SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 10781
Application of Pressure Transient Analysis in Steam Injection Wells
by Gregory L. Messner and Richard L. Williams, Getty Oil Co.
Members SPE-AIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper was presented at the 1982 California Reg.ional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Francisco, CA,
March 24-26, ~ 982. The matenal IS subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstraot of not more than
300 words. Wnte: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, TX 75206.
ABSTRACT
The determination of the swept volume in a steam
displacement process provides an early means to evaluate
the project's progress. By determining the volume occupied
by steam, and knowing the cumulative volume of steam
injected, the heat losses from the injection interval and the
ensuing heat efficiencies can be estimated. These
parameters dictate the performance efficiency of the
displacement project.
Getty Oil Company has run pressure falloff tests in
several steam flood projects located on the west side of the
S~n Joaquin Valley. T~e first project tested had undergone
nIne months of contInUOUS steam injection, with little
apparent increase in oil production or wellhead
temperatures in the displacement wells. The test data was
an~llzed using the theory presented in Eggenschwiler, et
al. s work and Walsh, et al.'s3 analytical procedure. The
initial results are very encouraging and more-or-less
consistent with the previous theoretical studies, implying
that this type of testing can be a valuable tool for early
evaluation of the viability of a steamflood project, with a
minimal shut-in time and expense.
Several more falloff tests were run in displacement
projects having more history, temperature observation
wells, and better control of reservoir properties. These
tests were run to verify the analysis procedure and
determine steam flood characteristics in projects designated
as commercial successes. A simple numerical study using a
thermal model was also used to further analyze the
principles of the underlying theory and demonstrate the
appli~ability of this particular simulator to pressure
tranSIent problems. The results of the numerical study are
included.
INTRODUCTION
In field operations, swept volumes in thermal oil
recovery have usually been determined by temperature
observation wells and/or coring, usually at considerable
expense a~d subject to great uncertainty due to sweep
heterogeneIty. Attempts have been made to obtain
estimates of swept volumes using pressure transient
methods. 4,5 However, these tests exclusively involved air
Injection wells in in-situ combustion
Eggenschwiler, I proposed a simplified pressure
paper
transient method predicated upon the occurrence of a
pseudosteady state period corresponding to the swept
zone volume. Such a method seemed ideally suited for
thermal oil recovery, due to the high mobility contrast
between the swept unswept regions. Based upon this
study, proposed guidelines to evaluate
pressure tests in steam injection wells, and
provided test data for an example well to illustrate their
analysis technique. Besides the references cited above,
we have found no further information regarding steam
injection well pressure testing in the published literature.
To the authors' knowledge, this is the first time a full-
scale program of pressure transient testing has been
conducted on steam injection wells. The objective of this
project was to find an inexpensive means to determine the
swept volume of the steam zone, so that important
steam flood characteristics such as cumulative heat losses
and sweep efficiencies could be calculated. Our data
indicate that this objective has been accomplished.
Frequent monitoring via pressure transient testing could
allow the engineer to evaluate the progress of a
steamflood and take the appropriate corrective measures
to improve its performance. However, further research
into some of the intricacies associated with stearn
injection well testing should be undertaken to improve the
applicability and level of understanding with the
quantitative results.
DISCUSSION
The concept of the distance to a
displacement front by pressure transient techniques has
been studied by several authors 1 IO Since Hurst 11 first
examined the composite reservoir problem. Figure I
illustrates the situation: an idealized two-region
composite system which develops as a result of a fluid
displacement with each region having a differing
mobility (k/IJ. and hydraulic diffusivity (k/0IJ.ct). A
summary of the previous approaches to the composite
system problem can be found in Reference 112.
Recently, Eggenschwiler, I and Satman,
have proposed a simplified analysis procedure for pressure
transient tests in thermal injection wells. From the
general composite system illustrated by Figure 1, they
developed an analytic pressure solution using the LaPlace
transformation with numerical inversion. The solution
concerned the transient flow of a slightly compressible
 APPLICATION OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS IN STEAM INJECTION WELLS
fluid during injection or falloff in a composite reservoir,
incorporating both wellbore storage and a skin effect. Their
results suggested that a pressure falloff test would
demonstrate the following behavior: after a short period of
wellbore storage and domination, a semilog straight
line develops which corresponds to the swept zone
conductivity. From the slope of this line, the permeability-
thickness product of the swept zone, kh, and the skin factor,
5, could be calculated using the standard infinite-acting
reservoir equations:
kh = 162.6J.Lq B . . . . . . . . . . 10 ,.
m a wireline job, running the tool on a
s 1.1513
[Cw - PI hr )- log (
m
k
0/-LC t T w2
) +
where m is the indicated semilog slope and PI hr is the
extrapolated pressure at t 1 hour. The parameters 0, /-L,
and ct correspond to the swept zone and rw is
the radius of the well.
The key finding of the Eggenschwiler, study
concerned the pressure behavior after the of this
infinite-acting transient period. They demonstrated that a
pseudosteady-state pressure response occurs after the end
of the swept region semilog straight line, attributable to the
high mobility contrast between the swept and unswept
regions. In other words, the displacement front will act like
a no-flow boundary for a short period of time.
Consequently, calculation of the swept volume simply
