SPE

SPE 22740

Interdependence Between Geology and Well Test Interpretation

G.J. Mass911nat and D. Bandiziol, Elf Aquitaine
SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are sUbject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACf A multidisciplinary approach with repeated infonnation

This paper shows the leading role of geology in the
choice ofa well test interpretation model and in the selection of
the best solution ; at the same time the results coming from well
test interpretation contribute to improve the geological model.
Three field cases are discussed :
• The first case evidences the need of a good
sedimentological analysis, in order to choose among the
different reservoir models that match properly the derivative
plot: Radial Composite, Homogeneous with two parallel or
three boundaries. Geology indicates that the reservoir was
deposited in the median part of a deep-sea fan, and that the
perforated interval belongs to a channel layer. The model
retained is therefore the homogeneous reservoir with two
parallel boundaries, which gives a channel width of about
400 meters, in accordance with sedimentology.
• The second case deals with a shaly fonnation with
few sandbodies. Regional geological knowledge allows to
divide this fonnation into two main units with different
sandstone sedimentological origin: fluvial or lacustrin.
Interpretation of the well tests perfonned in the different
sandbodies emphasizes the differences between the two
sedimentological units, and allows to locate their limit
• In the case of the fractured reservoir some input
parameters were affected by a high degree of incertitude, and
interpretation led to a too big range of possible values for the
output parameters (penneability, vertical penneability
anisotropy). Geological studies allow to decrease the
incertitudes.
exchanges between geologist and reservoir engineer seems to
be the best way to deal with well test interpretation problems.
INTRODUCTION
The modem interpretation methods 1,2, used by the
majority of the oil companies to analyse well test's data, are
based on matching the actual pressure response with the one
simulated by an analytical model. It nearly always imposes to
the well test specialist a choice among several "well-reservoir"
configurations and geometries.
The [mal choice of the model(s) to retain depends
primarely on the geological knowledge ofthe reservoir, and the
consistency between the results of the interpretation and the
geological infonnations is a must in every reliable well test
interpretation.
The importance of geology in the validation of the
interpretation hypotheses is well known by all well test
specialists; on the other side, the infonnations obtained from
theanalysis ofthe well testdata is commonly used by Geologists
in the following applications:
• location ofno-flow boundaries (faults 3 ,lateral facies
variation);
• "double porosity" detection 4 ;
• estimation of sandbodies'dimensions for stochastic
reservoir simulation s.

