208

Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

Challenges in Well Testing Data from MultiLayered Reservoirs; a Field Case

Eskandari Niya, Majid #1; Hashemi, Abdolnabi #2; Zareiforoush, Ali #3
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Ahwaz Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of
Technology, Ahwaz, Iran
1

majid.eskandariniya@gmail.com
2
nabi.hashemi@gmail.com
3
Rasa_1012@yahoo.com

Abstract - The analysis of well test data in multilayer

reservoirs is usually a challenging problem due to the
complexity of interlayer flow within reservoir; these
problems are as a result of insufficient data from
unique layer flow into the wellbore. Also, these kinds of
tests often could not be interpreted during shut-in
period. The analyzer which is used for this kind of
analysis should be verified first, to achieve this purpose
some attempts are made and finally the best method is
provided.
In this study; a numerical simulation model is used to
design synthetic models of multilayer reservoirs, and a
methodology is developed to get individual layer rate
versus time. The output of the model is then exported to
an analytical well test analyzer, Ecrin, and the tests are
analyzed as actual data. Different scenarios for testing
layered reservoirs are examined to get the least errors.
It was found that in order to get the right reservoir
parameters it is necessary to define some efficacy
coefficients, then, the well test data of a well in South
Pars field were analyzed and the individual layer
parameters and reservoir heterogeneity were obtained.
Finally some suggestions and conclusions are made to
make a complete analysis and simulating multi-layer
reservoirs and a method is specified to affect the unique
layer rates on analysis to have better results. Using this
methodology one can evaluate productivity of wells in
less time and there will be less necessity for reservoir
numerical simulation.

1. Introduction
Most oil and gas reservoirs are layered
(stratified) to various degrees because of
sedimentation process over long geological periods.
Layered reservoirs are composed of two or more
layers that may have different formation and fluid
characteristics. These reservoirs are usually divided
into two groups: (1) layered reservoirs without crossflow (commingled systems), where the layers
communicate only through the wellbore, and (2)
layered reservoirs with cross-flow, where layers
communicate at the contact planes throughout the
reservoir. Accurate determination of permeability,
skin factor, and pressure for each layer is necessary
to understand the reservoir performance. For
example, unbalanced depletion of layers with
__________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Science & Emerging Technologies
IJSET, E-ISSN: 2048 - 8688
Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)

different parameters creates many problems, such as

high GOR in high permeability layers.
Conventional buildup tests from layered
reservoirs usually suffer from cross-flow between
layers, particularly if the layers communicate only
through the wellbore and/or the permeability contrast
between layers is high. The cross-flow problem
becomes more severe if the pressure and/or the
drainage radius of each zone is different.
The wellbore cross-flow may continue during the
entire period of the buildup test. A false straight line
on a semi-log plot may even be observed. In many
instances, the pressure data alone may not reveal any
information about the wellbore or formation crossflow. Even if cross-flow is not an implicating factor,
the major problem for layered systems is still the
estimation of individual layer permeability and skin
factors from conventional well tests. The
conventional draw down and buildup tests usually
reveal only the behavior of the total system.
Furthermore, the behavior of a multilayer formation
may not be distinguished from the behavior of a
single layer formation even though a multilayer
reservoir may have a distinct behavior without
wellbore storage effects.
In addition to field studies and practical jobs of
multi-layered reservoirs well testing, there is another
method which uses the computer well test analyzer
and reservoir simulation software which is explained
in this paper.
Some of the practical jobs and methods are
represented below:
Gao (1984) examined the unsteady flow with
cross-flow in a N-layer reservoir when each layer
produces under a constant wellbore pressure. Simple
theoretical expressions for the asymptotic cross-flow
and the total flow rate were developed and compared
with the numerical simulations results.
The earliest grand study of pressure behavior of
layered reservoirs was performed by Lefkovits in
1961. This study addressed commingled flow in a
stratified system with an arbitrary number of layers.
Lefkovits's solution served as the basis for much of

209
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

the work that followed. Bourdet (1985) presented an

analytical solution to describe pressure response of
layered reservoirs with pseudo steady-state crossflow. Ehlig-Economides (1987) presented an
analytical model that is a generalization of Bourdet's
two-layer model with pseudo steady-state cross-flow.
Bourdet (1985) solved the pressure response for
a two layered reservoir with cross-flow with
consideration of wellbore storage and skin. He
showed that his solution could be placed in the
general form of many other reservoir model solutions
by showing that the solution was identical to the
solutions of other problems when some reservoir
parameters took limiting values.

