Society of Petroleum engineers

SPE 25880
Using Polymer Injectivity Tests To Estimate Fracture Porosity
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
J.R. Gilman, S.B. Hinchman, and M.A. Svaldi, Marathon Oil CO.
SPE Members
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, CO, U.S.A., April 12-14, 1993.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083--3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
A new technique is presented to calculate fracture
porosity in naturally fractured reservoirs using composite
system analyses.
transition from fracture response to total system response
must be seen on the pressure transient plot. However, in
many naturally fractured reservoirs, the system may begin
behaving like a homogeneous, single-porosity system in a
very short time as given by the following equation 1:
TECHNIQUE AND ASSUMPTIONS
For moderate matrix permeability (>10 md) and
high fracture intensity (cr > 0.1), the end of the transition
period may be on the order of several seconds as
calculated by Eq. 1 and thus may be masked by wellbore
storage. Thus, in many highly fractured oil reservoirs, it is
only possible to determine the total system effective
permeability from a single-well transient test and total
porosity-compressibility product from an interference test.
In this paper, we propose the use of injectivity and falloff
tests combined with composite system transient analysis
to estimate the total porosity of the fracture network.
The concept outlined here is to inject a viscous
solution (e.g. polymer) which will not invade the matrix
rock, but remains in the fractures. Subsequent falloff tests
can then be used to determine the bank radius of the
polymer in the fractures and thus fracture porosity from
material balance. In the early 1980's Marathon Oil
Company performed a number of polymer injectivity tests
in naturally fractured reservoirs. In several cases, apparent
bank radius was much larger than anticipated. This
observation lead to the technique proposed in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
A difficult problem in characterizing naturally
fractured reservoirs is determining the fraction of the pore
volume which can be assigned to the fracture network (i.e.
fracture porosity). In tight formations, pressure transient
testing can give a measure of the relative fracture storage
capacity of the formation providing that wellbore storage is
minimized. In order to estimate fracture storage capacity
from pressure transient testing at least a portion of the
t> 11377 (cj)ct)m J1
kmcr
where (for cubical matrix blocks)
(1 )
(2)
References and Illustrations at end of paper.
The most basic application of this technique
consists of injecting a fluid into a naturally fractured
reservoir and then performing a falloff test. The injected
fluid must have a mobility different than the in-situ fluid and
only occupy the fractures. Composite system pressure
transient analysis is then used to estimate the bank radius
429
2
Using Polymer Injectlvlty Tests to Estimate
Fracture Porosity In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
SPE025880
and material balance is used to estimate the fracture
porosity. Throughout this paper we will assume that the
injected fluid is a polymer solution and the in-situ fluid is
water.
As with all pressure transient analysis methods,
we must make numerous simplifying assumptions about
the system we are analyzing. This analysis assumes that
the injected polymer solution behaves as a Newtonian
fluid. OUr experience has shown that for many polymers in
high salinity solutions, this is a reasonable assumption. As
mentioned previously, the polymer solution is assumed not
to invade the matrix or to be adsorbed on the fracture wall.
The fracture geometry must be such that the flow in the
fractures is essentially radial in nature during the test and
the system behaves as a single-phase, homogeneous
dual-porosity reservoir of infinite extent. For the examples
shown here, we assume no skin damage or wellbore
storage, but these could be included in a straight forward
manner. It is also required that the dual-porosity transition
period be over prior to the time at which the injected bank
affects the transient response.
LIMITATIONS
TEST DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The injection time should be designed such that
both straight lines can be seen after the wellbore storage
period and prior to boundary effects. This requires a
preliminary estimate of fracture porosity. For example, if
we desire the intersection time of the two straight lines to
be in the range of 1 to 10 hours, then Eqs. 3 and 4 (shown
later) can be used to determine the bank radius and thus
the amount of injected polymer required to move the bank
to this radius. Multiple tests with injection banks less than
and greater than estimated should be run to cover the
range of possible lower and higher fracture porosities. A
falloff test prior to polymer injection is useful for estimating
the true mobility of the water bank. A falloff test after an
extended period of polymer injection is important for
estimating the mobility of the polymer bank. Knowing these
values will help to determine where to draw the straight
lines on the semilog pressure plots and thus more easily
locate the intersection time and bank radius.
SIMULATED EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
The falloff tests were analyzed using equivalent
time as defined by Agarwal
2
:
Intersection time of the two semilog straight lines (with
slopes mi and rna) was used to estimate bank radius as
given by the following equation
4
:
Injectivity and falloffs tests using the test sequence
given in Table 1 were simulated using a single-phase,
dual-porosity simulator with capabilities for polymer
transport. Fifty exponentially distributed radial grid blocks
were used in the simulator. The polymer in these examples
is assumed to behave as a Newtonian fluid. Six cases
were run using all combinations of fracture porosity and
polymer-water mobility ratios given in Table 2. All other
data remained constant as shown in Table 2. The bank
radius was evaluated using the standard technique of
intersection time of the late and early straight Iines.
4
,6,9,14
Because these examples are computer generated, the
data is smooth and the true straight lines are well known.
The method to estimate bank mobility as described by Yeh
and Agarwal,3 also works well for estimating bank radius
as will be shown. The difficulty of estimating bank radius
from actual field injectivitylfalloff tests is not discussed in
this paper.
A great deal of literature has been devoted to the
topic of composite system analysis.
3
-
17
In this paper we
use the intersection time of two semilog straight lines
assuming an equivalent single-porosity system to estimate
the distance to the bank radius.
4

