SPE 77569
Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance
V.V. Bondar, ChevronTexaco Corp., T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment 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 work presents the development and validation of a multi-
variate relation for the behavior of the water-oil-ratio (WOR)
and/or water cut (fw) functions. This new model incorporates
the reservoir and fluid properties for both phases (oil and wa-
ter) and is based on the assumption of pseudosteady-state flow
conditions.
This work is an extension of traditional (i.e., steady-state)
methods for the case of pseudosteady-state flow — for both
the oil and water phases. In this work, our pseudosteady-state
model reproduces observed field performance substantially
better than any of the steady-state models. We propose that
this approach can be applied to any reservoir system undergo-
ing waterflood.
The specific tasks achieved in this work include:
1. Development of a rigorous model for the simultaneous
flow of oil and water during pseudosteady-state flow
conditions. This model has been validated using sever-
al field cases and gives an excellent representation of
the WOR (or fw) data trend(s).
2. Development of a "reciprocal rate plot" for the estima-
tion of both the original oil-in-place (N), as well as the
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) at current produc-
ing conditions.
3. Development of a diagnostic technique for assessing
(qualitatively) the efficiency/effectiveness of a water-
flood. This technique involves the use of the following
log-log format plots: WOR-derivative, the WOR-inte-
gral, and the WOR-integral-derivative functions.
4. Application/interpretation of the following extrapola-
tion methods for the water-oil-ratio (WOR) and the wa-
ter cut (fw) functions:
—qo versus Np,
— log(fw) versus Np,
— 1/fw versus Np,
— fo versus Np, and
— log(WOR) versus Np.
While our new formulation of the two-phase (oil-water),
pseudosteady-state flow relation does not provide for a simple
extrapolation formula for the estimation of recoverable oil, we
do prove the utility of this relation as an interpretation me-
chanism. We also provide insight into the existing and pro-
posed techniques for estimating the ultimate oil recovery.
Orientation
Natural water drive and/or water injection are two of the most
common drive mechanisms in oil production. A detailed
analysis of past performance should be conducted in order to
predict the future performance of the well/reservoir system —
as well as to estimate the volume of in-place and recoverable
fluids.
The logarithm of the water-oil-ratio (WOR) and/or water cut
(fw) functions plotted versus the cumulative oil production are
commonly used tools for the evaluation and prediction of
waterflood performance. This presumed (actually empirical)
log-linear relationship of WOR (or fw) and oil recovery allows
for the extrapolation of the observed straight-line to any
desired water cut as a mechanism for determining the cor-
responding oil recovery.
Such straight-line extrapolation methods are essentially em-
pirical, and when theory is used to validate such techniques,
we must make prohibitive simplistic assumptions. Two such
assumptions that have been documented in the literature
include — the assumption that the mobility ratio is equal to
unity and that a plot of log (krw/kro) versus So is linear.
Our goal in this work is to develop and validate a multivariate
relation to represent the behavior of the water-oil-ratio (WOR)
and/or water cut (fw) functions — the only significant assump-
tion that we make in this work is that pseudosteady-state flow
conditions must exist in the entire reservoir system.
2 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame
The objectives pursued in this work include:
1. Derivation and validation of a pseudosteady-state mo-
del for the simultaneous flow of oil and water. This
model is validated against 28 different field cases —
and in all cases, the new model gives an excellent
representation of the data.
2. Development and validation of the "reciprocal rate
plot" for the estimation of original oil-in-place (N) and
estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). This method is
validated against field data and yields an appropriate
trend in virtually all cases
3. Development and application of a series of log-log
diagnostic plots for waterflood evaluation — these in-
clude:
—WOR functions versus production time,
— WOR functions versus Np/qo, and
— WOR functions versus (Np+Wp)/(qo+qw).
The WOR functions include: WOR-derivative, WOR-
integral, and WOR-integral-derivative functions.
4. Application/interpretation of several different extrapo-
lation approaches for the water-oil-ratio (WOR) and the
water cut (fw) functions. The new pseudosteady-state
WOR model is given in terms of both Np and Wp, and,
