SPE 88678
Inter-reservoir Communication Detection via Pressure Transient
Analysis: Integrated Approach
Saud Bin Akresh, Rashid Al-Obaid and Abdulaziz Al-Ajaji, SPE, Saudi ARAMCO
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11th Abu Dhabi international Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 10–13 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents a successful integration of pressure
transient tests, production, and seismic data to detect inter-
reservoir communication between Hanifa and Arab-D
reservoirs in the southern dome of Abqaiq field in Saudi
Arabia.
Even though Hanifa and Arab-D reservoirs are separated by
about 300 feet of impermeable Carbonates, the two reservoirs
are in pressure-fluid communication through conductive
faults/fractures in the heavily faulted/fractured area of Abqaiq
field.
Late time pressure anomalies on the log-log plots were
observed on several field examples of transient tests in Hanifa
reservoir and some were interpreted as external effects of
pressure support from the communicating Arab-D reservoir.
Simulation modeling was used to further analyze such
pressure responses.
Better reservoir management decisions and more focused
development strategies can be achieved through the utilization
of the quantitative pressure transient analysis of those tests.
Introduction
Abqaiq field in Saudi Arabia was discovered in 1940 and
production of its oil-bearing reservoir began in 1946. The field
is composed of several carbonate reservoirs. Arab-D, Hanifa,
and Hadriya are three of its reservoirs on top of each others.
Hanifa reservoir is a very low permeability reservoir (average
~ 1 md) that is separated from the relatively highly permeable
Arab-D reservoir (average ~ 400 md) by a thick (~300 ft),
non-porous, impermeable, Jubaila formation. Below Hanifa,
lies Hadriya reservoir which is lower permeability than the
Arab-D, but higher permeability than Hanifa.
The 3D seismic surveys acquired in the 90’s highlighted the
existence of faults/fractures in Arab-D and Hadriya reservoirs.
Loss circulation while drilling horizontal wells, along with
production logs provided tangible evidence of existing
conductive faults/fractures. Drilling horizontal wells also
indicated the existence of sub-seismic faults which cannot be
detected by the 3D seismic resolution.
Even though the seismic data quality deteriorates at the Hanifa
reservoir and clear reflectors cannot be seen due to the
transitional boundary and the small contrast in acoustic
impedance, it was possible to delineate faults/fractures in
Hanifa reservoir. This was accomplished by interpreting
similar features at the Hadriya and Arab-D reservoirs (sharper
boundaries and larger acoustic impedance). When the same
feature appears in both reservoirs, then it must also exist in
Hanifa for it lies between Arab-D and Hadriya. Conductive
faults/fractures that cut through these reservoirs are thought to
be responsible for the pressure-fluid communication between
these reservoirs. Communication between Arab-D and Hanifa
is evident through pressure histories of the two reservoirs
following the same pattern (Figure-1).
Well testing is the dynamic data that identify seismic and sub-
seismic faults inside Hanifa reservoir where seismic data
results are inconclusive. The identification and
characterization of these faults/fractures have become
increasingly important due to increased horizontal well
drilling and future multilateral wells in this field.
The ability to distinguish conductive faults/fractures
connecting two reservoirs by pressure transient analysis allows
for better understanding of the inter-reservoir communication.
Moreover, data integration provides a major advantage as to
how to detect these faults by reanalyzing existing pressure
transient and 3D seismic data.
Geology
Mud-rich carbonates (limestone) that are deposited in deep
water make up Hanifa reservoir rock. Fluid flow and
permeability in Hanifa reservoir largely depends on stylolitic
fractures (fissures or small fracture network). Figure-2 shows
a picture of a core plug representing such fractures. These
2 SPE 88678
fractures are usually associated with low to moderate porosity
carbonates. The structural uplift that occurred during the late
cretaceous era resulted in large faults that sometimes cut
through many reservoirs (Figure-3). These faults and
associated fractures can be acting as conduits and source of
pressure and fluid communication between reservoirs.
Typical Pressure Response in Hanifa Reservoir:
Many well tests conducted in vertical wells across Hanifa
reservoir exhibited fracture well response. This suggests that
Hanifa reservoir is heavily fractured as the chance of hitting
vertical to low angle fractures (< 7º) with vertical wells is very
slim. It was also found that the reservoir flow capacity, kh,
from well tests is 17 to 40 times higher than the kh from cores
which is obviously attributed to the existence of fractures.
