309
76,817
81.809
88S59
94.059
100,059
106.309
109.s59

1,70
1,81
1.90
2.02
2.21
2,33
2.47
2,59
2.73
2,92
3.20
3.43
3.83
4.30
4,44
4,81
4.93
4,92
3*95
3.41

TABLE7
Comparison of B-1 and B.2 Analysis Results

khlp
k
QCI

c1
aA

Well B-t

Well B.2

md.ft/cp
md
ft/psi
psi- 1

209,500
838
1,68 x 10-9
8,96 X 10-G
0,20

209,500
838
3,26 X 10-4
17.4 x 10-6

md/cp

14.4

aL

0,29
1$,7 9

Note: The following parametershave been used for


bOtll analyses h = 75
P
@=

Ill

ii!

MINIMUM CASE
Field Eastern

Top

Horst

Top

Block

MAXIMUM CASE

~ Ptiblc crossflow path due to


sand juxtaposition at fault.

Figure

2:

Schiaattc

cross-sect

crossflow paths.

ion

through

fault

showing

possible

K = Leakage rate per unit length = q(~

- PI)

Kfi
v = Specific Transmissibility =
~p

Figure

3:

The vertical,
partially

semipermeable barrier

coaaunimting

fault.

aodel for

le~ge

through a

AY

Observation Well
Region

(x, y)
r

L~
(b, O)

b
x

Active Well
Region

Fault

Figure

4:

Coordinate

system

for

the partially

communicating

fault

model.

s~E 19306

2
c
0

u!
.-

,. :

S=

.*?

al
.fy

--;;

#<

......
y:::y
:.:.:.:.:.:.
.D
....
..:::
...
.,..
SC!

\
T

,/

..,.,
.:.:<

w
....
....
,.,.

19306

5800

0000
o
>00
0
t

Well A-1 closed

5790

5780

CJ
/
5770

~o
o
0
5760

!~lcground Trend
-1.34 psi/day

t
Well A-1 opened
5750

Time (hours)

Figure % Measured pressure at well B-1 during first pulse.

160
B
w

582(J

Well A-l closed


5818

I
Well B-3 opened
5816

5814

Background Trend<
1.36 psi/day
\

5812
4

1:
Time (hours)

Figure 9:

pressurcat weIl B-2 during first pulse.

Horst Block
Region

Graben Block
Region
B-1 (XI, M)

B-2

b=2900ft
L = 3873 ft

xl = 2329 ft
.YI = 2609 ft

Fi
Figure 20:

Well locations

relative

to the fault.

10

102

10

10

Match Point:
I
=0.39
At = 10hoursattm
A.f= lpsiatl?D=O.0274

lo1

10-2

1
Dimensionless Time t~

10

lo10

At (hours)
curve metch for well
..

B-1.

. Meamqd response: B-1


- Simulated

= 838md
= 8.% x 10-6 psi-l
aA = 0.20

50

100

150

250

At (hours)
Figure

12:

Best simulation

match for well

B-1.

*E

19306

rj

1
a~

).50
).30
MO
).15
).10

Match Point:
At = 10 houm at fDL = 0.113
AP = 1 psi at P~ = 0.0274
aL = ().~
I

0.1

0.5

?.2

Dimensionless Time IDL

10
At
?igure

1[00

(hOUfS).

14:

Type curve match for well

B-2.

~Measured response: B-2


Simulated response: B-2 to A-1 only

K = 838md
Cg = 17.4 X 10-6 psi-
a ~ = 0.29

100

50

Figure

15:

150
Ar (hours)
Best simulation

200

aateh for well

250

B-2.

~
:

,I

Figure 1: Top reservoir structure map and w-cIIIoca[ions.


Figure 2: Schematic cross-section through fault showing possible crossflow paths.
Figure k The vertical. semipermeable

:
:
*

barrier model for Ieakagc through a partia[ly


communicating fault.

Figure & Coordinate system for the ~rtially

communicating fauJt model.

Figure 5: Prmswc drawdown type curves for an observation well which is on the opposite
zide of !he fauh as an active WCIL
Figure 6: Sfeasured pressure at svell B-1.
Figure % Xleasured pressure at well B-1 during first pulse.
Figure 8 Measured pressure at well B-2.
Figure 9: %!easured pressure at well B-2 during first pulse.
Figure 10: Well locations relative to she fault.
- Figure 31: Type curve match for well B-1.
.

Figure 12: Best simulation match for weiI B-1.


Figure 13 B-1 response compared to a sealing fault model and a homogeneous reservoir
model.
Figure 14 Type curve match for well B-2.
Figure 15: Best simulation match for well B-2.