See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254529032

Testing and Analysis of Wells Producing Commingled Layers in Priobskoye Field

Conference Paper · October 2008

DOI: 10.2118/117411-MS

CITATIONS READS
4 758

5 authors, including:

Alfred Ya. Davletbaev Erdal Ozkan

Ufa University of Science and Technology Colorado School of Mines
86 PUBLICATIONS 383 CITATIONS 199 PUBLICATIONS 4,139 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Deconvolution Approach Based on Laplace Transformation View project

Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alfred Ya. Davletbaev on 31 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 117411

Testing and Analysis of Wells Producing Commingled Layers in Priobskoye

Field
Alfred Davletbaev, RN-UfaNIPIneft, Erdal Ozkan, SPE, Colorado School of Mines, Andrey Slabetskiy, RN-
Yuganskneftegas, Vyacheslav Nikishov, KNTTz <Rosneft> R&D, and Timur Usmanov, RN-UfaNIPIneft

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 28–30 October 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Summary
This paper discusses a Downhole Flow Control (DHFC) technology and describes its application for injection and fall-off
testing of commingled layered reservoirs. The Simultaneous Separate Injection (SSI) technology has been successfully applied
in over 150 injection wells by the Rosneft Oil Company in the Priobskoye Oil Field. The SSI assembly is a cable tool
consisting of valves, packers, and pressure transducers and provides the ability to distribute the surface injection rate into
individual layers in a controlled manner. The ability to control layer injection rates is intended for effective flooding of poor-
injectivity layers. The concurrent measurement of layer pressures also provides the opportunity to simultaneously test multiple
layers. Currently, the SSI assembly only regulates the distribution of the layer injection rates but does not measure the
bottomhole injection rates. Valves on the SSI assembly are preset at the surface based on the spinner tests to determine the
injection profile. The main advantage of this technique is the drastic reduction of test time and cost to obtain estimates of
individual layer properties and injectivities. This paper focuses on the use of the SSI assembly in pressure-transient testing of
commingled, multi-layer reservoirs. The application of the testing technology and the analysis of measured test responses are
demonstrated on examples from the Priobskoye Field. Also presented are the results of the Single-Layer Steady-State Injection
Tests. These tests are useful to understand the fracture development during injection and the resulting injectivity increases.
This information is used to regulate the layer injection rates with the SSI technology and the in the design of the injection and
fall-off tests.

Introduction
The Priobskoye oil field is characterized by the large dimensions of the oil pool, a complicated geologic structure, and large
vertical and horizontal variability of the properties of producing formations. The low productivity of the layers requires
frequent recourse to hydraulic fracturing, commingled production, and intensive waterflooding. As a result of the vertical and
lateral heterogeneities of the field, wells in different parts of the field produce from different layers or different combinations
of multiple layers. The joint development of multiple layers with complex completion, production, and injection schemes
makes it essential that the contribution of each layer to the production or injection volumes be understood and controlled. This
requires accurate characterization of the layer properties, production and injection potentials, and pressure regimes.
Rosneft Oil Company has been constantly working on technologies to effectively produce multi-layer formations of the
Priobskoye Field. The main objectives of these efforts are
• to determine injectivity and productivity of formations and their constituent layers,
• to monitor, control, and maintain uniform oil production from the field and multiple layers,
• to guide the change of producers into injectors,
• to understand and control the changes of injectivity at injection pressures higher the formation fracturing pressure,
and
• to control hydraulic-fracture growth in injection wells.
These objectives are similar to the motivations for smart completions and Downhole Flow Control (DHFC) ideas (e.g.,
Bussear and Barrilleaux, 2004, and Barrilleaux and Boyd, 2008). As in many onshore fields, in the Priobskoye Field, cost is an
important consideration which dictates the optimum solutions rather than the application of the best technologies. One of the
optimum solutions implemented by Rosneft Oil Company to control layer injection rates and improve flooding of poor-
injectivity layers is the Simultaneous Separate Injection (SSI) technology. Unlike its counterparts designed for high-volume
injection in offshore environments, the current design of the SSI assembly is not fully automated or remote controlled. It is,
2 SPE 117411