involves the techniques of reservoir limit testing: a displacement pilot was initiated. Based on a numerical
Cartesian plot of pressure vs. time should reveal a straight
line during this period of pseudosteady-state. The slope of
this line, ml, is related to the swept pore volume, Vp' as
follows:
vp = qi Bi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
where Bi is the formation volume factor of the injected
fluid and Ct is the total compressibility of the swept region.
Since Eq. 3 involves a volumetric/material balance, the
swept volume derivation is independent of actual volume
shape, that the idealized situation illustrated in
Fig. I not apply.
The Eggenschwiler, model also revealed
tha t a second sem ilog corresponding to the
unswept zone rock and fluid would appear after a
long transition. However, they concluded that outer
boundary effects would obscure these data in actual field
practice. Furthermore, given the long period necessary for
the second straight line to reveal itself (t 1000
hours), a steam-swept zone would have undergone
considerable condensation, further distorting the pressure
behavior.
Using the principles outlined in the published
literature,I,2 Walsh, ~. 3 presented a step-by-step
procedure for quantitatively interpreting pressure falloff
tests in both stearnflood and in-situ combustion projects.
This procedure has been followed for the of the
pressure tests presented in this paper.
For these pressure tests, a tube filled with a
single-phase fluid (helium) was lowered into the flowing well
SPE 10781
and set at the mid-perforation point. After the readings
had stabilized and the weight of helium in the capillary
tube calculated, the well was shut-in and the falloff
pressure as a function of time was recorded. Since the
capillary pressure tool contains no downhole
instrumentation, it functions consistently in a high-
temperature environment, obviously important in a steam
injection well.
The only surface equipment required to run the tests
were a Pero Scientific Quartz Transducer, rated at 900
psi (0.001 psi accuracy), and a Pruett Industries 1000
. . . . (1) surface recorder. The logistics of the test were much like
"slick line 1 ' through a lubricator. Initial pressure
were recorded every 15 seconds. After one hour, pressure
3.23] (2) were taken every minute. After 10 hours of
testing, pressure readings were taken every five minutes
for the duration of the test, which ranged from 18 to 22
hours in length. No mechanical difficulties were
encountered in any of the tested wells, and the
equipment reacted consistently throughout
test.
The initial pressure falloff tests were conducted in a
steamflood pilot located southwest of the town of Taft,
California. The property lies on the northeast flank of
the Spellacy Anticline in the Midway-Sunset Field. The
Upper Miocene reservoir consists of Spellacy and Sub-
Lakeview Sands, truncated updip by a dipping, post
Miocene unconformity. Dip is northeasterly at 38-480 ,
and the oil gravity averages ]3.50 API.
In October, 1980, a six injector, line drive steam
model study, the injectors were located downdip frorn the
producers, near the oil-water contact.
Prior to the start-up of the displacement pilot, oil
production averaged approximately 250 BOPD from the
project area. For nine months of continuous steam
injection, no significant displacement response had been
noted, with production remaining near the 250 BOPD
level. To improve on the sluggish displacement
production, a re-design of the project was considered. To
facilitate the design work, transient testing was
recomrnended based on the presented
in the published literature. Hence, in September 1981,
pressure falloff tests were conducted on two Project A
steam injection wells (11501 and 11502). The tests were run
to determine the performance of the
stearnflood pilot and the theoretical
techniques which determine the thermal displacement
efficiencies.
3 and 4 show the semilog and Cartesian plots
of pressure versus shut-in time for Well If 501, while
Figures 5 and 6 show the same curves for We II 11502.
Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate the log-log pressure falloff
behavior for wells 11502 and 11501, which both clearly
exhibit an initial period of wellbore storage and damage
domination for approximately the first 0.1 hour, followed
by a transition stage before the infinite-acting period.
Also, it can be seen from Fig. 8 that the storage period on
the log-log plot has a slope greater than unity, indicating
a decreasing wellbore storage coefficient. This can be
attributed to steam condensation in the wellbore, which in
turn creates an additional pressure reduction in the
saturated steam system. This behavior has also been
noticed in several well tests. 18
Figures 3 and show a transition period between the
wellbore storage dominated period and the transient,
semilog straight line period. This transition can be
 SPE 10781 G. L. MESSNER and R. L. WILLIAMS
attributed to the gradually-decreasing after-flow effects
from shutting in the well, which is seen in most conventional
well tests. From Fig. 3, we see that the transient period
for well 11501 began at about t-=1.5 hours and lasted until t=6
hours, while for well 11502 (Fig. 5) the times were 6 and 9
hours, respectively. From the slopes of these lines, the
permeability-thickness products and skin factors were
calculated, using Equations 1 and 2.
Immediately following the end of the transient periods,
the pseudosteady stage for both wells appeared,
characterized by a straight line on a Cartesian plot of
pressure vs. time (Figures 4 and 6). From the slopes of
these straight lines, the steam-swept volume surrounding
each well was calculated using Eq. 3. Notice that the
duration of the pseudosteady period for wells If 501 and 11502
was 1-1/2 and 5-1/2 hours, respectively. This compares
favorably with the 6 hour period seen in the steam flood case
of Walsh, et al) However, the slopes for both of these cases
(m'501 .84 psi/hr. and m'502 = .38 psi/hr.) were almost two
orders of magnitude lower than the pseudosteady-state
straight slope of m' 26.4 psi/hr. in the Walsh, et al. study.
This discrepancy is due in part to the low reservoir pressures
encountered in the reservoir, which result in a high steam
two-phase compressibility. The case had high
injection rates and pressures, cause a smaller
compressibility, necessitating a larger straight line slope.
Table 1 summarizes the quantitative results from these
