SPE 9396 SPE

Society of Petroleu'n Engineers of ""ME

APRACTICAL SHORT-TERM INTERFERENCE TESTING

METHOD TO DETERMINE RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES

by Pratip Bandyopadhyay. Member SPE-AIME.

Occidental Oil Shale, Inc.

Copyright 1981. Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was presented at the 1981 Production Operation Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma March 1-3, 1981. The material IS subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words. Write SPE 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206.

ABSTRACT
Interference testing is widely used in the not recoverable by conventional methods. Accurate
petroleum industry to obtain reservoir descriptions prediction of fluid migration in the reservoir is
vital to the evaluation of proposed tertiary recovery very important in the economic evaluation and oper-
projects. A new analytical method that provides an ation of an enhanced recovery project. Therefore,
accurate reservoir description and requires only early before any recovery technique is applied in the field.
time data was developed for this purpose. This method an accurate reservoir description is mandatory.
worked very well when applied to data from the litpr-
ature and was successfully applied in the design, Conventionally, pressure transient testing
monitoring and analysis of interference tests con- I methods
are used by the industry to provide a reser-
ducted in a mid-continent field. voir description. Generally, pressure falloff.
pressure buildup and interference tests are used in
The conventional method of interference test combination to determine reservoir properties. In
analysis involves the application of a complex ex- pressure falloff and buildup tests, pressure data are
ponential integral function fit of the data to "type gathered in the injector or producer after it has been
curves" either by least squares on a computer or by shut-in. In an interference test, an injector or pro-
transparent overlays. In the new technique, the early ducer is shut-in, transmitting a pressure disturbance
interference data from each well are fit with a through the reservoir to an offset observation well.
straight line. The slope of the straight line is then This pressure response is analyzed to determine re-
used to compare the degree of interwe1l communication. servoir parameters. The theory and application of
A practicing engineer with a pocket calculator can these techniques are presented in the literature.
successfully use this method to design, monitor and
analyze interference tests. The application of interference testing to de-
scribe anisotropic petroleum reservoirs with major
The method is particularly useful in reservoirs and minor permeability directions was first shown by
of wide spacing where the interference testing period Ramey!. In his paper, Ramey presented and illustrated
can be inordinately long even when a highly sensitive an analytical method for determining the major and
pressure gauge is used. With judicious application minor permeability axes of certain types of reservoirs
of this technique, the test duration can be minimized This was an important step forward in describing re-
considerably thereby reducing testing costs and de- servoir heterogeneity from a simple analytical view-
layed production. point.
The method is rigorously developed and a field Swift and Brown 2 conducted interference tests
example is given. on 64 well pairs and attempted to explain the data
by defining a parameter called the directional perme-
INTRODUCTION ability. The concept of directional permeability had
been previously used in ground water hydrol ogy 3.
There has been a growing awareness of the Swift and Brown concluded that channeling tendencies
critical energy situation existing in the United in a randomly heterogeneous reservoir could be quanti-
States. Recoverable reserves are being depleted tatively described by their method.
faster than new reserves are discovered. Hence energy
companies have put heavy emphasis on new methods to The basis of these pressure analysis methods is
produce unrecoverable oil present in old fields. These matching pressure-time data with a theoretical curve
enhanced recovery projects are risky because they re- (commonly known as a type curve). Because type curve
quire injection of expensive fluids to produce oil matching requires extensive data for a valid analysis,
testing can be long and expensive particularly in a
Keferences and illustrations at end of paper.
29
 A PRACTICAL SHORT-TERM INTERFERENCE TESTING METHOD TO DETERMINE RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES
field with wide spacing and low permeability. There-
fore, research efforts were directed toward finding a
technique to analyze short-term interference data and
provide the same important directional information
about the reservoir as longer tests.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this paper are:
1. To provide the theoretical basis of a simple
technique for analysis of early time pressure
interference data.
2. To apply the technique on data reported in the
literature and prove its validity by comparing
the results with those of other analytical
methods.
3. To illustrate the application of this method
to data gathered during a field interference
test conducted in a mid-continent field.
4. To show how to design a test for effective
application of the technique.
THEORY
SPE 9396
pressure can be represented with the equation Po =
-.069 + .717 t extremely well. Lescarboura, Walther
and Wilson~ po~nted out that interference data gathered
in the range of to = 0.25 can be fitted with a straigh
line. They showed a simple hand calculation method
for permeability determination. In the dimensionless
time range of 0.1 - 1.0 the dimensionless pressure Po
can be represented fairly well with the equation Po =
-.0264+ .5748 to' Thus, if pressure data gathered at
an observation well are plotted versus time on carte-
sian paper, and if the data are in the appropriate di-
mensionless time range. the slope of the pressure-time
graph, m*, can be used to calculate directional perme-
ability, as follows:
Pws (t) = A + m* lit (2)
(3)
Thus,
(5)

