Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs

With Fluid Banks

L. S. Merrill, Jr., Marathon Oil Co.
Hossein Kazemi, SPE-AIME, Marathon Oil CO.
W. Barney Gogarty, SPE-AIME, Marathon Oil Co.

Introduction
A detailed background for falloff testing in composite
reservoir situations was given by Kazemi et aU
Briefly, falloff tests are the counterpart of pressure
buildup tests in production wells and are used for
many of the same purposes. The fluid injected before
a falloff test, however, is frequently different from the
reservoir fluid and is used to displace the reservoir
fluid. This creates what might be called saturation
discontinuities between the region where the injected
fluid predominates and the region or regions where
the original reservoir fluids predominate. Examples of
such systems are (1) reservoirs being waterflooded,
(2) reservoirs undergoing in-situ combustion, and (3)
reservoirs undergoing gas injection for various pur-
poses, such as gas storage, pressure maintenance, and
miscible displacement. Falloff testing has occasionally
been used in such systems to determine the front
radius and the reservoir properties ahead of and be-
hind the front. As Kazemi et al. I have demonstrated,
such analyses are subject to many pitfalls, and must
be made with considerable caution. The slope of the
first straight-line segment that develops on a standard
plot of pressure vs logarithm of time is commonly
used to determine the mobility of the first zone. The
slope of this segment, however, can be affected by
afterflow. The slopes of the straight-line segments
beyond the first one have also been used to estimate
the properties of other zones. These straight-line seg-
ments, however, are functions of both the mobility
and the specific storage of zones that develop and,
in general, one cannot use the slopes of the lines for
direct calculation of mobilities.
Deviation from the first straight-line segment of
a plot of pressure vs the logarithm of time for falloff
tests in reservoirs with fluid banks can be due to sens-
ing of the first front. The time of such deviation for
a given system is indicative of the distance from the
well bore to the front. The dimensionless time of de-
viation, IltDfl *, for many reservoir situations is fre-
quently assumed to be constant. The equation
Tfl = 0.000263 7 klltfl * (1)
cP fLc tiltDfl *
is then used to estimate the distance to the front. The
value for IltD/1 *, however, is actually a function of
mobility ratio and specific storage ratio. The assump-
tion that it is constant can frequently lead to large
errors.
The work reported here was undertaken to see if
correlations could be developed to more accurately
analyze field pressure falloff curves when fluid banks
are present.
Model of Systems Investigated
Fig. 1 is an idealization of the type of system under
consideration. In this figure, Zone 1 is the area domi-
nated by the injected fluid, with Tfl being the distance
from the injection well to the nearest front. Zone 2

A radial reservoir simulator has been used to generate a wide range of conceptual
pressure falloff curves in systems having fluid banks. The experience gained should
improve the analysis of field pressure falloff curves. Also, a procedure has been
developed to estimate the distance to the front nearest the injection well and the
saturations on both sides of the front in liquid-filled waterflood reservoirs.

JULY, 1974 809

 is the oil bank region with outer radius '/2. Zone 3
----- UNFlOOOED ~ is the region that still has the original reservoir prop-
/' 3
erties. The outer radius of the third zone, 'e, depends
/ on the location and pattern of the active wells. For
many cases, such as liquid-filled reservoirs or gas in-
/ jection systems, the second and third zones are prob-
ably similar and the problem simplifies to a two-zone
system. The mathematical simulator used to model
systems similar to that shown in Fig. 1 is a moving-
front type of simulator described in Ref. 1.
Two-Zone Reservoirs
Those reservoirs that could be treated as having two
\ zones would be gas injection systems, some liquid-
filled waterflood reservoirs, and three-zone systems
\ where '/2 is much greater than '/1'
Figs. 2, 3, and 4 are dimensionless plots of the
various curve shapes that might be obtained during
falloff testing of two-zone composite systems. The
curves in these figures have been divided into four
sections. Section A represents the time span domi-
Fig. I-Idealization of a waterflood preceding fillup. nated by storage (provided wellbore storage constant
is small). Section B is the time span during which the
slope is determined by the properties in the first zone.
100.---------------------.
-_~O) AI = 100md/ep
Section C is the transition period. Section D is the
(4) el)I8.95.10-7 psi time span during which the slope is controlled by the
~=IO properties of both Zone 1 and Zone 2, and the
A2
(4) el)1 {O)
10
- - = (2) I boundary effects.
(4)ct)2 (3) 0.1
'w =0.25fl
Table 1 lists the slope ratio, m 2 /m 1 , the dimen-
'I, =8011
<:0 =9600fl sionless intersection time, t::..t D/ IlJ , and the breakpoint
C=7.33.10-4ft%oi
time, t::..tDf1*' for numerous computer runs made at
various mobility ratios, Ad A2, specific storage ratios,
(c/>c,),/(c/>Ct)o, and '(1. Figs. 5 and 6 are plots incorpo-
rating the slope, specific storage, and mobility ratios
en
en 30 given in Table 1. Fig. 6 shows that the second straight-
w
...J
Z
line slope will give the mobility of the second zone
0 20
in directly only when the specific storage ratio is close
z
W
::I! 10 to 1. When the specific storage ratio is greater than
i5 1, the slope ratio is greater than the mobility ratio.
~O-e 10- 4 10-3 10-2 10- 1 10 10+ 1 10+2 When the specific storage ratio is less than 1, the slope
DIMENSIONLESS TlME,II'oI,=0.0002637 AIIIY[(4)e l '' ,11) ratio is less than the mobility ratio.
Fig. 2-Simulated pressure falloff for a two-zone The point of intersection, MDj{JJ, of lines drawn
system-mobility ratio greater than 1.