two well tests. Procedures to determine these parameters
is detailed for well 11502 in the Appendix.
From Table 1, we see that the calculated kh values for
these two wells are unexpectedly small, ranging from ll, 130
to 16,800 md-ft. Due to the lack of temperature observation
wells in the vicinity, the average height of the steam swept
zone was unknown. However, the steam vapor permeability
was estimated to be on the order of 100 to 300 md.,
compared with a measured absolute permeability of 2000-
3000 md. for this formation. To account for this low
apparent permeability, the relative permeability of the
steam vapor may be correspondingly small, as discussed
below.
Since we have a saturated steam condition, two-phase
flow of water and vapor occurs in the swept region (the flow
of oil is ignored since it will be at near residual saturations).
The permeability of the steam vapor is defined by:
ksv ::: kA' k rsv . . . . . . . . . . . . • . (4)
where ksv = permeability to steam vapor, md.
k A absolute permeability, md.
k rsv ::: relative permeability of steam vapor,
dimensionless
From in-house high temperature relative permeability
analysis and simulation studies, the maximum value of k rsv
is on the order of 0.1, even at residual liquid saturations.
This is an order of magnitude less than the relative
permeability to air at the same temperatures and residual
saturations found in laboratory experiments. The low
apparent kh value, then, can possibly be ascribed to the
small relative permeability of the steam vapor.
Furthermore, numerical studies and additional testing in
other formations support this hypothesis and will be
discussed in another section.
Interestingly, the steam injection example (Case C)
presented in the Walsh, et al) paper also yields a fairly low
permeability-thickness product. Although the permeability
was not estimated in the study, the kh for this example
problem should be around 8000 md-ft., using the presented
injection parameters and Eq. 1. Assuming the formation is
695
50 feet thick, a steam vapor permeability of 160 md. is
estimated, which should be substantially srrlaller than the
absolute permeability found in the formation.
Positive skin values were also noted for these well
tests, indicative of formation damage, possibly due to the
steam injection process. In fact, geological reviews of
the steamflood area indicate a high concentration of silt
and clays, some of which are fresh-water sensitive. The
injected steam could have caused these clays to swell,
accounting for the somewhat large skin factors found in
these wells (+3.9 and +14.7). However, partial penetration
and perforation pseudo-skin effects may have
significantly contributed to the total apparent skin value,
in which case the actual formation damage may be
minimal.
The swept volumes calculated appear reasonable since
heat breakthrough to surrounding production wells had not
occurred at the time of the tests. The estimated heat
content for the steam and hot water zones surrounding
wells 11501 and 11502 were only a small fraction of the
total heat injected--6.1% and 14.0%, respectively. As a
result, low thermal efficiencies were indicated, with 86%
to 94% of the total heat injected being lost to the
overburden and produced fluids. Since little heat
breakthrough had been noted, most of the heat loss
probablY occurred to the overburden. The initial
numerical model study of this project predicted that only
18% of the injected heat would be lost to the overburden
at an equivalent time point. Thus, the in production
response could be explained by the unexpectedly low
thermal efficiency of the project.
After reviewing the completion intervals for these two
wells, we felt that the large apparent overburden heat
losses were due to the perforation intervals' close
proximity to the oil-water contact, which was especially
acute in the case of well 11501. Also, the perforations
were located near the bottom of the flood zone, where
high concentrations of laminated shales were present,
adding to the heat losses and lowering injectivity
efficiencies. Recompletion of the existing injectors was
recommended in an attempt to overcome the inordinate
heat losses.
Although low thermal efficiencies were indicated for
these two tests, it should be pointed out that considerable
uncertainity exists for the estimation of the heat content
in the zone(s) ahead of the steam front. Hearn's
method 15 is only a simple approximation for the heat
content of the hot water zone. More heat could be
contained within the hot water region as well as an~
existing heated oil bank. As noted by Walsh, et aI.,
further investigation into the estimation of the heat
content ahead of the swept region is warranted so that
accurate assessments of the efficiency of thermal
recovery projects can be rendered.
PROJECT B
The next two pressure falloff tests were performed in
December, 1981, in a steamflood project located near the
northern end of the Midway-Sunset Field, approximately
five miles north of the town of Fellows, California. The
nine-pattern steam displacement project herein was
initiated in November, 1977. The project was expanded to
a total of 20 patterns in June, 1981. There are two
recompletion intervals above the initial displacement
interval in the Potter Sand, which has a gross thickness
ranging from 440 ft. to 600 ft. Reservoir
include an average oil saturation of 55%, oil viscosity of
6200 cp at 1000F, and an oil gravity of 120 API at 600 F.
The current steam injection rate is approximately 300
B/D CWE per injector.
 AI'I'L1U\11UN U/' 1'I\/:;:':-'U 1<1', IK/\1':"111:NI
Of the two injection wells tested, one was in the
pilot and one was in the expansion area. For the of
brevity, only the pressure data for the expansion well (11514)
will be presented, since the results from these two tests had
the sanle general characteristics.
9 and 10 demonstrate the semilog and Cartesian
pressure behavior for well 11514. Like the Project f\ tests, a
late appearance of the sem dog straight line was noted, due
to prolonged wellbore storage effects associated with stearn
injection down casing. The pseudostcady period began about
two hours after the end of the transient period, lasting from
t 8.5 hours to t 13.5 hours. Using the same procedures
outlined in the Appendix, the stearn swept zone
characteristics were calculated and are summarized in
Table \.
Again, the calculated stearn vapor permeability of 185
md. was an order of magnitude lower than the absolute
