SPE 77454

Application of Injection Tests for Reservoir Appraisals: A Conceptual Study

Ronald Gunawan Gan, VICO Indonesia, Nai-Shyong Yeh, BP Egypt (GUPCO), and Curtis O. Bennett, BP America
Production Company

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

affects the length of transition zone and also the interpretation
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and of reservoir boundary. Therefore, test design using a reservoir
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
simulator is critical for determining the injection volume and
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of the phase interactions if any, and understanding the pressure
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 response. In addition to the above results, we utilize the
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 material balance approach to calculate the compartment
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
volume thus enhance the interpretation of injection and
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is falloff tests.
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.
The results of this study provide a new and comprehensive
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. overview of the practical application of the injection and
falloff tests for the collection of dynamic reservoir data during
Abstract project appraisal – with zero flaring.
This paper presents a conceptual study to evaluate the
effectiveness of injection tests for the collection of dynamic Introduction
reservoir data during project appraisals. A 2-D xy numerical Injection testing is pressure transient testing during injection
model was built using representative field data to simulate the of a fluid into a well. It is analogous to drawdown testing for
process and pressure response during injection and falloff tests both constant and variable rates. Shutting in an injection well
for various boundary conditions. Various injection cases were results in a pressure falloff that is similar to pressure buildup
studied: water injection into oil and gas condensate reservoirs, in a production well. Although an injection/falloff test is
nitrogen injection into oil reservoirs, and nitrogen injection similar to a conventional drawdown/buildup test, the
into dry gas, lean retrograde gas condensate, and heavy distinction between the two is necessary when the properties
retrograde gas condensate reservoirs. For the case of nitrogen of the injected and formation fluids are different.
injection, we used a compositional option to model the phase Typically, injection/falloff tests are used for reservoir
interactions during the tests. Simulated pressure responses management of water flooding and enhance oil recovery
were analyzed using single-phase analytical solutions projects, which usually happen later in the life of a field
provided by a commercial well testing software package. following primary depletion. Now, we are considering the use
of injection/falloff tests during initial development planning of
We found that a composite reservoir model provided by well a field where these tests would be performed on appraisal
testing software package can be used to analyze the injection wells drilled prior to the decision to develop the field.
and falloff tests data. Permeability and distance to the
boundary can be estimated for most of mobility ratios. The process of an injection test can be visualized as follows:
Permeability found during the injection test is the effective an injected fluid bank is formed in the near wellbore region
permeability to the injected fluid. For the falloff test, it is and the original reservoir fluid bank exists away from the well.
possible to obtain the effective permeability of reservoir fluid. Between these two fluid banks, a transitional zone from the
Type of boundaries can be detected and the distance from the injected to displaced fluids exist. Many methods have been
well to the boundaries can be estimated by using effective proposed for the injection well testing analysis. The most
system compressibility. The ability of boundary detection and frequently used model is a two-bank system, which assume
mobility calculations are heavily dependent upon the optimal the injected fluid displaces the formation fluid in a piston-like
injected volume, and therefore, rely on proper well test design. manner 1-4. Saturation gradients within each fluid bank are not
For test design, the optimum injection volume is very considered. The mobility and compressibility in each fluid
important since it affects the time required to have radial flow bank are assumed to be constant. Such models are often
in the uninvaded zone (‘reservoir zone’) which is necessary inadequate for the interpretation of falloff tests as they ingnore
for the interpretation of reservoir boundary. Mobility ratio fluid mobility and diffusivity variations in the reservoir. Yeh
2 R. GUNAWAN GAN, N. YEH, AND C. O. BENNETT SPE 77454

