Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By
William M. Cobb
James T. Smith
11/10
COPYRIGHT
By
William M. Cobb & Associates, Inc.
12770 Coit Road, Suite 907
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 385-0354
Fax: (972) 788-5165
E-Mail: office@wmcobb.com
05/11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
The End of Primary Depletion ................................................................. 1-2
Factors Controlling Waterflood Recovery .............................................. 1-3
Waterflooding versus Pressure Maintenance ......................................... 1-5
Other References ....................................................................................... 1-6
II. REVIEW OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID FLOW
Wettability .................................................................................................. 2-1
Definition............................................................................................... 2-1
Importance............................................................................................ 2-3
Determination ....................................................................................... 2-4
Factors Affecting Reservoir Wettability ............................................ 2-5
Sandstone and Carbonates .................................................................. 2-6
Native-State, Cleaned, and Restored-State Cores............................. 2-6
Capillary Pressure ..................................................................................... 2-7
Definition............................................................................................... 2-7
Importance............................................................................................ 2-7
Sources of Data ..................................................................................... 2-7
Effect of Reservoir Variables .............................................................. 2-9
Fluid Saturation............................................................................... 2-9
Saturation History ........................................................................... 2-10
Pore Geometry ................................................................................. 2-11
Averaging of Data ................................................................................ 2-11
J-function ......................................................................................... 2-12
Correlate with Permeability ........................................................... 2-14
Relative Permeability ................................................................................ 2-17
Definition............................................................................................... 2-17
Air Permeability .............................................................................. 2-18
Absolute Permeability ..................................................................... 2-18
Effective Permeability ..................................................................... 2-18
Relative Permeability ...................................................................... 2-18
Importance............................................................................................ 2-19
Sources of Data ..................................................................................... 2-19
Effect of Reservoir Variables .............................................................. 2-20
Saturation History ........................................................................... 2-20
Wettability........................................................................................ 2-21
End-Point Values ................................................................................. 2-23
Averaging of Data ................................................................................ 2-24
PAGE
iii
iv
RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
Areal Permeability Variations ................................................................. 7-1
Detection of Areal Permeability Variations ...................................... 7-2
Effect of Areal Permeability Variations ............................................ 7-3
Vertical Permeability Variations ............................................................. 7-3
PAGE
Detection of Stratification ................................................................... 7-4
Quantitative Evaluation of Permeability Stratification ................... 7-4
vi
vii
WATERFLOOD SURVEILLANCE
Introduction ............................................................................................... 9-1
Production and Injection Test Analyses.................................................. 9-2
Maps ...................................................................................................... 9-2
Production Well Test Procedures ....................................................... 9-3
Production and Injection Trend Analysis ......................................... 9-3
Production Wells ............................................................................. 9-4
Coordinate Graph ..................................................................... 9-5
Exponential Decline Curves (and Hyperbolic and
Harmonic) ............................................................................... 9-6
Injection Wells ................................................................................. 9-9
Patterns ............................................................................................ 9-10
Voidage Replacement Ratio (VRR) (Monthly and
Cumulative)................................................................................... 9-12
Spaghetti Graph .............................................................................. 9-14
Water/Oil Ratio Plot ....................................................................... 9-18
Oil Cut .............................................................................................. 9-20
X Plot ................................................................................................ 9-21
Oil Cut versus Cumulative Production (Coordinate Graph)...... 9-24
Recovery Factor versus Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Injected .. 9-25
Multiple Trend Forecasting With Field Production
Constraints .................................................................................... 9-27
Summary of Production Graphs.................................................... 9-27
Pressure Transient Testing ....................................................................... 9-28
Pressure Buildup and Pressure Falloff Testing ................................ 9-29
Step Rate Test ....................................................................................... 9-30
Hall Method of Analyzing Injection Well Behavior ......................... 9-37
PAGE
Pattern Balancing ...................................................................................... 9-45
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency .................................................................... 9-58
Injection Profile Testing ........................................................................... 9-75
Interval Selection for Waterflood Monitoring........................................ 9-78
viii
ix
INTRODUCTION
Waterflooding is the most widely used fluid injection process in the world today. It has
been recognized1 since 1880 that injecting water into an oil-bearing formation has the
potential to improve oil recovery. However, waterflooding did not experience fieldwide
application until the 1930s when several injection projects were initiated,2,3 and it was not
until the early 1950s that the current boom in waterflooding began. Waterflooding is
responsible for a significant fraction of the oil currently produced in the world. In fact, in
the 21st century, most operators begin to investigate the feasibility of water injection
within a short time following the initial field discovery.
Many complex and sophisticated enhanced recovery processes have been developed
through the years in an effort to recover the enormous oil reserves left behind by
inefficient primary recovery mechanisms. Many of these processes have the potential to
recover more oil than waterflooding in a particular reservoir. However, no process has
been discovered which enjoys the widespread applicability of waterflooding.
The
primary reasons why waterflooding is the most successful and most widely used oil
recovery process are4,5,6:
While written materials will be limited to the displacement of oil by water, the
displacement processes and computational techniques presented have application to other
oil recovery processes.
I.
at reservoir conditions and includes oil, water, and free gas production.
As a
reminder, the free gas production should not be assumed negligible. Failure to
account for free gas in the voidage computation can be a major flaw in computing
total reservoir voidage.
II. Factors Controlling Waterflood Recovery
Oil recovery due to waterflooding can be determined at any time in the life of a
waterflood project if the following four factors are known.
A. Oil-in-Place at the Start of Waterflooding -- The oil-in-place at the time of initial
water injection is a function of the floodable pore volume and the oil saturation.
Floodable pore volume is highly dependent on the selection and application of net
pay discriminators such as permeability (and porosity) cutoffs. A successful
flood requires that sufficient oil be present to form an oil bank as water moves
through the formation. An accurate prediction of waterflood performance or the
interpretation of historical waterflood behavior can only be made if a reliable
estimate of oil-in-place at the start of waterflooding is available. Oil-in-place
considerations are discussed in Chapter 3.
B. Areal Sweep Efficiency -- This is the fraction of reservoir area that the water will
contact. It depends primarily upon the relative flow properties of oil and water,
the injection-production well pattern used to flood the reservoir, pressure
distribution between the injection and production wells, and directional
permeability.
Chapter 5.
C. Vertical Sweep Efficiency -- Vertical sweep refers to the fraction of a formation
in the vertical plane which water will contact. This will depend primarily upon
the degree of vertical stratification existing in the reservoir and will be discussed
in Chapter 6.
1-3
D. Displacement Sweep Efficiency -- This represents the fraction of oil which water
will displace in that portion of the reservoir invaded by water. Chapter 4 will
discuss methods of determining the displacement sweep efficiency.
Methods for predicting oil recovery by waterflooding will be presented in Chapter 8.
The cumulative displaced waterflood oil can be computed at any time in the life of a
waterflood project from the following general equation:
N D N E A EV ED
(Eq. 1.1)
where
= the oil in place in the floodable pore volume at the start of water
injection, STB
E A = the fraction of the floodable pore volume area swept by the injected
water
EV = the fraction of the floodable pore volume in the vertical plane
swept by the injected water
ED = the fraction of the oil saturation at the start of water injection
which is displaced by water in that portion of the reservoir
invaded by water
If at the start of water injection, a free gas saturation has not formed within the oil
column, it can be assumed that the displaced waterflood oil is approximately equal
to waterflood oil production.
pressure has declined below the initial bubble point pressure and a free gas
saturation has been developed, then the displaced oil described in Eq. 1.1 is less
than the produced waterflood oil. This subject is described in more detail in
Chapter 4.
Waterflood recovery is dependent on a number of variables. The variables which
usually have the greatest impact on waterflood behavior are listed below:
|
So
Sor ( Sorw )
S wc
Vp ,
Sg
o and w
( ko ) S
wir
Economics
Bo
commences at a time in the life of a reservoir when the reservoir pressure is at a high
level, the injection is frequently referred to as a pressure maintenance project. On
1-5
the other hand, if water injection commences at a time when reservoir pressure has
declined to a low level due to primary depletion, the injection process is usually
referred to as a waterflood. In both instances, the injected water displaces oil and is
a dynamic displacement process. Nevertheless, there are important differences in
the displacement process when water displaces oil at high reservoir pressures
compared to the displacement process which occurs in depleted low pressure
reservoirs. The differences in the displacement mechanisms will be discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5.
IV. Other References
In June 2002, a search of the SPE e-library was conducted to obtain a listing of the
technical papers on the subject of waterflooding which have been presented at SPE
technical conferences or published in SPE journals. The listing is found at the end
of this chapter.
1-6
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES
1. Carll, J.F.: The Geology of the Oil Regions of Warren, Venango, Clarion, and Butler
Counties, Pennsylvania, Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania (1880) III, pp.
1875-1879.
2. History of Petroleum Engineering, API, Dallas, Texas (1961).
3. Fettke, C.R.: "Bradford Oil Field, Pennsylvania and New York," Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, 4th Series (1938) M-21.
4. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1971) 3.
5. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
6. Waterflooding, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (2003) 56.
1-7
2-1
FIGURE 2-1
PLANE VIEW, CROSS-SECTION VIEW, AND FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN A
HYPOTHETICAL WATER-WET, OIL-WET, AND FRACTIONAL-WET PORE
A
TORTUOUS PORE
A
PORE CROSS-SECTION AT POSITION A-A
CONNATE WATER
OIL
WATER-WET
OIL-WET
FRACTIONAL-WET
It is important to note, however, that the term wettability is used for the wetting
preference of the rock and does not necessarily refer to the fluid that is in contact
with the rock at any given time. For example, consider a clean sandstone core
that is saturated with a refined oil. Even though the rock surface is coated with
oil, the sandstone core is still preferentially water-wet.
Wettability is not a
2-2
B. Importance
The performance of a waterflood is controlled to a large extent by wettability.
Reasons for this are:
1. The wettability of the rock/fluid system is important because it is a major factor
controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a reservoir. In
general, one of the fluids in a porous medium of uniform wettability that
contains at least two immiscible fluids will be the wetting fluid. When the
system is in equilibrium, the wetting fluid will completely occupy the smallest
pores and be in contact with a majority of the rock surface (assuming, of
course, that the saturation of the wetting fluid is sufficiently high).
The
nonwetting fluid will occupy the centers of the larger pores and form globules
that extend over several pores. Since wettability controls the relative position
of fluids within the rock matrix, it controls their relative ability to flow. The
wetting fluid, because of its attraction to the rock surface, is in an unfavorable
position to flow. Furthermore, the saturation of the wetting fluid cannot be
reduced below some irreducible value when flooded with another immiscible
fluid. With all other things equal, a waterflood in a water-wet reservoir will
yield a higher oil recovery at a lower water-oil ratio (WOR) than an oil-wet
reservoir. Chapter 4 presents information that allows an engineer to quantify
the effects of wettability on flood performance.
2. Wettability affects the capillary pressure and relative permeability data used to
describe a particular waterflood system. It is found, in measuring multiphase
flow properties, that the direction of saturation change (saturation history)
affects the measured properties. If measurements are made on a core while
increasing the saturation of the wetting phase, this is referred to as the
imbibition direction.
2-3
capillary pressure and relative permeability curves are obtained depending upon
the direction of saturation change used in the laboratory to make measurements.
The direction of saturation change used to determine multiphase flow properties
should correspond to the saturation history of the waterflood.
Thus, it is
2-4
the rock is strongly oil-wet, while the rest is strongly water-wet. Note that this is
conceptually different from intermediate wettability which assumes all portions of
the rock surface have a slight but equal preference to being wetted by water or oil.
Several methods are available to determine the wettability of a reservoir rock.
These methods have been detailed in the literature2,7,8 and will not be discussed
here. They are:
Contact Angle
Others
2-5
2-6
reservoir temperature for about 1,000 hours. The methods used to obtain the three
different types of cores are discussed in more detail in References 1 through 6.
II.
Capillary Pressure
A. Definition
Capillary pressure can be qualitatively expressed as the difference in pressure
existing across the interface separating two immiscible fluids. Conceptually, it is
perhaps easier to think of it as the suction capacity of a rock for a fluid that wets
the rock, or the capacity of a rock to repel a non-wetting fluid. Quantitatively,
capillary pressure will be defined in this text as the difference between pressure in
the oil phase and pressure in the water phase. For example:
Pc Po Pw
(Eq. 2.1)
B. Importance
1. Capillary forces, along with gravity forces, control the vertical distribution of
fluids in a reservoir. Capillary pressure data can be used to predict the vertical
connate water distribution in a water-wet system.
2. Capillary pressure data are needed to describe waterflood behavior in more
complex prediction models and in naturally fractured reservoirs.
3. Capillary forces influence the movement of a waterflood front and,
consequently, the ultimate displacement efficiency.
4. Capillary pressure data are used to determine irreducible (immobile) water
saturation.
5. Capillary pressure data provide an indication of the pore size distribution in a
reservoir.
C. Sources of Data
Unfortunately, capillary pressure data are not available for most reservoirs,
especially older reservoirs developed with no thought of subsequent enhanced
recovery projects. The only reliable sources of data are laboratory measurements
made on reservoir core samples. These measurements are seldom made due to the
2-7
time and expense of obtaining unaltered core samples and conducting necessary
tests. The laboratory tests4 most commonly used are:
Centrifuge Method
PcR PcL
cos R
cos L
(Eq. 2.2)
where:
PcR
PcL
= interfacial tension
= contact angle
2-8
A typical
20
15
10
Drainage
Imbibition
0
0
20
40
60
80
2-9
100
2. Saturation History
As noted previously, the direction in which the fluid saturation of a rock is
changed during measurement of multiphase flow properties has a significant
affect on measured properties. This hysteresis effect is obvious in Figure 2-2.
The direction of saturation change used in the laboratory, or in other models,
must match the direction of saturation change in the reservoir to which the data
will be applied.
3. Pore Geometry
Other factors being equal, capillary pressure is inversely proportional to the
radius of the pores containing the fluids.9 If all pores were the same size in a
rock, the capillary pressure curve would ideally be described by Curve 1 in
Figure 2-3. However, all rocks exhibit a range of pore sizes which causes a
variation in capillary pressure with fluid saturation. In general, the slope of the
capillary pressure curve will increase with increasing pore size heterogeneity.
This is illustrated by Curves 2, 3, and 4 on Figure 2-3 which represent a
homogeneous, moderately heterogeneous, and very heterogeneous reservoir,
respectively.
2 - 10
FIGURE 2-3
EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY ON
CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES
20
15
10
Curve 4
Curve 3
Curve 2
5
Curve 1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
E. Averaging of Data
Even when good capillary pressure data are available, it is generally found that
each core sample tested from a reservoir gives a different capillary pressure curve
than every other core sample. Thus, an obvious question arises. How do we
determine which curve represents the average behavior of the reservoir to be
waterflooded? Two methods are commonly used to resolve this problem: (1) the
J-function and (2) correlation with permeability.
2 - 11
1. J-function
This function was developed by M. C. Leverett10 in an attempt to develop a
universal capillary pressure curve.
J S w
1
2
Pc k
f
(Eq. 2.3)
where:
J Sw
Pc
= porosity, fraction
This equation was developed with the idea that, at a given saturation, the value
of
J Sw
1 ,
and the
Pc1 at S w* .
Now suppose
2 and f 1.0 .
At saturation
2 - 12
S w*
k2 , 2 ,
capillary pressure
Pc2
J1 S w* J 2 S w*
1
k2 2
1
k1 2
Pc1
Pc 2
1 1.0 1
2 1.0 2
0
0
20
40
60
80
2 - 13
100
(Eq. 2.4)
versus
Ideally then, it would only be necessary to know the interfacial tension, average
porosity, and average permeability of the reservoir to be flooded to obtain the
proper capillary pressure curve for any reservoir.
Unfortunately, the method does not work universally, i.e., capillary pressure for
all cores, or reservoirs, will not plot on a common curve. This is due primarily
to the difference in pore size distributions and rock wettability between cores.
Rock samples of different permeability and porosity characteristics generally
would not be expected to have equivalent pore size distributions. Further,
because of handling, cleaning, and in situ variation in wettability, it is simply
not adequate to assume in Eq. 2.4 that
f 1.0 .
and
2 - 14
FIGURE 2-5
CORRELATION OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE WITH
PERMEABILITY
Permeability, md
1,000
100
10
Pc2
Pc1
20
40
60
80
100
_________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 2:1
Capillary pressure data measured on five cores from a sandstone reservoir are
presented below.
2 - 15
S w , percent
27.2
31.5
39.2
51.0
62.8
PcL, psi
75
50
25
10
5
2 - 16
PcR
R
P , psi
L cL
34.9
23.2
11.6
4.6
2.3
FIGURE 2-6
CORRELATION OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE, SATURATION,
AND PERMEABILITY FOR EXAMPLE 2.1
Permeability, md
1,000
k = 155 md
100
75 psi
50 psi
25 psi
10 psi
5 psi
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
III.
Relative Permeability
A. Definition
Before engaging in a discussion of relative permeability, a brief review of the
different permeability terms which frequently appear in technical reports or as part
of technical conversations is in order. The different permeability terms are:
2 - 17
air permeability, md
absolute permeability, md
effective permeability, md
Effective permeability to oil and water are most commonly used in waterflood
analysis.
4. Relative Permeability - the ratio of effective permeability to some base
permeability, usually the effective permeability to oil measured at the immobile
(irreducible) connate water saturation,
2 - 18
wir
( k ro ) S wir , is
( k r o ) S wir
value to be less
Accordingly, this is
probably the single, most important flow property which affects the behavior of a
waterflood. When using
( k o ) S wir
permeability to oil and water ranges between 0.0 and 1.0 when plotted versus
water saturation. This scale allows for easy comparison of one set of relative
permeability versus another set from a different core sample. The comparison is
made by a simple overlay.
C. Sources of Data
1. Laboratory measurement on representative core samples possessing appropriate
reservoir wettability
a. Steady-state method
2 - 19
b. Unsteady-state method
2. Use data from similar reservoir
3. Mathematical models
4. History matching
5. Calculate from capillary pressure data
D. Effect of Reservoir Variables
1. Saturation History
Figure 2-7 shows the effect of saturation history on a set of relative
permeability data. It is noted that the direction of flow has no effect on the
flow behavior of the wetting phase. However, a significant difference exists
between the drainage and imbibition curves for the non-wetting phase. This
again points out the need for knowing wettability. For a water-wet system, we
would choose the imbibition data; whereas, drainage data would be needed to
correctly predict the performance of an oil-wet reservoir.
2 - 20
FIGURE 2-7
EFFECT OF SATURATION HISTORY ON RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY DATA
100
Wetting Phase
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
2. Wettability
Wettability affects the fluid distribution within a rock and, consequently, has a
very important effect on relative permeability data. This is indicated on Figure
2-8 which compares data for water-wet and oil-wet systems.
2 - 21
FIGURE 2-8
EFFECT OF WETTABILITY
ON RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
100
Oil Wet
80
Water
Wet
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Several important differences between oil-wet curves and water-wet curves are
generally noted.
a. The water saturation at which oil and water permeabilities are equal
(intersection point of curves) will generally be greater than 50 percent for
water-wet systems and less than 50 percent for oil-wet systems.
b. The connate water saturation for a water-wet system will generally be
greater than 20 percent; whereas, for oil-wet systems, it will normally be
less than 15 percent
2 - 22
o S wir
100 md
these findings
may not be true7. For example, water-wet rocks with large pore throats (high
permeability) sometimes exhibit immobile connate water saturation of less than
10 to 15 percent. Nevertheless, Figure 2-8 indicates the shape and magnitude
of relative permeability curves can give an indication of the wettability
preference of a reservoir for moderate to low levels of permeability; i.e.,
wir
, and ( k w )
Sor
less expensive than normal relative permeability tests, but they can provide useful
information on reservoir characteristics. Listed below are end-point test data for
three sandstone cores.
Water-Oil End-Point Relative Permeability Tests*
Initial Conditions
Terminal Conditions
k A ,md
9.4
3.7
18.0
27.5
37.6
24.7
6.4
2.4
13.0
35.4
34.2
38.3
1.8
0.8
4.6
k ro
k rw
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.28
0.33
0.35
F. Averaging of Data
1. Data Averaging Methods
Again, we often face the problem of having several permeability curves for a
particular formation, all of which are different. It is desirable to select one set
of curves which will apply at average reservoir conditions, i.e., at the average
formation permeability. Methods to accomplish this are:
a. Determine the saturation at different values of
k ro or k rw / k ro for each
k rw / k ro .
k rw / k ro
2 - 24
FIGURE 2-9
CORRELATION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
DATA WITH ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY
100
k1
k2
k3
10
0.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
k ro
and
So
1.0 S wir
c. Using the normalized curve obtained from Step (b), the permeability data
can be placed back on a total pore volume basis, using any desired value of
initial water saturation, by multiplying the normalized saturations by
1.0 S wir .
It is also possible to normalize the relative permeability data before the data are
averaged.
_______________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 2:2
Relative permeability curves measured on three cores from the Levelland Field,
San Andres formation, in West Texas are shown in Figure 2-10. The average
initial water saturation of this reservoir is believed to be 15 percent. Find the
average oil and water relative permeability curves for this reservoir and adjust
the curves to the average connate water saturation.
2 - 26
FIGURE 2-10
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA FOR EXAMPLE 2.2
100
80
60
1 2
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
SOLUTION
The calculations necessary to average, normalize, and adjust the curves to a
new saturation basis are presented in the following tables for the oil and water
data. The average permeability curves, adjusted to 15 percent irreducible water
saturation, are presented in Figure 2-11.
2 - 27
(1)
(2)
kro
Sw1
Sw2
Sw3
SwAVG
So
1.0 S wi
(6) * (1.0-0.15)
(Sw)NEW
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.00
8.0
11.0
13.5
16.5
20.0
23.0
26.5
30.5
35.0
41.1
46.0
52.5
56.0
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.5
44.0
47.2
51.0
54.0
58.0
60.5
37.0
39.0
41.0
44.0
46.0
48.5
51.0
54.5
58.0
63.2
67.0
72.5
76.0
23.3
25.8
28.2
31.0
33.7
36.3
39.3
43.0
46.7
51.8
55.7
61.0
64.2
100.0
96.7
93.6
90.0
86.4
83.1
79.1
74.3
69.5
62.8
57.8
50.8
46.7
85.0
82.2
79.6
76.5
73.4
70.6
67.2
63.2
59.0
53.4
49.1
43.2
39.7
15.0
17.8
20.4
23.5
26.6
29.4
32.8
36.8
41.0
46.6
50.9
56.8
60.3
(1)
(2)
krw
Sw1
Sw2
Sw3
SwAVG
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.00
62.0
59.0
56.0
52.0
46.5
42.5
36.0
8.0
73.0
70.0
67.0
63.5
58.5
55.0
48.0
25.0
86.5
83.5
80.5
76.5
71.0
67.0
62.0
37.0
73.8
70.8
67.8
64.0
58.7
54.8
48.7
23.3
So
1.0 S wi
34.2
38.1
42.0
46.9
53.8
58.9
66.9
100.0
2 - 28
(8)
(8)
(Sw)NEW
29.1
32.4
35.7
39.9
45.7
50.1
56.9
85.0
70.9
67.6
64.3
60.1
54.3
49.9
43.1
15.0
FIGURE 2-11
NORMALIZED AND ADJUSTED
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES FOR EXAMPLE 2.2
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
_______________________________________________________________
G.
4
k rw S we
(Eq. 2.5)
where:
S we
S w S wir
1.0 S wir
(Eq. 2.6)
with:
Sw
S wir
and:
2
k ro (1.0 S we ) 2 1.0 S we
2 - 30
(Eq. 2.7)
Where there is simultaneous flow of oil and water in a water-wet system during an
imbibition process, Smith12 suggests that:
1
4 S w S wir 2
krw S w
1.0 S
wir
(Eq. 2.8)
and:
S w S wir
kro 1.0
1.0 S wir Sor
2
(Eq. 2.9)
where:
Sor
More recently, Hirasaki13 summarized certain relative data compiled by the 1984
National Petroleum Council14 (NPC). As part of a national enhanced oil recovery
study, it was necessary to forecast remaining waterflood recovery in many
reservoirs throughout the United States. In many instances, reservoir data such as
rock wettability and relative permeability were not available. Consequently, an
NPC technical committee recommended default relative permeability relationships similar to those presented by Molina15. These relationships are listed below.
S w S wir
k rw k rw S
or 1.0 S
or S wir
EXW
(Eq. 2.10)
and:
kro kro S
wir
1.0 S w Sor
where:
2 - 31
EXO
(Eq. 2.11)
EXW
EXO
(kro ) S
wir
(krw ) S
or
Sor
Sw
S wir
In addition to Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11, the NPC also provided certain other default
data which are listed below.
Parameter
Oil relative permeability end-point
Water relative permeability end-point
Oil relative permeability exponent
Water relative permeability exponent
Residual oil saturation, percent
Sandstone
1.0
0.25
2
2
25
Carbonate
1.0
0.40
2
2
37
A comparison of these default end-point values with the statements listed on page
20 of Craig8 suggests a possible conclusion that carbonate reservoirs behave as if
they are oil-wet. This observation should not be interpreted as an indication of
rock wettability but the result of attempting to "average" a large amount of data.
Finally, Honapour16 provides a thorough review of the empirical equations used to
compute two phase (oil/water or gas/oil) and three phase (gas/oil/water) relative
permeability.
2 - 32
__________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 2:3
A carbonate oil reservoir is being considered for waterflooding. At the present
time, the immobile (irreducible) water saturation is estimated to be 25 percent.
Compute a pair of oil and water relative permeability curves that could be used in
the evaluation of the waterflood.
SOLUTION
In the absence of specific data, the default relative permeability relationships
described by Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11 will be utilized. The following data are
estimated from analog fields or from the NPC default values.
Sorw
(kro ) S
wir
(krw ) S
or
( ko ) S
wir
EXO
EXW
EXW
k rw
S w S wir
k rw S
or 1.0 S S
or
wir
kro
1.0 S w Sor
kro S
wir 1.0 S
or
wir
2 - 33
EXO
Substituting:
k rw
S w 0.25
(0.35)
1.0 0.35 0.25
2.0
and:
1.0 S w 0.35
k ro 1.0
1.0 0.35 0.25
Finally, k rw and
2 .0
saturation.
S w ,%
k rw
kro
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0.000
0.001
0.022
0.049
0.088
0.137
0.197
0.268
0.350
1.000
0.766
0.562
0.391
0.250
0.141
0.062
0.016
0.000
2 - 34
FIGURE 2-12
OIL/WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
1
0.8
kro
0.6
0.4
krw
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
2 - 35
80
100
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
1. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part l: Rock/Oil/Brime Interactions and the Effects of Core Handling on Wettability," JPT (Oct. 1986) pp. 112544.
2. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 2: Wettability Measurement,"
JPT (Nov. 1986) pp. 1246-62.
3. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 3: The Effects of Wettability
on the Electrical Properties of Porous Media," JPT (Dec. 1986) pp. 1371-78.
4. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 4: The Effects of Wettability
on Capillary Pressure," JPT (Oct. 1987) pp. 1283-1300.
5. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 5: The Effects of Wettability
on Relative Permeability on Relative Permeability," JPT (Nov. 1987) pp. 1453-68.
6. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 6: The Effects of Wettability
on Waterflooding," JPT (Dec. 1987) pp. 1605-20.
7. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
8. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1971) 3.
9. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1960).
10. Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1941).
11. Corey, A.T.: "The Interrelation Between Gas and Oil Relative Permeabilities,"
Producers Monthly, (November 1954).
12. Smith, C.R.: Mechanics of Secondary Oil Recovery, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York (1966).
13. Hirasaki, G.J., Morrow, F., Willhite, G.P.: "Estimation of Reservoir Heterogeneity
From Waterflood Performance," SPE Paper 13415, Unsolicited technical paper
submitted for publication during Fall 1984.
14. National Petroleum Council: Enhanced Oil Recovery, (June 21, 1984).
2 - 36
15. Molina, N.N.: "A Systematic Approach to the Relative Permeability in Reservoir
Simulation," SPE Paper 9234 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas.
16. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L., and Harvey, A.H.: Relative Permeability of Petroleum
Reservoirs, CRC Press, Boca Raton , FL (1986).
2 - 37
PROBLEM 2:1
REVIEW OF ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES
A series of laboratory studies resulted in the following average relative permeability data
for an oil reservoir. (Note that the base permeability is the air permeability -- it is old
data.)
Sw , %
k rw
k ro
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0.000
0.002
0.015
0.025
0.040
0.060
0.082
0.118
0.153
0.200
0.565
0.418
0.300
0.218
0.144
0.092
0.052
0.027
0.009
0.000
These data indicate the irreducible water saturation in the reservoir is 25 percent. Well
logs and core analysis suggest, however, that the true irreducible saturation is
approximately 15 percent. Adjust the permeability data so they represent an irreducible
water saturation of 15 percent and present the data in normalized form on a scale of 0.0
to 1.0.
2 - 38
2 - 39
WATERFLOODABLE OIL-IN-PLACE
N D N E A EV ED
(Eq. 3.1)
where:
ND
EA
EV
ED
7758 Ah So
(Eq. 3.2)
Bo
where:
= porosity, fraction
3- 1
So
Bo
Three major difficulties encountered in using Eq. 3.2 are the determination of
waterfloodable net pay, porosity, and oil saturation. Since
the start of water injection, it would appear that this value could be obtained by simply
taking the differences in the original oil-in-place and the primary production up to the start
of injection. This simple approach can be misleading due to the fact that the net pay for
primary production is assumed to be the net pay for water injection. As will be shown
later in this chapter, the net pay cutoffs and subsequent net pay for water injection is much
different than for primary depletion. Another deficiency in computing
by taking the
difference in the original oil-in-place and primary production is that such a simple
calculation does not indicate how the gas saturation has increased and the oil saturation has
decreased if reservoir pressure is below the initial bubble point pressure.
I. Oil Saturation
Most waterfloods are implemented late in the life of the reservoir after significant
primary production has occurred and at a time when the reservoir pressure is below the
bubble-point pressure.
below the bubble-point, solution gas evolves from the oil in the reservoir, and a free
gas saturation forms within the oil zone. The development of a free gas saturation is
characterized by the production of a portion of the gas and an increase in the gas-oil
ratio. Despite production of the free gas, a large portion of it remains in the reservoir.
Consequently, the oil saturation at the start of waterflooding can be substantially less
than the oil saturation at the discovery of the field.
The oil saturation in the reservoir is constant at (1 S wc ) during those times when
average reservoir pressure is at or above the initial bubble point pressure. However,
the oil saturation begins to decrease and the free gas saturation begins to increase as
the average reservoir pressure declines below the initial bubble point pressure. To
compute the average oil saturation, let the initial bubble point pressure be the
3- 2
beginning reference point. Consider the following equation at any time when the
reservoir pressure is below the bubble point pressure.
So
(Eq. 3.3)
The reservoir oil volume consists of the number of barrels of oil in the reservoir at the
time of interest and can be estimated as:
Stock Tank Oil Volume = OOIP at bubble-point pressure - Primary Oil
Produced below bubble-point pressure
(Eq. 3.4)
or:
Reservoir Oil Volume =
( N ob N pp )Bo
(Eq. 3.5)
where:
Nob
N pp
Bo
The reservoir pore volume can be estimated using a volumetric material balance
where:
N ob
V p ( 1.0 S wc )
Bob
(Eq. 3.6)
Vp
N ob Bob
( 1.0 S wc )
3- 3
(Eq. 3.7)
where:
Bob
S wc
Substituting Eq. 3.5 and Eq. 3.7 into Eq. 3.3 leads to:
So
ob
N pp Bo
(Eq. 3.8)
N B
ob ob
1.0 S
wc
N pp B
So 1.0
o 1.0 S wc
N ob Bob
(Eq. 3.9)
EXAMPLE 3:1
A reservoir is a candidate for waterflooding. The primary oil recovery factor below
the bubble-point pressure is 12 percent. The connate water saturation is 36 percent,
and the oil formation volume factors
are estimated from PVT charts to be 1.35 and 1.05 RB/STB, respectively. Estimate
the oil saturation at the bubble-point and current pressure.
At the bubble-point, no free gas is present within the oil zone. Consequently,
N pp B
So 1.0
o 1.0 S wc
N ob Bob
1.05
So 1.0 0.12
1.0 0.36
1.35
So 0.438 or 43.8%
The gas saturation is:
S g 1.0 S wc So
S g 1.0 0.36 0.438
S g 0.202 or 20.2%
This example clearly indicates that the change in reservoir oil saturation is much
greater than the primary oil recovery factor of 12 percent.
____________________________________________________________________
Eq. 3.9 provides a means of computing the average oil saturation within the pore
volume. It is significant to recognize that the actual oil saturation may vary between
geological zones as a result of differential primary depletion, gas cap expansion, or
water influx. Further, if during primary depletion below the initial bubble point
pressure, there is water production, this produced water does not affect the average oil
saturation calculations. The produced water could cause the connate water saturation
to change which would have a direct effect on the gas saturation. Also, this procedure
leads to the determination of an average gas saturation but does not account for
possible gas segregation or the formation of a secondary gas cap. As will be shown in
Chapter 4, the gas saturation is important because it has a direct effect on the volume
of injected water necessary to achieve gas fillup, and thus waterflood oil response.
3- 5
II. Porosity
The most accurate determination of porosity is from cores when core porosity is
measured under overburden conditions. However, only a small percentage of the wells
in most fields will have cores. Consequently, porosity is usually determined from
logs. To provide the most reliable porosity values from logs, it is desirable to calibrate
the porosity logs using appropriate core data. The usual calibration technique is to plot
core porosity versus porosity log measurement such as sonic travel time,
density,
t or bulk
For example,
Figure 3-1 is a plot of core porosity versus sonic travel time. While there is scatter in
the data, it is clear a relationship exists.
FIGURE 3-1
CORE POROSITY VERSUS
INTERVAL TRAVEL TIME FROM SONIC LOG
0.20
A Bt
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
50
55
Sonic Travel Time, t
3- 6
60
A Bt
where the constants
and
A and B
(Eq. 3.10)
Similar graphs could be made using density or neutron logs. Once the relationship
between porosity and log property is known, it can be used in the non-cored wells to
determine porosity as a function of the log measured parameters. When core data are
unavailable, the default relationship between
and
h , is defined as those intervals of rock that contain moveable oil and from
It is this writers
experience of many years sin the petroleum industry that net pay determination is one
of the difficult parameters to estimate in a reservoir analysis. As a practical matter, net
pay is calculated after applying various cutoffs such as permeability (porosity), fluid
saturations, and shale volume. The difficulty associated with net pay lies in the
determination of the appropriate cutoffs. Net pay cutoffs must take into account water,
oil, and gas saturations, PVT properties (oil viscosity), reservoir drive mechanism
primary depletion, water injection, gas injection, etc.), oil/water permeability, and
variation in reservoir permeability above and below the median value.
The fact that reservoir drive mechanism impacts net pay determination leads to the
conclusion that the net pay cutoff criteria used to define net pay for primary depletion
is different from the criteria used to define net pay in a water injection project. Net
pay for original oil-in-place which contributes to primary depletion is always greater
3- 7
than net pay and oil-in-place that contributes to waterflood activities. Unfortunately,
this notion creates problems. That is, the original oil-in-place which contributes to
primary production is greater (an in some instances is substantially greater) than the
oil-in-place that contributes to waterflooding.
The value assigned to
sufficient mobile oil saturation, lateral continuity from injection to producing wells, and
permeability to permit meaningful oil recovery. Figure 3-2 presents a flow chart that leads
to net pay determination. Those intervals in which the water saturation, gas saturation, and
shale volume are less than the cutoff values and
3- 8
3- 9
WellTestAnalysis
ReservoirRecovery
FactorAnalysis
DarcysLaw
Volumetrics
TABLE 3-1
USES OF NET PAY
FIGURE 3-2
POTENTIAL NET PAY METHODOLOGY
NO
YES
S g S g MAX
(Chapter 4)
NO
YES
S wc SwMAX
(Chapter 4)
NO
YES
VS VSMAX
YES
NET PAY
3- 10
NO
in which the permeability (porosity) is greater than the cutoff value and which are
laterally continuous between the injector and producer are defined as being net pay for
waterflooding purposes.
