SPE 24666

Society of PetroleumEngineers

Use of Pressure Transient Testing To Identify Reservoir

Damage Problems
M.M. Kamal, ARCO E&P Technology; J.C. Braden,ARCO Alaska Inc.; and Heungjun Park,
ARCO E&P Technology
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington, DC, October 4-7, 1992.

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 Soc~ety
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restrictedto an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The abstract should wntain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Abstract
This paper describes a model that was developed to interpret the
pressure transient data from producing wells in the Prudhoe Bay
waterflood area The model provides a quantitative description of
reservoirpermeabilityas it changeswith radius. Thematch between
field data and the model quantifies the trend of the permeability
distribution around the producing wells.
Some producing wells in the waterflood areas of the Prudhoe Bay
field showed decline in oil and total fluid production rates with the
onset of water breakthrough. Pressure buildup tests were run in an
attempt to identify the cause of the production decline. Qualitative
analysis of the signature of buildup tests was used to identify the
most likely reservoir description that would produce similarresults.
That reservoir description was for a system of gradually decreasing
permeability towwds the wellbore.
After developing the model, it was added to a non-linear regression
analysis program and the resulting package was used to determine
the reservoir parameters. The excellent match between field and
model results, obtained only from that model, helped identify the
reason for declining production rates in the waterflood area of the
field.
The solution presented in this paper can be used to analyze transient
tests from reservoirs with damage problems or permeability varia-
tions with &stance.
References and illustrations at end of paper
Introduction
Pressure transient testing is one of the most useful reservoir &scrip-
tion methods. It provides valuable infonnation about the type of
behavior of the reservoir (e.g., homogeneous, fractured, faulted,
etc.) and quantitative information about several parameters (e.g.,
permeability, fracture length, average reservoir pressure, etc.). In-
situ measurements of dynamic reservoir parameters are obtained
from various types of well tests. The in-situmeasurements allowfor
estimating parameters under reservoir conditions and from large
samples. The dynamic parameters are probably the most essential
infomation for reservoir management. The literature is N1of
examples about how properly designed and interpreted transient
tests were used to describe simpleand complex reservoirconditions.
References 1-5 present few cases that illustrate this point. In this
paper, we present an example of combining transient testing theory
and proper field measurements to help identify and quantify reser-
voir heterogeneities.
The Prudhoe Bay waterflood area is the subject of this work. The
reservoir is a braided fluvial sandstone formation with minor con-
glomerates6. It contains minor proportion of shales that vary in
dimension and extent. Thenet thicknessof the formation is up to 180
feet. The producing interval that is the subject of this investigation
is contained in the top 150 ft. of the reservoir. It was found that in
some wells oil and total fluid production rates decline substantially
with the onset of water breakthrough. Figure 1showsa typical well
production history. The well averagesabout 5000BOPDuntil water
breakthrough (aroundbeginningof 1987). Tbe oil rate then declines
rapidly. Well treatments with acid are partially successful at first.
However, subsequenttreatments usually give less favorableresults.
Fracture treatments, at least initially,result in increasingtheproduc-
tion rate to pre-water breakthrough levels. Attempts to understand
the reasons behind the decline in oil rates and correct the problem
involved studying several aspects of the reservoir behavior. These
included laboratory work to determine the mechanism(s) of the
reduction in rates, analyses of the acid and fracture treatments, and
well testing to describe the reservoir behavior at the various stages
2 USE OFPRESURE TRANSIENTTESTING TO IDENTIFY RESERVOIR DAMAGE PROBLEMS SPE 24666