as such, is not amenable to extrapolation.
As this issue could not be resolved (i.e., the use of the
pseudosteady-state model as an extrapolation method),
we chose to focus on several extrapolation techniques
— all of which use the cumulative oil production (Np)
as the x-axis plotting function. These extrapolation
plots include:
—qo versus Np (constant pressure (liquid) case)
— log(fw) versus Np (steady-state approach)
— 1/fw versus Np (new approach)
— fo versus Np (field approach — not documented)
— log(WOR) versus Np (steady-state approach)
As noted above, the formulation of the two-phase (oil-water),
pseudosteady-state flow relation does not provide for a simple
extrapolation formula for the estimation of recoverable fluids
— we believe that this is an area for further investigation.
Introduction
Historically, it has been difficult to analyze and predict oil
production behavior in water-drive or waterflood reservoir
systems (here we distinguish "waterdrive" as a natural condi-
tion of water influx — and waterflood as a manufactured con-
dition of water injection). Difficulty arises in how to charac-
terize two-phase (oil-water) flow performance using analytical
solutions based on single-phase flow theory, or by using
simplified, steady-state solutions to represent two-phase (oil-
water) flow. Neither approach is correct — and yet both are
used regularly for the analysis of data acquired from water-
drive/waterflood reservoir systems.
As a matter of practice, we must be able to evaluate and pre-
dict waterflood performance in petroleum reservoirs — in-
SPE 77569
place and recoverable oil volumes are required for evaluation
and reservoir management purposes. A number of essentially
empirical methods have been proposed over time for the
evaluation of waterflood performance, and these methods are
typically assumed to give acceptable results.
A plot of the logarithm of the water-oil ratio (WOR) (or water
cut function (fw)) versus cumulative production (Np) is the
most widely used technique for the evaluation and prediction
of waterflood performance.1 This simple (and, we will note,
empirical) method is applicable for the analysis of "late time"
production behavior and the technique allows us to estimate
the recoverable oil volumes by extrapolating the straight-line
trend of the fw function to an arbitrary value of water cut (often
fw=1, or some other "high" value, such as fw=0.95).
This approach is only used when a straight line can
approximate the function of interest (WOR or fw). Unfortu-
nately, in most cases, this method is not applicable for the
early stages of a waterflood (e.g., a rule of thumb is that the
log(WOR or fw) versus Np plots can not be used for values of
water cut function (fw) less then 0.5). Misuse of these em-
pirical techniques can yield substantial errors in the extrapola-
tion of recoverable reserves.
We recognize that the use of a model based on the assumption
of steady-state flow behavior is an approximation at best —
our motivation for this work is the development of a model
that can be used to represent the pseudosteady-state behavior
of a water-oil reservoir flow system. We also recognize that
the pseudosteady-state model is an approximation as well —
and that mobility components can (and do) change substan-
tially with time (which is a condition that we do not explicitly
consider). However, our primary goal remains the develop-
ment of a WOR (or fw) relation for pseudosteady-state flow
conditions.
Aside from the estimation of reservoir volumetric properties
(N, Np,max, etc), WOR data can be plotted versus time (or the
"material balance time" functions) on a log-log plot and used
as a diagnostic tool to identify the dominant reservoir perfor-
mance mechanism (uniform displacement, water coning, or
water channeling).2
Our intention is to develop a methodology that combines the
classic techniques for well test and production data analysis
(pressure derivative, pressure integral, and pressure integral-
derivative functions) with our proposed model for the analysis
of oil and water production data (in this case the WOR, WOR-
derivative, WOR-integral, and WOR-integral-derivative func-
tions). We believe that the qualitative analysis of water-oil
ratio (WOR) performance data will significantly improve our
evaluation and assessment of well problems, assist in injec-
tion/production balancing, and aid in the identification of the
dominant reservoir drive mechanism.
Development of the Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
In this section we provide the derivation of the pseudosteady-
state WOR equation. We begin with the rigorous, single-phase
pseudosteady-state flow equation used to describe the beha-
vior of oil and water production. This derivation makes
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 3

