SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 21724

Maximizing Injection Rates in Wells Recently

Converted to Injection Using Hearn and Hall Plots
P.M. Jarrell and M.H. Stein, Amoco Production CO.
SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7-9, 1991.

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 presented, 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 SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted 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 750833836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
A new technique is presented which aids in maxi- An upcoming 50-well conversion program (from pro-
mizing water injection rates in wells recently ducing wells to water injection wells) in a mature
converted to i nj ect ion, thereby acce 1era t i ng patterned-fl ood presented the situat i on where an
offset oil production response. This method is engineer would have to devote considerable time
app1 icab1e to waterf100d operations where injec- monitoring injection rates, pressures and volumes
tion wells are surface pressure controlled and to decide timing for periodic step-rate tests.
where bottom-hole injection just below formation Applying accepted guidelines for scheduling
parting pressure (FPP) is desired. step-rate tests during conversion start-up, as
introduced by Robertson and Kelm', suggests an
Two plotting methods are shown to be instrumental average of three tests per well per year to keep
in monitoring the acceleration of fill-up and bottom-hole injection pressures as close to FPP as
average reservoi r pressure growth in an actual possible. Since FPP increases as continued water
field case. One is the Hall method 1 : plotting a injection increases average reservoir pressure 4 ,
function of bottom-hole injection pressure versus it was recognized that, ideally, injection pres-
cumulative water injection, and the other was sures could be increased on a more frequent basis
introduced by Hearn 2 : plotting the inverse injec- (i .e., monthly) instead of three times per year
tivity index versus cumulative water injection. during conversion start-up.
After initiating injection into several converted The challenge was finding a valid, cost effective
wells at pressure limits well below the average method to increase injection pressures frequently
offset parting pressures, periodic surface pres- and at small enough increments to remain below FPP
sure increases were made at each well over a throughout the fi rst year after conversion. The
period of several months. Monitoring the Hall and benefits would be: 1) accelerated injection rate
Hearn plots as the pressure and rates increased and average reservoir pressure bUild-up to accele-
rendered qualitative interpretations of whether rate offset oil response, and 2) lower operating
the rates were being maintained below FPP. Accel- costs from reducing the number of step-rate tests
erated reservoir pressure growth was achieved from three to one duri ng the conversi on start-up
which resulted in earlier than expected offset oil period.
response.
Building and monitoring Hall and Hearn plots from
Application of these plots also reduce, and some- dai 1y surface injection rates and pressures
times eliminate, the need to perform periodic allowed these small monthly pressure increases to
step-rate tests designed to determine FPP during be made for each converted well. Only one step-
the injection start-up period, thereby signifi- rate test was run on each well when bottom-hole
cantly reducing operating costs. injection pressures approached the average of the
existing offset injection wells, approximately
nine to twelve months after initial injection.
References and figures at end of paper