6
,9,14 Other methods to
estimate the bank radius are discussed in the literature
including dual-porosity system analysis.
16
-
17
The
intersection point technique works very well for our
examples provided that two semilog straight lines develop.
In order to estimate the bank radius, total system
compressibility must be known. This is most accurately
determined from an interference test. We also need to
have some reasonable estimate of fracture porosity in
order to properly design the test. Because of wellbore
storage, limited test time, and boundary effects, it is easy
to miss the double slope behavior of a composite system if
the test is not properly designed. The usefulness of our
technique depends on the ability to estimate the bank
radius from pressure transient analysis. To minimize
uncertainty in the intersection time, it is necessary to have
reliable estimates of the injected and in-situ mobilities. The
technique will work best when injected mobility is greater
than in-situ mobility to prevent dispersion of the injected
bank. Also, 'as mentioned previously, the injected fluid
cannot enter the matrix rock. This means that this test is
well suited for viscous polymer injection in water injection
wells. Imbibition and gravity forces will be minimal in these
situations and therefore, there will be little potential for the
injected polymer solution to enter the matrix.
430
lin" At
Ate = J
tinj + At
(3)
(4)
SPE025880 J. R. Gilman, S. B. Hinchman and M. A. Svaldl 3
where the subscripts "i" and "0" represent the inner and
outer bank.
r = At. .1te ,
. cIltCt
(8)
Fracture porosity is then estimated from this bank
radius using material balance. We assume injected volume
q B tinj only enters the fractures and is thus equal to the
volume in the fractures to a bank of
(i.e. ell 1t
cj)r =5.6146 q B tinj

