You are on page 1of 10

Check the results:

(close enough)

13.6 Summary
This chapter reviews interference and pulse tests, also known as multiple-
well testing. These types of tests can be used to obtain an adequate reservoir
description for homogeneous (both isotropic and anisotropic) and hetero-
geneous systems. Numerical solutions must be used to analyze pressure
transient data from heterogeneous reservoir systems. At the same time, it
is one of the most important and useful tests to understand the well behavior
in a water flood and EOR projects.

References
1. Kamal, M., and Brigham, W. E., "Pulse Testing Response for Unequal
Pulse and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975), 399-410;
Trans. AIME 259.
2. Johnson, C. R., Greenhorn, R. A., and Woods, E. G., "Pulse Testing: A
New Method for Describing Reservoir Flow Properties Between Wells,"
/. Pet. Technol. (Dec. 1966), 1599-1604, Trans. AIME 237.
3. Earlougher, R. C, Jr., Advances in Well Test Analysis, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX, 1977.
4. Falade, G. K., and Brigham, W. E., "The Dynamics of Vertical Pulse
Testing in a Slab reservoir," paper SPE 5055A presented at the SPE-
AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.
5. Falade, G. K., and Brigham, W. E., "The Analysis of Single-Well Pulse
Tests in a Finite-Acting Slab Reservoir," paper SPE 5055B presented at
the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.

Additional Reading
1. Mueller, T. D., and Witherspoon, P. A., "Pressure Interference Effects
Within Reservoirs and Aquifers," /. Pet. Technol. (April 1965), AlX-Al A\
Trans. AIME 234.
2. Wattenbarger, R. A., and Ramey, H. J., "Well Test Interpretation of
Vertical Fractured Gas Wells," /. Pet. Technol. (May 1969), 625-632.
Chapter 14
Injection Well
Transient Testing
and Analysis

14.1 Introduction
This chapter presents pressure analysis techniques in injection wells. The
injectivity test and the fall-off tests are used to estimate the reservoir proper-
ties of injection wells in waterflood and tertiary recovery projects. The
knowledge of reservoir properties and near wellbore conditions in injection
wells is as important as in the producing wells. Injection well transient
testing and analysis are simple as long as the mobility ratio between the
injected and in-situ fluids is about unity and the radius of investigation is not
beyond the water (injected fluid) bank. Figure 14-1 shows types of tests,
limitations, and their uses.

14.2 Injectivity Test Analysis Methods


Figure 14-2 shows rate schedule and pressure response for injectivity
testing.

Under Steady-State Conditions


Reservoirs with injection wells can reach true steady-state condition when
total injection rate is equal to total production rate. Hall1 has provided a
method to analyze injection wells that assumes a series of steady-state
injection conditions (Figure 14-3). Figure 14-6 shows that a plot of integral
Types of Tests, Their Uses, and Methods of Analysis

Injectivity Test Pressure fall-off Tests Two Rate Test Step Rate Injectivity Test

It is analogous to It is analogous to This type of test


Also known as
draw down pressure buildup eliminates changing
multiple rate
testing, for both testing and can be wellbore storage
analysis. Simple,
constant and used for both infinite during a fall-off test.
inexpensive and
variable rates and developed Fracture pressure in an
fast pressure data
Uses reservoirs. injection well can be
can be analyzed
Conventional Uses determined and is
using multiple-rate
method Log-log plot useful in waterflood
transient techniques
Semilog plot Horner plot and tertiary floods

Figure 14-1. Types of tests, their uses, and methods of analysis.

Shut-in
Rate, q

Injecting

Injection time, t
Pressure, pw,
psig

Injection time, t

Figure 14-2. Rate schedule and pressure response in injectivity test.

or its approximation versus cumulative water injection should give a


straight-line with slope:

(14-1)

Methods of Analysis - Hall Plot1


If PD and ^i are known, then k\\i can be estimated.
If PD and kjji are known, we can estimate s\.
Changes in slope of the Hall1
plot can be caused by
changes in k//j,, s or <j>

Cumulative injection, W1, bblx 10~3

Figure 14-3. Water Injection well showing stimulation effects under steady-state
condition-Hall 1 .