References and illustrations at end of paper

813
2 INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND WELL lEST INTERPRETAnON
It is nevertheless very unusual that the interrelationships
between the two sciences be well developed during the whole
life of an oil field, from the discovery to the appraisal and
monitoring phases.
This paper gives some examples of such an
interdisciplinary approach :
• an example where the contribution ofthe geologist to
the well test interpretation has been fundamental ;
• another one where the results of the interpretation
were used by the exploration team to evaluate the discovery and
to defme the origin of the reservoir fonnations ;
• a third one showing the impact of an interconnected
approach on the reliability and the accuracy of a study.
FIRST CASE
This case evidences the help of the sedimentological
model in the choice of the analytical model for well test
interpretation.
In this exploration well, two DSTs were carried out in
order to appreciate the reservoir characteristics, such as
penneability, skin, and extension. This paper deals with the
interpretation of the DST#l, and shows the reasons why the
"Homogeneous with two no-flow boundaries" was chosen.
The perforated interval is located from 2040.0 to
2044.0 mRT (Figure 1) ; the reservoir layer which was tested is
undoubtedly the zone from 2039.0 to 2044.0 mRT.
Petrophysics obtained from electrical logs analysis are :
• Porosity = 20 %
• Water Saturation = 40 %
Several analytical models can match the actual data ;
they correspond to different reservoir configurations; three of
them match very satisfactorily :
• Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel no-flow
boundaries (Figure 2)
• Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel no-flow
boundaries closed at one end (Figure 3)
• Radial composite reservoir with two parallel no-flow
boundaries (Figure 4)
Table 1 swnmarizes the results of the interpretation ; it
shows the different reservoirconfigurations as long as the value
of the dynamic parameters. The three interpretations lead to
various reservoir geometries.
814
SPE 22740
In tenns of accuracy of the match, they can be
considered equiprobable but the consequences on the
estimation of the original oil in placeare so important to impose
a choice, and the geological contribution is fundamental.
The geological analysis of the logs shows, in the
reservoir unit (Figure I), an alternance of coarsening-up and
fining-up sequences. The first ones appear as better reservoirs
than the others: resistivity curves indicate higher
penneabilities.
From regional knowledge, the fonnation whom the
reservoirs belong to, is considered to be deposited in the middle
part of a deep-sea fan. In such an environment, the coarsening-
up sequences are interpreted as channel deposits, while the
fining-up sequences are ranked as lobe deposits 6.
Therefore the tested zone in DST#I can beconsideredas
a turbiditic channel; this is confirmed by the high penneability
value computed by the software. Consequently the analytical
model chosen is model nO 1 (Homogeneous reservoir with two
parallel boundaries), which gives a channel width of about
400 m, consistent with the sedimentological environment
retained for the formation.
SECONPCASE
The second example, which deals with a series ofDSTs
carried out on the differents reservoirs of an exploration well,
shows the contribution of the well test interpretations to the
global knowledge of the reservoir, as well as to the definition of
the limit between the two main depositional periods, with a
fluviatil environment in the lower part of the formation and
lacustrin one in the upper part.
In this exploration well, four tests were perfonned and
interpreted. The results of all the interpretations are listed in
Table 2, but only two ofthem (DST#1 and DST#4) are detailed
in this paper, because of their good representativity of the two
depositional environments.
Figure 5 shows gamma ray and sonic logs, as well as the
perforated intervals.
DST intelJ7retation
• DST#l
Considering the derivative shape (Figure 6), the
presence of some boundaries effects is quite sure ; the model
retained is the "Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel
boundaries closed at one end" the only one that allows a
derivative slope so high (about 1 in the log-log plot).
Because ofthe quality ofthe data, the resultsobtained
have to be considered in terms of magnitude; if it is clear that
some boundaries are inside the investigated area, their distance
from the well cannot be exactly estimated.
SPE22740 G. MASSONNAT and D. BANDIZIOL
• DST#4
Due to the lack ofdata in the beginningofthebuild up,
the early-time effects are not evidenced on the pressure
derivative (Figure 7). Even if a "partial penetration" effect can
be deduced from the shape of the derivative and from the well
completion, the fmal stabilisation is very well identified.
Consequently the interpretation is made using the
"Homogeneous reservoir" model.
• DST#2
It was matched with an "Homogeneous reservoir"
model; boundaries effects are possible, but the quality of the
data do not allow a complete interpretation.
• DST#3
A "Composite" model was used, in order to match a
slight increase of the derivative at the end of the test: both the
lacustrin and the fluviatil deposits allow lateral permeability
variations.
Geological conseWJences
From the interpretation of the four tests, several
geological informations can be obtained (Table 2) ; they lead to
the following remarlcs :
• The tested sandbodies can be split into two types,
relatingwith theirthickness and permeabilitylevel: DST#1 and
DST#2layers are composed by a thinner and more permeable
sandstone compared with the layers tested in the other DSTs.
• All the boundaries are interpreted as permeability
drastic decreases, giving the sandbodies' limits and widths,
except in DST#3 where the permeability variation corresponds
to a slight change of the reservoir facies.
• From the previous considerations, the dimensions of
the sedimentological bodies can be approached: in the upper
part ofthe reservoirtheirdimensions arehigher than in the lower
part
All that confmn the dual origin of the sandbodies:
• The older ones (DST#I-DST#2) belong to the
fluviatil deposits, and they are chamcterised by small
thicknesses (about 5 m) and widths « 200 m), very good
permeability (5()()...6()() mD) ;
• The younger sandbodies (DST#3-DST#4) have been
deposited in a Iacustrin environment: their permeability is
clearly lower 00-300 mD), while the thickness and the width
are greater (about 20 m and» 300 m respectively).
With these hypotheses the limit between the two
formations is located above the last thin sandstone layer, at
