Chapter 14

Injection Well
Transient Testing
and Analysis

14.1 Introduction
This chapter presents pressure analysis techniques in injection wells. The
injectivity test and the fall-off tests are used to estimate the reservoir proper-
ties of injection wells in waterflood and tertiary recovery projects. The
knowledge of reservoir properties and near wellbore conditions in injection
wells is as important as in the producing wells. Injection well transient
testing and analysis are simple as long as the mobility ratio between the
injected and in-situ fluids is about unity and the radius of investigation is not
beyond the water (injected fluid) bank. Figure 14-1 shows types of tests,
limitations, and their uses.

14.2 Injectivity Test Analysis Methods

Figure 14-2 shows rate schedule and pressure response for injectivity
testing.

Under Steady-State Conditions

Reservoirs with injection wells can reach true steady-state condition when
total injection rate is equal to total production rate. Hall 1 has provided a
method to analyze injection wells that assumes a series of steady-state
injection conditions (Figure 14-3). Figure 14-6 shows that a plot of integral

463
464 Oil Well Testing Handbook

I Types of Tests, Their Uses, and Methods ofAnalysis [

IInectivity est I Iressurefall~ woRate est I step Rate Injectivity Test ]

It is analogous to It is analogous to This type of test

Also known as
draw down pressure buildup eliminates changing
multiple rate
testing, for both testing and can be wellbore storage
analysis. Simple,
constant and used for both infinite during a fall-off test.
inexpensive and
variable rates and developed Fracture pressure in an
fast pressure data
Uses reservoirs. injection well can be
can be analyzed
Q Conventional Uses determined and is
using multiple-rate
method El Log-log plot useful in waterflood
transient techniques
El Semilog plot Q Homer plot and tertiary floods

Figure 14-1. Types of tests, their uses, and methods of analysis.

Shut-in

,.a
Injecting

Injection time, t

,f

Injection time, t

Figure 14-2. Rate schedule and pressure response in injectivity test.

or its approximation versus cumulative water injection should give a

straight-line with slope:

141.2#(pD + S1) psi (b/day) (14-1)

mi4 = kh

Methods of Analysis- Hall Plot 1

9 If PD and Sl are known, then k/# can be estimated.

9 If PD and k/# are known, we can estimate Sl.
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 465

60 I
,
I

I I

i i
i i
i, i

x 40--, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,'i ................

i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i

.i i
mH2 - psll days/bbl
i
.,..~

Ch...ges in slope of the Hall 1

.......................... ~ .................... p}ot can be caused by
'~ 20--- - ~ changesinkl#,sordp "-"
r,,,l
[ mill =psi day s/bbl [
! I
, ~

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cumulative injection, W/, bbl x 10-3

Figure 14-3. Water injection well showing stimulation effects under steady-state
condition - Hall 1.

9 If we obtain k / # or Sl from the transient test, then we must be able to

determine pD

kh
s2 - sl + 141.2# (mH2 -- m/-/1) (14-2)

9 Ratio of new flow efficiency is

(Flow EfficiencY)2 mill

= (14-3)
(Flow Efficiency) 1 mH2

Waterflood Reservoir with M.R - 1 . 0

An example calculation for waterflood reservoir with mobility ratio equal

to one is given below.

Example 14-16 Analyzing Injection Well Test Data (Waterflood Reservoir

M.R = 1.0)
Table 14-1 shows the pressure fall-off test data; other well/water-flood reser-
voir data are: pressure prior to test, pwf(At-o) - 175 psi, injection rate at time of
test = - 1 0 0 s t b / d a y , injection time - 1 . 5 years; area within 5-spot pattern,
A = 40acres and Sw, a time of test = 0.4 fraction; well depth = 5002 ft;
h = 16ft; ~b = 0.15; #w = 1.0cP; flw = 1.0rb/stb; ct = 6.17 • 10-Spsi-1;
rw - 0.25 ft; re - 744.6 ft; pw - 66.45 lbm/ft3; water saturation at beginning of
test Sw = 0.42 fraction.
466 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 14-1
Injectivity Test Data a

Pressure Injection Pressure drop, Radius of

Time, response, rate Ap (Pwf -- Pi)
: drainage,
t (hr) Pwf (psig) qw (stb[day) (psig) ra (ft)

0.050 249.0 -100 55.0 21.2

0.175 284.0 -100 90.0 39.7
0.250 324.0 -100 130.0 47.4
0.350 360.0 -100 166.0 56.1
0.375 368.0 -100 174.0 58.1
0.400 372.0 -100 178.0 60.0
0.420 374.0 -100 180.0 61.5
0.500 384.0 -100 190.0 67.1
0.570 424.0 -100 230.0 71.6
0.700 454.0 -100 260.0 79.3
0.820 594.0 -100 400.0 85.9
1.000 709.0 -100 515.0 94.8
1.200 774.0 -100 580.0 103.9
1.250 784.0 -100 590.0 106.0
1.500 789.0 -100 595.0 116.1
1.750 792.0 -100 598.0 125.4
2.000 793.0 -100 599.0 134.1
3.000 798.0 -100 604.0 164.2
4.000 799.0 -100 605.0 189.7
5.000 800.0 -100 606.0 212.0
6.000 803.0 -100 609.0 232.3
7.000 804.0 -100 610.0 250.9

a Drainage radius = 744.6 ft; time required to reach the boundaries of a tested
reservoir -- 61.7 ft.

9 Estimate the wellbore storage coefficient, C;

9 Estimate the permeability, k, a n d skin factor, s;
9 C h e c k to justify using the unit mobility ratio analysis.

Solution C u m u l a t i v e water injected at time of test,

W i - [qi • • n u m b e r of years • 365/year] bbl

= 100 • 1.00 x 1.5 • 365 = 54,750 bbls

Method of Analysis
9 Plot c o l u m n 4 versus c o l u m n 1 (Figure 14-4);
9 Plot c o l u m n 2 versus c o l u m n 2 (Figure 14-5);
9 Plot c o l u m n 5 versus c o l u m n 1 (Figure 14-6).
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 467

Figure 14-4. Log-log data plot.

800 ~ ~
Drainage radius = 744.6 ft
Time required = 61.65 hr
600 Near producing well .....
i i i

400 . . . . .

. ,

, ,
i i '.
200 - "i-. . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . .
; i ~ i l End of
i ; ~ i I wellbore
i ' i storage
~ ~ ~ ~ / 1 ~ effects
0 I

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Injection time t, hours

Figure 14-5. Unit mobility ratio analysis.