however, a cable tool that enables easy installment and removal for quick adjustments of valves, fixing packers, and
conducting multiple operations with different purposes.
The SSI technology has been applied recently in about 150 wells in the Priobskoye Oil Field. When used with the
concurrent measurement of layer pressures, the SSI technology also provides the opportunity to simultaneously test individual
layers. This testing technique provides drastic reduction of test time and cost to obtain individual layer properties and well
injectivities in each layer. Other advantages include flexibility to account for different well-completions in each layer and
relative insensitivity to the accuracy of layer flow rates.
The main idea of injection and fall-off testing with the SSI technology is the effective decoupling of commingled layer
responses so that the pressure-transient response of each layer can be analyzed individually with the standard analysis tools.
This requires the use of the layer flow rates and pressures simultaneously (Kuchuk et al., 1986, Ehlig-Economides and Joseph,
1986 and 1987, and Bidaux et al., 1992). Currently, the SSI assembly does not measure the bottomhole injection rates. It only
regulates the distribution of the layer injection rates. The valves on the SSI assembly are preset at the surface to achieve the
desired distribution of the surface injection rates into individual layers. The stabilized injection profiles are used as the layer
injection rates in the interpretation of the fall-off tests. This is consistent with the common practice of using the last stabilized
flow rate in pressure build-up analysis (Horner, 1951). This technique provides reasonable estimates of layer properties and
injectivities at a reasonably low cost.
This paper first introduces the SSI technology and describes the SSI assembly. Next, the application of the testing
technology and the analysis of the data are explained on examples from the Priobskoye Field. Fracture development during
injection and the associated injectivity increases are also discussed in connection with the Single-Layer Steady-State Injection
Method.

Simultaneous Separate Injection (SSI) Technology for Multi-Layer Reservoirs

The Simultaneous Separate Injection (SSI) technology has been developed for conditions where the injected fluid
preferentially floods high-injectivity layers while the others are flooded poorly, if at all, as a result of significant contrast in
layer properties. In these cases, early breakthrough in some layers leads to a sharp increase of the water cut in the neighboring
producing wells and causes poor sweep of the other layers. The SSI technology allows to inject simultaneously into several
producing horizons through one injection well and to control the volume injected into each layer. Therefore, the SSI
technology yields more uniform waterflooding of layered systems with significant contrast in layer properties. The SSI
technology also enables simultaneous pressure-transient testing of multiple layers.
The tool developed to implement the SSI technology is an assembly of valves and packers as shown in Fig. 1. The packers
effectively isolate each layer and the valves regulate the volume of the fluid injected into each layer. In this SSI assembly,
injection is carried out through a single string and distributed into layers by the control valves installed in the side pockets of
the well chambers. Valves are preset at the surface and the SSI assembly is conveyed into and out of the well through a cable.
The total volume of fluid injected into the reservoir is measured with a flow meter at the surface and the layer flow rates are
computed from the adjustments of the valves.
Fig. 2 shows the comparison of the injectivity profiles in Well 8751 before and after the use of the SSI assembly. As a
result of the use of the SSI technology, the injection rate of the АС10 formation increased from 3% to 9% of the total injected
volume. Similarly, the АС12 formation, previously characterized by a poor injectivity, was put into production. The increase in
the injection rate of the АС12 formation was from 3% to 41% (329 m3/d) of the total injected volume. On the other hand, the
injection volume into the AC11 formation dropped from 94% to 50%. These changes of the layer injection rates are the proof
of the redistribution of the injected fluid from the more conductive AC11 formation into the less conductive АС10 and АС12
formations. Below, we discuss the use of the SSI technology in the simultaneous injection and fall-off testing of multiple
layers and present field examples.

Simultaneous Injection and Fall-Off Testing of Multiple Layers

For efficient waterflooding of commingled, multi-layer reservoirs, good control of injection volumes in individual layers is a
necessity. This, in turn, requires good understanding of the injectivity characteristics of layers. Pressure-transient analysis is a
powerful tool to understand the physical properties of the reservoir and individual layers, accurately estimate injectivity and
productivity distributions among various layers, and determine the formation pressure in each layer. There are, however,
inherent difficulties in the interpretation of pressure-transient tests in commingled, layered reservoirs if the individual layer
flow rates are not controlled.
Several techniques are available to test and interpret commingled, multi-layer systems (e.g., Bourdet, 1985, Kuchuk et al.,
1986, Ehlig-Economides and Joseph, 1986 and 1987, Ehlig-Economides, 1987, Larsen, 1988, Bidaux et al., 1992, and
Coskuner et al., 2000). Some of these techniques are relatively simple to analyze but long and expensive to implement. Some
others are relatively short and less expensive but more complicated to analyze. From the analysis view point, it is most
desirable to decouple each layer and analyze as if it were a single-layer system. This can be accomplished by isolating each
layer and testing separately but it may be extremely time consuming and expensive (Coskuner et al., 2000). A better approach
is to measure the layer pressures and flow rates simultaneously, but this approach requires deconvolution of the commingled
system responses and requires expert analysis (Kuchuk et al., 1986, Ehlig-Economides and Joseph, 1986 and 1987, and Bidaux
et al., 1992).
SPE 117411 3

