SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 19842
Well Test Analysis in Oil Reservoirs with Gas Caps and/or Water Aquifers
by A. J. AI-Khalifa, ARAMCO, and A. S. Odeh, MOBIL R&D
SPE Members

Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989.

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 pres~~ted, have no~ been reviewed by th.e Soci~ty of .Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any pos1t1on of th.e Soc1ety of ~e~roleum En~~neer~, 1ts officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Eng1neers. Perm1ss1on to copy 1s restncted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Abstract -

This paper proposes a new solution for analyzing well tests run
in oil reservoirs underlain by water aquifers or overlain by gas
caps.
The presence of a gas cap and/or a water aquifer alters the
pressure response of wells penetrating the accompanying oil
sands. Only a single phase flows into the wellbore while a
segregated multiphase flow predominates in the formation.
Neither single-phase nor multiphase conventional pressure
transient solutions apply for such an environment. Type curves,
published in the literature, were developed assuming constant
pressure at the gas-oil or oil-water interface. For most practical
cases, this assumption appears to distort the physics of flow and
results in non-accurate answers.
In this study, a finely-gridded coning model was used to
simulate more than a hundred drawdown, buildup and injectivity
tests. In contrast to the constant-pressure assumption, the
semilog plots of pressure vs time exhibited straight lines
reflecting pseudo-radial flow across the entire formation
thickness. The semilog slopes were then used to yield the total
system transmissibility, (kh/J.J.) 1•
This paper also explains a time-lapse technique which uses
successive tests run in the same system to track the location of
the oil-water or gas-oil contacts with time. The same technique
may also be used to obtain an estimate of the end point relative
permeability in the swept zones.
Introduction
With the exception of solution gas-drive reservoirs, phases are
normally segregated in petroleum reservoirs. Gravity forces
cause gas to override and water to underride the oil phase. This
may result in an initial formation of a gas cap and a bottom
water. In dipping reservoirs, the flow between the wells may
also be segregated, even though a gas cap or a bottom water
might not be present initially.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
In practice, oil wells are completed quite apart from the gas and
water zones to prevent or at least delay the intrusion of unwanted
fluids into the wellbore. Since oil is a slightly compressible
fluid, it normally takes a short period of time for the voidage to
be felt at the gas-oil or oil-water interface. It is only during this
early time that gravity-segregated reservoirs, producing from the
oil zone, behave in a manner similar to that of single phase
systems. This early pressure response exhibits a short semilog
straight line which is normally masked by wellbore effects.
Later on, the pressure starts to flatten indicating the support of
the gas cap and/or the bottom water. This is illustrated in Figure
1 which shows the drawdown response of an oil producer under
a gas cap support. Since the pressure drop was plotted against
the same scale, the late response appears to be heading toward a
constant pressure. In other words, the system is trending
toward a steady state flow. This only occurs if one of the
boundaries is at constant pressure. This hypothesis led several
investigators (Strelstova-Adamsl,2, Buhidma and Raghavan3,
Chu et al4, Kuchuk et al5) to treat the gas-oil or oil-water
interface as a constant pressure boundary. Such a treatment
does not allow pseudo..radial flow (late semilog straight line) to
develop, and more importantly,
the entire formation properties cannot be easily estimated.
Here, we investigate the theoretical basis of the constant-
pressure assumption and show that it rarely applies in practice.
We also present a new solution to analyze the transient tests run
Constant-Pressure Assumption
In order to examine the applicability of the constant-pressure
assumption, one needs to briefly review the coning theory6. A
drop of water at an oil-water interface is acted upon by two
forces. First is the decline in pressure below the outer-radius
pressure due to the production sink in the wellbore. Second is
the differential hydrostatic head, due to the different densities of
oil and water, which works against the former force. Whenever
these two forces equilibrate, the water cone remains in a static
condition below the oil zone where the flow is occurring, Figure
2. The pressure of the water zone, beneath the well, would then