From these graphs, find the following using log-log type curve matching
techniques.
1. Injection time t where wellbore storage effects end. (Time at the
beginning of middle transient region MTR1.) Lower limits of usable
straight line should be checked by plotting log (pwf- pi) versus log
468 Oil Well Testing Handbook

1000 i i
i t
,
I I
! I
900 - - t I

ou.~~ .............................
i
i I
t
"l" ............................................................
P]h = 7 0 9 pslg
r I ,,,i ....
. ~

~ 700 -- s=0.67 !0 Slope m = 9 5

APskin=-55.26 psig i psig/cycle

600 .............................. ~i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.0 - 1 A p p r o x i m a t e end of

~' ' C wellbore storage effects
400 --- i i
O
,,~ ,i 8 ,I

i .....
. . . . . . .300
~5 . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 0 . . . . . ',. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m i oo o o
' 0 ;
200 - - ~i 0 i

PwsatAt=O=175 psig ~ i
! !
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100 ............................... t ....
; i
! !

0 i '
0.01 0.1 1 10

Injection time t (hours)

Figure 14-6. Semilog data plot.

time. The beginning of the straight line can be estimated by one of the
two methods:
(i) By the one and one half log cycle rule;
(ii) By the type curve overlay.
2. Injection time t where boundary effects appear. (Time at the end of
middle transient region, MTR2, where data begin to deviate from the
semilog straight line.)

Time Radius of
(hr) investigation rd (It) Equation used Remarks
2.25 142.2 (Eq. 14-12) Wellbore storage effects end
6.00 232.3 (Eq. 14-12) Boundary effects appear
61.65 744.6 (Eq. 14-12) Near producing well
drainage radius

Interpreted data
Pressure response at 1 hr -- 709 psig
Tubing pressure before injection = 175 psig
Slope, m, from Figure 14-6 = 95 psig/cycle
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 469

Calculated parameters
Figures 14-4 and 14-6 are log-log and semilog plots for the test data
shown in Table 14-1. Figure 14-5 is a semilog data plot to justify using unit
mobility ratio concept. Total producing time, tp, is 7.0hr. Using
Ap = 100 psi and At = 0.2 hr (from the unit slope line), estimate wellbore
storage coefficient, C:

C- qw/3w A t 100(1.0) 0.2

2---4-A--fi= 2~ • 1-fr0- 0.0083 rb/psi (from Eq. 8-6)

The value of C must be positive. Calculate wellbore volume corresponding to

C - 0.0083 bbl/psi.

C 0.0083
Vw = Cw = 3.0 x 10 -6 = 2767 bbls (from Eq. 8-8)

At the depth of 5002 ft, a casing radius is 0.95 ft, which is too large for a hole
of radius 0.25 ft. This clearly indicates the need for a check of the well
completion equipment and surface connecting lines. The current straight
lines in Figures 14--4 and 14-5 indicate m = 95 psi/cycle and pl hr 709 psi. =

Estimate the following parameters.

k- 162.2qw#w~w 162.2(100)(1.0)(1.0)
mh = 95(16) = 10.70mD (from Eq. 14-9)

i-
1 151 [plhr -- Pws@At=O
S
9 [. m - l o g ((b/z~tr2)+ 3.23]

"
F

1 151 ] 7 0 9 - 175
[ 95
log(0 .16(1.0)(6.17lo.7o
• 10-6)(0.25) 2.
) ] § 3.23
= 0.67 (from Eq. 14-10)

Pressure drop across skin using Eq. 14-13 is'

141.2(-qw)3w#w 141~2(_100)(1)(1) (0.67) - -55.26psig

Apskin = kh s - 0.70• 16

Radius o f investigation
Radius of drainage, rd = 250.9 ft (Table 14-1)
Distance to water bank, rwb = 311.51 ft (Eq. 14-11)
Since ra is less than rwb, it is justified to use unit-mobility ratio analysis.
470 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Liquid Filled Unit Mobility Ratio Reservoirs

Method of Analysis
The pressure will decline at a production well during drawdown, while
pressure at an injection well will increase during injection. That difference is
accounted for in the analysis method by using q < 0 for injection and q > 0
for production. The bottom-hole injection pressure for the constant rate
injectivity test is given by:

Pwf - Plhr + m log t (14--4)

Equation 14--4 indicates that a plot of bottom-hole injection pressure, Pwf,

versus the logarithm of injection time should have a straight line section, the
slope of which is given by:

162.6qo#ot3o (14-5)
m-- kh

The intercept, Plhr, is given by

[
Plhr = Pi + m log c/)#~tr~ 3.2275 + 0.869s
1 (14-6)

To estimate the duration of wellbore storage effects, a plot of log ( p w f - p i )

versus log t may be used. The beginning of the semilog straight line can be
estimated by the following equation"

(200,200 + 12,000s)C (14-7)

t > kh/~o

where

qo~oAt
C - wellbore storage coefficient - Ap (14-8)

The values of At and Ap can be found from the unit-slope portion of log-log
plot. Once the semilog straight line is determined, reservoir permeability, k,
and skin factor are estimated using Eqs. 14-9 and 14-10:

k - - 162.6qo#o~o (14-9)
mh

(k)
s -- 1.151 , h r ~ P i __ log dpoCtr2w + 3.227 ] (14-10)
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 471

Distance to water bank is calculated from the following equation: 5

,/5.615Wi
r wb = V 77r-~ 7"X-~w ( 14 - 1 1 )

where
rwb -- drainage radius (distance to water bank), ft
Wi - volume injected, res bbl
= qinj x / 3 w x injection time
/3w - water formation volume factor, rb/stk
The estimated permeability is used to determine a radius of drainage
from: 2

, /O.O00841kt
ra < rwb(condition to justify
rd ,.~ V q~#oCt '
unit mobility ratio analysis) (14-12)

The calculated value of ra should be less than rwb to justify using the unit-
mobility ratio analysis. Pressure drop across the skin may be estimated from:

141.2(-qw)~w#w
Apskin -- kh s ( 14 - 1 3 )

Flow efficiency is given by

pi - Pwf - Apskin
FE -- P i - P wf (14-14)

Equations 14--4 through 14-14 can be applied to injectivity testing in an

infinite-acting reservoir. Example 14-2 illustrates how to analyze this type
of test.

Example 14-26 Analyzing Injectivity Test in L i q u i d Filled Unit M o b i l i t y

Ratio Reservoir
Pressure response data for an injectivity test in a water-flooded reservoir
are given in Table 14-2. Before the test, all the wells in the reservoir had been
shut-in for several weeks and pressure had stabilized. Other known reser-
voir data are: depth = 1250 ft; rw = 0.25 ft; h = 20 ft; qw = - 120 stb/day;
pi - 225 psig; ct - 6.5 • 10 -6 P si-l', 6 - 16%', #w - 1.0cP; pw - 62.5 lbm/cuft;
/3w = 1.027 rb/stb; and tubing size -- 2 in.
o~
o~
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 473

Solution

M e t h o d o f Analysis

Plot the following figures using data from Table 14-2. Figure 14-7 is a
log-log data plot showing wellbore storage effects, which are important
from 2 to 3 hr. Figures 14-8 and 14-9 show radius of drainage performance
and semilog straight line through the data after 3 hours of injection. Inter-
preted data from Figure 14-9 are:
Pressure response at 1 hr, Pl hr - 725 psi
Tubing pressure before injection = 185.0 psi
Slope = 80 psig/cycle.
Calculated parameters
Permeability is calculated using Eq. 14-9:

k- -162.6qo/3o = 162.6(-120)(1.027) = 12.52mD

mh 80(20)

Estimate distance to water bank from Eq. 14-11"

, /s__.61sw, V/S.615(120)(1.00)(2.0 years) (365 day/year) = 380.1 ft

rwb- VTrkdp/kSw -- 22/7 (0.15)(20)(0.35)

Figure 14-7. Log-log data plot.

