SPE 70035
Pressure Fall-Off Analysis in Water Injection Wells Using the Tiab's Direct Synthesis
Technique
Sarfraz A. Jokhio/MUET Jamshoro-Pakistan, Djebbar Tiab/U. of Oklahoma, Abdessalam Hadjaz/Sonatrach Inc., and
Freddy H. Escobar/U. Surcolombiana
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the the SPE Permian Basin oil and Gas recovery
conference held in Midland, TX, May. 15-16, 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Numerous waterflooding projects are under way throughout
the world for increased recovery. Water injection tests of oil
zones are frequently undertaken during the planning phase of
waterfloods. Analysis of the bottomhole pressure data
recorded during these tests not only provides similar
information to that obtained from production tests concerning
the well and the reservoir characteristics but also allows the
mobility ratio between the injected and resident fluids to be
determined.
Conventionally, pressure fall-off test data is analyzed using
semilog plot of bottomhole pressure versus time. This paper
is the extension of the Tiabs Direct Synthesis Technique10-15
to pressure injection and Fall-off tests in water injection
wells.
Direct synthesis is a transient pressure analysis technique10-
15
, which uses log-log plot of pressure and pressure derivative
vs. time. Thus, different straight line portions indicating
different flow regions are directly analyzed. Direct synthesis is
very useful in conditions of short and early time pressure data
missing tests. It also verifies the results since it uses more than
one equation for the estimation of reservoir parameters such as
permeability, wellbore storage coefficient, and skin factor.
Finally, field examples of pressure falloff analysis are
presented to illustrate use the direct synthesis and results are
compared with those from type curves and conventional
semilog analysis.
Introduction
Traditionally water flood schemes have been implemented
later in the life of the field following primary depletion. Now,
such schemes are often considered during the initial
development of a field. The economic viability of many fields
depends upon successful implementation of water injection at
early stage. Injection tests are, therefore, performed on
appraisal wells drilled prior to the decision to develop the
field. These tests are designed to assess both the efficiency of
the filtration equipment and the injection characteristics of the
formation. Operational and the cost considerations dictate that
the maximum possible information be derived from these
tests, which may be few hours of duration.
Analysis of the pressure Falloff and injectivity tests has
been discussed at considerable length in the literature. The
pressure buildup during injection period, however, has
received relatively little attention. The main reason is that
falloff tests match to the pressure buildup test in production
wells, which is easy to analyze. Furthermore, the injectivity
test is mathematically difficult to handle due to moving
boundary, the flood front.
Published methods for analysis of injection pressures
typically assume unit-mobility ratio or steady-state conditions,
which are rarely acceptable approximations for short duration
water injection test of an oil zone. In 1958, Hazebroek and
Matthews1 first published their work on pressure falloff test
analysis. In 1974, Merill et al.2 discuss the falloff part
analysis of the injectivity tests. A semi-analytical solution for
the pressure response during injection tests of geothermal
reservoirs was presented by Tsang and Tsang3 in 1978. The
solution accounts for the temperature and the viscosity
differences between the injected and formation waters and is
thus applicable to non-unit mobility ratio tests. The model
however is very complex. Sosa and Raghavan6 discuss the
effects of the relative permeability on pressure falloff behavior
in injectivity tests. Woodward and Thambynayagam4, 1983,
provide analytical solution for non-unit mobility ratio
conditions which does not include wellbore storage and skin
effects. Their solution provides semilog analysis for the
pressure injection and falloff tests. Later, Abbaszedah and
Kamal5, 1989, published same analytical solution. Xiang-yan
and De-tang8, 1992, developed type curves for pressure falloff
2 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, A. HADJAZ AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 70035

which includes wellbore storage effects and the skin factor. 162.6qBw o rwb
2
kot
They solved the two-bank system model numerically. Use of Pi Pwf = log 2 + M log 3.23M
ko h
rw o c 2 ro 2
pressure derivative in pressure test analysis was discussed by
many researchers and type curves using pressure and pressure (4)
derivative curves were developed by Bourdet9, 1989. Tiab10-12
developed the Direct Synthesis technique to analyze pressure, which further simplifies for the conditions; when t << (ro2/a)
pressure derivative curves for the pressure tests which do not and rwb ro
require type curves. So far, this modern technique has been 162.6qBw o ro
2
kot
applied to a variety of well conditions such as horizontal Pi Pwf = log 2 + M log 3.23M
ko h
rw o c 2 ro 2
wells14, naturally fractured vertical13 and horizontal wells15,
and hydraulically fractured vertical wells11-12. Jokhio7, 1997, (5)
converted Tiab's equations for vertical gas wells. This paper
focus on the application of direct synthesis to injectivity and iii) At late times, when rtw and rto >> rwb and t >> (ro2/a), and
pressure falloff tests. rwb at, Eq. 5 becomes:
162.6qBw w at ko
1. Mathematical Background Pi Pwf = log 2 + M log 3.23M
k wh
w
r
2
o c 2 ro
The physical model considered in this study is shown in Fig.
1. The general solution to the diffusivity equation in oilfield (6)
units given for injection and falloff, respectively, are4: 1.2. Pressure Falloff
Assuming that the injection time has been long enough and the
rwb 2 later section of the buildup has been reached (t>> ro2/a), then
rw 2

