,*

,...-,, ,
,!

Gf4.Ac.p
SOCIETY OF PFH!ROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME 6300 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75206 THIS Ts A PREPRINT --- BtiJECT TO COm~l@$ PAPER -~~

SPE

1121

, RE,SERVE~ .AND PERFORMANCE WATERFLOOD .

Ey

PREDICTING

.. ,,OF A PERIPHERAL

Jr., Member AIME, First National .Bank,ofChicago, (%icago, 111. Roberti COYYdn, Q. o and E. T. Guerrero, Member AIME, The UniversityofTulsa) Tt?lsa~ kl?. Publication Ri&ts Reserved

,.

.A13STRACT A method to predict the reserves and performance of a waterflood utilizing peripheral injection is developed. It is a edification of the .? methodused by Prats, et al. to predict the reserves and performance o.fa five-spot,waterflood system. Both theoretical and experimental work are involved in the procedures. ,, Experimentaldata obtained-by Prats, et al.l for the five~spot system and by Dyes, CauQl@, and Erickson for a direct line drive system were modified for use in the peripheral, system, Theoretical procedures are used to predict injectivity.prtorto fill-up. After water breakthrough, injectivity is predicted from ex?erimentaldata. The method presented is believed to be more accurate for predicting reserves and performance of a peripheral waterflood than methods utilizing a constant injection race or methods not considering the buildup of an oil bank.ahead of the water fkont...

A review of,paterial availabl@, both analytical and emp}rical, to assist in tha prediction of waterflood perform e i d cated that a n ~ 8$528)})8,9,10,11j 12$13,11 wealth of information ~ haflbeen published on the five-spot patte~n waterflood but very little 15Z16 was available on the peripheral system. It was decided,to determine if some of the material available on the five-spot could be modified for use in-the peripheral system.

1 METHODOF PEATS, MATTREWS, JEWETT and BAKER .3 Prats,et alAdevised a comprehensivemethod of predicting the reserves and performance of fi.vespot waterflood. Their method takes into considerationmore variables than most other accepted methods and was therefore selected for modification t.oenable prediction of reserves and performance of a waterflood utilizing a peripheral injection system. -. .,-.. . Prats et al: based their method on being .: able to accurately predict injection rates over the_l$fe of awaterflood. Both theoretical and INTRODUCTION .< . . experimentalwork .wereperfotied tbdevel~p ~- .Waterflooding peripheral injectiom is by , method for computing injection rate. This ,becomingmore common. thisis due, iv most method not only,assumes that inject.ipn rate ip.tc cases, to allowable restrictionsor-to the a layer is proportional to the permeabilfty,cap:p~acticeof in~tfatingwater flooding in.the. acity4 but also . .. the ef%t . .=,=. .-. .m,. .. takes into acco~nt. =. .-. ,. . .. . early~l=ife a-fL-eld-tO=mai3itain-pt&bsure of at-+ of the water and oil ban~s-an~t heflui~~o~il~an optimum point,. a sufficient rate of water If ities within each of the banks. lt involves. injection can be maintained through k peripheral primarily the predictionwith time of the rate system, it will,umally be selected over,.a patof injection,intoandthe type ofproduction ~, tern type.system. because of the lower initial .. .. from.each indivi@+41>ay2r, ,. . . . .. . .. --investmentand operating-expense; -. ---- . . . . . I

-~ -

2,

-:-

-. -....:

-.,.

->----

--.-:.-;

:--

.---~:..>-. --------------- :

---

..-

- .,. .. ,. .2.
..Y,..-

4
Assumptions made in the Prats et al\lmethod are the following: : 1, A non-uniforri reservoir can be represented by a group of-homogeneous layers of diffarenk permeabilities. 2. No inter-c:jmunicationexists between the layers. 3. Lhe displ.ttcement oiloccurs in a pisof ton-like;manner, ~ 4. Gravity~effects are negligible. 5. Except~for pore volume occupied by residual gak, oil iill-up occurs in the ,1 unswept portion of the reservoir before obtaining an increase in oil recovery due towater f,njection. 6. FiYe-spoC injectionsystem. 7: Steady-state flow. 8. lttjection water results in the formaof tion of water and oil banks with only ,waCer flowing in the wattirbank, oil in ,the oil bank, and gas ahead of the oil bank. 9. Oil banks remain radial up to interference lfj Water banks remain radial uniil interJ ference or oil breakthrough,whichever is firat. ;11. Pressure drop between injectionand producing wells ia constant and the.came for all layars. 12. Fluid saturations at beginning of.waterflood are the same for all :ayers. 13, Sweep efficiency at aridafter water break, through can be predicted with mobility ratio and electrolytic model data. 14i Relative pertneabilities nd fluid $ropa erties are the asme for all layers. 1 Prats et al. incorporated the idea of an idealized displacementmechaniam. As water is injected into tliereservoir which contains oil, water, and gas in uniform saturation, it forms a water bank around the injectionwell. In this -bank the oil is assume6.to have been diaplsced unifom$y to a saturationequal to..the residual oj.1 saturation. Any gaa which ramains in this bank iscalled the remaining gas saturation. Thedisplaced oil forms an oil bank ahead,of the water bank. Gas distilaced ahead of these two banks passesinto the unflooded region and forces out other gas at the production well. The unflooded region may be.called the gas region. In each bank or region there is asaumed -to be only-one mobile phase, water in the water. bank, oil in the oil bank, and gas in the gas region. .T.hia ethod considers three periods of injecm .-tion:.-...Es@o&one-tiisfmm..in~tiatim .of-=flo~d-.. i?g go oil bank interference. Period two involves injection from oil bank interferenceliraakthrough.Period three is.injection to oil subsequent to water breakthrough. The injecttvitles: between-oil breakthroughand-water breakthrough are obtained buynterpolation; i

SPE-112: Prats et al.lutilizeda dimensionless injectivity which is defined for a homogeneous reservoir by: t ~w VW ii Eq.1 ld= kwhAp !I 11 For a layered reservoir having no verticll communication, the sum of the permeability-~hickness product,of each.layer is used in de~ining II injectivity:

1!
!! ,; .