and Agarwal5 develop a method to analyze injection well qBµ  ro 

pressure data from a well-reservoir system with multiple fluid Pwf = Po − 141.2 ln + S  .............................. (1)
banks. This new method enables engineers to calculate the kh  rw 
mobility profile, fluid bank radii during falloff period and the
For isotropic reservoir, well block radius, ro, is given in terms
pressure distribution in the reservoir at the instant of shut in.
of the block lengths ( x, y):
In this paper, we use a numerical model to simulate the
injection and falloff tests processes, including phase (
ro = 0.14 ∆x 2 + ∆y 2 )
1/ 2
.............................................. (2)
interactions between injected and reservoir fluids which
affects the pressure response during testing. The objectives As a result of the above adjustment, the skin cannot be
are: modeled. This is acceptable since the objective is not to model
1. To show the ability and limitations of injection/falloff the near wellbore region.
tests to obtain dynamic reservoir data for reservoir Analysis Method. We performed a validation to the model by
appraisal. analyzing a simple drawdown and buildup tests as shown in
2. To show the ability and limitations of using single- Fig. 1. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, both tests can be
phase analytical solution provided by well testing accurately modeled the wellbore storage, permeability, and
software package to analyze the injection/falloff tests. distance to the boundaries. As mentioned before, the skin
3. To show the effect of phase interactions between the factor cannot be modeled because of the adjustment to
injected and reservoir fluids. peaceman radius. The skin factor showed in the model is
Methodology basically a “numerical” skin factor. We found that the
In this section the discussion is based on a case study of water “numerical” skin factor increases as mobility ratio of injected
injection into oil reservoir. We use numerical model to and reservoir fluids increase. Note that this numerical skin
simulate the injection/falloff tests processes. The simulator effect has no effect on pressure derivative.
generates pressure versus time for the test, the data is then For the case of injection and falloff tests, we used a composite
analyzed using analytical solution from well testing software model to perform the analysis: water zone (inner), transition
package. This process enables us to understand the pressure zone, and oil/reservoir zone (outer). We found that the
behavior, to obtain analysis methods of injection/falloff tests, composite model can be used for our case studies to
and to determine parameters to be used for the analysis. understand the pressure response. In many cases, it was not
possible to estimate mobilities and the composite model could
Model Development. The model was built using numerical not be used to match the pressure response in the
simulator6 with the following description: transition zone.
- Single well 2D (x-y) model
- Undersaturated Oil Behavior of Injection Test. We simulated injection tests for
- Homogeneous and Isotropic various boundary conditions: infinite, closed rectangular,
- No fracturing and thermal effects single boundary, channel, wedge-symmetric, wedge-
- No gravitational effect nonsymmetric, and slot-symmetric. For all the cases, mobility
ratio of 0.54 and properties in Table-1 are used. Test
To ensure the accuracy of of numerical results, different time sequence is shown in Fig. 4, and the results are shown in Figs.
step sizes and grid block sizes were tested and the simulation 5 and 6. It is shown that the character of the boundary effect
results were compared with the analytical solution. It was during injection is similar to the drawdown response. Type
found that 72 timesteps per log cycle would be required to and distance to the boundary can be identified and estimated
obtain accurate result. For gridding technique, geometrical from injection test if the correct fluid mobility is used. After a
grid is applied, however, smaller geometrical factor should be very short transitional period at early time, the mobility
applied for the area close to the wellbore. This is very detected during the injection test is the injection fluid
important to properly capture the very large transient at early mobility, or the effective permeability to water.
times. Grid blocks in our models are in the range of 61x61 to
161x161 grids, depending on the size of the reservoir to be Woodward and Thambynayagam4 developed an analytical
simulated. Table-1 gives a summary of reservoir and fluid solution to explain this phenomenon. The solution in Ref.4 is
properties used in the model for the case of water injection also applicable for the case where an existing water bank
into oil reservoir. surrounds the well at the commencement of injection.
Simulating the following test sequence illustrates the
In order to get accurate wellbore pressure during testing, we difference in pressure response: 6-hour injection at 5,000
adjusted Peaceman Radius7 to be very close to wellbore BWPD, 2-day falloff, 4-day injection at 5,000 BWPD, and 2-
radius. This is achieved by adjusting the size of the well grid. day falloff. The simulated injection pressure response and its
The relation is shown in Eqs. 1 and 2 below: derivative are presented in Fig. 7. The dashed line represents
the value of the derivative if the water mobility is used to
calculate the derivative during radial flow. The solid line
SPE 77454 APPLICATION OF INJECTION TESTS FOR RESERVOIR APPRAISALS: A CONCEPTUAL STUDY 3

