SPE-182809-MS

Estimating the Degree of Inter-Reservoir Communication Between Two

Reservoirs Using Advanced Numerical Well Testing Model
B. A. Al-Wehaibi, N. M. Anisur Rahman, and M. B. Issaka, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28
April 2016.

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.

Abstract
The inter-reservoir communication plays a major role in the dynamic performance of any reservoir.
Hence, characterizing and understanding the degree of the communication is essential in modeling the
reservoir behavior. This paper demonstrates the power of the pressure transient tests in successfully
detecting and characterizing the communication between two reservoirs separated by a very thin tight
layer as a case study. It also presents the results of integrated pressure transient analyses for long build-up
tests conducted in one of the wells, the data of which was acquired from the PDHMS. These confirm the
inter-reservoir communication in this field. Using a numerical interpretation technique, a rigorous
multi-layer model has successfully matched the pressure transient data and has helped estimating the
degree of the communication between the two reservoirs. It has also allowed characterizing the thin tight
layer that separates the two reservoirs and controls the inter-reservoir hydraulic communication. This
work will help the simulation models of the field to quantify the degree of the communication and capture
the real performance of the reservoirs in order to achieve better and effective reservoir management and
development plans.

Introduction
One of the techniques to study and characterize the inter-reservoir hydraulic communication is to analyze
the pressure transient response for such communication between reservoirs. The outcomes of understating
and characterizing this communication should be taken into consideration in the reservoir simulation
models since it has a great impact in the field performance and in order to achieve efficient development
plans and management of the field. In this paper, the application of advanced numerical well testing model
is presented to demonstrate and to characterize the reservoir communication in one of Saudi Arabian oil
fields.
The subject field contains two carbonate reservoirs – symbolically identified here as Reservoir-A and
Reservoir-B. Reservoir-B has an average pay thickness of 10 ft and has lower quality rock compared to
another carbonate reservoir, Reservoir-A with an average pay thickness of 122 ft, beneath it. A very tight
layer of about 3 ft is separating these two reservoirs as shown in Fig. 1.
2 SPE-182809-MS

Figure 1—Formation analysis log Well-1.

The hydraulic communication between Reservoir-A and -B in this field was not clearly proven
from any previous pressure transient tests up until now although some pressure data from some wells
in Reservoir-B weakly suggest some hydraulic communication.
Symbolically identified, Well-1, in this field was recompleted as a horizontal producer during
workover in Reservoir-B after it was an active vertical producer in Reservoir-A for around 25 years.
A build-up test was conducted in Well-1 right after the re-completion using wireline gauges. The
pressure transient behavior of that test indicated a typical horizontal well response without any
indication of hydraulic communication between Reservoir-A and -B within the shut-in time of 24 hrs,
as shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2—Pressure derivative of wireline gauge for 24 hrs build-up showing typical horizontal well response in Well-1.
SPE-182809-MS 3

The test performed during the wireline operations mentioned earlier on Well-1 was successful to obtain
the properties of Reservoir-B, and it was found that the flow capacity (kh) of Reservoir-B is very low
compared to that of Reservoir-A as a factor of 1/215. All other parameters such as the vertical and the
horizontal permeability ratio (kz/kr) for Reservoir-B and the effective well length were extracted from the
analysis with an analytical solution for horizontal well in a homogenous reservoir. Based on the outcomes
of this early test in the low permeability of Reservoir-B, it was decided to conduct a very long build-up
test for 200 hrs or longer to confirm any probable inter-reservoir hydraulic communication through its
pressure transient signature. However, because of operational and gauge constraints it was not possible to
conduct a build-up test longer than 100 hrs using wireline gauges. Therefore, the utilization of the wireline
gauges was not helpful in confirming the communication in this field. Thus, the next logical sequence of
this study was to take advantage of the Permanent Down-Hole Monitoring System (PDHMS) in this well,
which was equipped during the workover and it was hooked up to the Intelligent Field System, to monitor
the bottom-hole pressure remotely. The system has lead to a great opportunity in detecting the inter-
reservoir communication in this field as discussed later.
Long Build-up Tests Through Intelligent Field Data
The PDHMS data from Well-1 over six months with some long pressure build-up tests was obtained from
the Intelligent Field System. This data has facilitated a proper assessment of the hydraulic communication
between Reservoir-A and -B.
Four major pressure build-up tests with shut-in periods between 520 hrs and 740 hrs were identified
in the history of PDHMS data of Well-1, as shown in Fig. 3. The sampling frequency of the PDHMS data
was just acceptable as our focus has been on the late-time responses in the pressure transient data.

