Use of Well Test Results in Oilfield

Development Planning in the Timor Sea

K.A. Edwards, SPE, BHP Petroleum IntI.
P. Behrenbruch, SPE, BHP Petroleum IntI.

Summary. The analysis of several transient-pressure surveys employing both analytical and numerical simulation techniques is
presented. Case histories include examples of the following: partial penetration and spherical flow; flow influenced by various
boundary conditions and geometries, including linear flow; variations in transmissibility; and effects from ocean tides. It is shown
how these well-test results can be integrated with the geological framework, and their overall impact on oilfield development
planning is discussed.
Introduction
The success of defining an optimum hydrocarbon-field development plan is crucially dependent on the early knowledge of the reservoir drive mechanisms and heterogeneities that may affect fluid flow
in the reservoir. For offshore field developments, decisions related
to the possible placement of injectors are of particular concern. As
shown in the documented case histories, a greater effort to obtain
quality data from extensive well testing may be warranted in such
situations to confirm the geological model derived from seismic,
petrophysical, and geological considerations.
In any development, but particularly of significance in offshore
(platform) situations, the three largest reservoir uncertainties commonly found are related to aquifer strength, sealing capacity of
faults, and the extent of sand development. This is also true of the
situations described here that use floating production facilities kept
on location by a single-point mooring system, 1 accommodating a
small number of wells. In these more marginal field situations, there
is not only a need for technically creative and novel engineering
solutions that are robust and cost-effective, but also a need for a
more detailed definition of future production and injection expectations and strategies.

Well Testing in Timor Sea Oil Fields

One new frontier in oilfield development is the Timor Sea. This
offshore area, bordering the northwestern coast of Australia (see
Fig. 1), has been explored to a relatively small extent, and to date
only two commercial fields have been delineated: the labiru and
Challis fields, contained in Permit AC/P4.
In the labiru field, further described in later sections, it could
be ascertained from well-test analysis that the large degree of reservoir faulting would not impede the initially indicated high production rates. A second vital piece of information obtained from well
tests in this field relates to the anticipated aquifer response. In this
respect, an effective vertical-to-horizontal-permeability ratio could
be deduced from partial penetration and hemispherical flow. 2-5
Although the well tests conducted were not strictly limit tests, they
nevertheless indicated the accessibility of large reservoir volumes
and the likelihood of a strong bottomwater drive.
In contrast to the labiru field, which shows a sand development
of considerable thickness, the Challis field comprises relatively thin
oil-bearing sands. This field, also further described in the following sections, presented a particular challenge for well-test analysis. Because of the limited sand thickness, the impact of faults led
to varied pressure-transient characteristics arising from different
flow and boundary conditions. Furthermore, because appraisal wells
in this field are to contribute directly to future production (subsea
wells), the determination of "connected oil" is of great importance,
particularly because completion costs, including costly flowlines,
exceed the original drilling cost. The confirmation of reasonably
sized fault compartments is also a prerequisite for the successful
placement of water injectors.
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

1372

In the Timor Sea fields discovered so far, permeabilities are in

the darcy range, requiring certain precautions to be taken during
testing-i.e., the use of high-accuracy gauges and tide corrections. 6 As previously observed in Australian offshore sedimentary
basins, corrections for ocean tide effects 7 ,8 are particularly necessary, because these perturbations can be easily misinterpreted as
boundary effects when superimposed on a relatively flat pressurebuildup response.

Computer.Alded Well Test Analysis

Pressure data from a production test contain a complete structural
record of the reservoir, including rock and fluid properties around
the well. These data are convoluted and not uniquely defined because only two measured variables (time and pressure) describe a
multivariable problem. The input of geological, seismic, and well
data frequently reduces the problem to a unique set of equations.
Deconvolution of the pressure data, however, can be extremely complex and often exact solutions to the equations do not exist. For
more complex (bounded) situations, finite-difference simulation has
often been the only method for confirming that the observed pressure behavior fits an assumed reservoir model. Simulation is timeconsuming and expensive and usually cannot be justified economically. Furthermore, a good data match is rarely obtained because
of the effort required in varying reservoir parameters. Finitedifference simulation also suffers from numerical dispersion; therefore, details tend to be masked and the accuracy of results is often
only semiquantitative.
Recent developments in computer applications 9 have given the
user the capability to compare measured pressure data with the
response obtained from the solution of analytical equations describing a variety of reservoir types and shapes. This has enabled a far
greater degree of quantitative analysis of data and a higher confidence level to be placed on the results.
These analytically based programs have the advantage of being
orders of magnitude faster than finite-difference simulation. Furthermore, when the reservoir shape can be approximated by one
of the simple models provided by the program, the programs are
more accurate than simulation and do not suffer from numerical
dispersion. On the other hand, finite-difference simulators will always have a place in well-test analysis, because they can be used
for virtually an infinite number of reservoir situations.
In the studies described, actual well pressure response is compared with that generated by appropriate analytical and finitedifference reservoir models. Such a computer-aided well-test analysis approach not only gives information about average reservoir
flow properties but also assists in defining both near-well and external boundary conditions.

The Jabiru Field

General Field Description. Located 410 miles [660 km] west of
Darwin, Australia, the labiru field forms part of a northJournal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

122 0

10 0

140~1_
r--L

14 0

l,

1220

130

Fig. 1-Location of Timor Sea

DISTANCE' METERS

SOD

1000

ISOO

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

I/)

0:
W

ti

:E

~w
o

------------ ---+---------

2000L--+------~------+-------~------+---~

-------+---------1

J2

J5A

JIA

J3

J4

Fig. 2-Jablru field, top of W. Spectabilis sand.

Fig. 3-Jabiru field stratigraphie cross section.

east/southwest-trending structural high (Fig. 2) containing sands

of Jurassic Age. The discovery well was drilled in Sept. 1983 and
indicated, together with seismic mapping, a sizable discovery.
Follow-up wells, Wells Jabiru 2 through 4, were to appraise the
extent of the structure, which appeared heavily faulted, according
to relatively poor seismic data. These appraisal wells were unfortunately disappointing, reducing the expected field size considerably and giving further evidence of the complexity of the structure.
Correlation of these marine sands appeared particularly difficult.
The most likely geological correlation is shown in Fig. 3. Two unconformity surfaces appear to wedge a number of sands that drape
down in a tabular fashion. Table 1 gives average field and fluid
properties.
Production began in Aug. 1986 from Well Jabiru lA at an initial
rate of 13,000 BID [2100 m 3 /d], limited only by the surface facilities of the first development phase. When the facilities on the tanker
were modified, the rate was increased after 4 months to > 15,000
B/D [>2400 m 3 /d] and more recently to 17,000 BID [2700 m 3 /d].
By the end of June 1987, more than 4.5 million bbl [0.72 X 10 6
m 3 ], or nearly 40% of the minimum initially estimated reserves,
had been produced.
Since the initial drilling campaign, an extensive three-dimensional
(3D) seismic survey was conducted to refine the structural picture,
with the subsequent drilling of a second production well, Well Jabiru
5A, in April 1987. Plans are to tie this well into the riser, at which
time the field is expected to produce > 25,000 BID [> 4000 m 3 /d]
from two wells. Two additional wells are planned in the near future to bring the total to four, the maximum number that can be
handled by the riser system.