represents the composite model and its derivative. The early (‘reservoir zone’) which is necessary for the interpretation of
time response is governed by the water mobility followed by a reservoir boundary.
transition period and finally the response is based on the
reservoir outside the water bank and the oil mobility. Effect of Mobility Ratio. For this case, we use 2-boundary
case (channel) with injection rate of 5,000 BWPD. Distance of
During the 1st injection period, there is a transition period at well to the boundaries is 500 ft. We used our base data in
early time and then the pressure response is such that its Table-1, but modified the oil viscosity in order to generate
derivative matches the dashed line, which is based on the case for various mobility ratios. Mobility ratio is defined as9:
water mobility. The 2nd injection period is more complicated.
After a very early transitional period, the derivative of the (k µ )w
M= .................................................. (3)
pressure data matches the portion of the analytical solution (k µ )o
based on the oil mobility; followed by a transition period; and
at late time, the derivative flattens with the value being There are three cases showing here: favorable mobility ratio
reflective of the water mobility. Levitan8 also discusses this (M=0.54) and unfavorable mobility ratio (M=2.05 and 5.07).
counter intuitive behavior. Fig. 12 presents the effect of mobility ratio on injection test
interpretation. Unfavorable mobility ratios (M>1) increase the
analysis difficulties. Slope of the late time data increases as
Behavior of Falloff Test. We performed simulations of mobility ratio increases, and error on the distance to boundary
falloff tests with various boundary conditions: infinite, closed also increases. It is noted that a significant “numerical” skin
rectangular, single boundary, channel, wedge-symmetric, factor due to the unfavorable mobility ratio.
wedge-non symmetric, and slot-symmetric. Similar to
injection test, all cases use mobility ratio of 0.54 and For the falloff test (Fig. 13), mobility ratio influences the
properties in Table-1. Test sequence is shown in Fig. 4, and duration of transition zone. Again, unfavorable mobility ratio
the results are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. It is shown that (M>1) increases the analysis difficulties. Because the duration
character of boundary effect during falloff is similar to of transition zone is long, radial flow in the reservoir zone (oil
buildup response. zone) may not exist if the boundary is too close to the well. In
Ideally, the falloff detects water zone, transition zone, oil this case, falloff test data for mobility ratio of 5.07 cannot be
zone, and boundary. The water zone in most cases may be interpreted correctly since the radial flow in the oil zone does
masked by wellbore storage, or not clear displayed due to the not exist.
limited injection. The permeability detected in water zone is
an effective permeability to water, while the permeability Effect of Compressibility. The objective of this exercise is to
detected in oil zone is effective permeability to oil. Distance determine which compressibility factor should be used for
to the boundary can be accurately estimated if radial flow in boundary calculations. For this case, the oil compressibility
reservoir zone (oil zone) exists. data in Table-1 was modified to become five times higher than
Sensitivity Analysis. The ability of analyzing falloff the water compressibility (co=15 x 10-6 psi-1). We simulated
responses is heavily dependent on many factors, such as long injection test follow by falloff (42-day injection and 10-
reservoir properties, injection fluid, and injection operation. day falloff). After 42 days of injection, the waterfront has
We performed sensitivity analysis to see the effect of injection reached one of the reservoir boundaries. The data was
volume, mobility ratio, and compressibility on the analyzed for the boundary calculations using both water
interpretation of injection and falloff tests. The objective of compressibility and total system compressibility based on
these exercises is to develop an understanding of injection and fluid distribution prior to test. We found that total system
falloff behaviors. compressibility should be used consistently for the calculation.
Figs. 14 and 15 show the interpretation results.
Effect of Injection Volume. For this case, we use single
boundary case with injection rate of 5,000 BWPD. Distance Estimation of Compartment Volume. In this section, we will
of well to the boundary is 500 ft. The injection test is introduce an application of material balance method to
performed long enough to have injection radius of 6.5%, 10%, enhance injection/falloff interpretation. Falloff data will be
20%, and 30% from the well to the boundary. Fig. 10 shows used to calculate average reservoir pressure after injection.
the effect of injection volume to the injection test response. Marhaendrajana and Blasingame10 introduced a Modified
The injection test response is not affected by the amount of Muskat Method to estimate average reservoir pressure. The
injection. Distance to the boundary can be estimated advantages of this method are:
accurately. For the case of falloff test, the volume of injection - No need for accurate fluid properties estimates.
increases the area or the size of the transition zone. As shown - No need to know drainage area shape and size.
in Fig. 11, increasing the transition zone cause difficulties in Theoretically, this method requires data in late time region
the falloff test interpretation for the boundary. Therefore, the after all boundaries have been felt. However, in practice the
optimum injection volume is very important since it affects the late time data is enough for the estimation of average reservoir
time required to have radial flow in the uninvaded zone
4 R. GUNAWAN GAN, N. YEH, AND C. O. BENNETT SPE 77454

