‘E 11086

InterwellPressureTesting for Field Pilots

by George L. Stegemeier, Shell Development Co,
Member SPE

Copyright 1982. Society of Pe!roleum Engineers of AlME

This paper was presenled al Ihe 571hAnnual Fall Techmcal Corderence and Exh!bmonof Ihe Soclel y of Pelroleum Engineers 01AlME.
held mNew Orleans. LA. SepI. 26-29. 1982. Themater[al lssublecl locorrecllon bylhe author. permmslon locopyls reslrlcled loan
abslracl olnolmore lhan300 words. WrKe:6200N. Central Expressway. P.O Drawer 64706. Dallas. Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT operations. Since the objective of most of the

field operations was not the pressure teata, there
Procedures are described, and results are are a rwsber of slmrtcoszings in the experiawmtal
cmpared with core analyses$ for a number of tran- eonditiona. Msverthekess, operatiozw were con-
siatt Fressure experiamts that ware carried out tra%led wail essou~b to demonstrate the fe=eii$ility
I&sewee* wells is * ezzall ehedeal flood pilot. @f the new Zaskhods$
%@s=s inekfe: (1) a swwiard puiae tes~, (2) 8
skul~meous pressure buihihqz end fakioff @f we~la ISI the Wwree isipr oveatencs irt presswe rzea-
h a fiVS=S&4 ~EteFE~ (31 s Eswrse PEES kesc~ attrkg devbza aid & msqzuter ecattrohd ealkee-
=SI *M response frosa a producer waa see.seued et tiasi &red sEOs~e ef infcmmet~oszwill greakly
& nee+y injeemr dtming itt$mekkn, md (6) pre- inmaaea dat~ and pet-dt smre refittedmalyees;
&ecion 4rswdown tests fmanomally aitwt-ittobser- however, careful sehadulkg and eekkion of data
wisEi@n walks *uring polysasr injeetioa and 4uring s&ll be raqstired si~ce the ~t ef infmemtion
subsequent waterflood in a nearby injector. Flow- potentially availakle ia very large.
in~ these observation wells provided an effective
way to measure in-situ nobilities of injected T%e transient pressure tests described in
fluids. this paper were perfomed in Shell’s 1967-1968
chemical flood pilot in the Benton Field, Franklin
For pulse tests, a simplified method for County, Illinois.l The large amount of core data,
design and interpretation of single pulses is logging information, geological, petrophysical,
derived from basic equations. Dimensionless func- and reservoir engineering studies in this pilot
tions, representing directional permeability and area provided a unique opportunity for learning
geometrical mean permeability, are shown to be what response these teata have to known reservoir
functions of a single dimensionless time lag of properties.
the maximum pressure response. For large dimen-
sionless time lags, the ratio of dimenaionlesa RESERVOIRDESCRIPTION AND FLOODINGOPERATIONS
permeabilities approaches the value ?re and simple
geometric relationships may be used to predict The site of the 1967-1968 chemical flood
either compressibility or formation thickness, pilot in the Benton Field was a one-acre normal
five-spot with three sampling observation wells
INTRODUCTION around one of the injectors, See Figure 1.
Because of the close well spacing, subsurface
Precise descriptions of oil reservoirs become locations were accurately surveyed to about ~
increasingly important as recovery processes become 2 feet, All wells except well 240 were completed
more complex and expensive, Of the methods used open hole, Injection, at a gradient of about
to obtain reservoir information, transient pres- 0.1 psi/ft, did not exceed fracture pressure.
sure testing has been one of the most frequently Radial flow in the vicinity of injector well 241
used, The reasons for this popularity are the was verified by predictable tracer breakthroughs
simplicity of the operations and the rapidity with in the nearby observation wella,l
which information is obtained compared to tracer
testa or standard production operations, The objective formation is the 2100-foot
(1630-foot subsea) upper Tar Springs reservoir.
Often, useful reservoir information can be This 23-foot thick reservoir ia composed of three
col!ected by observing pressures during routine aones designated “A”, “B” and “C”. The dominant
maintenance shutdowns or well workovers, Most high permeability zone “B” ie sandwiched between
observations presented in this paper were obtained thicker low permeability zones ‘*A” and “C”. See
in this way without disrupting the main project Table 1, An additional 30+ feet of permeable
 2 IIWERW2LL PRESSURETBSTWO METHODSFOR FIELD PILOTS SPE 11086
-.— -----