2510.0 mRT in the exploration well, that corresponds to a
change in the sonic log base line.
815
3
The identification of the limit between the two
depositional environment helped Geophysists in matching
seismic profiles and well data. and in getting more reliable
seismic map of the environmental facies change.
THIRD CASE
In this case the reservoir is composed by limestone
(mudstone and packstone) with a twbiditic origin; both are
naturally fractured, the fracture density being function of the
location in the structure and the sedimentological facies
(thickness, frequency, porosity).
The aim of the interpretation was the estimation of the
vertical permeability anisotropy (kv/kh) to input in a reservoir
numerical simulation; it was an essential parameter of the
history match of the simulation.
The pressure derivative shape is typical of a partially
perforated well with no evidence of a "double porosity"
behaviour. Moreover, the final stabilisation is not reached and
some doubt exists on the efficiency of part of the perforated
interval.
Test jnte{pretation
The model used was the "Homogeneous reservoir with
partially perforated well" ; two reasons lead us to choose this
model:
• the results of production logging interpretations in
several neighbouring wells. that evidence the possibility of a
partial plugging of the perforations (the ratio "producing
perforations - total perforations" ranges from 15 % to 50 %);
• the probable fracturated thickness greater than the
total perforated interval.
The interpretation method consists in calculating the
vertical permeability anisotropy (kv/kh) in function of the
reservoir thickness (H) for different values of the perforated
interval (Hp).
This analysis leads to the foIlowing conclusions:
• the skin is negative and relatively constant
(-5.7 < S < -5.6);
• for each value of the perforated interval (Hp), we
calculate an upper limit value ofreservoir thickness (Hu), from
which kv/kh and permeability (k) do not vary anymore ;
• for the highest values of Hp, Hu becomes at the same
time the upper limit value and the lower value allowing the
match of the actual data.
4 IN1ERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND WELL JEST INTERPRETATION
Table 3 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis.
which are plotted in Figure II.
Fracture's geological intermetation
In order to reduce the range of variation of the
penneability anisotropy. the estimation of two parameters is
needed: reservoir thickness and penneability magnitude.
• Reservoir thickness: the fonnation is characterised
by a1temances of fractured and non fractured units; the last
ones. composed essentially by mudstone. can be considered as
tight zones. unless they are crossed by a main fault
A method for approaching the effective fracturation
in the whole fonnation is necessary. in order to evaluate the part
of the reservoir concerned by the well test. An algorithm
calculating the fracture porosity from resistivity log is used, and
matched on core analysis. The fit is very good (Figure 8). and
shows the validity of the method: the reservoir thickness (H)
obtained is 77.0 m.
• Penneability: considering the low value ofthe matrix
penneability (0.01 - 50.0 mD). as well as the high value of
penneability computed by the analytical model (2000.0-
40000.0 mD). we can imagine that the most important
contribution. in tenn of penneability. is due to the fracture
system.
An estimation of the order of ~itude of this
parameter is possible via the L.R. Reiss chart 7. which plots the
fracture penneability in function of the fracture porosity.
frequency and opening (Figure 12); two of the last three
parameters are enough to get the penneability value.
In this work the fracture porosity is available from the
resistivity log's computation method (0.25 % < 0f < 0.30 %).
while the frequency is estimated from core analysis and
confirmed by the study of the fonnation outcrops (20-
30 fractureslm).
The value obtained for the penneability ranges from:
- 1.5 D for 0f = 0.25 % - 30 fractures/m.
=
- 6.5 D for 0f 0.30 % - 20 fractures/m.
Estimation of kv/kb anisolr<WY
Wecan defme two limits in the plotand consequently the
range for the vertical penneability anisotropy :
• the upper limit is given by the value of the reservoir
thickness retained (77.0 00) : in this case the anisotropy is
3.0E-2 ;
• the lowerlimitcomes from the reservoirpenneability
estimation. whose maximum value is 6500 mD : the anisotropy
is 2.0E-3.
816
SPE22740
Figures 9 and 10 shows the derivative match for the two
limits; the penneability values are always inside the range
estimated via the L.R. Reiss chart. and the ratio between
producing perforations and total perforations ranges from 20 %
to 30 %. that is the order of magnitude of the neighbouring
wells.
The use of these kv/kh values allowed a good fit of the
simulated production history with the actual data in the
reservoir numerical model.
CONCLUSION
The three examples show the interest of a
multidisciplinary approach ofthe well test interpretation and the
importance of a team work when dealing with this kind of
problem.
The consequences on the global knowledge of the
reservoir and therefore on the reservoir engineering studies are
so important that this method should be generalized and should
become an habit for all petroleum engineers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors thank Elf Aquitaine for pennission to publish
this paper. and acknowledgeJ.Y. DURIEUX for his woIkin the
first case.
REFERENCES
(1) BOUDRETD., WHl1TLE T.M., DOUGLAS AA. and
PIRARD, Y.M. : "A new set of type curves simplifies well
test analysis". World Oil, May 1983
(2) DAVIAU F.: "Interpretation des essais de puits: les
methodes nouvelles". Editions Technip, Paris (1986)
(3) CORREB.: "Characterization offracture networks from
well tests using a new analytical solution". SPE 20533,
presented at 65st Annual tech. Conf., New Orleans (1990)
(4) BOUDRET D. and GRINGARTEN A.C. : "Determination
offissure volume and block size in fracture reservoir by
type curve analysis". SPE 9293 Dallas, September 1980
(5) ALABERT FA. and MASSONNATGJ.: "Heterogeneity
in a complex turbiditic reservoir: Stochastic Modelling oj
Facies and petrophysical variability". SPE 20604,
Presented at 65st annual Tech. Cong., New Orleans (1990)
(6) WALKER R.G. : "Generalized facies models for resedi-
mented conglomerates of turbidite association". Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am.• 86,737-748 (1975)
(7) REISS LB. : "Reservoir engineering en milieu fissure".
Editions Technip, Paris (1980)
 SPE 2 274 fI
K.h Distance Distance Distance
(mD.m) S 1st boundary 2nd boundary 3rd boundary
(m) (m) (m)