REVISEti METROD FOR PERIPHERAL WATERPL06DS INTRODUCTION :,

Tolallow modification of the method of Prats et al. without extensive laboratory investigation, the following assumptims were made: 1. The sweep efficiency betwe=n the injection well and each producing well in the. peripheral element will be the same as that for a direct line drive system which ia similarly located in respect to the dimensions between the.injectionwells and the producing wells. 2. Intermediateproduction wells are not produced until fill-up is attained. 3. After fill-up, production from each producing well is in proportion to the ability of a producing well in a direct line drive system similarly located in relation to the injection well. 4* Each producing well will.be shut-in when it reaches a selected water cut. 5. That the.water front does not move past a producing well until the well is shutin. 6. That the experimental data obtained by Prats et al. can be modified for use in a peripheral injection system. 7. That other experimental data .obt.ained for a five-spot pattern can be modified for use in a peripheral syst$tn. ,As considered by .Pratset al.lfor the fivespot pattern, an element of a peripheral waterflood system can be chosen-which for reasons of symmetrycanbe considered to represent a large scale flood. Such an element is illustrated in , Exhibit 1. INJECTION PER1OD 1. To calculate the injectivity from initiation of- njectt~-toofl-bank interferencej-Prats-etal.iassumed that the fronts w-= radial with rl being:the outer radius of the water bank . and r2 the outer.radius of the oil bank. The . pressure dropin the gas region was assumed to beequal tQ-th6:pfe$sure dropif onl~g~swe!% flowing in,the five-spot syeEem less .thepressure\

drop in a hypotheticalgas bank with an outer radius equal -to r2. To apply this to a periphara~ injection system, similar radial fronts were also assumed with,the pressure drop in the gas region beingequal to that if only gas were flowing in a direct linedrive system less the pressure drop in a hypothetical gas bank with an outer radius equal to r2. Taking into cQneideration that the peripheral element involves only one-half of a radial system, the following equation results:

d -

1 in ~l-,Mv,o w

2 In+ Mw,o Mo,g 1

INJECTION PERIOD 111. , Prata et al! found the injectivitiesafter water breakthrough by use of experimentaldata, In the peripheral system, fill-up will sometimes not be obtained at this point and a period three must be utilized to account for fnjectivities from water bank interference to fill-up. During this period, oil and gas were assumed to be primarily in Linear flow.. The pressure dr~p.in the water bank was assumed equal to the preseure, drop in a direct line drive system less the pressure drops in a hypothetical radial system with a.radius equal to a/2 and a hypothetical linear system with a length equal to the length , ,PIUSthe length of the pil ~~n~h~ ~~s~~~~ g The following equation .. result: from thie system: 1 T = d rid/a-2 ln( 2 sinhfirw /a) x

b+

m 2 ln(2 si.nh~

2 ) - ln~ w 1

Eq.3

(Lo + P- 8 a

where here d represents the length of the system or distance from the injectionwell to well number 3 in Exhibit 1 or dla = 3.* INJECTION PERIOD 11 From oil bank interference to oil break1 through or water bank interference,Prats et al. assumed the water-oil and the oil-gas fronts were still radial.. The pressure drop in the oil bank-would then be equal to the pressure drop if on-ly 011 were flowing in thefive-spot less the pressure drop in hypothetical oil banks with radii equal to the outer radius of the water benk and the outer radius of the gas regfon from the producing well,.. r3. ., To obtain injectivity from oil -bankinterference to water bank interference in the peripheral injection system, tt was assumed that the water-oil front is still radial and that the gas is flowing linearly, The press~r$ drop in the oil bank woul~ be equal to the pressure drop if only oil were flowing in a direct line drive system less the preseure drop in hypothetical oil banks with radii of rl and a12 and in a linear system flowing over the same length as the gas flow lese a12. With the gas flowing over a length Lg, the,following equation is dei~tied~
?:

L 1 M Og(:) -;%~r~~+MwQ+-Mwo > 9 d For Eqs. 4 & 5 ~= 3, as per Exhibit 1. INJECTIVITYAFTER WATER BREAKTHROUGH

Eq.5

After water breakthrough into a producing well, -Lnjectivi.ties were found corresponding to each producing well, using the graphs of injectivityversus water cut based on experimental data by Prats et al} and modified for use in a peripheral sye?em. This curve, Figure 3of Prats et al.,1 was modified by calculating the injectivity for the appropriate direct line drive system for a mobility.ratio of one, then adjusting in.jectivities or other f nobilities in the same proportion that the injectivity for the mobility ratio of one hid. to be adjusted. Sweep efficiency versus cumulativewater injection was found .inthe published works of Dyes, Caudle and Ericksonz for a dieect line drive system of dja = 1 where d is the distance between the injection well and producing well an< IIanis t~ ~stance..betweenLnjeCtionwe~$s~ This was modified for use with direct line drive systems with values of d/a other than one-by use of the factor x = (l-El)/ (1-E2), where El is

.-K 1 (1 -Mw,o)ln~+Mw,o w n

d = I

the sweep efficiency:of the dla = 1 system and _-E. is the sween efficiency of the system with a~+la o? other-than 1. T~e x facto~ was foun;< ..-. .=. -A---.--F(.L_a/2..._..> .~~.. ..a. ~ ,.. ..:._-..... ... .. . `$tiit%illy`Ey"-cZleuTa-tifng""th@"'&ffCc~eticEeti`at -1).M ln(~) q4 W>o o,gwater breakthrcnagh y use of Musk,at1s17 b equation > for a direct li%edrive system w.itha dla ratio ~Equations3, 4 & 5 apply for d/.a~~. The~can equal to or greater than 1. This.asaumes the easily be mod%fied for d/a~0,25 by adjusting the experimentalda~a,var%es in the ~roporrion that ... . .. direct line drive equation used;17

Ir~-2 ln(2sinh>

+&woLI+--

\M

,.

