SPE 164886

A new general flow model for Well Test Analysis for fluids used in
Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects
Alex R. Valdes-Perez, University of Stavanger
Heber Cinco-Ley, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Héctor Pulido-Bello, Petróleos Mexicanos
Frode Hveding, Ziebel AS
Fernando Samaniego, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Conten ts of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Fluids used in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects, such as polymers, micellars solutions and surfactants are classified as
non-Newtonian fluids, due to their viscosity behavior. The measuring and analysis of pressure data during injection of non-
Newtonian fluids and during fall-off periods has become popular. However, the lack of appropriate tools for its interpretation
might yield incorrect results when characterizing parameters are computed, such as flowing geometry around wellbore,
formation permeability, skin factor at wellbore, injected fluid consistency index, etc.
This paper presents a new general flow model for non-Newtonian fluids governed by a partial differential equation.
Analytical solutions for such model are also presented. The model and its solutions are suitable to identify three of the most
common flow geometries (linear, radial and spherical flow), when a displacement agent is flowing within the porous media in
EOR projects. Due to its behavior, this model is appropriate when extra heavy oil is flowing in the reservoir. A better
understanding and representation of the fluid flowing into the reservoir can improve the monitoring and execution of EOR
projects and reservoir exploitation schemes.
Linear, Radial and Spherical diffusivity equations for Newtonian fluids are particular cases of the new model. For
different flow geometries, graphs of the pressure and its derivative behavior against time are presented. A method for
determining fluid consistency index and flow geometry is presented. A synthetic example that describes the application of the
new model is also shown.

Introduction
Polymers are of interest in EOR applications because of their rheological properties in dilute solutions. Such solutions often
exhibit non-Newtonian rheological behavior. A non-Newtonian fluid has a non-linear relationship between shear stress and
shear rate. When a polymer flows through a porous medium, retention of polymer in the reservoir is caused, consecuently it
reduces the apparent permeability of the rock. In most cases, retention of polymers used in EOR applications is considered
instantaneous and irreversible (Green et al., 1998).
On the other hand, Barker (1988) proposed a generalized radial flow model for hydraulic tests. Later, Doe (1991) extend
the theory to fractional geometries. In 1990 Chang et al., developed a fractal flow model for well test analysis for single and
double porosity reservoirs and obtained an aproximate solution.

Basic Concepts
Barker (1988) stated that an irregular shape volume of rock can be represented by the volume of two equipotential surfaces;
such region is defined as:
Vb   d e b 3d e r d e 1 r , (1)
where:
 d e  Area of a unit sphere of d e dimensions; it is defined as:
2 SPE 164886

2 de / 2
 de  , (2)
d
 e 
 2
d e  Euclidean dimension.
Possible values of d e are one, two or three, which corresponds to linear, radial or spherical geometries, respectively.
However, fractional values can exist, which represent fractal geometry.
On the other hand, the expression that best describes the behavior of a non-Newtonian fluid in radial coordinates is given
by:
 k p r , t 
vn  r , (3)
eff r
where:
k r  permeability,
 eff  non-Newtonian fluid’s effective viscosity,
n  flow behavior index.

Proposed Model
Model Development
Based on expressions 1 and 2, the following diffusion equation is derived:
n 1 1
2 
 2 pr , t  nde  1 pr , t   pr , t    pr , t  n  k r  n pr , t 
  nc f      n ctb . (4)
2  
r r r  r   r   eff  t
In order to linearize the right hand of Eq. 4, the following approximation was used:
n
pr , t  eff q 
   . (5)
r kr  r e b e 
d  1 3  d
 ed 
Hence, the resulting expression was:
2
nd e  1 pr , t 
 2 pr , t   pr , t   r  pr , t 
  nc f    , (6)
r 2 r r  r    t
Where the apparent hydraulic diffusivity coefficient is defined as:
1 n
kr  qB f 
     , (7)
n eff ctb   d b3 d e 
 e 
And, fluid-geometry interaction coefficient is defined as:
  1  d e n  1 . (8)
Fig. 1 shows the behavior of the fluid-geometry interaction coefficient against the flow behavior index for the Euclidean
geometries.It can be conclude that,  does not represent a unique combination of d e and n .
Traditional well test analysis neglects the quadratic pressure gradient term, although it’s been argued that it cannot be
necessary correct (Chakrabarty, 1993; Jelmert et al., 1998). However, since the discussion of such effect is not an objective of
this work, quadratic pressure gradient has been neglected and the following simplified model of Eq. 6 has resulted:
 2 pr , t  nd e  1 pr , t  r  pr , t 
   . (9)
r 2 r r  t