Homogeneous 1000 0.5 80 335 -

(two boundaries)

Homogeneous 1000 0.5 80 500 270

(three boundaries)

RadiaI composite Inner Outer

(two boundaries) 0.5 305 305 85(*)
1000 450

(*) Distance (radius) of the mobility variation

Table 1 : Case nO 1 • Results of the test interpretation with various models

DST#l DST#2 DST#3 DST#4

Net thickness (m) 4.7 5.5 25.0 11.7

Boundaries 3 boundaries Yes No No

distance: 90 m no-flow boundary boundary

Drainage radius (m) 400 530 140 150

Sandbody width (m) 180 ? >280m » 300m

Permeability (mD) 465 590 12 300

Table 2 Case nO 2 • Geological results from tests interpretation

Hp Hu K kv/kb
(m) (m) (mD)

2.5 15.5 44600 5.010-5

5.0 27.0 18080 9.010-4

7.5 32.0 9960 5.010-4

10.0 39.0 6380 2.1 10,3

12.5 51.0 4527 5.5 10-3

14.4 77.5 3200 2.710,2

15.0 95.0 2430 9.010,2

Table 3 Case nO 3 • Main results of the sensivity analysis

817
 omogeneou5 R~5ervoir
1~5c.1 lwell. storage ~ .~~6~ M3/BAR
877 .1~ ! skin i' .5~~~
c~48.5 ipermeability ~ 198.~~ MD .
4187.5 i"
1~~~.~ ! +x boundary
x boundary
f
r 8~.~~~ METRE5 ~1.~~)
33S.~~ METRES 11.~~)
CASE N° 1 ISl
..·········· · ~ · ··i· · ·.··.' f'l""'I""1"
: : I I I I I I I I I I ~
~:IIJ.IIJII!
, . i.

