Table 16-6(c)

Well Match points (At)MP tDlr2D tMp (Figure 16-17) r (ft)

1 10.0 25 30 480
2 10.0 35 38 480
3 10.0 45 70 702

Substituting the values, we get

Simplifying and normalizing this equation becomes

(16-4Ia)

For Well 2

Simplifying and normalizing this equation becomes:

(16-4Ib)

For Well 3

Simplifying and normalizing this equation becomes

Combining Eqs. 16-4 Ia and 16-4 Ib gives

(16-4Ic)
Using Eqs. 16-41a, b, and c in Eq. 16-35 results in:

Therefore

Now Eqs. 16-41a, b, and c are solved using the computed (f)/j,ct

Now we can estimate maximum permeability, kmax value using Eq. 16-37.
Estimate minimum permeability, kmin value using Eq. 16-36.

We know \lkmaxkmin = 16.38 and from Eq. 16-29, therefore we can check
the computations:

Close enough

Determine the direction of maximum permeability, kmax, from Eq. 16-38.

 from the x-axis

Correcting for the orientation of the axes, the maximum permeability

direction is

Determine direction of minimum permeability, kmin, from Eq. 16-39.

from the x-axis

Correcting for the orientation of the axes, the minimum permeability

direction is

As shown in Figure 16-16, the x-axis was chosen as a line through wells 1, 2,
and 3. True north lies along the line through wells 2 and 3.
Estimate water saturation using Eq. 16-41.

Hence water saturation is sw = 1 so = 1 0.21 = 0.79

Check these saturation values with electric log and core data, which agree
good; hence it is possible for a rough estimate of in-place oil saturation using
transient tests.
Summary: Eqs.16-24 through 16-41, coupled with the log-log type curve
procedure, are powerful tools for detecting reservoir anisotropy. The injec-
tion interference test described can be applied wildly to aid planning fluid
injection programs.
Heterogeneous Reservoir Systems
If the data from multiwell tests fail to meet the homogeneous systems for
both isotropic and anisotropic cases, numerical solutions must be used to
analyze pressure transient data from heterogeneous systems. Chavent etal.17
and Chen etal.18 have suggested numerical solutions for performing the
analysis by parameter estimation techniques to describe reservoir hetero-
geneities using pressure transient data. They consider the case of hetero-
geneous isotropic system using the following diffusion equation:

(16-42)

where Q is diffusion equation source term and p is pressure, psi. In order to

estimate the values of kh(x, y, z) and (j)cth{x, y9 z) that minimize E:
Chavent etal. 17

(16-43)

Chen etal.18

(16-44)

where
E Sum of the squares of the difference between observed and calcu-
lated pressure, psi
S = Number of observation wells
N = Number of observations at well
pobs _ observed pressure at well, psi
peak _ Calculated pressure at well, psi
pb* Observed pressure at well and data point n, and
peak _ Calculated pressure at well and data point n.

16.10 Method for Calculating Fracture Orientation

Elkins and Skov14 have provided a method to estimate fracture orienta-
tion using pressure interference analysis technique. Elkins etal. assumed that
pressure drawdown at a new well to constant single phase production of
another well in a horizontal reservoir of constant thickness with anisotropic
permeability can be represented by the equation:

(16-45)

where
Pi = initial pressure, psi
pxy at t = pressure at x, y at time t, psi
x xo = distance from producing well to pressure point in x-direction, ft
y yo = distance from producing well to pressure point in ^-direction, ft
kx = effective permeability in x-direction, darcy
ky effective permeability in j-direction, darcy
Eq. 17-45 is solved on a trial-and-error basis by assuming effective
compressibility of rock and fluids and permeabilities in the x and y direc-
tions, until a "good match" between calculated and measured pressure drop
in the observed well is obtained. A more precise match can be obtained by
the method of least squares using the sequence.14

16.11 Estimating Two-Dimensional Permeability

with Vertical Interference Testing
Vertical interference testing technique can be used to estimate vertical and
horizontal permeabilities in anisotropic reservoirs. Prats19 shows that if
observed pressure, pws, is plotted versus log ^, a straight line should result
with slope m and intercept at / = 1 hr of p\hr- The horizontal permeability
can be estimated from the slope using:

(16-46)

The vertical permeability is estimated from the slope and intercept using

(16-47)

where
h = Reservoir thickness, ft
G* = Geometric factor (geometrical function) can be found from
Tables 16-7 through 16-12.
 Azmf = Vertical distance from lower formation boundary to flow perfor-
ations, ft (see Figure 16-17b)
Azws = Vertical distance from lower formation boundary to observation
perforation, ft (see Figure 16-17b)
Pt = Initial pressure, psi at the time of test
This method requires the well to be thoroughly stabilized before testing.

Example 16-4 26 Estimating Two-Dimensional Reservoir Permeability From

Vertical Interference Test Data
A vertical interference test was run. The active well is an injection well.
The pressure response in observation well was measured as a function of
time and is recorded in Table 16-12. Other data are: q = 50stb/day,
h = 50 ft, AZwf = 44 ft, AZWS = 13 ft, ct = 0.0000045PSi"1, 0 = 10.5%,
/3 = 1.046 rb/stb, // = 1.15 cP, and pt = 3000 psi. Using the above data, esti-
mate horizontal and vertical permeabilities.

Solution To analyze vertical interference test follow these steps:

Plot pressure response in an observation well, pws versus log t.
From Figure 16-18, find the following:
m = 21.5psi/cycle and p\hr 3022 psig
Estimate horizontal permeability, kr, using Eq. 16-46

Transmissibility coefficient =

Well numbers
Match points
The match was made so the pressure match
Pressure responses

point [ (Ap)M, (p D ) M ] is the same for all three

responses, while the time match points vary:
Ap, psi

Well # r, ft tjr^
1 480 25
2 480 35
3 702 45

Injection time, hours

Figure 16-17a. Interference data matched to Figure 14-3. Pressure match is the
same for all curves.
 Flow perforation
Formation thickness, h, ft

Tubing packer

Casing packer

Pressure gauge

Observation perforation

Figure 16-17b. Vertical interference and pulse test nomenclature.

Formation storage = <j>cth = 0.105 x 0.0000245 x 50 = 1.286 x 10"5PSi"1

Hydraulic diffusivity

Find such as, AZwf/h = 44/50 = 0.88 and AZws/h = 13/50 = 0.26
from Tables 16-7 and 168, geometric factor, G* =0.7565
Estimate vertical permeability, kz using Eq. 16-47

Transmissibility coefficient

Hydraulic diffusivity
 Table 16-7
Geometrical Function, G* (Geometric Factor).19
For Various Values of AZWf/h With AZws/h as a
Parameter [0.10 to 0.20]

AZm/h = 0.10 AZws/h = 0.20

AZwf/h G* AZwf/h G*

0.10 4.4361 0.10 2.5707

0.20 3.8879 0.12 2.3392
0.13 3.6459 0.13 2.2356
0.14 3.4251 0.14 2.1394
0.15 3.2232 0.15 2.0502
0.16 3.0389 0.16 1.9675
0.17 2.8708 0.17 1.8907
0.18 2.7177 0.18 1.8195
0.19 2.5785 0.19 1.7534
0.20 2.4520 0.20 1.6921
0.21 2.3373 0.21 1.6352
0.22 2.2332 0.22 1.5822
0.23 2.1389 0.23 1.5330
0.24 2.0535 0.24 1.4872
0.25 1.9762 0.25 1.4444
0.26 1.9060 0.26 1.4045
0.27 1.8424 0.27 1.3671
0.28 1.7846 0.28 1.3320
0.29 1.7320 0.29 1.2990
0.30 1.6840 0.30 1.2679
0.31 1.6400 0.31 1.2384
0.32 1.5995 0.32 1.2105
0.33 1.5621 0.33 1.1840
0.34 1.5272 0.34 1.1586
0.35 1.4946 0.35 1.1343
0.36 1.4638 0.36 1.1110
0.37 1.4346 0.37 1.0885
0.38 1.4066 0.38 1.0667
0.39 1.3796 0.39 1.0456
0.40 1.3533 0.40 1.0250
0.41 1.3276 0.41 1.0050
0.42 1.3023 0.42 0.9855
0.43 1.2773 0.43 0.9664
0.44 1.2524 0.44 0.9477
0.45 1.2276 0.45 0.9293
0.46 1.2028 0.46 0.9113
0.47 1.1779 0.47 0.8937
0.48 1.1529 0.48 0.8764
 Table 16-7 (continued)