Figure 3—Pressure data in Well-1 acquired from PDHMS through the Intelligent Field System.

Pressure Transient Interpretation

The pressure transient behavior of the four build-up tests demonstrated a late decline in the pressure
derivative on the log-log plot, as shown in Fig. 4. This sharp decline was almost started at the same time
into all the build-up tests (after 80 hrs into the shut-in time) and lasted for about 500 hrs. The late time
response was almost identical at all the build-up tests, which repeatedly points to a single geological
artifact in the reservoir through the decline in pressure derivative. Such a response is expected when the
reservoir is in hydraulic communication with another reservoir with a higher rock quality. In this case,
4 SPE-182809-MS

Reservoir-A is in hydraulic communication with Reservoir-B in this field. Similar responses for the
communication between a low-quality reservoir with a high-quality one were observed in field cases as
presented by Al-Thawad et al. (2001). There is also an increase following the late decline in each build-up.
The outliers at the very late times have been ignored due to a non-reservoir effects. Fig. 5 shows a
comparison between the test conducted previously using the wireline gauges and build-up (3) obtained
from PDHMS illustrating the need of a long build-up test to demonstrate the evidence of communication
at the late time.

Figure 4 —Log-log plot with overlays of all four sets of build-up data obtained from PDHMS in Well-1.

Figure 5—Comparison of pressure derivative from PDHMS build-up and wireline gauge build-up (rate normalized plot).

It is worth mentioning that all other scenarios that could create a decline in the pressure derivative at
the late times have been studied and discarded as plausible geological reasons causing the late-time
decline in the derivative. Therefore, the late decline observed in the pressure derivative from the four
build-up tests is interpreted with high confidence to be the inter-reservoir communication effect between
Reservoir-A and -B. Getting this long and complete response during the communication from the pressure
transient data using PDHMS permits the characterization of the inter-reservoir communication around this
well accurately.
SPE-182809-MS 5

Methodology

Background Information
There are many analytical models developed for multi-layer systems. The first effort with consideration
of cross-flow (inter-reservoir communication) between layers was made by Bourdet (1985) for a system
of only two layers. Afterwards, the major advance of developing analytical solutions for analyzing
multi-layer system was done by Ehlig-Economides and Joseph (1987) where they developed a solution for
a system of any number of layers with or without interlayer cross-flow. Though, as far the knowledge of
the authors, there is no analytical solution for multi-layer system with a horizontal well completed in one
of the layers and permitting for cross-flow between layers or the communication occurring through a tight
layer. In this paper, a rigorous numerical well testing model has been with a commercial well-test package
to analyze and characterize the pressure transient data obtained from Well-1. The numerical models allows
for more than two layers and for complex well geometry completed in any of the layers.
The cross-flow between each two layers in the numerical model is controlled by the harmonic average
of the vertical permeability values of the two layers multiplied by leakage factor Houze et al. (2015):

A leakage factor of 1 means that the cross-flow between the layers is at its maximum. If the leakage
factor is 0, the layers are not in inter-reservoir communication, and no cross-flow is happening between
the layers. Fig. 6 and 7 show the relationship between the leakage factor versus the ratio of the vertical
permeability of the tight layer (kz0) to the vertical permeability of the system without the tight layer
(kzmax).

Figure 6 —Cartesian plot for the relation between kz0/kzmax versus leakage factor.
6 SPE-182809-MS

Figure 7—Semi-log plot for the relation between kz0/kzmax versus leakage factor.

In this field case where a tight layer exists between two reservoirs, and the primary parameters that
affect the degree of communication are the vertical permeability of the tight layer and the leakage factor.
Multi-Layer Model with Reservoir-A and -B
A multi-layer numerical model with a reservoir cross-flow between layers has been built with the
horizontal Well-1 completed in the top layer to model the pressure transient data. It consists of three layers
with Reservoir-B as the top layer, a thin tight layer (separating B-reservoir from A-reservoir) as the middle
layer and Reservoir-A as the bottom layer as shown in Fig. 8.

Figure 8 —A 3D cross-section of numerical model built with three layers.