The pressure interference at an observation where A and A' are constants.

well from a constant rate production or injection
well. neglecting skin and wellbore storage effects, Further,
is given by:
m* lItl = d
(1) XPl
where: where d is a constant depending on the dimensionless
khllP time range in which the straight line is fit.
141.2 qllB
¢llctr2 ke h (6)
t - .000264 kllt (m*) (.000264 kcjl) (141.2 qllB) = d
o - cjl).lc r 2
t
-u 00
and
Ei(-x) -J Ldu
x u
(7)
Svlift and Brown 2 additionally define
LIP or
Po = LW'i"
(8)
t
o =~
lItl where
where:
lIP l 141. 2 9).lB
ke h I - e
k
- (.000264) (141.2)Bd ( .0373) (B) (d)
cjl).lc t r 2
lItl .000264 kcjl For a given interference test, the rate, q, storage
capacity, S, and the constant, I, will be fixed para-
meters. Thus, the directional permeability is pro-
and km• the directional permeability. represents the portional to the rate of pressure rise and the square
effective permeability along the streamline and is of the interwell distance. ~irectional permeability
thus a measure of the channeling tendency in a part- ratios, or relative channeling tendencies in the i and
icular direction. For a homogeneous reservoir, kcjl = j directions can be compared from the following re-
ke · lationship:

m*.r 2.
A plot of the line source solution in cartesian 1 1 (9 )
coordinates is shown in Figure 1. In the dimension- m*. r2.
less time range of 0.15 - 0.39, the dimensionless J J