Determination of water and gas saturation cutoffs are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 4. A permeability cutoff procedure for waterflooding is presented later in this
chapter. Net pay cannot be directly determined from a permeability cutoff, in most
instances, due to the limited availability of cored wells.
FIGURE 3-3
TYPICAL PERMEABILITY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP
Core Permeability, md
1000
100
10
0.1
0%
4%
8%
Core Porosity, percent
3- 11
12%
16%
Application of Figure 3-3 presents three major problems. First, air permeability
values from core data are usually plotted versus core porosity. It is well known that air
permeability overstates reservoir permeability.
ko S
3- 13
FIGURE 34
Oil Permeability at Connate Water vs Air Permeability
Consolidated Sandstone
3- 14
Permeability, md
Porosity
FIGURE 35
Air Permeability vs Porosity
Consolidated Sandstone
Darcy's law for computing injection or production rates makes use of effective
permeability. Effective permeability is the permeability to water or oil when other
phases are present. As discussed in an earlier chapter, effective permeability to oil
or water is equal to the product of effective permeability to oil measured at the
immobile irreducible water saturation,
when
ko S
ko S
computing
relative
permeability
ko S
relationship of
ka
with
ko S
and
water
ko S
wir
wir
wir
and
ko S
ka
oil
noted that
to
ka .
3-2. It is noted that, for a given permeability cutoff, the porosity cutoff is increased
when using the
ko S
relationship.
wir
Since
ka
overstates effective
permeability, it leads to a porosity cutoff that is too low and thus results in an
optimistic estimate of net pay.
3- 15
TABLE 3-2
Comparison of
ka and ko
for a Sandstone
wir
Reservoir under Consideration for Waterflooding
Sample
k ,md
ko S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10.7
11.9
11.2
12.6
12.2
14.8
10.3
14.2
9.0
10.3
14.0
9.8
13.4
14.3
12.9
16.6
15.5
11.7
10.5
0.346
0.767
0.704
5.300
1.220
11.500
0.190
4.380
0.335
0.595
4.430
0.299
4.210
10.600
1.430
25.000
12.200
1.100
0.520
,md
wir
0.045
0.190
0.197
3.310
0.617
4.770
0.036
1.350
0.112
0.094
1.430
0.066
1.360
3.270
0.489
12.500
5.400
0.270
0.110
ka
ko S
The
particular reservoir, the total field pore volume using a porosity cutoff of 11.6
percent was estimated to be 30 percent greater than the corresponding pore volume
computed using a porosity cutoff of 13.2 percent.
3- 16
FIGURE 3-6
COMPARISON OF k a and k o S
VERSUS POROSITY FOR A
wir
CONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE RESERVOIR
Permeability, md
100
10
Air Permeability, ka
1
Oil Permeability, (ko ) S wir
0.1
0.01
8
10
12
14
16
18
Porosity, percent
Values of
ko S
ko S
moveable oil saturation and possessing porosity values greater than the porosity
3- 17
cutoff are considered net pay. All intervals possessing porosity less than the
porosity cutoff are considered non-pay and are neglected in all future calculations.
The net pay for each well can be combined with the thickness weighted average
porosity (above the porosity cutoff) to yield a net porosity-thickness for each well.
A map of
porosity-thickness map.
volume, A h .
B. Net Pay Determination After Accounting For Data Scatter
Permeability-porosity correlations, as described in Figures 3-3, 3-5, and 3-6 using
ka
either
or
ko S
permeability cutoff of 0.1 md was used, it was found that some core samples with
porosity less than two percent had permeabilities greater than 0.1 md, while other
samples with porosities as high as eight percent had permeabilities less than 0.1
md.
procedures for estimating net pay. One procedure is applicable when only the total
field oil-in-place is needed or when most wells in the field have similar porosity.
This procedure is referred to as the fieldwide net pay determination method. A
second procedure is recommended when an accurate net pay determination is
required for each well. This second technique is referred to as the well net pay
determination solution and makes use of a net to gross
core data.
3- 18
N /G
ko S
b.
.
wir
From the core data, define net pay as being all cored footage possessing a
permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Compute the net pay
From the core data, define gross pay as being all core footage possessing a
porosity greater than a porosity cutoff.
Select several values of porosity cutoff ranging from zero to the maximum
value of porosity. Usually, these values are selected in increments of one
porosity unit such as five to six, six to seven, seven to eight, etc. percent. For
each value of porosity cutoff, compute the pore volume,
pay. On coordinate paper, plot gross
define the gross
h .
3- 19
FIGURE 3-7
GROSS POROSITY-THICKNESS VS POROSITY CUTOFF
Gross Porosity-Thickness, feet
10
15
20
e.
corresponding porosity. This porosity represents the value of which the net
pay pore volume is equal to the pore volume computed after using a porosity
cutoff. This porosity value, representing the porosity cutoff when utilized in
all wells, will lead to the best estimate of
analysis..
3- 20
FIGURE 3-8
GROSS POROSITY-THICKNESS VS POROSITY CUTOFF
Gross Porosity-Thickness, feet
6
Net h based on
Permeability Cutoff
2
Porosity Cutoff
10
15
20
_________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 3:2
Twenty-nine wells in a consolidated sandstone reservoir have been cored.
Conventional
ka to porosity.
Figure 3-9 is
method of George and Stiles described in the above paragraphs, estimate the
porosity cutoff which causes the pore volume based on a porosity cutoff to be equal
to the pore volume based on a permeability cutoff.
3- 21
FIGURE 3-9
CONVENTIONAL SEMI-LOG PLOT OF AIR PERMEABILITY VS
POROSITY FOR A CONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE (2551 SAMPLES)
Air Permeability, md
1000
100
10
1
0.1
Least Squares
Straight Line Fit
0.01
0
10
15
20
25
Porosity, percent
The permeability cutoff for waterflooding in this reservoir has been calculated to is
3.0 md to oil measured at irreducible (immobile) water saturation,
which corresponds to an air permeability,
ko S
wir
ka , of 6.0 md.
ka
267 porosity-feet.
The pore volume is computed for different porosity cutoff values listed below.
3- 22
Porosity Cutoff
percent
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Porosity-Thickness
feet
370
369
368
358
330
296
254
192
88
23
1
FIGURE 3-10
GROSS POROSITY-THICKNESS VERSUS POROSITY CUTOFF FOR
A CONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE RESERVOIR
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
Enter porosity-thickness of 267 feet, based on the permeability cutoff, on the vertical
scale and read the porosity cutoff value of 13.2 percent as shown in Figure 3-11.
3- 23
FIGURE 3-11
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE POROSITY CUTOFF FOR FIELD PORE
VOLUME CALCULATIONS AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR DATA SCATTER
400
300
267
200
100
0
0
10
13.2 15
20
25
This value of 13.2 percent takes into account the scatter in data. It is the porosity
cutoff that yields a pore volume which is equal to the pore volume in which
permeability is greater than the permeability cutoff. While this technique accounts
for data scatter and provides a more technically correct porosity cutoff, in this
example the 13.2 percent is almost identical to the 13.0 percent obtained by simply
using a 6.0 air permeability directly to Figure 3-9.
_______________________________________________________________
2. George and Stiles Individual Well Net Pay Method (Net to Gross Method)
George and Stiles noted that, while the procedure outlined above gives reliable pore
volume, there are some fields in which there are wells that have produced
significant amounts of oil which are given no pay because all porosity is below the
cutoff.
This failure to allocate pay created problems for certain wells during
b.
number of feet of core having a porosity within this range. Define this value as
gross pay. Compute the weighted average porosity of all core footage within
this porosity range. For example,
c.
1h1 2 h2 ..... hn
h1 h2 ..... hn
Determine how many feet of the gross pay from Step b have a permeability
greater than the permeability cutoff. Define this value as net pay.
d.
N /G
N /G
coordinate paper.
e.
Repeat Steps b through d for increasingly larger values of the porosity cutoff,
i.e.,
etc.
Plot the
N /G
factor for the porosity range versus the average porosity within the range.
Figure 3-12 is an example. While some scatter will exist, George and Stiles
suggest that a straight line fit of the data will normally provide an adequate
description of the
N /G
N /G
N /G
factor is
unity, that is the net pay will equal the gross pay. For example, in Figure 3-12,
all intervals possessing a value of porosity less than three percent have no pay,
whereas for all intervals possessing porosity greater than 20 percent, net pay will
equal gross pay.
3- 25
FIGURE 3-12
RATIO OF NET PAY TO GROSS PAY (N/G)
VERSUS POROSITY
1.00
N/G
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
f.
10
15
Porosity, percent
20
25
For each porosity interval identified on the porosity log, compute the net pay
using the following equation.
N /G
(Eq. 3.10)
for the particular value of porosity being considered. Suppose for example the
porosity of a particular interval is ten percent; hence from Figure 3-12, the
N /G
field, all intervals with a porosity of ten percent have a 40 percent probability of
possessing a permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Consequently,
each one foot interval possessing ten percent porosity will be assigned 0.4 feet
of net pay.
3- 26
When this technique is used, wells with low porosities will not be excluded but
will be given a limited amount of pay. Both total pore volume and pore volume
distribution within the field will be realistic. This method for estimating net pay
is preferable to those methods previously described. However, more work is
required because each porosity interval in each well must be adjusted by a
N /G
factor based on the porosity of the interval. Since most porosity logs
N /G
EXAMPLE 3:3
Consider the conventional permeability-porosity plot presented in Figure 3-13.
FIGURE 3-13
CONVENTIONAL SEMI-LOG PLOT OF PERMEABILITY VS POROSITY
1000
Ko @ Swir, md
100
10
2 md
0.1
15.3
0.01
8
10
12
14
16
18
Porosity, percent
3- 27
20
22
24
ko Swir
N /G
Porosity Range, %
N/G , fraction
0 - 12
12 - 14
14 - 16
16 - 18
18 or greater
0
3/11 = 0.273
11/20 = 0.550
15/18 = 0.833
1
N /G
porosity range.
FIGURE 3-14
N/G VS POROSITY
1.00
N/G
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Porosity, percent
The graph indicates for any foot of rock possessing a porosity value less than
about 11 percent, receives a
N /G
3- 28
Any foot of rock possessing a porosity less than 18 percent is adjusted with the
appropriate
N /G
N /G
N /G
N /G
factor, h values
volume takes into account data scatter and when applied on a well by well basis
should provide more reliable estimates of pore volume than pore volumes
computed using a single porosity cutoff such as 15.3 percent obtained from
Figure 3-13.
_______________________________________________________________
C.
influenced by other factors such as oil and water viscosity, mobility ratio, oil/water
relative permeability, oil, water, and gas saturations, and variation between high
and low permeability zones. With current high speed computers, it is a relatively
simple process to create a pattern waterflood model to calculate permeability
cutoffs. Such calculations take into account those factors which drive the outcome
of a waterflood project and which are based on waterflood principles.
A technique for computing permeability cutoff is described in this section and is
referred to as the water cut method.
3- 30
3- 31
INJECTOR
OIL BANK
ZONE
(GAS)
UNAFFECTE
WATER
PRODUCER AT 96 PERCENT
WATER CUT
FIGURE 3-15
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATERFLOOD AT 96 PERCENT WATER CUT
________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 3:4
A waterflood is to be conducted in a field where the injection patterns approximate
a five-spot. A permeability cutoff is to be calculated to determine the net pay
which contributes to the waterflood and to determine floodable pore volume for
waterflood management purposes. The following information is given:
Pwi
= 6,000 psi
S wc
= 37%
Pwf
= 400 psi
Sorw
= 24%
Si
= -3
= 2.6 cp
Sp
= -4
= 0.6 cp
(kro at S wc 1.0) .
permeability of the layers be permeability to oil at connate water rather than air
permeability.
3- 32
3 - 33
Sw (%)
37.00
38.41
40.44
42.47
44.50
46.53
48.56
50.60
52.63
54.66
56.68
58.72
60.75
62.78
64.82
66.85
68.88
70.91
72.94
74.97
75.76
Krw
0.000
0.009
0.017
0.026
0.034
0.046
0.057
0.069
0.081
0.093
0.105
0.120
0.136
0.153
0.170
0.191
0.213
0.242
0.270
0.310
0.337
Kro
1.000
0.832
0.663
0.534
0.405
0.333
0.260
0.209
0.157
0.132
0.106
0.084
0.061
0.050
0.040
0.029
0.019
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Kro
Krw
Sw, %
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FIGURE 3-16
Red Wine Field
Oil/Water Relative Permeability
Kr
3 - 34
100
1000
0.1
10
Permeability (mD)
K50 = 17.2 md
8 10
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
80
85
90 92 94
15
V-Factor = 0.86
96
Kair
RedBig
Wine
Field -- Dykstra-Parsons Plot -- Air Permeability
Field -- Dykstra-Parsons Plot -- Air Permeability
FIGURE 3-17
98
3 - 35
Ko @ Swir [mD]
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1,000.00
0.10
1.00
Kair [mD]
10.00
100.00
FIGURE 3-18
Red Wine Field
Ko @ Swir vs Kair from SCAL
1,000.00
3 - 36
100
1000
0.1
10
Permeability (mD)
K50 = 8.6 md
8 10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
85
90 92 94
15
V-Factor = 0.88
96
Koil
FIGURE 3-19
98
3 - 37
Porosity, %
0
0.01
10
15
20
25
30
0.1
10
Permeability to Oil, md
100
FIGURE 3-20
Porosity-Oil Permeability Relationship
Based on a Statistical Best Fit
1000
3 - 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Layer
290
117
78.4
54.3
38.0
30.1
20.8
14.3
11.1
9.07
6.33
4.71
3.68
2.49
1.97
1.44
0.96
0.59
0.26
0.10
25.25
23.34
22.49
21.72
00.97
20.48
19.7
18.91
18.39
17.95
17.19
16.57
16.05
15.23
14.73
14.07
13.23
12.19
10.46
8.42
Oil
Permeability Porosity, %
FIGURE 3-21
Red Wine Field
Five-Spot Model
3 - 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Layer
290
117
78.4
54.3
38.0
30.1
20.8
14.3
11.1
9.07
6.33
4.71
3.68
2.49
1.97
1.44
0.96
0.59
0.26
0.10
25.25
23.34
22.49
21.72
20.97
20.48
19.70
18.91
18.39
17.95
17.19
16.57
16.05
15.23
14.73
14.07
13.23
12.19
10.46
8.42
139
263
382
495
602
705
801
891
976
1057
1128
1185
1230
1261
1286
1305
1318
1326
1330
1332
10.4%
19.7%
28.7%
37.2%
45.5%
52.9%
60.1%
66.9%
73.3%
79.4%
84.7%
89.0%
92.3%
94.7%
96.5%
98.0%
98.9%
99.5%
99.8%
100.0%
Oil
Cumulative % of Total
Permeability Porosity, %
MBO
MBO
FIGURE 3-22
Red Wine Field
Results of the Five-Spot Model @ WOR = 30:1
from each layer. The permeability cutoff was chosen as being the permeability
above which 98 percent of the waterflood oil was produced. Examination of Figure
3-22 indicates that 98 percent of the oil production was produced in layers
possessing a permeability to oil of 1.44 md and greater.
Consequently, the
George and Stiles suggested that the ratio of material balance to volumetric OOIP
can be considered as a measure of reservoir continuity resulting from a
combination of well spacing and effective completion intervals.
Stiles4 has
indicated that in one West Texas field, the material balance OOIP was estimated to
be 738 MMSTB. A volumetric OOIP of 1,029 MMSTB was calculated using a six
percent porosity cutoff. If both values are assumed reasonably correct, the ratio of
material balance to volumetric OOIP of 0.72 is a measure of rock continuity and
effective well completions. Stiles indicated that continuity calculations indicated
75 percent of the total pay was continuous for primary spacing of 40 acres. Hence,
most of the difference between material balance and volumetric original oil-inplace can be reconciled by the lack of continuity. However, for this conclusion to
be correct it must be assumed that the net pay cutoff factors used in the volumetrics
for primary depletion are correct.
Determination of lateral continuity is difficult.
parameter can only be made after considering all relevant data including material
balance studies, geological cross-sections, stratigraphy, and pressure test data.
E.
3- 41
FIGURE 3-23
CROSS SECTION VIEW ILLUSTRATING WATERFLOOD PAY AND NON-PAY
Layer 1
Layer 2
(k0 ) S
Layer 3
wir
WF Perm Cutoff
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
(k0 ) S
wir
WF Perm Cutoff
The figure represents a cross-section cartoon between two producing wells during
primary production in a reservoir characterized by several porosity intervals.
Layers 1 and 3 are continuous between the production wells and possess
permeability values greater than the permeability cutoff. Layer 2 is continuous but
possesses a permeability which is less than the permeability cutoff. With respect to
conventional horizontal flow, Layer 2 is treated as being non-productive for the
waterflood
Following some primary production from Layers 1 and 3, they become partially
pressure depleted. If small values of vertical permeability are present, oil under
primary depletion may travel a short distance in the vertical direction, as in Layer
2, until it enters a zone of high permeability zone such as Layers 1 and 2 and then
may move laterally to a producing well. This vertical cross flow can account for
production that is normally not anticipated and results in primary production being
more favorable than would otherwise be predicted. From Figure 3-23, Layers 4, 5,
6, and 7 contribute to primary production. However, only a portion of Layer 6
contributes to waterflooding.
3- 42
Under water injection, water will flow through Layers 1 and 3 with negligible
injection into Layer 2. As the water front moves laterally through Layer 1 or 3, it
is possible that injected water may migrate into Layer 2 through capillary
imbibition and oil will then flow into Layers 1 or 3. This counter-current flow of
water and oil occurs only in water wet rocks.
between wells was defined as the fraction of total pay in a well connected to
another well. Each stringer was considered continuous if it correlated between
pairs of wells and discontinuous if it could not be correlated.
3- 43
FIGURE 3-24
The upper curve in Figure 3-25 is an example of a continuity curve in one West
Texas field. As can be seen, rock continuity decreases as the distance between
wells increases.
FIGURE 3-25
CONTINUOUS AND FLOODABLE PAY FOR MEANS FIELD
(WEST TEXAS)
Percent Continuity
1.00
0.75
Continuous Pay
Floodable Pay
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
3- 44
5000
6000
Because of irregularities in layer geometry, all continuous zones are not floodable.
Consider Layer 6 in Figure 3-23. It is apparent that the zone, while continuous
between wells, is not completely floodable. Since the shape of the porosity zone
between wells is not known, it is difficult to predict performance in this layer.
Stiles used a Monte Carlo technique to determine the fraction of the irregular layer
thickness which could be expected to flood. The overall result is shown in the
lower curve of Figure 3-24.
After accounting for lateral continuity for a specific well spacing, waterflood net
pay will usually be less than waterflood pay based only on permeability, water
saturation and shale volume cutoffs. Practical application of the floodable pay
concept shows that as average distance between injectors and producers decrease,
floodable pay increases. This concept becomes important when evaluating infill
drilling or pattern changes.
IV. Summary
This chapter provides insight into the oil and gas saturations after primary depletion.
Importantly, this chapter describes problems associated with net pay calculation and
gives procedures which, if followed, allow reservoir prediction calculations and
production management techniques to be implemented with a higher level of
confidence.
3- 45
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES
1. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, (1960) - Chapter 2.
2. George, C.J. and Stiles, L.H.: "Improved Techniques for Evaluating Carbonate
Waterfloods in West Texas," Journal of Petroleum Technology (November 1978), p.
1547.
3. Willhite, F.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
4. Stiles, L.H.: "Optimizing Waterflood Recovery in a Mature Waterflood, The Fullerton
Clearfork Unit," paper SPE 6198 presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans.
5. AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, No. 10, Development Geology Reference
Manual, D. Morton-Thompson and A.M. Woods (ed.) AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
(1993).
6. Cobb, W.M. and Marek, F.J.: Net Pay Determination for Primary and Waterflood
Depletion Mechanisms, paper SPE 48952 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans.
7. Worthington, P.F. and Cosentino, L.: The Role of Cutoffs in Integrated Reservoir
Studies, paper SPE 84387 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver.
3- 46
PROBLEM 3:1
OIL IN PLACE
The original discovery pressure of an oil reservoir was above the bubble point pressure.
The primary producing mechanism was fluid expansion and solution gas drive.
Cumulative primary production is 3,200,000 STBO (3,200 MSTBO) of which 700
MSTBO was produced as the reservoir pressure declined from the original discovery
pressure to the bubble point pressure. Given the following rock and fluid property data,
estimate the current average oil and gas saturation in the reservoir.
S wc
= 26%
Boi
= 1.35 RB/STB
Bob
= 1.41 RB/STB
Bo
= 1.10 RB/STB
= 880 acres
= 24 feet
= 16%
3 - 47
PROBLEM 3:2
NET PAY WEIGHTING FACTOR - MIDDLE EAST RESERVOIR
A Middle East oil reservoir is being evaluated for waterflood potential. Figure 3:2-1
presents a semi-log graph of
versus porosity.
1. Compute and compare the porosity cutoff for a 10 md permeability cutoff using the
correlation.
(ko ) Swir
3 - 49
N /G
3 - 50
10
100
1,000
10,000
Permeability, millidarcies
10
12
14
K air
( K o ) S wir
16
18
20
22
Porosity, percent
24
FIGURE 3:2-1
26
Kair
28
(Ko)Swir
30
3 - 51
Permeability, millidarcies
10
100
1,000
10,000
10
12
14
16
20
22
Porosity, percent
18
24
FIGURE 3:2-2
26
28
(Ko)Swir
30
recovery is the result of two drive mechanisms primary depletion and displacement.
Conventional waterflood theory assumes that reservoir pressure is maintained or
increased so that only a single drive mechanism displacement exists. For the partial
pressure maintenance in which reservoir pressure is above the bubble point pressure,
the reservoir can usually be treated as if reservoir pressure is maintained because
primary depletion, without natural water influx, above the bubble point pressure is
usually negligible when compared to oil recovery resulting from displacement. On the
other hand, if only partial pressure maintenance occurs and the reservoir is below the
4-1
bubble point and gas is evolving out of solution in the reservoir, the oil recovery
behavior is much more complex and may require numerical simulation analysis to
evaluate reservoir performance. In this section, it is assumed that injection matches or
exceeds reservoir voidage.
Oil which is displaced can be predicted at any time in the life of a waterflood if the
following information is known:
1. Oil-in-place at start of the waterflood,
2. Areal sweep efficiency,
EA
EV
ED
If this information is know at a particular time in the life of a project, the oil displaced
N D N E A EV ED
(Eq. 4.1)
If the gas saturation at the beginning of waterflood operations can be neglected, then
the displaced oil,
saturation exists, the displaced oil will not be produced until gas fillup is achieved.
This behavior is described near the end of this chapter.
Determination of oil-in-place at the start of water injection is generally based upon
geological information (pore volume), fluid saturation estimates
PVT information Bo . Procedures for computing
So , S g , S wc and
Areal and vertical sweep efficiencies refer, respectively, to the fraction of reservoir area
and the fraction of vertical reservoir section which is contacted by water. These sweep
4-2
efficiencies are influenced by many factors including well pattern, well spacing,
pressure distribution, fluid and rock properties, and reservoir heterogeneity. Methods
used to estimate these efficiencies will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Collectively, areal and vertical sweep efficiencies determine volumetric sweep
efficiency (the fraction of reservoir volume which will be contacted by injected water).
Finally, the fraction of the oil saturation which will be displaced from that portion of
the reservoir contacted or swept by water is the displacement sweep efficiency,
ED .
To study the mechanism of immiscible fluid displacement, assume the following flow
system:
1. Linear Flow (one-dimensional flow)
2. At water breakthrough at the outlet face, the areal sweep and vertical sweep
will be 100 percent that is, 100 percent volumetric sweep at initial water
breakthrough.
3. The gas saturation is zero. This assumption will be modified later in the
chapter.
4. The connate water saturation is immobile. This assumption will be modified
later in the chapter.
5. The oil and water density are constant which means oil and water (and
reservoir rock) are assumed to be incompressible.
Consider a typical injection and offset production well arrangement in a waterflood as
shown in Figure 4-1.
4-3
FIGURE 4-1
PLANE AND CROSS-SECTION VIEWS
OF A LINEAR STRIP OF THE RESERVOIR
h, , (hko ) S wir
It is recognized that radial flow occurs near the injector and producer. This chapter
focuses only on fluid flow and displacement behavior directly between the injector and
producer wells within a single layer of constant thickness,
permeability,
ko Swir .
porosity,
and
h,
w.
4-4
FIGURE 4-2
WATER INJECTION INTO A LINEAR STRIP
CONTAINING OIL AND IMMOBILE CONNATE WATER
Injected
"Water Zone"
Unaltered
"Oil Zone"
qw
iw
q prod
qo
Two zones are depicted. The water zone is a two-phase flow zone in which oil and
injected water are flowing simultaneously. In the oil zone, only oil is flowing because
the connate water is immobile in this example. The presence of moveable connate
water and/or a free gas will be discussed later.
II. Reservoir Response Incompressible vs. Slightly Compressible Liquids
It is convenient and reasonable in many liquid filled waterflood projects to assume the
rock, connate water, injected water and oil to be incompressible.
Under these
conditions, steady-state flow exists and it can be assumed that one barrel of effective
injection equals one barrel of liquid production when measured at reservoir conditions.
The liquid filled condition occurs when the free gas, if any, within the oil column has
been displaced from the reservoir or has been re-dissolved in the oil. The displacement
and dissolving of the gas is referred to as gas fillup and is discussed in more detail
later in this chapter.
4-5
1
2
kt
ri 0.029
(Eq. 4.2)
where
ri
= time, hours
= porosity, fraction
= viscosity, cp
ct
4-6
1190 ri ct
t
k
(Eq. 4.3)
Equation 4.3 can be used to estimate the time for response at a production well caused
by the change in injection rate. It is observed from Eq. 4.3 that the time for response is
independent of the magnitude of rate change at the injection well.
______________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:1
A producing well is located 1,000 feet from an injector. The reservoir consists of three
flow units whose permeabilities are 100, 10, and 1 md, respectively. Assume each
flow unit possesses the same porosity, viscosity, and compressibility as listed below:
Estimate the delay in production response if the injection rate is suddenly increased by
50 percent.
1190 ri ct
t
k
5,355
k
4-7
k , md t , hours t , days
1.0
5,355.00
223.00
10.0
535.50
22.30
100.0
53.55
2.23
______________________________________________________________________
III. Fractional Flow Equation
The fractional flow equation relates the fraction of displacing fluid (water) in the total
fluid stream in the two-phase flow water zone or the fraction of mobile connate water
(if any) at any point in the reservoir including the oil zone to the properties of the
reservoir. According to Darcys linear flow equation, the flow rate of water at any
location in the reservoir and, in particular, the water zone is:
k A p
(Eq. 4.4)
qw w
pw
0.00694 w sin
s
0.001127k w A
(Eq. 4.5)
or:
po
qo o
0.00694 o sin
s
0.001127ko A
where:
qo
qw
(Eq. 4.6)
po
pw
= oil viscosity, cp
= water viscosity, cp
ko , k w
w h , ft
w , o
The sign convention of Eqs. 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 is illustrated in Figure 4-3.
4-9
FIGURE 4-3
SIGN CONVENTION FOR INCLINED FLOW
Updip Flow
s
Downdip Flow
Pc Po Pw
(Eq. 2.1)
Pc Po Pw
s
s
s
(Eq. 4.7)
Thus,
or:
Pc
s
qw w
qo o
0.001127k w A 0.001127ko A
0.00694( w o ) sin
4 - 10
(Eq. 4.8)
qt qo qw iw
(Eq. 4.9)
f w , at a specific cross-
section is:
fw
Also,
qw
q
w
qo qw iw
(Eq. 4.10)
q
f o o 1.0 f w
iw
(Eq. 4.11)
Introducing the definitions of Eqs. 4.9 and 4.10 into Eq. 4.8 results in the following
relationship for the fraction of water flowing at any point,
1.0
fw
0.001127ko A Pc
0.00694
sin
w
o
oiw
s
w ko
1.0
o k w
(Eq. 4.12)
Equation 4.12 is commonly referred to as the fractional flow equation or water cut
equation.
The fractional flow equation is a very important relationship because it makes possible
the determination of the relative flow rates of oil and water at any point in a porous
4 - 11
flow system. Furthermore, it incorporates all factors which affect the displacement
o , w , o , w , Pc ,
rock properties ko , k w , S o , S w , total throughput rate iw , pressure gradient
p / s , and structural properties of the reservoir , direction of flow . If the
efficiency of a waterflood project; such as fluid properties
total flow rate is constant, and if fluid properties can be assumed constant (i.e., not
functions of pressure), it is important to note that fraction flow is a function only of
saturation.
If sufficient reservoir data are available, it is possible to use Eq. 4.12 to compute the
fraction of water flowing in a reservoir as a function of water saturation. This data,
when plotted as
as a fractional flow curve. A typical fractional flow curve is depicted by Figure 4-4.
4 - 12
FIGURE 4-4
TYPICAL FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE
1.0
1.0 Sor
fw
S wir
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
It will be shown in subsequent sections that this plot forms the basis of evaluating
ED
and is very useful in the prediction and analysis of reservoir behavior during a waterflood.
4 - 13
______________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:2
Data for an oil reservoir which is proposed for waterflooding is presented. Construct the
fractional flow curve for this reservoir. Capillary pressure gradients can be assumed
negligible.
= 18 percent
= 2.48 cp
S wc
= 30 percent
Bo
= 1.37 RB/STB
= 0.62 cp
Bw
= 1.04 RB/STB
iw
= 1000 bbl/day
kbase = 45 md
= 0.8
= 1.03
= 50,000 ft2
= 30 degrees
S w , percent k ro
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.940
0.800
0.440
0.160
0.045
0.000
k rw
0.000
0.040
0.110
0.200
0.300
0.440
SOLUTION
The general fractional flow equation was presented previously as Eq. 4.12. If the
capillary pressure gradient is neglected, this equation reduces to:
1.0
fw
0.001127ko A
oiw
( 0.00694( w o )sin )
w ko
1.0
o k w
4 - 14
where:
ko
w o 14.4 lbm/ft 3
sin sin 30 0.5
thus:
1.0
fw
( 2.48 )( 1000 )
0.62 kro
1.0
2.48 krw
and:
1.0 0.05kro
fw
k
1.0 0.25 ro
krw
Calculations of
4 - 15
S w , percent
kro
k rw
1.0 0.05kro
fw
kro
1.0 0.25
krw
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.940
0.800
0.440
0.160
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.110
0.200
0.330
0.440
0.000
0.160
0.489
0.827
0.962
1.000
FIGURE 4-5
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE FOR
EXAMPLE 4:2
1.0
fw
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
___________________________________________________________________________________________
4 - 16
ED ,
waterflood, it is required that the fraction of water flowing at any reservoir location be
minimized. We want
saturation. Recognizing this fact, it is possible by analysis of Eq. 4.12 to determine the
effect different reservoir variables will have on displacement efficiency.
A. Effect of Wettability
At a particular water saturation, the effective permeability to water,
k w will be
fw
4 - 17
FIGURE 4-6
COMPARISON OF FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVES
FOR OIL-WET AND WATER-WET RESERVOIRS
1.0
0.8
Oil Wet
0.6
fw
Water Wet
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
In this example, it is assumed immobile connate water and residual oil saturation
are identical. The difference between the water-wet/oil-wet
f w curves is due to
seen from Figure 4-6 that water-wet reservoirs will yield a higher displacement
efficiency and higher oil recovery than comparable oil-wet reservoirs.
4 - 18
0 180 .
Conversely, when
180 360 , for example when water displaces oil downdip, the effect of
gravity is to decrease the displacement efficiency. Figure 4-7 shows the effect of
formation dip on the fractional flow curve. The conclusion from these observations
is that water should be injected downdip so as to displace oil updip to obtain
maximum oil recovery. If the density of the oil is greater than the density of water,
water should be injected into updip crestal locations. Further, if the angle of dip is
small (less than about ten degrees), the gravity term is usually negligible.
Moderate to high dip angles must be analyzed using numerical simulation methods.
4 - 19
FIGURE 4-7
EFFECT OF FORM ATION DIP ON FRACTIONAL FLOW
1.0
0.8
0.6
fw
0.4
Downdip
Zero Dip
Updip
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
Pc Po Pw
The capillary pressure gradient in the s-direction is:
Pc Po Pw
s
s
s
4 - 20
80
In a water-wet rock, this gradient will be a positive number; accordingly, its effect
will be to increase the value of
o .
k w w , or by
are affected primarily by the fluid saturations existing in the reservoir. These can
be controlled to some extent by the time in the life of a reservoir when a waterflood
is conducted. For example, if a solution gas drive reservoir is permitted to undergo
significant pressure depletion before initiating a waterflood, a large free gas
saturation will exist in the oil zone at the time of flooding. The effect of this gas
will be to reduce the effective permeability to oil. This in turn has the effect of
increasing
fractional flow curve is depicted by Figure 4-8 for a particular set of reservoir
conditions.
FIGURE 4-8
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY
ON FRACTIONAL FLOW OF WATER
1.0
o = 10.0 cp
6.0 cp
2.0 cp
0.5 cp
0.8
0.6
fw
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
E. Effect of Rate
The effect of rate varies depending upon whether water is moving updip or
downdip. Keeping in mind that the objective is to minimize
f w , it is clear from
Eq. 4.12 that a low value of iw is desirable if water is moving updip. Conversely,
4 - 22
a large rate should be used for downdip displacement. From a practical standpoint,
the rate will generally be controlled by economics and the physical limitations of
the injection equipment and reservoir.
It is concluded that the fractional flow equation gives valuable insight into the
factors which affect the efficiency of a waterflood or other displacement processes.
To summarize, observations made from this equation are:
1. Updip displacement of oil by water leads to a lower
f w and better
downdip recovery.
5. Improved oil recovery results from a small water mobility,
oil mobility, ko
k w w , or a large
o .
6. Increasing the rate improves the efficiency of a downdip flood but causes lower
efficiency in an updip flood.
F. Variations of Fractional Flow Equation
Many situations exist where insufficient information is available to evaluate the
capillary pressure gradient.
negligible. The fractional flow equation in both of these situations reduces to the
following form.
4 - 23
1.0
7.83 10 6 ko A w o sin
fw
oiw
w ko
1.0
o k w
(Eq. 4.13)
If it can be further assumed gravity effects are negligible, Eq. 4.13 reduces to:
fw
1.0
1. 0 w
o
ko
kw
(Eq. 4.14)
fw
1.0
w kro
1.0
o k r w
(Eq. 4.15)
Equation 4.15 is the most widely used form of the fractional flow equation.
IV. Frontal Advance Equation
The fractional flow equation relates the fraction of oil and water flowing at any point
in the reservoir to the fluid saturation at that point. However, a complete waterflood
analysis requires that we know the saturation distribution of the various phases at any
given time as well as the manner in which this distribution changes with time. The
frontal advance equation will provide this information. Consider Figure 4-9. It is
desirable to develop a procedure which will allow the determination of water
saturation and oil saturation with distance in a linear flow system. The formula for
computing water saturation in the water invaded portion of the linear system is
referred to as the frontal advance equation. This equation is developed in Appendix
A of Chapter 4 as Eq. 4-A.11 and it is also developed in References 2 and 3.
4 - 24
A dS w
A dS w
iw
Wi
(Eq. 4.16)
where
4 - 25
FIGURE 4-9
WATERFLOOD SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
IN A LINEAR RESERVOIR PRIOR TO BREAKTHROUGH
WITH NO FREE GAS OR MOBILE CONNATE WATER
Injector
Producer
Water Zone
Oil Zone
Oil Zone
} Sor
Saturation, percent
100
Oil Saturation
Sw
Swf
Water Saturation
0
Swc
Length
S wf
and
S w.
Significantly,
Welge also shows a graphical procedure can be used to solve the mathematical
equation for computing the saturation values.
A. Welge Method Saturation at Flood Front
Welge demonstrated that a line drawn tangent to the fractional flow curve from the
point
fw/ S
wc
, Swc
w/ Swf
, Swf
That is, the point of tangency is the water saturation at the front as illustrated by
Figure 4.10.
4 - 27
FIGURE 4-10
DETERMINATION OF WATER SATURATION AT THE
FRONT FROM THE FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE
1.0
Tangent
Point
f w / Swf
fw
Swf
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
4 - 28
1. The tangent line to the fractional flow curve should always be drawn from
the initial water saturation. In some cases, the initial water saturation will be
greater than the irreducible water saturation and the tangent line will not
originate from the end of the fractional flow curve. Construction of the
tangent line in this situation is illustrated by Figure 4-11.
