SPE 62917
Advances in Multilayer Reservoir Testing and Analysis using Numerical Well Testing
and Reservoir Simulation
R. R. Jackson, SPE, and R. Banerjee, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-
952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents multilayer testing and analysis
techniques to obtain layer permeabilities and skin factors
using pressure and flowrate transient data from sequential
flow tests acquired with production logging tools. The
analysis of these tests by application of numerical well test
analysis is highlighted. An integrated workflow is shown
and a new analysis technique is presented which
incorporates numerical reservoir simulation and an
automated history matching procedure. A gradient method
has been successfully applied to modify simulation model
input parameters to match synthetic and field examples of
multilayer transient tests. The study also highlights the
potential for the application of this method and for
automated history matching techniques to pressure transient
and flowrate transient analysis and multilayer test analysis
and interpretation.
Introduction
Hydrocarbon reservoirs are commonly heterogeneous and
they often comprise of units or formations where layers may
have distinct values for thickness, permeability, porosity and
skin factor. In well testing terminology, these reservoir
formations are called multilayer systems. The effects of
layering on conventional pressure-transient tests and their
interpretation have been described by many authors1-3. In
some situations, the layers may have such low
permeabilities that they act as barriers to vertical flow and
inhibit reservoir crossflow between more permeable units.
This is known as a multilayered reservoir system without
crossflow or commingled. For cases where communication
can take place between layers and formation crossflow can
occur, this is known as multilayered reservoir with
crossflow. In cases that are more complex, a well may
produce from a composite reservoir consisting of
commingled zones that may contain crossflow layers.
Characterisation of layered reservoirs4 is important from
a reservoir evaluation and management standpoint because
of the influence of layering on primary and secondary oil
recovery. Layered reservoirs pose special problems; for
example differences in layer permeabilities can lead to
unbalanced depletion and poor recovery. Waterflooding
projects in such reservoirs can lead to poor sweep efficiency
because unswept oil is usually bypassed in the lower
permeability zones. For commingled reservoirs, contrasts in
well performance and production could be due to large
variations in permeability-thickness product or skin.
The problem addressed here is the challenge of
determining reservoir parameters in multilayered reservoirs,
i.e. estimating layer permeabilities, skin factors and
formation pressures from well test data.
Attempts to identify reservoir parameters for individual
layers have applied some of the following methods. [1]
Isolation testing and drillstem testing (DST) of individual
layers by selective perforation, or by combinations of
straddles and/or isolation packers; [2] conventional buildup
and variable-rate drawdown testing; and [3] production
logging.
Isolation and selective methods can be problematic and
they are expensive to perform. Conventional well tests
(buildup and/or drawdown) and their analysis reveal the
total system behaviour, and often give no indication that
layering phenomena are present. Buildup tests are often
affected by crossflow between layers and from wellbore
storage effects; pressure data alone may not provide any
information about crossflow or wellbore dynamics.
However, there are some cases where conventional well
tests do work 1,3.
Testing and analysis techniques using production
logging have been developed to obtain individual layer
permeabilities and skin factors. This approach has strong
theoretical basis5-12. This testing technique, which has been
applied in many locations around the world 10, 13-16, involves
2 JACKSON & BANERJE
the sequential measurement of flowrate and pressure
transients from an individual layer, or a group of layers,
after a rate change using a production logging tool.
For the reasons outlined above, the use of downhole
flowrate and pressure measurement for layered reservoir
testing and analysis are discussed and applied in this paper.
We review the acquisition techniques for multilayer
transient tests and compare existing interpretation methods,
and propose a new integrated workflow and analysis method
that incorporates numerical well test analysis. The method
involves reservoir simulation, which is coupled with an
automated history matching procedure.
Several techniques have emerged in the last decade to
automate history matching in reservoir simulation. The
history-matching problem is generally transformed into a
problem of minimisation of an objective function. For
practical cases the gradient method has been successfully
used17- 19. Our aim is to use these techniques in well test and
multilayer transient test analysis.
Multilayer Transient Test Procedure
A multilayer transient (MLT) test or layered reservoir test
(LRT) involves the acquisition of both sandface flow and
wellbore pressure versus time during successive drawdown
tests with the sensors in a static position, combined with
production log surveys across all layers to determine the
stabilised flow profile at each rate 5-12. This test technique
combines stabilised and transient flowrate and pressure
measurements, and extends the concept of flow-after-flow
or isochronal tests to multiple layers.
The simplest layered reservoir testing technique is
known as selective inflow performance (SIP) testing 20. The
result of a SIP test is a series of inflow performance
relationship (IPR) curves for each layer and estimates of the
average layer pressures (see Appendix A). It is not possible
to determine layer permeability and skin factors uniquely
from SIP analysis – transient data are needed.
During the acquisition of a multilayer transient (MLT)
test, after each transient and the acquisition of logging
passes across the completed reservoir section at that
stabilised rate, the production logging tool (PLT) is
repositioned at the top of a different formation and then the
surface flowrate is changed. The resulting sandface
flowrates and pressures are then measured.
A typical MLT test sequence is illustrated in Fig.1.
Typically the PLT is positioned at the top of the bottom
layer, the well flows at Rate 1 (or it is opened up from the
shut in condition) and both sandface rate and pressure are
measured. The surface rate is then changed to Rate 2 and the
transient flowrate and pressure data are recorded. At the end
of this transient, the production logging tool is then passed
across all layers to determine the flow profile at this
stabilised rate. This concludes the data gathering to derive
the reservoir characteristics for the bottom layer. Following
this sequence of operations the tool is then positioned at the
top of layer 2 and the surface rate is then changed to Rate 3.
This time the measured rate is the sum of layers 1 and 2.
This is different from the first transient when only
production form one layer (bottom) was measured. At the
