be relatively large.
Therefore, we recommend
that all injectivity test
analyses start with the
log(pu.f — Pi) vs log plot
so the duration of wellbore
storage effects may be
estimated as explained in
Sections 2.6 and 3.2. As
indicated in fig. 7.2, TIME, t
wellbore effects may Fig. 7. I Idealized rate
appear as a semilog straight sched
line on the vs log t plot; ule
if such a line is analyzed, and
low values of permeability press
will be obtained and ure
calculated skin factor will respo
be shifted in the negative nse
direction. Eq. 3.8 may be tor
used to estimate the inject
beginning of the semilog ivity
straight line shown in fig. testin
7.2: g.
(200,000 + 12.000s)C — 162.6
. (7.3) qBf.L .
(7.4) mh
Once the semilog
straight line is determined, Skin factor is estimated
reservoir permeability is with Eq. 3.10.
estimated from Eq. 3.9:
F 1.1513 P'hr —Pi
SHUT IN
'NJEcr,WG
O (7.5)
Example 7.1 Injectivity
Test Analysis in an
InfiniteActing
Resen.'0ir
Figs. 7.3 and 7.4 show
TIME, pressure response data for
an injectivity test in a
waterflooded reservoir.
Before the test, all wells in
the reservoir had been shut
in for several weeks and
pressure had stabilized.
Known reservoir data are
INJECTION WELL TESTING 77
depth = ,002 ft
6.67 X 106 psiI (1.0) =
4=0.15 0.0102
pu. = 62.4 lbm/cu ft bbl/psi.
(408)
Pi = 194 psig
Ihe well is completed
with 2in. tubing set on a
packer. The reservoir had
been under waterflood for SLOPE* m
several years. We can
safely assume that the
unitmobilityratio
assumption is satisfied,
since the test radius of
investigation is less than 0
the distance to the water 0
bank, as shown by 0
calculations later in this 0
example.
The loglog data plot, 104 10
Fig. 7.3, indicates that 102
wellbore storage is INJECTION
important for about 2 to 3
TIME, t, HR
hours. The deviation of
the data above the unit Fig. 7.2 Semilog plot
slope line suggests that Of typical injectivity
the wellbore storage test data.
coefficient decreased at (C is always positive.)
about 0.55 hour. Sections Wellbore capacity for a
2.6 and I l .2 and Figs. rising fluid level can be
2.12 and 11.5 through estimated (from Eq. 2.16)
11.7 discuss such to get Vu = 0.0044 bbl/ft.
changing wellbore storage Twoinch tubing has a
conditions. The data in capacity of about 0.004
Fig. 7.3 start deviating bbl/ft. so the unitslope
upward from the unit straight line does
slope straight line when correspond to a rising
Ap = 230 psi and pu,f = fluid level in the tubing.
424 psig. Since the [fwe useC = 0.0102 in Eq.
column of water in the 7.3, or if we go I to 1.5
well is equivalent to about cycles in At after the data
434 psi, it appears that the start deviating from the
apparent decrease in unitslope line (Section
storage coefficient 2.6), we would decide that
corresponds to fillup of the semilog straight line
the tubing. should not start for 5 to 10
From the unitslope hours of testing. 'hose
portion Of Fig. 7.3, Ap = rules indicate too long a
408 psig when At = I time for adecreasing
hour. Using Eq. 2.20, we wellbore storage
estimate the apparent condition. Figs. 7.3 and
wellbore storage 7.4 clearly sho•vv that
coefficient: wellbore storage effects
have died out after about 2
to 3 hours.
Fig. 7.4 shows a
semilog straight line
through the data after 3
hours of injection. From
78 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
= 12.7 md.
We may now determine JOS
if the unitmobil ityratio
analysis applies. The
estimated permeability is
used to estimate a radius
of investigation from Eq.
2.41:
r kt
d +gc
t

0 101
. INJECTIONTIME, t, HR
0 Fig. 7.3 Loglog data plot
for the injectivity test of
2 Example 7. I. Water
9 injection into a reservoir at
static conditions.
= (100 D/year)
—
= 0.029 7
x 10 3
6)
= 273 ft. ,
A volumetric balance 0
provides an estimate of
the distance to the water 0
bank. The volume
injected is 0
5
.