Dimensionless Variables
The following dimensionless variables in oilfield units are used in the present study.
Dimensionless radius:
r
rD  . (10)
rw
Dimensionless time:
1 n
0.00026367kr  qB f 

tD  2  
t. (11)
n eff ctb rw  504.87 d e b3 d e 

Dimensionless pressure:
SPE 164886 3

n
k  p  pr , t    d e b 3 d e 
 .
p D rD , t D   r i (12)
447,933 eff rw  1.9807  10 qB f 
1 3

The substitution of these variables into Eq. 9 yields:

 2 p D rD , t D   p D rD , t D   p D rD , t D 
  rD , (13)
rD2 rD rD t D
Where:
  de    1 . (14)
It can be verified that, for a Newtonian fluid, i.e., n  1 and d e remains variable Eq. 13, converges to the model proposed
by Barker (1988) and Doe (1991). On the other hand, if n remains variable and d e  2 , the model converges to the radial
flow model proposed by Ikoku et al. (1979) or, if d e  3 , the model converges to the spherical model proposed developed by
Liu (1988). When n remains variable and d e  1 , i.e., linear flow, the model converges to the case shown in Appendix A.

Fig. 1.Fluid-geometry interaction coefficient behavior as a function of flow behavior index.

Constant Rate Solution for Generalized Radial Flow Model using Laplace Transform
In order to have a well test analysis model for the Generalized Radial Flow Model, Eq. 13, the following conditions have
been set:
Initial condition: p D rD ,0  0 , (15)
p D 1, t D 
Inner Boundary: rD  1 , (16)
rD
Outer boudary: lim pD rD , t D   0 . (17)
rD  
Hence, solution in Laplace space can be expressed as:
2  2 s  2 
rD  2 K 2   r 2 
  2 D 
 2  
p D rD , s   . (18)
3/ 2  2 s 
s K   2 2   
 2 
  2 
Therefore, solution at the wellbore in Laplace space is given by:
4 SPE 164886

2 s 

K 2 

 2 
 2 

pwD s   , (19)
3/ 2 2 s 
s K   2  2   

2    2 
Where:
1  d e  1n
 . (20)
2
Solution in real space of Eq. 18 is given by:
 rD  2 
4     2 2   2  2 2   2   
2
2    2  t D
  2r t
2   2 

D 2   2 
   2  t D 
2 2   2 
e 
p D rD , t D   D
 2 
 r  2

 d . (21)
rD  2
  2  2    2  2    2  2  0
  2  2
 D  
 2   2    22 t D
If the flowing fluid is a Newtonian, i.e. n  1 , prior equation converges to the solution proposed by Valdes-Perez et al.,
(2013). Special attention must be paid for the bilinear case, since it is double porosity and double permeability model.
Phenomena around wellbore such as skin at wellbore and wellbore storage can be incorporated in Laplace space as
follows:
S
p wD s   well
p wD s, C D , S well   s . (22)
1  S well sC D  C D s 2 p wD s 
Examples of the behavior of pressure against time, assuming radial and spherical flow and different values of the flow
behavior index are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. It can be noticed that the value of the slope corresponds to the
order of the Bessel function in the numerator of Eq. 19, which is given by:
1 n  den
m . (23)
1  n  de n  de

Fig. 2.Pressure and the logarithmic derivative of pressure behavior for different flow behavior indexes,
assuming radial flow geometry.

Behavior of the logarithmic derivative of pressure as a function of the flow behavior index, for the three types of
Euclidean dimensions is shown in Fig. 4, where is observed that a single Flow Behavior Index can generate a continuos
SPE 164886 5

variation in the slope of the derivative.

Fig. 3.Pressure and the logarithmic derivative of pressure behavior for different flow behavior indexes,
assuming spherical flow geometry.

Fig. 4.Pressure and the logarithmic derivative of pressure behavior for different flow behavior indexes,
assuming spherical flow geometry.

Constant Rate Solution for Generalized Radial Flow Model using Similarity Transform
In order to apply the Similarity transform, the inner boundary condition must be treated as a line source problem, established
by the expression:
 p r , t  
lim  rD D D D   1 , (24)
rD 0
 rD 
6 SPE 164886

And the following expression is obtained:

rD  d e  2  d rD  2 
pD rD , t D    e  1 , . (25)
 de     2   2 2
t 
  2   D 
  2 
Where:
a, x   Incomplete Gamma Function.