SPE 62917
end of this transient the tool is then passed across all the
layers to determine the flow profile at this stabilised rate.
For the next part of the test, the tool is positioned at the top
of the topmost layer and the test proceeds as before. The test
can be concluded with an optional pressure buildup
followed by a shut in production log survey. The typical
activities involved for the acquisition of an example three
layer multilayer test are summarised in Appendix B.
Convolution and Deconvolution
The logarithmic convolution or sandface rate convolution
method (SFRC) which has been well documented in the well
testing literature21-28 is used here to estimate average
permeability and skin factors from simultaneous
measurements of downhole flowrate and pressure. It has
been shown that for infinite acting radial flow a linear plot
of normalised pressure versus logarithmic convolution time
gives a straight line. The slope and intercept of this line is
used to calculate permeability and skin. This analysis
method is applied to each sequential transient in a multilayer
transient test, for estimation of average layer permeability
and skin factors.
An alternative approach is to use deconvolution 25, 27, 28,
which involves inverting the convolution approach.
Deconvolution can be used to compute the pressure
response of a well as if the well was producing at a constant
rate, with or without constant wellbore storage or
exponential flowrate effects.
Parameter estimates obtained by these methods can then
be used as initial input values for simultaneous
interpretation using an analytical model combined with non-
linear least squares estimation 7-9 and type curves 29. It can
also be used in numerical well testing approach, which
combines reservoir simulation with automated history-
matching techniques. This topic is developed and discussed
in later sections of this paper.
Integrated Workflow for Analysis
As discussed previously, an LRT or MLT relies on a
combination of measurements including production log
surveys and pressure and flowrate transients acquired with
the production logging tool in a stationary position.
Interpreting these types of test is complex because it
involves a large volume of data, and the identification of a
reservoir model with a large number of potentially unknown
parameters.
A recommended approach for the analysis and
interpretation of multilayer tests is summarised and
discussed as follows:
[1] Analyse the associated production log data using
conventional methods. Determine the flow profile and
zonal/layer contributions at each stabilised flow rate.
[2] Use PLT data for Selective Inflow Performance (SIP)
analysis to establish the layer IPR, and for estimation of
layer pressures.
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE 62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION
[3] Prepare the pressure and flowrate transient data for
analysis.
[4] Apply conventional diagnostic methods using log-log
and derivative methods and conventional well test analysis.
[5] Sandface rate convolution (SFRC) analysis of the
pressure and flowrate transients for initial parameter
estimation.
[6] Sequential and simultaneous analysis using a layered
model, with analytic or numerical methods using a reservoir
simulator or both methods in combination.
[7] Simulation and automated history matching and
sensitivity analysis of the MLT test.
As summarised above, the first stage in the analysis of a
multilayer test begins with the interpretation of the
associated production log survey data. Using conventional
production log interpretation techniques, the production
profile and individual layer flowrates are determined for the
well at each of the stabilised flow rates. From this stabilised
flow profile data we can produce a selective inflow
performance (SIP) plot and determine the individual layer
IPR and also estimate the layer pressures.
The second step consists of preparing the data in a
suitable format for analysis. This includes, for example, the
splicing of several transients to a composite file,
incorporation of the well production and test history, and the
correction of pressures to a common datum. Once the
pressure values have been corrected to a common datum,
they can then be used for subsequent history matching.
Before any multilayer analysis - conventional diagnostic
methods using log-log and derivative methods and
conventional well test analysis (eg. Horner, MDH) should
be performed. For analysis of multilayer tests, two methods
have been generally applied 5-11. The methods, which are
known as the sequential method and the simultaneous
method, are summarized in the sections that follow.
Sequential MLT Interpretation
The sequential method evaluates each layer sequentially,
beginning with the transient data acquired for the lowest
layer and then proceeding to subsequent layers.
Using measured flow transients acquired with a PLT
positioned above the lowest test interval as the inner-
boundary condition - interpretation of the bottom layer
becomes a single-layer interpretation problem. From the
bottom layer, the reservoir model and the dominant flow
regimes and system geometry are identified. Initial
parameter estimates for permeability and skin are made
using logarithmic convolution methods 21-28. The SFRC plot
is used to compute layer permeability and skin from the data
that follows a radial flow regime. Values of k and S matched
for this layer are then fixed for analysis of the next transient
which uses data from the second to lowest zone. Again as
per the first transient, the pressures are matched to computed
pressures by use of a two layer model. It is also valid to use
flowrate changes and match with pressure changes 29.
This sequential method is applied to transients above
each layer. For each transient all the previously determined
values are fixed, and a single well model is used with as
many layers as the number of layers tested. For the MLT
3
example shown in Fig.2, and discussed in the final sections
of the paper this procedure would be applied three times
with a one-, two- and three-layer models for each successive
interpretation step.
Once a satisfactory reservoir model and parameter
estimates for the lowest zone are established the
interpretation proceeds with the subsequent layers. For
subsequent tests, the measured flow rate is cumulative for
the layers. Under these circumstances SFRC analysis of
cumulative flowrate and wellbore pressure provide
parameter estimates of ‘average’ values. Using the single-
layer theory, the thickness-averaged permeability, kavg, of
the reservoir can be evaluated using the following equation,
kavg = (k1.h1 + k2.h2)/(h1 + h2) , ……………………...(1)
where, ki and hi refer to permeability and thichness of layer i
respectively. Evaluation of average skin factors, Savg, using a
similar approach can be written as,
Savg = (S1.Q1 + S2.Q2)/(Q1+Q2) , ……………………...(2)
where, Si and Qi are the skin and rate for layer i respectively.
Equation 2 is not applicable where skin factors are negative;
so, care must be taken when taking this approach for initial
estimates (i.e. treatment as a homogeneous system) because
it could lead to incorrect results.
Simultaneous MLT Interpretation