25.0",----------------------, 20.----------------------,
z AI = 100 md/cp
~
AI = 100md/ep
~-22.~ ~- 18
III (4)el)1 =8.95.10- 7 ps;-' III (4)el)1 = 8.95.10- 7 psi-I
'"
<D
~ 20.0 ~=I g'"
<D ~
1.2
=05
.
{(I)
~el)1 .
16
I {O) 10 (4)e l), 10
(4) el)2 = \~l6.1 (4)CI)2 = \~l 0 ..
1
JI75 I ~ 14
, I
<i- I 'w=0.25fl I 'w =0.25fl
I ,,,=8011 '0.
"jj" 15.0 'ii' 12 B I C D ,,,=80fl
o C I D ,,=960011 " =960011
Q.
I C = 7.33 .-10-4 11';(,.; ~ I C = 7.33 .10- 4 fI 3;(,0;
~ 12.5 I ~ to I
:::> :::>
en (f) I
en en
w 10.0 W 8 I
a:: a::
<>. <>.
~ 1.5 en
w en
W
...J ...J
Z Z
o 5.0 o 4
in iii
z z
~ 2.5 ~ 2
o Ci

DIMENSIONLESS TlME,1I101 ,=0.0002637 AIIII/[(4)el)1 'fd DIMENSIONLESS TIME,IIIDf ,=0.0002637 AIIIY[(4)CI), ,~}

Fig. 3-Simulated pressure falloff for a two-zone Fig. 4-Simulated pressure falloff for a twozone
system-unit mobility ratio. system-mobility ratio less than 1.

810 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

through the two straight-line segments is a function TABLE I-SLOPE RATIO, DIMENSIONLESS BREAK
POINT TIME, AND DIMENSIONLESS INTERSECTION
of the specific storage and the mobility ratio. Fig. 7, TIME FOR TWOZONE RESERVOIR AT VARIOUS
however, shows the trends for MDlre as a function of SPECIFIC STORAGE AND MOBILITY RATIOS
slope ratio, with the specific storage ratio as a param- Mobility Specific Slope
eter. Note that on this plot, the effect of the mobility Ratio, Storage Ratio, ',1, Ratio,
ratio on 6.t D Ix is reflected by the scatter of the data; ~~ (Ct) ,f(Ct}, .. m,fml t.tnf1* t.t D /.
25 0.58 80 18.7 0.13 6.5
nevertheless, a grouping by storage ratio is discernible. 16.7 0.8 80 14.5 0.20 5.10
For slope ratios less than 1, the MDIx values all lie in 16.7 0.58 80 12.7 0.15 5.20
10 30 80 18.89 0.508 5.14
the same band regardless of the specific ratio. An 10 30 30 18.98 0.229 4.20
example of a system having a specific storage ratio 10 10 150 14.5 0.472 3.33
10 10 100 15.30 0.331 4.06
less than unity would be a waterflood in a reservoir 10 10 80 0.400 3.22
having oil with high compressibility. Examples of 10 10 50 15.04 0.400 4.00
systems having specific storage ratios greater than 10 10 30 14.94 0.222 4.51
10 3 80 11.48 0.586 3.71
10 3 30 11.53 0.229 3.82
10 1 150 8.9 0.500 3.89
100,----------------------, 10 1 100 9.0 0.256 4.06
10 1 80 0.488 4.00
10 1 80 0.586 4.10
10 1 50 9.04 0.450 4~:5
10 1 30 8.78 0.222 4.17
10 0.8 80 8.55 0.15 3.50
10 0.58 80 3.39 0.15 3.20
10 0.3 80 7.43 0.557 6.93
10 0.3 30 6.98 0.257 5.62
10 0.1 150 6.0 0.583 14.17
~IE 10 0.1 100 5.47 0.225 8.i2
6 10 0.1 80 0.781 13.67
10 0.1 80 0.781 12.70
~a:: 10 0.1 50 5.65 0.450 10.50
w 10 0.1 30 5.48 0.299 8.33
a. 5 10 80 7.51 0.458 2.00
o
oJ
<Il 5 10 30 7.79 0.250 2.57
5 1 80 4.63 0.400 2.38
5 1 30 4.70 0.174 2.57
5 0.3 30 3.96 0.208 5.62
5 0.1 80 3.27 0.562 11.44
5 0.1 30 3.27 0.174 10.42
5 0.1 30 3.33 0.208 13.89
4 0.8 80 3.70 0.16 2.05
2 10 100 3.23 0.218 1.25
0.1 L----1._-'-.....J.....I-L----1._-'-.....J......L....L----1._-'-.....J..-"-.J 2 1 100 1.88 0.375 1.25
ru w ~ ~ 2 0.8 80 1.89 0.32 1.60
SPECIFIC STORAGE RATIO,~~:~ 2
2
0.3
0.3
30
30
1.71
3.96
1.39 7.64
5.62
2 0.2 30 1.61 14.24
Fig. 5-Effect of specific storage ratio and mobility 2 0.15 30 1.52 21.11
ratio on the slope ratio. 2 0.1 30 0.73 1.062
2 0.1 30 3.33 13.89
2 0.1 30 0.70 0.70
20.---~-~---.---~--..__-~
1 30 80 2.16 0.303 0.723
1 30 30 2.18 0.479 0.903
1 10 80 1.75 0.252 0.833
1 10 30 1.77 0.403 0.635
18 1 3 80 1.33 0.508 0.508
1 3 30 1.32 0.694 0.729
1 1 80 1.0
16
1 1 30 1.0
1 0.58 80 0.82 0.47 0.57
1 0.3 80 0.64 0.498 0.498
1 0.3 30 0.63 0.638 0.903
14 1 0.3 30 0.67 0.562
1 0.2 30 0.59 0.729
1 0.15 30 0.53 0.729
1 0.1 80 0.43 0.312 0.764
1 0.1 30 0.46 0.458 0.635
1 0.1 30 0.46 0.632
0.5 30 50 1.32 0.550
0.5 30 50 1.34 0.575
Tworate test with q,fql = 0.5
0.5 10 50 1.08 0.500
0.5 3 50 0.57 1.78
0.5 3 50 0.57 1.78
6 0.5 1 50 0.52 0.775
0.5 0.3 50 0.40 0.600
0.5 0.3 50 0.40 0.550
0.5 0.3 30 0.41 0.576
4 0.5 0.1 50 0.28 0.575
0.5 0.1 30 0.~9 0.507
0.1 10 80 0.10 0.391 0.713
0.1 10 30 0.10 0.160 0.764
0.1 1 80 0.10 0.283 0.410
0.1 1 30 0.10 0.160 0.597
0.1 0.1 80 0.078 0.254 0.371
4 6 8 12 0.1 0.1 30 0.087 0.160 0.493
MOBILITY RATIO, >-1/>-2
Average of M Dfl *;= 0.389
Fig. ~Crossplot of data in Fig. 5.

