DOTI PAPER 141

DeepwaterEvaluationPerformingaDST
TestforHeavyOilReservoirintheMarine
RegionofMexico

JanLoaizaHalliburton
DanielBarreraPemex
FranciscoGutierrezPemex

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

Abstract
The plans used to develop new reservoirs depend largely upon information obtained from well
tests.

These tests involve taking measurements during steady-flow conditions in order to

measure flow rates and record the bottomhole pressures (BHP) in the new reservoirs.
In heavy-oil environments, however, it is difficult to have natural flow because of the high
viscosity, low permeability, and in some cases, the low temperatures inherent to heavy oil.
Performing drill-stem testing (DST) evaluation in heavy oil reservoirs with very low API gravity
and static pressure normally will require artificial lift to flow the oil to surface; the methods
normally used to perform the artificial lift are electric submersible pumps (ESPs) or coiled tubing
to pump diesel at bottom during evaluation. Unfortunately, these methods might not be cost
effective for the project.
An alternative test method for evaluation is to inject fluid into the reservoir instead of
flowing the well. This method, known as the injection pressure test or fall off, offers several
advantages, because it can reduce costs and increase pressure-data quality. This type of test
offers short-time evaluation capability and improved quality of information.

Economic

advantages are realized from elimination of artificial lift equipment and coiled tubing.
With injection tests, it is not necessary to use surface equipment in order to measure the
production flow rate; also, fluid-collecting vessels can be used, which further reduces the costs of
assessment.
In order to test a well using DST in injection conditions, an injection period with a constant
injection rate is needed in order to generate a pressure disturbance into the reservoir as well as oil
displacement; after the injection period, downhole shut in with a tester valve is needed. Data
obtained during falloff are processed with pressure transient analysis to determine the following
parameters:

Static pressure of the reservoir

Effective hydrocarbon permeability

Formation damage

Boundary effects (conductivity faults, non-conductivity faults, fluid contacts,

heterogeneities, etc.)

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

This paper discusses several case histories in which successful DSTs were run using the
injection test method.
Introduction
The characteristics of heavy oil are largely dependent upon the pressure and temperature at
bottomhole reservoir conditions; most of the time, these conditions hinder well-test evaluation
because of the natural flow conditions at surface (Matthews, C.S.. et al, 1954) (Earlougher, R.J.,
1977). One alternative used to flow the heavy oil from the bottomhole to the surface is an
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP), which is placed in the DST tool string. This alternative
provides the flow stimulus for the reservoir and therefore facilitates performing a reservoir
evaluation using the conventional reservoir engineering calculations. However, this alternative
can require significant amounts of rig time to rig up, RIH, POOH, and rig down and there may
be added risks to the equipment from downhole faults.
Depending on the availability of a rig, it is possible to evaluate the reservoir through a DST,
which is a temporary completion of a well for evaluation purposes. The most important tools in
the DST tool string are the temperature and pressure gauges that record the bottomhole pressure
and temperature, the tester valve that allows the downhole shut in to be performed, and a
retrievable packer. Using this arrangement allows pressures and temperatures near the reservoir
during the static and dynamic periods in the evaluation to be captured. In the case history wells,
the gauge information was processed, analyzed, and interpreted in order to obtain reservoir
parameters that could characterize the area of influence of the well. This type of well test can be
divided into two groups, based on flow conditions:
Pressure-Production Test

Drawdown

Build-Up

Back pressure test

Isochronal test

Modified Isochronal test

Interference test

Multirate test

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

Injection Test

Fall-Off

In Pressure-Production Tests, it is necessary to measure the flow rate at surface conditions

and to maintain a constant flow rate, and to collect the reservoir pressure response during the
production period. After the production period, it is necessary to shut in the well in order to
record the pressure behavior of the reservoir for analysis.
The pressure response during the build-up test depends on the total skin and the wellbore
storage effect; the semilog plot, Horner method, can be used in order to obtain the rock
parameters as effective hydrocarbon permeability and static pressure. During the evaluation of a
DST test in flow conditions, it may be necessary to employ the following services and
operations:
1.

Process fluid ships

2.

Coiled tubing

3.

Induction operations

4.

