SPE 136932

Pressure Transient Analysis: Characterizing the Reservoir and Much More

Badr M. Al-Harbi, SPE, Saud A. BinAkresh, SPE, Abdulaziz A. Al-Ajaji, SPE, and Edgar J. Pinilla Forero, SPE,
Saudi Aramco
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE/DGS Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 0407 April 2010.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The development stage of any new field requires careful and full integration of all available data to ensure the robustness and
flexibility of the development plans. One major source of information that adds a wealth of knowledge and reduces the number
of uncertain variables in any field development is Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA). When used properly, this tool can
provide accurate information about reservoir heterogeneities and well parameters such as permeability thickness, reservoir
features, skin, and productivity indices.
This paper presents a comprehensive study where pressure transient analysis played a key role in detecting various reservoir
features at the early phase of a field development. It further shares cases where pressure transient analysis confirmed good
pressure communication across a layer that was thought of as a very tight layer. Also, the study participated in building a new
realization of faults existence in the field. Many faults were removed from the field geological model based on insights from
PTA and some other dynamic data. Some other case studies are included showing the full power of Pressure Transient
Analysis which added significant value to reservoir properties definition. Furthermore, this paper will shed light on the use of
pressure transient analysis for fluid characterization proposes.
The studied reservoir has a very complex nature in terms of rock and fluid properties. Both, the rock and fluid vary in the
lateral and vertical direction making rock and fluid characterization a very challenging task to be completed.
Analysis of vintage and newly acquired well test data of this field played an important role in understanding the reservoir and
helped fine-tune the development strategy. Integration of different data proved to be, yet again, a best practice to understand
reservoirs and act accordingly
Field History and Geological Background
The field is an offshore field located in the Kingdome of Saudi Arabia containing six Arabian heavy-oil bearing reservoirs,
which are anonymously identified in this study as A, B, C, D, E and F reservoirs. The field was discovered in
1957 and production began when C Reservoir came on stream in 1964. It was not until 1974 when B Reservoir was
brought on production.
The structure of the field is a northwest-southeast trending asymmetrical anticline with slightly steeper dip on the northeast
flank than on the southwest flank. B and C are the two major reservoirs in the field. Both Band C reservoirs were
deposited in a shallow marine environment and capped by regressive tight limestone and algal boundstone facies.
The B reservoir is located within a porous carbonate member on top of the Sulaiy formation of Cretaceous age. It is
separated from the older C member by dense carbonates. The B reservoir averages about 250 ft in thickness. The lithology
is calcarenite, occasionally dolomitic. Rock properties are generally quite good, the porosity in the net rock averaging about
22-23%.
The field is situated in a northwest-southeast trending anticlinal structure. During the geological past, in times of C and B
and A this area geographically lay over on an extended Rimthan Arch between the separated major basins-Gotnia basin to
the north and Arabia basic to the south. This arch served as an ideal platform for the high to moderate to low energy sediments
to be deposited in super-tidal, fore beach and open lagoon environments. Some of the facies in the cored wells indicate that the
cyclicity of sedimentation and pertain to shallower platform, inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones as well. Dominant reservoir rocks
have been used to decipher the depositional environment. The regional setting allowed the oolitic grainstone to be deposited as
the dominant reservoir facies during the C and B times, whereas during A times beach rock, detrital skeletal limestones

