4. Cobb, W. M.? Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Miller, F. G.

, "Well Test Analysis

for Wells Producing Commingled Zones," /. Petroleum Techno!. (Jan.
1972), 27-37: Trans. AIME 253.
5. Earlouhger, R. C, Jr., Kersch, K. M., and Kunzman, W. J., "Some
Characteristics of Pressure Buildup Behavior in Bounded Multiple Layer
Reservoirs without Crossflow," /. Petroleum Technol. (Oct. 1974), 1178-
1186; Trans. AIME 257.
6. Camacho, V., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A. C, "Response of Wells
Producing Layered Reservoirs, Unequal Fracture Length," SPE Forma-
tion Eval (Feb. 1987), 9-28.
7. Raghavan, R., Topaloglu, H. N., Cobb, W. M., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.,
"Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing from Two Commingled Zones
of Unequal Thickness," J. Petroleum Technol. (Sept. 1974), 1035-1043;
Trans. AIME 257.
8. Russell, D. G., Goodrich, J. H., Perry, G. E., and Brushkotter, J. F.,
"Methods for Predicting Gas Well Performance," /. Petroleum Technol.
(Jan. 1966), 99-108.
 Chapter 16

Pressure Analysis
Methods in
Heterogeneous Oil
Reservoir Systems

16.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses variations of heterogeneities in rock and fluid prop-
erties including causes and effect of pressure-dependent properties. It also
presents how to analyze and interpret pressure behavior in heterogeneous
reservoirs near fault or other barriers and lateral changes in the hydraulic
diffusivity such as occur atfluidcontacts. Pressure behavior analysis methods
are presented in brief to obtain adequate reservoir description for isotropic,
anisotropic, and heterogeneous systems. Numerical solutions must be used to
analyze pressure transient data from heterogeneous systems.

16.2 Effect of Pressure on Rock Properties

It is well known from laboratory studies as well as from observed pressure
behavior in some wells that both porosity and permeability decrease
as reservoir pressure declines. For reservoir rocks, which are "normally"
compacted, these effects are usually less than for those which have unusually
high pore pressure, i.e., geopressured reservoirs. Carbonate rocks are more
heterogeneous. Sandstone rocks are less complex than carbonate rocks.
However, a quantitative evaluation of the porosity resulting from the
interaction of the various factors is possible only by laboratory measure-
ments. Sandstone and other classic rocks tend to be more elastic in their
behavior than carbonate rocks. Limestone often is somewhat plastic in its
behavior.
In general, it is expected to observe a decline in calculated permeability from
successive transient pressure tests run throughout the life of a well in depleted
reservoirs, declines of 10% or so may be observed, but because of variations of
 Deep Oil Reservoirs Low-Permeability Oil Reservoirs

Both permeability and Drawdown tests Buildup tests

porosity tend to decline with
declining reservoir pressure.

Short production times, initial permeability is constant.

For longer production times, the reservoir pressure
has decreased and the actual reservoir permeability
decreases as a result.
Slopes decrease Increase in oil production will increase in slope with
with decreasing oil increasing production times.
production rate. Buildup analysis will give useful average permeability
at the time of buildup test.

Figure 16-1. Effect of pressure-dependent permeability on drawdown and buildup

tests.

other kinds such as two-phase flow effects, etc., quantitative evaluation

becomes difficult. Therefore laboratory-determined curves of porosity and
permeability versus pressure should be used to predict pressure behavior.
References 1 to 5 concluded that neither permeability nor skin factor
should be estimated from drawdown or buildup tests using techniques like
those given in Chapters 4 and 5 in formation with pressure-dependent
permeability. Figure 16-1 illustrates their findings.

16.3 Major Causes of Heterogeneities

Heterogeneities may be caused because of:
Post-depositional changes in reservoir lithology
Folding and faulting
Changes in fluid type or properties
Variations in rock and fluid properties from one location to another
Physical barriers, oil-water contacts, thickness changes, lithology changes
Different properties in each layer, etc.
Man-made heterogeneities include changes near the wellbore from
hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, or water injection.