If we obtain k/ji or s\ from the transient test, then we must be able to


determine pn

(14-2)

Ratio of new flow efficiency is

(14-3)

Waterflood Reservoir with M.R = LO

An example calculation for waterflood reservoir with mobility ratio equal


to one is given below.

Example 14I6 Analyzing Injection Well Test Data (Waterflood Reservoir


M.R =1.0)
Table 141 shows the pressure fall-off test data; other well/water-flood reser-
voir data are: pressure prior to test, pwf (At=O) = 175 psi, injection rate at time of
test -lOOstb/day, injection time = 1 . 5 years; area within 5-spot pattern,
A = 40 acres and sw, a time of test = 0.4 fraction; well depth = 5002 ft;
/2= 16ft; 0 = 0.15; / ^ = LOcP; f3w = l.Orb/stb; ct = 6.17 x 10"5PSi"1;
rw = 0.25 ft; re = 744.6ft; pw = 66.45 lbm/ft3; water saturation at beginning of
test jv = 0.42 fraction.
Table 14-1
Injectivity Test Dataa

Pressure Injection Pressure drop, Radius of


Time, response, rate Ap = (pwf-Pi) drainage,
*(hr) Pw/ (psig) qw (stb/day) (psig) U (ft)
0.050 249.0 -100 55.0 21.2
0.175 284.0 -100 90.0 39.7
0.250 324.0 -100 130.0 47.4
0.350 360.0 -100 166.0 56.1
0.375 368.0 -100 174.0 58.1
0.400 372.0 -100 178.0 60.0
0.420 374.0 -100 180.0 61.5
0.500 384.0 -100 190.0 67.1
0.570 424.0 -100 230.0 71.6
0.700 454.0 -100 260.0 79.3
0.820 594.0 -100 400.0 85.9
1.000 709.0 -100 515.0 94.8
1.200 774.0 -100 580.0 103.9
1.250 784.0 -100 590.0 106.0
1.500 789.0 -100 595.0 116.1
1.750 792.0 -100 598.0 125.4
2.000 793.0 -100 599.0 134.1
3.000 798.0 -100 604.0 164.2
4.000 799.0 -100 605.0 189.7
5.000 800.0 -100 606.0 212.0
6.000 803.0 -100 609.0 232.3
7.000 804.0 -100 610.0 250.9
a
Drainage radius = 744.6 ft; time required to reach the boundaries of a tested
reservoir = 61.7 ft.

Estimate the wellbore storage coefficient, C;


Estimate the permeability, k, and skin factor, s;
Check to justify using the unit mobility ratio analysis.

Solution Cumulative water injected at time of test,

Wi = [qi x f3w x number of years x 365/year] bbl


= 100 x 1.00 x 1.5 x 365 = 54,750 bbls

Method of Analysis

Plot column 4 versus column 1 (Figure 14-4);


Plot column 2 versus column 2 (Figure 14-5);
Plot column 5 versus column 1 (Figure 14-6).
Approximate
Pressure difference

end of
wellbore
storage effects

Unit slope

Injection time U hours

Figure 14-4. Log-log data plot.

Drainage radius = 744.6 ft


Time required=61.65 hr
Near producing well
Radius of investigation

Boundary effects appear

r^is LESS than rwd


Justify using Unit Mobility
Ratio Analysis

End of
wellbore
storage
effects

Injection time t, hours

Figure 14-5. Unit mobility ratio analysis.

From these graphs, find the following using log-log type curve matching
techniques.
1. Injection time t where wellbore storage effects end. (Time at the
beginning of middle transient region MTRl.) Lower limits of usable
straight line should be checked by plotting log (pw/ pt) versus log
Bottom-hole pressure, p^, psig

Slope m=95
psig/cycle

Approximate end of
wellbore storage effects

Injection time t (hours)

Figure 14-6. Semilog data plot.

time. The beginning of the straight line can be estimated by one of the
two methods:
(i) By the one and one half log cycle rule;
(ii) By the type curve overlay.
2. Injection time t where boundary effects appear. (Time at the end of
middle transient region, MTR2, where data begin to deviate from the
semilog straight line.)