o
Depth
(m) GR (GAPI) I SONIC (l1s/f) Perforations 0.. •
1/500
0.0 100.00
"
ISl
_.._..__ _ .;._.__._ __ _.-._._._.•...•~
I
-·········.··..··--····.·---··.i···---.----.--

~ l.~······;

-;-
ISl

2000
1El1 1~2 l~J 1~~
TO/CD

Fig.2 : Case n° 1 . Match with homogeneous mod-el (2 boundaries)

omogeneou5 R~5ervoir
2025 /CO = 1~5c.1 !well. storage i' .~~6~ M3/BAR
D = 877.W :skin F .S~~~
DEcS = c~48.S !permeability i' 198.~~ MD .
~ D1 = 1~~~.~ : +x boundary F 8~.~~~ METRES (1.~~)
co 'Dc
D3
= 61cS.~
= 337S.~
: .. x boundary
!+y boundary r
i' 49~.~~
c7~.~~
METRES ~1.~~)
METRES 11.~~)

r OST#1 1 ~ ············· __ ··+··········--_··_······-_·········i··--_ _ ~_..

~ ~
j .• :

2050 I I I
0
0.. ~
•
"~
· · · . ·t" · · · ·L.. ~ .
Figure1 : Case n° 1
Composite Log -;-
~ I ,! ".I , !

1~1 1~ 2 l~J 1~~ ~

TD/CD rn
Fig. 3 : Case nO 1 . Match with homogeneous model (3 boundaries) t')
N
s;-
""""""
ea
 Radial Composite and Homogeneous Reservoir
TO/CD = 1052.11 we!l. storage i = .0060 M3/BAR!
PD = 877.10, SkIn (perf.) : = .5000 :
SK-PER = .5000: permeabilit~ : = 90.000 MD : CASE N~ 2
R-MDB = .4545] Perm. (innerJ 1= 198.00 MD ]
ETA = .4545: Stor.ratio := 1.0000 :
RD-INJ = 1062.5! Inject. Radiusi = 85.000 METRES!
RD1 = 3812.5, SKIN (GLOBAL) : = -3.574 ;

P.T~
RD2 = 3812.5\ Mobilit~ ratio! = .4545 i
IS)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t. .
: +x boundar~ ,= 305. 00 METRES: (1 . 00 )
::1t.P.9.yQggr..Y... -.--._j..:...:;l.~~,_~JLtlQR&P.j.O.,.~.l;l-l.

II
~ •
'"
IS)
--··········.·---··+····-----··········.·--·-----···-1·--···-··--·---····--·------·····-t·······----·,:·~

~-I
! : .--......... •• ~

';"
IS)

10 1 10 2 10 3 10 q
~
CD
TD/Co
Fig.4 : Case nO 1 • Match with radial composite model (2 boundaries)
Homogeneous! Reservoir i
TO/CD = 2222.i8 we II. s torags. =. 3E -03
PD = 11 97 .:6 sk i n ; = -. 730
CDE2S = 14.8Q5 permeabilit~! = 466.00 MD
RD1 = 1153.:8 +x boundar~ , = 90.000 r-ETRE] (1 .00)
-x boundar~ ! = 90.000 r-ETREI" (1.0E))
RD2
RD3
=
=
1153.i8
1153 'i8 +y boundary !
= 90.000 r-ETRE (1.00)
IS)
··········---·----····--········r············--------·············1········--·---··············------

i ,I I 111 1 11+11'"
f·..I a ~:+ :

a..