474 Oil Well Testing Handbook

800 I i 1 i
II Drainage radius = 744"6 ft
I I Time required = 61.65 hr I [
600 --~--~ Near producing well 1--'r

=~
/ [ Boun ~aryeffectslappear I i /"
"" / I rw~=386.1ft ~ I i [
400 -'}'4 ra~: 275.6 ft ~ ~ , ~ ! - - / .......
[ [ rdis LESS than rwdN 1~./
/ / Justify Unit Mobility ~ 1 i/
t" | Ratio, Analysis, '~'i~
. . . . . . . . . . ~ .......... J.......... '.
200 , i ' End of
i i i
i i wellbore
| i c t ~ I/ i,~ storage
i
0 [ ~ ~ , . . ~ . [ effects

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Injection time, t (hours)

Figure 14--8. Unit mobility ratio analysis.

1000 i i
! I
i i
! !
900- m ,
!
,
I
i

r~
800- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

700- - s = 1.20 . / . Slope m = 80

APski n = - - 8 3 . 4 pslg i psig/cycle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~j--
r~ 600 -'
r~
! ! Approximateend of
,! q wellborestorage effects
400-- m ! i

o
,1= I !
i _0 i
o 300 ............................. .i......................... OO-.-.-J..................................
I I
, 0 .
o ~I O0 ~176 i
200-- 0 i 0 0 i
i i
! I
, .
I !
i
100 ............................. t ................................ Ii.................................
i ,
i.
I !
. ,
! !
. ~
0 I I

0.01 0.1 1 10
Injection time, t (hours)

Figure 14-9. Semilog data plot.

 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 475

Calculate radius of investigation from Eq. 14-12:

~O.O00841kt /0.000841 x 12.52 x 7.5

= 275.6 ft
rd ,,~ qS#oCt = V6?i~i_6oi~6.3 ~ 10-6)
Since rd < rwb, using unit mobility ratio analysis is justified and Eq. 14-10
can be used to estimate skin factor:

s - 1.151 Pi _ log 6oCtr + 3.227

= 1 1 5 1 1 7 2 5 -( 2 285 0 0 ( x12"51 )( ) ) ]
9 -log -.16"6.5 10-6"-0.25 `2 + 3.227 - 1.20

Estimate pressure drop across the skin from Eq. 14-13:

141.2(-qw)#w#w 141.2(- 120)(1.0)(1.027)

APslcin -- kh s- 12.51(20) (1.20) - -83.4 psi

14.3 Pressure Fall-Off Test Analysis Methods

Pressure fall-off tests are performed on injection wells. Injection is analo-
gous to production (but the rate, q, used in Eqs. 14-17 and 14-19 is negative
for injection while it is positive for production). Shutting in an injection well
results in a pressure fall-off that is analogous to a pressure buildup. There-
fore the equations for production well testing apply to injection well testing
as long as sign conversions are observed. In this section we will discuss
pressure fall-off testing and injectivity tests for unit mobility and non-unit
mobility ratio cases including two-rate and step injectivity tests, utilizing test
data that may be used to determine well and reservoir parameters, along
with examples illustrating the analysis procedures. Figure 14-10 shows rate
schedule and pressure response for fall-off testing.

Liquid-Filled Unit Mobility Ratio Reservoirs

Eq. 14-15 can express the pressure fall-off behavior for both infinite-
acting and developed reservoirs:

Pw~-p*-m l~ tp+At)At (14--15)

476 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Shut-in

Injecting
~

At h~
Y

Time, t (hours)

e~o
r~

I~
r~
I
I

Time, t (hours)

Figure 14-10. Rate schedule and pressure response for fall-off testing.

where tp is the equivalent injection time and may be approximated by:

24 Vp (14-16)
tp= qw

If tp > 2tpss, then the time to reach pseudo-steady state (or steady state,
which for a five-spot system occurs at tDA --0.25 with A = area per well)
should be used in place of tp. Vp is the cumulative volume injected since the
last pressure equalization and qw is the water injection rate just before shut-in.
Equation 14-15 indicates that a plot ofpws versus log[(tp + At)/At] should
have a straight line portion with intercept p* at (tp + At)/At = 1 and with
slope - m where m is given by:

162.2qw#w/3w (14-17)
m-- kh

The log-log data plot should also be made so that the end of wellbore
storage effects may be estimated and a proper semilog straight line can be
chosen. Equation 14-18 may be used to estimate the beginning of the
semilog straight line for fall-off testing:

170,O00Ce ~
t- (hour) (14-18)
(kh/ w)
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 477

but the log-log plot is preferred. Reservoir permeability and the skin factor
are determined from Eqs. 14-19 and 14-20 as

162.6qw#o3w
k - mh (14-19)

and

s -- 1.151 [pwf(At=_~ -- Plhr

-log (k)
C~oCtr2 +3.227 ] (14-20)

Calculation of pressure loss due to skin APs~in (psi)"

Aps~in - 0.869ms (1 4-21)

Calculation of injectivity index (b/day/psi) and flow efficiency

i i
IACTUAL
-- --------=
Pw - P ' Iideal - (Pw -- fi) -- APskin
(14-22)

Iactual
Flow efficiency - Iideal ( 14-23)

If injection time tp is short, we can safely assume that p* = p. Otherwise

determine the average pressure, fi, using the following procedure.
Find the slope of the fall-off curve and find k; using k and other given
data, calculate dimensionless flowing time:

O.O00264ktp
tDA = ~#octA (1 4-24)

where A is the injection area and from Table 14-3, find the dimensionless
pressure function, PM,H"
-- p*

pM,I-I - (70.6i#/kh) (14-24a)

Since 70.6i#/kh - m/2.303, ~ - p* - p M , i - i ( m / 2 . 3 0 3 ) (psi) or

fi - pMm-i(m/2.303) + p* (psi) (14-25)

Example 14-3 s Analyzing Single Rate Pressure Fall-Off Test Data (Liquid-
Filled Case-Unit Mobility Ratio)
Pressure response data for an injectivity test in a water-flooded reservoir are
given in Table 14-4. Before the test, all the wells in the reservoir had been shut-in
478 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 14-3
Function for Computing Average Waterflood Pressure 3

Dimensionless injection time Dimensionless pressure function

t D A : O.O0064kt/q)ltct A (PMBH) = ( P -- p * ) / 7 0 . 6 i l z / k h
(Eq. 14-24) (Eq. 14-24a)