6
1 a
4 n
6
¯ d
s
o 2369
r 5.6146m ft.
u Since rd < rarb, we are
• justified in using the unit
b mobilityratio analysis.
INJECTION WELL TESTING 79
+
factor:
F 1.1513
— log3.2275
= 2.4.
The well is damaged; the
pressure drop across the
skin may be estimated from
Eq. 2.9:
— —167 psi.
The negative sign here
indicates damage since
the pressure decreases 10
away from the well (in INJECTION
the positive r direction)
TIME. t, HR
for injection while it
Fig. 7.4 Semilog plot forthe
increases for production.
This is seen by computing injectivity test of Example
the flow efficiency from 7. I. Water injection into a
Eq. 2. 12. Assume j; = Pi reservoir at static
= 194 psi, since the conditions.
reservoir is stabilized testing in Chapters 3 and 4.
before injection. Typecurve matching for
Usingp„.r = 835 psig injection well testing is
from the last available done just as it is for
data point. theflow production well testing
efficiency is (Section 3.3); the Ap used
must be positive for
194 — 835 — 167) plotting the log scale,
= 0.74. although it is actually a
194 — 835 negative number. The signs
If•we had ignored the sign must be considered in
on q when estimating , we analysis.
would have incorrectly Eqs. 7.1 through 7.5
computed a flow apply to injectivity testing
efficiency of I .26, in infiniteacting reservoirs,
indicating improvement just as do Eqs. 3.5 through
instead of damage_ 3.10 for drawdown testing.
When an injection well in a
developed reservoir shows
the eftécts of interference
from other wells. the
Multipierate injection
infiniteacting analysis may
testing, constantpressure
not be strictly applicable. In
injection testing,
that techniques presented in
injectivity testing after
Section
falloff testing, etc., are all
performed and analyzed 3.4 should be used.
80 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
• (7.8)
INJECTION WELL TESTING 81
lh
162.6 qBg (7.9)
r
tp + At
—O
Inh and s =
1.1513 Fig. 7.6 Horner plot of a
typical falloff test.
+ 3.2275
tive injection since the well
As is the case in was put on injection. If tv >
pressure buildup testing, 21 , then, for reasons
if the injection rate varies discussed in Sections 5.2
before the falloff test, the and 6.3, the time to reach
equivalent injection time pseudosteady state (or
may be approximated steady state, which for a
from Eq. 5.9: fivespot system 10 occurs at
_ 24 vp 'DA = 0.25 withA thearea
per well, not per pattern)
should be used L1 • 12 in
(7.11) place oftp.
where VI, is the MillerDyesHutchinson
cumulative volume type plotting of falloff data,
injected since the last as suggested by F". 5.13,
pressure equalization and Pu.s—plhr + m log At ,
q is the constant rate just
before shutin. Comments (7.12) also applies to falloff
made in Sections 5.2 and testing. The analysis
6.3 about the proper to to method of Section 5.3
use for a Hornertype applies: m in Eq. 7.12 is the
analysis also apply here. slope of the pres vs log At
In Eq. 7. I I , the straight line and is defined
numerator is usually the by Eq. 7.7; k is estimated
cumulative injection from Eq. 7.9; skin factor is
since the last pressure estimated from Eq. 7.10;
equalization rather than and the false pressure, p*.
the cumula may be estimated from EA.
5.14. The end of the
semilog straight line (either
Horner or MDH) may be
SHUTIN estimated by using Eq. 5.16
TIME. At, and figs. 5.6 and 5.7.
HR Because it is less work, the
MDH plot is more practical
82 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
l
b
m
/
c
u
INJECTION WELL TESTING 83
d
e
p
t
h
4 SHUTIN
, TIME, At, HR
8
1 Fig. 7.7 Loglog data plot
9 for
a
fall
f off
t test
A 20 acres afte
r
= 871,200 brin
sq ft. e
Fig 7.7 is the loglog inje
plot for the test data. From ctio
n,
the shape of the curve, it Exa
appears that the semilog mpl
straight line should begin e
by 0.1 to 0.2 hour. Using 7.2.
