Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By
James T. Smith
WiUiam M. Cobb
DE17'97
/N
COPYRIGHT
By
James T. Smith
P. O. Box 1990
William M. Cobb
E-Mail: wcobbassoc@aol.com
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
0197
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1-2
1-4
Wettability
2-1
Definition
2-1
Importance
2-3
Determination
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-7
Definition
2-7
Importance
2-7
Sources of Data
Effect of Reservoir Variables
Fluid Saturation
2-7
2-8
2-8
Saturation History
Pore Geometry
Averaging of Data
2-9
2-10
2-11
J-function
2-11
2-13
2-16
Definition
2-16
Air Permeability
Absolute Permeability
Effective Permeability
Relative Permeability
Importance
2-17
2-17
2-17
2-17
2-18
Sources of Data
Effect of Reservoir Variables
2-18
2-19
Saturation History
Wettability
2-19
2-20
End-Point Values
2-21
Averaging of Data
Date Averaging Methods
2-22
2-22
ni
PAGE
2-23
2-35
Oil Saturation
3-2
Porosity
Net Pay
Conventional Selection of Net Pay Using Porosity Cutoff
Net Pay Determination After Accounting For Data Scatter
George and Stiles Fieldwide Net Pay Method
George and Stiles Well Net Pay Method (Weighting
Factor Method)
Permeability Cutoff Determination
Permeability Cutoff Based on Fillup Time
Permeability Cutoff Based on Watercut
Original Oil-In-Place - Material Balance Versus Volumetric
3-5
3-6
3-8
3-11
3-11
Estimates
3-17
3-22
3-22
3-27
3-29
IV.
2-27
3-30
3-36
3-1
3-2
3-8
3-9
3-10
Effect of Rate
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-17
3-17
3-19
3-22
3-22
PAGE
3-25
3-29
3-35
3-40
Gravity Under-Running
3-40
3-40
Summary
3-41
Problems
3-43
Introduction
4-1
Mobility Ratio
Basic Flood Patterns
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-6
4-6
4-7
4-9
4-9
4-13
4-17
4-19
4-25
4-26
4_27
RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-3
Detection of Stratification
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-13
PAGE
Lorentz Coefficient
Vn.
5-15
5-20
5-24
5-25
5-25
Problems
5-28
6-1
6-2
6-5
6-5
6-9
6-13
6-14
Prats, et al Method
6-14
Craig Method
6-14
Problem
6-18
7-1
Stratification
7-3
Dykstra-Parsons Method
Mathematical Development
Recovery Correlations
7-3
7-4
7-12
Performance Predictions
7-15
Stiles Method
7-27
Vertical Coverage
7-27
7-31
7-32
7-33
7-33
7-34
7-44
Mechanism
7-45
Buckley-Leverett Method
7-45
vi
PAGE
Roberts Method
7-46
Craig-Geffen-Morse Method
Higgins-Leighton Method
7-48
7-48
7-49
7-49
Problems
7-53
IX.
Introduction
CGM-1
CGM-3
CGM-7
CGM-11
CGM-14
CGM-17
CGM-32
Problems
CGM-36
WATERFLOOD SURVEILLANCE
Introduction
8-1
Production Curves
8-2
Decline Curves
8-2
Exponential Decline
Hyperbolic and Harmonic Decline
Other Production Graphs
8-6
8-8
8-8
8-8
8-9
8-10
PAGE
Flood Front (Bubble) Maps
Water Testing Program
8-48
8-53
Dissolved Gases
8-54
Microbiological Growth
8-54
Minerals
8-55
Total Solids
8-55
Produced Water
8-55
Pie Charts
8-55
Project Review
8-57
Problems
8-60
VIII
INTRODUCTION
Waterflooding is the most widely used fluid injection process in the world today. It has
been recognized' 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,^"^ 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 United States.
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
The
primary reasons why waterflooding is the most successful and most widely used oil
recovery process are'*'^:
processes by which water displaces oil from a reservoir and, in particular, will gain the
ability to calculate the expected recovery performance of a waterflood project. While this
discussion will be limited to the displacement of oil by water, the displacement processes
and computational techniques presented have application to other oil recovery processes.
1 -1
An accurate prediction of
Chapter 3.
2. 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
discussed in Chapter 5.
1-2
Waterflood recovery can be computed at any time in the life of a waterflood project
from the following general equation:
Np = N *
* Ey * Ej)
(Eq. 1.1)
where
= the oil in place in the floodable pore volume at the start of water
injection, STB
Water floodable pore volume, Vp, BBLS (This takes into account the
permeability or porosity net pay discriminator)
(ko)s"^wir.
Economics
Maximum combined primary and secondary oil recovery occurs when waterflooding
is initiated at or near the initial bubble point pressure.
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 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
1-4
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES
1. Carll, J.F.: The Geology of the OH Regions of Warren, Venango, Clarion, and
Butler Counties, Pennsylvania, Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania (1880)
III, pp. 1875-1879.
3. Fettke, C.R.: "Bradford Oil Field, Pennsylvania and New York," Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, 4th Series (1938) M-21.
1-5
An understanding of the basic rock and fluid properties which control flow in a porous
medium is a prerequisite to understanding how a waterflood performs and how a
waterflood should be designed, implemented, and managed. The purpose of this section
is not to teach the fundamentals of rock and fluid properties - a basic knowledge of these
is assimied. However, certain multiphase flow properties will be discussed as they apply
to waterflood systems.
I. Wettability
A. Definition
preferentially adhere to, or wet, the surface of a rock in the presence of other
immiscible fluids. In the case of a waterflood, the wetting phases can be oil or
water; gas will often be present, but will not wet the rock. When the rock is
water-wet, water occupies the small pores and contacts the rock surface in the
large pores. The oil is located in the middle of the laige pores. In an oil-wet
system, the location of the two fluids is partly reversed from the water-wet case.
Water usually continues to fill the very small pores but oil contacts the majority
of the rock surface in the large pores. The water present in the large pores in the
oil wet rock is located in the middle of the pore, does not contact the large pore
throat surface, and is usually present in small amounts. Water fills the smallest
pores even in the oil-wet system because oil never enters the small pore system
due to capillaiy forces and consequently, the wettability of the small pores is not
expected to change.
Wettability concepts and the location of oil and connate water in the layer pores
can be illustrated with a simple diagram. Consider the "large" pore in Figure 2-1
which contains both oil and water.
2-1
FIGURE 2-1
TORTUOUS PORE
* \
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 refmed oil. Even though the rock surface is coated with
Wettability is not a
2-2
B. Importance
system is in equilibrium, the wetting fluid will completely occupy the smallest
pores and be on 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
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
imbibition direction.
For example, a
strongly water-wet.
environments into which oil later migrated. It was assumed that the connate water
organic film on the mineral surfaces. Other crude oils contain polar compounds
that can be adsorbed to make the rock more oil-wet. Some of these compounds
are sufficiently water soluble to pass through the aqueous phase to the rock.
The realization that rock wettability can be altered by adsorbable crude oil
many minerals vsrith different surface chemistry and adsorption properties, which
may lead to variations in wettabiHty.
oil components are strongly adsorbed in certain areas of the rock, so a portion of
2-4
the rock is strongly oil-wet, while the rest is strongly water-wet. Note that this is
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 literature^*'' and will not be discussed
Contact Angle
Others
The original strong water-wetness of most reservoir minerals can be altered by the
adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter that was
originally in the crude oil. The surface-active agents in the oil are generally
believed to be polar compounds that contain oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur.
These compounds contain both a polar and a hydrocarbon end. The polar end
adsorbs on the rock surface, exposing the hydrocarbon end and making the
surface more oil-wet.
surfactants are sufficiently soluble in water to adsorb onto the rock surface after
passing through a thin layer of water. In addition to the oil composition, the
degree to which the wettability is altered by these surfactants is also determined
by the pressure, temperature, mineral surface and brine chemistry, including ionic
composition and pH.
. Sandstone and Carbonates
wettability. Studies' show that carbonate reservoirs are typically more oil-wet
2-5
than sandstone resei'voirs. Laboratoiy experiments show that the mineral smface
interacts with the crude oil composition to determine wettability.
F. Native-State, Cleaned, and Restored-State Cores
Cores in three different states of preservation are used in core analysis: native
obtained and stored by methods that preserve the wettability of the reservoir. No
distinction is made between cores taken with oil- or water-based fluids, as long as
the native wettability is maintained.
The second type of core is the cleaned core, where an attempt is made to remove
all the fluids and adsorbed organic material by flowing solvents through the cores.
Cleaned cores are usually strongly water-wet and should be used only for such
measurements as porosity and air permeability where the wettability will not
affect the results.
The third type of core is the restored-state core in which the native wettability is
restored by a three-step process. The core is cleaned and then saturated with
brine followed by reservoir crude oil. Finally, the core is aged in reservoir crude
at 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.
2-6
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.
Unfortunately, capillary pressure data are not available for most reservoirs,
time and expense of obtaining unaltered core samples and conducting necessary
tests. The laboratory tests'* most commonly used are:
2-7
Centrifuge Method
laboratory and reservoir fluids and the difference in wettability effects of the
fluids. This conversion can be made using the relationship:
^
(acos0)R
PcR = PeL(;^
where:
interfacial tension
= contact angle
Capillary pressure varies with the fluid saturation of a rock, increasing as the
A typical
2-8
FIGURE 2-2
EFFECT OF SATURATION HISTORY ON OIL-WATER
CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES FOR A WATER-WET ROCK
Drainage
imbibition
20
40
60
80
100
2. Saturation History
As noted previously, the direction in which the fluid saturation of a rock is
2-9
3. Pore Geometry
capillaiy 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.
FIGURE 2-3
EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
ON CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES
Curve 4
Curve 3
Curve 2
Curve 1
20
40
60
80
2-10
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 capillaiy pressure curve
than every other core sample. Thus, an obvious question arises. How do we
where:
(|)
= porosity, fraction
f(0)
This equation was developed with the idea that, at a given saturation, the value
of J(Sw) would be the same for all rocks regardless of their individual charac
teristics. For example, suppose the capillaiy pressure is measured for a rock
with permeability (kj), porosity ((j)]), using fluids with interfacial tension
2-11
(aj), and the wettability function is f(0) = COS 6 = 1.0. The capillary
pressure for the rock will be some value
at Sw Now suppose we
measure the capillary pressure in a second rock with properties
^2 >
and f(6) =1.0. At saturation Sw (same as for Core 1), a value ofcapillary
pressure Pq2 will be obtained. If the J-function conelation works, the
J-fimction for Cores 1 and 2, at saturation Sw, will be equal even though the
values of capillary pressure are different. For example:
Ji(Sw) - J2(Sw) -
Pc2 (^2 4
(Eq. 2.4)
02(1.0)V<|)2 y
FIGURE 2-4
J-FUNCTION VS WATER SATURATION
20
40
60
2-12
80
100
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 pri
marily 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(0) =1.0. However, for a
given reservoir, or for a gioup of reservoirs with similar lithology, this plotting
technique is often satisfactory for smoothing capillary pressure data and
determining the capillary pressure curve that applies at average reservoir
conditions. Consequently, this method is probably used more commonly than
other techniques for averaging data.
If capillary
pressure is determined for several cores from the same reservoir (so that CT and
pressure curve can be obtained by simply entering the subject graph with the
average permeability to read values of capillary pressure as a flmction of
saturation.
2-13
FIGURE 2-5
CORRELATION OF
CAPILLARY PRESSURE WITH PERMEABILITY
1,000
TJ
:1
h\
100
1
n
(0
0
11 I1
\1
1
10
Pc5
20
Po4
40
Pc3
60
Pc1
80
100
EXAMPLE 2:1
Capillary pressure data measured on five cores from a sandstone reservoir are
presented below.
2-14
75 psi
50 psi
25 psi
10 psi
5 psi
470.0
18.5
22.0
29.0
39.0
49.5
300.0
22.5
25.5
34.0
45.5
56.0
115.0
30.0
34.0
41.0
53.5
65.0
50.0
36.0
40.5
51.0
64.0
77.0
27.0
41.0
44.0
55.0
69.0
81.5
155 md. The interfacial tension, Gl, of the air-brine system used to measure
capillary pressure, is 71 dynes/cm. The reservoir oil-water system has m
Figure 2-6 shows that capillary pressure data can be correlated with
corresponding to k = 155 md, are shown in the following table. The values of
capillary pressure, converted to reservoir conditions, are also tabulated.
PcR-glPcL'PSi
27.2
75
34.9
31.5
50
23.2
39.2
25
11.6
51.0
10
4.6
62.8
2.3
2-15
FIGURE 2-6
CORRELATION OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE,
SATURATION. AND PERMEABILITY FOR EXAMPLE 2.1
1,000
1
1
'
V \ \
\\
\\\
TJ
CO
0)
155 md
ww
100
\\
\\f Y
-YY
""
,1.1,1.1,
10
20
40
60
80
100
air permeability, md
absolute permeability, md
effective permeability, md
does not usually take into account the Klinkenberg effect. Air permeabilities
are frequently used as estimates of absolute permeability. However, unless the
fluid but is dependent on the pore throat sizes. Absolute permeability is most
applicable in aquifer studies because the aquifer usually contains a single fluid,
water.
3. Effective Permeability - the permeability to water, oil, or gas (kw, ko, kg)
when more than one phase is present. Effective permeability of a phase is
dependent on fluid saturation. Application of Darcy's Law for determination of
^0^
"^wir,
fluid saturation. When the base peiineability is (ko)s^.^, then the relative
permeability to oil at the immobile connate water saturation, (kro)c . , is
^wir
As the name implies, relative permeability data indicate the relative ability of oil
and water to flow simultaneously in a porous medium. These data express the
effects of wettability, fluid saturation, saturation history, pore geometiy, and fluid
Accordingly, this is
probably the single, most important flow property which affects the behavior of a
waterflood. When using (ko)s^.^ as the base permeability, the relative perme
ability 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 perme
ability versus another set from a different core sample. The comparison is made
by a simple overlay.
C. Sources of Data
3. Mathematical models
2-18
4. History matching
1. Saturation History
Figure 2-7 shows the effect of saturation history on a set of relative perme
ability data. It is noted that the direction of flow has no effect on the flow
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.
FIGURE 2-7
EFFECT OF SATURATION HISTORY
ON RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
100
80
(U
2
(D
60
\\
E
40
20
20
40
/
f
\V
ro
tr
CO
Q)
/Vetting P hase
60
80
2-19
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-wetand oil-wet systems.
FIGURE 2-8
EFFECT OF WETTABILITY
ON RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
100
80
0)
<u
a.
ds
jg
60
11
io
CO
a>
.
40
y
,
TO
0)
V\fater Wet
\f
20
/
\/
OH
Oil Wet
V V'
%
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 cui*ves) will generally be greater than 50 percent for
water-wet systems and less than 50 percent for oil-wet systems.
2-20
oil saturation) will be less than about 0.3 for water-wet systems but will be
greater than 0.5 for oil-wet systems.
These observations may not hold true for intermediate wettability rocks.
, these findings
may not be true^. For example, water-wet rocks with large pore throats (high
permeability) sometimes exhibit immobile connate water saturation of less than
md.
. End-Point Values
they reflect
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.
2-21
Terminal Conditions
14.5
27.5
6.4
35.4
1.8
1.0
0.28
3.7
15.8
37.6
2.4
34.2
0.8
1.0
0.33
18.0
13.8
24.7
13.0
38.3
4.6
1.0
0.35
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:
b. In some cases, a plot of krw/kro versus water saturation for each core will
yield a correlation with permeability as shown in Figure 2-9. However,
smooth curves rather than straight lines will often result. If the effective
2-22
FIGURE 2-9
CORRELATION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILlPi^ DATA
20
40
60
80
100
This is not necessary for oil-set systems, but in the case of water-wet systems,
the situation often occurs where the accepted value of irreducible water
saturation does not agree with the average relative permeability data chosen to
represent the reservoir. The procedure for converting the data to a different
irreducible water saturation is:
2-23
a. From the average relative permeability cui'ves, read values of kro and krw
at different values of oil saturation.
c. Plot values of kro and krw from Step (a) versus the normalized
saturations from Step (b).
d. Using the normalized curve obtained from Step (c), 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-
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
average oil and water relative permeability curves for this reservoir and adjust
the curves to the average connate water saturation.
2-24
FIGURE 2-10
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA FOR EXAMPLE 2.2
100
\1
V
1
80
ra
60
0)
q!
s
40
a>
DC
1\
X1 /
60
80
20
20
40
100
SOLUTION
2-25
(2)
(4)
(3)
Swl
(5)
Q
Sw3
^wAVG
(6)
So
(7)
(8)
(6) *(1.0-0.15)
(Sw)nEW
1.0-S^i
LOO
8.0
25.0
37.0
23.3
100.0
85.0
15.0
0.90
11.0
27.5
39.0
25.8
96.7
82.2
17.8
0.80
13.5
30.0
41.0
28.2
93.6
79.6
20.4
0.70
16.5
32.5
44.0
31.0
90.0
76.5
23.5
0.60
20.0
35.0
46.0
33.7
86.4
73.4
26.6
0.50
23.0
37.5
48.5
36.3
83.1
70.6
29.4
0.40
26.5
40.5
51.0
39.3
79.1
67.2
32.8
0.30
30.5
44.0
54.5
43.0
74.3
63.2
36.8
0.20
35.0
47.2
58.0
46.7
69.5
59.0
41.0
0.10
41.1
51.0
63.2
51.8
62.8
53.4
46.6
0.50
46.0
54.0
67.0
55.7
57.8
49.1
50.9
0.01
52.5
58.0
72.5
61.0
50.8
43.2
56.8
0.00
56.0
60.5
76.0
64.2
46.7
39.7
60.3
C/5
Conversi on of Water Permeabi lity
Data
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(6) *(1.0-0.15)
(Sw)nEW
So
c
1.0-S^j
s...
Sw2
Sw3
"^wAVG
0.50
62.0
73.0
86.5
73.8
34.2
29.1
70.9
0.40
59.0
70.0
83.5
70.8
38.1
32.4
67.6
0.30
56.0
67.0
80.5
67.8
42.0
35.7
64.3
0.20
52.0
63.5
76.5
64.0
46.9
39.9
60.1
0.10
46.5
58.5
71.0
58.7
53.8
45.7
54.3
0.05
42.5
55.0
67.0
54.8
58.9
50.1
49.9
0.01
36.0
48.0
62.0
48.7
66.9
56.9
43.1
0.00
8.0
25.0
37.0
23.3
100.0
85.0
15.0
2-26
FIGURE 2-11
NORMALIZED AND ADJUSTED
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES FOR EXAMPLE 2.2
100
ro
60
20
40
60
80
ensure that the in situ reservoir wettability is preserved during coring, surfacing,
storage, and measurement operations. Failure to preserve native wettability will
2-27
cause the measured relative permeability values to be of little use for reservoir
analysis.
In these
Corey'' has suggested that for a drainage process (waterflood of an oil-wet rock):
4
(Eq. 2.5)
krw
S
rw
Owe
where:
Swe
Sw-S^ir
(Eq. 2.6)
" 1i . u
0-S
with:
Sw
(Eq. 2.7)
Where there is simultaneous flow of oil and water in a water-wet system during
an imbibition process. Smithsuggests that:
2-28
krw S w
'^Sw ~ Sm,;
wir
(Eq. 2.8)
u . o - s wir
and:
kro =
1.0-
SW -Syyir
1.0-S^r-S or
(Eq. 2.9)
where:
More recently, Hirasaki'^ summarized certain relative data compiled by the 1984
ships similar to those presented by Molina*^. These relationships are listed below.
f
krw = (krw)^or
wir
^EXW
vl.O - Sor
(Eq. 2.10)
and:
kro = (kro)s.
Wir
^l.O-Sw-Sor^
V1.0 Sof-
(Eq. 2.11)
where:
EXW
EXO
2-29
(krw)s
or
Sor
Sw
^wir
In addition to Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11, the NPC also provided certain other defauh
data which are listed below.
Parameter
Sandstone
Carbonate
1.0
1.0
0.25
0.40
25
37
A comparison of these default end-point values with the statements listed on page
EXAMPLE 2:3
Compute a pair of oil and water relative permeability curves that could be used in
the evaluation of the waterflood.
SOLUTION
Sorw
EXO
EXW
krw - (krw)s
EXW
Sw ~ S,'wir
or
EXO
Substituting:
krw = (0.35)
2.0
Sw ~ 0.25
1.0-0.35-0.25
and:
kro =1.0
1.0-Sw-0.35
2.0
1.0-0.35-0.25
Finally, krw and kro can be computed and plotted as a function of water
saturation.
2-31
Sw, percent
krw
kro
25
0.000
1.000
30
0.001
0.766
35
0.022
0.562
40
0.049
0.391
45
0.088
0.250
50
0.137
0.141
55
0.197
0.062
60
0.268
0.016
65
0.350
0.000
FIGURE 2-12
OILM/ATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
I!
1\
0.8
1
^o\
8 0.6
0)
s.
.1
TO 0.4
<i>
(T
!
0.2
20
40
60
80
2-32
100
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
2. Anderson, W.G.:
"Wettability Literature Survey - Part 2:
Measurement," JPT (Nov. 1986) pp. 1246-62.
Wettability
The Effects of
Petroleum Reservoir
2-33
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.
^
^
Relative Permeability of
2-34
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, percent
krw
kro
25
0.000
0.565
30
0.002
0.418
35
0.015
0.300
40
0.025
0.218
45
0.040
0.144
50
0.060
0.092
55
0.082
0.052
60
0.118
0.027
65
0.153
0.009
70
0.200
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 approxi
mately 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.
2-35
o\
u>
to
i!
i !
II
i iiiBiia
^1.
Summary. Wettability is a major fiactor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a
reservoir. The wettability ofa core will affect almost all types ofcore suudyses, including capillary pressure,
relative permeability, waterflood behavior, electrical properties, and simulated tertiaiy recovery. The most
accurate results are obtained when native- or restored-state cores are run with native crude oil and brine at
reservoir temperature and pressure. Such conditions provide cores that have the same wettability as the
reservoir:
The wettability oforiginally water-wet reservoir rock can be altered by the adsorption ofpolar compounds
and/or the deirasition of organic material that w^ originally in the crude oil. The degree of alteration is deter
mined by the interaction ofthe oil constituents, the mineral surface, and the brine chemistry. The procedures
for obtainmg native-state, cleaned, and restored-state cores are discussed, as well as the effects ofcoring,
preservation, and experimental conditions on wettability. Also reviewed are methods for artificially controlling
the wettability during laboratory experiments.
Introduction
fect wettability.
water is oil-wet if oil will imbibe into the core and dis
tability ofa core must be the same as the w^tability of ly pil-wet. When the rockhas no strong preference for
Water-wet
Intermediate wet
Oil-wet
Total
Angle
(degrees)
Silicate
Reservoirs
Cart>onate
Reservoirs
Total
Reservoirs
0to75
75 to 105
105 to 180
13
2
15
30
22
25
15
3
37
55
strating the analogy b^een systems ofopposite wietta- neutrally to oil-wet. Th^measured the wett^ility of161
bilities.
bestTongjiy water-wet Thiswasbased ontwomajor &cts. from Asmari limestones and dolomites from the Middle
First, almost all clean sedimentary rocks are strongly Bast;(2) 15dolonute coresfromw^ Texas;(3) 3 cores
water-wet. Second, sandstone reservoirs weredeposited of Maidison limestone from Wyoming; (4) 4 carbonate
in aqueous environments into which oil later migrated^ cores from Mexican oil fields; (^ 4carbonate cores ^m
It wasassumed that theconnate water would prevent the the Rragiu oil field in the People's Republic of China;
oil from touching therock sur&ces. In 1934, Nutting^' (6) 16 rarbonatecoresfrbm ^berta; (7) 19 chalkcores
realized thatsomeproducing reservoirs were, in fact, ac from the North Sea; (8) 5 samples from India; and (9)
tually strongly oil-wet. He found that the quarte surfaces - 5samples from Sovietoil fields in the Urals-Vol^ region.