pressure. We developed a case for injection and falloff tests in conclusion, we simulated a 2-day injection and 2-day falloff
the reservoir with the following information: for the case of close reservoir, but distance to the boundaries is
- All the data shown in Table-1. far enough, 2,000 ft. As shown in Fig. 22, distance to the
- Compartment Size is 106 MMSTB boundaries can be accurately estimated since radial flow in the
- Test design: Injection at 5,000 BWPD for 80 hours reservoir zone (gas zone) exists.
and shut in for falloff for 120 hours.
Nitrogen Injection into Oil Reservoir. This case is another
Material balance for undersaturated volumetric oil reservoir, extreme case since mobility ratio is very high, equal to 20.
under water injection can be derived as follows: Again, we utilized an oil reservoir data as shown in Table-1.
In order to identify any phase interactions during the injection
Winj Bw and falloff tests, we use compositional model. 18-component
N= .................... (4) Equation Of State (EOS) was “tuned” and used in the model.
c w S wi + c f
Boi ( p − pi ) − (Bo − Boi ) We design a 6-hour Nitrogen Injection at 10 MMCFD
1 − S wi followed by 6-hour falloff in the closed system with a well in
the center. Distance to the boundaries is 1,000 ft. Fig. 23
Fig. 16 shows the interpretation of 80-hour injection data. shows an injection test response. Same as previous very low
Pressure data can be matched with slot system and (minimal) mobility case, pressure derivative is very noisy and impossible
compartment volume is estimated 59.1 MMSTB. Fig. 17 to analyze. This case is even worst since there is no trend in
shows the analysis of pressure falloff test. The estimated the pressure derivative. For falloff test, most of the data
compartment volume is 91.6 MMSTB, which is very close to represent the radial flow in the oil zone, therefore, the distance
the compartment size input in the model. Using material to the boundary can be estimated since radial flow in the oil
balance approach, the calculated compartment volume is 98.2 zone can be identified and analyzed (Fig. 24).
MMSTB as shown in Fig. 18. During the injection and falloff process, we also monitored the
saturation changes in the reservoir. We found that there is
Case Studies phase interaction because of multiple contacts between
In this section, we will discuss injection cases other than water nitrogen and oil. Fig. 25 shows oil saturation and viscosity
injection into oil reservoir. distributions in the reservoir at the end of injection test.
During the injection, oil is displaced by nitrogen and left the
Water Injection into Retrograde Gas Condensate residual oil behind the nitrogen front. Subsequent
Reservoir. This case is an extreme case since mobility ratio is displacement and contacts cause the residual oil by initial
very low, 0.006. We utilized a “lean” retrograde gas contact with nitrogen was revaporized by later contact with
condensate reservoir data from one of the BP fields. Initial nitrogen11 as injection continues. As a result of the process,
reservoir pressure is 11,477 psia, and dew point pressure is the residual oil saturation behind the nitrogen front is very
11,250 psia. In order to identify any phase interactions during low, but at very high viscosity.
the injection and falloff tests, 8-component Equation Of State
(EOS) was “tuned” and used in the model. Nitrogen Injection into Dry Gas Reservoir. This is a case
We use a 2-day injection at 1,000 BWPD and followed by a 2- where the impact of phase interaction is very small. We
day falloff in the closed reservoir with the well in the center. utilized a “dry” gas reservoir data from one of the BP fields
Distance to the boundaries is 500 ft. Fig. 19 shows an and 6-component Equation Of State (EOS) in the model.
injection test response. As expected with a mobility ratio as We designed a 2-day Nitrogen Injection at 10 MMCFD
small as was used, we had a lot of difficulty simulating this followed by a 2-day falloff in the closed system with a well in
system and getting pressure data during the injection period the center. Distance to the boundaries is 1,000 ft. Figs. 26 and
that could be analyzed. The derivative of the simulated 27 show injection and falloff test responses respectively. Since
pressure response is very noisy and difficult for interpretation. this is a favorable mobility ratio case, there is no problem in
For falloff test, the derivative clearly shows the inner (water) the interpretation of well test data.
zone at early time and the transition zone at the later time. During the injection and falloff process, we found that there
However, the radial flow in the gas zone does not exist due to are no phase interactions. There are only two fluid banks in
distance to the boundary is very close. Since the radial flow the reservoir due to viscosity difference between nitrogen and
does not exist, distance to the boundary cannot be determined reservoir gas (Fig. 28).
(Fig. 20). During the injection and falloff process, we also
monitored the saturation changes in the reservoir. We found Nitrogen Injection into “Lean” Retrograde Condensate
that there is no phase interaction. Fig. 21 shows the saturation Reservoir. As in the previous cases, we utilize a retrograde
distributions in the reservoir at the end of falloff test. gas condensate reservoir data from one of the BP’s fields. This
The above explanation shows that for the case of water reservoir is classified as a lean retrograde gas condensate
injection into retrograde gas condensate reservoir, where the reservoir follows McCain’s classification12 (C7+ mole fraction
mobility ratio is very small, distance to boundaries close to the =2.906%). In order to identify any phase interactions during
well cannot be accurately estimated. In order to prove this the injection and falloff tests, again we use compositional
SPE 77454 APPLICATION OF INJECTION TESTS FOR RESERVOIR APPRAISALS: A CONCEPTUAL STUDY 5