46

so = Sor = = s
S;c = km k k ro rg u = = 0.558 0.144 0,242 Pw * = 0.85.cp = 3.5 Cp = 2 ft. (assumed) = 0,176
>

the sweep effic~ency of the selected dla ratio with a mobility ratio of one found by Muskatts equation varies from the experimentally found sweep efficiencywhen the dfa and the mobility ratio are one. A graphof water cut versus cumulative injection was then constructed using the relationship fo= dEs = dtiid 1 - fw. Eq,6

1+-g = 0,013 Cp rw

S:r = 0.000 0,20 0,10 0.133 0,148

fl

= 3.1 M w>o = 0.0035 M O,g = 2.71 F

When thewater cut reaches a eelected value, the well producing the water was shut-in, At this time, some layers will have produced water while others htwe pcoduced only oil or gas. The layerl cannot therefore remain on a basis of similar performance with a similar dimensionlesscumulative water injection. Adjustment must be made onan individual layer basis because each layer which produced water has produced a different amount of watei, The adjustment was made by constructing a graph of dimensionless injectivity versus dimensionlesscumulative injection for the next producing well as if no water had been produced. The sweep efficiency of each layer that p;oduced w+ter was determined at the time the producing well waa shut-~n, and this was the cumulative injection at which the layer was entered on the constructedgraph. Layers which have not produced watier will havt a sweep efficiency the same as the dimensionless -cumulativewater injection and no adjustment is necessary. True dimensionless cumulative injection for the layers which have produced Water,is the indicated cumulative injection plus the increment of cumulative injection higher than the sweep efficiency at the time the producing well is shu~-in, The indicated cumulative injection must be used for calculating injectivities and when using the graph of cumulative injection versus sweep efficiency at the next production well. No error is introduced into subsequent calculations ecause calculations are b based on~y on changes in cumulative injection,

Permeabilitiesand thicknessesa~e shown in Table A-5, Injectivitiesare calculated fbr aseries of arbitrarily chosen values of d~mensionlesscumulative injection during perio.-~ 2, and 3. 1, Injectivitiesduring period 1, frqm,initiation of injection to oil bank interference,are calculated using equation (3) and are shown in Table A-1, Injectivitiesduring period 2, from oil bank interference to water bank interference are calculatedusingequation (4) and are shown in Table A-2. Injectivltiesdu@ng period 3, from water bank interference to+fill-up,are calculated using equation (5) and are shown in Table A-3, is the cumulative wat~r injection expressed n terms of floodable pore volume.

P
w
id

vi

-=
L2hfiQ

: --sor-s
gr Swc)

Eq.7

and F indicates the rate at which the oil bank builds up compared to the rate at which the waterbank grows. Eq.8 ~ge- ~ gr

At fill-up, Wid is calculated to be equal to 0.3.69, lhis indicates that the water front is between the first producing well and the second When the water cut reaches the selected value producing well. The second well has the same in the last producing well, the flood is termidimension with relation to the injection well nated. as that of a direct line drive system with a dja ratio of 2. The sweep efficiency at water EXAMPLE OF THE MODIFIED METHOD breakthrough of a direct line drive with adla ratio of 2 and a mobility ratio Of 3.1 was found to he 74 per.c.ent. from..the yo?k.?.fDYee! Asarneans of f.llustrat%ngthis tiethoii of et al.2 modifiedfor the appropriate dla ratio. predicting reserves and performance, it was These curves are presented as Figures A-5, A-6 decided to use the reservoi~ and fluid characand~-7. Since a direct line drive system with teristics found in the illustrativeexample by a dja ratio of 2 is equal to only two-thirds of Prats et al; and apply them to a peripheral ..ghk..s@tsp._qg,d.er.= co@i_!erationj which lq..three .. .+.. ~tijeckion gy~tema$ illusti%ied--iti ExhLbit:l;---producing wells in a line~theicttial sweep---This example is considered to have uniform 40efficiency the time of water breakthrough at acre development; injectionwells and producing into the eecond producing well will be 49per , wellsare 1320 feet apart. ,. cent. --- Prats et.al.lused the followingp ammeters . ..Graphs-of iiimfnlsfofije-ss. inj.eceivity;versu%- . as epresentativeof akeservoir in the Illfnols r ! .-. water cut were prepared for direct line drive . . ....... .

. .. SPE1121

,, ,[ ,, 47

The total dimensionless injectivity, s the l systems of diffexent dla ratios and are illussummation of the injectivitiesfor each individtrated,as Figures A-1, A-2, and A-3, Assuming ual layer and isrelated to totlll cumulative production from each well is in proportion to injection Wfdt by: the ability of a well located similarly with relation to the injection well in adirecfi-li~e.. (tAP)/fl:~A I+;. drive system, and knowing thae injection is equal to production in a steady state system, dt Eq, 13 i the following relationship is derived: idt = avg I ldt 0 ., qz+ %j tA P . Eq.9 the upper limits and where t = .ld = 2,48q2+ 9.26 q3 Q*AV w where q2 and q3 are production from wells number two and three respecti~ely. Using the appropriate graph to obtain production (injection) at different water cuts at well number two,.injectivities are calculated for these values of water cut. These injectivitiesare shown in lkble A-4. TO obtainlthe relationshipof injectivity with cumulative injection and sweep efficiency, graph of water cut versus cumua lative water injection, Figure A-4, and sweep *efficiencyversus water injection, Figure A-6, are used. 4 For thepurposeof this illustration,it was arbitrarily decided to shut-fn well number two when the water cut of the total efflux ~eached 50 per cent, Since.the water cut cannot be determined until the performance of all layers is determined, a complete calculationmust be made at this point. A plot of dimensionless injectivityversue cumulative injection is shown in Figure A-8 for a system with a dla ratio of 2: The dimensionlesscumulative, injection,kl , i$ and the dimensionlessinjectivity are relate to time by the relation:

j=n

7
k avg =

k wj j j:1 J. :? .??- j j =1 Eq. 14

A plot of the reciprocal of Id versus Wid will allow the graphical integrationof equat,ion (10) to obtaLn-,kwtAp/OpwA. Knowing the total i.njec tvity,,from equation (12), and from the list o.nermeability elationships shown in r d Table A-:.,imensionlessinjectivityversus real time ,}aybe found for each layer. For a given layer j, having a.capacity k .h , the injectivity for the layer is foundwdyjmultiplying the injectivityby the factor kwjhj;~!jh Knowing the relationshipof I.-versus kwtAp7!dh A from equati&(lO) the time for this injectivi~y is found by multiplying the corresponding value of k tAp/!$ A by ~~lk ~, ~ and A are t}~ same fgr each la~d~. % this example the pozosity for all layers was approximately the same so it was necessary to md.t.l,ply only by the factor Ilk .. The results CE these calculations are shoynwJin Table A-6, Injectivity curves calculated for each of the four layers h this example are plotted in Figure A-9. ,

where ~ 1 = 0(1 - Sor- Sgr. Swc) ,

..

Eq.11

Total injectivity,Idt, for the layered system-is then found by adding the ordinates for the various layers in accordancewith equation (12)-. The composite dimensionless injectivity, Idt, ts related to dimensionless- by equation (13). cumulative injection,W Solution of,equation(l~$t~saccomplishedby i =n numerical integration. The results of these . ....... . ~... .... . . . ;..-...kwj hj......... .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. ...4 --ca-lculationsa .,, re..sho%nt~inTable-&J3.-.. --. ..=_-_ ~. dt = di _ Eq.l; > The cumulativei njection for individual i j=n i=l layers can be obtained by multiplying the time k Wj hj -,, for. &cale ,fora given layer by the value of k j=1 . . .. .. ... . . i tha~-.Layex toob~~inkwf.tAp/~~~~~:-.l.w!~ ... .I where j indicates-thegt-vert layer. -. The equations given above and che relations among them afe appliciblefor singlelayef. a ~en the system is multi-layer, with each layer having differenti permeability aria thickfor the system is ness, the total in.jectivLgy calculated from:

sPE-112:

..

96 per cent; IIIisalculation follows c exactly the method of calculating perfonrqnce / from equation (10), plotted in Figure A-10, the prior to shutting in of well number two. Table i cumulative injection can be obtained at any time, A-7 shows the layer injectivity and Table A-9 Knowing the cumulative injection at,fill-up, and the calculation of totalcumulative injection water cut with relationship to cumulative injecafter the shut-in of well number two. Figure tion from Figure A-4, it is possible to determine A-n is used to illustrate the relationship the type and amount of production from each layer, between kwtAp/@tpwA and Cu!iWlatiVe,injeCtiOn En a staady state system, rate of production for this portion of the project. Table A-10 from any layer will be equal to the rate of shows the performance of the prvject over the injectton into the layer, making it possible entire life. to calculate the fractiona of gas, oil and: water being produced from all layers. The CONCLUSIONS results of these calculations are shown in A method to predict the reserves and perTable A-10. formance of a waterflood utilizing peripheral The performance shown in Table A-10 indicates injectLon has been developed. This method is that water cut of total efflux, fw, exceeds tha a modification of the method used by Prats, selected value of,50 per cent at a time when Matthews, Jewett and Baker to predict the CA p/~ Ais 0.0450. At this time well number reserves and performance of a.five-spotwatertwo is %ut-fn and production will be entirely s flood system. The method involves both thew from well number thxee. From performance comretical and experim~htalwork. putations, Table A-10, it is seen that layers 1 The modification of data for use in a periphand 2 have produced water at this point, and injection system has given reasonable results layers 3 and 4 have not yet achieved fill-up. in the sample calculations. These results ar@ The sweep efficiency of layers 1 and 2 can be in the range.of what would ba expected from what determined by using the plot of sweep efficiency little experimentalwork ia availqble on the . versus cumulative injection,Figure A-6. peripheral injection system., It is<believed A plot of dimensionless injectivityversus that the+ethod derived can be successfullyused cumulative injection is made, Figure A-12, from to predict the reserves And performance of a fill-up as if thare. was no product~on from well periphe~al waterflood. number two. This is accomplished in the same , manner that Figure A-8 was constructed fffr well ., number two, but utilizes Figure A-5 and Figure ACKNOWLEDGMENT A A-? for relationshipsof cumulative injection to sweep efficiency and water cut. Sfnce 18llPredi.ctThis paper is based on the thesis layers.3 and4 have not yet reached fill-up ing Reserves and Performance of a Peripheral when well number two 1s shut-in, these layers Waterfloodt R: W, Cowan, Petroleum Engineer: by will perform accordingto the curve constructed ing Department, TileUniversity of Tulsa. The in Figure A-12 after fillup is.,reached. ayers L equations used in the paper have been modified ., 1 and 2 have produced oil and water so that an from those used in the thesis. adjustmentmust be made to determine their performance afCer shut-in ofwell number two. DEFINITION SYMBOLS OF The sweep efficiency of layer 1 was determine d from the relationshipof sweep efficiency to = di<tance bettieen tnjectionwells ctiulative injection, Figure A-6. Since che : = area in project aweep efficiency will be equal to cumulative d = distance from injectionwell to injection prior to water breakthrough, layer 1. production well should performaccording cothe curve conEs = sweep efficiency structed in Figure A-12 for values of cumulative = fraction of gas in total efflux f tnjectionequal to and )greaterthan values of .:he sweep efficiency in kayer 1 atthe. time fg = fracLion ofoil in total.efflux of shut-in of well number two. When we~l number f; ,= fract~onofwater in total efflux -two is.shut-in,the injectivity.intolayer 1. . should drop Lmmedtately to the value given in = net thickness of injection interval h Figure A-12 for a cumulative -injection equal to = dimensfonles.s nject.fY%tY t .Ehesweep efficiency reached in layer 1. This ld drop in injectivity can be noted in Figure A-13, = total dimenatonlessinjectivity .Wllgcly.sl.ves .tkQ_i_QkLY_i=4kaL=$2jEs3*Y$$Y_.ELw9?.dt .. 4.. . ... . a.... .... . . ..+. ...>. ,relat.ive pen;ea6il-i-ty-Eo--gas bank in-ass for the four layers over the entire life of the k= rg. project. A similar adjustment is mada in the k= relative permeability to oi~ in oil bank. ro performance curve of layer.2, km = relat%ve permeability to water in water The performanceofthe project iithen calg . bgnk ~+~ :-;-. . ... ... . _.h culaited to-t~tiinat.fbti vacerCUE: fw) .ofT.: ~at a Knowing the relationshipof kwtAp/f$oA to Mid I , ,.

