SPE

SPE 10024

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

Waterflood Design (Pattern, Rate, and Timing)

by Surendra P. Singh, * Conoco Inc. and O. Gerald Kiel* Conoco Inc.

'Member SPE-AIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
BeJlng, China, 18-26 March, 1982. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989

ABSTRACT
Waterflooding is the oldest and by far the most
important method used by the petroleum industry to
increase recovery from both onshore and offshore
reservoirs. Waterflood design is a complex problem
that must ultimately be handled on an individual
reservoir basis. This paper presents factors that
should be considered in designing both onshore and
offshore waterfloods.
The need for careful examination
following factors is discussed:
geology

the

method

of

1.

Reservoir
deposition

2.

Primary production mechanisms and stage

of depletion

3.

Reservoir and fluid properties

4.

Reservoir pressure

5.

Well spacing
patterns

and

and

of

possible

(i)

Waterflooding - those which displace oil

from
semi-depleted
and
depleted
reservoirs, that is, increasing recovery
through the more efficient displacement
process.

(ii) Pressure maintenance

those which
maintain a pressure in new or part ially
depleted reservoirs for sustaining the
production rate.

The main difference between secondary recovery

(waterflooding) and pressure maintenance operations
is the amount of reservoir pressure existing at the
time the operations are begun.
If the reservoir
pressure is fairly high, the operation is called
pressure maintenance, but, if the pressure has been
substantially depleted, the operation is called
secondary recovery. Both operations should increase
ultimate recovery from the affected reservoir.
Under normal circumstances, pressure maintenance
operations will not bring about the rate increase
that a waterflood will since it is installed when
the reservoir producing rate is at a higher level.

waterflood

After these factors are discussed, the effects

that
pattern
selection,
timing
and
injection/producing rates have on project economics
are discussed.
A spec ial emphasis is placed on
offshore waterflooding since
it
is now of
significant concern.

Many factors important to waterflooding are

also important to pressure maintenance, so that it
is difficult to define a definite point of
separation between the two processes. Accordingly,
a major portion of the information presented in this
paper is applicable to both waterflooding and
pressure maintenance by water injection.

INTRODUCTION
Waterflooding was first used over 100 years
ago, but it was not until the 1950's that it gained
popularity when field applications increased at a
rapid rate. At the present time, waterflooding is
so well regarded as a reliable and economic oil
recovery technique that almost every field that does
not have a natural water drive, is being or soon
will be waterflooded.
Waterflood projects from a
reservoir engineering viewpoint, are very tedious
and require detailed data.
There are two basic
classifications of water injection projects:

In this paper, we have made an attempt to

review the reservoir engineering and geological
parameters which control waterflood recovery. Also
included is a discussion of criteria used in
selecting a water injection rate, pattern and the
timing of water injection. No attempt has been made
to provide details of methods of forecasting
waterflood
recovery;
however,
the
types
of
techniques generally used today are mentioned.

References and illustrations at end of paper.

203

SPE 10024

WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)

EVALUATING WATERFLOOD PROSPECTS

There are a number of reservoir factors which
have a profound influence upon the success of a
waterflood project and unfavorable values for any
one or two of these factors can result in the
complete failure of a flood, even though other
factors may be quite favorable. These engineering
factors involved in evaluating potential waterflood
recovery normally fall into two general categories,
primary and secondary variables (1).
The primary
variables are utilized directly in the arithmetic
calculation of recoverable reserves, while the
secondary variables affect the estimate of these
reserves indirectly through the primary variables.
The primary variables are:

Formation volume
flooding, RB/STB.

factor during water-

Swc

Connate water saturation, fraction.

Sor

Residual
saturation
oil
waterflooding, fraction.

Primary recovery efficiency, fraction of

original oil in place (OOIP).

Ev

Overall volumetric sweep efficiency,

fraction of reservoir volume, fraction.

Ed

Maximum unit disp~acement efficiency (to

be defined later), fraction.

Waterflood reserves, STB.

after

Primary recovery efficiency

Npwf

2.

Connate water saturation

A sensitivity analysis of waterflood recovery

using equation (1) can be performed to examine the
effect of the primary variables on oil recovery.

4.

Residual oil saturation to waterflooding

5.

Crude oil shrinkage

6.

Floodable reservoir pore volume

Certain of the six primary variables are more

directly susceptible to evaluation than are others
under most field condit ions.
The crude shrinkage
can usually be determined or estimated fairly
closely. Log and core data can provide reasonably
accurate estimates for connate water and residual
oil saturations.
Detailed geologic studies are
needed to determine floodable reservoir pore volume.
The remaining factor, overall sweep efficiency, has
been the subject of a tremendous amount of
experimental and theoretical discussion.

The secondary variables are listed below, with the

numbers in parentheses indicating the primary
variables they affect:
continuity)

1.

Geologic
(structure,
considerations (1, 3, 6).

2.

Permeability magnitude and its variation

(1,3,4).

3.

Oil viscosity (1, 3, 4).

4.

Relative permeability (1, 3, 4).

5.

Flood pattern (3, 4).

6.

Reservoir pressure (5).

As related to waterflooding, a brief discussion

of geological and depositional environment factors,
primary
production
mechanisms
and
stage
of
depletion, fluid and rock properties, and of factors
affectin~ recovery efficiency (Ev x Ed) is given
below.
GEOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING WATERFLOODING
One of the first steps in organizing reservoir
information for waterflooding is to determine the
geometry of the reservoir.
The structure and
stratigraphy of the reservoir control the location
of wells, and to a large extent, dictate the methods
by which a reservoir may be waterflooded.
For
example, if a suitable structure exists and the
remaining oil saturation is sufficient, a peripheral
type flood may result in a higher areal sweep
efficiency than conventional pattern or line drive
floods.

Economic factors such as crude price, depth of

reservoir, well spacing, operating costs, etc.
(1,3,4,6).

Callaway (1) developed a relationship for

estimating total waterflood recoverable reserves:
Npwf

1.

Volumetric sweep efficiency

7.

Bof

V12 ( 1 - Swc) x {1
Boi

Rp - Boi x ( 1 - Ev x Ed)}
Bof
(1)

and

(Sorl (1 - Swc

Vp

Floodable
reservoir
(7758Ahl6), barrels

Boi

Original
RB/STB.

Ed

Most water injection operations to date have

been conducted in fields exhibiting only moderate
structural relief. In such pools, the dip may be so
small that it has no not iceable effect on
waterflooding. Thus, the location of injection and
producing wells may be made to conform to property
lines and known sand conditions. Such a practice
may not prove successful in reservoirs where oil and
gas distribution has been controlled by a high
relief structure.