821
2 MAXIMIZING INJECTION RATES IN WELLS RECENTLY CONVERTED TO INJECTION USING HEARN AND HALL PLOTS
Gene..@l
The qualitative use of both plotting methods
offers similar detections in reservoir condition
changes. Both are founded on the radial, steady
state form of the Darcy flow relationship:
0.00708 kwh (pw-Pe)
q
w=
Bw ~w In(relrwa ) ............ (1)
where r wa = rwe -S
Assumptions applied in both plotting methods are:
piston displacement; steady state, radial single-
phase, single-layer flow; pe is constant; and no
residual gas saturation in the water and oil
banks. Factors that are not required are a unity
mobility ratio, or constant injection rate and
pressure. The only data required are injection
rate and surface injection pressure, and an
estimate of Pe'
The primary difference between each method is when
they should be applied, relative to fillup or off-
set well pressure interference. A straight-line
relationship describes the reservoir transmissi-
bility from both plots. The Hearn plot develops a
constant slope prior to offset well pressure
interference (e.g. during fill-up). A second,
horizontal straight-line should result after fill-
up. The Hall plot develops a straight-line slope
after pressure interference (e.g. after fill-up).
Prior to fill-up the Pe increases a~d causes
upward curvature.
Hall Plot
Hall originally proposed this plot method to quan-
titatively analyze the performance of waterflood
injection well s. Hall devi sed the following
approach to el iminate the compl ications of both
pressure and injection rate variations. This
method was based on Darcy's law for single-phase,
steady-state, Newtonian flow of a well centered in
a circular reservoir, which is given in Eq. 1.
Hall integrated both sides with respect to time
(Eq. 2), and rearranged the resulting relationship
to form Eq. 3:
( S Pw dt- S Pe dt)
............ (3)
where Wi = cumulative injection, barrels.
By con sol idating the pressure terms to the left
side of Eq. 3, the final relationship plotted by
Hall developed as Eq. 4:
822
SPE 21724
141.2 Bw ~ w In(r e Ir wa )
S IIp dt - - - - - - - - - - Wi ...... (4)
kwh
where IIp = Pw-Pe'
Hall plotted the integral of the pressure drop
with respect to time versus cumulative injection.
This is referred to as the "Hall plot". Observa-
tion of this pressure function plot reveals that
if an injection well is stimulated, there should
be a decrease in slope, and if a well is damaged,
the slope should increase (Fig. 1). Regardless of
the constant value assumed for p, the slope
changes mentioned above would stille occur. Only
the intercepts would change.
When S IIp dt is plotted versus cumulative injec-
tion, the slope of the Hall plot is equal to
Eq. 5:
141.2 Bw ~w In(relrwa )
m=
kwh .......... (5)
This slope assumes single-phase flow with only one
fluid bank. It is also possible to analyze the
Hall plot using the concept of multiple fluid
banks. Based on the slope of the Hall plot, if
the skin is known, the transmissibility can be
calculated, or vice versa. For single-phase flow,
the transmissibility will not change significantly
with time; therefore, any change in the slope of
the Hall plot will be due to skin effects. Buell,
et.al. s showed that, in general, the fluid bank
near wellbore will dominate the Hall plot slope.
In the case of this paper, the dominating fluid is
water.
The Hall plot is a steady-state ana lys is method,
which provides a continuous injection monitoring
tool. Integrating the pressure data with the Hall
method has a smoothing effect on the data.
Smoothing the injection data over an extended
period of time results in more representative
reservoir condition interpretations.
Acquisition of the data for the Hall plot is
inexpensive, since all that is required is the
recording of cumulative injection and surface
pressures. The surface pressures are then con-
verted to bottom-hole pressures, correcting for
hydrostatic head and friction losses. The Hall
plot can be used to qual itatively interpret what
is happening in the reservoir when changes occur
in the slope of the curve.
Hearn Plot
App 1i cabil i ty of thi s method is duri ng a we 11' s
initial injection period. Hearn introduced this
plot technique as a means to quantitatively
estimate permeability to water and well skin
factor from the same plot. This method assumes a
simplified saturation distribution (Fig. 2) and no
residual gas saturation in the water and oil
banks. Hearn modified Muskat 1 s 6 technique for
constant pressure well analysis to allow for
SPE 21724 P.M. JARRELL. M.H. STEIN 3

