SPE 52224
Reservoir Management Using Production Data
T. Soeriawinata and M. Kelkar, University of Tulsa
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operation
Symposiom held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 2831 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknolwedgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology to effectively use the
production data to improve the performance of the existing
water flood. Using simple statistical procedures and method of
superposition (e.g., one producing well could be affected by
several injection wells), the injection wells which are affecting
the production of oil and water from individual producing
wells are determined. The connection or the lack of
connection between injection and producing wells based on
the previous step can be utilized in optimizing water flood
process and in modeling the reservoir. The method is tested in
a synthetic water flood field and in a mature water flood field
in West Texas.
Introduction
For small operators and producers, the most abundant
information available is the production data. Typically, for
water flood operation, based on monthly well tests and overall
production, a great deal about individual oil and water
production rates as well as water injection rates is known.
Using this information as well as any supporting information,
the operator is ultimately interested in optimizing the water
flood. This may include changing the flood pattern, re-
completing the wells or drilling in-fill wells. The typical
applications of the production data are in the form of relating
the water injection rates from injection wells to the production
rates from surrounding producing wells.
Heffer et al.1 utilized Spearman rank correlations to relate
pairs of wells, each pair consisted of an injector and a
producer. They concluded that the communications through
the reservoir were reflected by the correlations in rates
between injectors and producers. They also suggested that the
signals passed between wells measured by rate correlations
had at least some component coupled to geomechanics.
Refunjol and Lake2 presented a practical technique to
determine preferential flow trends in a reservoir utilizing
Spearman rank correlation analysis. In their work, they
correlated time series of injection and production rates ranks
from pairs composed of each injection well and all adjacent
producers. Different time lags are utilized to find an extreme
coefficient value. The extreme rank correlation coefficient
values of all injectors are then utilized to infer preferential
flow directions. The inference is done by grouping the pairs
based on their spatial orientation, then constructing histogram
based on the orientation of well pairs with maximum
correlation. One alternative is by linearly interpolating along a
line from an injector to the adjacent producers and creating
contour map for each injector. They applied their technique to
a field and compared the result with tracer data.
Jansen3 stated that if the rate series were not prewhiten, the
correlations were no longer between local variations in the two
rates, but rather between the trends of the series. Thus, without
obtaining stationary series through prewhitening (i.e.,
differencing the series), it is not possible to determine a direct
causal relationship between the two series. Unfortunately,
prewhitening would amplify the noise in the data. He also
suggested that pressure superposition between the injection
wells and producers caused an effect where mainly large
positive rate changes could be correlated, but not negative one.
This is due to the fact that other injectors would try to
compensate the lost pressure and mass support when one
injectors rate was reduced.
Panda and Chopra4 utilized different approach to
determine injector-producer interaction. An artificial neural
network was trained to estimate the well interaction between
different injectors-producers pairs. The approach was then
applied to numerical simulation of a water flood
In this study, following the previous studies1-3, we also
utilize Spearman rank cross correlation between injectors and
producers. Furthermore, we account for the superposition
effect in the reservoir, caused by influence of multiple
injection wells on a producing well. Jansen3 described that
reservoir can be viewed as a system that converts the input
signals, in the form of injection rates, into output signals, in
the form of production data. The fact that there are a number
of injectors and producers operating simultaneously causes
2 SOERIAWINATA AND KELKAR
both superposition and noise, which must be accounted for in
analyzing the data.
Procedure
Superposition between several injectors has a significant effect
to the response of a producer. It can be constructive or
destructive. Figure 1 shows a typical five-spot pattern where
one producer could be influenced by four injectors. In reality,
the producer can also be influenced by injectors that are
outside the pattern. The effect of multiple injectors on the
producer can be constructive or destructive, as shown in
Figure 2. The basic assumption for this work is that if two
injectors are in good communication with a common producer,
it is expected that the cross correlation of the summation of the
water injection rates to the liquid production rate is higher
than the cross correlation of each single injector.
Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to distinguish