(2)

where:

formation

pore

volume

volume

factor,

204

SPE 10024

S. P. SIOOH, O. G. KIEL

Structural features
such as faults,
or
stratigraphic features such as shale outs, or any
other permeability barriers, will usually influence
waterflood design. An otherwise suitable reservoir
may be so highly faulted as to make any injection
program unattractive. For efficient production each
fault block must be considered a separate reservoir.

PRIMARY PRODUCTION MECHANISMS AND STAGE OF DEPLETION

The driving forces which cause oil and gas to
flow to the wellbore can be divided into four basic
types: depletion drive, gas cap drive, water drive
and gravity drainage. If more than one of the above
forces is a major contributing factor, the reservoir
is called a "combination drive" reservoir, e.g., a
reservoir with both a free gas cap and an external
water drive.

Vertical permeabilities, which may be less than

horizontal
permeabilities
because
of
grain
orientation and cementing material, can be measured
on core samples.
But, it is also necessary to
determine distribution of non-pay intervals because
small amounts of impermeable rock can profoundly
affect vertical permeabilities (2) even i f it is
discontinuous and randomly distributed.
Proper
description requires knowledge of the depositional
environment.
Natural fractures can cause serious
by-passing of the injected water unless patterns are
carefully oriented (see discussion of factors
affecting areal sweep efficiency).

One would usually expect a reservoir wi th a

strong natural water drive not to be subjected to
water injection unless there are some very unusual
circumstances such as tremendous reservoir size or a
lower rate of production. Another primary recovery
mechanism where water flooding would not normally be
attempted is in reservoirs with large gas caps.
These reservoirs have sufficient natural reservoir
energy so an external source of energy is not
required for efficient oil recovery. Here, it is
assumed that there are no unfavorable flow barriers
to stop gas cap expansion to provide pressure
support in the oil zone.
Also, in general,
reservoirs with gas caps and thin oil rings are
often not good candidates for waterflooding because
downdip (or bottom) water injection may force oil
into the gas cap area where it frequently is
unrecoverable.

Conditions of the depositional environment

(e.g. deltaic, reef, etc.) determine the type of
deposit which will occur.
For example, layering
caused by depositional sequence and facies change
both affect lateral cont inuity.
A thorough
understanding of these environments is essential for
determining distribution, continuity and internal
characteristics such as porosity, permeability,
silt/clay interbedding, and flow barriers, etc. of
reservoir rock. As an example, a depositional study
(3) of the Boundary Lake field in British Columbia
(Canada) showed that the reservoir is comprised of
thin continuous porous zones confined above and
below by dense beds. This type of reservoir lends
itself to a pattern type waterflood.
Detailed
correlation and mapping of individual zones is a
prerequisite for assuring that every zone is being
waterflooded.

A reservoir with good gravity drainage is

another example of reservoirs which probably should
not be waterflooded if we are attempting to maximize
recovery. Gravity drainage is a much more efficient
recovery mechanism as compared to displacement by
water.
In the case of fair gravity drainage
reservoirs, water injection probably should be used
only to increase producing rates.
In depletion drive (dissolved gas drive)
reservoirs natural energy is less efficient than
that provided by water injection. Such reservoirs
are good candidates for waterflooding.
Also
reservoirs with inefficient water drives, and those
with small gas caps can benefit from water
injection.

A dramatic change occurred in continuity

concepts (Figure 1) when surface and subsurface
studies of the San Andres formation in the Wasson
Field in West, Texas showed that gross modeling of
continuity was not adequate (4). The revised model
consists of 10 mappable pay units, some of which are
not continuous between wells drilled on 40-acre
spacing.
The pay intervals are, at places,
separated by impermeable barries that prevent cross
flow. On the basis of this concept of "continuous"
and "non-continuous" pay, infill drilling on 20
acres spacing was initiated. The work of George and
Stiles (5) also illustrates the techniques used to
quantify the discontinuous nature of porosity zones
within the gross reservoir section by constructing a
relationship between pay continuity and well spacing
(Figure 2).
They also attempted to show that
floodable pay, even though continuous, is not
necessarily floodable because of irregularities in
bed geometry between wells. Pract ical applicat ion
of the floodable pay concept shows that as the
average distance between injectors and producers
decreases, floodable pay increases.
This concept
becomes important when evaluating infill drilling
and pattern changes.

In depletion or weak combination drive

reservoirs, distribution of free gas saturation
depends on the stage of the reservoir's depletion
(pressure reduction). A higher gas saturation would
require larger water volumes for reservoir fill up
and oil production response would be delayed.
If
gas saturation is fairly high, it may not be
possible to form an oil bank and oil production will
occur at high water cuts. Several authors (6) have
experimentally shown that,
for a given oil
saturation, recovery by waterflooding increases
with increasing gas saturation up to a certain
limit. The effect of gas has been to cause lower
residual oil saturations behind the front than could
be obtained by waterflooding the same system in the
absence of gas. However, the degree of improvement
in
oil
recovery
has
not
been
established
quantitatively to any degree of accuracy.

205

WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)

FLUID AND ROCK PROPERTIES

Directional trends in permeability in a given strata

will also cause early breakthrough if patterns are
not aligned properly (to be discussed later).

The most important fluid and rock properties

which affect the susceptibility of a reservoir to
waterflooding are formation volume factor (FVF), oil
viscosity, rock permeability and its distribution,
and relative permeability.
The effect of FVF on
waterflood recovery can be evaluated by assuming the
residual oil saturation behind the front is the same
regardless of when water injection starts. We then
calculate the number of stock tank barrels of oil in
the swept portion of the reservoir which will remain
as residual oil saturation at different pressures
for the project. It can be shown that stock tank
barrels of oil left in the swept area is minimum if
the waterflood is started when the reservoir is at
bubble point pressure.

REVIEW OF FACTORS AFFECTING DISPLACEMENT,

AREAL AND VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCIES
The fraction of oil that will be removed by
waterflooding is a function of the following
efficiency factors:

Ei
Unit displacement efficiency, Ed
Figure 6 depicts these three efficiencies (7).
Areal sweep efficiency is the pattern area that
has been displaced by water divided by the total
pattern area. Vertical sweep or invasion efficiency
is a measure of the uniformity of water invasion and
is defined as the cross sectional area contacted by
the injected fluid divided by the cross sect ional
area of the entire reservoir thickness behind the
injected fluid front.
The unit displacement
efficiency is that fraction of initial oil
saturat ion that has been displaced from pores by
water, thus:

x.!:!:!L
kro

--~--~-----

1 + kro Mw
krwMo

Invasion or vertical sweep efficiency,

2.