several (potentially) limiting assumptions — but the pseudo- Using the general form of the pseudosteady-state flow equa-
steady-state relation does not require the same assumptions as tion (Eq. 2), we can write the following relations for single-
the steady-state case (which is much more restrictive). Speci- phase oil and water flow:
fically, he primary assumptions used in the conventional WOR
∆p
(steady-state) analysis are: qo = (oil form)............................. (6)
m o t o + b psso
The pressure and the flowrate throughout the system
remain constant. ∆p
The mobility ratio is assumed to be equal to unity. qw = (water form) ........................ (7)
mwtw + b pssw
The logarithm of relative permeability ratio versus water
saturation relationship is linear. where the "oil" and "water" variables are defined as:
The rule of thumb for the existing WOR models is that these
t o = N p qo (oil material balance time) .. (8)
models can be applied only after the WOR (or fw) function
develops a straight-line trend — in most of the cases this oc- Bo
curs when the value of the fw function approaches 0.5-0.7 (or mo = 0.2339 (oil pss slope term).............. (9)
higher). Our goal is to extend the conventional WOR analyses φhct A
to include the case of pseudosteady-state flow behavior — and B µ 4A
to develop a relation that can represent the entire spectrum of b psso = 70.6 o o ln (oil pss intercept term) (10)
oil and water production performance. We do not expect such ko h e γ C A rw2
a relation to represent the entire production history for a
particular well — but we do anticipate significantly improved tw = W p qw (water material balance time)... (11)
behavior when we incorporate pseudosteady-state flow char-
Bw
acteristics into the WOR model. m w = 0.2339 (water pss slope term) ............. (12)
φhc t A
We begin by using the relation presented by Blasingame and
Lee3 for single-phase variable-rate, pseudosteady-state flow in B µ 4A
a bounded reservoir. This result is given as: b pssw = 70.6 w w ln
k wh γ
e C A rw2
Äp Bµ 4A B
= 70.6 ln + 0.2339 t mb ............ (1) (water pss intercept term)......... (13)
q kh γ
e C r 2 φ hc tA
A w
Recalling the definition of the water-oil ratio function, WOR,
Eq. 1 is subject to the following assumptions: we have:
Pseudosteady-state (i.e., boundary-dominated) flow con-
q
ditions must exist in the entire reservoir system. WOR = w (water-oil ratio)................. (14)
Homogeneous and isotropic reservoir. qo
Constant porosity and permeability. Substituting Eqs.6 and 7 into Eq. 13, we obtain an expression
Small and constant fluid compressibility. for the WOR function:
Constant fluid viscosity.
Small pressure gradients. mo t o + b psso
Negligible gravity forces. WOR = .................................................. (15)
m w t w + b pssw
For simplicity, Eq. 1 can be written in the following, more
compact form: Eq. 15 is specifically valid for pseudosteady-state flow beha-
vior — and we implicitly assume that the entire reservoir is at
∆p pseudosteady-state flow conditions (i.e., both the oil and water
q= (general form) ..................... (2)
mt mb + b pss phases). To extend this concept, we can re-write Eq. 15 in
terms of the fractional flow of oil and water functions (fo, fw
where: (respectively). Re-writing Eq. 15, we obtain:
t
∫0
1 1
t mb = q dt (material balance time)........ (3) fw = ............................................... (16)
q m w t w + b pssw
1+
mo t o + b psso
B
m = 0.2339 (pss slope term) ................... (4)
φhct A 1
fo = ................................................ (17)
mo t o + b psso
Bµ 4A 1+
b pss = 70.6 ln (pss intercept term).............. (5) m w t w + b pssw
γ
kh e C r 2
A w
It is important to note that we have made no assumptions
regarding a relationship between the relative permeability
functions and water saturation — although we do note that in
4 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame
Eqs. 15-17 we presume that the mobility ratio is constant (but
is not necessarily unity).
dominant reservoir drive mechanism.
Application of the Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
In this section we use the new pseudosteady-state WOR model
to analyze and interpret two field case examples. The first
example is the case of a vertical well in a thick, low perme-
ability dolomite sequence in West Texas, and the second
example is the case of a vertical well in a high permeability,
moderately consolidated reservoir in South Louisiana. In both
cases the fields are undergoing waterfloods, but in the case of
the wells from South Louisiana, water influx is also suspected.
In these examples we use a standard suite of plots to evaluate
our regression-based analysis of the WOR function using the
proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model. The following
suite of plots is used:
Late-Time Extrapolation for Recoverable Oil
log(fw) versus Np
1/fw versus Np
fo versus Np
log(WOR) versus Np
Regression Analysis — Global Summary Plot
log(WORcal) versus log(WORmeas)
Example 1: NRU Well 3106
Well 3106 from the North Robertson Unit (NRU Well 3106)
in Gaines County Texas is the first case we consider, and the
analysis/interpretation plots for this case are provided in Figs.
1-5. NRU Well 3106 was completed on July 9 1989. The
total depth of the well is 7,350 ft with two perforated intervals
— 6,667-7,185 ft and 5,964-6,538 ft. The well was acidized
and hydraulically fractured in two stages on 15 July 1989 and
again on 17 July 1989.
In Figs. 1-4 we find that the pseudosteady-state WOR model
represents the production data functions extremely well —
especially in the late-time region, but surprisingly, the WOR
model also matches all but the very earliest production data.
For comparison we have plotted the "conventional" (i.e.,
steady-state) straight-line extrapolation models on each analy-
sis plot — and we note very good correlation of these straight-
line models with the late-time production data.
Based on our observations in Figs. 1-4, we can conclude that
the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model best represents
the performance of the WOR functions for NRU Well 3106.
We can also conclude that the conventional straight-line extra-
polation models also work well for this case.
As a consistency check, we also provide a direct comparison
of the calculated and measured WOR functions for NRU Well
3106 in Fig. 5. We note that with the exception of the very
early time data (i.e., low WOR), the correlation of the calcu-
lated and measured WOR functions is excellent.
SPE 77569
Example 2: WWL Well B41
In this case we consider the production data from Well B41 in
the West White Lake Field (WWL Well B41) in South Louis-
iana. It is relevant to note that West White Lake Field is a
Miocene sandstone reservoir sequence with good porosity and
permeability characteristics. This is relevant because it may
help us to understand the water and oil production perfor-
mance more clearly — and this case is in significant contrast
to the case from the North Robertson Unit (NRU Well 3106)
where the reservoir in that case is a low permeability dolstone
with very heterogeneous reservoir properties.