of production. The findings from each of these studies affected the period as shown in figure7. Therefore, it was concluded that the test
directions and results of the other studies. data could not be explained by the breakthrough effects in this
layered reservoir.
The well testing study is the subject of this paper. The shape of the
data from several well tests were used to identify the reservoir The reservoir damage model was considered because of the poor
model. A mathematical model was then developed and used to field response to repeated acid treatment, and the success of the
estimate the reservoir parameters around the producing wells. fracturingprogram (see figure 1)suggested such a damage may be
the problem. Also, p r e l i i results from lab measurements
Identifying the Reservoir Behavior indicatedprecipitation of scaleor organicmaterials in the vicinity of
Three possible models were considered to descrii the reservoir the producers may be feasible. The shape of the pressure and
behavior, 1) partial penetration and skin; 2) multiphase flow; and, pressure derivative curves for a reservoir with low permeability
3) reservoir damage. around the wellbore and increasing permeability values away from
the well, is shown in figure 8. Figure 7 is a log-log plot for a buildup
The partial penetration and skin model was considered because test run in 1990. It is clear the pressure and pressure derivative show
some of the wells were not completely perforated. It was thought the same behavior as the damage model. Therefore, it was decided
that minor changes in the skin coupled with partial penetration to completedevelopmentof the deepdamage model and investigate
would lead to significant drop in the productivity indices of the its applicability to various test data.
wells. Calculation of the pressure behavior in this case, given the
formation properties and wells configuration, showed a shape
similar to that presented in figure 2 should be expected. This The Damage Model
behavior had been encountered in tests run before the decline in oil The reservoir considered for the damage model, shown in figure 9,
rates. Figure 3 is a log-log plot of a test run in 1982. It shows the is made of concentricrings of increasinglyhigher permeability away
same signatures as the curves of figure 2. from the well. The derivation of the solution for this system foIlow
that given by Abbaszadeh and ~amallO.The following equation
Since the decline in the oil and total production rates was observed (derived in Appendix A) gives the wellbore pressure.
around the time of water breakthrough, it is logical to investigate
whether the multi-phase flow in a layered reservoir like Prudhoe
Bay is the cause for this change. Also, the effect of the constant
pressure boundary, that may exist between the producers and
injectors,on buildlip tests needed to be addressed. A 3-D, two phase
numerical simulator7was used for this analysis. Tbe core data from
observation well 13-98 (an offset to well 13-05which exhibitedthe
worst decline in production rates) were used for the reservoir
description. The core porosity and permeability were measured on
a foot-by- foot basis. One hundred forty feet of core were analyzed.
Detailed description of the core data were presented by Stallcupand
crane8. For every foot, the value of permeability/porosity was Therelationbetween permeabilities in consecutiverings is givenby:
calculated. This value indicateshow fast fluid flows in this one-foot
layer. The fastest 70 one-foot intervals were grouped in one layex
and the slowest 70one-footintervalswere grouped in another layer.
This was done to obtain the most severe effectof the reservoir layers
on breakthrough and pressure transient tests. ?he idea was if the The model was coupled to a regression analysisprogram to analyze
most severe effect does not match the field data, then the change in the pressure transient tests.
wells productivitiescouldnotbeexplainedbymultiphase flow. The
model was then constructed as a two non-communicating layers Regression Analysis Program
(again to maximize the effect of water breakthrough in one layer
versus the other) in a quarter of a five spot An injector was placed The greatestbenefit from computer-aidedinterpretationof well tests
in one corner and a producer at the oppositeend of the diagonal. The is the regression analysis. ~ o r n ellsummarizes the advantages of
distance between the injector and producer was 1870 ft, which is regression analysis as automatic consideration of multi-rate or
similar to the field situation. Relative permeability data used were variablerate tests, consistent interpretation, confidence&timateson
ARCO's current estimate based on laboratory and field measure- answers, and ability to interpret "not interpretable" tests (e. g., short
ments9. These data were shown as figure 7 in reference 8. First the duration tests).
producer was turned on for three years, then injection started.
Buildup tests were simulated at the producer after 1.3 and 5 years ARC0 has developed its own Automatic Type Curve Matching
from the beginning of injection. Fist, it is important to note thatno
decline in the total production rate was observed at the producer at program (ATCM) for severalcommonreservoir modelsand various
the time of breakthrough. Second, the buildup data exhibited completionmethods. Up to four boundariesof mixed types (noflow
conventional behavior as shown in figure 4, 5 and 6. This is or constant pressure) are handled by assuming that each boundary is
markedly different than the behavior of field data which show a one side of a reservoir of rectangular shape. Boundaries are added
derivative curve that is concave downward for a long transition using either direct superpositionof image wells or Green's function.
SPE 24666 M.M.KAMAL, J. C.BRADEN, and H.PARK 3
Depending on the reservoir model the method with faster compu- The average permeability, however, is a function of the radius of
tation time is selected. investigation since the reservoir permeability changes with dis-
tance.
Different methods of regression have been introduced but they are
essentially variations of Newton's regression method for multi-
variables. Normally, more sophisticated methods require more
computation and return more reliable answers. ATCM uses the
Marquardt method with a penalty function. The method was well
described by Abbaszadeh and ICarnall2.