Ap = 238 psi and At = 0.01
hour from the unitslope 0.01 0.02 01 0.5 eo
straight line, we estimate
the wellbore storage
coefficient from 2.20:
= 0.0014
RB/psi.
C must be positive, so we
disregard the sign
convention here. Since
wellhead pressure was
always above atmospheric,
the wellbore remained full Fig. 7.8 Horner plot Of
during the test. Thus, FA. pres
2.17 and a wellbore sure
compressibility of cw = 3 0 fall
x 10 6 psi¯l can be used to off
afte
estimate the wellbore r
volume corresponding to C brin
= 0.0014 bbl/psi: Vw = 467 e
bbl. Using the depth of inje
84 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
= 17.4md.
The skin factor is estimated
from Eq, 7.10:
SHUTIN TIME,
at, HR + 3.2275
Fig. 7.9 MillerDyes
Hutchin 
son plot 0.1
of
pressure 5.
falloff From Fig. 7.8, pts* = —
after 151 psig. This is the false
brine pressure at the surface.
injectio Using the,hydrostatic
n, gradient of 0.4685 psi/ft
Exampl and the depth of 4,819 ft,
e 7.2. the initial bottomhole
the agreement is within pressure is estimated:
reason. If the well was shut
in at the injection pump =
rather than at the wellhead,  151 =
the connecting lines would 2,107 psig.
cause the storage Since injection time tv is
coefficient to be larger than short, we can safely assume
that resulting from the that p* = F, sop = 2,107
wellbore only. psig.
Unfortunately, we do not
have all the information
necessary to know if such
speculation is correct. This
clearly indicates the need When the test well is
for a diagram or a sketch operating at true steady
Of the well completion state, falloff test analysis by
equipment and surface the MDH technique should
connecting lines. be sufficient and, thus , is
Wellhead pressures the preferred method from
are plotted vs + At)/At] the practical standpoint of
in Fig. 7.8. That Horner less work. Shutting in the
plot can be used to well will disturb steady
estimate k, s, and p*. state conditions in the
Since the falloff time reservoir, and adjacent
(0.67 hour) is much producing wells will
INJECTION WELL TESTING 85
TABLE 7.1—TWO
RATE —
log
FALLOFF
TEST
DATA = 0.6.
FOR
EXAMPLE
7.3.
100 STB/D, =
48.5 STB/D, t,  6.183 The tworate falloff test
hours. in
pr log
loglog At
(hours)
o 831.8
0.167 661.3 ,580  Example 7.3 eliminated
0.777 1.203 high wellbore storage
0.333 640.6 1292  that had been previously
0.478 1.060 observed in the well.
0.500 631.3 1.126  Wellbore storage effects
0.301 0.980 in that tworate test were
0667 630.3 1.012  insignificant after about 1
0.176 0.927 5 minutes. That was
0.833 625.1 0.925  accomplished with only a
0.079 0.887 6hour duration for the
1.000 623.1 0.856 initial rate; the entire test
0.000 lasted only 12 hours.
0.856
1.333 621.0 o. 751 7.4 Average and Interwell
0.125 Reservoir Pressure
0.812 In finite, liquidfilled
1.667 620.0 0.673 reservoirs of uniform
0.222 mobility and Octh, the false
0.781
pressure is obtained by
2.000 620.0 0.612
extrapolating the straight
0.301
line portion of the Horner
0.758
3.000 611.7 0.486 plot to (tv + At)/At = l. In
0.477 new wells or wells with
0.717 short injection times, p* =
4.000 611.7 0.406
0.602 However, as is the case in
0.698 pressure buildup analysis,
p* must be corrected to
INJECTION WELL TESTING 87
= = O) + m log
(7.15)
wheren is the number of
producers surrounding the
injector. Note that the
pressure drop across the
skin must be removed
before the average reservoir
(interwell) pressure is
estimated. This is done
because injectors and
producers can be expected
to have different skins and
rates because of different
wellbore conditions, 1.2 net
sand variations, or different
operating practices. As
used in Eq. 7. 15, Apg is
Fig. 7.11 Tworate falloff
positive for damage and
test data plot for
negative for improvement.
