OTC 24442

Reservoir Limit Test Under Aquifer Influence

Gilvan Soares Feitosa, Petrobras

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2931 October 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of
the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the
Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
Reservoir Limit Test (RLT) aims to obtain the volume of oil-in-place (VOIP), a valuable parameter at early stage
of reservoir life. RLT is characterized by the wells production under pseudosteady state (PSS) flow regime. The
basis for RLT in oil reservoirs without aquifer is well established, in theory and in practice, since long ago. But
RLT in presence of aquifer still is not well understood, thus the need for further research.
This work presents the theoretical foundation of Reservoir Limit Test under aquifer influence based on material
balance, new in the literature. It investigates how aquifer affects a RLT as the pseudosteady state flow takes
place. Various aspects have been investigated, such as aquifer size, hydraulic connection and aquifer
contribution to the total system compressibility.
Basic relations for RLT under influence of aquifer were developed and checked by significant number of
simulated cases. These relations are similar to the classical ones published long ago, but now with the effect of
aquifer incorporated. The differences are in the overall water and oil saturation, the total system compressibility,
and the porous volume hydraulic connected to the well. The oil-aquifer system total compressibility is a function
of average oil and water saturation in the entire porous volume including the aquifer. This new average total
compressibility controls the pressure drop during pseudosteady state flow. Rigorous calculation of VOIP requires
the ratio aquifer-water volume to oil volume, otherwise only estimates are possible. It is observed that given
enough time, the pseudosteady state flow develops for oil-aquifer system for broad size range of confined
aquifers. Even for a weak aquifer with reduced hydraulic connection to the oil zone, its presence is felt in the
PSS and must be taken into account. Important to note, the VOIP value that results after taking the aquifer into
account may be significantly smaller than the value calculated without considering the aquifer.
A Brazilian deepwater oilfield with aquifer case, with two wells equipped with permanent downhole gauge
(PDG) is presented. A dozen RLTs are observed at early stage of production. Its data, analysis and results,
illustrate and substantiate the observations and conclusions of this work.
Introduction
The reservoir limit test was introduced by Park Jones1 in 1956. The ultimate goal is to determine the volume of
oil in-place through the analysis of well pressures after reaching the pseudosteady state flow regime, what occurs
after the well has been producing at a constant oil flow rate long enough until all reservoir limits are reached.
The basis for RLT in oil reservoirs without aquifer is well established, in theory and in practice, since long ago.
But RLT in presence of aquifer still is not well understood, thus needing more research.
Literature. The aquifer influence on reservoir behavior is recognized since long ago. However, especially
concerned to RLTs, this influence has not yet been explored properly and only few papers about this subject are
found in the literature. Kaczorowski2 in 1993, one of the few to examine the effect of aquifer in RLT, developed
an empirical method to determine the oil in-place by RLT with two flow rates. It is assumed that the effect of

OTC 24442

aquifer in the pressure during the PSS is the same for both rates. Simulated results and field data that seem
reasonably consistent are shown, however, his methodology has no sustainable basis and failed several tests
carried on with simulated RLTs.
Work. This work investigates the influence of the aquifer in the development of pseudosteady state and in the
calculation of the Vp and VOIP that are in the reservoir limit test essence. Various aspects have been
investigated, such as size and hydraulic connection of the aquifer, and its contribution to the total system
compressibility. It is shown that the aquifer, small or large, weak or strong, affects the development of PSS and
the ct, and therefore the RLT. Pseudosteady state regime can be established, in reasonable time, when the aquifer
is relatively small, of the order of magnitude of the oil volume in the reservoir. And also settles with the large
aquifer, without external power supply, but after a time that may be impractically long.
Basic relations were developed for RLT under influence of aquifer based on material balance (annexes A and B),
involving the average oil and water saturation, total compressibility, the porous volume hydraulically connected
to the well and the volume of oil in-place. These new derived relations are identical to the conventional ones
published since long ago, but with the aquifer effect embedded. They have been widely validated by significant
number of simulated cases. It was also developed a practical relationship of VOIP to the ratio of the aquifer
water volume to the oil volume in the reservoir.
Field case.
It is presented a real case of an offshore deepwater well, equipped with PDG, located at
Northeastern coast of Brazil that has been producing oil for more than two years from a reservoir with an
aquifer. Located 750 m apart from this one, there is another well, also monitored by PDG, currently injecting gas
that was used as an observation well. Since the production starting several RLTs have taken place and the PSS
has been diagnosed by observing the same pressure drop at both wells. The relations developed in this work were
then applied to actual data, taking into account the aquifer, yielding more substantiated results than those
obtained with the theory that had been available until now, which does not consider aquifer.
Reservoir Limit Test
The reservoir limit test, whose main objective is to determine the volume of oil in-place, consists in producing an
well at a constant flow rate for time long enough to reach the pseudosteady state flow regime. In this condition
all reservoir limits are reached and the pressure everywhere in the reservoir, as well as the average pressure,
declines at the same constant rate m*, given by equation (1)
m* =

q Bo
dp
=
............................................................................................................................................ (1)
dt
ct Vp