.. ..
>C-ll -a-&s D1 -\

.,
J.

49

= s

length oflinear gas flow length of linear oi~flow oil-to-gas nobility ratio water-to-oilmobtlity ratio oil production, cumulative(An oil formation volume factor? B. of one was used) porosity .,. ( pressure preesure drop from injector to producer pressure drop in gas region pressure drop in oil bank pressure drpp in water bank ~;~io;~ gas production, reservoir conrate of oil movement in oil bank I

4.

g Lo

M , M

O,g
w, o

= = = = =

I .
>. I

Np fl P Ap

Dye8, A. B., and Braun, P. H.~ Sweepout Patterms in Depleted and in Stratified Resetwoi.rs, Producers Flonthly2(1954), 19, No. 2, 24. ,. ~twelch Field San Andres Hendrickson, G. ~., Pilot Water Flood, Parmian Basin Oil Recovery Conference,Midland,Texas, 1961,p.27

6.

dPg= @o x

I
I

LYw .
g ~. %= 1 r2 = = =

Higgins, R, V., and Leighton, h, J,,Computer Prediction of Water Drive of Oil and Gas Mixtures Through IrregularlyBounded Porou,s Media--Thre@-PhaqeFlow, The Society of petr, Engrs. of AIME Prod. Research . Symposium,Tulsa,1962, p. 74. pemeabflitY Distri7* Stiles, W. E., ~~useof bution-in Water Flood Calculations,Trans e =, (1949], 186,.9, Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R. L., me Prediction of Oil Recovery by Water Flood, Secondary Recovery of bilin the United States, API (1930), 160. Hurst, W., liDete~inatiOnof Performance Curve,in Five-Spot Water Flood, Petroleum Engineer,(1953),25,N0, 4, B-40. 1!Drilling and Production Flood Calculations, Practice, API, (1949), 260, Guerrero~ E.T., and Earlougher, R.C,, I!Analysis and Comparison of Five Methode Used to Predict Water-Flood Reserves and t~~rilling and Production Performance, Piactice, API, (1961), 78.

8.

rate of water injection .= radius of water bank radius of oil bank radius of gas region gas .saturati.on before flooding residual gas saturation oil saturation before flooding residual oil saturation connate water saturation
time

9. 1 I

3% = s

10, Suder, F, l%,,and Calhoun, J.C., Water

g, s= gr s=
t
~1

so =
or =
=

I il.
I

sWc =

I I

tAp/flvwA viscosity of
gas

b
[10

= = = = =

at reservoir conditions

I
I

12: Craig, F, F., and Morse, R.A., Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern Gas or Water Injectio Operations,fromModel Studies, Journal of Petr, Technology ,(1955);N0, 1, 713. 8chmalz, J. P,, and Rahme, H, S., The Variatf.on Water Flood Performancewith Varin iation in Permeability Profile, Producers Monthly, (1950), 14, No. 9, 9,

viscosity of W.1 at reservoir conditions viscosity of water at reservoir conditions cumulative water injected dimensionlesscumulative injection total dimensionlesscumulative injection for laykred system natural logarlthm

VW i

id

idt=. In =

14* Turktan,.0, H., Critical Analysis of Ten Methods Used to Predict Waterflood Reserves and perfo~ance,?fM.P,E. Thesis~ University of Tulsa, 1961. 15. Ferrell, H., Irby, T. L., Pruitt, G. T., and Studies for ProCrawford, P. B,j ltMod@l duction - Injection Well conversion During Lfie.Drive Water Floods,! Trans, AIMS, (19.60 219, 94, C of 16. Hlatt, W. N., !llnjected-Fluidoyerage -

IUZFEEXNCES . 1. Prqts, M., Matthews; C~.S.,{Jewett, R. L., and Bakerj:J.-D, ,.PredictioofofTnject3.on Rate and Production History for Multifluid Five-Spot Floods, Trans AIME, (1959), ~16,98i =. R,-A., as Influenced by Mobil~ty~Ratio,Trans. . A= (1954), 201; 81.