SPE-182809-MS 7

The kh for Reservoir-A has been obtained from offset wells in Reservoir-A to Well-1. These
indicate very high kh compared to that in Reservoir-B, as illustrated in Fig. 9. On the other hand, the
build-up test on Well-1 confirm the kh and kz/kr of Reservoir-B. So, obtaining the kh values and
thickness of each reservoir, allows assigning the horizontal permeability for both reservoirs in the
numerical model. In addition, the effective horizontal section of 1400 ft of Well-1 was obtained from
analyzing the linear flow regime that is clearly developed within Reservoir-B in the pressure
derivative signature before the communication response.

Figure 9 —Overlays of transient data from wells in Reservoir-A and -B.

Matching the inter-reservoir communication response in the numerical model is highly dependent
on the leakage factor and the vertical permeability of the tight layer (the middle layer in the model).
These key parameters have been calibrated to match the communication responses. In the matching
process, the properties Reservoir-A and -B have been kept almost the same as those obtained from
the previous build-up tests on the wells in Reservoir-A and -B. After several attempts the model has
successfully matched the pressure transient data confirming the inter-reservoir communication effects
as shown in Fig. 10.

Figure 10 —The multi-layer numerical model match to the pressure derivative of PDHMS data of Well-1.
8 SPE-182809-MS

The leakage factor between 0.15 to 0.2 and the vertical permeability of tight layer ranging from 0.004
to 0.006 md have provided excellent match to the pressure transient data. Beyond these values of leakage
factor and the vertical permeability of tight layer, the model prediction has failed to match the late decline
in the pressure derivative.
The numerical model outcomes indicate that the inter-reservoir contribution from Reservoir-A to
Resrvoir-B through the tight layer is 15 to 20 % of its maximum possible value through the tight layer with
vertical permeability of 0.004 to 0.006 md. The outcomes of this work has demonstrated the degree of
communication between these two reservoirs. This is a significantly important geological description
which needs to be captured in the simulation models of this field for predicting the dynamic performance
of each reservoir.
The simulation model can accommodate the same vertical permeability to achieve the same degree of
communication observed from the pressure transient data. By capturing the communication in simulation
model, the model should assess more the effect of this communication in the long term performance of
the field and quantify the amount of hydrocarbon migrating from Reservoir-B to Reservoir-A which is a
very vital piece of information in managing the field.

Summary and Conclusions

This study in the field case of Well-1 has been successful in estimating the degree of communication
between Reservoir-A and -B. The conclusions can by summarized as following:
● Utilizing the intelligent field data from the PDHMS and analyzing the long build-ups significantly
helped to confirm the reservoir communication in Well-1.
● The pressure transient behavior of the late time data of Well-1 indicates clearly the response of
communication between Reservoir-B and -A.
● A shut-in time between 200 to 300 hrs was found to be optimum in Reservoir-B to get conclusive
interpretation with the late time data.
● The pressure transient data has been successfully matched using a multi-layer numerical model of
three layers (Reservoir-B, thin tight layer and Reservoir-A) with cross-flow between the layers.
● The numerical model demonstrates that the inter-reservoir communication is occurring at 15% to
20% of its maximum value through vertical permeability of the tight layer ranges from 0.004 to
0.006 md.
● This degree of communication can be captured in the simulation model by incorporating the model
value of the vertical permeability of the tight layer in the long term field performance.

Nomenclature
kh ⫽ flow capacity, md.ft
kz/kr ⫽ ratio of vertical permeability to horizontal permeability
kz0 ⫽ vertical permeability of the tight layer , md
kzmax ⫽ vertical permeability of the system without the tight layer, md
h ⫽ reservoir pay thickness, ft
kz ⫽ vertical permeability, md
kev ⫽ Effective harmonic average permeability between layers, md
dp ⫽ pressure difference during build-up, psia
dp= ⫽ pressure derivative of pressure difference during build-up, psia
SPE-182809-MS 9

References
Al-Thawad, F., BinAkresh, S., and Al-Obaid, R. 2001. Characterization of Fractures/Faults Network from Well Tests. SPE
71578, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sep 30-Oct 3.
Bourdet, D. 1985. Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow. SPE 13628, presented at SPE California
Regional Meering, Bakersfield, Mar 27–29.
Ehlig-Economides, A. and Joseph, J. 1987. A New Test for Determination of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered
Reservoir. SPE Formation Evaluation: 261–83.
Houze, O., Viturat, D., Fjaere, O. 2012. Dynamic Data Anaysis. KAPPA, E-book: 262–7.