Pressure Analysis. Extensive transient-pressure surveys were carried out for Well Jabiru lA (pre- and postfinal completion) and Well
Jabiru 5A. In Well Jabiru lA, the top 26 ft [8 m] of the C. Torosus
sand (Fig. 3) is separated by a 20-ft [6-m] shale from the extensive
lower section. These sands were tested separately and combined,the
well finally being completed over the top 23-ft [7-m] interval in
the W. Spectabilis sand. Well Jabiru 5A was tested after the final
completion was run, effectively perforating the top 33 ft [10 m]
of the W. Spectabilis sand.
Subsequent to afterflow and skin effects, all transient surveys revealed a relatively long hemispherical flow period followed by radial
flow representative of the entire sand interval, including the thick
water-bearing sands immediately below the oil-bearing zone. Even
though some low-permeability laminated zones, minor shaly intervals (up to 20 ft [6 m)), and an intermediate cemented unconformity were observed, these apparently do not form complete barriers
to vertical fluid flow.
Because the characteristic response of all well tests is similar,
only one example is given in detail: the final postcompletion test
for Well Jabiru lA. Fig. 3 indicates the general geological correlation and Fig. 4 shows the apparent faulting pattern from seismic
surveys near Well Jabiru lA.
Test objectives were generally (1) to demonstrate a high sustainable oil rate (productivity index) necessary for a viable project; (2)
to obtain average formation permeability and skin values (measure
of completion efficiency); (3) to obtain actual field data on tubing
and flowline performance (because no downhole pressure measurements would be possible after final tie-in of the well); (4) to
evaluate the significance of nearby faults-i.e., to demonstrate a

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

1373

TABLE 1-JABIRU FIELD (WELL JABIRU-1A)

AVERAGE, INITIAL GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Depth (OWC) , ft
Thickness (net oil), ft
Porosity, %
Permeability, md
Interstitial water saturation, %
Residual oil saturation, %
Well potential, MSTB
Oil in place, MMSTB
Expected recovery, %
Oil gravity, API
Gas specific gravity, air = 1.0
Oil saturation pressure, psia
At Initial Conditions (2,368 psia and 162F)
Oil FVF, RB/STB
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Oil viscosity, cp
Water viscosity, cp

N-W

5,315
187
23
2,000
12
22
17
34
55
42.5
0.71
1,855
1.23
449

0.51
0.42

TABLE 2-JABIRU-1A WELL-TEST PARAMETERS

Initial pressure
(at 5,250 ft subsea), psia
Final production rate, STB/D
Total production, STB
Total production time, hours
Perforated interval, ft
Total interval, ft
Total net interval, ft
Well bore radius, ft
Oil FVF, RB/STB
Oil viscosity, cp
Total compressibility, 10 -6 psi- 1
Slope of Horner plot, psi/cycle
Permeability/thickness, md-It
Permeability, md
Total skin
Partial-penetration skin
Mechanical skin
Radius of investigation, It

2,363
11,180
5,850
10.5
23
512
479
0.52
1.22
0.51
13
1.28
3,166,000
2,000
280
136

6
>3,000

S-E
METRES
SUBSEA

r -__________________J~A~B~IR~U~IAc-------__,

(.~"

/\\

!/

1:,,,,-\
I, 'i

l~

,f
'/'I

252"

",/

\-:.-/ I
/
\ I

1000

\j

.:/

/"'-,

\-.

//

'.'-/'\"'-:

\'"
\'
\.

I
',/

\ ':'"""" -:.)
\
\
\

f
/
I
/
I
/

\
\

\)

:' f

I '
I'

: /
.' /

\ ',_-', ~" II

\ !
\j

I'

\"

\':,

5.0

\I -',"
I

\
\

'.

2,0

\
\
I

1.0

. Ke..ured Pre.1IUI'e Data

- - - Tiel. H4IIaht

232iO":.0~-......1~~"0-:!-.0=-'"~"""""""":6~0":,O~""""~""":!:80-:!-,O=-'"~""""'''''''":7~0.OO
Tbne (hourw)

Fig. 5-Well Jabiru 1A tide height and pressure.

L-____~~____________~~~__~L_~_J2000

Fig. 4-Well Jabiru 1A stratigraphy and faulting.

large minimum connected oil volume (no or minimal depletion effects) necessary for a viable project; and (5) to collect fluid samples for properties evaluation, composition (marketing), and physical
properties determination (process design and reservoir engineering calculations). A further benefit, identified later, was the derivation of an effective vertical-to-horizontal-permeability ratio.
Because high permeabilities were indicated from the core permeabilities, high-accuracy gauges were used. Subsequent to recording the initial pressure and cleanup production, the well was flowed
on a number of chokes for a total flow period of 18 hours. The
maximum recorded rate was 11, 180 STBID [ 1777 stock-tank
m 3 /d] and the extended flow rate was 3,050 STBID [485 stocktank m 3 /d] for 7 hours. The buildup period lasted 44.5 hr (longer
than the 24-hour programmed period because of surface-equipment
testing).
All high-permeability well tests in the Timor Sea that have long
buildup periods exhibit significant tide effects superimposed on the
pressure transient. A typical example is shown on an expanded scale
in Fig. 5. In this case, the pressure data were corrected by apply1374

ing a 30-minute time shift to the tide data and by using a typical
tidal correction coefficient of 0.076 psi/ft [1,7 kPa/m] of tide height.
This corresponds to a tidal efficiency 8 of O. 17.
The (tide- and depth-) corrected reservoir pressure recorded before the production test was 2,362.5 psia [16 289 kPa] at 5,250
ft [1600 m] subsea, in excellent agreement with the previously
reported repeat formation tester (RFT) value of 2,362.4 psia [16
288 kPa]. Other basic and interpreted data are given in Tables 1
and 2.
Initially, only a radial flow (Horner) analysis was carried out,
using tide-corrected data, as shown in Fig. 6. The reservoir pressure obtained from extrapolation is 2,324.0 psia [16 023 kPa]
(2,362.8 psia [16291 kPa] at 5,250 ft [1600 m] subsea), a difference of only 0.3 psia [2.1 kPa] when compared with the initial pressure recorded before the test. Within the accuracy of the analysis,
no depletion is indicated, also confirmed by the absence of any
boundary effects. Because of the large transmissibility (965 darcyft [294 darcy' m], type-curve analysis was less successful. However, because of the very large total sand thickness (512 ft [156
m]) visible to the transient (probably aided by faulting) and the limited perforated interval (23 ft [7 m]), a relatively long hemispherical flow period is observed (Figs. 7 and 8).
By assuming a horizontal permeability of 2.0 darcies (Horner
analysis), a kylk value of 1120 was deduced witi. the hemispherical flow relationship. For equations used, see Appendix A. If the
effective k value is somewhat larger near the well (as indicated from
core analysis), the calculated k y value would be further reduced.
Vertical-permeability values in clean sand from core analysis tend
to be only one-half to one-fifth that of the horizontal permeability.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