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

pressure of each layer, and the permeability contrast

between layers is relatively high. The formation and
fluid properties of the model are given in tables 1 &
2. Surface production rate is defined in the model and
the individual flow rate for each layer of the model
will be gained from output of the model.
Table 1 - Formation and layer properties of the
synthetic model
Property

Layer 1
(Top)

Layer 2
(Bottom)

Porosity (%)

10

10

50

100

50

100

1.2E-5

1.2E-5

Kucuk, et al. (1984) suggested a new testing

method for a two layered commingled reservoir.
They used the technique of nonlinear parameter
estimation by coupling sand face production rate of
each layer with wellbore pressure. The coupling of
layer production rate is very significant for
multilayered reservoirs because rate transient of each
layer reveals information about the layer, while
wellbore pressure is determined more by average
reservoir parameters.

Perm. R
(md)
Perm.
(md)
Perm. Z
(md)
Rock Comp.
(psi-1)
Thickness
(ft)
Depth (ft)

100

100

10,000

10,100

In this study we use the obtained correlations to

have the best analysis on these kinds of well test data.

Skin

0.0

0.0

3. Methodology
3.1 Simulation
3.1.1 Creating synthetic models
Before simulating a multi-layered reservoir, a
simple single homogeneous reservoir is designed in
order to examine and validate the simulator. For this
purpose a homogeneous, radial and relatively small
reservoir, with a large external radius to achieve the
infinite acting reservoir behavior in our testing period
was built using Eclipse-100. The radial model is
chosen because the flow regimes in reservoir mostly
occur in radial mode. Formation properties of this
reservoir should be assumed, so a constant value of
porosity is defined for entire reservoir, rock
compressibility and density is specified and layer
depths should be located. The most important
property in this section is permeability, so the
permeability in all directions (r, theta, z) should be
defined. The permeability contrast between layers
plays an important role in well test scenario.
Fluid properties including PVT of the reservoir
fluid in the well that has no production of other fluids
and it is single phase. The initial reservoir pressure
and the flow rate are selected in a manner at which
the flowing bottomhole pressure does not fall bubble
point pressure, i.e. the flowing fluid within the
reservoir always present at single phase liquid.
After validating the results of single layer model,
a two-layer model should be created. The two layer
model contains single phase liquid with equal initial

Table 2 - Fluid properties of the synthetic model

Pressure
(psia)

Bo
(bbl/STB)

5700

1.260

(cp)
0.80

5800

1.257

0.90

5950

1.254

0.94

6000

1.251

0.98

6500

1.248

1.00

3.1.2 Designing Well Testing Conditions and

Time Intervals
To design well test conditions for this model, the
conditions should be evaluated first, so that by
preserving the assumed terms (well testing time &
flow-rate to avoid reaching pressure decline curves to
the reservoir boundaries), the model could provide
more acceptable results with least errors. In this step
of simulation, also the well completion will be
designed and the well testing time intervals will be
specified which the simulator will make calculations
in this time intervals.
To obtain the best results and least errors, it is
necessary that the time steps follow a logarithmic
algorithm. Also since pressure decline curve moves
faster in the near wellbore area, well testing time

210
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

intervals at the beginning of the testing period should

be very short to record more pressure points. Few
pressure record points in near wellbore area makes
more error in results. The output type should be
specified in the model itself, otherwise only a visual
result will be obtained by the simulator. (Fig.1)

3.1.3 Obtaining Well Testing Data

With specified time intervals for well testing, the
model starts to produce the well test operation data.
Table.3 shows early time intervals and produced
pressure points and individual layer rates vs. time.
This data will be used for well test analysis in the
next step. It is necessary to be remembered that
without this data, well testing analysis is almost
impossible.

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

unusual and is too large, the simulation model should

be revised and improved to obtain best results and
less error.