0.01 0.00
0.02 0.00
0.03 0.04
0.04 0.05
0.05 0.10
0.06 0.13
0.07 0.18
0.08 0.21
0.09 0.28
0.10 0.31
0.15 0.50
0.20 0.70
0.25 0.85
0.30 1.00
0.35 1.10
0.40 1.20
0.50 1.40
0.60 1.55
0.70 1.68
0.80 1.80
0.90 1.90
1.00 2.00
1.50 2.32
2.00 2.65
2.50 2.83
3.00 3.00
3.50 3.17
4.00 3.30
4.50 3.40
5.00 3.53
5.50 3.60
6.00 3.70
6.50 3.75
7.00 3.85
7.50 3.92
8.00 4.00
8.50 4.05
9.00 4.10
9.50 4.15
10.0 4.20
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 479

Table 14-3 (continued)

Dimensionless injection time Dimensionless pressure function

toA = O.O0064kt/OlzctA ( P g n . ) : (P -- p*)/70.6ilt/kh
(Eq. 14-24) (Eq. 14-24a)

20.0 4.90
30.0 5.30
40.0 5.60
50.0 5.84
60.0 6.00
70.0 6.18
80.0 6.40
90.0 6.43
100 6.52
200 7.22
300 7.63
393 7.91
4OO 7.93
5OO 8.14
600 8.33
700 6.48
8O0 8.60
9OO 8.70
1000 8.84

Table 14--4
Pressure Response Data in an Injectivity Test

Time, Tubing pressure, Pressure difference,

At (hr) (te + A t ) / A t Ptf (psig) 525 - P t f (psig)
(Ptfo - P t f ) -

0.00 - 525 0
0.07 572,231.00 300 225
1.00 40,057.10 268 257
1.50 26,705.07 251 274
2.00 20,029.05 245 280
3.00 13,353.03 202 323
4.00 10,015.02 184 341
5.00 8012.22 173 352
6.00 6677.02 159 366
7.00 5723.30 153 372
8.00 5008.01 145 380
9.00 4451.68 139 386
480 Oil Well Testing Handbook

for several weeks and pressure had stabilized. Other known reservoir data are"
depth - 4819ft; rw - 0.354ft; h - 49ft; q - 1426stb/d; ct - 6.5 x 10-6 psi-l;
~b - 16%; # - 1.0 cP; Pw - 62.5 lbm/cuft;/3 - 1.027 rb/stb and tubing size -
2 in; injected a r e a - 20 acres; cumulative volume injected before t e s t -
2380 mbbls; injection pressure at p w ( A t = o ) - 525 psi; hole s i z e - 8.50 in;
Co -- 3.0 x 10-6psi-I; C w - 3.0 x 10-6psi-~; Cg-- 1.00 x 10-4psi-I; cf -- 4.0 x
10-6 psi -1", So - 0 . 2 0 , Sg - 0 and Sw - 0 . 8 0 .

Solution Pseudo-producing time tp = 24 x 2380 x 1000/1426 = 40,056.10

hours (Eq. 14-16). The log-log data, Figure 14-11, indicate that wellbore
storage is important for about 0.01 to 0.07 hr. From semilog plot, Figure 14-12,
find the following: + Plhr : 268 psi, p* = --335 psi, slope m = 130psi/cycle.
Calculate permeability to water using Eq. 14-19:
162.6(1426)(1.0)(0.6)
kw = = 21.84 m D
130(49)

Using this k value and other data given in the example, we calculate dimen-
sionless flowing time for a 40-acre pattern flood (injection area A of 20
acres). F r o m Eq. 14-24,
O.O00264ktp _ 0.000264(21.8)(40,056.1)
tDA -- c~#ctA -- (0.16)(0.6)(7.0 x 10-6)(20 x 43,560) = 394.5

F r o m Table 14-3,
(~ -p*) 70.6i#
= 7.97, since kh =m/2.303
70.6i#/kh

10 4 I
,
i
i i
i i
i i
,
i i
,
i i
I I

i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
-~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 3 -
I O0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
09
i i
i i
i i
i i
10 2 - T i
' i

r~
~D

i i
i i
i i
10 i

0.01 0.1 1 10
At, h o u r s

Figure 14-11. Log-log data plot -liquid-filled case (unit mobility ratio).
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 481

l i I l l

i i P r e s s u r e at 1 h r = 2 6 8 p s i g
. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ -

300 ........ I = 112 p s i g .............. [. . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . ;.............

.~ 100
&
0

~"-100-I ........... l............. i-'-//-'-".~ - ............ i ............ 1 bef~ ~". . . . . . . .

-200

-300 --L--
_l
-I--

-'F .....
t
........................
' .... t
S l o p e , m = 130 p s i / c y c l e
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
/
/
-400 . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ J '
-I-- i =-335 pslg ..... i ............. i. . . . . . . . . . . . . i.............
/~ i , , ; i i
-500 t ~ i i ; ~ i
O. 1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106

(tp + At) / At

Figure 14-12. Pressure fall-off curve -liquid-filled case (unit mobility ratio).

Then, p - p* = 7.96(m/2.303)-- 7.96(130/2.303) = 449 psig, and obtaining

p* from Figure 14-12 (semilog plot), we find, ~ = p e = - 3 3 5 + 449 = 115 psi.
Calculate skin factor s and pressure loss due to skin, A p s k i , , from
Eqs. 14-20 and 14-21.

s- 1.151 w(zXt= --Plhr _ log ~#ctr + 3.2275

= 1 151 I 5 2 5 - 2 6 8 ( 21.84 ) 1
" 130 - l o g 0.16(0.9)(7.0 x 10-6)(0.354) 2 + 3.2275

= 1.15111.977 - 8.238 + 3.2275] - -3.49

Apskin -- 0.869ms -- 0.869(130)(--3.49) -- --395 psi

Calculate injectivity index and flow efficiency from Eqs. 14-22 and 14-23:

i 1426
Iac,,a/ Pw - P 525 - 115 3.48 b / d a y / p s i

i 1426
Iideal = 1.77 b/day/psi
(Pw - fi) - APskin (525 - 115) - 394
Iactual 3.48
FE . . . . . 1.96
Iidea l 1.77
482 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Estimate compressibility in the swept zone from the following equation:

Ct - - r - - SoCo nt- S w C w + C f -0.20(3.0 x 10 -6) -q- 0.80(3.0 x 10 -6)

+ 4.0 x 10 -4 -- 7.0 x 10 -6 psi -1

Prior to Reservoir Fill-Up-Unit Mobility Ratio

Hazelbroek et al. 3 have provided a solution for the pressure behavior in
this type of reservoir.
Case 1: The surface pressure decreases slowly and the well stays filled up
to the top for considerable closed-in time, because the reservoir pressure is
high. After-flow into the formation is small since it results only from the
expansion of fluid in the well as the pressure decreases.
Case 2: The surface pressure drops to zero a short time after closing in,
after which the liquid level in the well starts to sink. The volume of inflow
into the formation at any time is equal to the volume of the wellbore column
between the top of the well and the liquid level.
For both conditions, the injection well closed-in pressure is given by 3