Ei Eq. 2 for the pressure falloff may be simplified to:
4 r E i 4r i) At early times, when rto and rtw << rwb but > rw:
70.6qB w tw tw
Pi Pwf = rwb 2 rwb 2 t + t k o t
3.23
kwh M log + log (7)

4 rtw 4 rto r
2
162.6qB w w t c at

Ei w
o 2
M e Pi Pws =
kwh

4rto k w t
log + 3.23
c at
(1) o 1

Since t << t this may be further simplified as;

r
2
rw
2

E i wb E i t + t ko
4r(t + t )w 4r + M log (8)
log
(t + t )w
162.6qBw w t o c2 a
rwb 2 r 2 Pi Pws =

4r
wb
r
2
kwh kw

M e (t + t )w (t + t )o E i w 3.23M log c a + 3.23
4r

4r o 1
70.6qB w (t + t )o

Pi Pws =
kwh rwb 2 ii) At later times, when rtw and rto >> rwb:
E i

162.6qB w o
4rtw t + t (9)
Pi Pws = log
rwb 2 rwb 2 ko h t
rw 2
4 rtw 4 rto r
2

E i M e E i w

2. Tiabs Direct Synthesis Technique
4rtw 4rto
From Fig. 2, it is clear that the wellbore storage and skin
(2)
effects are present in pressure falloff and injection tests. This
1.1 Pressure Injection
early time line has a unit slope. This is also due to the fact that
When x >> 1, Ei(-x) = 0 and when x << 1, Ei(-x) ln(x). The
pressure injection behaves like pressure drawdown and falloff
general expression for the pressure buildup, Eq. 1 is
like pressure buildup. This unit slope is a unique feature of the
approximated and simplified considering various time
early time wellbore and skin effects on pressure drawdown
intervals as:
and buildup tests. The equation for this line in dimensionless
terms is:
i) For early times, when rtw and rto << rwb but >> rw; t
P = D (10)
162.6qBw w k wt
3.23 (3)
D
CD
Pi Pwf = log
w c1 rw
2
kwh
The derivative of Eq. 16.37 with respect to log (tD/CD) is:
ii) At later times when rtw and rto > rwb tD t (11)
PD ' = D
C
D C D
SPE 70035 PRESSURE FALL-OFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS TECHNIQUE 3

For invaded zone; composite reservoir model including wellbore storage and skin
t D 2.95 x10 4 k w h t (12) factor indicates that the shape of the wellbore storage and skin
= region on the pressure derivative curve is preserved. It is not
C D w C
affected by the different mobility ratios and the moving front,
shown in Fig. 3.
tD K wh (13) Assuming that this portion of the derivative curve is
PD ' = (t * P ' )
CD 141 .2 qB
w w dominated by the flooding water properties, for different
values of the CDe2S and the resulting peaks of the wellbore
26.826 chrw 2 (14) storage and skin region, following equation is given by Tiab10
PD ' = P '
for single phase production wells:
qBw

tD t (21)
P ' = 0.36 D 0.42
D
CD CD
2.1. Pressure Injection
Combining Eqs. 10, 12 and CD:
combining Eqs. 12, 13, and 21 and solving for C from the
qB t (15)
C = w resulting equation yields,
24 P
qBwt x (22)
C=
3953.6q w Bw
where t and P are obtained from the log-log plot of the time 66.66(t * P ')x +
versus pressure change. From the pressure derivative curve, kwh
the following characteristics are observed:
4) The starting time of the 1st infinite acting line of the
2.1.1. Early time infinite acting straight line pressure derivative curve is approximated by following
1) 1st radial flow period. Eq. 3 is same as the logarithmic equation [10].
approximation of pressure drawdown. The derivative of this
wC 0.8935C (23)
equation is: t SR = 5 ln 2
+ 2s
6.9 x10 k w h c1 hrw

(t * P')r ,1 = 70.6qBw w (16)

The semilog straight line corresponding the infinite acting
kwh
radial flow regime is best determined from10:
from which permeability of the invaded zone can be computed
tD 1 tD (24)
as; = 2s
ln(C D e ) + ln
70.6qBw w C D SR ,1 0.05 C D SR
k = (17)
w
(t * P')r ,1 h
From the above equation, wellbore storage coefficient can be
st estimated as:
2) At the intersection of the 1 radial and the early time unit-
slope line of pressure and pressure derivative, the coordinates (
2
C = 0.056 c1 hrw )
t DSR
(25)
of this point are (t*P)i and ti. Equating Eqs. 15 and 16 ln t DSR + 2 s
results:
70.6qBw w (18) where tDRS is the tD with tD = tDSR.
k =
w
(t * P')i ,1 h
5) The equations representing the coordinates of the peaks on
Substituting Eqs. 12 and 13 into Eq. 11 and solving for the pressure derivative curve for skin and wellbore storage
effects obtained from the numerical solution are [10]:
(t*P) yields: 1.24
0.0146qBwt t (26)
(t * P')i,1 = (19) log(C D e 2 s ) = 0.35 D
C CD x
and,
At the intersection point, equating Eq. 17 and 19, results a t
1.1
(27)
equation from which permeability is estimated as: log(C D e ) = 1.71 D PD '
2s

