INJECTION WELL TESTING

Fiki Hidayat, M.Eng

Overview
• In many reservoirs, especially in mature waterflooded fields, the
injection wells may be as numerous as the producing wells.
• Consequently, testing injection wells is particularly important for
efficient planning and operation of both secondary and tertiary
recovery projects.
• Satisfactory injection performance over a long period of time and
prompt detection of increasing wellbore damage are important to the
economics of any recovery project.
• Two type of injection well testing, Injectivity Test and Fall-off Test.
Injectivity Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• The mobility ratio for a water injection into an oil reservoir is
𝑘 𝜇 𝑤
𝑀=
𝑘 𝜇 𝑜
• The value of the mobility ratio often is used as an indicator of the
displacement efficiency.
• When the mobility ratio between the injected and in-situ fluids is near
unity, the analysis techniques for injection tests are similar to those
developed for production tests.
• When the unit-mobility-ratio condition is satisfied, injectio-well testing
for liquid-filled systems is analogous to a drawdown test, while shutting
in an injection well results in a pressure falloff that is analogous to a
pressure buildup test.
 Injectivity Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• Fig. 9.1 depicts an idealized injectivity test.
• For the constant-rate injectivity test illustrated in
Fig. 9.1, the injection BHP, pwf, can be modeled by
the logarithmic approximation to the Ei-function
solution.
162.6 −𝑞 𝐵𝜇 𝑘𝑡
𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 2 − 3.23 + 0.869𝑠
𝑘ℎ ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤
• Like the analysis of pressure-drawdown tests, a
plot of BHP, pwf vs logarithm of injection time, t,
forms a straight line from which the slope, m,
allows us to estimate formation permeability, k,
and skin factor, s.
Injectivity Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
162.6 −𝑞 𝐵𝜇
𝑘= − ;
𝑚ℎ

𝑝1ℎ𝑟 − 𝑝𝑖 𝑘𝑡
𝑠 = 1.151 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 2 + 3.23
𝑚 ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤

P1hr = BHP at an injection time of 1 hour and

necessarily lies either on the semilog
straight line or its extrapolation.
Injectivity Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• Similar to drawdown testing, wellbore storage may have a significant effect on
the pressure response during an injection-well test.
• In some cases, the reservoir pressure may be low enough so that a free liquid
surface exists in a shut-in well. In that case, the wellbore-storage coefficient is
relatively large and is given by
25.65𝐴𝑤𝑏
𝐶= 𝜌𝑤𝑏
; Awb = area of the wellbore, ft2 and ρwb= density of the fluid in
the wellbore, lbm/ft3.
• The time to the end of wellbore storage, twbs(hr), or the beginning of the
semilog straight line is estimated from
200,000 + 12,000𝑠 𝐶
𝑡𝑤𝑏𝑠 ≅
𝑘ℎ 𝜇
Falloff Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• Falloff testing in an injection well is analogous to
pressure-buildup testing in a production well.
• An idealized falloff test, is conducted by injecting
at a constant rate before shut-in at time tp.
• For both infinite-acting and finite reservoirs, the
pressure-falloff behavior can be modeled by

∗
𝑡𝑝 + ∆𝑡
𝑝𝑤𝑠 = 𝑝 − 𝑚𝑙𝑜𝑔
∆𝑡
Falloff Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• A Horner plot of shut-in BHP, pws,
vs. the logarithm of the Horner
time ratio, (tp+Δt)/Δt, should
exhibit a straight line with
intercept p* at infinite shut-in
time.
• The formation permeability is
computed from the slope of this
line.
162.6 −𝑞 𝐵𝜇
𝑘=−
𝑚ℎ
Falloff Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• The extrapolated pressure, p*, is equivalent to the initial pressure, pi, for
an infinite-acting reservoir with little or no pressure depletion.
• As in pressure-buildup testing, if the injection rate varies before the falloff
test, the equivalent injection time can be approximated with a
pseudoproduction time, tp,
24𝑉𝑝
𝑡𝑝 = ,
𝑞
vp = cumulative volume injected since the last pressure equalization (not
cumulative injection since the well was put on injection) and q = constant
rate just before shut-in.
Falloff Testing in a Liquid-Filled Reservoir:
Unit-Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
• If tp is greater than about twice tpss, the time to reach pseudosteady state,
tpss should be used rather than tp.
• We also must ensure that the duration of the injection period before the
falloff test exceeds the duration of wellbore storage during injection.
• The minimum injection time is estimated with
∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2
𝑡𝑝,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 120 + 7𝑠 𝐶𝐷
0.0002637𝑘
• To analyze a pressure-falloff test in a liquid-filled reservoir with unit-
mobility-ratio conditions, we can use the semilog and type-curve analysis
procedure for pressure-buildup tests.
Problem Example – Injectivity Test
• Example 9.1 – Injectivity Test analysis.
• A constant-rate water-injectivity well test was conducted in a water-flooded
reservoir. Before the test, all other wells in the reservoir had been shut in
for several weeks and the reservoir pressure had stabilized. Assuming a
unit-mobility ratio, determine k and s.
Q = -100 STB/D h = 16 ft B = 1 rb/STB
Pi = 449 psia φ = 0.15
rw = 0.25 ft ct = 7.7x10-6 psi-1
ρwb = 62.4 lbm/ft3 μ = 1 cp
Problem Example – Injectivity Test