SPE 136932

facies are common in cyclicity. The reservoir rocks are interrupted by wacke limestone cycles intermittently, providing some
regional and localized markers for stratigraphic analysis. Bands of algal boundstones, cycles of onolitic grainstones and onolite
with algal dominance, thin cycles of stramatoporoids do contribute towards reservoir porosities.
The reservoir of interest in this study is B Reservoir. B Reservoir indicates a thickness of 220 ft in the southeast and 242 ft
in the northeast. The oolitic shoals of this reservoir are probably deposited in a shallow marine environment. Over the time,
such facies have gone through a slow, transgressive period that allows muddy sediments to form locally within dominantly
high-energy and clean depositional environments.
Discussion
Data Availability and Quality:
Well tests data of 21 wells were available and the majority of the wells were selectively tested more than one time
across different reservoir intervals. Nearly all of the available tests data were sufficient to be analyzed. Ten of the
wells had build-up tests, nine had falloff tests and the remaining two wells had both build-up and fall-off tests.
Figure-1 shows the distribution of the tested wells. The distribution of the tested wells provided good coverage of the
field which in turn helped attaining good full-field reservoir characterization. The pressure recording of most of the
tests were attained through mechanical strain gauges with very low sampling frequency as shown in Figure-2. The
low sampling frequency of the used gauges resulted in missing early time data where rapid pressure changes took
place. In general, matching drawdown periods with actual data add confidence in the simulated data. In this study, the
data does not include the drawdown period with only a single pressure point representing bottomhole flowing
pressure. Finally, the build-up durations were relatively short. However, all of these limitations were overcome via
integration of other available data such as drilling and completion history, formation analysis log (FAL), production
history and geology of the area. All of the conducted tests were performed while the wells were dry, for that, all the
resulted permeability figures were representative of average effective permeability for each well. The single phase
flow eased the permeability calculation keeping it away from the complication of relative permeability that is usually
associated with multiphase flow.

Transmissibility (Kh/) Distribution:

Pressure Transient Analysis was used to generate the transmissibility distribution map for the field as shown in
Figure-3. The sizes of the bubbles represent the transmissibility values. The figure clearly demonstrates higher
transmissibility values in the center side of the field and low transmissibility in the flanks.

Reservoir Characterization
i.
The Tight Layer Slicing the B Reservoir, Does it Act As A Flow Barrier:
The B reservoir contains a tight layer separating two good layers. This tight layer was thought of as a layer
that possibly prevents pressure communication between the two good layers. This tight layer is extensive
and can be mapped across the entire filed. However, the degree of its vertical tightness is not well identified.
Pressure transient analysis has proved good pressure communication across this tight layer in the crest of the
field. Figure-4 & 5 show how this tight layer is identified from logs. It is simply identified by having a
uniform distribution of porosity while having a significant reduction in core permeability values. Figure-4 is
for a well in the west while Figure-5 represents a well in the east. Three cases are discussed below, two for
wells in the crest and one for a well in flank. Two cases of the three show how the pressure communication
was proved in the crest of the field whereas the third case discusses the tight layer in the flank.
Case 1: Well-A:
Well-A is a vertical well located in the center of the field. Figure-6 shows the FAL of the well
which includes three perforation intervals as the well was tested in three different perforations.
Each perforation is across a particular sub-zone of the reservoir. The tight layer is located between
the middle and top perforation. The tests were conducted based on a test design in which a
downhole shut-in tool was utilized. The well was first acidized and tested across the lower
perforation. Figure-7 shows the log-log plot of this test. The derivative curve started with a
stabilization which represents the flow capacity across the perforated interval. Then the derivative
experienced a down-trending slope that lasted for two log cycles. After that, the log-log curve
exhibit another stabilization representing the flow capacity of all B reservoir intervals. The lower
perforation was isolated and the middle interval was perforated, acidized and tested. Figure-8
displays the log-log plot of the build-up test across the middle interval. The log-log curve shape is
identical with the shape of the log-log plot of the test conducted across the lower interval. It has two
stabilizations with one transition zone in between. The first stabilization is associated to the flow
capacity of the perforated interval and the second stabilization is associated to the flow capacity of
the entire B reservoir. Again, this test confirmed very good hydraulic communication between
different zones of B reservoir. The third test is the most important one in terms of confirming the