An alternative approach to the sequential method is the
simultaneous method. In this technique the flow transient
data are matched simultaneously using an analytic or
numerical model using non-linear regression. Values for
permeability and skin are varied until a satisfactory match is
obtained with all the measured flowrate and pressure
transients. Sensitivity analyses can be carried out to assess
the uniqueness of the solutions and the accuracy/confidence
of the solution.
The simultaneous approach has the advantage that
superposition effects caused by changes in the surface rate
(and previous flow history) required to initiate each
transient, are taken into account in the interpretation.
Because simultaneous interpretation method uses data
acquired for the entire duration of the MLT test and the
transients may be affected by outer boundary conditions -
correct parameter estimates from this method require
specification of the initial layer pressures. These values can
be estimated from SIP test analysis.
With the simultaneous approach, a single multilayer
model is used. This model can be either analytical or
numerical. During the analysis the bottom layer parameters
are first computed and fixed, and properties for the other
layers are searched for using non-linear least squares
estimation and automatic regression techniques30,31,34. In
order to take advantage of the flexibility offerered by
reservoir simulation, numerical well testing techniques may
be used (see next section).
4 JACKSON & BANERJEE
Numerical Simulation with Automated History
Matching
Several techniques have been recently developed to
automate history matching in reservoir simulation. The
history matching problem is generally transformed into a
problem of minimisation of an objective function. For
practical cases the gradient method has been successfully
applied and in our work we endeavor to use this techniques
in multilayer well testing. The objective is to use this
technique to modify the model parameters such as
permeability or transmissibility so that the pressure response
generated by our simulation model matches the acquired
MLT test data. In principle, this procedure is similar to non-
linear regression associated with analytical models in well
testing30,31. However, its application in this context has
obvious differences. The objective function used here is
more generalised and the gradients used are generated by a
numerical simulator rather than an analytical model.
As discussed in the previous sections the final stage of
multilayer transient test analysis involves matching the
acquired pressure transient data with the response obtained
from a multilayer numerical model using a regression
technique. While the technique itself is general purpose and
applicable to radial as well as cartesian grids, we have used
a radial model.
Numerical models that use a reservoir simulator have
flexibility in terms of handling spatial variation of properties
and multiphase flow effects. However, successful
application of numerical well testing requires, at a
minimum, the ability to automatically generate input data
for the simulator and, preferably, application of an
optimisation technique.
Regression is performed to adjust the model parameters
to match the observed pressure and the simulated pressure.
It should also be noted that this observed data can also
include, in addition to pressure, other quantities such as
flowrates and phase ratios (e.g. GOR, and water-cut). A
commercial history matching software application was used
for this purpose19 which was coupled to a reservoir32
simulator and a numerical well test software33. The software
uses a refinement of the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm.
The gradient required to solve the algorithm is obtained
directly from the reservoir simulator which is calculated at
the same time as the simulated quantities themselves.
Moreover, use of an analytical method to obtain the initial
parameter estimates ensures that the objective function is
near the minima and so can be optimised easily with few
simulation runs.
The objective function, f, that is minimised is a modified
form of the commonly used sum-of-squares used in well
testing.
1
f = f prior + ∑
2 d ,i
rd2,i , ……...………….…………….(3)
where, fprior incorporates a priori knowledge of the reservoir
and rdi is the weighted difference between an observed value
and a simulated one. The latter term is defined as
SPE 62917
rdi = wd wdi
(odi − cdi ) , ……...…….………………….(4)
σd
where, d references one set of observed data of a given type
at a given well, i references an individual data point for the
dth item of observed data, odi and cdi are the observed and
simulated values respectively, σd is the measurement
standard deviation for the dth dataset, wd is the overall
weighting for the dth data set and wdi is a weighting for the ith
data point of the dth data set.
From equation 4 we can see that that our data type does
not have to be limited to pressure. One may, in addition,
regress on water cut, gas oil ratios, and flowrates.
Furthermore, the confidence given to each data type as a
whole may be varied, in addition to the weight attached to a
given data point. Please note that the overall data-type
measurement error is accounted for by the term σ. For
example, in the case of pressure transient data the
measurement error would be reflected by the downhole
gauge resolution.
The prior term is given by
1
f prior = ν T BT C prior
−1
Bν , ……………………….(5)
2
where, ν is the vector of normalised parameter modifiers. B
is the diagonal matrix of the parameter prior weights and
Cprior is the parameter prior correlation matix. Cprior indicates
how strongly we think the parameters are correlated. The
values range from –1 to +1. A value of 1 indicates strong
correlation, 0 signifies no correlation and –1 indicates
correlation having opposite effect. In equation 5 the
normalised parameter modifier, ν, rather than the actual
parameter is used. For a normal distribution this is given by
x−x
v= , ……………………………….(6)
σ
where, x is the mean and σ the standard deviation of the
parameter modifier distribution. The parameter modifier
distribution is a normalised distribution of a parameter and
may be obtained from the petrophysict. It should be noted
that the initial value of a parameter in doing the regression is
obtained from analytical methods described and referenced
earlier in this paper.
The prior term is essentially a penalty term which makes
it difficult for the solution to move away from the estimated
mean. By default this term is ignored by setting prior
weights for all the parameters to zero (B becomes a null
matrix). A modified form of Levenberg-Marquardt
algorithm is used to optimise the objective function given in
equation 5. This modification is called the model trust
region method19. This optimisation scheme requires first and
second derivative of the objective function with respect to
the parameters (permeability, fault transmissibility, etc).
Using the Gauss-Newton approximation we can ignore the
second derivative term. This means that the problem can be
solved by only considering the first derivative of the
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE 62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 5