model. 8-component Equation Of State (EOS) was “tuned” well. As expected, the case of “heavy” retrograde gas
and used in the model. condensate resulted in higher oil saturation surround the
We design a 2-day Nitrogen Injection at 10 MMCFD followed wellbore, compared to “lean” retrograde gas condensate case.
by 2-day falloff in the closed system with a well in the center. Figs. 37 and 38 show the oil saturation distribution after five
Distance to the boundaries is 500 ft. Figs. 29 and 30 show an days of production for the two cases.
injection and falloff test response respectively. The falloff
response clearly identified two fluid banks in the reservoir, Conclusions
nitrogen and reservoir gas. Distance to the boundaries can be
estimated since radial flow in the reservoir zone 1. It is not always possible to estimate permeability of outer
(gas zone) exists. (hydrocarbon) zone and distance to boundary. It depends
Phase interactions during the injection and falloff process are on mobility ratio and injected volume.
more complex compared to the previous cases. Fig. 31 shows 2. Test design using a reservoir simulator is critical for
the effect of nitrogen injection on the dew point pressure, determining injected volume and understanding pressure
predicted by Equation Of State. During the nitrogen injection, response. This is especially true for unfavorable
dew point in the swept area increases as a result of increasing mobility ratios.
mole fraction of nitrogen in that area. Increasing dew point 3. Inject smaller volumes to ensure the existence of radial
causes a condensation of heavy ends in the contact/swept area. flow in the outer (hydrocarbon) zone. This is required for
As injection progress, there are other phase interactions distance to boundary calculations.
because of multiple contacts between nitrogen and oil. 4. Use both injection and falloff pressure data is available.
Subsequent displacement and contacts cause the residual oil 5. Use total system compressibility to calculate distance to
by initial contact with nitrogen was revaporized by later boundary calculations regardless the amount of water
contact with nitrogen11. As a result of the process, the residual injected.
oil saturation behind the nitrogen front is very low, but high 6. Coupling material balance and falloff interpretation
viscosity. Fig. 32 shows the saturation distribution, and Fig. enhances the estimation of compartment volume.
33 shows the liquid viscosity distribution at the end 7. Extremely low mobility ratio case (water injection into
of injection. gas reservoir) cannot be used to identify boundary close
to the well.
Nitrogen Injection into “Heavy” Retrograde Condensate 8. Contact between nitrogen and reservoir fluid causes
Reservoir. As in the previous cases, we utilize a retrograde condensation of heavy ends. The condensation happens
gas condensate reservoir data from one of the BP’s fields. This not only during the injection but also during production
reservoir is classified as a “heavy” retrograde gas condensate (clean up).
reservoir follows McCain’s classification12 (C7+ mole fraction
=9.72%). An 11-component Equation Of State (EOS) was Nomenclature
“tuned” and used in the model to identify any phase B = formation volume factor, v/v
interactions during the injection and falloff tests. cf = formation compressibility, 1/psi
Same as previous case, we designed a 2-day Nitrogen cw = water compressibility, 1/psi
Injection at 10 MMCFD followed by 2-day falloff in the k = permeability, md
closed system with a well in the center. Distance to the h = formation thickness, ft
boundaries is 1,000 ft. Figs. 34 and 35 show an injection and P = pressure, psia
falloff test response respectively. Since this is an unfovarable ro = Peaceman well block radius, ft
mobility ratio case (M=2.42), we have a difficulty to estimate Sw = water saturation, dimensionless
distance to boundary by using injection test. Winj = cumulative water injection, STB
Phase interactions during the injection and falloff process are
µ = viscosity, cp
basically same as lean retrograde gas condensate case.
However, since mole fraction of the C7+ is higher, oil
Subscript
saturation left behind the nitrogen front is higher than the case
o = oil
of lean retrograde gas condensate. Fig. 36 shows a
comparison of these two cases. i = initial

Acknowledgements
In addition to injection cases, we performed a simulation to
We thank management of BP America Production Company
see the effect of production (clean up) after nitrogen injection
for permission to publish this paper. We gratefully
process. During the production process, reservoir pressure at
acknowledge Ram G. Agarwal, Michael M. Levitan, Sheng-
any point in the reservoir is higher than dew point pressure.
Tai Lee of BP and David Sparling of Landmark for their
This to make sure that the condensation is only from the
contributions during this research.
contact between nitrogen and reservoir gas. Again, the process
is a multiple contact between nitrogen and reservoir gas
causing additional condensation in the area surrounding the