As mentioned in the Introduction, the main idea of the injection and fall-off testing with the SSI technology is the effective
decoupling of commingled layer responses so that the pressure-transient response of each layer can be analyzed individually
with the standard analysis tools. The testing procedure is based on the ability to control the individual layer flow rates. The
procedure includes the measurement of the dynamic parameters (such as pressure and temperature) in each layer of the
formation. To obtain accurate measurements of layer pressures, the packers associated with the SSI assembly effectively
isolate the layers. In addition, the total injection rates are measured at the surface.
To be rigorous, the testing procedure should include simultaneous measurement of the layer flow rates. The current design
of the SSI assembly, however, does not measure the bottomhole injection rates of the layers. The stabilized injection profiles
obtained from spinner surveys before the test are used as the layer injection rates in the interpretation of the fall-off tests.
Although approximate, the use of the stabilized layer rates is consistent with the common practice of using the last stabilized
flow rate in pressure build-up analysis (Horner, 1951). This technique provides reasonable estimates of layer properties and
injectivities at a reasonably low cost and by using the standard, single-layer analysis methods.

Field Examples of Simultaneous Injection and Fall-Off Testing of Multiple Layers

The SSI assembly and the testing procedure discussed above have been used in the Priobskoye Field to test multiple layers
simultaneously. The objective of the tests was to determine the physical properties, injectivity, and current formation pressure
of each layer.

Example 1 – Fall-Off Testing of Well 5695

The injection and fall-off tests in Well 5695 were carried out by lowering the SSI assembly into the well with a cable and then
setting the packers to isolate the layers. Within each interval, bottomhole pressure transducers were installed in the annulus.
During the injection period, a continuous injection rate was maintained at the surface. After achieving steady state, the
injection was stopped and the injection intervals in the borehole were shut off (to minimize wellbore storage effects). This
procedure provided the pressure change in each layer during the injection and fall-off periods. The durations of the fall-off
periods in AC11 and AC12 formations were 33 and 29 days, respectively.
The test results were processed with a commercial software package (we used Saphir by Kappa Engineering). Fig. 3 shows
the diagnostic plots of the fall-off cycles in AC11 and AC12 formations. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that there is some effect of
wellbore storage at early times. The wellbore storage effect is relatively short because the injection intervals were shut off at
the bottomhole. After a long transition period, the derivative responses become flat indicating the start of the pseudoradial
flow regime. At late times, the test responses indicate the interference from the neighboring wells.
The long transitional flow behavior at intermediate times is associated by the existence of a fracture intercepting the well.
The early- and intermediate-time flow characteristics, however, do not display the typical fracture flow regimes because of the
influence of the water-oil transition zone and poor response of the formation to the pressure change in the shut-in well
(Earlougher, 1977). Well 5695 was a former producer and had been converted to injector 2.5 months before the test. The
radius of investigation during the injection test covered the oil-water transition zone and the oil zone not yet swept by the
injected water. (The flooded radius during the test was about 64.9 m in AC11 formation, and 25.6 m in AC12 formation.) This
explains the long transition from wellbore storage to pseudoradial flow regime without demonstrating clear characteristics of a
fracture.
In this example, the interpretation of the tests results were further complicated by the presence of composite layering in the
injection intervals and a good match of the entire pressure and derivative responses with a standard model was not possible.
However, the pseudoradial flow periods of the data were analyzed to obtain the layer pressures and layer permeabilities.
Consistent with the expectations from the injectivity profiles without the SSI assembly (Fig. 2), a large contrast was found
between the permeabilities of the АС11 and АС12 formations (the permeability of the АС11 layer was 9.58 mD and the
permeability of the АС12 formation was 1 mD). The pressures of the layers, however, were fairly uniform (275.6 atm and
276.8 atm for the АС11 and АС12 formations, respectively).