varyi ng rate or injection pressure. As shown by APPLICATION OF PLOTTING METHODS

Muskat, the injection rate can be presented as:
General

0.00708 ~h (pw-Pe) Over a period of two years, a 50-well conversion

q =:=----=----,.--=-::----,,.........,... program was implemented throughout the Central
W B ~ (In r /r + M ln r /r ) ....... (6) Mallet Unit, Slaughter (San Andres) Field, Hockley
w w 0 wa e 0
County, Texas. By converting eXisting producing
wells to water injection wells, the flood pattern
where, M= (kw ~o/ko ~w), or mobility ratio. realignment was accomplished. The previous
"Chi ckenwi re" patterns were tran sformed into
Hearn set Mto unity 2, but we have chosen to leave skewed line-drives (Fig. 4), which are expected to
M arbitrary in the following derivation. Our end result in significantly higher recoveries.
result is identical to Hearn's derivation when M
is unity. . Daily surface rate and pressure data was recorded
from the automation system and stored ina data-
0.00708 kwh (pw-Pe) base. Each daily set of data was then manipulated
qw = -=------,.-,...--,.-. into the pressure and volume functions required by
Bw ~w ln (re/rwa ) the Hall and Hearn plots. Through a program
developed on the mainframe computer system, the
data acquisition, manipulation, plotting and
0.01416 kwh (pw-Pe) storage was achieved automatically on a daily
basis. Four plots were maintained on a single
Bw ~w {In (r o2/ r wa 2) + M ln (r e 2/ r 0 2)} page display for each well; 1) rate and pressure
versus time; 2) Hall plot; 3) Hearn plot; and 4)
................. (7) cumulative water injection and injectivity index
(Ap/q) versus time. This automated plotting
It can be shown by material balance that r 2 in routi'A'e provided for a very efficient means by
Eq. 7 is directly proportional to the cumullltive which the performance of the fifty wells could be
water injection volume, or: evaluated.
Each well commenced water injection at a surface
................. (8) pressure equal to the average of the existing
offset injection pressures less a 200 to 300 psig
safety margin. As cumulative injection increased,
where C = constant = 5.615/~h ~ Sg' the average reservoir pressure and FPP increased.
The normal, accepted approach for i ncreas i ng the
operating pressure is to allow for stabilized
Also by material balance: injection rate at the initial start-up control
pressure, then perform a step-rate test to deter-
r 2 = FW ............(9) mine parting pressure. Robertson and Kelm showed
o i that this initial period should allow the water
where F = constant = 5.615/~h ~ (SWBT - Swc)' bank radi us to extend to 150 to 300 ft, whi ch
occurs when the injection rate drops to roughly
Combining Eqs. 7, 8 and 9 gives the relationship one-half the initial injection rate for West Texas
in Eq. 10: San Andres floods 3 Subsequent operating pressure
increases woul d be achi eved in the same manner
through the start-up 1ife unt11 each wells'
Ap =a ln Wi + a (In ~ + M ln ~) bottom-hole operating pressure approached the
qw r wa 2 F .... (10) offset operating pressures. This start-up life
typically lasts from twelve to eighteen months in
West Texas San Andres floods, with two to three
step-rate tests being performed during that time
to justify operating pressure increases (Fig. 5).

Plotting Ap/qw (which is the inverse injectivity
index) versus ln W results in a straight-line
relationship, refer~ed to in this paper as the
"Hearn plot". The slope of the line is a, and the
intercept is the ri ght-hand term of Eq. 10. The
mobility ratio and saturations will appear only in
the intercept term; therefore, permeabi 1i ty from
the slope is not influenced by the mobility ratio
or the simplified fluid distribution.
As shown in Fig. 3, several interpretations of the
slope changes and curve shifts describe reservoir
conditions resulting from plugging, fracturing,
pressure interference, or pressure transi ent
effects.
It was the authors' intention to honor the forma-
tion parting pressure limitation while maintaining
the most frequent operating pressure increases, as
is the intention of the guidel ines proposed by
Robertson and Kelm 3 The only difference is that
the method detailed in this paper attempts to
accelerate the process (Fig. 6). Application of
the same technology offered by step-rate tests
through the Hall and Hearn plots can provide this
acceleration.