Production logs, loss circulation while drilling and poor core
recovery provide solid confirmation to the fact that Hanifa
reservoir is naturally fractured reservoir.
A. Intra-Reservoir Conductive Fault/Fracture
In this section we will investigate the well test pressure
response affected by localized Hanifa conductive
faults/fractures (not extended to Arab-D).
Case A-1: Well Intersecting Conductive
Fault/Fracture
This vertical well is a cased hole completion that is located at
the crest of the Hanifa formation. The derivative plot is shown
in Figure-4. It initially indicates clear infinite conductivity
fracture behavior with perfect ½ slope line to about 4 hours. It
also shows an apparent stabilization plateau from 20 hours to
80 hours which represent the average matrix permeability of
the reservoir. A down dip trend of the derivative is observed
after 80 hours and continued to the end of the test which
suggest either an improvement in the Hanifa reservoir quality
away from the well or the beginning of pressure support from
the overlying Arab-D reservoir. Unfortunately the test
duration was not long enough to know the answer.
The flow profile from production log on this well (Figure-5)
shows that approximately 50% of the flow into this well is
coming from only 10’ interval which is consistent with the
pressure transient interpretation of a fracture intersecting the
well bore.
The well test data was analytically matched to a vertical well
intersecting infinite conductivity fracture in composite
reservoir (Figure-6). A Radial composite reservoir was used
to match the late time data. A permeability value of 1md was
obtained from the match, which is a typical matrix
permeability of the Hanifa reservoir.
Case A-2: Well Near a Non-Intersecting Finite
Conductivity Fault/Fracture
This is a cased vertical well completed near the top of the
Hanifa reservoir. A 14-day pressure build-up test was
conducted on the well to characterize the reservoir and
quantitatively analyze any reservoir heterogeneity.
Interpretation of seismic data (Figure-7) suggests that major
faults exist near the well.
The pressure derivative of this well (Figure-8) is attributed to
co-existing reservoir heterogeneities. After well bore storage,
a ¼ slope (fracture behavior) is observed at early time and
then followed by a non-intersecting finite conductivity fault
behavior. A negative unit slope, indicating linear pressure
support from the nearby conductive fault/fracture, is
developed for about 30 hours and then a transition of bilinear
flow that continues to the end of the test.
A good match was obtained (Figure-9) by matching the early
time data of this well test to an intersecting finite conductivity
fracture. The late time data; however, was matched to a non-
intersecting finite conductivity fault/fracture away from the
well.
B. Inter-Reservoir Conductive Fault/Fracture
In this section we will investigate the well test pressure
response affected by inter-reservoir communication between
Hanifa and Arab-D reservoirs through conductive
faults/fractures that cut through both reservoirs.
Case B-1: Pressure Response of a Well in Hanifa
Reservoir
This well was drilled as a horizontal producer in Hanifa
reservoir (Figure-10) and parallel to the general direction of
shear faults and fractures in the well area as indicated by the
seismic data of the field. A build-up test was designed to shut-
in the well for 14 days and pressure data was acquired by
Permanent Down Hole Monitoring System (PDHMS). After
receiving the data, a small decline was noticed at the end of
the pressure derivative and to confirm this phenomenon, the
build-up test duration was extended to about 33 days. The
final plot of the pressure derivative is presented in Figure-11
where, after well bore storage; a vertical radial flow regime is
fully developed between 1 to 5 hours on the x-axis of the
pressure derivative. Linear flow is developed between 6 to 20
hours. Apparent horizontal radial is developed between 20 to
80 hours, and then followed by a sharp decline in the pressure
derivative. This sharp decline at late time data suggest a
pressure support from Arab-D reservoir.
Matching this complex reservoir geology is beyond the
analytical models capability and therefore numerical modeling
was utilized to match the data. Based on the geological
description, different scenarios were attempted.
A relatively good match was obtained by assigning a vertical
permeability to the Jubaila formation (separating both
reservoirs). However, this scenario was rejected due to the
high vertical permeability required in Jubaila to match the data
while knowing that Jubaila is non-porous and impermeable
formation.
Alternatively, an excellent match (Figure-12) was achieved
by assuming two conductive faults/fractures that are parallel to
the well direction (as indicated by seismic) and to simulate the
late time effect on the pressure derivative, a high permeability
media was required to compensate for the untrue vertical
SPE 88678 3