Example 2 – Fall-Off Testing of Well 58

Fig. 4 shows the results of another injection and fall-off test sequence with the SSI assembly. During this test, the bottomhole
pressure change in multiple layers of Well 58 was measured. Shown in Fig. 4 are the results for the the АС10 formation. Fig 4a
shows the injection rates and pressures during the injection and fall-off periods. The log-log plot of the pressure and derivative
responses during the fall-off period are given in Fig. 4b.
Similar to the Well 5695 test, Fig. 4b displays some wellbore-storage effect at early times followed by a long transitional
flow behavior. A model match is shown in Fig. 4b but this match is non-unique. The problem is attributed to the existence of a
long fracture in this low permeability formation (long fractures are expected because of the large fracturing treatments used in
the Priobskoye Field). Despite the long duration of the fall-off period (about 27 days), pseudoradial flow was not attained
during the test. Note that a longer fall-off period in this well would not improve the analysis because of the interference effects
of the other wells. As indicated by the derivative responses after 140 hr (Fig. 4b), the changes in the production rates of the
neighboring producing wells or the interruptions of production and injection operations in the same formation influence the
pressure regime and create the interference effects on the tested well.
4 SPE 117411

Multi-Layer Injectivity Testing

As discussed in the fall-off testing of Well 58, we have found that some tests are inevitably subject to interference effects
before the onset of pseudoradial flow. In most of these cases, composite layering and multi-phase flow effects would also
complicate obtaining a unique model match in regression analysis. For these situations, we have been developing multi-layer
injectivity test procedures. Theses tests are intended to provide the injectivities of individual layers, reveal non-Darcy flow
effect, estimate layer properties, and obtain layer pressures.
Multi-layer injectivity tests consist of continuous measurements of the bottomhole pressures for several injection rates until
steady state is reached within each interval. The rates are chosen such that the layer pressures are below and above the
formation fracturing pressures for at least two to three injection periods. The injection periods are followed by a final fall-off
period. To prevent pressure loss due to multi-phase flow effects in the transition zone, a large injection rate at the injection
well and high water-cut in the neighboring producing wells are required. Another requirement is a considerable distance
between the tested well and the formation boundary. To permit injection periods at different rates, an adjustable valve is
installed at the well head. Surface and bottomhole transducer are used to measure the pressures at the wellhead and the
bottomhole to take into account the frictional pressure losses in the wellbore. The layer injectivity is determined by plotting the
steady-state injection rates vs. the layer pressures for multiple injection periods. At present, pilot tests are being carried out to
develop the expertise on the design, implementation, and analysis of the multi-layer injectivity tests. Below, we present
example applications of the injectivity tests for single-layer wells to explain the procedure.
Fig. 5 shows the results of two tests on Wells 8827 and 7821. The rate vs. pressure plot shows that when the bottomhole
pressure is higher than the formation fracturing pressure (pbh > pff), non-Darcy flow develops in the system. The fracture
opening pressures in Wells 8827 and 7821 are approximately pff = 340 atm and 360 atm, respectively. (This information is
important for the analysis of injection and fall-off tests because, as discussed above, with the fracture being open, the
possibility of having pseudoradial flow is reduced.) The injectivities of Wells 8827 and 7821 below the fracture opening
pressures (pbh < pff) are calculated to be I = 1.8 m3/(day-atm), and 1.1 m3/(day-atm), respectively. The formation pressure is
estimated to be pf = 178 atm for Well 8827 and 224 atm for Well 7821. When the bottomhole pressure is higher than the
formation fracturing pressure (pbh > pff), the injectivities considerably increase (I = 6.8 m3/(day-atm) in Well 8827 and 7.5
m3/(day-atm) in Well 7821).
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the fall-off responses of Well 8827 on 03.02.2008 and 19.09.2003. The fall-off test of
17.09.2003 (Fig. 6a) indicates that the pseudoradial flow prevails in approximately 100 hr after the well is shut down. In the
fall-off test of 03.02.2008 (Fig. 6b), however, the linear-flow period is extended and pseudoradial flow is not displayed within
the 390-hr test period. The pseudoradial flow period of the fall-off test of 17.09.2003 (Fig. 6a) was analyzed to obtain the
estimates of the formation permeability and pressure. The flooding radius of the 17.09.2003 test was, however, about 70 m and
composite reservoir effects are expected to influence the analysis.
The linear flow data in both tests were also analyzed to obtain the fracture half-length by using the permeability estimate of
the 17.09.2003 test. Because of the heterogeneous distribution of the phases during the 17.09.2003 test, the lower part of the
fracture was assumed to be in oil and the upper part in the flooded zone. The use of the appropriate fluid properties in the
lower and upper zones yielded fracture half-lengths of 56 and 113 m. For the test of 03.02.2008, the entire tested zone is
assumed to be flooded with water. This led to an estimate of the fracture half-length of 196 m. This result indicated that the
fracture half-length has been increasing as a result of continuing water injection at pressures above the formation fracturing
pressure.