Surface equipment in order to measure the flow rates

5.

Well-kill operations (in order to recover the tool string).

All the services and operations that are associated with the production operations and wellkill operations involve operative costs and long periods of rig time.
One operational alternative used in order to obtain representative reservoir data with reduced
operating expense is to employ an Injection/Fall-off Test. In this type of evaluation, it is not
necessary to recover the heavy oil at surface, thus, simplifying the operations. The Injection/Falloff tests consist of an initial injection period with a
constant injection rate after the injection period. If

Static Pressure Zone

or Non-affect zone

it is necessary, a downhole shut in is performed.

The start of the injection/fall-off test operation is
similar to a build-up test; i.e., a dynamic period
with a constant flow rate, and after that, a shut-in.

Ko, o, Ct

The injection pattern is shown in Figure 1.

Transition zone

Figure 1 Injection Pattern in a Fall-Off Test

Kw, w, Ctw

Well

Water
Zone

Oil Zone

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

Figure 1 shows the vicinity of the wellbore zone in which the injection fluid is situated.
Here, one of the most important reservoir parameters, total skin, is calculated. The next zone
(inside the reservoir) is a transition zone or "the sweep zone," and then, there is the oil zone.
This is the zone from which it is possible to obtain the effective oil permeability, and finally, in
the non-affected zone, the static pressure of the reservoir can be calculated.
The combination of the parameters obtained from the injection/fall-off test as well as fluid
properties make it possible to obtain the sweep efficiency and other displacement parameters that
might be useful in future projects for secondary recovery.
The magnitude of the injection rate and the total volume of fluid that can be pumped depend
on reservoir parameters such as porosity, net pay, type of hydrocarbon, fracture gradient, etc.
The time of shut-in is simulated and depends on the rock characteristics and the fluids present
inside the reservoir. In order to avoid effects such as wellbore storage, when there is low
reservoir pressure, a downhole shut in is recommended.
Model Interpretation
Assuming that the reservoir is homogeneous and isotropic, the injection-fluid and reservoir-fluid
properties do not change; gravitational effects are negligible, and with the help of the
characterization of the zone with the injection fluid as well as with the zone with the displaced
fluid, it is possible to obtain parameters that define sweep fluids; i.e., the mobility (M) and
diffusivity (D) relationships (between the zones with injection fluids and the zone with reservoir
fluids). (Soliman, M.Y., 2000)
The analysis of the injection/fall-off test is similar to the build-up test. It is possible to apply
the superposition method (Horner method) in which the dimensionless pressure pD is
expressed as follows:
pD(shut-in) = pcD( tiD + tD ) pcD (tD)

(1)

where:
tiD is the injection time
tD dimensionless time (shut-in).
The response of the derivative curves in the injection-fluid zone as well as the reservoir fluid
will depend on the values of M and D, as shown in Figure 2 below:

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

Pressure Change

Derivative
Pressure

Figure 2 Log-log plot in Fall-Off Test

The behavior of the semilog plot in the fall-off test is shown in Figure 3 below.
Where P* corresponds to the average static pressure in the sweep area that already considers
the injection.

5800

5700

Parameters
obtained
from injecting fluid
zone :
S = Total Skin factor

5600

5500

Parameters
obtained
from Oil zone :
P* = Static Pressure
Kh= Flow capacity

5400

5300

5200

5100

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

Semi-Log plot: p [psia] vs Superposition Time

Figure3SemilogPlotinFallOffTest

-1

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

Productivity Analysis
Once obtained, the values of total skin (in the injection-fluid zone), effective hydrocarbon
permeability, and the static pressure P* (in the reservoir-fluid zone) with the help of other
reservoir parameters such as net pay, porosity, PVT data, and the downhole equipment
description (casing and tubing details) make it possible to conduct a productivity analysis,
assuming the well is in production conditions.
Once
completed,

the

well
the

has

been

Inflow/Outflow Plot

12000

productivity

analysis predicts the production

5/16

10000

scenarios; although some para-

FLOWING BTM PRES

conditions of the well with several

(psig)