permeabilities of 1500 -2000 md (temperature observation
wells in the vicinity allowed an estimate of the steam Zone
height). The swept zone volume was calculated to be 86,600
ft. 3 , or approximately 6% of the total reservoir pore volume
contained within the theoretical five-spot pattern around
this well. The heat contained in the steam and hot water
zones was estimated to be 17.5% of the total injected heat.
From a volumetric sweep viewpoint, the 6% of the
available reservoir volume swept by steam after 1-1/2 years
of c,ontinuous steam injection is a reasonable value and is
congruent with numerical studies for this Since we
expect an ultimate volumetric sweep of 40-4596
after nine years of steamflooding, it appears that this
project is on its way to economic success. However, the
thermal efficiency seems to be a bit low and may be due to
prema ture stearn breakthrough and excessive stearn
channeling into the production wells, as evidenced by
blow production. To improve the thermal efficiency,
certain operational changes are being considered, including
reduction of injection rates. Although a portion
of the injected heat had been at the time of the
falloff test, we were unable to estimate the amount of
produced heat due to the lack of detailed fluid and
production data necessary for such a calculation.
Nevertheless, a numerical simulation study for this project
predicted that approximately 30% of the injected heat
would be produced at an equivalent time point. To account
for the calculated 82% heat loss, either excessive steam
channeling and/or inordinate overburden heat losses are
indicated. Given the production characteristics of this
steamfiood, most of the excess heat loss can be attributed
to steam channeling effects.
A further explanation concerning sweep efficiencies is in
order here. The steam flood process involves two principal
displacement mechanisms to displace resident oil: 1)
Displacement by stearn vapor and 2) Displacement by hot
water as a consequence of injected steam condensation and
sand face steam qualities of less than 100%. Although hot
water will not be as effective as steam vapor in displacing
oil, field and laboratory work have shown that the hot
waterflooding process will form a substantial contribution to
oil recovery. Hence, the "true" sweep efficiency of a
steam flood project will be somewhat greater than the value
derived from the pore volume occupied by steam vapor.
The final series of falloff tests were conducted in a
steam flood project located in the Lost Hills Field,
approximately 25 miles north of McKittrick, California. A
nine pattern Etchegoin C Sand steam displacement pilot was
started here in August 1977, followed by the addition of
seven patterns in 1980 and five patterns in 1981.
j\l\j\LYc">l:"1 11\ :'">11:J\I'1 11~'}I.L1IUI~ Wl:LL,') 2)/'1: It!! 1:S 1
The Etchegoin S<:md is characterized by a ]70 dip,
13.9 0 API oil, and an oil viscosity of 952 cp at lOooF. Net
thickness of the displacement interval averages 60 ft.;
however, temperature observation wells have indicated
stearn breakthrough into the Etchegoin B sand overlying
the C sand. Depths to the interval range from
400 to 500 it. .
Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the log-log, semilog, and
Cartesian pressure behavior, respectively, for well 11504,
one of the original pilot injectors. Notice from Fig. 11
tha t the wellbore storage is of much shorter duration than
the previous examples, which is attributable to the
shallow depth and injection down tubing. Furthermore,
condensation effects in the well bore are small, as the
wellbore storage period has a log-log slope near unity
(i.e., the wellbore storage coefficient remains nearly
constant).
The transient period for this test was rather short,
lasting from t = 0.3 hour to t :: 0.45 hour. The
pseudosteady period shortly afterwards at t :: 3
hours and continued to about t 8 hours. From these
data, a steam vapor permeability of 325 md. was
calculated, compared with the absolute formation
permeability of 2500-4000 md. The steam swept volume
was estimated to be 407,000 ft), or about 13% of the
total pattern pore volume. The heat content of the stearn
and hot water regions was calculated to be about 17.3% of
the total injected heat, implying that 82.7% of the
injected heat had been lost to the overburden, been
produced, and/or exists ahead of the hot water front.
Since this well had been injecting for 4-1/3 years
before the falloff test, considerable heat has been
produced, as evidenced by the high wellhead temperatures
of the proximal production wells. As shown in the above
a significant amount of heat has been lost to the
overburden or to produced fluids. This is evident by high
wellhead temperatures and casing blow volumes, implying
a high degree of channeling and low sweep efficiencies.
Again, due to the lack of detailed production data, the
quantity of produced heat was not calculated. However,
the production characteristics of this steam flood do seem
to indicate excessive steam channeling. To remedy the
situation, adjustment of injection rates and/or
introduction of steam mobility control additives are being
evaluated.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
To gain a further understanding of injected steam
pressure falloff behavior, a numerical study using a multi-
phase, fully implicit thermal simulator was initiated. I7
Besides supplying general information regarding steam
injection well pressure falloff response, we hoped to prove
the applicability of this particular simulator for more
complex reservoir situations. The study used a one-
dimensional, 20 x 1 x 1 cell radial model and the reservoir
characteristics corresponding to one of our steam flood
projects. Rock and fluid properties and injection
parameters are listed in Table 2. High temperature,
relative permeability end points and curves were
determined by laboratory analysis.
After allowing injection to continue for a certain
period of time, the simulated well was "shut-in" and the
pressure as a function of time was recorded. Figures 14
and 15 show the semilog and Cartesian pressure behavior
for one of the computer runs, where the injection time
was 60 days. Both a transient and pseudosteady period
corresponding to the steam swept zone are apparent, and
from these data the steam permeability and swept zone
volume were calculated using the same procedures
outlined earlier in this paper.
69fi
SPE 10781 G. L. MESSNER and R. L. WILLIAMS