The reservoir oil viscosity appears explicity

in the above equation. Figure 3 shows the effect of
oil viscosity on mobility ratio for strongly water
wet and strongly oil wet rock (6). Regardless of
rock wetability preference, the mobility ratio
increases with increasing oil viscosity.
The oil
and water viscosities and rock relative permeability
characteristics also enter into the fractional flow
equat ion, which for a horizontal system can be
written as:
fw

Areal sweep efficiency, Ea

1.

The viscosity of oil and water ( Mo. Mw ) and

the relative permeability characteristics of the
rock (kro, krw) affect the mobility ratio. In terms
of waterflooding, the mobility rat io is the water
mobility in the water swept portion of the reservoir
divided by the oil mobility in the unswept portion.
Mathematically:
M = krw
Mw

SPE 10024

Soi

Sor

(5)

Soi

Other efficiency factors can be defined by a

combination of the above efficiencies. For example,
volumetric sweep efficiency Ev, is given by:
(6)

(4)
Overall recovery efficiency ER,
displacement process can be written as:

The oil recovery efficiency at breakthrough,

following breakthrough and cumulative pore volumes
of water required to produce oil up to a given water
cut are strongly influenced by this fractional flow
relationship. Figures 4 and 5 show the effect of
oil viscosity and fractional flow curves for
strongly water wet and strongly oil wet rock,
respectively. It can be shown that, regardless of
wettability, a higher oil viscosity results in less
efficient displacement; that is, there is a lower
recovery at any water-oil
ratio and increased
injected water volume is required to achieve that
recovery.

by

the

AREAL SWEEP
Numerous studies have shown that the areal sweep
efficiency is a function of the following reservoir
and operating variables:

The magnitude of permeability of the reservoir

rock controls, to a large degree, the rate of water
inject ion which can be sus tained for a specified
pressure at the sand face.
Reasonably uniform
permeability distribution is essential for a
successful waterflood since this determines to a
great degree the quantities of injected water that
must be handled.
If great variations in the
permeability of individual continuous strata within
the reservoir exist, injected water will break
through early in high permeability streaks and will
cycle large volumes
of water before
lower
permeability streaks have been effectively swept.

1.

Flood pattern; that is well arrangement in

relation to one another and with respect
to reservoir boundaries.

2.

Mobility ratio
Permeability orientation

206

4.

Fracturing and fracture orientation

5.

Formation dip

6.

Depleted zones

7.

Volume of water injected

SPE 10024

S. P. SINGH, O. G. KIEL

A wide variety of flood patterns (injection production well arrangement) have been studied.
Figure 7 shows the arrangement of various patterns
and Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of these
patterns (6). The efficiencies listed in Table 2
for various confined well patterns at breakthrough
indicate the effect of the type of pattern.
A
comparison of the data for the two direct line drive
patterns indicate that sweep is a function of
spacing ratio, the greater ratio resulting in higher
breakthrough sweep efficiency.
The areal sweep
efficiency of a developed pattern continue to
increase
after
water
breakthrough.
This
has been shown for five spot and line drives (8) and
for nine spots (9). The effect of off-pattern wells
was studied by Prats et al (10) and they found that
the oil recovery at breakthrough is always lower
with an off-pattern injection well. Sweepout beyond
normal pattern was studied by Caudle et al (11).
They found that at least 90 percent of the area
lying outside the last row of wells and within one
well spacing of these wells would ultimately be
swept by the injected water.

The effect of vertical fractures on the sweep

of a pattern in the five spot well network has been
studied by Dyes, et al (15). They found the effect
of fractures to be a function of fracture length and
orientation for a given mobility ratio. Figure 10
present results for two cases, that where the
vertical fracture is in the line with the
breakthrough streamline (unfavorable), and that
where the vertical fracture is 45 degrees displaced
from this streamline (most favorable orientation).
Also presented is the effect of fracture length for
the unfavorable cases. Dyes, et al concluded that
fractures up to one half the distance between wells
had little practical effect on the areal sweep
efficiency or values of the order of 90 to 98% sweep
could be achieved by operat ing to 90% water cut.
Also, the general conclusion to be drawn from these
results is that the producing wells should be
arrayed parallel to the fracture orientation or
maximum permeability axis.
Peripheral injection programs are often used in
dipping beds, but the high viscosity for some crudes
(low mobility) may dictate closer spacing of pattern
floods if economical producing rates are to be
obtained.
Prats et al (16) have shown that in
addition to formation dip and the orientation of a
well array with respect to dip, operational
procedures affect the areal sweep even though
injection and production rates are balanced. If the
injection and producing wells are maintained at
constant
injection
and
production
heads,
respectively, the dip has no effect (horizontal data
apply).
However, if the producing wells are
maintained at constant pressure, sweep efficiency is
reduced.
In a partially depleted system, three
regions of differing mobil it ies could be present.
These are the un invaded depleted zone in which gas
is flowing, an oil bank, and the water bank. The
favorable mobility of the gas displacement by oil
results in improved sweep over that obtained if oil
and injected water are present (17).

The patterns discussed above are geometrically

repeated arrangements for developing an entire field
or for pilot flooding.
Another type of flood
pattern which is often utilized is the end to end
flood pattern or a form of peripheral flood pattern
where the producing wells are either shut-in or
converted to water injection once the injection
water breaks through.
Ferrell et al (12) showed
that
when producers are shut
in at water
breakthrough, efficient areal sweep is obtained and
less injected water is required to recover the oil.
Operators of peripheral waterfloods often use this
technique, taking oil production from wells ahead of
the flood front and producing only the last well or
row of wells to high water-oil ratios.
The effect of mobility ratio on areal sweep
efficiency has been studied extensively with the aid
of reservoir models for different
injection
patterns.
The breakthrough sweep efficiency is
significantly affected by mobility ratio (decreases
with increasing ratio) and, following breakthrough,
the areal sweep increases by continued injection of
water. Figure 8 shows the fraction of a five spot
that will be swept at water breakthrough and at
increasing water cuts of the produced fluid for
different values of mobility ratio (3). Water cuts
can be related to cummulative volume of water
injected.

Operating methods have an effect on the

breakthrough sweep effic iency, even in horizontal
systems, for example, in the case of an inverted
nine spot (Figure 11), the ratio of producing rates
of the corner wells to the side wells (18).
Unbalanced injection rates in five spots arrays have
been shown by Crawford to vary the breakthrough
sweep efficiency from 45 to 72 percent.

VERTICAL SWEEP
Landrum and Crawford (14) have studied the
effect of direct ional permeability on sweep
efficiency at unit mobility ratio, for a five spot
and direct line drive (square pattern).
Their
results are shown in Figure 9 for two relative
positions of directional permeability.
A 45 0
rotation of patterns could result in approximately
100 percent
sweep
for
the
five
spot
and
approximately zero sweep for a line drive.