permeability in Jubaila. The compensation came from Acknowledgments

extending the two conductive faults/fractures to the Arab-D
reservoir through Jubaila (possible cause of fluid-pressure
communication between the two reservoirs).
Case B-2: Pressure Response of a Well In Arab-D
Reservoir
On surface this Arab-D well is an offset well to the previous
Hanifa well discussed in case B-1. The pressure derivative
plot is shown in Figure-13. After well bore storage, which
masked the infinite acting radial flow regime, a negative unit
slope is observed on the derivative plot. After a transition
period, a bilinear flow (characterized by ¼ slope) regime was
observed and continued to the end of the test. This pressure
response is a typical signature of a well near a non-intersecting
finite conductivity fault/fracture.
The difference in the pressure derivative shapes of case B-1
and case B-2 is attributed to the big contrast in permeabilities
between the Hanifa and Arab-D reservoirs. In case B-1, Arab-
D effect is clearly shown as pressure support on the pressure
derivative of Hanifa well. In the contrary, in case B-2 no effect
from Hanifa reservoir is seen on the pressure derivative of the
Arab-D well.
The authors want to express their sincere thanks to Faisal Al-
Thawad, Paul Lawrence, George Stewart, and Naseem Al-
Dawood for their invaluable support and cooperation.
References
1. Faisal Al-Thawad, Ali Al-Shahri, A. Al-Gattan and K. Al-
Hawas “Optimizing Horizontal Well Placement in the Faulted
Ghawar field by Integrating Pressure Transient and 3D
Seismic,” paper SPE 62986 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas,
October 1-4, 2000.
2. Maghsood Abbaszadeh, Cinco-Ley: “Pressure-Transient
Behavior in a Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault,”
paper SPE 24704 first presented at the 1992 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Washington,
October 4-7, 1992.
3. Geoquest Reservoir Technologies: “Abqaiq Well Test Analysis
Project Report”, prepared for SAUDI ARAMCO, September,
1998.

Conclusion
By studying the above mentioned cases, the following can be
concluded:

1. Inter-Reservoirs communication can be detected from

pressure transient tests and full integration of all
available data (production, seismic, logs, etc)
2. Due to the big contrast in Hanifa and Arab-D
permeabilities, intra-reservoir and inter-reservoirs
conductive fault/fracture can be distinguished by
conducting well tests in Hanifa reservoir.
3. While it is possible to detect a conductive
fault/fracture from Arab-D well, its extension to
Hanifa reservoir can not be determined due to the
lack of a unique pressure derivative signature.
4. Numerical well test modeling is essential to match
pressure transient data in complex reservoir geology.
5. In tight reservoirs long shut-in time is required to
detect geological heterogeneities.
4 SPE 88678

3750
Arab-D
3500
Hanifa
3250
Pressure

Pressure

3000
2750
2500
2250
40 50 60 70 80 90 00
Year
Figure-1: Pressure history of Hanifa and Arab-D following the Figure-2: Core plug showing stylolitic fractures
same pattern.

Average permeability for Hanifa reservoir

½ Slope

Figure-4: Pressure derivative of well intersecting conductive

Figure-3: Faults and fractures network in Hanifa reservoir.
fault/fracture (Case A-1)

50 % of Flow
from 10’

Figure-5: FAL and PLT of case A-1 Figure-6: Match to the pressure derivative of Case A-1
SPE 88678 5

Fracture Behavior

Conductive Fault Behavior

Figure-8: Well Near a Non-Intersecting Finite Conductivity

Fault/Fracture (case A-2)

CASE A-2

Fault Fault

Hanifa

Figure-9: Numerical match to case A-2

Figure-7: Seismic data interpretation of case A-2

Arab-D Reservoir

Jubaila Formation

Hanifa Reservoir

Figure-11: Effect of inter-reservoir communication on late

Figure-10: Well-path of case B-1
time data of Hanifa well (caseB-1)
6 SPE 88678

-1 Slope
¼ Slope

Figure-12: Numerical Match to case B-1 Figure-13: No clear inter-reservoir communication trend when
well is placed in Arab-D (case B-2)