(5)
(9)
where Ata is a volumetric average mobility from rw to
radius r, and At would represent the true mobility at the
same radius. For the assumptions used in this paper At
and Ata should be the same to the bank radius. This was
not the case in reference 3 where relative permeability was
varying with r.
Yeh and Agarwal
3
also proposed calculating fluid
mobility versus radial distance from the following equations
These equations show that the fracture porosity
estimate is inversely proportional to the intersection time.
Thus if intersection is underestimated by a factor of two,
then porosity is overestimated by the same factor.
If the derivative curve showed no straight line segment,
then no intersection time is given in Table 3. Although not
shown here, the largest errors occur when one of the
semilog straight lines is of very short duration. Also, it
appears that errors are generally greater for the smaller
mobility ratio. This is because an error in slope leads to a
larger error in intersection time as the mobility ratio
becomes smaller.
FigS. 1 and 2 show the log-log type curve and
semilog plots for the three falloff tests (Table 1) using a
mobility ratio of 5.5 and fracture porosity of 0.1%. All other
data is listed in Table 2. The intersection times of the first
and last straight lines are 0.173, 0.739, and 3.20 hours
respectively. There is no true late time straight line portion
for the final falloff as shown by the derivative curve in Fig.
1; however, by knowing the mobility of the water bank, a
reasonable late time straight line and intersection time can
be found. The intersection time values result in bank radii
of 88, 181, and 377 ft and fracture porosities of 0.087,
0.102, and .099% as given by Eqs. 4 and 5. These values
of fracture porosity are within 13% of the actual value of
0.1 %. Table 3 summarizes all the simulated tests and the
calculated fracture porosities. The intersection times on
this table were determined by performing a least squares
fit on the two semilog straight line portions of each test and
then intersection time is given as
FIELD EXAMPLES
Fig. 3 shows the volumetric average mobility
versus radius (Eqs. 7 and 8) calculated for the simulated
falloffs tests for a fracture porosity of 0.1% and mobility
ratio of 10. It can be seen that the deviation from the low
mobility inner bank region approximately corresponds the
the bank radius calculated from the intersection time
method (Table 3) This type of plot gives an alternative
method to estimate bank radius and thus fracture porosity
from Eq. 5.
Recently, Marathon performed several polymer gel
injection tests in two naturally fractured reservoirs in order
to reduce water flow from the fractures and increase oil
flow from the matrix. For the seven wells analyzed using
the techniques outlined in this report, two tests gave very
unreasonable results (Le. fracture porosity was greater
than the previously estimated total system porosity). One
well, Well #7, showed composite system behavior at a
large radius prior to gel injection. Thus, analysis of the
composite behavior after gel injection was complicated by
the pre-gel composite behavior. A second well, Well #6,
had no pre-gel injection transient test (all the other wells
did). Composite system analysis of this well also resulted
in an estimate of fracture porosity which was larger than
estimated total system porosity. This well possibly also had
a composite behavior prior to gel injection which would
affect the final analysis.
All the wells analyzed are listed in Table 4 while
Figures 4 through 10 show the pre- and post-gel falloff test
data. The permeabilities given on the figures are actually
mobilities (kill). Derivative curves were also developed for
the field data, but are not included for brevity. In most
cases, a second straight line did not adequately develop
during the post-gel falloff; therefore, bank radius was
estimated from the following equation rather than Eq. 410:
(6)
(
.1P1 hr, i - .1Pl hr, 0 )
.1tx =10 ffio-ffii
At. =162.6 q B ,
.1p'h
(7) lb =0.0257 Y'Ai .1txl / (cjlc)li (10)
431
4
Using Polymer Injectlvlty Tests to Estimate
Fracture Porosity In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs SPE025880
TABLE 2. DATA FOR EXAMPLES
q 750 STB/D
B 1.00 RB/STB
h 50 ft
Jlw
0.82cp
Pi
100 psia
+m
0.15
.,
0.05, 0.1, and 0.5%
kf 1000 md
k
m
1 rnd
(J 0.75 1/sq. ft
rw 0.30 ft
re 5000 ft
Cw
3.1 e-
6
psi-
1
cm
1.0e-
5
psi-
1
Cf
2.0e-
5
psi-
1
Mobility ratio 2.45, 5.5, and 10.0
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF COMPOSITE SYSTEM
ANALYSIS FOR SIMULATED FALLOFF TESTS
Input Data calculated Results
+t
ADlA.i r
.,
%error
0.0005 2.45 116 0.000413 -17.42%
o.ooos 2.45 259 0.000601 20.14%
o.oOOS 2.45 530

0.0005 5.5 116 0.304 115.9 0.000499 -0.14%
0.0005 5.5 259 1.409 247.4 0.000548 9.53%
0.0005 5.5 530

0.0005 10 116 0.485 0.473 114.0 0.000515 3.06%
0.0005 10 259 2.42 2.194 242.3 0.000571 14.18%
0.0005 10 530 10.1

0.001 2.45 82 0.0857 0.123 101.2 0.000654 -34.61%
0.001 2.45 183 0.426 0.433 183.2 0.000998 -0.21%
0.001 2.45 375 1.791 1.768 3n.6 0.000987 -1.29"10
0.001 5.5 82 0.151 0.173 88.5 0.000855 -14.49%
0.001 5.5 183 0.754 0.739 178.4 0.001053 5.33%
0.001 5.5 375 3.17

0.001 10 82 0.243 0.261 85.3 0.000922 -7.80%
0.001 10 183 1.21 un 178.0 0.001057 5.73"10
0.001 10 375 5.09

0.005 2.45 37 0.0182

0.005 2.45 82 0.0895 0.130 100.8 0.003300 -33.99%

0.005 2.45 168 0.376 0.398 173.0 0.004704 -5.920/0
0.005 5.5 37 0.0322

0.005 5.5 82 0.158 0.188 90.2 0.004121 -17.59%
0.005 5.5 168 0.664 0.684 169.7 0.004886 -2.27"10
0.005 10 37 0.0518