Skin=
Skin
=

8000

7.79

8.0

1/2
6000

1/2

meters used in the productivity

4000

analysis come from the fall-off

test, the dynamic conditions are

2000
0

1000

2000

Inflow S = 7.79

Inflow S = 0.0

3000
FLOW RATE

(bbl/d)

Outflow WhdChk ID = 20.00

4000

Outflow WhdChk ID = 32.00

5000

6000

Outflow WhdChk ID = 40.00

representative of the well. This is

one of the main benefits of this

Figure4Inflow/Outflowplot

type of injection test. (Figure 4)

Pressure-Production Assessment with DST Tools and Heavy-Oil Reservoirs

In heavy oil reservoirs, there are great challenges to overcome in order to have a stable surface
flow rate during the assessments in terms of production. Despite the high viscosity of heavy oil
reservoirs, the bottomhole conditions (BHT and rock properties) make it possible to have enough
flow capacity into the well at the beginning of production; however, due to the decrease in
temperature and the increase of the viscosity, the natural flow to the surface will be hindered.
In some situations (depending on the oil API gravity), flow may not reach the surface due to
the adverse natural conditions; in the cases of offshore reservoirs where the lower temperatures
are at seafloor, these conditions can result in an increase in the viscosity of the fluid, which can
be the cause of the flow limitation. These scenarios present the most difficult challenges in
conducting a heavy-oil DST test. (Wendler, C., et al., 2004)
Considering the complexity in achieving a constant natural flow at surface, in most cases, it
is necessary to use an artificial lift method. The most commonly used method is the electric

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

submersible pump (ESP), which allows high constant flow rates to be captured at surface.
However, this method increases operational costs for the operator due to long periods of rig time;
also, the ESP requires the use of electrical cables as well as possible chemical injection lines and
other accessories.
Another artificial lift method that allows assurance of constant flow rates would be coiled
tubing with a Venturi jet pump or a simple injection of chemicals at bottomhole conditions that
would help to lift the fluid; however, there are limitations associated with the latter method, since
the production rates at surface are low, and problems related to the separation of phases at the
surface can occur.
Nitrogen injection at bottom in reservoirs with low static pressures using coiled tubing also
has limitations when the oil gravity is less than 12 API; experience has shown that in these cases,
it is not possible to break the inertia of the oil above the injection point that takes the injection
medium into the reservoir. Another big risk in DST test assessments under production conditions
in heavy-oil reservoirs offshore is that when the build-up starts, the oil temperature decreases due
to the stopping of the oil movement as well as the low temperatures associated with the seafloor.
Depending on how low the oil gravity is most of the time, when this cooling occurs, it may not
be possible to circulate out the oil on well-kill operations, which is required to recover the tool
string. All the factors mentioned above result in potential problems when attempting to obtain
reservoir information that is of high quality, is reliable, and is really representative of the
reservoir.

Fall-Off Assessments with DST Tool Strings in Heavy Oil Reservoirs Applications
Traditionally, injectivity tests have been used mainly for the evaluation of secondary recovery
projects in which it is possible to obtain parameters that characterize the efficiency of the
recovery method. Actually, injection tests are still used for this function; however, other
applications have been added. One of these new applications, evaluation of heavy oil reservoirs
and wells completed as producers, was used in the case studies presented in this paper.
In cases where the characteristics of the well, formations and fluid type hinder the assesment
of the production conditions, an injection test using DST is an alternative method to evaluate the
reservoir. Following are the main applications where injection/fall-off tests can be used as an
alternative assessment for heavy-oil reservoirs:

DOTI141

1.

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

In wells where the high viscosity of the oil (at surface conditions) increases operational
expense because of the low mobility, low pressure, and high removal rate of the oil.

2.

The evaluation in terms of production requires the availability of a process ship. This
additional vessel is used to receive all fluids from the evaluation such as drilling mud,
control fluids, diluting fluids and reservoir fluids, such as water and oil. In cases that for
reasons of logistics, there is a lack of availability for this boat, a fall-off test would be a
feasible test method.

3.

When oil is very heavy and comes up to surface either by natural flow or through
artificial lift, in most cases, the flow is intermittent. This is an adverse factor that limits
the measurement of flow rates and also affects the behavior of the bottomhole pressure
(BHP). These phenomena affect the reliability of the reservoir evaluation.