whether a slight increase in cross correlation is due to
superposition effect or due to noise in field rate data.
However, if there is a significant jump in cross correlation
value when rate from an injector is added, most probably it is
caused by constructive interference in injection rates rather
than caused by the noise.
The procedure utilized in this study is summarized below.
1. Select one producer from the field.
2. Determine an injector that has the highest cross
correlation value to the selected producer among all the
directly adjacent wells. For a five-spot pattern water
flood, we select all the four injectors surrounding the
producer. The highest cross correlation value has to be
greater than a minimum threshold. The choice of a
threshold value is an arbitrary one; in our study, we
selected a value of 0.25. However, when other values are
selected, the results are not significantly different. If no
adjacent injector has cross correlation higher than the
threshold, the search proceeds to step 5, i.e., search the
injectors outside the pattern.
3. After determining the injector with the highest cross
correlation, find an injector that causes highest significant
improvement in cross correlation. This is achieved by
adding the injection rates series from the the previous
injector [step 2] and a newly selected injector, and
calculating cross correlation between the total injection
rates series and liquid production rates series from the
producer. The newly selected injector is changed, one at a
time, until we find an injector which provides the most
improvement in cross correlation. The selected injectors
are restricted to certain pre-defined regions from a
producer. An example is shown in Figure 3. This distance
limit is utilized to restrict the search, as it is unlikely that
an injector too far away from a producer has a significant
impact on a producer.
4. Repeat step 3 until there is no increase in cross correlation
when a new injector is added.
52224
5. Check if the cumulative cross correlation is greater than a
threshold value. If it is greater, then the set of injectors is
accepted, otherwise all injectors are rejected. As in step 2,
the choice of threshold is an arbitrary one. For our cases,
we used a threshold value of 0.5.
6. Repeat the step 1 to 5 for other producers in the field.
The difficulties in the above procedure are to determine the
cross correlation threshold values. There are two thresholds
applied, the first is the minimum cross correlation for the first
injector [step 2], the second is the minimum cumulative cross
correlation for the set of injectors [step 5]. Besides these
thresholds, we may need to use another one, the minimum
increment in cumulative cross correlation to be considered
significant. If an injector is added and the increase in
cumulative cross correlation is lower than this threshold, we
need to check on the trend of cumulative cross correlation
from after this injector (X) is added to when the last injector
(Y) is accepted in the set of supporting injectors. If the
increment in cumulative cross correlation when each injector
(from X to Y) is added is always lower than the minimum
increment threshold, then all injectors from X to Y are
insignificant, thus should be rejected. However, if one injector
(Z), in between X and Y, is added and the cumulative cross
correlation increment is higher than the increment threshold,
then all injectors from X to Z are accepted. Injectors between
Z to Y should be analyzed by using similar process. We will
illustrate the process by using the data in Table 1. Consider
Prod-1, when Inj-3 and Inj-4 were added, the cumulative cross
correlation increments were lower than the minimum
increment (0.005 for this case) for both Inj-3 and Inj-4. Thus,
both injectors were rejected. However, for Prod-2, when Inj-4
was added, the cumulative cross correlation increased more
than the minimum threshold. Thus, both Inj-3 and Inj-4 were
accepted.
Below, we will show the application of the procedure
explained above, first to a synthetic reservoir, and second to
real field data from North Robertson Unit, Texas.
Application to synthetic field
The field is a rectangular homogeneous reservoir, which is
compartmentalized into several zones by sealing barriers.
Figure 4 shows the map of the field. There are 12 5-spot
patterns with 12 producers and 20 injectors. The water flood
performance was simulated using ECLIPSE simulator. The
water injection rates at all injectors were varied monthly, and
the responses of producers were recorded as monthly liquid
production rates. The above procedure was applied to the
field. Table 2 shows the results of all producers in the field.
Note that cross correlation values are very high for all wells.
Clearly, we actually did not need to utilize any threshold in
this case. The reason of these high values is that the synthetic
reservoir has closed outside boundaries. The water injected
could not flow outside the reservoir boundaries. Real fields
almost never have perfect closed boundaries, consequently
some of the injected water travels outside the boundaries and
52224 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT USING PRODUCTION DATA
can not be recovered. This will reduce the cross correlations of
real fields. Figure 5 shows the mapping of all the
connectivities between injectors and producers in the synthetic
field. It is shown that all connectivities occured within each