Among the reservoir models of ATCM ,the multicomposite (dam-

age) and the partially penetrating models were used to interpret data
for this study. The multicomposite (damage) model was discussed
earlier. To validate this model in ATCM, a numerical simulator7 where rh 2 rk
was used to produce data from a buildup test in a multicomposite
system. The systemmodeledconsisted of 5 rings with externalradii The above two equationscan be solved simultaneouslyfor k,, and
of 22.57,62.l, 79,1200 and4667feet. The permeability in theouter rh . Derivation of this method is shown in Appendix B.
most ring was 100 md. The permeability of each subsequent ring
was 112 of that of the next ring (i.e., the parameters of equation 2 Background of Field Status
were a=0.5, b=1.0 and d=O.O). The data from the simulator were
matched using ATCM and the input parameters were reproduced In the last few years, some wells in the Prudhoe Bay Unit waterflood
exactly. The only exception was the skin where a value of 0 was area have experienced productivity declines in exms of forty
input and thematch value was 0.91 12k0.0256. Thematch is shown percent per year. Some declines coincide with water breakthrough,
in figure 10. The discrepancy in the value of the skin is due probably othersdonot. Repeated conventionalmatrix stimulationtechniques
to an inaccurate value for the test starting time. We found that in were unsuccessful in restoring production. In 1988,a smallpropped
using regression analysis,the initial values of test time and pressure hydraulic fracture treatment was pumped in one well. The well
are critical to obtaining good results. Therefore, we recommend responded very well; the productivity increased three-fold. Subse-
engineers use a Cartesian plot of test time versus pressure to pin quent fracture treatments in 1989 and 1990 have yielded increases
down the value of (tinitial,pinitial)at the beginning of interpretation much greater than would be expected from normal fracture theory
of tests. In addition, some refinement of the time of the beginning in undamaged wells. The core permeability of the reservoir is 50 to
of the test, within the sampling frequency, may be necessary to 200 md. One would expect to see modest productivity improve
match the data using the regression analysis program. ments, possibly doubling the productivity. However, productivity
improvementsgreater than forty-fold have been seen. More impor-
Green's function was used to solve for the pressure response of the tantly, a linear trend of treatment size versus well productivity was
partial penetration model. In this case, the wellbore pressure varies established. This suggestsan intervalof damage extendsmore than
depenciirg on which p i n t we choose to represent hue wellbore five feet from the wellbore.
pressure. The specific point could be obtained from the correlation
by Gringarten illla TOhave more consistency, ATCM This hypothesis of a zone of damage some distance from the
uses the method of Cinco-Ley, Miller and ~ a r n e to~ obtain l~ wellbore explained the limited success of conventional matrix acid
average pressure by integratingpressure along the perforated inter- stimulations and the favorable responses seen from the fracturing
val and dividing by hp. The effect of wellbore storage is treated program. The pressure buildup curves did not exhibit the response
numerically by the method of Cinco-Ley and sarnaniegolS. In this expected from a homogeneous system. Many of the wells were not
study, ATCM was used to regress on radial and vertical permeabil- originally perforated completely through the producing interval.
ity, wellbore storage and skin. Thus, it would be expected that pressure buildup tests would be
influenced by partial penetration effects. Indeed, pressure buildup
Radius of investigation tests, performed early in a well's Life, often exhibit partial penetra-
tion effects. However, pressurebuildup tests later in a well's life did
A method was developed to calculate the radius of investigation not exhibit the same character as the partially penetrated model
from a transient test in a multicomposite reservoir. The average would suggest. Something during the life of the well had changed
permeability of the reservoir, in the area that influences the test data, the producing characteristics. Thelackof successwith conventional
is used to calculate the radius of investigation. matrix stimulation and the success of the fracture treatments led to
the hypothesis that a zone of damage existed in the reservoir that
extendedsomedistance(more than five feet) from the wellbore. The
damage extended too far to be treated with conventional matrix
treatments, but could be bypassed by propped hydraulic fractures.

