Pressure Transient

Analysis in Injection
Wells

Hasnain Ali Asfak Hussain

MSc in Petroleum Engineering by Coursework
Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Noaman El-Khatib
Department of Petroleum Engineering

Outline

Introductio
n
Background
Problem
statement
Objectives
Scope of
study

Literature
review

Methodolo
gy

Results
and
discussion

Conclusion
s

Introduction
Importan
ce
Obtain
information
about reservoir
in-situ
conditions
To determine
productive
capacity of the
reservoir
Efficient
planning for
secondary and
tertiary recovery
projects

Applicati
on
Water flooding
Pressure
maintenance
Gas recycling
Enhanced oil
recovery (EOR)
operations

Objective
s
Permeability
Skin
Average
reservoir
pressure
Detection of
reservoir
heterogeneity
Front tracking

Background
Injection

and Pressure falloff test

Water
Injection

Pressure
recorded

Background

Region 1

Composite reservoir

1, c t1, S1

(Cont)
Region 2

2, c t2, S2

Problem Statement
Formation of fluid banks causes fluid
properties to differ

Need to analyze the changes in

pressure curves

Injected fluid behavior

6

Objectives
Study pressure
transient
behavior of a
single well
during
injection and
shut-in periods
to evaluate
Study the
effects of
pressure
behavior on

Skin
Permeability
Mobility
Mobility profile
Saturation profile
Distance to the flood front
Comparison of mobility
profile obtained from
derivative plot &
saturation profile

Viscosity of oil
Relative permeability
Skin
Wellbore Storage
7

Study the
displacement
process of
reservoir fluid
by the injected
fluid
Behavior of
injection fluid
properties.

Obtain
information
about the insitu reservoir
conditions

Pressure
transient study
of Injection and
Falloff tests

Scope of study

Theory
DST

Falloff

Drawdown
Conventio
nal well
testing

Injection

Build-up

Literature Review
195
8
Hazebroek, Rainbow and Matthews obtained analytical solution for
the pressure falloff tests in water injection wells for two different
cases which gave correct values for static pressure as compared to
the conventional method

197
2

Kazemi, Merill and Jargon used numerical simulation to investigate

front tracking or locating discontinuities and determining
transmissibility

197
4
Merill, Kazemi and Gogarty studied the pressure falloff tests in two
and three zone systems. Their investigation was based on the above
model discussed

10

Literature Review (Cont)

198
1
Sosa, Raghavan and Limon studied the effect of saturation gradient
on pressure falloff tests and to describe the movement of fluid banks
that have been proposed by Hazebroek, et al. and Kazemi, et al.

198
9
Yeh and Agarwal used simulators to calculate mobility profile, fluid
bank radii, and pressure distribution in the reservoir.

199
9
Noaman El-Khatib solved simultaneous equations to estimate the
location of moving front iteratively and stehfest algorithm to
investigate effects of reservoir size, aquifer size etc.

11

Methodology
Simulation model is created using ECLIPSE 100 simulation software.
Simulation is carried out for both injection and falloff tests.
Pressure vs. time data generated from the simulation model.
Using semi-log plot parameters such as, skin, permeability and mobility is
estimated
Mobility profile is generated, studied and compared using the derivative plot and
saturation profile.
Saturation profile is obtained and analyzed from the simulation model ECLIPSE
100.
Estimation of the distance to the leading edge of the water bank
Parameters mentioned in the objectives are changed to study the pressure
behavior.
12

Start

Literature Survey

Data collection to
provide Input to the
simulation model

Developing a
Simulation model
using ECLIPSE 100
Black oil Model

Generating and
analyzing results from
the Simulation model
i.e Pressure vs. time,
saturation profile etc.

Changing parameters
to meet the objective

Pressure transient study

Report writing

End

13

Model Description
1D
Homogene
ous radial
model

1
Capillary
pressure
assumed to5
be zero

ECLIPS
E 100
Simulat
or 3
4

Gravity
effects
neglected

210*1*1
grids used.
Injector
2 placed at
the centre
(1,1,1) cells

Well
penetrating
the whole
layer
14

Input Data

[6]

Initial Reservoir Pressure, Pi

600 psi

Initial Water Saturation, Swi

0.1

Reservoir Thickness, h

100 ft

Reservoir External Radius, re

1500 ft

Porosity,

0.1

Absolute permeability, k

10 md

Compressibility of oil, Co

3 E-05 psi-1

Compressibility of water, Cw

3 E-06 psi-1

Viscosity of oil, o

10.0 cp

Viscosity of water, w

0.4 cp

Wellbore radius, rw

0.5 ft

Injection time, tinj

10 days

Falloff time, tf

10 days

Injection rate, qw

200 bwpd
15

Input Data

(Cont)

Relative

permeability and total

mobility curves[6]

16

Results and Discussion

Injection

results with o=1 and w=

6.25

w= 6.775
s = -0.04

kw= 2.71

o= 1.80

18

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Falloff

results

kw= 2.501

o= 1.077

w= 6.254
s = 0.019

19

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Reservoir pressure profile

20

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Saturation

profile

21

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Total

mobility estimation

[6]