2325

2320

Pressure (psia)

~~_L

--------------------------------------------1
LEGEND

-----

LIIlOBND

Mea.llred Pre.llure nata

1
Tide Corrected PrelllluTe nata
1
- - - Initial Horner Line: k=2000md 5=6 :

--~-tj.-":;~)t--.,..

_________________________________ ,

x _

-----

- . . . . . Data (tp-U'.8 bn)

)()(

-":-"""":w-

2323

~~x-x~~___

)( x x

2523

2321

2319

I
I
I
x I

NB: 4plll! ha. been .ubtracted

from Me ured nata tor
ea.e of: dilllplay.

I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

I
I

2321

I
I
I
I

I
I

11318

I
I

x
x

231~~~~~~.5~~~~~1.~O~~~~,~.5~~~~~2~.O

Horner TiIll.e

2511~~~~~~1~.O~~--~~~2~.O~~~~~~s~.

Fig. 6-Well Jabiru 1A Horner plot.

l/oqrl(clt) -

l/O'l.rt(tp

+ cit)

Fig. 8-Well Jabiru 1A spherical flow plot.

RADIAL

HEMISPHERICAL

RADIAL

hp

DISTANCE ......t - - - - - - - 4
I

:SLOPE mz
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

I SLOPE

"

m,

I',

I',

PRESSURE

I,WELL "
BORE
"ISTORAGE
IS SKIN
HORNER TIME ......1----------4

Fig. 7-Flow regimes for a partially penetrating well.

Field-Development Considerations. From pressure-transient analysis, the following conclusions were drawn.
1. There is flow contribution from the entire interval (512 ft
[156 mD.
2. Near-well faults and two shaly zones (4 and 20 ft [1 and 6
m] thick) have no detrimental effect on fluid flow (faults may actually help continuity).
3. No external flow barriers were detected.
4. A large reservoir volume was observed without evidence of
depletion effects.
The results led to the following recommendations: (1) to develop the field and (2) not to consider water injection because there
is a high chance for a strong bottomwater drive.
Initial simulations indicated that water production would begin
after 3 months if the kvlk ratio derived from core measurement
was assumed. Subsequent coning simulations indicated at least 10
months of dry oil production with a ratio of kvlk= 1120. This estimate is conservative because the kv value is based on a test result
of k=2.0 darcies. Assuming that the average core permeability applies, 3.0 darcies would give a ratio for kv1k= 1125 and prolong
dry oil production. At the end of June 1987, no significant water
production had been observed.
On the basis of surface pressure measurements, the reservoir pressure would appear to be constant. The separator GOR appears to
have declined from 420 to 370 scf/bbl [75.6 to 66.6 std m 3 /m 3 ],
in agreement with an apparent GOR trend with depth observed from
fluid sampling.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

AQUIFER SLPPORT
Ikm
,

Fig. 9-Challis field: top Sand B (Pre-Challis 5).

Because no boundary effects were observed, it is postulated that

even the major southern boundary fault is not completely sealing.
This observation agrees with other data; Le., there is a substantial
150-ft [46-m] residual oil column below the oil/water contact
(OWC). It is likely that this depth also marks the spill point because it is fault-controlled. A similar residual oil column was observed in Well Jabiru 5A. These results further tend to support the
likelihood for a strong aquifer.

The Challis Field

General Field Description. The Challis field forms part of a
parallel-trending horst to the Jabiru field (Fig. 9), its sands being
of Triassic Age. The horst is bounded to the north by a platform
and to the south by a graben. The reservoir is sealed by Lower
Cretaceous shales above the regional Base Cretaceous unconformity. The discovery well was drilled in Oct. 1984. By June 1987,
five wells had penetrated this faulted structure. Three of these (Wells
1, 2A, and 3) intersected significant sand development (Sand B).
In Well Challis 5, the sequence had been completely truncated, and
in Well Challis 4, the facies had changed to one with a much lower
net-to-gross ratio. In addition, Well Challis 2A intersected an 18-ft
[5.5-m] oil column in Sand A, and Well Challis 3 intersected a 6.5-ft
[2.0-m] oil column in Sand C. Structural cross sections are shown
in Figs. lOA and lOB, which indicate the three oil-bearing sands,
and are marked in Fig. II.
Sedimentology indicates an estuarine sequence, petrophysical log
shapes being typically of channels interbedded with tidal flat and
bay sediments. The main oil-bearing sand, Sand B, is generally correlatable fieldwide and appears to be like a sheet. A gross isopach
map of this sand is shown in Fig. 11, typically averaging 16 to 66
ft [5 to 20 m] in thickness with porosities of 25 to 33 %. Overall,
the sand tends to be of excellent quality, except for the area around
1375

CHALLIS-4

CHAL IS-2A

~-SAND

8'

Aa:"--~
.=ND~--=;:;:~?,)I.,\
.
r . .-S...'N...D..-,f-~~U,;.;.;'VAL~EN,,"T,,,,_~
- --- __-....;-,,..::----.~--.o...-------------""\ \

14:

...

2'

!50
M

lOlL SAND
- - - - DOLOMITE MARKER
_ O I L WATER CONTACT

Fig. 10A-Challis field: structural cross sections (PreChallis 5).

------~II- 0- -----~
10m
~~-~,

Fig. 11-Challis field: Sand B gross oil sand map (PreChallis 5).