823
4 MAXIMIZING INJECTION RATES IN WELLS RECENTLY CONVERTED TO INJECTION USING HEARN AND HALL PLOTS SPE 21724

Field Data time. If the slope of the downward shifted data

in Fi g. 12 had shown to be shallower than the
An example of how the Hall and Hearn plots were first slope, then the fracture could be presumed
qualitatively applied is illustrated by the to be extended out of pay.
start-up 1ife of Central Mallet Unit (CMU) Well
No. 258 (Fig. 7). The plan was to make 50 to 80 A step-rate test was performed at the end of the
psig pressure increases about every thirty to 1ast pressure increment for CMU We 11 No. 258.
forty days until the operating pressure was within This test revealed the FPP was 25 psig higher than
about 50 psig of the average offset operating the current pressure, whi ch confi rmed that the
pressures. Then run a step-rate test to confi rm well was not operating above FPP. Also, an injec-
FPP and an injection profile to reveal any out-of- t i on profil e performed after the step-rate test
pay injection. showed no out-of-pay injection.
After monitoring the rate and pressure data for CONCLUSIONS
stabilization, an initial pressure increase of
50 psig was affected. The Hearn plot developed a The application of Hall and Hearn plots to
straight-line slope through this initial stabili- accelerate waterf100d response was demonstrated.
zation period, as expected (Fig. 8). It was These plots can be used instead of step-rate tests
observed that the second stabilization period, to justify increases in bottomhole injection
after the first pressure increase, continued to pressure. As a result, operating costs associated
follow the straight-line fit of the first period with step-rate testing can be reduced and oil
on the Hearn plot. This was interpreted as below response accelerated.
FPP injection based on the guide1 ines noted in
Fig. 3. A second pressure increase was made after NOMENCLATURE
enough data was collected to estimate that the
first increase maintained rate below FPP. The B formation volume factor, dimensionless
Hearn plot shifted downward at this second pres-
sure increase, indicating possible near we11bore C constant given in Eq. 8
fracturing, but recovered to the initial injection dt time increment, days
peri od fit. Thi s "shift and recover" occurrence
is interpreted as merely a pressure transient D true vertical hole depth, feet
effect. Since the equations that describe this g = acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/S%
plot assume steady- state conditions, sudden rate
or pressure changes would cause the minor distur- h formation thickness, feet
bances in the Hearn plot. This same "shift and F constant in Eq. 9
recover" performance was also exhibited after the
third pressure increase of 80 psig. Observing the ko = permeability to oil, md
Hall plot during these pressure increase periods k
w
= permeability to water, md
show how the inherently smoothed data revea 1 no
significant slope deviation (Fig. 9), which m = slope of the Hall plot, (psig-days)/barrel
corroborates the judgment that fracture propaga- M = mobility ratio, dimensionless
tion was not occurring after each pressure
increase. p = pressure, psig
Pe = pressure at the external drainage radius,
If significant fracture propagation had occurred psig
after one of the sequential pressure increases, it
would have been evident on the Hall and Hearn Po = pressure at outer radius water bank, psig
plots. This can be illustrated by the arbitrary
adjustment of the rate data for CMU Well No. 258 ps = surface tubing pressure, psig
at the the third pressure increase (Fig. 10). The Pw = bottomhole injection pressure, psig
Hall plot shown in Fig. 11 reveals a sharp down- q = rate, barrels/day
ward departure at the time of this rate increase,
which indicates increased transmissibility, or in r e = external drainage radius, feet
this case a fracture. Likewise, the Hearn plot in r o = outer radius of water bank, feet
Fig. 12 illustrates the same fracture propagation
from a marked downward shift of the data. From rw we1lbore radius, feet
Eq. 10, it is recognized that the change in r wa apparent we11bore radius, feet
magnitude of the inverse injectivity index value
(y-axis) is inversely proportional to the apparent S skin; dimensionless
wellbore radius (r ). Earlougher 7 showed that Sg initial gas saturation, dimensionless
for a uniform flux ~acture, r = xf/e, or r a =
0.367 xf. Therefore, fracture Wf'ength can a1s8' be Swc connate water saturation, dimensionless
estimated from Hearn plot shift magnitudes, giving - average water saturation behind the water
an idea of how long the fracture may be propagat- SWBT = front, dimensionless
i ng. I f the fracture growth is determi ned to be
within an acceptable range, then pressure t = injection time, days
increases could be continued until the target
pressure is reached, real izing that the average Wi = cumulative water injected, barrels
reservoi r pressure will continue to increase and
thereby allow closure of a minimal fracture with xf = fracture radius, feet