27
4 USE OF PRESURETRANSIENTTESTING TO IDENTIFYRESERVOIR DAMAGE PROBLEMS SPE24666
Modeling of the pressure buildup tests suggested that, around the is 307 ft. Based on the post fracture transient data, the fomation
well, a zone of low permeability existed and changed into a region permeability beyond this distance continues to increase until it
of higher permeability farther out in the reservoir. The damage reaches the original permeability of 112md.
model was constructed to analyze the more recent pressure buildup
tests. This would prove or disprove the hypothesis that a zone of The post-fracturetreatment buildup test was analyzed using a finite
reduced permeability, which extended some distance radially from conductivityfracturemodel. The fracturehalf-length obtainedhm
the wellbore, existed. As shown below, the matches obtained the analysis was shoR Numerical simulation of this pressure
support the damaged zone hypothesis. Data from two wells are buildup test showed that the fracture half-length is longer than the
presented in the following sections. finite conductivity analysiswould suggest. It became apparentthat
the fracture would have to be incorporated into the multicomposite
Well 13-05 model as had been done by Chu and shank16 for a two region
composite system, or that each pressure buildup test would have to
Well 13-05 was drilled and completed in 1981. Perforations were
be numerically.simulated and history-matched.
'shot in 1982 over 56 of the 142 foot interval. The initial pressure
buildup test performed in 1982 exhibited the effects of partial
The post-fracturebuildup was history matched using a finite differ-
penetration (figure 3). The pressure buildup analysis revealed the ence simulator7. The reservoir description obtained from the pre-
reservoir permeability to be 112md, kJkh ratio of O.OO93 and a skin
factor of 5.7. The low kJkh ratio is probably due to thin laminar fracturetest was used with a singlefinite conductivityfracture. The
shales in the producing interval. The match between field data and reservoir permeability beyond the 307 ft radius of investigation of
the partial penetration model is shown in figure 11. The pertinent the pre-fracture test was left at the originalreservoir permeability of
parameters for Well 13-05 and the results of its transient tests are 112md. The fracture length and permeability were changed until a
shown in good match was obtained. The fracture width was fued. The
fracture length used was 436 ft with a width of 0.365 in. and a
Table 1.
permeabiility of 250,000 md. The final match is shown as figure 13.
The fracture was designed for a length of 580 ft. and a width of
The well produced 2000 to 3000 BOPD per day until 1986. Perfo- 0.365 inches.
rations were then added to completely open the producing interval.
This increased production to around 5000 BOPD. In 1988, water
breakthrough occurred. The total fluid rate began to drop. A matrix Well 17-02
acid stimulation in 1988 restored production. A scale inhibition Well 17-02was drilled and completed in 1980. Initial perforations
treatment followed. The well's total fluid rate continued to decline. were shot in 1981. The perforations covered only 46 of the 111feet
The well responded to a xylene matrix treatment, but the productiv- of the producing interval. L i e well 13-05, the original pressure
ity continued to decline at the previous rate. Other stimulation buildup test from well 17-02 exhibited the effects of production
treatments were unsuccessful. By mid-1990 the total fluid ratewas from a partially penetrated interval. Results indicate an original
250 barrels per day. A production profile log was unable to permeability of 80 md, minor skin damage of 0.67 and a kJkh ratio
quantitatively define production splits, but it appeared that fluids of 0.046. The original pressure buildup test is shown in figure 14.
were produced from most of the perforated interval. A propped The pertinent parameters for Well 17-02 and the results of its
hydraulic fracture treatment was pumped and the total fluid rate transient tests are shown in Table 2.
increased to around ten thousand barrels of fluid per day; thepre-and
post-treatment watercut remained relatively constant between 85 The well produced between 2000 and 3000 BOPD. Perforations
and 90 percent. were added in 1984 and production increased to between four and
five thousand BOPD. In mid-1986, the productivity began to
Pre- and post-hydraulic fracture treatment pressure buildup tests decline, coinciding with water breakthrough. The well responded
were performed on the well in an attempt to define the extent of the initially to a matrix acid stimulation. A scale inhibition treament
damage and the fracture parameters. Analysis of the pre-fracture then followed. The well's productivity continued to decline.
pressure buildup test was performed using the multi composite Repeat matrix acid stimulations were not successful. A fracture
pressure transient model. A good match was obtained using four treatment was performed in late 1989. The productivity increased
successive rings of radially increasing permeability away from the 3.5 times. Re- and post-fracture pressure buildup tests were
wellbore. The outer-mostring was placed at seventy-five feet. The performed.
match is shown in figure 12. The outer-mostpermeabiility obtained
from the match was 10.2 md. The inner permeabiility (next to the Thepre-fracturebuilduptest was analyzedusing the multicomposite
wellbore) was estimated to be 0.52 md The buildup analysis from model. A good match was obtained in the samemanner used for well
this well exhibits the worst case of damage seen so far. The other 13-05. Three concentric rings were used. The outer-most penne