1~
1
1

c'

CHALLIS_3

!!-4ND

'~O/~
0

CHAL IS-2A

0'

25

1410
25

50

E'

TABLE 3-CHALLIS FIELD SAND B (PRE-CHALLIS 5)

AVERAGE, INITIAL GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Depth (OWC), ft
Thickness (net oil), ft
Porosity, %
Permeability, md
Interstitial water saturation, %
Residual oil saturation, %
Well potential, MSTB
Oil in place, MMSTB
Expected recovery. %
Oil gravity, API
Gas specific gravity, air = 1.0
Oil saturation pressure, psia
At Initial Conditions (2,078 psia and 158 D F)
Oil FVF, RB/STB
Solution GOR. scf/STB
Oil viscosity, cp
Water viscosity, cp

4,625
50
30
2,000
15
25
10
80
50
40
0.7
1,624
1.23
349

0.70
0.45

25

1410

25
5

OIL SAND

- - - - - DOLOMITE MARKER
~ 01 L WATER CONTACT

Fig. 10B-Structural cross sections.

Well Challis 4, where Sand B (equivalent) appears less uniform

because it is more shaly at the base. The main sand appears to be
truncated by the unconformity close to the northern boundary fault,
as indicated by the partial presence of Sand B in Well Challis 3
and total absence of that sand at Well Challis 5. Other field characteristics, including fluid properties, are given in Table 3.
The faults indicated in Fig. 9 are those that cut the overlying Base
Cretaceous unconformity clearly visible on the 3D seismic. Several faults that are apparent in deeper Triassic sections may also cut
the reservoir sands, further complicating the structure.
Seismic results tend to be of generally poor quality below the
unconformity because no strong correlatable reflectors are seen near
the oil-bearing sands. This prevents reliable prediction of structural dip. Dip-meter data tend to cover a wide azimuth angle, but confirm small dip angles, typically 2 to 4 0 This means that fault-block
orientation is difficult to ascertain and truncation of reservoir sands
by the unconformity is a recognized risk.
The Challis field is also planned to be developed by means of
a floating production facility, but unlike the Jabiru field, where a
disconnectable catenary mooring and riser system is used, a single
articulated-leg, rigid-arm mooring will probably be used. This system is able to accommodate a larger number of wells, including
water injectors. First production is planned to begin in 1989.
1376

Testing Procedures of Challis Field Wells. Production tests were

conducted in each of the first four wells (Sand B) with an additional test on the Sand A interval in Well Challis 2A. The tests typically consisted of a 24-hour flow period followed by a 48-hour buildup.
Downhole shut-in was used in all cases and resulted in virtual elimination of any afterflow, thus enabling very early-time data to be
included in the test analyses. This was particularly fortuitous because, as will be seen, had the early-time data been masked by afterflow effects, all the tests would have been much more difficult
to analyze.
Well Challis 1 Test Analysis. Well Challis 1 intersected a 66-ft
[20-m] -thick Sand B interval, occurring just below the Base Cretaceous unconformity. The top 43 ft [13 m] of the sand was perforated and the interval tested. The flow-rate data and pressure
response are given in Fig. 12. The buildup is shown in detail on
a Homer plot in Fig. 13.
Downhole shut-in effectively eliminated afterflow in the buildup, with the data plotting on a Homer straight line almost immediately. The data from this line indicated an absolute permeability
of 5.6 darcies and skin of 1.2. The Homer line lasted for only 3
minutes before deviating upward, suggesting the very close proximity of boundaries. The shape of the pressure response is in marked
contrast to the Jabiru field tests. In Well Challis 1, the continuous
pressure decline during the flow period indicates a more bounded
drainage area.
The east/west-trending fault system indicates the possibility of
linear flow, and pressure data were plotted on a characteristic
square-root plot. 10 The observed straight-line section was much
shorter than that expected for two parallel faults. This was confirmed by computer-aided analysis, where the shape of a corridor
did not yield a reasonable match. With the addition of a third boundary that closed the corridor at one end, however, the program quickJournal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

2030

__________________________________ ,

~~~~i~~~

LEOEND
----)(

.................

2010 \

111110

kID from weUI

4th Bound.U'7 3.0 laD frOID WeUI

_. - -

Corridor :!I10m. wid

Clo d at ODe end. 380m from

'I

'

I
I

PrelNNre Data

- -. 4th Bound.ary 2.15 kID from Welll

R!:SERVOJR MODEL:
I
I
k-15500J:D.d 8-1.34 Pi-803Opllla

Il000

.\ ..................: /,r"

)f.~

::~~ !~ 4:!~~-n

... lIC)(X~

..>s..""'--

......

wen

"'000

)( M.-..ur.d Pre .ure Data

- - - No 4th Bounc1ar7
.... Oil Plow Rate

)(

2000

RESDVOIR MODItL:

2000

Corridor 310m wid.

ClCMMd. at OIUI end 380m from.

wen

1I17?o w...~'-'-~'-::2~0'::.OLL'-'--'~--'-70&0-!.~0~-'--'-~-'-:!c80:!-.0=----~.L..........,80~.00

TUn. (houra)

Fig. 12-Well Challis 1 total test.

Fig. 13-Well Challis 1 Horner plot.

\y converged to a very good match. The matched pressure response

is shown for the full test in Fig. 12 and for the buildup in Fig. 13.
The match is excellent until about 24 hours into the buildup, when
the measured data tend above the predicted curve. This late-time
deviation could be a result of many factors and is discussed later.
Assuming that the formation remains 66 ft [20 m] thick and the
permeability reasonably constant away from the well (this assumption will be discussed later), the corridor giving the best pressure
match is about 1,000 ft [305 m] wide and the third boundary about
1,300 ft [395 m] from the well. The closest boundary is between
160 and 260 ft [50 and SO m] from the well.
A fourth boundary was inserted into' the model at various distances from the well to estimate how far along the corridor the'pressure wave had progressed (see Fig. 13). This shows the corridor
to be at least 10,000 ft [3050 m] long, assuming constant reservoir
properties.
The integration of this information with seismic, geological, and
well-control data will be commented on after results for some of
the other tests are discussed.

of the drawdown data is less severe than the Well Challis 1 drawdown, indicating a generally less bounded reservoir.
Pressure data for the final buildup after the extended flow period is shown on a Homer plot in Fig. 15. The first point to not.is the very short initial straight line, lasting only 3 minutes. Although
the line intersects only three points in the diagram shown, data from
another gauge with a two-second sampling interval clearly showed
the presence of this initial straight line. The absolute permeability
and skin derived from the Homer line are 1.5 darcies and -0.4,
respectively. Again, there is no evidence of afterflow resulting from
the use of downhole shut-in.
The early upward-increasing slope of the Homer line indicates
a decreasing transmissibility. This is interpreted to be caused by
decreasing relative permeability from increasing water saturation
as the formation dips toward the OWC. As the formation dips below the contact, the mobile fluid phase changes to water and the
associated relative permeability increases to 1.0. The effects of reduced viscosity and reduced compressibility approximately cancel
each other for about the first one-half log cycle of time. Thereafter, the compressibility effects die out, and the viscosity and relative permeability effects begin to dominate, causing the observed
rapid transmissibility increase.
Bixel et al. 11 refined the theory of pressure-transient behavior
in reservoirs with a linear discontinuity in rock or fluid properties.
In late time, the slope of the pressure response on a Homer plot,
m2, can be expressed in terms of the initial Homer slope, m}. by
the equation

Well Challis 2A Test Analysis. After severe hole problems were

encountered, Well Challis 2 was abandoned and Well Challis 2A
spudded. Well Challis 2A intersected an lS-ft [5.5-m] oil column
in Sand A and a 62-ft [19-m] column in Sand B. The OWC was
interpreted to be just below the base of Sand B. This proximity of
the OWC was expected to influence the pressure response observed
during the production test and the well's future production performance significantly.
The top 49 ft [15 m] of the Sand B interval was perforated and
the interval was tested. The production-rate data and the observed
bottomhole pressure (BHP) response is plotted in Fig. 14. The slope

2040

__________________________________ ,