More recently,
to the rock.
tested were classihed as oil-wet, 3 were of ihtermediate F^ctioiial Wettability. The realization that rock wettawettabilily, and 15 were water-wet. Most of the oil-wet bUity canbe altered by adsoibable crude oilcomponents
reservoirs were mildly oil-wet, with a contact angle be led to die idea diat heterogeneoils forms ofwettabil^ exist
tween 120 and 140** [2.1 and 2.4 rad]. Of die carbonate
reservoirs included, 8% were water-wet, 8% were inter
mediate, and 84% were oil-wet. Most of the carbonate
mixed wettability for a special type of fractional wettability in which the oil-wet surfaces form continuous paths
RESERVOIR WETTABILITIES"
Contact
water-wet and contain no oil. The fact that all of the oil
Angle
(degrees)
Percent of
Reservoirs
Oikvet
0to80
80 to 100
100 to 160
Strongly ol^wet
160 to 180
8
12
65
15
in a mixed-wettability core is located in the larger oilwet pores causes a sniall but finite oil permeabUity to ex
ist down to veiy low oil saturations. This in turn permits
the drainage of oil during a waterflood to coiitinue until
Water-wet
Intermediate wet
very low oil saturations are reached. Note that the main
the water film separating the crude and the mineral sur
thin watfir films that shows that the water films become
thinner and thinner as more oil enters the rock. The water
The surface-
uranents discussedearlier,
in which a large majority
of the carbonate reservoirs tested were oil-wet, while
many ofthe sandstone reservoirs were water-wet. Several
boxylic acids are interfacially active at alkaline pH. The some of the wettability-altering compounds had been re
sulfUr compounds include the sulfides and thiophenes, moved during the second extraction because the core was
with smaller amounts of othercompounds, such as mer- more water-wet. The material removed during the sec
captans and polysulfides.
The nitrogen compounds, ondextraction contained poiphyrins andhigh-molecularare generally either basic or neutral and include carba- weight partiffinic and aromatic compounds.
zoles, amides, pyridenes, quinolines, and porphy- . Denel^ et
used adistillation process to separate
40,87-90 njg poiphyrins can fonn inter&cially active
metal/poiphyrin conq>lexes witha numberof different me
A clean, dry core was saturated with the crude oil frac
been pi^ble.^*^ In addition, attempts to correlate hulk siderate portion ofthe sur&ctants inthe crude oil had
a laig<s molecularweight. Manyof the lower-molecularweight fractiotts, however, also decreased the waterwettability, demonstrating that the surfactants in crude
both used drycores and that adsorption ofthewettabilityaltering compounds wouldprobably have beenalteredif
Cuiec measured 5ie Amott wettability index of terface. (jenerally, these materials can also be adsorbed
sulfur contents. However, otherlow-asphaltrae and lowsulfiir crudes rendered cores neutrally or oil-wet.
Experiments that determined the general natureof the
surfactants and thecrude oil fractions in which tfiey are
concentrated without attempting to determine exactly
whichcompounds causewettability alteration havebeen
moresuccessful. Johansen and Dunning^'^ found that
asphaltenes were responsible for changing somecrudeoil/water/glass systems from water-wet to oil-wet. The
system was oU-wet when the crude was used but water-
in nature.
sorption.
thedeasphalted cruderestored the oil-wettingness of the thattheasphaltene adsoi^^on from Arlanciiidein an un-
slideintothe brineand observing whethbr the brine disJoumal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
placedall of the crude oil from the slide. They first aged
a cleanglassslidein crudeand found thata film, deposited
over several days, made the slide moderately oii-wet.
They modified the experiment by immersing the slidein
water before aging it in crude. Surprisingly, the oil-wet
film formed much more rapidly. When a NaCl solution
of time.
and resins.
organic acids.
the carbonates.
' quartz sands and sands containing both quartz and car
bonate. They found that the adsorption on the quartz sands
cluded naphthenic acid^^'*^ and a number of carboxyl- was as much as an order of magnitude lower than the ad
The acidic compounds that adsorbed and altered the
wettability of the carbonates in preference to silica in
Basic compounds
amount of adsorption.
Morrow et al.
washed the slides to remove the bulk crude, and then used
isooctane and distilled water to measure the water-
Cooke
asphalt.
(Cut-backasphalt is an a^halt treated with
an inexpensive solvent, such as gasoline, to reduce the
1130
Stable
enik
monttnonllonite forming water-wet and neutrally wet (after cleaning) zones show
?u
^z^3Sri=H =fHE%H'
altCrmoHfSZldT!,^SLS "ST' '^'
^ "<* "> ^ % of tbe rock
form/acetone mixture
*t^cted with achloro- airfecK. Itseems plausiblethat the chamositeclay renders
alter the
mwS^o7Sklte^^^^^
cause
thedetailed
asphaltenes
and water will coadsorb ^ For ex
ample, in wntrast to Ws woric^^^v^^^^
Clementz found that the adsoiption of as^tenes onto
ac
ua
Ma"y?rchers
have triedthe
to simplify
artificially controlling
wettabilitytheirto
value. The three methods most
"sedare (1) treatment ofaclean, dry core with
On the basis ofcore<leaning attempts in alimited num- ^^of^ilane compound. "3-139 variations of tiiis treatber ofreservoirs, it appears Oat cores containing coal are
fraction^v wetted
uf
^ nuxed-wet cores.
The or-
" ^isuaily
and then measured wettability. In four cases where cores y^ P**nyl and n-0, 1, 2, or 3. These subcontained large amounts ofunextractable organic carbon
hydroxyl (OH) groups on silicon
they were able to clean the cores only to neutral wettabill
surfa^, eJcposmg the organic groups and renity. Wendel et al. "s deaned core from the Button reserthe surfaa wn-wato-wet. For exan^le, dimethyl-
the oil, and then flooded with brine to ROS. Because the
core is oil-wet, the large pores are filled with brine, but
(teflon) beads.
the small ones are filled with oil. Brine and heptade^e
researchers
The naphthenic
cores,
n-octylamine. Mungan
and pressure.
tem has a contact angle through the water of 108** [1.9 ticularlv if the-fluid contains surfectants*^*'^ or has a
cores.
strong time dependence for thecontact angle. Th^ tried at atmospheric conditions are more oil-wet than those run
to control thewettability with octanoic acid, obtaining an at reservoir conditions because of the reduction in solu
gles from 0 to 15S [0to2.7rad] ondolomite. They found bility of wettability-altering compounds. An additional
that the wettability could be niaintained for less than a fkctor influencing the wettability is the choice of test
day, however, after which the system became increasingly fluids: ceitain inineral oilscan alterthewettability. Core
water-wet as the octanoic acid slowly reacted with the
dolomite.
gnunes,
Native-State Core
smvmmv m m v w
A VWWS W
rec
water-wet.
fluid loss control and noother additives. Mungan^^ reconmiends coring with lease crude oil. Note that there are
two possible problems with the use of crude oil: (1) it
bility.^**
Unfortunately, veiylittle work hasbeen publisted about
theeffects ofindividual drilling mud conqxinente onwett^ility, particularly for oil-wet cores. Burkfaardt et aL
examin^ the effects ofmud filtrate flushing on restoredstate cores and found no significant effects. Unfortunate
Bobek et al,
,y.34,73,103.115.175.181.182
residuefrom tiiecrude will be deposited on the rock sur&ce if the core is allowed to dry out. To preventwetta
recommended two
Description
Average
Displacementby-Water Ratio
2 -
Native state
0.97
0.00
Exposed to air at
70 to 100F for 1 day
Exposed to air at
750F for 60 days
Exposed to air at
225F for 7 days
0.63
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.18
0.00
Number
of Cores
Tested
2
4
Average
Dispiacepoentby-Oil Ratio
^^pbttimd by UM of (ho Amon wttUMIIty ttst, rathw^tito oora from OH Zone B.. Staffing Couffiy,
Richardson et al.
crude.
live crude oil before any flow studies are started. After
native-state cores have been prepared, they are usually
run at reservoir conditions with crude oil and brine.
core bags. The cores were oilflocided with kerosene to oil-wet.The decrease in temperature will also
IWS and then waterflooded. The average ROS for the decrease the solubility of some wettability-altering com
Bobek etal.
Cleaned Core
toluene/methanol and toluene/ethanol, successful cleaning has also been reported with chloroform/ace.20;123
chloroformMiethanol,as
well as
atone
number
of different
series of solvents.
determine the most effective, including (1) aseries ofnonpolar solvents, e.g.. cyclohexane or heptane; (2) acidic
solvents, e.g., chloroform, ethanol, or methanol; (3) basic solvents, e.g., dioxane or pyridine; and (4) mixtures
as determmed by the Amott wettability test. The cores ofsolvents, e.g., methanol/acetone/toluene. When none
were then cleaned with different solvents, and the Amott ofthese procedures are effective, other tests are performed
test WM u^ to determine cleaning efficienqr. Cuiec by combining the above procedures, using other solvents,
found that he could clean both sandstone and lunestone and increasing the circulation time
cores by flowing the foUowing seven solvents through the Toluene is generally not a'veiy effective solvent, but
core: pentane. hexane^eptMe. cyclohexane, benzene, it can alter the wettability ofsome core. Jennings's
pyndine, ^ ethanol. CMorofonn. toluene, and methanol cleaned several cores by toluene extraction and found that
used smgly were not very effective. Cuiec also looked the wettabilities and relative permeabilities were not
at seve^ different acidic and basic solvents used individu- changed. He stated that this indicated that toluene-
aU^d found that the acidic solvents tended to be more extracted core retained the reservoir wett^iUty and could
limestone. This difference was attobuted to the acidic nature ofthe sandstone surfece and
basic na^ of the lim^tone surface. For example,
beusedforndativepermeabiUtymeasurements.However,
this
generally is not the case. Although itis less efficient
than other solvents, we have found that toluene extraction can alter the wettability and relative permeabilities
^use ^dstone (sibca) h^ aweakly acidic surface, ofnative-state core. In somecases, neutrally wet or ihUdly
It tends to a(korb bases ^m the crude oU. When a oU-wet native-state core becomes strongly water-wet af-
stronger acid flows Arough the system, it wUl gradually ter extraction with toluene. The relative permeability
rwctwi^d strip offtiie adsorbed bases, leavingaclean curves also shift. Amott'^ also found tiiat toluene ex^129
j most of the
.. core- traction
can clean
it had
little coxes,
effect
Gant and Anderson'suyeyed
for otherones,
suchsome
as thecores.
stronglywhUe
oil-wet
Bradford
experiments mthe literature. They found that TTierefore. because toluene extraction wiU alter tiie wet-
the ^t choice of rolvents depends heavUy on the crude tability and relative permeability of many native-state
and the nuneral sur&ces because they help determine the cores, measurements should be made on native-state cores
amount and type of wettability-altering compounds ad- before toluene extraction.
so^. Solvents to give good results with some cores One problem with acleaned core is that it is sometimes
^
to remove ofthe
all oftiie
adsorbed
et al. and Holbrook
and Bernard ^botii found^tiiat material. Ifthisimpossible,
occurs, the wettability
cleaned
core
cl^ wre to astrongly water-wet sgte using will be left in someindefinite state, causing variations in
cleaned cores by tiiree cur
ed that this was unsuccessful. For cleamng for routine renUy used methods and tiien examined how ROS and endrare analysis, iWI reports to cMorofonn is excel- point effective penneabilities varied after a waterflood.
lent for many imdcontinent crudes, while toluene is use- ROS was very similar fot aU mediods. However, the end-
solwnts. "The foUowmg solvents have been report- mg die rodcmore water-wet. In die more -wetcores
ed for sp^rombinatioM of erode and core to give die residuj) oU had agreater tendency to form trapped
10?So"?' ."Id
loiuene.
Many ofthe researchers cited above have found that fective was reflux extraction with toluene followed by 2
toluene used alone is one oftiie least effective solvents, days of extinction witii a mixture of chloroform and
However, when combined witii other solvents, such as metiianol. FinaUy, tiie most efficient metiiod was reflux
metiianol (CH3OH) or etiianol (CH3CH2OH),' extraction with toluene followed by 3 weeks ofextractoluene is often very effective. The toluene is effe^ve tion witii chloroform and metiianol. In tiie last stage of
O LMtMCOVtttOVtaOl.tO
er) dolomite plugs contaminated with an invert-oilemulsion drilling mud filtrate. Thebest solvent forboth
rock types was a 50/50 mixture of toluene/methanol, or
theequivalent, containing 1% ammonium hydroxide. A
three-step ofiethod (three successive Dean-Stark
extractionstoluene, followed by glacial acetic acid, fol
lowed by ethanol) wasthe second bestchoice.for Berea,
while 2-methoxyethyl ether was the second bestdioice
for dolomite, demonstrating that the choice of solvents
can depend on the mineral surfaces in the core.
Restored-State Core
tft
40
4*
TIM, MVS
en^.
The
step inwettabili^ restoration istoage thecore
at the reservoir ten^rature for a sufficient time to es
tablish adsorption equilibrium. Theaging time required
was altered.
as possible to
reservoir temperature.
process.'*'''"'''-"5.28.30.i80.i88 The first step isto thatcoreshould beagedfor 1,(XX) hours (40days) at the
Uve
erode
wettabUity,
(l)>voirvs.ro<mlen,aniie.C)livevs.dead^c^
Wh,
i^oirthe
pressaie,
and (3)
vs. erode oik.
When live crude oils and the reservoir at Changing
temperature
hac refined
two diffemnt
kntii
p^ure are used, the solubilities of the wettability- ofwhich tend to make the core more water-wet at Wcher
IS possible that the wettability will differ when dead increase the solubility of wettabilitv-alterinp enm.
Fig.ishows.echan^intfUSBMwett,bai.yin.
Aseries ofBereaplugs was
in^
we nre water-wetl^Xa^^
oftune, after wluiA the USBM wettabiUly was were no compounds that couM adsorb aiKi desorb.
S=SSiS=
SySSi'?,SaS,i;
ignored. As discussed previously, the wettabUity^the
perata^l^F^5g?CT^^
MPal^
n'SSST^
^ pressure (1.200 psi [8.3
^^'S^tsrsTTwithduu.
on wettaWlity male it ce^iv to sanra^^l^ SSTn '
!:sisr.r,^.tsEis
Conclusions
1.The wettability ofa reservoir sample affects its c^illary pressure, relative penne{d)iliQr, waterflood behavior,
dispersion, and electrical properties. In addition, simu
lated tertiary recovery can be dtered. The tertiaiy recov
graphite, sulfur, talc, the talc-likesilicates,and many-sulfides are probablynaturallyneutrallywet to oU-wet. Most
other mineralsincluding quartz, carbonates, and
sulfatesare strongly water-wet in their natural state.
6. Contact-angle measurements suggest that most car
bonate reservoirs rdnge from neutrally to oil-wet as a re
sult of the adsorption of surfactants from the crude oil.
7. Very littlework has been reportedabout the changes
6
7
43.
17.
42.
16.
52-60.
AIME, 225.
37.
44.
18.
1965)30, No.
45.
19.
1 110^^'"''*
38.
39.
40. Cnun. PJ.: "Wettability Studies With Non-Hydrocari)on Con.stituents ofCrude Oil," Petroleum Recoveiy Researdi Inst.. re
41.
46.
20.
21.
22.
31.. Marsden, S.S. and Nikias, P.A.: "The Wettability ofthe Bradford Sand. I.." Producers Monthly (May 1962) 26. No. 5,2-5.
32. Marsden, S.S. and Khan, S.: "The Wettability ofthe Biadfoid
Sand, D; Pyrolysis Chromatography Studies," Producers Monthly,
33.
34.
35.
10.
30 .
/f 738-42.
9,
36.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
48.
426-32.
24.
23.
49.
25.
26.
50.
52.
29.
(March 1958)
6572.
27.
28.
26-29.
53.
54.
55.
1140
preprints,American Chemical Soc., Div. of Petroleum Chemistiy (March 29-ApriI 3, 1981)26, No. 1, 110-22.
57. Baldwin. B.A. andGray.P.R.: "Fluid-Surfece Interactions in Oil
Reservoirs." paperSPE492S (1973)available at SPE. Richard
son. TX.
April 20-23.
77. Brown. C.E. and Neustadter. E.L.: "The Wettability of
202,66-72.
20-24.
80. Leja, J.: Sutfiux Chemistry ofFnOi Flotation, Plenum Press, New
York City (1982).
81. Morrow, N.R., Lim, H.T., and Ward, J.S.: "Effect of Crude(Kl-Induced Wettability Changes on OilRecovery," 5PEFE(Fd).
1986) 89-103.
66. Morrow. N.R., Cram, PJ., and McCaifeiy, F.G.: "Displacement Studies in Dolomite With Wettability Control by Octanoic
Acid." SPEJ (Aug. 1973) 221-32; Trans., AIME, 255.
67. Neumann, H.J., Paczynska-Lahme, B., and Severin, D.: Omposition and Properties ofPetroleum, Halsted Press, New York
City (1981) 1-46, 109-113.
69. Berezin, V.M., Yarygina, V.S.,andDubrovina,N.A.: "Adsorption of Asphaltenes and Tar From Petroleum by Sandstcme,"
Nefiepromysl. Delo (1982) 5,15-17. Englishtranslation availa
Asphaltenes From Petroleums of the Balakhany-SabunchiRamaninsk Deposits," Isv. Vyssh. Udid>.laved. (1966)9. No.
10, 63-65. English translation available from the John Crerar
Library, Translation No. 71-14451-081.
73. Barbour, F.A., Barbour, R.V., and Petersen, J.C.: "A Studyof
Asphalt-Aggregate Interactions UsingInverseGas-Liquid Chromatography," J. AppL Otem. BiotedtnoL (1974) 24, 645-54.
74. Ensl^, E.K., and Scholz,H.A.: "A Studyof Asphalt-Aggn^gate
Interactions by Heat of Immersion," J. Inst. Pet. (March 1972)
58, No. 560, 95-101.
83.
100
101
128.
102
103
129.
130.
(1946-1947) 57-80.
104
105.
Hirough Ad-
131.
132.
106
107.
108.
109.
133.
135.
136.
110.
111.
137.
113.
138.
139.
140.
Oil Recovery, D.O. Shah (ed.). Plenum Press, New York City
AIME, 204.
(1981) 249-91.
114.
116.
May 4-5.
141.
Talasfa. A.W. andCnwfoid, P.B.: "Experimental Flooding CharMteristict of75-FttccQt Water-Wet Sands," Producers Monthly
142.
No. 2. 500-17.
117.
120.
121.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
124.
125.
126.
269.
118.
433-40.
112.
110-19.
149.
150.
looescoe, E., Baty(^, J.P., and Mami, B3.:"MisdUeDiqdacenentofResidual OilEffectofWettability CO Diq)eni(min Pnous
ISl. Maini,B.B., lonescue.E.. and Ba^d^, J.P.: "MisdbleDisfdacememof Residual OUEffea of Wettability on Dispersion in Ponxis
Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May-June 1986) 25, No. 3.36-41.
132. Novosad,J., lonescu-Forniciov, E., and Mannhardt. K.: "Poly
176. Burkhaidt, J.A.. Ward. M.B.. and McLean. R.H.: "Effect of Core
Surfacing and Mud Filtrate Flushing onReliability ofCore Anal- ysis Conducted on Fresh Cores," paper SPE 1139-G, presented
at the 1958 SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Oct. 5-8.
177. Amott, E.: "Observations Relating to the Wettability of Porous
Rock." Trans., AIME (1959) 216. 156-62.
178. Thomas. D.C.. Hsing. H.. and Menzie. D.E.: "Evahiation of Core
Damage Caused by Oil-BasedDrilling and Coring Fluids," p^r
SPE 13097 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Confer
ence and Ej^bition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
179. Ehrlich, R.. and Wygal. R.J.: "Interrelation of Crude Oil and
Rock PropertiesWith the Recoveryof Oil tty CausticWaterflood
ing." SPEJ (Aug. 1977) 263-70.
180. Mungan, N.: "Relative Permeability MeasurementsUsing Reser
voir Ruids," SPEJ (Oct. 1972) 398-402; Trans., AIME, 253.
181. Bodustynski, M.M.: "Asfdtaltenesin PetroleumAs(^ts: Com
position and Formation," Otemistry efAsphaltenes, J.W. Bunger and N.C. Li (eds.), American Chemical Soc., Washington,
DC (1981) 195, 119-35.
182. Richardson,J.G.. Peridns, F.M ^ Osoba, J.S.: "Differences
184.
161. Mc^ifery, F.G.: "The Effect ofWettability on Relative Permeability and Imbibitionin Porous Media," PhD thesis, U. of Cal
gary, Calgary, Alta. (1973).
162. McCaffery, F.G. and Bennion,D.W.: "The Effect of Wettability on Two-Phase Relative PtrmeabiliUes." J. Cdn. Pel. Tech.
(Oct.-Dec. 1974) 13, No. 4, 42-53.
186. Jennings, H.Y.: "Effects ofLaborau^ Core Cleaning on WaterOil Relative Permeability," ProducersMonthly (Aug. 1958) 22,
No. 10, 26-32.
187. Duyvis,E.M. and Smits, LJ.M.: "A Test for the Wettability of
Carbonate Rocks," SPEJ (March 1970) 3-4.
188. ROM, W., Schmid,C.. and Wissman,W.: "DisplacementTests
189.
167. Mungan, N.: "Inter&dal Effects inTwtinjjfypi|f Liquid-liquid IXsplacement in PorousMedia," SPEI (Sept. 1966) 247-53;Trans.,
AIME, 237.
AJ^, 231.
15(4). 49-69.
467-81.
1199-1208.
gles,"Surface andColloid Science, E. Matijevic (ed.), Wil^ Interscience. New Yoric City (1969)2. 85-153.
199. S^yal, S.K.. Raroey, H.J. Jr., and Marsden, S.S.: "The Effcci
ei MAtrie CAnuAMtiAn
1973, NI-NI6.
200. Sinnokrot. A.A., Ramey, H.J. Jr.. andMarsden. S.S.: "Effect
ofTemperature Level Upon Capillary Pressure Curves," SPEJ
fi
E-02 = rad
JPT
5'^'S^;^<SPEi393gf*rtwdinttSoci6iyoiProijTOEnQinMfioHk*
iSeT
Summary. The wettabiliQr of a core will strongly affect its waterflood behavior and relative permeability because wettability is a
major factor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a porous medium. When a strongly water-wet system Is
waterflooded, recoveiy at water breakthrough is high, with litde additional oil production afterbreakthrough. Conversely, water
breakthrough occurs much earlier in strongly oil-wet systems, with most of the oil recovered during a long period of simultaneous
oil and waterproduction. Waterfloods are less efficient in oil-wet systems compared with water-wet ones because more water must
be injec^ to recover a given amount of oil.
This paperexamines the effects of wettabiliQr on waterflooding, including the effects on the breakthrough and residual oil
saturations (ROS's) and the changes in waterflood behavior caused by core cleaning. Alsocovered are waterfloods in
heterogeneottdy wetted ^stems. Waterfloods in fractionally wetted sandpacks, where the size of the individual water-wet and oilwet sur&ces are on the orderof a single pore, behave like waterfloods in uniformly wetted systems. In a mixed-wettability system,
the continuous oO-wet paths in the larger pores alterthe relative permeability curves and allow the ^stem to be.waterflooded to a
very low ROS after the injection of many PV's of water.
Introduction
see Craig^) is
1
fwiSw)-
l+fn.*"
(1)
Mo kr
where
voir. >0,15,18,19,23-28
waterflood performance calculations is shown in Fig. 1. Steadystateoil/water relative permeabilities weremeasured inanoiitcrop
Torpedo sandstone using ia mild NaQ brine and a 1.7-cp
[1.7-mPa*s] refined mineral oil.Thewettability ofthesystem was
controlled byadding either(1)various amounts of barium dinonyl
naphthalene sulfonate to the oil, whichmadethe ^stem moreoil-
tion offluids in the core. Craig^ and R^ et al. have given good
and forma thin film over all the rocksurfaces.29-32 oil, the nonwetting phase, will occupy thecenters of thelarger pores. This fluid
too
rr-
SO
WATER at.
r"
tetr WL-WET
s
30a
|
B
STRONGLY
WATER-WET
STRONCLV
OU,-WET
i-
0.4
OS
08
Fig. 2Typical waterflood performance In water-wet and oilwet sandstone cores at moderate oil/water vi'scosity ratios.