Pws -- Pe = bl e-3'At (14-26)

where pws is the fall-off pressure in the well at closed-in time At, and Pe is the
pressure at the outer radius of the oil bank. Equation 14-26 indicates that a
plot of l o g ( p w s - P e ) versus At should be linear with slope /31/2.303 and
intercept bl a t / 3 t - - 0 . From the theoretical treatment in Reference 3, the
intercept bl and the injection rate i is related to kh by

i# 1 - C 1 - C2f (O) (14-27)

kh-bl (1-C37 "

where i is the injection rate; b/d and the quantities C1, C2, and C3 for case 1
are:

dZ8lblcw(pw-pi)
C1 = 0.0538 •
ip
C2=0
C3 = pw - Pe • C1 (14-28)
bl
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 483

For case 2 where the surface pressure drops to zero shortly after closing in,

d2t /31bl
C1 = 0.0538 x
ip
Pt
c2 - ~ c 1

C3 - - Pw - Pe • C1 (14-29)
bl

and for both case 1 and case 2

C1 (1 - C3) (1 4-30)
0 - 2(1 - C1 - C2)

where
dt = diameter of tubing or casing, inches
p = density, gm/cc
Cw = water compressibility, psi -1
p - - pressure, psi
31 = slope in hr -1
Knowing the value of parameter 0, we can find function f(O) from Table
14-5 and then using Eq. 14-24, find permeability-thickness product, kh.
Skin factor s is calculated from the following equation:

0.00708(pw - Pe) _ ln(re/rw) (14-31)

s - i#/kh

where

/ Wi(5.615)
(14-32)
re - - U T r ~ g T f - S;r}h

The next example illustrates the use of these equations and method of
analysis.

Example 1 4 4 5 Analyzing Single Rate Pressure Fall-Off Test Data (Prior to

Reservoir Fill-Up) M . R =1.0
Given data are: injection rate, i = 1020 bbl/day, wellhead injection pressure
(tubing) = 0psi; wellhead pressure (casing) = 598 psi; cumulative injected
water, Wi -- 6.077 mbbls; h = 45 ft; ~b -- 0.3; #w = 0.9; 3w = 1.0 rb/stb;
p w - 62.5 lbm/ft 3 - 1.0 gm/cc; C w - 3.0 • 10-6; c f - 4.0 • 10-6; C o - 3.0 •
10-6; Cg = 1.0 x 10-4; So = 0.56; Sw -- 0.32; Sg - - 0.12; Sg r = O; r w = 1.0 ft;
hole size = 6.366 in. Pressure fall-off test data are given in Table 14-6.
484 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 14-5
Function f(O) Versus 0 for Calculating k h 3

Parameter 0 calculated using Eq. 15-30 Function f(O)

0 181
0.0182 177
0.02 172
0.04 170
0.06 165
0.08 158
0.10 154
0.12 146
0.14 140
0.16 134
0.18 127
0.20 120
0.22 113
0.24 106
0.26 99
0.28 92
0.30 84
0.32 76
0.34 68
0.36 60
0.38 54
0.40 48
0.42 37
0.44 26
0.46 17
0.48 9
0.50 0

Solution The plot o f log (pws - P a y ) versus injection time at various values
o f average pressures is s h o w n in Figure 14-13; we find Pe = Pav -- 32psig,
intercept at At = 0, bl -- 340, and slope,/31 = 0.514 hr -1. F o r the case where
the pressure drops to zero shortly after closing-in, calculate the following
p a r a m e t e r s using Eq. 14-29.

C1 = 0.0538 • dZ~lb-------~l= 0.0538 • (6"366)2(0"514)(34) - 0.0374

ip (1020) (1.00)

598-32
C2 - O, since Pi - 0 --+ C3 - C1 • p w - P e = 0.0374 • =0.0623
bl 340
 I
~d
o~
~P
 ~40
°~
0
~t
J~
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 487

Figure 14-13. Pressure fall-off curves - prior to reservoir fill-up (unit mobility ratio
case).

Then, from Eq. 14-30, we find

Cl(1 - - C3) 0.0374(1 - 0.0623) 0.0351

=0.0182
0 -- 2(1 - C 1 - C 2 ) -- 2(1 - 0.0374 - O) = 1.925--------2

Knowing the value of 0, find function f(0) from Table 14-5, which is equal to
177. Calculate permeability-thickness product, kh, from Eq. 14-27:

i# 1 - C 1 - C2 1020(0.9) 1-0.0374-0
k h - b l (1 - - f(O)-- 340 -0"0623"2) (177.0)=523.2mDft
C3) 2
(1

and k - 523.2/45- 11.63 mD. Before finding skin factor s, first estimate
distance to water bank from Eq. 14-32:

/ Wi(5.615) / (6.097 x 1000)(5.615)

re -- V ~($7 - - 7 g ~ h -- V 22-/--ff7 ().05(-0~. i 2 : (})~5) = 82.0 ft

Now calculate, skin factor, s from Eq. 14-31"

S m
0.00708(pw -Pe)
- ln(re/rw) - 2.284 - 4.40 - -2.12
i#/kh
488 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Prior to Reservoir Fill-Up - N o n - U n i t Mobility Ratio

Hazelbroek et al. 3 have provided the following equations to analyze pre-

ssure fall-off single-rate test. Mobility ratio is given

M.R - kw#o
ko#w (14-33)

Ratio of volume of oil bank to volume of water bank is

Vo
Ratio -Vww (14-34)

Parameter -y and quantity roD are related to

"Y- Cw
Co (14-35)

1
rod = (14-36)

Permeability-thickness product kh and skin factor s are estimated by using

the following equations:

iw#w
kwh - - ~ 1 • 2F (1 4-37)

s-
O.O0708(pw-Pe)kwh
iw#w -
(m 2 l ) (InVFwwo+ 1 ) - l n (re)
Tw (14-38)

where iw is injection rate in b/d and function F can be determined from

Figures B-9 through B-11. Figure 14-14 shows water and oil banks and
Figure 14-15 illustrates fluid saturations.
The following example illustrates the application of Eqs. 14-33 through
14-38.

