Ministry Lf @il & Minerals

.~ghdad - Iraq
-0-+0.0-0+)-

BJy

Abdul S.1. Al*Dahir

m. SC.2f3.Z C.Pet.Res.l@g.
C.A. & C.M. Geophysics~
B.SC. Geology.
-o-o-o-o-

31st OctoWr, 1971

AS/alp.
 1AP2ENDIX

Water Flooding of Fractured ~leservoirsS-

I?racturedreservoirs, as the one in Kirkuk field, are

composed of blocks cf rocks called the matrix which is usually
very tiaht
.Q. ~.e=$ it has very poor porosity and permeability
and it
$8 regarded as a primary system eurzwnded partially or
completely by fraotures and fissures that differ in size$ len@h
and distribution beoause they have a very high permeability and
are regarded as a secondary system.

In these fractures, free communication exists and flow

takes place easily if the pressure gradient exists compared to
the first system when it is restricted.

lhereare three pressure drops~ (1) in the first system

(2) in the second system and (3) in the skin (see skin effect).
& in other words between matrix and fissures, fissures and well
and in the well.

These are represented by pol.lardmethod of pressure build

up equations as :

J?w=X%-Ce-alt -I)e-a2t -(Es-Pw-C-D)e-a3t

Where (Ps-Pw-C-D)e-a3t is the pressure drop in the skin

De - a2t is the pressure drop in the fissure system.

Ce - alt is the pressure drop in the matrix system.

Pw = Pressure in the well.

2s = Static pressure.

If water injection takes place, oil will be left behind

if the rate of advance in the fracture is larger than the rate
of water imbibition in the matrix block.

This is very likely to happen due to the fact that in

applying any pressure gradient,water will go along the fissure
system, by-pass the oil and leave it behind (ioeo~ water ch~e-
ling). This pressure gradient is represented by the injection
-----..-a .n~ +hn n+++mk= w9*P.nressure at tineWell.
 This is also due to the difference in permeability and
flow efficiency in the two systems.

Flow in matrix is represented by the imperical law of

i)arcy.

Q = -+ A ~-

While flow in fracture is

l?ciseuillefsLaw for flowing of viscous fluids is s

lTr4P
Q = Where Q = flow rate in cec./sec.
5 u
u= tiscosity in poise
2= pressure differential in Dpe/sq.ca.
r = capillary radius in cm?
x = capillary length in cm,

Displacement
absorption imbibition and this takes place only if the matrix
is water wet as is usual except in some rare cases as in Oklahu~a
fields where it is oil wet.

If the reservoir is oil wet then the influx rill be only when
the pressure difference is larger than the jamin effect.

If there is no pressure gradient in the fracture and the

matrix block is immersed in water,rise in the matrix will be
larger due to the capillary forces.

---.
. ~~~ventio~al
&..b*&-
Thsmafnre . water flooding is not as effectiVe liS
the imbibition process that takes place in the rock end displaces
oil.
& 4

~~ ~

..7, oil Ii
1- --

.--. T---!
f

- .. . -
t
. .
!
--

-- - - W-at er - - - -
--- -. -- .- - - -
 -3-

The imbibition process depend:on pore structure especia~Y

WSa-il>a.
&w U&-w ~ mean radii and their distribution and the contact angle
+snainn
and adhes=c~+w----- of the oil water solid system

influx is control-lednot only by the pressure gradient

A P but by the rate too.

In hetrogenous reservoirs e.g., in case of a sand lense of

very fine sand inside a medium sand reserwir loss of oil occur
if the offtake rate is rapid~ (See movement of<,oiland water in
po01s) rs!

A!!9
.--
---- /
/ -c_- .

S1OW Rate
Rapid Rate

TO analyse the above concept let us consider a matrfi block

cofisistingof a bundle of capillary tubese

Trnhihition
------- in a porous media is qu~titatiVely similar to
imbibition in capillary tube.
 -4-

running across the

a single capillary tube
and doing the energy balance -.
-
---- .- - - t42- F?>
.-

Ih- -
---

-- 1
----
\---- -=,fl
--
-;:-::.
I.- .-
-- 1t !-
i. .-

I .-
1
!
1 i W--*

!-~ ~

-t
..
!
-!
-.
--
-- ---

(1)
+
(2)
T??:P Toiseuillels Itaw

gy (3)
dt
(4)

dv= differentiating eq. (4) w.r.tc t.

lTr2
dt

as Q here is in cc/see.

(5)

8UX from eq. 5 to get T

J
A

!Therefore 1?

8UX

1 the viscous force,

& A ~r2
.
 -5-

3?= 2 ~
and this is due to the column of
r t~cos ~
Al..- ~de ~~ ~~~ .---
nnl I]mn
.-e-lQf water
invading water wnichequd~; UUG feret?
x+ force of (H - X) + force caused by the pushing of oil
or water outside to cause the rising of oil in the capillary tube.

TTr2g(x-h)~P (6)

H.S. of eq. (6) is the capillary force in

The term on the 11.
While the 1st
the whole capill~y tube due to invading water.
+-=
w-i- in the R,H.S. of the eq. is the viscous fluid resist=ce of
nvading and the second temn is the displaced fluid resistance
and the third is the head difference and this third one is

1? = PA

. TTr2~,#g (x-h)

h = At rate of rise out-

If ~=u2 =u ? St e side the block is
constant.
?)

dx 2rJ~cos 0-r g4sp (x-h)

9
37 = -
~u~

Special -se x = h

& r 4 Cos e (7)

dt = 4uH

rbcos
.,- O% By integrati%l eq. 7
~+= 4uH2
 -6-

Therefore fractional recovery (~) is proportional to time

and is inversely proportional to matrix height, in other vnrds
if time is large (i.e.y slow rate) fractional recovery is large.