formation below a shale break initially was believed Well 244 was pulsed first; well 245 was pulsed
to be isolated from the upper Tar Spriugs. Later 17 hours later after perturbations from the first
pressure tests indicate at least some coimaunication test had attenuated. Pressure responses to these
across the shale. pulses are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Background
drifts in pressures were caused partly by nearby
Well completions and air permeabilities are waterflood operations. For example, the initial
given in Figures 2 and 3. Average porosity is downward trend resulted from startup of a produc-
estimated to be @ = 0.178. Average compress- ion well, BFU23, the previous day. The overall
ibility of this liquid filled reservoir at resid- upward trend in pressures beginning after the
ual oil saturaton after waterflood (Sorw~ 0.28) first pulse in well 244 was caused by the higher
is calculated to be 6,8 x 10-6 v/v/psi. Reservoir post-pulse injection rate. Changes in rates in
temperature at the start of the pilot was 95°F; waterflood injectors outside the pilot also could
preflood water viscosity was 0.86 cp. During have affected pattern pressures. These effects
polymer drive the estimated viscosity was 2.0 cp. are undesirable during pulse tests since interpre-
Air permeabilities were approximately equal to tation depends upon deviation in pressure from a
brine permeabilities for a wide ra,,&ti of samples. known trend.
The ratio of brine permeability at Sorw to air
permeability averages about 0.17. See Table 1 and The initial pulse responses were interpreted
Figure 3. by the simplified procedure derived in Appendix A.
This procedure was developed to analyse these
The history of injection operations pertinent tests and the reverse pulse tests described in
to the pressure measurements is given in Table 2. section 3 following. (See Appendix B.)
Additional details of the flooding history during
pilot operations are discussed by French et al.l 2. Simultaneous Pressure Buildup-Falloff
Tests In Five-Spot Pattern Wells
TRANSIENT TEST METNODS
Wring initial operation of the preflood,
Four types of transient teats were perfartaecf water uas imjecte4 i*ecE the four eertter wells 241,
6iuring Ehe pilot: standad pttlse, pressure buildup- 242, 244, and 2&5. end water md td% were produced
fakloff, reverse puEse, WA produetiee drswdown. froai the eent=al wdl 243. Se=on sfter etsrwp,
(1) Shoptiy sfter begitmittg iajection ittto two of howEver, it beeessa evideztk khak tselk 242wmkd -t
-. the Pikot imjeceors ak oppoeike eormsre 04 @te tekts Sufffcht fk&4= St&la enuae=ceee~kkl
one-acre pattern, stendsrd pulses~ ware ebeerved wrEmvert 242 wes pgeced en wi~ psedeekfm W
i~ edjsces~ shut-itl isjeccors, (21 After eevarak ele=n sp kite wall. &fte= Z EE2 mi=~bs ef opere-
sorttha of waterflood operation, peessure falloffa tiw the entire pilot wee &hut-is an Febru=ry itl,
and bttildups were =aaure& follwin~ siteulka=ous l%ft i= arder tosAify surfsee facilities. The
shut-in of injectors and producers. status of each waEI just befcre shut-in is given
in Table 4. Aaerada type bottots+ole pressure
Later in the project two additional tests bocsbs were run down tubing in each injector while
were performed in the vicinity of injector 241. still injecting, and in producer 243 while still
(3) Responses from single production pulses from producing. (Well 243 had an extra string of tub-
shut-in observers were observed at the nearby ing to permit logging without interrupting produc-
injector 241 during injection. (4) In-situ mobil- tion.) The bomb in well 242 was run down the
ity measurements were made at the observers during tubing-casing annulus 30 minutes after shut-in.
flowing production that resulted from injection Injectors were equipped with 2 3/8-inch OD tubing
into nearby well 241. with bottom hole packers in the tubing-casing
annulus, The two producers had 2 3/8-inch OD
1. Standard Pulse Tests production tubing without packers in the 7-inch OD
(6.538-inch ID) casing.
After 20 years of waterflooding, new wells
were drilled in the watered-out reservoir in the Simultaneous shut-in was accomplished by
pilot area. Fairly standard pulse tests were shutting down the production pumping units and
performed by injecting into two of the future closing valves at a header located near well 244.
injection wells (244 and 245) and observing pres- Surrice pressures were monitored from the instant
sures in the other two shut-in injectors (241 and of shut-in until the wellhead pressure fell to
244) , All wells were equipped with tubing-casing zero. In a prior falloff test in 245, the well
annulus packers. In response wells 241 and 242, initislly was shut in at the header, but as soon
bottom hole tubing plugs were run above the pres- as the surface pressure fell to zero the wellhead
sure bombs to provide complete bottom hole shut-in, was bull-plugged to prevent surface injection line
The Sperry-Sun recording pressure gauges permitted drainage into the well, In subsequent falloffa,
105 hours of measurement with a precision greater this precaution was not taken and little difference
than ~ 0,005 psi and $ 0,5 minutes. Absolute was observed, For the first 72 hours pressures
accuracy was not critical since all measurements were recorded continuously with the Amerada bombs.
depended upon values relative to initial conditions, After 36 days shut-in, bombs were rerun for the
final me4surementa. Surface pressure measurements,
Injection and production rates prior to and converted to bottom-hole conditions, are combined
during the pulse tests are shown in Table 3, An with the bottom hole measurement to display over-
injection sequence in each injector consisted of all pressure behavior. See Figure 6.
three, 40-minute shut-in pulses 40 minutes apart.
!mm \lnRti GIMIRGEL. STSGEMHSR 3

3. Reverse Pulse Test DecesAer 21, 1968, about three months after start
of the final waterflood. (See Table 5.) Aa during
The praxiraity o: cnree observation wells, the reverse pulse tests, the observation wells
2M), 246 and 247, to the injector well 241 pro- were produced while injecting at a constant rate
vided a unique opportunity to perform precise in well 241. The wellhead pressures at the pro-
interwell pulse tests. Favorable conditions were: ducers were almost instantaneously reduced from
(1) a “hard” system, that is, completely liquid- the shut-in values and maintained at O psig for
filled injectors, reservoir, and producers, ten minutes. Again, produced fluids were collected
(2) single phase flow, and (3) enough pressure to in an 18-inch diameter calibrated vessel, Cumula-
make the producing observers flow. At the begin- tive volume was typically less than one-half barrel,
ning of August, 1968, after 2 1/2 months of con- (See Figure 9.)
tinuous injection into well 241, observation wells
began to flow without pumping. By September, the RESULTS
chemical flood fronts had passed the region between
Standard Pulse Tests
injector and observer, so that the formation was
at residual oil saturation after chemical flood,
The standard pulses shown in Figures 4 and 5,
Sore, with only aqueous polymer phase flowing. At and the reverse pulses shown in Figure 7 were
well 241, surface pressure while injecting was
analyzed by the method given in Appendix B. Results
about 630 psi. At well 246 shut-in surface pres-
are summarized in Table 6. Because of the uncer-
sure about 160 psi. The usual pulse direction was
tainty in extrapolating the original pressure
reversed, that is, pressure changes resulting from
trenda in the standard pulse tests, we decided to
a production pulse in the “observation” wells were
interpret only the first pulse in a sequence. In
sensed at the injection well, Production was
general, this is the preferred design since a
obtained by simply opening a valve at the observer
single pulse yields a maximum pressure for a mini-
wellhead and the reverse pulse response in injec-
mum extrapolation in time of the “base line” pres-
tion pressure was measured at the injector well-
sures. The advantage of multiple pulses is the
head.
assurance that the pulse response is real and
reproducible. If Ehe validity of response taust be
es~atslished, the second pulse ahcdd be delsged
un=il the ~imk szaximaais elesrlg esEe&liehed and
a new trcmd ha* seabiliaed. When iejeceion or
prchctiottkisteey is eoeqlicated, teatching the
rape by msm -E- s~~ks- caEct&*-
kions is neeessar~; howwer, the rmdks still m’e
Sajece m the eafeeEislita&ion 4 me aeemaq? ef
the exkrapelatiort ef the original tremls over the
entire period ef a~lysis.

Inspection of Figures 4 and 5 reveals that

the rates of injection after the initial shut-in
The volume of fluid produced at the observer
was greater than the initial rates. The rcsponae
was collected in an 18-inch diameter calibrated
was corrected by using the early deviation from
vessel and depths were accurately measured as a
the initial trend that resulted from the first
function of time. At the injector, the flow rates
shut-in, before response was observed from resump-
were monitored with an in-line turbine meter.
tion of injection. Since Ap is proportional to
Since a fairly large (-200 psi) pressure drop was
Aq, this deviation was multiplied by the quantity
taken through copper coils at the header, no sig-
[(q2avglqlavg) -1] to obtain the correction as a
nificant change in rate (64 ~ 0.2 B/D) was observed
function of time, The time zero for this correc-
during the conduct of the test at well 241. A
tion function was shifted to the time of resump-
series of four production pulses (1, 2, 5, and 10
tion of injection, q2, and the correction was then
minutes) were run in each of the observers on
added to the observed response. The dashed line
September 14-15, 1968. Response at injector 241
indicates the corrected response that was used to
is shown in Figures 7 and 8.
determine the maximum pressure disturbance from
the original trend, Apm, and the corresponding tine
4. Production Drawdown Tests of a Shut-In
to that maximum, tm.
Observer Near Injection Wells
Reservoir properties are evaluated using the
During the pulse tests described in the pre-
functional dependence of the dimensionless numbers
vious section, it became obvious that production
K@Band KCD on the dimensionless time lag, tLD.
drawdown tests would be the best way to determine
(See Equations B.1 and B.2 and Figures B,l and
in-situ nobilities of fluids near an injection
B,2,) Directional permeability may be determined
well. The nearness of the injectors assured that
directly from tm through the K@B relation, pro-
sweep out of the region would be reasonably com-
vided compressibility is known. Geometric average
plete after about two months, Consequently, con-
permeability is dependent on both Ah and tm through
stant pressure drawdown tests were performed in
the dimaneionless number KGD. This calculation
wells 2&0, 246, and 247 on September 17, 1968
requires an estimate of thickneee, h, since from
after about three months of Phase 111 polymer
Equation B.2,
drive injection into well 241 (275 ppm Dow Pusher@
P-520 in fresh water). A comparative test with L@k
only fresh water in-situ was run on well 246 on
 & IWTERWELL
_——PRESSURE TESTIt?G
.—--- ..- METSODSFCkRI?XEm
----- ----- -. ----— FILM%
---- .= Mm llnR13
“.”-