be equal to the outer-radius pressure (forming a constant-pressure
boundary beneath the oil zone). For such a condition to develop,
the well needs to produce below the critical rate? (i.e. the rate
beyond which the well starts producing water) for an excessive
period of time. Throughout this long period of time, the
constant-pressure assumption does not hold. Nor does it hold
when the rate changes, until the two forces re-equilibrate and
another static cone develops. In summary, the constant-pressure
assumption may only be valid under very restricted conditions
which may not be observed in the field.
Pseudo-Radial Flow
The pressure response of Figure 1 exhibits a late flattening which
normally misleads the analyst to conclude that the system is
trending towards a steady-state flow (i.e. under the influence of a
constant-pressure boundary). A careful look at the late response
on an expanded scale might change the picture completely. As an
example, the late flat response of Figure 1 was drawn on an
enlarged scale, Figure 3. An important feature of Figure 3 is the
appearance of a late semilog straight line reflecting the pseudo-
radial flow across the entire formation thickness. In fact, it was
just the scale of Figure 1 which made it looked like a constant
pressure at late time.
The pressure response of all tests, simulated using the coning
model described below, was plotted and found to exhibit semilog
straight lines reflecting pseudo-radial flow across the entire
formation thickness. The slopes of the semilog straight lines
were interpreted in the conventional HomerS or Miller-Dyes-
Hutchinson9 solutions. Such slopes were used in the following
equation to yield the total system transmissibility:
kh}
( Jl t
=(kh) + (kh\ = 162.6 qoBo (1)
Jl o Jl It slope
where l stands for water in oil-water system or gas in gas-oil
system. The qJ3 0 term represents the voidage rate in Rbbl/day,
since oil is the only phase being produced in such systems. This
equation should replace Equation 5 of Reference 10 and
Equations 1 through 4 of Reference 11.
For buildup tests, the wellbore skin equation can be written as:
St = 1.1513 rpllu- -) p wl(At=O)
l s ope
-log[ (~l
0rw2 [{cth)o + {cth)w]j
l
+ 3.23 J (2)
where s1 is the total wellbore skin.
The skin due to damage can be computed using the following
equation:
(3)
where
(4)
SfE 19842
The index p stands for penetrated, and sP is the skin due to
partial penetration. The sP term can be computed using Odeh's
empirical relation 12 or Brons-Marting chartsl3. Both methods
were derived for single-phase homogeneous systems, where the
term f3 reduces to hpl h 1• Therefore, the term hpl hz in b?th
solutions should be replaced by the term f3 defined by Equation
4.
Numerical Model
The black-oil, coning simulator by Trimble and McDonald14
was used to build several finely-gridded coning models. Rock
and fluid properties were changed from one run to another. An
example set of PVT data is given in Table 1. The relative
permeability curves, given in Table 2, were used.
The coning model was discretized into twenty radial segments.
The cell boundaries were located at a log-average distance from
the pressure points. The oil-water or gas-oil interface was
considered flat at the start of the simulation nm. In some cases,
the well penetrated the very farthest from the interface, while in
others, the well penetrated the middle of the oil zone.
Grid Sensitivity
An oil reservoir is physically a continuous entity. However,
numerical modeling represents only discrete entities. Higher or
Since gravity is a dominant force in gas-cap and water-drive
systems, very fine discretization is needed in the vertical
direction to represent the actual cone development in the field.
This cone development reflects the pressure support of the water
or gas zones which translates into an effective (khl J.L)w or
(kh/J.L)g term.
Example
The coning model was used to simulate buildup tests following
drawdown periods in an oil-water system. The purpose of these
runs was to illustrate the validity of Equation 1, as well as to
The well penetrated the extreme top twenty feet of a fifty-feet oil
zone underlain by a seventy-feet water zone. The well was shut
in for ten hours following a nine-hour flowing period. Other
input data are given in Table 3.
The simulation was repeated three times for three different
discretization schemes in the vertical direction. The first system
was discretized into 20', 10', 10', 10' (top to bottom) for the oil
zone and 70' (one block) for the water zone, (Nz=5). The
second system was discretized into uniform grids of five feet
thick. Similarly, the third system was discretized into uniform
grids of only two feet thick. The semilog plots of the shut-in
pressure response vs (th+Llt)/Llt are shown in Figures 4 to 6.
The late response of Figure 6 is drawn on an enlarged scale,
Figure 7. The difference in the unit response slopes (slope/rate)
is due to the significant effect of the different discretization on
the representation of the cone development, i.e. the pressure
support (khlJ.L) of the water sand.
The semilog slope of the third run (Figure 7) is used in Equation
1 to yield the total system transmissibility:
kh)
( Jl t
=(kh) + (kh) =162.6 X 2000 X 1.09 112888 md-ft
cp
Jl 0 Jl w 3.14
 SE.E 1984 ?
This result is in good agreement with the input value of 114370 for the recent test,
md-ft/cp.