30
SPE 9396 P. BANDYOPADHYAY
In some practical cases, this information alone is
sufficient to define reservoir heterogeneity.
For the case of an ideally anisotropic reser-
voir. Ramey pointed out that interference data should
be gathered from wells located in three directions.
In Figure 2. a schematic diagram of observation wells
is shown. To determine the ideally anisotropic re-
servoir parameters kXX, ky y and ~, the interference
data gathered from the three observation wells are
plotted in cartesian coordinates. Directional perme-
ability ratios k~1/k¢3 and kID Ik 3 are computed by
applying equation 9. The fOl10w~ng relationships
based on Hantusch 3 are then used to compute perme-
ability contrast,Jkxx/k yy , and the orientation ¢:.
t 2~ - (2) (b-1)sin2(S-a) - (a-1)sin 2 (y-a) (10)
an - - '(b-1)sin2(S-a) - (a-1)sin2(y-a)
where a = k¢/k~3
b =
k~/k¢3
a. angle between well 10 and the x coordinate
S = angle between well 5E and the x coordinate
y = angle between well 1E and the x coordinate
~ = orientation of the major permeability
axis with respect to the x coordinate
and
where
8 =a - ¢
If ke • the effective permeability of the reservoir
is known, kXX' kyy and other directional permeability
values, k¢, can be calculated usin~ the following
equations based on Swift and Brown .
(12 ) terference data were gathered from 64 well pairs. The
(13 ) to compute directional permeability. The directional
k =
</> kXX k
(1--)cos 2 (</>-8) + XX
kyy -k-
yy
k can be determined from either buildup or falloff
data. Also. the slope of the Po - to fit shown in
Figure 1 does not appear in this method of calculation formation permeability is not known, the ratios of
if the data are gathered in the same dimensionless
time range.
APPLICATION OF THEORY
Comparison With Ramey's Technique
Ramey presented his analysis of field inter-
ference data collected in a watered-out formation dur-
ing a test to determine whether directional perme-
ability would influence the project. The pressure
interference tests required injection of water at 115
BID and measurement of the pressure rise at eight sur-
rounding producers. Figure 4 shows a plot of Ramey's
data. Ramey applied the method proposed by Papadopu-
los~ and determined major and minor permeability axes
and the orientation of the unknown permeability matrix
Directional permeability values were computed using
Ramey's method and the method gi ven by Swi ft and Brown 2•
Ramey's method and the method of Swift and Brown give
identical results.
To apply the new technique, the rate of pres-
sure rise was determined from the straight line portion
of Figure 4. The slope ratios were then used to de-
termine the permeability contrast between the major
and minor permeabilities and the orientation of the
permeability axes. and directional permeability values
were calculated. A complete calculation is shown in
Appendix A. The slope of .5748 used in the Po - to
straight line fit is only valid in the range of 0.1
<to < 1.0. Subsequent calculations verified that the
data were in the proper to range.
The results of the analysis by the new method
and those computed from Ramey's solution and by the
method of Swift and Brown are summarized in Table 1.
The directional permeability ratios agree within ten
percent. The maj or and mi nor permeabi 1ity values agree
within five percent. The orientation of the major
permeability axis determined by this method was 58.6°
compared to 62° obtained by Ramey. The directional
permeability values matched within five percent.
Ramey used about four days of data. The pres-
sure rise in different wells during the four-day J:eriod
ranged from 13-25 psi. Had a very sensitive pressure
(11 ) gauge been used, a 5 psi pressure rise might have been
sufficient for Ramey's analysis and would have been
more than adequate for analysis using this new tech-
nique. Thus the test duration could have been re-
duced by about two days.
Comparison W,th Swift and Brown Technique
Swift and Brown 2 conducted extensive inter-
ference testing in the E1 Dorado Field, Butler
County, Kansas, to obtain a reservoir description
prior to initiating a micellar-polymer project. In-
directional permeability values were calculated from
the early slope of the pressure-time data. The ke
value reported for each individual well test was used
permeability values computed were compared with the
values reported (Table 2). The agreement is very good
when each well's effective formation permeability, ke'
is used. It is therefore possible to calculate an
accurate value for directional permeability from the
early slope of the pressure-time data if effective
formation permeability is known. In case the effectivE
directional permeabilities can be compared to determinE
the relative channeling tendency.
APPLICATION IN A MID-CONTINENT FIELD TEST
A schematic of the well configuration in a
mid-continent field under development is shown in
 A PRACTICAL SHORT-TERM INTERFERENCE TESTING METHOD TO DETERMINE RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES
Figure 5. The injection well A was shut-in and pres-
sure falloff data were gathered using a sensitive pres-
sure gauge. Well B, a producer was then shut-in. The
interference from well B was observed at well A. Later
well C was shut-in and its interference at well A was
also monitored. Finally, well D was shut-in and the
test was completed when adequate interference data were
collected.
The analysis procedure involved first an MDH
plot of the falloff data from well A. The flow capa-
city was estimated to be about 58 md-ft. The inter-
ference responses from well B, C and D were fitted with
straight lines (Figures 6A-6C). Data are analyzed and
summarized in Appendix B. The tests showed that pre-
ferenti a1 channel i ng occurs from well A to well Band
from well A to well D (Figure 7).
TEST DESIGN
The interference testing can be accomplished
in the following two ways:
1. In a fully developed active waterflood
project, the responding well (injector
or producer) should be shut-in first to
run a falloff or buildup test. The sur-
rounding wells should then be shut-in,
one by one, while pressure interference
is measured at the responding well.
2. A central injector/producer and surround-
ing wells in the pattern may be equipped
with sensitive pressure gauges. Fluid is
then continuously injected or produced
from the central well while the pressure
pulses are monitored at the surrounding
observation wells. This situation might
be encountered at the start of a new en-
hanced recovery project.
A step by step procedure for conducting a
short term interference test to obtain a reservoir de-
scription follows:
1. The pressure falloff or buildup data are
analyzed to determine the overall pattern
permeability, ke .
2. Plot interference data on cartesian paper
to define a linear relationship between
pressure and time.
3. Determine the slope of the straight line.
4. Using equations 11-14, compute reservoir
pa ramete rs .
5. Check to make certain that the data are
in the correct tD range.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the proposed method for determin-
ing reservoir characteristics using short-term inter-
ference data was verified using published data and
provides a reliable, and practical easy-to-use tech-
nique that minimizes test duration and costs.
SPE 9396
NOMENCLATURE
A, A" constants
B formation volume factor, RB/STB
Ct total compressibility, psi- 1
d constant
Ei exponential integral
h formation thickness, ft.
I interference constant
K permeability, md
ke effective permeabil ity, md
kXX maximum principal permeability, md
kyy minimum principal permeability, md
k~ directional permeability, md
m slope of the straight line on a linea
plot of ~P (interference) versus t,
psi/hr
~P pressure change (due to interference)
psi
dimensionless pressure
shut-in bottomhole pressure, psi
fl ow rate, STB/D
radius, ft
time, hr
time at the start of the test, hr
dimensionless time
viscosity, cp
porosity, fraction
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author expresses his appreciation of the
management of the Cities Service Company for permission
to publish this paper. Efforts of research personnel
are duly appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Ramey, H.J., "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic
Formati ons--A Case Hi story," JPT tOct. 1975) 1290-
1298; Trans., AIME 259.
2. Swift, S. C. and L. P. Brown, "Interference Test-
ing for Reservoi r Defi nition--The State of the Art ,"
SPE 5809, 1976.
3. Hantush, M. S.• "Analysis of Data From Pumping
Tests in Anisotropic Aquifers," J. Geophys. Res.
(Jan. 15, 1966) 71, No.2, 421.
4. Lescarboura, J. A., Walther, H.C. and Wilson, P. L.
"Design and Analysis of Interference Tests", SPE
5314, 1975.
5. Papadopulos, I. S., "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in
an Infinite Anisotropic Aquifer," Symposium Inter-
national Assn. Sci. Hydrology, Dubrovinik, Yugo-
slavia, 1965.
6. Hantush, M. S., "Wells in Homogeneous Anisotropic
Aquifers," Water Resources Research (1966) 2, No.
2, 273.
7. Elkins, L. F. and Skov, A. M., "Determination of
Fracture Orientation from Pressure Interference,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1960) 301-304, Trans., AIME 219.
8. Erlougher, R. C., Jr., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "In-
terference Analysis in Bounded Systems," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1973) 33-45.
32
SPE 9396 P. BANDYOPADHYAY