If we assume that the open interval, h, ia Applying the same analyaes to these “reverse”
25 feet, and use the other values given in Table 6, pulses as to the previous standard pulses revealed
the calculated geometrical mean permeabilities for similarities and some interesting differences.
the pulse well pairs 244 + 241 and 245 + 241 are (See Table 6.) Because a polymer drive after
67 md and 44 md, respectively. Alternatively, the chemical flood is compared to initial waterflood,
directional permeabilities calculated from Equation both processes and pulse methods must be compared, ,
B,l do not require measurement of Apm since,
First, the calculated nobilities (~/IJ),
Kt$f@Cr2 which are determined independently of viscosities,
k~= are generally higher during the polymer drive. We
At
would expect this condition if residual oil had
The comparable directional permeabilities, using been removed by the chemical slug but if polymer
c = 6.8 x 10-6 vlvlpsi, are 48 md and 46 md. The viscosity were inadequate. Careful sampling of
near equivalence of these two directional perme- injected and produced polymer, and Brookfield
abilities, taken at 90° appeara to justify our measurements, established the viscosity to be near
later assumption of isotropic permeability, These 2 Cp, For that value, the calculated permeabilities
values also are in good agreement with the water are about three times those prior to chemical
permeabilities at Sorw in the “B” sand in well flood.
241. See Table 1. However, the geometrical perme-
abilities calculated above appear to be too high Second, calculated thickneasea of formation
for the mean of the whole 25-foot interval. The measured by the nearby observation well pulses
higher value of geometric permeability associated were considerably smaller than the previous values
with well 244 compared to well 245 suggests that calculated for longer distances across the pattern.
the formation may be thicker near well 244. An These valuea corresponded to the high permeability
estimate of thickness can be obtained directly “B” zone. (See Figure 10.)
from the maximum pressure if k@ is assumed equal
to kc. A combination of the oilfield unit Equa- Third, when a visectaity of 2 cp ia used, the
tions Ii,l and B.2 gives a form eitailar to Equation edculated penaaabilitfee ta pdyner sre shout
A.IT: hakf the ai~ Permasbkities d the cmes. Fer che
tkwea ebaerve= pu%ees dwing P&pa? &Eive, EMS
r&eie GE pokymer pemadtiliey eo &iE ~sbilitg
.- ‘“[-l[*l”?; is ~bkme. iE ri8Aduei 41 kad beeE4Eee-
For smt putees, f{k~>h my be eakeri *S miqr; eivd~ ~ved frcaa =he sake near MM &sjeetes,
however, * carreceie~, Fft@, can be 0be8i~ khe I-E ddeeed ~maabiEities Would indis*Ee
from Figure A.3 ao theE: a pdyaar resistance facta in addition te the
1 ~&hra pdytaer vieceeisyc
h.~. .—
36.5 @r2~
[ 1[ [i + F(tLB)] 1 Fourth, when a series of varyin& pulse length
For the 244 + 241 pulse, the correction ia only tests are cmpared for a given well pair, we find
about 2.5 percent. The thickness appears to be that, with two exceptions, the tsobility changee
34.6 feet compared to 24,4 feet for the 245+ 241 only elightly; however, there ia a trend of increaa-
pulse. Thus, it appears that the reservoir near ing thickness as the time to maximum response
well 244 likely is connected with the underlying increases, if the one-minute pulses are excluded.
zones. Also, the calculated kh is about half that
measured from air permeabilities of cores from the Fifth, effect of pulse length on the size of
25-foot interval. For this reservoir at residual maximum pressure response follows the prediction
oil from waterflood, the implied relative perme- of linearity in Equation A.18 since f(tLD)/me is
ability is too high, Measured core permeabilitiea nearly unity for the short pulses. Predicted
from the “B” sand in well 241 give a relative deviations for the one- and two-minute pulses are
permeability of 0.17. The effect of layering of less than four percent. For the five- and ten-
greatly dissimilar permeability zones accounts for minute pulses, corrections up to 40 percent are
at least some of this result, obtained from Figure A.3 but these still give
values less than observed, Contributions from
Reverse Pulse Tests layera with increasingly lower permesbilities
diminish the pressure response for these longer
The reverse pulse teats, in which observations pulses,
were made in an injector during injection, appeared
to behave very much like the standard pulses, Simultaneous Pressure Buildup-Falloff Tests
Care must be taken, however, to avoid feedback in
the system if a group of injectors are connected The pressure history of the pilot ehut-in
on a single header. A necesasry condition for from three seconds to 42 days is given in Figure 6.
this simple analysia is that the rate of injection Surface resdings at very early times are not accu-
be constant, If a change in rate of one of the rate as these measurement were taken viouslly
other injectors or producers affects the rate in from rapidly changing pressure Sauges at the header.
the observing-injector, the small pressure pulse Surface readings were continued until boteom-hole
will be distorted. preaaures had declined to 920 psi (zero surface
pressure). However, 30 seconds afeer shut-in,
bottom-hole readings also became available for
comparison with surface readinga. Because trends
ore comparable, the surfsce pressure readings were
WE 1Eueo Urtunufi k . mL Gw&rTe Len >

arbitrarily shifted as mucti as 25 psi to aveid ~h = 162.6 (0.86 CP)(80 B/D)

