Estimate compressibility in the swept zone from the following equation:

Prior to Reservoir Fill-Up-Unit Mobility Ratio

Hazelbroek etal.3 have provided a solution for the pressure behavior in
this type of reservoir.
Case 1: The surface pressure decreases slowly and the well stays filled up
to the top for considerable closed-in time, because the reservoir pressure is
high. After-flow into the formation is small since it results only from the
expansion of fluid in the well as the pressure decreases.
Case 2: The surface pressure drops to zero a short time after closing in,
after which the liquid level in the well starts to sink. The volume of inflow
into the formation at any time is equal to the volume of the wellbore column
between the top of the well and the liquid level.
For both conditions, the injection well closed-in pressure is given by3

(14-26)

where pws is the fall-off pressure in the well at closed-in time At, andpe is the
pressure at the outer radius of the oil bank. Equation 14-26 indicates that a
plot of \og(pws Pe) versus A^ should be linear with slope /?i/2.303 and
intercept b\ at f3t = 0. From the theoretical treatment in Reference 3, the
intercept b\ and the injection rate / is related to kh by

(14-27)

where / is the injection rate; b/d and the quantities Ci, C2, and C3 for case 1
are:

(14-28)
For case 2 where the surface pressure drops to zero shortly after closing in,

(14-29)

and for both case 1 and case 2

(14-30)

where
dt = diameter of tubing or casing, inches
p = density, gm/cc
cw = water compressibility, psi" 1
p = pressure, psi
/3\ = slope in hr" 1
Knowing the value of parameter 8, we can find function f(0) from Table
145 and then using Eq. 14-24, find permeability-thickness product, kh.
Skin factor s is calculated from the following equation:

(14-31)

where

(14-32)

The next example illustrates the use of these equations and method of
analysis.

Example 14-4 5 Analyzing Single Rate Pressure Fall-Off Test Data (Prior to
Reservoir Fill-Up) M.R =1.0
Given data are: injection rate, i = 1020 bbl/day, wellhead injection pressure
(tubing) 0 psi; wellhead pressure (casing) = 598 psi; cumulative injected
water, W1 = 6.077 mbbls; h = 45 ft; <\> = 0.3; /xw = 0.9; /3W = l.Orb/stb;
pw = 62.51bm/ft3 = 1.0 gm/cc; cw - 3.0 x 10" 6 ; cf = 4.0 x 10~6; co = 3.0 x
10"6; cg = 1.0 x 10" 4 ; S0 = 0.56; sw = 0.32; sg = 0.12; sgr = 0; rw = 1.0 ft;
hole size = 6.366 in. Pressure fall-off test data are given in Table 146.
 Table 14^5
Function/(0) Versus 0 for Calculating kh3

Parameter 6 calculated using Eq. 15-30 Function/(0)

0 181
0.0182 177
0.02 172
0.04 170
0.06 165
0.08 158
0.10 154
0.12 146
0.14 140
0.16 134
0.18 127
0.20 120
0.22 113
0.24 106
0.26 99
0.28 92
0.30 84
0.32 76
0.34 68
0.36 60
0.38 54
0.40 48
0.42 37
0.44 26
0.46 17
0.48 9
0.50 0

Solution The plot of log (pm pav) versus injection time at various values
of average pressures is shown in Figure 14-13; we find pe = pav = 32psig,
intercept at At = 0, b\ = 340, and slope, /3\ = 0.514 hr" 1 . For the case where
the pressure drops to zero shortly after closing-in, calculate the following
parameters using Eq. 14-29.
 Table 14-6
Pressure Fall-Off Data

Parameters at various values of average pressure (pm PAV) (psig)

Injection time (hr) Fall-off pressure, pm (psig) 10 20 32 50 75 100 125 150
0.000 598 588 578 566 548 523 498 473 448
0.250 597 587 577 565 547 522 497 472 447
0.500 552 542 532 520 502 477 452 427 402
0.800 530 520 510 498 480 455 430 405 380
1.000 515 505 495 483 465 440 415 390 365
1.450 482 472 462 450 432 407 382 357 332
2.000 442 432 422 410 392 367 342 317 292
3.000 382 372 362 350 332 307 282 257 232
4.000 352 342 332 320 302 277 252 227 202
5.000 324 314 304 292 274 249 224 199 174
6.000 304 294 284 272 254 229 204 179 154
7.000 289 279 269 257 239 214 189 164 139
8.000 262 252 242 230 212 187 162 137 112
9.000 257 247 237 225 207 182 157 132 107
10.000 245 235 225 213 195 170 145 120 95
11.000 232 222 212 200 182 157 132 107 82
 Table 14-6 (continued)

Parameters at various values of average pressure (pws pAv) (psig)

Injection time (hr) Fall-off pressure, pws (psig) 10 20 32 50 75 100 125 150
12.000 222 212 202 190 172 147 122 97 72
13.000 211 201 191 179 161 136 111 86 61
14.000 200 190 180 168 150 125 100 75 50
15.000 192 182 172 160 142 117 92 67 42
16.000 182 172 162 150 132 107 82 57 32
17.000 175 165 155 143 125 100 75 50 25
18.000 167 157 147 135 117 92 67 42 17
19.000 160 150 140 128 110 85 60 35 10
Pressure difference = (p w $ -pav)

pav- 10 psig
/> av =32psig

pav= lOOpsig
Intercept at At= O, 340 psig
Pav= 1 2 5 P s i S

Pav- 150 psig

Slope = [ln340-lnl28]/19
= 0.0514hr1
p =32 psig
PWsa^Z=^^

Closed-in time, At (hours)

Figure 14-13. Pressure fall-off curves - prior to reservoir fill-up (unit mobility ratio
case).