JULY, 1974 811

unity would be gas injection systems and waterfloods sionless pressure vs logarithm of dimensionless time
in reservoirs containing oil with low compressibility. is 2.303.
A modified form of Eq. 1 can be used with Fig. 7 We arrived at a criterion for estimating the maxi-
to estimate the distance to a fluid bank. This usage mum allowable well bore storage coefficient that could
requires that CPl and CIl be known and that it be pos- be present in a test and still allow the development of
sible to make a reasonable estimate of (cpc t)2. The a "true" straight-line segment as follows:
modified equation is obtained by replacing flt!1 * and We first considered the work of Ramey2 who
flt DJl * by flt! x and flt D!x in Eq. 1. M!x is the intersec- showed that the dimensionless time at which afterflow
tion time that would be read from the intersection of dies out is
the extension of the two straight-line segments on a
fltD = 60 CD, (3)
plot of actual falloff data. The procedure for such a
calculation would be as follows: where the dimensionless shut-in time, M D , and the
1. From a semilog plot of the falloff data deter- dimensionless wellbore storage constant, CD, are de-
mine the slope ratio m 2 /m 1 , the intersection time Mtx, fined as
and the mobility Al = (k/ P,)I. The first two values can
be read directly from the plot, but the third must be 0.0002637 Aflt
fltD = - - - - , - -- (4)
calculated from the standard equation:
2
cp C t'w

Al -- (k/ P,) 1 _162.6qB

- (2) (5)
m,h
2. Estimate (CPCt)2 and calculate (CPCt)1/(CPCt)2. For our purposes, however, it is necessary for after-
3. Read MDtx from Fig. 7 or a crossplot of fltDtx vs flow to die out in time for the proper slope to develop
(CPCt>1/(CPCt)2 at the slope ratio determined from the before the effect of the fluid bank at '11 is felt; i.e., the
falloff test data. point at which the curve deviates from the first
4. Solve Eq. 1 for 't1, replacing flt/1* and fltD/l*
with flttx and flt D/ IlJ
More complex calculations using Figs. 5 through
7 will be discussed later.
If a test has not been run long enough to deter-
mine a slope for the second straight-line segment, the =3-30
point of deviation, fltD11 *, from the first straight-line
segment can be used to estimates the distance to the
fluid bank. The average MDI1* for the runs listed in =0.3
Table 1 is 0.389, with the lowest and highest readings + =0.15
being 0.13 and 1.39, respectively. The range of error
=0.2
using the arithmetic average value of MDI1* = 0.389
would thus be w 0 =0.58
For Air Injection Problems
:::E
i= 1.0 0
0.58 S [('fl calculated using fltD/1* = 0.389 ({)
({)
in Eq. 1)/('11 actual)] W
...J
S 1.89. Z
0
enz
This indicates that the indiscriminate use of Eq. 1 for w
:::E
front calculation can lead to serious errors. 0
0.1
0.1 1.0 10 100
Wellbore Storage (Afterflow) SLOPE RATIO, m2/ml
As noted in Figs. 2, 3, and 4, most falloff tests have Fig. 7-Correlation for dimensionless
some degree of wellbore storage associated with them. intersection time, lltD/z.
In Ref. 1, the authors demonstrated that this wellbore
storage can completely mask the straight-line segment
on a semilog plot of the falloff curve. This is especially C-000165 ft 3/pSI