- 37.3 md ft.
discontinuities. Falloff curves for the three (300 psi/cycle)
injectors 241, 244, and 245 are characterized on
the semi-logarithmic plots of Figure 6 by five By comparison, the pulse test from 241 to 244 gave
regions: a calculated kh = 1660 md ft. The extremely low
kb’s obtained from buildups and falloffs suggest
1) Immediately after shut-in (say, less that a real straight line portion was not reached
than 0.01 hours) the slopes of pressures change before finite boundaries or other wells interfered
from a flat plateau to the beginning of an apparent with the analysis.
straight line region having slope in the range of
240 to 410 psi/cycle. Although the production wells did not have
tubing-casing annulus packers, the buildups appear
2) From 0.01 to 0.1 hours the steep, “straight to reach a “straight line” associated with well
line” is attained, reflecting the reservoir proper- interference before the similar second steep
ties near the well with a low compressibility of “straight line” falloffs in the injectors.
fluids in the well.
The pressure buildup is not symmetrical with
3) From 0,1 to 10 hours a second “plateau” falloff. Total buildups from pumped-off condition
with much smaller slope occurs. This plateau is to stabilized reservoir pressure are 500+ psi,
related to the transition from fluid compressi- whereas falloffs are 900+ psi from initial pres-
bility only to a falling fluid head in the wells sures of 1400+ psi.
as surface pressures fall below zero. During the
falling fluid period the volume of fluid that is Production Drawdown Tests
injected per psi drop in pressure is over 300
times the volume of expanding fluid per psi during Uhile flowing at constant pressure, the obser-
the initial period. If nearly horizontal lines vation wells near injection well 241 reached
&rain inke a wall, an even longer platesu may mask steady-state after o~iy a few tainutes. This is
the subsequent falloff. Fresaure readings were illustrated by the straight kine porkion OF the
twm pseise enough CO ebtain accurate kb; however, plots cf ctnmlative produeti= es a function of
Ehis pkateau has slopes ef the erder expecte~ froza ti~ in Figure 9. Each of Ma three obserwskkn
eke lotzg pulse tesg across the patter~ (5 ta Etl psil walks ba=awed gn & shaihr Stalme=, the dcmeetr
eyek). &elE sterage arwslpes, !mwever, *eggee+E hawing the @hesr shuk-is presswe, pmdtw*& EM
that Mta wel~s *id nes attain a aEraight line highest sate. Zf the flow lines @re not Ere@tly
during this period. changed by the type of f~uid preaenE, the taobility
of the polpr drive (Phase EIE) csn be e+ud
4) Fms 20 to 80 howrs, a seeond steep with the suimequerrk fresh waterflood (Fhase IV) as
‘straight line” region occurs that reflects inter- fol lows:
ference from other wells, and perhaps reservoir ~ = (k/1.l)IV
characteristics away from the wells, together with – -= C:)l(E)II,
the “compressibility” of the falling fluid level (k/@III
in ttte well. where
Aq = production rate
5) After 100 hours a third plateau results
from the final convergence to pressure of the Ap = pressure drawdown
finite reservoir,
0!021 161
!4 —=1.94
‘75-” 0.029
The production wells 242 and 243 are character-
ized by “S” shaped buildup curves reflecting (1) If the resistance factor is unchanged from phase
an initial period of high compressibility and skin 111 to phase IV, that is, if kIII = kIV, the effec-
in the vicinity of the wells, (2) attainment of a tive viscosity of the polymer in situ is:
steep “straight line” comparable to that of the 1,94 X 0,8b = 1.7 Cp.
injectors, and (3) final convergence to reservoir
pressure. Besides production tests of successive process
floods, plllse tests of successive floods may be
Horrmr plots are needed for exact analysis; performed with similar well configurations and the
however, inspection of Table 4 reveals that the time lags may be used to estimate mobility ratios.
injection and production times are large compared The relationship is derived in Appendix A, Equa-
to shut-in times for all of the straight line tion A.23. These tests are of interest since they
regions, Therefore, the log time scale in Figure 6 provide a means of estimating mobility ratios with
is adequate for a discussion of the general char- very little reservoir data,
acteristics.
As more accurate pressure sensing devices are
One interesting feature of these plots is the used with computers capable of collecting data
similarity in slopes of the three “steep” straight almost continuously, more subtle phenomena may be
line portions. Table 7 compares the three injee- used to determine reservoir properties. One such
tion well failoff slopes and the two production application is the detection of successive inflec-
well buildup slopes. The kh calculated from these tion points of derivatives of the exponential
“steep” slopes yields a very large difference from integral, Ei, function, The advantage of detecting
those calculated from the pulse tests. For examp~c, these points is their early occurence relative to
for typical conditions: the “characteristic” time of an interference or
6 INTERWELL
———PRESSHRETESTIBG ME’XBQM-----
-—--- ..--—------ FCSI FIRM
___ PILG’M
---- .- fiRR 1$ Ati

pulse test. For example,

the ordimrily used, kD - diaieneionless Seomatrieal mean pe~-
first (Equaticm A.25) has its first max-
derivative ability defined in Equation All,
imum value at t/K=l.0, the second derivative at [dimensionless]
0.292, and the third derivative at 0.159. Thus, a
k~ - directional permeability, [12], [red]
six-fold decrease in time of measurement may be
possible if these early indicators can be detected. ‘@D - dimensionless directional permeability
Relative pressure responses at maxima of the second defined in Equation A.1O, [dimension-
and third derivatives are only 3.5 percent and less]
0.1 percent of that for the first; therefore,
K - function of tLD defined by Equations
extremely stable production ratea will be needed
A.4 and A.7, [t], [hrs.]
and bottom-hole shut-in almost certainly will be
required. KOD, KGD - dimensionless functions for use with
oil field units in Equations B.1
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS and B.2, [dimensionless]
M - mobility ratio, (k/lJ)di~P1acin /
1. A simplified method for design and inter-
pretation of pulse tests has been developed, (k/P)displaced, [dimenslonleas 7
n - series index
2. The dimensionless functions, representing
directional permeability and geometrical mean P - pressure, [ml-it-2], [psi]
permeability;, are shown to be functions of a single p(t) - bottom hole pressure at response well,
dimensionless time lag of the maximum pressure Equation Al, [ml-it-2], [psi]
response.
Pi - initial reservoir pressure, [ml-it-2].,
[pail
3.
For large dimensionless time Iaga, the
rat~o of the dismtsionless permeability functions Ap - change in bottom hole preaaure at
appmeches the value ~. Therefore, for auffieiently response well a= a function of tifae
short pul*ea, there ia a simple geoasstrie relation- hal-it-~l, fpcil
ship bewees pore weltsae of the reservoir, cm-
preasikflity, md woltaae oE Hke pulse. For lo~er A~ - mexiesns change kas trend in bottaa
pulses 8 mrrectien. which ateg be calculated, &s hole pressure aE ree~e well ae
dependeak 0s4 me +fhselwknlew tie!e lag. ~, W-=t-q. t$wi~
& - eheage im race, is’eetion (+) ad
6. Several novel trawient preaaure test production {-), [1i C-l], [kbls/day]
kechnitpmg are described ●nd applications @f these
mathahs i~ a one-acre pattern are smalyaed. Pre- r - imtemll dietmee, tll, 1ft. 1
dieted reservoir properties generally coatpared t - tiste frosi start of pulse, [t], [bra.]
well vith core analyaea reaulta.
t2,3,4 - tista at maxima of first, second and
5. Flowing observation wells, sited near an third derivativea of Ei function,
injector can provide accurate data for determining [t], lhrs.1
in-situ nobilities of fluids injected in recovery tm - time from start of pulse to maximum
processes. pressure disturbance, [t], [hrs.]
tL - time lag from end of pulse to maximum
NOMENCLATURE
pressure disturbance, [t], [hrs,]
A,B - fUnCtiOnS Of tLD defined in C!ql18tiOn8 t LD - time lag from end of pulse to maximum
A,12a and A.12b, [t], [hrs,l pressure disturbance divided by time
c - total com feasibility, [$SWCW+ $Soco + of pulse = tL/At, [t], [dimensionlesa]
Cp] = [m-~ltz], [v/v/psi] Vpr - pore volume of cylinder whose radius
e - 2.71828, [dimensionless] is interwell distance = nr2h$, [13],
[bbls,]
f(tLD) - ratio of directional to geometric mean
dimensionless permeability, Equations T - temperature, [T], [°F]
A,15 and A,16, [dimensionless] AV - cumulative volume of pulse, [13],
f(tLD) [bbls,]
F(tLD) - — - ,1 ,
normalized correction
[ llf?
factor
J
for Equation A,16, Figure A,3,
x - argument
function,
of exponential
[dimensionless]
integral