WWL Well B41 was completed on 2 July 1987. The total
depth of the well is 7,300 ft and is perforated from 7,038 to
7,064 ft.
The analysis plots for this case are presented in Figs. 6-9, and
we immediately note good agreement between the pseudo-
steady-state WOR model and the measured production data.
We also note good agreement for the conventional straight-
line (i.e., steady-state) extrapolation models. In this case, we
do observe that the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model
best represents the "late time" performance.
Our emphasis on the late-time data is warranted — this region
is where both the steady-state and pseudosteady-state models
would be best expected to work. While we do not expect the
pseudosteady state WOR relation to work at early times, it is
worth noting that the early time data are dominated by oil flow
(see Fig. 8). The pseudosteady-state relation presumes a con-
stant mobility ratio, and this may not be the case where such a
dramatic change in WOR performance occurs. Regardless, we
are satisfied that the proposed pseudosteady-state relation does
accurately represent the data for this case.
As in the previous case (NRU Well 3106), we provide a direct
comparison of the calculated and measured WOR functions for
WWL Well B41 in Fig. 10, and we note also note in this case
that the correlation of the calculated and measured WOR func-
tions is excellent. For reference, the early time WOR data are
not shown on Fig. 10, we have only plotted the WOR data that
were actually used in the regression process.
Summary
Our goal in this section was to present and validate the pro-
posed pseudosteady-state WOR relation. Recalling this result,
we have:
mo t o + b psso
WOR = .................................................. (15)
m w t w + b pssw
Substituting the definitions for material balance time for each
phase, Eq. 15 becomes:
Np
mo + b psso
q qo
WOR = w = ..................................... (18)
qo Wp
mw + b pssw
qw
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance
In reviewing Eq.18, we immediately recognize that the rate
and cumulative production functions can not be uncoupled, we
can rearrange the variables to perhaps yield a more useful
form, but the rate and cumulative functions remain.
Multiplying through Eq. 18 by the (qo/qw) ratio gives:
m o N p + b psso q o
1=
m wW p + b pssw q w
or,
m wW p + b pssw q w = mo N p + b psso q o ........................ (19)
We note that although Eq. 19 could be considered a "more
simple" form of Eq. 15, we can not reduce Eq. 19 further into
a direct "analysis" relation.
The point of this discussion is that the proposed pseudosteady-
state WOR model (Eq. 15) is valid (at least for pseudosteady-
state flow, presuming a constant mobility ratio). However, we
can not reduce this approach into a direct analysis methodo-
logy — we must use Eq. 15 as an analysis model, and fit that
model to the field performance data.
We are quite pleased with the performance of the pseudo-
steady-state WOR model (and its auxiliary models), and we
believe that this approach is both robust and appropriate.
While we did not obtain a direct solution or even an extrapo-
lation formula from Eq. 15, we strongly recommend its
application. At this point our recommendation is to use re-
gression analysis — it is our hope that future efforts yield a
direct analysis method, in the form of a single-variable
relation, or (perhaps) in the form of a "type curve" or some
other type of comparative solution technique.
ANALYSIS OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION DATA
In this chapter we focus our efforts on a discussion of the
"conventional" analysis methods for water and oil production
data. In particular, we present methods that are commonly
used in petroleum industry to estimate the recoverable oil
volume (Np,max). The primary advantage of the methods we
discuss is that these methods are straightforward — we only
require production data in order to estimate the recoverable oil
volume and to make a production forecast. No tedious calcu-
lations are required, and most of the methods discussed are
well accepted in the industry.
The disadvantage is that most of these methods are not rigor-
ous, and can fail (sometimes in a spectacular fashion) — how-
ever, we believe that the practical value of these simple ap-
proaches makes an important contribution to the area of pro-
duction data analysis.
Analysis Methods
This subsection addresses the inventory of analysis techniques
that are used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess oil and
water production data.
Exponential Decline Curve Methods
We begin our discussion with a focus on the estimation of the
recoverable oil volume, Np,max, (or the estimated ultimate
5
recovery (EUR)) using the simple exponential rate decline
relation. In particular, we utilize the following plotting
techniques that are derived from the exponential rate decline
relation:
log(qo) versus t
qo versus Np
The log(qo) versus t plot is the most common production
analysis mechanism — unfortunately this plot is only rigor-
ously valid for the case of liquid flow at a constant bottomhole
flowing pressure. The qo versus Np plot is derived from the
exponential rate decline relation, and also requires the assump-
tion of a constant bottomhole pressure.
The governing relation for the exponential production decline
case is given by: (flowrate identity)
− Dit
qo = qoi e ..............................................................(20)
Integrating Eq. 20 to yield the cumulative production, then
rearranging, we obtain the following relation:
qo = qoi − Di Np .........................................................(21)
Conventional WOR Extrapolation Methods
We will again discuss the various straight-line models pro-
posed for the water-oil ratio (WOR) functions: WOR, the
fractional flow of oil (fo), and the fractional flow of water (fw).
These functions are plotted in various formats versus the
cumulative oil production (Np) as indicated in the list of
plotting functions given below.
log(WOR) versus Np
log(fw) versus Np
fo versus Np
The application of these functions was discussed previously
— however, our present goal is to apply and compare these
functions with other analysis techniques.
In order to utilize the fractional flow relations (fo and fw) we
require these definitions. As such, the definitions of fo and fw
are:
qo
fo = ...............................................................(22)
qo + qw
qw
fw = ..............................................................(23)
qo + qw
For the case of extrapolation using WOR versus Np and fw
versus Np, we have the following implicit models for these
presumed behaviors:
bN p
WOR = ae .............................................................(24)
bN p
f w = ae ................................................................(25)
Another extrapolation technique that has been used exten-
sively (but not investigated) is the case of a plot of fo versus
Np, which should extrapolate to the recoverable reserves at fo
=0. The presumed relationship for this case is
6 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