true if falling fluid level is present. As was also pointed 3.6,

'10" O.25ft
(k/~l, -100
(k/~)2 = 10
out, conditions can be such that wellbore storage does (.pCr), =895 X IO-7psl-1
(cpcrl 2 :S.95 x 10- 8 piI-I
not die out soon enough to allow the correct straight q = 400bbtlo
h = 20ft
line to develop before the effects of the front are felt.
Under the latter conditions, the semilog plot will gen-
erally have a straight-line segment preceding the
curvature change caused by sensing of the front,
but the slope of this segment will be greater than the Proper Slope

actual reservoir would yield in the absence of well-

bore storage. As an example, Fig. 8 shows how this
type of error can vary with '11 up to the point that '11
FRONT RADIUS, rf,' ft
is large enough to allow the proper straight line to
Fig. 8-Effect of afterflow on the slope of the first
develop. In the absence of wellbore storage, the slope straight-line segment as a function of the
of the first straight-line segment on a plot of dimen- distance to the bank from the well bore.

812 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

straight-line segment. TABLE 2-PARAMETERS USED IN
Analysis of data used to generate Fig. 8 showed GENERATING FIG. 9
that for a dimensionless semilog plot the well bore Injection time, days 2.518
storage as calculated from Eq. 3 must die out at least Injection rate, RB/D 400
one cycle before the influence of the fluid bank is felt. A1, md/cp 100
If the dimensionless time (based on rw) required to A2, md/cp 50
sense the fluid bank is defined as D.tn*, we can write </> 0.20
8 .. 1.0
I1tn* = 10 D.tn = 600 C n (6) C w , psi-1 3.5 x 10'"
co, ,psi-1 1 x 10'"
Substituting for Cn gives S'" 0.85
S"'. 0.35
= 27rhcpCt D.tn* rw 2 (7)
C 600 .
h, ft 20
Initial pressure, psi 1,000
Since Wellbore radius (r",), ft 0.25
Front radius (r,,), ft 30
D. tn
*-
_0__
-
.0_0_0_26_3_7--=A_D._t"-,,ft_*
(8)
Constant pressure boundary (r e ), ft 3,600
cpCt r w2 C/, psi-1 0.0
we can write C as
various unknowns would be solved for by the follow-
C = 2.76 X 10- 6 hAID.tfl* cu ft/psi. (9) ingmethod.
as the maximum allowable value of the wellbore stor- 1. Al would be determined from the first straight-
age constant that would not affect the slope of the first line segment of the pressure vs log [(t + D.t)/ D.t] by the
straight-line segment. conventional method; i.e.,

Methods of Analysis for Estimating Saturation (16)

Falloff tests in some two-zone systems can be ana-
lyzed by a trial-and-error method to estimate the
properties of the first and second zones and the loca-
tion of the first discontinuity, rft. For a waterflood
reservoir this would be done as follows.
The location of the water/oil interface can be
found by using either of two equations if sufficient
data are available:
1. The material balance equation,
5.6146 WBw
7rhcp(Sw - Swe) .
2. The intersection time equation,
0.0002637 Al D.tfx
rfl =
(cp Ct)1 D.tnfx
In most applications, however, At and D.tfx are the
only values that can be directly determined from the
falloff test. The other unknowns, Sw, Ct, D.tnfx, and
Swe, must be determined indirectly.
Equating the above two equations gives
S = S + 6,781 WBwCtD.tnfx = S. +
w we Alh D. tfrc
m 2 /m 1 andD.tJx are also determined from the semilog
plot.
2. Assume a value of Sw for Zone 1 and calculate
a specific storage' ratio, (cpc t)t! (cpc t)2 using Eq. 14.
Note that Sw = Swe in Zone 2.
3. Read D.tnfx from Fig. 7 or preferably from a
crossplot of Fig. 7 made at the value of m 2 / m 1 de-
termined from the data.
4. Calculate E from Eq. 13 and Sw from Eq. 15.
5. Repeat Steps 2, 3, and 4 until Sw calculated
(10) from Eq. 15 agrees with the assumed value of Sw.
Knowing the specific storage ratio at convergence and
the slope ratio we can determine '\2 from Fig. 5 or
Fig. 6.
(11)
Example 1 - Analysis of Pressure Falloff Test in a
Two-Zone Waterflood; Connate Water Saturation
Already Known; No Afterflow. Fig. 9 is the simulated
falloff test used as the base data for this example; the
parameters for the test are listed in Table 2. Analysis
/E
we Ct , '" ,a.25ft
"1 ' 30ft

(12) '. '3600fr

lll/u),' 100 mtJ/cp
(k/"l:z' 5Omd/cp
.~ (<PCfI,=8.9SotO- 7 "li"1
where 1200
(I:PCI)z'I~.IO- 1',/- 1

Q.
S . . . 0.8S
Sw,' 0 35

Al h D. t frc W Q ' 400 8/0

E= ....,...,,~-==~-- (13) 0:
=>
U>
h,20ft
Pi' rOOOpI'

6,781 WBwD.tnf'" . U>

w
",,=32.51'11/<:1(;1.
",
--;;;;'1.85
Ii tIOO

Ct can be calculated from

'"
l-

Ct = Swcw + (1 - Sw) Co + Cf (14) =>

'"
U>

Substituting Eq. 14 into Eq. 12 gives 1000

Sw = ESwe + Co + Cf (15)
E + Co - Cw SHUT-IN T!ME,ll.t,hr

Fig. 9-Simulated falloff test used as base

St<!< Known Situation. Assuming Swe is known, the for Example 1.