simulated quantity with respect to the parameters. These transients, with a pressure buildup (PBU) at the end of the
derivatives are obtained from our reservoir simulator at the MLT test. For simplicity this MLT example has no vertical
same time as the simulated quantities themselves in a single reservoir crossflow and the well drainage radius is large (i.e.
run thus saving a considerable amount of time. no boundaries are present). The oil formation volume factor
In multilayer tests the parameters we are mainly used is 1.2 and constant wellbore storage is modelled. In this
interested in are permeability are skin. Currently, for a radial scenario, the reservoir is assumed to be at virgin condition
model, we cannot use any of these parameters in the or shut in for a long period prior to the test. The initial
regression scheme outined above. However, this can be conditions and the reservoir and fluid parameters are
easily worked around by regressing on radial detailed in Table 1 and the rate schedule is in Table 2.
transmissibilty. Modifying the radial transmissibility is the
same as modifying radial permeability but with one
exception. A change in radial transmissibility has no effect HU-A HU-B HU-C
on the well connection factor which for a radial model is Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
given by the equation Top (ft) 8000 8045 8085
Bottom (ft) 8035 8057 8125
Porosity, PU 9.5 18.5 4.5
cθkh
T= 2
, ………………….(7) Wellbore radius, 0.29 0.29 0.29
ft