Variations in vertical sweep may be caused by

lensing, faulting, shale barriers, permeability
variations, and other reservoir heterogeneities.
Vertical sweep values in the range of 70% to 90% are
considered to be common in typical reservoirs.
Reservoirs with an extensive network of fractures
and/or areally widespread gas caps provide short
circuits for injected water thus drast ically reducing vertical sweep.

207

SPE 10024

WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)

A detailed discussion of all the factors

affecting vertical sweep is beyond the scope of this
paper.
However, factors affecting vertical sweep
are listed in Table 3 along with general statements
regarding their effect on this parameter. In brief,
formation stratification, permeability stratification,
mobility ratio,
relative magnitudes of
gravity, capillary, and viscous forces (inject ion
rate),
cross flow, and total fluid injected
determine the vertical sweep which can be achieved
in a waterflood. Figure 12 shows volumetric sweep
efficiency product of areal and vertical sweep at
breakthrough as a function of permeability variation
and mobility ratio for a five spot pattern with no
gas saturation (19).

The unit displacement efficiency is related to

oil-water
relative
permeability,
viscosity,
capillary pressure, and gravity forces by the
following generalized fractional flow equation
(20):

fw

Rock wettability - water wet, oil wet, or

neutral.
Pore
size
and
(permeability) .

3.

Viscosity of fluids.

4.

Gravity forces.

its

kro

)10

krw

b,p

Sin ad}
(8)

where:

The unit displacement efficiency, expressed as

the fraction of oil displaced from a volume of rock
which have been contacted by the injection water,
depends on many physical parameters. Some of these
are:

2.

)1w

+--

UNIT DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY

1.

1 +0.001l27 K x kro x~ {~L

aPe - 0.433
)10
qt
a

fw

= Fractional flow of water in the flowing

stream at any point in rock (water cut)

= Formation permeability, md

kro

= Relative permeability to oil

krw

= Relative permeability to oil

)10

= Oil viscosity, cp

)1w

= Water viscosity, cp

qt

= Flow rate, bid

distribution
ad

= Angle of formation dip to the horizontal

b,p

= Water oil density difference,

( p

w-

0),

gmlcc

The wetability of a rock determines which fluid

coats its surface.
In general, water as a
displacing fluid is more efficient in a water wet
system as compared to an oil wet system.
In
preferentially water wet rock the oil remaining at
floodout exists as trapped isolated globules in most
of the flow channels.
In preferentially oil wet
rock, at conditions approaching flood out, the
residual oil exists in the smaller flow channels and
as a film in larger water filled pores.

Pc

= Capillary

= Distance

pressure - pressure in oil phase

minus pressure in water phase

along direction of movement

Area of
direction

cross

section

normal

to

flow

It should be noted that above the fract ional

flow equat ion reduces to the simpler form given
earlier (Equation 4) when capillary and gravity
forces are neglected:

(~
aL

The pore size and its distribution controls the

magnitude of permeability, capillary pressure, and
fluid
distribution
in
a
multifluid
system.
Unfortunately, this parameter can' not be measured
directly and only approximations have been obtained
~y ~ean of capillary pressure studies.
Fortunately,
It lS not necessary for us to determine wetability,
and pore size distribution of the reservoir rock to
determine unit displacement efficiency during
waterflooding.
The effect of these factors is
included in the water - oil flow characteristics
(relative permeability) of the reservoir rock.
Relative permeabilities, when measured on native
state
reservoir
rock
samples
at
reservoir
temperatures, show the composite effect of pore
geometry,
wetability,
and
the
direction
of
saturation change (drainage or imbibition).

= o

0 and

ad=O.O)

The unit displacement efficiency at water

breakthrough is found by constructing a fractional
flow curve assuming a negligible capillary pressure
term and by drawing a tangent to the fractional flow
curve from a value of fw = 0.0 and a value of water
saturation corresponding to the connate water
saturation (assuming connate water saturation is
irreducible water saturation also).
This tangent
construct ion is shown in Figure 13. The value of
the water saturation at which the tangent intersects
fw = 1.0 line is the average water saturation in the
water invaded zone at breakthrough, S wbt).
The
unit displacement efficiency at this time is (21):

208

S wbt

- Swc
1.0 - Swc

(9)

SPE 10024

S. P.

SI~H,

o.

As concluded by Craig (6), it is impossible to

make a general statement as to an optimum water
injection rate because of the wide range of rock and
fluid properties in oil reservoirs.
Furthermore,
technical studies suggest that injection rate
changes of five - fold or more are required to
significantly alter the effects of reservoir
capillary and/or gravity forces.
TlJus,
in
reservoirs with only a small amount of dip, oil
recovery should not be sil'nificantly affected by
variations in injection and production rates within
pract ical limits.
In steeply dipping reservoirs,
when downdip peripheral injection is utilized,
slower rates should result in higher oil recovery.
In such cases, economic factors must be considered
in selecting an optimum injection rate.

The maximum unit displacement efficiency by

waterflooding is:
Sor
- Swc

(10)

This value of unit displacement efficiency was

used earlier in Equation
which is used to
calculate waterflood reserves.
As can be seen from Equation 8 , for inclined
reservoirs the fractional flow curve is dependent
upon the formation permeability, the total flow
rate, the density difference, and dip angle in
addition to water - oil relative permeabilities and
viscosities. Also, by constructing fractional flow
curves, it can be shown that water displacing oil up
dip will result in a lower value of fw at any water
saturation than water displacing oil down dip. The
value of dip Rngle is measured from the horizontal
with flow moving up dip assigned a positive angle
and flow moving downdip assigned a negative angle.

OPTIMUM TIME TO START A WATERFLOOD

The optimum time to start a waterflood depends
on several factors. In the following discussion, it
is assumed that the objective is to maximize oil
recovery, although other economic objectives such as
maximum discounted rate of return may be desirable
in many cases.

Furthermore, worthy of mention here is the

effect initial wRter saturation has on the formation
of an oil bank in front of an advancing water front.
If the initial water saturation exceeds some
critical value, (such that it is no longer possible
to constrict a tangent to the fractional flow
curve), an oil bank may not form; and although
substantial oil recovery may be achieved, oil will
be produced at high water cut values.

As discussed by Tarr et al (24), two types of

factors dictate the
optimum
time
to
start
wa terflood:

EFFECT OF INJECTION AND PRODUCING RATES

ON OIL RECOVERY'
During the late 1950's, a controversy existed
on the effect of injection or producing rate on the
oil recovery of a waterflood. Let us consider the
following factors which have been mentioned in some
detail earlier:
(i)

G. KIEL

1.