This is the fundamental RLT equation, from which the porous volume hydraulically connected to the well, Vp,
is calculated as in equation (2).
Vp =

q Bo
c t m*

..................................................................................................................................................... (2)

Equation (1) comes from the classical flow pressure equation of a well producing under pseudosteady state
condition from an oil reservoir, without aquifer, above the saturation pressure. It is assumed that (Bo/ct ) does not
vary during pseudosteady state period recording, which is a reasonable assumption at this condition. In this
equation Vp refers to porous volume hydraulic connected to the well, which involves only oil and connate water,
and total compressibility, ct, is calculated by equation (3) with the oil and water saturation, So and Sw, obtained
from well logs.

c t = c o So + cw Sw + c f ................................................................................................................................ (3)
Once Vp is obtained from equation (2), then the value of VOIP is calculated using equation (4)
VOIP = Vp

So
q So
=
................................................................................................................................. (4)
Bo c t m *

This is the classical1 reservoir limit test theory for a reservoir above the saturation pressure without aquifer. In
the following it is presented how to take into account the aquifer influence into a reservoir limit test.

OTC 24442

Aquifer Influence
The aquifer, small or large, weak or strong, impacts the development of the pseudosteady state flow regime as
well as the total system compressibility, ct. Thus, influencing on the reservoir limit test. PSS settles in the
presence of finite aquifer of almost any size and a broad range of hydraulic connection strength.
This work presents the development of the basic equation for a reservoir limit test under aquifer influence,
equation (5), based on material balance, as shown in annexes A and B. This new equation has not yet been
presented in the literature to the best of my knowledge.
It is shown that the pressure drop during the pseudosteady state flow in the presence of aquifer, according to the
equation (5), is controlled by the average total compressibility, ctm, equation (6), which is a function of the
average water and oil and saturations, according to equations (7) and (8) and the total porous volume
hydraulically connected to the well, Vpt, equation (9), all including the aquifer.
q Bo
dp
=
........................................................................................................................................ (5)
dt
c tm Vpt

m* =

c tm = c o Som + cw Swm + c f ..................................................................................................................... (6)

Swm =

Vwc + Vw
, ............................................................................................................................................. (7)
V pt

Som =

Vor
= 1 Swm ......................................................................................................................................... (8)
Vpt

Vpt = Vor + Vwc + Vw ......................................................................................................................................... (9)

Similarly to the classical theory, the porous volume hydraulically connected to the well, Vpt, now including the
aquifer, can be calculated from the basic RLT equation with aquifer, (5), as in equation (10)
Vpt =

q Bo
c tm m*

................................................................................................................................................ (10)

Similarly, the VOIP is calculated by equation (11)

VOIP =

q Som
c tm m*

............................................................................................................................................. (11)

To determine the porous volume hydraulically connected to the well through reservoir limit test under aquifer
influence, Vpt, as well as VOIP, one must first determine the total average compressibility ctm, equation (6).
Which requires knowing a priori the average water saturation, Swm, equation (7), and the average oil saturation,
Som, equation (8), all including the aquifer. Obviously, equation (11) has more than one unknown, making it
undetermined. So, that leads to the conclusion that a rigorous value of VOIP requires the knowledge of wateraquifer volume (Vw) to oil volume (Vor) ratio, by observing the involved unknowns, as will be shown ahead.
Moreover, the VOIP value is overestimated when considering ct of equation (3), that does not consider the
aquifer, rather than ctm calculated by the equation (6), that includes the aquifer, since ctm < ct, usually. One way to
alleviate the problem can be through external knowledge, for example, by estimating the relationship between
the volume of the aquifer, Vw, and the oil volume in the reservoir, Vor, by geological inferences.
Relationship between ctm and Vw/Vor.
reservoir, Vor,
nwo =

If the aquifer water volume, Vw, is nwo times the oil volume in the

Vw
...................................................................................................................................................... (12)
Vor

one can get Som on the basis of So, Sw, and nwo according to equation (13)
Som =

1
....................................................................................................................................... (13)
Sw
+ 1 + nwo
So