Taken from Raza et a/."
where both oil and water are flowing, a portion ofthe oil
incontinuous channels with some dead-end branches, while the re
mainder ofAe oil istrapped indiscontinuous globules. After the
water front pas^, almost all the remaining oQ is immobile,
the center of the larger pores and (2) laiger patches of oil excompletely surrounded by
ed. the water will form continuous channels orfingers through the
nnttnn^fs chan
wetting" fluid will also beu^ inaddition towater-wet and oilwet. This will more easily enableus to draw conclusions about a
tive permeability curves will also show that the fluids can exchange
positions and flow behavior.^*''
the entire core because the references surveyed report oil recovery
tional barrel ofoil recovered. When the WOR isso high tiiat die
waterflood isno longer economical, the sysxem isatdie practical
oreconomical ROS. There isgeneral agreement that the practical
ROS islower in water-wet systems; i.e., more oil isproduced in
a unifon^y water-wet system dian would be produced ina uni
0B4-
ooomoNS
STRONOLV <KATER>WeT
Fig. 4Effect of aging on waterflood performance of unconsolidated sandpacks, water and live Singleton crude oil.
|te B 1.68 cp. Taken from Emery et
ti3Sw
JS.
0
O.M
I
s
0.0*
at
am
o.tB
-I.IM
H.UI
m'Minn,
'
'
ntc tnuaa
to the preceding one because it shows oil recovered rather than the
relatively late and very little oil is produ(^ after water break
>
0.
3 min.
50
40
25
46
62
81
"A
108
90
-o-
140
115
154
kHtiol Sol
66
157
30
FLOOD CHARACTERISTICS
24 hra.
45
680md
30%
Gil-Wet
NONWETTING OSPLACtNG WETTING
<
q:
20
e = l60*
3
I
<
</)
10 -
,WaterW;et
0
CUMULAnVE INJECTION, P. V.
oil-wet corcs can be found in Rcfs. 23, 28, and 53 through 56.
The effects ofwettability onoil saturation after breakthrough arc
shown in Fig. 6. Initially water-wet, uneonsolidated
were
urements were made with water and oil on a flat silica plgtf, thnt
through the water decreased asthe system aged. The first column
ofimasurements inFig. 6was made after 2or3minutes ofaging,
while the second column was made after 24hours of aging.
Fig. 6 shows that the residual saturation after 8 PV of water in
teflon corewith oilas the wetting fluid. A reflned mineral oil and
w^r orasucnse solution were used. The viscosity ratio was main
tained constant by varyingthe sucroseconcentration in the water.
Typical results are shown in Fig. 7. For the wetting-displacingnonwetting case (oilflood), the core was samratedwithoil. driven
I 11114
rfTT|-
""iiT
'
I iiii[
ri HI
Rcnxco Ot-AUMOUM
n.
"
CLEANED CORE
m m r om
1
1
1
It
'
/
/
'
^
.taooc*
/^
-WkTOtWET
O-OtLWET
-i-rr....!
ai
ii>
aROI MJCCTCO-KMC VOUWC
T^rrrm
n
11
u>
10
from Jennings.^
q) [1.3
of the cores was used in its initial water-wet state, while the other
was treated with an organochlorosilane to render it oil-wet. The
state core, (2) live crude in cleaned core, and (3) refined oil in
eott ccmtaining livecrudewasmostefficient, followed by diewaterflood oflive crude in the cleaned one. Least efEdent was the water-
-nwORAOLE-
ULTIMATE
ceoNOMc NEOOvDrr
UJ
80
BREAKTMflOUGH MCOMaiV
KEOOVENY
BREAKTHROUGH
NONWCmNB tNJCCTEO PUilO
FUOO CMMUCTCmsnCS
sMnMSTcnm*oonc
^aRCMTMKXIGH mxNon
fpagMiun
coond
KROsrrr
so%
COKDCTMU
SO*-SO*
wnuu. UTUUTHN 90% RU
MiBwa>i.ioaoN3iirtiii
J.
l/t
0.4
WATER
OB
MILDLY
COS
ison ofthe two sets ofcurves shows that the breakthrough and eco
nomic recoveries are lower when the nonwetting fluid isinjected.
Inaddition, Fig. 10 demonstrates that there will be very little twophase production until the economic recovery isreached ata very
favorable viscosiQr ratio, regardless ofthe wettability.
Inunsteady-mte relative permeability measurements, a core in
itially at IWS is waterflooded. Relative permeabilities arc calcu
lated from the pressure drop and the produced fluids by the
Johnson-Bossler-Naumann method.
Because a signiflcant
amount ofoil production is required after breakthrough tocalcu
late relative permeabilities, viscous oils are generally used to in
crease dte period ofsimultaneous oiland water production.
viscous oils w used, the shape ofthe waterflood curve may not
be an indication ofthe wettabili^ and should be interpreted with
Fig. 11Effect of wettabiiity on oil recovery, organochlorosliano-treated Pyrex glass core. The two fluids used were
brine (fi^ sO.94 ep) and a mixture of iwlodeeane and min
eral oil (fio b1.98 cp). Taken from Warren and Cathoun.**
(The labels **water>wet*' and "mildly olivet" are baaed on
our Interpretation of the data.)
jected.''8-''^'26iW9.49j3.5W7
Wetted Systems
Breakthrough Saturations
let because ofthe unsteady nature ofdie flood. The average satu
and the oil recovery decreases. Ina water-wet core, oil istrapped
front passes, almost dll the remaining oil isimmobile, allowing littie
1610
MHvc t m aof
WITCH
MCCTID-^aK QUaB
00
onxpKirr m
mtm am
OS
otaueuBir or . tana
r^.
recovery, is for the same core after it was cleaned and rendered
near
a/.* as the vrattabUity wasvaried in 7- to 9-ft (2.1- to 2.7-m] longBerea corestreated widi various concentrations of Drifilm to
vaiy wettability. Imbibition testswereused to measure thewetta
bility. Breakdirough occurred at an oil saturation of 40% PV for
untreated, strongly water-wet coresand at roughly 33% PV for
moderately water-wet onestreated with a 0.3% Drifilm solution.
Corestreated withhigherconcentrations of Drifilm wereveiyweak
ly water-wet, with only very small amounts of water imbibition.
The oil saturation at breakdirough for these cores decreased fur
ther, to roughly 24% PV.
1611
wet core). The wetting fluid advanced more rapidly in the fine pores
compared with the large pore, bypassing the nonwetting fluid in
the large pores and isolating it. Wardlaw then made one ofhis sys-
t^ neutrally wet by coating itwith a plastic and repeated the waterdisplacing-air experiments. He found much less trapping ofthe air
num oxide cores. They showed that the inlet end effect was impor
tant when the injection rate was high enough that the outlet end
effect wasnegligible. Theinletendeffect caused a decrease in the
oilrecoveiy at water breakthrough. However, theinlet end effect
did not significandy affect theoverall flooding behavior. The oil
recovery curve afterbreakthrough converged rapidly to thecurve
from a longer core where both inlet and outlet end effects were
negligible.
the oil satur^on near the core outlet high, even after the remainder
ofthe core isatROS.'^''^*' At low flow rates, the end effect and
the spreading ofthe displacement firont caused 1^capillary forces
will reduce the oilrecoveiy at breakthrough.' As with water-wet
cores, oil-wet cores are generally flooded atrates high enough that
the outiet end effect and the effects ofcapillaiy forces onthe dis
placement firont are both negligible. Rapoport and Leas' found
thatthe effiects of capillaiy forces were fnintmi7f!4i when
through S,
from the large pores, disconnecting and trapping the water inthe
small pores.The workby Wardlaw andMorrow inHjcates thein
.(2)
where Listhe core length, cm, and II isthe flow rate per unit cross-
saturations.
than the pressure inthe oil surrounding the outlet face; hence no
water will beproduced.
Because water cannot beproduced,
in a thin layer near the exit, where the capilla^ pressure is zero.
At this point, water breakthrough occurs b^ause die c{q)lllaiy pres
asynthetic porous medhim bon^iosed ofuniformly sized beads qwxwere carefiiUy machined and placed under conqnession. saturation
Hinkley and Davis found that the end effects between the plugs
sures inside and outside thecore are equal. Theoutlet end effect
Rapqxm and Leas scaling criteria (Eq. 2) widi die total lengdi re
PraeUeal ROS
the breakthrough saturationis about62 percentPV, whiletheeconomical ROS is about 42% PV. a difference of about 20% PV.
ty.81.82 jjj
r-i-
mmMuy KT
avwtno
the change.in true ROS was small, about 5%. Kennedy etxU.^
is water-wet, dropping sharply as the ^stem becomesmildly oilwet. The ultimate recoveiy rises slightly, with dte largest value un
der mildlyoil-wetconditions.Withtfiisinterpretation, the data from
Warren and Calhoun's experiments agree with the other literamre
cite(|.
The trapping of oil and gas on a microscopic scale is affected
by the geometric and topologic properties ofthe pores, the fluid
that disconnect
WATER BREAKTHtOUCH
FRACTIONAL FU>W OF WATER 99%
ae
Ij6
there was less tendency tobypass and totrap the displaced phase.
plug vs. the same plug after It was cleaned and rendered
water-wet. Based on an oil-water viscosity ratio of 4. Taken
from Keelah.*"
tl^ can trap oil. Thqr demonstrate, however, that these mecha
nisms become much less effective near neutral wettabiliiy.
die residual oil and gas are traiqied indie centers ofthe pores, while
the water occupies the rock surfaces. The trapped gas occupies a
portion ofthepore that would otherwise beoccupied widi residual
oil; therefore, ROS isdecreased byincreasing thegas saturation.
When the core becomes very strongly water-wet, oil recovery may
increase, decrease, orremain die same, depending on the pore ge
rock sur&ces, whiledie gas and water are located in die centers
ofthe pores. Because the residual oil and gas do not compete in
etal.^ refer to the average saniration ofthe core, not the fece
were measur^ on an oil-wet weadiered core widi wettability^tering chemicals in the mud. Asecond set ofrelative permeabili
ties was nieasured after die core was cleaned and rendered water-
ROS (% PV)
ROS (% PV)
Reservoir
Preserved-State
Cleaned
17.6
17.2
15.2
17.0
16.4
27.1
B
C
Native-State Wettability
Reservoir
Weakly water-wet
Weakly water-wet
Weakly water-wet
2
3
4
5
6
7
Water-wet
Weakly water-wet
Weakly water-wet
Oil-wet*
Oil-wet, Intermediate*
Native-State
Cleaned
27.3
15.8
44.8
37.5
29.4
17.0
35.1
22.0
31.6
33.2
47.0
35.2
36.4
18.3
20.5
19.8
the water-wet core is more efficient. Note that the fractional flow
ing the more rapid rise in WOR after breakthrough for water-wet
^stems.
RQhl et
WETTEO SANOPACKS**
Both cores were flushed with brine, then driven to IWS with live
crude. During the waterflood, the weatheredcores acted more oilwet, with earlier breakthrough aiid lower recoveries.
RQhl et id. also compared three sets of waterfloodson extracted
core: (1) reservoir-condition waterflood with live crude and brine.
(2) room-condition waterflood with dead crude oO, and (3) roomcondition waterflood with a refined mineral oil. The viscosities of
the dead crude and the refined mineml oil were reduced with gaso
Oil-Wet Sand
ROS
(%)
(%PV)
0
25
50
75
100
28
35
40
45
48
for the cleaned cores. For Reservoir C, Luffel and Randall state
of the rock surfiice are water-wet, but the remainder are oil-
wd.
plugs. Wettabilitywas measured the imbibidmimetfradoa nativestate plugs, while ROS's were determined on the native-state and
cleaned plugs by waterflooding. The results are shown in Table
2. ROS was changed significantly in Reservoirs 2,5, and 7. The
tion between mixed and fiactional wettability is that the latter does
not imply dther specific locations for the oil-wet and water-wet
sut&ces or continuous oil-wet paths. In die ftacdonally wetted sys
tests showed that the cleaned plugs from Reservoir 2 were strong
ly water-wet. An example of the change in waterflood behavior
for Reservoir 2 before and after cleaning is shown in Fig. 12. The
tests showed that Reservoir 7 was still oil-wet after cleaning; how
ever, it is possible that the cleaning altered the location of some
of the adsorbed, wettability-alteringcompounds. Unfortunately,the
wettability of the other reservoirs after cleaning is not givoi. How
while die remaining sand grains were treated widi Diif^ torender
1615
20
40
GO
80
ofa fluid increases as the percent ofsand grains wet by that fluid
inoea^. The practical ROS increases as the oil fiacttcnial wetta
bility mcreases, while the practical re^ual water saturation incre^ as the water fractional wettability increases.
Singhal etal. measured unsteady-state relative permeabilities
and recoveries infractionally wetted bead packs, where the frac
sm^ ones are water-wet, the true ROS is much lower than the
residual saturation obtained inuniformly wetted systems. In uni
formly wetted core, the true ROS reaches a minimum when the
core's wettability ranges from neutrally to weakly oil-wet, where
late oil inthe larger pores. On the other hand, as the oil-wetting
creases because capillary forces trap the oil inthe smaller poxes.
Because tl^ pores are oil-wet, there isno driving force for the
waterto displace the oil from them. However, most of the oil in
wettability condition occurred if the oil deposited a layer ofoilwetofganic material onlyon those rocksurfitces thatwereindirect
contact withtheoil but noton thebrine-covered surfeces. Oil-wet
101.103.106-108
essentially all die oil initially present after dte injection ofmany
teflon was always more oil-wetted for all ofthe fluid pairs used.
The dry bead pack was first saturated by water, then flooded with
an organic liquid to the residual water saturation. After cleaning,
the diy bead pack was saturated with the organic liquid and waterflooded to the residual organic liquid saturation.
increased, probably because of eidier hysteresis effects or wettabilhy alteration. The cores were dien extracted. ROS after extrac
tion was even greater, averaging 30% PV. Imbibition tests showed
that the extracted core was more water-wet than the native-state
core, because it imbibed water more rapidly.
After dteexperiments of Richardson etal., Burkhardt etal.
found diat die plugs would imbibe bodi water and oil, an indica
tion ofmnuniform wettability. Preserved cores were driven toROS
with brine, then allowed toimbibe kerosene. The cores were then
driven toIWS with kerosene and allowed toimbibe brine. The averJoumal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987
2.5 CP-OIL
'Ot 08 CP-OIL'
(MIXED WETTABILITY)
J
6 10 20
90100200
wnER-WETMRE.
VfLOOD OF 23-CP aL-^
OF 2.S-CP OIL
20 -MIXED-WETTASajTY CORE.^"
10 20
50
100 200
50010002000 5000
23456789
Saiathiel.**
age amounts of oil and brine imbibition were 10.2 and 7.1% PV,
respectively. The imbibition of both oil and brine is an indication
that East Texas core has fractional or mixed wettabiiity with both
oil- and water-wet surfaces in the core.
conditions, postulating thatthe low ROSwascausedby mixedwtitabiliQr. He was able to generatemixed-wettabiliQr sanqilesby ag
ing outcrop Boise sandstonecores with inine and a mixture of dead
East Texas crude oil and heptane for 3 days. A mixture of dead
crude and heptane was used because it would dqxisit a stable,
strongly oil-wet film on glass or quartz sur&ces in direct contact
with the mixhire, while adjacent areas of the surface in contaa widi
brine remained water-wet. Initially. Saiathiel tried dead crude, but
foundthat oil-wet films that were generatedalter 3 days whenonly
dead crude was used were much less stable and could be displaced
by brine after a relatively brief contact. Note that if Saiathiel had
wanted to restore the wettabiiity of an East Texas reservoir core, ,
it would have been necessary to saturate the core with brine and
crude, then age the core at reservoir conditionsfor a longer period
Saiathiel pnqrased that the very low ROS was obtained by oil
detail.
As expected, the top curve of Fig. 18 shows that veiy little oil
is produced after breakthrough when the core is strongly water-
initial saturation for the water-wet flood (about 79% PV) roughly
1617
80
BEFORE AGING
AGING
been aged. Saladiiel states that the IWS for mixed-wettabili^ ^s-
was terminated.
them. IWS measured after the first oilflood was relatively high,
with an average value of40% PV. After the second oilflood, the
average IWS decreased to34% PV, possibly because ofhysteresis
or wettabUity alteration. After cleaning, IWS was only 20%.
Richardson et al., ROW et
and Schmid found that
the IWS measured during cafullaiy pressure measurements was also
higher for mixed-wet vs. water-wet cores. (For ftirther discussion,
see Ref. 4.)
the small pores remains connected through diin fiimg on the pore
surfaces and can still be dif^plamlx
ber offactors, including die crude, die mineral surfaces, and the
brine chemistiy.' Mixed wettability will be generated when die
erode deposits an oil-wet film only on surfaces diat are in direct
contact widi die crude, but not indie small, water-filled pores. In
SOTie crude/brine/rock ^stems, however, the wettability can also
bealtered Iqr the adsorption ofsur&ctants ftom the crude. Over
carbonate ^stals.
Salathiel also found that pore geometiy was important in
and die heptane/crude mixmre and found that film drainage did not
occur. This was explained by die difference inpore geometry be
tween bead packs and consolidated cores. Inbead packs, most of
die irreducible water isheld in die form of"pendular rings" at
the point ofcontact between each pair of beads. These pwiHniar
rings prevent the dqiosition ofcontinuous oil-wet paths between
beads, preventing film drainage.
1618
wet Berea core was saturated widi brine, driven toIWS widi Loudon
flooded. The results are shown in Fig. 2L Before aging, diere was
42.5%. The ofl saturation at die end ofdie waterflood ofdie aged
core was only 25.7%. Steady-state relative permeability measure
ments, where more water was injected, showed diat ROS fordie
aged Berea was less dian 17% PV. The water relative permeabil
ity at ROS was 35% ofthe absolute water permeability, while the
water relative permeability ofasimilarunaged plug was only 3.4%.
Wang found diat die aged Berea plugs imbibed a smaller amount
ofwater less rapidly compared widi die plugs before aging. This
mdicates diat die aged plugs were less water-wet. Unfortunately,
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
It is possible thatRathmell et al,^^ alsowaterflooded a mixedwet core because the native-statewaterfloodin Fig. 12 is very simi
lar to the waterflood of the aged Berea in Fig. 21. Unfortunately,
it is not known whether film drainage would occur if the nativestate core in Fig. 12 were injected with many PV's of water.
Morrow et a/.
compared waterfloods in strongly water-wet
Bereacores vs. floods when the cores were aged with brine and
Moutray crudeoil. The agedcoresdid nothavemixed wettability,
but may have had some type of heterogeneous wettability. The
water-wet Berea cores were saturated with brine, driven to IWS
^ed cores imbibed less water than the water-wet Berea cores,
that the cores were nonuniformly wet^. First, the water relative
paths through the larger pores, while the small pores arewater-
Conclusions
4. As the wettability of a system ranges from water-wetto oilwet, the breakthroughand economicalROS's increase, so oil recov
ery decreases.The economical ROSis lowerthanthe breakthrough
samration, and the difference betweenthe two gradually increases,
so that there is a longer period of simultaneous oil and water pro
Pw
= water saturation, %
Acknowledgments
7,
Waterflooding," J.Jpn. Assn. Pet. Tedu (Jan. 1965) 30, No. 1,1-10.
. Marsden, S.S.: "Wettability: The Elusive Key toWaterflooding,"
30.
33.
35.
12.
13.
SPE 704 presented at the 1963 SPE Annual Meeting. New Orieans.
Oct. 6-9.
36.
16.
17.
38.
39.
MOxosc, J.C. and Brandner, C.F.: "Role ofCapOlaiy Forces in Determinii^ Mkxoscopic Di^)laoement Efiiciency in Oil Recovery Ity Water
Flooding,"/. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1974) 13, No. 4, 54-62.
41.
42.
43.
19.
20.
21.
1035*36.
"
23.
24.
25.
Bartlesvflle, OK (1974).
26.
27.
28.
175-85.
50. Donaldsm. E.C., Thomas, R.D., and Lorenz, P.B.: "WettabUity Determination and Its Effect on Recovoy Efficiency," SPEJ (March
1969) 1320.
51. Donaldson. E.C. etal.: "Equipment and Procedures for Fluid Flow
and WettabUity Tests ofGeological Materials," Rqwrt DOE/BETC/
IC-79/5, U.S. DOE BartlesvUle Energy Technology Ceata, Bartles
vUle, OK (May 1980).
52.
1620
yjr(Fd. 1966)247-52.
55.
56.
Tests," ErdOl und Kohle (Nov. 1957) 10, No. II, 747-52. F-itgiih
29.
54.
RathmeU, JJ., Braun, P.H.,and Perkins. TJC.: "Reservoir Waterflood Residual OOSanirBtknFnxn Laboratory Tests."/Pr(M>. 1973)
49. Emery. L.W., Mungan. N., and Nicholson. R.W.; "Caustic Slug In-
48.
ttrnftf Dis
53.
The
46.
45.
39-47.
18.
(1986).
14.
No. 4, 2-7,
11.
Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L.: "The Effect ofViscosity and Capil
9.
10.
1957) 10, No. 12.826-30. ^gUsh translation available from the John
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
58. Leach, R.O., Geffen, T.M., and Beny, V.J.: "Discussion of Wetta-
127-34.
373-75.
(Dec. 1987)
- .
92. Luffel, D.L. and Randall. R.V.: "Core Handling and Measurement
65. Kennedy, H.T., Buija, E.O., and Boykin, R.S.: "An Investigation
oftheEffectsofWetteUlityCRitheReooveiyofOilbyWatBrfkioding."
94. .^lathiai, RJi.: "Oil Recoveiy by Sur&ce Film Drainage in MixedWettability Rocks," JPT(Oct. 1973) 1216-24.
72. Baldly,J.P.etal.: "Interpreting Relative Permeal^^ and Wettability From Unsteady-StateDisplacement Measurements," SPEJ (June
1981) 296-308.
73. Kyte, J.R. and Rapoport, L.A.: "Linear Waterflood Behavior and
End Effects in Water-Wet Porous Media." Thms., AIME (1958) 213,
423-26.
426-32.
103. Burkhardt, iJi., Waid, M.B.. and McLean, RJI.: "Effect of Core
107.. Patel, P.D., Christman. P.G., and Gardner, J.W.: "An Investigation
..r. 7 Hann,
5^^ Adsorption."
Tnuu.. J.:
AIME
(1958) 213,
261-64.ofWater113.
H.J. and Weydema.
"Discussion
ofAStudy
Efficiency in Oil-Wet Systems," Trans., AIME (1955) 204,
240-42.
114. Mor^, N.R. and Mungan, N.: "Wetiabiliiy and Capillarity in Porous
Media," Report RR-T, Petroleum Recovery Research Inst.. CalRary
(Jan. 1971).
O.F. Paddqr (ed.). Academic Press. New York Ciiy (1978) 289-319.
117. Benner, F.C., Dodd, C.G., and BarteU, F.E.: "Evaluation ofEffec-
Pio
iy*22
(Oct.-Dec.
c^iUaiy presstire at which water will first enteraplug entirely satuwith oil. On the basis ofthese measurements, Wanen and
3 through 5.
interpretation
ofWanen
and Calhoun's
is We
thatfeel
the thatabetter
wettability varies
from mildly
water-wet
to mildlydata
oilwet. With this inteipretation, the data from Warren and Calhoun's
o^Jcriments agrees with the other literature dted inthe text. There
are two other reasons for believing that this inteipretation iscor
surface was treated, and the pH of the brine.' While several exraces,
obtain with air and water was roughly 115' [2 rad] through the
water, according to capillary rise measurements in treated Eingg
capillary tubes. Most ofthe treated tubes were neutrally wet or
slightly waier-wet, with contact angles through the water of90
[1.57 Fad] orless. Hie maximum contact angle that Col^ er a/. ^"
obtained with organochlorosilane treatments was 117 [2.04 radJ.