[dimensionless] z - gas compressibility factor, [dimension-

G - -6Aqti/f+~k@, Equations A,l and A,24, less]
lml-lt-21, [psi] @ - reservoir volume factor, [dimensionless
h - formation thickness, [1], [ft] - Euler’s constant = 0.5772156649
Y
k - permeability, [12], lmd] [dimensionless]
ke -geometrical mean permeability, [12], u - viscosity, [ml-lt-ll, lcpl
Id] - porosity, [dimensionless]
+
T - integration variable, [dimensionless]
EDW i IftSt?. GEORGE L. STSGSMEIER ?

SUBSCRIPTS 9. Li Yun-Shan: ‘tA Method for Beterndning the

Coefficient of Pieso Conductivity of a Stratum
o - oil Using the Point of Maximum Change of Formation
Pressure in a Responding Well,” Sb. Podzemnaya
orc - at chemical flood residual oil
Gidrodinamika Tr 141NKh i GP, Gostoptekhisdat
orw - at waterflood residual oil (1961),vyp 33,
r - reservoir
10. Mathematical Tables Project, Tables of SineL
Sc - standard conditions Cosine and Exponential Integrals, Vol. II,
National Bureau of Standards (1940), p, xi.
w - water
III - polymer drive 11. Hoerl, A. E., and Ames, W. F.: Section 2,
“Mathemat its,” Perry’s Chemical Engineers
IV - fresh water drive
Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1 - displaced phase New York, Fourth Edition (1963), P.2.1O.

2 - displacing phase
APPENDIX A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I. DIMENSIONLESSPERMEABILITYFUNCTIONSFOR PULSE
TESTS
Over the years I have had a number of informal
communications with Shell co-workers which provided
The pressure response of a $ingle change in
a background for the ideas developed in this report.
injection or production from a line source or sink
I particularly wish to acknowledge assistance from
is given3 by the well-known relationship:*
informal reports of C. Bremer and J. A. Dillabough, ● .
&he computational work of N. A. Hyhill, the example
caaes of Appendix B provided by M. Prata, the
conduek of some of the field tests by J. O. Farmer
-d M. S. French, and the review of this treport by where
E. 1+. Mach.

mm
For raservoi~s tdtlt &rti*otropie persst&bHitg,
1. Frenek, H. S., et al: Weld Test af an Aquetws Coliiea4 has shown ehet the tw Perreeabflities
!$urfaetant System for Oil Recovery, Beaten occurring in Equation A.1 are net idemtieal. %Ms
Field, Illinois,” J$T, February k9731 resuit was ge=~eti=ad *Y Fspadoptikas$ and diaettsea4
pP. i95-2(34. by others.6S7*~ k@ is a directional permeability
in the direction of tha pulse response. k~ is a
2. Johnson, C. R., Greenkorn, R. A., and Woods, geometrical rsean permeability of the principal
E. G.: “Pulse-Testing: A New Method for Describ- directional parmeabilities.
ing Reservoir Flow Properties Between Wells,”
JPT, December 1966, pp. 1599-1604. ke = ~kmax “ %nin

3. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D, G,: “Pressure For a single pulse of duration At, Figure
Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells,” SPE Monograph Al, the pressure response is the superposition of
Volume 1 (1967), the effects of the two changes in rate at the
beginning and end of the pulse:2
4. Collins, R, E,: Flow of Fluids Through Porous
Materials, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, Ap = * [Ei(+) - E&%)] (A.3)
New York (1961), p. 115.
where

5. Papadopulus, 1, S.: “Non Stc~ady Flow to a

well in an Infinite Anisotropic Aquifer,”
(A,4)
Symposium - International Assoc. Sci. Hydrology,
Dubrovnik (]965),
Differentiating with reepect to t, Li Yun-Shan9
obtained

6. Ramcy, H. J., Jr,: “Interference Analysis for

Anisotropic Formations - A Case History,”
JPT, October 1975, pp. 1290-1298.
when Ap = Ah,
. .. t = tm
...
7, Swift,
Testing
S. C,,
for Reservoir
and Brown, L, P.:
Definition
“Interference
- The State h.
dt
0.-BAq~
41tkCh [ tm
~-K/(tm-At)
e-K/tin -——
tin-At
(A.6)
of the Art, SPE paper 5809, Proc, Symposium 1
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, Solving Equation A.6 for K gives:
March 22-24, 1976, pp. 167-171,
(A.7)
K ■ [V]ln (*)
8. Earlougher, Robert C.: “Advances in Well Test
Analysis,” SPE Monograph Volume 5 (1977),
pp, 118-121. ‘The convention with Aq being (+) for injection
and (-) for production$~s used,
8 INTERWELLPRESSURE TESTI WWODS FOR FIELD PILOTS SPE 11(NM

A diramsionless form is obtained by the expression:

At2 t@A~
~cB. _.. & ~ A2n[(2n*l)2-2A) -S2Bl(2n+l)2-2n9
At k~At 1 1
— =— = T tm(tm.At) (A.8) I&q [[n= i 2n(2n+1 )( Zn+l)!
4K 4tlJcr2 () — “ ln(t}At
’11
) (A.l&)

Substituting Equation A.7 into Equation A.3 and Values of k@D and kGD with consistent units, are
rearranging gives a dimensionless group, kGD, shown as functions of tLD in Figure A.2.
expressed as a function of pulse length, At, and
time to maximum response, tm. Examples of the application of these charts
for design and interpretation using oil field
units are given in Appendix B. See Equations 9.1
and 9,2 and Figures 9.1 and 9.2.