OTC 24442

Oobviously the ctm value can be obtained on the basis of nwo, according to equation (14), which has only two
unknowns, Som e nwo, since So e Sw are known from well logs. A value of ctm is then determined using an estimate
of nwo. That, in turn, by applying into equation (11) yields the VOIP value. Therefore, it is outlined a simple way
to assessing the impact of the water aquifer volume size in calculating VOIP. Example of application is shown
with the field case ahead.

c tm

1
= c o
Sw
S + 1 + nwo
o

+c
w

1
1
Sw
+ 1 + nwo

So

+ c ................................................................................. (14)
f

Validation
To validate the theoretical developments of this work, especially to verify the basic RLT equation with aquifer,
(5), with ctm as in equation (6), simulations of RLT were carried out for a reservoir with and without aquifer. Key
issues to be addressed are the following: Does PSS occur when there is an aquifer influence? If PSS develops, is
equation (5) valid, with ctm as in equation (6) and Vpt as in equation (10), all including the aquifer?
It was simulated an extended well test (EWT) with an oil flow rate of 1,100 m3/d for 1000 hours ( 42dias)
followed by a 1000-hour shut-in for two cases for the same reservoir: (1) case1(no_aq)-no aquifer and (2)
case2(with_aq)-with aquifer (of same order of magnitude of the oil volume). The flow period was long enough
so that the pseudosteady state condition was achieved, featuring the reservoir limit test.
Simulations were done with the black oil numerical simulator IMEX, using the geological reservoir model
depicted in Figure 1, where there are two wells, PRO1 (oil producer) and OBS1 as an observer well at 750m
away. Table 1 presents main parameters concerning the simulation model and testing data.
Figure 2 shows the simulated EWT pressures and their derivatives, dp/dt, at the producer and the observer for
mentioned two cases. It is observed for both cases:

Pressures decline at a constant rate, at both wells

Pressure derivatives, dp/dt, at both wells, after some time, stabilize in the same constant value, dp/dt=m*,
denoting classically on the occurrence of pseudosteady state flow

The value of the porous volume hydraulically connected to the producer well, obtained from fundamental
RLT equations (1), without aquifer, and (5), with aquifer, using the corresponding values of dp/dt=m* and
ct, replicate with negligible deviation the value input to the simulator: Vpo,wc for case1(no_aq) and Vpt (which
includes the aquifer) for case2(with_aq), as shown in Table 1.
The results of the simulated case2(with_aq) show, categorically, the validity of the new equations for reservoir
limit test with aquifer. Note that calculating VOIP using ct from equation (3), as usually happens, obtained with
the oil and water saturation from well logs, without taking into account the aquifer, one obtains the value
9.345x106 sm3, which is 23% greater than the true input value of 7.448x106 sm3, an unacceptably high error.

Figure 1 Reservoir 3D model, including the

existing wells PRO1 (producer) and OBS1 (observer,
750m away) and aquifer.

Figure 2 Pressures and derivatives for two simulated

EWTs, case1(no_aq) and case2(with_aq), at the producer
well (PRO1) and the observer well (OBS1). The derivative
flow pressures at the two wells reach the same constant
level, indicating the establishment of pseudosteady state
flow.

OTC 24442

Table 1 Input data and results of simulated two cases: case1(no_aq) and case2(with_aq)
Unit
case1(no_aq)
case2(with_aq)
#
Parameter
1
VOIP
106 s m3
7.448
7.448
2
Vor
106 r m3
11.497
11.502
3
Vwc
106 r m3
2.874
2.874
4
Vpo.wc
106 m3
14.371
14.376
5
Vw
106 r m3
0
7.470
6
Vp total
106 m3
14.371
21.846
7
nwo
fraction
0
0.649
8
co
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
194
194
9
cw
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
42
42
10
cf
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
59
59
11
Sw
fraction
0.20
0.4735
12
So
fraction
0.80
0.5265
13
ct
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
222.6
181.0
14
B o*
m3/sm3
1.5443
1.5443
15
q
sm3/d
1100
1100
Calculated parameters
16
dp/dt =m*
kg/cm2/d
0.5209
0.4231
17
Vp calc
106 m3
14.652
22.180
18
VOIP calc
106 sm3
7.590
7.562
It is presented next an investigation of applicability of equation (5) to reservoirs with an aquifer, considering two
aspects: aquifer size and hydraulic connection of aquifer to the oil region.
Aquifer Size
In the development of the equation (5), the aquifer behavior was modeled by the equation of its total
compressibility3. This, in principle, is valid only for small aquifer (of the order of magnitude of the oil). But it
was verified by simulation that it also applies to larger aquifers during the pseudosteady state.
It was simulated a significant number of RLTs for a reservoir with an aquifer of different sizes to evaluate the
development of the pseudosteady state and the validity and applicability of the equation (5). The results of the
simulated cases corroborate the theory developed.
Using the IMEX simulator with the geological model of Figure 1 and the basic data of the two previous
examples, it was simulated an EWT on the producer well PRO1 of 70 days flowing period with 1100 m3/d oil
rate followed by a 70 days shut-in period for three cases, respectively with aquifer size 2, 5 and 10 times the
aquifer size of case2(with_aq), which was of the same order of magnitude of the oil volume. Figure 3 shows the
pressures and corresponding derivatives for the simulated EWT for these three cases, which are representative of
all simulated ones.
Basic input data and relevant results are found in Table 2. Main observations:

the pseudosteady state flow develops for all cases; same dp/dt at both wells PRO1 and OBS1 (not shown in
Figure 3)

the computed values of Vpt and VOIP replicate the input true values on the simulator, even with large
aquifers.

the results of the 3 cases demonstrate the validity of equations (7), (8), (6), (10) and (11)

it is expected that the larger the aquifer the more time it takes to reach the PSS; but, here this is not specially
distinguished because the aquifer size was enlarged numerically, keeping the same geometry as the initial
one; if the aquifer extends for larger area then the overall shape factor, for PSS purpose, would be quite
small, resulting in quite large time to reach PSS flow regime.

Table 2 Input data and results for simulated

EWT for 3 reservoir models under influence of an
aquifer 2x, 5x and 10x the size the aquifer volume
of case2(with_aq).
# Parameter
Unit
Aq_2X Aq_5X Aq_10X
1
VOIP
106 s m3
7.448
7.448
7.448
6
3
2
Vor
10 r m
11.502 11.502 11.502
3
Vwc
106 r m3
2.874
2.874
2.874
4
Vpo,wc
106 m3
14.376 14.376 14.376
5
Vw
106 r m3
14.458 35.421 70.361
6 3
6
Vp total
10 m
28.834 49.798 84.737
7
nwo
fraction
1.257
3.080
6.117
8
co
10-6(kg/cm2)-1 194
194
194
9
cw
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
42
42
42
10
cf
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
59
59
59
11 Swm eq.(7)
fraction
0.6011 0.7690 0.8643
12 Som eq (8)
fraction
0.3989 0.2310 0.1357
13 ctm eq.(6) 10-6(kg/cm2)-1 161.6
136.1
121.6
3
3
14
Bo
m /sm
1.5443 1.5443 1.5443
15
q
sm3/d
1100
1100
1100
Calculated parameters
16 dp/dt =m* kg/cm2/d
0.3620 0.2497 0.1647
6 3
17
Vpt calc
10 m
29.034 49.985 84.799
7.454
6
3
18
VOIP
10 sm
7.500
7.476

OTC 24442

Figure 3 Pressures and derivatives from 3 simulated

EWTs in the producer well PRO1 of reservoir in Figure 1,
with aquifer water volume 2x, 5x and 10x of
case2(with_aq), showing the occurrence of pseudosteady
state flow (constant pressure decline, dp/dt=m*).

Aquifer Hydraulic Connection

The equations (7) to (11) for RLT with aquifer were developed by material balance with the inherent premise
that there is hydraulic connection between the oil reservoir and the aquifer. A measure of this hydraulic
connection may be the transmissibility, kh/ , on the interface between the two regions. How large does it need
to be to allow the aquifer to influence the oil zone?
To answer this question several cases were simulated. It was used a box-type reservoir, as shown in Figure 4,
with rectangular grid 27x27x12, with a well at the center, with same parameters used in previous cases of PRO1,
with a bottom aquifer located at the layers 8 to 12. At layer 8, between the aquifer and the oil, it was considered
the value of vertical permeability kz=0 (disconnected aquifer); 0.001; 0.005; 0.01 and 0.1 md. For each value of
kz was simulated an EWT with oil flowing at a rate of 1100 m3/d for 125 days followed by a 40 days shut-in
period.
The simulated pressures and corresponding derivatives, shown in Figure 4, indicate:

for kz = 0,1md, PSS develops in about 12 days and Vpt includes the aquifer porous volume

for kz = 0.01md, it takes about 80 days to achieve PSS, which in practical terms is a very long time

for kz = 0.001 md, despite this quite restrictive hydraulic connection, it is observed that the aquifer still
affects dp/dt to a point to prevent the development of PSS
As shown by these results, the development of the PSS can be significantly affected by the aquifer even for cases
with very low vertical permeability kz= 0.001 to 0.01 md on the interface between oil and water regions. Thus
highlighting the need to take into account aquifer presence in the analysis of reservoir limit test, even in the case
when the aquifer is believed as inactive, what may mean very limited hydraulic connection or of small size.