C
D x
1695 w C (20)
k =
w
t i ,1 h
Substituting CD and tD in Eqs. 26 and 27, respectively, one
gets:
Eq. 20 can also be used for the estimation of the wellbore 1.24
storage coefficient from the intersection point. t 0.8935C
s = 0.17 x 0.5 ln (28)
t c1 hr 2
i ,1 w
3) On the 1st radial line (t*P)r,1 = (t*P)i,1 = (P)i,1 and the
group given by Eq. 13, the numerical solution of the
4 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, A. HADJAZ AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 70035

(t * P')x
1.1
dP dP 70.6qBw w (36)
s = 0.921 0.5 ln 0.8935C2 (29)
dt
* th =
d (ln t h )
=
kwh
(t * P ') c1 hrw
r ,1
The ratio of the equation representing peak points, Eq. 22, Eq. 36 is same as that of early time injection. Then, a
to the 1st radial flow, Eq. 17, and solving for permeability, summary of equations for 1st radial flow region during
results: pressure falloff is given in Table 1. It is notable here that the
(t * P ')x wC (30) early time for the pressure falloff region also resulted same set
k w = 4706.66 + 0.84
(t * P ') h t of equations as for the early time, 1st radial on derivative, for
r ,1 x
injection. If Horner plot is used for analysis, the th must be
Eq. 30 can also be used to estimate wellbore storage converted to shut-in time. Shut-in time is calculated by
coefficient if kw is known. Since third straight line on semi-log dividing total injection time with the Horner time:
plot has the same slope as the 1st straight line, it resulted in t = tinj/(th-1) (37)
same set of equations except the starting time of the semilog
straight line. ii) At later times, when rtw and rto >> rwb. The time
derivative and rearrangement of Eq. 9 yields
2.1.2. Later time infinite acting straight line, 2nd radial 70.6qBw o (38)
k =
flow
o
(t * P')r ,2 fo h
Permeability of the uninvaded region, the oil zone, is
estimated taking derivative with respect to time to Eq. 4 and From the intersection of early time unit slope and the 2nd
solving for ko. radial flow line during falloff results:
70.6 MqB w o (31) 1695 o C (39)
k = k =
o
(t * P )r ,2 h o
t i , 2 fo h

At the intersection of this 2nd radial line with the unit slope Dividing Eq. 22 by Eq. 38 and substituting Eq. 38 in it, one
line (t*P)r,2 = (t*P)i,2 = (P)i,2. Thus equating Eq. 22 and gets:
the derivative taken to Eq. 4, results after rearranging: (40)
0.84
k o 1695 o C (32) M =
M
=
t i,2 h
ko h
2.124 x10 t x
4 (
t * P / x
)
o C ( )
t * P / r , 2 fo

Dividing Eq. 22 by the derivative taken to Eq. 4 and then
substituting Eq. 32 in resulting equation, yields, Mobility ratio can also be obtained by dividing Eq. 22 with
(33) Eq. 38 and then combining value of koh/o from Eq. 39 with it.
0.916 0.84 (41)
M = M =
(t * P / )x
1/ 2
t t (t * P')x
0.36 X 0.36 x
(t * P )r , 2

t i (t * P')r , 2 fo
ti
/

It is notable here that kw is estimated from any equation Since the peaks are in the transition zone it is, therefore,
from the 1st radial flow region. reasonable to have the estimates of the mobility ratio rather
Substituting CD and 12 in Eq. 26 and then dividing the than the effective permeability. Once M is obtained from
resulting equation by Eq. 32 (properly solved for ti,2), results: above equations, skin factor is then estimated by substituting
0.24
k h t 1.24 0.8935C Eqs. 12 in Eq. 26 and dividing the resulting equation with Eq.
s = 0.0286 w x M 2 0.5 ln (34)
c1hrw 2 39, one gets:
wC t i , 2,r 0.24
t 1.24 k h 0.8935C
s = 0.0286 x w M 0.5 ln (42)
Substituting CD and 13 in Eq. 27 and then dividing the ti , 2 , fo C w c hr
2
1 w
resulting equation by the derivative taken to Eq. 4 , yields;
0.1
k h (t * P' x )1.1 2 0.8935C
(35) Similarly, substituting Eq. 13 dividing Eq. 27 and then
s = 0.6 w M 0.5 ln
qBw w (t * P' x )r , 2 c hr 2 dividing the resulting equation with 38, yields
1 w
(t * P )x1.1
0.1
kwh 0.8935C (43)
s = 1.2 M 0.5 ln
(t * P )r , 2, fo c1 hrw 2
2.2. Pressure Falloff qBw w
i) At early times, when rto and rtw << rwb but > rw and t << t,
Eq. 16.18. The derivative of Eq. 8 is:
SPE 70035 PRESSURE FALL-OFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS TECHNIQUE 5