wells that experienced decline in productivity, showed a much ability was 49.7 md; the inner ring permeability was 2.13 md A
smaller decrease in permeability around the wellbore. This well also negative skin of -2.5 reflects the stimulation treatments performed
had the best response, in terms of improved productivity, to the prior to the pressure test. The radius of investigation for this test is
hydraulic fracture treatment. The radius of investigation for this test 73 ft. The formationpermeability beyond this distance continuesto
 SPE 24666 M.M.KAMAL, J. C.BRADEN. and H.PARK 5
increase until it reaches the original permeability of 80 md. The more likely the experimental results only will reveal which
pressure buildup test and match is given in figure 15. parameter(s) to adjust rather than which model to use. The general
nature of the equation also makes the model useful for other
The post-fracture treatment buildup test was alsoanalyzed using the Iwelvoirs.
multi composite model, shown in figure 16. Analysis yielded
s i m i iresults to the pre-fracturepressurebuildup test: 46md in the After the completion of this work, Al-Khatib and Itameyl7pre-
outermost ring, 5 md in the inner most ring, and a skin of -3.2. sented analyses of falloff tests in steam injection wells. The falloff
Analysis using an infinite conductivity fracture model in a homog- tests exhibited similar behavior to the July 1990 test of well 13-05
enous reservoir yielded a 40 foot half-length. and the October 1989test of well 17-02. As in this study, Al-Khatib
and ~ a m eobtained
~ l ~ good analyses by using a compositemodel
Numerical simulation of the buildup test to account for a fracture in with the permeability increasing away from the wellbore. The
a compositereservoir yielded a fracture length of 43 ft with a fracture model they used, however, contained only two regions around the
width of 0.365 inchesand fracturepermeability of 250,OOO md. The well.
simulation was conducted in the same manner as for the 13-05post
frac test The reservoirdescriptionfrom the multi-compositemodel
match of the October 1989 test was used and a finite conductivity Conclusions
fracturewas added at the well. The fracturelength and permeability A damage model has been developed and used to analyze
were changed until a good match was obtained. The fracture width field data.
was fured. The result of the match is shown in figure 17. It is
important to note that the formation thickness is assumed constant. It is recommended that a regression analysis program be
Transient tests yield the value of the flow capacity (kh), not the used with the damagemodel presented here to interpret field
permeability. Therefore, the indicated changes in the permeability data.
may be due to changes in the formation thickness especially after
fracturing the wells. The initial time and pressure of a given test are critical for
obtaining acorrectanswer. It is recommended that acartesian
Discussion
plot be used at the beginning of the analysis topin down these
values. Additional refinement, within the sampling fre
Attempting to describe a reservoir usually requiresadding informa- quency, may be needed in the regression analysis program.
tion from various sources. The loss of productivity, encountered in
some of the hdhoe Bay Unit wells, is being addressedby studying A method has been developed to calculate the radius of
data from production history, stimulation treatments, transient tests investigation of transienttests in multicompositereservoirs.
andexperimentalstudies. To identifythe problem, thechange in the
production rates, the response of the wells to various matrix acid The data from pressure buildup tests in some Prudhoe Bay
stimulations and fracturingand the shape of buildup data were used. wells suggest that it can be modeled as a reservoir with a
Among the various possibilities that could have resulted in reduced relatively low permeability around the wellbore that gradu-
production rates, reservoir damage was the one consistent with ally increases away from the well.
observed field data. The reason behind the reduction in rate is being
investigated using various experimental studies. Interpretation results of the field transient tests should be
used to help direct other reservoir description studies and
It was decided to use a general equation to relate the permeabilities vice versa.
in successive areas around the well. Equation 2 reflects this
decision. Other alternatives could have been used had we known
more about the mechaniism(s) causing the reduction in rate. For Nomenclature
example, permeability could have been treated as a function of a,b&d = coefficientsin the permeabiity equation,
radius or pressure. The selected general equation increased our dimensionless
abilities to match the field data. The drawback of this approach is
formation volume factor,RBISTB [res m3/
that four parameters (a, b, d and the distribution of rings) may be
adjusted to obtain the match. This increases the non-uniqueness stock-tank m3]
problem. As it turned out, we only had to match using two compressibility, psi [kpa-l]
parameters (a and the distribution of rings). This result gives wellbore storage constant, bbVpsi [m3/k Pa]
information that may be belpful for conducting the experimental
studies. The results of the experimental work, currently underway, dimensionless wellbore storage constant,
should help identify the critical parameters to be used in matching 0.8937C/@c,hrw2
the transient test dataor may even suggestchanging the model being formation thickness, ft [m]
used. However, because of the general nature of equation 2, it is
modified Bessell functions
6 USE OF PRESURE TRANSIENT TESTING TO IDENTIFY RESERVOIR DAMAGE PROBLEMS SPE 24666