Table 3 summarizes the calculated results from the NOMENCLATURE

pressure analysis and compares it with the actual values for
this particular run. Again, the steam vapor permeability of a thermal gradient, OF /ft
115 md. is a magnitude of order less than the input absolute
permeability of 3000 md. and correlates with the small B gas formation volume factor, ft 3 /SCF
relative permeability of the steam vapor. Also, the
calculated swept pore volume was in close agreement with Cr rock heat capacity, BTU/lb-oF
actual swept volume read directly off the run, with a
difference of about 10%. Based on this and other simulation C20 steam two-phase compressibility, psi- 1
runs, we have concluded that 1) the small apparent steam
permeabilities measured in actual pressure falloff tests are C :: compressibility, psi- l
a consequence of the small steam vapor relative
permeabilities usually encountered; and 2) this particular CWE = cold water equivalent
thermal simulator could probably be applied to more
complex pressure testing problems, such as those involving h = thickness, ft
heterogeneous reservoirs.
Hfg = latent heat of vaporization, BTU/lb
CONCLUSIONS
Hs =steam enthalpy, BTU/lb
1.) Pressure falloff testing of steam injection wells is a
relatively inexpensive procedure which can yield important Hw = water enthalpy, BTU /lb
steamflood parameters, including the permeability-thickness
(kh) of the swept region, the skin factor (s), the swept pore k ::: permeability, md
volume, and the swept volume heat content, which in turn
provides an indicator of the heat losses to the wellbore, K = thermal conductivity, BTU/ft-day-OF
overburden, and produced fluids.
2.) The pressure falloff curves were characterized by a m : .: slope of semilog straight line, psi/cycle
period of wellbore storage and damage domination, followed
by a short transient and a pseudosteady period corresponding m' = slope of Cartesian straight line, psi/hr
to the steam-swept zone, agreeing with the characteristics
described in previous theoretical studies. The end of the P Ihr semilog shut-in pressure at I hour, psia
pseudosteady period usually occurred 8 to 16 hours after
shut-in, after which the falloff pressure began a transition q ::: flowrate, bbls/day
stage once unswept zone effects were felt. Since the
information of interest is obtained from the falloff pressure qi injection rate, bbls/day
behavior before this transition interval, an almost ideal
situation of an operationally short and simple test is Q ::: total amount of heat injected, BTU
T
realized.
3.) Once the parameters of interest have been Q system heat content, BTU
calculated, evaluation of the steam flood and any
corresponding remedial action can take Since this r ::: radial location
type of testing is inexpensive, it may repeated many
times during the life of the steam flood, providing the rw well radius, ft
engineer the flexibility to "fine-tune" the flood by changing
the appropriate operating procedures. s = skin effect
4.) From actual and simulated test results, the low
steam vapor permeabilities usually derived are indicative of Ss ::: steam saturation
a relative permeability effect. Since steam vapor relative
permeabilities for typical saturation profiles are on the Sw = water saturation
order of 0.1, the actual steam vapor permeability must be
correspondingly smaller than the absolute permeability. So :: oil saturation
5.) While the calculated steam swept volumes appeared
reasonable for the tested wells, the accompanying thermal Tsurface surface temperature, OF
efficiencies tended to be very low. In addition to indicating
larger-than-expected overburden heat losses and excessive Tinj injection temperature, OF
channeling, the low thermal efficiencies may be partly due
to the present method's inability to accurately assess the t total injection time, days
reservoir heat content ahead of the steam zone.
We have attempted to demonstrate in this paper that V specific volume, ft3/lbm
steam injection well pressure testing can be a useful
diagnostiC tool in the evaluation of a steam flood project. VP swept pore volume, ft3
However, given the novel approach of this analysis
technique, the authors believe that additional research into Vb = bulk volume, ft3
both the theory and analysis procedures would be of great
benefit to the further application of steam injection well x = steam quali ty
testing. For example, the two-phase nature of steam results
in a very high compressibility, which can significantly Z ::: depth, it
deviate for small pressure changes. Similarly, saturation
and temperature profiles are also sensitive to pressure (/J ::: porosity, fraction
variations, suggesting that a "real gas" pressure transient
analysis technique may be necessary for more quantitative )). = viscosity, cp
accuracy.

697
 APPLICATION Or: PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSTS IN STFN-1 INJFCTlON WELLS
a = thermal diffusivity, ft 2 /hr
p density,lbs/ft 3
f = fluid
g = vapor
hw hot water
a : : : oil
or residual oil
r = rock
s = steam
sf = sandface
Surf surface
sz swept zone
total
w water
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Getty Oil Company for permission to
publish this paper. Special gratitude is extended to
Mr. W. E. Brigham and J. W. Walsh of Stanford University
for their helpful suggestions and contributions.
REFERENCES
1. Eggenschwiler, M., Satman, A., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and
Cinco-Ley, H.: "Interpretation of Injection Well Pressure
Transient Data in Thermal Oil Recovery," SPE 8908,
presented at the 50th Annual California Regional Meeting,
SPE of AIME, Los Angeles, California, Apr. 9-11, 1980.
2. Satman, A., Eggenschwiler, M., Tang, R. and Ramey, H.
J., Jr.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems
with Radial Discontinuities," SPE 9399, presented at the
55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE
of AIME, Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
3. Walsh, J. W., Jr., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Brigham, W. L:
"Thermal Injection Well Falloff Testing," SPE 10227,
presented at the 56th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, SPE of AIME, San Antonio, Texas, October 5-7,
1981.
4. van Poolen, H, K.: "Transient Tests Find Fire Front in an
In-Situ Combustion Project," Oil & Gas J. (Feb. 4, 1965), 78.
5. Kazemi, H.: "Locating a Burning Front by Pressure
Transient Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1966), 227.
6. Carter, R. D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular
Composite Reservoir," SPE J. (Dec. 1966), 328.
7. Bixel, H. C., and van Poolen, H. K.: "Pressure Drawdown
and Buildup in the Presence of Radial Discontinuities,"
1:. (Sept. 1967), 301.
spr: 10781
8. Odeh, A. S.: "Flow Test Analysis for a Well with
Radial Discontinuity," (Feb. 1969), 207.
9. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., and Jargon, J. R.:
"Problems in Interpretation of Pressure Falloff Tests in
Reservoirs With and Without Fluid Banks," -'--_-"--_-'-'-_
(Sept. 1972), 1147.
10. Merrill, L. S., Jr" Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W. B.:
"Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs with Fluid
Banks," (July 1974), 809.
II. Hurst, W.: "Interference Between Oil Fields,"
AIME (J960), 219, 175-192.
12. Grant, M. A. and Sorey, M. L.: "The Compressibility
and Hydraulic Diffusivity of a Water-Steam Flow," Water
..:..:.::.=-==-:....::::...=-=-~.::...:.o=-="",...::;.;;...;::lrr::.;...;'n (June 1979), 684-686.
14. Smith, D. D. and Weinbrandt, R. M.: "Calculation of
Unsteady-State Heat Loss for Steam Injection Wells Using
a TJ-59 Programmable Calculator," SPE 8914, presented at
the 50th California Regional Meeting, SPE of ArME,
Pasadena, California, April 9-11, 1980.
15. Hearn, C. C.: "Effect of Latent Heat Content of
Injected Steam in a Steam Drive,1I (April
1969), 374.
16. Boberg, T. C. and Lantz, R. B.: "Calculation of the
Production Rate of a Thermally Stimulated Well,"
Tech. (Dec. 1966), 1613-1623.
17. Coats, K. H.: "A Fully Implicit Steam flood Model,"
SPE 6105, presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the SPE
of AIME, New Orleans, LA, October 3-6, 1976.
18. Gringarten, A. C.: "Well Testing in Two-Phase
Geothermal Wells," sPE 7480, presented at the 53rd
Annual Conference of the sPE of AIME, Houston, Texas,
October 1-3, 1978.
APPENDIX
The following calculations illustrate how the values listed
in Table 1 for Well If 502, Project A, were derived. The
procedures used are presented by Walsh, et al)
1. Injection Rate = 435 B/D, eWE (Injection down casing).
2. If wellbore heat losses are significant, the sand-face
steam quality will be lower than the surface quality.
Therefore, an analysis of these heat losses is necessary.
The wellbore heat losses were derived on a Tl-59
calculator program 14 using the following information:
63481bm/hr
a = 0.02 0 F/ft
z = 1125'
Tsurface
, SPE 10781 C. L. MESSNER and R. L. WILLIAMS

