Energy Sources, Part A, 32:1334–1341, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567030903078046

An Empirical Correlation to Relate Estimated

Vertical Permeability from a Horizontal-well Test
to Actual Vertical Permeability

F. H. BOUKADI,1 A. S. BEMANI,2 M. JABRI,3 and

V. P. SINGH1
1
University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
2
Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
3
Petroleum Development Oman, Muscat, Oman

Abstract Field data are requisite in order to set up a realistic reservoir model
capable of predicting the dynamic field behavior during the development stage of an
oilfield. Well testing is considered as one of the most useful methods for obtaining
reservoir and wellbore data. Numerous analytical models are utilized in analyzing
vertical-well pressure transient tests, however, horizontal-well transient tests analysis
has been considered as a more difficult undertaking. In this article, well test data of a
horizontal well are simulated for homogeneous isotropic and anisotropic reservoirs.
The data are later used in order to develop an empirical correlation that ratifies the
vertical reservoir permeability estimated by well testing.

Keywords actual, correlation, estimated, horizontal well test, vertical permeability

Introduction
The idea of using lateral wells to increase the area of contacted reservoirs dates back to
the early 1940s and the mechanical process of drilling a highly accurate horizontal well
is now a common practice. At first, there had been little incentive to this technology,
especially in the presence of hydraulic fracturing as a potential rival. Recently, several
studies supported by extensive field experience indicated that horizontal wells can be
used to accelerate production, avoid certain production problems, and increase recovery
in oil and gas fields. The use of transient well testing for determining productivity of
horizontal wells has also become a common practice.
To interpret well test data, a fluid flow model representing the real system behavior
is crucial. Over the last decade, numerous analytical models have been developed to
analyze horizontal-well pressure transient data. The objectives of data analysis are to
obtain useful information about reservoir properties, the producing interval of the drilled
length, and to estimate mechanical skin factor. Goode and Thambynayagam (1987) first
developed an analytical solution for the characteristic pressure transient response during
drawdown and build-up tests of a horizontal well. The physical model consists of an
infinite conductivity horizontal well with a wellbore radius “rw ” and length “Lw ” located
in a homogenous, anisotropic reservoir with a width “hx ,” length “hy ,” and uniform

Address correspondence to Fathi Boukadi, University of Louisiana, PO Box 44690, Lafayette,

LA 70504. E-mail: fxb1275@louisiana.edu

1334
 Vertical Permeability from a Horizontal-well Test 1335

thickness “hz ” (Appendix Figure 1). The reservoir is bounded by upper and lower no-
flow boundaries.
Kuchuk (1995) reported that interpretation of horizontal-well pressure transient data
is more difficult than that of a vertical well due to reasons like:
1. Lack of symmetry beyond the early time.
2. Effect of the boundaries (lower, upper, and side).
3. Large wellbore volume of a horizontal well.
4. Pressure variation along the horizontal section.
Goode and Thambynayagam (1987) and Lichtenberger (1994) indicated that similar
to the pressure transient behavior of a vertical well intersecting infinite conductive
fracture, there are four primary flow regimes (excluding the wellbore storage effects
period) that can possibly be recorded during drawdown or build-up tests in a horizontal
well. Identification of these flow regimes is essential for test planning and interpretation
of the pressure transient test data. Lichtenberger (1994) added that, in many cases, these
primary patterns are distorted or eliminated because of reservoir heterogeneities, wellbore
storage, and boundary effect. These flow regimes, expected to develop within specific time
windows, depend on the reservoir and fluid properties. Flow regimes can be identified
with a diagnostic plot of the pressure transient data. Goode and Thambynayagam (1987)
empirically derived equations for estimating these time windows. The four flow regimes
identified in chronological order are:
 Early Time Radial Flow (ETRF): When a horizontal well is first produced,
pressure transients will move out perpendicularly to the wellbore where flow is
radial. This is similar to the behavior of a fully penetrated, vertical well in an
infinite acting reservoir. On the diagnostic plot, the fully developed first radial
flow has a constant derivative and a semi-log plot of “P ” vs. “t” will be a straight
line with slope (m0 ) yielding kH , kV , and Sm .
The duration of the ETRF period is normally very short unless the reservoir
thickness is large or the vertical permeability is very low. The time to the end of
the ETRF period (terf ) can be approximated by:

190:0h2:0950
z rw :095 ct
terf D (1)
kV
 Intermediate Time Linear Flow (ITLF): When the length of the horizontal well
is greater than the thickness of the reservoir, a period of linear flow may develop
once pressure transients have reached both the upper and lower boundaries. The
reservoir fluid streamlines are parallel to the no-flow boundaries and normal to
the wellbore direction at some distance from the wellbore. This flow regime is
recognized
p by a non-zero slope on the diagnostic plot. A Cartesian plot of “P ”
vs. “ t” is linear with slope (m00 ) which yields kv , h, or Lw , and Sm .
The duration of this flow regime is a quadratic function of the effective length
of the horizontal well. ITLF (telf ) is estimated to end at:

20:8ct L2w
telf D (2)
kx
If the estimated time is less than that the time calculated in Eq. (1), it may mean
that the length of the horizontal well is not long enough compared to the thickness
of the formation for the flow period to develop.
1336 F. H. Boukadi et al.

 Late Time Radial Flow (LTRF): When the extent of the drainage area in the
horizontal plane is much larger than Lw , flow towards the horizontal wellbore
becomes effectively radial in nature. This is similar to the late-time behavior of
a vertical well with a vertical fracture. On the diagnostic plot, a fully developed
second radial flow has a constant derivative and a semi-log plot of “P ” vs. “t”
will depict a straight line with slope (m000 ) which yields kH and Sm .
The second radial flow period (also known as pseudo-radial flow) correspond-
ing to the late intermediate time will begin at:

1230:0L2w ct
tbrf D ; (3)
kx
and for a reservoir of finite width, this flow period will end at:

.Lxl C Lxd /2:095 Lw 0:095 ct

terf D 297:0 : (4)
kx
If the estimated time to the end of the LTRF is less than the calculated beginning,
then the well is long enough compared to the distance to the extremities of the
reservoir (Lxl , Lxd ) and radial flow period will not develop.
 Late Time Linear Flow (LTLF): This final flow pattern occurs when pressure
transients have reached the lateral extremities of the reservoir. Naturally, this flow
period will develop only for a reservoir of finite width with a constant pressure
source, such as an aquifer or a gas cap. The slope (m0000 ) of the linear section
p C k
resulting from graphing Pwf vs. t on a Cartesian plot yields t y .
Goode and Thambynayagam (1987) and Lichtenberger (1994) stated that in addition
to these flow regimes, other flow regimes may also develop. They cited a semi-cylindrical
flow period that may occur when a well is close to one of the no-flow boundaries. There
may also be a spherical flow period if the length of the horizontal well is much smaller
than the formation thickness.
As a result, reservoir and wellbore parameters can be estimated accurately after
identification of flow regimes. Table 1 summarizes the required procedure.
Accurate determination of the above reservoir parameters is very difficult. Well
completion and placement play an important role in the estimated parameters. Vertical

Table 1
Horizontal-well pressure transient test analysis

Parameters Parameters
Region Plot type plotted estimated

ETR Log-log P vs. t Cs ; CD

p
ETRF Semi-log Pwf vs. t kz kH
p Ct ky
ITLF Cartesian Pwf vs. t

p
LTRF Semi-log Pwf vs. t kx ky
p Ct ky
LTLF Cartesian Pwf vs. t

 Vertical Permeability from a Horizontal-well Test 1337

reservoir permeability could be underestimated, as pressure response symmetry near the

wellbore is disturbed.
Therefore, well placement, during analysis of pressure transient test in a horizontal
well, should be considered to overcome the additional pressure drop in the Z-direction
(kv ), hence vertical permeability correction. Besides, Ehlig-Economides et al. (2006)
provided the necessary test design considerations for horizontal and vertical permeabil-
ity determination from a conventional build-up test. The objective of this study is to
develop an empirical correlation, which relates the estimated vertical permeability from
horizontal-well pressure transient tests to the actual vertical permeability for homoge-
neous isotropic and anisotropic reservoirs.