f o = a − bNp ............................................................... (26) Total Production Function Plots:

log(WOR) versus total production (Np+Wp)
New Methods for the Analysis of Production Data log(fo) versus log(tt)
In addition to the methods previously identified for the analy-
sis of water and oil production data, we also present two new Ershaghi X-Plot Technique
techniques that can be used to estimate the recoverable oil, Our final effort is to demonstrate the Ershaghi "X-plot"
Np,max, or the oil-in-place, N. These new techniques use the technique (refs. 4-5), and to compare the results of this method
following plotting functions: with the "conventional" (steady-state) straight-line extrapola-
tion techniques.6 In all of the cases we considered, the X-plot
1/fw versus Np (yields an estimate of Np,max)
technique gave the least consistent results compared to the
1/qo versus to (yields an estimate of N)
other methods used. Based on our results, we believe that
The 1/fw versus Np plotting function yields an apparent linear "conventional" straight-line extrapolation methods will pro-
trend that can be extrapolated to provide an estimate of the duce more accurate (and more consistent) estimates of the
recoverable oil, Np,max. In contrast, the 1/qo versus to plotting recoverable oil than the X-plot technique.
function yields a linear trend (predicted by pseudosteady-state
theory), where the slope of the trend is proportional to 1/N. Analysis Examples
In this subsection we demonstrate the analysis of production
For a plot of 1/fw versus Np we implicitly assume the following data using the techniques described above. The data for these
relationship: examples are taken from corporate archives and deemed to be
1/ f w = a − bNp ........................................................... (27) representative of the waterflood/water influx process.
Given the large numbers of figures in this section, discussion
For a plot of 1/qo versus to = Np/qo we begin with Eq. 6, and
will be limited to summary results for each "family" of analy-
upon rearranging, we have:
sis methodologies — with exceptions as warranted.
1 qo = a + b( Np qo ) ................................................... (28) NRU 3106 WWL B41
At the condition qo = 0, we can rearrange Eq. 28 to yield the Exponential Decline Curve Methods
recoverable reserves, Np,max. This result is given by: log(qo) versus t Fig. 11 Fig. 12
Np ,max = 1/b ............................................................... (29) qo versus Np Fig. 13 Fig. 14
Conventional WOR Extrapolation Methods
Put simply, Eq. 29 specifies that we construct a plot of 1/qo
versus Np/qo and obtain the slope (b) in order to estimate the log(WOR) versus Np Fig. 15 Fig. 16
recoverable reserves (Np,max). log(fw) versus Np Fig. 17 Fig. 18
fo versus Np Fig. 19 Fig. 20
Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data
We also provide a qualitative analysis of the behavior of the New Methods for the Analysis of Production Data
WOR, WOR derivative, integral, and integral-derivative 1/fw versus Np Fig. 21 Fig. 22
functions plotted versus production time (t), oil material 1/qo versus to Fig. 23 Fig. 24
balance time (to), and total material balance time (tt). We
Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data
provide a systematic presentation of examples for these plots
later in this section. In particular, we review typical trends Log-Log Diagnostic Plots:
and characteristics of these plotting functions. WOR, WORd vs. t Fig. 25 Fig. 31
The specific plotting functions considered in this discussion WORI, WORid vs t Fig. 26 Fig. 32
are as follows: WOR, WORd vs to Fig. 27 Fig. 33
WORI, WORid vs to Fig. 28 Fig. 34
Log-Log Diagnostic Plots:
WOR, WORd vs tt Fig. 29 Fig. 35
log(WOR) and log(WORd) versus log(t) WORI, WORid vs tt Fig. 30 Fig. 36
log(WORi) and log(WORid) versus log(t)
Cumulative WOR and Cumulative fw Plots:
log(WOR) and log(WORd) versus log(to)
log(WORi) and log(WORid) versus log(to) log(WORc) versus Np Fig. 37 Fig. 39
log(WOR) and log(WORd) versus log(tt) log(fwc) versus Np Fig. 38 Fig. 40
log(WORi) and log(WORid) versus log(tt) Total Production Function Plots:
Cumulative WOR and Cumulative fw Plots: log(WOR) vs (Np+Wp) Fig. 41 Fig. 43
log(WORc) versus Np log(fo) versus log(tt) Fig. 42 Fig. 44
log(fwc) versus Np Ershaghi X-Plot Technique
Np versus X (refs. 4-5) Fig. 45 Fig. 46
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance
Exponential Decline Curve Methods
In Figs. 11 and 12 we confirm the log(qo) versus time tech-
nique for these data cases — note that both cases have well-
established semilog trends. Similarly, the rate-cumulative
plots (Figs. 13 and 14) confirm the validity of the exponential
de-cline model for these cases.
Conventional WOR Extrapolation Methods
The WOR versus Np plots for these cases are shown in Figs. 15
and 16 — we note that both cases (NRU Well 3106 and WWL
Well B41) illustrate a strong semilog trend. Similarly, the
log(fw) versus Np plots (Figs. 17 and 18) also show very strong
"late time" semilog straight line trends. Finally we consider
the fo versus Np (Cartesian) plots (Figs. 19 and 20). Here we
again find strong linear trends that yield consistent estimates