SPE 136932

pressure communication across the tight layer. The middle perforation was isolated and the top
interval was perforated, acidized and tested. Figure-9 demonstrates the log-log plot of the test
across the top interval. It is clear that it behaved just like the previous two tests which proves that
the tight permeability layer is allowing pressure communication across it. Figure-10 gathers the
log-log curves of the three tests in one plot. It is crystal-clear that the derivative curves of bottom
and middle tests are identical whereas the third test had the same behavior but with a little
difference in the speed of pressure communication. In other words, the third test took longer time to
see the rest of B reservoir zones which concludes that the tight permeability layer does not act as
a pressure barrier.
Case 2: Well-B:
Well-B is located in the crest of the field in an area with very high transmissibility. Figure-11
shows the FAL log of the well which clearly indicates very good porosity along the whole
reservoir. The well was tested across a twenty feet perforation above the tight permeability layer.
Figure-12 presents the log-log curve of the test. A partial penetration effect is very apparent with a
down-trending slope that represents spherical flow regime. This kind of flow regimes is observed in
wells with limited entry completions. If the tight layer was indeed a flow barrier, then the spherical
flow regime would not have developed on the derivative plot. Since this flow regime was actually
observed, it confirmed that there is good communication with the rest of the zones below the
perforation.
Case 3: Well-C:
Well-C is located in the middle-west side of the field toward the flank. The FAL of this well is shown in
figure-13. This well was tested twice above the tight layer. First, a build-up test was conducted it
followed by an acid wash job then a fall-off test. The discussion of these tests requires mentioning the
fact that both tests were conducted above the oil-heavy oil-contact which brings more complication to
the analysis of the two tests. Figure-14 shows the log-log plot of the build-up test. It is dominated by a
clear radial flow regime which represents an infinite acting homogenous reservoir. Unlike previous case
(case-2), no partial penetration effect was observed from the pressure derivative which suggests sealing
barrier from the tight layer beneath the perforation interval or low mobility effect from the heavy oil or
both. Figure-15 shows the log-log plot of the fall-off test. It started with an up-trending slope that lasted
for 3 log cycles. Then it stabilized at the same flow capacity level of the build-up test. Figure-16
contains the overlay of both tests. This example explains very visibly the difficulties associated to tight
layer identification in the flank of the field.
The above shared cases established very well confirmation of the connectivity of different layers within the
B reservoir in the crest of the field. Such information is very vital to be known in the early phase of the
field development in order to optimize the well placement and production scheme.
ii.

Low Transmissibility in Wells Tested Across the Heavy Oil Zone:

Two wells were tested across the heavy oil zone. The tests showed very low transmissibility and very low
injectivity/productivy indices. The tests are discussed in details below:
Case 4: Well-C:
Well-C is discussed in case-3. The well was perforated in the heavy oil zone (20 ft perforations).
Figure-17 shows the FAL of the well. The quality of the falloff test data was not good as can be
seen in Figure-18. With that in mind, the resulted transmissibility (404 md.ft/cp) was so low
comparing to offset wells. The main reason is that the well is injecting water inside the heavy oil
zone whereas the others are injecting water in water zones or lighter oil zones. This low
transmissibility was reflected on the poor well injectivity (0.6 bpd/psi).
Case 5: Well-D:
Well-D is located in the middle-west side of the field, south east of the previous mentioned Well-C.
Figure-19 shows the FAL of the well and the exact location of the heavy oil zone. One major
challenge in this build-up test is the fact that the well could not sustain flow to surface. For that, the
rate was estimated utilizing the recovery of the tubing volume during the flowing period. The
quality of the data was poor as can be seen in Figure-20. The analysis revealed a transmissibility of
344 md.ft/cp and a very low productivity index of 0.38 bpd/psi.
Case-3 and 4 show that there is some transmissibility across the heavy oil zone which in turn, adds up to the
field and reservoir understanding as a whole.

iii.

Mobility Effect on Wells Tested for Injection Above Oil-Heavy Oil-Contact

In this section, a discussion of the mobility effect on the wells that were Injectivity tested above the oilheavy oil contact will be carried out. As mentioned earlier, each reservoir feature is identified by a distinct
pressure derivative curve that distinguishes reservoir features from each other. The same can be said about

SPE 136932

fluid characterization. The below case will elaborate on this issue and would show clearly the effect of
having two fluids with different properties inside the reservoir.
Case 6: Well-E:
Well-E is located in the south west part of the field. Figure-21 shows the FAL of this well and it
contains the heavy-oil-oil contact. A fall-off test was conducted across the shown perforations. Figure22 shows the derivative curve of the well and it contains an up-trending slope that dominated the entire
log-log plot with stabilization at the end. In this well, the water was injected in the oil column which
makes two fluids with different properties available. The derivative plot represents the movement of the
pressure transient from the injected water bank to the oil bank. A clear degrade in the fluid mobility is
observed on the log-log curve as the pressure transient gets more into the oil bank until it got entirely
into the oil bank when the pressure derivative curve exhibits stabilization. One of Well-Es offset wells
was fall-off tested across the aquifer and did not show the mobility effect observed in Well-E derivative
plot. The offset well is discussed in an upcoming case. This analysis does not rule out the possibility of
having an actual degrade in rock quality away from wellbore.
iv.