Example 7.3. This is a minor deviation
Water injection from the strict sign
into a interpretation used in
waterflooded Example 7.1
reservoir.
Example 7.4
factor is not the sarne in the
production and injection Estimating Average
wells, replace s in Eq. 7.14 Pressure From a
by the average of the two Falloff Test—Unit
skin factors for MobilityRatio, Liquid
theoretically correct results. Filled System
If the wellbore radii differ, The falloff test of
replace by the product of Example 7.2 can be used to
the tworu, values. The illustrate estimating even
coefficient in front ofthe though the injection time is
INJECTION WELL TESTING 89
From 0
0.001 (read nonzero for .
illustrative purposes only). 1
Then, applying Eq. 7.13.
2
= 2,107 psi.
2 Thus, the p* value for
. this short injection time is a
3 usable estimate of p. Note
that the correction to p* is
0 positive,
2
IOS
Kazemi, Gogarty.
FW 7.13 Schematic diagram Of fluid distribution around an FW 7.14 Simulated pressure falloff data for a twomne system.
18
injection well (composite reservoir). After Merrill. and
INJECTION WELL TESTING 91
Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 for a liquidfilled system. The three Fig. 7. IS Correlation Of dimensionless intersection time , ,
falloff curves apply for a mobility ratio [M Xl/k2 = (k/g) of for talloff data from a twozone reservoir. After Merrill.
10 between the first and second bank; there is no third bank. Kazemi, and Gogarty. 8
The three curves apply for different ratios of porosity Fig. 7.15 correlates AtDfr with the ratio of the two semilog
compressibility product ($ct) between the two zones. slopes from the falloff curve and the +ct ratio in the two
Wellbore storage effects are included. The "A" portion of fluid banks. The second method uses the point of deviation
Fig. 7.14 is dominated by wellbore storage effects; the ' 'B ' ' of the observed pressure data from the first semilog straight
portion is a semilog straight line that provides information line, Atfl*, with
ab0Lå the injected fluid bank, Region l; the ' 'C" portion is a
tiansition as the second fluid bank begins to exert its 0.0002637 (k/ß)l Atfl*
influence on the falloff behavior; and the "D" portion of the rft = tDf1
(éct)l
curve includes a second semilog straight line (7.17)
whose slope is determined by properties ofRegions 1 and 2. Merrill. Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 show that O. 13 < AtDft* <
Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 propose methods for I .39. with an average value ofO.389. This agrees quite well
estimating both the location of the front of Region I in Fig. with an interpretive rule of thumb that the waterbank (first
7.13 and the permeability of the two fluid banks in a bank) slope normally will be valid to a time equivalent to
twozone system. Their approach does not require previous AtDf, (based on m, see Fig. 7.13) of about 0.25. AtDf1*
knowledge of the mobility ratio, although an estimate of the does not correlate well with slope and specific storage ratios,
Oct ratio must be available. The data presented in Ref. 18 so we do not recommend using Eq. 7.17 unless insufficient
and here are based on computer simulations for which rn/rrt data are available to estimate Atfr for use in Eq. 7.16.
> 50. Practically speaking, if rn/rfl > 10, the techniques The permeability in the injected fluid bank may be
probably still apply. However, for lower values of rf2frf1, estimated from the slope (±m,) ofthe first semilog straight
chances of successful analysis are poor. The MerrillKazemi line and Eq. 7.9. Skin factor is estimated from ml, pthr, and
Gogarty approach differs from the HazebroekRainbow Eq. 7.10. Ifrn > 10m, the mobility in the second zone may be
Matthews approach in that it requires knowledge of neither estimated from
the mobility ratio nor the location of the interior fluid front.
Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty1S proposed two ways for
estimating the distance to the front ofRegion I from apws vs . . . . . . . . (7.
log At plot of falloff data. One approach is to use the
extrapolated intersection time of the two semilog straight 18)
lines on the MDH plot, åtfx, with where the mobility ratio, (Xl/X2), is from either Fig. 7.16 or
Fig. 7.17. 18 If both semilog straight lines appear and if it is
(7.16) possible to estimate the ratio of specific storage capacities, it
is possible to estimate mobility or permeability in each zone.
A common error in transient test analysis is to assume that
each slope indicates the mobility of a particular fluid zone.