Conceptual Models and Procedure

In this work, horizontal-well pressure transient test data are simulated using an Eclipse-
100 black oil simulator. Two reservoir models of different permeabilities are constructed
for both homogeneous isotropic and anisotropic reservoirs. Two ranges of permeabilities
around 3.75 and 37.5 mD are considered, whereas anisotropicity is addressed when
“kZ = kH D 0:1.” Reservoir, fluid, and wellbore properties are shown in Table 2.
The reservoir is divided into nine homogeneous layers. These layers have equal thick-
ness and are assumed to be in communication. Nine cases of different well penetration
“h0pn ” ratio are considered for every reservoir model:

hpn
h0pn D ; (5)
ht
where hpn is the distance from the closest impermeable boundary (lower or upper) to
the depth of penetration and ht is the total reservoir thickness.
Therefore, a total of 36 sensitivity runs are simulated to produce both drawdown and
build-up pressure data. The pressure data are then analyzed using the flow regime recog-

Table 2
Simulator input
(reservoir, fluid, and wellbore parameters)

Property Value

Permeability, mD 3.75 and 37.5

Porosity, fraction 0.25 and 0.3
Total thickness, ft 360
Drainage radius, ft 6,280
Number of layers 9
Initial reservoir pressure, psi 3,900
Bubble-point pressure, psi 3,414
Oil formation volume factor, rb/stb 1.4154
Oil viscosity, cp 0.31
Total compressibility, psi 1 1.494 E-05
Wellbore radius, ft 0.5
Wellbore damage (skin factor) 0
Horizontal section length, ft 1,848
1338 F. H. Boukadi et al.

nition concept. The PanSystem well-testing package is used to estimate the reservoir and
wellbore parameters from pressure signature. An empirical correlation is then produced
relating the actual permeability to that estimated by analyzing well test data.

Discussion
Thirty-six sensitivity runs are simulated to produce pressure transient test data of a
horizontal-well drilled and completed in homogeneous isotropic and anisotropic reser-
voirs. Nine different penetration depths in two different reservoirs of two different per-
meability/porosity ranges are investigated. Pressure data are analyzed using PanSystem.
Diagnostic plots are used to identify flow regimes. The early-time radial and the late-time
radial flow regimes have appeared as straight lines with zero slopes. The intermediate-
time (first) linear flow regime developed between the two radial flow regimes due to the
assumption of a larger horizontal well section in comparison to the reservoir thickness.
Input reservoir and wellbore parameters were estimated correctly except for the vertical
permeability. The vertical permeability was only estimated as an input value when the
penetration depth was in the center of the reservoir .h0pn D 0:5/. Tables 3 and 4 show a
comparison between the input (to Eclipse-100) and output (from PanSystem) estimated
permeability for the treated cases.
The ratio between the estimated vertical permeability kve to the actual one kva is
plotted against the penetration ratio h0pn in order to establish an empirical correlation that
corrects the estimated vertical permeability. As illustrated in Appendix Figures 2 and 3,
the actual vertical permeability can be determined with an accuracy of more than 90%
for anisotropic reservoirs and around 90% for isotropic reservoirs, using the following
equations:

Anisotropic reservoirs:
kve
kva D I (6)
0:281 ln.h0pn / C 1:2301

Table 3
Input/output vertical permeability results

Isotropic Anisotropic

Penetrated Input Output Input Output

layer h0pn kv , mD kv , mD kve = kva kv , mD kv , mD kve = kva

1 0.06 3.75 0.94 0.251 0.375 0.172 0.459

2 0.17 3.75 2.28 0.608 0.375 0.283 0.755
3 0.28 3.75 2.86 0.763 0.375 0.336 0.896
4 0.39 3.75 3.16 0.843 0.375 0.374 0.997
5 0.50 3.75 3.75 1.000 0.375 0.375 1.000
6 0.39 3.75 3.16 0.843 0.375 0.373 0.995
7 0.28 3.75 2.84 0.757 0.375 0.337 0.899
8 0.17 3.75 2.27 0.605 0.375 0.281 0.749
9 0.06 3.75 0.94 0.251 0.375 0.176 0.469
 Vertical Permeability from a Horizontal-well Test 1339