Time-Lapse Technigue
[(k:L (k:Ll.. +
8
test+ h [(~L- (~Ll (8)
162.6 qoBo)
(
= slope Recent test
Following, we explain a time-lapse technique which reconciles
the information obtained from a base transient test and a base
saturation log to interpret the results of a recent transient test. Subtracting Equation 7 from Equation 8 yields Equation 6.
The objective is to determine the location of the oil-water or gas-
oil contacts over the entire drainage area, rather than that
determined at the sandface using saturation logs. Or else, to Estimation of k'rw
determine the water endpoint relative permeability, k'rw, which
reflects field-scale heterogeneities, rather than that measured in In order to determine the endpoint relative permeability, one
the laboratories using a small piece of rock, i.e. cores. needs to run a recent saturation log and proceed as follows:
Hereafter we require that h 0 and hw be estimated using 1. Determine hoi and hwi from the base saturation log, also
saturation logs. Prior to logging, the well should be shut-in determine h0 and hw from the recent saturation log.
long enough for sandface saturation to reflect the average h0 and
hw over the entire drainage area This would minimize the effect 2. Use the estimated thickness of Step 1 in the following
of coning on the following procedures. equations:
Tracking Fluid Contacts
k (h)J.1 o,i + kw (h)J.1 w,i = (162.6slopeqoBo lEase
\
test
(9)
In order to determine the location of the fluid contacts, one needs and
to eitlier believe in the laboratory determination of k',w, or
otherwise, determine k'rw using well tests (as will be explained k (h)J.1
0 +
k
w
(h)J.1 _(162.6
w-
qoBo)
slope Recent test
(10)
later). Note that
3. Solve Equations 9 and 10 fork and kw
=1 for virgin aquifers, kw = ko = k
k'rw 4. Evaluate k'rw:
<1 for swept zones,
(11)
Following is a proposed procedure to determine the fluid
contacts:

1. Determine hoi and hwi using the base saturation log
(i stands for initial condition).
2. Determine k using the semilog slope of the base
transient test in the following equation:
Conclusions
1. The oil-water or gas-oil interface might behave as a constant-
pressure boundary under very restricted conditions which
may not be observed in the field.

2. Under most practical conditions, a semilog plot of pressure

k= 162.6 q0 B 0 (5) versus time exhibits n late straight line reflecting pseudo-
slope [(ll)J.1 .+ k;w (ll)J.1 .]
0,1 W,l
radial flow across the entire thickness. The slope of this
straight line is used in the proposed solution to obtain an
estimate of the total system transmissibility.
3. Estimate the rise of the oil-water contact, Llh, using
the values of k and k'rw in the following equation: 3. A time-lapse technique was proposed to track the location of
the oil-water or gas-oil contacts with time. The same
162.6 q0 Bo) (162.6 q 0 B 0 ) technique may be used to determine the endpoint relative
permeability in the swept zone. This technique reconciles
~h =( slope Recent test slope Base test (6) information from a saturation log and a transient test, run in
k~ _ _k_ the past, with a recent transient test.
Jlw Jlo
Acknowledeement
The term & is the average rise of the oil-water contact over the
entire drainage area. This average rise should agree with Appreciation is given to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of
saturation logs run after a long shut-in period, where cones have Petroleum and Mineral Resources and to Saudi ARAMCO
already receded to the flat oil-water contact level. for permission to publish this paper. Many thanks are also
due to Mr. J. R. Helbling for kindly reviewing this work. I
Equation 6 was derived by simply formulating Equation 1 as am also grateful to Mr. Ed E. Abario and Mr. F. N. Santiago
follows: for their help in finalizing this paper.

for the base test,

kh) (kh) l _(162.6 qoBo) (7 )

[(~ o,i + ~ w,iJBase test - slope Base test
 se.E 198 4 2
References

1. Strelstova-Adams, T. D., "Pressure Drawdown in a Well

with Limited Flow Entry", Journal of Petroleum
Technolo~y, (Nov. 1979), pp. 1469-1476.