For pressure at the wellbore and long times, Eq. 24 can be approximated as:
2 1
pwD t D  
1

  2 t  , (26)
D
    2   d 
  e 
  2 
Where:
de
  1 . (27)
 2
According to Flamenco et al. (2003), when   0 the constant is negligible with respect to the time-dependet term; therefore
the following expression can be derived:
 
 2 1 
log pwD t D   log
  2     log t ; (28)
 de  
D
    
   2  
In oilfield units:
 1   n1 

log pt    log t  log

  

447,933 5.22253  10 7 1.9807  10 3 504.87  
 n
 
  22 1  k r   qB f 
. (29)
nctb  1      eff    d b 3d e 
 e 
On the other hand, if   0 the constant term in Eq. 26 can not be neglected. Hence, the pressure derivative function should
be used:
 
 2 1

 dpwD t D      2  
log t D   log    log t D . (30)
 dt D   d 
  e  
   2  
In oilfield units:
 1   n1  
 dp t  
log t    log t  log
  

 n

447,933 5.22253  10 7 1.9807  10 3 504.87    2 2 1  k r   qB f 
.
 dt  nctb   d       b 3 d e 
 e   eff   d e 
  2
(31)
Example of Application
A fall-off test was conducted in Well A. Transient pressure response is shown in Fig. 5; well and reservoir parameters are
given in Table 1.
Table 1. Well and Reservoir parameters for Well A.
Parameter Quantity Unit
q 3,000 bpd
Bf 1 bl R.C./bl S.C
h 100 ft
kr 1,300 md
 eff 3 cp
 0.12 Fraction
ctb 40 x 10-6 psia-1

From Fig 6 and according to eq. 29, it can be conclude that   0.1371 . Subsequently, based on a trial and error analysis
and using eqs. 27, 29, and the eq. adjusted to the data, shown in Fig. 6, it was determined that de  1.938 and n  0.7376 .
SPE 164886 7

Fig. 5.Pressure and the logarithmic derivative of pressure data for the synthetic example.

Fig. 6.Plot of the late time data of the log of change of pressure against log of time and a match to a straight line.

Conclusions
1. A proper model to evaluate well tests when a non-Newtonian fluid is flowing in the reservoir was developed.
Convergence of the new generalized model for non-Newtonian fluids and its solutions to the Newtonian case, and
consequently to the particular Euclidean and Newtonian cases shows its validation.
2. It was shown that changes in the slope of the pressure derivative function are more sensitive to the values of n than
for the values of d e . Hence, if flow geometry is assumed for flow behavior index estimation, it can result in
unaccurate values.
3. Long time expressions useful to estimate the dimension geometry and the Flow Behavior Index were also
developed.

Nomenclature
Bf formation volume factor. C wellbore storage.
b extent of the flow region. CD dimensionless wellbore storage.
8 SPE 164886

C Swell wellbore storage in the entire damaged zone. s Laplace transform variable.
C SwellD dimensionless wellbore storage in the entire t time.
damaged zone. tD dimensionless time.
cf fluid compressibility. x length.
xc length of the channel (linear system).
ctb total formation compressibility.
xD dimensionless length.
de Euclidean dimension.
Vb bulk volume.
K v x  modified Bessel function. 
v velocity of the fluid in the porous media.
kr permeability. w width of the channel (linear system).
m slope of the pressure derivative function.  de area of a unit sphere of d e dimensions.
n flow behavior index.
 parameter.
pi initial pressure.
p transient pressure in the system.  x  gamma function.
pD dimensionless pressure. a, x  incomplete gamma function.
q flow rate.  parameter.
r radial distance from the centre of the source  apparent hydraulic diffusivity coefficient.
(measured along the flow paths). eff non-Newtonian fluid’s effective viscosity.
rD dimensionless radius.  fluid-geometry interaction coefficient.
rw radius of the wellbore.  parameter.
S well Skin at wellbore  porosity.