3. Field Examples 0.84

M=
Well, reservoir and fluid data for all the examples are reported k h (t * P')x
in table 2. Comparison of results with those from other 2.124x104 o t x
o (t * P')r , 2 fo
C
techniques are given in table 6, 7 and 8 for each example,
respectively. 0.84
M= = 1.41
118 .7 168 166
2.124x104 (0.0086117)
Example 1. Table 3 presents the recorded data from a falloff 1 0.009 48
test5. Fig. 3 was built using data from that table. The following M=
0.84
information is read from Fig. 3. (t*P)r,1fo = 30 psi, (t*P)x t (t * P')x
=166 psi, ti,1fo = 0.000488, hrs, tx = 0.00861 hrs. Permeability 0.36 x
ti (t * P')r , 2 fo

is calculated using Eqs. 17, 19 and 30:
0.84
70.6qBw w (70.6 )(13560)(1)(0.4) M= = 1.43
kw = = 76 md
(t * P')r ,1 h (30)(168) 0.0086117 (166 )
0.36
1695 wC 1695(0.4)(0.009) 0.000766 (48)
kw = = 74.5 md
ti ,1h (0.000488)(168) Skin factor can be obtained using Eqs. 42 and 43:
(t * P')X C 0.24
k w = 4706.66 + 0.84 w t 1.24 k wh 0.8935C
(t * P')

h t
x s = 0.0286 x M 0.5 ln
r ,1 ti , 2, fo c1 hrw 2
C w
(166) (0.4)(0.009)
k w = 4706.66 + 0.84 = 74.6 m 0.00861171.24 (74.6)(168)
0.24

(30 ) (168) (0.00861) s = 0.0286 (1.4)

0.000766 (0.009)(0.4)
Wellbore storage coefficient using Eq. 22, 0.8935(0.009)
qBwt x 0.5 ln 2
=3
C= (0.2)(1.04E - 05)(168)(0.3 )
3953.6q w Bw
66.66(t * P ')x +
kwh 0.1
(t * P ')x1.1 kwh 0.8935C
C=
(13560)(1)(0.008611765) = 0.009 bbl / psi s = 1.2 M 0.5 ln
(t * P ') c1 hrw 2
3953.6(13560)(0.4)(1) qBw w
66.66(166) +
r , 2 , fo

(76)(168) 1661.1 (74.6 )(168)

0.1

s = 0.0286 (1.4)
48 (13560 )(1)(0.4 )
Estimate skin factor using Eqs. 28 and 29;
t
1 .24
0 .8935 C 0.8935(0.009 )
s = 0 .17 x 0 .5 ln 0.5 ln 2
= 8.1
c1 hrw 2 ( 0 . 2)(1.04E - 05)(168)(0 .3 )
ti
0 .8935 (0 .009 )
1 .24
0 .0086117
s = 0 .17 0 .5 ln -5
= 8 .6
2
Example 2. The falloff pressure data for this example is
0 .000488 ( 0 .2 )(1.04x10 )(168)(0.3 ) presented in table 48. A plot of pressure derivative is shown in
1.1
(t * P')x 0.8935C Fig. 4. The only characteristic point read from Fig. 4 for the 1st
s = 0.921 0.5 ln
(t * P')i c1 hrw 2

radial flow, invaded zone, is (t*P)r,1fo = 75 psi. Permeability
is computed using Eq. 17:
0.8935(0.009)
1.1
166
s = 0.921 0.5 ln 2
= 8.7
70.6qBw w (70.6)(490.6)(1)(3.56)
-5
30 (0.2)(1.04x10 )(168)(0.3 )
kw = = = 43.6 md
(t * P )
/
r ,1 h (75)(37.73)
The characteristic points for the 2nd radial flow are
(t*P)r,2fo = 48 psi, (t*P)x = 166 psi, ti,2fo = 0.000766 hrs, Also, from Fig. 4 the only characteristic point for the 2nd
tx= 0.00861 hrs. Estimate permeability using Eqs. 38 and 39; radial flow, invaded zone, is (t* P)r,2fo = 130 psi. Then,
ko =
70 .6 qB w o (70 .6 )(13560 )(1)(1) = 118 .7 md permeability is estimated using Eq. 38:
(t * P ')r , 2 fo h (48 )(168 ) ko 70.6qBw 70.6(490.6 )(1)
= = = 7.1 md / cp
o (t * P )r , 2 fo h
/
(130)(37.73)
1695oC 1695(1)(0.009)
ko = = = 118.5 md
ti ,2 fo h (0.000766)(168) Example 3. Table 5 presents the recorded data obtained from
a falloff test5. Fig. 5 use constructed using data from that table.
Estimate mobility ratio from Eqs. 40 and 41; From Fig. 5, the following characteristic points plot for the 1st
radial flow, invaded zone, are obtained: (t*P)r,1fo = 33 psi,
(t*P)x = 90 psi, ti,1fo = 0.00195 hr, tx = 0.0195 hrs. Use Eqs.
6 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, A. HADJAZ AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 70035

17, 20 and 30 to estimate permeability. 0.84

M =
70.6qBw w 70.6(17000)(1)(0.4) t (t * P ')x
kw = = = 86.9 md
(t * P ' ) r ,1 h (0.00195)(168) 0.36 x
t i (t * P')r , 2 fo

0.84
1695 wC 1695(0.4)(0.042) M = M = 1.65
kw = = = 86.9 md
ti ,1h (0.00195)(168) 0.0195 (90)
0.36
(t * P')x C 0.003276 (43)
k w = 4706.66 + 0.84 w
(t * P') h t
r ,1 x Estimate skin factor using Eqs. 42 and 43;
(90) (0.4)(0.042) t 1.24 kw h
0.24
0.8935C
k w = 4706.66 + 0.84 = 86.1 md s = 0.0286 x M 0.5 ln
(33) (168) (0.0195) t c1 hr 2
i , 2, fo C w w