OTC 24442

Figure 4 Pressures and derivatives from the simulated EWTs designed to

verify the effect of aquifer influence with limited hydraulic connection between
the aquifer and the oil zone. Used a box-type reservoir with rectangular grid
27x27x12, with an oil producer well in the center. Considered 5 cases with
vertical permeability kz at layer 8, between the aquifer and oil: kz=0
(disconnected aquifer); 0.001; 0.005; 0.01 and 0.1 md.

Field case
The RLT requires to produce the well at constant oil flow rate for time long enough to reach all reservoir
boundaries and to establish the pseudosteady state flow regime. For this reason it is rarely accomplished with
conventional tests, generally of limited duration. However, with the advent of the PDGs, usually installed in
many significant offshore wells, it has been common practice to observe quite often the occurrence of RLTs.
This is typically the case of the actual offshore well PRO1, located at deep water of about 1000 m at northeastern
coast of Brasil. This well, which is equipped with PDG, is in production since May of 2011 from a cretaceous
sandstone 3000m deep reservoir and has produced until July 2012 about 2 million barrels of 37 API oil. At the
beginning of production period the well was produced steadily at a 1,100 m3/d oil flow rate, according to an
initial successful plan to carry on a reservoir limit test.
Figure 5 shows the pressure recorded by PDG in the well PRO1 in the first 147 days of production, where
several significant drawdowns are highlighted. Three of them, identified as DD6, DD9 and DD10, exhibit
characteristic pseudosteady state flow behavior. We tried to prove the establishment of PSS, comparing the
pressures of PRO1 with the pressures of the PDG from well OBS1, located 750 m lower in the structure, as
shown in Figure 1. In each of these three drawdowns the pressure drop, dp/dt=m*, in both wells is the same
constant, proving categorically the existence of PSS.
Analysis of PSS of DD10. This period identified as DD10 in Figure 5 is a typical RLT with the PSS well
defined, with the same pressure drop at both wells, the producer, PRO1, and the observer well OBS1 located 750
m far away, as shown in Figure 6. The complicating factor for the analysis lies in the fact that there is an aquifer
identified by an oil/water contact at well OBS1. So, the PSS develops in this reservoir with aquifer, requiring the
application of the new equations (7), (8), (6), (10) and (11), which were developed for an oil reservoir with
aquifer under pseudosteady state flow. To apply these equations and reach the ultimate goal, which is to
calculate Vpt and VOIP, it is necessary to know the average total compressibility, ctm. This requires knowing a
priori the Vw/Vor ratio. Since the oil volume is usually not known (it is just what one is looking for by running a
RLT), as well as the aquifer volume, it is not possible to accurately calculate the Vpt and VOIP value.
However, according to geologists, the aquifer should be small, of the order of magnitude of the oil, which may
be the reason why PSS settles in reasonably short time, about 150h or 6.2 days, as seen in simulated cases.
Taking this fact into consideration and assuming the average oil and water saturation of geological model of
Figure 1, one can calculate, in speculative character, the value of Vpt and VOIP, as shown in Table 3.

Figure 5 Pressure recorded by PDG at producer well

PRO1 during first 147 days of production, highlighting the
significant drawdowns.

OTC 24442

Figure 6 Pressures of drawdown DD10 recorded by

PDG at both wells, PRO1 and OBS1, which is 750 m
away, displaying same pressure declining rate (18 days),
characterizing the pseudosteady state flow regime.