JULY, 1974 813

 TABLE 3-TRIALANDERROR WORK SHEET IN CALCULATION OF 5", IN EXAMPLE 1
(C.),/(C.)., E s ..
S .. Eq. 14 Used AtD ! .. (Eq. 13) Calculated, S",(assumed)
Assumed for c. Fig. 10 X 10' Eq. 15 - S",(calculated)
0.6 0.79 1.68 1.66 0.68 - 0.08
0.7 0.71 2.00 1.39 0.73 - 0.03
0.8 0.62 2.70 1.03 0.81 - 0.01
0.9 0.54 3.60 0.77 0.89 + 0.01
0.85 0.58 3.05 0.91 0.85 0.00

of Fig. 9 gives the following information:
m l = 32.5 psi/cycle,
m 2 = 60.1 psi/cycle,
m 2 /m l = 1.85,
tJ.tflll = 0.095 hour.
From Eq. 16,
Al = 162.6 qBW/mlh = 100 md/cp.
To facilitate the trial-and-error calculation we set up
Table 3 and make a crossplot of the data from Fig. 7
at m 2 /m l = 1.85 to obtain Fig. 10. Fig. 11 is a plot
of Columns 1 and 6 from Table 3, used to determine
the value of Sw that gives Sw(assumed) - Sw(calcu-
lated) = O. For this case, we determined the value of
Sw to be 0.85, which is the value used in preparing
the simulated case. Using (cpCt)I/(cpCt)2 = 0.58 for
Sw = 0.85, we determine Al/A2 from Fig. 6. Thus,
A2 = 50 md, and from Eq. 11, 'II = 30 ft.
The accuracy of the above method depends on how
close the actual tJ.tDfx value is to a curve such as Fig.
10. If tJ.tDfx falls on or near the curve, the calculated
value of Sw should be close to the actual value. The
curves in Fig. 7 that are used to make the crossplots,
however, average some fairly scattered data and MDfrc
might be off the curve drawn. This would lead to a
calculation for Sw that might be in error. The results
should therefore be checked by putting the results of
the above calculation back into the computer simu-
lator and comparing the simulated curve with the
actual test data. Even if the input data are somewhat
off, the simulated curve should give a value of tJ.tDflll
that is closer to the actual value and allow Sw to be
calculated more accurately.
S we Unknown Situations. If Swc is unknown, then we
need two falloff tests to estimate Swc along with the
other unknowns. The second test should be made after
a time interval sufficient to allow the front to move
several feet farther. The analysis of the two tests
would then become a double trial-and-error solution
as follows:
1. Assume a value of Swc and determine values for
Sw for each test as described in Example 1, keeping
Swc fixed.
2. If the two values of Sw do not agree, choose a
new value for Swc and repeat the calculations.
3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 until the two values of
Swagree.
Gas Injection With Loss Through the Front
As previously mentioned, many gas injection systems
can be treated as having only two zones. In these
systems, however, the material balance, Eq. 10, can-

IOOr---------------------------------~

~
~
...J
;:)
~ 0.02
tJ'
~
Z 10 " ' "0
~0.01
(f) 0.6

~ \ I 0 t---+-----+-----I---r----t----- Sw(ASSUMEO)
o
f5 0
~ -om
~ \o
;:)
~-o.02

'0 --0.03
Z 1.0
~ "---0---------- (f) -0.04
Z
S! -0.05
i5
-0.06

-0.07
0.1':----------:'::------------'':---________---1
0.1 1.0 10 100 -0.08 0
SPECIFIC STORAGE RATIO, (cpCt) / (CPCt)
I 2 Fig. ll-Plot of Column 6 vs Column 1 in Table 3
Fig. lQ-Crossplot of data in Fig. 7 to determine where S'" (assumed) - S'"
for m2/m, = 1.85. (calculated) goes to O.

814 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

not usually be applied because of such problems as
severe gas fingering. Thus, the method of the previous
section may not be directly applicable. In such cases,
the computer simulator may be used to refine initial
estimates. Example 2 illustrates this usage.
Example 2-Pressure Falloff in a Gas Injection Well,
In-Situ Combustion. Fig. 12 is a plot of data taken
during a falloff test of an air injection well on an
in-situ combustion project. Fig. 13 is a type curve of
the data, showing that wellbore storage or afterflow
is significant for 0.03 hours. The data for this reservoir
are given in Table 4. Analysis of the data gives the
following information:
Al = 11,952 md/cp from Fig. 12,
mdm, = 2.95 from Fig. 12,
t:.tfrc = 1.43 hours from Fig. 12,
C = 1.621 cu ft/psi from Fig. 13.
In analyzing these data, it is assumed that the region
behind the front is sufficiently burned out that So '-' 1.
Ahead of the front the compressibility is completely
dominated by the gas and Ct = SgCg. To start analyz-
ing this problem, we assume a gas saturation ahead
of the front of Sg2 = 0.20. Since Ct2 = Sg2Cg,
(c/>Ct),/(c/>Cth = 1/Sg2 = 1/0.2 = 5.
Using m2 /m , = 2.95 and (c/>Ct)t!(c/>Ct)2 = 5 in Fig.
we get Al/A2 = 2.1. Thus,
A2 = At/2.1 = 5,691 md/cp.
From the above information, t:.tDfrc is estimated from
Fig. 7 to be 1.1, and the front distance, 'fl, is calcu-
lated from Eq. 11.
= .. /0.0002637 (11,952)(1.43) =
'fl " (0.25 X 0.007)(1.1)
In order to use our simulator, which is a displacement
simulator, to refine the above initial results, we as-
sume that air is a displacing fluid and inject long
enough to displace to 'fl' To reach this distance at
reservoir conditions (166 psi, 70F) requires a pseudo