(r2 − rw2 ) ln(r2 rw ) − 0.5 + S

r2
2 Bo (bbl/STB) 1.2 1.2 1.2
Muo, cp 1.38 1.38 1.38
Ct, 1/psi 2.1e-5 2.1e-5 2.1e-5
where, c is a unit conversion factor, θ is the segment angle C, bbl/psi 0.01 0.01 0.01
k, mD 48 100 12
of the grid block in radians, r2 is the block’s outer radius, rw
Skin, S 2.3 -1.1 4
is the well bore radius, k is the permeability, h is the layer Pi, psia 5000 5000 5000
thickness and S is the skin factor. On the other hand a
change in radial permeability effects the well connection Table 1. Reservoir and Fluid Parameters
factor. So if we change the radial permeability by the same
factor which we obtain for the radial transmissibility, in
order to maintain the match we have to modify skin so that Time Oil Rate PLT Position Layer
the well connection factor remains unchanged. In this way hrs STB/D ft
we are able to regress on both permeability and skin. Our 0 2450 8085 Above 3
assumption of constant connection factor is valid if the 12 925 8000 Above 1
initial parameter values we obtain by analytical means are 18 1850 8045 Above 2
not too far from that obtained using numerical simulation. 30 0 8000 Above 1
It should also be noted that varying the vertical 38 0 8000 Above 1
transmissibility is also equivalent to varying the vertical
Table 2. Rate Schedule and PLT Position
permeability. Thus layer connectivity may be investigated in
the analysis. Reservoir simulation is suitable for handling
For the first transient the production logging tool was
models with spatial heterogeniety and complex geometry,
stationed above the lowest layer (Fig.1.). The well was
and multiphase flow effects. In the context of this paper, the
initially shut in and then opened up to a surface rate of 2450
latter has special significance. For example, this method
STB/D. This transient and flow period which lasted for 12
allows one to regress on water-cut either independently or in
hours was then followed by a production log survey at this
conjuction with pressure.
stabilised flowrate.
For the second transient the PLT was then stationed above
all of the layers, and the surface rate was decreased to 925
Application to Simulated and Real Multilayer Tests
STB/D (Fig.1). This transient and flow period that lasted for
six hours was then followed by a production log survey at
To illustrate the application of our proposed workflow and
this stabilised rate.
methods to the analysis of multilayer tests, a synthetic
The third transient was recorded with the PLT stationed
layered reservoir test and a field example are shown. These
above the middle zone (Fig.1). The surface rate was
examples are used to show how to conduct a multilayer test
increased to 1850 STB/D and pressure and flowrate data
and analysis. The synthetic MLT test was generated
was acquired for 12 hours. This transient and flow period
analytically.
was followed by a production log survey at this stabilised
rate. Following the third transient and production log, the
PLT was then stationed above the top layer and the well was
Example 1: Simulated Case
shut in for an 8-hour pressure buildup. This step is optional
and in a real field situation if the decision is taken to acquire
This is a synthetic example of a three layer MLT test
a PBU, then the PLT should be positioned in-between layers
containing three hydraulic units with different permeability,
that are expected to crossflow. In this way, any crossflow
porosity and skin values, which are separated by layers of
can be observed and recorded – this will provide the
very low permeability. The test comprises of three flow
6 JACKSON & BANERJEE
opportunity to determine parameters for the crossflowing
layer(s) and to compare with the previous drawdown data. If
the PLT is stationed above all the layers during the PBU, the
opportunity is lost to observe and record any crossflow.
The simulated test sequence and the pressure and
flowrate data are illustrated in Fig.2. Flowrates and pressure
for each layer were determined from synthetic production
log surveys taken at the end of each transient and flow
period. These values are plotted in Fig.3 and as a selective
inflow performance (SIP) plot in Fig.4. The pressure
intercepts for zero rate for each layer represent the average
layer pressure for each hydraulic unit.
Simulated MLT Analysis – SFRC and Sequential
Method
Fig.5 displays the diagnostic log-log plots of the pressure,
pressure derivative and the convolution derivative for each
of the simulated transients. The logarithmic convolution or
SFRC plots, together with initial estimates for skin and
permeability values are displayed in Fig.6. The results of
analysis of the transients from application of the sequential
method using the pressure data are illustrated in Fig.7 and
results from the sequential analysis of the flowrate data are
shown in Fig.8.
Simulated MLT Analysis – Numerical Simulation and
Automated History Matching Method
For this approach, we used a radial simulation model
consisting of three hydraulic units with the initial properties
and PVT fluid properties summarised in Table 1. Estimates
for skin and permeability values for each layer derived from
the logarithmic convolution (SFRC) and sequential methods
were input into our reservoir model. To test our simulation
and history matching technique we deliberately varied some
of our input parameters and model constraints and ran our
reservoir simulator to achieve a mismatch between the
model data and our solution. This is illustrated in Fig.9
where the model data and the varied pressure and flowrate
data are displayed together. After defining the input
parameters we then applied our simulation and regression
methods as previously described. The results are shown in
Fig.10. This example provides a good illustration of our
integrated workflow and the application of automated
history matching techniques to well test analysis and
multilayer transient test analysis.
Example 2: Field Case
The test field example is a new offshore gas well which was
completed in four zones and treated as a three-layer
reservoir. The formation of interest is a sand-shale sequence
with the interval 4190-4214m called the top layer, the
interval between 4214-4231m called the middle layer and
the bottom layer is the interval 4231-4252m. The sequence
of transient tests and the associated flowrates and pressure
data are shown in Fig.11. The multilayer testing operation
lasted over a period of about five hours, with three surface
rate changes termed here as low, medium and high. Each of
these transients and flow periods were followed by
production log surveys at that stabilised production rate.
SPE 62917
For the first transient the PLT was stationed above all of
the layers. The well was initially shut in and then opened up
to a low rate. This transient and flow period which lasted for
about 1 hour was then followed by a production log survey
at this stabilised flowrate.
For the second transient the PLT was stationed above the
middle layer and the surface rate was increased to a medium
rate. This transient and flow period lasted for around 1 hour,
and was followed by a production log survey at this
stabilized flowrate.
The third transient was recorded with the PLT stationed
above the bottom layer, with the surface rate increased to the
high rate. During this test the flowmeter recorded no flow
from the bottom layer. Because there was no flowmeter data
this transient did not provide any specific information for
the bottom layer. Consequently the well was analysed as a
two-layer system with the first and second transients
providing satisfactory pressure and flowrate data.
Qualitative results and parameter estimates were obtained
for the bottom layer from analysis of the pressure data for