Time (hours) Pressure (psia) Time (hours) Pressure (psia)

0.01 546.3 0.412 976.4
0.0159 587.3 0.656 997.8
0.0253 642.3 1.04 1016.5
0.0403 711 1.66 1034.2
0.0642 785.6 2.64 1051.2
0.102 855.2 4.21 1068
0.163 910.2 6.7 1084.5
0.259 949.1
Problem Example – Injectivity Test
Pressure
Time Pressure Pressure Time Pressure Pressure Pressure
change
(hr) (psia) Derivative (hr) (psia) change (psia) Derivative
(psia)
0.01 546.3 97.4 88.41 0.412 976.4 527.5 52.4
0.0159 587.3 138.4 103.4 0.656 997.8 548.9 43.3
0.0253 642.3 193.4 132.9 1.04 1016.5 567.6 39.2
0.0403 711 262.1 153.9 1.66 1034.2 585.3 37.2
0.0642 785.6 336.7 155.3 2.64 1051.2 602.3 36.3
0.102 855.2 406.3 133.93 4.21 1068 619.1 35.8
0.163 910.2 461.3 100.6 6.7 1084.5 635.6 35.5
0.259 949.1 500.2 71.4
Problem Example – Falloff Test
• Following an injection period of 240 hours, a falloff test was conducted on a
brine disposal well. Using the data summarized below, determine k and s.
tp = 240 hours φ = 0.25
qw = -807 STB/D h = 28 ft
𝑝 = 2,788 psia rw = 0.4 ft
μw = 1 cp depth = 4,819 ft
Bw = 1 RB/STB A = 20 acres = 871,200 ft2
ct = 1.18x10-5 psi-1
Problem Example – Falloff Test
Time (hr) Pressure (psia) Time (hr) Pressure (psia)
0.01 3500 0.3004 3155
0.015 3470 0.4007 3137
0.02 3442 0.6015 3112
0.03 3397 0.8027 3091
0.04 3362 1.0042 3075
0.06 3317 2.0168 3042
0.08 3282 4.0678 3007
0.1 3257 6.1538 2982
0.1501 3216 8.2759 2972
0.2002 3187 10.435 2962
Problem Example – Falloff Test
Δte (hr) ΔP (psi) Pressure Derivative P (psia) Horner time ratio
0.01 82 73.99 3500 24001
0.015 112 85.56 3470 16001
0.02 140 100.91 3442 12001
0.03 185 112.6 3397 8001
0.04 220 112.6 3362 6001
0.06 265 113.9 3317 4001
0.08 300 109.9 3282 3001
0.1 325 108.3 3257 2401
0.15 366 96.2 3216 1600
0.2 395 87 3187 1200
Problem Example – Falloff Test
Δte (hr) ΔP (psi) Pressure P (psia) Horner time
Derivative ratio
0.3 427 72.7 3155 799.9
0.4 445 65.5 3137 600
0.6 470 66.4 3112 400
0.8 491 60.8 3091 299.9
1 507 61.9 3075 240
2 540 49.1 3042 120
4 575 57.5 3007 60
6 600 51.7 2982 40
8 610 46.2 2972 30
10 620 39.2 2962 24