of recoverable reserves (Np,max).
New Methods for the Analysis of Production Data
In this effort we "test" our proposed extrapolation/interpreta-
tion methods that can be used to estimate the recoverable re-
serves (Np,max). The first technique involves a plot of 1/fw ver-
sus Np (see Figs. 21 and 22) — in both cases we again find
strong linear trends in the data.
In the second approach we use 1/qo versus Np/qo as the plotting
function (Figs. 23 and 24). We find that this technique pro-
vides a remarkable "straightening" of the data for all cases
considered in this work. The recoverable reserves are esti-
mated using the slope of this trend, which can be problematic
with erratic data (though this has generally not been the case
in our experience).
Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data
In this effort we plotted the data functions for each case, then
compared the variety of plots for each case (this is a "quali-
tative" comparison so our only effort is "interpretation," not
analysis). In the first suite we consider Well NRU 3106 (Figs.
25-30) in terms of the "qualitative" log-log plots. This case is
generally well behaved — the "time" format plots are slightly
erratic, though consistent (and changing) trends do evolve for
the WORi and WORid functions. The WOR functions behave
somewhat better for the "oil" and "total" material balance time
functions, but the "shift" from one unit-slope trend to another
is prevalent in each case.
In Figs. 31-36 we consider the qualitative performance of
WWL Well B41 — where we immediately note that these data
are not as well-behaved as the data for NRU Well 3106. Per-
haps the most relevant observation is that a single unit-slope
trend evolved for all of the WOR functions in the case of the
"oil" material balance time function. This is the strongest
trend observed for this case.
Interestingly, the "cumulative" WOR and fw functions (WORc
and fwc) provide apparent straight-line trends for both cases —
but other than this linearity, there is no clear interpretation of
this behavior. This behavior is shown in Figs. 37-40.
Our effort now shifts to comparisons of WOR and total pro-
duction (Np+Wp) (see Figs. 41 and 43), as well as fo versus
(Np+Wp)/(qo+qw) (see Figs. 42 and 44). The most relevant
7
comment for the log(WOR) versus (Np+Wp) trend is that an
apparent semilog straight-line evolves — however, the inter-
pretation (and use) of this trend is unclear. It could be argued
that the log-log plot of fo versus (Np+Wp)/(qo+qw) is simply an
analog for a "rate-material balance time" plot since the trends
are very similar to what we find when attempting to match
production data to decline type curves. There may be an even-
tual application in that regard.
Ershaghi X-Plot Technique
As we note in both Figs. 45 and 46 the X-plot trends are very
well established. The issue of analysis is relevant, at what
value of fw do we extrapolate the plot? To demonstrate a fail-
ure of the X-plot method we provide the production history for
WWL Well A17 in Fig. 47 — note that not only is there no
linear trend, the data appear to trending in the opposite direc-
tion of the proposed methodology suggests. This is hardly an
indictment of the X-plot method, but we do believe that this
case is "typical."
Summary and Conclusions
In this work we present empirical and semi-analytical models
for the analysis and interpretation of oil and water production
data. In particular, we provide the development, verification,
and application of a new water-oil performance relation for
pseudosteady-state flow conditions. This model was found to
be superior to all other models considered for the represen-
tation of field production data (WOR, fw, and the water and oil
flowrate functions).
We provide a broad spectrum of demonstrative analyses for oil
and water production data — from "conventional" extrapola-
tion plots to a several new analysis and diagnosis plots, in-
cluding the new pseudosteady-state flow relation for the
simultaneous flow of oil and water. The oil and water produc-
tion data used in this study were obtained from the North
Robertson Unit (NRU) located in Gaines County (West Texas)
and the West White Lake Field located in Southwest Louisi-
ana.
Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
We presented the development and validation of a pseudo-
steady-state water-oil ratio model. This model does not re-
quire the limiting assumptions of the conventional (steady
state) WOR model (the mobility ratio is not required to be
unity, nor are any assumptions made regarding the relative
permeability functions).
We utilized the new pseudosteady-state oil-water flow model
in the following analysis/interpretation plots:
Fractional flow of oil (fo) versus cumulative oil produc-
tion (Np)
Logarithm of fractional flow of water (fw) versus cumula-
tive oil production (Np)
Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/fw) versus cumu-
lative oil production, (Np)
Water-oil ratio (WOR) versus cumulative oil production
(Np)
8 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame
In each of these plots the pseudosteady-state flow model is
plotted as a comparison to the given data function. We note in