The results ofBethel and Calhoun, and Coley etal. inthe same
laboratory, mdke itlikely that the plugs used by Warren and Calhoun
also ranged from mildly water-wet to mildly oil-wet.
Warren and Calhoun measured wettabilities ranging from neu
trally wet to strongly oil-wet because they calculated apparent con
tact anglg, 00, on the basis of the displacement capillary
the core was initiaUy saturated with the nonwetting fluid, aposi
tive displacement pressure was required to force thewetting fluid
into die core for contactangles as low as49 [0.86 lad]. This means
from the core. Assuming acapUI^ tube model, the apparent con
tact angle calculated from the displacement pressure would erroncMsly indicate that the core was oil-wet. We feel that the work by
E-03
E-02
E+00
Pa*s
rad
mN/m
c
'CemaniantactorltasaeL
jpj
1622
Tulsa
reservoir rock.
Sw- =
s%
Sampla Ntifflbtr 1
10
25
40
55
60
72
Sample Numbef 2
20
35
50
60
70
74
Sw~"Swi
1-Swi-So,
V
S - 28%
K. 'lbomd
1.0
0.27
0.06
0.0043
0.0010
0.0
ko
50 md
1.0
0.26
0.060
0.0
0.0
24.2
48.4
72.6
o.oos
0.022
0.080
0.125
0.35
80.6
100.0
S. - 20%
S, - 26%
0.0
0.0
0.0010
0.0
0.0070
0.035
0.092
0.23
0.35
27.8
55.6
74.1
92.6
100.0
Sample Number 3
ko - 25 md
S - 30%
S. - 22%
30
1.0
0.40
0.15
0.048
0.008
0.0
40
50
60
70
78
0.013
0.0
0.0043
'
0.0
0.016
20.8
41.7
0.050
0.15
0.35
62.5
83.3
100.0
flp. 1
FiC
Permeabitity. mo
Sample numoe-
100
50
25
1.0
0.1
s 0.01
0.01
GC
0.001
20
20
40
60
100
40
60
OQJ
Fip 3
Fig. 4
Averaged curves'
S^new) - S.* (1 - S. - S) ^ S.
Avmaefl
erences.
are examined:
alyses.
OOJj
fit:. 5
Pi>: h
o.(M
0.1
PeimMbiltty. mi
0.4
100
1.0
\
\
\
75
50
\ 1\
100 60
30
i
0.1
I
V \
\A
V\
i
25
-s
0.01
V
0.001
40
60
80
20
100
40
60
100
values can be obtained from nativestate cores, i.e., those drilled with oil-
2. Select
and
values which
provide
values for eact set of oil
S.-Swi
1-Swi-So,
where:
5 = Saturation
equal to 30%.
Sw*
So*
Sw Swi
So.
1-Swi
laWeJ
The author...
Fred N.
Srhneidfr *. vice-
president 01 ke
pi ingpr LAboratorief
Irtc., Tuisa.
Schneider received
degree> in me-
Oklahoma, gaining
Schneider
several vears of
field experience in
Rel. K
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
1.0
0.35
0.1
0.04
0.01
0.004
0.001
0.0
19.8
40.9
52.2
65.2
72.5
80.2
0.0
21.3
0.0
24.0
49.8
64.6
80.9
46.4
60.8
76.0
B2.9
91.8
89.0
96.6
0.0
21.7
45.7
59.2
74.0
81.5
89.5
No. 2
__
100.0
75.2
57.8
33.7
19.2
1.8
100.0
75.4
58.1
34.0
19.6
3.1
No. 3
Avg.
100.0
75.6
58.4
34.8
21.0
3.9
100.0
75.4
58.1
34.2
19.9
2.9
inal data.
permeability zone.
rations.
first.
nonuniform permeabilities.^
References
oi Cas-Oii-Water Mixtures through Unconsolidated Sands." AIME Tech. Pub. 1206, 1940.
5. Sayre, A.T.. "A Studv of the Effects of Connate
INITIAL OIL-IN-PLACE
place at the start of waterflooding. As indicated earlier, the basic oil recovery prediction
equation used in waterflooding can be summarized as:
Nj) =N * Ea * Ey * Ed
(Eq.3.1)
where:
N= 7758Ah(|)So
g-
(Eq. 3.2)
where:
Three major difficulties encountered in using Eq. 3.2 are the determination of well net
pay, porosity, and oil saturation.
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. As primary production occurs, reservoir pressure declines
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 some production of the gas, a large portion of it remains in the
The average oil saturation at any time during the primaiy production period can be
determined as:
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:
- NppJ Bq
where:
3-2
(Eq. 3.5)
Vp(LO-Swc)
BqIj
Solvingfor pore volume gives:
A7
^ob^ob
P~(1.0-Swc)
(Eq.3.7)
where:
(,Nob-NppjBo
= rNpbBobT"
l,1.0-Swc>/
Rearranging results in the average oilsaturation equation.
/
XT
B^
3-3
EXAMPLE 3:1
A reservoir is a candidate for waterflooding. The primary oil recovery factor below
So =(1.0-0.12)(i||)(1.0-0.36)
So = 0.438 or 43.8%
The gas saturation is:
Sg = 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.
3-4
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 tech
nique is to plot core porosity versus porosity log measurement such as sonic travel
time. At, orbulk density, p, and then develop a relationship between the parameters.
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. In most instances, the
FIGURE 3-1
CORE POROSITY VERSUS
INTERVAL TRAVEL TIME FROM SONIC LOG
0.20
.9 0.15
w 0.10
0.05
0.00
50
55
3-5
60
(]) = A + BAt
(Eq. 3.10)
where the constants A and B are estimates from the data plot. The parameters A
and B can be considered calibration constants from the reservoir under investigation.
Similar graphs could be made using density or neutron logs. Once the relationship
between porosity and log property is known, it should be used in the non-cored wells
to determine porosity as a function of the log measured parameters. When core data
are imavailable, the default relationship between (|) and At is the conventional
Wylie-time equation whichis discussed in most logging textbooks.
in. Net Pay
zones or those that possess a high variation in permeability. For example, many
Once the net pay is determined for each well, the porosity associated with the pay
can then be determined.
The value assigned to N in Eq. 3.2 has no meaning unless it contains oil-in-place
which can be recovered during primary, secondary, or enhanced recovery operations.
It follows that the value of h assigned to a well must represent that portion of the
formation with sufficient oil satm-ation, lateral continuity, and permeability to permit
oil production for the particular recovery process imder consideration. This can be
accomplished by identifying those zones which are continuous and contain adequate
moveable oil saturation, and applying a permeability cutoff. Hence, all continuous
intervals with moveable oil and possessing a permeability greater than the cutoff are
considered pay and all intervals with permeability less than the cutoff are considered
non-pay.
3-6
Nonetheless, if
FIGURE 3-2
TYPICAL PERMEABIUTY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP
1,000
100
.o
CO
(D
10
o
oX o
O
0.1
12
16
Application of Figure 3-2 presents three major problems. First, air permeability
values fi-om core data are usually plotted versus core porosity. It is well known that
3-7
Last, net pay is highly dependent on the selection ofa permeability cutoff. Each of
these three points are addressed below.
(kro 3nd krw). The appropriate and technically correct value of permeability
used in the construction ofFigure 3-2 is (ko)s . .
Table 3-1 compares ka with (ko)s^ for several core samples. It should be
noted that (ko)s . is always less than ka. Figure 3-3 is a graph showing the
Avir
relationship of ka and 0^o)s^ versus porosity for the data presented in Table
3-1. It is noted that, for a given permeability cutoff; the porosity cutoff is
permeability, it leads to a porosity cutoff that is too low and thus results in an
optimistic estimate of net pay.
TABLE 3-1
ka,md
(ko)s^.md
10.7
0.346
0.045
11.9
0.767
0.190
11.2
0.704
0.197
12.6
5.300
3.310
12.2
1.220
0.617
14.8
11.500
4.770
10.3
0.190
0.036
14.2
4.380
1.350
9.0
0.335
0.112
10
10.3
0.595
0.094
11
14.0
4.430
1.430
12
9.8
0.299
0.066
13
13.4
4.210
1.360
14
14.3
10.600
3.270
15
12.9
1.430
0.489
16
16.6
25.000
12.500
17
15.5
12.200
5.400
18
11.7
1.100
0.270
19
10.5
0.520
0.110
the porosity cutoff using the ka trend yields a value of 11.6 percent. The
corresponding porosity cutoffusing the 0^o)s^ trend is 13.2 percent. For this
particular reservoir, the total field pore volume using a porosity cutoff of 11.6
FIGURE 3-3
1 10
(D
kg
'
'O
(D
E
L_
Q-
0.1
^
0
OIlPi3rmeability, (1
^o^Swlr
o
0.01
8
10
12
14
16
18
Porosity, percent
After the porosity cutoff is estimated, it can be used with the available porosity
logs to determine net pay. All laterally continuous intervals containing adequate
moveable oil saturation and possessing porosity values greater than the porosity
cutoff are considered net pay. All intervals possessing porosity less than the
porosity cutoffare considered non-pay andareneglected in allftiture 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 eachwell.
A map of (t)h for each well can then be plotted and contoured to produce a
porosity-thickness map. When planimetered, this map gives the desired pore
volume, Ah<|).
3-10
error in the selection offloodable net pay cutofi* criteria and, subsequently, in the
oil-in-place calculations.
George and Stiles^ noted in one West Texas carbonate reservoir that the
porosity-permeability relationship was so poor that the conventional permeabilityporosity technique previously described could not be used. For example, when a
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. To improve the oil-in-place calculations, George and Stiles offered new
procediu*es 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
method.
fitting) techniques can be used. Each technique will yield a different porosity
cutoff for a given permeability cutoff. The fieldwide net pay technique of
George and Stiles eliminates this problem. The fieldwide technique yields a
3-11
single porosity cutoff that gives fieldwide pore volume, based on core samples,
with permeability greater than the permeability cutoff.
The fieldwide net pay method requires core data be available and analyzed
according to the following procedures.
0^0)8^,)b. From the core data, define actualpay as being all cored footage possessing
a permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Compute the actual (|)h
for all pay above the permeability cutoff.
c. From the core data, define apparent pay as being all core footage
possessing a porosity greater than a porosity cutoff. This step does not
require the selection ofa single value ofporosity cutoff. Instead, apparent
payis computed as a function of porosity.
d. Select several values of porosity cutoff ranging from zero to the mflvimnm
value of porosity. Usually, these values are selected in increments of two
porosity units such as two, four, six, ei^t, etc. percent. For each value of
apparent <|)h versus the porosity cutoffused to define the apparent <|)h. The
curve inFigure 3-4 is a hypothetical example ofthis type ofrelationship.
3-12
FIGURE 3-4
APPARENT POROSITY-THICKNESS VS POROSITY CUTOFF
10
15
e. Enter the actual <|)h determined from Step b on Figure 3-4 and read the
represents the porosity cutoff where apparent pay is equal to actual pay.
This value ofporosity, when utilized in all wells, should lead to the proper
(bh of the field.
3-13
FIGURE 3-5
S 8
CO
(/}
QJ c
c 6
o
Actual <j)h
^4
'w
"c 2
a?
CD
Q.
Q.
<
Porosity Cutoff
0
10
15
20
EXAMPLE 3:2
Conventional ka values have been measured on 2,551 core samples. Figure 3-6
is a conventional semi-log graph relating ka to porosity. Using the fieldwide net
pay method of George and Stiles described in the above paragraphs, estimate the
porosity cutoff which causes the apparent pay based on a porosity cutoff to be
equal to theactual pay based ona permeability cutoff.
3-14
FIGURE 3-6
<
^ o
10
0.1
Least Squares
Straight Line Fit
10
15
20
Porosity, percent
The actual pay (aud pore volume, (|)h) for all cores possessing ka values of
6.0 md or greater is 267 porosity-feet
The apparent pay (and related pore volume) is computed for different porosity
cutoff values listed below.
3-15
Porosity Cutoff
percent
Apparent Cumulative
Porosity-Thickness, feet
370
369
368
358
10
330
12
296
14
254
16
192
18
88
20
23
22
FIGURES-?
APPARENT POROSITY-THICKNESS VERSUS POROSITY CUTOFF
0)
^ 400
10
15
Enter actual (or true) porosity-thickness of 267 feet, based on the permeability
cutoff, on the vertical scale and read the porosity cutoffvalue of 13.2 percent
as shown in Figure 3-8.
3-16
FIGURE 3-8
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE POROSITY CUTOFF
FOR FIELD PORE VOLUME CALCULATIONS AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR DATA SCATTER
400
0)
a
</>
v>
0)
300
267
X
True Net Pay Pore Volume
200 - Based on Permeatsility Cutoff
I 100
(5
Ol
<
1
10
13.2 15
20
26
This value of 13.2 percent takes into account the scatter in data. It is the porosity
cutoff thatyields a pore volume which is equal to the pore volume for those core
2. George and Stiles Individual Well Net Pay Method (Weighting Factor
Method)
George and Stiles noted that, while the procedure outlined above gives reliable
pore volume, there are some /ie/ds in which are we//s 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 wel/s
included net pay. The problem was that wells which had produced primary oil
3-17
were given little or no credit for secondary operations because they contained
no netpay when using a straight porosity cutoff.
second method for net pay determination method was developed and is
outlined below.
b. Select a low porosity range, such as 2.0% < (|) < 3.0%, and determine
the number of feet of core having a porosity within this range. Define this
value as apparent pay. Compute the weighted average porosity of all core
footage within thisporosity range. For example,
. _ (|)ihi +(|)2h2 +
hi +h2 +
+hn
+hn
c. Determine how many feet of the apparent pay from Step b have a
permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Define this value as
actualpay.
d. Compute the ratio of actual pay to apparent pay (the weightingfactor) and
plot this ratio versus the weighted average porosity cutoff from Step b on
Cartesian coordinate paper.
cutoff i.e., 3.0% < (j) < 4.0%; 4.0% < (|) < 5.0%; etc. Plot the
weighting factor for the porosity range versus the average porosity within
the range. Figure 3-9 is an example. While some scatter will exist, George
and Stiles suggest that a straight line fit ofthe data will normally provide an
adequate description of the weighting factor versus porosity relationship.
Note that there may be a minimum value of porosity below which the
weighting factor is zero (no net pay) and a TnaYimiim value of porosity
above which the weighting factor is unity, that is the actual pay will equal
3-18
the apparent pay. For example, in Figure 3-9, all intervals possessing a
value of porosity less than three percent have no pay, whereas for all
intervals possessing porosity greater than 20 percent, actual pay will equal
apparent pay.
FIGURE 3-9
RATIO OF ACTUAL PAYTO APPARENT PAY
0.75 -
s?
CO
Q.
0.50 -
>
s.
CO 0.25 -
0.00
10
15
Porosity, percent
f. For each porosity interval identified on the porosity log, compute the net
pay using the following equation.
Pay thickness determined
Apparent Pay
(Eq. 3.10)
The ratio of actual pay to apparent pay or weighting factor is obtained fi-om
Figure 3-9 for the particular value of porosity being considered. Suppose
for example the porosity of a particular interval is ten percent; hence firom
Figure 3-9, the weighting factor is approximately 0.4. This means that
statistically throughout the field, all layers with a porosity of ten percent
have a 40 percent probability of possessing a permeability greater than the
3-19
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.
Figure 3-9 can be computed. This equation can be combined with all logs in
the field such that each foot can be weighted.
EXAMPLE 3:3
FIGURE a-10
100
10
: 2md
<
. * ,
"X
0.1
0.01
,15.3
10
12
14
16
18
Porosity, percent
3-20
20
22
24
values.
'^wir
Apparent Pay
' ion
0-12
12-14
3/11=0.273
14-16
11/20 = 0.550
16-18
15/18 = 0.833
18 or greater
Figure 3-11 presents a graph ofthese data. Average porosity within the range
is plotted on the horizontal scale. The vertical scale is the ratio of net pay
above 2.0mdto apparentpay for the porosity interval.
FIGURE 3-11
1.00
0.25
12
14
16
Porosity, percent
3-21
18
The vertical scale can be used as a weighting factor for each foot of potential
pay. The graph indicates for any foot of interval possessing a porosity value
less than about 11 percent, receives a weighting factor of zero and is counted as
non-pay. For any foot of reservoir with a porosity greater than about 18
The gross interval in each well in this field can be weighted on afoot byfoot
basis. After weighting, (|)h values can be computed on a well basis for
accurate reservoir pore volume determination. Statistically, this technique for
computing pore should be more accurate than using a straight porosity cutofif
such as 15.3 percentas evaluated from Figure3-10.
The penneability
cutoff, for the same reservoirs, will change depending upon whether the oil
production is by primary, secondary, or tertiary methods. A major technical
hiu-dle that reservoir engineers, geologists, and managers must cross is an
understanding that penneability cutoffs for waterflooding are usually much
greater than the cutoff values used in primary analysis.
1. Permeability Cutoff Based on Fillup Time
Consider Figure 3-12 which depicts a partly depleted single geological layer
that extends from an injection well to a production well. Consider the case in
3-22
which during primary depletion, the injection well served as a production well.
During primary depletion, the zone produced oil through both well bores and
the layer contributed to primary production. Hence, the layer represented net
commenced, the question which must be resolved is "Will this layer contribute
or produce waterflood oil?" If the zone does not contribute secondary oil, it
must not be included in the net pay determination for secondary recovery
purposes.
FIGURE 3-12
PRODUCTION
WELL
WELL
Water
Oil
Zone
Bank
Secondary oil production commences when the oil bank, shown in Figure 3-12,
Time enters into the secondary net pay permeability cutoff calculation. For
example, if the oil bank in Figure 3-12 is displaced to the producing well
within an acceptable time period it would be called pay. However, if an
unacceptable response time (say 10 years or greater) is required for the oilbank
to reach the producing well, then the zone may not qualify as pay. As will be
discussed in more detail in a later section, the time required for the oil bank to
reach a production well is equivalent to the "free gas" fillup time.
This
tf=^
(Eq.3.11)
where
Wjf =water required to reach gas fillup for the layer, barrels
iw
=water injection rate into the layer, barrels per day (See Chapter 6)
tf
Further,
(Eq. 3.12)
Wif =(7758Ah(|))Lay,,*Sg
EXAMPLE 3:4
pressure at the start of waterflooding is 500 psi. At the start of injection, the
calculated oil, gas, and connate water saturations are 60, 15, and 25 percent,
3-24
respectively. Assume a zero skin factor for both the injector and production
wells.
Oil Viscosity
= 2.0 centipoise
^wi
= 2600 psi
^wf
= 200 psi
Si
= 0
Sp
= 0
rw
= 0.25 feet
(|>
= 12 percent
1.0
that the skin factor averages a value of -4.0, would the permeability cutoff
be altered?
SOLUTION
1. The time required to achieve waterflood oil response (flUup) for the lowest
permeability zone in 15 yearsis computed in the following manner.
Wif, bbls
365 * iw, bbls/day
Wif=7758Ah(|)Sg
3-25
Wif=5586*h, bbls
and from Table 7-1 of Chapter 7:
0.00354 *(ko)s.*h*(p^-P^'
lw =
I^Si +Sp
2.0 In
933
V0.25/
-0.619+0.5(0+0)
5586 *li
*h '
'^wir
(ko)s
. =1.82md
^^wir
(This probably represents an air permeability of3.0 to4.0 md)
2. Ifit is assumed that a - 4.0 skin factor could be maintained at the injection
well, the injection rate is altered to:
^933^^
V0.25y
- 0.619 + 0.5(-4.0+ 0)
iw =0.758 *(ko)s^^ *h
The minimum permeability (penneability cutofiE) to obtain fillup in 15 years
is:
Wif
tf = 365 * iw
3-26
15
5586 *h
365 0.758 *(ko)s,, *h
'wir
(ko)s^wir =1.35 md
It is noted in Eq. 3.11 and illustrated in Example 3:4 that since the h tenn
appears in both the numerator and denominator, they cancel. Hence the
permeability cutoff computed in this method is independent ofthickness.
2. Permeability Cutoff Based on Watercut
free gas saturation at the start of the waterflood. The permeability cutoff is
dependent on actual reservoir stratification and the rock and fluid properties
withinthe different layers.
The watercut method can best be illustrated with the aid of Figure 3-13. This
figure presents a three-dimensional view of a typical injector and offset
producer. The reservoir is subdivided into a number of layers. There is no
procedure that precisely defines the number of layers but 15 to 20 layers
should be sufficient. A waterflood prediction is made for the multi-layered
system using a prediction technique such as the one proposed by
Craig-Geffen-Morse^ (described in detail in Chapter 8) or a numerical
simulationmodel. The waterflood is carried out to an economic limit watercut
3-27
OIL BANK
WATER ZONE
INJECTOR
WATER CUT
PRODUCER AT 96 PERCENT
FIGURE 3-13
Upon reaching the economic limit, each of the layers within the waterflood
calculations, it has been found that the volumetric original oil-in-place was much
greaterthan that calculated by material balance.
Stiles'* has
indicated that in one West Texas field, the material balance OOIP was estimated
to be 738 MMSTBO. A volumetric OOIP of 1,029 MMSTBO was calculated
3-29
using a sixpercent 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
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
3-30
FIGURE 3-14
Layer 2
Layers
(ko)Swir ^
Layer 4
(ko)Swir ^
Cutoff
Cutoff ^
Layer 5
Layer 6
3==^
(ko)s^j^ >Permeability Cutoff
Layer?
Figure 3-14 is a cross section between two producing wells during primary
production in a reservoir characterized byseveral 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
With respect to
after some primary production from Layers 1 and 3, they become partially
pressure depleted. If modest values of vertical permeability are present, oil will
enters a zone of high permeability and will then move radially to a producing
well. This vertical crossflow can account for production that is normally not
anticipated using previously described cutoffs and results in primary production
3-31
being more favorable than is otherwise predicted. Also as seen in Figure 3-14,
Layers 4, 5, and 6 contribute to primary production.
thousand feet while others extend only a few feet. To be flooded, ^pay interval
must:
Figure 3-14 illustrates the continuity concept. Only Layers 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are
continuous. However, since Layers 2 and 7 possess permeability less than the
permeability cutoff no water enters the layer; accordingly. Layers 2 and 7 are not
injection supported and are not treated as pay.
3-32
FIGURR
NO.zosa
HO.asT
The upper curve in Figure 3-16 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 3-16
CONTINUOUSAND FLOODABLE PAY FOR MEANS FIELD
(WESTTEXAS)
0.75
0.50
Continuous Pay
Floodable Pay
0.25
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
3-33
6000
floodable. Consider Layer 6 in Figure 3-14. 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 layerIhickness which could be expected to flood. The overall result was
the lower curve in Figure 3-16 which relates floodable pay expressed as a fraction
of total pay.
For a specific distance, floodable pay will always be less than continuous pay
which, in turn, will be less than total pay. Practical application of the floodable
pay concept shows that as average distance between injectors and producers
3-34
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, CJ. and Stiles, L.H.: "Improved Techniques for Evaluating Carbonate
3-35
PROBLEM 3:1
OIL IN PLACE
The original discovery pressure of an oil reservoir was above the bubble point pressure.
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.
Swc 26%
Boi =1.35RB/STB
Bob = 1.41 RB/STB
Bo =1.10RB/STB
A
= 880 acres
=24 ft.
(|)
= 16%
3-36
PROBLEM 3:2
A Middle East oil resei^voir is being evaluated for wateiflood potential. Figure 3:2-1
versus porosity.
1. Compute and compare the porosity cutoff for a 10 md penneability cutoff using
3-38
FIGURE 3:2-1
10,000
(0
o
1,000
CO
o
CO
100
CO
CO
n
(0
o
E
Urn
o
10
Q.
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Porosity, percent
)
FIGURE 3:2-2
10,000
0)
0)
mwmm
1.000
(0
"O
Ko
100
___
-owi
mmm
n
(0
(D
10
Q.