Pressure dependent factors

2.

Other
factors
such
as
permeability
variation, reservoir geometry, etc.

Since the formation volume factor has its

highest value at the bubble point pressure, a waterflood initiated when the reservoir pressure reaches
this pressure, will leave minimum stock tank barrels
of oil trapped in the reservoir, provided pressure
during waterflooding is never allowed to go below
the bubble point.
Thus when considering oil
shrinkage alone, one can say that optimum time to
start a h'aterflood is at the bubble point pressure.

In horizontal reservoirs the displacement

efficiency is independent of rate.

(ii) The
vertical
sweep
efficiency
is
influenced by viscous, capillary and
gravity forces. The viscous forces result
from the pressure gradient and thus are
proportional to the flow rate. In water
wet rocks, capillary forces can be
efficient in displacing oil from less
permeable portions of the reservoir. With
lower injection rates more time is
available
for
imbibition.
However,
published information (22) suggests that
rate variations of five-fold or more have
little effect on recovery. The degree of
gravity
segregation
depends
on
the
injection rate - lower values enhance the
tendency for water to under run the oil
and cause earlier water breakthrough.
However,
the
degree
of
gravity
segregation also depends upon horizontal
and vertical transmissibilities to fluid
movement.
Again, published information
(23) supports that a significant change in
flow rate is required to effect small
changes in volumetric sweep resulting
from gravity forces.

At this pressure also, the reservoir oil

viscosity is at its minimum value, which improves
the mobility ratio and areal sweep.
Other factors
which favor waterflooding at the original bubble
point pressure are (i) the producing wells have the
maximum producitivity index and (ii) flood response
occurs with minimum delay because the reservoir is
liquid filled at the start of the flood.
Reservoir geometry and permeability variations
can affect optimum timing for waterflooding if
recovery by water injection is expected to be
severely reduced due to a poor volumetric sweep. In
such cases, the actual method to determine the
optimum time for water injection should involve
calculations of ultimate recovery (primary plus
waterflood) as a function of the pressure at which
waterflood is to be started. A plot of recovery vs.
pressure can be used to determine the optimum
pressure, and hence the time to start water
injection.

209

WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)

SPE 10024

If water injection is started to optimize some

economic criterion (e.g. maximum present worth),
then the only way to determine the optimum time to
begin water injection is to compute total recovery,
rate, investment and income for several assumed
times of initiation. By comparing the results of
these calculations the best alternative can be
selected.

5.

utilize existing wells and thus minimize

drilling of new wells.

6.

Be compatible with the flooding patterns

of operators on other leases.

WATERFLOOD PREDICTION METHODS

(a)

Treatment of the reservoir as a whole

using a peripheral flood.

(b)

Waterflooding
utilizing
a
repeating
pattern such as five spot, nine spot, etc.

At first, basically two different choices are

available:

Over 30 calculation techniques have been

discussed in the waterflooding literature.
A
monograph (6) published a decade ago provides an
excellent description and comparison of these
methods.
The most desirable method of predict ing
waterflood performance would, of course, include all
pertinent fluid flow, well pattern and heterogeneity
effect s.
It appears that mathemat ical reservoir
simulators have approached close to such a method.
These models require detailed reservoir data and the
expense of running performance predictions could be
substantial for some complex three dimensional
models. Other simple analytical methods, which many
times work reasonably well, have been presented by
Higgins and Leighton (25), Craig et al (26), and
Prats (27).

PHERIPHERAL FLOODING
As the name implies, this technique ut ilizes
wells along the flanks of a reservoir for water
injection. For example, one of the worlds largest
offshore waterfloods is the Umm Shaif field (27) of
Ahu Dhabi which has 25 peripheral injection wells.
In such a flood, production wells can be shut in at
or shortly after water breakthrough, and the oil
recoverable at these wells will be recovered at the
next row of producers. Of course, the operator of a
peripheral flood may choose to convert watered - out
producers to injectors and thus keep injection wells
as close as possible to the water front without bypassing any oil. In dipping reservoirs this type of
flooding is preferred to take advantage of the
formation dip to even out of the waterflood front.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of
peripheral flooding are as follows:

DESIGN OF WATERFLOODS
The
reservoir
waterfloods involves:

engineering

design

of

1.

Specifying the rate of water injection.

2.

Establishing the waterflood pattern.

3.

Estimation
of
producing
expected oil recovery.

rates

1.

Generally
maximum
oil
recovery
is
obtained with a minimum of produced water.
Also,
production
of
significant
quantities of water can be delayed until
only the last row of producers remains.

2.

Because of the limited number of injectors

as compared to the number of producers,
total water injection tends to be limited
as well as the number of producers
responding to anyone time.
Also, it
takes a long time for injected water to
fill up the gas space, with the result
that
production rate
increases
are
delayed beyond what they would be for a
pa t t ern flood.

3.

Sufficiently
high
permeability
is
required to move water at the desired rate
over a distance of several well spacings
if the operator does not wish to convert
watered out producers to injectors.

and

The
interrelated
factors
affecting
oil
recovery have been discussed earlier.
It is
difficult to estimate water injection rates with any
accuracy using analytical methods. Frequently, the
most reliable injection data is obtained from pilot
tests or from similar waterfloods located nearby.
SELECTION OF A FLOODING PATTERN
The regular waterflood patterns yield areal
sweep efficiencies in the high permeability layers
approaching 100 percent at economic water-oil
ratios.
The proposed optimum waterflood pattern
should (6):
1.

Provide desired oil production rate.

2.

Provide a sufficient water injection rate

to support this oil production rate.

3.

Maximize oil recovery with a minimum of

water production to lift, handle and
dispose of.

4.

Take advantage of known reservoir rock

characteristics
such
as
directional
permeability, fractures, dip, etc.

WATERFLOODING USING REPEATED PATTERNS

If a pattern waterflood is indicated, the
engineer must decide the type of pattern. Where the
wells are on square spacing, as is usual, five spots
and nine spots are the most common flooding
patterns.
Laboratory studies (28, 18) have shown
that both of these patterns yield nearly the same
oil recovery and HOR performance. The choice can be
made primarily on the basis of water injectivity,

210

SPE 10024

S. P. SIOOH,

although reservoir heterogeneity is an important

factor.
(See Table 1 for ratio of injectors to
producers for different types of patterns.)

o. G. KIEL

for pressure maintenance to keep oil product ion

rates at the highest possible values.
Also,
abandonment water-oil ratios will be lower than many
onshore projects.
Very careful early planning is
mandatory for offshore reservoir development to
maximize oil recovery.