~~~i~~

LEOEND

-----

2030
2000

15000

)C'M:,

x
)( Keuurecl ~ Data (SBDP)
- - - bdUa1 Rorner Un.: k-t6OOm.d
SeoODd. Btrcaht LI:a..

I
I
I

~~~.~

)( Ue..ured Pre..uno De.ta

- - - Ko 3rd 8owlckr7

)(

..... - Oil

2010

now Rat.

RBSERVOIR KODm.:
lHI'ect.1ve k_l700md Pi-2041.8pma
Corridor DOOm. wide
WeU 310m from neareR Boundary

)( .....
"
,

10000

8--0.8;f

'X""K..x,S10pe_e.B pel/loe: oyo1.

2020

"

....,

I
II
I
I

",x

' .....x

"~

5000

"Slope-SI.O p.tjloa oJlOle

'''x,
2000

"

"

'-X

II
I

199?o~~~~~1~.D~~~~~2~.~0~~.L...~3~.~D~~~~~",.0
Horner Time

Fig. 14-Well Challis 2A Sand B test data.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

Fig. 1S-Well Challis 2A Sand B Horner plot.

1377

___________________________________,

pr.!!.~!.l~~~

YlG_E!'~
x Keuured Pre.8Ul"e Data (Pi-2041.8 pllia)

~~~~~----------------------------------I
~E.!!!?

~-~ g=::~P~~n:! S1'4 boun~

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2040

2030

2050

X
X

peal

...... 3n1 bOUDda17 .t a.Dkm. la-a04l.as

- .. - 3nt. bouD~ at 1.L\km.
-2041.8a ~a
- _. 3rd boundar7 at 1.0km. Pl-a042.22 ps1a

2040

~\

=~~:~:!:d
Corridor 890m. wide

-.,.,~

':::'~.~

won 310m

II

x
x
x
x

2020

I
I

,....,..ot

II

Bound..-,.

I
I

2020

I
I

I
x I
I

201~~~~~~.~6~~~~~1~.0~~-w~~1~.6~~~~~2~.0

201~L.~~-L~~~2~.0~~~-L~~~4~.0~~~-L~~~6~~

Horner Tlme

Wulti-Rate Linear. Flow dtau (tUnes in hours)

Fig. 16-Well Challis 2A Sand B linear flow plot.

Fig. 17-Well Challis 2A Sand B Horner plot.

where Index 1 refers to the rock and fluid properties of the formation in which the observation well is situated and Index 2 refers
to the properties of the formation on the other side of the discontinuity.
This relationship is not mentioned by Bixel et al. and is therefore proved in Appendix B for the simple case of varying formation thickness. The more complete expression is also derived by
inspection of the plots presented in Ref. 11. When the Challis formation and fluid properties are used and constant absolute permeability and thickness on both sides of the OWC are assumed, the
ratio of the early- and late-time Homer slopes for the production
test on Well Challis 2A is predicted to be 0.60. In the test, the second straight line developed briefly (see Fig. 15). The ratio of the
slopes is 0.62, in good agreement with the theory.
The subsequent increase in slope was interpreted to be caused
by boundary effects. Again, linear flow was suspected, so the data
were plotted on a linear-flow plot.
Nutakki and Mattar lO gave only the drawdown form of the
linear-flow plot. Here the buildup form was used. For a constantrate test, pressure is plotted against

-.J(cIi), ................................

X-~I
x
I

I
xI
I

.J (tp +dt)

Pi_2CU1.aplda

..~

-~

2030

from

I
II

(2)

where
tp = Homer flow time,
dt = t-tp ' and
t = time that pressure measurement was taken.

In the case of Well Challis 2A, the multi-flow-rate form of Eq.

2 was required; Le., p vs. dT(t), where

ql to qm = m flow rates during flow period,

to to tm = times at which flow rate changed, and
tn = time at which buildup pressure point was taken.

This time a straight line formed on a linear-flow plot from about

15 hours after the well was shut in. The data remained on the line
for the rest of the buildup (see Fig. 16), indicating a corridor-like
drainage shape. The line extrapolated to the initial reservoir pressure, confirming the model. Assuming an effective permeability
of 1.7 darcies (determined from the slope of the second straight
line), an attempt was made to match the observed pressure response
with the theoretical response of a homogeneous reservoir, bounded on two sides by parallel no-flow boundaries. This was again accomplished through the use of the analytical well-test analysis
program. Excellent agreement was obtained when the well was
assumed to be situated in a corridor about 3,250 ft [990 m] wide,
open in both directions and with the well 1,100 ft [335 m] from
one side (see Figs. 14 and 17). The corridor dimensions, however,
must be corrected to account for the various viscosities, compressibilities, and relative permeabilities on each side of the OWC.
Assuming the closest boundary to be the northern boundary, and
thus in the oil zone, the distance of 1,100 ft [335 m] is reduced
to about 850 ft [260 m]. The distance to the southern boundary must
be increased from 2,200 to about 3,000 ft [670 to about 915 m].
These distances match the distances to the fault north of Well Challis
2A and to the main aquifer fault to the south (see Fig. 18).
The well-test program was then used to show the effect of the
presence of a third boundary that closed the corridor at one end.
The calculated responses are given in Fig. 17, indicating that no
other boundaries are present for at least 5,000 ft [1520 m] on each

dT(tn) =

[.J(tn-ti-I) -.J(tn-ti)]qi1qm.

i=1
xac x

x 0 x
111000

1960

o
1900

~""'X

~ ~
1850

:~

10000

x Observed Pre.aure Data

0 Predicteel Pre .ur_
.. .... Oil Flow Rat.

5000
RESERVOIR MODEL:
k-300Omd a-o.s Pl-2Q24pma
Corrid.or 5BOm wiele
Cloaed. '76OIn froID. 'Well
Sand Thiokena 200m from Well

18000~~u.....~-::20-='.-::0':"""'....J.~~407:'-:.O:---~'-'--o....o...:8:::'0'::.O~-'-'~-'--;:;!80.00
Time (hours)

Fig. 18-Challis Sand B reservoir model.