1
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Porosity, percent
24
26
28
30
swc nso
sg
5^ 100
Sg = 22%
Sg = 35%
So = 75%
So = 67%
So = 53%
So = 40%
3000 psi
(Bubble Point)
2000 psi
1000 psi
300 psi
10
0.01
5 >
'd
100
1,000
iS
"d
0.01
0.1
10
10
100
1000
12
14
16
18
Porosity - %
B
1
20
22
>
24
Introduction
Detailed studies of three waterfloods in Permian carbo
Reservoir Description
Geology
location, and producing depth, exhibit similar depositionaland lithologic characteristics that affectwaterflood
performance.
These reservoirs are characterized by numerous poros
1547
NORTHWEST
SHELF
Fullerton
Means
Rot>ertson
17,300
15,723
4,400
4,B00
6.500
300
9.0
1,400
9.6
3
22
20
29
0.65
30
42
0.75
1.62
29
6
1.04
32
1.2
1.25
2,370
310
1,700
Reservoir
Area, acres
7,000
Depth, fl
EASTERN
600
Gross thickness, ft
Porosity, %
Permeablity. md
Connate water, %
BASIN
6.3
Riid
"ttoauS:
'0
B
CORE
12
16
POROSITY -
20
24
f ri
POROSITT C0l0rF>4.2%
10
'
POROSITY CUTOFF-PERCENT
10
12
14
POROSITY - PERCENT
12
NEUTRON POROSITY -
16
20
PERCENT
20
12
ae
L.
4
8
12
16
NEUTRON LOG POROSITY - PERCENT
20
ues were obtained for each zone of every well in the field.
1551
W. tOSf
well connected to another well. In'this technique, threedimensional reservoir stratification was represented by
two-dimensional cross-sections, with the distance be
Ml MT AT
wiu t m
All continuous beds were considered equally floodable, regardless of their geometry. Although this ap
proach was an imjH-ovement in the attempt to define
floodable pay, it was obviously conservative because
of this assumption.
Floodable Pay
All net pay, even tfiough continuous, is not necessarily
FLoboAeLEJ^i^-.^
WY
2 40
20 -
"idbo"
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
5*
5*
5'
.
10'
5'
(a)
'WEDGE" AREA
"UNIFORM' AREA
1552
5'
(b)
place flooded.
Operattorul Changes
The three flelds had been flooded for 5 to 12 years when
modiflcation:
triangular distribution.
of wells in a snidy
Recommendati on
Inflll wells
Conversions
Robertson
61
71
80
124
54
Pattern:
Existing
Prq>osed
Means
Fullerton
Additimal
recovery,
million bbl
3tol
line
drive
3tol
line
drive
80-acre
flve-spot
160-acre
80-acre
80-acre
one-
one-
one-
to nine-
to nine-
to nine-
spot
spot
spot
22
22
MjCCTIW cu
ntOOUOKC ELL
iiaat er
Of
MT M n M
suPfoaru
u%
MT COMtCUB
%
Application of Technology
Summary of Techniques
With methods described above, better values for both the
3>
Coviia^ix >
'*
References
!554
Introduction
Oil
1.
2.
3.
4.
Njj = N E^ Ey Ej)
If the gas saturation at the beginning of waterflood operations
(3.1)
These sweep
injected water.
of Ep.
-0.001127
w
w
3Pw
as
0.00694
sin a
(3.2)
3p
or
- 0.00694 p sin a
w
(3.3)
0.001127kgA
3-2
0.00694
sin a
(3.4)
where:
= water viscosity, cp
The sign convention for Eqs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 is illustrated
in Fig. 3.1.
Down-dip Flow
Up-dip Flow
Fig. 3.1:
3-3
(2. 1)
Pc = Po - Pw
Thus,
or
_ Po
3s
Pw
ds
3s
(3. 5)
9s
0.001127kjjA
0.001127k^
+ 0.00694 Cp - p^jsin a
(3. 6)
f =
"
**"
=521
1o
(3. 8)
It
f. =
= 1
It
f.
(3.9)
"o^t
3Pc
ds
O'
(3.10)
"w
"o K
Equation 3.10 is commonly referred to as the fractional flow
equation.
3-4
'
l.G
100
wir
Fig. 3.2:
3-5
EXAMPLE
3.1
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.
Swi =
^w
^t
18%
"o
2.48 cp
30%
8o
1.37 RB/STB
1.04 RB/STB
45 md
0.8
1.03
50,000
' 0.62 cp
= 1000 bbl/day
s,
%
w'
ro
30
rw
30
0.940
40
0.800
0.040
50
0.440
0.110
60
0.160
0.200
70
0.045
0.300
80
0.440
SOLUTION
0.001127k^A
1
0.00694(p
^0%
- P^Dsin a
% ^
r\
3-6
k_ md
ro
ro
= 62.4y
W
- p
w
= 14.4 Ibm/ft'
o
fw =
0.00694(14.4)(0.5)
(2.46) (lOODT
0.62 '^ro
ITU Erw
^
1
) (50,000)
ro"
O.OSl k
ro
1 + 0.25 ^^
rw
Calculations of f
versus S
W
1 - 0.051 k_
'^ro
fw
k'
0.25
rw
30
0.940
40
0.800
0.040
0.160
50
0.440
0.110
0.489
60
0.160
0.200
0.827
70
0.045
0.300
0.962
80
0.440
1.000
Recognizing this
displacement efficiency.
3-7
l.QQ
I"!
...
-H
-1A
/
/
0.80
/
i
4
t
0.60
t
m
"w
0.40
/
I
0.20
>
jj
4.
30
40
50
60
70
S^, %
Fig. 3.3:
A.
Effect of wettability
At a particular water saturation, the effective
of Eq. 3.10 will be larger for a water wet rock and the
This relation
Since i t is
3-8
80
1.00
Oil-
0.80
0.60
Water-Wet
0.40
0.20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
S,
Fig. 3.4:
B.
The effect of
occur when water displaces oil up-dip so that o < a < 180.
Conversely, when 180 < a < 360, i.e., when water displaces
Down-dip
Zero-dip
Up-dip
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
10
Fig. 3.5:
20
C.
^c ~ ^o " ^w
3-10
8p
9p
~ 3s
3s
c _
as
*^0 _
This can be
D.
3-11
1.00
0.80
0.5 cp
0.60
0.40
0.20
"w
10
Fig. 3.6:
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
E.
Effect of Rate
3-12
A summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
A large density difference (p^-Pq) improves updip recovery but decreases down-dip recovery.
5.
6.
F.
In
7.83xlO''k|jA(p-Pjj)sin a
f =I
w
(3.11)
^O
3-13
(5.1^
fw =
1
''o ''w
or to the equivalent form
(3.13)
.
"o '^rw
Equation 3.13 is the most widely used form of the fractional
flow equation.
III. Frontal Advance Equation
distribution
of the
k, (|>
f
w/x*
Ax
x+Ax
Fig. 3.7:
3-14
w/x+Ax
Flow rate
water in
Rate of water
Accumulation
Flow rate of
of
water
out
(3.14)
[at J X
Ax'
-5.615q^
as.
7t
$A
^ . Ax
* * I-
(3.15)
Ax
dS
at
-5.615q
(t)A
f^fwl
[ax Jt
-5.615q^
I'M
<f>A
ax
t
(3.16)
3-15
fas '
3S
w
iSw =
dx +
ax
(3..
dt
at
as
dx +
ax
fas
as
and
(3.19)
dt
at
fdxl
(3.20)
3t
at
5.615q^
dx
Ht
af.w
as
(3.21)
is independent of
W
time; accordingly.
af
df
IF5w
35w
(3.22)
and
5.615q^ df^
fdx"
(3.23)
3t
w
w
3-16
advance equation:
S.eiSq^t d
S.615W. df^
3s; = -ipr-3s;
where:
IV.
A.
Buckley-Leverett Theory
function of time.
of time.
3-17
100
Reservoir Oil
wm
S^, I 50
Flood
* . \ Water
* .* \
.* Initial Water
Distance
Fig. 3.8:
100
^wm
w*
50
Distance
Fig. 3.9:
stabilized zone.
3-19
Nonstabilized
zone where
=
Stabilized
Zone
ax
Front at
= const.
time
\ Front at
time
Distance
Fig. 3.10:
f^ = 0).
W1
Accordingly,
3-20
1.0
Curve demanded
by stabilized
zone
\
k
/||
/li
^
/' i
/ '
1
1
/ 1
/ /
/ / 1
1
0.5
/ / 11
Zf'
50
wi
'wf
100
Fig. 3.11:
It is
3-21
In contrast to the
0.
!!c _
ax
(3.25)
3S^ ax
in Fig. 3.10.
C.
Welge Procedure
1.
Front
*.
* .
S .
wi
Fig. 3.12:
3-22
and
is
r^wf
;) = J
f^ wf
where:
wi
3X
dS
Swi
(3.26)
wf 5.615q^t
0A
f^'wf "wi
df
3S
dS.
wi
5.615q^t
x.(s .-s 0
f^ wf
Thus,
wi*^
- Vs^.
_ s.eisq^t
(3.27)
X = X^,
X- =
f
5.615q^t
. ^
df.
(|)A
35w S =S ^
w
(3.28)
wf
df
dS
Sf
r wf
.
wi
3-23
(3.29)
(fw/S
point
100
S. %
Fig. 3.13:
In
3-24
1.0
point
100
wir
Sw
Fig. 3,14:
b.
The saturation,
wi
> S
wir
Total H2O
/I S^dx = MjfwmX
3-25
(3.30)
where
wjii
^w
or
wm
(3.31)
dS
w
wf
/wm
*dSw
(3.32)
*wf
e-
/wmdf^
fdf 1
w
3s
Vf
(3.33)
Vf
5.615q^tS^ [w]
or
Total H2O
5.61Sq,
Vf
4)AX^
(3.34J
rj
(3.35)
Vf
is obtained:
Ifl
j: +
i-f
wf
(3.36)
wf
as
w
3-26
(SA. 1.0)
1.0
'wf
^^wA' wf^
Fig. 3.15:
.
w*
%
'
HS"
w
3-27
^wA ~ ^wf ^
wf
(3.37)
df.
3^
w
= S ..
WA
can be obtained by
= 1.0.
3.16.
1.
100
Swi
Sw
Fig. 3.16:
Graphical determination of S
w
3-28
3.
creases by an amount
lent amount..
Np = N
Ey Ej,
1.0
Therefore,
Np = NEjj
The displacement sweep efficiency, E^, is the oil recovery due
to waterflooding expressed as a fraction of the oil volume which
5.615
3 .
(3.39)
(^-^wi^
Vt =
- S,)
3-29
(3.40)
'Dbt -
S 1,^ - S .
wbt
wi
(3.41)
1 - S .
wi
-1
5.615q^t
(3.42)
asw
Pore volumes of
water injected
at breakthrough
Therefore,
rdfi
ibt
^ibt
(3.4^
-1
(3.44)
as
t bt -~ "ibt S.eiSq^
'''^Qibt
3-30
(3.45)
WATERFLOOD "
OIL PRODUCED
The oil remaining in the reservoir will consist of two parts oil in the swept region where the average oil saturation is
(1
ration of the gas space with displaced oil, the oil saturation
is (1 . Accordingly,
OIL REMAINING'
IN RESERVOIR
- Vpd - W
Further,
-
WATERFLOOD "
OIL PRODUCED
wi
.)
'wi - Sgi)] - N
3-30A
N = -P w
- s
oEaE,, - v s .
wi-* AV
p gi
N =
V res
- S .)E.E - S .1
wi^ A V
gi-*
T,
res
n
^D " T"
- S OE^E - S .1
wi-* A V
gi-"
(1 -
- Sgi)E^Ey
W1
Ej^Ey
- ^gi
3-30B
EXAMPLE
3.2
= 7000 bbl/day
'
B,,
= 1.02 RB/STB
w
S . = 251
(f)
'= 22%
\i^w = 0.50 cp
B^
=1.25 RB/STB
wi
50 md
Sw^
= 1.39 cp
= 0
^o/^w
0.25
00
0.30
36.95
0.35
11.12
0.40
4.84
0.45
2.597
0.50
1.340
0.55
0.612
0.60
0.292
0.65
0.098
0.70
0.017
0.72
0.000
(a)
(b)
(c)
time of breakthrough.
(d)
3-31
unity.
neglected.
SOLUTION
1 +
rw ^o
Sw
f
w
0.25
0.000
0.55
0.820
0.30
0.070
0.60
0.905
0.35
0.200
0.65
0.966
0.40
0.365
0.70
0.994
0.45
0.517
0.72
1.000
0.50
0.674
pbt
wbt
- Swi)
= 1.0 defines.S , .
"
WD t
3-32
As
Swbt =
1.0
ii
s:::aKEssi3E:t:iE::i:c::niii
w
KKs::
syS2
0.4
0.2
i
100
S ,
w'
Fig. 3.17:
pbt
ft
EET
1.25
= 1.175 X 10 STB
Cb.)
= 5.61Sq^
3-33
bbl
STF
fdf
Q.ibt
dS
-1
= S , ^ - S .
wbt
wi
^bt
(S.615)(7oo03
(c)
_^t
Dbt
1
wi _ 0.614 - 0.25
1 - 0.25
Epbt = 0.48S
(d)
Eq. 3.44:
'dfjQ.ibt
0.364
Hsw
is
"ibt = Qibt Vp
W.
Q.ibt
AL
5.615
0.364
(0.22H78.000) ri320')
5.615
= 1.468 X 10 bbls
3-34
"
4.
saturation at
to S,,.
wt
the outlet is S
wm
where
w2
wf
< S, <
w2
wm'
w2
IS
given
by the equation
1-f.
S
= S
^ +
w2
w2
df
02
o +
w2
(3.46)
df
as
dS
saturation ^2*
between
and
This is illus
where
_ ^t^w2^o ^w2 o
is determined at S^2'
(3.47)
^ mobile water
in a previous section.
time
= S^2
relationship
3-35
S V^
wbt
w2
"wf
wf w2
Fig. 3.18:
breakthrough.
df
-1
Qi
(3.48)
H5
'w2
is equal to
= S^2
'Iw =
STB/D
(3.49)
(3.5
STB/D
3-36
These
EXAMPLE 3.3
(a)
(b)
(c)
tbt
= 209.8 days
Swbt =
W^bt = 1-468 X 10 bbls
For computations beyond breakthrough, that portion
of the fractional flow curve which represents the non-
stabilized zone
3.19.
1.0
0.95
0.90
0.85
uni;::::::;::::::::
0.80
Sw = 53%
-= 0.775
0.75
S^, %
Fig. 3.19:
3-38
Key (see
Fig.. 3.19)
Incremental Recovery
beyond breakthrough,STB
AN =V (S -S , ^)/B
p p^ w wbt^
0
^w2
53.0=S^^
0.775
2. 747
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
306,600
-1
N , STBxlO
\2
53.0=S
W. = V Q.
Qi
p^i
bbls
X 10
1.175
0.364
1.468
55.0
1.246
0.498
2.008
57.5
1.298
0.570
2.299
60.0
1.340
0.684
2.759
62.5
1.382
0.883
3.562
65.0
1.420
1.143
4.611
67.5
1.472
1.825
7.362
70.0
1.482
2.500
10.085
Sw2'^
53.0=S^f
wf
W.
^ ~ 7000'^^^^
210=t^^
WOR
Qq, STB
4.2
1260
5319
55.0
287
5.6
1008
5627
57.5
328
7.9
756
59 36
60.0
394
11.7
532
6211
62.5
509
19.2
336
6451
65.0
659
33.8
196
6623
67.5
1052
70.9
95
6746
70.0
1441
203.0
34
6822
3-39
D.
Gravity under-running
2045q^ ^w
Tan B = -
^rw
Ak(Y
^roj
//////////
water - o i l
- Y )
n n r) r / / /
Practical units, as previously defined, are used in the
equation. The relative permeability to oil is defined at
the front.
3-40
(3.51,
Summary
From this
Procedures
Modifications for
chapter.
3-41
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3-42
PROBLEMS:
1.
^rw
^ro
0.20
0.800
0.25
0.002
0.610
0.30
0.009
0.470
0.35
0.020
0.370
0.40
0.033
0.285
0.45
0.051
0.220
0.50
0.075
0.163
0.55
0.100
0.120
0.60
0.132
0.081
0.65
0.170
0.050
0.70
0.208
0.027
0.75
0.251
0.010
0.80
0.300
Sw
cp
Pw' CP
y^w /u^o
50
0.5
0.01
0.5
0.1
0.4
1.0
2.5
3-43
1.0
tULcr::
Case 1
O.Oli^
Case 2
0.8
Case
Ky
0.6
"w
0.4
nnHKMvia
0.2
20
40
60
80
S^, %
Fig. 3P.1;
2.
= 1000 bbl/day
(|>
S
= 18%
.
wi
20%
50,000 ft^
w
0.62 cp
2.48 cp
400
ft
=1.15 RB/STB
B^
=1.0 RB/STB
3-44
100
s
w
ro
rw
0.20
0.930
0.000
0.30
0.600
0.024
0.40
0.360
0.045
0.50
0.228
0.124
0.55
0.172
0.168
0.60
0.128
0.222
0.70
0.049
0.350
0.80
0.018
0.512
0.85
0.000
0.600
3.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Sw
0.20
^0
-
^rw
0.25
0.800
0.018
0.049
0.30
0.610
0.04
0.130
0.35
0.425
0.07
0.273
0.40
0.280
0.10
0.448
0.45
0.175
0.13
0.628
0.50
0.110
0.16
0.768
0.55
0.063
0.20
0.878
0.60
0.031
0.26
0.950
NO.
OIETZOEN
GRAPH
20 X 2D PER INCH
34a-20
PAPER
MADE IN U. 8. A.
Hiiaalaaiiiiiiaai
SSESSSSSSSbSS
Mil
NO.
DICTZBEN
GRAPH
20 X 20 PER INCH
340-2a
PAPER
)
MAOC IN U.
B.
A.
nsliii!
iiiiaai
lllllillll "ill
0.65
0.011
0. 32
0.985
0.68
0.0028
0.36
0.996
0.70
^0
s=
It
1.000
Pw
0.853 cp
0.375 cp
400 md
"w
PQ
Bo
10,000 ft^
2500 RB/Day
s:
62.IS lb/ft'
47.2 lb/ft'
0.22
1.32 RB/STB
1.03 RB/STB
a.
b.
c.
d.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
e.
(i)
breakthrough.
(ii)
n
3-49
20 X 20 PER INCH
B. A.
llitilKit
RESERVOIR engineering/management
A^anagement of a l^ultiple-Reseryolr
Offshore Waterflood
.p. W.,e, SPE,
Summary
nt Guiitong field, the largest waterfiood field in offshore peninsular and lateral continuity of these sands vary fieldwide. The best reser
rn
^
channel-shaped
of the
nlledAT1-23 channel.
This
is one of manyfeatures
examples
thatproven
helped tosandde
termine optimal placement ofthe development wells.
Introduction
The Guntong field is in the South China Sea. 210 km off the east
discovered in '
April 1978 and is currently being developedf^eld
and was
managed
by Esso
Production Malaysia Inc. (EPMI) as acontractor to Petroliam Nati
fihd. (Petronas). the Malay.sian-national oil company. Development
Reservoir Description
mum vertical relief ofabout 250 mat the 1-25 level in the EFB. The
^
northern flank and 9to 14 on the south
L Era, CFB and WFB.
north-south
trending
faultsthedivide
into
the
The fault
separating
WFBthehasfield
amaxi
^
S
P
i
TOI|TOOl^ riw.
o^SSS^SS^BSSBfate
Vi-j^aoN iciis^
-.V'
AtPM'Ae.-r'-^L
\tfiCXEO HWIlONi'jro:W
J*ttONiMiEC v:
:i-!.vi,:
BELOW i-iJaAjartAK'.'^
i(bj"; <;
4lli
".^
- 8 oil MOOUCt* ;. ;
ir^WATM mJtCTOIl; ',:
,^voTOtaoi f^}:'
, C)
ciimiOATt .h
Development Concept
The major accumulations in the EFB and CFB are in seven Group 1 voirs. Efforts are focused on the major reservoirs. The following are
voirs have small gas caps and waterdrive is weak because ofboth poor
1.Achieve waterflood pattern balancing on the basis ofremaining
quality ofsandstone offstructure and the limited extent ofthe aquifer. displaceable oilin each pattern to ensure that all sands are flooded
Oil production under natural depletion alone would result in rapid de uniformly. Continuous monitoring offlood advancement and itsareal
clinein both pressure andoil rate. The limited natural drive mecha
and vertical conformance isessential to achieving this objective.
nism, combined with the favorable water/oil mobility ratio observed
2. Operate the waterflood at an optimum pressure level to maxi
with the I-sandstone crude, led to early waterflooding.
mize oil displacement. Our studies indicate that reducing the reser
Predevelopmfiint reservoir model studies recommended theuseofan
inverted seven-spot waterflood pattern.' However, extensive injectivity objective. This optimum pressure level is referred toas thecritical
testing in the first development well showed water injectivity to be low gassaturation pressure,
To achieve this strategy, the production
er than anticipated. Fracftire gradient and low relative permeability to andinjection rates must beproperly controlled so that the reservoir
4.Manage the gas caps torecover oil updip ofthe most upstruc-
Lower I group consists of eight reservoirs. The strategy of com- location by means ofmaterial balance and individual well gas/oil ra
mingled production and injection inthese Isands waschosen onthe tio (GOR), R, performance evaluation. The producing Rofthe wells
basis ofmodel studies that resulted in insignificant recovery differ may then be controlled to prevent potential shrinkage ofthe cap.
ences between commingled and noncommingled development. A
A comprehensive reservoir surveillance program supports these
noncommingled completion strategy would require 1.5 to2 times strategies and is discussed later.
as many wells asthe commingled case todevelop the reserves. The
J sands are developed separately and are being produced by com Optimum Operating Pressure
bination ofgas-cap expansion and gas injection.
"Die basic philosophy ofthe critical gas saturation pressure-deple
The complexity and rapid pace ofthe field development required tion strategy isto pr^uce the field in amanner that will maximize
a very high level ofinteraction between Petronas and EPMI toensure a free gassaturation behind thewater front tominimize theresidual
asmooth and successful development prognim. Ref. 2 discusses the oil saturation. As discussed later, maintaining a critical gas satura
interaction and teamwork thatled to the successful field development. tion, Sgct inaximizes oil recovery and simultaneously minimizes un
Production and Injection Performance
Production from Guntong Awas initiated in the fourth quarter of gas evolves from theoil so thatit becomes mobile in thereservoir.
1985, and sustained injection was initiated in late 1986. The produc
Core analysis indicates an average value of3.5% for 5^^, which,
tion peaked at about 14 000 mVd in 1994. Up to mid-1996,36 x lO^ when combined with laboratory pressure/volume/temperature data,
m^ ofoil, or65% ofthie estimated ultimate recovery from the Group provides estirnated^gc values of13 583 and 16 548 kPa for the Up
Isandstones, has been produced. The water-injection rate peaked at perIand
LowerIpackages, respectively. Static bottomhole pressure
22 000 mVd in 1990, before full implementation ofpattern balanc (BHP), Ai-i,
surveys conducted in 1992 showed that psgc in some
ing. As pattern balancing was introduced, injection rates from se wells had fallen to lowerthan these estimates, even though the wells
lected wells were reduced. Aconcerted effort to improve the injec did not exhibit elevated producing Ras would be expected. These
tion performance was initiated in 1992 by acidizing wells to correct observations indicated that the values forpsgc may actually be low
injection profiles and remove formation damage. The acldization
er, prompting EPMI to define thep^gg mechanisms betterand tocon
"'7
Cha'Isngos
'^e'voir
simulation
was developed
the
^I reservoir management elective is to maximize the timely deple- mechanisms
associated
withmodel
producing
at less than to invesUgaie
The Simulation of all sand members. This is challenging because It Involves tion work highlighted the possibUity ofusing awell's producing Ras
1140
v6oo:-
:":.>400
i%.'vIr
i'i-fe
l^^aOO;'?
-
v^
- L f.. ^:;.