0.005 10 82 0.254 0.254 82.2 0.004956 -0.88%
0.005 10 168 1.07 1.127 172.56 0.004727 -5.46%
where At
x
1 is the time at which the data begins to deviate
from the straight line which represents the inner gel bank.
This analysis assumes that the deviation is caused by
transistion from the inner to the outer bank and not
because of boundaries or nearby well interference. If there
is no deviation from a straight line by the end of the test,
then the final time from the test is used in Eq. 10. By
combining Eqs. 5 and 10, a very simple relation for fracture
porosity results:
(11)
where Vinj is the volume of polymer gel injection (prior to
the post-gel falloff test). Table 4 shows the data used and
results of the calculations. Also shown is the time (At
x
) at
which early and late straight lines would have to intersect
to give a porosity which agrees with that calculated from
Atx1
The slopes of the last time straight line (mo) given
in Table 4 are not actual values from the tranisent tests.
They were estimated based on the pre-gel injection
permeabilities and the post-gel injection rates. An accurate
estimate of total system porosity-compressibility is very
important in the analysis of bank radius. The data for these
examples were not based on interference testing and thus
could be in significant error. Based on other considerations
(eg. cores, logs, tracer tests, and simulations), the
expected fracture porosity shoud be less than 1%. Only
two wells (Well #3 and Well #4), gave fracture porosities in
this range. One reason for the high calculated porosities
could be because of a high estimate of the porosity-
compressibility product. The estimated porosity is directly
proportional to compressibility (Eq. 11). Thus, if actual
compressibility is lower by a factor of two, the estimated
porosity will be reduced by the same factor.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusion of this study is that a new
method is presented to calculate fracture porosity in
naturally fractured reservoirs using composite system
analysis. This technique appears to be well suited to
polymer injection in water injection wells. A prior estimate
of fracture porosity is important to properly design the test.
Total system compressibility must be known and mobilities
of the in-situ and injected fluid should also be known. The
injected fluid must remain in the fracture network and
cannot enter the matrix rock. If this is not the case, then
fracture porosity will be overestimated.
TABLE 1. SIMULATED INJECTIVITV TEST SEQUENCE
0-0.25
0.25-1.25
1.25-2.25
2.25-6.25
6.25-10.25
10.25-26.25
Inject
Falloff
Inject
Falloff
Inject
Falloff
Time perlod,days Well Status
432
intersection time could not be calculated because one straight line segment
did not appear on pressure transient.
SPE025880 J. R. G l l m a n ~ S. B. Hinchman and M. A. Svaldl 5
TABLE 4. COMPOSITE SYSTEM ANALYSIS FOR FIELD
FALLOFF TESTS
WEll: Well Well Well Well Well Well Well
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
-_..._..._....._--------------------------..__....._----------------------
mj 351.1 784.2 74.7 7.8 178.8 59.5 287.2
m
o
1032 228.2 8.7 1.7 17.4 4.1 38.4
""
6.6 5.8 38.8 444.1 36.3 109.1 2.4
Ao
22.5 19.3 332.9 2033.3 371.8 1577.0 16.7
'Cd
7.5E-06 7.2E-oEI 1.3E04 1.5E-04 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 1.lE-04
r
w
0.326 0.229 0.292 0.385 0.354 0.354 0.292
At
x
1 15 20 120 110 90 6 30
rb 93.49 101.08 153.41 463.77 112.66 50.43 20.79
Vinj
4390 6690 15000 15000 15000 15000 8500
h 35 38 70 110 40 40 100
'f
0.0256 0.0308 0.0163 0.0011 0.0528 0.2636 0.3515
At
x
28 37 180 190 131 8.3 47
A'
=
derivative of mobility, dA, mdlcp-ft
dr
Il
= viscosity, cp
cr
=
matrix shape factor, ft-
2
cjl
=
porosity, fraction
Subscripts
1hr
=
one hour
a
=
average
b
=
bank
e
=
equivalent, external
f
=
fracture
i
=
inner bank, initial
inj
=
injection
m
=
matrix
0
=
outer bank
t
=
total
w
=
wellbore, water
x
=
intersection
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Marathon Oil Company for permission to
prepare this paper. We would also like to thank J. M.
Paneitz and M. J. Stover for providing the data and