FIGURE 4-11
CONSTRUCTION OF TANGENT LINE
WHEN S wc IS GREATER THAN S wir
.
1.0
Tangent
Point
f wf
fw
S wir
S wc
S wf
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
4 - 29
2. The saturation,
S wc , to
S wm , which
is equivalent to 1.0 S or .
B. Welge Method Average Water Saturation
Usually, the most desirable water saturation is the average saturation in the water
swept portion of the reservoir,
compute
ED .
S w.
S w S wf
1 f wf
df w
dS
w f
(Eq. 4.17)
A graphical solution to Eq. 4.17 is obtained by simply extending the tangent line
to the point where
4 - 30
FIGURE 4-12
GRAPHICAL DETERMINATION OF
Sw
1.0
fw
Swf
Swir
Sw
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
Significantly,
S wf and S w
Consider Figure 4-13. This shows the water saturation at three different periods,
t1 , t2 ,
4 - 31
S wf
and
Sw
are
constant. Moreover,
Sw
including breakthrough,
FIGURE 4-13
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN
INJECTOR AND PRODUCER AT THREE DIFFERENT TIMES
INCLUDING WATER BREAKTHROUGH
100
Saturation, percent
} Sor
S wbt
Oil
t1
tbt
t2
S wf
Water
0
Connate Water
Distance
S wbt .
ED , is defined by:
4 - 32
S wbt Swc .
ED
or:
ED
So
So
(Eq. 4.19)
S wbt .
Thus:
EDbt
(Eq. 4.20)
or
EDbt
S wbt S wc
1.0 S wc
(Eq. 4.21)
5.615iwtbt df w
AL
dS
wf
4 - 33
(Eq. 4.22)
5.615iwtbt
AL
Pore volumes of
at breakthrou gh
(Eq.4.23)
Therefore,
1
Qibt
df
w
dS w f
(Eq. 4.24)
Equation 4.24 shows that the number of pore volumes of water injected at
breakthrough is simply equal to the inverse of the slope of the tangent to the
fractional flow curve. With a constant flow rate, the time to breakthrough
can be computed as the ratio of cumulative water injected to water injection
rate.
For example:
tbt
iw
5 .615 iw
(Eq. 4.25)
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:3
A waterflood is to be conducted in a homogeneous under saturated oil reservoir which
has dimensions that will result in linear flow. The average cross-sectional area is
approximately 78,000 square feet. Additional reservoir data are:
iw
= 7000 bbl/day
Bw
= 1.02 RB/STB
S wc
= 25 percent
= 1.39 cp
4 - 34
= 22 percent
= 0.50 cp
kbase
= 50 md
=0
Bo
= 1.25 RB/STB
S w , percent
kro / krw
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
72.0
36.950
11.120
4.840
2.597
1.340
0.612
0.292
0.098
0.017
0.000
If the first row of producers is located 1,320 feet from the injection wells:
(a) determine the oil recovery (STB) at the time of breakthrough,
(b) determine the time until breakthrough in days,
(c) determine displacement sweep efficiency at the time of breakthrough,
(d) how many barrels of water must be injected to obtain breakthrough?
For a single layer reservoir with linear flow, areal and vertical sweep efficiencies can be
assumed unity. Further, the capillary pressure gradient can be neglected.
SOLUTION
Neglecting gravity and capillary forces, the fractional flow equation reduces to the form
of Eq. 4.15.
4 - 35
fw
1 .0
k
1 .0 ro w
k rw o
The fractional flow data for this reservoir are summarized in the following table.
S w , percent
fw
25.0
0.000
30.0
0.070
35.0
0.200
40.0
0.365
45.0
0.517
50.0
0.674
55.0
0.820
60.0
0.905
65.0
0.966
70.0
0.994
72.0
1.000
4 - 36
F IG U R E 4 -1 4
F R A C T IO N A L F L O W C U R V E F O R E X A M P L E 4 .2
1.0
0.8
0.6
fw
0.4
S w bt 6 1.4%
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
N pbt NE A EV E Dbt
1.0
1.0
N pbt NE A EV EDbt
From Eq. 4.26:
N pbt
AL 1.0 S wc S wbt S wc
5.615Bo
1.0 S wc
or:
4 - 37
(Eq. 4.26)
N pbt
AL
5.615Bo
S wbt S wc
f w 1.0
defines
S wbt .
S wbt 0.614
N pbt
ft 3
bbl
5.615
1.25
bbl
STB
0.614 0.25
Thus:
tbt
ALQibt
5.615iw
where:
Q ibt
df
w
dS w
S wbt S wc
f
Thus:
tbt
EDbt
1.0 S wc
1.0 0.25
EDbt 0.485
(d) Eq. 4.24 defines the pore volumes of water injected as:
Qibt
df
w 0.364
dS w f
Wibt QibtV p
AL
Wibt Qibt
5.615
(0.22)(78,000)(1320)
Wibt 0.364
5
.
615
S wf
to
FIGURE 4-15
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
AT WATER BREAKTHROUGH, AFTER BREAKTHROUGH,
AND AT WATERFLOOD RESIDUAL OIL
100
Saturation, percent
S or
Sw
S w2
S wbt
S wf
Water
0
At
the
Distance
time
the
saturation
at
the
outlet
is
S w2 ,
where
S w S w2
fo2
1.0 f w2
S w2
df w
df w
dS w 2
dS w 2
4 - 40
(Eq. 4.27)
Sw
f w 1.0
S w2 .
Sw .
Extrapolation of the
S wf
By making these
and 1.0 Sor ,
4 - 41
FIGURE 4-16
S w AFTER BREAKTHROUGH
DETERMINATION OF
S wbt S w
1.0
f w2
df w
dS w S w 2
fw
S wf
S w2
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
WOR
qw Bo iw f w2 Bo
f w2
Bo
qo Bw iw f o 2 Bw 1.0 f w2 Bw
4 - 42
(Eq. 4.28)
where
f w2 is determined at S w2 .
the reservoir when the flood is initiated, water will be produced before
breakthrough. A modification for this saturation was shown in a previous
section.
iii. The number of pore volumes of water injected at the time the water
saturation at the producing end is
df
Qi w
dS w S w 2
(Eq. 4.29)
Knowing this quantity and the water injection rate, the time required to
reach this stage of the flood can be computed.
iv. Oil and water flow rates at the time the saturation at the outlet end of the
linear system is
qo
qw
, STB/D
(Eq. 4.30)
, STB/D
(Eq. 4.31)
Sw ,
increases with
Sw :
4 - 43
ED ,
also
ED
S w S wc
1.0 S wc
(Eq. 4.32)
In summary, the Welge method can be used to predict oil recovery, wateroil ratio, displacement efficiency, and cumulative water injected as a
function of time for a linear waterflood. These calculations are illustrated
by Example 4:4.
_________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:4
Example 4:3 presented data for a reservoir which was subjected to a waterflood.
Predictions of oil recovery at the time of water breakthrough were also presented
in that example.
tbt
209.8 days
S wbt 0.614
4 - 44
Swf
S w2 S wm
is shown
1.00
3 4
5 6 7 8
0.95
0.90
fw
0.85
0.80
S wf 53%
f wf 0.775
0.75
50
55
60
65
70
75
S wf
and
using the slope and average water saturation corresponding to each value of
S w2 chosen.
N p V p S w S wbt
Bo
Key (see
Fig. 4.17)
S w2 ,%
f w2 df w / dS S w ,%
2.747
61.4=
53.0 =
Swf
0.775
55.0
0.820
2.093
63.6
71,000
57.5
0.865
1.753
65.2
122,600
60.0
0.905
1.462
66.5
164,600
62.5
0.940
1.132
67.8
206,500
65.0
0.965
0.875
69.0
245,000
67.5
0.983
0.548
70.6
297,000
70.0
0.994
0.400
71.5
306,000
S wbt
4 - 46
Wi V pQi
N p ,STB 10 6
S w2 ,%
N pbt N p
df
Qi w
dS
w
bbls 10 6
53.0 = Swf
1.175
0.364
1.468
55.0
57.5
60.0
62.5
65.0
67.5
70.0
1.246
1.298
1.340
1.382
1.420
1.472
1.482
0.498
0.570
0.684
0.883
1.143
1.825
2.500
2.008
2.299
2.759
3.562
4.611
7.362
10.085
S w2 ,%
Wi
53.0 = Swf
, days
7000
210 = tbt
55.0
WOR
qo ,STB
qw ,STB
4.2
1,260
5,319
287
5.6
1,008
5,627
57.5
328
7.9
756
5,936
60.0
394
11.7
532
6,211
62.5
509
19.2
336
6,451
65.0
659
33.8
196
6,623
67.5
1,052
70.9
95
6,746
70.0
1,441
203.0
34
6,822
__________________________________________________________________
C. Application to Radial Flow
Felsenthal and Yuster5 extended the frontal advance method to radial systems
and found the average water saturation behind the front and the saturation at the
front could be determined in the same manner as for linear flow. This same
observation should apply to any waterflood regardless of the flow geometry.
4 - 47
N pp Bo
1.0 S wc
So 1.0
N
B
ob ob
(Eq. 3.9)
and:
S g 1.0 So S wc
Eq. 3.9 assumes primary depletion is the result of solution gas drive and fluid
expansion. It neglects water influx and gravity segregation. For most reservoirs
under consideration for waterflooding, negligible water influx and gravity
segregation are acceptable assumptions. In those situations where water influx
and gravity segregation are important, it may be necessary to account for their
impact on recovery with a numerical simulation model. In this section, it is
assumed that Eq. 3.9 sufficiently describes the average oil (and gas) saturation in
the area of the field under consideration and that water influx is negligible.
Figure 4-18 is a fluid saturation distribution between an injector and a producer
in a reservoir containing a free gas phase resulting from primary depletion at the
start of injection.
4 - 48
FIGURE 4-18
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
BETWEEN INJECTOR AND PRODUCER WITH FREE GAS
100
Saturation, percent
Free Gas
Oil
(S g )
( So )
Connate Water
( S wc )
Distance
Early in the life of the water injection project before gas fillup, Figure 4-19
depicts a possible saturation profile.
4 - 49
FIGURE 4-19
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
EARLY IN THE LIFE OF A WATERFLOOD
HAVING AN INITIAL GAS SATURATION
Saturation, percent
100
Water Zone
} S ohc
Unaffected
Gas Zone
Free Gas
Trapped Gas
Oil
S wbt
S wf
Water
0
Connate Water
Distance
It is observed that three different fluid regions develop and are defined as the
injected water zone, oil bank zone, and unaffected gas zone. Figure 4-19 is
similar to Figure 3-21 presented by Willhite6. It is significant to note that while
a trapped gas saturation may exist within the water zone or oil bank, in practice,
it is not likely to be important. During most waterfloods, reservoir pressure
within the water zone and oil bank increases. Craig7 presented an equation (Ref.
7, Eq. 3.20) which can be used to calculate the pressure level at which the
trapped gas dissolves into the oil bank.
saturation exceeds the critical saturation (usually in the range of three to five
percent) due to a favorable mobility ratio (discussed in the next chapter) between
the displacing oil and the displaced gas. Recognizing the free gas will be
displaced to the production well and/or dissolved within the oil, the saturation
profile in Figure 4-19 can be simplified to Figure 4-20.
FIGURE 4-20
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
EARLY IN THE LIFE OF A WATERFLOOD
WITHOUT TRAPPED GAS
Saturation, percent
100
Water Zone
} Sor
Unaffected
Gas Zone
Free Gas
Oil
S wbt
S wf
Water
0
Connate Water
Distance
In Figure 4-20, the water saturation distribution in the water zone is identical
to the distribution when there is no free gas as illustrated in Figure 4-13. The
oil bank which lies immediately ahead of the water zone is denoted by an oil
saturation which is
bubble-point pressure.
4 - 51
The increase in oil saturation in the oil bank is exactly equal to the decrease in
the initial free gas saturation,
Sg .
bank is the result of water displacing oil from the water zone. The buildup or
increase in the oil saturation in the oil zone is sometimes called an oil resaturation effect. During this re-saturation process, oil is displaced from the
water zone and re-saturates pore space in the oil bank previously filled with free
gas. During the re-saturation process, the oil displaced from the water zone is
not produced. It is simply displaced from the water zone to a different part of
the reservoir (the oil bank). The re-saturation process is also referred to as the
gas fillup process8.
With continued water injection, the leading oil bank front reaches the producing
well. This is referred to as the gas fillup or more commonly is simply referred to
as fillup. When fillup is achieved (the oil bank arrives at the production well),
steady-state injection and production concepts can be used to describe injection
and production behavior. Figure 4-21 is an example of the fluid saturation
distribution at gas fillup and shows only the water and oil zones.
4 - 52
FIGURE 4-21
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION AT FREE GAS FILLUP
} Sor
Saturation, percent
100
Water Zone
Oil Zone
Oil
S wbt
S wf
Water
Connate Water
0
Distance
The
Wif , can be
approximated as:
Wif V p S g
where:
Vp
Sg
4 - 53
(Eq. 4.33)
_______________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:5
An 80-acre direct line drive pattern (to be discussed in Chapter 5) is under
consideration for waterflooding. Given the following information, compute
the barrels of water which must be injected to reach gas fillup and the time to
reach fillup.
= 80 acres
So
= 55 percent
= 4 feet
Sg
= 15 percent
= 20 percent
iw
= 200 BWPD
S wc
= 30 percent
Wif V p S g
Wif 7758AhSg
Wif 7758(80)(4)(0.20)(0.15)
Wif 74,477 barrels
The time to reach fillup is given by:
tf
Wif
iw
4 - 54
tf
74,477 bbls
200 bbls/day
t f 372 days
_______________________________________________________________
1.
Production Performance
From the start of water injection until gas fillup, the oil bank will not have
arrived at the producing well. Moreover, during fillup, the saturations (and
pressure) at the producing well will not be materially changed. Therefore,
during fillup, primary production will continue almost as if a waterflood
had not commenced. Upon fillup, the oil bank arrives at the producing well
and free gas has disappeared (it has been produced or re-dissolved). At this
time, the reservoir can be approximately treated as being filled with
incompressible liquids and the steady-state concept of one barrel in-one
barrel out can be applied.
ED
So 1.0 S wc S g
4 - 55
1.0 S w .
Therefore,
ED
1.0 S
wc
S g 1.0 S w
1.0 S wc S g
(Eq. 4.34)
or:
ED
S w S wc S g
1.0 S wc S g
S w S wbt
S w S wbt .
(Eq. 4.35)
After water
4 - 56
FIGURE 4-22
WATER ZONE AND OIL BANK
SURROUNDING AN INJECTION WELL
EARLY IN THE LIFE OF A WATERFLOOD WITH FREE GAS
OIL
BANK
WATER
ZONE
re
rw
The radii of the water and oil banks depend on the cumulative volume of
water injected,
Wi .
fills the gas space from rw to re . Thus, for a single layer of thickness, h ,
and porosity, , it is possible to write:
re2h S g 5.615Wi
(Eq. 4.36)
or:
1
2
5.615Wi
re
hS g
where:
4 - 57
(Eq. 4.37)
r.
Since the
r 2 h S wbt S wc 5.615Wi
(Eq. 4.38)
r 2 h S wbt S wc re2 hS g
(Eq. 4.39)
or:
re2
S wbt S wc
r
Sg
(Eq. 4.40)
or:
1
2
S wbt S wc
re r
Sg
(Eq. 4.41)
or:
1
2
re S wbt S wc
r
Sg
If re
(Eq. 4.42)
S g S wbt S wc
4 - 58
(Eq. 4.43)
/r
bank will be small and water breakthrough will occur soon after fillup.
Assuming an re
/r
1
2
S wbt S
wc
1.25
r
Sg
re
(Eq. 4.44)
S wbt S wc
1.5625
S
g
(Eq. 4.45)
S g 0.64 S wbt S wc
(Eq. 4.46)
or:
Bo .
injection, average reservoir pressure declined to 1,200 psi. Water injection increased
the reservoir pressure to its current value of 2,500 psi. At this time, what is the
appropriate value to use for
Rs , o , and Bo ?
not be known or easily calculated. However, if the values are evaluated at the average
reservoir pressure existing at the start of the waterflood, they can serve as reasonable
estimates for the entire life of a waterflood even if the reservoir pressure is ultimately
increased to near the original pressure.
FIGURE 4-23
SOLUTION GAS, Rs, vs PRESSURE
600
Solution Gas, SCF/STBO
Primary
500
400
Waterflood
300
200
Start WF
100
0
0
600
1200
4 - 60
P, psi
1800
2400
3000
FIGURE 4-24
FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR vs PRESSURE
1.3
Primary
1.2
Waterflood
1.1
Start WF
1.0
0
600
1200
P, psi
1800
2400
3000
FIGURE 4-25
OIL VISCOSITY vs PRESSURE
1.6
Oil Viscosity, CP
1.4
1.2
1.0
Waterflood
0.8
0.6
Start WF
0.4
Primary
0.2
0.0
0
600
1200
4 - 61
P, psi
1800
2400
3000
___________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:6
A partly depleted single layer of a 160 acre five-spot pattern is to be waterflooded.
The reservoir is characterized by the following data:
= 160 Acres
So
= 61%
= 4 feet
= 400 psia
= 18%
= 180o F
S wc
= 24%
= 0.95
Sg
= 15%
Bo
1. Compute the SCF of free gas and STBO in the layer at the start of
waterflooding.
2. If the free gas in re-dissolved during the fillup period, what is the increase in
the solution gas-oil ratio.
SOLUTION
1. Free gas =
43,560 Ah S g Bg , SCF
where
Bg 23.2 SCF/ft 3
and
Free gas =
SCF
Rs
Rs
would be:
17,500,000 SCF
474,000 STBO
Rs
will
usually be negligibly small. As a result, the PVT properties of the crude oil at the
start of injection usually represent reasonable estimates of the oil PVT properties
throughout the project life even if reservoir pressure is increased to the original
pressure. Consequently, in the oil bank the oil saturation will be similar to the oil
saturation that existed at the time of field discovery but the PVT properties will
4 - 63
correspond to those properties measured at the reservoir pressure at the start of the
waterflood.
Following gas fillup, it would be desirable to obtain a new PVT sample. The PVT
characteristics should be representative of the reservoir oil and results will be more
reliable than estimating PVT properties measured at reservoir pressure at the start of
the waterflood. The key for a reliable fluid sample is the requirement that gas fillup
has occurred.
VII. Reservoir Pressure Distribution
The pressure distribution existing throughout a reservoir during primary depletion is
dependent upon many variables such as permeability, porosity, thickness, rock and
fluid compressibilities, wellbore skin factors, and well production rates.
In
p pwf
141.2qB r
ln s
kh
rw
where
= pressure at radius
4 - 64
r , psi
(Eq. 4.47)
pwf
rw
= fluid viscosity, cp
Equation 4.47 can be used to compute the pressure distribution between the producing
well radius and the external drainage radius. Under pseudo-steady state conditions
during primary depletion, each well drains a reservoir pore volume in proportion to its
production rate. For example, if two well are producing at 100 and 200 STB/D
respectively, the well producing at the higher rate drains a pore volume that is twice
the pore volume of the well producing at the lower rate.
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:7
Consider two wells within the same reservoir producing at equal rates from a single
layer of constant thickness, porosity, and permeability.
draining equivalent pore volumes. For a line connecting the two wells, the drainage
distance for each producing well can be assumed to be at the mid-point. For the
conditions listed below, compute the pressure distribution along a line connecting the
wells for the following conditions:
4 - 65
= 45 STBO/D
pwf
ko
= 20 md
s1 s2
= 0.0
= 5 feet
Bo
= 1.2 RB/STBO
re
= 1.5 cp
rw
= 0.25 feet
SOLUTION
Pressure versus radius can be computed from Eq. 4.47.
p 100
20
5
0.25
or
p, psi
r , ft
p, psi
0.25
100
100
785
1.0
259
200
865
5.0
443
300
911
10.0
522
400
944
25.0
627
500
970
50.0
706
660
1000
Figure 4-26 presents the pressure distribution along a line connecting the two wells.
It is significant to note that of the total pressure drop for a given well and external
4 - 66
drainage radii, in this case 0.25 feet and 660 feet respectively, about 50 percent of the
total pressure drop occurs within 12.7 feet of the producing well radius representing
less than two percent of the total drainage radius. For radii of 0.25 feet and 660 feet,
this 50 percent pressure drop is valid for different flow rates, permeabilities, and fluid
viscosities although the total pressure drop would be different. Also, if the skin factor
at the producing wells are different from zero, the pressure drop near the wellbore
could be more or less than the 50 percent factor depending upon if the skin factor is
negative or positive.
Figure 4-26
Pseudo Steady State Pressure Distribution Between Two Wells Producing at Equal
Rates From a Flow Unit of Constant Permeability, Thickness, and Porosity With Zero
Skin Factors at Each Well
1200
Pressure, psi
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Distance
_____________________________________________________________________
At the start of water injection, the pressure distribution begins to look very different
and changes rapidly until gas fillup is achieved. Assume a gas saturation is present at
the start of injection, an oil bank forms, and the water and oil within the water and oil
banks are incompressible. The free gas existing in that portion of the reservoir
beyond the outer radius of the oil bank usually exists at moderate to low pressures and
4 - 67
is very compressible.
distribution in those parts of the reservoir containing the gas saturation is not
materially altered from the pressure distribution created by primary depletion at the
start of injection. Consequently, near the producing well, reservoir pressure (and fluid
saturations) and production rates are not significantly altered until gas fillup occurs
within a flow unit.
During the gas fillup period, the only part of the reservoir flow unit in which there is
an impact on pressure behavior is that portion of the reservoir within the water bank
and oil bank.
In fact, the pressure at the outer radius of the oil zone can be
approximated by the pressure that existed at that position at the start of the
waterflood. As long as the oil and water regions are circular around the injection well
as depicted in Figure 4-22, and if the mobility ratio (discussed in a later chapter) is
unity, then Eq. 4.47 can be modified as:
p pwi
141.2iw w r
ln
s
i
kwh
rw
where
pwi
iw
kw
si
= water viscosity, cp
4 - 68
S wbt , md
(Eq. 4.48)
ko / o
____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:8
Consider the two wells described in Example 4:7. Compute the pressure distribution
between the injector and producer when the oil bank radius is midway between the
two wells.
Mobility Ratio = 1.0
Si
= 0.00
pwi
= 4200 psi
= 5 feet
p at midpoint
= 1000 psi
iw
SOLUTION
For a unit mobility ratio, the pressure distribution within the water zone and oil zone
is computed by Eq. 4.48.
p pwi
141.2iw w r
s
ln
i
k wh rw
4 - 69
p 4200
141.2 192
ln r 1.39 0.00
13.33 5
r , ft
p, psi
r , ft
p, psi
0.25
4200
100
1763
1.0
3635
200
1481
5.0
2981
300
1315
10.0
2699
400
1198
25.0
2326
500
1105
50.0
2044
660
1000
Further, the pressure distribution from the mid-point through the gas zone to the
producing well has not materially changed from the pressure distribution existing at
the start of injection. Figure 4-27 shows the pressure distribution between the injector
and producer.
4 - 70
Figure 4-27
Pressure Distribution Between an Injection and Producing Well Before Gas Fillup for
a Unit Mobility Ratio When the Radius to the Oil Front is 50% of the Total Distance
from the Injector to Producer with Zero Skin Factors at Both Wells
Radius to Oil Front
4500
4000
Pressure, psi
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Pwf = 100 psi
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Distance
_____________________________________________________________________
At gas fillup, the oil bank arrives at the producing well and the gas is no longer
present. If the skin factors at each well are identical and the mobility ratio is unity,
the pressure distribution near the injection well is the reciprocal of the pressure
distribution at the producing well.
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 4:9
For Example 4:8, plot the pressure distribution between the injection and production
wells. For convenience, after gas fillup the pressure at the producing well is set at
200 psi so the total pressure drop between the injector and producer is 4000 psi. The
pressure at the mid-point is 2200 psi.
4 - 71
SOLUTION
Figure 4-28 presents the steady state pressure distribution after fillup. It is observed
that of the total pressure drop between the two wells, about 40 percent occurs over the
first 10 percent of the distance and an additional 40 percent of the pressure drop
occurs over the final 10 percent of the distance. The pressure drop covering the
distance from the 10 percent to 90 percent marker is only 20 percent of the total.
Figure 4-28
Pressure Distribution Between an Injection and Producing Well After Gas Fillup for
an Incompressible Reservoir System with a Mobility Ratio of Unity and Zero Skin
Factors at Both Wells
Liquid Filled (Incompressible) Reservoir
4500
4000
Pressure, psi
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Pwf=200 psi
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Distance
Figure 4-29 presents a composite pressure distribution at three different times, prior to
the start of injection, mid-way to gas fillup and after gas fillup.
4 - 72
Figure 4-29
Composite Pressure Distribution at 3 Different Times:
1) Immediately Prior to Start of Injection
2) Midway to Gas Fillup
3) After Gas Fillup
4500
4000
Pressure, psi
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent Distance
_____________________________________________________________________
Example 4:9 illustrates the pressure distribution assuming skin factors at each well are
zero. If the skin factors are net zero in each well, then pressure distribution is altered.
The pressure drop at each well due to the skin factor can be shown from well testing1
to be:
pskin
141.2qB
s
kh
The pressure drop due to skin at the injection and production wells can be computed
as:
psi
141.2iw w
si
k wh
4 - 73
and
psp
141.2qo Bo o
sp
ko h
If the total pressure drop between the injector and producer is denoted by
ptotal ,
then the pressure drop through the reservoir, after excluding the pressure loss due to
the skin is
pres ,
pres
Sor
Willhite6 and Craig7 indicate, in some instances, oil recovery can be increased if the
reservoir pressure is carefully controlled so as to leave a trapped gas saturation within
the oil bank. The idea is to reduce the
Sor
gas saturation. For example, if the residual hydrocarbon saturation is 30 percent and
if a trapped gas saturation can be maintained at 5 percent, the residual liquid
4 - 74
hydrocarbon saturation would be 25 percent. In this case, the residual liquid would be
reduced by 16.67 percent. Chik, et al12 described a case study involving this concept.
In theory, the concept seems to have application. However, selecting and maintaining
the optimum reservoir pressure to maintain this critical gas saturation is difficult to
achieve in practice.
IX. Gravity Under-Running
When flooding zones of relatively large thicknesses, the question of gravity underrunning occurs. A method has been presented by Dietz13 which can be used to
determine the angle at which water can be expected to enter an oil bearing sand. This
method applies to floods with favorable mobility ratios in reservoirs which are
horizontal or have relatively low dips. According to Dietz, the angle,
, between
2045iw w o
k rw k ro
Tan
Ak ( w o )
4 - 75
(Eq. 4.45)
FIGURE 4-30
WATER UNDER-RUNNING DUE TO GRAVITY
WATER
OIL
The relative
permeability to oil is defined at the initial oil saturation, and the relative permeability
to water is expressed at the average water saturation behind the front. It is noted that
as iw increases, the front becomes more vertical (i.e.,
approaches 90 degrees).
4 - 76
considered. Free gas resulting from primary pressure depletion leads to the concept of
gas fillup.
The limitations of the linear flow calculations for a homogeneous reservoir having
constant rock and fluid properties must be considered. It was assumed that the total
throughput rate is constant and equal to the water injection rate. Areal and vertical
coverage were taken to be unity, and it is assumed all injected water contributes to the
displacement process (i.e., no water lost at the boundaries or to other formations).
Thus, the main contribution of the calculations in this chapter is to give us an
understanding of the displacement behavior in that portion of the reservoir contacted
by the injected water. When flow is not linear, or when areal or vertical heterogeneities
exist which reduce coverage of the injected water, modifications to the model must be
made or a completely different model must be used. These adjustments are discussed
in the next several chapters.
4 - 77
CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES
1. Lee, J.: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1982) 1.
2. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: Mechanism of Fluid Displacements in Sands,
Trans., AIME (1942) 146, pp. 107-116.
3. Terwilliger, P.L., Wilsey, L.E., Hall, H.N., Bridges, P.M., and Morse, R.A.: An
experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Gravity Drainage Performance,
Trans., AIME (1951) 192, pp. 285-296.
4. Welge, H.J.: A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water
Drive, Trans. AIME(1952) 195, pp. 91-98.
5. Felsenthal, M. and Yuster, S.T.: A Study of the Effect of Viscosity in Oil Recovery
by Waterflooding, paper SPE 163-G presented at the 1951 SPE West Coast
Meeting, Los Angeles, Oct. 25-26.
6. Wilhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
7. Craig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3, p. 39.
8. Callaway, F.H.: Evaluation of Waterflood Prospects, JPT (Oct. 1959) pp. 11-16.
9. McCain, W.D.: The Properties Of Petroleum Fluids, PennWell Publishing
Company, Tulsa, OK (1990).
10. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1959).
11. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Science B. V.,
Amsterdam (1978) p. 372.
12. Chik, A.N., Selamat, S., Elias, M.R., White, J.P. and Wakatake, M.T.: Guntong
Field: Development and Management of a Multiple-Reservoir Offshore
Waterflood, JPT (Dec. 1996) p. 1139.
13. Dietz, D.N.: A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Encroaching and
Bypassing Edge Water, Proc., Koninkl. New. Akad. Wetenschap (1953) B56, 38.
14. Cronquist, C.: Waterflooding by Linear Displacement in Little Creek Field,
Mississippi, Trans., AIME (1968) 243, pp. 525-533.
4 - 78
APPENDIX A CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT OF FRONTAL ADVANCE EQUATION
Consider the simultaneous linear flow of oil and water in the water zone in a
porous system of cross-sectional area,
1.
FIGURE 4A-1
LINEAR MODEL FOR
DERIVATION OF FRONTAL ADVANCE EQUATION
ko S wir ,
fw x
f w x x
X
X + X
A material balance for this segment of the reservoir rock can be written as:
(Eq. 4A.1)
iw f w
xx
, bbls
Ax S w
, bbls
5.615 t x x
Sw x x
2
5.615iw f w / x x f w / x
(Eq. 4A.2)
5.615iw f w 5.615iw f w S w
S w
A
x
A
S
x
w t
(Eq. 4A.3)
Equation 4A.3 gives the water saturation as a function of time at a particular
location,
S w S w x, t
Therefore, the total derivative of
S w is:
4 - 80
(Eq. 4A.4)
S w
S w
dS w
dx
dt
x t
t x
Eq. 4A.5)
S
S
0 w dx w dt
t t
t x
(Eq. 4A.6)
and:
S w
S w dx
t x
x t dt S w
(Eq. 4A.7)
5 . 615 i w
dx
A
dt S w
If the total injection rate is constant,
f w
S w
(Eq. 4A.8)
f w
df
w
S w t dS w
(Eq. 4A.9)
and:
5.615iw df w
dx
A dS w
dt S w
(Eq. 4A.10)
5.615iwt df w 5.615Wi df w
A dS w
A dS w
(Eq. 4A.11)
where:
iw
Wi
df w
= slope of the fractional flow curve at the water saturation of interest
dS w
Eq. 4A.11 is the equation used to compute the water saturation distribution in the
water zone up to water breakthrough. While this is an important relationship, its
greatest value in waterflood analysis is that it is the basis for computing
Sw .
4 - 82
S wf and
APPENDIX B CHAPTER 4
BUCKLEY-LEVERETT THEORY
I. Buckley-Leverett Theory
It was shown by Buckley and Leverett2 that the frontal advance equation (Eq. 4.16)
can be used to compute the saturation distribution in a linear waterflood system as a
function of time. According to Eq. 4.16, the distance,
in the time interval, t , is proportional to the slope of the fractional flow curve at the
particular saturation of interest. Therefore, if the slope of the fractional flow curve is
graphically determined at a number of saturations, it is possible to calculate the
saturation distribution in the reservoir as a function of time.
Furthermore, the
saturation distribution can be used to predict oil recovery and required water injection
on a time basis. However, this procedure must be used with some caution as the
Buckley and Leverett analysis may give a multi-saturation distribution that is
physically impossible.
The problem arises because of the shape of the fractional flow curve. It is noted on
Figure 4-4 that equal values of slope,
saturations. According to Eq. 4.16, this means two different saturations can occur at
the same location in the reservoir at the same time---this is not possible. Moreover,
under some conditions it can be shown that theory predicts a triple-valued
distribution. An example of the multi-valued saturation distribution resulting from
this situation is shown in Figure 4B-1.
4 - 83
Figure 4B-1
MULTI-VALUED SATURATION PROFILES
100
S wm
50
Reservoir Oil
Flood Water
t1
t2
t3
Initial Water
Distance
To rectify this mathematical difficulty, it was suggested by Buckley and Leverett that
a portion of the calculated saturation distribution curve is imaginary and the real
curve contains a discontinuity at the front. The method for finding the real curve is
illustrated by Figure 4B-2. The imaginary portion of the curve is shown as a dashed
line. The real curve is shown as a solid line which becomes discontinuous at a
distance
can be determined graphically by locating the front in such a position that areas A and
B are equivalent.
4 - 84
Figure 4B-2
100
S wm
t t1
50
0
Distance
xf
The Buckley and Leverett procedure illustrated in Figure 4B-2 neglects capillary
pressure. Consequently, in a practical situation, the flood front will not exist as a
discontinuity but will exist as a stabilized zone of finite length with a large saturation
gradient. This was recognized and presented in a paper of fundamental importance by
Terwilliger, et al3.
II. Stabilized Zone Concept
The first of many papers which confirm the frontal advance theory was presented by
Terwilliger, et al. While applying this theory to a gravity drainage system, they found
that, at the leading edge of the front, a zone exists where displacing fluid saturations
all moved at the same velocity. Accordingly, the shape of the front was observed to
be constant with respect to time. This zone was termed the stabilized zone. Further,
it was found that by using the complete fractional flow equation (including capillary
4 - 85
effects) along with the frontal advance equation, the saturation distribution computed
using the Buckley-Leverett theory matched the saturation distribution observed
experimentally. The stabilized zone is illustrated in Figure 4B-3.
FIGURE 4B-3
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION SHOWING EXISTENCE
OF STABILIZED AND NONSTABILIZED ZONES
Water Saturation
swm
sw
0
x
swf
Stabilized Zone
x
t Sw
Front at Time t1
Front at Time t2
= constant
swc
Distance
In theory, the flood zone has a measurable width with a large saturation gradient. In
practice, the transition zone at the leading edge of the water front can be closely
approximated as a step function as illustrated in Figure 4B-4.
4 - 86
FIGURE 4B-4
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
WITH A STEP FUNCTION AT WATER FRONT
Water Zone
Saturation, percent
100
Oil Zone
Stabilized
Step Front
S wf
S wc
0
Distance
It was also observed that the saturation at the leading edge of the stabilized zone,
S wf , could be defined as the tangent point on the fractional flow curve obtained by
drawing a tangent line originating at the point
proven by Welge3.
S w S wc , f w 0.
proportional to the slope of the fractional flow curve at this point, i.e., the slope of the
tangent line. Since all saturations in the stabilized zone move at the same velocity, it
follows that
This slope is defined by a line drawn tangent to the fractional flow curve from the
initial water saturation. The fractional flow curve with the described tangent line is
illustrated in Figure 4B-5.
4 - 87
FIGURE 4B-5
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE
SHOWING STABILIZED ZONE
EFFECT
1.0
Curve Demanded
By Stabilized Zone
f w 0.5
S wf
S wir
0.0
0
50
100
fractional flow curve. Many mathematical and experimental studies conducted more
recently have verified the presence of the stabilized zone. Also, several studies have
considered the effect that the stabilized zone has on waterflood performance. It is
4 - 88
generally accepted that the length of the stabilized zone is negligible at practical flood
rates and the method of Welge (to be covered later) can be used to predict linear flood
results.
Behind the flood front is a zone where the saturation distribution does change with
time. Appropriately, the zone is referred to as being non-stabilized. In contrast to the
stabilized zone, saturations change very little with distance in this zone and we can
write
S w
x
Pc
x
Pc S w
S w x
(Eq. 4B.1)
it follows that the capillary pressure gradient can be neglected in this zone. The nonstabilized zone was illustrated in Figure 4B-3.
III. Welge Solution to Buckley-Leverett
A. Water Saturation at the Front
Welge4 greatly simplified the graphical procedure of Buckley and Leverett but
requires the initial water saturation be uniform.