6or----,~-__.----,_---__.---__,
- ISO
&'
I
.
l&i 140
0:
:::>
~
~ 130
:!!
I
I-
~ 120
.,
:I:
110
lOO~.OO~I---~.O~I----.LI----L----~IO
SHUT-IN TlME~6t. hr
Fig. 12-Falloff data from an air injection well of an
in-situ combustion project used in Example 2.
JULY, 1974
TABLE 4-PROPERTIES OF INSITU COMBUSTION
TEST RESERVOIR
Injection rate, Mscf/D 917
Thickness, ft 23
Porosity 0.25
Well bore radius, ft 0.32
Air viscosity, cp 0.019
Gas compressibility, psi-' 7 x 10- 3
injection time of 0.483 days.
The problem in this case is to pick parameters that
will give such pressure distribution as will allow the
plot of Pws vs log t:.t to match the actual data. Because
of the short pseudo injection time involved, we must
plot Pws vs log [(t + t:.t)/ t:.t] to obtain the slope ratios
predicted in Fig. 5. (This procedure for short injec-
tion times has been found empirically to work even
though the system is not linear.) Using the parameters
calculated above, several runs were made to try to
match the slope ratio. In these runs, the wellbore stor-
age coefficient, C, and gas saturation, Sg2, in the sec-
ond zone were held constant at the indicated values
and only A2 was varied. The results of these runs in-
dicated that for Sg2 = 0.2 a mobility ratio of 3.59 was
necessary to give a slope ratio of 2.95. This gives
A2 = 3,329 md/cp. The MDJx would not be affected
by changing Sg2 as long as the specific storage ratio is
greater than 3 (see Fig. 7). Thus, there is no unique
solution for parameters ahead of the front when S02
5, is less than 0.33. Of course, Sg2 less than 0.33 is rea-
sonable for in-situ combustion. Thus, any Sg2 less than
0.33 can be used and the pressure falloff analysis will
yield only Al and A2'
One other factor in this problem is the effect of
wellbore storage on the slope of the first straight-line
segment, m , . Our criterion for a proper straight-line
segment, unaffected by wellbore storage, was given in
484ft Eq. 9. Application to this problem would indicate
.. that C = 2.76 X 10- 6 (23)(11,952)(0.6) = 0.46 cu
ft/psi would be the maximum value of the wellbore
storage coefficient that could be present without af-
fecting m , . The calculated value of C from the type-
curve plot (Fig. 13) is 1.621 cu ft/psi. The differ-
ence between the numerical values of C obtained by
1000,-----,.-----,_-----.------,
SLOPE = I
<i
~
a: 10
c =1.621 ft~ psi From This Plot
1.0L:--_ _--'-_ _ _ _' - -_ _ _-'--_ _ _ ~
.001 .01.1 10
SHUT IN TIME. 61. hr
Fig. 13-Type curve for the air injection
well of Example 2.
815
the two independent methods suggests that the first
straight line of Fig. 12 is still somewhat affected by
wellbore storage. As seen in Fig. 14, the slope of the
first straight-line segment is 2.52 as a result of the
afterflow effect. Without afterflow the slope would
have been 2.30. This would indicate that m 1 in Fig.
12 is steeper than it would have been if wellbore stor-
age were not a factor. As shown in Eq. 2, Al is pro-
portional to the reciprocal of the slope; thus, if we
correct the original value of Al = 11,952 md/cp by
the ratio of 2.52/2.30, we get Al = 13,095 md/cp.
Similarly, 1..2 becomes (3,329)(2.52/2.3)=3,647 md/
cpo Now with these parameters, we can match the
actual pressure falloff data of Fig. 12 with the results
obtained on the simulator.
Three-Zone Reservoirs
The addition of a third zone, such as in reservoirs
preceding fillup, considerably complicates the prob-
lem of analyzing falloff test data. Fig. 15 is a plot
for a three-zone reservoir. In this plot, the presence
of a third zone containing appreciable gas saturation
25.0.----------------------.
dominates to the extent that large changes in the
specific storage in the second zone have very little
effect on the pressure falloff curve. A tabulation of
data taken on three-zone reservoirs at various condi-
tions is listed in Table 5. No correlation could be
found for these data and attempts to determine some
of the parameters by use of automatic matching tech-
niques 3 were only partially successful; i.e., some suc-
cess was achieved when there was only a small slope
change. Larger slope changes appear to make it more
difficult for the technique to work.
The only information that can be obtained with
any confidence from the three-zone test is the mobility
in the first zone. An estimate of the distance to the
front can be obtained by using either ~tDfx or tD/l *.
The average of ~tDfx, from the runs listed in Table 5,
is 1.52 with a standard deviation of 0.74. Maximum
deviations are + 2.23 and - 1.22. Since rfl is a func-
tion of the square root of ~tDJx, this would mean that
the use of ~tDrx = 1.52 would bracket rfl within the
range
0.44 < [(r[1 calculated using ~tDlx = 1.52
in Eq. l1)/(r/l actual)]
< 1.57.