Then, from Eq. 14-30, we find

Knowing the value of 9,findfunction/(0) from Table 14-5, which is equal to

177. Calculate permeability-thickness product, kh, from Eq. 14-27:

and k 523.2/45 = 11.63mD. Before finding skin factor s, first estimate

distance to water bank from Eq. 14-32:

Now calculate, skin factor, s from Eq. 14-31:

Prior to Reservoir Fill-Up - Non-Unit Mobility Ratio
Hazelbroek etal. 3 have provided the following equations to analyze pre-
ssure fall-off single-rate test. Mobility ratio is given

(14-33)

Ratio of volume of oil bank to volume of water bank is

Ratio = ~ (14-34)

Parameter 7 and quantity roD are related to

(14-35)

Permeability-thickness product kh and skin factor s are estimated by using

the following equations:

(14-37)

(14-38)

where iw is injection rate in b/d and function F can be determined from

Figures B9 through B11. Figure 14-14 shows water and oil banks and
Figure 14-15 illustrates fluid saturations.
The following example illustrates the application of Eqs. 14-33 through
14^38.

Example 14-5 6 Analyzing Single Rate Pressure Fall-Off Test Data (Non-
Unit Mobility Ratio Case)
For the data given in Example 14-4, for fi0 = 12 cP, and for ko 0.85
mD, and kw = 0.255 mD, s0 = 0.56, sor = 0.20, sg = 0.12, and sgr = 0.0,

Mobility ratio = M.R - ^ ^ -

 Producer Producer
Unflooded
region
Oil bank

Water bank

i = injector

Producer Producer

Figure 14-14. Showing water and oil banks.3

Water bank Oil bank Unflooded region

Residual gas

Gas
Displaced oil
Residual oil

Oil prior Oil prior

Injected to
to flooding
water flooding

Interstitial water

Injector Producer

Figure 14-15. Oil, water, and gas saturations in the reservoir.3

Solution Pressure fall-off test data are given in Table 147. Figure 1416
shows a semilog plot of log (pw pav) versus injection time; from this figure
average reservoir pressure is:
Pav = Pe = 32 psi

Volume of oil bank,

 Table 14-7
Pressure Fall-Off Test for Non-Unit Mobility

Parameter at various values of

Fall-off average pressure (pws - pav\ psig
Injection pressure
time (hr) Pws, (psig)
0.000 598 588 578 566 548 523 508 498 478
0.250 597 587 577 565 547 522 507 497 477
0.500 552 542 532 520 502 477 462 452 432
0.800 530 520 510 498 480 455 440 430 410
1.000 515 505 495 483 465 440 425 415 395
1.450 482 472 462 450 432 407 392 382 362
2.000 442 432 422 410 392 367 352 342 322
3.000 382 372 362 350 332 307 292 282 262
4.000 352 342 332 320 302 277 262 252 232
5.000 324 314 304 292 274 249 234 224 204
6.000 304 294 284 272 254 229 214 204 184
7.000 289 279 269 257 239 214 199 189 169
8.000 262 252 242 230 212 187 172 162 142
9.000 257 247 237 225 207 182 167 157 137
10.000 245 235 225 213 195 170 155 145 125
11.000 232 222 212 200 182 157 142 132 112
12.000 222 212 202 190 172 147 132 122 102
13.000 211 201 191 179 161 136 121 111 91
14.000 200 190 180 168 150 125 110 100 80
15.000 192 182 172 160 142 117 102 92 72
16.000 182 172 162 150 132 107 92 82 62
17.000 175 165 155 143 125 100 85 75 55
18.000 167 157 147 135 117 92 77 67 47
19.000 160 150 140 128 110 85 70 60 40

Volume of water bank,

Therefore,

(from Eq. 14-34)

Using Eqs. 14-35 and 14-36, find

 ( AV d- SM
d) = 90U3J3jjip ainsssjd

Intercept at At=0,347 psig

Slope = [In 347-In 128J/19

= 0.0522 hr"1
p a v =32psig
588
PWs atAr = O= PSi

Closed-in time, At (hours)

Figure 14-16. Pressure fall-off curves - prior to reservoir fill-up (non-unit mobility
ratio case).

Further, M.R = 4.0 and 7 = 1 , since C0 = cw for this dead oil. Therefore,
reading from Figures B-9 through B-Il, we obtain, F = 220.
Calculate water formation permeability and thickness product, kwh from
Eq. 14-37:

This value of kwh is 2.27 times as large as that obtained for the single fluid
case.
The skin factor is found from Eq. 14-38:

This value of s is less negative (indicating a smaller effective wellbore radius)

than the value obtained in the single fluid case. Thus, use of the single fluid
case has given too large a value for effective wellbore radius and, as noted
above, too small a value for kh. This is the result one finds when the water
mobility is greater than the oil mobility (M > 1). By obtaining too large an