Physical Sealing Boundary

In this study, only one well in B reservoir was analyzed as a well that is sitting near a possible physical
sealing boundary. Such reservoir heterogeneities have unique shapes on the pressure derivative curve.
Nevertheless, in some situations, the presence of some limitations adds to the uncertainty of the analysis.
The previous statement is a general statement that may or may not fit the analyzed case.
Case 7: Well-F:
Well-F is located in the crest of the field right in the center. The well was tested three times across three
different perforations as shown in figure-23. The well was first tested across the lower zone alone. In
the second test, the well was tested across the lower and middle zone together. In the third test, the
upper interval was added and the well was tested across the three perforations together. The three tests
reveal the same pressure derivative behavior at the late time (Figures-24, 25 and 26). Figure-27 has an
overlay of the three tests. The behavior is an up-trending slope at the late time of the pressure build up.
This shape could be attributed to many reservoir/fluid features, two of which are presence of a physical
sealing boundary or degrade in fluid mobility. The fact that the three tests were build-up tests has ruled
out the possibility of having degradation in fluid mobility simply because it is not well justified. To have
degradation in fluid mobility; presence of fluids of different mobility is a must. In this case, the well was
flowing oil from an oil column. Certainly, oil can have different mobility values in the same reservoir
which might open again the possibility of mobility degradation. Yet, no enough justifications are
present.
Conversely, the other possibility which is a presence of a physical sealing boundary away from the
wellbore seems to be more acceptable. From literature, if the well is sitting near a sealing fault, then it is
expected to have an infinite acting reservoir behavior at the early time followed by a hemi-radial flow
regime (a doubling of slope). The actual data for Well-F represents almost the same flow regimes
mentioned in the literature. In addition, the well was drilled beside an interpreted predetermined fault.
The analyses of Well-F derivative plots of the three tests confirm the presence of this fault in Well-F
vicinity. The upcoming section of the paper shows how the study participated in confirming the nonpresence of this fault in some other areas. In other words, pressure transient analysis suggests that the
fault does exist, but its extension is very limited across the field. Figure-28 shows how close Well-F is
to the fault.

v.

Mobility Effect Versus Physical Sealing Boundary

Continuing what was started in the previous section, mobility effect and physical sealing boundary could
have the same behavior on the pressure derivative curve. Without integration of all the available data of the
well and surrounding area, no reliable analysis would be attained. In this study, there were some cases where
the shape of the pressure derivative curve was not enough to determine the right model. In the approaching
lines, two examples are shared for cases where the pressure derivative curve could suggest more than one
solution. The examples are for two wells originally completed beside predetermined faults. Furthermore,
these two wells were falloff tested in which the water was injected across the oil column. These two facts
have complicated the analyses of both tests. Both cases are discussed in details below:
Case 8: Well-G:
Well-G is located in the west side of the field toward the south. The FAL of the well is shown in figure29, and it indicates a perforation interval of 20 ft above the heavy oil-oil contact. The derivative plot of
the test (Figure-30) shows stabilization at the early time followed by a transition period to another
stabilization plateau. This shape leaves two possibilities, either the well is affected by the fluid mobility
where the early part represents the water bank and the outer part is representing the oil bank. Or the well