4.

Some well producers in Mexico have static-pressure values that are so low that they do
not allow natural flow, or the differential pressure is so low that it stops production due to
high viscosity, frictional-pressure loss, formation damage, or low permeability. When this
situation occurs, it can prevent fluid from reaching surface, or the flow will be
intermittent.

5.

In cases where the rig has a limited footprint that does not permit installation of surface
equipment for injection of diluents with coiled tubing, surface heaters, and other
equipment required to do a well test in terms of a
conventional drawdown/buildup process.

6.

In cases where the hydrocarbon is already known and the

objective of the well test is to characterize the dynamic and
static properties of the reservoir.

7.

Wells in which a stimulation job is planned or with high

volumes of fluids that would have the same function as the

Drill Collar 4 3/4" 43.5 lbs/ft

Crossover
CONTROL VALVE
"SELECT TESTER" VALVE
GAUGE CARRIER with 2 pressure
electronic gauge
GAUGE CARRIER with 2 pressure
electronic gauge
BIG JOHN JAR
SAFETY JOINT
MECHANICAL CHAMP-IV PACKER
Casing 9 5/8", 53.5 #/ft, P=10,000 psi
Crossover

injection fluid in a fall-off test, and when there is a DST

3 1/2" Tubing
Radioactive tool

tool string used. After the stimulation job, a downhole shutin should be performed to record the BHP behavior.

3 1/2" Tubing
Crossover
Circulation Sub
Crossover
3 1/2" Tubing
Crossover
Mechanical Firing Head
Safety Space Bar
Top of Perforating
TCP Guns 3 3/8", 20 c/m.
F-60 HMX
Bottom of Perforating
Hydraulic Firing Head TDF

Figure 5 Tool string

10

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

Tool-String Description
Figure 5 shows a typical DST tool string that is used for performing the fall-off test.
The tester valve allows the downhole shut-in to be performed and is situated above the
gauges (pressure and temperature recorders). The tool string in Figure 5 shows the TCP guns that
enable perforation and evaluation of the formation with the same string in only one trip,
ultimately reducing rig costs for an operator by reducing operation time. Activation of the TCP
guns can be performed by applying tubing pressure or by dropping a bar. The retrievable packer
setting is mechanical.
Operational Sequence for an Injection/Fall-off Test Assessment with a DST Tool
String In Heavy-Oil Reservoirs
The operational sequence is described below:
1.

Run in the hole and set the packer

2.

Pump the injection fluid with a constant injection rate

3.

Perform operations for the downhole shut-in

4.

Record the pressure response during the fall-off

5.

Open the tester valve and recover the tool string

6.

Recover the data from the gauges

7.

Process, analyze, and interpret the information.

When running the TCP guns in the tool string, and the tool string reaches bottom, perform
the correlation and depth adjustment in order to situate the tool string at final depth.
As with any tool string that has possible leakage points (such as pipe joints, packer,
bottomhole valves, ball hanger, surface equipment, etc.), perform the respective tests in order to
ensure that all data recorded on gauges are representative of the reservoir.
It is extremely important to have an injection pump that allows a constant injection rate; this
consideration is one of the primary requirements for this type of test. The injection rate as well as
the injection pressure should be less than the fracture pressure of the formation. During the
injection period, exceeding the fracture pressure can result in communication with another
formation that could contain water or could generate mechanical damage in the well. However,
in some cases, the objective of the injection period is to create a hydraulic fracture, and the main
purpose of the fall-off test is to evaluate the fracture length and fracture conductivity. It is