4 - 89
FIGURE 4B-6
SATURATION PROFILE DURING FLOOD
Water Saturation
S wm
Front
S wf
Swc
Xf
S wc and S wf is:
x f S wf S wc S wf x dS w
wc
(Eq. 4B.2)
where:
S wf
x f S wf S wc S
wc
4 - 90
5.615iwt df w
dS
A dS w w
or:
x f S wf S wc
5.615iwt
f
f
w / S wc
A w / Swf
Thus,
5.615iwt f w / Swf f w / S wc
xf
A
S wf S wc
5.165iwt df w
xf
A dS w
S
(Eq. 4B.3)
x xf :
(Eq. 4B.4)
S wf
f w / S wf f w / S wc
df w
dS
S wf S wc
w S wf
(Eq. 4B.5)
The graphical interpretation of Eq. 4B.5 is that a line drawn tangent to the
fractional flow curve from the point
tangency equal to
fw / S
wf
4 - 91
FIGURE 4B-7
DETERMINATION OF WATER SATURATION AT THE
FRONT FROM THE FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE
1.0
Tangent
Point
f w / S wf
fw
S wf
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
(Eq. 4B.6)
where:
Total H 2O A owf x dS w S wm x dS w
wf
(Eq. 4B.7)
S
Total H O AX S A wm x dS
S
2
f wf
w
wf
(Eq. 4B.8)
Substitute Eqs. 4.16 and 4B.3, respectively, into Eq. 4B.8 to obtain:
df
w 5.615i t S wm df
w S wf
w
dS
w
Total H 2O 5.615iwtS wf
(Eq. 4B.9)
By definition, the average water saturation behind the front is:
Sw
total H 2O
total water behind front
(Eq. 4B.10)
or:
Sw
5.615iwtS wf df
w
dS
AX f
w S
wf
4 - 93
5.615iwt
AX f
S wm
S d f w
wf
(Eq. 4B.11)
S w.
S w S wf
1.0 f wf
(Eq. 4B.12)
df w
dS
wf
Sw
However, an easier
4 - 94
FIGURE 4B-8
DETERMINATION OF SLOPE
RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE FRACTIONAL
FLOW CURVE
1.0
SwA ,1.0
SwA , f wf
f wf
fw
S wf
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
It is observed on Figure 4B-8 that the tangent line intersects the line
corresponding to
S wA .
f w 1.0
The slope of the tangent line can be defined in terms of this saturation
1.0 f wf
df w
dS w f S wA S wf
This can be rearranged to solve for
S wA S wf
S wA .
1.0 f wf
df w
dS w f
(Eq. 4B.13)
4 - 96
FIGURE 4B-9
GRAPHICAL DETERMINATION OF
Sw
1.0
fw
Swf
Swir
Sw
0.0
0
100
Water Saturation, percent
4 - 97
PROBLEM 4:1
Oil is being displaced by water in a horizontal, linear flow system where capillary
pressure effects are negligible. The relative permeability data for oil and water are
presented in the following table.
Sw , %
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
k rw
k ro
0.000
0.002
0.009
0.020
0.033
0.051
0.075
0.100
0.132
0.170
0.208
0.251
0.300
0.800
0.610
0.470
0.370
0.285
0.220
0.163
0.120
0.081
0.050
0.027
0.010
0.000
Bw 1.0 RB/STB .
Bo 1.3 RB/STB
and
o , cp
w , cp
50.0
5.0
0.5
0.50
0.50
0.50
w o
0.01
0.10
1.00
The fractional flow curves for each of these cases are presented in Figure 4P1.1.
4 - 98
FIGURE 4P1.1
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVES FOR PROBLEM 4:1
1.0
Case 1
w
0.01
o
0.8
Case 2
w
0.10
o
0.6
fw
0.4
Case 3
w
1 . 00
o
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
4 - 99
100
PROBLEM 4:2
Consider the following data for a linear reservoir which is to be waterflooded.
iw
1000 bbl/day
2.48 cp
18 percent
400 feet
S wc
20 percent
Bo
1.15 RB/STB
50,000 ft2
Bw
1.0 RB/STB
0.62 cp
Sw
kro
krw
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.85
0.930
0.600
0.360
0.228
0.172
0.128
0.049
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.045
0.124
0.168
0.222
0.350
0.512
0.600
If areal and vertical sweep efficiency at initial water breakthrough are unity and capillary
pressure is negligible, determine the following information at water breakthrough and at
those times when the saturation at the producing well,
percent.
a.
4 - 103
4 - 104
symmetrical, the shortest travel path and the largest pressure gradient will occur along
a straight line between producers and injectors. Accordingly, injected water which
travels along the most direct flow path, defined as a streamline, will reach the
producing wells first. Water traveling along longer flow paths (streamlines) will not
have reached the producing well at the time of breakthrough on the short direct
streamline and, consequently, part of the reservoir will not have been contacted by
water at that time. That fraction of a waterflood pattern which has been areally
contacted by water at a given time during a flood is referred to as the areal sweep
efficiency,
EA.
ratio, (2) geometric configuration of the flood pattern, (3) reservoir pressure
distribution, (4) reservoir heterogeneities, and (5) cumulative volume of water
injected into the pattern area.
II. Mobility Ratio
Mobility is the ease with which a fluid moves in the reservoir. One of the most
important characteristics of a waterflood is the mobility ratio. It is defined1,2 in terms
5-1
of the effective permeability and viscosity of the displacing and displaced fluids
involved in the flood according to the following relationship.
M Mobility Ratio
Displacing
Displaced
Displacing
Displaced
(Eq. 5.1)
(Eq. 5.2)
k w / w k w o krw o
ko / o ko w kro w
(Eq. 5.3)
It is important to note that the relative permeabilities to water and oil in Eq. 5.3
are defined at two separate points in the reservoir, i.e.,
krw is
the relative
kro
is the relative permeability to oil in the oil bank ahead of the water zone.
It should be pointed out that the definition of mobility ratio expressed by Eq. 5.3
has been standardized by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) since 1957.
Prior to this time, however, when many studies of waterflooding were conducted,
mobility ratio was defined at the user's discretion.
krw
is
the relative permeability to water behind the water front, the following question
arises. Which value of water saturation behind the front should be used to
determine
krw ?
conclusion that
krw
kro
S wbt .
Thus,
o (krw ) S wbt
w (kro ) Swc
(Eq. 5.4)
Average water saturation behind the water front remains constant until the time of
water breakthrough. Based upon Eq. 5.4, it follows that mobility ratio will also
remain constant until breakthrough. When engineers use the term mobility ratio,
they are usually referring to the pre-breakthrough value. The mobility ratio after
water breakthrough is not constant; instead, it increases continuously in response
to the increasing average water saturation in the reservoir which, in turn, causes
krw to increase.
Mobility ratio is generally termed favorable or unfavorable depending on
whether its value is less than or greater than unity.
When
M 1.0 ,
the
mobilities of oil and water are identical, and they encounter the same resistance to
flow within the reservoir. When
easy for water to displace oil. This condition generally results in high sweep
5-3
better than oil and is less effective in displacing oil. In general, sweep efficiency
and oil recovery tend to decrease as mobility ratio increases. In our experience,
the most common values of mobility ratios encountered during waterflooding
range from about 0.2 to 5.0.
Consider the definition of mobility ratio in Eq. 5.4. It is known that the viscosity
of water is dependent on water salinity and temperature as shown in Figure 5-1.
5-4
FIGURE 5-1
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON
VISCOSITY OF SALT WATER
2.0
Viscosity, centipois
1.5
250,000 ppm
200,000 ppm
150,000 ppm
100,000 ppm
50,000 ppm
0 ppm
1.0
0.5
0.0
30
40 50
60
70
5-5
Also, if the
kro Swc
can
fractional flow graph, oil and water viscosity, and rock wettability; but it
frequently lies in the range of 0.1 to 0.3. Therefore, for many waterfloods,
calculation.
0.20
0.60 1.0
(Eq. 5.5)
or:
M 0.333 o
(Eq. 5.6)
Following
breakthrough, the injected water tends to "drag" the oil. This behavior leads to
the concept of a drag waterflood.
After water breakthrough on a streamline, average water saturation,
Sw
(where
Sw
of mobility ratio is not consistent with the pre-water breakthrough value. After
breakthrough, the definition of mobility ratio changes. The oil bank has been
5-6
should be used
with caution.
C. Oil Displacing Gas
When a free gas saturation exists prior to the start of waterflooding, an oil bank
usually develops as described in Eq. 4.61. Figure 5-2 presents the saturation
distribution between an injector and producer prior to gas fillup.
FIGURE 5-2
SATURATION DISTRIBUTION
EARLY IN THE LIFE OF A WATERFLOOD
WITHOUT TRAPPED GAS
Saturation, percent
100
Water Zone
} Sor
Unaffected
Gas Zone
Free Gas
Oil
S wbt
S wf
Water
0
Connate Water
Distance
5-7
MO /G
( kro ) S wc
(krg ) S g
(Eq. 5.7)
where:
MO /G
( k rg ) S g
= gas viscosity, cp
Sg
For most waterfloods with oil displacing gas, the following approximations can
be made.
( k ro ) S wc 1.0
(krg ) S g 0.1
g 0.02 cp
Thus,
MO /G
1.0 0.02
0.1 o
(Eq. 5.8)
or:
MO /G
0.2
(Eq. 5.9)
Therefore, the mobility ratio between the displacing oil bank and the displaced
gas is strongly dependent on the oil viscosity as shown in the following table.
5-8
o , cp M O / G
0.50
1.00
10.00
0.40
0.20
0.02
These results indicate that in most waterfloods of moderate oil viscosity, the
MO /G
In general, mobility ratio between the displacing phase (water or oil) and the
displaced phase (oil or gas) is used to estimate areal sweep efficiency for certain
patterns. Also, mobility ratio affects water injection rate. These two definitions
of mobility ratio play an important role in calculating areal sweep efficiency and
oil recovery as shown later in this chapter. Use of the term mobility ratio in
subsequent text will refer to the normal mobility ratio between water displacing
oil except where noted.
III. Basic Flood Patterns
Many fields have been developed for primary and secondary recovery using an
irregular well spacing. Generally, it is believed that relatively uniform well spacing
and drilling patterns lead to better recovery than with irregular patterns. The ideal
drainage or secondary pattern must consider reservoir continuity, directional
permeability, and reservoir pressure distribution. At the time a waterflood begins, a
field may be completely developed. Since infill wells are expensive to drill and
equip, waterflood development generally utilizes well patterns (or lack thereof)
existing at the start of injection. When irregular patterns exist, it may be desirable to
infill drill and regularize the flood. This process usually results in incremental oil
recovery, but this additional recovery can be difficult to quantify without a complete
geological and numerical simulation study. Few (if any) ideal regular patterns exist
in field operations. Wellbores may exist such that an apparent pattern is present, but
a careful analysis of such items as directional permeability, imbalances between
5-9
injection and withdrawal, and lateral discontinuity of reservoir rock cause the "actual
flow" within the reservoir to be quite different than indicated by consideration of
only wellbore locations. Even so, to understand waterflood behavior, it is essential
that an understanding of commonly used flood patterns be learned.
A. Direct Line Drive
As noted previously, the only way to achieve 100 percent areal sweep at the time
of breakthrough would be to inject fluid over an entire vertical plane so as to
achieve linear flow.
somewhat with a pattern where the producing and injection wells directly offset
each other. Figure 5-3 is a direct line drive pattern. As depicted by Figure 5-4,
the sweep efficiency1 of this direct line drive pattern improves as the
increases, where
FIGURE 5-3
DIRECT LINE DRIVE PATTERN
a
d
Pattern Boundary
Injection W ell
Producing W ell
5 - 10
d /a
ratio
d /a
and
E Abt
mobility ratio. It should also be noted that the ratio of producers to injectors is
unity for this pattern.
FIGURE 5-4
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY OF DIRECT LINE
AND STAGGERED LINE DRIVE
1
0.8
Mobility Ratio = 1.0
(Reference 1)
0.6
0.4
0.2
Direct Line
Staggered
Line
0
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
d/a
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
d /a
development permits, this flood pattern is preferable to the direct line drive.
5 - 11
4.0
FIGURE 5-5
STAGGERED LINE DRIVE PATTERN
C. Five-Spot
The five-spot pattern, depicted by Figure 5-6, is a special case of the staggered
line drive where the
d /a
flooding pattern resulting primarily from the regular well spacing required, or at
least used, in most areas. Note that the drilling pattern required to have a fivespot is square, and the ratio of producers to injectors is unity. The five-spot is a
highly conductive pattern since the shortest flow path is a straight line between
the injector and producer. Also, the pattern gives good sweep behavior. The
square drilling pattern which yields the five-spot is also flexible enough that other
flood patterns can be generated simply by rearranging the position of the injection
and production wells. Examples of other patterns are the skewed four-spot, ninespot, and inverted nine-spot.
5 - 12
FIGURE 5-6
DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
D. Nine-Spot
The normal nine-spot pattern, illustrated by Figure 5-7, can be developed from a
square drilling pattern. The injection well placement for the nine-spot pattern
leads to an injection-production well ratio of three. This type of system is very
useful if a high injection capacity is needed due to low permeability or similar
problems. The inverted nine-spot is used more than the normal nine-spot. In this
case, producing wells out number injection wells by a factor of three. The
inverted pattern is useful where fluid injectivity is high.
5 - 13
FIGURE 5-7
NINE-SPOT PATTERN
Directional
d /a
ratio of 0.866. If a field is not developed on this pattern, a large number of infill
wells are generally required to make the pattern feasible.
5 - 14
FIGURE 5-8
SEVEN-SPOT PATTERN
N D N E A EV ED
(Eq. 1.1)
It was shown in Chapter 4 how frontal advance theory can be used to predict the
displacement sweep efficiency,
ED .
factors which affect areal sweep efficiency and show how it can be determined using
5 - 15
EV
will be
p ,
is
acceptable), and the skin factors at the injector and producer to be identical.
Finally, assume the gas saturation at the start of water injection is zero and the
mobility ratio is unity. For these conditions, Figure 5-9 shows the pressure
distribution for one quarter of the five- spot.4 It is noted that about 40 percent of
the total pressure drop occurs near the injection well and another 40 percent
occurs nears the production well. This pressure behavior is consistent with the
concept of radial flow and occurs in both regular and irregular patterns. The lines
represent lines of constant pressure and are called isopotential or isobaric lines.
The lines in Figure 5-10 represent flow paths or streamlines.
5 - 16
FIGURE 5-9
ISOPOTENTIAL LINES FOR A DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT
PATTERN WITH A MOBILITY RATIO EQUAL TO 1.0
Isopotential
Lines
Injector
P1
Producer
Pwf 0 psi
5 - 17
FIGURE 5-10
ISOPOTENTIAL LINES AND STREAMLINES FOR A
DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN WITH A MOBILITY
RATIO EQUAL TO 1.0
Injector
Streamline
I1
F
E
D
C
B
A
B
C
D
F
P1
Producer
5 - 18
The injected water and displaced oil travel along the streamlines. A basic law of
fluid flow is that flow lines (streamlines) are perpendicular to isopotential lines.
There are an infinite number of both isopotential lines and streamlines. However,
only eleven streamlines are shown in Figure 5-10. Significantly, flow along a
particular streamline is independent of fluid movement along another streamline.
Streamlines can be parallel or tangent (adjacent) to other streamlines but streamlines never intersect. Fluids moving along a streamline are not allowed to mix or
contact fluids in another streamline. Each streamline is an independent flow
path.
A simplified form of Darcy's Law helps to understand fluid movement along any
streamline.
computed by:
q k P
A L
(Eq. 5.10)
directional permeability trends) and unit mobility ratio, as described for Figure 59, all streamlines are subject to the same pressure drop (they all start from the
injector and end at the producer). However, the streamlines are of different
lengths.
diagonal (Streamline A) connecting the wells. It follows that the greatest pressure
gradient and highest fluid velocity, V A will occur along the shortest streamline,
A.
VB VC VD VE VF .
Figure 5-11 shows the position of the injected flood front on each streamline at
several different times ( t1, t2 , t3
A smooth
curve connecting the flood front points on the different streamlines represents the
position of the injected water front within the pattern.
5 - 19
FIGURE 5-11
ISOPOTENTIAL LINES AND STREAMLINES FOR A
DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN WITH A MOBILITY
RATIO EQUAL TO 1.0
Injector
t1
t2
t3 t4 t5 t6 .....tbt
I1
P1
Producer
5 - 20
It is noted that the water saturation at the flood front on each streamline is
Moreover,
S wf
( fw )
S wf .
S wf
is
not the position of the flood front. Also, the average water saturation between
the injection well and flood front is
S wbt
S wbt .
Thus, up
Wi V p E A ( S wbt S wc )
(Eq. 5.11)
where:
EA
S wc
S wbt
Vp
Wi
EA
Wi
V p ( S wbt S wc )
5 - 21
(Eq. 5.12)
E A as a function of Wi
up to the time
5 - 22
FIGURE 5-12
FLOOD FRONT LOCATION AT SUCCESSIVE TIMES
IN A FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
1
E =
A
Area
Area
+ Area
Finally, it should be noted that any factor which alters the reservoir pressure
distribution such as an irregular pattern, non-unit mobility ratio, directional
permeability, or uneven pressure gradients between injector and surrounding
producers will thereby alter the position of the streamlines and affect areal sweep
efficiency.
E Abt
E A can best
E Abt
E Abt
versus
however, you must be aware of what type well pattern the data represent. Four
types of well patterns occur.
1. Isolated Pattern
This is a pattern which exists in a liquid filled reservoir which has no
boundaries and no other wells. It is possible with isolated patterns to have an
areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough greater than 100 percent.
This is
because fluids from the injection well can sweep oil from outside the pattern.
2. Developed Pattern
This is a pattern in a field where the total field is developed on the same
pattern.
5 - 24
FIGURE 5-13
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR A DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN (REFERENCE 1)
Areal Efficiency At Breakthrough, percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0.1
1
Mobility Ratio
10
M of
however,
E Abt
is 100 percent. If
increases,
E Abt decreases.
Data for an isolated five-spot pattern, both inverted and normal, are presented in
Figure 5-14. This figure shows that, as mentioned previously, isolated patterns
can have sweep efficiencies greater than 100 percent.
5 - 25
FIGURE 5-14
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR AN ISOLATED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN (REFERENCE 1)
Areal Efficiency At Breakthrough, percent
240
Normal Pattern
200
160
Inverted Pattern
120
80
Inverted
Normal
40
92% at M
0.1
10
100
Mobility Ratio
Sweep efficiency data are presented1 in Figures 5-15 and 5-16 for the developed
normal and developed inverted seven-spot pattern.
5 - 26
FIGURE 5-15
AREAL SW EEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR A DEVELOPED NORMAL SEVEN-SPOT PATTERN (REFERENCE 1)
100
Pattern Area
90
80
70
60
0.1
Mobility Ratio
10
100
FIGURE 5-16
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR A DEVELOPED INVERTED SEVEN-SPOT PATTERN (REFERENCE 1)
100
Pattern Area
90
80
70
60
0.1
Mobility Ratio
5 - 27
10
100
The sweep efficiency of direct line drives and staggered line drives depends upon
d /a
ratio, where
shown previously in Figure 5-4 for a mobility ratio of unity. Figures 5-17 and 518 depict the relationship between
E Abt
d / a = 1.0.
FIGURE 5-17
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR A DEVELOPED DIRECT LINE DRIVE, d/a = 1.0 (REFERENCE 1)
100
Pattern Area
90
a
d
80
70
60
50
40
0.1
Mobility Ratio
5 - 28
10
100
FIGURE 5-18
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
FOR A DEVELOPED STAGGERED LINE DRIVE, d/a = 1.0 (REFERENCE 1)
Areal Efficiency At Breakthrough, percent
100
Pattern Area
90
80
70
60
50
40
0.1
Mobility Ratio
10
100
5 - 29
FIGURE 5-19
EFFECT OF INJECTED FLUID VOLUME ON AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
AFTER BREAKTHROUGH FOR A DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
(REFERENCE 1)
100
90
EA
80
70
60
50
Wi / Wibt
9 10
EA
equation.
W
E A 0.2749 ln i E Abt
Wibt
(Eq. 5.13)
_________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 5:1
A thin oil reservoir is to be waterflooded with a well arrangement that
approximates a developed five-spot. Assume vertical sweep efficiency at initial
5 - 30
Sw , %
k rw
k ro
fw
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
0.000
0.004
0.014
0.032
0.058
0.090
0.130
0.176
0.230
0.291
0.360
1.00
0.81
0.64
0.49
0.36
0.25
0.16
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.31
0.52
0.71
0.84
0.93
0.97
0.99
1.00
5 - 31
FIGURE 5-20
FRACTIONAL FLOW GRAPH VERSUS WATER SATURATION
1.0
S wbt 54.2%
0.8
fW
0.6
0.4
f w 0.133
0.2
S wc 32%
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
= 4.0 feet
= 22 percent
S wir
= 22 percent
S wc
= 32 percent
So
Sg
= 12 percent
= 0.60 cp
= 4.0 cp
5 - 32
SOLUTION
1. The mobility ratio is defined by Eq. 5.4 as:
To compute
(krw ) S wbt
(kro ) Swc
o
w
it is necessary to calculate
in this reservoir,
percent.
S wc S wir .
k rw
at
S wbt .
percent. Also,
It is noted that
S wbt
= 54.2
0.149 4.0
1.55
0.640 0.6
E Abt = 62 percent.
Wif V p S g
5 - 33
or:
E Af
Wif
V p ( S wbt S wc )
or:
E Af
49,155
7758(60) 4 (0.22)(0.54 0.32)
E Af 55 percent
6. After water breakthrough, areal sweep is governed by Eq. 5.13, that is:
W
E A 0.2749 ln i E Abt
Wibt
For
Wi
1.5 , Wi 83,808 barrels water
Wibt
E A 0.73 or 73 percent
5 - 34
7. When
or:
Wi
3.98
Wibt
and:
MO /G
( kro ) S wc
(krg ) S g
(krg ) S g 0.1(estimated)
g 0.02(estimated)
thus:
MO /G
0.640 0.02
0.1
4.0
5 - 35
M O / G 0.032
From Figure 5-13, the areal sweep efficiency of the leading front of the oil
bank is 100 percent at gas fillup.
_________________________________________________________________
_
Figure 5-21 presents an alternate correlation of areal sweep efficiency versus
mobility ratio for the developed five-spot pattern which is applicable after breakthrough. Similar correlations are presented in Appendix D of SPE Monograph 31
for other well patterns.
FIGURE 5-21
EFFECT OF MOBILITY RATIO ON DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES
INJECTED FOR THE DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN (REFERENCE 1)
100
VD
90
2.5
2.0
1.5
80
1.2
1.0
70
0.75
60
50
kt
l B re a
I n itia
0.1
0.2
h ro u g
0.3
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
10
A new factor used in the correlation presented in Figure 5-21 is the displaceable
pore volume, VD , where:
5 - 36
VD
VD
Wi
Wi
1.0 S wir Sor
(V p ) pattern =
( So ) max
performance at and after breakthrough would be the same for these two
systems. However, total oil produced from the system with initial gas
would be less than in the liquid filled reservoir by an amount equal to the
initial volume occupied by the gas.
If gas fillup occurs at a higher sweep than that at which radial flow would
occur in an equivalent liquid-filled system, the areal sweep performance
of the system with initial gas present would be better than that predicted
by the sweep efficiency correlations.
Most waterfloods are conducted in reservoirs where the gas saturation is
such that gas fillup occurs before the flood front would cusp in an
equivalent liquid-filled system.
Sg
is too high, an
oil bank will not form, as discussed in Chapter 4. The concept of a water
zone and oil zone (oil bank) was discussed extensively in Chapter 4. Of
course, if there is no free gas, the entire reservoir behaves as an oil bank
at the start of injection because the reservoir contains only oil and
connate water. In conventional waterflood theory, the concept of the
creation of an oil bank only makes practical sense when there is a free gas
saturation. This is the focus of this section.
As water injection volume increases, the leading edge of the oil bank
precedes the water zone and sweeps through the pattern or reservoir area.
Consider two five-spot patterns within a developed five-spot flood as
shown in Figure 5-22.
5 - 38
FIGURE 5-22
FLOOD FRONT EARLY IN THE LIFE
OF A DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT WATERFLOOD
WITH AN INITIAL FREE GAS SATURATION
UNAFFECTED AREA
UNAFFECTED AREA
OIL
BANK
OIL
WATER
ZONE
re
WATER
r
Figure 5-22 shows the flood fronts while they are radial about the
injection well. As injection volume increases, the radii of the water and
oil zones increase. It was shown in Chapter 4 that:
1
2
re S wbt S wc
r
Sg
In time, the oil bank from the two wells meet. This is defined as oil bank
interference and is depicted in Figure 5-23.
5 - 39
FIGURE 5-23
FLOOD FRONT AT OIL BANK INTERFERENCE
UNAFFECTED PATTERN AREA
OIL ZONE
WATER
ZONE
rei
rei
At interference, the radius of the oil bank, rei , is one-half the distance
between two adjacent injectors. Continued injection leads to a rapid
change in the shape of the oil bank. At a later time, the shape of the
flood fronts are shown in Figure 5-24.
5 - 40
FIGURE 5-24
FLOOD FRONT AFTER INTERFERENCEBUT BEFORE GAS FILLUP
UNAFFECTED PATTERN AREA
OIL BANK
OIL BANK
WATER
ZONE
WATER
ZONE
In Figure 5-24, it is noted that the leading edge of the oil bank is now
concentric or radial about the production wells.
leading edge of the oil bank reaches the producing well as depicted in
Figure 5-25.
FIGURE 5-25
FLOOD FRONT AT GAS FILLUP
OIL BANK
WATER
ZONE
WATER
ZONE
5 - 41
It is significant to note that at fillup, the areal sweep of the leading edge
of the oil bank is 100 percent. Recall from Chapter 4 the mobility ratio
between the oil bank and unaffected gas zone is usually very low (less
than about 0.2 to 0.4). Moreover, from Figure 5-13, sweep efficiency
theory suggests that the areal sweep of the oil bank at fillup should be
approximately 100 percent. At gas fillup, the areal sweep of the injected
water can be computed as follows.
Wif V p S g
(Eq. 4.52)
E Af
Wif
(Eq. 5.12)
V p ( S wbt S wc )
E Af
Sg
S wbt S wc
where:
E Af
3. Re-Saturation Effects
After gas fillup, the reservoir can be separated into two regions. These
two areas are the water swept portion and the portion not yet swept by
water. The oil saturation in the water swept area is
1.0 S wc
5 - 42
1.0 S w
and
S w S wbt
S w S wbt
in the
The
reservoir, fluids are not confined to the pattern area, and it is possible to
compute a sweep efficiency greater than 100 percent based on produced
fluids. This situation is depicted by Figure 5-26. An understanding of the
sweep behavior of isolated patterns is especially important when
interpreting the results of pilot waterfloods.
5 - 45
FIGURE 5-26
SWEEP BEHAVIOR
IN AN INVERTED, ISOLATED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
5 - 46
5 - 47
However, most
characteristics.
The relative injection-production capacity of a reservoir will often dictate the pattern.
Suppose for example that we have a square development pattern and are considering
a five-spot, skewed four-spot, or normal or inverted nine-spot. All of these patterns
offer different ratios of producing to injection wells. In particular, the ratio is 1:1 for
a five-spot, 2:1 for a skewed four-spot, 3:1 for an inverted nine-spot, and 1:3 for a
normal nine-spot. If, for example, high injection capacity was needed to increase
reservoir pressure, the normal nine-spot would be a likely choice. This decision,
however, would have to be compatible with reservoir geology.
If a field contains significant heterogeneities such as fractures or permeability trends,
this will generally be the overriding factor in pattern selection. It is essential in such
situations to prevent adjacent injectors and producers from lying along a line parallel
to the direction of maximum permeability or fracture orientation. This will cause
early water breakthrough and result in very low areal sweep. The optimum pattern
in this situation will be one where the line connecting adjacent injectors is parallel
to the direction of the permeability or fracture trend.
5 - 48
5 - 49
CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES
1. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3.
2. Willhite, F.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
3. Craig, F.F., Jr., Geffen, T.M., and Morse, R.A.: "Oil Recovery Performance of
Pattern Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests," Trans., AIME
(1955) 204, pp. 7-15.
4. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1959).
5. Caudle, B.H., Erickson, R.A., and Slobod, R.L.: "The Encroachment of Injected
Fluids Beyond the Normal Well Pattern," Trans., AIME (1955) 204, pp. 79-85.
6. Higgins, R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: "A Computer Method to Calculate Two-Phase
Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous Medium," Trans., AIME (1962) 225, pp.
679-683.
7. Baldwin, D.E., Jr.: "Prediction of Tracer Performance in a Five-Spot Pattern,"
Trans., AIME (1966) 237, pp. 513-517.
8. Davies, L.G., Silberg, I.H., and Caudle, B.H.: "A Method of Predicting Oil
Recovery in a Five-Spot Pattern," Trans., AIME (1968) 243, pp. 1050-1058.
9. LeBlanc, J.L. and Caudle, B.H.: "A Streamline Model for Secondary Recovery,"
SPEJ (March 1971) pp. 7-12.
10. Doyle, R.E. and Wurl, T.M.: "Stream Channel Concept Applied to Waterflood
Performance Calculations for Multiwell, Multizone, Three-Component Cases,"
JPT (March 1971) pp. 373-380.
11. Ferrell, H., Irby, T.L., Pruitt, G.T., and Crawford, P.B.: "Model Studies for
Injection-Production Well Conversion During a Line Drive Water Flood," Trans.,
AIME (1960) 219, pp. 94-98.
5 - 50
PROBLEM 5:1
Presented below are the data for an oil reservoir being considered for a waterflood.
S w ,%
krw
kro
fw
28.0
32.2
36.4
40.6
46.9
51.1
55.3
61.6
65.8
70.0
0.000
0.003
0.012
0.027
0.061
0.091
0.127
0.192
0.271
0.300
1.000
0.810
0.640
0.490
0.303
0.202
0.123
0.040
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.053
0.142
0.376
0.573
0.669
0.935
0.986
1.000
= 1.50 cp
Bw
= 1.0
= 0.50 cp
= 20 percent
S wc
= 28.0 percent
= 15 feet
Bo
= 1.35 RB/STB
The fractional flow curve for this reservoir is presented in Figure 5P.1.
1. Compute the mobility ratio prior to breakthrough for a waterflood in this reservoir.
5 - 51
FIGURE 5P.1
DETERMINATION OF
S wbt
.
fw 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
Water Saturation, fraction
5 - 52
0.8
PROBLEM 5:2
Consider a partly depleted single layer of a 160 acre five-spot pattern that is to be
waterflooded. The layer is characterized by the following data.
160 acres
= 2.0
5 feet
= 400 psi
18%
= 180 F
S wc
24%
= 0.95
Sg
15%
API =
So
61%
Bo
S wf
50%
Sorw =
S wbt =
58%
28
= 5 cp
E Abt
at water breakthrough.
4. Compute the volume of injected water necessary to reach water breakthrough, Wibt .
5. What is areal sweep of the injected water when the cumulative water injection is
twice the volume required to reach breakthrough?
5 - 55
6. How many barrels of water are required to reach 100 percent areal sweep?
7. If the oil production during the fillup period is negligible, how many STBO will have
been displaced at fillup?
8.
9.
5 - 56
6-1
ko , k w , kro , krw , o , w , h, si , s p , S g
B. Area swept by the injected water and oil bank.
C. Fluid mobilities in the water zone and oil bank
D. Well geometry, pattern, spacing, and wellbore radii.
E. Bottom-hole injection pressure, producing well pressure, and average reservoir
pressure at the start of injection.
Some of these factors cannot be changed. Others, however, such as the flood pattern,
injection well pressure, producing well pressure, and skin factors can be selected or
altered to best achieve the desired injection-production performance. The effect of
these factors on water injection rate will be considered in the remainder of this
chapter.
II. Radial System, Unequal Mobilities
Since fluid mobilities are equal throughout the reservoir in unit mobility waterfloods,
the position of the flood front has no effect upon water injectivity after gas fillup.
When mobility ratio is different from unity, however, resistance to fluid injection
varies depending upon the relative amounts of oil and water in the reservoir. When
the mobility ratio,
is
greater than unity, water flows better than oil. It follows that total fluid mobility in
the reservoir will change as increasing amount of water are injected, thereby causing
the injection rate to change.
mobility ratio, and flood front position can be shown explicitly by analyzing a simple
geometric pattern.
Early in the life of an injection well and prior to gas fillup, both the water zone and oil
zone are radial about the injection well. The zones will continue to be circular about
the injection well until the radius of the oil bank reaches a distance of about 70
6-2
percent of the distance between the injector and producer. Consider the radial system
depicted by Figure 6-1 which has a central injection well of radius
rw .
FIGURE 6-1
IDEAL FLOW SYSTEM
WITH RADIAL OIL AND WATER BANKS
OIL
ko / o
re
WATER
kw / w
pw , rw
pe
Applying Darcys steady state radial flow equation for incompressible fluids, it can be
shown2 that the injection rate at any mobility ratio,
iw
0.00707 khp
w
r
r
ln o ln e
krw rw kro r
where:
iw
6-3
(Eq. 6.1)
ko Swir , md
S wc
k ro
krw
re
rw
rw
si
= oil viscosity, cp
= water viscosity, cp
S wbt
rwe si
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 6:1
1. A new injection well is to be placed in service in an oil reservoir where the
reservoir pressure has declined below the bubble-point pressure. Current reservoir
pressure is 800 psi. Bottom-hole injection pressure is expected to be 2600 psi.
Compute the water injection rate early in the life of the well when the radius to the
6-4
water and oil banks are 200 and 388 feet, respectively. Assume the injection well
skin value is zero. Other data are given below.
( ko ) S wir
= 10 md
= 8 feet
(kro ) Swc
= 1.0
= 0.45
( krw ) S wbt
= 0.30
Sg
= 8%
= 0.9 cp
S wbt
= 56%
= 0.6 cp
S wc
= 26%
rw
= 0.33 feet
Early in the life of an injection well during which the flood fronts are circular
about the injector, water injection can be computed using Eq.6.1 where:
iw
where
0.00707 khp
w
r
r
ln
o ln e
krw r 'w kro r
rw = rw for s = 0.
iw
0.00707(10)(8)(2600 800)
76 BWPD
0.6
200 0.9 388
ln
ln
2. If the injection well is effectively stimulated such that a negative skin of 4 exists,
compute the water injection rate for the conditions described above. First, the
effective injection well radius is computed.
rw rwe si
6-5
rw 0.33e ( 4)
rw 18.0 feet
and:
iw
0.00707(10)(8)(2600 800)
188 BWPD
0.60 200 0.9 388
ln
ln
_____________________________________________________________________
III. Regular Patterns
A. Unit Mobility Ratio
When fluid mobilities in the water zone and oil zone portions of the reservoir
are equal, i.e.,
M=
6-6
Table 6-1: Injectivity Equations for Regular Patterns with Unit Mobility Ratios
0.00354 ko S
iw
1
a
o ln
wir
hp
a
d
1.570 1.837 0.5 si s p
rw
a
d
a
0.003541 ko S
Staggered
2
Line Drive
1
a
iw
o ln
wir
hp
a
d
1.570 1.837 0.5 si s p
rw
a
6-7
d
a
0.003541 ko S
Five-Spot2
iw
o ln
hp
d
0.619 0.5 si s p
rw
6-8
wir
Seven-Spot2
iw
0.004723 ko S
wir
hp
d
0.569 0.5 si s p
rw
o ln
Nine1
Spot
iw
iw
0.003541 ko S
wir
h p i ,c
1 R d
s
s
ln
0.272
0.5
i
p o
2 R rw
0.00708 ko S
wir
h p i ,s
3 R d
0.693
ln
0.272
0.5
s
s
o
i
p
2 R
2 R rw
R=
p i,c
p i,s
6-9
ko Swir .
mobility ratio is different from unity, the calculated injection rate obtained
from these equations must be adjusted using a correction factor defined as the
conductance ratio. The actual injection rate is computed as:
iw ibase
(Eq. 6.2)
where:
= conductance ratio
ibase =
and
ibase
patterns.