compartment, except for connectivities between Producer 204
and Injector 107 and between Producer 208 and Injector 113.
However, if we analyzed carefully, the increments in cross
correlations are insignificant when the injectors were added. In
both cases, by adding an injector, the correlation coefficient
increased by less than 0.002. These two connections represent
the smallest increase among all pairs. In Figure 5, we
differentiated a weak connectivity as a dashed-line connecting
the injector with the producer. Here we defined a weak
injector as an injector that increased the cross correation lower
than 0.005. If we use this threshold to eliminate any injectors,
the revised map is shown in Figure 6. If a minimum
increment threshold were applied, the weak injectors would be
rejected, thus the connectivities dissappeared. For a real field
data, it is necessary to apply this threshold since noise in data
can be deceiving.
Since communications between injectors and producers are
localized within each compartment, it is possible to infer
possible barriers in the reservoir from the lack of connectivity,
see Figures 5 and 6. We can see that the inferred barriers are
good approximations to the real barriers.
Application to real field data
Observing that the procedure worked for synthetic case, we
tested the procedure into real field data. As previously
mentioned, for field cases, the injected water can flow outside
the lease boundary, resulting in lower cross correlations
between injectors and producers. Furthermore, field data
contains noise due to inaccuracy in measurements. Due to
these factors, the cross correlations are generally lower than
the synthetic case. For the synthetic case, the cumulative cross
correlation values are very high (greater than 0.9).
Considering these factors, we assumed that the meaningful
cumulative cross correlation for the field data utilized here
was 0.5, i.e., we accepted the set of injectors if their
cumulative cross correlation was greater than this threshold.
For threshold of accepting the first adjacent well, we use 0.25.
We also did not accept weak connectivities, i.e., if the
increments in cross correlations were lower than 0.005.
The field data were taken from North Robertson Unit
section 329 and Section 5 in Gaines County, Texas, see
Figure 7. Production in this field began in the early 1950s
with 40 acres spacing. The water flood was initiated in 1987
on a converted 20 acres spacing. All producers were on
artificial lift, where the wellbore pressure was considered
fairly constant. This made the unit suitable for the above
procedure since changes in production rates at producers were
likely caused by changes in injection rates at injectors only,
not by changes in wellbore pressure.
Figure 8 shows the map of section 329. The connectivities
between injectors and producers illustrate lack of direct
3
communication in section 329. Since the primary recovery
from this section was good, this area is a prime candidate for
infill wells. In 1996, six producers and two injectors were
drilled in the section. The cumulative production from each of
the new producer is shown in the box. All the producers were
economically succesful. Figure 9 shows a plot of monthly
production versus time for section 329. As evident, the new
wells have added new reserves to the section without robbing
any production from old wells.
In contrast, the evaluation of section 5 shows strong
connectivities. Figure 10 shows that there are east-west
connectivities trends in section 5, especially in middle part of
the section. This is consistent with the field observation about
the response of producers when injection rates at injectors
were altered. Although section 5 was also good primary
producer, it may not be a good candidate for infill wells.
By applying the above procedure, we can obtain the idea
about the trends in reservoir connectivities. This information,
along with other available production data, such as flowing
pressures, water cut, etc., and data from other sources (for
example geological data and logs), can be utilized to optimize
the performance of water flood, such as determining the
possible locations to drill infill wells, water allocations, etc. It
can also be utilized for reservoir modeling purpose.
Conclusions
Based on this study, following conclusions can be drawn:
A new methodology for quantifying connectivity between
injectors and producers in a mature water flood is
proposed.
The methodology identifies strong connectivities and
potential barriers in the field.
The method is validated by applying it to a synthetic as
well as to field data.
References
1. Heffer, K.J., Fox, R.J., and McGill, C.A.: Novel Techniques
ShowLinks between Reservoir Flow Directionality, Earth
Stress, Fault Structure and Geomechanical Changes in Mature
Waterfloods, paper SPE 30711 presented at the SPE ATCE,
Dallas, TX, October 1995.
2. Refunjol, B.T., and Lake, L.W.: Reservoir Characterization
Based on Tracer Response and Rank Analysis of Production and
Injection Rates, presented at the 4th International Reservoir
Characterization Technical Conference, Houston, TX, March 2-
4, 1997.
3. Jansen, F.E.: Reservoir Description from Production Data,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tulsa, 1996.
4. Panda, M.N., and Chopra, A.K.: An Integrated Approach to
Estimate Well Interactions, paper SPE 39563 presented at the
SPE India OGCE, New Delhi, India, February 1998.
4 SOERIAWINATA AND KELKAR 52224