k absolute reservoir permeability, md 2. K w a n , W. J., and Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: "Field Applica-

tion of Vertical Well Testing Methods with a Case History,"
9 Kl modified Bessell functions JPT(June 1981) 1113-24; Trans., AIME, 271.
n total number of regions in a multicomposite
reservoir 3. McDonald, S. W.: "Evolution of Production Tests in Oil
Wells Stimulated by Massive Acid Fracturing Offshore
P pressure, psi p a ]
Qatar," JPT(March 1983)496-506; Trans., A M , 275.
PD dimensionless pressure,
kh d p / 141.2 q- Bp~
4. Ostensen. R W.: "Tbe Effect of Stress-Dependent Peme-
Pw wellbore pressure, psi p a ] ability on Gas Production and Well ~estin&"SPEFE (June
flow rate, STBID [Stock-Tank m3/D] 1986) 227-35; Trans., AIME. 281.
4
r radial distance, ft [m] 5. Peng, C. P., Singh, P. K., Halvorsen, H., and York, S. D.:
ro dimensionless radial distance, r / r, "Fractured Reservoir Characterization through Injection
rw wellbore radius, ft [m] Falloff and Howback Tests," SPE 20567 presented at the
mechanical skin 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
S
New Orleans, LA, September 23-26.
fi.g
injection time, days
to dimensionless time, 6. Atkinson, C. D., McGowen, J. H., Bloch, S. Lundell, L. L.,
O.OOO264 kt / @p c, r: and Trumbly, P. N.: "Braidplain and Deltaie Reservoir,
z Laplace transform variable Prudhoe Bay Field, Alask,"
Ynirs;editedbyBarmis, J. H.,McPherson, J. G. and Studlick,
P viscosity, cp [pas] J. R. J.; Springer-Verlog,New York, 1990; 7-29.
9 porosity. fraction
7. Dean, R. H. and Lo, L. L.: "Simulations of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs," SPERE (May 1988) 638-48.
Subscripts:
8. Stalkup, F. I., and Crane, S. D.: "Reservoir Description
1, 2, ...i number of permeability region Detail Required to Predict Solvent and Water Saturation at
h in the horizontal direction an Observation Well," paper SPE 22897 presented at the
initial at the beginning of the test 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
0 oil Dallas, TX,(October 6-9).