6 - 10
work of Caudle and Witte4 which, when used in Eq. 6.2, gives the correct
injection rate. The conductance ratio is presented in Figure 6-2 as a function of
mobility ratio,
M,
M >1.0,
M < 1.0,
and
and
iw
iw
M = 1.0, = 1.0,
and
iw
EA.
are constant.
6 - 11
6-12
0.1
10
1.0
0.9
EA
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.3
10
Moblity Ratio
CR 1/(1+E A ((1/ M ) 1))(Re f. Dr. Ben Caudle - Private Communication)
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.3
1.0
EA
FIGURE 6-2
CONDUCTANCE RATIO FOR LIQUID FILLED FIVE-SPOT PATTERNS
(REFERENCE 4)
Conductance Ratio
The areal sweep of the injected water required by Figure 6-2 can be computed
as:
Before water breakthrough:
EA
Wi
V p S wbt S wc
(Eq.6.3)
E A 0.2749ln
Wi
E Abt
Wibt
(Eq. 6.4)
The conductance ratio and Equation 6.4 have been established for a developed
five-spot pattern. Nevertheless, both can be combined with the equations in
Table 6-1 to compute injection rates for other patterns with a high degree of
accuracy.
__________________________________________________________________
Example 6:2
1. For the injection well described in Part 1 of Example 6:1, compute the
water injection at gas fillup at which time
E A = 0.27.
d,
pressure is set at 500 psi. After gas fillup, water injection is computed
using Eq. 6.2 where:
iw ibase
For a five-spot pattern,
6 - 13
ibase
0.003541( ko ) S wir hp
o ln
d
0.619 0.5( si s p )
rw
ibase
M 1.
0.003541(10)(8)(2600 500)
1320
0.619 0.5(0 0)
0.9 ln
0.33
ibase = 86 BWPD
Next, compute the conductance ratio,
M 0.45 .
At fillup,
determined to be
0.80 .
E A 0.27
is
iw = (0.80)(86) = 69 BWPD
2. Compute the water injection rate at fillup for the well conditions described
above except that both the injection and production wells are effectively
stimulated and possess negative skin values of 4.
ibase
0.9 ln
0.619 0.5 4 4
0.33
3. and:
6 - 14
< 1.
M > 1 or decrease if M
This behavior is shown in Figure 6-3. Also, as indicated in Figure 6-3, the
most dramatic injectivity changes occur during the early part of the flood, whereas
changes become less pronounced during latter stages of the flood.
From a
FIGURE 6-3
WATER INJECTION RATE VARIATION
M > 1.0
M = 1.0
M < 1.0
6 - 15
Figure 6-4
illustrates an idealized picture of fluid regions which will exist between the
6 - 16
producing and injection well3. The flood is divided into three displacement
periods.
1. Start of flood to oil bank interference.
2. Oil bank interference to oil breakthrough (gas fillup).
3. After oil breakthrough this also includes after water breakthrough.
4. The positions of oil and water banks at the beginning and end of each of
these periods are shown in Figure 6-4.
B. Craig Method
Craig3,6 developed an excellent method for predicting injection performance
which can be applied to stratified systems with or without free gas present.
This method, which uses the correlations of Caudle and Witte4 to predict
injection rate as a function of mobility ratio and areal sweep efficiency,
considers water injection in four states which are similar to the periods
presented in Figure 6-4.
They are:
1. Stage 1: Start of the flood to interference.
2. Stage 2: Interference to gas fillup.
3. Stage 3: Fillup to water breakthrough.
4. Stage 4: After breakthrough.
A detailed description of this method will be presented in a later chapter as part
of the Craig-Geffen-Morse method5 of waterflood prediction.
6 - 17
FIGURE 6-4
Stage 1
Interference
Between Oil Banks
Stage 2
Stage 3
Water Bank
6 - 18
Gas Region
Oil Bank
REFERENCES
1. Deppe, J.C.: Injection RatesThe Effect of Mobility Ratio, Area Swept, and
Pattern, Trans, AIME (1961) 222, pp. 81-91.
2. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., N.Y. (1949) 650.
3. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
4. Caudle, B.H. and Witte, M.D.: Production Potential Changes During SweepOut in a Five-Spot System, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, pp. 446-448.
5. Craig, F.F., Jr., Geffen, T.M. and Morse, R.A., Oil Recovery Performance of
Pattern Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests, Trans, AIME
(1955) 204, pp. 7-15.
6. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1971) 3.
7. Dyes, A.B., Caudle, B.H. and Erickson, R.A.: Oil Production After
Breakthrough as Influenced by Mobility Ratio, Trans, AIME (1954) 201, pp.
81-86.
8. Prats, M., Matthews, C.S., Jewett, R.L., and Baker, J.D.: Prediction of
Injection Rate and Production History for Multifluid Five-Spot Floods, Trans,
AIME (1959) 216, pp. 98-105.
6 - 19
PROBLEM 6:1
A new waterflood is planned for a 6,000 foot reservoir which has been partially depleted.
Original reservoir pressure was 2700 psi and current reservoir pressure is 1000 psi. The
flood is to be implemented on 160-acre five-spot patterns. The distance between an
injector and producer is 1,867 feet. It is estimated that the reservoir fracture gradient is
0.62 psi/ft and that bottom hole injection pressure will be 3720 psi. Other data are listed
below.
Other Data
Mobility Ratio
= 3.0
( ko ) S
= 30 md
wir
(kro ) S
(krw )
wc
S wbt
= 1.0
= 0.25
= 22 ft
rw
= 0.25 ft
= 6.0 cp
= 0.5 cp
Sg
= 14%
S wc S wir
= 24%
S wbt
= 56%
6 - 20
1. Determine the instantaneous water injection rate early in the life of the waterflood
when the radius of the water and oil banks are 20 feet and 30 feet respectively.
Next, compute the injection rate at a later time when the radius of the water and oil
banks are 400 feet and 600 feet respectively from the injection well. The injection
well skin is zero.
2. If a skin is allowed to develop at the injection well and reaches a value of +8, what
is the maximum injection rate that can be obtained when the water and oil banks
are 400 feet and 600 feet respectively from the injection well?
3. At the time of gas fillup, the areal sweep efficiency of the injected water is 0.44.
If the producing well pressure is maintained at 500 psi, compute the water
injection rate at this time for the case of a zero skin at both the injection and
production wells.
4. Compute the water injection rate at water breakthrough if the producing well
pressure is maintained at 500 psi and the skin factor at both the injector and
producer is maintained at zero. For
6 - 21
RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
Throughout our previous discussions, the reservoir has basically been considered as a
single-layered homogeneous porous system. Using this ideal reservoir, we have been
able to predict the efficiency with which water displaces oil from the water-contacted
portion of the reservoir. We can also predict the fraction of the reservoir area that will be
contacted by the injected water as a function of reservoir geometry and reservoir fluid
properties. Further, procedures have been developed for computing water injection rate
from the start of water injection (with or without free gas) to the economic limit of the
layer. These observations must be tempered, however, by the fact that no reservoir can
be considered homogeneous or acting as a single layer on a macroscopic scale.
Reservoir heterogeneity probably has more influence than any other factor on the
performance of a fluid injection project. At the same time, it is the most difficult effect to
quantify. Our purpose in this chapter is to discuss how areal and vertical permeability
variations can be determined and how these variations can be quantified for inclusion into
waterflood prediction and performance calculations.
I. Areal Permeability Variations
Areal changes in permeability affect pressure distribution and fluid velocity along the
streamlines and thus areal sweep. In a similar manner, variation in permeability
within the different layers affects vertical sweep. Interestingly, areal variations in
permeability tend to affect the outcome of a flood less than vertical changes. This
perhaps is not surprising because we expect a formation, especially sandstones, to
exhibit relatively high lateral continuity; the material deposited during a given
geologic period should be of the same physical nature over a relatively large surface
area. This is fortunate because, due to the large spacing between wells, we have few
test points with which to define the areal characteristics of a reservoir.
This is not meant to imply areal permeability variations are not important. To the
contrary, changes in environment or the process of deposition, compaction, tectonic
7-1
processes (which can cause fractures), or cementation can cause large areal variations
in the permeability of a reservoir which should be accounted for in the selection of
flood patterns and in the prediction of performance. The most severe problems
involve fractures and directional permeability as previously discussed.
Some carbonate rocks are particularly difficult to describe because much of the
permeability development occurs after deposition due to solution, dolomitization, recrystallization, etc. Lateral continuity of net pay as well as physical properties cannot
be assumed in this environment.
A. Detection of Areal Permeability Variations
Methods which are commonly employed to detect and quantify areal variations in
permeability are:
1. Mapping of core data, log data, and well test data
2. Detailed lithological studies
3. Pressure transient tests (including pulse tests and interference tests to detect
and quantify directional permeability trends)
4. Environment of deposition - recognition of depositional environment (channel
sediment, delta sediment, beach sediment, etc.) allows us to infer probable
directional changes in grain size, grain orientation, permeability, etc.
5. Injection and production well behavior
6. Performance history matching using mathematical simulators
7. Fracture detection - areal photo interpretation, pressure transient analysis,
tectonics analysis, inflatable packers, step-rate tests, core studies, etc.
7-2
accomplish this.
7-4
1. Single-Value Representation
One approach to the problem is to ask the following question: what single
value of permeability should be assigned to a homogeneous reservoir, having
the same size as the stratified reservoir, for it to behave in the same manner as
the stratified reservoir? It has been common for engineers to determine this
single-value permeability by simply taking a weighted average of the
permeabilities of each layer. For example:
k1h1 k2 h2 kn hn
h1 h2 hn
(Eq. 7.1)
where:
k1, k2 , kn
h1, h2 , hn
It is unfortunate that this procedure has been used so often because it gives
optimistic results. This averaging method is not recommended.
Several model studies1 using simulated flow patterns in variable permeability
media have shown that the best single-value representation of permeability is
obtained by taking the geometric mean of the available data. For example:
k ( k1 * k2 * k3 * ----*kn )1/ n
(Eq. 7.2)
represents an equal area, then Eq. 7.2 will give a good representation of the
average areal permeability.
Although it is convenient for mathematical purposes to replace a variable
permeability reservoir with an equivalent homogeneous reservoir having a
single permeability, it must be realized that this simplified model has severe
limitations. For example, it can be used to study the potential productivity or
injectivity of a well. It cannot be used, however, to study important facets of a
waterflood such as the water-oil ratio (WOR) behavior after water
breakthrough, cumulative water requirements, etc. Calculations of this type
require a prediction technique which accounts in detail for the permeability
contrast in the reservoir. The following models attempt to accomplish this.
2. Permeability Variation
The first statistical approach to predicting the effects of variable permeability
was presented by Law2 who showed that a random sample of permeability
data will generally have a log-normal distribution. Dykstra and Parsons3, in a
paper of fundamental significance, utilized this ideal model to compute a
coefficient of permeability variation. This method assumes the reservoir is
composed of a number of strata, or layers, each having a different
permeability with no cross-flow between the layers. The basic procedure for
determining the permeability variation using this layer-cake model is:
a. Divide permeability samples so all samples represent layers of equal
thickness, i.e., one foot.
b. Arrange the permeability data in the order of decreasing value.
7-6
c.
Calculate for each sample the percent of samples which have a greater
permeability and express this number as percent greater than. This is
illustrated by the following table.
k, md
% greater than
10
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
4
3
0
10
20
30
40
40
40
70
80
90
on the log
scale and percent greater than on the probability scale. This plot is
illustrated by Figure 7-1
7-7
FIGURE 7-1
TYPICAL LOG PROBABILITY PLOT OF PERMEABILITY DATA
Permeability, md
100
10
6 8 10
15
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 85
90 92 94 96
e.
percent probability.
f.
V
The value of
k50 k84.1
k50
(Eq. 7.3)
7-8
98
________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 7:1
Table 7.1 presents the core data for a hypothetical reservoir presented in Reference 4.
Use the Dykstra-Parsons method to determine the permeability variation of this reservoir.
TABLE 7.1: Core Analysis for Hypothetical Reservoir
Cores from 10 Wells, A Through J
Each Permeability Value (md) Represents One Foot of Pay
Depth, ft
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
6,791
2.9
7.4 30.4
3.8
8.6 14.5 39.9
2.3 12.0
6,792
11.3
1.7 17.6 24.6
5.5
5.3
4.8
3.0
0.6
6,793
2.1
21.2
4.4
2.4
5.0
1.0
3.9
8.4
8.9
6,794
167.0
1.2
2.6 22.0 11.7
6.7 74.0 25.5
1.5
6,795
3.6 920.0 37.0 10.4 16.5 11.0 120.0
4.1
3.5
6,796
19.5
26.6
7.8 32.0 10.7 10.0 19.0 12.4
3.3
6,797
6.9
3.2 13.1 41.8
9.4 12.9 55.2
2.0
5.2
6,798
50.4
35.2
0.8 18.4 20.1 27.8 22.7 47.4
4.3
6,799
16.0
71.5
1.8 14.0 84.0 15.0
6.0
6.3 44.5
6,800
23.5
13.5
1.5 17.0
9.8
8.1 15.4
4.6
9.1
J
29.0
99.0
7.6
5.9
33.5
6.5
2.7
66.0
5.7
60.0
SOLUTION
The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation requires that all permeability
values, irrespective of their position in the reservoir, be combined and arranged in the
order of decreasing permeability. When this ordering is completed, we calculate for each
permeability the percentage of permeability values which are greater in magnitude than
the subject value -- this percentage is reported as percent greater than. Table 7.2 shows
the percent greater than calculations for this reservoir.
7-9
k , md
% Greater Than
k , md
% Greater Than
k , md
% Greater Than
920.0
167.0
120.0
99.0
84.0
74.0
71.5
66.0
60.0
55.0
50.4
47.4
44.5
41.8
39.9
37.0
35.2
33.5
32.0
30.4
29.0
27.8
26.6
25.5
24.6
23.5
22.7
22.0
21.2
20.1
19.5
19.0
18.4
17.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.4
15.0
14.5
14.0
13.5
13.1
12.9
12.4
12.0
11.7
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.4
10.0
9.8
9.4
9.1
8.9
8.6
8.4
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.4
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.3
6.0
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
These data are plotted on log probability paper as shown by Figure 7-2.
7 - 10
7 - 11
Permeability, md
0.1 2
10
100
1000
8 10
15
k 50
30
40
50
60
70
80
85
20
k 84.1
FIGURE 7-2
90 92 94
96
98
k50 10.2 md
k84.1 3.0 md
The permeability variation is computed from Eq. 7.3. For example:
k50 k84.1
k50
10.2 3.0
10.2
V 0.706
There are at least four major concerns related to computation of the DykstraParsons coefficient. First, to compute a V value, it must be assumed that the
permeability measurements possess a log-normal distribution.
Second,
practical geological concepts would suggest that only those core samples from
zones or areas across the field possessing similar environments of deposition
and/or diagenesis should be analyzed together. Third, only those core samples
possessing a permeability greater than the permeability cutoff should be used.
Finally,
( ko ) S wir
ka
values which
Figure 7.3 is a graph relating WOR versus waterflood recovery factor for
factors of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. For each of the three curves, all other reservoir
variables were held constant. The
1.0 cp, water viscosity is 0.5 cp, gas saturation is 0.0, and the rock is
characterized by water wet relative permeability curves. It is observed that for
a WOR value of 20:1. the oil recovery factor ranges from 28 percent to 47
percent.
FIGURE 7-3
WATER-OIL RATIO versus OIL RECOVERY FACTOR
as a Function of Vertical permeability Heterogeneity
100
WATER-OIL RATIO
90
80
V=0.8
V=0.9
70
V=0.7
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Clearly, as the V factor increases for a specific set of reservoir conditions, oil
recovery factor decreases for a given WOR.
7 - 13
permeability is as follows.
a. Arrange all permeability data, regardless of which well it came from or its
vertical position within the formation, in the order of decreasing
permeability.
b. Determine the distribution of flow capacity,
It
h1
h2
h3
ht h
c.
k1
k2
k3
k h
k h 1
k h 2
k h 3
k h
k h i
k h
C1
C2
C3
C C h hi
C1
C2
C3 1.0
h1
h2
h3 1.0
h1
h2
h3
h
ht
1.0
C vs h' .
This
dC
dh
(Eq. 7.4)
7 - 14
k'
dC
dh'
(Eq. 7.5)
h'
h'
C1
C2
h'1
h'1
h '
C1
h1 '
C2 C1 h' 2 h' 2
k'
C
h'
Plot Point
k '1
k '2
h'1 / 2
h'1 ( h' 2 h'1 ) / 2
k '10
k'
versus the
plot point indicated in the table. Note that the plot point is simply the
midpoint of the interval used to compute k ' . The permeability distribution
is indicated by the dashed curve on Figure 7-4.
7 - 15
FIGURE 7-4
STILES CAPACITY AND PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION CURVES
1.0
kmax
Y
X
C
k 0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
h'
1.0
A major criticism of this method is that it does not account for the position
from which each permeability value was obtained, i.e., each sample is
treated as random data. However, this method has been successfully used
and is one method of expressing permeability variation. We will show in
Chapter 8 how this type of permeability distribution is used to predict
waterflood behavior.
_______________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 7:2
Shown in the following table are permeability data7 for a reservoir to be
waterflooded.
7 - 16
Sample
No.
Thickness
Permeability
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
776
454
349
308
295
282
273
262
228
187
178
161
159
148
127
109
88
87
77
49
h, feet
k , md
SOLUTION
Calculations of capacity and permeability distribution are shown in Table 7.3
and Table 7.4, respectively. A plot of these data are presented in Figure 7-5.
7 - 17
h, ft k , md kh, md ft
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
h 29
776
454
349
308
295
282
273
262
228
187
178
161
159
148
127
109
88
87
77
49
776
454
349
308
295
282
273
262
228
187
178
161
159
148
127
109
88
174
77
441
kh 5076
7 - 18
k h
h
h'
h
kh
0.1529
0.2423
0.3111
0.3717
0.4299
0.4854
0.5392
0.5908
0.6357
0.6726
0.7076
0.7394
0.7707
0.7998
0.8249
0.8463
0.8637
0.8980
0.9131
1.0000
0.0345
0.0690
0.1034
0.1379
0.1724
0.2069
0.2414
0.2759
0.3103
0.3448
0.3793
0.4138
0.4483
0.4828
0.5172
0.5517
0.5862
0.6552
0.6897
1.0000
h'
h '
0.1529
0.2423
0.3111
0.3717
0.4299
0.4584
0.5392
0.5908
0.6357
0.6726
0.7076
0.7394
0.7707
0.7998
0.8249
0.8463
0.8637
0.8980
0.9131
1.0000
----
0.0345
0.0690
0.1034
0.1379
0.1724
0.2069
0.2414
0.2759
0.3103
0.3498
0.3793
0.4138
0.4483
0.4828
0.5172
0.5517
0.5862
0.6552
0.6897
1.0000
----
0.1529
0.0894
0.0688
0.0606
0.0582
0.0555
0.0538
0.0516
0.0449
0.0369
0.0350
0.0318
0.0313
0.0291
0.0251
0.0214
0.0174
0.0343
0.0151
0.0869
----
0.0345
0.0345
0.0344
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0344
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0345
0.0344
0.0345
0.0345
0.0690
0.0345
0.3103
----
7 - 19
k'
C
h'
4.4334
2.5938
1.9939
1.7597
1.6854
1.6111
1.5597
1.4968
1.3026
1.0684
1.0169
0.9198
0.9084
0.8455
0.7256
0.6227
0.5028
0.4970
0.4399
0.2799
0.0000
h'i 1
h'i
2
0.0170
0.0520
0.0860
0.1210
0.1550
0.1900
0.2240
0.2590
0.2930
0.3280
0.3620
0.3970
0.4310
0.4660
0.5000
0.5340
0.5670
0.6030
0.6720
0.8450
1.0000
FIGURE 7-5
STILES CAPACITY AND PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION CURVES
FOR EXAMPLE 7:2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
h'
0.6
0.8
4. Lorentz Coefficient
Another method of expressing vertical permeability variation which utilizes
the Stiles permeability distribution was presented by Schmalz and Rahme8.
They observed that the area between the capacity distribution curve and the
diagonal (Figure 7-4) is a measure of reservoir heterogeneity.
For a
Lorentz Coefficient
area WXYW
area WZYW
(Eq. 7.6)
7 - 21
_______________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 7:3
Consider the permeability data in Table 7.1. These data were analyzed in
Example 7.1 to determine the Dykstra-Parsons permeability variation.
Determine the permeability variation of these data using the Miller-Lents
positional approach and compare the results with the Dykstra-Parsons
variation.
SOLUTION
Whereas the Dykstra-Parsons method disregards the positional identity of the
data, this methods requires that the layer identity be retained.
Table 7.1
presents permeability data for ten wells, each of which contain ten layers. The
approach used will be to determine the geometric mean permeability of each
layer. The average permeability of each layer will be plotted on log probability
paper to determine the permeability variation.
The geometric mean permeability is defined by Eq. 7.2.
Applying this
k1 10.0 md
Average permeabilities in the remaining layers are determined in the same
manner. These values are summarized in the following table.
7 - 22
Layer
k , md
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10.0
6.8
4.7
10.4
20.5
12.1
8.6
18.4
14.3
10.9
k , md
20.5
18.4
14.3
12.1
10.9
10.4
10.0
8.6
6.8
4.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
7 - 23
FIGURE 7-6
LOG PROBABILITY PLOT OF PERMEABILITY DATA FOR
EXAMPLE 7:3
Permeability, md
100
k50
10
k84.1
1
6 8 10
15 20
30
40
50
60
70
80 85
90 92 94 96
98
Using the data from Figure 7-6, the permeability variation is computed to be:
k50
10.0
V 0.405
This compares to
V 0.706
Parsons method.
_______________________________________________________________
C. Selection of Layers
A big question which is encountered early in the effort to predict stratification
effects is how to recognize and select the individual zones which comprise the
reservoir. The basic Dykstra-Parsons and Stiles methods result in layer selections
7 - 24
which have no physical meaning, although these methods can still be applied
when the layers are chosen based on position. It seems logical that a zonation
technique should be used which recognizes the actual location of strata within the
reservoir. Several possibilities exist.
1. Geological Zonation - Zones are selected based on similar lithological
characteristics. This approach requires much detailed information from cores,
well logs, lithological analyses, etc. but results in the most natural zonation
possible. A very good approach but is time consuming and expensive.
2. Natural Barriers - Zone selection is sometimes made easy by the occurrence
of shale barriers which break the reservoir into natural zones. However, life is
seldom this simple.
3. Equal Thickness - This is often used because it is simple, and it retains the
positional identity of the strata. The major limitation is that it does not
account for natural zonation within the reservoir.
4. Equal Flow Capacity
(kh )
the effect of high permeability zones which control the water-oil ratio
behavior of a flood.
5. Statistical Zonation - A statistical method which eliminates much of the bias
in zone selection was suggested by Testerman12. The permeability data from
each well are statistically divided into zones so as to provide maximum
permeability contrast between zones and yet have minimum permeability
variation within a given zone. The zones are then traced from well to well by
statistical correlation. This method has received considerable use, but it does
require the use of a computer.
7 - 25
( M 1) ,
compared field performance with studies predicted using layer-cake models show
the predicted results are generally pessimistic. Crossflow can only be considered
with numerical simulation methods.
III. Vertical Sweep Efficiency
As a result of permeability stratification, and other effects to be discussed, injected
water is seldom able to contact the entire vertical cross-section of a reservoir. As a
measure of the efficiency with which water covers a reservoir in the vertical plane,
we define the term vertical sweep efficiency,
Ev .
EI
7 - 26
B.
C.
practical.
D.
7 - 27
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES
1. Warren, J.E. and Price, H.S.: "Flow in Heterogeneous Porous Media," Trans., AIME
(1961) 222, pp. 153-169.
2. Law, J.: "Statistical Approach to the Interstitial Heterogeneity of Sand Reservoirs,"
Trans., AIME (1944) 155, pp. 202-222.
3. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L.: "The Prediction of Oil Recovery by Waterflood,"
Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States, 2nd Ed., API (1950) pp. 160-174.
4. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3.
5. Willhite, F.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
6. Stiles, W.E.: "Use of Permeability Distribution in Waterflood Calculations," Trans.,
AIME (1949) 186, pp. 9-13.
7. Garb, F.A.: "Waterflood Calculations for Hand-Held Computers," World Oil (June,
1980) pp. 205-210.
8. Schmalz, J.P. and Rahme, H.D.: "The Variation in Waterflood Performance with
Variation in Permeability Profile," Prod. Monthly (1950) 15, No. 9, pp. 9-12.
9. Miller, M.G. and Lents, M.R.: "Performance of Bodcaw Reservoir, Cotton Valley
Field Cycling Project: New Methods of Predicting Gas-Condensate Reservoir
Performance Under Cycling Operations Compared to Field Data," Drilling and
Production Practices, API (1947) pp. 128-149.
10. Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: "Some Field Observations of Heterogeneity of
Reservoir Rocks and Its Effects on Oil Displacement Efficiency," paper SPE 282
presented at the 1962 SPE Production Research Symposium, Tulsa, April 12-13.
11. Elkins, L.F., Brown, R.C. and Skov, A.M.: "Comparison of Performance During
Cycling and Blowdown with Various Prediction Methods - Washington Cockfield
"D" Gas Condensate Reservoir," paper SPE 5531 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept.28-Oct.1.
12. Testerman, J.D.: "A Statistical Reservoir Zonation Technique," JPT (August 1962)
pp. 889-893.
7 - 28
PROBLEM 7:1
A sandstone oil reservoir under study for waterflooding has an average thickness of 30
feet. For reservoir engineering study, it has been subdivided into ten 3-foot intervals.
Routine air permeability data,
Also,
( ko ) S
7P.1-1.
( ko ) S
wir
ka
have been analyzed in the order of decreasing permeability as listed in Table 7P.1-2 after
applying the 1.0 md cutoff. Figure 7P.1-2 is a Dykstra-Parsons plot of the
ka
data for
( ko ) S
wir
7 - 29
TABLE 7P.1-1
SPECIAL CORE ANALYSIS DATA
ka , md
( ko ) S
0.346
0.767
0.704
5.300
1.220
11.500
0.190
4.380
0.335
0.595
4.430
0.299
4.210
10.600
1.430
wir
, md
0.045
0.190
0.197
3.310
0.617
4.770
3.036
1.350
0.112
0.094
1.430
0.066
1.360
3.270
0.489
7 - 30
7-31
0.01
0.1
10
0.1
ka , md
10
FIGURE 7P1.1
100
TABLE 7P.1-2
REARRANGED CORE PERMEABILITY AFTER
APPLYING THE 1.0 PERMEABILITY CUTOFF
Air
Permeability
md
186.0
38.0
34.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
8.9
8.6
8.5
7.7
7.5
7.0
6.8
6.4
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
4.7
4.5
Cumulative
Number of Number of
Samples
Samples
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
21
22
23
24
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
45
7 - 32
Cumulative Samples
for
ka 1.0 md
Permeability cutoff is
Cumulative
Number of Number of
Samples
Samples
( ko ) S
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
4
3
3
10
6
3
wir
47
48
49
51
52
53
55
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
66
67
68
74
75
76
77
79
83
86
89
99
105
108
Cumulative Samples
for
ka 1.0 md
0.3 md or ka 1.0 md
7 - 33
FIGURE 7P1.2
Dykstra-Parsons Graph
For an Air Permeability Greater than 1.0 md
Air Permeability, md
100
10
6 8 10 15 20
30
40
50
60
70
80 85 90 92 94 96
7 - 34
98
Air Permeability, md
100
10
6 8 10 15 20
30
40
50
60
70
80 85 90 92 94 96
7 - 35
98
This chapter is concerned with the problem of predicting waterflood behavior. Given a
particular waterflood prospect, it is desirable to predict information such as the time
required for initial secondary oil response (gas fillup), water breakthrough, oil recovery at
breakthrough,
water-oil
ratio
performance
after
breakthrough,
production-time
Simple methods
I. Simple Methods
Waterflood estimates are sometimes computed using simple techniques such as (1)
analogy, (2) rules of thumb such as a secondary to primary (s/p) ratio method, and (3)
empirical relationships. These methods may work in localized areas; however, in
general it is believed these methods can lead to significant errors because they
frequently do not take into account data that is unique to the reservoir being studied.
The simple waterflood calculation techniques should not represent the principal
procedure for waterflood forecasting, except in circumstances where there is a lack of
technical data or when time constraints prevail.
8-1
A. Analogy
When computing waterflood performance behavior using the analogy technique,
it is important to remember that to be analogous, at the start of injection, projects
should be similar in many respects such as:
well density
flood pattern
fluid saturations,
So , S g , S wc ,
and
S wir
o and w
krw and kro
Bo
Sor
It is significant to note that two reservoirs are analogous only when rock and fluid
properties and saturations are similar. In many instances, reservoirs have been
considered analogous due to the fact that their rock properties are similar. This is
usually incorrect! For example, if two reservoirs possess similar rock properties
but the free gas saturation in one reservoir at the start of injection is 20 percent
and the free gas saturation in the second reservoir is 10 percent, the waterflood
performance of the two reservoirs should be quite different. Therefore, similarity
8-2
in rock and fluid properties and fluid saturations are required for two reservoirs
to be analogous.
B. Rules of Thumb
Rules of thumb represent "generalized" statements which frequently are not
applicable to any particular reservoir. For example, a common phrase that is used
to describe waterflood potential is that the secondary recovery will be equal to the
primary recovery. In other words, the s/p value is 1.0. This is a false statement.
There is no technical basis to conclude the s/p ratio will be 1.0 except under very
limited conditions. In fact, the s/p ratio can range from less than 0.25 to greater
than 2.5 -- a ten-fold difference. The s/p ratio is influenced by many factors such
as the fluid saturations at the start of waterflooding, reservoir stratification
(Dykstra-Parsons coefficient), injection efficiency, directional permeability
trends, reservoir continuity, and waterflood pattern. Generalized statements or
experience guidelines should be used with caution.
C. Empirical Relationships
Several empirical relationships relating waterflood recovery factor to reservoir
variables such as connate water saturation, average permeability, and oil viscosity
have been developed. These empirical procedures are summarized in Reference
1. It is recommended these relationships be used with extreme caution because
they do not incorporate the important reservoir rock and fluid variables that
determine the outcome of a waterflood project.
II. Reservoir Stratification
It has been long recognized in the petroleum industry that the recovery factor in a
waterflood project is a combination of E A ,
EV , and ED .
N p N E A EV ED
(Eq. 8.1)
It is the intent of the two prediction methods to account for the effects of reservoir
stratification (variation in permeability) and thus EV . Significantly, both methods
assume piston displacement (residual oil saturation in the water contacted portion of
the reservoir). Furthermore, both methods assume linear flow which implies the
areal sweep at initial water breakthrough is 100 percent. Dykstra-Parsons and Stiles
recognized that piston displacement and linear flow resulted in an optimistic estimate
of oil recovery. However, it should be recalled that their prediction methods were
developed at a time prior to the widespread availability of powerful desktop
computing capabilities.
EA
ED
could
N p A EV
(Eq. 8.2)
where:
A N E A ED
Dykstra-Parsons and Stiles developed mathematical procedures for computing
EV
versus water to oil ratio (WOR ) for no cross flow multi-layered reservoirs of
different permeabilities. After computing
EV
versus
WOR ,
it is possible to
calculate oil production versus water-oil ratio using Equation 8.2. Results can be
tabulated as shown below.
8-4
WOR
EV
N p 1
N p 2
WOR 1 EV 1
WOR 2 EV 2
-----
-----
-----
N p N
WOR N EV N
variation in permeability between the various layers and the mobility ratio,
M.
The original method is subject to several assumptions and limitations which affect
the accuracy of waterflood predictions. The method assumes:
Linear flow
8-5
Assumes 100 percent areal sweep at initial water breakthrough (This value can
be adjusted to be less than 100 percent at breakthrough, but there is no simple
method to allow for the increase in
E A after breakthrough.
Steady-state flow
i w1
Water Zone
i w2
Water Zone
k1, h1
k2 , h 2
Oil Zone
q w1
q o2
Water Zone
i wn
Oil Zone
k n , hn
k1
1 > k2
2 > .... > kn
n
8-6
q on
x,
x 1 through n .
and only
as:
WOR
qwi
i 1
n
(Eq. 8.3)
qoi
i x 1
or:
WOR
hi ko S
i 1
n
i x 1
wir ,i
hi ko S
(Eq. 8.4)
wir ,i
1
2
ko Swir ,i
M 2
1 M 2
ko Swir , x
1
2
ko Swir ,i
n
x M n x
1
2
EV
1 M 2
n M 1 n M 1 n i x 1
ko Swir , x
(Eq. 8.5)
where:
8-7
ko Swir
or x .
n layered reservoir, Equations 8.4 and 8.5 can be used to compute values
of WOR and EV when water breakthrough occurs in each layer. Results can
For an
WOR .
and
N p can be computed.
WOR , EV ,
Linear flow
Assumes 100 percent areal sweep at initial water breakthrough (This value can
be adjusted to be less than 100 percent at breakthrough but there is no simple
method to allow for the increase in E A after breakthrough.)
Steady-state flow
8-8
Distance of flood front penetration into each layer is proportional to the flow
capacity
k
h
o
S
wir
Flow Capacity
The Stiles method utilizes a layer-cake model as did the method of Dykstra and
Parsons.
permeability distribution curve for the reservoir. These curves are computed in
the following manner.
a. Arrange all permeability data, regardless of its vertical position within the
formation, in the order of decreasing permeability.
b. Determine the distribution of flow capacity,
simply as
kh
k
h
o
S
wir
(denoted
k1
h1
k2
k3
h2
h3
k h
k h 1
k h 2
k h 3
ht k h k h
k h i
k h
C1
C 2
C
C3 C h hi
C1
C2
C3 1.0
1.0
8-9
h1
h2
h3
h
h1
h2
h
h
h3 1.0
c. Plot the flow capacity distribution curve for the reservoir; that is
C vs. h .
FIGURE 8-2
TYPICAL STILES PERMEABILITY AND
FLOW CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION CURVE
kmax
dC
dh
(Eq. 8.6)
8 - 10
dC
dh
(Eq. 8.7)
This can be
For
C
C1
h1
C2
h2
C1
h1
C2 C1 h2 h1
C Plot Point
h
k1
h1 / 2
k 2
h1 h2 h1 / 2
k10
h9 1.0 h9 / 2
k versus
the
plot point indicated in the table. Note that the plot point is simply the
midpoint of the interval used to compute k . The permeability distribution
is indicated by the dashed curve on Figure 8-2. Craft and Hawkins8 provide
independent discussions on the development of the flow capacity and
permeability distribution plots.
8 - 11
A major criticism of the Stiles method is that it does not account for the
position from which each permeability value was obtained. In other words,
each sample is treated as random data. However, this method was used to
approximate waterflood behavior in the 1950s and 1960s but the method is not
commonly used at the present time.
2.
EV
It is assumed in this method that flow is linear and that the distance of
penetration of the flood front is proportional to permeability. This means that
the front of advancing water will have the same shape as the permeability
distribution curve.
cd
ab
front after h1 layers have reached water breakthrough is cfb ; the fraction of
X Y . Since
the total reservoir volume is equivalent to the area X Y Z , therefore
the reservoir flooded at this time is proportional to the area
Vertical Sweep EV
8 - 12
X Y
X Y Z
(Eq. 8.8)
FIGURE 8-3
USE OF STILES PERMEABILITY
DISTRIBUTION CURVE TO DEPICT SHAPE OF
FLOOD FRONT
g
k1
Z
X
a
h1
It can be shown7 that the area under the permeability distribution curve is
unity, that is:
W X Y 1.0
(Eq. 8.9)
Since the flow capacity distribution is the integral of the permeability curve,
the capacity corresponding to the dimensionless formation thickness, h1 is:
C W X
(Eq. 8.10)
8 - 13
Y 1.0 W X
Y 1.0 C
(Eq. 8.11)
X ae ac h1k1
In the general case where
X hk
(Eq. 8.12)
EV ,
rewritten as:
EV
k h 1 C
k
(Eq. 8.13)
Equation 8.13 can be used to compute vertical sweep of the water front as a
function of the fraction of formation which has achieved water breakthrough.
The only information required for this calculation is the flow capacity and
permeability distribution curve.