Table 3 presents key data and results of drawdown DD10, considering two conditions, (1) without aquifer, (2)
with aquifer (nwo = 0.62). It is observed that the aquifer under consideration, though small, has significant impact
on average oil and water saturation, Som and Swm, and, consequently, in average total compressibility, ctm, as well
as on calculated parameters, Vpt and VOIP.
VOIP Sensitivity to aquifer size. Sensitivity analysis of VOIP to the size of the aquifer is presented through the
application of equations (13) and (14) and related equations. Table 4 summarizes the values obtained for Som ,
Swm, ctm, Vpt, VOIP and RVOIP (VOIP(nwo)/VOIP(nwo=0)) for values of nwo from 0 (without aquifer) to 10, using
the actual field data shown in Table 3. Figure 7 shows the graph of VOIP and RVOIP as a function of nwo, as
seen on the last two columns of Table 4.
If the aquifer is not taken into account, in which case nwo=0, VOIP is estimated as 11.7x106 sm3. If the aquifer
volume is the same size as the oil volume at reservoir condition, which means nwo=1, the calculated value of
VOIP is 8.62x106 sm3, corresponding to 73,6% of that value. As shown in the Table 4 and in Figure 7, the larger
the aquifer water volume with respect to oil volume the lower the VOIP calculated. This example, by quantifying
the dependence of the value of VOIP with respect to nwo, draws attention to the risk of overestimating the value
of VOIP when the aquifer is not taken into account. Thus illustrating and pointing out the need to know nwo to
accurately calculate the VOIP value.
Table 3 Data and results of drawdown DD10 in well PRO1, 01-19/8/2011 (18 days)
1-no aquifer
2-with aquifer
#
Parameter
Unit
So, Sw (1)
Som, Swm (2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1
nwo
fraction
0
0.6206
2
co
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
194
194
3
cw
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
42
42
4
cf
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
59
59
5
Water Saturation
fraction
Sw = 0.2180 (well log)
Swm = 0.4735; eq.(7)
6
Oil Saturation
fraction
So = 0.7820 (well log)
Som 0.5265; eq.(8)
7
Total compressibility
10-6(kg/cm2)-1
ct = 220; eq.(3)
ctm = 181 eq.(6)
8
Bo
m3/sm3
1.5443
1.5443
9
q
sm3/d
1055
1055
Calculated parameters of PSS
10
dp/dt =m*
kg/cm2/d
0.3340
0.3340
11
Porous volumecalc
106 m3
Vp = 22.73 eq. (2)
Vpt = 26.95 eq.(10)
12
VOIPcalc
106 sm3
11.54 eq. (4)
9.19 eq.(11)
Notes:
(1) So, Sw obtained from well logs
(2) Som, Swm average of the geological model, taking into account the aquifer, with nwo=0.62

24
%

22
%

2.8E+06

2.6E+06

26
%

3.0E+06

32
%

29
%

3.7E+06

1.0E+06

36
%

10
0%

3.0E+06

3.3E+06

5.0E+06

RVOIP (nwo/nwo=0)

4.2E+06

7.0E+06

48
%

9.0E+06

41
%

1.1E+07

4.8E+06

220
168
147
137
130
125
122
119
117
116
115

58
%

0.218
0.561
0.695
0.766
0.811
0.841
0.863
0.879
0.892
0.903
0.911

1.3E+07

6.8E+06

0.782
0.439
0.305
0.234
0.189
0.159
0.137
0.121
0.108
0.097
0.089

Eq(14)

VOIP

5.6E+06

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1-Som

1.5E+07

VOIP m3

Eq(12) Eq(13)

VOIP(nwo)/
Eq(10) Eq(11)
VOIP(nwo=0)
23.1
11.7
1
30.3
8.62
0.736
34.5
6.82
0.582
37.3
5.64
0.481
39.2
4.81
0.41
40.6
4.19
0.358
41.7
3.71
0.317
42.6
3.33
0.285
43.3
3.02
0.258
43.9
2.77
0.236
44.4
2.55
0.218

1.2E+07
74
8.6E+06
%

Table 4 Values of Som, Swm, ctm, Vpt, VOIP and

RVOIP calculated using actual data of Table 3 and
equations (10)-(14) as indicated.
nwo
Som
Swm
ctm
Vpt VOIP RVOIP
-6
10
106 m3 106 s m3 fraction
fraction fraction
(kg/cm2)-1

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

RVOIP (nwo /nwo =0)

OTC 24442

10

nwo=Vw/Vor

Figure 7 VOIP and RVOIP as function of aquifer-to-oil

volume ratio, nwo=Vw/Vor, resulting from the application
of equation (14), with actual RLT data from Table 3.

Observations and Conclusions

This work investigates the influence of the aquifer in the reservoir limit test. The results lead to the following
observations and conclusions.

Reservoir limit test is significantly influenced by aquifer, either large or small, or even with limited
hydraulic connection to the oil region, so being indispensable in test analysis.