Example 14-56 Analyzing Single Rate Pressure Fall-Off Test Data (Non-
Unit Mobility Ratio Case)
For the data given in Example 14-4, for # o - 12cP, and for k o - 0.85
roD, and kw - 0.255 roD, So - 0.56, Sor - 0.20, sg - O. 12, and Sgr -- 0.0,

kw#o 0.255 • 12
Mobility r a t i o - M . R - = =4.0
ko#w 0.85 • 0.9
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 489

Figure 14-14. Showing water and oil banks. 3

Figure 14-15. Oil, water, and gas saturations in the reservoir. 3

Solution Pressure fall-off test data are given in Table 14-7. Figure 14-16
shows a semilog plot of log (pw - P a v ) versus injection time; from this figure
average reservoir pressure is:
P a v = Pe -- 32 psi

Volume of oil bank,

V o -- s O - Sor = 0.56 - 0.20 = 0.36

490 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 14-7
Pressure Fall-Off Test for Non-Unit Mobility

Parameter at various values of

Fall-off average pressure (Pws- Pay), psig
Injection pressure
time (hr) Pws, (psig) 10 20 32 50 75 90 100 120

0.000 598 588 578 566 548 523 508 498 478
0.250 597 587 577 565 547 522 507 497 477
0.500 552 542 532 520 502 477 462 452 432
0.800 530 520 510 498 480 455 440 430 410
1.000 515 505 495 483 465 440 425 415 395
1.450 482 472 462 450 432 407 392 382 362
2.000 442 432 422 410 392 367 352 342 322
3.000 382 372 362 350 332 307 292 282 262
4.000 352 342 332 320 302 277 262 252 232
5.000 324 314 304 292 274 249 234 224 204
6.000 304 294 284 272 254 229 214 204 184
7.000 289 279 269 257 239 214 199 189 169
8.000 262 252 242 230 212 187 172 162 142
9.000 257 247 237 225 207 182 167 157 137
10.000 245 235 225 213 195 170 155 145 125
11.000 232 222 212 200 182 157 142 132 112
12.000 222 212 202 190 172 147 132 122 102
13.000 211 201 191 179 161 136 121 111 91
14.000 200 190 180 168 150 125 110 100 80
15.000 192 182 172 160 142 117 102 92 72
16.000 182 172 162 150 132 107 92 82 62
17.000 175 165 155 143 125 100 85 75 55
18.000 167 157 147 135 117 92 77 67 47
19.000 160 150 140 128 110 85 70 60 40

Volume of water bank,

Vw - Sg - Sgr - 0.12 - 0.0 - 0.12

Therefore,

Vo 0.36
= - = 3.0 (from Eq. 14-34)
Vw 0.12

U s i n g Eqs. 14-35 a n d 14-36, find

Co 3.0 x 10 - 6
= = 1 and roD =0.5
"Y-Cw 3.0 x 10 -6 v'3+1
-~w+ 1
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 491

Figure 14-16. Pressure fall-off curves - prior to reservoir fill-up (non-unit mobility
ratio case).

Further, M.R = 4.0 and 7 = 1, since Co ~- Cwfor this dead oil. Therefore,
reading from Figures B-9 through B-11, we obtain, F = 220.
Calculate water formation permeability and thickness product, kwh from
Eq. 14-37:

iw#w 1020(0.9)
kwh-~- x 2F- 340 (2 • 220) - 1188 m D ft

This value of kwh is 2.27 times as large as that obtained for the single fluid
case.
The skin factor is found from Eq. 14-38"

s 000~0,~
~e,~,~ (~ ; '),n (~o~+,) ,n/~
000~0~,~ ~,,,,~, (4-,)
= 1020(0.9) -
(~) 2 ln(3 + 1) - I n

= 5.2272 - 2.0795 - 4.407 - - 1.26

This value of s is less negative (indicating a smaller effective wellbore radius)

than the value obtained in the single fluid case. Thus, use of the single fluid
case has given too large a value for effective wellbore radius and, as noted
above, too small a value for kh. This is the result one finds when the water
mobility is greater than the oil mobility ( M > 1). By obtaining too large an
492 Oil Well Testing Handbook

effective wellbore radius from use of the single fluid case, the engineer may
incorrectly decide that there is little possibility of injectivity improvement by
well stimulation. Use of the proper mobility ratio would lead to a proper
recommendation.

14.4 Two-Rate Injectivity Test Analysis

Using Conventional Methods
Pressure behavior of the well at time At' after the change in injection rate
is given by: 3

l o g ( P i w - { P + ~ [ pi2w - f i ] } ) - l ~ 181"2(il
i 2 )- # ) k h
(14-39)
kAt'
- 0.000664 •

where
piw - injection well pressure after change in rate, b/day
Pw = injection well pressure at time of rate change, psi
- average pressure in area between injector and producer, psi
Pe - mid-point pressure between injector and producer, psi
Equation 14-39 indicates that a plot of log(piw- {p + (i2/il)[Pw-P]})
versus At' should be linear; and from the intercept value of b at At' -- 0, we
find

kh - 181.2(il- i2)/z (14--40)

b

Trial-and-error values offi are used until the best straight-line is obtained.
To determine the value of skin factor, s, at the time of rate change

i l # ( re )
Pw - P + 141.2 x ~ - lng-~ + s (14-41)

Thus

s-
- p
i1#
_,n(re)
?-ww (14-42)
141.2 x
kh

where re can be determined from the slope of the plot of

log(piw - [p + (i2/il)[Pw -~]]) versus At'
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 493

k
/3 - 0.000664 x (9#cr2 (14--43)

Thus

0.000664k (ft) (14-44)

The average pressure must be determined by a trial-and-error procedure as

noted above. The procedure is to try various values of ~ until one is found
that yields the best straight line on the plot of l o g ( P i w - [ p + ( i 2 / i l )
[Pw - P]]) versus At'.
An example application of this method is given below.

Example 14-6 6 Analyzing Two-Rate Injection W e l l T e s t in a W a t e r f l o o d

Reservoir before a Tertiary Recovery Test
The well was stabilized at an injection rate of 2563 b/d. To obtain the
transient pressure data the rate was reduced to 742 b/d and pressure response
along with calculated data are shown in Table 14-8. Other data are as
follows: injection well pressure is twice the rate c h a n g e - 6 7 7 7 psi and
second injection rate - 742 b/d, well d e p t h - 4819 ft, h - 31 fto - 3.0 x
10 -6 psi -1, c f -- 4.0 x 10 -6 psi -1, Cw -- 3.0 • 10 -6 psi -1, c g - 1.0 x 10 -4
psi -1, q5 -- 0.244, #w -- 0.37 cP, /3w -- 1.0 rb/stb, So - 0.20, Sw - 0.80,
rw - 0.30 ft, and A - 95 acres. Estimate permeability, k, and skin factor,
s, and compare your results with the conventional method of analysis.