3.
is:
k
qw C rw
w
(Eq. 8.14)
k
qw 1 C rw
w
(Eq. 8.15)
qt iw qo qw
The reservoir water cut,
Ckrw
f wR ,
1 C kro
o
(Eq. 8.16)
f wR
CA
CA 1 C
(Eq. 8.17)
where
krw o
w kro
(Eq. 8.18)
fw ,
fw
CS
CS 1 C
(Eq. 8.19)
8 - 15
where
krw o Bo
w kro Bw
(Eq. 8.20)
WOR
4.
qw Bo
CS
qo Bw 1 C
(Eq. 8.21)
qo qw iw
(Eq. 8.22)
It follows that the surface production rate of water can be computed as:
qw f w iw , STB/D
(Eq. 8.23)
qo iw qw Bw , RB/D
(Eq. 8.24)
qoS
5.
qo
, STB/D
Bo
(Eq. 8.24)
N p N E A EV ED
(Eq. 8.1)
or
Np
7758 Ah So
E A EV
Bo
or
Np
7758 Ah So
So Sor E A EV
Bo
S Sor
o
So
where
6.
= porosity, fraction
So
Sor
EA
EV
= Equation 8.13
C,
k ,
and dimensionless
h as
and
at
h1
h2
...
...
...
h10
k1 C1
k 2 C2
... ...
... ...
... ...
k10 1.0
M.
N p1
N p2
...
...
...
N p10
EV 2
...
...
...
1.0
WOR 2
...
...
...
WOR 10
III. Confined Patterns With Stratification, Areal Sweep, and Displacement Methods
Craig, Geffen, and Morse (CGM)1,9 and Higgins-Leighton10,11,12,13 developed procedures
for estimating waterflood performance in multi-layer reservoirs without crossflow. The
CGM methods is one of the most thorough and practical prediction methods available
for five-spot systems. It is believed the technique is also applicable to other patterns if a
few minor adjustments are made. The method utilizes a modified Welge14 equation to
consider the displacement mechanism in the swept area. Variations in injectivity for
constant pressure water injection are accounted for using the conductance ratio
by
Caudle and Witte15, and the effects of increases in areal sweep efficiency beyond
breakthrough are included on the basis of the correlations presented by Craig, Geffen,
and Morse16.
8 - 18
Although the original CGM paper did not consider multi-layered systems, subsequent
modifications by Hendrickson17, and by Wasson and Schrider18, permit application to
stratified systems. A detailed discussion of this method is presented in SPE Monograph
31 and in Wilhite's SPE Textbook9, along with an example application. The CGM
technique is presented in detail in Appendix CGM at the end of Chapter 8.
The Higgins-Leighton method basically applied the displacement theory of Buckley and
Leverett19 to any flooding pattern for which the isopotential and flow streamlines are
available. It is more complicated to use than previously discussed methods and requires
the use of a computer. To apply the method, the reservoir is divided into flow channels
based on flow streamlines as determined from numerical simulation studies. Each
stream channel is subdivided into equal volume cells. Assuming unidirectional flow, a
Buckley-Leverett type material balance on each cell yields the rate of water
accumulation and oil displacement from which saturation gradients can be determined.
From individually calculated flow resistance for each cell, and the total pressure drop
between wells, instantaneous oil and water flow rates can be computed.
Data required for the Higgins-Leighton method of analysis includes oil/water relative
permeability, viscosity, effective layer permeability to oil
applied differential pressure, and the isopotential and streamline configuration for the
particular well pattern studied.
A major limitation of the method is its dependence on the resistance factors (shape
factor) which must be known for each cell to properly account for sweep variations
induced by the different cell geometry. These resistance factors have been presented in
the literature for many commonly used flooding patterns. A major assumption in setting
up the cell models is that stream channels determined using a unit mobility
can be applied to any system. This method is also reviewed by Wilhite.
8 - 19
M 1
8 - 20
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES
15. Caudle, B.H. and Witte, M.D.: "Production Potential Changes During Sweepout in a
Five-Spot Pattern," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, pp. 446-448.
16. Craig, F.F., Jr., Geffen, T.M. and Morse, R.A.: "Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern
Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests," Trans., AIME (1955) 204, pp. 715.
17. Hendrickson, G.E.: "History of the Welch Field San Andres Pilot Waterflood," Journal
of Petroleum Technology (August 1961) pp. 745-749.
18. Wasson, J.A. and Schrider, L.A.: "Combination Method for Predicting Waterflood
Performance for Five-Spot Patterns in Stratified Reservoirs," Journal of Petroleum
Technology (October 1968) pp. 1195-1202.
19. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: "Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands,"
Trans., AIME (1942) 146, pp. 107-116.
20. Mattax, C.C. and Dalton, R.L.:
Richardson, TX (1990) 13.
8 - 22
APPENDIX
CRAIG-GEFFEN-MORSE METHOD
I. Introduction
The Craig-Geffen-Morse1,2,3 method of waterflood prediction is a steady state technique
which combines areal sweep effects, displacement mechanism, stratification, and
variable injectivity4 to predict waterflood performance in a five-spot pattern.
The
method is valid with or without free gas initially present, provided there is no trapped
gas behind the front. The calculations can be adopted for use in other pattern floods but
do not account for edge or bottom water influx. The method assumes 100 percent
vertical sweep efficiency within each layer of the stratified reservoir and cross-flow
between layers is negligible.. Experimentally derived correlations are used to determine
areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough and after breakthrough.
Calculations are made in four stages:
w Stage 1 - This stage begins with the start of water injection and ends when oil
banks formed around adjacent injectors meet. This meeting of oil banks is termed
interference. If there is no free gas present at the start of the flood, skip Stage 1
and Stage 2 and go directly to Stage 3. Oil production during this time period is
simply a continuation of previously existing primary production. No secondary
oil is recovered during this part of the flood.
w Stage 2 - This period extends from interference until all pre-existing gas space is
filled by injected water. Only primary oil production occurs during this stage.
w Stage 3 - This period extends from gas fillup to water breakthrough at producing
wells. Oil production caused by the waterflood begins at the start of Stage 3.
Furthermore, oil production during this stage is a combination of incremental
waterflood recovery and a continuation of primary recovery but the total oil
production rate is equal to the effective injection rate measured at reservoir
conditions. Injected water production begins at the end of Stage 3.
w Stage 4 - This stage extends from water breakthrough to the economic limit.
CGM-1
FIGURE CGM-1
Stage 1
Interference
Between Oil Banks
Stage 2
Stage 3
Water Bank
CGM-2
Gas Region
Oil Bank
We will show first how waterflood predictions are made for a five-spot pattern reservoir
with only one layer. Extended calculations for multi-layered five-spot reservoirs will be
presented in a subsequent section.
II. Initial Calculations - Single Layer
Before considering the detailed procedures necessary to predict flood performance
during each of the four stages, it is convenient to present the following calculations.
A. Calculate pattern pore volume, V p
V p 7758 Ah
(Eq. CGM.1)
where:
Vp
No
V p So
(Eq. CGM.2)
Bo
where:
No =
No
So
Bo
CGM-3
(krw ) S
wbt
( kro ) S
wc
o
w
(Eq. CGM.3)
where:
krw
kro
S wbt , at waterbreakthrough,
CGM-4
FIGURE CGM-2
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON
VISCOSITY OF SALT WATER
2.0
Viscosity, centipois
1.5
250,000 ppm
200,000 ppm
150,000 ppm
100,000 ppm
50,000 ppm
0 ppm
1.0
0.5
0.0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
E Abt
FIGURE CGM-3
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
(DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0.1
10
Mobility Ratio
Wii
rei2 h S g
(Eq. CGM.4)
5.615
where:
Wii
rei
Wif V p S g
(Eq. CGM.5)
where:
CGM-6
Wif
Sg
(Eq. CGM.6)
where:
Wibt
S wbt =
S wc
re
OIL
OIL
WATER
WATER
rei
CGM-7
For a constant pressure differential ( p ) , the water injection rate prior to interference
will be:
iw
0.00708khp
w r o re
ln
ln
krw rw kro r
(Eq. CGM.7)
where:
iw
md]
kro
krw
re
rw
rw
si
oil viscosity, cp
CGM-8
S wc
S wbt
si
water viscosity, cp
The radii of the water and oil banks required by Eq. CGM.7 depend upon the
cumulative water injection,
Wi .
re2 h Sg 5.615Wi
re2
(Eq. CGM.8)
5.615Wi
h Sg
(Eq. CGM.9)
1
5.615Wi 2
re
h Sg
(Eq. CGM.10)
where:
Wi
All of the water injected will be within the water bank of radius,
water saturation in the water bank is
S wbt
we can write:
r 2h S wbt S wc re2h Sg
(Eq. CGM.11)
Sg
r 2 re2
S
wbt
wc
(Eq. CGM.12)
1
2
Sg
r re
S wbt S wc
(Eq. CGM.13)
CGM-9
Select values of Wi from zero toWii . There are no rigorous rules for making this
selection; generally ten intervals of equal
Wi
2.
3.
Compute
4.
5.
Compute the average water injection rate for each increment of water injection.
[(iw ) avg ]
(iw ) n (iw ) n 1
2
6.
(Eq. CGM.14)
t n
Wi n Wi n1
iw
avg
(Eq. CGM.15)
7.
tn t n
(Eq. CGM.16)
CGM-10
TABLE CGM-1
SUMMARY OF STAGE 1 CALCULATIONS
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Wi , bbls
re2
re ,feet
r ,feet
( w / krw )ln( r / rw )
W1
re2
re
r1
rei 2
rei
W2
Wii
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
( o / kro )ln(re / r )
(5) + (6)
iw , B/D
iwi
(10)
(11)
t t ,days
ti
CGM-11
t
Values of
Wif
Wif Wii
(Eq. CGM.17)
0.5(iwi iwf )
and
Wii
iw ibase
(Eq. CGM.18)
where:
ibase =
conductance ratio
base water injection rate, bbls
CGM-12
ibase
0.003541 ko S
wir
hp
(Eq.CGM.19)
where:
ibase
d
( ko ) S
sp
si
Caudle and Witte4 which, when used in Eq. CGM.18, gives the correct injection rate.
The conductance ratio is presented in Figure CGM-5 as a function of mobility ratio,
< 1.0,
and iw
= 1.0,
CGM-13
CGM-14
0.1
10
0.1
0.7
0.9
0.5 0.3
1.0
0.1
EA
Mobility Ratio
EA
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.5 0.3
0.1
0
FIGURE CGM-5
CONDUCTANCE RATIO FOR LIQUID FILLED FIVE-SPOT
PATTERNS (REFERENCE 4)
10
Conductance Ratio
EA
Wi
(Eq. CGM.20)
V p ( S wbt S wc )
Wii
qo
where
fo
iw
fo Swc
Bo
(Eq. CGM.21)
If
N p,
Np
Wi Wif
Bo
fo
(Eq. CGM.22)
3. Determine
8. Determine
fo
at
S wc
CGM-16
TABLE CGM-2
SUMMARY OF STAGE 3 CALCULATIONS
(1)
(2)
(3)
Wi , bbls
(Eq. CGM.21)
(4)
EA
(Figure CGM-5)
iw
(Eq. CGM.19)
Wif
EAbt
Wibt
iwbt
(5)
(6)
(7)
t Wi /(iw ) avg
t t
tbt
(8)
4
qo
f o ,STBD
B
o
(9)
(10)
Np
9 fo ,STB
Bo
N pbt
CGM-17
S wf .
Considering a given time interval, incremental oil produced from the previously
unswept portion of the reservoir,
areal sweep efficiency,
N pu E A S wf S wc V p
The term
E A / Wi / Wibt
(Eq. CGM.23)
Accordingly, multiplying both sides of Eq. CGM.23 by this term results in:
N pu
Wi
E A
S wf S wc V p
Wi / Wibt
Wibt
(Eq. CGM.24)
and
Wi
N pu S wf S wc V p
W
ibt
CGM-18
(Eq. CGM.25)
where:
E A
Wi / Wibt
(Eq. CGM.26)
These calculations can be put on the basis of one barrel of total injection (or production,
since injection and production rates are assumed equal at reservoir conditions) by
setting
Wi 1.0
N pu
Thus,
V p S wf S wc
(Eq. CGM.27)
Wibt
(Eq. CGM.28)
N pu
S wf S wc
E Abt S wbt S wc
Wi
N pu during
barrels of water are injected can be predicted using Eq. CGM.29 provided that
efficiency,
(Eq. CGM.29)
/ Wibt .
repeated as follows:
CGM-19
(Eq. CGM.30)
It follows that:
E A dE A 0.2749
Wi
Wi dWi
(Eq. CGM.31)
and:
W
0.2749 i
Wibt
1
(Eq. CGM.32)
Thus,
N pu 0.2749
S wf S wc
E Abt S wbt
Wi
S wc Wibt
N ps
1
(Eq. CGM.33)
N ps f o 2 1 N pu
where:
fo 2
f w2 =
CGM-20
(Eq. CGM.34)
Since
N pu
can be determined if
fo 2 can be defined.
N ps
S w2
S w2
f w2
S w2
is the
tangent point on the fractional flow curve defined by a tangent line of slope
df w
1
dS w Sw2 Qi Sw2
(Eq. CGM.35)
where:
Qi
If
Qi
were known, it would be possible to compute the slope of the tangent line using
Eq. CGM.35.
S w2 and f w2
CGM-21
FIGURE CGM-6
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE DEMONSTRATING
USE OF Qi TO DETERMINE f w2.
1
1 Sor
f w2
fw
fw
df w
dS w
df w
dS w
0
0
S wc
df w
1
dS w Qi
Sw
CGM-22
S w2
The water injected at breakthrough, Wibt was defined by Eq. CGM.28 to be:
(Eq. CGM.28)
Qibt
Wibt
S wbt S wc
E AbtV p
(Eq. CGM.36)
The cumulative water injected at any time beyond breakthrough is equal to the water
injected at breakthrough plus the additional water injected beyond breakthrough.
Wi Wibt W beyond
(Eq. CGM.37)
breakthrough
Qi Qibt Qbeyond
(Eq. CGM.38)
breakthrough
Wi
Qbeyond
breakthrough
dWi
ibt V E
p A
W i
(Eq. CGM.39)
Qbeyond
breakthrough
V p 1.0
EA
CGM-23
(Eq. CGM.40)
Wibt
Qibt E Abt
Vp
(Eq. CGM.41)
and:
Qbeyond
breakthrough
W / Wibt
d Wi / Wibt
EA
(Eq. CGM.42)
Qi
W / W d Wi / Wibt
1.0 E Abt 1.0i ibt
Qibt
EA
(Eq. CGM.43)
(Eq. CGM.30)
and:
d Wi / Wibt
Qi
W /W
1.0 E Abt 1.0i ibt
Qibt
E Abt 0.2749 ln Wi / Wibt
(Eq. CGM.44)
A tabular solution of Eq. CGM.44 is presented in Table CGM-3 (or as found in Table
E.9, SPE Monograph III) as a function of
CGM-24
TABLE CGM-3
Values of Qi / Qibt for various Values of Breakthrough Areal Sweep Efficiency
E Abt , percent
Wi / Wibt
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
Values of
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1.000
1.190
1.365
1.529
1.684
1.832
1.974
2.111
2.244
2.373
2.500
2.623
2.744
2.862
2.978
3.093
3.205
3.316
3.426
3.534
3.641
3.746
3.851
3.954
4.056
4.157
4.257
1.000
1.191
1.366
1.530
1.686
1.834
1.977
2.115
2.249
2.379
2.507
2.631
2.752
2.872
2.989
3.105
3.218
3.330
3.441
3.550
3.657
3.764
3.869
3.973
4.077
4.179
1.000
1.191
1.366
1.531
1.688
1.837
1.981
2.119
2.254
2.385
2.513
2.639
2.761
2.881
3.000
3.116
3.231
3.343
3.455
3.565
3.674
3.781
3.887
3.993
4.097
1.000
1.191
1.367
1.532
1.689
1.839
1.984
2.124
2.259
2.391
2.520
2.646
2.770
2.891
3.010
3.127
3.243
3.357
3.469
3.580
3.689
3.798
3.905
4.011
1.000
1.191
1.368
1.533
1.691
1.842
1.987
2.127
2.264
2.397
2.526
2.653
2.778
2.900
3.020
3.138
3.254
3.369
3.483
3.594
3.705
3.814
3.922
1.000
1.191
1.368
1.535
1.693
1.844
1.990
2.131
2.268
2.402
2.533
2.660
2.786
2.909
3.030
3.149
3.266
3.382
3.496
3.609
3.720
3.830
1.000
1.191
1.369
1.536
1.694
1.846
1.993
2.135
2.273
2.407
2.539
2.667
2.793
2.917
3.039
3.159
3.277
3.394
3.509
3.622
3.735
1.000
1.191
1.369
1.536
1.696
1.849
1.996
2.139
2.277
2.413
2.545
2.674
2.801
2.926
3.048
3.169
3.288
3.406
3.521
3.636
1.000
1.192
1.370
1.537
1.697
1.851
1.999
2.142
2.282
2.418
2.551
2.681
2.808
2.934
3.057
3.179
3.299
3.417
3.534
3.649
1.000
1.192
1.370
1.538
1.699
1.853
2.001
2.146
2.286
2.422
2.556
2.687
2.816
2.942
3.066
3.189
3.309
3.428
3.546
4.608
4.443
Wi / Wibt
6.164
at which
5.944
E A = 100 percent
5.732
5.527
5.330
CGM-25
5.139
4.956
4.779
Wi / Wibt
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
1.000
1.192
1.371
1.539
1.700
1.855
2.004
2.149
2.290
2.427
2.562
2.693
2.823
2.950
3.075
3.198
3.319
3.439
1.000
1.192
1.371
1.540
1.702
1.857
2.007
2.152
2.294
2.432
2.567
2.700
2.830
2.957
3.083
3.207
3.329
1.000
1.192
1.371
1.541
1.703
1.859
2.009
2.155
2.298
2.436
2.572
2.705
2.836
2.965
3.091
3.216
1.000
1.192
1.372
1.542
1.704
1.861
2.012
2.158
2.301
2.441
2.577
2.711
2.843
2.972
3.099
3.225
1.000
1.192
1.372
1.543
1.706
1.862
2.014
2.161
2.305
2.445
2.582
2.717
2.849
2.979
3.107
1.000
1.192
1.373
1.543
1.707
1.864
2.016
2.164
2.308
2.449
2.587
2.723
2.855
2.986
1.000
1.193
1.373
1.544
1.708
1.866
2.019
2.167
2.312
2.453
2.592
2.728
2.862
2.993
1.000
1.193
1.373
1.545
1.709
1.868
2.021
2.170
2.315
2.457
2.597
2.733
2.867
1.000
1.193
1.374
1.546
1.710
1.869
2.023
2.173
2.319
2.461
2.601
2.738
2.873
1.000
1.193
1.374
1.546
1.711
1.871
2.025
2.175
2.322
2.465
2.606
2.744
3.203
3.088
Values of
Wi / Wibt
4.285
at which
4.132
E A = 100 percent
3.984
3.842
3.704
CGM-26
3.572
3.444
3.321
Wi / Wibt
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
1.000
1.193
1.374
1.547
1.713
1.872
2.027
2.178
1.000
1.193
1.375
1.548
1.714
1.874
2.029
2.180
1.000
1.193
1.375
1.548
1.715
1.875
2.031
2.183
1.000
1.193
1.375
1.549
1.716
1.877
2.033
2.185
1.000
1.193
1.376
1.550
1.717
1.878
2.035
2.188
1.000
1.193
1.376
1.550
1.718
1.880
2.037
2.190
1.000
1.193
1.376
1.551
1.719
1.881
2.039
2.192
1.000
1.194
1.377
1.551
1.720
1.882
2.040
2.195
1.000
1.194
1.377
1.552
1.720
1.884
2.042
2.197
1.000
1.194
1.377
1.552
1.721
1.885
2.044
2.6
2.325
2.328
2.331
2.334
2.337
2.340
2.8
2.469
2.473
2.476
2.480
3.0
2.610
2.614
2.394
2.309
2.226
2.147
Values of
Wi / Wibt
2.978
at which
2.872
E A = 100 percent
2.769
2.670
2.575
2.483
Wi / Wibt
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Values of
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
1.000
1.194
1.377
1.553
1.722
1.886
2.045
1.000
1.194
1.378
1.553
1.723
1.887
1.000
1.194
1.378
1.554
1.724
1.888
1.000
1.194
1.378
1.555
1.725
1.890
1.000
1.194
1.378
1.555
1.725
1.000
1.194
1.379
1.555
1.726
1.000
1.194
1.379
1.556
1.727
1.000
1.194
1.379
1.556
1.728
1.000
1.194
1.379
1.557
1.000
1.194
1.379
1.557
Wi / Wibt
2.070
at which
1.996
E A = 100 percent
1.925
1.856
1.790
1.726
CGM-27
1.664
1.605
1.547
1.492
Wi / Wibt
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.000
1.194
1.380
1.558
1.000
1.195
1.380
1.000
1.195
1.380
1.000
1.195
1.380
1.000
1.195
1.381
1.000
1.195
1.000
1.195
1.000
1.195
1.000
1.195
1.000
1.195
1.115 1.075
1.037
Values of
Wi / Wibt
at which
1.439
Once
Qi / Qibt
1.387
E A = 100 percent
1.338
1.290
1.244
1.199
f w2
1.157
Finally,
fo 2 1.0 f w2
and
W ps 1 N ps N pu
W ps is computed as:
(Eq. CGM.45)
WOR p
1 N ps N pu
N ps N pu
(Eq. CGM.46)
WOR WOR p
Bo
Bw
(Eq. CGM.47)
CGM-28
qo
iw N ps N pu
(Eq. CGM.48)
Bo
qw
iw 1 N ps N pu
(Eq. CGM.49)
Bw
A material balance of the OIP at the start of the waterflood, which neglects the primary
production during the fillup period, leads to the cumulative oil production after fillup,
N p , in STB to be:
Np
V p E A S w S wc S g
Bo
, STB
(Eq. CGM.50)
where:
Sw =
S w S w2 Qi fo 2
(Eq. CGM.51)
N p , is:
qo N qo N 1
N p
t
2
Np Np
Wp
Wi N p Bo V p S g
(Eq. CGM.52)
Bw
Wi
from
Wibt
Wi / Wibt .
2. Compute
3. Determine values of
Qi / Qibt
Qi Qibt Qi / Qibt
Qi S wbt S wc Qi / Qibt .
4. Compute the slope of the fractional flow curve,
CGM-30
5. Use the slope from Step 4 and the fractional flow curve to determine
S w2 .
See
S w2 ,
determine
f w2
from
the
fractional
flow
curve;
then,
fo 2 1.0 f w2 .
7. Compute
8. Compute
9. Compute
N pu
10. Compute
M,
krw S w o
M
kro Swc w
14. Determine
(Eq. CGM.53)
18. Compute
CGM-32
Eq. CGM.51
(6)
WOR p
1.0 / (5)
df w / dS w
(13)
(4) x Qibt
Qi
(5)
WOR
(14)
S w2
(7)
fo 2
(8)
Eq. CGM.32 Eq. CGM.29 Eq. CGM.35 Eq. CGM.46 Eq. CGM.47
N ps
N pu
Sw
1.0
(12)
E Abt
Table CGM-3
(11)
1.0
Wibt
Eq. CGM.30
Qi / Qibt
EA
(10)
Wi / Wibt
Wi , bbls
(4)
(3)
(9)
(2)
TABLE CGM-4
SUMMARY OF STAGE 4 CALCULATIONS
(1)
CGM-33
CGM-34
Eq. CGM.53
Eq. CGM.50
Wi
t (20) /(19)
(21)
Np
(20)
(16)
(15)
t t
(22)
qo
(23)
(19)
qw
(24)
Eq. CGM.52
Wp
(25)
(i w ) avg iw n iw n1 / 2
Eq. CGM.49
Eq. CGM.18
iw
(18)
Eq. CGM.48
Figure CGM-5
(17)
The permeability, thickness, and porosity of the layers can vary. However, the
saturations of oil, gas, and water are assumed to be the same in all layers.
Injection and production rates associated with each layer are proportional to
kh .
Suppose we predict the performance of Layer 1 using the previously described
calculations. The time required to inject the same number of pore volumes of water
into Layer
/ k n
tn t1
/ k 1
If values of
(Eq. CGM.54)
N p1, W p1, Wi1, iw1 , qo1, and qw1 were predicted at time t1 in Layer
n:
h n
N pn N p1
h 1
(Eq. CGM.55)
CGM-35
h n
W pn W p1
h 1
Win Wi1
iwn iw1
(Eq. CGM.56)
h n
h 1
(Eq. CGM.57)
kh n
kh 1
(Eq. CGM.58)
kh n
qon qo1
kh 1
(Eq. CGM.59)
kh n
qwn qw1
kh 1
(Eq. CGM.60)
Procedure
1. Predict the performance of Layer 1 using the method previously described.
2. Plot
3. Obtain values of
and
qw1
CGM-36
TABLE CGM-5
SUMMARY OF LAYER 1 PREDICTIONS
t1
N p1
(t1 )1
( N p1 )1
(t1 ) 2
(t1 )3
W p1
Wi1
iw1
qo1
qw1
(W p1 )1
(Wi1 )1
(iw1 )1
(qo1 )1
(qw1 )1
( N p1 ) 2
(W p1 )2
(Wi1 ) 2
(iw1 ) 2
(qo1 )2
(qw1 )2
( N p1 )3
(W p1 )3
(Wi1 )3
(iw1 )3
(qo1 )3
(qw1 )3
5. Now consider the remaining layers in the reservoir, i.e., consider layer
Corresponding to the times, t1 selected in Step 4 for Layer 1, use Eq. CGM.54 to
compute the times, tn for Layer
water to be injected into the two layers. These calculations are illustrated by Table
CGM-6.
CGM-37
TABLE CGM-6
EQUIVALENT TIME FOR LAYER n
BASED ON LAYER 1 PREDICTIONS
Layer 1
t1
Layer n
t n (Eq. CGM.55)
(t1)1
(tn )1
(t1)2
(tn )2
(t1)3
(tn )3
and
qwn
n , compute values of
CGM-38
REFERENCES
1. Craig, F.F., Jr., Geffen, T.M. and Morse, R.A., "Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern
Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests," Trans, AIME (1955) 204, pp.
7-15.
2. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas (1971) 3.
3. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
4. Caudle, B.H. and Witte, M.D.: "Production Potential Changes during Sweep-Out in a
Five-Spot System," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, pp. 446-448.
5. Benton, J.P., Maslanka, P.M. and Smith, R.L.: "Early Implementation of a Full-Scale
Waterflood in the Abo Reef, Terry Co., Texas - A Case History," paper SPE 9475,
presented at the 1980 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 2124.
CGM-39
PROBLEM CGM:1
Use the Craig-Geffen-Morse method to calculate the performance of the five-spot pattern
waterflood described below:
Pattern area,
A = 40 acres
Bo = 1.056 RB/STB
Bw
= 1.0 RB/STB
o = 0.853 cp
Water viscosity,
w = 0.375 cp
= 1.5 ft
ko Swir
= 20 md
Porosity, = 0.16
Oil saturation at beginning of flood,
So = 0.70
Sg
= 0.10
S wc
= 0.20
CGM - 40
Relative permeability data for the reservoir and calculations to determine the fractional
flow curve are summarized in Problem CGM:1 - Table 1; the fractional flow curve is
presented in Problem CGM:1 Figure 1. The derivative of the fractional flow curve is
presented in Problem CGM:1 Figure 2.
Calculate time, cumulative water injected and cumulative produced fluids at:
A. Interference
B. Fillup
C. Water breakthrough
D. Economic limit
qo 2.0 STB/D
Problem CGM:1 - Table 1: Relative
permeability data and fractional flow
calculations
Sw
kro
krw
kro w
krw o
fw
0.20
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
1.0000
0.4120
0.2720
0.1770
0.1090
0.0627
0.0317
0.0111
0.0000
0.0000
0.0678
0.1040
0.1300
0.1630
0.2030
0.2540
0.3180
0.3970
2.6714
1.1498
0.5986
0.2940
0.1358
0.0549
0.0153
0.0000
0.000
0.272
0.465
0.626
0.773
0.880
0.948
0.985
1.000
CGM - 41
S wbt 0.585
0.9
0.8
0.7
S wf 0.472
0.6
fw
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
CGM - 42
0.7
0.8
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Water Saturation, fraction
CGM - 43
1. Pore Volume, V p
V p 7758 Ah
V p 7758
V p ___________ bbls
2. Stock Tank Oil at Start of Waterflood
No
No
V p So
Bo
No _________ STBs
3. Mobility Ratio Prior to Breakthrough
krw S wbt o
M
kro Swc w
S wbt _____________
krw S wbt
___________
CGM - 44
kro Swc
M
____________
_________ _________
_________ _________
M _____________
E Abt _____________
5. Water Injected at Time of Interference, Wii
Wii
Wii
rei2 h S g
5.615
2
3.14 ________ ________ ________ ________
5.615
Wif V p S g
Wif _________ _________
Wibt
CGM - 46
(1)
Wi , bbls
re2
re , ft
r , ft
krw
ln
r
rw
(6)
kro
ln
re
r
Wii
(7)
(5) + (6)
iw , bbl/D iw avg
(11)
t t , days
Wi
, days
iw avg
CGM - 47
1.
Wii __________________bbls
2.
Wif _________________bbls
3.
E A at Fillup
EA
EA
Wif
V p S wbt S wc
E A __________________
4. Mobility Ratio = _____________________
5. From Figure CGM-5,
6.
ibase
0.003541 ko S
o ln
ibase
___________
wir
hp
d
0.619 0.5s p 0.5si
rw
0.003541
ibase ____________bbls/day
CGM - 48
i
iwf base
iwf
iwf _____________bbls/day
7. Time Interval,
t , of Stage 2
Wif Wii
t _____________days
8. Cumulative Time to Fillup
_______+_______=_______days
CGM - 49
(1)
Wi , bbls
(5)
iw avg
Wif
Wibt
(6)
(10)
CGM - 50
(1)
Wi ,bbls
Wi / Wibt
EA
Qi / Qibt
(Eq. CGM.30)
(Table CGM-3)
(5)
Qi 4 Qibt
Wibt
(7)
df w / dS w S w 2
1.0/(5)
(8)
(9)
fo2
Sw
(10)
(11)
N pu
CGM - 51
(12)
N ps
Eq. CGM.34
(14)
WOR
WOR p
Eq.CGM.46
(16)
Np
(17)
(19)
iw avg
(15)
iw n iw n1
2
Wi ,bbls
CGM - 52
20 t t
19
(18)
iw
Eq.CGM.18
(23)
qo ,STB/D
Eq. CGM.48
qw ,bbl/D
W p , bbl
Eq. CGM.49)
Eq. CGM.52)
CGM - 53
PROBLEM CGM:2
The table on the next page summarizes rate and cumulative volume data previously
calculated for a single layer five spot pattern described in Problem CGM:1. Listed below
are the rock properties for layer one. Extend the calculations to a second layer with the
properties given below. Assume that fluid saturations
S wc , So , and S g
LAYER 1
LAYER 2
20.00
10.00
Thickness, ft.
1.50
1.00
Porosity, fraction
0.16
0.13
Permeability ko S
wir
, md
CGM - 65
and oil-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,460
4,309
7,150
9,991
13,859
16,375
18,124
19,740
21,223
22,442
23,816
24,410
24,551
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,758
4,311
7,105
9,938
12,946
16,000
19,773
28,524
CGM - 66
75
71
67
65
64
62
62
46
44
43
42
41
40
41
41
41
41
41
40
40
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
41
41
40
39
38
14
11
10
9
8
7
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
29
31
32
33
33
34
38
WATERFLOOD SURVEILLANCE
I.
Introduction
Engineering aspects of a waterflood do not end with the completion of an initial
engineering and geological report, an economic evaluation of project profitability, or
management approval of an AFE.
ongoing activity. A large number of technical papers have been presented in the
literature which describes waterflood prediction techniques.
Unfortunately, the
literature has been to a great extent silent on methods and procedures which the
operating engineer can use to monitor performance of actual reservoirs.
In the
beginning, the operations engineer usually has a rate and reserve forecast. Actual
performance usually does not agree with predicted performance. These differences
can frequently be attributable to the use of "average data" rather than data which is
specific to a particular geological layer or a particular area of the field. Forecasts also
differ from actual production performance due to the lack of accurate fluid saturations
V,
even if forecasts are made utilizing an accurate data base, the production forecasts can
differ from actual behavior due to operational considerations. It is normal for the
operation and timing of installations to be different from that projected.
Well
conversions are delayed (especially high production rate oil wells), drilling and rework of existing wells do not always meet schedules due to oil price changes,
corporate budget constraints, or changes in management practices. Nonetheless, if
forecasts are made using predictive models which incorporate reasonably complete and
accurate rock, fluid, and geological data, estimates of ultimate waterflood recovery
should be reasonably correct. Unfortunately, the timing of actual events such as fillup,
initial water breakthrough, and peak production is more difficult to achieve.
9-1
The primary objectives of this chapter are to provide tools, techniques, and procedures
which will supplement prediction techniques so as to assist in the surveillance of
ongoing activities and to aid in the alteration of the initial waterflood design. In
addition, procedures presented should assist in quantifying the flood performance.
Waterflood surveillance includes close monitoring and professional management of the
entire waterflood operation including production wells, injection wells, injection
facilities, water quality, and metering capabilities.
As a general objective, a
surveillance program should allow for the maximum oil recovery to be achieved at the
lowest water-oil ratio and operating cost. From a reservoir viewpoint, this can be
achieved by maximizing the waterflood recovery factors which primarily consist of
9-2
gas production rates are plotted versus time for individual wells, groups of wells,
and entire fields. Most engineers agree the most reliable trend analysis occurs
when well evaluations are conducted using accurate well test data. A well-by-well
review allows the analyst to incorporate recent changes in production behavior
resulting from reservoir performance or well work activities. Production trend
analysis for groups of wells, while commonly used in the industry, may be less
accurate because it is difficult to account for individual well workovers,
mechanical changes to existing wells, the shut-in of old wells, or the addition of
new wells. The grouping of wells to evaluate production trends tends to combine
the good, the bad, and the ugly wells and may give an unrealistic picture of
reservoir behavior.
1.
Production Wells
Various graphs of production data can provide valuable insight into the
performance of an ongoing waterflood. Before discussing some of the more
common graphs used in waterflooding, it should be noted that many of these
graphs represent a simple carryover from primary depletion to waterflooding.
Because the reservoir drive mechanism in waterflooding is much different
than in primary depletion, the production trend analysis tools which may be
applicable for primary depletion may not be applicable for water injection.
For example, a considerable number of technical papers have discussed the
conditions under which exponential, harmonic, or hyperbolic decline curves
develop during primary depletion. Reference 1 summarizes these methods.
Significantly, none of the declines may be applicable in waterflooding. As
mentioned in Eqs. 4.30 and 4.31 in Chapter 4, oil and water production rates
are directly related to the water injection rate. Consequently, changes in the
rate of water injection into existing wells or the drilling of new injectors may
alter the rate of oil production and the decline rate but may not result in
changes in remaining reserves.
9-4
By
using a linear scale, as shown in Figure 9-1, it is easy to see small but
important changes in the data trends.
Figure 9-1
Single Pattern Production and Injection Data vs Time
1000
900
4500
Water Inj
GOR
800
4000
700
3500
600
3000
500
2500
400
2000
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
0
10
15
# of Years
9-5
20
25
30
GOR, SCF/BO
5000
Oil
Water
If a semi-log graph of oil rate versus time is used, frequently the log scale
tends to mask or obscure small changes in production. The GOR graph
can provide great insight into gas fillup. If there is free gas saturation at
the start of water injection, the GOR is likely to be much greater than the
initial solution GOR. During the gas fillup period of the waterflood, the
GOR declines. This can be a valuable indicator that reservoir pressure is
increasing, gas is being dissolved in the oil, and oil response should be
anticipated in the near future. As gas fillup occurs in all of the important
geological flow units, the GOR will decline to and level out at the
solution GOR existing at the start of water injection.
b. Exponential Decline Curves (and Hyperbolic and Harmonic)
In primary depletion there are certain conditions in which it can be
mathematically demonstrated that oil (or gas) production rate will decline
exponentially (or hyperbolic or harmonic). In an exponential decline, oil
production rate is plotted versus time on semi-log graph paper.