824
SPE 21724 P.M. JARRELL, M.H. STEIN 5

Greek Symbols

t.p = pressure difference, psi

t.Pf = pressure loss due to friction, psi
t.t = time increment, days
P = fluid density, lbm/ft 3
~ = porosity, dimensionless
1.1 = viscosity, cp
1.1 0 = oil vi scosity, cp
I.IW = water viscosity, cp

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Amoco Production Company
for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Hall, H. N. , "How to Analyze Waterflood
Injection Well Performance", World Oil,
October 1963, pp. 128-130.
2. Hearn, C. L., "Method Analyzes Injection Well
Pressures and Rate Data", Oi 1 and Gas
Journal, April 1983, pp. 117-120.
3. Robertson, D. C. and Kelm, C. H. "Injection
Well Testing to Optimize Waterflood
Performance," paper SPE 5130 presented at the
SPE-AIME 49TH Annual Fall Meeting, Houston,
Texas, October 6-9, 1974.
4. Hubbert, M. K., and Willis, D. G., "Mechanics
of Hydraul i c Fracturi ng" , AI ME Trans., V.
210: 153-166, 1957.
5. Buell, R. S., Kazemi, H., and Poettmann,
F. H. ," Analyzing Injectivity of Polymer
Solutions with the Hall Plot", paper SPE
16963 presented at the 62nd Annual Technical
Con ference and Exh i bi t i on of SPE in Da 11 as,
Texas, September 27-30, 1987.
6. Muskat, Morris, "Physical Principals of Oil
Production", McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New
York, 1949, pp.682-686.
7. Earlougher, R. C., "Advances in Well Test
Analysi S", Mi llet the Printer, Inc., Dallas,
Texas, 1977, Volume Five of the Henry L.
Doherty Series of Monographs, p. 154.
SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
bbl x 1. 589 873 E- 01 =m 3

cp x 1. 0'" E- 03 = Pas
ft x 3.048'" E- 01 =m
lbm/ft 3 x 1. 601 846 E+ 01 = kg/m 3

md x 9.869 233 E - 04 = I.Im 2

psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa

"'conversion factor is exact

825
 2172,
,
qw = Water injection rate
Wi = Cumulative water Injected

Well Bore Plugging

Fracture Extension
Displaced oil Initial
_G.!',,! ISg
E : . - - - - Fracturing near the Well ~~-----~~

Ii: Initial
<I Residual Oil
Oil
Oil Connate water
Bank PwI Po Pe

Cum. Inj. Water, (BBl)

. Fig. 2
Fig. 1 Hall Plot Simplified fluid distribution Hearn Method (from reference 2)

0 L -----1..L0-----1.L00-----1-='"00c:-c0
1
Cumulative injected Water, 1000 BBLs.
Interpretation of Slope Changes Producer
A. Early plugging and fracturing I188r well, D. fracturing near well (shift down)
and pressure trallslent effects
B. Measurement of reservoir kwh E. Fracture extension (slope change) <;) Convarted Producar
C. Well bore plugging (shift up) F. Pressure Interference point

Fig. 3 Hearn plot Fig. 4. Conversion Pattern Realignment

Chickenwire to Skewed Line-Drive

826
 SPE 2172. 4

Average Offset Injection Pressure Average offset injection pressure

1,500 ------------------------------1---------- 1,500 --------------- .. _ ... _ ... _.
1,400 ... .J .. _ . ,
1,400
:._.. _ ...-l.:--... __.. - .~ r... J SRT (+50 Psig)