Figs. 7.14, 7.16, and 7.17, and Eq. 7.18 clearly show this is
not the case for the second zone. Further modifications are
needed when < even for a liquidfilled, twobank system.
Unfortunately, it seems that reservoir simulation
toe
Kazemi, Gogarty.
92 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
10 STB/D =
I.ORB/STB h=20ft
60.1/(32.5) = 1.85,
and
x 10 7/1.54 x 106
To estirnatek/g forRegion I we use Eq. 7.9:
= 100 md/cp,
the correct result.
SPECIFIC STORAGE RATIO, (+et)l TO estimate (k/g)2 we enter Fig. 7.17 with the slope and
+ct ratios above and read = 2.0. Then, from Eq. 7.18,
Fig. 7.16 Effect Of specific storage ratio and mobility ratio
on the slope ratio for fallofftesting in a twozone reservoir. = 50 md/cp.
18
After Merrill , and We may use either Eq. 7.16 or Eq. 7.17 to estimate the
approaches are required for analysis of that common location of the front of the water bank. From Fig. 7.18, the
situation. falloff plot, AtDf* = 0.095 hour and Atfl* = 0.013 hour.
Merrill , Kazemi , and Gogarty l 8 suggest a way to estimate Using Fig. 7.15 with mz/ml = 1.85 and =
the maximum wellbore storage coefficient that still allows 0.58. we get AtDfx — 3 .05. Using Eq.
the first semilog straight line to be observed. By using their
approach, but substituting Eq. 2.22b as the criterion for the 7.16,
end of wellbore storage effects for pressure falloff testing, (8.95 x
= 30
we see that
ft,
107 håtfl* eo. us (7.19)
the value set in the simulation. TO use Eq. 7.17 we must
for the first semilog straight line to be detected. Eq. 7.19 assume a value or a range for tDfl*. Using O. 13
allows for about I cycle of semilog straight line between die 1.39 and tDf1* = 0.389, we get
out of afterflow and initial deviation caused by secondbank 54>rfI > 17,
effects. That is a difficult criterion to achieve, especially if and
the boundary between the first and second banks is relatively
close to the injection well. Fn=31 ft.
In this case the average value of gave quite acceptable
results, but that may be a coincidence. 18
Example 7.5 Pressure Falloff Analysis in a Although there is no wellbore storage in this example, we
TwoZone System can estimate the maximum wellbore storage coefficient that
Fig. 7.18 is a semilog plot of simulated falloff data for a 14
twozone waterfiood from Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty.
Data used in the simulation were
ooouuo
=30ft
— 3,600 ft, so = 120
(k/g)i = ¯— 100 md/cp
(k/g)2 = = 50 md/cp
(+ct)l —8.95 x 107
12
psiI (4Ct)z= I .54 X
106 psiI q = 400
Kazemi, Gogarty.
INJECTION WELL TESTING 93
6
4
avuzzaa
2
to
SHUTIN TIME, At, HR
Fig. 7.18 Falloff test data for Example 7.5. After Men
t8
ill. and
Kazemi, Gogarty.
94 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
would not have obscured the first straight line on Fig. 7.18. From a practical point of view, a stepwise approach to
Using Eq. 7.19 withs = O, ptessure falloff analysis usually can be applied with
C < 5.9 X 107 acceptable results. The procedure is as follows:
1 .53 x 105 RB/psi. I. Plot log Ap vs log At to determine when wellbore
storage effects cease to be important. Use that plot to
If we assume that the wellbore is full of water of select the semilog straight line for the following step.
compressibility,cu. = 3.0 x 106 psiI , then from Eq. 2. E 7, 2. Regardless of the mobility ratio and whether
1.53 x 10 5 the reservoir is filled up or not, make the MDH plot. Choose
= 5.1 bbl. what appears to be the correct semilog straight line and
3.0 x 106 estimate permeability and skin factor.