In
9-6
Figure 9-2
Oil Rate vs Time
Center Production Well in a 5-Spot Pattern
10,000
1,000
100
10
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
# of Years
qt qi e Dt
(Eq. 9.1)
where:
qi
qt
30
q qt
N pt i
D
* 365
(Eq. 9.2)
where:
N pt
qt qi
D N pt
365
(Eq. 9.3)
Eq. 9.3 describes a straight line. That is, if the oil production rate is
declining exponentially, then oil production rate ( qt ) plotted versus
cumulative oil production ( N pt ) on coordinate graph paper is also a
straight line. This graph can be extrapolated to the economic limit and
ultimate production can be estimated. Eq. 9.3 removes the time factor,
however, from a mathematical perspective, Eq. 9.3 is equivalent to Eq.
9.1.
The advantage of using the oil rate versus cumulative production graph is
that it is easier to observe changes in oil production rate which may be
masked on a log scale. Figure 9-3 is a graph of oil rate versus cumulative
production.
9-8
Figure 9-3
Oil Rate vs Cumulative Oil Produced
Center Production Well in a 5-Spot Pattern
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
350.0
400.0
The data used in Figure 9-3 are also the data used to construct Figure 9-2.
Any graph, such as shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3, in which historical
oil production rate trends are extrapolated for estimating future
production should be used with caution. It should be recalled from
previous discussions that changes in future water injection rates (into
existing or new wells) would be expected to have an effect on future oil
production rates but do not necessarily change ultimate recoverable
reserves. Future changes in injection may only accelerate recovery.
2.
Injection wells
For each injection well, a linear graph should be maintained which shows
daily water injection rate, average daily wellhead injection pressure and
estimates of average reservoir pressure versus time. Average pressure points
9-9
should be gathered at least every two years, particularly during the early
years of the waterflood. These pressure measurements provide insight into
the voidage replacement ratio and may be helpful in evaluating Hall plots
which are discussed in a later section.
3.
Patterns
A pattern (or cluster of wells) analysis is helpful when evaluating reservoir
performance in localized areas.
9 - 10
Figure 9-4
Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern
N-Well
80 Acres
W-Well
E-Well
C-Well
S-Well
Figure 9-5
Production and Allocated Injection for a
Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern
8.0
32000
Oil
28000
Wtr
Wtr Inj
6.0
24000
GOR
5.0
20000
4.0
16000
3.0
12000
2.0
8000
1.0
4000
0.0
10
12
14
# of Years
9 - 11
16
18
20
22
24
GOR, SCF/BO
7.0
Figure 9-6
Annotated Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern
8.0
32000
7.0
S-i
W-i
C-p
Oil
Wtr
6.0
24000
GOR
5.0
20000
4.0
16000
3.0
12000
2.0
W-p
E-i
N-p
8000
N-i
S-p
1.0
GOR, SCF/BO
Rate, MB/Day
28000
Wtr Inj
4000
E-p
0.0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
# of Years
Figure 9-6 is annotated and indicates when the five wells which create the
five-spot in Figure 9-4 were initially drilled as producers and later converted
to injection.
4.
qo Bo qw Bw qo (GOR Rs ) Bg
Where
9 - 12
(Eq. 9.4)
qo
qw
Rs
Bw
Bo
Bg
If the VRR for a given month is equal to or greater than 1.0, the reservoir
pressure is being maintained or increased for the month. If the ratio is less
than 1.0, reservoir pressure declines for the month. When computing the
reservoir voidage, it should not be assumed the free gas term is negligible
without making appropriate calculations.
Due to leaking faults, poor cement casing bond, discontinuous sands depleted
prior to water injection, a gas cap, or an inactive aquifer, it is common to lose
some of the injected water to areas outside of the floodable pore volume.
The volume of water lost varies from reservoir to reservoir, but this writers
experience is that 10 to 50 percent of the injected water is lost. Therefore for
computing effective injection volumes, the actual injection needs to be
reduced by the estimated percentage of water lost out of zone. In the absence
of other information, it can be assumed that 20 to 30 percent is lost.
Cumulative VRR is the cumulative injection and natural water influx since
the start of injection divided by cumulative reservoir voidage since the start
of injection. As long as this cumulative VRR is equal to or greater than 1.0,
9 - 13
after taking into account injection losses, reservoir pressure since the start of
water injection will be maintained or increased. Many engineers compute
cumulative VRR by using cumulative reservoir voidage since the date of
initial production from the reservoir with the idea that waterflood response
will not occur until VRR is 1.0. This is not correct. Waterflood response
within the most permeable layers will occur when gas fillup is achieved as
discussed in Chapter 4. When the cumulative VRR computed since initial
production reaches 1.0, reservoir pressure will have increased back to near
the original reservoir pressure.
Figure 9-7 presents a graph of monthly and cumulative VRR since the start
of injection.
Figure 9-7
Monthly and Cumulative VRR
Since the Start of Injection
3.0
Monthly
VRR
Cum
VRR
2.5
VRR
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Time, Months
5.
Spaghetti Graph
The reservoir analyst should not try to include too much data on a single
graph. Frequently, analysts attempt to plot five or six production variables
9 - 14
such as oil, water, and gas production rate, GOR, water injection rate, water
cut, and well count on the same graph. Consequently, the graph becomes
cluttered and important production trends may not be identified. Figure 9-8
is an example of a spaghetti graph.
Figure 9-8
Spaghetti Graph for a Production Well
1000
1.4
BOPD
MCFPD
1.2
WCUT
GOR
1.0
100
0.8
GOR
BWPD
0.6
10
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Years
It was only after each production parameter was plotted on separate graphs as
illustrated in Figures 9-9, 9-10, 9-11,
9 - 15
Figure 9-9
Single String of Spaghetti Oil Rate vs Time
140
130
BOPD
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Years
Figure 9-10
Two Strings of Spaghetti Oil & Water Rate vs Time
140
BOPD
130
BWPD
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
14
Years
9 - 16
16
18
20
22
24
26
Figure 9-11
Two Strings of Spaghetti Oil Rate & GOR vs Time
140
1.4
130
BOPD
120
GOR
1.2
110
1.0
90
80
0.8
70
60
0.6
50
40
GOR, MSCF/BO
100
0.4
30
20
0.2
10
0
0.0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Years
Figure 9-12
Spaghetti String Exponential Decline
1000
BOPD
100
10
1
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Years
9 - 17
Figure 9-13
Spaghetti String Exponential Decline
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
6.
Np
Np
when it is applied on a well-by-well basis so that the good, bad and ugly
(low, medium, and high) WOR wells are not combined. Finally, at very high
WOR values, the data points bend upward and form a vertical line as the
9 - 18
fw
B
o
1.0 f w Bw
(Eq. 4.28)
100.0
Figure 9-14
WOR vs Np
Center Production Well in 5-Spot Pattern
WOR
10.0
1.0
0.1
100
150
200
250
300
350
9 - 19
400
450
500
Figure 9-15
WOR vs Np Group of Production Wells
100.0
WOR
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
7.
Oil Cut
A decline curve which has been successfully used in many waterflood
projects is a graph of the fraction of oil in the total produced well stream (oil
cut) versus cumulative production. As seen in Eq. 4.47, WOR is related to
water cut and consequently, oil cut ( f o
1 f w ).
on a log scale and cumulative production is plotted on a linear scale. The oil
cut graph is similar to but different from the WOR plot. Figure 9-16 is an
example of the oil cut plot.
9 - 20
FIGURE 9-16
Oil Cut (Fieldwide) vs Cumulative Oil Production
Oil Cut, %
100
10
1
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Np, MBO
While there are no specific theoretical guidelines, but because oil cut is
related to WOR, it would be reasonable to expect the limitations of WOR
plots extend to oil cut plots. Since the WOR plot is most reliable when
applied to individual wells for WOR values greater than 1.0 to 2.0, oil cut
plots should be applied to individual wells using production data where the
oil cut is less than about 70 percent. When applicable, the graph can be
extrapolated to the oil cut economic limit to estimate ultimate recovery.
8.
Plot
production where:
9 - 21
versus cumulative
1.0
1.0
1.0
X ln
fw
fw
(Eq. 9.5)
and:
fw
qw
qo qw
(Eq. 9.6)
fw ,
and
Np
9 - 22
plot.
and
fw .
FIGURE 9-17
X vs CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
5
Economic Limit
Oil
Recovery
at
Economic
Limit
2
0
The
plot is not the answer to all problems. The basic theory behind this
9 - 23
breakthrough. Like other production plots such as the oil cut and WOR
methods, the
9.
9 - 24
FIGURE 9-18
Oil Cut vs Cumulative Oil Production Showing Effects of
Pattern Regularization
40
30
20
Waterflood Pattern
Regularization
10
5
0
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
HPV V p * (1 S wc )
where:
HPV
Vp
9 - 25
(Eq. 9-7)
S wc
RF
versus
Wi / HPV
irreducible water),
(hydrocarbon pore
FIGURE 9-19
RECOVERY FACTOR vs HYDROCARBON PORE
VOLUMES INJECTED
40
30
20
Below Average
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
RF
versus Wi
/ HPV
The base performance graph can also be obtained from reservoir simulation
or from analogous fields.
buildup
falloff
step rate
Hall plot
9 - 28
p.
conduct these tests on each production and injection well on an annual basis.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to live in the ideal world. As a result, it is
recommended that 20 to 25 percent of the key wells (both producers and injectors)
be tested on an annual basis.
Change in average reservoir pressure
decreases.
9 - 30
r
pwi p 141.2 ln e S iw
kh rw
(Eq. 9.8)
re
will be
pwi
at
the end of each constant-rate injection step and the corresponding injection rate
iw .
For most SRTs, step time lengths are seldom long enough to reach a steady-state
condition. In this case, re can be replaced by rd (the drainage radius as defined
by Aronofsky and Jenkins18). If time step size is constant, a linear relationship
should still exist between
pwi
ln rd / rw
pwi
pressure exceeds parting pressure the resulting fracture acts as an additional fluid
conductor which changes (reduces) the slope of the
accordingly. This is illustrated by the
as shown in Figure 9-20.
9 - 31
pwi
pwi
versus
iw
curve
FIGURE 9-20
Fracture Pressure
The pre-parting data falls on a straight line and is governed by Eq. 9.8. Normally,
another straight line is drawn through the points above the parting pressure as
shown in Figure 9-20. The pressure corresponding to the point where the two
lines intersect is interpreted as the parting pressure. This method provides an
approximate estimate of parting pressure. Since the fracture length continues to
increase above the FPP, there is no theoretical basis for drawing a second straight
line through the points above the parting pressure. Accordingly, on the vertical
axis, this line extrapolates back to a pressure point which is much higher than the
pretest pressure,
p.
until a fracture pressure is definitely established. Tests in other wells can then be
designed so that pressures will not exceed this pressure for appreciable lengths of
time.
Multi-rate pressure transient analysis techniques can be used in some cases to
analyze the results of a step rate test for permeability and skin. However, rates
must be carefully controlled during each flow period for this analysis to be
accurate.
It is recommended that Reference 17 be studied in more detail to review other
factors which may affect SRT analysis such as injection time step size, wellbore
storage, skin damage, and rate increment size.
________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 9:1
A 2800-foot water injection well located in a developed flood in the Permian
Basin of West Texas has undergone a step rate test. The test data were measured
as shown. Prior to the test, the well was shut-in for seven days. Analyze the data
and determine:
(a) the fracture pressure of the reservoir,
(b) the fracture gradient, and
(c) the optimum water injection rate.
9 - 33
TABLE 1
Date
3/28/99
4/ 4 /99
4/ 4/99
4/ 5/99
4/ 6/99
4/ 7/99
4/ 8/99
4/ 9/99
4/10/99
4/11/99
4/12/99
4/13/99
4/14/99
iw , bbls / day
631.0
0.0
100.0
175.0
250.0
325.0
400.0
475.0
--550.0
625.0
700.0
775.0
1,940.0
1,615.0
1,683.0
1,725.0
1,760.0
1,812.0
1,824.0
1,857.0
--1,870.0
1,880.0
1,901.0
1,920.0
SOLUTION
The step rate data are plotted in Figure 9-21. It is observed that two straight lines
are defined by the data; the intersection of these lines defines the reservoir fracture
pressure as 1825 psi and the optimum water injection rate as 370 bbls per day.
9 - 34
2000
1900
1800
Approximate Fracture Pressure
1825 psi at iw = 370 BWPD
1700
1600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
injection rates show more than a threefold increase, it could be that skin damage
was removed, a much longer fracture length (greater than ten percent) is present,
or that injected water is being lost out of zone.
C. Hall Method of Analyzing Injection Well Behavior
In 1963, Hall21 presented a technique for interpreting routinely collected injection
well data to draw conclusions regarding skin effects at water injection wells.
Buell et al22 studied the application of the Hall Plot for injection well analysis for
both waterfloods and polymer injection projects.
The
procedure assumes gas fillup has occurred (GOR has collapsed), the mobility ratio
is 1.0 and steady-state injection is present such that the injection rate can be
expressed as:
iw
ln e S
rw
(Eq. 9.9)
iw C ( pwi p )
(Eq. 9.10)
where:
9 - 37
0.00707kh
r
ln e S
rw
(Eq. 9.11)
( pwi p )
iw
C
(Eq. 9.12)
t
o
pwi p dt
1 t
o iwdt
C
(Eq. 9.13)
The integral on the right-hand side is cumulative water injected. Hence, Eq. 9.13
becomes:
t
o pwi p dt
Wi
C
(Eq. 9.14)
where:
k , h, , re , rw and S
Herein lies the value of the method. Changes in injection conditions may be noted
from the Hall plot. For example, if wellbore plugging or other restrictions to
injection are gradually occurring, the net effect is a gradual increase in the skin
9 - 38
As
increases,
slope of the Hall Plot will decrease. Figure 9-22 is a Hall plot for various injection
conditions.
FIGURE 9-22
HALL PLOT
FOR VARIOUS INJECTION WELL CONDITIONS
300
A
250
200
150
100
50
Gas Fillup
0
0
100
200
300
400
9 - 39
500
The most difficult part of developing a Hall Plot is the evaluation of the pressureintegral function on the left side of Eq. 9.14. Fortunately, the integral can be
easily solved. Consider Figure 9-23 which shows a graph of monthly bottomhole
injection pressure,
Pressure, psi
1000
500
0
0
Time, Years
Usually
less
9 - 40
Example 9:2
During the last six months, the data listed below have been estimated for an
injection well. Compute the information necessary to prepare six points on a Hall
Plot.
TABLE 2
Month
pwi ,psi
p , psi
t , days
iw , BPM
1.0
2,240.0
1,300.0
11.0
11,000.0
2.0
2,270.0
1,302.0
28.0
28,000.0
3.0
2,285.0
1,304.0
30.0
30,000.0
4.0
2,290.0
1,306.0
16.0
16,000.0
5.0
2,298.0
1,308.0
31.0
31,000.0
6.0
2,312.0
1,310.0
28.0
28,000.0
Solution
If it can be assumed that the tabulated values of
pwi
and
month, then:
t
o
pwi p dt p x t
where:
p pwi p
t
TABLE 3
Month
p x t
iw
Wi
days
1.0
psi
940
11.0
psi-days x 103
10.3
BWPM
11,000.0
BW
11,000
2.0
968
28.0
37.4
28,000.0
39,000
3.0
981
30.0
66.8
30,000.0
69,000
4.0
980
16.0
82.6
16,000.0
85,000
5.0
990
31.0
113.3
31,000.0
116,000
6.0
1,002
28.0
141.4
28,000.0
144,000
9 - 42
FIGURE 9-24
HALL PLOT FOR WATER
INJECTION WELL
300
250
200
150
100
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
__________________________________________________________________
Changes in the Hall plot will occur gradually and, as in production decline curve
analysis, several months (6 or longer) of injection history may be required to reach
conclusions about injection behavior. Finally, several words of caution are in
order because changes in the slope of the Hall plot can be the result of other
factors. Early in the life of an injection well before gas fillup, the radii of the
water and oil zones will increase with cumulative injection and cause the value of
to increase resulting in the Hall plot being concave upward. Therefore, during
the gas fillup period, the increasing radii create the effect of an increasing skin
9 - 43
factor. Also, the Hall plot assumes a mobility ratio of 1.0. If the actual mobility
ratio is greater than 1.0, then after gas fillup the Hall plot tends to behave like
curve D in Figure 9-22; if the mobility ratio is less than 1.0, the Hall plot will tend
to follow curve C. Finally, as average water saturation in the reservoir increases
over time,
pwi
and
p,
does not materially change, then preparation of the Hall plot is greatly simplified.
In this situation,
constant, and
pwi
and
is
without changing the slope or its interpretative procedures. Under this condition,
the bottom-hole injection pressure,
pwi ,
pressure plus a hydrostatic gradient minus a friction loss term. These two terms
can usually be assumed constant and neglected. As a result the left hand side of
Eq. 9.14 simply becomes the integral of the wellhead injection pressure. On the
other hand, if the difference between
include
pwi and p
9 - 44
FIGURE 9-25
TWO 5-SPOT PATTERNS FROM A DEVELOPED 5-SPOT
SYSTEM WITH STREAMLINES A1 AND A2
A2
A1
Pattern 1
Pattern 2
Note the two analogous stream lines A1 and A2. Consider the time to initial water
breakthrough for patterns 1 and 2. For the patterns to be balanced, water breakthrough
at the producing well on stream lines A1 and A2 will occur at the same time. That is:
tbt1 tbt 2
(Eq. 9.15)
9 - 45
tbt1
tbt 2
Also, the time to water breakthrough is the cumulative water injected to breakthrough
divided by the average daily injection rate as shown in Eq.9.16.
Wibt1
iw1
tbt1
(Eq. 9.16)
(Eq. 5.11)
(Eq. 9.17)
iw1
V p 2 E Abt 2 ( S wbt S wc ) 2
iw2
(Eq. 9.18)
If the two patterns are similar such that variables including the fractional flow graph,
mobility ratio, average permeability, directional permeability, and stratification are
similar, then Eq. 9.18 reduces to:
V p1
iw1
Vp2
(Eq. 9.19)
iw2
or
9 - 46
iw2 V p 2
iw1 V p1
(Eq. 9.20)
Equation 9.20 indicates that water injection into various patterns or segments of the
field should be in proportion to the pore volume. For example, if a pattern contains 10
percent of the reservoir pore volume, then 10 percent of the total injection should be
into that pattern.
Several writers (References 23, 24, and 25) appear to indicate that a slight modification
to Eq. 9.20 is appropriate. These authors suggest that injection rate should be in
proportion to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, VD . That is:
iw2 VD 2
iw1 VD1
(Eq. 9.21)
where
VD V p (1 S wc Sor )
(Eq. 9.22)
and
Vp
S wc
Sor
Swir ) , fraction
VDp
VDf
iwf
(Eq. 9.23)
where
iwf
(If the connate water and waterflood residual oil saturations between the patterns are
similar, Eqs. 9.20 and 9.21 are equivalent.)
Moreover, for an ideally balanced pattern, total oil production from each pattern should
be in proportion to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume. Consider the following
example.
____________________________________________________________________
Example 9:3
Six five-spot patterns (A, B, C, D, E, and F) are shown in Figures 9-26 and 9-27. The
solid lines represent no-flow boundaries caused by the reservoir pressure distribution
and the stream lines for ideally balanced patterns. The displaceable hydrocarbon pore
volume,
VD , is tabulated below.
6,000 BWPD, determine the necessary injection and production rates to maintain a
balanced five-spot pattern in the field.
TABLE 4
Pattern
VD , Mbbls
A
B
C
D
E
F
Total
3,000
2,500
1,500
1,000
1,500
500
10,000
9 - 48
FIGURE 9-26
DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
1
10
11
9 - 49
12
FIGURE 9-27
THEORETICAL WATER INJECTION RATES
DURING AND AFTER FILLUP
TOTAL FLUID PRODUCTION RATES AFTER FILLUP
FOR BALANCED FIVE-SPOT PATTERNS
2
1
450
450
A
1500
450
450
225
225
375
150
900
225
225
225
225
150
150
150
75
75
F
900
225
600
10
375
1800
375
375
300
225
11
75
75
12
Solution
Balanced patterns require that injection and production rates into and out of each
pattern be in proportion to the pattern displaceable pore volume.
9 - 50
TABLE 5
Percent of
Pattern
VD , Mbbls
Total VD
iw , Mbbls
3,000
30
1,800
2,500
25
1,500
1,500
15
900
1,000
10
600
1,500
15
900
500
300
TABLE 6
Production Volumes From Each Pattern at Various Wells Based on Pattern Injection,
Pattern
A
B
C
D
E
F
Totals
1.0
450
0
0
0
0
0
450
2.0
450
375
0
0
0
0
825
3.0
0
375
0
0
0
0
375
4.0
450
0
225
0
0
0
675
5.0
450
375
225
150
0
0
1,200
6.0
0
375
0
150
0
0
525
7.0
0
0
225
0
225
0
450
8.0
0
0
225
150
225
75
675
9.0
0
0
0
150
0
75
225
10.0
0
0
0
0
225
0
225
11.0 12.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
225
0
75 75
300 75
Not only must the production rates be correct, the allocation of production from each
pattern must be in the manner shown. Achieving this sort of injection and withdrawal
is at best very difficult and is most likely impossible. Consequently, precise pattern
balancing is usually not possible in actual waterflood operations.
____________________________________________________________________
9 - 51
FIGURE 9-28
FIVE-SPOT PATTERN WELL ARRANGEMENT
WITH EFFECTS OF RESERVOIR LIMITS
RESERVOIR
LIMITS
Consider the problem discussed in Example 9:3 and whose injection and production
values are shown in Figure 9-27 under balanced conditions. Let us assume that due to
9 - 52
9 - 53
FIGURE 9-29
RESERVOIR PATTERN DEVELOPMENT WITH FIVE-SPOT
WELL LOCATIONS, OUTER BOUNDARY EFFECTS,
AND UNBALANCED INJECTION AND PRODUCTION
A
i
= 1000
W
= 1000
W
5
C
= 1000
= 1000
W
E
i
F
i
= 1000
W
= 1000
W
11
10
12
Nonetheless, the pore volume in each pattern (whatever the shape) can be
approximated by the percentage of the total injection rate into the pattern. Hence, for
equal injection rates, each pattern in Figure 9-29 contains approximately 16.6 percent
(1/6) of the total pore volume. It is clear that while injection and production wells may
be physically located on a five-spot (or any other arrangement), the flow patterns
which develop within the reservoir may be vastly different depending on (1) the
9 - 54
location and type (no-flow or constant pressure) of outer boundary and (2) injection
and production rates from individual wells.
The above discussion allows the determination of target injection and production rates
in terms of the field-wide injection rate, iwf At some low value of iwf , all the wells
in the project will be able to achieve the target rate, satisfying the equalities expressed
in Eq. 9.23 and leading to an ideally balanced flood. Unfortunately, the field-wide
injection rate at which all patterns can be balanced is usually below the optimum
economic injection rate. Consequently, as iwf is progressively increased, fewer and
fewer wells are able to achieve their target rate and the project becomes increasingly
unbalanced. Nevertheless, if the optimum balanced injection rates could be achieved,
then given a sufficiently long period of time, the ideally balanced flood will produce
the most recovery for the least amount of water production. For additional discussion
on this topic, please see Reference 24.
Finally, the actual pattern which may develop within each geological zone is
dependent on the number of wells completed within the zone. Consider Figure 9-30.
Initial inspection of the well location map indicates a possible developed five-spot
pattern. A more complete analysis of this flood shows the injection wells to be
completed in different zones. For example, Figure 9-31 shows the injection and
producing wells completed in Zone 1 and a possible pattern configuration. Figure 9-32
shows wells competed in Zone 2.
9 - 55
FIGURE 9-30
APPARENT FIVE-SPOT PATTERN
FIGURE 9-31
ACTUAL PATTERN IN ZONE 1
9 - 56
FIGURE 9-32
ACTUAL PATTERN IN ZONE 2
Waterflood patterns do not start injection at the same time. It is recognized that
even in a multi-patterned field, the start of injection in the different patterns takes place
at different times. Therefore, even in the ideal pattern case, events (gas fillup, water
breakthrough, etc.) will occur at different times for the different patterns. However, if
injection into each pattern and each geological layer is in proportion to the pore
volume of that pattern and geological layer, the no-flow boundaries that develop
would be similar to the no-flow boundaries for the ideal system. Of course, it is
recognized that the ideal pattern would only occur if such factors as permeability,
skin factors, and pressure drop are identical. Since this does not occur in the field, it is
likely that ideal patterns never exist within the reservoir even though the well bore
locations may give the appearance of an ideal pattern.
9 - 57
In summary, it is very difficult to predict the exact shape of a flood pattern. Many
factors determine the final shape including well location (and completion intervals),
injection and production rates, reservoir heterogeneities, and reservoir boundary
locations. Because of these complexities, some companies have elected to subdivide
the reservoir into several areal segments (which may contain several patterns) and to
simply balance overall injection and total reservoir withdrawal within each areal
segment.
V. Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
Calculation of volumetric sweep efficiency in a mature waterflood is important. It
provides an indication of the fraction of the reservoir which has been swept or not
swept by the injected water. Additional oil recovery potential exists in the unswept
portion of the reservoir. Volumetric sweep efficiency of the injected water,
Evw , is a
combination of areal sweep and vertical sweep efficiencies as illustrated in Eq. 9.24.
Evw E A Ev
(Eq.9.24)
9 - 58
Results of the analysis are dependent upon floodable pore volume, oil saturation at the
start of the waterflood, connate water saturation, and average water saturation in the
water swept portion of the reservoir. The procedure can be applied to both regular and
irregular patterns.
The method is illustrated with the use of a five-spot pattern; however, the method has
direct application for any regular or irregular pattern waterfloods after gas fillup. If a
free gas saturation does not exist at the start of injection (implementation of water
injection when reservoir pressure is above the initial bubble point pressure), the
technique may be applicable from the start of initial injection.
Figure 9-33 shows waterflood saturations early in the life of a waterflood prior to gas
fillup. The conventional water zone, oil zone, and unaffected part of the reservoir are
shown. These regions and saturations have been discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and
5 and References 27 and 28.
( S w S wbt
Sw
1 S wc
9 - 59
1 Sw
Figure 9-33
Water and Oil Banks and Unaltered Zone
Prior to Fillup in a Single Layer of a 5-Spot Pattern
Producer
Unaltered Zone
Oil Bank
Injected
Water Bank
Injector
So 1.0 S wbt
So 1.0 S wc
So 1.0 S g S wc
When the leading edge of the oil zone (or oil bank) reaches the producing well, gas
fillup is achieved as depicted in Figure 9-34.
9 - 60
Figure 9-34
Water Bank and Oil Bank
At Gas Fillup in a Single Layer
of a 5-Spot Pattern
Producer
Oil Bank
Injected
Water Bank
Injector
So 1.0 S wbt
So 1.0 S wc
Figure 9-35 depicts the position of the water zone and oil zone after water
breakthrough. Note that after gas fillup, the oil remaining in the reservoir resides in
the water zone and oil zone.
volumetric material balance equation on the reservoir oil which can be solved to
determine volumetric sweep efficiency of the injected water.
9 - 61
Figure 9-35
Oil and Water Banks in a Single Layer
after Water Breakthrough
Producer
Oil Bank
Water Bank
Injector
S o= 1.0 - Sw
S o= 1.0 - Swc
Figure 9-36 depicts a multi-layered reservoir prior to reservoir fillup. In Figure 9-36
certain layers have reached gas fillup but the reservoir as a whole has not achieved
fillup.
9 - 62
Figure 9-36
Stratified Reservoir Showing Flood Front Banks
before Reservoir Fillup
PRODUCER
INJECTOR
Oil
Bank
Unaltered
Zone
Injected
Water
Bank
With continued injection, gas fillup is obtained in all significant layers possessing
permeability and porosity values greater than the net pay cutoff values as depicted in
Figure 9-37. (Reservoir fillup can be characterized by a period of stable producing
GOR after falling from a higher GOR value early in the life of the waterflood project.)
Figure 9-37 shows that water breakthrough has occurred in some layers and water
breakthrough has not occurred in other layers.
technique proposed in the Cobb and Marek paper assumes that gas fillup has been
9 - 63
achieved in all layers. Also, the oil remaining in the reservoir is located in the water
swept portion of the reservoir and the oil bank portion of the reservoir as illustrated in
Figure 9-37.
Figure 9-37
Stratified Reservoir after Reservoir
Fillup
Oil
Bank
INJECTOR
PRODUCER
Injected
Water
Bank
With the above mentioned assumptions, it is possible to write the following material
balance:
9 - 64
(Oil in place at start of waterflooding) = (Produced oil since the start of injection)
+ (Oil currently in reservoir)
(Eq. 9.25)
where:
V p So
, STBO
(Eq. 9.26)
N p , STBO
(Eq. 9.27)
Bo
Following reservoir gas fillup as illustrated in Figure 9-37, it is possible to show that:
(Oil currently in reservoir) = (Oil in water bank) + (Oil in oil bank)
and
V p Evw (1.0 S w )
Bo
, STBO
(Eq. 9.28)
, STBO
Substituting Eqs. 9.26, 9.27, 9.28, and 9.29 into Eq. 9.25 and solving for
N p Bo
Evw
If
Vp
(Eq. 9.29)
1.0 So S wc
(Eq. 9.30)
S w S wc
Evw to N p .
That is:
Evw G HN p
(Eq. 9.31)
where
Sg
1.0 S wc So
S w S wc
S w S wc
(Eq. 9.32)
Bo
V p ( S w S wc )
(Eq. 9.33)
and
Equation 9.31 shows that the volumetric sweep of the injected water,
function of the oil production, N p . Further,
gas fillup if
negligible changes in
Bo
Sor
S wbt
Sw
First,
Sw
can
approximate
Evw , is a linear
Swbt
to
1.0 Sor .
Sw
(Eq. 9.34)
9 - 66
waterflood operations can be estimated from decline curve analysis, the volumetric
sweep efficiency plot, or Eq. 9.30, can be used to compute ultimate volumetric sweep
efficiency.
Example 9:4
A large multi-layered sandstone reservoir is under waterflood. At the start of injection,
the reservoir pressure was below the initial bubble point pressure. However, the
waterflood has responded favorably. Cumulative oil recovery to date since the start of
water injection is 40,000 MSTBO.
remaining oil recovery under current operations is 5,000 MSTBO. Key reservoir fluid
saturations and oil properties at the start of water injection, floodable pore volume, and
production values since the start of water injection are summarized below.
9 - 67
TABLE 7
= 22 percent
Gas Saturation
= 8 percent
Oil Saturation
= 70 percent
Oil Viscosity
= 0.3 cp
= 31 percent
= 1.57
Total Unit
Pore Volume
= 350,000 MB
= 40,000
= 0.552
= 5,000 MB
= 45,000
Ultimate Volumetric
Operations (Eq. 9.30)
Sweep
Efficiency
under
Current = 0.600
9 - 68
TABLE 8
HISTORICAL PRODUCTION AND VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY
Cumulative Oil Production, MSTB
30000
0.46
35000
0.50
40000
0.55
Figure 9-38
26.0 MMSTB
Evw 0.85
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9 - 69
The calculated current volumetric sweep is 55.2 percent and the calculated ultimate
volumetric sweep efficiency under current operations is approximately 60 percent. This
means that at the economic limit under current operations, 40 percent of the reservoir
will not have been swept by the injected water. Moreover, conventional waterflooding
theory27,28 indicates that the oil saturation in this unswept part of the reservoir will be
equal to
1.0 Swc .
S w , were reassessed.
Sensitivity Analysis
Net pay determination. The floodable pore volume of 350,000 MBO as shown in the
Table 7 was originally computed using a six percent porosity cutoff. While this value
may accurately depict the oil-in-place that contributes to primary production, the six
percent porosity cutoff value was deemed too low to compute net pay for the
waterflood project. A reevaluation of net pay under water flood operations using the
water-cut methodology described in Chapter 3, indicated a permeability cutoff which
translated to a porosity cutoff of 10 percent. Using this higher cutoff value, revised
floodable pore volume calculations resulted in approximately a 25 percent reduction in
9 - 70
pore volume.
efficiency were computed for this sandstone reservoir. Figure 9-39 presents these
revised calculations.
9 - 71
Figure 9-39
Evw 0.85
0.8
0.6
10% Porosity Cutoff
6% Porosity Cutoff
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
waterflood (and throughout the life) is 0.3 cp. This low oil viscosity results in a
favorable mobility ratio and a fractional flow graph which gives piston-like
displacement.
estimated to be
1.0 Sor .
Sw ,
percent, yielding an average water saturation in the water swept portion of the reservoir
of 69 percent. This 69 percent value is used in Figures 9-38 and 9-39. However, some
limited data indicated the residual oil saturation could be as high as 36 percent, giving
an average water saturation in the swept zone of only 64 percent.
Using a floodable pore volume which has been reduced by 25 percent (based on the 10
percent porosity cutoff) and an average water saturation of 64 percent in the swept
zone,
Evw values were recomputed from Eq. 9.30 and results are presented in Figure
9-40.
Figure 9-40
8.4
MMSTB
Evw 0.85
0.8
0.6
Residual Oil
Saturation = 36%
Residual Oil
Saturation = 31%
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
9 - 73
For these new conditions, the current volumetric sweep efficiency is 76 percent and that
the sweep efficiency at a recovery of 45,000 MSTBO will be 84 percent. If the
maximum practical volumetric sweep efficiency is only 85 percent, there appears to be
very little recovery to be gained through infill work.
This example illustrates an application of the method on a field wide basis. However,
the method could be applied to a smaller area of the field such as a single pattern or a
group of patterns.
______________________________________________________________________
For unfavorable fractional flow graphs in which piston displacement is not valid,
volumetric sweep efficiency is not a linear function of cumulative oil production as
assumed in the previous example. For non-piston displacement, the average water
saturation in Eq. 9.30 is a function of cumulative water injected (and therefore time). In
this situation, it is more difficult to determine average water saturation.
As an
approximation, it may be possible to take the water cut from the pattern or area of the
field under study and relate that to an average water saturation from the fractional flow
curve using the tangent line methodology discussed in Chapter 4. If average water
saturation can be computed as a function of water cut (or WOR), then volumetric sweep
can be computed versus WOR. Further, if future oil recovery can be estimated from
WOR versus
Np
WOR values.
The following observations can be made regarding this volumetric sweep method.
A procedure is presented that allows for the determination of volumetric sweep
efficiency of a waterflood based upon waterflood principles after gas fillup for
both regular and irregular patterns, including the effects of water influx..
The technique utilizes data that can be estimated from oil production records,
geological information, core analysis, and fluid property data.
9 - 74
The method provides a basis for computing current and ultimate volumetric sweep
efficiency under existing waterflood operations using only oil production data.
The procedure requires reliable estimates of floodable pore volume and average
water saturation in the water swept zone.
(Injection Rate)i-Layer
(kh)i-Layer
(kh)All-Layers
(Eq. 9.35)
Thin, high
permeability intervals serve as highly conductive streaks or channels for the injected
water. These channels prevent efficient flooding of the other zones. Core and log
analysis may give valuable clues as to the probability of this occurrence, but in many
instances, injection history is required to verify channeling. Accordingly, injection
water seeks the zones of highest permeability, but to flood all layers simultaneously,
water should be injected into each layer based upon the displaceable hydrocarbon
pore volume,
hShc .
conform to:
9 - 75
(Injection Rate)i-Layer
( hShc )i-Layer
( hShc )All-Layers
(Eq. 9.36)
where
Shc
1 Swc Sor
Shc
Exceptions include thick reservoirs of low permeability which possess large water
saturation transition zones as governed by capillary pressure relationships or zones
with significantly different values of
Sor .
If
Shc
(Injection Rate)i-Layer
( h)i-Layer
( h)All-Layers
(Eq. 9.37)
A comparison of Eqs. 9.35 and 9.37 more clearly explains the stratification problem.
Injection rates tend to be governed by Eq. 9.35, but to achieve uniform flood front
movement in all layers and to maximize vertical sweep efficiency at low WOR
values, injection rates should conform to Eq. 9.37. Figures 9-41 and 9-42 depict
waterflood front position when injection conforms to flow capacity and displaceable
pore volume, respectively.
efficiency and recovery efficiency are achieved when the injection rate into each zone
is in proportion to hShc of the zone.