SPE 136932

is sitting near a physical sealing boundary. In fact, both options are fairly possible. The first option
(mobility effect) is supported by the fact that water was injected inside the oil which makes two fluids
available (Injected Water and Reservoir Oil). The second option is supported by the presence of fault in
the geological model of the field. Choosing the right model to fit the available pressure derivative curve
requires looking at other wells. The other wells were looked at as discussed in case-9 and the chosen
option for Well-G is the mobility effect option.
Case 9: Well-H:
Well-H is located in the south east part of the field. Its FAL is shown in figure-31 and it demonstrates a
perforation interval of 50 ft above the heavy oil-oil contact. A fall-off test was conducted on this well
and the derivative plot is shown in figure-32. The derivative shape is identical with Well-G derivative
shape. The geological model has a fault sitting near to this well as shown in figure-33. Again, two
possible solutions are available to match the test data. The first solution is that the well is sitting near a
sealing fault. The second solution is that the well is sensing fluid mobility degradation away from
wellbore. Like Well-G, the analysis of Well-H fall-off test requires looking at the data of other wells.
Two wells were looked at to come up with a reliable analysis of Well-G and Well-H fall-off tests. The
first well is Well-I which was briefly discussed in case 6. Well-I is completed in a water zone and then
was fall-off tested. The shape of its pressure derivative (Figure-34) show a domination of the radial
flow regime which support that what Well-G and Well-H are observing in their derivative plots is only a
mobility effect. The second well that was utilized to support the analysis of the tests of Well-G and
Well-H is Well-J. This well is located north of Well-H close enough to the fault (Figure-33). The well
has high water saturation (Figure-35). The shape of the pressure derivative does not indicate any sealing
boundary or mobility effect (Figure-36) meaning that the well did not sense the sealing fault although
the geological model indicates the fault presence. This will rule out the possibility of Well-H to sense
the fault as the fault does not actually exist. Moreover, the only difference between Well-J and Well-H
is the high water saturation in Well-J. This means that the behavior observed in Well-H at the late time
of the pressure derivative is due to mobility effect. By applying the same concept on Well-G, the fault
near to Well-G will be considered as none-existing.
The geological model was revised based on many data such as seismic and drilling and most of the faults
were actually removed from the new geological model. Pressure Transient Analysis indicated the absence of
these fault prior their actual removal of the geological model.
vi.

Excellent Reservoir Quality at the Middle of the Field.

Pressure transient analysis identified the best reservoir quality to be within the crest of the field toward the
south. Three offset wells showed the same flow capacity value. The three wells are shown in figure-37.
Figure-38 shows an overlay of the three offset wells displaying the flow capacity line of the three wells.

Conclusions
The tight permeability layer at the top of B reservoir does not act as a barrier in the crest of the field.
The tests that were performed across the heavy oil zone revealed very low transmissibility.
Very good reservoir quality is observed in the middle of the field.
Mobility effect was detected in many of the wells that are completed just above the heavy oil-oil contact.
No mobility effect in the wells that are completed in the water zone below the heavy oil.
The wells that are completed away from the heavy-oil oil contact reveal very good reservoir quality.
One well was analyzed as a well sitting near a sealing boundary.
Many faults were removed from the geological model based on dynamic data (one of which is Pressure Transient
Analysis).

SPE 136932

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to extend their gratefulness to Saudi Aramco for granting the authorization to publish this work.
Nomenclature
Kh: Flow Capacity, md*ft
II: Injectivity Index, bpd/psi
Abbreviation
PTA: Pressure Transient Analysis
FAL: Formation Analysis Log
References
1. Badr M. Al-Harbi and Saud A. BinAkresh A Successful Full-Field Reservoir Characterization Story Utilizing
Pressure Transient Analysis, paper SPE 120724 presented at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdome of Bahrain, 15-18 March 2009.
2.

E.J. Pinilla, L.M Warlick, Y.M. Al-Shobaili, M.N. Aftab, A. Khan and N.M.A Rahman Improving Reservoir
Characterization Using Accurate Flow-Rate History, paper SPE 116003 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.

SPE 136932

3750

3650

F
C

3550

A
J
B
L

3450

BU (10 Wells)
FO (9 Wells)
FO+ BU (2 Wells)

1250
625
0

E
I

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

Figure-2: Example of the Test Data

Core K

Figure-1: Distribution of the Tested Wells

ReductioninCore
Permeability

Figure-3: Transmissibility Distribution Map

TightLayer

Figure-4: The Tight Layer Identification (West Flank)

SPE 136932

Core K

ReductioninCore
Permeability

TightLayer

Figure-5: The Tight Layer Identification (East Flank)

Figure-7: Well-A (Log-Log Plot of Lower Zone)

Figure-6: Well-A (FAL)

Figure-8: Well-A (Log-Log Plot of Middle Zone)