X'/~2,
~
.{ 22.5
=3.761
Similar treatment of tD/l * gives an average value of
<D
~ 0.485 with a standard deviation of 0.49. Maximum
'!' 20.0
~~ =3.10 deviations are 1.54 and - 0.316. This would bracket
E.
~17.~ r[1 within the range
~
Jj 15.0 0.59 < [(rll calculated using tD/l* = 0.485
a.
o
uj 12.5
in Eq. 1)/(r/1 actual)]
a::
:::>
< 2.04.
~ 10.0
UJ
a:: The second of these equations is probably the more
Q.
7.5 reliable as far as the range is concerned.
'"'"...JUJ 5.0
z
0
iii
Conclusions
z 2.5
w
::E
1. Proper analysis of falloff tests in waterflood sys-
is
O'?o-s
tems that form two contrasting fluid zones can yield
10-& 10- 4 IO-~ 10- 2 10-1 10 10+ 1

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, >1011=0.0002637 X,lIt/[!.pCIl, r1,]

information as to (a) mobilities on both sides of the
front, (b) saturations on both sides of the front, and
Fig. I4-Simulated falloff curve for Exaf!1ple 2, (c) distance to the front.
showing how afterflow can affect m,. Without
afterflow m, would be 2.30. 2. Analysis of falloff tests in gas injection systems
can give information as to (a) mobility of the first
zone and (b) distance to the front.
3. In analyzing falloff tests in reservoirs having
:2 three contrasting fluid zones, about the only reliable
~'3.5 ~=3
~
X2 information obtainable is the mobility of the first
<D
12'2.0 *=0.05 zone.
;::; (.pCIl, =~~l
,,0 4. For three-zone systems, the average time of de-
"0.5 (.p cIl2 113l 0.1
(.pCIl, = I
viation from the first straight-line segment of a plot
f
Ii" 9.0 (.pCIl3 of dimensionless pressure vs the logarithm of dimen-
~ rw = 0.25ft
rl l =80ft sionless time-~tD/l * = 0.485-can be used to esti-
~ 7.5
:::>
rl2 = 126 ft
r. = 9600fl
mate the distance to the first front. The error of this
'"
(I)
LLJ 6.0 C= 7.33 x 10- 5 fl%si estimate will lie within the following range:
&:
~ 4.15
UJ
0.59 < [(rtl calculated using MDJ1* = 0.485
...J
Z in Eq. l)/(r/l actual)]
o 3.0
enz < 2.04.
~ 1.5
o Nomenclature
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB
DIMENSIONLESS TIME,llIDfI=Q0002637 X,llV[(.pcIl, r~l Bw = water formation volume factor, RB/STB
c/ = pore volume compressibility, psia-
1
Fig. IS-Simulated falloff curves for a threezone system.

816 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 Cg = gas volume compressibility, psia- 1 rn 2 = slope of sec~nd straight-line segment of
Co = oil volume compressibility, psia- 1 semilog plot
Cw = water volume compressibility, psia- i rn3 = slope of third straight-line segment of
Ct = system total compressibility, psia-t, semilog plot
Eq.14 PW8 = shut-in bottom-hole pressure, psia

C= wellbore storage constant, cu ft/psia q = flow rate, STBjD

CD = dimensionless wellbore storage constant, 'e = distance to boundary, ft
Eq.5 'fi = distance from well to first fluid bank, ft
E = defined by Eq. 13 'f2 = distance from well to second fluid bank,
h = formation thickness, ft ft
k = effective permeability to flowing phase, 'w = wellbore radius, ft
md Sg = gas saturation, fraction
rn i = slope of first straight-line segment of So = oil saturation, fraction
semilog plot Sw = water saturation, fraction