Thus, if the well is completed with 2in. tubing on a packer 3. Calculate the expected end ofthe semilog
(Vu 0.004 bbl/ft), the maximum depth to meet the straight line, assuming that it corresponds to
restriction on the wellbore storage coefficient would be
about I ,300 ft — and this is assuming zero skin. For 3in. (7.20)
tubing the depth must not exceed about 570 ft. Ifthe skin
factor had been 5.0, the depths for 2 and 3in. tubing Thus, the approximate end time of the semilog straight line
would be 635 and 282 ft, respectively. mav be estimated from
. (7.21)
where (k/g)l is estimated from the MDH slope and is
estimated independently such as by material balance. Eq
This material applies to composite systems with two 7.21 is a reasonable ruleofthumb estimate for both
radial fluid zones, with the second zone large compared unfilled and filled systems operating at steady or
with the first. Based on a study of threezone systems, pseudosteady conditions before shutin.
Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty18 conclude that the only useful 4. If the apparent end of the MDH straight line
informarion obtainable in such reservoirs is the mobility of does not correspond approximately to the time estimated
the first zone and a rough estinrate of its extent if there is a in Step 3, additional can be taken to complete the process.
distinct contrast of mobility ratios. Reliable estimates of the This might include using the Horner method with tv
mobilities and the locations of the second and third zones computed by normal methods, and computed from
(tDA)pgs using the area to the front of the oil bank. Also,
cannot be made with currently available technology. It is
the HazebroekRainbowMatthews method could be applied
likely that the only way such estimates could bc made
at this point, if necessarv.
would be by a match ing process using a reservoir simulator
such as that discussed in Ref. 17.
5. The average pressure, F, may be estimated
using the MatthevvsBronsHazebroek, Fig. 7.12, or
Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 and Dowdle l * propose
HazebroekRainbowMatthews (extended Muskat plot)
methods for estimating the water saturation in the
methods. When the Oil bank is relatively thin, the mobility
injectedfluid zone by combining Eq. 7.16, Fig. 7. 15, and the
ratio is near unity, and wellbore effects have died out, a
materialbalance equation. These methods apply at a fairly
simple Dietztype extrapolation of the MDH straight line
early Stage of water injection into a previously liquidfilled
equivalent to a dimensionless time of 0.445 (based on
1Bervoir as a result of the restrictionrr.z > 10%,.
radius of the oil bank) may be made to estimate F:
Typecurve matching may be applied to composite systems
under certain circumstances. Bixel and van Poollen 16 propose
(Ath = I ,690
such a method for analyzing pressure buildup tests with widely
varying éct and k/g ratios where the second zone is large. (+ct), rf22 (7.22) (k/æ)l
One characteristic Of water injection with a nonunit
Eq. 7.22 can give a reasonable estimate of the reservoir
mobility ratio is that the injectivity tends to change as
pressure at the leading edge of the oil bank, assuming a
water enters the formation. 20 During the early stages of
constant pressure beyond that point.
injection, this will appear as a changing skin factor. When
enough fluid is injected to form a significantly large fluid 6. When applicable, the MerrillKazemiGogarty 18
bank around the injection well, the mobility of that bank method can be used to estimate the secondbank mobility.
will be detected by transient tests, and skin factor There can be errors in all the methods because of
computed from the filStbank slope should not change imprecise boundary conditions and assumptions used in
unless the injected fluid is actually damaging or stimulating deriving those techniques. Generally, the MDH method
the wellbore. does give quite good values for mobility, unless the mobility
ratio between the banks varies significantly from unity and
the inner and outer banks are about the same size. The
7.6 A Pragmatic Approach to Falloff Test Analysis
HazebroekRainbowMatthews approach is a latetime
method based on a constantpressure outer boundary
condition. The worst errors in application of that method
INJECTION WELL TESTING 95
can be expected to occur when tDAf2 < 0.44. The
calculation of the dimensionless time can prevent or reveal
such application.
and
and
b' = 0.885 psi/(STB/D). 3. Nowak, T. J. and Lester, G. W.: *'Analysis Of Pressure
We estimate formation permeability from Eq
0.76 md.
The skin factor is estimated from Eq. 4.5: 4. Hazebroek. P.. Rainbow. H.. and Matthews. C. S.:
'*Pressure
0.885
1.1513
0.357 5. Clark, K . K.: Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured
Water
0.76 Injection Wells."
J. Pet. Tech. (June
1968) 639643; Trans., — logAIME, 243.