16,4 Pressure Responses Near No Flow Boundaries

Linear sealing faults and barriers have been an interesting topic in the
transient-testing literature.6"8 Horner7 considers pressure buildup and
Russell11 discusses two-rate flow testing in those systems. Regardless of test
type, the linear flow barrier affects the test in about the same way. To obtain
the effect of the linear fault, the following interpretation formulas, which are
needed in this particular instance, are given. A computed example of a
buildup test in a well located 225.0 ft from a fault is shown in Figure 17-6.
The data assumed for this example are given in thefigure.It can be seen that
the buildup test plot possesses two distinct straight-line slopes. As in the case
with a pressure buildup, the second or "late time" portion of the buildup test
curve has a slope, which is exactly double that of the "early time" portion of
the curve. The pressure response at a well near a sealing fault can be directly
obtained from the following equation:

(16-1)

Here YdD 2Ljrw, where L is the distance to this fault. If times are small
enough, then the second term in Eq. 16-1 can be assumed to be negligible
compared with the first, and the line source solution (Eq. 16-2) can be used
to analyze responses in the conventional way.

(16-2)

If the logarithmic approximation to the exponential integral is used, then

[pD(rD, tD)] is given by:

(16-3)

If flow times are long enough such that both exponential integrals can be
approximated by the logarithmic approximation, then we have

(16-4)

The above equation suggests that one should get a second straight line with
a slope twice that of the first. In practice, the doubling of the slope on
semi-logarithmic coordinates is normally taken to be indicative of a sealing
fault. If a fault exists, then the first straight line should exist for a time period
given by:

(16-5)
The second straight line should begin at 3r2dD. In the time range
0.08/^p < tj) < 3r^D it can be used to analyze pressure measurements or
predict pressure responses. The distance to the fault can be obtained if we
equate the semilog approximation of the line source solution (Eq. 16-3), to
the right-hand side of Eq. 16^L If we denote this time by 0.8r^, then
Q-5172r^D/4; then the distance to the fault is given by:

(16-6)

where tx is the intersection time in hours. This procedure assumes that both
straight lines are evident.

Methods of Estimating Distance to a Linear Discontinuity

The effect of a sealing fault or barrier in an infinite-acting reservoir is to
cause the buildup plot to start off as a straight line with the proper slope,
gradually bend over, and eventually become another straight line with
twice the slope of the first. The first straight line gives the proper value of
kh. The second straight line gives the proper extrapolation to pt. The
distance between the well and the fault may be obtained by using the
expression given by Davis and Hawkins9 for drawdown tests and seems
to apply reasonably well to buildup tests. The approximation takes the
final form:

(16-7)

where Atx = value at the intersection of the two lines.

The distance to a barrier can also be calculated by using the Eq. 16-8
developed by Van Poollen:10

(16-8)

where {tp + Atx)IAtx is the value at the point of deviation from the first
straight line. The following equation is applicable to both buildup and
drawdown tests and is known as Gray's equation:8
 (16-9)

where q is oil rate in bbls/day. This equation is most accurate if At is large.

This is a trial-and-error procedure by assuming various values of L until the
RHS of Eq. 16-9 is equal to the LHS. Gray8 also suggested that distance to
the nearest boundary can be estimated approximately by the following
equation:

(16-10)

where Atx is the time at which the buildup curve becomes non-linear.
From pressure buildup testing, the intersection point of the two straight
lines is related to the dimensionless pressure at the intersection line by:

(16-11)

Calculate/^ from Eq. 16-11. Then from Table 16-1, with the value ofpD,
determine tD/(2L/rw)2. Finally use the following equation to estimate the
distance to the fault.

(16-12)

Relationships between PD(ID, ?D) and tD/r2D are given in Table 16-1. The
detailed derivations of Eqs. 16-11 and 16-12 are given in Ref. 12.
Figures 16-2 and 16-3 show various situations of linear discontinuities
for single and multiple boundary cases. Figure 16-4 shows various methods
to estimate distance to linear discontinuity and their limitations.