the total system and from the pressure and flowrate data
from layers one and two.
A radial simulation model and numerical for the two
layers was then made using parameter estimates derived
from the convolution and sequential analytic methods
previously described. This model was then history matched
to the observed pressure and flowrate transient data. The
results for one of the transients is illustrated in Fig.13 and a
solution diagram of the final timestep from the numerical
simulation solution using transients one and two is shown in
Fig.14. This diagram clearly illustrates the pressure drops
within the two layers and around the perforated intervals.
This field example shows how the multilayer testing
technique can be conducted and analysed using conventional
multilayer test analysis methods and our numerical
simulation and automated history matching method.
Results and Conclusions
Multilayer testing and analysis techniques have been
presented and existing interpretation methods for estimating
layer permeabilities, skin factors and resevoir pressures have
been evaluated using simulated and field examples.
We propose a new integrated workflow and analysis
technique which incorporates numerical well test analysis.
This includes automatic simulation model generation,
reservoir simulation and an automated history matching
procedure. As a result of this study the following
conclusions were reached.
[1] The application of numerical well test analysis using
reservoir simulation to layered reservoir test analysis has
been demonstrated.
[2] A new approach and workflow for the interpretation
of multilayer tests has been shown which uses an automated
history matching technique. A gradient method has been
successfully applied to modify model parameters to match
simulation model pressure data with test data for synthetic
as well as field examples of multilayer transient tests.
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE 62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION
[3] The study illustrates the potential for the application
of automated history matching techniques in well test and
multilayer test analysis and interpretation.
Acknowledgement
We wish to express our gratitude to Wintershall Noordzee
B.V. for providing us with data for the field example. We
also would like to thank Peter Hegeman for providing
assistance and discussion on layered reservoir test
interpretations.
References
1. Lefkovits, H. C. et al. 1961. “A Study of the Behaviour of
Bounded Reservoirs Composed of Stratified Layers”, Journal
of Petroleum Technology, March, 43-58; Trans. AIME, 222.
2. 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.
3. Sabet, M. A. 1991. “Well Test Analysis”. Gulf Publishing
Company, 460pp.
4. Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Economides, M. J. 2000.
“Formation Characterisation: Well and Reservoir
Characterisation”. In: Reservoir Stimulation, Economides, M.
J. and Nolte, K. G. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, 2-1 to 2-21.
5. Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 1987. “Testing and Interpretation in
Layered Reservoirs”. Journal of Petroleum Technology SPE
17089, September, 1087-1090.
6. Ehlig-Economides, C. A. 1993. “Model Diagnosis for
Layered Reservoirs”, SPE Formation Evaluation, September,
215-224.
7. Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L. 1983. “Analysis of
Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate
in Transient Well Testing”. SPE 12177.
8. Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L. 1985. “Analysis of
Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Flow Rate in
Transient Well Testing”. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
February, 323-334.
9. Kuchuk, F., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran, L. 1986. “Well
Testing and Analysis Techniques for Layered Reservoirs”,
SPE Formation Evaluation, August, 342-354.
10. 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.
11. Shah, P. C., Karakas, M., Kuchuk, F., and Ayestaran, L. 1988.
“Estimation of the Permeabilities and Skin Factors in Layered
Reservoirs Using Downhole Rate and Pressure Data”. SPE
Formation Evaluation, September, 555-566.
12. Hegeman, P., and Pelissier-Combescure, J. 1997. “Production
Logging for Reservoir Testing”, Oilfield Review, 16-20.
13. Morris, C. W. 1987. “Case Study of a Gulf Coast Layered
Reservoir Using Multirate Transient Testing”. SPE 16762,
62nd ATCE Dallas, TX., September 27-30, 1987.
14. Rapach, J . M., Jefferies, R., Guedroudj, A. H., and
Westaway. P. J. 1990. “Practical Transient Multilayer Test
Design, Implementation, and Analysis of Gas Wells in the
Southern North Sea Basin”. SPE 20534, 65th ATCE New
Orleans, September 23-26, 1990.
15. Vogelij, H. N. J., Leach, M. J., and Kapteyn, P. K. A. 1993.
“Multilayer Flowmeter Testing Combined with 3D Field
7
Modelling to Enhance the Ameland Field Development”. SPE
Formation Evaluation, March, 5-10.
16. Khalaf, A. A., El Emam, A. A., Mahmoud, Y. and Saeedi, J.
1993. “Successful Applications of the Multilayer Transient
Testing Technique: Arab-C Members of the Umm Shaif
Reservoir”. SPE 25666, ATCE 585-596.
17. Grussaute, T. and Gouel, P. 1999. “Computer Aided History
Matching of a Real Field Case”. SPE 50642.
18. Oliver, D.S., He, N., Reynolds, A.C.: “Conditioning
Permeability fields to pressure data”, ECMOR V, Leoben
Sept 3-5, 1996.
19. “SimOpt User Guide”. 2000. Schlumberger GeoQuest, 238pp.
20. Stewart, G., Wittman, M., and Lefevre, D. 1981. “Well
Performance Analysis: A Synergetic Approach to Dynamic
Reservoir Description”, SPE 10209 24732 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, October 5-7.
21. Stewart, G. and Wittmann, M. J. 1983. “Afterflow
Measurement and Deconvolution in Well Test Analysis”. SPE
12174.
22. Thompson, L. G. and Reynolds, A. C. 1984. Analysis of
Variable Rate Well Test Pressure Data Using Duhamel’s
Principle. SPE 13080.
23. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M. J., and Stewart, G. 1985.
Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-situ
Measurement of Afterflow, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
143-152.
24. Roumboutsos, A. and Stewart, G. 1988. “A Direct
Deconvolution or Convolution Algorithm for Well Test
Analysis”. SPE 18157, 63rd ATCE Houston, TX., October 2-
5, 1988.
25. Kuchuk, F. 1990. “Gladfelter Deconvolution”. SPE
Formation Evaluation, March, 285-292.
26. Ramakrishnan, T. S. and Kuchuk, F. J. 1990. “Testing and
Interpretation of Injection Wells Using Rate and Pressure
Data”. SPE 20536. 65th ATCE New Orleans, September 23-
26, 1990.
27. Kuchuk, F. 1990. “Applications of Convolution and
Deconvolution to Transient Well Tests”, SPE Formation
Evaluation, December, 375-384.
28. Kuchuk, F., Carter, R. G., and Ayestaran, L. 1990.
“Deconvolution of Wellbore Pressure and Flow Rate”. SPE
Formation Evaluation, March, 53-59.
29. Ayrestaran, L., Minhas, H. N., and Kuchuk, F. J. 1983. “The
Use of Convolution Type Curves for the Analysis of
Drawdown and Buildup Tests”. SPE 18535, Easter Regional
Meeting, Charleston, November 1-4, 1983.
30. Horne, R. N. 1997. “Modern Well Test Analysis: A
Computer-Aided Approach”. Petroway Inc., 257pp.
31. Carvalho, R.S., Redner, R.A., Thompson, L.G., and Reynolds,
A.C. 1992. “Robust Procedures for Parameter Estimation by
Automated Type-Curve Matching”. SPE 24732 presented at
the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington D.C., Oct 4-7, 1992.
32. “Eclipse Reference Manual”. 2000. Schlumberger GeoQuest,
1750pp.
33. “Weltest 200 User’s Guide”. 2000. Schlumberger GeoQuest,
398pp.
34. “GeoFrame: Zodiac User’s Guide”, Schlumberger GeoQuest,
232pp.
8 JACKSON & BANERJEE SPE 62917