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

11

important to monitor the tubing pressure and the casing pressure at surface during the fall-off
tests in order to ensure that all data recorded are representative of the reservoir being tested.
Fluid Selection for the Injection Test
In cases in which it will be necessary to have a kill weight mud in the well that is different from
the injection fluid, the kill weight mud should be removed before the injection test is conducted
for safety reasons.To remove the kill weight mud, one option would be to use a circulating valve
in the tool string, which would enable displacement of the kill weight mud for the injection fluid
in order to avoid higher skins or emulsions in the reservoir.
In most assessments in heavy oil reservoirs, fluids injected and kill fluids were diesel, and the
formation damage after the injection was negligible, indicating that the compatibility of the
formation and heavy oil with the diesel did not create any reaction. Water is the least expensive
fluid available for use as injection fluid, but this is not recommended due to the possible
generation of emulsions that could cause problems during the test and cause formation damage
that could require expensive treatments to remove the damage. It is always advisable to have a
representative sample of the oil which is to be produced from the well; this reservoir fluid should
be tested in order to obtain the most appropriate fluid to use in the injection test; in some cases,
the stimulation fluids could perform a dual function such as eliminating the potential damage
created during the drilling and completion operations, and also, could be used as the fluid to
sweep the oil in the reservoir to create the pressure disturbance during the fall-off test.
History Case 1
This case concerns evaluation of a
reservoir in which oil gravity was

8000

12API with an equivalent density of

1.39 psi/m in upper Cretaceous; the

Gauge #7751 TP @ 3701.13 M

Pressure to
activate firing
head

Pressure test
into tubing
6000

Detonating
Guns

Injecting
at 3 bpm

Control
of well

Fall-Off

BHT was 130C and the BHP was

4000

Well Opened
Observation period

4483 psi (3576 m TVD), calculating

an equivalent pore gradient of 1.25

2000

Running in
the Hole

psi/m. The analysis of the formation

Running Out
the hole

damage, permeability, loss of friction

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

Pressure [psia] vs Time [hr]

Figure6Historyplot1,HistoryCase1

250

12

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

pressure, the decrease in temperature when moving to the surface, and the increase of the
viscosity indicated that it would not be possible to perform an evaluation in terms of production,
unless some artificial lift method was used. For this reason, the operator decided to use an
injection test. Figure 6 shows the history plot recorded by the memory gauges.
The entire history recorded in the memory gauges during the test is shown in Figure 6. This
plot includes the running in the hole, activation of TCP guns, an observation period, injection
period, downhole shut-in, well kill operations, and operation to recover the tool string. The total
test time was slightly less than 6 days, which indicates that the evaluation time with a fall-off test
is very short compared with reservoir evaluation using an ESP test that usually requires more
than 10 days. Figure 7 shows the detail of pressure during the injection period and the downhole
shut-in.
5000

Injecting
to 3 bpm

4900

4809 psi
4800

Pressure [psia]

4700

Start Shut-in
period

Periodos de Evaluacin

4600

4500

4400

Fall- Off
4300

4300.44psi
4200

185

195

205

215

225

235

Pressure [psia] vs Time [hr]

Figure 7 - Fall-Off Test, History Case 1.

Memory gauges recorded 8

hours of data for the injection
100

period. The injection fluid was

Near
Near Zone
Zone Behavior
Behavior
(Injecting
(Injecting Fluid)
Fluid)

diesel, and the injection rate

Far
Far Zone
Zone Behavior
Behavior
(Reservoir
(Reservoir Fluid)
Fluid)

was 3 bbl/min. After the

10

injection period, the fall-off

Possible
Possible Bi-lineal
Bi-lineal
Flow
Flow Period
Period

1
1E-3

0.01

0.1

10

Figure 8 Log-log plot during the Fall-Off Test

Log-Log plot: dp and dp' [psi] vs dt [hr]

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

13

test commenced with a downhole shut-in of 2 days.

Figure 8 shows the response of the derivative during the fall-off.
Figure 9 shows the numerical model adjustment in the log-log plot that considers a boundary
effect near the well. Applying the semilog Horner method, the parameters shown in Table 1
were obtained.
Table1 ResultsofassessmentforCase
History1.
RADIAL HOMOGENEOUS WITH BORDER
EFFECT RESERVOIR MODEL RESULTS
400

FALL-OFF START TIME

200

Well
Well

Border
Border Effect
Effect (geological
(geological
event)
event) proximity
proximity wellbore
wellbore

Tested w ell

FALL OFF DURATION

-200

DATE
(dd/mm/aa)

01-Abr-08

TIME
(hh:mm:ss)

05:24:21

(hrs)

48.18

GAUGE DEPTH

(m)

3701.13

DEPTH (NMDD)

(m)

3875

GAUGE
(psia)