The mobility ratio is a measure of the

injectivity of a well relative to its productivity.
At unfavorable mobility ratios (M > 1), water
injectivity exceeds the oil productivity of a
producer after fill up and the reverse is true at
favorable mobility ratios. Thus, at an unfavorable
mobility ratio, a pattern having more producers than
injectors is
indicated to maintain balanced
injection and production rates.
For favorable
mobility ratios, the recommended pattern should have
more injectors than producers.

The following is a list of engineering factors,

not necessarily from a reservoir engineering point
of view, which should be taken into consideration in
the development of offshore waterfloods:

As discussed earlier, the choice of pattern

must also consider direct ional permeability, the
existence
of
reservoir
fractures
and
their
orientation. The prudent engineer will arrange his
pattern such that the direction of maximum
permeability or fracture orientation is in the same
direct ion as the line joining the adjacent
injectors.
In brief, the choice of either a peripheral or
a repeating pattern flood is usually made on the
basis of reservoir size, dip, permeability and the
need for a fast initial production response.

1.

Early delineation drilling, that is,

sufficient wells must be drilled to obtain
the best reservoir description as early as
possible.
Reservoir data gathering in
early wells (cores, logs, well tests,
etc.) must be planned to get "ball park"
estimates of expected well productivities
and major reservoir heterogenetics for
early planning of production facilities.

2.

Early
coordination
with
Drilling
Department for best directional drilling
and completion program.

3.

Determination
of
platform
size
to
accomplish desired drilling densi ty and
its
capRbility
to
hold
waterflood
facilities.

4.

Early determination of offtake levels

possible with pressure maintenance and/or
artificial lift.

5.

Determination of a facilities plan; that

is, where separation will occur, the size
of major separators, offshore loading or
pipeline,
central
or
widespread
injection, field operating pressures and
temperatures, recognttion of major long
lead items such as water injection trains
and gas lift compressors, early well
engineering design to determine tubular
sizes for maximum rates, etc.

6.

Early "dump flood" evaluat ion prior to

pressured injection.

7.

Injectivity testing to confirm oil/water

relative permeability measurements. Also
identification of clay problems and other
water injection impediments such as scale
formation.

WELL SPACING
The major factor in recovering oil by
waterflooding is ,reservoir heterogeneity. In 1945,
Craze and Buckley (29) concluded that recovery
efficiency is independent of well spacing. Some of
the leading experts in the oil industry believe that
well spacing is the key to solving recovery problems
caused by heterogeneity (30). It is not difficult
to see that in reservoirs with limited lateral
communication
such
as
lenticular
sands
or
discont inuous porosity development in blanket
carbonate deposits, or in faulted reservoirs, there
should be an improvement in oil recovery with
reduced well spacing, but this is very difficult to
quantify.
Certainly, reduced well spacing does
allow for higher total injection and oil production
rates.
OFFSHORE RESERVOIRS
Waterflood operations in the offshore areas are
different, not so much in reservoir characteristics,
but in special operating considerations that exist
in the those regions. First, a high economic limit
is particular to offshore and the life of these
fields is shorter than onshore reservoirs. From the
standpoint of well spacing, the luxury of having
wells close together does not exist.
Thus, sand
continuity and fault patterns may not always be
completely understood.
Also wells are completed
into more than one sand.

In
addition
to
the
above
engineering
considerations, another important factor is a team
approach.
Since offshore development usually
requires "large" accumulations, it is very important
to maintain continuity of manpower over the first
few (five or so) years of a project.
Here, the
explorationist, engineer and project people must be
continually updated on new wells and how they fit
the plan.
Many changes take place in the early
years of a project.

The
uncertain
reservoir
configuration,
faulting, and large spacings usually preclude the
possibility of a pattern -type flood. Also, since
offshore operating costs are much higher than
onshore, most water injection projects (in the
absence of an active water drive) will be started

211

10

SPE 10024

WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)

SUMMARY
This paper presents important factors that
should be considered in designing both onshore and
offshore water injection projects.
The need for
carefully examining the reservoir geology, primary
production mechanisms, stage of depletion, rock and
fluid properties, etc. is discussed. A brief review
of effects of injection and production rates,
pattern type, well spacing, and injection timing on
waterflood recovery is also presented.
Since
offshore reservoirs are of significant concern and
do require speCial continued attention, a list of
important engineering factors pertaining to their
development is provided.

11.

Caudle, B. H., Erickson, R. A., and Slobod, R.

L. :
"The Enchroachment of Injected Fluids
Beyond the Normal Well Pattern", Trans. AIME,
(1955) Vol. 204, 79-85.

12.

Ferrell, H., Irby, T. L., Pruit, G. T., and

Crawford, P. B.: "Model Studies for Injection
- Production Well Conversion During a Line
Drive Waterflood", Trans. AIME (1960) 219, 9698.

13.

Caudle, B. H. and Witte, M. D.:

Tech., December, 1963, pp 63.

14.

Landrum, B. L., and Crawford, P. B.: "Effect

Sweep
of
Directional
Permeability
on
Efficiency and Production Capacity", Trans.
AIME, (1960), Vol. 219.

15.

Dyes, A. B., Kemp, C. E., and Caudle, B. H.:

"Effect of Fractures on Sweepout Patterns",
Trans. AIME (1958) Vol. 213.

16.

Prats, M., Strickler, W. R., and Matthews, C.

S.: "Single Fluid Five Spot Floods in Dipping
Reservoirs", Trans. AIME (1955) 204, 160.

17.

Dyes, A. B. and Braun, P.H.: "Sweepout Patterns

in Depleted and in Stratified Reservoirs",
Prod. Mon. December, 1954, Vol. 19, No.2.

18.

Cotman, N. T., Still, G. R., and Crawford, P.

B.: "Laboratory Comparison of Oil Recovery in
Five Spot and Nine Spot Waterflood Patterns",
Prod. Monthly (December, 1962),27, No.
12,
pp 10-13.

19.

Craig, F. F., Jr.: "Effect of Permeability

Variation and Mobility Ratio on Five-Spot Oil
Recovery Performance Calculations", J. Pet.
Tech., October 1970, pp 1239-1245.

20.

Leverett, M. C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous

Solids", Trans. AIME (1941),142,152-169.

21.

Welge, H. J.: "A Simplified Method for

Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water Drive",
Trans. AIME (1952),195,91-98.

22.

Gaucher,
D.
H.,
and
Lindley,
D.
C.:
"Waterflood Performance in a Strat Hied Five
Spot Reservoir - A Scaled Model Study", Trans.
AIME (1960), 219, 208-215.

23.