The pseudosteady state regime may develop in presence of an aquifer, even a large one, as long as it is finite
and without external water supply.

In this work were developed fundamental equations for reservoir limit test with aquifer. They are similar to
classical ones, published long ago, but with the difference of embedded aquifer effect.

The pressure drop, dp/dt = m*, during the pseudosteady state in the reservoir with aquifer, is directly
proportional to oil flow rate in the reservoir (q.Bo) and inversely to the product (ctm.Vpt), average total
compressibility multiplied by the total porous volume hydraulically connected to the well, including the
aquifer effect.

The aquifer was modeled by the equation of total compressibility, which in principle is valid only for small
aquifers, which means of same order of magnitude as the oil volume. But it turned out to be also applicable
to large aquifers, in the long run, under pseudosteady state condition.

The theoretical equations developed in this work were verified by significant number of simulations of oil
reservoirs with varying aquifer size and hydraulic connection values.

Even a small aquifer, which is sometimes considered as non active, has a non-negligible effect on reservoir
limit test and has to be taken into account to calculate Vpt and VOIP.

The VOIP value calculated from pseudosteady state data for a reservoir with an aquifer may be significantly
overestimated when the aquifer is not taken into account.
Appendix A - Material Balance Equation for Oil Reservoir with Aquifer
It is presented here the development of material balance equation for oil reservoir above bubble point pressure
with aquifer, under the premise the aquifer can be modeled by equation of total compressibility 3. Take the
material balance equation for this condition, then.
N p Bo = N Boi

(co So + cw Sw
1 Swi

+ cf )

p + We ...........................................................................................(A.1)

In this equation it is known that

N Boi
= Vor + Vwc = Vpo ,wc .........................................................................................................................(A.2)
1 Swi

10

OTC 24442

Sw =

Vwc
Vwc
...........................................................................................................................(A.3)
=
Vor + Vwc V po ,wc

So =

Vor
Vor
.............................................................................................................................(A.4)
=
Vor + Vwc Vpo ,wc

cf =

1 Vpo ,wc
,...................................................................................................................................(A.5)
Vpo ,wc
p

Assuming the aquifer volume is about the same order of magnitude of the oil volume at the reservoir and that the
cumulative water inflow, We, can be calculated by the water volume expansion and aquifer porous volume
contraction3, thus
We = cw Vw p + cf Vpw p ................................................................................................................(A.6)

Substituting the values expressed by (A.2), (A.4), (A.3), (A.5) and (A.6) into (A.1) results in

Vpo ,wc
V
V
1
N p Bo = Vpo ,wc c o or + cw wc +

p
Vpo ,wc
Vpo ,wc Vpo ,wc

p + cw Vw p + c f Vpw p ................(A.7)

After simplifications (A.7) turns into

N p Bo = [c oVor + cw (Vwc + Vw )] p + Vpo ,wc + c f Vpw p .....................................................................(A.8)

On the assumption that the compressibility of the formation, cf, is the same in both the oil and the aquifer
regions, then
c f Vpw p = Vpw , ...................................................................................................................................(A.9)

that replacing in (A.8) makes it in

N p Bo = [c oVor + cw (Vwc + Vw )] p + Vpo ,wc + Vpw ............................................................................(A.10)

Being Vpt the total porous volume including the aquifer given by
Vpt = Vpo ,wc + Vpw = Vor + Vwc + Vw ,.........................................................................................................(A.11)

by multiplying (A.10) by

Vpt
Vpt

and rearranging the terms, it is obtained

V
Vpo ,wc + Vpw
(V + Vw )
N p Bo = c o or + cw wc
Vpt p +

V
V
Vpt

pt
pt

Vpt ......................................................(A.12)

Considering the total system including oil, connate water and aquifer, we define
(a) average water and oil saturations as relations (A.13) e (A.14)
Swm =
Som =

(Vwc + Vw )
,...................................................................................................................................(A.13)
Vpt

Vor
= 1 Swm ..................................................................................................................................(A.14)
Vpt

(b) the porous volume compressibity, cf, given by the relation (A.15)

OTC 24442

11

Vpo ,wc + Vpw

Vpt

Vpt
=
Vpt

= c f p .......................................................................................................(A.15)