-400

EXTRAPOLATE PRESSURE

4299.62

GRADIENT
(psi/m)

1.14

NMDD (psia)

4483

-600

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

Length [ft] vs Length [ft]

1000

PERMEABILITY (K)

(mD)

FLOW CAPACITY (Kh)

Figure 9 Numerical model adjustment

in the log-log plot

(mD*ft)

TOTAL SKIN
P SKIN

2890
379000
29.7
398.95

(psi)
BORDER DISTANCE

BORDER

(m)

45

*NMDD, at the middle of the perforated interval

History Case 2
This case history concerns the assessment of a reservoir with an oil gravity of 12 API. The BHT
was 105 C, and the BHP in static conditions was measured as 2904 psi at 4482m TVD,
calculating an equivalent pore gradient of 0.65 psi/m. The analytical results showed that the
static pressure was abnormally low. These adverse conditions indicated that it would be
impossible to make the reservoir evaluation in terms of production.
Figure 10 shows the complete history of the data recorded in the memory gauges during the
test; this plot includes running in the hole, an observation period, and two injection periods due
to operative reasons that hindered initiation of the fall-off period after the first injection period.
However, the dynamic conditions were re-established (second injection period), and the
downhole shut-in period was initiated.

14

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

In this case, the evaluated interval had already been perforated, and for that reason, it was
not necessary to carry the TCP guns in the tool string. The total cumulative injection time was 8
hours with a downhole shut-in of 53 hours. The total assessment time was 4.3 days considering
the running in the hole, well kill operations, and the recovery of the tool string.

7000

6000

Diesel Injecting Periods

5016.6 psi (352.7 kg/cm2)

Running out
the Hole
5000

Pressure [psia]

Set Packer

4000

3000

2852.3 psi (200.5 kg/cm2)

2000

Bottom Hole Shuti-in (fall-Off Test)

53.3 hrs

1000

5/23/2008

5/24/2008

5/25/2008

5/26/2008

5/27/2008

Pressure [psia] vs Time [ToD]

Figure 10 History plot, History Case 2.

Figure 11 shows the second injection period and the downhole shut-in.

6000

Diesel Injecting Period (Rate=3bpm)

5016 psi (352.7 kg/cm2)

Pressure [psia]

5000

4000

Bottom Hole Shut-in (Fall-Off Test)

53.3 hrs

3000

2000

2024 psi
(142.3 kg/cm2)
1000

5/25/2008

5/26/2008

Pressure [psia] vs Time [ToD]

Figure 11 Fall-Off Test, History Case 2

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

15

The injection rate was 3 bbl/min, the total volume injected into the formation was 1450 lbm of
diesel. At the end of the injection period, the downhole shut-in began (fall-off test). This
operation took 2.2 days as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 12 shows the response of the derivative during the fall-off. It also shows the behavior
of the derivative curve, which shows a radial composite reservoir that indicates the existence of

1000

Far
Far Zone
Zone Response
Response
(Reservoir
(Reservoir Fluid)
Fluid)

Near
Near Zone
Zone Response
Response
(Injecting
(Injecting Fluid)
Fluid)

100

Possible
Possible Spherical
Spherical
Flow
Flow Period
Period

10
1E-4

1E-3

0.01

0.1

10

Log-Log plot: dp and dp' [psi] vs dt [hr]

Figure 12 Log-log plot, History Case 2.

an area near the well that represents the zone with the injected fluid, the transition zone (increase
in the values of the derivative curve), and finally, the response of the radial flow in the remote
area that is the zone with the heavy oil.
At the end of the wellbore storage, the slope of the derivative curve is -1/2 (spherical flow)
indicating a limited entry well model; this model assumes that the well produces from a
perforated interval smaller than the drained interval. In any model where there is a vertical
contribution to flow, there must also be a pressure drop in the vertical direction; thus, the total
skin obtained from the semilog plot
5000

Horner method is composed of two

elements; i.e., the formation damage
and the geometrical damage. The

High
High Formation
Formation Skin
Skin
exist
exist in
in the
the wellbore
wellbore

4000

separations between the derivative and

dp curves indicate the existence of
high damage. In the remote zone in
which

pseudo-radial

flow

was

3000

-3.6

-3.2

-2.8

-2.4

-2

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

Semi-Log plot: p [psia] vs Superposition time

Figure13HistoryCase2Semilogplotdieselzone.