Table 4
Input/output vertical permeability results

Isotropic Anisotropic

Penetrated Input Output Input Output

layer h0pn kv , mD kv , mD kve = kva kv , mD kv , mD kve = kva

1 0.06 37.5 8.35 0.223 3.73 1.63 0.437

2 0.17 37.5 11.91 0.318 3.75 2.45 0.653
3 0.28 37.5 23.73 0.633 3.75 3.23 0.861
4 0.39 37.5 32.14 0.857 3.75 3.70 0.987
5 0.50 37.5 37.43 0.998 3.75 3.75 1.000
6 0.39 37.5 32.12 0.857 3.75 3.69 0.984
7 0.28 37.5 23.74 0.633 3.75 3.23 0.861
8 0.17 37.5 11.97 0.319 3.75 2.42 0.645
9 0.06 37.5 8.35 0.223 3.75 1.63 0.435

Isotropic reservoirs:
kve
kva D : (7)
0:3428 ln.h0pn / C 1:1544

The above cases depict errors in the estimation of the vertical permeability when the
horizontal section penetrates different depths. Estimated vertical and actual permeabilities
are practically equal when the horizontal well section runs down through the middle of the
formation thickness. The calculation of vertical permeability depends on the development
p analysis of the first radial flow, the slope of Pwf vs.
of both radial flow regimes. In the
t on a semi-log plot, m0 , yields kz kH from the following equation:

p 162:6qo oˇo
kz kH D ; (8)
m0 Lw

whereas in the analysis of the second radial flow, the slope of Pwf vs. t on a semi-log
plot, m000 , yields kH from the following equation:

162:6qoo ˇo
kH D : (9)
m000 hz

The second radial flow develops when the system has not reached an outer boundary.
This is similar to vertical-well
p radial flow behavior and permeability estimated from the
flow regime is kH or kx ky .
In this flow regime, the reservoir thickness and the outer boundary play an important
role in pressure response symmetry, and if the reservoir is larger than the horizontal
section length, the pressure behavior of a given well under this flow regime is that of a
well in an infinite acting system.
The first radial flow develops when the system has not reached the impermeable
upper and lower boundaries. Unless the horizontal section penetrates the middle of the
1340 F. H. Boukadi et al.

reservoir, the pressure response will detect unsymmetrical pressure behavior across the
well section. This translates into additional pressure drop or larger value of m0 and
lower value of kz compared to the actual vertical permeability of the system (see
Eq. (8)).
The length and depth of penetration of the horizontal section play an important role
in the pressure response symmetry in the reservoir. For wells not penetrating half of the
reservoir, the estimated vertical permeability has to be corrected.

Conclusions
Pressure drop due to partial completion in vertical-well pressure transient tests is used
in horizontal wells leading into erroneous estimation of vertical permeability. In this
work, it is revealed that the closer the depth of penetration of the horizontal well section
to the middle of the formation thickness the lower the difference between the actual
and the estimated permeability. An empirical correlation is developed to determine the
actual permeability from a calculated one from horizontal-well pressure transient test for
isotropic and anisotropic homogeneous reservoirs.

References
Ehlig-Economides, C. A., Nduonyi, M., and Abiazie, J. 2006. Test design for vertical permeability
determination from a conventional pressure build-up test. Paper SPE 102779. 2006 SPE Annual
Technical Meeting and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 24-27.
Goode, P. A., and Thambynayagam, R. M. 1987. Pressure drawdown and build up analysis for
horizontal wells in anisotropic media. Trans. AIME December:683–697.
Kuchuk, F. J. 1995. Well Test Interpretation for Horizontal Wells. U.A.E.: Schlumberger Technical
Services.
Lichtenberger, G. J. 1994. Data acquisition and interpretation of horizontal well pressure transient
test. JPT February:157–162.

Appendix

Figure 1. Horizontal well configuration.

 Vertical Permeability from a Horizontal-well Test 1341

Figure 2. Vertical permeability wrt to penetration ratio for anisotropic reservoir.

Figure 3. Vertical permeability wrt to penetration ratio for isotropic reservoir.

Copyright of Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization & Environmental Effects is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Copyright of Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization & Environmental Effects is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.