summary that the new pseudosteady-state model is an
excellent interpolation model — but we (regrettably) must
also note that our new pseudosteady-state model does not
provide a practical approach for the estimation of reserves by
extrapolation. This is an area for future research considera-
tion.
Estimation of Recoverable Oil
Though often considered an empirical (and sometimes suspect
approach), the estimation of recoverable oil reserves (Np,max)
by extrapolation of a function versus cumulative production
(or some other production-related function) is a very popular
(and effective) method for estimating such reserves. It is our
belief that, because of the uncertainty in the accuracy of the
"conventional" extrapolation methods, as well as the lack of a
completely rigorous mathematical foundation, the best ap-
proach is to apply as many of these extrapolation techniques
as possible. Such an approach will provide duplication (hence
validation), and though there is no single "perfect" extrapo-
lation technique, the comparison of results obtained from
different approaches does provide consistency as well as an
element of validation.
Our process of estimating the ultimate recovery using straight-
line extrapolations of production data function incorporates a
sequence of simultaneous analysis for all data functions (e.g.,
qo, fo, fw, WOR, 1/fw, 1/qo, and other functions versus
cumulative production). The goal for such an analysis is to
develop estimates of recoverable oil that best represent most,
if not all, of the extrapolation methods.
Specifically, we use the following extrapolation techniques for
the simultaneous estimation of recoverable oil (or EUR) at
current producing conditions:
Oil rate (qo) versus production time (t)
Oil rate (qo) versus cumulative oil production (Np)
Fractional flow of oil (fo) versus cumulative oil produc-
tion (Np)
Logarithm of fractional flow of water (fw) versus cumu-
lative oil production (Np)
Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/fw) versus cumu-
lative oil production (Np)
Reciprocal of oil production rate (1/qo) versus oil material
balance time (to)
Qualitative Analysis of Oil and Water Production Data
In addition to the estimation of recoverable oil, we also can
also perform a "qualitative" analysis of the water and oil pro-
duction data. These techniques provide a visual analysis of
the data and may provide a qualitative assessment of the per-
formance. While our focus is on the qualitative analysis of
data, some of these techniques may also provide a quantitative
estimate of recoverable oil.
In particular, we considered the following analysis techniques:
Logarithm of cumulative fractional flow of water (fwc)
versus the cumulative oil production (Np)
SPE 77569
Logarithm of cumulative water-oil ratio (WORc) versus
the cumulative oil produc-tion (Np)
Reciprocal of the water rate (1/qw) versus water material
balance time (tw)
Logarithm of the water-oil ratio (WOR) versus total
production (Np+Wp)
Logarithm of the fractional flow of oil (fo) versus
logarithm of total material ba-lance time (t)
Logarithm of the oil production rate (qo) versus logarithm
of oil material balance time (to)
Cumulative oil production versus X-function (refs. 5-6)
Conclusions
The following conclusions are derived from this study:
Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
1. The proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model is a
combination of the analytical solutions for single-phase
oil and water flow at pseudosteady-state conditions, and
the only significant assumption that arises in this
relation is that of a constant (non-unity) mobility ratio.
While this may seem a limiting assumption, we
successfully matched all of the production data cases
considered in this work using this new model.
2. The proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model clearly
provides the best representation for the oil and water
production data cases that we investigated.
3. The major limitation to our new model is that it does
not provide a mechanism for the prediction of future
production — this new model is expressed in terms of
oil and water production rates and cumulative pro-
duction, and it is not possible to write a predictive
formula (or even an extrapolation formula) using this
relation.
Estimation of Recoverable Oil
1. In this work we provide a compilation of the "conven-
tional" straight-line extrapolation methods used in the
industry for the estimation of recoverable oil. The
techniques considered are:
—log(qo) versus t
— qo versus Np
— log(fw) versus Np
—log(fo) versus Np
These techniques should be applied simultaneously in
order to obtain consistent estimates of the recoverable
oil. Application of only one or two techniques will
likely lead to substantial misinterpretations of the cor-
rect model behavior, which, in turn, will lead to over-
or underestimation of recoverable reserves.
2. We proposed two new methods for estimating recover-
able oil reserves. These techniques are:
—1/fw versus Np
— 1/qo versus Np/qo
A plot of 1/fw versus Np should yield a straight-line
trend that can be extrapolated to 1/fw=1, which yields
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 9