AZm/h = 0.10 AZws/h = 0.20

AZwflh G* AZwf/h G*
0.49 1.1279 0.49 0.8594
0.50 1.1027 0.50 0.8428
0.51 1.0775 0.51 0.8265
0.52 1.0524 0.52 0.8107
0.53 1.0273 0.53 0.7952
0.54 1.0023 0.54 0.7802
0.55 0.9775 0.55 0.7657
0.56 0.9539 0.56 0.7517
0.57 0.9290 0.57 0.7383
0.58 0.9054 0.58 0.7255
0.59 0.8824 0.59 0.7133
0.60 0.8602 0.60 0.7018
0.61 0.8388 0.61 0.6911
0.62 0.8184 0.62 0.6811
0.63 0.7990 0.63 0.6719
0.64 0.7809 0.64 0.6636
0.65 0.7640 0.65 0.6562
0.66 0.7486 0.66 0.6498
0.67 0.7346 0.67 0.6443
0.68 0.7224 0.68 0.6399
0.69 0.7118 0.69 0.6365
0.70 0.7030 0.70 0.6342
0.71 0.6960 0.71 0.6330
0.72 0.6910 0.72 0.6329
0.73 0.6880 0.73 0.6339
0.74 0.6869 0.74 0.6361
0.75 0.6877 0.75 0.6394
0.76 0.6907 0.76 0.6439
0.77 0.6955 0.77 0.6495
0.78 0.7023 0.78 0.6561
0.79 0.7109 0.79 0.6638
0.80 0.7213 0.80 0.6726
0.81 0.7333 0.81 0.6823
0.82 0.7468 0.82 0.6929
0.83 0.7616 0.83 0.7044
0.84 0.7776 0.84 0.7166
0.85 0.7944 0.85 0.7295
0.86 0.8120 0.86 0.7430
0.87 0.8298 0.87 0.7569
0.88 0.8477 0.88 0.7711
0.89 0.8653 0.89 0.7855
0.90 0.8821 0.90 0.7999
 Table 16-7 (continued)

AZws/h = 0.10 AZws/h = 0.20

AZwf/h <7* AZwf\h G*

0.91 0.8977 0.91 0.8142

0.92 0.9118 0.92 0.8281
0.93 0.9236 0.93 0.8414
0.94 0.9327 0.94 0.8540
0.95 0.9385 0.95 0.8656
0.96 0.9404 0.96 0.8759
0.97 0.9375 0.97 0.8847
0.98 0.9292 0.98 0.8917
0.99 0.9148 0.99 0.8965
1.00 0.8933 1.00 0.8989

16.12 Application of Pulse Tests to Describe

Reservoir Heterogeneity
The same analyses used to study the results of interference tests also
apply to pulse test. Hirasaki23 and Falade and Brigham24'25 have provided
the relationships among dimensionless time lag, cycle period, and response
amplitude in both graphical and analytical forms. A Cartesian plot of the

Slopem = 21.50psi/cycle
Bottom-hole pressure, psi

Reservoir horizontal parameters Reservoir vertical parameters

kx = 9.1OmD
Transmissibility coefficient
= 395.65 mDft/cP
Hydraulic diffusivity
= 3.076XlO6InDpSi-VcP
kz = 5.55 mD
Transmissibility coefficient
= 241.34mDft/cP
Hydraulic diffusivity
= 1.877xl0 6 mDpsrVcP

Injection time t, hours

Figure 16-18. Semilog data plot.