22

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Total

mobility comparison with

saturation

23

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Flood

front radius (proposed by Merill et al. 1974) [12]

tfx : Intersection time from the semi-log plot of

shut-in time t vs. BHP
tDfx: Dimensionless intersection time obtained
graphically
Flood

front radius = 37.1 ft

25

Results and Discussion

(Cont)
Flood

front radius (Using material

balance)
[17 & 18]

Flood

front radius = 34.51 ft

26

Effect of various parameters

Viscosity

of oil

Sr. No

10

6.25

1.25

0.8

0.5

Injection results
o

Skin
Input

Mobility (cp)

Calculation

Input

Calculation

Oil

Water

Oil

Water

10 cp

-0.04

6.25

1.8

6.57

2 cp

-0.238

6.25

5.27

6.25

0.8 cp

-0.17

12.5

6.25

11.47

6.13
27

Effect of various parameters

(Cont)
Viscosity

of oil

Falloff results

Input

Skin
Calculation

Mobility (cp)
Input

Calculation

Oil

Water

Oil

Water

10 cp

0.019

6.25

1.07

6.253

2 cp

0.051

6.25

4.94

6.253

0.8 cp

-0.01

12.5

6.25

12.53

6.28

28

Effect of various parameters

(Cont)
Skin

effect

Sr. no

Skin

-0.4

+1

Skin
Input

Calculation

0.019

-0.4

-0.388

+1.0

1.069
29

Effect of various parameters

(Cont)
Relative

Permeability
Falloff Semilog plot gave a good match
for skin and mobility estimation
rf1= 32 ft

30

Effect of various parameters

(Cont)

Well

bore storage

32

Conclusions

Falloff pressure analysis is more accurate.

Total mobility profiles generated from the derivative

curve and saturation curve are almost identical.

Material balance and Merill Methods used to

determine rf1 gave almost the same results.

Presence of skin factor has no effect on the derivative

curve P, saturation profile and the total mobility
profile except pressure difference P.

It is important to eliminate the effect of wellbore

storage in order to accurately interpret the early time
pressure data.
34

Recommendations

Reservoir

heterogeneity could be considered like

presence of permeability barriers, fractures, faults.

Effect

on pressure behavior caused by, reservoir

boundaries or barriers, aquifer support, disturbance
caused by nearby injection or production wells, can
also be considered.

Studies

could be carried out for different injection

fluids, like gas injection, steam injection etc.

Wellbore

storage effects needs to be minimized or

eliminated.

Pressure

behavior when considering WAG injection.

35

References
1.

Reservoir Engineering. Edinburgh, Scotland : Heriot Watt Institute of Petroleum Engineering, 2005.

2.

Well Test Analysis. Edinburgh, Scotland : Heriot Watt Institute of Petroleum Engineering, 2005.

3.

John Lee, John B. Rollins and John P. Spivey. Pressure Transient Testing. Texas A&M U : Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc. Vol. 9.

4.

Tarek, Ahmed and Meehan, D. Nathan. Advanced Reservoir Management and Engineering. 2nd Edition. 2012.

5.

Pressure Falloff in Water Injection Wells. Hazebroek, P. and Matthews, C.S. 1958, Transaction, AIME.

6.

Pressure Transient Analysis of Injection Wells in Reservoirs With Multiple Fluid Banks. Yeh, N.S. and Agarwal, R.G.
San Antonio, Texas : Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1989. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE
19775.

7.

Ambastha, Anil Kumar. Pressure Transient Analysis for Composite Systems. Stanford, California : s.n., 1988. PhD
Thesis.

8.

Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. New York : Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc., 1942, Transaction of the AIME.

9.

Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids. Leverett, M.C. 1941, Transactions of the AIME.

10.

Sabet, M.A. Well Test Analysis. Houston, Texas : Gulf Publishing Company, 1991. Vol. 8.

11.

Problems in Interpretation of Pressure Fall-Off Tests in Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks. Kazemi, Hossein,
Merrill, L.S. and Jargon, J.R. 1972, Journal of Petroleum Technology.

12.

Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs With Fluid Banks. Merrill, L.S., Kazemi, Hossein and Gogarty, W. Barney.
1974, Journal of Petroleum Technology.

13.

Effect of Relative Permeability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure Falloff Behavior. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R. and Limon,
T.J. 1981, Journal of Petroleum Technology.

14.

Transient Pressure Behaviour of Composite Reservoirs With Moving Boundaries. El-Khatib, Noaman A.F. Bahrain :
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1999. Middle East Oil Show and Conference. SPE 53153.

15.

Water Coning Calculations for Vertical and Horizontal Wells. Wattenbarger, Weiping Yang and R.A. Texas A&MU :
Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., 1991, SPE 22931.

16.

Ahmed, Tarek. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition. Houston, Texas : Gulf Publishing Company , 2001.

17.

Smith, Charles R., Tracy, G.W. and Farrar, L. Lance. Applied Reservoir Engineering. Oklahoma : Oil and Gas
Consultants International, Inc., 1999. Vol. 2.

18.

Chaudhry, Amanat U. Oil Well Testing Handbook. Houston, Texas : Advanced TWPSOM Petroleum Systems, Inc.,

36

Q&A
37