9. Carslaw, H. S. and Jaegar, J .C., "Conduction of O.l<tO<l.O

Heat in Solids," Second Edition, Oxford U. Press.
Inc., New York (1959) 38-49.
10. Co11 ins, R. E., "Flow of Fluids Through Porous
Media," Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York
(1961).
11. Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Short Time Well-Test Data Well 1-D:
Interpretation in Presence of Skin Effect and
Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1970) mi 0.28 psi/hr
97-104; Trans, AIME, 249.
6
12. Matthews, C.S. and Russel, D. G., "Pressure S = ¢Cth = (0.2)(7.85)(10- )(25) = 39.25 * 10- 6
Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells," Monograph
Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers of r 475 ft
AIME, Dallas (1971) 1.
C = (k)(.000264)(141.3)B where k = .5748
13. Erlougher, R. C. Jr., "Advances in Well Test ke ke = 16'89
Analysis," Monograph. Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977) 5. ·(.5748)(.000264)(141.3) 1.2695 * 10- 3
- (16.89)
14. Van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W., "The Ap- q 115
plication of the Laplace Transformation to
Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME (949) k = ~8)(39.25)(10-6)(475)2 16.98 md
186, 305-324. ¢
3
(1.2695)(10- )(115)
APPENDIXES Well 1-E:
6
Appendix A - Example Calculations (Data From Rameyl) k = (0.16)(39.25)(10- )(671)2 19.37 md
3
¢ (1.2695)(10- )(115)
From Equation 9:
m*1 r~
1 Well 5-E
m~ r~ 6
J J (0.24)(39.25)(10- )(475)2 14.56 md
3
(1.2695)(10- )(115)

1.17 = a Swift and Brown Analysis of Ramey Data

k = 'p

also, ¢ ,I _ a:) Cos 2 (¢ _ 0) + ex:

kp (1-0) (0.28}(475}2 _
(.14)(700)2 - 0.92 = b
k¢ (I-E) cr: =1KX =F1.1 = 1 25
Ky 13.5 •

From Equation 10: 1-0:

2 0 (16.89)( 1. 25)
tan 2 (a -0) (-2) (.92-1}sin (270 ) (Continued) 18.8
(.92-.1)sin 540 kcjJ(l-D) = (1-1.56)Cos 2 (62.1-90) + 1.56
-(1.17-1)sin 2 (317.30) 1.84
-(1.17-1)sin 634.6 (16.89)(1.25)
k¢\l-E ) = (l-1.56)Cos 2 (62.1-47.3) + 1.56
o = 58.6°
20.37
kXX _ cos (30.75 + 270) - 1.17 cos 2 30.75 _
2
( 16.89)( 1. 25 )
IVY - 1.17 sin 2 30.75-sin 2 (270 + 30.75) - 1.4 k¢ (5-E);
~XX7kyy = (permeability contrast) = 1.19
Using Equation 13:
_ (1.19)(16.89) 14.69
k¢ (I-D) - (l-I.4)cosZ(58.6-90) + 1.4 18.1 md