2. Strelstova-Adams, T. D., "Pressure Transient Analysis for

Afterflow-Dominated Wells Producing from a Reservoir
with a Gas Cap", Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April
1981), pp. 743-754.

3. Buhidma, I. and Raghavan, R., "Transient Pressure

Behavoir of Partially Penetrating Wells Subject to
Bottomwater Drive", Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(July 1980), pp. 1251-1261.

4. Chu, W. C., Chen, J. C., Reynolds, A. C., and Raghavan,

R., "On the Analysis of Well Test Data Influenced by
Wellbore Storage, Skin, and Bottomwater Drive" Journal of
Petroleum Technology, (Nov. 1984), pp. 1991-2001.

5. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P. A., Wilkinson, D. J., and

Thambynayagam, R. K. M., "Pressure Transient Behavoir
of Horizontal Wells with and without Gas Cap of Aquifer",
SPE Paper 17413, presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting held in Long Beach, California, March 23-25,
1988.

6. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homog:eneous Fluids throug:h

Porous Media, IHRDC (1982), Boston.

7. Chappelear, J. E. and Hirasaki, G. J., "A Model of Oil-

Water Coning for Two-Dimensional, Areal Reservoir
Simulation", Society of Petroleum En~ineers Journal,
(April 1976), pp. 65-72.

8. Horner, D. R., "Pressure Buildup in Wells", Proc., Third

World Pet. ~ong., The Hague, (1951), II, pp. 503-521.

9. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr.,

"The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure
from Bottomhole Pressure Buildup Characteristics", Trans.
AIME, (1950), 1.8.2., pp. 91-104.

10. Al-Khalifa, A. J., Horne, R. N., and Aziz, K.,

"Multiphase Well Test Analysis: Pressure and Pressure-
Squared Methods", SPE Paper 18803 presented at the
California Regional Meeting, (April 5-7, 1989).

11. Al-Khalifa, A. J. and Odeh, A. S., "Well Test Analysis in

Gravity-Segregated Reservoirs", Unsolicited SPE Paper
18577, (July 1988), Richardson, Texas.

12. Odeh, A. S., "An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due
to Restricted Entry", Journal of Petroleum Technoloc:y,
(June 1980), pp. 964-965.

13. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E., "The Effect of Restricted

Flow Entry on Well Productivity", Journal of Petroleum
Technology, (Feb. 1961), pp. 172-174; Trans AIME, 222.

14. Trimble, Russell, H. and McDonald, A. E., "Strongly

Coupled, Fully Implicit, Three-Dimensional, Three-Phase
Well Coning Model", Society of Petroleum En~ineers
1mu:Iml, (Aug. 1981 ), pp. 454-458.
15. Abderrahman, S. H., Layered Petroleum Reservoirs with
Cross-Flow, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Southern
California (1983).
 TABLE-1

THE SET OF PVT DATA FOR THE SIMULATED EXAMPLE

p' f3 ' Jlo' Rs, Jlw,

psi Rbbl/STB cp scf/STB cp

100 1.0536 5.28 18 0.67

400 1.1 084 4.288 108 0.67

800 1.105 4.434 108 0.67

1200 1.1016 4.58 108 0.67

1600 1.0982 4. 726 108 0.67·

2000 1.0948 4.871 108 0.67

2500 1.0906 5.054 108 0.67

3000 1.0863 5.23·6. 108 0.67

 Sf!E 19842

TABLE-2

THE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

CURVES FOR THE SIMULATED EXAMPLE

Sw krw kro
0.1 o· 0.0 1. 0

0.2 0.004 0. 775

0.25 0.009 0.665

0.3 0.21 . 0.58

0~·35 0.038 0.485

0.4 . 0.068 0.407

0.45 0.120 0.335

0.5 0.155 0.255

0.55 0.225 0.19

0.6 0.297 0.15

0.65 0.397 0.106

0.68 0.445 0.088

0.86 0.64 0.00

1.0 1.00 0.00

 seE 19842

TABLE-3

INPUT DATA FOR THE SIMULATED EXAMPLE

ho = 50'

hw = 70'

hp = 20' (extreme top)