References
Acuña, J.A., Ershaghi, I. and Yortsos, Y.C. (1995), “Practical Application of Fractal Pressure-Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs,” SPEFE 173; Trans., AIME, 299, September.
Barker, J.A. (1988), “A Generalized Radial Flow Model for Hydraulic Tests in Fractured Rock,” Water Resources Research,
Vol. 24, No. 10, 1796-1804.
Chakrabarty, C., S. M. F. Ali, and W. S. Tortike (1993), “Analytical solutions for radial pressure distribution including the
effects of the quadratic-gradient term,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, No.4, 1171–1177.
Chang, J., Yortsos, Y.C. (1990), “Pressure-Transient Analysis of Fractal Reservoirs,” SPE Formation Evaluation, 289, 631.
Doe, T.W. (1991), “Fractional Dimension Analysis of Constant-Pressure Well Tests,” paper SPE 22702 presented at the SPE
66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 6-9.
Flamenco-López, F., Camacho-Velázquez, R. (2003), “Determination of Fractal Parameters of Fracture Networks Using
Pressure Transient Data,” paper SPE 82607, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, February.
Green, D.W., Willhite, G.P. (1998), “Enhanced Oil Recovery,” SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 6, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Gringarten, A.C., Bourdet, D.P., Landel., P.A., Kniazeff, V.J. (1979), “A Comparison Between Different Skin and Wellbore
Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis,” paper SPE 8205 presented at the SPE 54th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
Ikoku, C.U., Ramey Jr., H. J. (1979), “Transient Flow of Non-Newtonian Power-Law Fluids in Porous Media,” paper SPE
7139, SPE Journal, 164-174, June.
Jelmert, J.A., Vik, S.A. (1996), “Analytic Solution to the non-linear diffusion equation for fluids of constant
compressibility,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14, 231-233.
Liu Ci-qun (1988), “Transient Spherical Flow of Non.Newtonian Power-Law Fluids in Porous Media,” Applied Mathematics
and Mechanics, Published by SUT, Shangai, China.
Stehfest, H. (1970), “Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms,” Communication of the ACM, 13, No.1, 47, January.
Valdes-Perez. A.R., Pulido, H., Cinco-Ley., Larsen, L. (2013), “A New Double Porosity Fractal Model for Well Test
Analysis with Transient Interporosity Transference for Petroleum and Geothermal Systems,” Proceedings Thirty-Eigth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 11 – 13.
SPE 164886 9

Appendix A
Linear flow model for Non-Newtonian Fluids
The equation that describes the linear flow in the reservoir for non-Newtonian fluids is the same as when a Newtonian fluid is
flowing, on it dimensionless form it is given by:
 2 p D  x D , t D  p D  x D , t D 
 ; (A.1)
x D2 t D
Solving the previous equation with the conditions of uniform intial pressure, constant flow rate and infinite channel (linear
system), the solution is given by:
x D2
  x 
pD  xD , t D   2 t D e 4t D
 xDerfc D  , (A.2)
2 t 
 D 
where, dimensionless variables are defined as follows: Dimensionless length:
x
xD  , (A.3)
xc
Dimensionless time:

t D  l2 t , (A.4)
xc
Where, apparent hydraulic diffusivity coefficient for linear non-Newtonian flow is given as:
1 n
kl  qB f 
l    , (A.5)
neff ctb  2wh 
and dimensionless pressure:
n
k  pi  p x, t   2wh 
p D x D , t D   . (A.6)
 eff x c 2 n  qB f 
Appendix B
Wellbore Storage
Total flow rate is given by:
1 1
dp wf t   k  n  pr , t   n
qB f  C   d e r de 1b 3d e  r    . (B.1)
dt   eff   r 
  r  rw
The previous equation in dimensionless variables is written as follows:
1
p D rD , t D    p D rD , t D   n
1  CD    rD 
 , (B.2)
t D  rD  r 1 D

Where dimensionless wellbore storage is given by:

C
CD  d
. (B.3)
nc tb d e b 3d e rw e
Wellbore Storage and Skin (a damaged zone)
Wellbore Storage in the entire damaged zone of the reservoir is given by:
C Swell  C  nctb d e b 3 d e rwe d e  nctb d e b 3 d e rw d e , (B.4)
Where:
rwe  effective wellbore radius, defined as:
rwe  rw e  Swell . (B.5)
Substituting this effective wellbore radius definition in Eq. B.4, the following expression results:

C Swell  C  nc tb d e b 3d e rw d e e d e Swell  1 .  (B.6)
According to dimensionless wellbore storage definition, Eq. B.6 becomes:
CSwellD e d e Swell  CD  1e d e Swell  1 . (B.7)