2. .Dyes,A..B.,.produc Caudle,.13: II..,~r.aEC~rou,gh and .trOi.f. ~iOn-Afke-r- Eric~:on,. :-:, 1.7., . ..-Mu$kat$..M..,.~The..low,iofof HomoReneoua Fluids. . . .
-. Through Porous Media, Ann Arbor, Michigan; J.W. Edwards,.Xnc.(l946),pp 581-602; . Ilpredicting eeeraes and perR 18, Cowan, R.W., 3* Aronofsky, J. S., Mobility Ratio - Its fo~ance of aPe@pheral Waterflood,f . . Thesis -------;:Influence.onl~d-Patterns During Water F ~:-- --The .L@~ver%ity of.lfil%a~ 1964. Encroachment,Trans,AIME,(l952jil55, - 15. .....

Multi-Well Reservoirswith Permeability Stratification,f Drill. & Prod. Prac., ApI (1958j.

-, .
TABLJZA-1

TABLE A-2 Calculations to W-k Dimensionless Cumulative Injection wid .06 ,08
q

Calculations to Oil Bank Interference Dimensionless Cumulative h id 0

q

Interference

Radtus, Water Bank,ft. 2

005

129
182 258 316 364 407

.01 ,02 ,03 q o& .05

Radius, Dimensionless oil Injectivity Bank, ft. d 2 . 16.4 211 .537 300 .508 : 424 .481 520 .4.67 600 .457 670 ;450

Radius, Length Dimensionless Water of Gas Injectivity Banlc,ft, Region,ft. f d 1 >_ 447. 517 577 632 658 .3320 3120 2880 2670 2570 .282 .266 ,25> .238 ,232

10

.12 13
q

, ,. -.: TABLE A-3 Calculations to Oil Breakthrough (Fill-up) LMnensionlees Cumulative Injection id .15 ,20 .25 ,30 ,35 ,368 Length Length Dimensionless of oil of Gas Injectivity Bank, ft. Region,ft, Lo > ld 2350 .171 1016 1358 1810 .148 1690 1280 .130 .115 2030 740 190 ,105 2380 TABLE A-5 Permeabilitiesand Thicknesses Layer No, kair 7 i : k.

(red) (m~~ 1636 524 188 60 163.6 52.4 18.8 6.0

(ft)~ 0.88 4.88 6.10 6.05

Wh #-j j
0.261 0.465 0.208 0,066

lkwj
(red-l) 0.00612 0.01908 0.05319 . 0,16667

. 17.91 1,000

2500

.100
,, TABLE A-4

3 Calculations from Water BGe-akthrough to Shut-in of Welk:Number 2 Wager cut fw--Production . q.z. .214 .222 -.232 Production qs -ViF?r .180 ,180 Injectivity d 179 ,181 .182 .185 , 189 .192 ;196,201 .206 .211 .218
q

Cumulative Injection-Wid

1 S;eep Efi!tciency-Es
;49

O*:O
0,20

0.30 0,40 0.50 0,60 o*70

0,80 0.90 1,00 -

,241 .255 .270 :M

.338 ,360.403 -

.180 .180 /180 .180 -.180

,180 .180 .180

.490 .492 .496 .500 .502 .506 .520 ,560 ---.700 1.090
1.800 ..-.

.,

.50 .51 .55 ,60 .67

..-

.. . .

., TA8L8 A-6 Development Layer of Injecivfty t

Layer CAP id ld -. 1
tAP ~

w
ld

tAP

tAP
ld

kiu.d
I d.

iq7
.00105 .00213 , 0C326 .00440 ,00558 ,00703 ,0109 ,0150 ,0194 .0216 .0269 .0435 .0627 .0838 .108 .118 ,147 ,163 ,166 ,183 .218 .244 .270 .295 .346 ,396 .445 .494

o
.01

.02 ,03 .04 .05 .06 .08, ,10 .12 ,13 .15 ,20 .25 ,30 .35 ,368 .44 ,49 ,50 .56 ,70 .80 ,90 1.00 1.20 1,40 1.60 1.80

16.4 .508 .481 .467 .457 .450 .282 .266 .252 .238 .232 ,171 v 148 ,130 ,115 .105 ,100 .160 ,179 .185 .201 .207 .208 .209 .210 .212 .21& .216 .218 ,

. .0197 . Ohol .0612 .0829 .1049 .1322 .2052 .2824 .3640 .4066 .5061 .819 1.179 1,585 2.039 2,21& 2,768 3,062 3.117 3.427 4,114 4,595 5.075 5,553 6,501 7.441 8,371 9.293

. 4.29 .00012 ,1330 .00025 .1260 ,00036 ,1220 .1.190 ,00051 ,00064 .1170 .00081 . 0?36 .0694 .00125 .00173 .0657 .00222. .0621 .00248 .0605 ,00310 ,0446 .00500 ,0386 ,00720 .0340 .00970 ,0300 .0125 .0274 ,0261 .0135 ,0169 .0417 .0467 ,0187 ,0191 .0483 .0210 ,0524 .,0252 .0540 ,0281 .0543 .0546 ,0310 .0340 .0548 .0397 .0553 .0455 .0558 .0511 .0563 .0568 .0568

.00038 .00077 .00117 .00158 .00200 .00252 ,00392 .00539 .00695 ,00775 ,00966 .0156 .0225 ,0310 ,0390 .0422 ,0529 ,0584 ,0595 .0655 ,0785 .0877 .0969 .106 ,124 .142 .160 .177

7.62 .2360 .2240 ,2170 .2130 .2090 .1310 .1240 : .1170 .1110 .1080 .0795 .0688 .0605 .0535 .0488 ,0465 .0744 . OV33 .0860 .0935 .0963 .0967 ,0972 .0976 .0986 .0995 ,1004 ,1013

3,41 .1060 .1000 ,0970 ,0950 ,0935 ,0586 .0553 .0524 .0495 .0482 ,0356 .0308 .0270 .0239 .0218 .0208 .0333 ..0372 .0385 .0418 .0437 .0433 . C435 ,0437 .0441 .0445 .0449 .0453