1378

Fig. 19-Well Challis 3 total test.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

side of the well in the oil zone and 9,200 ft [2800 m] on each side
of the well in the water zone. This result is somewhat unexpected
because the north/south fault, 4,900 ft [1500 m] east of Well Challis 2, is mapped as having a throw on the order of the sand thickness, but this result would suggest that there is pressure
communication across that fault.
Well Challis 3 Test Analysis. Well Challis 3 intersected only 17
ft [5.2 m] of oil-bearing Sand B immediately below the Base Cretaceous unconformity, the sand most likely to have been partially
eroded. A 6.5-ft [2-m] oil column was also intersected at the top
of the 23-ft [7-m] -thick Sand C, a lesser accumulation.
The full Sand B found in Well Challis 3 was perforated and tested. The flow-rate data and BHP response are shown in Fig. 19.
As was the case in Well Challis 2A, the gradient of the pressure
response during the drawdown period is only slight, indicating a
moderately open drainage region.
The buildup data (Fig. 20) also show a character similar to that
of Well Challis 2A, but apparently for different reasons, as discussed later.
The early-time, Homer straight line lasts significantly longer than
in either of the other tests ( 12 minutes). From this trend, an absolute formation permeability of 3.0 darcies and a skin of 0.3 can
be derived.
The inferred increase in transmissibility, about 650 ft [200 m]
from the well, is unlikely to be a result of the pressure transient
crossing the OWC, given the large distance to the nearest mapped
contact. The increased transmissibility is more likely to be caused
by a thickening of the reservoir resulting from less erosion of Sand
B. Again the very late-time data show a decreasing transmissibility likely to be caused by boundary effects.
Because the well-test analysis package currently being used cannot handle various reservoir thicknesses, the test was modeled with
a finite-difference simulator. Two possible reservoir models. were
considered, producing practically identical pressure responses. The
first of these responses is shown in Figs. 19 and 20.
The first model run was that of a long corridor about 1,900 ft
[580 m] wide and closed at one end about 2,500 ft [760 m] from
the well. Sand B was assumed to thicken to 66 ft [20 m] in both
directions from the well. (In some instances, it may be possible
to use the relationship given in Eq. 1 to predict the increase in formation thickness. In this case, however, the effects of the closest
boundaries are observed long before the second straight line has
a chance to develop fully. In fact, in this case a large proportion
of the apparent transmissibility increase results from the corridor
being closed 2,500 ft [760 m] from the well.) The width of the proposed corridor reasonably matches that of the two faults to the north
and south of Well Challis 3. This model does not allow any communication through to the Well Challis 2A, Sand B block.
The second model assumes limited communication across the
southern fault and still requires one side of the corridor to extend
for 2,500 ft [760 m] and then be closed.
Other Challis Field Tests. Two other production tests were performed on Challis field wells. One test was conducted on Sand A
intersected by Well Challis 2A. A plot of the buildup data from
this test shows a severely bounded system of moderate permeability. Because the reservoir pressure fell below the crude bubblepoint,

2020

2010

2000

1990

Fig. 20-Well Challis 3 Horner plot.

however, the test is more difficult to interpret and a full analysis

requires a finite-difference model (still to be developed).
The top 66 ft [20 m] of the oil-bearing sand and shale sequence
intersected by Well Challis 4 was perforated and tested. Because
of the limited extent of the sand stringers, the pressure rapidly fell
below the bubblepoint, making this test even more difficult to analyze than the Sand A test previously described.
Integration of Reservoir Model Information. The Well Challis.
2A model, bounded by sealing faults to the north in the oil zones
and to the south by the aquifer, is internally consistent except for
the larger throw of the fault mapped to the east of the well.
Given the poor Sand B development at Well Challis 4 and its
total absence at Well Challis 5, it is most likely that the Well Challis 1 corridor extends toward Well Challis 3 (Fig. 18). The latetime upward trend observed in the Well Challis 1 buildup could
be explained by the reduced transmissibility at Well Challis 3.
If the Well Challis 1 corridor does extend to Well Challis 3, as
would currently seem most likely, then the Well Challis 3 corridor
must match it and thus have its closed end to the east. Unfortunately, the finite-difference simulation is not sensitive enough to show
the effect of the slight decrease in corridor width in the direction
of Well Challis 1.
If the block containing Wells Challis 1 and 3 were totally separate
from the Well Challis 2A block, then a lO-psi [69-kPa] depletion
caused by production from the Well Challis 1 test should have been
observed at Well Challis 3. There was no discernible depletion observed at Well Challis 3, indicating at least some communication
to a greater reservoir volume.
In summary, the above details describe the most likely reservoir
model, given the current field mapping (Fig. 18). Other scenarios
may also be possible.
Field-Development Considerations. The overall Challis field
model, developed with the aid of well-test analysis, is important
in field-development decisions. In the first instance, the model shows

TABLE 4-WELL AND PRODUCTION TEST DATA

Challis 1 Challis 2A Challis 3

Net sand thickness, ft
Porosity, %
Average water saturation, %
Relative permeability to oil, fraction
Total compressibility, c t =c,+Sw+(1-S w)c o , 10- 6 psi- 1
Produced oil volume, STB
Initial reservoir pressure minus last buildup pressure, psi
Oil volume proved by production test, MMSTB

64.3
31

56.4

17

27

29

12

23
0.66

0.80

4,700
14

11.7
7,100
7

3,700
9

24

""23*

29

0.86
12.4

15
12.2

'The Challis 2A test also proved 125 MMbbl of unassoeiated water.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

1379

that the southern Well Challis 2A block appears to be relatively

well connected to the aquifer and has a reasonable chance of obtaining sufficient aquifer support (Fig. 9).
The opposite appears to be true for the block containing Wells
Challis 1 and 3, which is likely to have only limited communication with other blocks. However, because the block is interpreted
to have the same OWC as the Well Challis 2A block (because there
was no apparent depletion of this block as a result of the Well Challis
1 test), some communication should exist. On the other hand, there
is probably insufficient pressure support to maintain the high production rate expected from each of the two wells (about 10,000
STBID [1600 m 3 /d] per well). Consequently, some pressure maintenance through water injection is being considered in the development plan.
The volume of oil accessible to each production well is of primary
importance to reservoir-development planning. Because the exploration wells in the Challis field are planned to be completed as
producers, production tests can be used to obtain minimum estimates of these volumes through material-balance calculations. These
volumes, calculated for the three tests discussed, are given in Table 4. Although a portion of the oil volumes from each well is likely to be the same, it is nevertheless evident that each well should
be able to produce a reasonable portion of the field reserves.