TABLE 1-ILLUSTRATION FOR UTILIZING THE MINIMUM

INCREMENT THRESHOLD

Producer # Supporting Cumulative cross correlation

Injectors value when the injector at the
2nd column is added
Prod-1 Inj-1 0.3500
Inj-2 0.6000
Inj-3 0.6020
Inj-4 0.6025
Prod-2 Inj-1 0.3100
Inj-2 0.5500
Inj-3 0.5510
Inj-4 0.6000

TABLE 2-THE LIST OF PRODUCERS AND THEIR

SUPPORTING INJECTORS FOR SYNTHETIC CASE

Producer # Supporting Cumulative cross correlation

Injectors value when the injector at the
2nd column is added
201 101 0.8663
102 0.9892
202 106 0.7706 Figure 1-A typical five-spot pattern where one producer is
107 0.8195 surrounded by four injectors.
104 0.8831
108 0.9060
103 0.9427
203 108 0.7785
104 0.8531
106 0.8773
103 0.9070
107 0.9599
112 0.9802
204 109 0.8166
105 0.9745
113 0.9833
107 0.9847
205 106 0.7732
107 0.8633
108 0.9122 Constructive Interference
112 0.9339
206 112 0.8298
108 0.8948
106 0.9291
207 114 0.9374 =>
110 0.9788
208 114 0.9297
110 0.9689
115 0.9731
118 0.9757 Destructive Interference
113 0.9763
209 111 0.9010
116 0.9248 =>
120 0.9629
210 114 0.8992
117 0.9351
110 0.9530
118 0.9589
211 114 0.8767 Figure 2-Constructive and Destructive Wave Interference analogy
115 0.8825 for Superposition effects in reservoir.
119 0.9735
117 0.9842
118 0.9858
110 0.9862
212 120 0.8536
116 0.9047
111 0.9873
52224 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT USING PRODUCTION DATA 5

101 102 103 104

201
203
202
105 106 107 108
Producer x 205 206
204
112
109 110
111
207 208 209
113 114 116
115
210 211 212

117 118 119 120

Figure 3-Pre-defined search neighboorhood for Producer x. The Figure 4-Areal map of the synthetic reservoir, triangles represent
black triangles represent the injectors that are inside this Injectors, circles represent producers.
producer pre-defined region, while white triangles represent
injectors outside the neighboorhood.

101 102 103 104 101 102 103 104

201 202 203 201 202 203

105 106 107 108 105 106 107 108

204 205 206 204 205 206

109 110 111 112 109 110 111 112

207 208 209 207 208 209

113 114 115 116 113 114 115 116

210 211 212 210 211 212

117 118 119 120 117 118 119 120

Figure 5-Connectivities between Injectors and Producers in Figure 6-Connectivities between Injectors and Producers in
synthetic field, solid lines represent significant correlations, synthetic field if the weak correlations were eliminated.
dashed lines stand for weak correlations. The bold lines are the
reservoir barriers inferred from the lack of connectivity.
6 SOERIAWINATA AND KELKAR 52224

Section 329

North Robertson Unit

3501 3502 3503 3504 Section 329

Injector
3517 3518 3519 3520
Producer

Infill producer
3505 3506 3507 3508 3802
Infill injector

3533 3523 3532 3524

3521 3538 3522

37713 50832 35710

Section 5 3509 3510 3529 3511 3536 3512 3691

3525 3537 3526 3535 3527 3534 3528 3604

30208 56853 23462

3513 3514 3515 3516 3602 3603 3701

3207
3531
1404 2217 2218

Figure 7-The sketch map of North Robertson Unit, Gaines County, Figure 8-Section 329 of North Robertson Unit. There is lack of
Texas. connectivity between Injectors and Producers. The numbers
inside the boxes are the cumulative oil production for the infill
wells in Stock Tank Barrels.

25000

301 302 401 492

North Robertson Unit
402
Section 5
20000 2604 307 308 406
Injector
monthly oil rate (STB/month)

Producer
303 304 403 404
15000

803 103 207 208

10000 293
101 201 202

203

804 104 209 210

5000

204 205 206

102

295
0
1006 1007 1008 1009
94/01 95/01 96/01 97/01 98/01
time (years)

Figure 9-Aggregate oil rate of NRU Section 329. The solid line Figure 10-Section 5 of North Robertson Unit. The bold lines are
represents total oil rate from all producers including the infill the possible barriers inferred from lack of connectivity.
wells, the dashed line represents total oil rate without the infill
wells.