rw ::: 0.583'
2
Xsurface :: 0.70 C20 = 0.18513 (PC) fpw Ps ] (T + 460). . . . . . . . (1\4)
TlhfgPwPs

0.04 ft2/hr where (PC) =(1-0) Pf Cf + 0 SwPwCw' . . . . . . . . . (1\5)

K 1.40 BTU/hr-ft-oF we assume: 0 :: 0.32 Pw = 55.9 Ib/ft3

After the heat losses (BTU/Day) were calculated at several

Sw 0.60, Ps::: 0.27 Ib/ft 3 , PfCt=36.8BTU/ft3 _OF
time points, curves of the heat loss functions were made for
these wells (Fig. 16). Integrating under these curves, we get
Therefore,
(PC) (1-.32) (36.8) + (0.32) (0.6) (55.9) (1.0)
Cumulative Wellbore Heat Loss (PC) = 35.78 BTU/ft 3_OF
QWHL = 8.55 x 10 9 BTU
C20 0.18513 (35.78) [
[6'32)
55.9 - 0.27
(55.9) (.27) (877.8)
J~341 + 460)
The average sand face steam quality was calculated from the
Boberg and Lantz 16 model:
C20 ;;; 0.292 psi- 1
Xsf = Xsurface - [ QWHL
L350 ti qs Hfg
J'.......... (AI) 8.According to Grant and Sorey 12, this compressibili ty of
the steam phase change will approximate the total system
-~8.55 (847~
compressibility, since it will be several orders of
Xsf = 0.70 9
x 10 /350 (14) (428) magnitude larger than the separate phase
compressibilities as well as other compressibility
Xsf 0.48 contributions. If we assume that the total system
compressibility will approximately equal the sum of the
3.At Standard Conditions (T =60 0 F), saturated steam has the separate compressibility contributions, we have:
following properties: 13
Ct SorCo + SwCw + SsC s + C r + C20 . • • • (A6)
p V
(psia) ift 3.7lbm) if~:f/lbm) Assuming: Sor 0.15, Sw = 0.6, Ss = 0.25,
60 0.256 1207.6 0.01603 we have:

4.Calculate the average steam vapor injection rate at SorCo =(0.15) (10 x 10- 6) = 1.5 x 1O-6 ps i- l
standard conditions:
SwCw =(0.6) (3.5 x 10- 6) ::: 2.1 x 1O-6 ps i- 1
(V s)i = (Xsf) (V g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (A2)
SsC s =(0.25) (8.5 x 10- 3) 2.1 x 10- 3psi- l
(Vsh (0.48) (1207.6) = 579.7 ft 3 /1bm
Cr 1 x 1O- 4psi- 1
qs = (152,365) (579.7) 88.32 x 10 6 SCFD
C20 0.292 psi- 1
5.From the semi-log plot of pressure vs time, the average
pressure in the steam-swe~t zone is read from the beginning C t = 0.292 + 0.002 0.294 psi- l
of the straight-line period :
For most practical applications, the steam two-phase
Psz = 120 psia compressibility can be taken to be equal to the total
system compressibility.
From Steam Tables 13 we have the following saturated
steam properties: 9. We assumed that the viscosity of steam was for the
vapor phase only. Hence: 13
T Vf Vg Hf Hfg Hg
iOE) ift 3 /Ibm) ift 3 /1bm) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) Il-s 0.015 cp
341 0.01789 3.7275 312.6 877.8 1190.4
1O.Calculation of the permeability-thickness product and
the skin factor involves the standard pressure transient
6.Calculate the formation volume factor of the steam
analysis equations: 3
vapor:

. . (A3) kh 162.6 QsBs& . (A7)