Solution Table 14-8 shows the data for two-rate injectivity test. Find the
average pressure in the region around the wellbore by trial and error proce-
dure; as shown in Figure 14-17 the average pressure is found to be 3600 psi.
Figure 14-18 is a two-rate injection test data plot using the Odeh and Jones
method. F r o m this plot, find the following parameters:

Slope, /3 - log(740) - log(460) = 0.00413 hr-1

50

Intercept, b - 740 psi

Determine the value of k using Eq. 14--40:

kh - 181.2(il - i 2 ) # = 181.2(2563 - 742)(0.37) = 1 6 5 m D f t

b 740
k- 165/31 - 5.32mD
494 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 14-8
Two-Rate Injectivity Test

Function at various values of average pressure

Fall-off pressure Pwi - [Pay + q2/q~(Pw -Pay)] (psig)
Injection after rate change,
time, At (hr) pwi (psig) 4500 4200 4000 3800 3600 3200 3000 2500

0.000 6777 1618 1831 1973 2115 2257 2541 2684 3039
0.100 6320 1161 1374 1516 1658 1800 2084 2227 2582
0.200 6120 961 1174 1316 1458 1600 1884 2027 2382
0.300 5920 761 974 1116 1258 1400 1684 1827 2182
0.400 5820 661 874 1016 1158 1300 1584 1727 2082
0.500 5720 561 774 916 1058 1200 1484 1627 1982
1.000 5620 461 674 816 958 1100 1384 1527 1882
2.000 5520 361 574 716 858 1000 1284 1427 1782
4.000 5380 221 434 576 718 860 1144 1287 1642
6.000 5320 161 374 516 658 800 1084 1227 1582
8.000 5300 141 354 496 638 780 1064 1207 1562
10.000 5250 91 304 446 588 730 1014 1157 1512
12.000 5200 41 254 396 538 680 964 1107 1462
14.000 5190 31 244 386 528 670 954 1097 1452
16.000 5170 11 224 366 508 650 934 1077 1432
18.000 5160 1 214 356 498 640 924 1067 1422
20.000 5125 -34 179 321 463 605 889 1032 1387
22.000 5115 -44 169 311 453 595 879 1022 1377
24.000 5110 -49 164 306 448 590 874 1017 1372
26.000 5105 -54 159 301 443 585 869 1012 1367
28.000 5102 -57 156 298 440 582 866 1009 1364
32.000 5090 -69 144 286 428 570 854 997 1352
36.000 5060 -99 114 256 398 540 824 967 1322
40.000 5030 -129 84 226 368 510 794 937 1292
44.000 5020 -139 74 216 358 500 784 927 1282
48.000 5000 -159 54 196 338 480 764 907 1262

Before using Eq. 14--41, first find the value of d r a i n a g e radius, re, using
Eq. 14-44, after r e a r r a n g i n g this e q u a t i o n

re --
~/ 0.000664k _ ~
/~r
0.000664(5.32)
(0.00413)(0.244)(0.37)(7.0 x l0 -6)
= 1164 ft

Check:

re = V/acres • 43,560 • 2 2 / 7

= V/95 • 43,560 • 2 2 / 7 - 1147 ft

 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 495

Time At (hours)

Figure 14-17. Two-rate injection tests - average pressure estimation.

104 i "
, ! !
! ! !

"~ p =2258psig [ ! !
,--4 wo i ! !
i
i i i

,._%2 S l o p e / 3 = 0 . 0 0 4 1 3 h r -1
" "

__ 10 ~ ............. , . . . . . . . . ......
. . . . . . . -. . ....... -.i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ................. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x . . . . . i
t, i i i !
i
Intercept b = 740 psi i i
, I
ii i ! ! i
i ,
,
, !
i ! ,
! ! i i
! ! i
.
,
I I i

,o~ I ' I ' i i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time At (hours)

Figure 14-18. Two-rate injection test analysis using the Odeh and Jones method.
496 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Substituting the values in Eq. 14-42,

m

s= Pw P - ln(re/rw)
-

141.2 x il#
kh
6 7 7 7 - 3600
( 2 5 6 3 ) ( 0 . 3 7 ) - ln(1164/0.3) - 3 . 9 1 2 9 - 8.2636 - - 4 . 3 5
141.2 •
5.32(31)

Conventional Analysis
Two-rate injectivity test and pressure data are shown in Table 14-9.
Figure 14-19 is a log-log plot; end of wellbore storage starts at about
0.05h, and Figure 14-20 is a semilog plot; from this plot find the
slope -- 81 psi/cycle and pl hr 621 psig. These values agree quite well with
=

the Hazelbroek et al. method.

14.5 Step-Rate Injectivity Testing Technique

Using Felsenthal et al. Method
Felsenthal 4 presented a technique to estimate the fracture pressure in an
injection well. Such information is important in water-flood and tertiary
floods where it is important to avoid injecting expensive fluids through
artificial fractures.

9~ 103

,-p~~ l i ? - l l - - I l n m ~ l l l
II
I
,~ 102 --
O

Wellbore storage effects

~
insignificant after the first data point
r~

~ 10
0.1 1 10
Time at second rate t (hours)

Figure 14-19. Log-log data plot for two-rate injection test.

 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 497

700 i ; i i i i ;
i i i ; i i i
i i i i i i i
.,=,
I I I I I I I
680 ........... 1. . . . . i. . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . t. . . . . . . . .
! S l o p e , m = 81 p s i / c y c l e ! ! !
I I I I
I' [ I I i I' I'
660 --~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . -/.4-- ~ ........ ; . . . . . :~y' -- i ........
r
i i ,q i ..~-6 ! i
9 i i ~\ i A>,-'i" I' '
O
640 - ---~ . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . ~ - - . -'5~. ~ ~ - - ..... i- . . . . . . 4 k= 10.04 --
9 i b. i i I s=o7o7
O
i i ,,,4.r. i i I.
620 ........... ; ........ , ...... , , , , _._~_
i - ' - ~ ...... ! Injection fall-off pressure i
0 ' Plh =621 psi i
600 i I I I I I

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

l o g ( t + At) / At + q2 / ql • l o g ( A t )

Figure 14-20. Coordinate plots - two-rate fall-off test.

A step rate injectivity test consists of injection fluid at a series of increasing

rates. Each rate will last about 1 hour; 30 min injection times are adequate for
formation with k > 10 mD. Normally four to eight rates are preferred.

Estimation of Formation Fracture Pressure

A plot of bottom-hole pressure or surface pressure versus injection rate

should give two straight-line segments. The break in the time indicates
formation fracture pressure, pf. The fracture gradient is given by

[(GRinj)(D) -+-pf ]
D (14-45)

where
GRinj = injected fluid pressure gradient, psi/ft
D = depth, fl
pf = formation fracture pressure, psi
Pressure data taken during each rate may be analyzed with multiple rate
transient technique. Pressure behavior caused by a variable flow rate is
given by: 1,3

m l' x log., l. ] +b .1.6.

qN j=l
 Table 14-9
Two-Rate Injectivity Test Data

Time, At (hr) Pwf (psi) Pressure difference (Pwfo -Pwf) (psi) log (te + At)/At logAt log(pwfo -Pwf) + ql/q2 log (tr + At)/At
m

0.000 832.0 - -
0.167 661.3 170.7 1.5798 -0.7771 1.2029
0.333 642.0 190.0 1.2913 -0.4775 1.0597
0.500 639.0 193.0 1.1258 -0.3010 0.9798
0.667 628.0 204.0 1.0114 -0.1758 0.9261
0.833 623.1 208.9 0.9253 -0.0793 0.8868
1.000 621.0 211.0 0.8562 0.0000 0.8562
1.333 620.0 212.0 0.7510 0.1248 0.8116
1.667 611.7 220.3 0.6728 0.2219 0.7804
2.000 611.7 220.3 0.6118 0.3010 0.7577
3.000 611.7 220.3 0.4858 0.4770 0.7171
4.000 611.7 220.3 0.4057 0.6020 0.6977
5.000 611.7 220.3 0.3495 0.6988 0.6885
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 499

Eq. 14-46 is the equation of a straight line with slope

m' 162.6/3#
= kh (14-47)

and intercept

[
b' - m' log d~#ctr 2 - 3.23 + 0.869s ] (14-48)

A plot of ( p i - - P w f ) / q N versus ~;=l [((qi -- qj_l)/qN) lOg (t -- tj-1)] should

appear as a straight line. Once the data plot is made, straight-line slope
and intercept are measured. Permeability and skin factor are estimated by
using the following equations:

162.6/3#
k- m'-------~- (14-49)

and

s- 1.1513 -log ~#ctr2 +3.23 (14-50)

In this multiple-rate analysis, a unit mobility ratio is assumed. The next

example will illustrate the analysis of step-rate injectivity test.

