SPE 114233

Flood Front Tracking and Pulse Test Time Lags

Abdollah Orangi and Iraj Ershaghi, SPE, University of Southern California


Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

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
Improvements in downhole sensors have opened up new opportunities to obtain continuous recordings of rate and pressure
data at producing and injection wells. We have examined the progression of lag time at observation wells when injection
wells are subjected to pre-scheduled or unsupervised rate changes. A monitoring of time lags and comparisons with that
corresponding to the first pulse at the start of injection is correlated with the location of displacement front. Analytical
solutions to calibrate numerical test cases for linear and radial flow geometries are presented. The results of these systems
demonstrate the potential of monitoring repeated pulses for front tracking in immiscible fluid displacement processes.

Introduction
The focus of this study is on the use of repeated supervised or unsupervised pulses in injection wells for tracking areal sweep
efficiency during immiscible fluid injection processes. Mapping the injection fluid front before breakthrough is a complex
task. Options for front tracking to monitor sweep conditions are limited. Obtaining an estimation of approximate location of
the front from single well fall-off tests, for water injection or air injection has been discussed in the literature, Kazemi, et al
1

and Kazemi
2
. Well interference tests described by Theis
3
and pulse tests introduced by Johnson, et al
4
have been generally
used to obtain average inter-well properties. In the past, frequent use of such tests for monitoring interface movement has not
been discussed in the literature because of implementation difficulties. Advances in 4D seismic now have made it possible to
monitor sweep. 4D technology depends on the differences between corresponding amplitudes in seismic surveys taken at
different times. This method has a low resolution, but it can be complementary to other methods. The process is, however,
expensive and it may not be practical in all cases especially for small and marginal fields and those operating in urban areas.

Recent advances in downhole sensors and sensor technologies are making it possible to get continuous recording of real-time
injection rates, production rates and pressure data at all active and idle wells in water floods. In this paper, we assume that
injection and observation wells are equipped with sensors allowing continuous collection of real time downhole pressure
data. The focus of this paper is then on monitoring of time lags in operationally-produced pulses caused by variations in the
injection rates.

Time lags in pulse tests are intuitively expected to be affected by static and dynamic reservoir and fluid properties between
observation and the pulsing wells. Because reservoir static properties usually do not significantly change during a flood, the
dynamics associated with the movement of interface between the displacing and displaced fluid are expected to cause
2 SPE 114233
progressive changes in the measured time lags. We have examined the nature of the relationship between the interface
movement and recorded time lags and the sensitivity of this relationship to the strength of pulsation caused by rate changes at
pulsing wells.

Scheduled and Repeated Pulse Tests
The lumping of formation and fluid properties between a producer and an injector well is often done with kh T = and
h c S
t
= representing Transmissivity and Storativity respectively. These lump parameters include permeability (k), thickness
(h), viscosity (), porosity (), and total compressibility (c
t
). As shown by Kamal and Brigham
5
, by measuring the lag in
response time, the composite interwell T and S values can be obtained from pulse tests. Such conventional and infrequent
tests can shed light on existence of communication between injection and production wells, detect transmissivities across
faults, and identify directions and magnitude of permeability trends caused by the presence of fractures and channels.

Repeated pulse tests, because of their interruption effect on operations, are not common in field operations. With permanent
downhole recorders, continuous recording of pressures can provide opportunities for obtaining dynamic changes caused by
fluid movements. During a fluid injection process, the saturation changes caused by fluid invasion and the corresponding
relative permeability effects influence the estimated composite T and S between injectors and producers. These dynamic
changes caused by the movement of the fluid front, are expected to result in variations in the recorded time lag. To avoid the
necessity of shutting down injection wells, we consider scheduled or unexpected rate changes for causing the pulsation.
These data can then provide a series of time lags at each observation well corresponding to the rate variations in pulsing
wells.

Methodology
We examine a radial flow system followed by a one dimensional (1D) system to evaluate the predicted changes in time lag
during fluid injection. Recorded responses at observation wells can be estimated from the superposition of rate changes
affecting fluid dynamics changes in the reservoir. By specifying rate variations at injection wells in a multiple well system,
time lags at producing wells can be continuously estimated. Because of the fluid movement effects, different values for
repetitive time lag are expected.

To have a base case, suppose we conduct a pulse at the start of fluid injection process (t
0
). At t
0
it is assumed that the
displacing fluid has not invaded the reservoir and the time lag represents the formation heterogeneity profile and the flow
characteristics of the indigenous fluid. These values of early times are the basis for comparison with time lags at later times.
Because the static properties are assumed to be invariant with time, the changes in the observed time lags need to be
correlated with the changes in effective and composite transmissibilities caused by saturation changes and interface
movements.

Mathematical Model
For a radial system, using the line source approximation, the solution for unsteady state pressure changes with time at any
point of reservoir caused by change of flow rate at another point was introduced by Theis
3
Based on this solution, pulse
SPE 114233 3
testing formulation was introduced by Johnson et al
4
. Applying the principle of superposition on rate for this solution for an
infinite reservoir will result in:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

=
+ =
+
m
i
D D D D D D D D D D
i i i
t t r Ei q q t r Ei t r P
1
2 2
1
, (Eq. 1)

Equation (1) is based on single phase flow and for a homogenous system. Implementation of this equation for pulse tests has
been extensively discussed in the literature by Kamal and Brigham
5
. Estimation of the maximum pulse response by taking the
derivative of equation (1) will lead to equation (2) which represents the relationship between time lag and fluid and rock
properties; lumped into transmissivity and storativity terms. Dependency of time lag to S/T was presented by Daltaban, et al.
6

As the composite T and S vary with the movement of the fluid-fluid interface, using the expression relating the time lag to
the T and S, one can examine the expected changes in the time lag.

The conventional boundary conditions, for multiple well interference or pulse test analysis require closing the pulsing wells
to create a pulse. Because of the interference with field productivity, such tests are not conducted on a routine basis. In
addition, in occasional pulse testing, one obtains the (T) transmissivity and (S) storativity for a specific time. In our approach,
we focus on the rate changes to generate the pulse and to derive expected responses at observation wells. We now focus on
the effectiveness of weaker pulses that can be produced by variations in injection rates. We represent this succession of rate
changes by a series of q
D
which range from zero (shut-in the pulsing well) to one (no rate changes).

We now derive Equation (2) for conditions where the rate variation is the cause for pulsation; (q
D
0).
( )

D D
D D
q t
t t
T
S
t
r
L
L L
1
1 1
1 ln 1
56900
2
(Eq. 2)
The higher boundary of dimensionless rate as a function of dimensionless time lag is
L L
D D D
t t q ) 1 ( 1
max
<
We now compare this relationship to that representing the conditions before the start of the injection process:
( )
( )
( )
( )

=
D D
D D
D D
D D
q t
t t
q t
t t
T S
T S
L
L L
L
L L
1
1 1
1 ln 1
1
1 1
1 ln 1
0
0 0
1
1 1
0
1
(Eq. 3)
In equation (3), t
DL
is the ratio of time lag over production cycle and q
D
is dimensionless rate. Figure (1) shows a schematic
of a single pulse test and the related terminologies.
4 SPE 114233
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
( )

D DL
DL DL
q t
ln t t
T
S
t
r
1
1 1
1 1
56900
2

Figure 1- Single Pulse Test Pressure and Rate Profile
Figure (2) shows the dimensionless time lags behavior vs. dimensionless (S/T) for various dimensionless rates and for a
single pulse.
1
1.04
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(S/T)/(S/T)0
t
D
qD=0.0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.4

Figure 2- Dimensionless Time lag vs. Dimensionless S/T for a Radial System

Equation (3) describes the comparison of two conditions of same radial system and the relation of S/T with time lags. Figure
(3) shows the effect of dimensionless injection period on dimensionless time lag at various S/T.
Injection Rate Effect
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Dimensionless Injection Period
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

T
i
m
e

L
a
g
S/T=2.0e-8
S/T=5.0e-8
S/T=10.0e-8

Figure 3- Effect of Injection Rate Period on Time lag
SPE 114233 5

Table (1) shows the range of parameters used in this study to examine the effect of composite S/T on estimated time lag.
Table 1- Reservoir and Fluid properties
Property Range
Porosity 0.01<<0.2
Permeability (md) 0.0016<k<256 correlated with porosity
Thickness (ft) 50
Viscosity (cp) 1<<10
Compressibility (1/psi) 1.0E-6<c
t
<20E-6
Injection period (min) 2700 (45 hr)
Figure (4) shows a comparison of the analytical solution with corresponding cases which have been synthetically generated
by using a commercial reservoir simulator. In this Figure the same trend has been illustrated for homogenous cases with
different S/T.
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(S/T)/(S/T)0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

T
i
m
e

L
a
g
Analytical Solution
Variable Permeability
Variable Porosity
Variable Comppresibility
Variable viscosity

Figure 4- Comparison of Analytical Solution with Commercial Simulator for Single Phase in Radial System

Figure (5) shows the relationship between dimensionless time lag and dimensionless rate for a various values of S/T and
using Equation (2).
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.00
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07

Dimensionless Rate
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

T
i
m
e

L
a
g
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

T
i
m
e

L
a
g
S/T=5.00E-07
S/T=1.00E-06
S/T=1.00E-08
S/T=1.00E-07
S/T=5.00E-08

Figure 5- Dimensionless Rate Effect on Time lag in Radial System

Figure (6) shows the effect of dimensionless interwell distance on dimensionless rate to responding well receive the pulsating
signal. For lower values of S/T, which represents high transmissibility and low storativity, pulses caused by the rate changes
6 SPE 114233
may provide almost the same time lag as those with dimensionless rates equal to zero. Obviously these values are small and
very sensitive sensors are required to detect the pulses. For higher ranges of S/T, the estimated dimensionless time lag shows
higher values. That means it takes longer times to detect the pulses caused by the changes in rate. Another main issue in the
multi-well test in the distance between the wells. As shown in Figure (6) for an observation well very close to a pulsing well,
even small rate changes can be detected.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless rate
D
i
m
e
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
r
w
e
l
l

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

Figure 6- Effect of Well Distance on Selection of Dimensionless Rate

In actual field implementation, unsupervised rate changes and unstructured pulse test need to be considered.
We now examine for a general case, the multiple rate changes and derive the predicted pulse responses caused by such
variations in rate. Figure (7) shows a schematic of this case with related terminologies.
Time (t)
PA, tA
PB, tB
PC, tC
t1 t2 t3
tLA=tA-t1
tLB=tB-t2
tLC=tC-t3
q1
q2
q3
q4
q5

Figure 7- A schematic of Unsupervised Pulsation

The derivative of general pulse test formula for points A, B, and C show the relationship between (S/T) with dimensionless
time lag and dimensionless rate as follows:
( ) 0
exp
1
exp
1
1
2
2 2
=

=
D D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t t
t t
r
q
t
t
r
dt
dP
A
A
A
A
A
A
(Eq. 4)
SPE 114233 7
( ) ( ) 0
exp exp
1
exp
2
2
2 3
1
1
2
2 2 2
=

=
D D
D D
D
D D
D D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t t
t t
r
q q
t t
t t
r
q
t
t
r
dt
dP
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
(Eq. 5)
( ) ( ) ( ) 0
exp exp exp
1
exp
3
3
3 4
2
2
2 3
1
1
2
2 2 2 2
=

=
D D
D D
D
D D
D D
D D
D
D D
D D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t t
t t
r
q q
t t
t t
r
q q
t t
t t
r
q
t
t
r
dt
dP
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(Eq. 6)
Where
1
6 . 70
) (
Bq
T p p
P
i
D

=
and
S
T
r
t
t
W
D
2
56900
=
and
w
D
r
r
r =

Here the t
D1
, t
D2
, and t
D3
are measured and t
DA
, t
DB
, and t
DC
are known from continuous recording of the performance data.
The above equations can then provide an estimation of changing S/T. Equation (4) shows the dimensionless time lag is
dependent only on the first dimensionless rate. But in equations (5) and (6) the dependency of second and third dimensionless
time lags to second and third dimensionless rates are also noted. Figure (8) with multiple pulses shows the effect of first
dimensionless rate on the time lag of second and third pulse.
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Second Dimensionless Rate
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

T
i
m
e

L
a
g
2nd time lag (qD2=0.3)
3rd time lag (qD2=0.3)
2nd time lag (qD2=0.2)
3rd time lag (qD2=0.2)

Figure 8- Effect of First Dimensionless Rate on Second and Third Time lag

Now we consider a 2D homogenous reservoir as depicted in Figure (9). Implementing water injection with rate changes to
cause pulsation provides the opportunity to test the proposed formulations and to compare the estimated values of the front
location as obtained from the numerical simulation. In the simulation runs using the CMG model, an intentional pulse is
included in injection well rate plan each month. The first pulse happens after five days of injection and we assume that water
injection has not significantly altered the S/T between the pulsing well and the responding well. Figure (10) shows the
dimensionless time lag and front location for different rate changes. It is seen for that for small q
D
s, the estimated time lag is
close to the time lag expected when q
D
=0. But for higher q
D
s and for the same front location, the estimated time lag takes
longer and we may not be able to match the estimated front location. For the purpose of discussion here we refer to q
D
a
measure of pulse energy. Lower q
D
s correspond to higher pulse energies.
8 SPE 114233

Figure 9- Five Spot Pattern Model in Commercial Simulator

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75













Figure 10- Dimensionless Time lag
Behavior with Front Movement at
Different Pulse Energies
Second case is a reservoir with permeability decreasing from left to right. We expect to have lower time lags in higher
permeability area in addition to faster front movement in that direction. Figure (12) shows the front map after few months of
injection. Figure (11) and (13) show the same behavior as expected as computed time lag is decreasing with the movement of
the front. But the time lag scale of these two Figures is important and illustrates that in high transmissivity zones, one
observes the time lag much faster than that in lower transmissivity zones. The next case is the examination of the role of a
high permeability channel in a reservoir as shown in Figure (14). Front location because of higher permeability is exhibited in
Figure (15). Figures (16) to (19) show this relationship for each well.
Wells in higher permeability zone (Prod_1 & Prod_2)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75

Figure 11- Time lag Decrease with Front Movement (0.03<t
DL
<0) at Different pulse Energies

SPE 114233 9

Figure 12- Hetrogenoues Reservoir Example (permeability Decreases from left to right)

Wells in lower permeability zone (Prod_4 & Prod_3)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75

Figure 13- Time lag Decreases with Front movement (0.18<t
DL
<0.06) at Various Pulse Energies


Figure 14- A Shematic of Channeled reservoir

Figure 15- Front location in the channeled reservoir

10 SPE 114233
Well outside of the channel (P1)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75
Figure 16- Dimensionless time lag vs front location for
producer #1 (0.3<t
DL
<0)
Well close to the channel (P4)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75
Figure 17- Dimensionless time lag vs front location for
producer #4 (0.06<t
DL
<0)


Well inside the channel (P2)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75
Figure 18- Dimensionless time lag vs front location for
producer #2 (0.025<t
DL
<0)
Well outside of the channel (P3)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Dimensionless Time Lag
F
r
o
n
t

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

qD=0
qD=0.1
qD=0.2
qD=0.3
qD=0.5
qD=0.75
Figure 19- Dimensionless time lag vs front location for
producer #3 (0.16<t
DL
<0)


Linear System
The theoretical behavior of a linear system for an oil reservoir adjoining a high pressure aquifer was described by Miller
8
. His
solution is modified for linear oil reservoir including wells as shown by Ehlig-Economides, et al.
9
The solution for an infinite
reservoir, and assuming that half of the production comes from observation side toward the production well, can be shown as
follows:
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

=
+ i i i i i
D D D D D D D D D
m
i
D D
D D D D D D D
t t x erfc x t t x t t q q
t x erfc x t x t P
2 2
1
2 2
2 1 4 exp 2
2 1 4 exp 2
1

(Eq. 7)
where dimensionless pressure is modified as ( )
1
) , ( Bq t x p p kh P
i D
=
Same as with the radial system, from the derivative of equation 7, we obtain the relationship between the first time lag with
rock and fluid properties.
( )
( )

+ +

2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
ln 1
4
2
2
2
S
T
t
x
t
S
T
t
x
t
t
t
q
t t
T
S t x
L
L
L
L
L L
D
D
D
D
D
D D
(Eq. 8)
SPE 114233 11
Equitation (8) represents a homogeneous reservoir with average transmissivity and storativity.

Definition of Front Location
For the estimation of fluid-fluid interface during an immiscible flooding process, we need to define the concept of the
interface. The Buckley and Leverett frontal advance theory can be used to find the breakthrough saturation for given
fractional flow data Welge
10
. In this study, we define the front to be the location of breakthrough saturation. Given the
assumed relative permeabilities and the fractional flow curve, we can obtain breakthrough saturation from the frontal advance
formula and will use this saturation to identify front location before breakthrough. We break the saturation profile into small
segments, Figure (20), and we use an integration of the segment total mobilities as the average total mobility behind the front.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X
S
w

Figure 20- Integration of Segments with Different Total Mobilities for a 1-D System

Figure (21) shows estimated total mobilities behind the front with front location. The question is how we can predict average
mobility from time lag value and related to front location.
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless Front location in BL
T
o
t
a
l

M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

Figure 21- Computed Total Mobility Behind the Front at Various Front Locations

Figure (22) shows the estimated total mobilities behind the front at various pore volume injected.
12 SPE 114233

Figure 22- Front Location and the Computed Total Mobility Behind the Front at Various Pore Volume Injection
Now we show the results of tracking flood front movement in a 1-D system using a commercial reservoir simulator, Figure
(23).

Figure 23-Reservoir Simulation results for 1D

In Figure (24), we see a comparison of estimated repeated time lags during a waterflood from simulation studies validated
with analytical solution.

SPE 114233 13
1
1.005
1.01
1.015
1.02
1.025
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(S/T)/(S/T)0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

t
i
m
e

l
a
g
Analytical
Simulator

Figure 24- Dimensionless Time lag Behavior vs. Dimensionless (S/T) for Linear System

As in the radial system we note the impact of rate variations vs. rate shut down by examining the relationship between
dimension rate and dimensionless time lags as shown in Figure (25).
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Dimensionless Rate
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

t
i
m
e

L
a
g

Figure 25- Dimensionless Rate Effect on Time lag in Linear System

Conclusion
We have developed the formulation to examine the feasibility of field implementation of continuous time lag recording as an
indicator of front location during immiscible fluid injection processes. The formulation covers the effect of pulsation energy
as caused by the magnitude of rate changes in injection well. We have demonstrated that while ideal conditions to create a
strong pulse are dropping injection rates to zero, ratios above zero can also adequately allow detection of time lag in
responding wells.

We have developed correlations for 1-D and radial flow demonstrating the progressive drop in time lag as the high mobility
fluids are injected to displace low mobility oils. These analytical correlation match with commercial simulation.
Implementation of repeated supervised or unsupervised pulses during a water flood and history matching of the recorded time
lags can serve as a strong diagnostic tool to track flood fronts before breakthrough.

14 SPE 114233
Nomenclature

c
t
Isothermal Coefficient of Compressibility, psi
-1

h Formation thickness, ft
k Permeability, md
p Pressure, psi
P
D
Dimensionless pressure = (pT)/(70.6Bq
1
)
q Flow rate, STB/D
q
i
Flow rate in i
th
period , STB/D
q
D
Dimensionless rate, q
i
/q
1

r Radial Distance, ft
S Storativity = c
t
h, ft/psi
T Transmissibility = kh/, md ft/cp
t Time, min
t
D
Dimensionless time = (Tt)/(56900Sr
w
2
)
t Injection period, min
t
L
Time lag, min
t
DL
Dimension time lag, t
L
/t
X Well distance, linear system
Viscosity, cp
Porosity, Fraction
References
1-Kazemi H., Merrill L.S. and Jargon J.R. Problems in interpretation of pressure fall-off tests in reservoirs with and
without fluid banks, SPE 3936. - 1972. - pp. 11471156.

2-Kazemi H. Locating a burning front by pressure transient measurements, SPE 1271. - 1966. - pp. 227232.

3-Theis C.V. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well
using groundwater storage, Trans. Am. Geophysical Union (16). - 1935. - pp. 519524.

4-Johnson C.R., Greenkorn R.A. and Woods E.G. Pulse-testing: A new method for describing reservoir flow properties
between wells, SPE 1517. - 1966. - pp. 15991604.

5-Kamal M.M. and Brigham W.E. Pulse-testing response for unequal pulse and shut-in periods, SPE Reprint 5053. - 1975.
- pp. 116

6-Daltaban T. S. and Wall C. G. Fundamental and Applied Pressure Analysis, World Scientific Publishing Company ,
1998.

7-Buckley S.E. and Leveret, M.C. Mechanism of fluid displacement in sands, Petroleum Transactions, AIME 146. - 1942. -
pp. 107116.

8-Miller F.G. Theory of unsteady-state influx of water in linear reservoirs, Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, 467. - 1962.
- pp. 365379.

9--Ehlig-Economides C.A. and Economides M.J. Pressure transient analysis in an elongated linear flow system, SPE
12742-MS. - 1984. - pp. 1-10.

10-Welge H.J. A simplified method for computing oil recovery by gas or water drive, Petroleum Transactions, AIME 146 . -
1952. - pp. 9198.