0.01951.24 (86.6 )(168)

0.24
Wellbore storage coefficient can be computed using Eq. 22, s = 0.0286 (1.3)
C=
qBwt x 0.003276 (0.042)(0.4 )
3953.6q w Bw
66.66(t * P')x + 0.8935(0.042)
kwh 0.5 ln 2
= 0.52
( 0.2 )(1.04E - 05)(168)(0 .3 )
C=
(17000)(1)(0.0195) = 0.042 bbl / psi
3953.6(17000)(0.4)(1)
66.66(33) + (t * P ')X 1.1 kwh
0 .1
0.8935C
(86.6)(168) s = 1.2 M 0.5 ln
(t * P ')r , 2, fo c1 hrw 2
qBw w
Use Eqs. 28 and 29 to estimate skin factor; 901.1 (86.6 )(168)
0.1

t
1.24
0.8935C s = 0.0286 (1.3)
s = 0.17 x 0.5 ln 55 (17000)(1)(0.4 )
ti c1 hrw 2
0.8935(0.042)
0.5 ln =2
0.8935(0.042) 2
1.24
0.0195 (0.2)(1.04E - 05)(168)(0.3 )
s = 0.17 0.5 ln 2
= 6.4
0.00195 (0.2)(1.04E - 05)(168)(0.3 )
(t * P')X
1.1
0.8935C 4. Discussion of Results
S = 0.921 0.5 ln Application of Tiabs Direct Synthesis to falloff pressure tests
(t * P')i c1 hrw 2
matches with the results obtained by typecurve matching and
0.8935(0.042) conventional semilog analysis, as shown in tables 6 through 8.
1.1
90
s = 0.921 0.5 ln 2
= 6.2 Most of the parameters are easily obtained from two or three
33 (0.2)(1.04E - 05)(168)(0.3 )
equations which not only allows the confirmation and/or
verification of results but also makes direct synthesis a
The information for the 2nd radial flow, invaded zone, read practical tool.
from Fig. 5 is (t*P)r,2fo = 55 psi, (t*P)x = 90 psi, ti,2fo =
0.003276 hrs, tx = 0.0195 hrs. Estimate permeability using Conclusions
Eqs. 38 and 39;
70.6qBw o (70.6)(17000)(1)(1) 1. Wellbore storage coefficient, mobility ratio, and water
ko = = 129.9 md
(t * P')r , 2 fo h (55)(168) and oil permeabilities at initial water saturation estimated
1695 oC 1695(1)(0.042) with direct synthesis with those from single phase semi-
ko = = = 129.3 md log analysis.
ti , 2 fo h (0.003276)(168)
2. Skin factor, however, closely matches the type curve
analysis of Kamal-Abbaszadeh during pressure falloff
Use Eqs. 40 and 41 to compute mobility ratio; test analysis.
0.84 3. Wellbore storage effects in Pressure injection tests are
M=
k h (t * P')x usually very small but can be large in tight formations
2.124 x10 4 o t x
(t * P')r , 2 fo where long initial injection times are observed.
o C
4. Wellbore storage and the skin regions are controlled by
0.84
M= = 1.6 injected fluid properties during pressure falloff, since the
166 168 90
2.124 x10 4 (0.0195) region around the wellbore has already been flooded.
1 0.009 43 Thus equations of fluid flow were expressed in terms of
water properties, which gave satisfactory results.
5. At the transition zone, the peak region, it is better to
SPE 70035 PRESSURE FALL-OFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS TECHNIQUE 7