Conclusions
1. Extensive well-test surveys and detailed analyses are valuable
in confirming a geological reservoir model during the planning stage
of an oilfield development, particularly in offshore fields that are
heavily faulted.
2. For the type of developments indicated (with subsea wells),
it is essential to production test each well to ascertain its offtake
potential and to estimate its "connected oil" volume.
3. Well testing gives a good estimate of effective in-situ vertical
permeability, which is particularly useful in coning studies.
4. For reservoir situations where faults are likely to be sealing
and for decisions regarding possible water injection, well testing
and analysis can be very useful in making the right economic decision.
5. Computer-aided well-test analysis with analytical models is
very effective in identifying various drainage shapes and flow
patterns.
6. A relationship between the initial and late-time Horner slopes
is presented for pressure transients in reservoirs with linear discontinuity in rock or fluid properties.
Nomenclature
b = perpendicular distance (width) from well to linear
boundary; penetration ratio hplh
B = FVF
c = compressibility
C = constant
F T = specific transmissibility ratio of fault zone 10
G = partial penetration expression 12
h = formation thickness
H = geometric constant 3
I = function defining pressure drop across fault zone 10
k = absolute formation permeability; horizontal
permeability
m = semilog slope of pressure change for an infiniteacting, homogeneous reservoir
p = pressure
ilp = pressure drawdown
q = production rate
r = radius
s = skin
I = time
JI. = viscosity
T = multirate time function
</> = porosity
1380

Subscripts
D = dimensionless
i = initial
n = final point of discrete sequence (e.g., In)
0= oil
p = partial; producing
r = relative
t = total
V = vertical
w = water
W = wellbore
1 = active-well region; first radial-flow zone
2 = observation-well region; second radial-flow zone

Acknowledgments
We thank the joint venture participants-BHP Petroleum, Citco Australia Petroleum (Esso), Norcen IntI., Peko Oil, Ampol Exploration, Brenda Mines, and Norpac Securities-for permission to
publish this paper. We thank M. Shircore for his help in completing the work for the labiru field well-test analyses.

References
1. Hunter, K. and Boyson, R.: "Coming to Terms with FaIling Energy
Prices," APEA J. (1987) 27, Part 2,55-59.
2. Raghavan, R. and Clark, K.K.: "Vertical Permeability from Limited
Entry Flow Tests in Thick Formations," SPEl (Feb. 1975) 65-73;
Trans., AIME, 259.
3. Buhidma, I.M. and Raghavan, R.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of
Partially Penetrating Wells Subject to Bottom Water Drive," JPT(July
1980) 1251-61.
4. Kuchuk, F. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 546-54;
Trans., AIME, 290.
5. Tang, R.W.: "A Model of Limited Entry Completions Undergoing
Spherical Flow," paper SPE 14310 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
6. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, V.F., and Viturat, D.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for High-Permeability Reservoirs," paper SPE 14314
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
7. Khurana, A.K.: "Influence of Tidal Phenomenon on Interpretation of
Pressure Build-up and Pulse Test," APEA J. (1976) 16, Part 1,99-105.
8. Hemala, M.L. and Balnaves, C.: "Tidal Effect in Petroleum Well Testing," paper SPE 14607 presented at the 1986 SPE Offshore South East
Asia Conference, Singapore (Jan. 28-31.)
9. Gringarten, A.C.: "Computer-Aided Welltest Analysis," paper SPE
14099 presented at the 1986 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, March 17-20.
10. Nutakki, R. and Mattar, L.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells
in Very Long Narrow Reservoirs," paper SPE 11211 presented at the
1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Sept. 26-29.
11. Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K. and van Poollen, H.K.: "Effect of Linear
Discontinuities on Pressure Build-up and Drawdown Behavior," JPT
(Aug. 1963) 885-95; Trans., AIME, 228.
12. Brons, F. and Marting, V.E.: "The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry
on Well Productivity," JPT(Feb. 1961) 172-74; Trans., AIME, 222.
13. Moran, J.H. and Finklea, E.E.: "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," JPT (Aug.
1962) 899-903; Trans., AIME, 225.
14. Streltsova-Adams, T.D. and McKinley, R.M.: "Effects of Partial Completion on the Duration of Afterflow and Beginning of the Formation
Straight Line on a Horner Plot," JPT (March 1981) 550-52.
15. Yaxley, L.M.: "The Effect ofa Partially Communicating Fault on Transient Pressure Behavior," paper SPE 14311 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.

Appendix A-A Partially Penetrating Well

The situation is shown schematically in Fig. 7, and as evident, three
flow periods can be identified (apart from wellbore storage): (1)
an initial radial-flow period over the completion interval, (2) a transition period, pseudospherical flow, and (3) a second radial-flow
period over the total formation thickness.
During the first period, which is usually short and masked by
afterflow effects (unless downhole shut-in is used), the normal
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

radial-flow equations apply. The end of this particular period has

been quantified by Raghavan and Clark z and Buhidma and
Raghavan, 3 and is given by
-

tD

h~D

=0.02. . ................................... (A-I)

where
G(b)=2.73-4.95b+5.07b Z ............. (A-9)

The expression seems reasonable for bhD>5.

The total skin factor (including mechanical skin, s) is then given by
st=slb+sp . ................................... (A-lO)

Depending on the criterion for an acceptable deviation from the

fully penetrated well, the time to the end of the first radial-flow
period can be estimated.
During the transition period, the flowlines will assume a pseudospherical flow pattern (approaching hemispherical flow for a point
sink at the top of the interval). For fully spherical flow, the dimensionless pressure drawdown response, PD, is given by

PD=HD -

2~ ~,

......................... (A-2)

where HD is a geometric constant, 3 and

hD=~

Analysis of spherical flow with type curves is also possible (e.g.,

see Ref. 4).

Appendix B-Effect of Variable Transmissibility

on the Horner Slope
The Well Challis 2A well-test pressure buildup shows an increase
in transmissibility close to the wellbore. This Appendix details calculations that allow the transmissibility increase to be quantified.
Yaxleyl5 derives the following equation for the dimensionless
pressure drawdown response, P WD, of a well on one side of a fault,
where the transmissibility is different on the other side of the fault:

(-rim)

rw~4
Q

J:::............................