IMOO
-MioO'-UskM'
bperaHn^^
their Rhad not increased yet, thus confirming alower value bfp.Offset-pattem wells also did not show any Rincrease, suggesting
that gas was not migrating from the test patterns. The test for the
Lower Ireservoir group indicated p^gc of13 893 kPa, 2655 kPa less
than the previously estimated value, which was based on laboratory
work. Thispj^e was from Well GuB-lL as shown byrising Rperfor
covery resulting from gas displacing oil. Because gas is always the
nonwetting phase, the residual oil saturation decreases when the res
ervoir pressure declines to less than pb, leaving less oil in the reser
6). Although operating the reservoir at pressures less than pi, results
Pattern Balancing. Pattern balancing a waterflood field offers
in fewer remaining reservoir barrels of oil, dividing by an ever-de gains
in both maintaining oil rate and operational efficiency. A
creasing value for Bg reduces the gain in recovery atsurface condi badly balanced
flood will tend to recycle much ofthe injected water
tions. The solid line shows the net increase in oil recoveiy at surface to previously flooded
producers and underinject into patterns that
conditions. The best reservoir operating pressure that is acompro retain substantial unproduced
oil. The complexity of muldzone,
mise between recovery gain caused by gas displacing oil and loss multipattem operations requires
significant planning for each
caused by decreasing B^ is uniquelyIn this example, depleting
the reservoirat 13 790 kPa provides a3.8% increase in the expected completion's production and injection targets. FLDFRNT, a PCrecove^. With model results supporting the use offield-measured
Psgc Field Testing, p^g^ field testing was performed by (1) inducing
netwithdrawal from the test patterns to reduce the BHP, (2) observing
the/? performance through weekly well tests, and (3) taking^w sur
veys on aperiodic basis (2- to 4-month intervals). T^e net withdrawal
iiaiftsii
was carefully designed by increasing oil production rates from the test
weUs and curtailing the water-injection rates from the offset injectors
iiffi
i4d(id;iv'
-twK;;
Atotal ofseven wells was selected asp^g^ test candidates (Fig. 5).
Selected wells (1) provided areal coverage ofthe majorreservoirs, (2)
were strucmrally away from the gas cap to ensure that any Ranomaly
was caused solely by operating at less thanft^f, (3) had patterns with
high net withdrawal capacity and low to accelerate progress of
reaching p^gg, and (4) were wells that produced neither water nor
Guntong field.
mM
"i.p.
FLDFRNT recommends rates that maximize the production and jectiori and prdauction targets accordingly. Each well's producing R
injection for patterns that have the largest remaining displaceable oil is routinely monitored through periodic well tests in addition to pres
volume and minimizes those patterns that have less- oil. It has also sure surveys toensure that the reservoir pressure ishigher than
been used to highlight wells that have insufficient flow capacity or
poor split ratios relative to the conformable displaceable oil volume Water Ii^ectivityand QualityMonitoring. Because the field is in
ateach well. This predictive feature allows quantification ofthe incre jectivity limited (i.e., production will be balanced by the amount of
mental oil recovery that may be achieved with improvements in pro water that can beeffectively injected tomaintain pressure), sustain
jectivity with time. Millipore data from passing the injection water
through amicroscopic filter membrane are measured daily and are
indicators ofthe plugging tendency ofthe injection water. All these
flood-front progression continuously. Full-suite production logging quality with levels in excess of0.3 for an extended period is dis
tools (PLT), temperature logs, and oxygen-activation logs have been carded overboard. Fig. 8shows aplot ofmillipore level at Guntong
used to assess vertical conformance ofcommingled-completions.
A platform for January through December 1995. Inaddition to the
Chloride levels of the produced water are periodically analyzed millipore
readings, more comprehensive water-quality indicators
and used to confirm its source (i.e., injected seawater orformation are measured atthe water-injection plant located atthe adjacent1^pis B platform. Such measurement includes particle-size distribu
and formation water (typically 18 000 to 20 000 ppm and 1000 to tion, corrosion- and scale-inhibitor concentration, biocides, iron
3000 ppm, respectively) allows determination ofthe water source. counts, dissolved oxygen, iron,chloride, andother such factors.
water). The significant contrast inchloride level between seawater
Pressure Surveys. Initial pressure buildup (PBU) and injection falloff(IFO) tests were performed in most of the oil producer and waterinjectiori completions, respectively. These pressure surveys, com
bined with production-Zinjection-profile surveys, provide invaluable
data for reservoir description and completion performance. The data
showed considerable formation damage in the early wells, likely the
'
SplitRatio
(m^/d)
Sand
Sand
Sand-Thickness
(%)
Before
Ratio
Before
After
After
140
230
62
33
80
240
34
35
230
695
100
100
(%1
1-80
1-85
1-100/102
1-104
Total
:' '"VK-
0
0
0
1-80
1-85
M 00/102
1-104
tong water injectors has been very successful, with a total incremental
Total
55
60
115
205
175
0
0
10
235
120
745
0
48
52
100
28
24
1
31
16
100
9). Postacid PLT surveys conducted in two wells (Wells A-18L and
Acknowledgments
and permission to publish this paper and also all our colleagues who
stored to closer to the ideal undamaged profiles (Table 1).
When water breakthrough started in 1991, the water formed a provided input and vetted this paper, without whom the completion
of the paper would not have been possible.
stable emulsion that caused severe operational upsets. Several water-producing completions were shut in because the produced water
could not be effectively separated at the offshore platforms. Since
then, numerous options were evaluated and eventually resulted in
References
1. Hui, S.K. and Pillai, H.: "Waterflood Development of the Guniong and
Tabu Fields," paper 17690 presented atthe 1988 SPE Offshore South East
Asia Conference, Singapore, 2-5 February.
the success of treating the produced water with an acid-based demulsifier. Water production also caused several wells tobe shut in
E-01=m
ft3x2.831 685
E-02=m3
md X 9.869 233
mile X 1.609 344*
Near-Term Plan
E-01=m3
E 04 =^mE-l-00 = km
E + 00 = kPa
E + 00 = km2
water shut-off, and other such factors). This will becritical because
reservoir management of the Guntong field while on assignment With EPMI. Photograbh Is unavailable. M.T. Wakotoke Is
'With
Exxon U.S.A. In New Orleans. Previously, hewas onosslgnirn^t with EPMI, where he worked on reservoir management
jPX
GOR.L3/L3.m3/m3
|
\
I
Amran
Samsuddin
I.
Introduction
by water at a given
Technically,
II.
Mobility Ratio
One of the most important characteristics of a water-
"
R..io. aaiilg l\
k
^ ^ X,Displacing ^ lyJDisplacing
Displaced
Displaced
For a waterflood,
_ ^w^^w
w' ^w
_ ^w^o
w^o _
_ ^rw^
rw*"^
OUT
""o^^o " OC
^o^w " ITlir
^ro^w
fluid saturation.
4-2
f..
front. Since
is the relative permeability to water
behind the front, the following question arises: Which value
of water saturation behind the front should be used to
determine
should be evaluated
ro
Thus,
wi
y ^^rw^S ,
" v"'nr~n
Average water saturation behind the front remains
mobility ratio^ they are usually referring to the prebreakthrough value. The mobility ratio after breakthrough
is not constant; instead, it increases continuously in
response to the increasing average water saturation in the
reservoir which, in turn, causes k
to increase.
X W
4-3
other.
4-4
1
I
I
-A-
!*
I
I
o;
0
1
I-
i:
i
a
A-
i
6
i
6
i
I
producing well
injection well
"""
Fig. 4.1:
pattern boundary
'0 04 as
Fig. 4.2:
4-5
B.
1*1
111
i-;-:'-.
1
I
I . o
I
I
I
'
I
'
! * .1
!
I
I
I
I
^
I
A
I
A
I
'
Fig. 4.3:
C.
g*K>
'
'
'
Five-Spot
4-6
to injectors is unity.
<\
o V' o
O
Fig. 4.4:
D.
Nine-Spot
The
I
I
A-.-r-A-T-TrA
AAI
I
I
** .
;iS
. I
I
.1
A
I
I
I
. i
Fig. 4.5:
I
I
I
I
I
I
Nine-spot pattern.
Seven-Spot
4-8
/
\
A-- . O.-
A-: .V
o
/
A
Fig. 4.6:
IV.
Seven-spot pattern.
Njj = N Ed E^ Ey
(2.1)
It was indicated
4-9
One of the
4-10
Fig. 4.7:
When the
4-11
SSSSS.V
. *.. */
:-:;V:v;v;.v
\
AREA
Ea =
Fig. 4.8:
AREA
+ AREA
There
4-12
OUTSIDE STREAMLINE
Ai
M>1
Cv)'M>1
M=1
OUTSIDE STREAMLINE
N
,L
>
M<1
M=1
M=1
Fig. 4.9:
B.
An excellent
Typically,
Isolated pattern
2.
Developed pattern
This is a pattern in a field where the
3.
Normal pattern
4.
Inverted pattern
A pattern with one injection well.
However,
5290
PATTERN AREA
g^eo
u.
70
'S
^560
'Ss;:
5^50
4a
ai
Fig. 4.10:
10
10
MOBILITY RATIO
too
4-14
240
PATTERN AREAS
4ft--< a
Sgaod
?roi
Qes
=
UJ
g-l60
!l3g
NORMAL
feilZO
fERT
<
9Z%1 at 11
Inj.
CO
p"
0*0
INVERTED
80
N()RI
iL
11
<_ 40
1.0
10
MOBILITY RATIO
0.1
Fig. 4.11:
100
>;gioo
^
/
<
ui
\
V.
>
/
PATTERN AREA
Si
MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 4.12:
4-15
\
oX
PATTERN AREA
\
Q.a
s._
MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 4.13:
100
s|'
\
UlS
go. 80
2ii7o
"560
sS
OJ
I
a
PATTERN AREA
>>
\
V
40.
U)
10
100
MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 4.14:
4-16
100
O
SS
-S
Id
I
A
I
A--6
ii
s^80
SiiTO
On
PATTERN AREA
riiso
"S
S^so
<
1.0
10
MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 4.15:
C.
100
4-17
100
0.4
0.6 ae LO
2:0
4.0
.o
jOIO
Fig. 4.16:
aa
a4' aojLo
2.0
4.0 co 1.010
Fig. 4.17:
4-18
^^0^
Vp = displaceable volume
Wj
^
\
^^p^pattern^^^o^max
^^p^pattern^^ ^wir ^or^
^ p pattern
(AS )
0
2.
max
ilf
at
= 1)
0.2749
In
"ibt
D.
4-19
Wi/Wibt
IHif-iihi
Fig. 4.18:
Fractures
2.
Directional permeability
.J
Fig. 4.19:
.*
.9 .c.r
MOaiLITY
T 910
RATIO
The most
I
.4
I
.9
I
*
I I I I
.7 . JLO
MOtlLITT
Fig. 4.2Q;
Permeabilitv contrast
RATIO
4-21
3.
Formation dip
Instead,
Off-pattern wells
6.
Isolated patterns
patterns.
This situation
Isolated
Five-spot
Fig. 4.21:
4-23
8.
liquid.
initially liquidbreakthrough
in a system
and after
Total
V.
recover the oil, and that good areal sweep is still obtained,
flexibility.
No significant
VI.
drilling be required.
4-26
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
VII. Summary
This is only
4-27
Many sweep studies have been made that aid in the prediction
of sweep efficiency for basic flood patterns in horizontal,
homogeneous, liquid filled reservoirs undergoing steady state
flow.
4-28
REFERENCES:
1.
miiriTgTiriv
2.
3.
Applied Petroleum
Cliffs, N. J? U55i)j.
4.
6.
7.
(March, 1971J
7-12.
9.
4-29
Gas Zone
Unaltered
Zone
^Oil
Water Zone
|.f
Oil Zone
''
Water Zone
^^mmm
Water Zone
Oil Zone
'f'mM
V0Mw:mwb
mmmmsmmm
/r-V'-,*.
wmmmm
immrn
M^m
PROBLEM 4:1
Presented below are the data for an oil reservoir being considered for a waterflood.
Svv, %
1-^
kfw
kro
28.0
0.000
1.000
0.000
32.2
0.003
0.810
0.011
36.4
0.012
0.640
0.053
40.6
0.027
0.490
0.142
46.9
0.061
0.303
0.376
51.1
0.091
0.202
0.573
55.3
0.127
0.123
0.669
61.6
0.192
0.040
0.935
65.8
0.271
0.003
0.986
70.0
0.300
0.000
1.000
1^0
= 1.50 cp
Hw
= 0.50 cp
Bw
fw
1.0
= 20 percent
15 feet
Bo
Well spacing =
40 acres
= 1.35RB/STB
The fractional flow curve for this reservoir is presented in Figure 4P.1.
1. Compute the mobihty ratio prior to breakthrough for a waterflood in this
reservoir.
4-30
W0.5
PROBLEM 4:2
i'^\
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.
A
= 160 acres
MR = 2.0
=5 feet
= 400 psi
(j)
=18%
=180''F
Swc =24%
=0.95
Sg
=15%
API =28
So
=61%
Bo
Swf =50%
=l.lRB/STBO@400psi
Sorw=30%
Swbt=58%
P-o
= 5 cp
1. Compute the SCF of free gas and STBO in the layer at the start of waterflooding.
2. If the free gas is re-dissolved during the fiUup period, what is the increase in the
solution gas to oil ratio?
Wibf
7. What is areal sweep of the injected water when the cimiulative water injection is
twice the volume required to reach breakthrough?
8. How many ban els of water are required to reach 100 percent areal sweep?
9. If the oil production during the fillup period is negligible, how many STBO will
have been displaced at fillup?
4-34
10.How many STBO will have been displaced andproduced at water breakthi'ough?
11. What is the maximum theoretical recoverable oil?
4-35
RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
variations.
The
A.
2.
3.
4.
7.
5-2
B.
As indicated
More probably,
Several possibilities
exist:
1.
2.
Streamtube model
3.
II.
4.
5.
in these layers. Consequently, at the time of water breakthrough in high permeability zones, a significant fraction
5-3
Detection of Stratification
system.
accomplish this.
5-4
1.
Single-value representation
k-h^ + k-h^ +
+ k^h
nn
1. 1 1 Z Z
/'cl^
h,1* 2
h, + ---- hn
where
k^, k2,
hi, h2,
(S.2)
5-5
If
Permeability Variation
a.
b.
C.
k, md
d.
% greater than
10
10
20
30
40
40
40
70
80
90
This
f.
^ ^SO ''84.1
50
5-7
(S.3)
8-S
*T1
OQ
iiiiiiiniiininuiinniiQijiiiiiiiiiijjniijii
lllllllllllllilllllllllllHIIIHIIIIIIIIIIUIIII
lllllliilHIIUIiinUIUIl
uiiiniiiniHiiiHiiimitttiiuuuiiiinnHitiiiiiiiitii
iiiiuiiiiiniiuiintDiuiifiuiiniHiuiiiihiiu
iMiiaaMMMAaaiiitliiMiniHiiiMiimiiiiiiiMJUiNiiuiiUM
tn
iiiniiiiiiniTimiiiniiiimiiiiinBimiiiniiinaiiiiiniuninniinfiinnRiiinniiiiiiiminifliunnHi
iiiiiuiiiiiuiiiniimuuiiiiiiuiitimiuujwHHuuniuuiniuuuwiiiDnuiuiuiiiuiuiiHwiHiiuui
iiiiuniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiuiiDifiiQiinuiiiniiiiiiinniiiininiiiiiiitiiDiiujiiiHiRiiitiHun!
uaiiiiiniiiuiiniiiiimiHninuiiuiiiiHnwmnninHUMiiiiinuiuuiiiiiiniiiiiinustiuiimiiiiiHinfltiiii
HHMUlHBaMaKHIIIIIMIUUIUUIIUtUUIinillllDinfllUUUDIHHHHHaHHaimilHIUUtniUUIIlUHBIIUIIIISantMIIIUHin
uan
nuiiiiiiiiuiMuiinfniJi itttiinuiiia
naiauiiiiMuiUMBUiiiinKnnnuiiMMiniiiim
T3
MTimiimii tiiHimi r u n i i i n mil lira lira
H-
0
OQ
1
a
o
cr
pa
o*
utniiiiiiiHJtntinniiniiiinmiimuiiiD
iiiiiiiuiiujiiuniiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiuinni
IIUIIIIIIHIUIIIIJIHIIIIIM
limillUHni
hM*
rf
T3
h-
P j/TTI
11HI u 11 mn Mj MI n
UM n^. H111
iiuMiniiiiiiiiiiiiiH iittiir.uuui
o
-I
3
o
Q
O*
HBamaamMMMiiiminuuinimiiwiirA. ^wiirMiiniiirwMM
uHiiuniiiHiiuiir
\vw imuuiuutiiiHimBMiBaB
iiiHiuHntfltitiiKflimiBDiyBiitiiin
miiiiiiiHiiiiuuiirninsiiffliijfliuuiiuiiiiiiitfflffitiniiii
iiniiiiiiiiirnnKitHJinrainiinnimiiffiiHnni
MIIUUIllllllUJQMlUM^ifHillUIUJaiMiUtfi
iiiiiiiiumuiHiiiniiiiriiiiiynisiiiiiiii
O.
0)
rf
(D
jMiMM maHMHiMimnniiHo am
wmniioiiroiinginiiHwntwHannMMmmnnitMUtTiBnoimMwtnmti
uiiiiiinujiiHJtmjiiHiRtiiaiJiiuiiiniHBiMnuainiiHniiaHiHiiinRfflBBiaiiiBiiiiijiiiiitaR
uaaninniiuuiiiuuuiUiniiuiiniiniiimniuHuuiHHMMuiiaiiiiiiiiiniMiflniflRiiMiiiiiiiuiinHimii
nunmmiimmflitiuiiiiiiHUHHJHniiHmiiiMiMMMinimiaimiiiBnaiBiiiuHHuiiiitiitaiia
uMMannmuMi
iflflttanaiiraiiu
ifflmiyi
EXAMPLE 5.1
Depth
F
30.4
3.8
8.6
14.5
39.9
2.3
12.0
29.0
1.7
17.6
24.6
5.5
5.3
4.8
3.0
0.6
99.0
2.1
21.2
4.4
2.4
5.0
1.0
3.9
8.4
8.9
7.6
6,794
167.0
1.2
2.6
22.0
11.7
6.7
74.0
25.5
1.5
5.9
6,795
3.6
920.0
37.0
10.4
16.5
11.0
120.0
4.1
3.5
33.5
6,796
19.5
26.6
7.8
32.0
10.7
10.0
19.0
12.4
3.3
6.5
6,797
6.9
3.2
13.1
41.8
9.4
12.9
55.2
2.0
5.2
2.7
6,798
50.4
35.2
0.8
18.4
20.1
27.8
22.7
47.4
4.3
66.0
6,799
16.0
71.5
1.8
14.0
84.0
15.0
6.0
6.3
44.5
5.7
6.800
23.5
13.5
1.5
17.0
9.8
8.1
15.4
4.6
9.1
60.0
6,791
2.9
7.4
6,792
11.3
6,793
ft.
SOLUTION
5-9
*^50
_ 10.2 -
3.0
TO
V = 0.706
S-10
Table
k, md
5.2:
% Greater
Than
k, md
% Greater
Than
k, md
5.1.
% Greater
Than
920.0
17.0
34
5.9
67
167.0
16.5
35
5.7
68
120.0
16.0
36
5.5
69
99.0
15.4
37
5.3
70
84.0
15.0
38
5.2
71
74.0
14.5
39
5.0
72
71.5
14.0
40
4.8
73
66.0
13.5
41
4.6
74
60.0
13.1
42
4.4
75
55.0
12.9
43
4.3
76
50.4
10
12.4
44
4.1
77
47.4
11
12.0
45
3.9
78
44.5
12
11.7
46
3.8
79
41.8
13
11.3
47
3.6
80
39.9
14
11.0
48
3.5
81
37.0
15
10.7
49
3.3
82
35.2
16
10.4
50
3.2
83
33.5
i-i
32.0
o
CM
30.4
17
10.0
51
3.0
84
18
9.8
52
2.9
85
19
9.4
53
2.7
86
29.0
20-
9.1
54
2.6
87
27.8
21
8.9
55
2.4
88
26.6
22
8.6
56
2.3
89
25.5
23
8.4
57
2.1
90
24.6
24
8.1
58
2.0
. 91
23.5
25
7.8
59
1.8
92
22.7
26
7.6
60
1.7
93
22.0
27
7.4
61
1^5
94
21.2
28
6.9
62
1.5
94
29
6.7
63
1.2
96
19.5
30
6.5
64
1.0
97
19.0
31
6.3
65
0.8
98
18.4
32
6.0
66
0.6
99
17.6
33
S-11
ts)
tn
100
EH = 5E
^31=1!
e.e8 e.t m
sSsmi
IS!!illiiliiI!!l!llli!aiii
Fig. 5.2;
e.ei
i
liiiii
c=saspaa
iliiilil.
\\msm
teiiiili
Ilii
SSsS
liiiiilll
iBaaaiasi
gissasii
gisiiin
e.
llll
Mill
"
k<S 111!
iliiSsi
isss=;
aaaeesi
IHIiiil!
liiHiisiiiiinii
ISiiigi
nms
ilirBSB
iiSKaa
e.i .i e.o
n.l
MJM.t
imiiiilililliililli
lilllsil
ISiigs^H
niiiiaii
mmmw
e.oi
3.
1.
2.
It is convenient to
Ah
Ah^
^1
Ah2
Ah 3
=
lAh
3.
4.
>^3
C =
kAh
(kAh)j
ACj
(kAh)2
AC2
(kAh)3
AC3
kAh
1.0
ZAC
h = ZAh.
^ I
C-3 = 1.0
h- =^
I'l
*^2
h-2
^3
h-3 = 1.0
You will
(5.4)
^ = HK'
SO that dimensionless permeability is
dC
HP"
ft;
5-13
necessary
following table:
AC
Ah
AC
Plot Point
Ain"
h'j/2
-
^2 "
10
1.0
10
1.0
1.0 - C
h'j + (h'2-h'j)/2
1.0 - h
10
5-14
1.0
ma5C'
Fig. 5.3:
4.
Lorentz Coefficient
They
voir heterogeneity.
As a
Lorentz Coefficient =
area ABCA
area ADCA
(5.6)
EXAMPLE
5.2
These permeabilities
permeability..
tion curves
Sample
No.
Thickness
Ah, ft
Permeability
k. md
776
454
349
308
295
282
273
262
228
10
187
178
11
12
161
13
159
14
148
15
127
16
109
17
88
18
87
19
77
20
49
5-16
SOLUTION
tively.
Ah, ft
k, md
kAh, md-ft
IkAh
^ = kh
K.
776
776
0.1529
0.0345
454
454
0.2423
0.0690
349
349
0.3111
0.1034
308
308
0.3717
0.1379
295
295
0.4299
0.1724
282
282
0.4854
0.2069
273
273
0.5392
0.2414
262
262
0.5908
0.2759
228
228
0.6357
0.3103
187
187
0.6726
0.3448
178
178
0.7076
0.3793
161
161
0.7394
0.4138
159
159
0.7707
0.4483
148
148
0.7998
0.4828
127
127
0.8249
0.5172
109
109
0.8463
0.5517
88
88
0.8637
0.5862
87
174
0.8980
0.6552
77
77
0.9131
0.6897
49
441
1.0000
1.0000
29
kh =
5076
5-17
Table 5.4:
Plot Point
h'
AC
0.1529
0.0345
0.1529
0.0345
4.4334
0.017
0.2423
0.0690
0.0894
0.0345
2.5938
0.052
0.3111
0.1034
0.0688
0.0344
1.9939
0.086
0.3717
0.1379
0.0606
0.0345
1.7597
0.121
0.4299
0.1724
0.0582
0.0345
1.6854
0.155
0.4584
0.2069
0.0555
0.0345
1.6111
0.190
0.5392
0.2414
0.0538
0.0345
1.5597
0.224
0.5908
0.2759
0.0516
0.0345
1.4968
0.259
0.6357
0.3103
0.0449
0.0344
1.3026
0.293
0.6726
0.3498
0.0369
0.0345
1.0684
0.328
0.7076
0.3793
0.0350
0.0345
1.0169
0.362
0.7394
0.4138
0.0318
0.0345
0.9198
0.397
0.7707
0.4483
0.0313
0.0345
0.9084
0.431
0.7998
0.4828
0.0291
0.0345
0.8455
0.466
0.8249
0.5172
0.0251
0.0344
0.7256
0.500
0.8463
0.5517
0.0214
0.0345
0.6227
0.534
0.8637
0.5862
0.0174
0.0345
0.5028
0.567
0.8980
0.6552
0.0343
0.0690
0.4970
0.603
0.9131
0.6897
0.0151
0.0345
0.4399
0.672
1.0000
i.ooop
0.0869
0.3103
0.2799
0.845
Ah'
5-18
Ah*
Fig. 5.4:
5-19
5.2.