P partial penetration 9. Jerauld, G. R., and Giordano, R. M.: "Private Communica-

v in the vertical direction tions," (January 1992).
W water
10. Abbaszadeh, M., and Kamal, M. M.: "Pressure-Transient
Testing of Water-InjectionWells," SPERE(February 1989)
Acknowledgments 115-24.
The authors thank the managements of ARCO Alaska, Inc. and
ARCO Exploration and Production Technology for permission to 11. Home, R. N.: &&m Well Test,
Petroway, Inc.,
publish this work. Thanks also to our PrudhoeBay Unit partners for Palo Alto, CA (1990)
their permission. The opinions and conclusions stated here are
ARCO's only and do not necessarily reflect those of the other 12. Abbaszadeh, M. and K i n d , M. M.: "Automatic Type
Prudhoe Bay Unit owners. We appreciate the help of Dave Blumer, C w e Matching for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (Septem-
Ismail Buhidma, and John Marcou during the course of this study. ber 1988) 567-77.
Thanks also to Anita Davis and Jan Bethke for preparing the
manuscript. 13. Gringarten, A. C. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate
M i t e Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating
References Line-Source Well," SPEJ (April 1975) 140-48; T r m . .
AIME,259.
1. Kamal, M. M.: "The Use of Pressure Transients to Describe
Reservoir Heterogeneity." JPT (August 1979) 1060-70;
Trans., AIME, 267.
SPE 24666 M.M.KAMAL, J. C. BRADEN.and H. PARK 7

Cinco-Ley, H., Miller, F. G., and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: 'Vn- Inner boundary conditions;
s:ead y-5utc Pressure DistributionCreated by aDirectionally
Mbll," JPT (November 1975) 1392-400., TT(w.. cD(dPDY I atD)- dpDlI arD= 1 ,rD= 1 (A-7)
AIME, 283.
The solution of the above model was given by Abbaszadeh and
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Effect of Wellbore
Kamal as follows:
Storage aqd Damage on the Transient Pressure Behavior of
Vertically Fractured Wells," paper SPE 6752 presented at
the 1977 SPE Annual TechnicaI Conferenceand Exhibition,
Denver, CO, Oct. 9-12. FDi =

Chu, W. C. and Shank,G. D.: "ANew Model for aFractured 2, horn, q and B ~are , obtained by usingthe 2n-2 smear
in a Reservoir*"paper SPE 20579 equations,thatresult from the continuityof the pressure and velocity
presented at the 1990 Annual Technical Conference and at and the inner and outer boundary conditions.
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 23-26.

Al-Khatib, A. M. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Steam Injection KO - ei

(zi.i)
Falloff Analysis for Monarch Zone, MOCO Steamdrive, =4 , i from 1to n-1 (A-9)
Yi+l
California,"paper SPE 24057 presented at the 1992Western Bi = - Aiei , i from 1to n (A-10)
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield. CA, (March 30-April 1).

Appendix A (A-11)

The Multi-Composite Equations

A schematicof the reservoir system showing the concentricrings of Yi+l KO(zi.i+l)- ei+l'o (zi.i+l) (A-12)
different pernleabilities is presented in Fig. 7. The wellbore is
presented by the center ring, the frst ring with permeability k,, . . )-
extends from r, to r, . The second ring with permeability & covers
yill = K 0 ( Z r.r+l I (
i+l 1 zi.i+l ) (A-13)
the area from r2 to r, and so on. The reservoir is assumed to have
uniform porosity and thickness. A single phase slightly compress- (A- 14)
ible fluid occupies the pore space. The mathematical model for the
'i.i =r D i p

above described system is as follows:

r ~ i - l D D

PD-
-
~ P~(iilj , rD= rq (A-2) or a constant pressure outer boundary;

, tD=o (A4) For a no-flow outer boundary;

For a constant p s s u r e outer boundary;

P, =o , rD = r's, (A-5)
0, = - Kl r,
[ [ F]]JE[~+)]
- (A-18)

For a no-flow outer boundary;

8 USE OF PRESURE TRANSIENTTESTING TO IDENTIFYRESERVOIR DAMAGE PROBLEMS SPE 24666
The wellbore pressure is given by; Solving for k,, gives;

KO( J ; )- el10 (J;)+

FLW =A[z &K~J;+ZC,[K,(J;)+SJ;K,(J;)I

Therelationbetween the permeabilities in consecutiverings is given

by;