Time Radius of
(hr) investigation rd (ft) Equation used Remarks
2.25 142.2 (Eq. 14-12) Wellbore storage effects end
6.00 232.3 (Eq. 14-12) Boundary effects appear
61.65 744.6 (Eq. 14-12) Near producing well
drainage radius

Interpreted data
Pressure response at 1 hr = 709 psig
Tubing pressure before injection = 175 psig
Slope, m, from Figure 14-6 = 95psig/cycle
Calculated parameters
Figures 14-4 and 14-6 are log-log and semilog plots for the test data
shown in Table 14-1. Figure 14-5 is a semilog data plot to justify using unit
mobility ratio concept. Total producing time, tp, is 7.0 hr. Using
A/? = lOOpsi and At = 0.2 hr (from the unit slope line), estimate wellbore
storage coefficient, C:

(from Eq. 8-6)

The value of C must be positive. Calculate wellbore volume corresponding to


C = 0.0083 bbl/psi.

(from Eq. 8-8)

At the depth of 5002 ft, a casing radius is 0.95 ft, which is too large for a hole
of radius 0.25 ft. This clearly indicates the need for a check of the well
completion equipment and surface connecting lines. The current straight
lines in Figures 14-4 and 14-5 indicate m = 95psi/cycle and p\ hr 709 psi.
Estimate the following parameters.

(from Eq. 14-9)

(from Eq. 14-10)

Pressure drop across skin using Eq. 14-13 is

Radius of investigation
Radius of drainage, rd = 250.9 ft (Table 14-1)
Distance to water bank, rwt 311.51 ft (Eq. 14-11)
Since r</ is less than rwt, it is justified to use unit-mobility ratio analysis.
Liquid Filled Unit Mobility Ratio Reservoirs
Method of Analysis

The pressure will decline at a production well during drawdown, while


pressure at an injection well will increase during injection. That difference is
accounted for in the analysis method by using q < 0 for injection and q > 0
for production. The bottom-hole injection pressure for the constant rate
injectivity test is given by:

(1+-4)

Equation 14-4 indicates that a plot of bottom-hole injection pressure, pw/,


versus the logarithm of injection time should have a straight line section, the
slope of which is given by:

(14-5)

The intercept, p\hr, is given by

(14-6)

To estimate the duration of wellbore storage effects, a plot of log (pw/ -pt)
versus log t may be used. The beginning of the semilog straight line can be
estimated by the following equation:

(14-7)

where

C = wellbore storage coefficient (14-8)

The values of At and Ap can be found from the unit-slope portion of log-log
plot. Once the semilog straight line is determined, reservoir permeability, k,
and skin factor are estimated using Eqs. 14-9 and 14-10:

(14-9)

(14-10)
Distance to water bank is calculated from the following equation: 5

(14-H)

where
rwb = drainage radius (distance to water bank), ft
Wi volume injected, res bbl
= Qinj x Av x injection time
/3W = water formation volume factor, rb/stk
The estimated permeability is used to determine a radius of drainage
from:2

/0.00084\kt , A. . . .c
r r
d ~ \ A ' d < ^(condition to justify
V Yl1OCt
unit mobility ratio analysis) (14-12)

The calculated value of r</ should be less than rwb to justify using the unit-
mobility ratio analysis. Pressure drop across the skin may be estimated from:

(14-13)

Flow efficiency is given by

(14-14)

Equations 14-4 through 1414 can be applied to injectivity testing in an


infinite-acting reservoir. Example 142 illustrates how to analyze this type
of test.

Example 14-2 6 Analyzing Injectivity Test in Liquid Filled Unit Mobility


Ratio Reservoir
Pressure response data for an injectivity test in a water-flooded reservoir
are given in Table 14-2. Before the test, all the wells in the reservoir had been
shut-in for several weeks and pressure had stabilized. Other known reser-
voir data are: depth = 1250 ft; rw = 0.25 ft; h = 20 ft; qw = -120stb/day;
/?/ = 225psig;c, = 6.5 x l O ^ p s r 1 ; ^ = 16%;/x w = 1.0cP;pw = 62.51bm/cuft;
f3w = 1.027 rb/stb; and tubing size = 2 in.