Craig, F. F., Jr., Sanderlin, J. L., Moore, D.

W. and Geffen, T. M., "A Laboratory Study of
Gravity in Frontal Drives", Trans., AIME, 1957,
210, pp 275-282.

24.

Tarr, C. M., and Heuer, G. J.: "Factors

Influencing the Optimum Time to Start Water
Injection", Paper SPE 340, presented at the
SPE-AIME 5th Biennial Secondary
Recovery
Symposium, Wichita Falls, Texas, May 7-8, 1962.

25.

Higgins, R. V., and Leighton, A. J.: "Computer

Method to Calculate Two Phase Flow in Any
Irregularly Bounded Porous Medium", Journal of
Petroleum Technology, June 1962, 679-683.

References
1.

2.

Callaway, F. H.: "Evaluation of Waterflood

Prospects", J. Pet. Tech., October, 1959, pp
11-16.
Richardson, J. G., Harris, D. G., Rossen, R.
H., and Van Hee, G.: "The Effect of Small,
Discontinuous Shale on Oil Recovery", J. Pet.
Tech., November, 1978, pp 1531-1537.

3.

Jardine, D., Andrews, D. P., Wishart, J. W.,

and Young, J. W.: "Distribution and Continuity
of Carbonate Reservoirs", J. Pet. Tech., July,
1977, pp 873-885.

4.

Ghauri, W. K., Osborne, A. F., and Magnuson, W.

L.:
"Changing
Concepts
in
Carbonate
Waterflooding -West Texas Denver Unit Project An Illustrative Example", J. Pet. Tech., June,
1974, pp 595-606.

5.

George, C. J., and Stiles, L. H.: "Improved

Techniques
for
Evaluating
Carbonate
Wa terfloods in West Texas", J.
Pet. Tech.,
November, 1978, pp 1547-1554.

6.

Craig, F. F., Jr.: "Reservoir Engineering

Aspects of Waterflooding", Monograph Series,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas,
1971.
Herbeck, E. F., Heintz, R. C., and Hastings, J.
R. : "Fundamentals of Tert iary Oil Recovery Part I: Why Tert iary Recovery?", Petroleum
Engineer, January, 1976, pp 35-46.

8.

9.

10.

Dyes, A. B., Caudle, B. H. and Erickson, R. A.:

"Oil Production After Breakthrough
As
Influenced by Mobility Ratio", Trans. AIME
(1954) 201, 81-86.
Kimbler, O. K., Caudle, B. H., and Cooper H.
E., Jr.:
"Areal Sweepout Behavior in a Nine
Spot Injection Pattern", J. Pet. Tech.,
(February, 1964), 199-202.
Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Allen, E. E.:
"Effect of Off-Pattern Wells on the Performance
of a Five Spot Flood", Trans. AIME (1962) 225,
173-178.

212

" J.

Pet.

SPE 10024

S. P. SIOOH, O. G. KIEL

26.

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, 7-15.

29.

Craze, R. C. and Buckley, S. E.: "A Fractural

Analysis of the Effects of Well Spacing on Oil
Recovery", Drill and Prod. Prac., API (1945),
144.

27.

"World's Largest Offshore Waterflood Goes on

Stream", World Oil, 184 (5): 89-90, April,
1977.

30.

Van Everdingen, A. F. and Kriss, H. S.: "New

Approach to Secondary Recovery", Petroleum
Engineer International", November, 1980, pp
27-40.

28.

Crawford, P. B.: "Laboratory Factors Affecting

l>laterflood Pat tern Performance and Select ion",
J. Pet. Tech., December, 1960, pp 11-15.

213

11

TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF DISPERSED
INJECTION PATTERNS (6)

Ratio of
Pracucing Hells
to In jection Wells

Pattern

Drilling Pattern

Required
Equilateral triangle

Four-spot
Skewed four-spot
Five-spot

Square
SquarE'
Equilateral triangle

Seven-spot

Inverted seven-spot
Equilateral triangle

(single inject ion well)

Square

1/3

Nine-spot

Inverted nine-spot
(single injection well)
Direct line drive
Staggered line drive

Square

Rectangle
Offset lines of wells

TABLE 2

Areal sweep efficiencies at breakthrough for various confined patterns.

(Homogeneous, Isoptropic, Uniform Thickness, Horizontal Formations; Unit
Mobility Ratio; Equal Injection Rates.)

Ea! at Breakthrough, Fract ion

Type of Pattern

= 1.0

Direct Line Drive, d/a

Direct Line Drive d/a

0.570

= 1.5

0.706

Five Spot

0.723

Seven Spot

0.740

Staggered Line - Drive, d/a

0.800

1.5

TABLE 3
FACTORS AFFECTING VERTICAL SWEEP

Reservoir Parameters

Effect on Vert ical Sweep

1.

Causes non uniform advance of water

due to differences in permeability,
porosity, and due to well completion
technique
used
(select ion
of
wellbore interval open to wellbore,
wellbore stimulation of one zone

Formation stratification
(subdivision of format ion
into correlative noncommun ica t ing zones)

relative to other).

2.

Permeability variation

In a given zone, these variations

also create non uniform flood front
advancement prior to breakthrough
and can cause significant cycling of
injected water after breakthrough.

3.

Mobility ratio

In
systems
having
permeability
strat ificat ion,
an
unfavorable
mobility ratio tends to increase the
effect of permeabili ty variat ion and
decrease the vertical sweep.
The
reverse is true when the mobility

4.

Gravity forces and

ratio is favorable. (19).

inject ion rate

Sweep at breakthrough, in horizontal

homogeneous systems, depends on the
ratio of viscous forces to the
gravity forces. Higher rates result
in higher sweeps
in horizontal
systems.

5.

Capillary forces

In water wet
systems,
due to
imhibi t ion, capillary forces can
increase sweep in low permeability
layers.

6.

Cross flow

Cross flow between layers increases

vert ical sweep when a favorable
mobility ratio exists; the reverse
occurs with unfavorable mobility
ratio.

7.

Volume of water injected

Vert ical
sweep
increases
increased water throughput.

214

with

...

INJ.

PROD

PROD.

OLD GEOLOGIC CONCEPT

CONTINUOUS PAY

INJ.

..

PROD.

..

PROD.

INJ.

INJ.

[JPAY
CURRENT GEOLOGIC CONCEPT
NON CONTINUOUS PAY

FIGURE 1
OLD AND NEW GEOLOGIC CONCEPTS(4)

'A

5'
II

5'

:;;;::

5'

"''WEDGE'' AREA

.....:::::
III 10'

5'
5'

5'

"UNIFORM" AREA

(a)

(b)

>
!::
:;)
z
i=
z

U
I-

40

w
u
a: 20
w

a..