5.
They
This
condensate reservoirs.
The Stiles
5-20
^
EXAMPLE 5.3
ability data for ten wells each of which contains ten layers.
^1
(2.93 (7.4) (30.4) (3.8) (8.6) (14.5) (39.9) (2.3) (12.0) (29.10)]
kj = 10.0 md
Average permeabilities in the remaining layers are
determined in the same manner; these values are summarized
5-21
Layer
ic, md
10.0
6.8
4.7
10.4
20.5
12.1
8.6
18.4
14.3
10
10.9
ic, md
20.5
18.4
10
14.3
20
12.1
30
10.9
40
10.4
50
10.0
60
8.6
70
6.8
80
4.7
90
These data are plotted in Fig. 5.S. Using the data from
v = -nni
V= 0.40S
Z-S
Tl
h"
OQ
uiHiisuraiHunm
UNNtUltWttlUlitil
umM ttAJ 11 IM roM I ua
t/l
tn
[oiiiniiiiiinnniiiniiiiiiinniiniiiiiniiiminEuiiii
laniiiniiHiiraininiiffliiiiiiiTBiiinnBintDi^iiiTi
iinmiiiiHinniiDniniiifiiHtiJiiinimfiittfiiiffiiifli
iiniiiiiiimuiunuiuniiiiuiiiiiFiimiiiuiiiiiiiii
nunHMurainiiuiniiiuuimHUUiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiitwuut
inniiiiiuiiHiitmiuuiiiiuuiniimuuiHiui
niiiiHiiniHiniiinsiiiDiiiuiiwiittiiuuiuitHnii
""""""iiniiiiinmnmnnmnmitniimi
o
OQ
KMirTTTinmnmmnnMitmitLii] inrrum
TS
-J
o
or
cr
iiiniiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiir
uiiiuiiiiiiuimiimiiiuifiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiniiimnumtiiuiiMi
MVHMMMBHBHIVIIItlllllllUlirillintUBJIIII:
II
tllUlllUllllftUHMIfii
T3
ri n a n n 11 Hi rn n I m
uto (ffu m i l ra u UK B M Ml
a M S vmxn n
H m H
fl Mj
t n III t a 11 m
vu I u n m M icniffM u
IM mjD I u u imi
O
K
T3
O
3
<P
(tt
o*
n
I f 11H) rm I ui n u H UJ aM 1111M i n m
r+
CL
pa
r+
03
Hi
O
i
CIl
X
lllDIUilliillffiffilliiiii
UMi UM UMl Liuuxa ioai ItiAJ llHi UIB Ba
HuiifiatiJBtnHaisiniminiuiTiQiiin
iiiWMiiiiiiiiMWiiiniiiiirrniim
tn
04
loaiiamittaitiiiiBiinaanmiB
nmnnnBinaaHBniii
IDfllBHniBHiieiail
mil Hi mni m
HiiMi CMH
BBBBUfflimSBIBIGUilBlffllll
IHDaBBraiBlllBllfllDBIlilinS
C.
Selection of Layers
^<0^
Natural barriers -
2.
of the strata.
3.
ratio behavior of a
4.
flood.
The
permeability
divided into
permeability
have minimum
given zone.
This
5-24
'
5.
These studies,
5-25
Ej.
factors:
1.
2.
3.
However,
In practice,
5-26
REFERENCES:
1.
2.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
Law, J.:
4.
5.
"The Variation in
6.
Garb, F. A.:
7.
"Performance of Bodcaw
New
8.
9.
"Comparison
10.
Testerman, J. D.:
5-27
PROBLEM 7:2
Routine air permeability data, ka, information obtained from several wells producing
from asandstone reservoir is available for analysis. The peimeability cutoff, (ko)s^.^
is 0.3 md. This is equivalent to ka of 1.0 md. These permeability values have been
analyzed in the order of decreasing permeability as listed below after applying the 1.0 md
cutoff Figure 7:2P-1 is a Dystra-Parsons plot of the ka data for those samples with
permeability above the cutoff. Also, O^o)s^jj. measurements are available for 15
'wir
DYKSTRA-PARSONS EXAMPLE
Air Permeability
Cumulative
Number of
Cumulative Samples
Number of
md
Samples
Samples
186.0
0.00
38.0
1.85
34.0
2.78
24.0
3.70
22.0
4.63
6.48
20.0
19.0
7.41
18.0
8.33
17.0
10
9.26
16.0
12
11.11
15.0
13
12.04
15.0
14
12.96
14.0
15
13.89
13.0
16
14.81
12.0
18
16.67
11.0
21
19.44
10.0
22
20.37
8.9
23
21.30
8.6
24
22.22
26
24.07
27
25.00
29
26.85
30
27.78
32
29.63
8.5
7.7
7.5
7.0
6.8
6.4
33
30.56
6.0
34
31.48
5.8
35
32.41
5.7
36
33.33
38
35.19
5.5
5.3
39
36.11
5.1
40
37.04
4.7
42
38.89
4.5
45
41.67
DYKSTRA-PARSONS EXAMPLE
Cumulative
Cumulative Samples
Air Permeability
Number of
Number of
md
Samples
Samples
4.2
47
43.52
4.1
48
44.44
4.0
49
45.37
51
47.22
3.9
3.8
52
48.15
3.7
53
49.07
3.6
55
50.93
3.4
57
52.78
3.3
58
53.70
3.1
59
54.63
. 61
56.48
3.0
2.8
62
57.41
2.6
63
58.33
2.4
64
59.26
66
61.11
2.3
2.2
67
62.04
2.1
68
62.96
74
68.52
2.0
1.9
75
69.44
1.8
76
70.37
1.7
77
71.30
1.6
79
73.15
1.5
83
76.85
1.4
86
79.63
1.3
89
82.41
1.2
10
99
91.67
1.1
105
97.22
1.0
108
100.00
md or
= 1.0md
>>
8 10
"
"1
15
20
'
30
40
1^
SO
60
70
'
1)
80
85
90 92 94
"
96
98
Ikyikstra-Parsoms hraph
for an Air PermeahUity Greater than 1.0 md
100.0
10.0
1.0
XS
4
(Q
a>
"4
Tw
IS
20
30
^0
SO
60
70
80
85
90 92 94
96
DyUstra^Parsons Graph
far an Air Permeahility Greater than 1,0 md
100.0
10.0
1.0
.STRATIFICATION EXAMPLE
Dykstra-Parsons V = 0.69
Mean Air Permeability = 3.7 md.
Average Net h = 3.0 feet
Net h, ft.
Kair, md.
Koil, md.
3.0
25.00
12.50
3.0
5.40
3.0
12.20
8.10
3.0
3.0
5.80
4.30
2.10
1.46
6
7
8
3.0
1.01
0.69
0.45
3.0
10
3.0
3.20
2.33
1.67
1.10
0.52
3.0
3.0
3.15
0.27
0.11
t
6.42
AVERAGES
from
from
Dyk/Par
plot
Ko vs Ka
plot
Oil
Permeability
Permeability
md
md
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
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
1.00
CO
0)
0.10
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Air Permeability, md
PROBLEMS:
1.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
Depth . ft.
Cumulative Thickness
Permeability
From
To
ft.
md
3220
3221
35
3221
3222
47
3222
3223
58
3223
3224
109
3224
3225
77
3225
3226
127
3226
3228
159
3228
3229
148
3229
3232
12
178
3232
3235
15
228
3235
3238
18
295
3238
3240
20
262
3240
3243
23
308
3243
3245
25
454
3245
3248
28
402
3248
325'3
33
507
3253
3256
36
550
3256
3260
40
730
3260
3261
41
660
3261
3263
43
720
3263
3265
45
600
3265
3266
46
517
3266
3267
47
552
3267
3268
48
330
3268
3269
49
237
3269
3270
50
83
5-28
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
2.
Subsea Depth, ft
(a)
Absolute Permeability
From
To
md
2050
2051
35
2051
2052
51
2052
2053
27
2053
2054
116
2054
2055
60
2055
2056
237
2056
2057
519
2057
2058
98
2058
2059
281
2059
2060
164
(b)
5-29
"Ill I!
I;H It
um
imi
um
n i l I fttui BMi BM u
MMi n n i tiui
raniuifiniMitiiiim
e EW1 n
04
1/1
ORAPH PAPCR
20 X 20 PER INCH
IN u.
A.
Isililiill
CUaCNL U . S CO.
Advance information on the relationship between injection rate and injection pressure is
useful, and often critical, in the design and analysis of any enhanced oil recovery project.
In particular, an estimate of injection rates and pressures is needed during the planning
stage of a waterflood for the purpose of sizing injection equipment and pumps and for the
purpose of predicting oil recovery rates. Further, it is possible in low permeability
reservoirs that the injection rate required for a project to be economically feasible will
necessitate injection pressures which exceed the fracture pressure of the subject formation
and which, if imposed on the formation, could result in poor reservoir sweep efficiency
(areal and vertical) and substantially decreased oil recovery. In those cases where a high
degree of uncertainty exists, it might become necessary to conduct a pilot flood to
determine injection rates and pressures required for economic operations. Such pilot
injection tests should be carefully designed and analyzed due to the fact that short term
injection tests lasting only a few days may lead to substantial and misleading results.
The purpose of this chapter is to present methods which can be used to predict injection
rates and pressures in terms of information commonly available for a waterflood project.
When the mobility ratio of a flood is unity, this can be accomplished using simple
analytical relationships which require only a knowledge of the waterflood pattern and
properties of the reservoir. Calculations for mobility ratios different from unity are more
difficult and require the use of approximate analytical techniques or experimental
correlations. In general, prediction of rates and pressures are more difficult after water
breakthrough than before.
I. Factors Affecting Fluid Injectlvity
During a flooding operation, the injectivity, the rate at which fluid can be injected per
unit pressure difference between injection and producing wells, depends upon the
following factors
6-1
Some ofthese factors cannot be changed. Others, however, such as the flood pattern,
injection well pressure, and producing well pressure can be selected to best achieve
the desired injection-production performance. The effect of these factors on fluid
injectivity will be considered in the remainder ofthis 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, M, is less than unity, oil flows better than water; when M is
greater than unity, water flows better than oil. It follows that total fluid mobility in
the reservoir will change as increasing amounts ofwater are injected, thereby causing
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 ofthe oil bank reaches a distance ofabout 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 Tw.
FIGURE 6-1
IDEAL FLOW SYSTEM
WITH RADIAL OIL AND WATER BANKS
WATER
ApplyingDarcy's steady state radial flow equation for incompressible fluids, it can be
shown^ that the injection rate at any mobility ratio, M, and any injection well skin
factor is equal to:
0.00707khAp
I
krw
_i_ . ii;0_, re
In f
I
In |kro
(Eq. 6.1)
where:
iw
kro
re
s-
Fw
Tw
Sj
Ap
jlo
= oil viscosity, cp
|j,w
= waterviscosity, cp
EXAMPLE 6:1
Current
2600 psi. Compute the water injection rate early in the life of the well when
the radius to the water and oil banks are 200 and 388 feet, respectively.
Assume the injection well skin value is zero. Other data are given below.
O^ro)swc
1^0
10 md
= 8 feet
1.0
= 0.45
0.30
Sg
0.9 cp
Swbt
6-4
8%
56%
|j,w
= 0.6 cp
Swc ~ 26%
Tw
~ 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:
0.00707 khAp
lw =
krw
fw
where fw = Tw for S = 0.
^ 0.00707(10X8X2600-800) ^
Iw
0.6
0.30
0.33
1.0
200
Tw TwC
-s-
fw =
fw = 18.0 feet
and:
0.00707(10)(8)(2600-800)
0.60 I 200 0.9 , 388
Bo'^TT-'To'" 200
When fluid mobihties in the water zone and oil zone portions of the reservoir are
equal, i.e., M = 1, fluid injectivity does not change as the flood front advances
6-5
after gas fillup. Further, injectivity for a particular well pattern is independent of
the size of the area swept by water but is directly proportional to the fluid
mobility involved.
0.003541(ko)s . hAp
(|>1J
Ho ln7|^+1.570|-1.837+0.5(^Si +SpJJ
Z_A-
o
6-6
(^0
0.003541(ko)Q . hAp
"^wir
iw -
^0
o
a
0.003541(ko)s^j^hAp
Five-Spot^
lw =
O
d/
O
6-7
Seven-Spot^
0.004723(ko)s"^wir. hAp
lw =
1^0
In 7^-0.569+0.5 ^Sj + Sp
o..
:::o
A--""
o
o
o
0.003541(ko)s^^h(Ap)ij.
Nine-Spot'
l+R
2+R
In -0.272+0.5(s, +Sp)
^0
0.00708(ko)s^^h(Ap)i^,
* vv
r -
3+R
h+R
In 7^-0.272+0.5^8}+Sp^
0.693}
2+R.
R =
(^P)i.c
(^P)i,s = Difference in pressure between injection well and side well (s).
c
so
Os
6-8
The equations Hsted in Table 6-1 are valid after fillup when the mobility ratio is
unity. The permeability term is the effective permeability to oil measured at the
irreducible water saturation,
ratio is different from unity, the calculated injection rate obtained from these
iw = yibase
^-2)
where:
ibase
= conductance ratio
and ibase
defmed by the equations listed in Table 6-1 for the various patterns.
work of Caudle and Witte"* 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, and areal sweep efficiency ofthe injected water, E^. Note in
Figure 6-2 that for M = 1.0, y = 1.0, and iw is a constant. For M > 1.0, y
and iw increase with increasing sweep efficiency. When M < 1.0, y and iw
decrease with increasing sweep efficiency.
6-9
On
O
C
<D
S.
0.1
10
0.1
:>
Mobility Ratio
(REFERENCE 4)
FIGURE 6-2
10
The areal sweep of the injected water required by Figure 6-2 can be computed as:
Before water breakthrough:
Wi
Ea =
(Eq. 6.3)
^p(Swbt~Swc^
EA = 0.2749 In
Wi
+ E^bt
(Eq. 6.4)
The conductance ratio and Equation 6.4 have been estabhshed 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
psi. After gas fillup, water injection is computed using Eq. 6.2 where:
iw yibase
0.003541(ko)s^jj.liAp
^base ~
fAo
0.9
111-^-0.619+0.5(0+0)
6-11
ibase = 86 BWPD
Next, compute the conductance ratio, y, to correct for the actual M = 0.45.
At fillup,
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.
0.003541(10)(8)(2600 - 500)
^base
0.9
ln^-0.619 +0.5((-4)+(-4))
= 180 BWPD
and:
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 practical viewpoint, it is
noted that short term injectivity tests conducted in depleted fields can result in overly
optimistic injection rates which cannot be sustained during the major portion of the
life of the flood.
6-12
FIGURE 6-3
WATER INJECTION RATE VARIATION
(RADIAL SYSTEM)
\\
t/}
\V-
Q.
M>1.0
CD
\ \
N\
V
\
0>
T3
"
\
*
V
M= 1.0
M<1.0
>
G
0
Studies by Muskat^ of steady state pressure distributions in various well patterns with
unit mobility ratio show most of the pressure change between injection and producing
wells occurs in areas near the wells where flow is essentially radial. Even for the
complex nine-spot pattern, radial flow occurs in the vicinity of injection and
producing wells^ Even when mobility ratios differ from unity, experimental studies'
indicate that near-well flow patterns are radial.
Recognizing that radial flow occurs near injection and producing wells and, as
indicated in the previous section, the largest changes in injectivity occur in these
radial flow regions, it was concluded by Deppe^ that the injection rates in any pattern
can be approximated by dividing the pattern into regions where radial and linearflow
6-13
The five-spot pattern is the most commonly used flooding pattern for reasons
discussed in previous chapters. It follows that this pattern has also been subject to
more extensive theoretical and experimental injectivity studies than other patterns.
A. Prats, et al Method
pressure depletion during primary recovery will have a fi-ee gas phase at the time
secondary recovery is initiated.
attempted to quantify the effect of an initial gas saturation. Figure 6-4 illustrates
an idealized picture of fluid regions which will exist between the producing and
6-15
FIGURE 6-4
STAGE 1
i
o-----
/^L
Interference
1
1
c)
STAGE 2
STAGE 3
m
m
Water Production
6-16
REFERENCES
1. Deppe, J.C.:
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. 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.
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.
6-17
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. Other data are listed below.
Other Data
Mobility Ratio
= 3.0
(ko)s
^
-^wir
30 md
(kro)Swc
1.0
0.25
= 22 ft
rw
= 0.25 ft
1^0
= 6.0 cp
Hw
= 0.5 cp
Sg
= 14%
Swc ~ ^wir
= 24%
^wbt
= 56%
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
6-18
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 at 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
6-19
for water breakthrough, oil recovery at breakthrough, wateroil ratio performance after breakthrough, production-time
performance, oil production-water injection performance,
etc.
These groups,
2.
Reservoir stratification
3.
Displacement mechanism
4.
Numerical methods
5.
Empirical methods
I.
EXAMPLE
7.1
or
30%
(a)
1.25 RB/STB
(b)
60%
V.
fwi
"i =
P D
f930.960') (0.6)
(930,960).(0.70-0.30J
7-2
= l.S
K - C372,384
RB)(0.90)
1.2S RB/STB
^
_ 268,111 STB
type of analysis.
following:
1.
heterogeneities.
3.
A.
Dykstra-Parsons Method
7-3
water saturation,
1.
2.
3.
Linear flow
4.
Steady-state flow
5.
6.
Mathematical Development
7-4
Pwf'^
^iwf*
k
n
k, > k, >
1
> k^
n
Fig. 7.1:
Fig. 7.2:
7-5
incompressible flow,
APi
(7.2)
jr-TT
Vl
(7.3)
Ap.
i
Ap
L
w
(7.4)
Substituting Eqs. 7.2 - 7.4 into Eq. 7.1, and solving for
"wh . "of'- -
T
*
w
(7.S)
-1
or
= kjL
r rw
(7.6)
F ro
ic
_ Ap
(7.7)
Ap
-1
K^i,
rw
(7.8)
ro
7-6
_ "i
dt
where
4iiS
the frotit.
Therefore,
dZ^
-1
k^Ap
k
^ ITr o
rw
dt
At.
dZ /dt
and
(7.9)
w
4>A
(7.10)
= constant = r
ro
rw
k.Ap
"2-535-
Vz . ^0(^-22)
rw
-1
~T.r o
^AP = constant =
w
(7.11)
ro
rw
1 <122 \ h
k2 dt ^rw
Kh .
iq Ht
ro
rw
dZ,
dZ.
2 at
TIc
rw
1 3t
ro
dt
H ^ ^ a-z.,
dZ,
=
1 Ht
7-7
y Z- + k
ro w 2
ro
vi^(L-Z-)
rw^oj^
TcIT
rw
ro
2/
k2[Zj + M(L-Zj)
dZi = k,
Z, + M (L-Z,)
dZ,
(7.12)
Zj + M(L-Zj3 dZ, = k,
2 f
+ M(L-Z2)
rZ,
. Ml2 -
dZ.
MZ
f" + MLZ2
Zj (1-M) + ZMLZj
(1-M)Z2^
(1 - M) -I-
ZMLZj -
(1 +M) = 0
^2
IT
^2
IT
*pa-Hh
^1
1-M
M -
m2 . ^ (1
- M^)
*1
M -
(7.13)
7-8
Mn
^
M -
7 ^^
(1 -
^1
is:
(7.14)
Cy =
i-i
i=2
1 + a2 + aj + .. . .
a
n
(7.15)
f 2
i=x+l
Cv =
i
M -
2 1
1
"-v
_ X ^ M(n-x)
m2 +
7-9
(7.16)
WOR
q.
'w
WAp
P,w
li=l
WOR =
J1
WAp
Mr.
i=x+l
VSii
I'm
i =l
WOR
(7.17)
^i'^oi
i=x+l
kAiAp
lCjAj4p
^wl =
(7.18J
y L
^w
rw
A2AP
%2 =
-1
- ^2)^
y, z
1o2
A2Apk.
lo2
irZT
U(L - 22)
rw
TO
7-10
(7.19)
kl^r^AiAp
WOR
k^ApAF
ro
rw
WOR =
k. A, F~~
1
1
k~
A^
Kz ^2
~T
rw
ro
^w
(7.20)
rw
(7.21)
^ki
Aj ^7
TT^
(1 - M^)
i=2
z
WOR
'W1
i=l
'01
i=x+l
\
WOR
A.k.
_ i=l
(7.22)
A.k.
1^ +
i=x+l
7-11
(1-M^)
2.
Recovery Correlations
These correlations
recovery.
Johnson^
The Johnson
1.0
1^
0.8
0.6
0.4
N
Nj
N K
C;
s
V
CO
0)
E
Q.
0.2
0.2
O.A
0.6
0.8
1.0
coverage, C
Fig. 7.3:
7-12
eg
0)
E
0)
a
0,2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
coverage,
Fig. 7.4:
8
O
0
VI
a
o.
coverage,
Fig. 7.5:
7-13
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
coverage, C
Fig. 7.6:
0.6
0.5
0.4
CO
oc
o
0.3
uf
0.2
\
0.1
0.002
0.004
Fig. 7.7:
0.2
0.4
0.6
7-14
1.0
VIII-36
Fifurc VZZX-12a
lielLSUI
IMMl
yiiBUiTipiiH
J-
IlLEUJ
Hear* VZn-12b ,
55n^
il
rnoi
w i MPca:,
i^rr.
eOVEflAGC, c
7-14A
VIII-37
I .
i.
s; riX -rvw.:
XT-
v~VV.
RAP^
""Tl
i::: i
T=3?:
fMttH
0.4
o.a
COVERAGE, C
7-14B
VIII-38
Figure VIII-14
ERAG
RlitCljipi
BOni
Fiffure vm-IS
nikiiaCMS
Off p#ife>
0.4
0^
COVERAGE. C
7-14C
VIII-39
tL
TvlVaRi/iiidki ~'"
0 liQt wrr
1...
WTsJ.
M'.zflaJt::!.
1 .Ul
t::-
fflfl
!"
U!Hl.r=0.4
o.a
COVERAGE, C
7-14D
VIII-39a
n9
0 4
O.A
OA
I.O
Fifttr VZZI-18
ersfi
Figure VnX-19
hbf-.:.
PJffl
0^
0.4
QM
COVERAGE, C
7-14E
3.
Performance Predictions
if
it
is
assumed
that
displaced
oil
is
equal
1.
Determine
the
permeability
variation,
V,
using
3.
5,
4.
Compute
an
appropriate
pattern
areal
sweep
effi
5.
Np = Nd = N * Ed * Ea * Cy
(5-12)
Bo
Ea = Areal Sweep
_ Sq - Spr
"
So
^ ~
" Sg - Spr
1 ~ S^c ~ Sg
6.
zero-WOR
through.
Based
economic
limit,
breakthrough
to
obtain
on
read
from the
in Fig. 7.8.
7-15
the
recovery
predetermined
the
WOR
cumulative
graph.
This
at
is
break
for
recovery
the
at
illustrated
OS
(WOR)dN
N , STB
Fig. 7.8:
7.
Compute
the
injected
water
required
to
fill-up
Wf = Vp(l-So-Swi)
8.
Compute
the
injected
(7.23)
water
required
to
replace
9.
(7.24)
~ NpBo
Compute
the
injected
water
required
to
replace
p -
(WOR) dNp
(7.26)
7-16
10.