(A-3)

This means that if k is estimated from core measurements or radialflow ~riods, an estimate of kv can be obtained by using a plot
of 1/:,;(. For hemispherical flow, a factor of one-half has to be
introduced on the right side of Eq. A-3.
The time to the end of this flow period has been stated for various penetration geometries. 313 ,14 For a small completion interval
(midcolumn), Moran and Finklea l3 suggest that spherical flow
lasts until
tD =hb 14 . ...................................... (A-4)

Raghavan and Clarkz support this value by graphical methods. For

perforations at the top or bottom of the interval, the expression is
given by
tD=hb, ....................................... (A-5)

or for producing time,

tp=

cJ>p.ch Z

2.64x 1O- 4 k v

-CzI(FT , tD),

.................................. (B-1)

In customary units, Eq. A-2 becomes

1l.p = 243: P.B

(-1)

PWD=-'hEi - - - -'hC 1 Ei 4tD

4tD

[/:.

.............................. (A-6)

Streltsova-Adams and McKinley 14 give the same value for the beginning of the third flow period. The third flow period can be analyzed again by the conventional radial-flow equations, where the
slope of the first radial flow period, ml, is related to the slope of
the second radial-flow period, mz, through the penetration ratio
b=hplh, given by
ml =mzlb . ..................................... (A-7)

The slopes are displaced vertically by an amount 2sp , which is the

additional dimensionless pressure drop caused by limited flow entry. Brons and Marting lZ give the following expression:

where
PWD = 27rkhl1l.plqp.,
I = a function of transmissibility of fault zone, FT,
defined in Ref. 15,
CI = 2(h 1lh 2)-I,
Cz = 2h1Ih2(h2+hl),
tD = tkrklcJ>cp.b z , and
rWD = rw1b(b=distance to fault).
Eq. B-1 assumes the following.
1. The reservoir is infinite in all directions on each side of the
fault.
2. The reservoir properties on each side of the fault are constant.
3. The permeability on each side of this fault is uniform.
4. The reservoir fluid is single-phase and slightly compressible.
Its compressibility and viscosity are constant.
5. The fault is infinitely long and has negligible capacity.
6. The fluid leakage rate through the fault is always proportional
to the instantaneous pressure difference across the barrier.
When the transmissibility of the fault zone is assumed infinite
(i.e., there is no disturbed zone), Eq. B-1 simplifies (with Eq. B-2
in Ref. 15) t&

k )

(h

-r - - 'h -I - hz) ( - 1 )
PWD = - 'hEi ( - Ei . .. ... (B-2)
4tD
hI +h z
4tD
The first term in Eq. B-2 is the pressure function of a well in an
infinite reservoir and the second term is the added effect of an image well on the other side of the fault.
In late time, Ei(x)=ln(x), and Eq. B-2 becomes

PWD= -

'hln(~)_'h(hl-hz )In(~)+c.
~

hl+h z

...... (B-3)

Thus, when h z=0 (i.e., sealing fault)

PWD=-'hln(

~1 )-'hln( ~1 )+C

............... (B-4)

I-b
sp=-[ln(hD)-G(b)], ........................ (A-8)

b
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988

and the semilog slope of the pressure change doubles.

1381

TABLE B1-RESPONSE OF A PRESSURE TRANSIENT CROSSING A FAUL T*

Measured Slope 2.4 Log
Cycles in Time
After Effect First Noticed.
Variable
(khIJLh/(khIJL) 1
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.5
5.0

Variable
(khIJLh/(khIJL) 1
0.01
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.5
5.0

(cf>ch/(cf>c) 1
0.01
0.1
1.0
10
100
1000

Predicted Late-Time Slope

1.98
1.81
1.33
1.00
0.80
0.33

Predicted Late-Time Slope

1.98
1.81
1.33
1.00
0.80
0.33

Constant
c, cf>
2.02
1.76
1.34
1.00
0.78
0.32

Measured slope,
Ratio of (cf>c)2/(cf>c) 1
0.1
10
100
1.95
1.74
1.31
1.0
0.78
0.32

Predicted Late-Time Slope

1
1
1
1
1
1

Constant
k,JL,C, cf>
2.01
1.84
1.34
1.00
0.79
0.32

1.84
1.59
1.21
0.92
0.78
0.31

1.53
1.14
0.88
0.650
0.535
0.195

Measured Slope
k, h, JL Constant
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
0.72
0.36

'Measured latetime Horner slopes from Figs. 2 through 11 of Bixel et al. 11 and late-time slopes predicted
from Eq. 10.

When h2 -

ex>

PItD=-V2ln(

(i.e., constant-pressure boundary),

~DI )+Ihln( ~DI )+c

...............

(B-5)

and the slope is zero, as expected. These results are identical for
Horner buildup plots.
In general, the ratio of the slope of the Horner line after the fault
influences the buildup, m2, to the slope before m! is given by
2h!
-h! +h2

" ................................ (B-6)

Eq. B-I can be generalized to the case where any combination of

k, h, cf>, JL, or c varies on the other side of a linear boundary. This
has been shown by Bixel et at. 11 in detail, but they did not note
the simplifications possible as t D - ex>.

This simplification is not obvious and was carried out by assuming that it would be of the form of Eq. B-6; i.e.,

pressibility. This was verified first by observing that the dimensionless semilog pressure vs. time plots for various mobility and
diffusivity ratios!! tended toward straight lines at late times. The
late-time slopes were then measured and compared with the values
predicted by Eq. B-7 (Table B-I).
Table B-I shows that the predicted late-time slopes, measured
2.4 log cycle& from when the boundary was first noticed, are within the measurement accuracy of the measured slopes for all ranges
of mobility ratio and for diffusivity ratios < 5. Fig. 10 in Ref. 11
shows that for diffusivity ratios > 5 with a mobility ratio of I, the
slopes of the plots tend back to the initial slope but that the time
period is not long enough to fulfill the time constraint of Eq. B-7.
It should also be noted that, until the effects of diffusivity have
disappeared, the ratio of the late-time slope to the expected slope
varies depending on the mobility ratio used.
In the case of Well Challis 2A, the linear boundary is the owe.
In the oil zone, kr! =0.66 andJL! =0.7 cp [0.7 mPas]. In the water
zone, kr2 = 1.0, JL2 =0.45 cp [0.45 mPa' s], and k! =k2 Thus, the
predicted ratio of tl:te slopes is 0.60, which agrees well with the
well-test ratio of 0.62.
'Conversion factor is exact.

Note that Eq. B-7 is independent of fluid compressibilities, as would

be expected, because the Horner analysis is independent of com-

1382

JPT

Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 27.1987. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 8. 1988. Revised manuscript received June 20. 1988. Paper (SPE 16985) first
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Sept. 27-30.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1988