analysis of the field examples.
REFERENCES
B
=
c
=
h
k
=
L
=
m
=
p
=
q
=
r
=
t
=
tinj =
Vinj =
dP
=
dP1hr =
NOMENCLATURE
formation volume factor, RB/STB
compressibility, psi-
1
reservoir thickness, ft
permeability, md
matrix block size, ft
slope of semilog pressure transient plot,
psi/cycle
pressure, psi
flow rate, STB/Day
radius, ft
time, hours
injection time, hours
volume injected, STB
pressure difference, psi
pressure difference at 1 hour, psi
1. Satman, A. : "Solution of Heat- and Fluid-Flow
Problems in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Part 2:
Fluid-Flow Problems", SPE Prod. Eng. 467-473, (Nov.
1988).
2. Agarwal, R. G.: "A New Method to Account for
Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves
Are Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other Test
Data," SPE 9289 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Dallas, TX, (Sept. 21-24, 1980).
3. Yeh, N-S., Agarwal, R. G.: "Pressure Transient
Analysis of Injection Wells in Reservoirs With Multiple
Fluid Banks," SPE 19775 presented at the 64th SPE
Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX (OCt.
8-11, 1989).
dP'
dt
dte
dtX
dtx1
A
=
=
=
d
. t f . d Ap
enva Ive 0 pressure difference, , psi
d2nAt
time since start of falloff, hours
equivalent falloff time, hours
time at intersection point, hours
time for deviation from first straight line, days
mobility, kill, md/cp
4. Brown, L. P. :"Pressure Transient Behavior of the
Composite Reservoir," SPE 14316 presented at the
60th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Las Vegas,
NV (Sept. 22-25, 1985).
5. Hazebrook, P., Rainbow, H. and Matthews, C. S.:
"Pressure Fall-Off in Water Injection Wells," Trans.
AIME (1958) 213, 250-260.
433
6
Using Polymer Injectlvlty Tests to Estimate
Fracture Porosity In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
SPE025880
6. Hurst, W.: "Interference Between Oil Fields," Trans.
AIME (1960) 219, 175-190.
7. Carter, R. D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular
Composite Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (Dec. 1966),
328-334.
8. Bixel, H. C. and Van Poolen, H. K.: "Pressure
Drawdown and Buildup in the Presence of Radial
Discontinuities," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (Sept. 1967), 301-
309.
9. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Approximate Solutions for Unsteady
State Liquid Flow in Composite Reservoirs," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1970),32-37.
10. Merrill, L. S., Jr., Kazemi, H. and Gogarty W. B.:
"Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoir with Fluid
Banks," J. Pet. Tech. (July 1974), 809-818.
11. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R. and Limon, T. J.: "Effect of
Relative Permeability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure
Fall-Off Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1981),1125-1135.
12. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase
Flow," SPE 14098, presented at the International
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, ,Beijing, China,
(March 17-20, 1986).
13. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M. M.: "Pressure
Transient Testing of Water Injection Wells," SPE
Reservoir Engineering, (February 1989), 115-124.
14. Rowan, G. and Clegg, M. W.: "An Approximate
Method for Transient Radial Flow, " Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
(Sept., 1962) 225.
15. Satman, A., Eggenschwiler, M. and Ramey, H.J.,
Jr.: "Interpretation of Injection Well Pressure Transient
Data in Thermal Oil Recovery," SPE 8908 presented at
the 50th Annual SPE California Regional Meeting, Los
Angeles, CA (Apr. 9-11,1980).
16. Satman, A. : "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a
Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoir", SPE Form.
Ev., (June 1991) 169-175.
17. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G. W. Jr.: "Analysis of
Pressure-Transient Tests for Composite Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", SPE Form. Ev., (June 1991)
176-182.
434
30
100
i
1
0
!=:I=I:tI:
ci
<I
80
70
60
a;
0.50
ci
<I
40
Hq
z
750 STB/DI
),,11),,0 z 5.5
<l>lzO.l% I
L.#Il