Replacing these average water and oil saturation values in (A.12), it is finally obtained
N p Bo = (c o Som + cw Swm + c f ) Vpt p ...................................................................................................(A.16)

where

c tm = (c o Som + cw Swm + c f ) .............................................................................................................(A.17)

is the total average compressibility of the system including the aquifer.
Appendix B Reservoir Limit Test in the Presence of Aquifer
A reservoir limit test in a well is characterized by reservoir production through this well under pseudosteady
state flow regime. In this condition the average reservoir pressure variation, dp/dt, is constant and the same
happens at every point of the reservoir, including at the well that is producing at constant oil flow rate q.
Taking the derivative with respect to time of material balance equation (A.16), one can get dp/dt as a function of
oil flow rate in the reservoir, (q.Bo), of total porous volumes, including the aquifer, (Vpt), and the average total
compressibility (ctm), as in equation (A.17), to obtain the fundamental equation of reservoir limit test under
influence of an aquifer, which is modeled by the total compressibility, according to equation (B.5), as shown in
the following.

d ( N p Bo )
dt

d
(co Som + cw Swm + cf ) Vpt p ...............................................................................(B.1)
dt

Since
d (p ) d (pi p ) d ( p )
,.........................................................................................................................(B.2)
=
=
dt
dt
dt
dN p

and

dt

= q ...............................................................................................................................................(B.3)

and considering the negative sign of the compressibility for consistency of the equation (B.1), one gets
q Bo = c tm V pt

dp
...............................................................................................................................(B.4)
dt

So, dp/dt is finally obtained from the fundamental equation of RLT under aquifer influence, (B.5),
q Bo
dp
=
(B.5)
dt c tm Vpt ..............................................................................................................................................

Note that if there is no aquifer the equation (B.4) reduces to the known classical equation of RLT, (B.6),
q Bo = c t V po ,wc

dp
...............................................................................................................................(B.6)
dt

where ct is defined by

c t = co So + cw Sw + c f ............................................................................................................................(B.7)
and Vpo,wc is the porous volume with oil and connate water.

12

OTC 24442

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to my dear fellow engineer Leonardo Kenji Kubota for his valuable review of this paper and to
Petrobras for permission to publish it.
Nomenclature
Bo
= oil formation volume factor at pressure p, m3/m3
Boi
= oil formation volume factor at initial pressure pi, m3/m3
cf
= formation compressibility, (kg/cm2)-1
co
= oil compressibility, (kg/cm2)-1
ct
= total compressibility, eq.(3), (kg/cm2)-1
ctm
= average total system compressibility including the aquifer, eq.(6), (kg/cm2)-1
cw
= water compressibility, (kg/cm2)-1
= constant pressure drop during the pseudosteady state flow, (kg/cm2)/day
m*
nwo
= aquifer-water volume to oil reservoir volume ratio, eq.(12), fraction
= original volume of oil in-place in standard condition, sm3
N
Np
= cumulative oil production in standard condition, sm3
p
= current average reservoir pressure, kg/cm2
pi
= initial reservoir pressure, kg/cm2
= oil flow rate, sm3/day
q
RVOIP = ratio VOIP(nwo)/VOIP(nwo=0), fraction
So
= oil saturation, eq. (A.4), fraction
Sw
= connate water saturation, eq. (A.3), fraction
Swi
= initial water saturation, fraction
Som
= average oil saturation, eq. (A.14), fraction
Swm = average water saturation, eq. (A.13), fraction
t
= time, day
VOIP = volume of oil in-place, standard condition, sm3
Vor
= oil volume in the reservoir, reservoir condition, rm3
Vp
= porous volume hydraulically connected to the well, m3
Vpo,wc = porous volume with oil and connate water, eq. (A.2), m3
Vpt
= total porous volume hydraulically connected to the well including aquifer porous volume, m3
Vwc
= connate water volume in the oil zone, rm3
Vw
= aquifer water volume, rm3
Vpw = aquifer porous volume, m3
We
= cumulative water influx from the aquifer into the oil region, rm3
dp/dt = pressure derivative with respect to time, (kg/cm2)/day

= variation
p
= pressure drop, (pi p), kg/cm2
Subscripts
calc = calculated
r
= reservoir condition
s
= standard condition
Acronymous
DD = drawdown
IMEX = black-oil simulator by Computer Modeling Group (CMG)
PSS = pseudosteady state
RLT = reservoir limit test
EWT = extended well test
References
1

Jones, P. and McGhee, E.: Gulf Coast Wildcat Verifies Reservoir Limit Test, Oil and Gas Journal, 18 Jun 1956, p.184.

Kaczorowski, N.J.: Reservoir Limit Testing in Water-Drive Systems, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference &
Exhibition, Feb/1993, Singapore.

Dake, L.P. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. 1st ed. 1978, 5th imp. 1982, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, 1982.