0 = 0.30

kh = 1000 md

kv = 1000 · md

rw = 0.24

Q = 15.6 X 10·6
Cw = 2.3 x 10·6
Pi = 2490 psi at the oil-water contact

tt = 9 hours
N
..::r

-
cc
Q\
FIGURE -1

L&.l
ei DRAWDOWN TEST, OIL GAS SYSTEM, hg/ h 0 = 0.162
2997

.
2996 -a
.I
l:l
2995-
·-D..
U)
. a·
ft

iD. 2994-
B
1:1
.
a
2993- El
1:]

. a .m
lEI lEI lEI lEI
2992 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 I I

.01 .1 1 10
t, DAYS
 C\1
4'
co FIGURE- 2
...
a-
A STATIC CONE BENEATH AN OIL PRODUCER
.L&J
5J

I
I
I
I
I.
l I

. OIL
STATIC
CONE
CONSTANT PRESSURE

WATER
 . .

N FIGURE- 3
~
co
: LATE RESPONSE OF FIGURE 1, ENLARGED SCALE .
Ul
3i 2993.2...-----------------------.

1!1

2993.0 .. SLOPE =0.78 psi/CYCLE

B

·c;; 2992.8
D.

iD.
2992.6

2992.4

2992.2 -1----..--....--,r---...---...---..---r-r-r------,.--~-r---r---,--.---r--r-t
.1 1 10

t, DAYS
C\1
FIGURE- 4
..:r
co
...
0'

UJ
THE SIMULATED BUILDUP, USING COARSE GRIDS
IN THE VERTICAL DIRECTION .
OJ
cn. 2478.6-.-----------------------~

2478.4 RATE =500 STB I D

. SLOPE =1.74 PSI/ CYCLE
2478.2

w
§ 2478.0
en
en
w
a: 2477.8
D.

2477.6

1!1
2477.4

2477.2 -L--.-----.r----..---r--~--~---~.-----------.
10 1
.th + ~t
~t
N
FIGURE- 5
~
Q)

...
0\ THE SIMULATED BUILDUP, USING 5' UNIFORM. GRID
THICKNESS IN THE VERTICAL DIRECTION
51 2473.2-.----------------------------.

RATE = 500 STB I D

2473.0 SLOPE =1.12 PSI/ CYCLE

~ 2472.8
~
(/)
(/)
w
·a:
D. 2472.6

2472.4

2472.2 -t--...----.-......-----.~---.---...----.--------......-------.....iol
10 1
th + L\t .
.L\t
 N FIGURE· 6
-4"
(()

...
o-
THE SIMULATED BUILDUP, USING 2' UNIFORM GRID
LLI
DJ. THICKNESS IN THE VERTICAL DIRECTION

2480,---------------------------------------------~

2460 t:l 1!1

1!1
1!1
1!1
2440 El
1!1
w 1!1
0: 1!1
::l .2420 [!]
(/)
(/) a
w 1!1
0: 1!1
D.
2400
1!1

2380
[!]
2360 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

10000 1000 100 10 1

N
FIGURE -7 ·
-4"
co
...
~

LLI
THE SIMULATED BUILDUP, USING .2' UNIFORM GRID
THICKNESS IN THE VERTICAL DIRECTION, ENLARGED SCALE
»J
2472.0-.------------------------..

RATE = 2000 STB I D

2471.6 SLOPE =3.14 PSI/ CYCLE

w 2471.2
a:
:l
(/)
(/)
w
~ 2470.8

2470.4

1!1
2470.0 L---....-..--~-~~-.,r------,r-----..,..--------t
10 1
th+~t
~t