16

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

reached, the semilog method was applied in order to obtain the effective oil permeability and the
static pressure of the reservoir. The model fit is very good, which allows us to ensure that all the
parameters obtained are representative of the reservoir.
Figures 13 and 14 show the results of the calculation. It is important to state that the
calculation of the total damage was made in the area near the well.

Also, the reservoir

parameters were obtained in the remote zone.

5000

4000

3000

-3.6

-3.2

-2.8

-2.4

-2

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

Semi-Log plot: p [psia] vs Superposition time

Figure 14 - Semilog plot-oil zone, History Case 2

The results obtained in this test were:

Table 2 Assessment Results for History Case 2
RADIAL COMPOSITE WITH PARTIAL
PENETRATION EFFECT RESERVOIR
MODEL RESULTS
FALL-OFF START PRESSURE

DATE
(dd/mm/aa)

24-May-08

TIME
(hh:mm:ss)

16:38:55

FALL-OFF DURATION

(hrs)

53.29

PRESSURE GAUGE DEPTH

(mD)

4562.97

DEPTH (NMDD)

(mD)

4627.5

EXTRAPOLATED PRESSURE
(P*)

GAUGE
(psia)

2837

GRADIENT
(psi/m)

1.13

NMDD (psia)

2904

PERMEABILITY (K)

(md)

46.2

FLOE EFFECTIVE NET PAY

(mV)

34

FLOW CAPACITY (Kh)

(md*ft)

SKIN
P SKIN

5150
48.8
1800.85

(psi)

DOTI141

JANLOAIZA,DANIELBARRERA,andFRANCISCOGUTIERREZ

17

Once the parameters in Table 2 were obtained, a productivity analysis (Figure 15) was
conducted in order to validate the reservoir parameters obtained from the fall-off test; it is
important to mention that this productivity fit was performed by simulating an ESP artificial lift.
Inflow/Outflow Plot
3500

(psig)

2500

FLOWING BTM PRES

3000

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

FLOW RATE
Outflow

1500

(bbl/d)

Inflow Pres = 2904 S = 48.9

Inflow Pres = 3500 S = 2.78

Figure 15Productivity Analysis, History Case 2

Conclusions
Injection fall-off tests are recommended in wells where it is not possible to have natural flow or
flow rates in stable conditions due to the high viscosity of heavy oil, low oil mobility, or low
reservoir pressure. The injection fall-off test offers a feasible alternative for obtaining
representative reservoir parameters.
The average evaluation time in the injection test in the two history cases was 6.6 days
including all the operations involved in the test. These operations included 1) running into the
hole, 2) the injection period, 3) the fall-off period (downhole well shut-in), 4) the well-kill
operations, and 5) the operations to recover the tool string.
These history cases have verified that injection fall-off tests can offer the operator a
significant reduction in rig costs as well as in operations and services that would be involved in
performing a production well test, which generally averages approximately 12 days.
Data recorded during the reservoir evaluation show good quality, representative, and reliable
reservoir data. The downhole shut-in through the tester valve is one factor that helps to improve
the quality of information obtained.

18

DEEPWATEREVALUATIONPERFORMINGADSTTESTFORHEAVYOILRESERVOIR
INTHEMARINEREGIONOFMEXICO

DOTI141

During the assessment, production flow rate at surface is not required, and that reduces rig
cost, because is not necessary to store or burn fluids during the injection test. These case
histories show that this method can provide a cost-effective method for providing a productivity
analysis with high-quality data that can help the operator determine production potential for each
interval. This in turn, enables the customer to develop the best, most economical design for
managing the reservoirs and completing the well.
References
1.

Earlougher, R. J.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Second Printing. AIME (1977).

2.

Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for Determination of Average
Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1954).

3.

Soliman, M.Y.: Well Test Analysis, Halliburton (2000).

4.

Wendler, C. and Mansilla, C.: Options and Special Considerations for Successful DeepWater Well Testing of Heavy- and Low-Pour-Point Oils Case Histories, SPE 86944
(Marzo, 2004).