5.615m
Bs = 3.7275/1207.6 = 0.003087 ft 3/scf
7 .Calcula te the steam two-phase compressibility. This
compressibility is defined at constant enthalpy, as suggested
by Grant and Sorey12 and Walsh, et a1. 3:
 APPLICATION OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSiS iN STEAM INJECTION WELLS SPE 1018,1

162.6 (&&.32 x 10 6 ) (0.015) (0.0030&7) Q sz VB lO-0) (pC)rAT + 0 SwPwHw + 0 SorfbHo

kh (7.05 psi/cycle) (5.615) +05sfSHs] . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A12)

kh 16,800 md-ft. Assumptions: 5 s 0.25, Sor = 0.15, Sw ::: 0.60,

If h 100', ks 168 md. AT 223 0 F (To U8 0 F), ho = 136 BTU/Ibm,

5 =10151{(PWf ;"PI hr ) - 109( 0 ~:~l j +302275] 0 0(AS) (PC)r 36.8 BTU/Ft 3 - OF

f Qsz = [(0.68) (36.&) (223) + (0.32) (0.60) (55.9) (312.6)

s ::: 1.1513 (246.35 - 125.6\- log ( 11,260 ) + 3.2275J
~ 7.05 1 (.32)(0.294)(.531)2 +(0.32)( 0.15)(56. 2)(136)+(0.32)(0.2 5)(0. 27)(1190. 4]017,800)

s +14.7 Qsz 2.96 x 10 9 BTU

13.Since the swept pore volume is related to the slope of the 16. To estimate the heat content of the hot water zone,
pseudosteady-state straight line, the following calculations Hearn's relationship is used 3:
can be made fromEq. 3 of the Walsh et al. stud y 3:
Qhw Qsz [(XSf) Hs + (l - Xsf) Hw 1_ 1 . . . (AU)
VP
_~
- m'Ct
••........•.....•... (A9)
(Xsf) Hfg J
Qhw ::: 2.96 x 10 9 [(0.4&) (1190.4) + (0.52) (312.6)J
(8&.32 x 10 6) (0.003087) (0.48) 1877.8)
Vp (0.3& psi/hr) (24) (0.294)
Qhw = 2.20 x 10 9 BTU
Vp 101,700 ft3
17. Finally, the Thermal Efficiencies are:
Swept Bulk = VB ::: Vp 317,800 ft3
Volume 0 Fraction of Heat = QWHL 8.55 x 10 9 0.18&
Loss to Wellbore ~ 4.55 x 10 10
14.To calculate the total volume of heat injected at the
sandface, the wel1bore heat losses calculated in step 2 and
Eq. 19 are employed 3 : Fraction of Sandface
Injected Heat Remaining
QT ::: qs (l - x)9, Hw t + qs xPw Hst . . . . . . . . . . (AIO~ in Steam and Hot Water
w
Zones
Pi = 245 psia Hf :: 374.0 BTU/Ibm

Ti = 3990 F Hg :: 1200.9 BTU/Ibm

t :: 313 days Xsurface = 0.70

QT (2443 ft3/ D) (1 - 0.7) (62.4) (374.0) (313)

+ (2443) (0.7) (62.4) (1200.9) (313)

QT 4.55 x 10 10 BTU

This number compares favorably with 4.33 x 10 10 BTU's

derived from project estimates based on steam injection
histories.

Injected Heat at the Sandface:

Qsf = QT - QWHL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (All

Qsf (4.55 x 10 10 ) - (8.55 x 10 9)

Qsf 3.70xlO lO BTU

15. Assuming thermal equilibrium, we can now calculate the

heat content of the steam-swept zone using Eq. 20;3
 TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

PROJECT A PROJECT B PROJECT C

Well 11501 Well /1502 Well 11514 Well 11504

Steam Zone Permeability- 11,130 16,800 22,200 56,500

Thickness, kh, md-ft

Steam Vapor Permeability 185 325

ks • md.

Average Pressure of Swept 115 120 98 129

Zone, Psz, psia

Compressibility of Swept 0.314 0.294 0.438 0.235

Zone, psi- 1

Skin, s +3.9 +14.7 +3.1 +34.8

Swept Pore 44,900 101,700 86,600 407,000

Volume, Vp ' Ft 3

Heat Content of Steam 1.30 2.96 2.61 12.0

Zone, Qsz, MMMBTU

Heat Content of Hot Water 0.95 2.20 1.58 7.20

Zone. Qhw' MMMBTU

Total Heat Injected at 37.0 37.0 24.0 111.0

Sand face, Qsf' ~i\ \,1 ivj iHU

Fraction of Injected Heat 0.061 0.140 0.175 0.173

Remaining in Steal nand
Hot Water Zones

TABLE 2

RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR

NUMERICAL STUDY

Porosity, ~ 0.30

Permeabili ty, k 3000 md

Formation Thickness, h 50 ft.

Initial Formation Temperature, Tf

Initial Formation Pressure, Pf 75 psia

Steam Injection Rate, qi 250 STB/D CWE

Steam Quality at Sandface, Xi 0.50

Steam Injection Pressure, Pi 280 psla

Overburden Thermal Conductivity, KOB 38.4- BTU/ft.-day-OF

Formation Rock Heat Capacity, Cf 35.0 BTU/ft 3_o F

Rock Compressibility, C r 7.35 x 10- 4 psi- I

Initial Oil Saturation, So 0.65

Initial Water Saturation, Sw 0.35

Oil Density at Standard Conditions, 0 61.5Ib/ft 3

Oil Viscosity at 75°F 5780 cp

Oil Viscosity at 350°F 3.20 cp

 TABLE 3

RESULTS OF NUMERICAL STUDY

Calculated Swept Zone Permeability-Thickness, kh 5770 md-ft

Calculated Steam Vapor Permeability, ks 115 md.