3

",....
1
aa

1+--+-1-4+
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100
20
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100
die, hr die, hr
Figure 1. Type Curve for Simulated Falloff Test
Figure 2. Semllog Plot for Simulated Falloff Test
Figure 3. Average Mobility vs Radius for Simulated Falloff Test
I:z750 STB/D 0
'"
),,11"-0 z 5.5
o I'
<1>1 z 0.1%
0'
1.1.)
0""
"" >

II""
17

2
0< 0
II
/
iP
o

l<,::P
I
I.
/
-
Injection Well -- Falloff

Permeability = 22.516 md /.
Skin = -3.217 ,
/
./
..fl'
.
.-
.
.
"....
.
. /
.
I I
/ ;"
Injection Well -- Falloff
/
I--Permeablllty = 6.616 md /
-'-
Skin = -4.604
/
._- .'-
,7
I
f----
'i
----
V ..;/
---_. . . -
...............
/
100.0
100.0 10.00
10.00
0.10 1.00
dt (hours)
0.10 1.00
at (hours)
0.01
0.01
o
0.001
o
0.001
150
750
150
600
450
::-
In
a

1
750
I
450
!
...
<I 300
10000 1000
r, ft
100
o
10
2000
1500
0.

1000
E
j
500
Figure 4. Well #1 Pre- and Post-Gel Falloff Tests
L- . . _
435
1000.0 100.00 10.00 1.00
at (hours)
0.10
2BO __ .. Io ..
V-

j
-
1
a.
<l 110f---+---!lr---f---f----+--__l

,/
10 .....
0.001 0.01
100.0 10.00 0.10 1.00
at (hours)
0.01
I
J
I
V'
Injection Well _. Falloff
Permeability
=
19.306 md
/
Skin
=
-4.157
.1
..""/
,,/'
/
.'"
/
..
II
/
II -
o
0.001
200
800
10000
=- BOO
!
a.
<l 400
injection Well - - Falloff
Permeability = 38.827 md
Skin = -1.464
240
751---1-----21"7''----1---1----11-----1
.1-........<'-... __L....._.,_..... ....L 1 .L.__
0.001 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.0
at (hours)
295 .. .......
-
!
a.
<l
100.00 10.00 0.10 1.00
at (hours)
0.01
I J
/
Injection Well -. Falloff
- Permeability
=
5.569 md
I Skin
=
-5.585
i
I
..i
.;
I
I
.'
I
.'
......-
-
..
o
0.001
200
400
800
10000
a.
<l
=- 600
!
Figure 5. Well #2 Pre- and Post-gel Falloff Tests Figure 6. Well #3 Pre- and Post-Gel Falloff Tests
L- _
43
53
--
-I
225
/
/

190
/
-- 7'
/"
<

155
/
.S:
a.
<l
120
V
85
_/
Y
.
.' /
/
50
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
l>t (hours)
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.0
at (hours)
0.01
I I
'1
- .....
Injection Well -- Falloff
_ Permeability
=
2033.328 md
Skin
=
0.105
--" ---
--_...

. I I
3
0.001
23
13
a.
<l
! 33
335 -.
Injection Well
275 f-- SPekrlnmeablllty 36.266 md_-JL--+ -j
3.511 /
-
! /
a.
<l 155 I------_l-----,,A------+-----l
7

,// /
35L..::-........
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.0
at (hours)
1000.0 100.00 1.00 10.00
at (hours)
0.10
.. -
""'

--
-
V
-
-
./
Injection Well
--
Falloff
/
Permeability
=
444.053 md
Skin
=
4.298
./
'"
18
3
0.01
78
63

.S:
a.
<l 33
Figure 7. Well #4 Pre- and PostGel Falloff Tests
Figure 8. Well #5 Pre- and Post-Gel Falloff Tests
436
100.0 10.00 0.10 1.00
At (hours)
0.01
I
V-
8
/
/
~ I J
Injection Well Falloff
l../II
-- -
Permeability
=
16.745 md
.......
Skin I =
-1.616
I
8
0.001
B3
30
383
::::'233
.e.
...
<l 158
100.0 1000.0 0.10 1.00 10.00
At (hours)
160
130
:::- 100
.e.
...
<l
70
40
10
.....
0.001 0.01
100.0 1000.0 0.10 1.00 10.00
At (hours)
0.01
I I
I
"/
1
Injection Well -- Falloff 1
f- Permeability = 2.434 md
Skin = -2.033 1
Y
I--
/
7
1 ~ 1 f
607
757
157
7
0.001
307
~ 457
a
...
<l
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.0
M (hours)
0.01
0
1 I 1"
1
Injection Well -- Falloff
1.____
Permeability = 109.081 md
Ol--Skln =
-2.423 /
V
0
'/
V
I/;
....,,-
I
10
0.001
40
13
18
- 100
!
...
<l 7
Figure 9. Well #6 Post-Gel Falloff Test
Figure 10. Well #7 Pre- and Post-Gel Falloff Tests
L- .__
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
437