..
'g
:i
1,200 ... _ ... _~
. .........
--......
SRT (+75 Psig)
SRT (+75 Psig)
SRT (+150 Psig)
.
""
Ci
1,200 - .. .r..: 50 Psig Increments
~>: 1,000
~>: 1,000
!!~
:I::J 800
....
:;~ 800
:lID
=~
1.'; 600
"ID
0::.... 600
:s-i :E"~
l!l
~ 400 400
~
:I :I
III III
200 200
Cum =230 MBW Cum=260MBW

0+--.----.--+---.--..----.---,------.,' o+--~-~-t--.--.--.---r-~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Months after Injection Start-Up Months after Injection Start-Up

Fig. 6
Fig. 5 Desired Approach
Normal Approach. SRTs More Frequent Pressure Increases
Periodic Injection Pressure Increases after Conversion @ Smaller Increments

(3) + 80 PSI
4.00
(2) + 80 PSI ~
1,200
3.50

(l)~~~~]! i!
1,000
(1) + 50 PSI
+ t,",I ',-,'' __ "_'_1 jSUrface
n. pressure

I t'''- .... , ,,1\,'

,'.~'" ....... ~"I .....1/..

Cl 800
;f
i ~).~.~~~~~i
oil
>- ............................... ]
as 600
3;!
1.50 .; . .. :.. .: .

:a Injection
III rate <I 1.00 .................... ~ _ .. -- : ,.. -.. , .
400 Estlma~-/---------
rate forecast 0.50 --.- . . .. .. .. .. . -~ - ~ : : ~ - .. ~ " -.-
w/o pressure
200 increases
0.00 +------r----r--i----i----j--i---i---i-i------i
10 20 30 40 50 6070 100 200
0 Cumulative Water Injected (bbl x 10 3 )
January
Fig. 8
Fig. 7 eMU Well No. 258 CMU Well No. 258
Hearn Plot
Rate and Pressure Data

827
 1,200
300 surface
InJ.
pressure
1,000
.. ,"' ......... , , " I

,'
l
, I'~
, "

~ 800
iii 200
.
-
.e: III
1:1.
011 ,
<J , InJecllon
-1:1. 150 >- ,
III 600 , rate
<J ~
,g

.~'Iii
III
100 400
'S simulated
E fracture
c3 50 200

O--l""=-----r----r----...,--,--,---,----.-----.----,
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 January May
Cumulative Water Injection (bbls x 10 3 )
Fig. 10 CMU Well No. 258
Simulated Fracture Case
Fig. 9
CMU Well No. 258
Hall Plot

300

U;
.. 4.00

..
i;' 250 3.50
~
III
!2oo
i 3.00
~
<J ,g 2.50
-
~150 f
Fracture
,g
;;;;,
III
.e: 2.00 ................. .r . -.;_ ..~ .:~ ~. .~ .:~ :.: :.: .:i
: : :
~ Opening :I:
:;:::
{ 1.50 A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
-S 100 <J
- -:

-: ;

': : : : :
.

.
E ....................
. . . .:
. . . . . .: .: :. :. ..
::I 1.00 :
t~

:
't.~

: : :
t .. "" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
: : : : :
(J
: : : : : : : : : :
50 : : : : : : : : : :
0.50 .................... : ~" : : ~ :. ~ : :. :
: : . :: . :
. .
:
. . . .. : : :
0-1-:::::::::....-----.--..,---,--,------,---.---,--,----, O.OO-+-----t---..,..'--;-'- ' t - '--.---.--;-_.,......,..- - - - - - I
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20' 30 40 50 6070 100 200
Cumulative Water Injected (bbls x 10 3 ) Cumulative Water Injected (bbl x 10 3 )
Fig. 11 Fig. 12
CMU Well No. 258 CMU Well No. 258
Simulated Fracture Case Simulated Fracture Case
Hall plot Hearn Plot

828