TABLE 5-TABULATION OF DATA FOR THREEZONE RESERVOIRS

!ltn/.
('/1)
.1.tD/e -
Mobility Ratio
A,fA, A,fA3
Specific Storage Ratio Slope Ratio '"
From First From Second
Intersection Intersection
0.5 1 10 0.610 50 0.404 1.03 0.576 1.20 144
1 0.0610 102 0.183 1.92 0.325 1.02 16.8
0.1 0.00610 0.095 2.26 0.325 0.95 2.88
10 1 30 0.00118 50 6.71 0.262 0.325 1.50 0.426
3 0.0118 102 6.47 0.284 0.325 1.58 0.510
0.3 0.118 4.70 0.596 0.325 1.92 1.44
10 1 30 0.00118 100 7.35 0.207 0.200 1.75 0.495
3 0.0118 204 7.04 0.237 0.200 1.88 0.600
0.3 0.118 4.96 0.564 0.200 1.94 1.95
10 1 1 0.1 50 6.17 0.606 0.275 1.90 0.78
1 0.01 102 5.61 0.148 0.275 1.65 0.78
10 1 1 0.1 100 6.52 0.580 0.169 2.06 0.82
1 0.01 204 5.87 0.111 0.169 1.88 0.82
1 10 1 0.0610 50 2.16 0.911 2.02 2.02 3.31
102
1 10 1 0.0610 100 2.52 0.786 0.625 2.38 4.65
204
1 10 1 1 50 1 8.07 3.31
0.1 102 2.43 1.67 1.90 3.75 22.8
0.01 1.77 0.30 1.90 2.50 3.90
1 10 1 1 100 1 8.17 3.31
0.1 204 2.82 0.86 0.938 2.56 4.50
0.01 2.05 0.136 0.938 2.50 5.55
2 2.5 1 1 50 1 4.40 0.60 0.81
1 0.1 102 1.84 0.88 0.40 1.12 1.21
1 0.01 1.74 0.24 0.35 1.00 1.14
2 2.5 1 1 100 1 4.33 0.438 0.75
1 0.1 204 2.03 0.86 0.375 1.06 1.50
1 0.01 1.86 0.196 0.375 1.00 1.35
10 0.1 10 0.01 50 5.60 0.124 0.375 1.20 3.53
1 0.1 102 5.25 0.132 0.375 1.30 0.49
0.1 1.0 2.64 1.33 0.375 0.775 0.025
10 0.1 10 0.01 100 5.91 0.118 0.181 1.38 3.75
1 0.1 204 5.27 0.132 0.181 1.38 0.57
0.1 1.0 2.71 1.22 0.181 0.625 0.046
3 0.05 10 1 80 1.32 0.057 0.19 0.30 1.17
1 1 126 1.51 0.049 0.19 0.30 0.85
0.1 1 1.51 0.049 0.19 0.30 0.85
Average 0.485 1.52 1.86
Standard deviation 0.49 0.74
JULY, 1974 817
 Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
6.t = shut-in time, hours
6.tn = dimensionless shut-in time based on r w ,
Eq.4
6.tn * = dimensionless break-point time based on
rw
6.tnJ1* = dimensionless break-point time based on
rfl: point at which curve first deviates
from first linear portion of semilog plot
6.tnfx = dimensionless shut-in time determined by
intersection of extension of first and
second straight-line segments on a
dimensionless semilog plot
6.tfl *= shut-in time at which curve deviates from
first straight-line segment, hours
Mfx = shut-in time determined by intersection
of extension of first and second
straight-line segments on a semilog
plot, hours
W = total volume injected, STB
Al = mobility of first zone flowing phase
(k/ "")1> md/cp
A2 = mobility of second zone flowing phase
(k/"")2' md/cp
"" = viscosity of flowing phase, cp
cf> = porosity, fraction
Acknowledgment
We thank the management of Marathon Oil Co. for
permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Jr., and Jargon, J. R.: "Prob-
lems in Interpretation of Pressure Falloff Tests in Reser-
voirs With and Without Fluid Banks," 1. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1972) 1147-1156.
2. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore
Storage Effects in Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of
Gas Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965) 223-233; Trans.,
AIME, 234.
3. Coats, K. H., Dempsey, J. R., and Henderson, J. H.:
"A New Technique for Determining Reservoir Descrip-
tion From Field Performance Data," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1.
(March 1970) 66-74; Trans., AIME, 249.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office July 27, 1973. Revised manuscript received April 4, 1974.
Paper (SPE 4528) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 48th
Annual Fall Meeting, held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30-0ct. 3,
1973. Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining, Metal-
lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257, which will
cover 1974.

70

Discussion
Eq. (10)
60
Walter L. Dowdle, SPE-AIME, Eq. (II)
INTERCOMP Resource Development and Engineering, Inc.

This paper gives excellent new techniques for ana-

lyzing pressure falloff data. The authors have clearly
illustrated how to apply their results. However, the
trial-and-error procedure outlined under "Methods
of Analysis for Estimating Saturation" can be sim-
40 ~~ o
..............
~
SOLUTION
0--
__ --0

plified somewhat. Actually, Eqs. 10 and 11 are the 30

_D~
two relationships needed for the solution, along with 0 _____ 0- ___ 0--- ~

Eq. 14. The procedure would be to solve both equa- 20~-- __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~

tions as assumed values of Sw and crossplot. This was 0.4 0.& 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
done for the authors' Example 1, and the solution,
shown as Fig. D-l, yields r(l = 30 ft and Sw = 0.85. s.
This eliminates the need for Eqs. 12, 13, and 15. Fig. D-l-Solution for Sw and r" in a two-zone
JPT waterflood. No afterflow and Sw, known.

TABLE D-I-S0LUTION OF EQS. 10 AND 11 FOR ," AT ASSUMED VALUES OF Sw

Assumed From
Number Sw Sw-Swc c X 10-" "
Eq. 10 Eq. 11
1 0.5 0.15 6.75 54.77 24.67
2 0.6 0.25 6.10 42.43 25.95
3 0.7 0.35 5.45 35.86 27.45
4 0.8 0.45 4.80 31.62 29.25
5 0.9 0.55 4.15 28.60 31.46
6 1.0 0.65 3.50 26.31 34.25

818 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY