Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

Chapter 7

Injection Well Testing

7.1 Introduction approximation in watered-
In many reservoirs, the out waterfloods that
number of injection wells initially had mobility ratios
approaches the number Of significantly different from
producing wells, so the unity , and early in the life
topic of testing those wells oftertiary recovery projects
is important. That is when so little fluid has
particularly true when been injected that it appears
tertiary recovery projects only as a skin effect. When
are being considered or are the unit-mobility-ratio
in progress. When an input condition is satisfied,
well receives an expensive injection well testing for
fluid, its ability to accept liquid-filled systems is
that fluid uniformly for a analogous to production
long time is important to welt testing. Injection is
the economics of the analogous to production
tertiary recovery project. In (but the rate, q, used in
particular, increasing equations is negative for
wellbore damage must be injection while it is positive
detected and corrected for production), so an
promptly. injectivity test (Section 7.2)
'The information parallels a drawdown test
available about injection (Chapter 3). Shutting in an
well testing is much less injection well results in a
abundant than information pressure falloff (Section
about production well 7.3) that is analogous to a
testing. Matthews and pressure buildup (Chapter
Russelli summarize 5). The equations for
injection well testing, but production well testing in
emphasize falloff testing. Chapters 3 through 5 apply
Injectivity testing is rarely to injection well testing as
discussed in the literature, long as sign conventions
but it can be important. 2 are observed. The analogy
Falloff testing is treated3-7 should become clear in the
ratherthoroughly , next two sections.
particularly for systems When the unit-mobility-
with unit mobility ratio. ratio assumption is not
Gas-well falloff testing, satisfied, the analogy
especially in association between production well
with in-situ combustion, testing and injection well
also has been discussed. 89 testing is not so complete.
Injection-well transient In that situation, analysis
testing and analysis are depends on the relative
basically simple — as long sizes of the water bank and
as the mobility ratio the oil bank; generally,
between the injected and analysis is possible only
the in-situ fluids is about when rob > (see
unity. Fortunately, that is a Section 7.5). Fracturing
reasonable approximation effects, which can have a
for many waterfloods. It significant effect on
also is a reasonable analysis, are discussed in
Section I .3.

Reservoirs with injection advisable to monitor the

wells can reach true steady- injection rate carefully so
state conditions when total the methods of Chapter 4
injection rate equals total (variable-rate analysis) may
production rate- In that be applied if the rate varies
situation, or when the significantly.
situation is approached, the Since unit-mobility-ratio
steady-state analysis injection well testing is
techniques of Section 7.7 analogous to production
may be useful. well testing, the analysis
methods in Chapters 3 and
7.2 Injectivity Test 4 for drawdown and
Analysis in Liquid- multiple-rate testing may
Filled, be applied directly to
Unit-MobiliW-Ratio injection well testing. Of
Reservoirs course, while pressure at a
production well declines
Injectivity testing is
during drawdown, pressure
pressure transient testing
at an injection well
during injection into a well.
increases during injec-
It is analogous to
drawdown testing, for both tion. That difference is
constant and variable accounted for in the
injection rates. Although analysis
sometimes called "injection methods by using q < O for
pressure buildup" or simply injection and q > () for
"pressure buildup," we production.
prefer to use the term For the constant-rate
"injectivity testing" to injectivity test illustrated in
avoid confusion with Fig. 7. I , the bottom-hole
production-well pressure injection pressure is given
buildup testing. This by Eq. 3.5:
section applies to
+ m logt.
liquidfilled reservoirs with
mobility of the injected
fluid essentially equal to . (7.1) Eq. 7.1 indicates that
the mobility of the in-situ a plot of bottom-hole
fluid. [f the unit-mobility- injection pressure vs the
ratio condition is not logarithm of injection time
satisfied, results Of should have a straight-line
analysis by techniques in section, as shown in Fig.
this section may pot be 7.2. The intercept,
valid. Even in that Plhr, is given by Eq. 3.7;
situation, if the radius of the slope is m and is given
investigation is not beyond by
the water(injected-fluid)
bank, valid analysis can be
made for permeability and
skin , but not necessarily
for static reservoir pressure.
Fig. 7.1 shows an ideal As in drawdown testing,
rate schedule and pressure wellbore storage may be an
response for injectivity important factor in injection
testing. The well is initially well testing. Often,
shut in and pressure is reservoir pressure is tow
stabilized at the initial enough so that there is a
reservoir pressure, Pi. At free liquid surface in the
time zero, injection starts at shut-in well. In that case,
constant rate, q. Fig. 7. the wellbore storage
illustrates the convention coefficient is given by Eq.
thatq < O for injection. It is 2.16 and can be expected to

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



O (7.5)
Example 7.1 Injectivity
Test Analysis in an
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

depth = ,002 ft
6.67 X 10-6 psi-I (1.0) =
4=0.15 0.0102
pu. = 62.4 lbm/cu ft bbl/psi.
Pi = 194 psig
Ihe well is completed
with 2-in. tubing set on a
packer. The reservoir had
been under waterflood for SLOPE* m
several years. We can
safely assume that the
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
The log-log data plot, 104 10
Fig. 7.3, indicates that 102
wellbore storage is INJECTION
important for about 2 to 3
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 Two-inch tubing has a
conditions. The data in capacity of about 0.004
Fig. 7.3 start deviating bbl/ft. so the unit-slope
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 unit-slope 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 unit-slope 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

this line, m = 80 Assuming that &Su, = 0.4

psig/cycie and = 770 psig. and that injection has been
Permeability is estimated under way for at least 2
using Eq. 7.4: years,

= 12.7 md.
We may now determine JOS
if the unit-mobil ity-ratio
analysis applies. The
estimated permeability is
used to estimate a radius
of investigation from Eq.

r kt
d +gc

0 10-1
0 Fig. 7.3 Log-log 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
= 273 ft. ,
A volumetric balance 0
provides an estimate of
the distance to the water 0
bank. The volume
injected is 0

1 a
4 n
¯ d

o 2369
r 5.6146m ft.
u Since rd < rarb, we are
• justified in using the unit-
b mobilityratio analysis.

EA. 7.5 provides an as explained for

estimate ofthe skin production well


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)
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. Type-curve 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 infinite-acting 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
Multipie-rate injection
infinite-acting analysis may
testing, constant-pressure
not be strictly applicable. In
injection testing,
that techniques presented in
injectivity testing after
falloff testing, etc., are all
performed and analyzed 3.4 should be used.

7.3 Falloff Test

Analysis for Liquid-
Falloff testing,
illustrated schematically in
Fig. 7.5, is analogous to
pressure buildup testing in
a production well. Injection TIME, t
is at a constant rate, q, until Fig. 7 S Idealized rate
the well is shut in at time sch
tv. Pressure data taken edu
immediately before and le
during the shut-in period and
are analyzed as pressure pre
buildup data are analyzed. ssu
The pressure falloff re
behavior can be expressed res
by Eq. 5.10 for both pon
infinite-acting and se
developed reservoirs: for
. (7.6) ing
The false pressure, p*, is .
equivalent to the initial
Pi, for an infinite-acting
system. As illustrated in
Fig. 7.6, Eq. 7.6 indicates
(7.7) kh
that a plot of pu.x vs +
At)/At] should have a As in buildup testing, the
straight-line portion with Horner graph is plotted
intercept p* at infinite shut- with the horizontal scale
in time [(tp + At)/At = l] increasing from right to
and with slope —m, where left (Fig. 7.6). Thus,
m is given by Eq. 5.5: although the slope
appears to be negative, it
is actually positive
because of the reverse
plotting; m is negative
since m = —slope.
As for other transient
well tests. the log-log data
plot should be made so
the end of ellbore storage
effects may be estimated
and the proper semilGg
straight line (Fig. 7.6) can
be chosen. Eq. 5.15b may
be used to estimate the
beginning of the semilog
straight line for falloff

• (7.8)

(kh/æ) 0.1 0.5

but the log-log plot is 2 5 10 20 50 100
Once the correct
semilog straight line has p
been determined,
reservoir permeability
and skin factor are
estimated from Eqs. 5.6
and 5.7:

162.6 qBg (7.9)
tp + At

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: five-spot 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 Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson-
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 shut-in. 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 Horner-type 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
SHUT-IN 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

unless tv is less than about G

twice the maximum shut-in
time. If necessary, the
Horner plot may be used =
for a second pass to
estimate average pressure.
Muskat-type plotting 3
may be used t6 analyze .
pressure falloff tests, but
this is generally not
recommended since the
boundary conditions in x
injection well testing are
more complicated than the
simple single-well closed 1
systems assumed in the 0
analysis technique
described in Section 5.3. -
The information in Section 6
6.4 indicates that a Muskat
plot may provide good
results if there is essentially p
a constantpressure s
boundary between
production and injection i
wells. -
Example 7.2 Pressure
Falloff in a Liquid-
filled, 4
Infinite-Acting =
Reservoir 0
During a stimulation .
treatment, brine was 2
injected into a well and the
falloffdata shown in Figs. 5
7.7 through 7.9 were taken.
Other data include tp =
6.82 hours total falloff time
= 0.67 hour ptf(At = 1,310 t
psig ø
1.0 X 10 7
-5 psi¯i .


4,819 ft, we compute a

f casing radius of 0.42 ft,
t which is too large for a
hole of radius 0.4 ft.
h Nevertheless,


, TIME, At, HR
1 Fig. 7.7 Log-log data plot
9 for
f off
t test
A 20 acres afte
= 871,200 brin
sq ft. e
Fig- 7.7 is the log-log inje
plot for the test data. From ctio
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 unit-slope 0.01 0.02 01 0.5 eo
straight line, we estimate
the wellbore storage
coefficient from 2.20:

= 0.0014
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
estimate the wellbore r
volume corresponding to C brin
= 0.0014 bbl/psi: Vw = 467 e
bbl. Using the depth of inje

ctio smaller than the flow

n. time (6.82 hours), the
mpl log At (MDH) plot
e shown in Fig. 7.9 also
7.2. may be used. The
correct straight line in
Figs. 7.8 and 7.9
indicates m = —270
psig/cycle and = 85
psig. Thus, using Eq.

= 17.4md.
The skin factor is estimated
from Eq, 7.10:

at, HR + 3.2275
Fig. 7.9 Miller-Dyes-
Hutchin -
son plot 0.1
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 bottom-hole
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

eventually cause pressure wellbore storage effects are

decline in the test well. The eliminated. That can be
pressure does not level off important because injection
in a falloff test as it does in wells frequently go on
a buildup test. Pressure vacuum during a falloff
falloff will continue for a test, resulting in an
time, then the pressure will increasing wellbore storage
deviate below the semilog condition (see Sections 2.6
straight line rather than and I I .2 and figs. 2.12,
above it, as might be 11.2, and I I .3, and Ref.
expected by analogy to 13) and essentially
pressure buildup testing. unanalyzable test data. A
This is not a violation of two-rate falloff test is
the analogy between the analyzed like the two-rate
tesß — but is caused by production-well test
interference from adjacent described in Section 4.3.
withdrawal wells; indeed, •me data plot
data in a pressure buildup is made as suggested by
test in an injection project Eq. 4.6 and the analysis is
will deviate above the based on Eqs. 4.10 and 4.1
semilog Straight line when 1. The simplified analysis
injection at adjacent wells technique in Section 4.3
continues. also may be used when the
If there is a general conditions it assumes are
pressure increase or satisfied.
decrease at the injection
well before falloff testing,
the techniques described in Example 7.3 Two-Rate
the "Developed Reservoir Falloff Test
Effects" portion of Section An injectivity test was
5.3 may be applied. It is started on an injection well
necessary, however, to in a waterflooded reservoir
recognize the basic before a tertiary recovery
differences in behavior test. After a few hours of
between a reservoir with injection, it was evident
only producing wells and a that the — 100 STB/D
reservoir with both injection rate could not be
injection and producing maintained without
wells. exceeding fracture
As indicated in Section pressure, so the rate was
7.2, multiple-rate testing Of reduced. Since an
injection wells is analogous injectivity test had been
to multiple-rate testingin planned, a bottom-hole
production wells. Two-rate pressure gauge was
testing (two-rate falloff operating and the pressure
testing) is appropriate to data in Table 7. I were
eliminate changing obtained. Other data are t, =
wellbore storage during a 371 minutes
falloff test (Section 1 .2). A = 6.183 hours Or
two-rate falloff test is run =0.39 ft
by injecting at a relatively - STB/D 7.0
high rate (but below parting x psi -I =
pressure) and then -48.5 STB/D
decreasing the injection
rate while observing the
pressure decrease as a 1.0 RBISTB
result of the rate decrease. 832 psi.
If rates are chosen
correctly, surface pressure
is maintained and changing

The log-log data plot in 5.000 611.7 0.350

Fig. 7.10 indicates that 0.699
wellbore Storage effects are 0.689
insignificant after the first such a plot; it has a slope
data point. Of ml' = 81 psi/cycle and
We analyze test data for pthr = 624 psi. Using Eq. 4.
formation properties by 10,
using equations for
multiple-rate production-
well testing. Eq. 4.6 applies
for a two-rate test and the = 10.0 md.
pressure data should be The skin factor is estimated
plotted vs + At)/At] + using Eq. 4.11:
(q/qt) log At}. Fig. 7.1 1 is
s= 1.1513

DATA = 0.6.
100 STB/D, =
-48.5 STB/D, t, - 6.183 The two-rate falloff test
hours. in
pr log
loglog At
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 two-rate test were
0-667 630.3 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 6-hour duration for the
1.000 623.1 0.856 initial rate; the entire test
0.000 lasted only 12 hours.
1.333 621.0 o. 751 7.4 Average and Interwell
0.125 Reservoir Pressure
0.812 In finite, liquid-filled
1.667 620.0 0.673 reservoirs of uniform
0.222 mobility and Octh, the false
pressure is obtained by
2.000 620.0 0.612
extrapolating the straight-
line portion of the Horner
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

average reservoir pressure noncommunicating layers

for finite reservoirs. A of markedly different
Matthews-Brons- properties are not
Hazebroek-type present; and (4) limited
dimensionless pressure hydraulically
may be used to correct the induced fractures are
false pressure to average present.
pressure, as given by Eq. In reservoirs with
6.2: composite fluid banks
(Section 7.5), Eq. 7.13 and
_ m PDMBH(tpDA)
methods of Chapter 6
2.3025 yield incorrect results,
Fig. 7.12 is the MBH especially before fillup.
dimensionless pressure To remedy this situation,
correlation for a five-spot Hazebroek, Rainbow, and
waterflood. l The area per Matthews' proposed a
well '(one-half the five-spot procedure for estimating
area) is used in tpDA. F from falloff-tests run
Similar correlations are not before fillup- Their
available for other procedure is essentially
waterflooding patterns. the same as the extended
Caution should be Muskat method in that
exercised in applying Eq. log(pæs — pe) is plotted
7.13 and Fig. 7.12, and in vs shut-in time, At. At late
attempting to apply the times, a straight line
methods of Chapter 6 to results when the correct
falloff test analysis. Those value of pe has been
methods apply only if (t) assumed. The approach
the reservoir behaves as if must be applied to late-
it is lithologically time data; in general, the
homogeneous and there is time restrictions for the
a single homogeneous fluid beginning of the Muskat
present (that is, the unit straight line given by Eq.
mobility ratio assumption 5.21 and Fig. 5.11 for the
must be satisfied); (2) no square with constant-
marked pressure boundaries must
be satisfied. The actual
numerical values may
differ somewhat because
of the circularnature of
an expanding oil bank ,
but quantitative methods
for estimating the
beginning of the Muskat
Straight line for that
situation are not
Fig. 7.10 Log-log data plot for interwell reservoir
the two-rate fallofftest of
pressure sometimes may
7.3. Water injectionin a
used as an
waterflooded reservoir. approximation of average
reservoir pressure. In a
contrast in écth exists five-spot pattem with unit
between the injected and mobility ratio. the
original fluid; (3) pressure halfway

between the injector and brackets in Eq. 7.14 ism,

the producer is Obtained from the falloff
curve, Eq. 7.7.
162.6qB# Another approx imation
to the interwell average
[log(—) kh pressure after fillup is just
—0.83867 +

= = O) + m log

- 0.83867 + 0.86859 s arithmetic average of the

. (7.14) pressures outside the skin
where A is the area within zones at the stabilized
the five-spot pattem. If the injection well and the
skin adjacent stabilized
production wells. This
pressure may be estimated
At, HR from
5 3

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 Two-rate 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
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 Mobility-Ratio, 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

very short. From Example 5

7.2, p* = — 151 psig at the
surface or 2,107 psig at
reservoir datum. Using Eq.

From 0
0.001 (read non-zero for .
illustrative purposes only). 1
Then, applying Eq. 7.13.
= 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,

Fig. 7.12 Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek dimensionless pressure

for the injection well of a five-spot waterflood, unit mobility
ratio. After Matthews and Russell . 1
indicating thatö > p* for falloff, repeated here. Hazebroek. Rainbow, and Matthews' conclude
El. 7.14 cannot be used for this example since it assumes that permeability and skin factor for the zone near the well
a steady-state pressure profile in the formation, which as may be estimated equally well by their method or by the
previously noted, would not occur until a tpDA of about MDH and Horner techniques. It must be realized, however,
0.25 based on the area per well (not per pattern). that those two methods give the properties of the fluid bank
within the radius of investigation given by Eq. 2.41. If the
7.5 Composite System Testing—Non-Unit Mobility Ratio boundary between the inner and outer banks does not exceed
This section considers transient test analysis for an that radius of investigation for the portion of the data
injection well with the fluid distribution shown in Fig. 7.13. analyzed, incorrect results will be obtained. When the
For injection wells, the locations of the banks shown in Ftg. distance to the boundary between the two regions is small
7.13 move; we refer to such a moving bank system as a ' compared with the radius of investigation, the permeability
'composite system. " Odeh15 and Bixel and van PoolIen16 of the outer region will be obtained by transient data
have studied production-well transient test behavior in analysis; the skin factor will reflect the presence of the inner
reservoirs with physical radial discontinuities similar to bank.
those indicated in fig. 7.13. They were concemed with For very small injected volumes, the HazebroekRainbow-
physical discontinuities in the rock system rather than with Matthews technique is probably superior to normal
moving fluid banks. Nevertheless, the analysis methods they techniques for estimating permeability of the inner zone and
present may be useful for injection well testing. Their results actual damage skin factor — when the important assumption
can be used to examine the effects of a wide range of of constant pressure at the outer edge of the oil bank is
porositycompressibility (+ct) products and mobility (We) satisfied. For systems with large injection volumes, normal
ratios or permeability changes when the second bank radius analysis methods should provide equally reliable data, with
is large compared with the first bank. the possible exception of estimates of average reservoir
Hazebroek, Rainbow, and Matthews4 have presented pressure. In that case, the Hazebroek-Rainbow-Matthews
material specifically for injection wells before fillup. They method (or equivalently, the extended Muskat method)
assume a significant gas saturation ahead of the oil bank should be used for estimating average pressure if the
and that the pressure at the leading edge of the oil bank is methods of Section 7.4 cannot be applied. The following
constant and dominated by the pressure in the gas phase. analysis approach 17•18 is preferred for fluid-filled systems,
Although that assumption is not strictly correct, their method when it is applicable, to that of Hazebroek, Rainbow, and
may be applied to estimate permeability, skin factor, and Matthews.
average drainage-area pressure from falloff test analysis.
The analysis uses an extended Muskat-type plot of log(pws
— pe) vs At, withpe being varied until a straight line is
obtained with late-time falloff data. The slope and intercept
of that plot may be used with correlations to estimate
perrneability and skin factor. If an independent estimate Of
the rnobility ratio and the +ct ratio between the two banks
can be rnade, the permeability in each bank may be
estimated. The Hazebroek-Rainbow-Matthews meåod is
covered in detail in Chapter 8 of Ref. 1, and, therefore, is not

Kazemi, Gogarty.

Fig. 7.14 shows typical expected injection well falloff

behavior in a two-bank system, as presented by Merrill,

FW 7.13 Schematic diagram Of fluid distribution around an FW 7.14 Simulated pressure falloff data for a two-mne system.
injection well (composite reservoir). After Merrill. and
Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 for a liquid-filled 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 two-zone 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
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 water-bank (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 liquid-filled, two-bank system.
Unfortunately, it seems that reservoir simulation


Kazemi, Gogarty.
10 STB/D =
I.ORB/STB h=20ft

Since the data were simulated with no wellbore storage

effect, we need not make the log-log data plot. Fig. 7.18, the
MDH plotofthe data, shows that m, = —32.5 psi/cycle and
= —60.1 psi/cycle. Also,

-60.1/(-32.5) = 1.85,

x 10 -7/1.54 x 10-6
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 two-zone reservoir. = 50 md/cp.
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
10-7 håtfl* e-o. 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
Two-Zone System can estimate the maximum wellbore storage coefficient that
Fig. 7.18 is a semilog plot of simulated falloff data for a 14
two-zone waterfiood from Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty.
Data used in the simulation were

— 3,600 ft, so = 120
(k/g)i = ¯— 100 md/cp
(k/g)2 = = 50 md/cp
(+ct)l —-8.95 x 10-7
psi-I (4Ct)z= I .54 X
10-6 psi-I q = -400

Kazemi, Gogarty.


uaoo— 2 12 MOBILITY RATIO.

Fig. 7.17 Crossplot ofdata in Fig. 7.16. After Merrill.
Kazemi , and Gogarty. 8

Fig. 7.18 Falloff test data for Example 7.5. After Men-
ill. and

Kazemi, Gogarty.
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 10-7 acceptable results. The procedure is as follows:
1 .53 x 10-5 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 10-6 psi-I , 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 10-6 estimate permeability and skin factor.
Thus, if the well is completed with 2-in. 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 3-in. (7.20)
tubing the depth must not exceed about 570 ft. Ifthe skin
factor had been 5.0, the depths for 2- and 3-in. 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 rule-of-thumb 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 three-zone systems, pseudosteady conditions before shut-in.
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 HazebroekRainbow-Matthews 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 Matthevvs-Brons-Hazebroek, Fig. 7.12, or
Merrill, Kazemi, and Gogarty 18 and Dowdle l * propose
HazebroekRainbow-Matthews (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
material-balance equation. These methods apply at a fairly
simple Dietz-type extrapolation of the MDH straight line
early Stage of water injection into a previously liquid-filled
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:
Type-curve 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 non-unit
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 Merrill-Kazemi-Gogarty 18
bank around the injection well, the mobility of that bank method can be used to estimate the second-bank mobility.
will be detected by transient tests, and skin factor There can be errors in all the methods because of
computed from the filSt-bank 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
Hazebroek-Rainbow-Matthews approach is a late-time
method based on a constant-pressure outer boundary
condition. The worst errors in application of that method
can be expected to occur when tDAf2 < 0.44. The
calculation of the dimensionless time can prevent or reveal
such application.

7.7 Series-of-Steady-State Analysis

Ha1120 proposed a technique for analyzing injection wells
that basically assumes a series of steady-state injection
conditions. Required data are cumulative volume injected
and a good record of injection pressure. The technique
presented here is a modified version of Hall's technique. Z0
Eq. 2.2 is written for steady-state flow conditions and PD is
assumed to be independent of time. That assumption is not CUMULATIVE INJECTION, WI, BBL x 10-3
correct for long periods of time, but it is a workable Fig. 1.19 Hall plot for a water injection well showing the
approximation over reasonable time periods and does effects Of stimulation, Example 7.6.
provide a Simple method for monitoring injection-well
performance. Using the constantpo assumption, both sides PD and kip, are known, we should be able to estimate s.
of Eq. 2.2 pan be multiplied by dt and integrated from time However, we must obtain at least or s from a transient test
O to time t. The result is to use Eq. 7.25 and we must be able to estimate pm If (pe —
Aptw)t is about 15 percent or more of the integral, its effect
should be included in the data plot, or serious quantitative
errors can result. In most cases, little error is caused by
neglecting (pe — Apter). The error may be estimated by
pu.fdt — pet = 141.2æ(po+s) W (7.23) using two or three values in making the plot and observing
where Wi is the cumulative fluid injected at time t, a the effect.
positive number. Usually, the integral on the left side of Eq. The major benefit of the Hall plot is not from the single
7.23 can be approximated by a summation using wellhead Straight line, but from changes in the slope of the line.
pressure, ptf, plus a constant fluid head term, Aptw, to Changes in the slope of the Hall plot can be caused by
approximate bottom-hole pressure, ptof. Alternatively, it changes in k/g,s, or pt). In any fluid injection operation. we
can be evaluated by planimetering a graph of injection expect k/'.L to change in the vicinity of the well as fluid is
pressure vs time. Ifpu.f on the left side of Eq. 7.23 is injected and as the gas volume in the reservoir is filled up.
approximated by the surface injection pressure plus a As that happens, both andPD change. In addition, PD may
constant fluid head term, the equation may be written as change as a result of changes in operating practices or the
addition of new offset production wells. Actual changes in
the skin factor will also affect the slope of the Hall plot.
pudt — (pe — = 141 . Since Eq. 2.1() indicates that any change in permeability in
the vicinity of the wellbore can be expressed as skin, we
choose to show how to use the Hall plot to estimate
changes in skin factor. Nevertheless, the plot can be used to
2æ(PD+S) W kh estimate changes in any of the quantities ofthe right side of
Eq. 7.25. The change in skin factor is estimated from the
change in slope of the Hall plot:
. . . . . . . . . . (7.24) kh
where Apoc is the constant fluid head between surface and
bottom hole. If (pe — is small compared with the integral (ntH2 - mm) ,. (7.26) 141.2#
in Eq. 7.24, as it often is for pumped-off waterfloods, a plot
of the integral (or its approximation) vs cumulative water where k/æ is supplied from transient test data. Another
injection (called a "Hall plot") should give a straight line with approach is to use the two slopes on a Hall plot, such as in
slope (pD+s) , (7.25) Fig. 7.19, to estimate the ratio Of the new flow efficiency to
kh as illustrated in Fig. 7.19. Eq. 7.25 assumes the old flow efficiency:
the integral term has units psi x days (not hours). IfPD ands
are known, we should be able to estimate k//.L from Eq. (7.27)
7.25. Or. if
While always in the right direction, the amoun!of change in
the now efficiency can be somewhat distorted if pu used in
the Hall plot is significantly different from the true
differential (parf — pe); &lat is, if(pe — Apt,c) > O. 15ptf.
Example 7.6 Hall Method Steady-State Analysis teoo
Fig. 7.19 is a Hall plot for a water injection well in a I ,000-
ft deep, filled-up Illinois reservoir. In that reservoir (pe —
Apt„,) is very small compared withptf, so the data plot
shown is adequate. •me injection well was shot with
nitroglycerin on completion. It was stimulated with micellar
solution21 after a cumulative water injection Of about 15,000
bbl. From transient testing before stimulation,
280 md ft/cp,


o -200 -400 -goo -800 -1000 -100

From transient testing several weeks after stimulation, INJECTION RATE, STB/O
Fig. 7.20 Step-rate injectivity data plot for Example 7.7.
kh Data Of Felsenthal .23
= 290 md ft/cp,
-2.3. term,
FromFig.7.19, rtH1 = (hours) (STB/D) (psi) Eq. 4.1 (psi/STB/D)
1.9 psi/(B/D), and 642
= 1.2 psV(B/D). 0.5 -100 720 -0.301 0.780
Applying Eq. 7.26. 1.0 -100 730 0.000 0.880
280 1.5 -250 856 -0.110 0.856
2.0 -250 874 0.120 0.928
(1.2 - 1.9) 141.2
2.25 -750 1,143 -0.335 0.668
= -2.5. 2.50 -750 1,182 -0.112 0.720
This compares favorably with s = —2.3 determined by 3.00 -750 1.216 0.124 0.765 4.00 -1,150 1,450 0.246
transient testing several weeks after stimulation. 0.703

six, seven, or eightrates are preferred. The analysis consists

of plotting injection pressure at the end of each rate vs
injection rate. It is preferable to plot bottom-hole pressure,
Muskat22 has devised a method for analyzing water but surface pressure may be used if it is positive throughout
injection well data when the injection pressure, pu.r, is the test and friction effects are not significant. 'he plot should
constant. He suggests that a plot of l/q, where q is the time have two straight-line segments, as illustrated in Fig. 7.20.
varying injection rate, vs log Wi, where Wi is the cumulative 'Ihe break in the line indicates formation fracture pressure.
volume injected, should be a straight line. The slope of the (Unfortunately , it can also indicate the breakdown pressure
line is related to the permeability of the injected fluid, while of the cement bond. When the cement bond fails, the slope
the intercept is related to mobility ratio and saturations in the of the second straight line in Fig. 7.20 usually continues
various bank areas. below the fracture pressure as the rate is decreased .) The
fracture pressure may vary depending on fluid saturation
7.8 Step-Rate Testing conditions in the formation and long-term variations in
A step-rate injectivity test is normally used to estimate reservoir pressure level with time. 23
fracture pressure in an injection well . 23 Such information is Pressure data taken during each rate may be analyzed
useful in waterfloods and is critically important in tertiary with a multiple-rate transient technique (Section 4.2) to
floods where it is important to avoid injecting expensive estimate formation permeability and skin factor. Eqs. 4. l ,
fluids through uncontrolled, artificially induced fractures. 4.4, and
A step-rate injectivity test is simple, inexpensive, and fast. 4.5 can be used, providing the effective wellbore radius was
Fluid is injected at a series of increasing rates, with each rate not already large because of previous fracture stimulation,
preferably lasting the same length of time. In relatively low- thus making the line-source log approximation an
permeability formations (k < 5 md), each injection rate inappropriate solution.
should last about I hour; 30-minute injection times are
adequate for formations with permeability exceeding 10 As few as four rates may be used, but normally Example 7.7 Step-Rate Analysis
Felsentha1 provides the data in Table 7.2 for a step-rate (used in Eq. 4. I) are not satisfied after the formation is 1965) 78-80.
test in a reservoir with the following properties: fractured.
In this multiple-rate analysis, we have assumed a unit
9. Kazemi. Hussein: • 'Locatin
1.0 mobility ratio; there are no data to indicate the accuracy of
Pressure Transient Measureme
1966) 227-232; Trans.. AIME.
RB/STB = that assumption.
10. Ramey, Henry J.. Jr. , Ku
O. 45 CP h = Mohinder S.: Gas Well Test
270 ft + = o. References I)rive Conditions, AGA, Arlin
Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup Pimson, A. E.. Jr.: • 'Conccrnin
1.5 x IO¯s psi¯l Titne Used in Average Press
and Flow Tests in Wells. Monograph Series, Society of Pressure Buildup Analysis." J
0.25 ft Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas( 1967) 1, Chap. 1369-1370.
Depth = 7,260 ft 8. 12. Kazemi . Hossein: "Dctermi
Pressure From Pressure Buildu
Injected-fluid gradient = 0.433 psi/ft. (Feb. 1974) 55-62; Trans.. AIM
Fig. 7.20 shows the normal step-rate data plot, ptf vs q.
The break in the data indicates a surface fracture pressure of 13. Earlougher. Robert C.. Jr.. Ke
about I ,OOO psi. The fracture gradient is estimated by H. J. , Jr.: ' 'Wellborc Effects in
dividing the bottom-hole fracture pressure by the depth. The 19. Dowdle, Watter L.: "Discussion o
fracture gradient is Analysis
Fig. 7.21 Multiple-rate-type data plot for Example 7.7. in Reservoirs With Fluid Banks,"
0.57 psi/ft. 1974)
Ille data in Table 7.2 also may be analyzed for formation Data of 818.
properties by using the methods described in Section 4.2.
The two right-hand columns in Table 7.2 contain the data to
be plotted according to Eq. 4.1. Fig. 7.21 shows the data
plot. The first four poins, for the rates before the fracture
was induced, fall on the expected straight line. mat line has
the properties
m' = 0.357 2. Morse. J. V. and Ott, Frank Ill: "Field Application of

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.:
0.357 5. Clark, K . K.: Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured
0.76 Injection Wells."
J. Pet. Tech. (June
1968) 639-643; Trans., — logAIME, 243.

6. McLecxi. H. O,. Jr.. and Coulter, A. W Jr.: •

sThe Stimulation Treatment Pressure
Record — An Overlooked Formation
Evaluation Tool," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1969)
7. Roberlson. D. C. and Kelm. C. H.: "Injection-Well
In Fig. 7.21, the data points for q — — —750 = — I ,
150 STB/D do not fall on the straight line. Those points
corespond to data taken after the formation fractured (see
Fig. 7.20). They do not fall on the initial straight line in Eq.
7.25 because the assumptions of radial, infinite-acting flow

J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1973) 1244-1250.

14. Matthews, C. S.. Brons, F. , and Hazebroek. P.: "A
Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a
Bounded Reservoir," Trans.. AIME (1954) 201, 182-191.
Also Reprint Series, NO. 9 — Pressure Analysis
Methods, Society Of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967) 51-60.
15. Odeh, A. S.: ' 'How Test Analysis foi a Well With Radial
Discontinuity." J. pet. Tech. (Feb. 1969) 207-210; Trans.,
AIME, 246.
16. Bixel, H. C. and van Poolicn, H. K.; '*Pressure
Drawdown and Buildup in the Presence of Radial
Discontinuities," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1967) 301-309;
Trans., AIME. 240. Also Reprint Series. NO. 9 Pressure
Analysis Methods. Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME. Dallas (1967) 188-196.
17. Kazemi, Hossein, Merrill. L. S. , and Jargon, J. •
'Problems in Interpretation of Pressure Fall-OffTests in
Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks.' • J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1972) 1147-1156.
18. Merrill, L. S.. Jr.. Kazemi, Hossein. and Gogarty, W.
Barney: ' 'Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs With
Ruid Banks," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1974) 809-818; Trans.,