Therefore production at slow rate is recommended or offtake

rate has to be restricted by a choke<

To find the time when the whole,block is flooded with water

is

Height of water in matrix ( i.e., capillary tube)in ~=

n 11 J1 fracture (or outside the matrix)in cm.
Matrix height in om.
Capillary tube radius in om.
Interracial tension in dynes per sq.cm.
Contact angle between water and solid.
Water viscosity in cp.
1=
6= Water density in @/cc.
F Oil viscosity in cp.
/%= Oil density in $m\c.c.
v= Volume of tube.
Volumetric flow rate in C.C. per second.
Differential pressure.
Force in dynes\sq.cm.
A= Area in cm.sq.
 -7-

Movement of Oil
and Water
-- in Pools #-
. -

ALLGG.~
rl-ikam
th=gr-k
am= are showing US the movement of oil in field
poG1. They give an explanation to the effect of inhibition in.
oil fields. This is one of the capillary pressure applications
in oil fields. A fine grained sand lense of low permeability
occurs within a porous and pemneable sand reservoir. Under a
low production rate the water advances faster in the sand of low
permeability driviag the oil out a head of it, lhesand is said
to imbibe water taking the water in at the bottom and expelling
oil at the top and thereby maintaining a higher water saturation
in the fine than in the coarse sand as shown in Fig. A. But at
a high rate of production the water front moves so fast that the
tight lens @s no opportunity to imbibe water, hence the oil
originally in the lens is only partly produced and some remains
behind, therefore, lost of prod. as in B Movement of levels
(Water level) are shown in Fig. (Ar) & (B) as x, y & z, x, yl
& z!.

Here we have to notice the MER (Maximum EfficieiltRate or

Maximum Economic Recovery) i.e., the rate a% which a weXl produce
most efficiently. It is the highest rate at which no waste occur.
This occur in water drive reservoir, sometimes it would form water
con ing.

This MER was officially defined as ~-

The highest daily rate that can be sustained by a field or

pool for a period of 6 months without jeopardizing the max. prac-
ticable ultimate recovery from the reservoir

lW2Rof most oil pools ranges between 3% & 8X of the recoverable:

reserve per year and thus assumes for the pool an ultimate life o.
12 - 33 years.

e.g. in U.S.A. prod. life ( av. ) = 12 - 15 times the annual prod.,

?
which thus takes place at annual over all ratesof 6$% - 8%
 -8-

& water coning the _ = Q

I?ote:- In bottom water drive res.
and should be :
(.FW - ~o)(h2-D2)K
Q = 1.5351 ~
10g e
o q

This is limited flow i.e., flow that must no-tbe exceeded

if the water flow has to be avoided.

When Q = Oil flow in field units (res. b/d)

/20 = Density for oil in @/cc.

/gw s m n water in@JC. c.

u= Oil viscosity in cp~

K= Permeability in darcy.

h= Fo332ation heightin ft-

D = Well penetration in ft.

I i ~
..

ifi!!$~
*
.
&.-
. -
Q. - +7
- -. .C. ---

- -=..+.

e+.

-)-..
----
.--.
L/ ---

/-. ~ -/
Q) S1OW Rate (B) Rapid ~te
. /

(B)
(A)
 -9-

Skin Effect :-
Due to drilling and completion process, it has been found
th~the permeability around or near the bore hole is reduced due
to the following reasons Z-
1- Drilling fluids invasion i.e., mud filterate and mud cake.
2- Presence of ceuent.

3- Clay swelling in the formation due to water and mud.

4- Tartial well perforation

5- Limited perforation.
6- 2erforation plugging.

The above-entio~ied causes are some of the factors respon-

sible for this reduction in permeability .

Some times and even the increase in gas or water saturation

will cause a reduction in the permeability due to the relative
permeability curves gained from experiments done on different
samples.

d.
10* so n
u?

0$ SW 100%

As water saturation Sww increases, water relative penneabilit;r

increases and hence oil pemneability decreases as oil saturation
S tdecreases.
o
 I
-1o-

This effect of permeability reduction near or close the

bore hole is taken into account as an additional pressure
drop @ P which is proportional to the production rate g.

This zone of reduced permeability is called a skin and

its effect is called a skin effect.

This pressure drop in the skin is related to the dimension

less rate of flow and the skin factor W S by the following
equation.

And after a production time of t m the well pressure is

Therefore, a reduction in the well pressure is due to this

skin and it will be reduced by the amount of ( a u J S. i.e.,
it will be less than if the skin was completel$ ~i~?nated.

The skin effect is illustrated down in the following diagram:

Flowing
pr.

Pollard pressure build up method sad calculations done on the

fractured reservoirs of the Venezuelan fields showed that this
skin effect is reduced by one cf the we31 stimulation method
(( i.e., acidisation )).
In fact pollard had used the acidisatio many times on each
8 e
well and each time some of the nressuxe drODYto the skin was
 -11-

References:
.

1- C.G. Wall, Water advance in fractured reservoirs

Imperial College, London University, London, 1969.

2- Leverson, Geology of Petroleum, Page 458.

3- Buckly and Leverate, Transaction A I M X, 1942, Vol.

146, Oil & Gas Journal 1952.
4- S.J. Pirson, Oil Reservoir Engineering, 1958.

5- 2. Pollard, Evaluation of Aoid Treatments from

pressure build up analysis, Petroleum Transaction,
A I ME , J.P.T. VO1.216, 1959.

6- Mathews and Russel, Pressure build-up and flow test

in wells. Monograph SPE, 1969.

7- K. Coats, SPEJ, March, 1969, VO1.9.

-o-o-o-o-o-o 0-o-o-

S/dp/30-10-71