] /
'"
IS) . ! .
···············--·-----·········r·············--·--·------·--·····1··········-------.····

- - - - -_ _1.1__ I .:Y•• en
, ""0
IT1
+
';"
IS) i· !
I':)
N
Figure 5: Case n° 2
10 2 10 3 Hl 4
......,
Composite Jog.
TO/CD 11'
Q
Fig. 6 : Case nO 2 • DST#l match with homogeneous model (3 boundaries)
 CASE N' 3

FRACTURE
FRACTURE
Depth ANALYSIS
(m) POROSITY
ON CORES
(%)
HomogeneOU5! Re5ervoir i (Effective opening %)

TO/CD = 354.1;4 well. storaga .0035 M3/BAR

PO = 58~.~5 skin 3.5000
CDE2S " 2'"[' pormoobili'y 3~~.0~ t1J

IS)
······---······..····_·_-_·i... ·~·-----i--·--r·-T·r

~ ···················-J---·---l--------
f[

. :

~
'i
IS)
~

10 1 10 2 10 3
TO/CD

Fig. 7 : Case nO 2 • DST#4 match with homogeneous model

-m
"'0
tTl
F FRACTURED RESERVOIR

Figure 8: Case n° 3 - Fracture log

Comparison between log
'"
N
~
interpretation and core data J7:'
Q
 SPE 2 2740

Partial Penet~ation Well

TO/CD = 35. B5B iu.e I I. storage • ~92B '''WBAR
PO = 13B.88 :Skin (perf.) = -5,700
SK-PER = -5.7BB permeability = 63$B.B MD
K\YKH
Hf/H
.0021 :Kv/Kh
= .1299 Thickness rff. = • BB21
= 77[BOO I"ElRES

................· · ·t ·· · ············1·································-1-····· :.••.>:IIM ~.~~-~~~ ••••••• •••••• • ••••••• •••••••: ••••

. i
* ******

---I----------r---------;----- -
* +
+
~L...~.J.-_'__'_ ....................L_.........!LL.............._'_....................>..L._ _'_.......................................u..._.........._'__'_'_........... . . L _ - " ' _.........~................

WCD

Fig. 9 : Case nO 3 • Match with kylkh minimum

Partial Penet~ation Well

TO/CD = 8.5125 iu.e II. storage i
. 900 r13/BAR
PO = 26B.78 :Skin (perf.) = -5,6BB
SK-PER = -5.6BB !permeability = 32~B.B MD
K\YKH
HP/H
•B27B :Kv/Kh
= .187B Thickness rff. =
=
• B27B
77IBOO I"ElRES

..._ -! -.

* +~
1B 2

Fig. 10 : Case nO 3 • Match with kylkh maximum

821
 10'1

kv
kh B 10' Ir---,..---..,----r--,---,r--~__r_-r__-~
I I II II III i

upperllm~ k = 3200 mD ~
Hp • 14,4 m
Hu "n,Om
I-
{
1 10
'
(/-f('
.b... • a ..
I IV" I .. "" . I

10'2 I
\%., 10' I I 1/ I I { IY I I I I
k = 4530 mD Hp • 12,5 m
kv/kH

Hu " 51,Om
10

k = 6380 mD Hp = 10,0 m

Iowerlim~
Hu " 39,0 m
co
'"'" 10' 3

10"' I 1/, I, 1/ , I I V I
k = 9960 mD Hp • 7,5 m

Hu " 32,0 m
10" 1:/ I { IV {I ( ,V I

10" I 1/£ 11£ I !

10" I I
10" 10" 10'2 10" 1 10
k = 18080 mD Hp • 5,0 m
10' 4 Fracture porosity f2lf (%)
Hu ,,27,Om

Fig. 12 : Relationships between fracture penneability, porosity,

frequency and opening (from L.B Reiss).
20 40 60 H(m)
fA
'"0
Fig. 11 Case nO 3 • Sensivity analysis· Vertical permeability anisotropy versus Net Thickness fI1
f')
N
.......
J::"
CIa