11. INTERRELATIONSHIPOF k@D and kGD FUNCTIONS

Since both k@D and kGD, given in Equations A.10

BY defining a tim{~ lag, tL=tm-At, and a dimc)nsionle~$
and All, are functions of tLD only, their ratio,
t“imc lag tLD=(tm-AL’)/At (SO tll~t tm=At(tLD+l)),
f(tLD), also is a function of tLD.
both Eq!lations A,13 and A.9 can be shown to hc’ func-
tions only of the dimensionless time: 1

k$At
ki$/D = ‘- = -
1 1
(A.1O f(tLD) = ~ =
()
~pcr2 4 tLD+ 1 ‘* ~lg, [-tLnln~~’v~i~D+,)ln (~)]1
tLD(tLD+l)ln 1
()—tLD
(A.15)
Frtxa the further relationships of the dimensionless
groups in Equations A.i@ end Ail, this funccion

Equation k.Ifl is a~ expression of the dimension

less directional permeability, k@D. (A. i6)
Equation All represents the dimensionless For homogeneous reservoirs, ~ = kc and
geometrical mean permeability, kGD. A more con-
venient computational form of Equation A.li is (mr2h@)(cA@ ~. IMqAt (A.17)
obtained by defining the arguments aa,
The first term on the left side of Equation
(A,12 A.17, mrzh$ = Vpr, is the reservoir Pore volume of
the cylinder whose radius is the interwell dis-
and tance. The term on the right side, ~AqAt = AV, is
the reservoir volume of fluid injected or produced.
B = (tLD+l) [ln(~)l (A,12 Consequently, the maximum pressure rise at an
observer from a remote fluid injection may be
and expressing the Ei function as an infinite estimated from the volume of fluid injected, the
series, }O “cylindrical” pore volume, the compressibility,
m
~2n and the dimensionless time lag:
Ei(-x) = y+~ln(x 4) -
x+n’, m- AV
[
‘Pm”-’ (A018)
x2n+l &

(2n+l)(2n+l), Alternatively, if pressure response is known,

‘1
either compressibility or bed thickness may be
Therefore,
determined, The function f(tLD) approaches a con-
Ei(-A) -Ei(-B) =lnA-lnB-A+8 + stant value as tLD becomes large. Further, from
A2n+l-B2n+l FigUre At2 we see that both k#.D and k D become
“z, [%-( 2n+l)(2n+lj small as t~,~+ m, Therefore, the rat f o may be
evaluated using L’Hopital’s rule,
For the values of A and B defined in Equations 1
At12a and A,12b, d

[ t~(t@ll In (* )1
lnA-lnB-A+B=O

and
dt
(A,19)
SPE 11086 GEORGEL. EGE14EIER 9

*1t
For equal pulse lengtha:

(tLDl+l)

() L)
= Lie tLDl+l
cLW- in —
tLf)l tLDl
M. —, (A.23)
LD*k t LD tLD2 tLD2+l-)
!l(C~}(tLD*l)2hl —
~LD In —
tLD2
()

t()
tfJ)+l IV. ANALYSIS OF EARLYTIME RESPONSEFROMINTER-
‘LDln ~
FERENCETESTS
ne
= Lim
t LD +m LD+ 1

H
Accuracy of reservoir properties derived from
‘LDln ~ interference tests are maximized if the entire
pressure response is matched to the exponential
integral function; however, when only short time

= Lim
t LD+m
()
111+~
t LD
‘Li)
observations
is theoretically
associated
are practical,
possible
with successive
early characterization
by observation
inflection
of events
points of
the Ei function and its derivatives, These are
w=’ obtained from Equation A,l as follows:
and
k#D Ap= G[-Ei(-K/t)] (A.24)
Lim = Re (A.20)
t LD+= ~
() Where
G = -6&qW4wk~h
This simple relationship, which also may be
shown ftom the instantaneous 1 ne source solution,2 K E constant defined in Equatien A.6
p~evidea inai~ht Em many siaip ificationa in Dukaa *=+J”+
at K/t

U*2S}

M4ci

~=c~ -K/t [K-t]

at2 (A.26)
(A.21)
where
Equation A.21 is accurate to about two percent for
tLD> I, a2&
t2 = t~ ~ = O, K-t2=0
at2
It follows from Equation A,21 that the change
and
in maximum pressure response with a change in
pulse length is: t2=* (A.27)
h.__&_Aq
At ( Tfrzh$co ) (A.22)
(A.28)
Thus, provided tLD is sufficiently largt?, pressure
rosponsc to a quantity of injection or production
con b{, rstimatc!d withmlt knowing the permeability,
a 3A
t-j = tfa+=o, K2-4Kt3+2t32 = O
111. MOBILITY RATIOS FROMPULSE TEST ANALYSIS at
To obtain thcl ratio of nobilities of two
different fluids in succetisivc floods, wc take the (A,29)
rutio of Equation A,IO rvaluat[,d for each fluid:
*=GC ~ [K3 .C)K2~ + 18Kt2 - fjt3] (A,30)
at4
Where t
a4/j
t4 = t@~= 0, [K3-9K2t4+ 18Kt42-6t431 =0
at4

and the solutionsil to rhiH cubic equntion ar{s:

(A131)

,
 la
.- -..
I?fPERkSKL PiMMtllM
.s----- — .. —----—
TESTIKG METiiOBSPoll PIELB PILOTS
-------- -— .----— - --- - -——- - -— ---
aPE Ileiki
--------

where n = O, 1, end 2. Angles are in degreeg. distance is wall-known; but reservoir trmtideei-
bility, kb/B, and hydraulic diffusitivity, kl+~c,
Tha ahapao of these funetiona are shown in which are the quantities that we wish to determine
Figure A.4. Compared to the inflection point of from the pulse test, must be estimated in order to
the Ei function, the maxima of the successively design the test. Of the variables comprising
higher derivatives occur at earlier times. these quantities, porosity, thickness and viscoeity
are known better than permeability and compressi-
For pulse tests, the earliest
lag time to bility,
maximum response occurs length becomes
as the pulse
small. This can be shown by rearranging Equation To use Figures B.1 and B.2, for design,
A.1O, and taking the limit as tLD approaches assume ke D kc = k, and:
infinity:
1) Calculate the value ofKGD= tkh/p) “
tLD+l ‘LD (Apm/9Aq) from estimated transmissibility, flow
= Lim (tLD+l)ln ~ rate and the maximum lwessure disturbance that is
+ tL@= () desired.

tm-At+Or 2) Use the value of KGD on the ordinate of

K=At_ in e
at the chart from step I to read the dimensionless
()
time lag, tLD, on the abscissa.
~nd
3) Use this value of tLD to read the value
tm = K[l.0] (A.32) of K@D= (kAt/@~cr21 on the other ordinate.
That is, the earliest characteristic “event” from
4) Determine the pulse duration, At, from
a pulse test ia coincident with the inflection
the chart reading in step 3 together with esti-
point of the Ei function given in A.27.
mated hydraulic diffusivity and radiue.
APPWDIX B
5) Eetemina the time lag to reaxiaxss praa-
awe dia&urbance fma the chart reading for t~ in
BESRXAED E__TEMQF PULSE TEgT’S Etep 2 together Wittl Ehe pulse durakion,
At, fmesCep4.
The time dependentterms of the line source
—. SX&ueios tfipramtre repewe km a remote source
mm b 1: Baatikt k Pt&aa Ees Ponae frae
have been akwn in Appen*ix A, Eqwa*ioaa A.~G end
Weetbn ittte* Ea=ered-Owt Ikaeerwoir
A-ii m be SX3ndorde functions of a *i*#e d&eee-
sienleas tire, t~ = t~/At.
Eatieleted COnditiGne:
For uil field units, Equationa A.lt) and All T = l@JOF p = im p8i
are:
13= I*O1
‘w@*or; 1 ~~f~
K@D= 4(948.092)k@f) = * “ . $ ● 0.2
@Ucr2
~= 0.8cp@ 100°F c = 10-5 v/v/psi
948.092 (B,l)
Aq = 500 bbl/day r = 660 ft.
I I
‘l+D(tLD+;)ln(W) A% = 1 psi
and
kGhA~
KGD = 4fi(70.6)kGD = — = kh AM . 300(50)(1)
= 37,1
P- ‘flq 0,8(1.01)(500)
-70,6 lEil-tLDl~-~- From Figure B.1
kAt
tLD ● 0.355 and — = 1470
Ei[-ftLD*,~,n(~)]} f~.,, $Bcr2
Therefore, the pulse durntion to cause o Apm ■
Charts of the~e functions for use in field tust 1 psi is:
design and interprel’ation arc given in Figures B.1
and B.2. At . 1470(,2)(.8)(10-5)(660)2
= 3.4 hre,,
300
Coefficients to be used with standard U.S,
oil field units in the other equations of Appendix A and the time lag following the pulse to the maximum
are provided in Table B,}, pressure response is:

DESIGN t~ = (tLD)(fN) = 0.3SS x 3,4 ■ 1.2 hrs,

Pulse test design involves the determination

of the necessary pulse duration, At, of a flow
rate change, Aq, to give a measurable maximum
pressure change, AR,,, at a remote interwel~ dis-
tance, r, after a convenient elapsa of time, tL,
after thf’ end of the pulse, Ordinarily, interwel)

9
*PE
--- } iQs6
----- -------- L.
f$E&M3ff -. STWZEMRZER
- . --- ... . . .. 11

Exea!ple 2: Deaim for Pul&e Remonee ta SCcp# 3 and 4 may be eoetbined to give &
5)
Produe~icm from a Gaa Wall value for reservoir atorege, $cht U.udly thick-
ness is known batter thm kot&l eoatpresoibiliey;
Estimated Conditions: however, in the Banton ease diseuaaed in the body
of the report, compressibility maamremente mada
p = 3000 gsi on this well-consolidated sandstone provided an
T m 20130F accurate value for this liquid-filled reservoir,
In that case the thieknees, h, can be calculated
k ❑ 300 md from
h = 50 ft.
hm~~;
p = 0.02 Cp
Aq = -10 MMSCF/day Anisotropic Permeability

f3.~,#__ When permeability ia aniaotropic, geometric

permeability, kc, can be calculated from step 3
and Equation B.2 provided thickness and viecosity
6= (-)(~)(y) -0.0059 are known, Directional permeability, k@, can be
calculated from step 4 and Equation B,l if $Mcr2
$ = 0.2 i.s known.
c = 10-3 v/v/psi
r = 2640 ft.
~~ m -1 psi

TABLE 1

[1
kh A% (300)(50)(1) 5.615
- 71.4
rw=l 0.02}(0.00$!4$ ~~ AWRAm OP O03USARAM8EB
Prom Fi&we R.}, WPERR4R *&zmmmwEE
ktik
t~=o,li and - 332t3
hVEftAO# AM
There Fese
+W2
AT= ~um
M)
& = 33~fj ( G.2)(Q.Q21(lQ-31{wQ)2 * ~hr~or
A * 25
300 12.9 deye
md B s 200
c 16 40
t~ = C~(At) ● (0.1E)(M38) ● %.3 hre. or
1.4 daya Average of eeven ecmples froa
ttBII sand in wlt 241*
INTERPRETATION
‘w@Sorw ~ 64 md,
= 0.17
Once the actual maximum pressure response ●nd kair 378 met.
the time at which it occurs are determined from a
field test, the FiSures B.1 and B,2 can be used in kair * kbrine @ SW . },o
reverse to obtain values of reservoir properties,

Isotropic Permeability

To use the curves for interpretation with

isotropic permeability:

1) Calculate tLD from observed measurement

of At and tm,

2) Read values of KGD and K@Don tha chart

at tLD from Step ]!

3) Using value of KCD from step 2, calculate

reservoir transmissibility, kb/p, from Equation B,2
together with the flow rate change, 8Aq, and mea-
aured maximum pressure disturbance, A%,

4) Using velue of D from ctep 2, cdeulate

hydraulic diffusivity, k/? lie, from Equation B.}
to~ether with pulse duration, At, ●nd interwell
dittanee, r,
 I’ASM Z

CHRMWY OF FtLOT OPt%A’2tttNN

D.*1. itvmtt IF-I*FJ ‘rest Op@ratlonll

- .—. -...——. .—
U,.t I Xtntuh
916-1/67 I ) Standard Pvt *V ‘7vnt 2/4 .265 Eni.wkitrt$ 4tk min. uhul-in mtseu, I
wlprirdttcmt wntrr, Neanurc prt,smlrc, rc. trpnnnc,
80, Otttt pm ?Dit 241,242 tom - in
—
1:/27/67 Begin PlIa8t. 1 H’,. f II*OII 26t.242,2U .145 Inlmc’t iltl!
11.’+: N.’icl in :011 ppm Tt)tl
I.;bkc WSI,K wattr

2! 10/68- t) Prosuurv BIIi ldIIj!-Pzl lntf

31:4!68

!?42,?4) Prodnr i nf, tihnt in h imwwurv premrmrv

bu i ldm, I
%ftl/f,n Het in PII. IM. 1 I t%,mic.nl
%rfai I mt k’t nod
— —.——.——.
1%/: iti,tt N4.tiin I]ho. e t I t P,,lyrwr t)riw
2?$ ppn t)ow P,l.h,.r 1)-$20 in
l..~k+. $tiw,. uat<r

..
2&l Prodm i ng
—
240, ?.$fr ,2*7 Shnt-in 1, 2. $, b 10 min. production 1
P!llws. 1
?51 .3+%*M%

.%$
25kt, z5%,247
Il?js%tlnkt
Pt@lw tlt

Prnd4reinR
S&t-in Wrfntre prcrctUFed VQttrm+z dur-
I
ilq Iu mitt. mats in *II*
2#,%45, end 247,
I

Thtkt.S3

M t I. Y’”t NJ ECTIDN ANO PN02NWTtON NATK$ AND pN~$$pRKS

DIUkt NG I*67 PIM.%$ Ttislx

m_in’oNv!i-l/W$W-.I tult r
(mu t
TIIP
(pIii)(Btm) (1’:!
)
Nit,,
tVtttOIW 1ftN

——— —.— —.—

!bpt , ?-1~ 202 $?0 fk2 ‘i30
)-4 2RI 5$0 121 $10
/,-5 Iii) Ann 1}~ 540
‘i.rl I 5U >90 I20 ml
6-7 172 600 I 20 *00
7-R .?11 60(7 M WJ

ttbw - barrrl~lrtny wott, r ‘m - tubin~ lIrmi pre K.ure

mt - bmrrel!ttdny 01 I lkllP - bet t rm-hfile+ prrmwtrr
BM - bnrrels/dny gromh
—
‘+24 -hmlr lt, nt from tt!fttt A,f4i to R!OO A,il,
‘>*20-hrrt}rx of product lrrn frnm 12:ftf7 l%en tm tt; tttt A.M.
 TABLE4