Example 16-126 Estimating Distance to a No-Flow Boundary

A pressure buildup test was run in a newly drilled oil well. Geologists suspect
a fault. Data from the test are given in Table 16-2. Total production before
test is 14,206 stb; other reservoir and well data are: cj) 0.15 (fraction);
^ 0 = 0.6 cP, h = 8 ft; rw = 0.29 ft; ct = 17.0 x lO^psi"1; q0 = 1221 stb/day.
14,206
Pseudo-producing time, tp = ' x 24 = 279.23 hr

Calculate the distance to the linear fault using various methods.

 Table 16-1
Dimensionless Pressure at Various
Values of Dimensionless Time7

Dimensionless Dimensionless
pressure, pD time, tD/(2L/rtv)2

0.01 0.00
0.02 0.00
0.03 0.00
0.04 0.15
0.05 0.16
0.06 0.18
0.07 0.19
0.08 0.20
0.09 0.22
0.10 0.24
0.20 0.38
0.30 0.52
0.40 0.70
0.50 0.94
0.60 1.20
0.70 1.65
0.80 2.00
0.90 2.50
1.0 3.00
1.1 4.00
1.2 4.80
1.3 6.00
1.4 8.00
1.5 8.50
1.6 9.0
1.7 12.0
1.8 17.0
1.9 20.0
2.0 25.0
2.1 27.5
2.2 30.0
2.3 45.0
2.4 60.0
2.5 70.0
2.6 80.0
2.7 90.0
2.8 110.0
2.9 140.0
3.0 170.0
3.1 220.0
 Table 16-1 (continued)

Dimensionless Dimensionless
pressure, pD time, tDl(2L/rw)2

3.2 260.0
3.3 300.0
3.4 400.0
3.5 500.0
3.6 600.0
3.7 700.0
3.8 900.0
3.9 1200.0
4.0 1500
4.1 1750
4.2 2000
4.3 2500
4.4 3000
4.5 3500
4.6 4200
4.7 5000
4.8 7000
4.9 9000
5.0 1.0 xlO4
5.5 3.0 x 104
6.0 7.0 x 104
6.5 1.75 x 105
7.0 5.0 x 105
7.5 2.0 x 106
8.0 5.0 x 106
8.5 1.5 xlO7
9.0 3.0 x 107
9.5 1.5 xlO8
10.0 2.0 x 108

Solution Pressure buildup data are shown in Figures 16-5 and 16-6. The
log-log plot of Figure 16-5 indicates that wellbore storage effects are not
important, so the increase in slope in Figure 16-6 is probably caused by
reservoir heterogeneity. The ratio of the two slopes is 2.20. Since the absolute
value of the slopes is increasing with shut-in time, and since the slope ratio is
about 2, a linear fault is suspected. Formation permeability, k, is estimated
from the first straight line using Eq. 5-16.
 Linear sealing fault

Producing image
well well

Plan view

Second straight line

Point of
intersection
First straight line

Log (t+At)JAt

Figure 16-2. Fault near single boundary.

Table 16-2
Analysis of Data from Well Near Boundary

tP + At
At (hr) ^ pws (psia) Ap (psia) Distance to fault (ft)

6 47.54 3996
8 35.90 4085 16 252
10 28.92 4172 34 240
12 24.27 4240 52 225
14 20.95 4298 70 206
16 18.45 4353 88 189
20 14.96 4435 103 129
24 12.63 4520 135 71
30 10.31 4614 165 198
36 8.76 4700 204 285
42 7.65 4770 245 346
48 6.82 4827 275 400
54 6.17 4882 302 452
60 5.65 4931 330 498
66 5.23 4975 353 542
To estimate the distance to the fault, we determine (tp + Atx)JAtx 17.0
and Atx = 17.23.

1. Line source solution method

(16-13)

2. David and Hawkin method9

(16-14)

Sealing faults Sand pinch out

gas-water contact

Plan view of reservoir

Straight-line section

Log (t + At)ZAt

Figure 16-3. Fault nearby multiple boundaries.