**'0
(7.27)
w.
t
^p
W
P
Wf
"01
'^p2
"02
pi
W -
P2
pn
Wf
W4:
f
W
on
pn
W.
''ii
i2
^2
w.
in
t
n
EXAMPLE 7.2
7-17
Table
7.1
Layer
Permeability distribution
for Ex. 7.2.
k, md
h, ft
10.0
6.8
4.7
10.4
20.5
12.1
8.6
18.4
14.3
10
10.9
7.2.
Sw
^rw
^0
0.36
0.180
0.38
0.004
0.130
0.42
0.008
0.082
0.46
0.015
0.050
0.54
0.038
0.020
0.58
0.063
0.014
0.62
0.100
0.008
0.66
0.155
0.002
0.70
0.214
= 2.72 cp
= 0.75 cp
Well Pattern five-spot
15000 RB/D
1.25 RB/STB
7-18
32 X 10 STB
=1.05 RB/STB
S :: = 0.0
gl
0.36
wi
a.
b.
c.
as a function of WOR
as a function of
N
as a function of time
SOLUTION
a.
Table 7.3:
20.5
18.4
10
14.3
20
12.1
30
10.9
40
10.4
50
10.0
60
8.6
70
6.8
80
4.7
90
10.0 - 5.95
^ nrrs
0.405
7-19
N>
O
vj
10
100
tlJ
iiillilHiiniiii
i|i3!ESin!j!!|E =
>.t
iiii?
.t o w
ISiSBBS
liiKsa
!!"
lEsiSsEa
:Ece=i=:===
illB!
liriliii!H!!il!l!iliilllll!l
\m\
gigia^^iiyiiiiiisigsgii \\m
SEiibBB
iiijjijg
Hiiiii!
lliajii
lliilii
nmm
niiiii
immi
liSiiSI
sasss
ssssa
ES=5i:ii!
ESE533
BSaSCB
ES=Sb2
mm
MJMJ
Fig. 7.9:
t.n
)
PW
^rw
>^o
^ro
(Q.214U2.72 CD) ^
"
(0.180)(0.75 cp)
Vertical sweep(coverage), Cy, can be obtained from the DykstraParsons charts as a function of WOR.
Table 7.4.
Cv
WOR
0.24
0.29
0.40
0.51
0.63
0.79
0.88
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
Np = N Ej) Ej^ Cy
and N = VpSo/Bo
= NBon (32x10^ STB)(1.25 RB/STB)
1-Swi"
(1-0.36)
Vp = 62.5 X 10 RB
So-Sor
go
Np -= (62.5x10)(So-Sor)(Ea)(Cv)/Bo
7-21
The areal sweep efficiency at any point in time during the flood
varies from layer-to-layer; it also varies within each layer as
a function of cumulative water injection. The basic DykstraParsons calculation assumes linear flow and, accordingly,
does not consider these effects. It will be assumed in this
Po ^'^rw^Swbt
Ww (^ro^S^i
Fig. 7.10 presents the fractional flow curve for this reservoir;
it is determined from this graph that S^bt 0.548, and it
Thus,
Np = (62.5x10)(0.64-0.30)(0.70)Cv/1.25
Np = 11.90xl0Cv
Calculations of cumulative oil recovery are summarized in
7-22
Sbt = 0-548
Mh
0.5
20
30
40
SiO
60
70
80
s. *
Fig. 7.10:
7-23
90
7.2.
WOR
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
b.
Np, STBxlO^
Cv
.24.29
.40
.51
.63
.79
.88
.94
.96
.98
2.85
3.45
4.76
6.07
7.59
9.40
10.47
11.19
11.42
11.66
= Wf + Wq + Wp
Wo = NpBo
7-24
100
il: h;:
liui
90
80
y:::naa
70
nnHiHH!!!
60
ce:
50
40
tsr.nxunixn::::::
HEH !::
30
20
iiiiiiiiHcHiiiiE
10
xiuJluru:!**
ituzxixi] u :
7-2S
7.2.
Table 7.6:
WOR
7.2.
N , STBxlO
W^, bblxlO
Wp, bblxlO
W., bblxlO
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
c.
3.56
4.31
5.95
7.58
9.49
11.75
13.09
13.99
14.27
14.58
2.85
3.45
4.76
6.07
7.59
9.40
10.47
11.19
11.42
11.66
0.03
0.12
0.58
1.56
3.84
9.70
23.06
39.28
47.91
65.91
3.59
4.43
6.53
9.14
13.33
21.45
36.15
53.27
62.18
80.49
These
Table 7.7:
WOR
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
Np, STBxlO
2.85
3.45
4.76
6.07
7.59
9.40
10.47
11.19
11.42
11.66
7-26
t, days
239
295
435
609
889
1430
2410
3551
4145
5366
WATERFLOOD -
MATERIAL BALANCE
= [VpEAEvSor + Vp(l-EA*Ev)Soi]/Bo
OIL AT START OF WATERFLOOD
= VpSo/Bo
WATERFLOOD
OIL PRODUCED = Np
Therefore:
" E^Ev)Soi]/Bo
Av^oi ~ Sor^^/o
7-26A
B.
Stiles Method
1.
2.
3.
4.
Piston-like displacement
5.
6.
1.
Vertical Coverage
the flood front after h^ beds have been flooded out is cfb;
the fraction of the reservoir flooded at this time is propor^
7-27
1.0
k
max
1.0
Fig. 7.12:
7-28
Flood Front
Fig. 7.13:
7-29
is equal to
Vertical Coverage =
y+Y
(7.30)
(7.31)
(7.32)
(W + X)
Y = 1.0 - C
(7.33)
X= (ae)(ac) = h|kj
In the general case where h* fraction of the total formation
thickness has flooded out,
X = hk'
(7.34)
7-30
k'h
+ (1-C)
(7.35)
According
rw
(7.36)
*w
w
^o
(1-C)
(7.37)
^t " ^o " ^ w
^ Vy,
~ior~
o
7-31
(7.38)
r
L
^ rw
(WC)c =
y
w
"o
'o
I'ro
fk
B0 1
rw
F"
^w
CA
o]
+ (1-C)
(WC) S CA + (l-C)o
(7.39)
^rw
where:
(7.40)
(WC)
CA + (1-C)
where:
^rw ^o
(7.41)
(7.42)
^w ^o
(7.43)
^o ^ ^w
(7.44>-^
"w
7-32
IwR =
loR =
- %K'
q-c =
4.
STB/D
(7.4 73
that time.
P
where:
)E. C
(7.48)
o
= cumulative oil recovery, STB
Summary of Equations
Vertical coverage:
C^ =
(WC)g =
7-33
CMB /B
* (1-C)
CM
CM
(l-C)
CMBq/B^
Producing water-oil ratio:
WOR = ^-7^
V
B ^^oi'^or^^A
^
= i^ - ^WR
^oR
q^^ = B^'
STB/D
o
6.
1.
2.
3.
7-34
h-
k-
Np
I'l" "l' 4
^2* ^2* ^2
* WCr
'^vl V
^v2 ^p2
^10 ^10
"
0
(W0R)2
^plO
(WOR)^q ^^wR^lO
*%R
>>2'
(%s)aVG=
^^os^. ^^^os^ 1
iw/o
(1or52 (%s^2
/\
11
1^
^w
AVG
Ati
"2
^2
(^los^lO
'^^''osl0*''os9^
(Xi
*indicates
value before breakthrough in the
O
cr
iH
N .-N . ,
^^10
indicated bed
EXAMPLE 7.5
7-35
^10
Absolute Permeability
Subsea Depth
md
ft
From
to
2050
2051
35
2051
2052
51
2052
2053
27
2053
2054
116
2054
2055
60
2055
2056
237
2056
2057
519
2057
2058
98
2058
2059
281
2059
2060
164
ro
rw
in oil bank
0.85
4.50 cp
= 0.79 cp
or
""w
b2 = 1.0 RB/STB
w
(kAh).
k, md
kAh, md-ft
Ah, ft
AC "
ZkAh
h = EAh
C = ZAC
519
519
0.3268
0.3268
0.1
281
281
0.1770
0.5038
0.2
237
237
0.1492
0.6530
0.3
164
164
0.1033
0.7563
0.4
116
116
0.0730
0.8293
0.5
98
98
0.0617
0.8910
0.6
60
60
0.0378
0.9288
0.7
51
51
0.0321
0.9609
0.8
35
35
0.0220
0.9829
0.9
0.0170
0.9999
10
1.0
27
ht = 10
27
ZkAh =
Table 7 -9:
1588
11
^plot
h'
Ah '
0. 1
0.1
3.268
0.05
0. 2
0.1
1.770
0.15
0. 3
0.1
1.492
0.25
0. 4
0.1
1.033
0.35
0. 5
0.1
0.730
0.45
0. 6
0.1
0.617
0.55
0. 7
0.1
0.378
0.65
0. 8
0.1
0.321
0.75
0. 9
0.1
0.220
0.85
1. 0
0.1
0.170
0.95
k*h*
"
(1-C)
k*
7-37
where:
^rw %
^ro ^w
1.68
1.82 C
Thus,
CWC)
iU
0.82
5.0
tn
4.0
X
<p
CO
a
td
u
3.0
.O
cd
a>
S
tn
tn
Cu
o
iH
m
tn
mm
o
H
V)
2.0 Jh
H
V)
Q)
E
H
1.0
Fig. 7.14:
7-38
00
(WC)j, =
1.68 C._
1
0.68
Vertical
in Table
7.10.
from Fig .
Coverage and
k'
7.14.
7. 10:
Table
water-cut
calculations, Ex.
7.3.
(WC)g
(WC)r
2.53
0.33
0.365
1.62
0.51
0.502
0.473
0.453
0.3
1.13
0.65
0.610
0.654
0.636
0.4
0.85
0.75
0.694
0.772
0.757
0.5
0.65
0.83
0.762
0.845
0.834
0.6
0.50
0.89
0.820
0.899
0.891
0.7
0.37
0.93
0.889
0.936
0.931
0.28
0.96
0.943
0.960
0.957
0.9
0.22
0.98
0.991
0.978
0.976
1.0
0.17
1.00
1.000
0.989
0.988
0.1
CM
calculated
by material balance to be
O
'B
So =
where:
1-S
wi
01
8oi
B.
7-39
7758 Ah4)(l.S^.)
"
rr
01
f77S8)(80 acHlO ftHO. 25) Cl-0.23)
1.2S1 bbl/iiYB
N = 955,021 STB
112,400 STB
^ 955,021 STB
1.251 RB/m
S^
= 0.589
o
Sg = 1 - So S
= 1
0.589 -
0.23
S = 0.181
g
This gas space must be filled with water before any flood
response will be achieved. The amount of water required to
fill the gas space is
W.. = V S = 7758Ah4)S
ir
7-40
''if
tf = r-
280.840 bbls _
j....
1006 bbls/1) - 281 days
N , -p^-oi Tor^-A -V
P
1.085 RB/STB
Np = 507,752 Cy STB
Oil recovery calculations are summarized in Table 7.11
Table
h
^v
Np, STB
ANp, STB
0.1
0.365
185,329
185,329
0.2
0.502
254,892
69,563
0.3
0.610
309,729
54,837
0.4
0.694
352,380
42,651
0.5
0.762
386,907
34,527
0.6
0.820
416,357
29,450
0.7
0.889
451,392
35,035
0.8
0.943
478,810
27,418
0.9
0.991
503,182
24,372
1.0
1.000
507,752
4,570
"os
- "V
w;
7-41
"wjos^AVG
Oil recovery calculations are summarized as a function of time
in Table
7.12.
AN
h*
^os
, STB/D
^%s^AVG
At
t = t + ZAt
^%s-'AVG
0.1
921.7
921.7
201.1
481.9
0.2
505.1
713.4
97.5
579.4
0.3
335.5
420.3
130.5
709.9
0.4
224.0
279.8
152.4
862.3
0.5
153.0
188.5
183.2
1045.5
0.6
100.5
126.8
232.3
1277.8
0.7
63.6
82.1
426.7
1704.5
39.6
51.6
531.4
2235.9
22.1
30.9
788.7
3024.6^
11.1
411.7
3436.3
0.9
1.0
00
"i =
Further, the producing water-oil ratio before breakthrough in
each layer is
WOR =
Ci-lMBo/Bw
1-4-1
7-42
Table
7.13:
Water-oil
Ex. 7.3.
ratio
W., bblxlO
h'
WOR, bbl/STB
0.1
0.76
.0
0.2
0.86
0.9
0.3
0.99
1.9
0.4
1.14
3.4
0.5
1.33
5.5
0.6
1.56
8.9
0.7
1.99
14.7
0.8
2.52
24.2
0.9
3.31
43.7
1.0
3.72
89.3
Table 7.14;
Np, STB
q^, STB/D
482
185,329
921.7
.0
579
254,892
505.1
0.9
710
309,729
335.5
1.9
862
352,380
224.0
3.4
1046
386,907
153.0
5.5
1278
416,357
100.5
8.9
1705
451,392
63.6
14.7
2236
478,810
39.6
24.2
3025
503,182
22.1
43.7
3436
507,752
t, days
7-43
WOR, bbl/STB
89.3
C.
Zq^lDCt)
= _2
(7.50)
^Dt
It was shown in Chapter 6 how f W
, O
f and f_ can be
determined as a ftmction of dimensionless water injection,
^iD*
Table 7.15:
tAn
9
values of yP
layer 1
layer 2
layer 3
7-44
layer ^
^Dt
iwt
Table 7.15:
^0
(Cont'd.)
It
''o
1w
^Dt
"it
1.
Layer-cake model
2.
3.
4.
5.
behind the front and that oil production can be expected after
water breakthrough from the swept area. The following methods
account for the mechanism of displacement in predicting
waterflood behavior.
A.
Buckley-Leverett Method
B.
Roberts Method
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Construct a
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
iwj =
Calculate the cumulative water injection,
into each layer to reach each
point chosen
in (2).
7758A.h.<|>.
W._.
ij
3 3^3
f .
7.
Calculate
point.
and
WJ
^Oj "
q . = 0
WJ
^oj
q. i
WJ
8.
(1 - f^)
K
f
WJ w
l^PjJ bt
A.*.h.
bt
bt
10
point.
11
12
13
14,
7-47
15.
C.
Craig-Geffen-Morse Method^^
This is one of the most thorough and most practical
The
Variations in injectivity
D.
Higgins-Leighton Method^'*
This method basically applies the displacement theory
It
From
)
COMPARISON OF WATERFLOOD PREDICTION METHODS
Dvkstra-Parsons
Cralg-Gef fen-Morse
Stiles
1.
Linear Flow
1.
Linear Flow
1.
Five-Spot Pattern
2.
Layered System
2.
Layered System
2.
Layered System
3.
No Crossflow
3.
No Crossflow
3.
No Crossflow
4.
Piston Displacement
(Limited To Favorable
To Low Mobility Ratio
4.
Piston Displacement
4.
through
Systems)
5.
5.
5.
Response
6.
Steady State
6.
Steady State
6.
7.
7.
7.
Steady State
00
>
Experimental Data
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
Of Mobility Ratio
9.
10.
10.
Such As h,
Sw
Dykstra-Parsons
Coefficient
Core Data
Requires Estimation Of
11.
10.
7-50
REFERENCES:
1.
2.
''The Prediction of
3.
4.
Mobarak, S.: "Waterflooding Performance Using DykstraParsons As Compared with Numerical Model Performance,"
Jour, "Pet. Tech.
5.
6.
Stiles, W. E.:
Cole, F. W.:
7.
J. D."
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Roberts, T. G.:
7-51
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Higgins, R. V. and Leighton, A. J.: "Waterflood Prediction of Partially Depleted Reservoirs," paper SPE
757 presented at SPE 33rd Annual California Regional
Fall Meeting, Santa Barbara, Oct. 24-25, 1963.
20.
7-52
PROBLEMS:
1.
= 1.30 RB/STB
B^ - 1.0 RB/STB
i^ = 50,000 RB/D
12%
gi
30.0x10 RB
125
100
75
cc
50
25
9x10
1x10
Np, STB
7-53
Other
a.
b.
c.
2.
Porosity, ^ = 0.29
=0.32
W
of flood, B^
= 1.090 RB/STB
,
~ 1.062 RB/STB
6,267,440 STB
= 0. 368
4,800 BPD
a.
b.
c.
7-54
ts)
O
o*
f-h
o
-J
0>
Pt-
OS
o.
0)
H
=r
M'
f+
9
o>
O
(D
a*
o
0>
T3
Hh
l-
T3
Pt-
jaM
f11
.mmiimi
M i u n uia
MB n mM I uu mil 1M
!l! I!: IM i I 11
mflUlilfiUfiUiQI
iimniiiiiRiinfl
lUHIRtimtlllM
mMnmitMiiniimiitfuiuHtifli
immBinuiiMiiHaimi
-ani nut m
Mm a n DM iMi I n n
imiimapu)MiiM
i'uinuiHiiinraaiimiMMiiunMiiii
em i s m IV. wiNinninniiHniiitiunfnniRW
n m n fM n m Hw Ml m n f i u I uru rrai m
UMtnituiauiuxuinninnMiMuiiiMiBWD
UlllllUlltMIHIDIiainBilllMIHMIIHUH]
u m
I i n t i I nil tim Ma l u a m i I riMi I tm ms
111 n I iin n ta B u u B B i I
nnuf
u a I u m i i n I uiu i m ra I Mn I
IMB iM (m
nuitnaiRiHHHMi
M in I na IUB
limilllMUIHHIi
to
o*
iniiiniiiiioiiitiiiHiiiDifiitniii
IIlllllIlllliaQWIBSrUIUIUiHfltlP'*5tUI
ainirwinHMtj
Hiyiiiiiiiiunin]
wr
wiw*iiinnHtiiiimimiiHMiiMnnf
jiuiiniiiiHiiuiiiiuiniiiifflQaitHfiiuiuiouraDiBHHHLiuiiiiiDiuntiuiDiDHiBuiitiiHinBiiieiitnmH
iHiinmniniBflHiTinffiinnTKiiinnimiiniiiTiitiimmiiHiiiiiiiniiDiiiinDfniiiiiinHimiiiuoinoiiH)
RUiimtMniiini
uiuuHiHuiiiniuBgHiHUfBuiiiHiiuiiiuuuujHHamiuuiBiniiinuiuuumuiuuimuuuiuntuiimii
llWUttJIIIttllUI
HHiannituti
o
o
o
o
o
k, md
O*
T3
r*
0
OQ
*r3
-vj
OQ
SS-L
3,
k, md
h, ft
1,132
791
562
10
416
15
325
20
271
25
238
30
217
35
199
40
10
182
45
11
163
50
12
142
55
13
121
60
14
101
65
15
84
70
16
70
75
17
59
80
18
49
85
19
33
90
20
95
Sample No.
Porosity, ^ = 0.19
Connate water saturation,
= 0.24
beginning of flood, B^
= 1.215 RB/STB
=1.073 RB/STB
of flood. Np
^cn STB
7-56
= 0.225
^ q gQ
of front,
Water viscosity,
Oil viscosity,
= 0.82 cp
= 4.34 cp
b.
c.
d.
7-57
(kAh).
, md
Ah, ft
kAh, md-ft
" ZkAh
C =
ZAC
= ZAh
= Ht
776
776
0.1529
0.1529
0.0345
454
454
0.0894
0.2423
0.0690
349
349
0.0688
0.3111
0.1034
308
308
0.0607
0.3717
0.1379
295
295
0.0581
0.4299
0.1724
282
282
0.0556
0.4854
0.2069
273
273
0.0538
0.5392
0.2414
262
262
0.0516
0.5908
0.2759
228
228
0.0449
0.6357
0.3103
187
187
0.0368
0.6726
10
0.3448
178
178
0.0351
0.7076
11
0.3793
161
161
0.0317
0.7394
12
0.4138
159
159
0.0313
0.7707
13
0.4483
148
148
0.0292
0.7998
14
0.4828
127
127
0.0250
0.8249
15
0.5172
109
109
0.0215
0.8463
16
0.5517
88
88
0.0173
0.8637
17
0.5862
87
174
0.0343
0. 8980
19
0.6552
77
77
0.0152
0.9131
20
0.6897
49
441
0.0869
1.000
29
1.0000
h^=29 ZkAh=S,076
7-58
Table
7P.3
Permeability distribution,
Prob.
h'
3.
Slot
Ah'
0.0345
0.0345
4.4334
0.0173
0.0690
0.0345
2.5938
0.0518
0.1034
0.0344
1.9939
0.0863
0.1379
0.0345
1.7597
0.1207
0.1724
0.0345
1.6854
0.1552
0.2069
0.0345
1.6111
0.1897
0.2414
0.0345
1.S597
0.2242
0.2759
0.0345
1.4968
0.2587
0.3103
0.0344
1.3026
0.2932
0.3448
0.0345
1.0684
0.3276
0.3793
0.0345
1.0169
0.3621
0.4138
0.0345
0.9198
0.3966
0.4483
0.0345
0.9084
0.4311
0.4828
0.0345
0.8455
0.4656
0.5172
0.0344
0.7256
0.5001
0.5517
0.0345
0.6227
0.5345
0.5862
0.0345
0.5028
0.5690
0.6552
0.0690
0.4970
0.6207
0.6897
0.0345
0.4399
0.6725
1.0000
0.3103
0.2799
0.8449
II
7-59
o\
tsJ
OQ
M
H'
r+
O
H
H'
rt
O*
rf
H-
p
n
*S
04 n
S-S
<D
P
cr
0
01
ii
Tl
H-
!::c3:
Dimensionless Capacity, C
Maiiaaaiiii
aaiaisaai
iaiftaa aaiM
aafiaMfaaaa
Bi|aBaia|ai
pa
faaiaaaaall
iiiaaakia
fvv
iaaftiia
aaiivBala
CRAIG-GEFFEN-MORSE METHOD
I.
Introduction
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. Stage 1 will not occur unless free gas is present at the
start of the flood.
Stage 2 - This period extends from interference until all pre-existing gas space
is filled by injected water. Only primaiy oil production occurs during this
stage.
Stage 4 - This stage extends from water breakthrough to the economic limit.
Stages 1, 2, and 3 are illustrated in Figure CGM-1.
FIGURE CGM-1
STAGE 1
'^7~^
Interference
STAGE 2
STAGES
1
m
Water Production
CGM-2
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.
n. Initial Calculations - Single Layer
Vp =
7758Ah(|)
(Eq.CGM.l)
where:
Vp =
(|)
VpSo
(Eq.CGM.2)
Do
where:
N0
So
B0
C. Calculate mobility ratio, M, prior to water breakthrough using Eq. COM.3 and
fractional flow data.
CGM-3
where:
kfw =
, at water
breakthrough, fraction
kro =
nGURECGM-2
EFFECT OF TEMPERMURE ON
viscosnroF saltwater
2.0
250,000 ppm
200,000 ppm
150,000 ppm
100,000 ppm
50,000 ppm
Oppm
0.0
30
40
so
60
70
80
CGM-4
FIGURE CGM-3
Mobility Ratio
E. Determine the maximimi value of gas saturation, Sg, for which the CraigGeffen-Morse method is valid.
cfSo Sobt
(Eq. CGM,4)
where:
^obt
If Sg > Sg, Craig indicates, without justification, that this prediction method
will yield higher WOR's and oil recovery values at any injected values than will
actually occur in the field. No basis for this calculation seems to exist in the
Tcr jh(|)Sg
"
5.615
(Eq,CGM.5)
where:
Wjj =
Tgj
Wjf =
VpSg
(Eq.CGM.6)
where:
Wjf =
Sg
(E(| CGM.7)
where:
Wjbt =
^wbt "
Swc =
It is assumed during this period that the water and oil banks are radial in shape and
that Darcy's radial flow equation can be used to predict water injection into the
reservoir. Consider the injection wells depicted by Figure CGM-4.
FIGURE CGM-4
RADIAL WATER AND OIL BANKS
WATER
WATER
For a constant pressure differential (Ap), the water injection rate prior to
interference will be:
0.00708khAp
lw =
^iw
krw
re
rw
(Eq. CGM.8)
kro
where:
iw
CGM-7