3.2.1 Analysis Steps

To perform a well test analysis and getting the
best results, the general information of the well and
reservoir fluids such as well radius (rw), porosity,
thickness of layers, fluid formation volume factor and
viscosity are available. Also for analysis, the multilayer mode should be selected, otherwise the
reservoir will be assumed single layer with interlayer
heterogeneity. The pressure vs. time data and the
flow rate of the each period of well testing (draw
down, buildup) are imported to the analyzer.
First, the analyzer provides a well test history

Figure 1(a) Visual result of a section of model after draw down test

Figure 1(b) Visual result of a section of model after buildup test

3.2 Well Testing

The numerical output data of simulator, the
pressure vs. time data, are used as input data of the
well testing analyzer to obtain the individual layer
permeability and these values will be compared with
the initial guess of analyzer and the input data of
simulator to achieve error of model. If the error is

diagram, then the well testing period will be chosen

to gain pressure derivative plot. The analyzer makes
an initial guess of individual layer permeability by its
matching. Then our methodology will improve the
initial guess of analyzer by specifying the initial well
testing conditions and using more correlations in the
analyzer to obtain the most reliable results.

211
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

3.2.2 Improving the Initial Conditions of

Well Testing
Because there is no information about individual
layer rates vs. time in the method which was
discussed above, and the rate of each layer is very
proportional to mobility, well testing calculations
relative to permeability will not perform perfect and
hale. So it is necessary that in the simulation step, the
rate of each layer in the specified time intervals be
defined in the output of simulator.

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

4.2 Analysis with importing pressure vs.

time and individual layer flow-rate vs. time
data
In this mode, analyzer will specify an efficacy
coefficient (weight coefficient) for each layer flowrate vs. time data and in the normal mode of analysis;
these coefficients are equal for each layer. This object
will make more error on the results, because the
flow-rate is very proportional to the layer
permeability and the equality of these coefficients is

Table 3- Early time intervals and pressure and rate responses during D.D test

(Days)

Bottomhole
Pressure response
(psia)

0
1.33E-05
3.11E-05
5.52E-05
8.76E-05
0.000131237
0.000190075
0.000269351
0.000376164
0.000520081

6412.2441
6346.1455
6335.2334
6328.8066
6323.9067
6319.7451
6316.002
6312.5186
6309.2056
6306.0093

Time

Rates of top layer

high Perm.

Rates of bottom
layer low Perm.

(STB/D)

(STB/D)

0
3151.139
3184.604
3199.034
3208.333
3215.284
3220.883
3225.599
3229.703
3233.37

0
848.8606
815.3963
800.9656
791.6674
784.7157
779.1168
774.4008
770.2966
766.6304

Table 4) Basic information of well 'A'

Porosity
(%)

h
(ft)

24

187

Gas
Saturation
(%)
94

Water
Saturation
(%)
6

After getting the rate of each layer vs. time, it is

imported to the analyzer and analysis is performed
based on both pressure and layer rates vs. time. Now
similar the method which was mentioned above, the
pressure derivative plot will be gained and to
improve the initial guess of analyzer, and in addition
to using pressure vs. time data, the individual flowrate vs. time data will be used.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1 Analysis with importing only pressure vs.
time data
In the normal mode of analysis when the flowrate vs. time data are not imported, the analysis will
be performed only based on pressure data and the
initial guess of permeability by the analyzer and the
results have error more than 20%. Fig.2 shows initial
guess of analyzer.

g
(cp)

1.005 0.0343

Bg
(cf/scf)

Cg
(psi-1)

0.00363

9.51E5

very inconsequential. So the corrected coefficients

should be specified for the layers in the analysis and
this object will be done by try and error method and
finally their optimum values are achieved to gain the
least error. Fig.3 shows results with default
coefficients and Fig.4 results with corrected
coefficients.
After getting these results, with a little accuracy
it is understood that these coefficient values have an
almost similar ratio to the permeability-thickness
product (kh) ratio of layers. Now for the next analysis
in other models, it is possible to make this ratio as an
initial value of coefficients ratio and correct these
coefficients again. This method will decrease analysis
time and make least error in the analysis. The
calculated error by this method is less than 10%.
Repeating the mentioned steps above in the analysis
would achieve less error and this error reduction will

212
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

be stopped and the error wont decrease after some

repeat steps. The number of repeating steps depends
on the number of pressure points, layer permeability,
and unique layer rates.

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

parameters obtained in two conditions: a) default

analyzer testing, and b) our methodology. The error
calculated in both methods. Basic data to start a well
test are given in table 4. The duration of these tests

Figure 2) Derivative plot based on buildup period, and analyzer initial matching

Figure 3) Results with default coefficients

For observing dual permeability behavior on loglog plots in synthetic models, the difference between
layer permeability should be more, and testing
duration must be about 1000 hrs. Fig.5 demonstrates
this point.

5. A field Case
The work was aimed at the interpretation of the
production tests performed on well A drilled in
South Pars field. Two layers of this well were tested
and layer heterogeneity and the well testing

and the analyzer results are given in tables 5 to 8.

Table 5) well testing time intervals of test 1
Flow
Period
1st flow
2nd flow
3rd flow
Final
buildup

Duration
(hrs)
6.4
7.5
6.4

BHP
(psia)
5233
5193
5141

Qt
(MMscf/d)
13.9
24
35

11.9

5272

213
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

Figure 4) Results with corrected coefficients

Figure 5) Observing dual permeability behavior in synthetic models, layer permeabilities are 40 & 150 md.

Table 6) well testing time intervals of test 2

Flow
Period
1st flow
2nd flow
3rd flow
Final
buildup

Duration
(hrs)
8
8
6

BHP
(psia)
5174
5126.5
5005.5

Qt
(MMscf/d)
13.9
24.4
50

13.9

5218.5

214
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

Real value
K outer (md)

26

Skin
Reservoir
model
Pi (psia)

-0.88
Radial
Composite
5281

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

Table 7) Analyzer numerical results of Test 1

Analyzer default
Results
2.48

Default Error
(%)
90

Our methodology
Results
23.52

Methodology Error
(%)
9.5

0.61

169

-0.82

6.8

Radial Composite

Radial Composite

5282

0.019

5282

0.019

Table 8) Analyzer numerical results of Test 2

Real value
K (md)
Skin
Reservoir
model
Pi (psia)
Xf (ft)

49
-3.7
Homogeneous
Cond.
Fracture
5235
67

Default analyzer
results
59.71
0.82
Homogeneous
Cond. Fracture
5223.66
99

Default Error
(%)
20
Too large
-

0.22
47.7

Methodology
results
51.7
-3.4
Homogeneous
Cond. Fracture
5224.22
67.5

Methodology Error
(%)
5.5
8.11
-

0.19
0.74

Figure 6) default matching of analyzer for test 1 on well A of South Pars field

6. Conclusion:
1) To design well testing time intervals, these
intervals should follow a logarithmic pattern.
2) Using unique layer flow rate vs. time data have a
huge effect on the final results and will decrease
error.
3) To gain the least final error of results, the
individual layer rate efficacy coefficient should
be specified wisely.

4) These efficacy coefficients have similar ratio to

permeability-thickness product (kh) ratio of the
layers.
5) Repeating the analysis steps above, will be
approached to the least error and more reliable
results.

Acknowledgement
This study was prepared in association with National
Iranian South Oil Company.

215
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

References

[1] Jackson, R. R. , Barenjee, R. 2000, Advances in

Multilayer Reservoir Testing and Analysis Using
Numerical Well Testing and Reservoir
Simulation. SPE 62917, 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition Held in
Dallas, Texas.
[2] Christine, A. and Ehlig-Economides. 1987.
Testing and Interpretation in Layered
Reservoirs. SPE 17089, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, September 1987.
[3] Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Joseph, J. 1987.
A New Test for Determination of Individual
Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir,
SPE Formation Evaluation, September, 261-283.

[4] H. Park,:" Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered

Reservoir With Formation Crossflow" a
dissertation submitted to the department of
petroleum engineering and the committee on
graduate studies of Stanford university in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
doctor of philosophy, June (1989)
[5] Bourdet, D. 1985.:Pressure Behavior of
Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow SPE 13628.
[6] Kuchuk, F., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran, L.
1986. Well Testing and Analysis Techniques for
Layered Reservoirs, SPE Formation Evaluation,
August, 342-354.
[7] Lefkovits, H. C. et al. 1961. A Study of the
Behavior of Bounded Reservoirs Composed of
Stratified Layers, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, March, 43-58; Trans. AIME, 222.

Figure 7) Analyzer matching using the explained methodology of test 1 on well 'A' of South Pars field

Figure 8) default matching of analyzer of test 2 on well 'A' of South Pars field

216
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech

[8] Kuchuk, F., Shah, P. C., Ayestaran, L., and

Nicholson, B. 1986. Application of Multilayer
Testing and Analysis: A Field Case. SPE
15419. 61st ATCE New Orleans October 5-8,
1986.

Vol-4 No 6 December 2012

Figure 9) Analyzer matching using the explained methodology of test 2 on well 'A' of South Pars field