~
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN WELLS FEET

(c)
FIGURE 2
FLOODABLE PAY CONCEPTS(4)

215

5'

10 . .____~------~----~----. .

~
a:

>

~~1
O\V

d.~~

1~------~~~~~~~~~------~------~

en

:2:
...I

o .1.---~~~-------+------~------~
a:
w

I-

oCt

:i:

.01 ..._ _..._ _ _....._ _ _..._ _. .

.1

10

100

1000

OIL VISCOSITY, CP
FIGURE 3
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON WATER OIL
MOBILITY RATIO (6)

1.0
0.9

a:
w

I-

0.9

0.8

ffi

oCt

I-

:i: 0.7
u.

:i: 0.6

0.5

oCt

:i:

0.7

o
:i:
o...I

0.6 ...._-1-1--1-1'-1---#--1

U.
...I

0.5

u.

...I
U.
...I

...._---1I----jr-'/

~---+---I

...._---1I-I-iJ

oCt

0.4

I-

oCt
a: 0.3

oCt

0.4 '--111-1--1-+-+-1+---+---+--1

I-

a:

u.

0.8 .---t--)~y+--I-I-I--t---t

oCt

u.

0.2 ~--Ir-~"'-+-J-4I

~ 0.2I-Jr-tt-/ f--V--f--f--+--I

0.1
20

30

40

o ....~...-j~-'-...-j~-'-....

50

60
70 80
WATER SATURATION, % PORE VOL.

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WATER SATURATION, % PORE VOL.

FIGURE 4
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE,
STRONGLY WATER WET ROCK(6)

FIGURE 5
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE,
STRONGLY OIL WET ROCK(6)

216

. , . - - - - -.. 8

SWEEP
EFFICIENCY
UNIT
DISPLACEMENT
EFFICIENCY
RESIDUAL OIL-~~~

FIGURE 6
FRACTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATERFLOODING
AS A FUNCTION OF 1) AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
2) VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AND 3) UNIT
DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY (7)

.... - --I
I
I

-.--- --.,.-----....-----,
,
I
I

;6

If----If

,e

'

t--:

t:

}----}6

;6

1d

CORNER:

: 7.

~
i

)Ll-} P

Q"
7 - SPOT \ :

jIf-----A

,e

:I

jJ---

JIf

r--/6

a ---'I
'
d:I

~ ~

I
I

Q
,I " ' ,
,"

, ..;0.. ......... ,,'

/'"

\"

0
'.,4 - SPOT

,'"0
,':

'.

0
'-

6-------~-----b
,

6.

,0
""""c:r'" "

'
I

(b) STAGGERED LINE DRIVE

...

.: T :
:d :

(d)

....
a-,, ,,

NINE SPOT

jf---/f

SIDE

INJEcTION

(a) DIRECT LINE DRIVE

,e p

~
WE~ :
.... ----..---- -- ------- ...

I
I

~_m_:~~~~ __ ~

'

I
I
I

o
o

o
;f

(e)

,
,
(e) 5 SPOT

SPECIAL CASE OF (b) WHERE

SEVEN AND
FOUR SPOTS

d/a = 1/2

FIGURE 7
DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF WATERFLOOD NETWORKS

217

SMALLEST AREA OF
FLOW SYMMETRY

100
'#. 90
I

>
u
z

80

w
~ 70

LL
LL
W

60

::J

0Q,.
w 50
w
~

(I)

..J

40

<t
w

a:

<t
as
w
1

10
100
MOBILITY RATIO

1000

FIGURE 8
AREAL SWEEPOUT PATTERN EFFICIENCY AS A
FUNCTION OF MOBILITY RATIO FOR THE FIVESPOT PATTERN OF VARIOUS PRODUCING CUTS (td)

100

100

THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL

PERMEABILITY ON SWEEP
EFFICIENCY

90

90
80

80

>
u
Z

>
u

70

70

THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL

PERMEABILITY ON SWEEP
EFFICIENCY

u 60

60

LL
LL

w 50
w
w
~ 40
(I)

LL
LL

SQUARE LINE DRIVE

30
20

;q'l'.,...
~~Itt

(I)

/
,I
,

5 SPOT

LINE DRIVE

5 SPOT

r L11

cr----~

30

--~~l

20

Li

10

$SA
0'l'/l

w 50
Q,.
w
w
~ 40

Q,.

.5

1.5

.2

2.5

.3

LINE DRIVE
1";--0--,

b.~]

~NKI
kSE I
~_.J

10

3.5

.5

1.5

kx/kv

kNE/ksE

(b)

(a)
FIGURE 9
THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL PERMEABILITY
ON SWEEP EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS DEGREES
OF PERMEABILITY ANISOTROPY FOR A FLUID
MOBILITY RATIO OF ONE (14)

218

2.5

3.5

75~------~~~--~~~--+-----------i

*~

120

11.
W

~ 501-----"~~~------------_r--~----~__1
~
~~

*- 100

ec

>
0

25~~~------+_----------+_~~--~__1

z
w

MOBILITY RATIO = 1.1

O~

________

L = FRACTURE
LENGTH
______
________
~

w
11.
w 40
w

3:
en

(al

20

Unfavoration Orientation

. 0 2 . 03

u.
u.

1
2
THROUGHPUT - DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES

80

.0' . 02
. 03

RELATIVE PRODUCING RATIO = 03/02

#.

75.-------~~----------~--------_I

FIGURE 11
EFFECT OF PRODUCING RATIOS ON SWEEP EFFICIENCY
ON NINESPOT PATTERNI18)

t-

11.

~ 501-----#-----~----------_+----------__t
w
ec

251-~--------+_----------+_------~__i

MOBILITY RATIO = 1.1

L = FRACTURE LENGTH

THROUGHPUT - DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES

Swbt

1.0 ...- - - - - -. . .~. . .

(bl
Favorable Orientation

"

FIGURE 10
EFFECT OF FRACTURE LENGTH AND ITS
ORIENTATION ON AREAL SWEEP 1151

>
0
Z

100
(PERM. VARIATION)

!!!#.

o-:I:.

u.C!I

80

:b::J
0
11.

wec 60
w:l:
3:~
en~

0
-w
ecec

40

w~

20

~CD

~
....I

>

V~O.8

.01

.1

1.0
MOBILITY RATIO

10

Swt

100

WATER SATURATION, % PV

FIGURE 12
VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH,
FIVESPOT PATTERN; ZERO INITIAL GAS SATURATION 1191

FIGURE 13
DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE WATER
SATURATION AT BREAKTHROUGH, Swbt

219