Tiq .
,00328 .00668 .0102 .0138 ,0175 ,0220 .0342 ,0470 ,0606 ,0676 ,0843 ,136 ,196 ,264 , 340 .368 .462. ,510 .519 .571 .685 .766 .845 .925 1,08 1.24 1.40 1.56

1,08 .0330 ,0318 ,0308 .0302 ,0297 ,0186 .0176 ,0166 ,0157 ,0153 .0113 .0098 .0086 ,0076 , ooi9 ,0066 ,0106 ,0118 ,0122 ,0133 ,0136 ,0137 .0138 .0139 .0140 .0141 .0143 .0144

, -

TABLE A-7 Adjustment Layer of ln~ectivity Aficer Shut-in f WellNo. 2 o

Lavar k..t A P tAp WA d 1

~tid
.368 .40 .50 .51 .60 ,65 ,70 .82 .86 1,00 1.20 1.40 -1,60. 1,80 2.00 2.40 2.50

d ,100
,106 .124 .126 ,142 .150 .160 .182 .260 .282 ,295 .305 ,311 .317 .,323 ,334 ,336 2.214 2.525 3,395 3.4754.146 4.488 4,810 5,512 5.693 6.210 6.903 7.570 8,220 8,857 9.482 10; 702 11.001

Layer 2 tAP 0~

Layer tAp

3 d

Lever

tt!p q
.368 ,421 .566 ,579 ,691 .748 .801 .918 .948 1.035 1.150 1.261 1.369 1,476 1.580 1.783 1.833

Id
.0066 ,0070 .0082 .0083 ,0094 .0099 .0106 ,0120 .0172 ,0186 .0195 .0202 ,0205 -, 0209- . ,0213 .0220 , .0222

*. 0600 ,0620 .0663 .0674 .0706 ,0748 ,0789 .0828 .0867 .0906 .0980 .0998

.0392 .0417 .0475 .0679 ,0735 .0770 ,0796 .0811 .0827 ,-0844 .0872 .0877

tC .0600 ..0615 .0743 ,0808 .0870 .1004 .1038 .1137 .1269 ,1396 ,1520 .1642 .1761 .1994 ,2051

,0577 .0585 .0660 .0697 .0744 .0846 ,121 .131 .137 ,142 ,145. ,148 .150 .155 .156

.118 ,134 ,181 ,185 .221 ,239 .256 .293 .303. .330 .367 .40,3 ..437 .471 .504 .569 ,585

.0208 .0220 .0258 .0262 .0295 .0312 .0333 .0378 .0540 .0587 .0614 .0635 ,0647 .0660 ,0671 .0695 .0700

..

., TABLEA-8 . v andcumulative In~e$t~@ 1 X9ta Inlectivic

L)imenaionlesa

Layer
i-

for Infectivity ) (L+ Leyer Layer

2
7,02 ,2280 ~ .2210 ,2090 ,1330 .1300 .11?0 .1080 .0810 .0720 .0665 .0620 ,0570 ,0470 .0870

Laye e
.
4

dt 16,40 .4930 ,4410 .4079 ,3260 .3079 ,2789 ,2302 .1988 ,1815 .1915 .1805 .1642 ,1510 .1875

.W

ldt

o
,0006 .0008 ,0020 ,0025 , OOqo .0055 .0075 .0095 .0135 ,0175 .0220 .0270 ,0420 .0600

4.29 .1170 .0750 ,0640 ,0605 . 04+60 ,0370 ,0332 .0305 .0260 ,0450 .0525 .0540 .0560 .0570

..

3.41 .1110 .1090 .1000 .0990 .0980 .0930 ,0580 .0565 .0535 .0505 ,0475 .0350 .0310 .0275

1.08
.0370 .0360 .0340 ,0335 .0330 ,0319 .0310 ,0308 .0300 ,0295 ,0185 ,0182 .0170 .0160

0
.0106 .0135 .0291 .0347 .0395 .0620 .0779 .0911 .1144 ,1372 .1628 .1892 ,2617 t35h9

,,

,{
TAELE A-9

Inject ivity andCumulative Injection After Adjustmen~ forShut-infWel No.2 o 1

Total ,0600 .0660 ,0820 .0392 .0470 ,0810 .0860 .0860 .0860 .0860 ,0860 .0860 ,0577 .0620 .0730 .0840 .1310 .1550 . 15s0 J .1550 ,,, .1550 ,0272 .0265 .0240 .0222 .0206 .0290 0370 ,0610 ,0680 ,0160 .0153 ,0113, .0108 .0103 ,0085 .0072 ,0066 .0080 ,1401 .1508 ,1893 ,2030 , 2&79 .2785 ,2852 .3086 .3170
, 35/+9 .3816 .4644 .5754 ,6794 1.3664 2.1434 2.8734 2,9974

,:. ,

,1000
,1150 ,2000 ,2900 .3700 .5000

.,

TABLE A-10 CONPOS ITE PROJECT PERFO RNANCE Layer 1 Lever 2 Lwe r 3 Type of ProducLayer \
08

L&2
0P# d m0.117 0.0750 0 .Q640 0.0605 0.0/+60 0,0370 0.0332 0.0305

-ir. 0006; ,0008 ,0020 ,0025 .0030 ;0055 ,0075 .0095

Type of Praduc t ion

d .7.62 0,228 0.221 0.209 0.133 0.130 0.117 0,108 C!,0810

Type Of Produc t ion

Type

ld 3.41 0,111 0.109 0.100 0,0990 0.0980 0:0930 0.0580 0.0565

tion
-

ld m0.0370 0.0360 0.0340 0.0335 0.0330 0:0319 0,0310 0.0308

Produc ldt tfon 16.40 .4930 ,.4410 ,4070 .3260 .3070 .2789 .2302 .1988

f. A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1!00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

NP

idt

N bhls

o
.0106 ,0135 .0291 ,0347 ,0395 ,0620 ,0779 ,0911 ,114.4 .>3~2 .1628 .1892 :2617

. . .
5 . 13 17 L5- --

-.