Po =-.02640 + .5748 to (least sq. fit),

33
 A PRACTICAL SHORT-TERM INTERFERENCE TESTING METHOD TO DETERMINE RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES SPE 9396

Appendix B - Field Example Calculation

From Equation 9:

m.* '$1 (.163)(933)2 (845)

( 1
(.048)(1320)2(430)

3.3

TABLEl
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED METHO[l AGAINST R.¥1EV'S ANALYSIS
C(}IPARISON AGAINST OJRtcnONAl rERMEABllITY
vALU[S 08T AII~[D BY SOIl FT AND BROWN
J~IJ
~vj!!12n ~~1!1J:~ ~ Pevhtion
Directional Permeabil.itxJ~!.i2! Pattern 219
to-Ran9~
~1L- !~~ ~1'~ ~ k;JlliI!iol
~111'())
k~ We--,-,-s:u

k.~ (well l~O)

1.28 1.11 .9%
'"m
213
44.1
23.5
47.l
1.6
.85
).70
37.5
22,4
41.0
l.6
95
1.13
111 46.9
~:~5
40.0 1.7
l~~
o.!i2
" m
22Z
28.9
~2<3
~1 ,0
1.2
1.34
22.3
30.5
3&.6
0.94
).29
1.5
113 27.6 1.0 23.6 1.0
pi rel:tionillPermeabilihParameters AV9_

Pet'!rn!!abilityConstra~t,
Wv
C
YV
1.25 1.19 -4.Si P~ttern
~
209

~ (Angle Between Major Axis and

Coordinate Axis)
62.1~ 58.6" 3.5" 208
103 ~U U 23.3
27.6 ,.,
U

'"
m
33,7
5],1 U 25.2

...
45.6
2.6
U
1.0
DirectionalPenneabi1itrValues
111
111
iU
41.1
U
l.G
50.4
34.0
5.1
l.5
kXX(MftjorAxis) 21.1md 20.1rnd ~4. 7% 21l 1$.2 14,6
1.3 U
kVV(MinQrAxis)
Well l~O 13,8111d 13.1md ~3, 1%
20,4md 19,8md -2.9%

We" 5-t 14.7md lS.4md +4.8%

y
Minor Perme~bility
Axis
Major Permeability
Axis
x

- Po -.0581" .06741 0
" Line !lQurce solution

/ ' " Injector/producer

a Observation well

Fig. I - The line source solution in Fig. 2 - Schematic location of wells in an

Cartesian coordinate. ideally anisotropic reservoirso
 ",..----------9"--,--0------,

o
X (Major Permeability Axis)

Y (Mino. Pe.meabillty Axi.) t

y
'0

1-D(0,475)

'iii
Q,

0.:-
<l

o WELL 1-D mi 0.28 psl/hr

o WELL 5-E m; 0 0.24 psl/hr
'" WELL 1-E m3 0.14 psl/hr

Fig. 3 - Field example from Ramey(l)

H R ,~ 'R '8 ,H ~
(Coordinates in feet). t, hrs

Fig. 4 - Illustration of the ap~lication

of the proposed method to Ramey s
interference data.

E o c
• • •

F B
• •

H I
G
• • •
/ Injection well
• Production well

Fig. 5 - Example of Mid-continent

field test.
 "

16 - IlP = 0.178 (Ill - 40)

6P -3.26 + .048.6.t
15

"
13 ._ 4

" '"
C-
o.:
11 <l ,
10
·iii
"-
c..-
<I
•

60 160
lI.t, hrs

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

At, hr
Fig. 6b- Well C (Interference data).

Fig. 6a- Well B (Interference data).

E 0 C
• • •
LIP -7.4 •• 163 LIt
3

.;;;
Q.
F
• ~
/ 3 ,.. B
•
a: '
<l

G H I
• • •
.-111' Injection well
• Production well

Fig. 6c- Well D (Interference data).

Fig. 7 - Directional permeability (normalized).