express the equations of fluid flow in terms of mobility rw Wellbore radius, ft

ratio which represents the both fluids, rather than the kw rD dimensionless radius
or the ko only. ro radius of the initial water bank, ft
6. The derivative calculation indicates that the early and late rc radial distance to the cold front, ft
time radial lines are identical during injection. This is due rtw 0.000264k wt /( w c1 )
to the fact that at late times, 3rd radial on derivative plot,
rto 0.000264k o t /( o c2 )
the reservoir behaves like a water reservoir. The slope of
both semi-log and log-log plot during this time is same as rtw 0.000264k w t /( w c1 )
that of early time infinite acting straight line. rto 0.000264 k o t /( o c2 )
7. It is thus possible that if early time data is missed due to
skin and wellbore storage effects, late time will provide r(t+t)w 0.000264k w (t + t ) /( w c1 )
the same information. Therefore, It is recommended that r(t+t)o 0.000264k o (t + t ) /( o c2 )
the injection tests should be run for long time to estimate 2
the invaded zone properties for both semi-log and direct r wb at + ro2
synthesis analysis, in case 1st semi-log portion is missed s mechanical skin factor
or masked by wellbore storage and skin effects. S saturation, fraction
Swi initial water saturation, fraction
Future Research Issues t test time, hr
1. Estimation of start time for 2nd and 3rd radial flow line on th Horner time, hrs
pressure derivative curve. tinj injection time, hr
2. Estimation of flood front using pressure derivative curve. tD dimensionless time, t D = 0.000264kt /( c rw 2 )
3. Better estimates of Skin factor within the transition zone,
to shut-in time, hrs
the peak region.
Vu wellbore volume per unit length, bbl/ft
Nomenclature
Greek
A 5.615qBw / 24 h s
c/k
Bw water volumetric factor, rb/STB
c compressibility, 1/psi t/r2
co oil volume compressibility, psi-1 P pressure difference, psi
cw water volume compressibility, psi-1 P change of rate of pressure with time (pressure
ca pore volume compressibility, psi-1 derivative), psi
c1 total system compressibility for invaded/water zone, t flow time or testing time, hr
psi-1 tDeq equivalent dimensionless flow time
c2 total system compressibility of uninvaded/oil zone, S Sw - Swi
psi-1 porosity
C wellbore storage, bbl/psi viscosity, cp
CD dimensionless storage coefficient, liquid density, lbf/ft3
2
C D = 0.08935C /( c1hrw ) c / k
Ei Exponential integral c1/c2
h formation thickness, ft Eulers's constant, 0.5,772,156,649
ko formation permeability at the oil (uninvaded) zone, md
kw formation permeability at the invaded zone, md Subscripts
M mobility ratio, (kw/w)/(ko/o)
m slope of the pressure buildup or falloff plot, psi/log avg average
cycle D Dimensionless quantity
P pressure, psi DSR dimensionless pseudoradial
PD dimensionless pressure, PD = k hP /(141.2qB ) fo falloff
Pi Initial pressure, psi g gas
P pressure derivative, psi/hr h Horner
Pwf the final bottomhole flowing pressure at the time of i intersection
shut-in, psi i,1 intersection at invaded zone
Pws bottomhole pressure during fall-off, psi i,2 intersection at uninvaded zone
P1hr pressure at the one hour on buildup or fall-off on o oil
semi-log plot, psi r radial flow; rock; real
q water injection rate, BPD, negative value r,1 radial at invaded zone
8 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB, A. HADJAZ AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 70035

r,2 radial at uninvaded zone Conductivity Fractures by the Direct Synthesis

sc standard conditions Technique. Paper SPE 52201 presented at the 1999 SPE
SR pseudoradial Mid-Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma
SR,1 pseudoradial at invaded zone City, OK, March 28-31, 1999 and presented at the 1999
t total SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
w wellbore Engineering Conference held held in Caracas, Venezuela,
wb moving front 2123 April 1999.
inv invaded zone 13. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
unv uninvaded zone Pressure Derivative without Type Curve Matching, 4.
x maximum Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum
1 invaded zone Science and Engineering 15 (1996) p. 127-138.
2 uninvaded zone 14. Engler, T. W. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
Pressure Derivatives without Type-Curve Matching. 6-
References Horizontal Well Tests in Anisotropic Reservoirs, J. Pet.
1. Hazebroek, Rainbow, H. and Matthews, C.S.: Pressure Sci. and Eng., 15, p. 153-168.
Falloff in Water Injection Wells, Trans. AIME (1958), 15. Engler, T. W. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
213, p. 250-260. Pressure Derivatives without Type-Curve Matching. 5-
2. Merril, L.S., Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W.B.: Pressure Horizontal Well Tests in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs with Fluid Banks, JPT J. Pet. Sci. and Eng., 15 (1996), p. 139-151.
(July 1974), p. 809-818.
3. Tsang , Y.W and Tsang, C.F.: An Analytical Study of SI Metric Conversion Factors
Geothermal Reservoir Pressure Response to Cold Water
Re-injection, Proceedings 4th workshop on Geothermal bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa-s
California, SGP-TR-30, 322-331 (Dec. 13-15) 1978. ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
4. Thambynayagam, R.K, and Woodward, D.K. Pressure ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
Buildup and Falloff Analysis of Water Injection Tests, psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
Paper SPE 12344 (May, 1983).
5. Abbaszedah, M. and Kamal, M.: Pressure Transient
Testing of Water-Injection Wells, SPERE, Feb. 1989, p.
115-124.
6. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R., and Limon, T.J.: Effects of Table 1. Summary of equations for 1st radial flow region
Relative Permeability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure during pressure falloff
Falloff Behavior, Trans, AIME(1981) , p. 1125-1135.
7. Jokhio, S.: Interpretation of Deliverability and Pressure Parameter Equation to use
Tests in Carbon Dioxide Reservoirs, MS thesis, School kw 17, 20 and/or 30
of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of C 22
Oklahoma, Norman, 1997. s 27 and/or 28
8. Xiang-yan, k. and De-tang, L.: Pressure Falloff Analysis
of Water Injection Wells, Paper SPE 23419, 1992.
9. Bourdet, D., Yaqoub, J.A., and Pirad, Y.M.: Use of Table 2. Reservoir, well and fluid properties for field
Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation, SPEFE examples
June 1989, p. 293-301.
10. Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and Pressure Derivative Parameter Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
without Type-Curve Matching: 1- Skin and Wellbore qi, STB/D -13560 -490.6 -17000
Storage, Paper SPE 25423 presented at the Production
Bw, rb/STB 1 1 1
Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, Mar.
w, cp 0.4 3.56 0.4
21-23, 1993. P. 203-216. Also, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 12 (1995), p. 171-181. o, cp 1 1
11. Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure Derivative without Type- h, ft 168 37.73 168
Curve Matching: Vertically Fractured Wells in Closed tinj, hrs 1464 230 4095
Systems, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering , % 20 22 20
11 (1994) 323-333. This paper was originally presented as rw, ft 0.3 0.328 0.3
SPE 26138 at the 1993 SPE Western Regional Meeting, c1, psi-1 1.04x10-5 5.44x10-6 1.04x10-5
held May 26-28, Anchorage, Alaska. c2, psi-1 1.04x10-5 1.04x10-5
12. Tiab, D., Azzougen, A., Escobar, F. H., and Berumen, S.:
Analysis of Pressure Derivative Data of a Finite-
SPE 70035 PRESSURE FALL-OFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS TECHNIQUE 9