.:

I-6

.6,

.,7

.,

,10 ------

-.3&!3

.337

.318-

--

-.

-----

.0660 0.0470 .0820 0.0810 I ,_ , iooo 0.0860 -b. ..... ~*~~ ..-., o&jo .2000 .2900 .370 .500 i. 0.0860 0.0860 0.0860 0.0860

Q
.80 .93 ~u, 1:00 1.00 1.00

0.0620 .ii 0.0730 0 0 0.0840 ..=... (JZ~31& -;A-, 78----;98 0.7.550 1.00 0,1550 1.00 0,1550 1,00 0.1550 indicetee

0,0265 0.0240 0,0222 0,0206---0.0290 0.0370 0.0610 0.0680

0 ----0 0 .86 ,96

. 0,0153 .1508 .1893 ,342 0,0113 ,2030 ,394 0.0L08 ---.-- .. ..7.51.-. .-040103 -- -= .-.V..-24749W9W .2785 .855 0.0085 .2852 ,845 0.0072 0 .3086 ,950 0.0066 0 ,3170 .966 0.0080
oil. .PrQductiOn, end. figuree,

------

.724 ;276 .,3816 132 j .188 .470 ,4644 227 :~ .443 ,163 ,5754 324 206..e . ..tiM3. . . ..,6794. ...a~.~ti~ + ~_:.L-_._-. ,115 ,030 1,3664 ,130 .025 2.1434 985. ., ,050 -2,8734 1111 .034 2.9974 1121 EaStiQn.. Water W! o . .. ... . . ., .-_-. . . ..-

1- -. 1.
. .. . . ..

No entry

g& production;. we 11 No, 2 shut-in.

11II indica~a O

fndi.ce,te..f

*Ad ju~stment after

..

t
EMIBllI
Perlphersl

,..
Waterflood

, ~
t)lrnmdonlw

f16UR[ A-1
Injectlvlt y Vs. Wciter Cut dla .1

000000

0/00000
0 0
0 p-

o 00 OOO

OiOj

0 0 01 Oa %t.r

CUflFrECllo~lm TOIOI%W, f:

04

09

,$

,,
FINJRE A-2
Dimensionless ln$e:~fy Vs. Woter Cut

IINIRE HI
Dlmenrlonle~$ Injectivity Vs. Water Cut, d/e .3
OA, 1 , , m.., , I , , , t , 1

I&.. . I 03 . ..

2 0.! -

04 .,
0! ,!

0.
0

,,
0

J
w

a!oaolo~a~ wel.r Cvt +8e:lm

obw-,,~>
In 1.1.1 Efflvx, f.

lJ

01

0?

0% O* LU<OA07Q*EV Wat., Cw-i%cli.11 Of T.1*1 Efnw

f-

>fIRUflE h-b.
,.,
Water

.,
, ,,

Cut VS.Cumulative WOter lnlection

)

,.,

.7

,;; . . , -..:

.,
.3 .2 .!

,.>
4

, >

OA

10

!.*

L*
WM

14

I 17

I la

r e

r 2.0

2.1

~
.. .
.

Cumulatlw 1.W9.,

. . . .,

:,,. . ,, .

.,

.,

F16UM -5 A
Sweep Efficiency VSio~A:~~ Water l.njectlon

f16URE A-6
Sweep Effidency Vs#om;Jc$ve Water Injection

1.0

0.8 . d

1:
0.4 -i! ,. 0.2 @ o ,2

0.6

M*$ 1 M%** 2

~+

/,,
.4 4 d no b-z Cumulot ive Water lmjwtlom Wid 1.4 I* la ZQ 0, 0. 06

08 Cumulalve

,. ,,.,:,
1,0 12 14 Water [niectlon, W,d

,
lB-

lb.

F16UIK A-7
Swees Efficiency ,. VS,d$;I&fiVe Water InjectIon Dimensionless Injectivity

F19UM -12 A
W. Dimensionless d/a=3 (Akr Fill-up)
I I

Cumulative

Injection

.4

3-7

0.4

9.*

I 06

I 08

I 1 Cwn%iv.

I Wa;~t In]ectlon

I &td

I 1.6 \

1 !8

20

--i
L.

I
o

1
I 4.8 I I I !2 16 Cumufovwa Injbcl ion, Wtid I 2B I 2A

28

[
Dimensi@eS: Dimenslonks

l--

,.

flNRE !-8 ,
Injectivity In]ectlon Cumulailve dla =2

.,

,,,,

~~

. .

.h~y~
.u
40

.m
,*D

m
Wd

La

lAO

LSD

Lw

CvnwlotiveWat*r [njaetm,

>, tl ,-..:
MM A-e
Layer Injectivity Dimenrlenle6:,$2 CuNE5t Vs. Tlma

_.._ ~r

F
t

I.Lll. al

. /
9#hs8.auu

-9
- 1

- @

- s . 4

>

-z

-1

.lllll

III
q

Ml.! Cmvlelim l1,,l; ... w,,

LIZ(YI

,11

I
Dimensionless

r-rr--r-r-r-l
FIOURE A-11
Time VS. Cumulative dla = 3 Injectien

-,1

l-.

k
9

1
~J 84 *.6 ~.= QJ

:Yer;$;;j;$vw::
Dimenalonlen

.:. . ,.

- I@

[hire

Injdirit y Vs. Time life of Project)

8[

* ,* ,,:

2L 8.1

lima

.&

..