Example 14-7 A n a l y z i n g S t e p - R a t e Injectivity Test

Felsenthal 4 provides the data in Table 14-10 for a step-rate test in a
reservoir with the following properties: h - 2 7 0 f t ; ct = 1.5 x 10-Spsi -1,
rw - 0.25ft; q5 - 0.186fraction; #w - 0.45cP; 3w - 1.0rb/stb; well depth
= 7260 ft and injected fluid pressure g r a d i e n t - 0.433 psi/ft. Estimate forma-
tion permeability and skin factor.

Solution Figure 14-21 shows the normal step-rate data plot, ptf verses q.
The break in the data indicates a surface fracture pressure of about 1000 psi.
The fracture gradient is estimated by using Eq. 14-45.

[(0.433)(7260) + 1000]/7260 = 0.57 psi/ft

The data in Table 14-10 also may be analyzed for formation properties by
using the equation described in this section. Columns 4 and 5 in Table 14-10
contain the data to be plotted according to Eq. 14-46. Figure 14-22 shows
 Table 14-10
Step-Rate Test Data

Tubing pressure Ptf (psig) (Pi -- Ptf )/q psi/stb/d [(qi -- qi-1)/qn X Iog(t- ti-1)]
Time, t (hr) Injection rate, q (stb[d)

0.00 0 642.0
720.0 0.7800 -0.3000
0.50 -100
730.0 0.8800 0.0000
1.00 -100
856.0 0.8560 -0.1102
1.50 -250
874.0 0.9280 0.1204
2.00 -250
1143.0 0.6680 -0.3350
2.25 -750
1182.0 0.7200 -0.1124
2.50 -750
1216.0 0.7653 0.1238
3.00 -750
1450.0 0.7026 0.2454
4.00 -1150
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 501

1500 , i i I ! !
i , . i i i
.... -- i , i i i
1400-'-I ii i i i ,
/ . . i i i
, : i i i
1300 ---~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f ............... r ...... 7 ....... t ............... -; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-

a 1200q /
_! ~
pressure----] ~.i J l
21 !

d 1100 ' I'-"

~ ..... L ..... ~ i I Method of Analysis I
P~ 1000-- - . . . . ~ i ' - ~ , --- 'i I[ 1. P l o t s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e I[
~ / 'r ; ] versus injection rate /
900 .......... ~ - - ~ ........ l ............... ~". . . . . . . 1 on coordinate paper [-"
~ I ~ Find fracture pressure at /
800-- / ! i [, t ! e b r e a k in the data [
/ i i ; ~ i i
700 ...... .~: ........ ~ ........... 4............... -i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i i i i
i i i i i
600 m ; i i i i
i i i ; i
i i i i i
500 i ' i ; ;
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Injection rate, stb/day

Figure 14-21. Fracture pressure calculation.

Figure 14-22. Step-rate injectivity test analysis for water flood reservoir.

the data plot. The first four points, for the rates before the fracture occurred,
fall on the expected straight line. That line has the properties:

Slope, m ' - 0.357[psi/stb/day]cycle

502 Oil Well Testing Handbook

and

Intercept, b ' - 0.885[psi/(stb/day)]

Estimate formation permeability, k, from Eq. 14--49"

k = 162.6#_____~= 162.6(1.0)(0.45) = 0.76 mD

m'h (0.357)(270)

Determine skin factor, s, from Eq. 14-50:

s = 1.1513 - log
#et r2
) )
+ 3.23

= 1.1513 3 5 7 - log (0.186)(0.45)(1.5 x 10-5)(0.25) 2 + 3.23 = - 1 5

In Figure 14-22, the data points are for q - -750 and q - -1150 stb/d. It
does not fall on the straight line. These points correspond to data taken after
the formation fracture.

14.6 Summary
This chapter presents pressure analysis techniques in injection wells. The
injectivity test and the fall-off tests are used to estimate the reservoir proper-
ties of injection wells in waterflood and EOR recovery projects. The know-
ledge of reservoir properties and near wellbore conditions in injection wells is
as important as in the producing wells. Injection well transient testing and
analysis are simple as long as the mobility ratio between the injected and
in-situ fluids is about unity and the radius of investigation is not beyond the
water (injected) fluid) bank.

References
1. Hall, H. N., "How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well Performance,"
Worm Oil (Oct. 1963), 128-130.
2. Van Poollen, H. K., "Radius-of-Drainage and Stabilization Time Equa-
tion," Oil Gas J. (Sept. 14, 1964), 138-146.
3. Hazelbroek, P., Rainbow, H., and Matthews, C. S., "Pressure Fall-Off in
Water Injection Wells," Trans. A I M E (1958) 213, 250-260.
4. Felsenthal, M., "Step-Rate Tests Determine Safe Injection Pressures in
Floods," Oil Gas J. (Oct. 28, 1974).
 Injection Well Transient Testing and Analysis 503

5. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G., Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in
Wells. SPE of AIME Monograph. Vol. 1, Henry Doherty Series, 1967,
pp. 78-80.
6. Amanat, U. C., "Pressure Transient Test Analysis, User's Handbook,"
Advanced TWPSOM Petroleum Systems Inc; Houston, Texas, Vol 8
(1995).

Additional Reading
1. Merril, L. S., Jr., Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W. B., "Pressure Falloff
Analysis in Reservoirs With Fluid Banks," J. Pet. Technol. (July 1974),
809-818; Trans. A I M E 257.
2. Gogarty, W. B., Kinny, W. L., and Kirk, W. B., "Injection Well Stimula-
tion With Micellar Solutions," J. Pet. Technol. (Dec. 1970), 1577-1584.
3. Dowdle, W. L., "Discussion of Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs
With Fluid Banks," J. Pet. Technol. (July 1974), 818.
4. Kazemi, H., Merill, L. S., and Jargon, J. R., "Problems in Interpretation
of Pressure Fall-Off Tests in Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks,"
J. Pet. Technol. (Sept. 1972), 1147-1156.
5. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersch, K. M., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Wellbore
Effects in Injection Well Testing," J. Pet. Technol. (Nov. 1973),
1244-1250.