SPE 136932

Figure-9: Well-A (Log-Log Plot of Upper Zone)

Figure-10: Well-A (Overlay of All Tests)

Perforation

B
Reservoir

Figure-12: Well-B (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-11: Well-B (FAL)

10

SPE 136932

Perforation

Oil
Heavy
Oil

Bridge Plug

Figure-14: Well-C (Log-Log Plot of Build-Up Test)

Water

Figure-13: Well-C (FAL)

Figure-15: Well-C (Log-Log Plot of fall-off Test)

Figure-16: Well-C (Overlay of BU and FO Tests)

SPE 136932

11

Heavy Oil-Oil Contact

Perforation

Heavy
Oil

Heavy Oil-Water Contact

Figure-18: Well-C (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-17: Well-C (FAL)

Heavy Oil-Oil Contact

Figure-20: Well-D (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-19: Well-D (FAL)

12

SPE 136932

Perforation
Heavy Oil-Oil Contact

Figure-22: Well-E (Log-Log Plot of test data)

Figure-21: Well-E (FAL)

Perforation

Figure-24: Well-F (Log-Log Plot Lower Interval)

Figure-23: Well-F (FAL)

SPE 136932

13

Figure-26: Well-F (Log-Log Plot Upper Interval)

Figure-25: Well-F (Log-Log Plot Middle Interval)

Figure-26: Well-F (Log-Log Plot Upper Interval)

MNIF 34 b 5 26 1982 revised.ks3 - Analysis 3

MNIF 34 a 5 22 1982 revised.ks3 - Analysis 2 (ref)
MNIF 34 c 5 28 1982.ks3 - Analysis 4

AllIntervals
100

F
C

A
J
B

10

Lower
1
1E-3

0.01

0.1

Lower+Middle
10

100

BU (10 Wells)
FO (9 Wells)
FO+ BU (2 Wells)

E
I

Compare files: Log-Log plot (dp and dp' normalized [psi] vs dt)

Figure-27: Well-F (Overlay of the three tests)

Figure-28: Well-F (Well and Fault Location Map)

14

SPE 136932

= 4.6 cp
KH= 10,600 md*ft
1000

Mobility and/or
boundary effect

Heavy Oil-Oil Contact

100

Cement Plug

KH/ = 2304 md*ft/cp

Damage Skin= 0
II= 2.96 bpd/psi
10
1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

Figure-30: Well-G (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-29: Well-G (FAL)

= 4.6 cp
KH= 25,400 md*ft
Heavy Oil-Oil Contact

1000

Mobility and/or
boundary effect
100

KH/ = 5522 md*ft/cp

Damage Skin= 2.6
II= 3.34 bpd/psi
10
1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

Figure-32: Well-H (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-31: Well-H (FAL)

SPE 136932

15

= 0.5 cp
KH= 27,272 md*ft

100

F
C

10

KH/ 54,545md*ft

Damage Skin= -5.9

B
L

II= 137.21 bpd/psi

H

BU (10 Wells)
FO (9 Wells)
FO+ BU (2 Wells)

1
1E-3

0.01

0.1

10

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

E
I

Figure-34: Well-I (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-33: Well-H (Well and Fault Location Map)

=0.5 cp
1000

KH= 19,579 md*ft

100

10

KH/= 39,158 md*ft/cp

Damage Skin= 14.7
II= 11.5 bpd/psi
1E-3

0.01

0.1

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

Figure-36: Well-J (Log-Log Plot of Test Data)

Figure-35: Well-J (FAL)

10

16

SPE 136932

MNIF-72 Lower Ratawi.ks3 - Build-up 2 Final

MNIF-5 (LWRT) tested May 29, 2007 fix rates 2.ks3 - Final
MNIF-32 C.ks3 - Analysis 1 (ref)
1000

Well-C
100

Well-M

10

F
C

Well-L
1

J
B
L

BU (10 Wells)
FO (9 Wells)
FO+ BU (2 Wells)

0.1
1E-6

1E-5

1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1

10

Compare files: Log-Log plot (dp and dp' normalized [psi] vs dt)
E
I

Figure-37: Excellent Reservoir Quality

Figure-38: Overlay of Well-B, K and L

100