Calculated Skin Factor, Sc +0.4

Actual Input Skin Factor, sA o

Actual Swept Pore Volume, (V p) 49,570 it 3
A
Calculated Swept Pore Volume, (V p)c 44,600 it 3

II.,. rw
R

}
I

I
;
I r I
Fig. 1 - Top and side view of simple
composite reservoir (from Walsh, et al. 3 )
 700r-----1r----~------._----~------~----~------

600
I- SEMILOG
STRAIGHT
.~ 500 PERIOD II
Q.

a..~ 400
w
a::
~ 300
Cf)
w SEMILOG STRAIGHT------1
g: 200 PERIOD I

100 I_ ·1
PSEUDOSTEADY- STATE PERIOD

TIME, t, hours

Fig. 2 Semi log graph of example buildup curve (from Walsh, et af.3)

135
0
0
130 0
0
0
0
125
0
0
III
0. 0
0
cC 120
~

w
a::
::J
Cf) 115
Cf)
w
a::
a.. 110

105

0.1 10 100
SHUT IN TIME,At,hours

Fig. 3 Semilog graph for well #501, Project A

 110

0
109 0

108

0
107
fJ'I /m::: 0.84 psi/hour
0.

a..~ 106
w
c:t:
=>
U)
U)
105
w
0:::
a.
104

103

102
o

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SHUT IN TIME,6t,hours

Fig. 4 - Cartesian graph for well #501, Project A

145
0
0
140 0
0
0
135
.~ 0
fJ'I
0. %
0
a.. 130 0
~

w 00
0:::
::>
U)
U)
125 '0
w %
0::: 00
a.
120

115

10- 1 10 100
SHUT IN TIME, 6 t, hours

Fig. 5 - Semilog graph for well #502, Project A

 120
0
0
0
a
119 a

c
(/') 118
a.
a.....
w
0:: 117
=>
CJ)
CJ)
w
0:: 116
a..

115

6 20
SHUT IN TIME, At, hours

Fig. 6 - Cartesian graph for well #502, Project A

1000 I I I I

(/')
0-
n:-
<l
..
I.&.J 100 - 000 a 000
0 a 00
-
(,) 00
z 00
I.&.J 0
0:: 0
I.&.J 0
IJ.... 0
IJ.... 0
0 0
I.&.J
0::
10 I- -
0
::>
CJ)
CJ)
w
0::
a.. a

I I I I I
10- 3 10- 2 10- 1 I 10 100
SHUT IN TIME, At, hours

Fig. 7 - Log-log graph for well #502, Project A

 100

(/)
c..
a..
<l
w 10
..
0-
z
w
a:
w
La...
La.. 0
-
0
0
w
a:
::>
en
en
w
a:
a..

10- 1 10
SHUT IN TIME, At, hours

Fig. 8 - Log-log graph for well #501, Project A

120

0
115

110
" 0
0
0

(/) 0
Co
0
a:-.. 105
w
a:
::>
en 100
en
w
a:
0..
95
0000

90

0.1 10 100
SHUT IN TIME, At, hours

Fig. 9 - Semilog graph for well #514, Project B

 0
98

97

96
0

,
0

'"0-
n.. 95
w
...
Q::
/m= 0.22 psi/hour
:::> 94
en
en
w 93
0:: 000
n..
92

91

8 14 18 20 22
SHUT IN TIME, At,hours

Fig. 10 - Cartesian graph for well #514, Project 8

en
0-
a:
<l
w
..
(.) 100
z ($)00 ooo~ 0 0 0 0000 o
W
0:: ooP
LtJ 00
IJ...
LL
o
0
LtJ 10
0:: 0
:::>
en
en
LtJ
0::
a..

10- 3 10- 1 10 100

SHUT IN TIME, At 1 hours

Fig. 11 - Log-log graph for well #504, Project C

 132
0

131

0
en
c..
a... 129 /m = 2.07 psi/cycle
w-
a::
:::>
CJ) 128
CJ)
w
a::
a... 127

126

0.1 10
SHUT IN TIME, l!t.t, hours

Fig. 12 - Semilog graph for well #504, Project C

129
0

128 0

0
0
en 0
c..
0
a... 127
po
0
LLJ 0
a:: 0
::>
CJ)
CJ)
w
a:: 126
a... '-"\.I"V...,...,.."....... ......,.y-,_
__ /m'= 0.11 psi/hour

o
125

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
SHUT IN TIME, l!t. t, hours

Fig. 13 - Cartesian graph for well #504, Project C

 268~------------~-------------------
o \-TRANSIENT -I' \ -I-TRANSITION
PERIOD
266 PSEUDOSTEADY
PERIOD

264

262
/m= 6.2 psi/cycle

260

258

256

10

Fig. 14 - Semilog pressure behavior for numerical

simulation e~ample

0
0
260 0
0
0
0
0
259 0
'b
0
0
0 258
fI)
0.. m'= 0.82 psi/hour
0.._ 257
w
a::
:::::>
(/) 256
(/)
w
a::
a.. 255 o
o
o
254 o

253
.--L----l--L--~-TRANS I TIO N -

TIME, t, hours

Fig. 15 - Cartesian pressure behavior for numerical

simulation example
 50~--~--~----~--~--~----~--~

0-0 WELL I
o-a WELL 2

...
en
en
o
...J 30
~
w
:r:
w
Q:
o
~ 20
...J
W
3=

O~--~--~----~--~--~----~---
150 200 250 300 350
INJECTION TIME, DAYS

Fig. 16 - Wellbore heat losses for wells #501 and

#502, Project A