APPENDIX A measured by the PLT pressure gauges and flowmeter

(spinner); and that they are within their respective resolution
Selective Inflow Performance (SIP) and tolerance. If the transients are not of sufficient
For selective inflow performance (SIP) analysis, flow rates magnitude, then the drawdowns should be recorded with
for each layer from a production log survey acquired during two different flowrates: low and high. In this scenario the
stabilised flow at the end of each transient or flow period are drawdowns should be recorded with the first drawdown at
used. These rates are plotted as a function of wellbore the maximum rate and the second one with the low rate and
flowing pressure at a specific depth. The result of the SIP the third one with the maximum rate.
test is a series of inflow performance relationship (IPR)
curves for each layer. The point where the IPR curve
intercepts the zero rate axis is the pressure at which the layer
neither takes or produces, i.e. it is the pressure existing in
the layer at the well location when the production log survey
was acquired. These estimates of layer pressures will be
valid providing the transients and flow steps were of
sufficient duration to have reached pseudo-steady state. If
the system reached stabilised infinite acting radial flow
(IARF) the SIP is slightly modified by applying a transient
SIP analysis procedure.

APPENDIX B

Typical Activities for Acquisition of a Multilayer Test - 3

Layers
[1] Determine a minimum flowrate with which all three
layers in the well are expected to produce, and decide the
maximum flowrate with which the well can be flowed;
meeting all operational conditions. Define these three
different flowrates with the first flowrate as the minimum
rate and the subsequent flowrates being approximately one-
third increments of the difference between maximum and
minimum rates. The flowrates can be termed as low,
medium and high rates.
[2] Place the tool above the top layer and record the
drawdown with the low flowrate for 6-8 hours, or for a
sufficient time to observe IARF. At the end of this
drawdown, record up and down flowing passes with the
PLT to measure the flow profile and determine the zonal
contributions.
[3] Station the PLT above the middle layer. Increase the
production rate to the medium flowrate. Record the
drawdown for 6-8 hours or for sufficient time to observe
IARF. At the end of the drawdown, record up and down
passes with the PLT to measure the flow profile and
determine zonal contributions.
[4] Place the PLT above the top layer. Increase the
production rate to a high flowrate. Record the drawdown for
6-8 hours or for a sufficient time to observe IARF. Record
up and down passes with the PLT at the end of the transient.
[5] Place the PLT between two layers where crossflow is
expected. Close the well for shut in and record the pressure
buildup. If the test objectives include determination of any
boundary effects or reservoir limits – record for long enough
to observe these effects. At the end of the transient record
shut in up and down passes with the PLT across the
reservoir. Remove PLT from well and rig down.

In this particular example it is assumed that the

transients produced by changing the surface flowrates from
low to medium will induce a sufficient transient to be
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 9

Figure 1. Multilayer Transient (MLT) Test Sequence and Reservoir Completion.

5100 3000

5000

4900
2500
4800

4700

4600 2000
Downhole Rate (rb/d)

4500
Pressure (psi)

4400
1500
4300 Qt rb/d

4200

4100 1000

4000

3900
500
3800

3700

3600 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (hrs)

Figure 2. Multilayer Transient (MLT) Test: Simulated Example Data Set.

10 JACKSON & BANERJEE SPE 62917

Selective Inflow Performance

IPR Plot
5000
HU A, Potential = 4898.7 psi
HU B, Potential = 4843.9 psi
HU C, Potential = 4908.2 psi
Composite, Potential = 4873.4 psi
4750

4500
Hydraulic Unit Pressure Potential (psi)

4250

4000

3750

3500

3250

3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
HU Flowrate Contribution [at surface conditions] (bbl/d)
Figure 3. Multilayer Transient (MLT) Test: Selective Inflow Performance (SIP) Interpretation.

Pressure - Flowrate vs. Depth

7990
Profile 1 P
Profile 1 q
Profile 2 P
Profile 2 q
Profile 3 P
8010 Profile 3 q

8030

8050
Depth (ft)

8070

8090

8110

8130
3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pressure (psi) Flowrate (bbl/d)

Figure 4. Multilayer Transient (MLT)Test: Stabilised Flow Condition – Flowrates and Wellbore Pressure
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE 62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 11

Diagnostic Plot Diagnostic Plot

TR1 TR2
1e+05 1e+04
Pressure Pressure
Derivative Derivative
Conv. Derivative Conv. Derivative

1e+04
1e+03
Delta P & Derivative Groups (psi)

Delta P & Derivative Groups (psi)

1e+03

1e+02

1e+02

1e+01
1e+01

1e+00 1e+00
1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e+02 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01
Delta T (hr) Delta T (hr)

Diagnostic Plot Diagnostic Plot

TR3 TR4
1e+05 1e+04
Pressure Pressure
Derivative Derivative
Conv. Derivative Conv. Derivative

1e+04
1e+03
Delta P & Derivative Groups (psi)

Delta P & Derivative Groups (psi)

1e+03

1e+02

1e+02

1e+01

1e+01

1e+00
1e+00

1e-01 1e-01
1e-04 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e+02 1e-04 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01
Delta T (hr) Delta T (hr)

Figure 5. Diagnostic Plots for MLT Transient Data: Pressure, Pressure Derivative and Convolution Derivative.