STATUS OF FLOODPATTERNPRIOR TO SHUT-IN

February 10, 1968

Cumulative Cumulative Average Pressure

Well
Status Time Volume Rate @ :;;:;;s
No.
(Days) (Barrels) (B/D)

241 Injection 76 5749 76 1402

242 Production 37 -3082 -83 0
243 Production 76 -5458* -72 0
244 Injection 76 6270 83 1458
245 Injection 76 6976 92 1427
I I
*Includes 66 barrels oil,

‘TAME 5

PRODUCTION
TESTS - WELL246

Test 1 Test 2

I Date 9/17/68 12/21/68

Fluid Pusher@ P-520 (275 ppm) L, Moses Water

I in L. Moses Water 200 mm TDS

Well 241
Injection Rate 65 0/D 73 B/D
Surface Injection Pressure 668 psig 450 psig

Well 246
I
Stabilized Rate at Surface 41.5 B/D 30 B/D
I Pressure = O psig
I Shut-in Surface Pressure 161 PSig 60 psig
 TABLE 6

PULSE TEST SUMMARY

(Response in Well 241)

Pulsed %v At A% t LD ’41D kGD $/u $ h’

Well (Zt) (B/Df (rein) (&n) (psi) (md/cp) (A) (ft)

Standard Injection Pulses During Waterflood @ Sorw; Well 241 S1

244 189 161 40 69 1.92 0.725 870 23.3 56 48 34.6
245 197 100 40 76 1.54 0.90 745 19.8 53 46 24.4
Reverse Production Pulses During Polym er Drive @ Sore; Well 241 Injecting Polymer
240 42 70 1 2.6 1.33 1.6 470 12.8 60 120 11.1
42 54 2 3.4 2.23 0.7 895 24.0 57 114 10.4
42 53 5 6.0 4.66 0.2 2220 52.3 57 114 10.7
42 50 10 10,75 6.64 0.075 4420 86.0 57 114 11.4

246 51 45 1 2.75 0.95 1.75 440 11.8 83 166 6.8

51 41 2 3.75 1.82 0.875 760 20.3 72 144 6.4
51 39 5 6.2 3.60 0.24 1930 47.0 73 146 6.9
51 38 10 11.0 5.50 0.1 3630 75.0 69 138 7.6

247 58 53 1 3.2 0.58 2.2 360 9.92 88 176 10.1

58 36 2 3.9 1.09 0.95 710 19.2 87 174 7.2
58 32 5 6.3 2.17 0.26 1830 44.8 89 178 7.4
58 32 10 11.2 3.52 0.12 3160 68.5 77 154 8.2

Assumed Reservoir Properties

+ * 0.17$ s = i.fl
so& = 0.28 ~w~ter = 0.86 C$ @ 95*
c = 6.& x IO+ viv/psi Upol=r drive = 2.@ept?95-

*Assumin& k~ = kG.

TABLE 7

COMPARISONOF SLOPES OF “STEEP” FALLOFF AND BUILDUP CURVES

Well No. First Falloff Second Falloff First Buildup

(psi/cycle) (psi/cycle) (psi/cycle)
241 4io 320
244 340 330
245 240 280
242 360
243 320

TABLE B.1

COEFFICIENTS USED WITH U.S. OIL FIELD UNITS

Equations MKS or Oil Field

Consistent Units Units
First constant outside the brackets in ~ 70.600
Eq. Al, A.3, A.5, A.6, A,9, All, A.14 4n
Constant used with K inside brackets in 1
948,092
Eq. Al, A.3, A*4, A.5, A.6 and on RHS T
in Eq. A.8 andA,10
\

it-
-i-t

. Fig. 2—Well completions.

\
*&

INJECTION WELL

PRODUCTION WELL

OBSERVATION WELL

Fig. l–Well pattern, Benton chemical flood.

Fg. 3—Ar Permetillities.

499
“s50
498
“549
4W.
“s48
496-
-547
49s-
“546
494-
“545
493”
350 -544
?
h -543

561

w“

5s9”

558”

557”

556-

554.

553”

2s0”
244
200
1

,00 245

o~
IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
TIME (HRS)

Fig, S-lnjectlon pu18e$-Well 245,

 TIME
ZERO
40

200

000

800

600

400

200

*
.8 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1( ‘o
TIME AFTER SHUT-IN (HOURS)

Ffg. ~ sw~tiw.

\240
‘2 MIN 5

At 240
‘1

0 1=1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I

O tm[m in] S 0 ‘tmcrn in] 10 15

Fig, 7-Pre88ure responses in injection W8il 241 from obsewation well

production pulses,
m
Q
UELLS 240-241 WELLS 246-241 UELLS 247-241

Id
.,. LL
T

2105

5 10 1s
:;.’
TIME FROM STFIRT OF PULSE tm [mini
. . I 1%
,1.

5
u 1“
i3 J :“2
1-
IA. ..
,,. :.. ..,.

Fg. 8-Effect of pulse length-Well 240. 0“’:.’’.””’ ‘“ Ii .’

2110 ;;:.! :’ ‘.”: ~E” m.; ~
x o 0’. ~~ ~ ~;:.. “ m..
* -l-u’ ,,,ID” y:F.,.:
n II - .-:,
W -c n ~.. ,,. , L ., x;:’
o t Ix < f,..:...]X:
”:... .~t .’~,s:..’.l ,
.4
Is I“;vl ‘i>

.3

.2
.$
+
2115
II

1(
I

o 200 400 0
1 ‘r
VRLUES

200
OF h
EXTRRPOLRTED
TO ~t=O

400 0 200 400

ka [ma] ka [red] ka [red]

(SEE TRBLE 5)
.1
——PHFISE K FRESH URTER

Fg. 10-Composite permeabdityprofiles.

o 2 4 6 8 !0

TIHE IHIN)

* 9-OPM flow productionfrom observationwells.

t

TIME c

Fig, A-l-Finite pulse response.

10
.. . .
...a’.
.
..
., . . ..-
. ..... ..-_mm
.....- -
----- .: .::: . ..
.. ....
.
. .... ....=.- .. . . .
,,, ,, ....

...+
.. .. I
:;: ,.
.. ..+
..
. . . ...... . .,. - . . ... .....
. . . ... ., ..’ . .
‘,
. . . .

. ...7
., 0.1
...

..-.
::.

::.
.,. . .,, ::. . 001

0001
~@
~b
I

I 001 !01 1 lo 100

1 t~D

Fig. A.2-Dimensionless permeabilities,

-n
.4
z

.oo~,,
1 10 A’
’10

Fig. A-3-Correction for finite pukes,

$
*“n
o
-’

0 L &s 1.0
DIMENSIONLESS TIME (!.]

Fig. A=4-Succeeeive derivativesof - Ei[- +].

 q)o
K*O” #-
‘C:* MyoO U)yQo
1 I I

,,, .

,.. i ..
,,
,..

,. .,
.!
,..
‘< .,
,,, ,.. .
:,
.i

1: II
1000

F@ M-mmawwe perma@Mleetei!fwd unRe~-Q*ol -1.0.

I :
100

Fig, B=2-Dimensionless permeabilities, oilfield units tLD = 1.0-100.