Table 3. Pressure falloff data for example 1 [5]

th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P,
psi psi psi psi
65.95 624.13 720.6 521.33 61.42 5573.83 430.77 44.96 79432.84 342.66 69.09
71.42 621.68 780.38 516.43 81.36 6198.8 428.32 54.76 88339.23 332.87 58.34
75.32 619.23 67.56 845.13 509.09 61.42 6893.84 420.98 11.52 100889.5 323.08 115.15
79.43 614.34 46.06 915.25 504.2 76.77 7666.82 420.98 71.14 112201.9 308.39 142.79
83.77 611.89 67.56 991.18 499.3 46.06 8756.04 411.19 121510.9 293.71 129.41
90.72 609.44 39.92 1073.42 496.85 46.06 10000 411.19 58.64 131592.4 283.92 122.83
98.24 606.99 39.92 1162.48 494.41 30.71 12368.23 403.85 16.45 142510.3 279.02 159.02
103.61 604.55 30.71 1258.93 491.96 30.71 14896.25 396.5 31.75 158489.3 256.99 84.45
112.2 602.1 46.06 1363.38 489.51 37.29 16132.15 394.06 29.01 176260 244.76 179.76
118.33 599.65 67.56 1516.24 484.62 46.06 17940.98 391.61 37.29 212286.8 220.28 119.54
124.78 594.76 27.64 1642.04 479.72 54.84 19952.63 386.71 11.52 229899.7 210.49 297.42
135.14 594.76 67.56 1778.28 474.83 61.42 22189.82 386.71 46.06 284345.3 166.43 261.01
146.35 592.31 27.64 1925.82 469.93 24.57 23400.8 384.27 23.03 333485.5 159.09 163.19
154.33 589.86 37.29 2030.92 469.93 54.84 26024.64 379.37 38.38 351685.2 149.3 225.7
171.64 584.97 38.38 2258.64 465.03 24.57 28942.65 376.92 34.55 391117.8 112.59 161.22
190.88 582.52 37.29 2446.03 460.14 19.74 32187.88 374.48 20.98 434972.3 100.35 252.02
206.72 580.07 20.98 2648.97 460.14 61.42 36760.75 372.03 46.06 567343.6 95.45 101.99
236.09 577.62 35.82 2868.75 455.24 40882.59 364.69 18.42 683306 80.77 93.27
276.89 570.28 46.06 3106.76 455.24 56.3 46690.76 362.24 57.58 801394.3 58.74 105.28
316.23 560.49 49.1 3643.67 447.9 19.74 51925.95 357.34 33.78 965195.6 34.27 123.85
380.86 550.7 59.44 4052.21 443.01 32.24 57748.21 352.45 23.03 1225918 9.79 111.86
458.71 543.36 57.37 4506.57 440.56 54.83 64223.21 352.45 46.06
537.98 533.57 40.41 4880.47 435.66 29.17 71424.31 347.55 23.03

Table 4. Pressure falloff data for example 2 [8]

t, P, psi P,
t* t, P, psi P,
t* t, P, psi t*
P, t, P, psi t*
P,
hr psi hr psi hr psi hr psi
0 2683.2 0.304 2376.01 117.35 3.913 2137.57 80.01 65.22 1898.69 96.59
0.0217 2626.78 0.348 2360.49 116.65 4.348 2129.15 76.87 86.96 1868.52 106.25
0.0304 2608.65 0.391 2347 51.09 6.522 2098.26 78.96 130.43 1822.98 110.15
0.0319 2592.11 39.13 0.435 2346.86 119.84 8.695 2076.21 77.46 173.91 1789.77 117.02
0.0435 2584.28 299.14 0.652 2292.47 27.31 13.04 2044.31 76.62 217.39 1763.08 119.45
0.0653 2589.36 134.62 0.869 2264.33 112.57 17.39 2022.26 84.93 304.35 1721.31 172.2
0.087 2521.92 49.88 1.304 2227.34 92.05 21.74 2002.54 82.04 391.3 1663.15
0.13 2477.1 176.94 1.739 2202.54 85.57 30.43 1972.8 91.01 434.78 1675.48
0.174 2443.02 117.94 2.174 2184.12 83.62 39.13 1949.16 92.33
0.217 2416.18 117.96 3.043 2157 80.05 43.48 1939.3 96.37
10 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 6XXXX