Specialized Analysis Plot Specialized Analysis Plot Specialized Analysis Plot

Sandface Rate Convolved Plot - TR1 Sandface Rate Convolved Plot - TR2 Sandface Rate Convolved Plot - TR3
800.0
Test Interval C Test Interval A Test Interval B
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
kh/mu (mD.ft/cP) = 339.3 800.0 kh/mu (mD.ft/cP) = 1062
kh/mu (mD.ft/cP) = 2183
12000.0 k (mD) = 11.71 k (mD) = 28.18
k (mD) = 34.63
Skin = 3.845
Normalized Delta P (psi)

Normalized Delta P (psi)

Normalized Delta P (psi)

Skin = 0.2103 Skin = -0.7658

600.0
600.0

10000.0

400.0
400.0

8000.0

200.0 200.0
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0
Rate-Convolved Time Function Rate-Convolved Time Function Rate-Convolved Time Function

Figure 6. Sandface Rate Convolution (SFRC): Rate normalised change in pressure vs. the Rate Convolved Time Function.
12 JACKSON & BANERJEE SPE 62917

Figure 7. Sequential MLT Interpretation Results.

Drawdown Convolution Type Curve for Transient TR1 Multi-Rate Convolution Type Curve for Transient TR2
1e+03
measured delta P measured delta P
measured derivative measured derivative
measured convol.deriv. measured convol.deriv.
model delta P model delta P
model convol.deriv. model convol.deriv.

1e+03
Delta P & Derivative (psi)

Delta P & Derivative (psi)

1e+02

1e+02

1e+01

1e+01

1e+00
1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01
Delta T (hr) Delta T (hr)
Hydraulic Unit C : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting Hydraulic Unit A : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting
k (mD) = 11.83, Total Skin = 3.939 k (mD) = 39.26, Total Skin = 0.4588
Constant Wellbore Storage: C[spin] (bbl/psi) = 9.914e-07 Constant Wellbore Storage: C[spin] (bbl/psi) = 1.016e-06

Multi-Rate Convolution Type Curve for Transient TR3

1e+03
measured delta P
measured derivative
measured convol.deriv.
model delta P
model convol.deriv.
Delta P & Derivative (psi)

1e+02

1e+01

1e+00
1e-04 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e+02
Delta T (hr)
Hydraulic Unit B : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting
k (mD) = 100, Total Skin = -1.1
Constant Wellbore Storage: C[spin] (bbl/psi) = 1.005e-06

Figure 8. Sequential MLT Interpretation Results: Flowrate Convolution.

Drawdown Flowrate Type Curve for Transient TR1 Multi-Rate Flowrate Type Curve for Transient TR2
3500
measured flowrate measured flowrate
model response model response

300.0

3000
Bottomhole Flowrate (bbl/d)
Bottomhole Flowrate (bbl/d)

2500
200.0

2000

100.0

1500

0.0 1000
1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01
Delta T (hr) Delta T (hr)
Hydraulic Unit C : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting Hydraulic Unit A : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting
k (mD) = 11.83, Total Skin = 3.939 Multi-Rate Flowrate Type Curve for Transient TR3 k (mD) = 39.26, Total Skin = 0.4588
Constant Wellbore Storage: C[spin] (bbl/psi) = 9.914e-07 1600 Constant Wellbore Storage: C[spin] (bbl/psi) = 1.016e-06
measured flowrate
model response

1400
Bottomhole Flowrate (bbl/d)

1200

1000

800

600
1e-04 1e-03 1e-02 1e-01 1e+00 1e+01 1e+02
Delta T (hr)
Hydraulic Unit B : Fully Completed - Homogeneous - Infinite Acting
k (mD) = 100, Total Skin = -1.1
 ADVANCES IN MULTILAYER RESERVOIR TESTING AND ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL
SPE 62917 WELL TESTING AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION 13

Figure 9. Simultaneous MLT Interpretation using numerical well test analysis and simulation: Simulated Example with intermediate
results and final solution (match) shown with radial model.

Figure 10. Numerical Simulation and Automated History Matching of Multilayer Transient (MLT) Test Data: Solution for the test data using
a radial simulation model and a gradient based history matching technique.
14 JACKSON & BANERJEE SPE 62917

1 : 150 Flowrate Conversion

Spinner To Downhole q Conversion
7000
4185
6500

Pressure (psi)
6000

5500
4200 5000

4500
4000
7000

Downhole q (bbl/d)
4215 6000
5000
4000
3000

4230 2000
1000
0
25

20
4245

Spinner (c/s)
15

10

5
4260

1 : 150 0
25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
Time (hr)

Figure 11. Field Example of MLT: Test sequence and layer configuration. Figure 12. Field Example of MLT Data Set.

Figure 13. Field Example of an MLT Transient with observed data

and numerical solution. Figure 14. Field Example of MLT: Solution diagram for final
timestep from the numerical simulation solution using
Transients one and two.