Conclusions
1. The SSI technology used in over 150 injection wells in the Priobskoye Field has improved the waterflooding of poor-
injectivity layers.
2. Injection and fall-off testing of multiple layers with the SSI technology provides reasonably accurate interpretations
of the well and reservoir conditions in each layer at a reasonable cost. Knowing the layer properties enables the
optimization of waterflooding and production from low injectivity layers.
3. Injectivity tests by using the SSI technology make it possible to determine the injectivities, formation pressures, and
fracture opening pressures.
4. Analyses of injectivity tests have shown that the injectivities may decrease 3 to 7 times when the injection pressures
drop below the fracture opening pressure in the Priobskoye Field. It has been also noted that the artificial fracture
growth continues at injection pressures above the fracture opening pressure.
5. The results obtained from testing multiple layers with the SSI technology are taken into account in future planning
and choosing the pattern of development at the Priobskoye oil field.

Nomenclature
I = injectivity, m3/(day-atm)
p = pressure, atm
pbh = bottomhole pressure, atm
pf = formation pressure, atm
SPE 117411 5

pff = formation fracturing pressure, atm

q = flow rate, m3/day

References
Barilleaux, M. F. and Boyd, T. A. 2008. Downhole Flow Control for High Rate Water Injection Applications. Paper SPE 112143 presented
at the SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25-27 Feb.
Bidaux, P., Whittle, T. M., Coveney, P. J., and Gringarten, A. C. 1992. Analysis of Pressure and Rate Transient Data from Wells in
Multilayered Reservoirs: Theory and Application. Paper SPE 24679 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington D.C., 4-7 Oct.
Bourdet, D. 1985. Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow. Paper SPE 13628 presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA. 27-29 March.
Bussear, T. and Barilleaux, M. F. 2004. Design and Qualification of a Remotely-Operated, Downhole Flow Control System for High Rate
Water Injection in Deepwater. Paper SPE 88563 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. Perth,
Autralia, 18-20 Oct.
Coskuner, G., Ramler, L. B., Brown, M. W., and Rancier, D. W. 2000. Design, Implementation, and Analysis of Multilayer Pressure
Transient Tests in White Rose Field. Paper SPE 63080 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
1-4 Oct.
Earlougher, R. C., Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Joseph, J. 1987. A New Test for Determination of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir.
SPEFE (Sept.) 261-283.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Joseph, J. 1986. Evaluation of Single-Layer Transients in a Multilayered System. Paper SPE 15860 presented
at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, U.K., 20-22 Oct.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 1987. Testing and Interpretation in Layered Reservoirs. JPT (Sept.) 1087-1090.
Horner, D. R. 1951. Pressure Build-Up in Wells. Proc. Third World. Pet. Cong. Sec. II. The Hague, The Netherlands. 503-523.
Kucuk, F. Karakas, M. and Ayesteran, L. 1986. Well Testing and Analysis Techniques for Layered Reservoirs. SPEFE (Aug) 342-354.
Larsen, L. 1988. Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze Pressure-Transient Data from Layered Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 18122 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 2-5 Oct.
6 SPE 117411

Figure 1 – Simultaneous Separate Injection (SSI) Assembly including packers and flow regulators
SPE 117411 7

Figure 2 – Change of injectivity profile in Well 8751 with the SSI assembly.
8 SPE 117411

Figure 3 – The log-log plot of the pressure responses during the fall-off test in Well 5695: a – Results for the AC11 formation, b –
Results for the АС12 formation

Figure 4 – Pressure transient responses of АС10 formation in Well 58 equipped with the SSI assembly: a – injection rates and
pressures during the injection and fall-off periods; b – Log-log diagnostic plot showing the pressure and derivative responses.
 SPE 117411 9

Figure 5 – Identification of non-Darcy flow characteristics.

Figure 6 – Log-log plot of the fall-off tests of Well 8827: а – The test of 17.09.2003; b – The test of 03.02.2008

View publication stats