Table 5. Pressure falloff data for example 3 [5]

th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P, th, hr P, psi t*
P,
psi psi psi psi
1009.39 531.33 2887 474.4 53.74 13802.55 409.04 42.17 95883.59 339.46 56.43
1108.22 527.11 3169.67 470.18 44.07 16253.74 402.71 32.35 105271.8 333.13 34.2
1188.64 522.89 53.74 3480.02 468.07 45.14 18266.84 398.49 42.8 112911.5 331.02 53.67
1274.9 518.67 60.19 3646.42 465.96 33.86 20055.4 394.28 37.19 126896.1 326.81 45.14
1367.42 514.46 60.19 4003.45 461.75 51.16 23617.03 387.95 41.13 136105.1 322.59 69.97
1466.66 510.24 51.16 4293.98 457.53 57.18 26542.08 383.74 26.66 145982.4 316.27 57.68
1536.78 508.13 75.24 4825.81 449.1 51.16 29829.44 381.63 41.13 180126.7 305.72 82.55
1648.31 501.81 51.16 5423.5 444.88 53.08 32750.13 377.41 18.06 212115.3 295.18 74.24
1767.93 497.59 60.19 6239.24 440.66 41.13 36806.35 375.3 39.12 244019.2 282.53 86.48
1896.23 495.48 44.07 6850.15 436.45 37.62 42342.33 371.08 23.53 280721.8 267.77 98.31
2081.89 493.37 45.14 7880.47 430.12 33.11 48710.98 366.87 43.23 346380.7 244.58 108.71
2232.98 489.16 37.62 8856.49 428.01 58.69 54744 360.54 39.12 447832.3 215.06 110.35
2339.74 487.05 60.19 9723.66 421.69 23.53 60104.21 356.33 42.02 681822.9 168.67 153.16
2509.54 482.83 51.16 11186.18 417.47 58.69 72450.38 352.11 45.14 990702.1 90.66 97.9
2691.66 478.61 60.19 12868.66 411.14 30.1 79544.2 347.89 33.86 5688529 10

Table 6. Comparison and summary of results example 1

1st Radial
Eq. No. Parameter Direct Type-Curve 1-phase Conventional 5
Synthesis Matching5 Composite5
17 kw, md 76 170 78 78
20 kw, md 74.5
30 kw, md 74.6
22 C, bbl/psi 0.009 0.007 0.01 0.01
28 s 8.6 7.5 0.6 0.6
29 s 8.7
2nd Radial
36 ko, md 118.7 180 162 119
39 ko, md 118.5
40 M 1.41 2.36 1.2 1.63
41 M 1.43
42 s 3
43 s 8

Table 7. Comparison and summary of results example 2

1st Radial
Eq. No Parameter Direct Type-Curve Conventional8
synthesis Matching8
17 kw, md 43.6 44 44
2nd Radial
38 ko/o, md/cp 7.1 6.2 6.18
SPE 6XXXX PRESSURE INJECTION AND FALLOFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS
TECHNIQUE 11

Table 8. Summary of results and comparison example 3

1st Radial
Eq. No. Parameter Direct Type-curve 1-phase Conventional5
synthesis matching5 Composite5
17 kw, md 86.6 168 85 84
20 kw, md 86.9
30 kw, md 86.1
22 C, bbl/psi 0.042 0.015 0.026 0.026
28 s 6.4
30 s 6.2 3.8 -0.4 -0.4
2nd Radial
38 ko, md 129.9 178 130 132
39 ko, md 129.3
40 M 1.63 2.36 1.6 1.6
41 M 1.65
42 s -0.52
43 s 2

-q
Saturation

1.0

S +S
wi
Oil zone
Water Bank
c2
c1
h
o
w ko
kw

S
wi

0 rw ro r wb

Fig. 1. Injection model [4]

1
2s
C De =5
=1
=0.5
0.5
log (PD ) and log (t D*P /CD )

2s
C De =0.1
0 =0.05
=0.01

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

log (t D /CD)
Fig. 2. Pressure and pressure derivative type curves for pressure falloff tests [8]
12 S.A. JOKHIO, D. TIAB AND F.H. ESCOBAR SPE 6XXXX

1.5
log (PD ) and log (t D*P /CD )

0.5

M=10
0
M=1

-0.5

-1

M=0.1
-1.5

-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

log (t D /CD)
Fig. 16.9. Pressure and pressure derivative type curves for pressure falloff tests
for different mobility ratios [8]

1000

(t*P') x =166 psi

t i,2fo = 0.000766 hr
100
P and t*P', psi

(t*P') r,2=48 psi

(t*P') r,1=30 psi

t i,1fo = 0.000488 hr

10

t x = 0.00861 hr

1
10000000 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10

Horner time
Fig. 3. Log-log plot of pressure and pressure derivative vs. Horner time (example 1)
SPE 6XXXX PRESSURE INJECTION AND FALLOFF ANALYSIS IN WATER INJECTION WELLS USING THE TIAB'S DIRECT SYNTHESIS
TECHNIQUE 13

1000

(t*P') r,2=130 psi

t*P', psi

100

(t*P') r,1=75 psi

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

t, hrs
Fig. 4. Log-log plot of pressure derivative vs. time (example 2)

1000

(t*P') x =90 psi

100
P and t*P', psi

(t*P') r,2=55 psi

(t*P') r,1=33 psi

t i,1fo = 0.000195 hr

10 t i,2fo = 0.0003276 hr

t x = 0.00195 hr

1
10000000 1000000 100000 10000 1000

Horner time
Fig. 5. Log-log plot of pressure and pressure derivative vs. Horner time (example 3)