From the analysis of the transient test, the values of k, to k, and r,

to r, are obtained. The only unknowns in the above equation will
The above equation was selected to describe the change in perme- be k and rhv. These two variables are related through the
m!
ability from the undamaged reservoir towards the well. The form of followmg equation;
the equation was selected to account for a wide range of possible
mechanisms that might be causing the reduction in permeability.
Sincethe results of experimental studies conductedto determine the
cause of the damage were not available when the model was being
developed, a general formula was needed.
Equations 0 - 3 ) and (B-4) can be solved simultaneously (for ex-
Appendix B ample, using a graphical procedure) for k, and rb .

Calculating the Radius of Investigation in a Multicomposite

Reservoir

Assume that the radius of investigation, rhv,lies between r, and

rk+1.The pressure drop from rhvto r, can be written as;
 T8bk 1 T8bk 2
Portlnent I n f o r m a t h for Wall 13-05 Pertinent Informdon for Wall 1742
-- -

Thidvless Thicknoes
Porosity Porosity
Wallbore radius Wellbore radius
nscosity Viscosity
Forma'im vdume factor Formation volume factor

Octobw 1982 Test October 1901 T u t

Length of padorated interval 59 n Length of perforatedinterval 46 n

Distancefrom lop d fomation to m l e r 79 1 Distance from top of formation to center 23 fi.

of perforated interval of petioratedinterval

Horizontalpermeability Horizontalpermeability
k" 1 k*
Skin
k" 1 k*
Skin _
July 1000 Test

Number of rings 4 Number of rings

Externel radii of rings 20.55 and 75n External radii of rings
a 0.37 a
b 1.o b
d 0.0 d
Outermost permeability 10.2 md Outer-most permeability

January 1991 Test May 1000 Test

Fradure length Fracture length

Fracture width Fracture width
Fracture peameability Fracture peameability

Date

Flgum 1. Typical Well ProductionHistory

33
 lE4i-Y
DERIVATIVE +

Flgure 2. Expecled Shape Due lo Parlial Penelralion Ellecl.

I

I
.2
1E-1TIME. HOURS 1 EO

Flgure 3. Pressure and Pressure Derival've for Oclober 1982 Test 01 Wet 13-05.

D~mens~onless
T ~ m eGroup
TIME. HOURS

R g r e 4. Slrnulaled Buildup 10a Prudhoe Bay-Type Well altw On, Vear ol Walw m w l m R w e 5. Smulaled Bulldvp 10a Prudhoe Bay Type Well aka Three Yean ol Water mwtmn
 DERIVATIVE +

Tnne Hours TIME. HOURS

Figure 6. Simulated Buildup m a Prudhoe B a y - T p Well a(ter F N Yean

~ of Waler ln~ectnm F I w e 7. Pressure and Pressure Derwalive lor the July 1990 Tesl of Wen 13-05.

1 -
K INCREASE Y
log t I

Flgune. Expecled Shape Due lo Deep Damage Effects.

mure 0. Schematic of Ihe Deep Damage Reservoir Model

 I PRESSURE

SUPERPOSlTlON TIME (TD 1 CD)

Tlaua lo. Match B e m e n the Numerical Shnulalor Data and ATCM Results

x x A A FIELD PRESS
X FIELD DERlV
A
'
-SIM PRESS
7
SIM DERlV

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Delta tlme (hours) TIME. HOURS

Agun 12. Deep Damage Model Match kr lhe .Wy 1990T M d We1 13-05 R a w l a . Match 01 the January 1991 Test of We# 13-05 Uslw Numerical Sirnulalion.
 Delta Tlme (hours)
Wta Tlme (hours)

nwn 15. Deep Damage Model Match lor- October 1989 Test d W e l t 7 0 2
ngwa 14. Panial W r a m Model Makh br lhe Oclober I981 Test 01 Welt7-02

-r PRESSURE

'4-
SIM DERlV

DERIVATIVE A FIELD PRESS

+ FIELD DERlV

Wta Tlme (hours) TIME. HOURS

Wn 17. Malch ol !he May 1990 Test of Well 17.02 Using Numerical Simulation