9 - 76
FIGURE 9-41
WATER INJECTION INTO A STRATIFIED SYSTEM
BASED ON ZONE kh
kh
percent of total
40
30
15
10
FIGURE 9-42
WATER INJECTION INTO A STRATIFIED SYSTEM
BASED ON ZONE PORE VOLUME
hShc
percent of total
14
26
25
18
17
9 - 77
Shc
9 - 78
for
43
9 - 79
FIGURE 9-44
TYPICAL INJECTION PROFILE
Injection Rate Percentage Analysis
4900
0%
25%
50%
25%
50%
10%
15%
5000
0%
9 - 80
75%
100%
Figures 9-45, 9-46, and 9-47 present useful bar charts which allow the operations
engineer a visual means of comparing actual injection profiles with ideal profiles
based on hShc .
Figure 9-45
INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL
IDEAL PROFILE
Z-1
20%
Z-2
30%
Z-3
18%
32%
Z-4
0
Initial Inj.
7-1-98
Date ______________
25
iw = ___________
50
Pwi = ___________psi
IDEAL Based on hS hc
Inj. Profile ___________________________________________________
9 - 81
Figure 9-46
INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL
ACTUAL vs IDEAL 7/1/01
12
Z-1
20%
Z-2
44%
Z-3
34%
10
32%
Z-4
0
7-1-01
Date _______
25
50
1000
800
625
iw = ______B/D
Pwi = ______psi
Cum Inj. ________
MBW
0
Previous Inj. Survey _____________
Cum Inj @ Last Survey _______
MBW
1000
Cum Inj. Since Last Survey __________MBW
9 - 82
Figure 9-47
INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL
ACTUAL vs IDEAL 10/1/04
16
Z-1
20%
26
Z-2
30%
Z-3
34%
32%
Z-4
0
Date 10-1-04
_______
25
50
1900
600
770
iw = ______B/D
Pwi = ______psi
Cum Inj. ________
MBW
7/1/01
1000 MBW
Previous Inj. Survey _____________
Cum Inj @ Last Survey _______
900
Cum Inj. Since Last Survey __________MBW
9 - 83
hShc .
zone, flood front maps (bubble maps) can easily be constructed. Injection profile tests
will pay substantial dividends as they lead to increased vertical sweep and ultimate
recovery. Perhaps the single most valuable tool for monitoring waterflood operations
is the injection survey. It tells us where the injected water is entering the formation.
Without this knowledge, it becomes very difficult (impossible?) to perform
meaningful production or reservoir engineering calculations using either analytical or
numerical simulation procedures.
IX. Alteration of Injection Profiles
It is beyond the scope of this course to discuss all the methods of altering or changing
injection profiles. Most service companies are capable of providing technical expertise
on this issue. Some of the techniques which have been successfully used in the industry
include:
selective perforating
low pressure squeeze cementing
acidizing
thief zone blockage through injection of fine grain sand
thief zone blockage through injection of certain polymers
9 - 84
CO2 injection.
9 - 85
FIGURE 9-48
RADIAL WATER AND OIL BANKS
OIL
re
WATER
The outer radius of the oil bank can be computed from Eq. 4.37.
1
5.615Wi Einj 2
re
h S g
where:
re
= porosity, fraction
(Eq. 4.37)
The
Wi
thickness
Sg
Wi
Einj
h.
injection surveys and/or rock properties of the layer such as permeability and porosity.
Further, based on numerical simulation history matches of actual waterflood
performance and from field observations, it is generally recognized that actual
production performance is less than anticipated performance.
This difference is
Einj , takes
into account this lost water phenomenon. Injection efficiency values generally range
from 0.5 to 0.9 but they are difficult to precisely quantify. In thick, heterogeneous, low
permeability formations,
Einj
value of 0.50 to 0.75 may be expected in carbonate reservoirs, whereas for thin, clean
and continuous sands, a value of 0.75 to 0.90 could be expected. Further, it has been
observed that injection efficiency into the pay zones may increase with time. For
example, early in the life of a waterflood, the injection efficiency may be in the order of
40 to 50 percent whereas by the time fillup occurs in most zones, the overall efficiency
may increase to 70 to 80 percent. The injection efficiency will be dependent on
reservoir conditions including the presence of natural or induced fractures, injection
above fracture pressures, presence of leaking faults, gas cap injection, loss to inactive
aquifers, the presence of porous but laterally discontinuous zones, and mechanical
integrity of the injection well bores.
9 - 87
If all of the injection water is assumed to remain within the water bank, the water bank
radius can be estimated from Eq. 4.41:
1
2
Sg
r re
S wbt S wc
(Eq. 4.41)
where:
Swbt
S wc
Inspection of both Eqs. 4.37 and 4.41 indicates that distance to the various fronts is
dependent on the gas saturation,
Sg .
using the following water material balance relationship present in Eq. 4.38.
1
2
5.615 Wi Einj
r
h
S
S
wbt
wc
(Eq. 4.38)
5.615 Wi Einj
h 1.0 Sor S wc
where:
9 - 88
and:
(Eq. 9.38)
Sor
Bubble maps should be updated each six months for the first two years of a flood and
on an annual basis thereafter. Further, bubble maps should be constructed on each of
the major identifiable and correlatable intervals as previously discussed.
The use of bubble maps provides certain obvious benefits. First, they graphically
delineate portions of the reservoir that need additional injection or curtailed injection.
Secondly, bubble maps help identify areas within the reservoir that would support infill
drilling opportunities. After water breakthrough, front shapes are more difficult to
construct.
Frequently, bubble maps are manually constructed. However, in larger fields, the
procedures are computerized. In some instances, bubble maps are generated using
numerical or front tracking simulation models. Simulation models provide certain
advantages over the conventional manual graphs because they can more easily account
for variations in variables which effect fluid movement including porosity, thickness,
directional permeability, irregular well locations, and pressure differentials between
wells, incorporate the effects of offset wells, and account for flood front movement
after water breakthrough in offset wells.
The utility of profile management and bubble map monitoring early in the life of an
injection well is illustrated with an example.
______________________________________________________________________
Example 9:5
Bubble Map Construction
An injection well with injection profiles described in Figures 9-45, 9-46, and 9-47 has
been subdivided into four zones (Z-1, Z-2, Z-3 and Z-4) for surveillance purposes.
Given the following rock properties and fluid saturations, estimate the radius to the
water and oil banks as of 7/1/01 when 1,000 MB of water had been injected.
9 - 89
Sg
= 14 percent
S wc
= 25 percent
Swbt
= 55 percent
Einj
= 80 percent
24.4
26.4
18.0
15.6
18.0
25.0
22.0
45.0
Date: 7/1/01
Layer
Z-1
Z-2
Z-3
Z-4
Injection
Water Injection
12.0
44.0
34.0
10.0
120.0
440.0
340.0
100.0
re*(Eq. 4.37)
feet
528.0
825.0
936.0
382.0
r(Eq. 4.41)
360.0
564.0
639.0
261.0
* Einj = 80%
The flood fronts for each layer are presented graphically in Figure 9-49
9 - 90
FIGURE 9-49
FLOOD FRONTS FOR FOUR GEOLOGICAL ZONES
AS OF 7/1/01
1000 FEET
re
Z-1
528
Z-2
825
Z-3
936
Z-4
382
0
1,000
______________________________________________________________________
XI. Injection Analysis
This section provides a general method23 for analyzing water injection behavior in a
mature waterflood. The displaceable hydrocarbon saturation,
DHS 1 S wc Sor
(Eq. 9.39)
where
S wc
Sor
9 - 91
DHPV V p (1 S wc Sor )
(Eq. 9.40)
where
Vp
______________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 9:6
At the start of waterflooding, the oil, gas, and connate water saturations are 55 percent,
10 percent, and 35 percent respectively. The irreducible water saturation is 22 percent
and the residual oil saturation is 38 percent. The floodable pore volume is 20 million
barrels. Compute the
DHPV .
DHPV V p (1 S wc Sor )
Substituting:
DHPV 5.4MMB
______________________________________________________________________
Consider a bounded or closed reservoir or pattern in which:
there is no influx or efflux out of the pore volume
there is no loss of injected water to non-oil pay zones
there is negligible change in the oil formation volume factor.
For these assumptions at reservoir conditions, one net barrel of injected water results in
one net barrel of produced hydrocarbons. Moreover, the maximum net water which
9 - 92
can be injected during the waterflood operation is equal to the displaceable hydrocarbon
pore volume. That is:
(Eq. 9.41)
where
Wi
Wp
Bw
Define the net displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume injected, VD , as the ratio of net
water injected to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume. That is:
VD
or
VD
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
(Eq. 9.43)
( S g 0)
At the start of injection (when Wi = 0), the produced oil at that instant is the result
of a primary drive mechanism and is denoted by a primary recovery factor,
( RF ) p .
9 - 93
( E A EV 1.0)
VD
( RF ) I
Sor ,
( RF )i
So Sor
So
the
where
(Eq. 9.44)
where
VD
is 1.0.
( RF ) F ( RF ) p ( RF ) I
(Eq. 9.45)
Because each net barrel of injected water results on one barrel of produced oil when
measured at reservoir conditions, a coordinate graph of
RF
a straight line. This type of graph has been called a conformance plot in References
8 and 9. References 24 and 25 refer to these graphs as a Staggs plot because such
plots were first presented in Reference 23.
9 - 94
_____________________________________________________________________
Example 9:7
An oil reservoir whose reservoir pressure is above the initial bubble point pressure
( S g 0)
injection,
( RF ) p , is 4 percent.
Bo
RF
( RF ) F ( RF ) p ( RF ) I
from Eq. 9.44
( RF ) I
1 S wc Sor
1 S wc
( RF ) I
1 0.35 0.30
1 0.35
and
( RF ) I 0.54
Finally:
( RF ) F 0.04 0.54
9 - 95
( RF ) F 0.58
For
= 0 and for
( RF ) F of 0.58,
Figure 9-50
Ideal Reservoir Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
( RF ) F
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
( RF ) p
0
0
0.2
VD
0.4
0.6
0.8
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
_____________________________________________________________________
9 - 96
Once the
RF
data can be plotted on the same graph and a comparison with the theoretical
performance can be made. Reference 23 indicates that when field data are plotted on
the theoretical graph, the field data frequently deviate from the theoretical line. If it is
assumed that the theoretical line is correct (that is if
V p , S wc , Sor , and W p
are
correct), the departure of the field data from the straight line can be used to infer (1)
the loss of injection out of zone, (2) water influx, or (3) inter-pattern flow as
illustrated in Figure 9-51.
9 - 97
Figure 9-51
Injection Analysis Showing Effect of
Eflux/Influx into Pore Volume
0.6
0.5
Inflow of Oil or Water
from Outside of V p
0.4
Theoretical
0.3
Loss of Oil or Injected
Water Outside of V p
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
VD
0.6
0.8
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 9:8
A waterflood project was initiated when the reservoir pressure was above the bubble
point pressure. Pressure has been maintained such that changes in fluid properties
9 - 98
( Bo
and
o ) are negligible.
24.5 MMB and the cumulative produced water is 16.0 MMB. Compute the water
Eing ,
injection efficiency,
Vp .
tabulated below.
Bw
= 1.0 RB/STB
Sor
= 36 percent
Bo
= 1.35 RB/STB
( RF ) p
= 6 percent
S wc
= 32 percent
( RF ) I
= 47.1 percent
So
= 68 percent
( RF ) F
= 53.1 percent
Vp
= 31,250 MBW
RF
and VD are
tabulated below:
TABLE 9
The theoretical
values of
RF
RF
and
VD
RF
VD
RF
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.060
0.072
0.093
0.115
0.137
0.154
0.164
0.173
0.191
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.207
0.219
0.230
0.242
0.254
0.269
0.275
0.290
0.300
versus
VD
VD
are also plotted on Figure 9-52. Note the actual points fall
below the theoretical line. By comparing Figure 9-52 with Figure 9-51, it appears
that injected water is being lost from the pore volume,
9 - 99
Vp .
VD
VD
Eing * Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
or
0.51
or
Eing 0.861
This analysis illustrates that 14 percent of the injected water is being lost outside of
the pore volume, V p .
9 - 100
Figure 9-52
Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
0.6
0.5
0.4
Theoretical
0.3
0.2
Actual
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
VD
0.6
0.8
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
______________________________________________________________________
B. Analysis With Free Gas
( S g 0)
RF
versus
VD
graph when
there is negligible gas. As mentioned throughout this manual, it is likely that at the
start of injection most projects possess a free gas saturation. Accordingly, this
9 - 101
generalized injection analysis graph needs to be modified to account for free gas. If
the free gas saturation at the start of injection is
Wif V p S g
(Eq. 4.33)
VD
VDF
VpSg
(Eq. 9.46)
V p (1 S wc Sor )
or
VDF
Sg
(Eq. 9.47)
1 S wc Sor
Assume that oil production during the fillup period is negligibly small. During
reservoir fillup,
RF
VD
increases from 0 to
VDF
( RF ) p .
barrel of injection, there will be one barrel of oil produced when measured at
reservoir conditions. As a result, after fillup, there is a linear relationship between
RF
value,
and
VD .
Finally, when
VD
9 - 102
RF
_____________________________________________________________________
Example 9:9
For the reservoir system described in Example 9:8, assume that at the start of
injection, a gas saturation of 10 percent is present. Construct a
graph. Assume that before and after fillup, the change in
At the start of injection,
( RF ) p is 6 percent and
So 1 S wc S g
So 1 0.32 0.10
So 0.58
The final recovery factor from Eq. 9.45 is:
( RF ) F ( RF ) p ( RF ) I
from Eq. 9.44
( RF ) I
So Sor
So
( RF ) I
0.58 0.36
0.58
or
( RF ) I 0.379
9 - 103
RF
versus
Bo is negligible.
VD
( RF ) F 0.060 0.379
( RF ) F 0.439 or 43.9%
[As a side note, observe that the
( RF ) F
( RF ) F
VDF
VDF
Sg
1 S wc Sor
0.10
1 0.32 0.36
VDF 0.312
Figure 9-53 is a graph of
RF
versus
VD .
RF
line for the case of no gas saturation is shown on the upper dashed line.
9 - 104
versus
VD
FIGURE 9-53
Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
0.6
0.5
0.4
Sg 0
0.3
0.2
S g 10%
0.1
0.312
0
0
0.2
VD
0.4
0.6
0.8
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
_____________________________________________________________________
The solid line of Figure 9-53 assumes a homogeneous reservoir.
In practice,
reservoirs are comprised of multiple layers of varying pore volumes and permeability.
As a result, fillup of the most permeable layer occurs first with fillup of the tight
zones occurring last. As a result, the
reservoir fillup.
RF
stratification.
9 - 105
_____________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 9:10
Injection Efficiency Calculation
An oil reservoir has been waterflooded for 20 years. Given the tabulated data,
construct the RF versus VD graph, and compute the injection efficiency.
OOIP
S wc
20 percent
So
Sg
16 percent
Sor
36 percent
Bo
Bob
1.27 RB/STB
N pp
( RF ) p
9 - 106
TABLE 10
YR
Wi ,MBW
W p ,MBW
N p ,STBO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
603
2,264
3,952
5,515
7,353
9,238
12,081
14,791
17,235
19,918
22,667
25,347
27,740
29,882
32,760
35,68
37,587
40,071
42,593
44,210
0
1
1
8
22
56
93
176
382
721
1,205
1,742
2,327
3,083
4,046
4,858
5,715
6,861
8,080
9,213
5,805
5,956
6,110
6,314
6,747
7,363
8,045
8,956
9,835
10,620
11,433
12,04
13,115
14,105
15,157
16,035
16,801
17,397
17,900
18,312
The
( RF ) F
( RF ) F ( RF ) p ( RF ) I
( RF ) F 0.116
0.64 0.36
0.64
( RF ) F 0.554
At gas fillup, VDF from Eq. 9.47 is:
9 - 107
VDF
VDF
Sg
1 S wc Sor
0.16
1 0.20 0.36
VDF 0.364
These calculations can be summarized as follows:
RF ,%
VD
0.000
0.364
1.000
11.6
11.6
55.4
These three points define the horizontal and diagonal parts of the injection efficiency
graph shown in Figure 9-54.
9 - 108
FIGURE 9-54
Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
VDF 0.364
0
0.00
0.25
VD
Next,
RF
versus
VD
0.50
0.75
1.00
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
9 - 109
TABLE 11
YR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
RF
VD
0.117
0.120
0.124
0.128
0.136
0.149
0.163
0.181
0.199
0.214
0.231
0.246
0.265
0.285
0.306
0.324
0.339
0.351
0.361
0.369
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
0.018
0.66
0.114
0.159
0.212
0.265
0.346
0.422
0.487
0.554
0.620
0.681
0.733
0.773
0.829
0.886
0.920
0.958
0.996
1.010
9 - 110
FIGURE 9-55
Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
VDF 0.364
0
0.00
0.25
VD
0.50
0.75
1.00
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
The data points tend to lie to the right of the diagonal line. After 20 years the actual
RF
RF , a value of VD
VD
9 - 111
VD
Wi Einj W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
At 20 years:
0.73
and
Einj 0.78
From this analysis, it can be concluded that at least 22 percent of the injected water is
lost to thief zones.
injection efficiency,
Re-compute
VD
9 - 112
Wi
by the
TABLE 12
YR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
RF
VD
0.78Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
0.117
.120
0.124
0.28
0.136
0.149
0.163
0.181
0.199
0.214
0.231
0.246
0.265
0.285
0.306
0.324
0.339
0.351
0.361
0.369
0.014
0.051
0.089
0.124
0.165
0.207
0.270
0.328
0.377
0.428
0.476
0.520
0.557
0.584
0.621
0.661
0.681
0.704
0.725
0.729
Re-plot the adjusted data on the theoretical graph as shown in Figure 9-56. Finally, if
a straight line is constructed which connects the end point
RF s, an obtuse triangle
is created within which the data points should fall. It is noted in Figure 9-56 that the
RF
9 - 113
FIGURE 9-56
Recovery Factor
vs
Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
VDF 0.364
0
0.00
0.25
VD
0.50
0.75
1.00
Wi W p Bw
V p (1 S wc Sor )
_____________________________________________________________________
C. Numerical Simulation
A theoretical graph of
RF
versus
VD
Sg ,
and
Sor
between layers.
This plot would be nonlinear and concave upward until reservoir fillup but would
become a straight line after fillup.
XII. Water Testing Program
In the early days of waterflooding, only the quantity of water was considered, not
quality. As waterflooding projects increased in number and as waterfloods matured, the
petroleum industry began to notice that higher injection pressures were required to
maintain desired injection rates and that corrosion problems increased. More recently,
it has become clearly evident that water quality is as important as water
quantity34,35,36,37.
precipitates which cause reservoir plugging and thus lowers injection rates.
9 - 115
B. Microbiological Growth
The control of colonies of one-celled animals and plants is of concern to operators
attempting to maintain suitable water for injection. Aerobic, anaerobic, fungi, and
algae growths will cause reservoir and equipment plugging. Major emphasis is
required to control sulfate-reducing bacteria. The presence of the sulfate ion is
essential for the growth and reproduction of these colonies which in turn cause
plugging. The sulfate ion reacts with the bacteria to create a sulfide ion which in
turn reacts with iron. Iron sulfide is a serious plugging material. A by-product of
the reaction is
C. Minerals
Water should be checked for mineral content. Some form of iron is one of the most
common plugging agents encountered in injection wells.
desirable in any water. Sulfates are also of interest; they lead to substantial amounts
of deposition. Chlorides are the primary indication of salinity or the strength of the
brine or the presence of fresh water. Chloride tests can be used to track the progress
of a waterflood. Also, barium is a difficult and troublesome mineral. Barium
sulfate is difficult to remove.
9 - 116
E. Produced Water
Water sample analysis is also important in production wells and can assist in a
waterflood surveillance program. Samples should be collected and analyzed on a
regular basis (semi-annually).
9 - 117
FIGURE 9-57
EXAMPLE PIE CHART SHOWING EXISTING
PERFORATIONS
Z-1
Z-4
Z-2
Z-3
Lease
Lines
Open Perforations
Closed or No Perforations
It is observed that the center injection well and three of the corner producers are
completed in Zones 1, 3, and 4. The producer in the lower right corner is completed
only in Zones 2 and 4. Pie charts such as these when updated on an annual basis
provide a quick reference to the existing and historical perforations of a well and the
entire field.
9 - 118
The wells
should be clearly marked so that when the map is placed on the wall, it can be
easily read by someone standing 10 to 15 feet away. Avoid trying to put too
much data on this map; i.e., well trajectory, injection or production rates,
shallow or deep well completions. The idea is to have a simple clean map
showing the well locations without any clutter.
2. Re-evaluate net pay, permeability, porosity, water saturation, and shale
volume cutoffs and update the geological model with pore volume being
computed for small areas of the field, such as patterns, for each flow unit.
This should be done on a regular basis (at least every two years) and
incorporate the data collected as part of the monitoring discussed throughout
this section. Any new data (log, core, pressures) collected as part of a drilling
program should be immediately incorporated into the geologic model.
3. Conduct production well tests on a regular basis. Ideally, well tests should be
conducted two times per month with each test lasting at least six to eight
hours. Calibrate test equipment, as needed, to ensure test results are reliable.
9 - 119
measure all fluids, oil, gas and water. Free gas production, in particular, is
often overlooked but can contribute significantly to reservoir voidage
problems.
4. Keep the fluid levels in the producing wells in a pumped off condition. This
is a Golden Rule in waterflooding. By keeping the fluid levels pumped down,
bottom hole producing pressure can be minimized, throughput rates can be
increased, waterflood recovery is accelerated, primary production from
discontinuous or low permeability sands not responding to injection can be
maximized, and decline curve analysis becomes more reliable. Fluid levels
should be recorded at the same time as the well is being tested so that this
information is compatible.
5. Prepare production rate vs. time graphs for each well. These plots should be
simple with the results being graphed on Cartesian paper. The idea is to plot
the data such that it can be viewed and not distorted by a logarithmic scale.
The key data to be shown on the plot is oil production rate, water production
rate, GOR, and reservoir voidage. Reservoir voidage should take into account
any free gas production. Individual well graphs require frequent and reliable
production tests.
6. Prepare graphs of oil production rate versus cumulative oil production for
each well on a linear scale. This rate versus cumulative plot is equivalent to
rate versus time on semi log paper; it eliminates the log scale, and allows the
analyst to more clearly note changes in oil production. When using this graph
for extrapolating purposes to estimate future oil recovery, considerable care
must be used because in a reservoir in which gas fillup has been achieved, oil
production decline rates can be altered by changing water injection rates.
9 - 120
That is to say, the oil rate and water rate are directly related to the injection
rate.
7. The GOR (not gas rate) versus time plot is one of the best tools for identifying
when reservoir gas fill-up has occurred. At gas fill-up, the GOR will have
declined to the solution GOR evaluated at the reservoir pressure at the start of
injection.
8. Plot WOR versus cumulative oil production on a semi-log graph for each
well. To determine ultimate recovery at different WOR values, utilize and
extrapolate those data points in which the WOR is greater than approximately
1.5 to 2.0. After gas fillup, changes in water injection rate impact both the oil
and water production rates in the same percentage. Consequently, changes in
the injection rate from established injectors should not alter estimates of
future oil recovery obtained by the WOR plot. However, if new injection
wells are placed in service, they may distort the volumetric sweep pattern of
the prior injectors. If this occurs, estimates of future oil production at a given
water oil ratio may change.
9. Annotate all production and injection plots for each well by noting significant
events that can affect production trends including pump changes, well
stimulations, perforation changes, drilling of offset production or injection
wells, or changing offset well injection rates.
10. Prepare a linear graph showing recovery factor (RF) since the start of water
injection versus hydrocarbon pore volumes injected (HPVI). Compare actual
RF versus HPVI from small segments of the field, such as a pattern, with the
RF versus HPVI for the entire field. This graph provides a comparison of
how the small segment of the field is performing relative to the total field. If
a numerical simulation model for the field exists, compare field RF versus
HPVI with RF versus HPVI developed in the simulator.
9 - 121
11. Prepare a voidage replacement ratio (VRR) plot versus time for each pattern,
each flow unit, and for the entire field. Remember, pattern totals may contain
fractions of certain wells contribution if an individual well is in more than
one pattern. In preparing this graph, the analyst should account for free gas
production and recognized that water injection efficiency will probably be no
more than about 80 percent. When accounting for free gas production and
water injection efficiency, if the resulting VRR is greater than 1.0, reservoir
pressure is increasing. If the VRR is less than 1.0, reservoir pressure is
declining unless there is water influx from the aquifer. Clearly, it should be
realized that, when looking at the field as a whole, the reservoir pressure
could be increasing or decreasing, but in localized areas, reservoir pressure
may be just the reverse.
12. If the injection pressure is constant during gas fillup, the water injection rate
will decline over time for all values of the mobility ratio.
13. If pressure between the injector and producer well is constant after gas fillup,
injection rate will decline, remain constant, or will increase if the mobility
ratio (MR) is less than 1.0, is equal to 1.0, or is greater than 1.0 respectively.
Changes in water injection rate directly affect oil production rate and water
production rate. Caution is urged in the use of conventional decline curves
when projecting future recoverable oil and gas volumes because the rate of
decline is directly affected by the injection rate and injection rate is directly
related to mobility ratio.
14. Maintain a graph of water injection rate and well head injection pressure for
each well in the field. If equipment is not in place to monitor at the wellhead
on a daily basis, well tests should be performed at least twice a month using
the production well testing standards discussed in point 3. These tests should
be used to allocate monthly injection volumes.
9 - 122
15. Conduct pressure buildup (PBU) and pressure falloff (PFT) tests on 1/4th to
1/5th of the producing and injection wells each year. This means that each
well is tested at least once every 4 to 5 years. These pressure tests provide the
best estimates of average reservoir pressure and indicate how pressure is
changing with time. These tests also give the best indicators of wellbore skin
damage and wellbore permeability.
16. Perform injection profile surveys (PLTs) on new injection wells after three
months, six months, and 12 months of injection. Thereafter, run surveys on
an annual basis for the next three years and then at least one survey every two
years. These surveys provide critical information on where the injection
water is going. If the engineer or geoscientist does not know how much water
is entering the various flow units, it is very difficult for that person to perform
reliable reservoir management calculations. Frequent surveys are needed due
to the fact that the injection profiles change over time if the skin factor
changes, if new wells are drilled, or if MR is not equal to 1.0.
17. Immediately following the PLTs in the injection wells, shut those wells in for
five to seven days and obtain a pressure falloff test. Following the pressure
falloff test, conduct a step rate test starting with low injection rates and
gradually increasing to higher values. This test gives the best opportunity to
determine the reservoir pressure at that time.
18. Maintain a Hall plot on each injection well to identify possible changes in the
injection well skin factor. Remember, the routinely constructed Hall plot
assumes gas fillup has been completed, average reservoir pressure is constant,
and MR is 1.0. If reservoir pressure is gradually increasing, this change in
pressure creates the effect of a positive skin.
9 - 123
Variable
19. In a pattern waterflood, inject into each pattern in proportion to the pore
volume. (Unfortunately nature honors KH and not pore volume).
20. Construct injection efficiency plots as described in Section XI. These plots
provide an indication as to the amount of injected water that goes out of zone.
Results are strongly dependent on the accuracy of pore volume, residual oil
saturation to waterflooding, and initial connate water saturation.
XV. Project Review
The most important part of a reservoir monitoring program in primary or waterflood
operations is a well review conference.
meetings is to review injection and production behavior for individual wells and the
field as a whole. Another purpose is to ensure free exchange of information from all
parties, discuss the status of previous well recommendations, propose future well
work, and address general injection, production, and well testing issues. Each well in
the project should be reviewed at least one time per year. Problem wells should be
reviewed more frequently. These well reviews should help to ensure that each well is
operating in the most efficient manner.
9 - 124
The project review builds and maintains a good working relationship between the
engineers and field personnel. This close relationship serves to promote teamwork,
smooth operations, and improved recovery.
9 - 125
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
1. Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, (June 1980), pp. 1965-1077.
2. Lo, K.K., Warner, H.R., and Johnson, J.B.: A Study of Post-Breakthrough
Characteristics of Waterfloods, SPE Paper 20064 presented at 60th California
Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, April 1990.
3. Yortsas, Y.C., Choi, Y., Yang, Z, and Shah, P.C.: Analysis and Interpretation of
Water/Oil Ratio in Waterfloods, SPE Journal, (December 1999), p. 413.
4. Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: A Method for Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery
Curves, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1978), p. 203.
5. Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.: A Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes
Using Field Performance Data, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April 1984), p.
664.
6. Ershaghi, I., L.L., and Hamdi, M.: Application of the X-Plot Technique to the Study
of Water Influx in the Sidi El-Itayem Reservoir, Tunisia, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, (September 1987), p. 1127.
7. Wilson, S.J., Miller, M.R., Frazer, L.C., and Digert, S.A.: Multiple Trend Forecasting
Accounts For Field Constraints, SPE Paper 39929 presented at Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting, Denver, Colorado, April 1998.
8. Baker, R.: Reservoir Management for Waterfloods Part I, The Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, (April 1997), p. 20.
9. Baker, R.: Reservoir Management for Waterfloods Part II, The Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, (January 1998), p.12.
10. Robertson, D.C., and Kelm, C.H.: Injection Well Testing to Optimize Waterflood
Performance, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (November 1975), p. 1337.
11. Matthews, C.X. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1.
12. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
13. Lee, W.J.: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1982) 1.
9 - 126
14. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H.: Fracturing Gradients in Waterfloods of Lowpermeability, Partially Depleted Zones, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June
1971), p. 727.
15. Felsenthal, M.: Step Rate Tests Determine Safe Injection Pressures in Floods, Oil &
Gas Journal, (October 28, 1974), p. 49-54.
16. Singh, P.K., Agarawal, R.G., and Drase, L.D.: Systematic Design and Analysis of
Step-Rate Tests to Determine Formation Parting Pressure, paper SPE 16798 presented
at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
17. Gidley, J.S., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, D.E., and Veatch, R.W., Jr.: Recent Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1989) 12.
18. Aronofsky, J.S. and Jenkins, R.: A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas
Flow, Trans., AIME, (1954) 201, pp. 149-154.
19. Bargas, C.L. and Yanosik, J.L.: The Effects of Vertical Fractures on Areal Sweep
Efficiency in Adverse Mobility Ratio Floods, paper SPE 17609 presented at the 1988
SPE International Meeting, Tianjin, China, November.
20. Dyes, A.B., Kemp, C.E., and Caudle, B.H.: Effect of Fractures on Sweepout
Patterns, Trans., AIME, (1958) 213, pp. 245-249.
21. Hall, H.N.: How to Analyze Injection Well Performance, World Oil, (October
1963), pp. 128-130.
22. Buell, R.S., Kazemi, H., and Poettman, F.H.: Analyzing Injectivity of Polymer
Solutions with the Hall Plot, paper SPE 16963 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
23. Staggs, H.M.: An Objective Approach to Analyzing Waterflood Performance, paper
SPE presented at Southwest Petroleum Short Course (Spring 1980 Lubbock, Texas.
24. Anthony, J.L. and Meggs A.J.M.: An Approach for Determination of Economically
Optimum Injection and Production Rates in a Large Multi-Pattern Waterflood, paper
SPE 16957 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
25. Chapman, L.R. and Thompson, R.R.: Waterflood Surveillance in the Kuparuk River
Unit with Computerized Pattern Analysis, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (March
1989), p. 277.
26. Cobb, W.M., and Marek, F.J.: Determination of Volumetric Sweep Efficiency in
Mature Waterfloods Using Oil Production Data, SPE Paper 38902 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
9 - 127
27. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph Series, SPE,
Dallas, TX (1971) 3.
28. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.
29. Seright, R.S.: Placement of Gels To Modify Injection Profiles, paper SPE 17332
presented at 1988 Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 16-21.
30. Seright, R.S.: A Review of Gel Placement Concepts, New Mexico Petroleum
Recovery Center, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, New Mexico 87801, PRRC 96-21, July,
1996.
31. Liang, Jenn-Tai, Seright, R.S.: Further Investigations of Why Gels Reduce Water
Permeability More Than Oil Permeability, SPEPF (November 1997) 225-230.
32. Seright, R.S., Lane, R.H. and Sydansk, R.D.: A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water
Production. SPEPF (August 2003) 158-169.
33. Seright, R.S.: Clean Up of Oil Zones after a Gel Treatment, paper SPE 92772
presented at 2005 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The
Woodland, Texas, Feb. 2-4.
34. Frick, T.C.: Petroleum Production Handbook, Volume II, Reservoir Engineering,
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, 1962.
35. Vetter, O.J.: Oilfield Scale Can We Handle It?, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(December 1976), p. 1402.
36. Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, V., and Harauka, A.: Prediction of Scale Problems Due to
Injection of Incompatible Waters, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1982),
p. 273.
37. Patton, C.C.: Oilfield Water Systems, Campbell Petroleum Series, 1215 Crossroads
Blvd., Norman, OK (1981).
9 - 128
9 - 129
PROBLEM 9:1
WOR, CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, AND VOLUMETRIC SWEEP
EFFICIENCIES
Figure 9:1-1 is a graph of WOR versus cumulative oil production for a producing well
located in the center of a five-spot pattern which is surrounded by four injection wells.
Figure 9-4 illustrates the well location. Cumulative oil production to date since the start
of water injection is 552 MBO. The pattern consists of the following data:
Vp
= 6,056 MBBL
Sw
Sg
= 5%
Bo
= 1.20 RB/STBO
S wc
= 32%
1.
2.
If the WOR economic limit is 25:1, what is the expected ultimate oil recovery at
3.
4.
If the reservoir is infill drilled and the volumetric sweep efficiency is increased by
9 - 130
9 - 131
9 - 132
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
WOR
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
Cumulative Oil, MMBO
0.4
0.7
0.8
Figure 9:1-1
WOR, Np, and Evw
For a Producer Centered 5-Spot Pattern
0.9
1.0
9 - 133
Remember the four driving forces which collectively control waterflood recovery:
N D N E A EV ED
EV
Where
(Also
And
ED
E A EV
Compute
N?
So
So at start of waterflood
How does
Is
N MAX
Net Pay,
Did you use local "rules of thumb" or actual special core analysis?
Remember - air permeability vs. porosity plots are not reliable! Plot oil
permeability measured at immobile water!
Did you distinguish between net pay for primary production and net pay for
secondary injection? If you don't, you could be making a huge mistake!
Porosity,
B. How did you quantify E A ? How did you consider such factors as Pattern,
Directional Permeability, Mobility Ratio, and Volumes Injected?
What is the basis for your pattern?
Does your pattern require new wells? Injectors or producers?
Does it attempt to utilize existing wells? Remember, old, fracture-stimulated
wells can be poor injectors! Injected water cannot be controlled and
production will ultimately suffer!
Did you take advantage of directional permeability trends with proper injection
well orientation to maximize areal sweep efficiency? Failure to do so will
result in poor recovery.
Waterflood
section area available for vertical flow. Crossflow is usually more important in
sandstones without interbedded shales.
Reservoirs with high vertical permeability can result in poor vertical sweep due
to gravity segregation of water and oil! In these cases, closer well spacing and
increased injection rate helps!
Interlayer crossflow in favorable
recovery.
MR
D. Did you consider the efficiency with which the injected water displaced the oil
within the volumetrically swept pore volume, ED .
Remember that
swept portion.
ED
Did you consider that the oil saturation in the water swept portion of the
reservoir is:
a.
greater than
Sor
k
b. governed by fractional flow ( ro and
krw
c.
Remember if
and
II.
o
)
w
ED
So
will be low.
MR !
After fillup (and with constant bottomhole injection well and producing well
pressure), injection rate will gradually increase
k
Many variables affect injection rate such as o ,
MR 1.0
kw ,
or decrease
oil/water viscosity;
Injecting above fracture pressure will increase injection by only a 2-3 fold
factor. Larger increases indicate (1) wellbore skin or (2) water going out of
zone! I bet you thought you fraced into "new pay"!
Is actual vertical distribution of water in proportion to kh ? No! Now you
wonder why actual performance does not agree with predicted performance.
Second important message: Actual injection should usually exceed projected
injection by 15-20% or more to account for thief (gas cap, natural fractures,
aquifer, poor cement, porous but discontinuous zones, etc.) zone losses!