the recoverable reserves, Np,max. Similarly, a plot of Nomenclature

1/qo versus Np/qo should yield a straight-line trend a = intercept of log(kro/krw) versus Sw plot, fraction
where the slope of this trend is equal to 1/Np,max. The A = reservoir drainage area, ft2 [m2]
results obtained by these new methods correspond quite ac = intercept of conventional log(WOR) versus Np
well to the results obtained by the "conventional" WOR plot, fraction
techniques (i.e., the straight-line extrapolation methods aer = intercept of Ershaghi4,5 Np versus X-function plot,
discussed in the previous point). STB [std m3]
Analysis of Oil and Water Production Data B = formation volume factor, RB/STB [res m3/std m3]
b = slope of of log(kro/krw) versus Sw plot, 1/STB
1. We have found that plotting the cumulative water-oil [1/std m3]
ratio (WORc) function and/or the cumulative fractional bc = slope of conventional log(WOR) versus Np plot,
flow of water (fwc) functions versus the cumu-lative oil 1/STB [1/std m3]
production (Np) does typically yield a straight-line trend ber = slope of Ershaghi4,5 Np versus X-function plot,
(in most cases we considered). However, the STB [std m3]
extrapolation of the observed straight-line trend does Bµ 4A
not yield a consistent estimate of recoverable re-serves bpss = 70.6 ln , intercept of ∆p/q versus t
(when compared to other techniques). This behavior kh eγ C A rw2
presents an opportunity for future work. plot for general variable-rate case, psi/STB/D
2. We have extended the diagnostic plots proposed by
[kPa/std m3/d]
Chan2 (i.e., the WOR and WOR derivative, integral, and CA = reservoir shape factor, dimensionless
integral-derivative functions plotted versus production ct = total system compressibility, psia-1 [kPa-1]
time, oil material balance time, and total material ba- Di = decline oil rate, STB/D [std m3/d]
lance time). The following observations are noted: Er = Np/N, overall reservoir recovery, fraction
fo = fractional flow of oil, fraction
—The WOR and WOR integral, and integral-deriva- foc = cumulative fractional flow of oil, fraction
tive functions typically exhibit a clearly defined fw = fractional flow of water, fraction
unit slope trend when plotted versus time or mater- fwc = cumulative fractional flow of water, fraction
ial balance time. h = total formation thickness, ft [m]
— The WOR derivative function is typically very k = effective formation permeability, md
erratic, and can not be used for routine analysis due kr = relative formation permeability, md
to poor overall behavior. B
mpss = 0.2339 , slope of ∆p/q versus t plot for
Log-log plots of the WOR functions versus t (or to) φhct A
tend to be reasonably well behaved — with the noted general variable-rate case, psi/STB/D/hr [kPa/std
exception of the WOR-derivative function, which is m3/d/hr]
typically very erratic. It is our strong recommendation Np = cumulative oil production, STB [std m3]
that these plots only be used for diagnostic purposes Np,max = recoverable oil, STB [std m3]
— although we would encourage a future study focus- OOIP = original oil-in-place, STB [std m3]
ing on a "type curve" analysis approach for WOR data. ∆p = pi- pwf, pressure drop, psi [kPa]
3. We believe that the X-plot method (refs. 4-5) provides p = pressure, psia [kPa]
no substantive advantage over the "conventional" ex- pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia [kPa]
trapolation techniques discussed previously. In fact, pss = pseudosteady-state
the X-function plot typically does not develop a clear pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia [kPa]
straight-line trend. q = production flowrate, STB/D [std m3/d]
qi = initial production flowrate, STB/D [std m3/d]
Of most concern is the observation that the estimates of
recoverable oil obtained using the X-plot do not typi- re = reservoir drainage radius, ft [m]
cally correspond to the estimates obtained by the con- rw = wellbore radius, ft [m]
Sw = water saturation, fraction
ventional and proposed extrapolation techniques.
Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
Finally, the extrapolation of X-function tends to signifi-
Swirr = irreducible water saturation, fraction
cantly overestimate the value of recoverable oil.
t = time, days
tm = material balance time, days
to = Np/qo, oil material balance time, days
tt = (Np+Wp)/(qo+qw), total material balance time, days
tw = Wp/qw, water material balance time, days
Wi = cumulative water injection, STB [std m3]
WOR = water-to-oil ratio, fraction
WORc = Wp/Np, cumulative WOR function, fraction
10 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

d
WORd = x (WOR) ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction
dx
1 x
WORi =
x 0 ∫WOR dx ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction

d
WORid = x (WORi ) ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction
dx
Wp = cumulative water production, STB [std m3]
 1  1
X = ln − 1 − , Ershaghi4,5 X-function
 w 
f f w
Greek:
γ = 0.577216, Euler’s constant
φ = reservoir porosity, fraction
µ = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa*s] Figure 1 – Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, NRU Well 3106.
Subscripts:
i = initial
o = oil
w = water
t = total
References
1. Robert S. Thompson, John D. Wright: Oil Property Eval-
uation, Thomson-Wright Associates, Golden, CO, 1985.
2. Chan, K.S.: "Water Control Diagnostic Plots," paper SPE
30775 presented at the 1995 Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 22-25 October..
3. Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J.: "Variable-Rate Reser-
voir Limits Testing," paper SPE 15028 presented at the
SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Figure 2 – Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus
Midland, TX, 13-14 March 1986. Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106.
4. Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: "A Method for Extrapola-
tion of Cut vs. Recovery curves," JPT (February 1978)
203-204.
5. Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.: "A Prediction Technique
for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data,"
JPT (April 1984) 664-670.
6. Startzman, R.A and Wu, C.H: "Discussion of Empirical
Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes," JPT
(December 1984) 2192-2194.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the in-kind contibu-
tions of Fina Oil and Chemical Co. (now TotalFinaElf) and
Unocal (now Spirit Energy) for the field data used in this
work. Figure 3 – Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, NRU Well 3106.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 11

Figure 6 – Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil

Production, WWL Well B41.

Figure 4 – Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production,

NRU Well 3106.

Figure 7 – Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus

Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41.

Figure 5 – Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance

(Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured
WOR Performance, NRU Well 3106.
Figure 8 – Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, WWL Well B41.
12 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

Figure 11– Oil and Water Production Rate History, NRU Well
3106.

Figure 9 – Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production,

WWL Well B41.

Figure 12– Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well
B41.

Figure 10– Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance Figure 13– Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Produc-
(Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured tion, NRU Well 3106.
WOR Performance, WWL Well B41.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 13

Figure 14– Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Produc- Figure 17– Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil
tion, WWL Well B41. Production, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 18– Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil

Production, WWL Well B41.

Figure 15– Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production,

NRU Well 3106.

Figure 19– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Pro-

duction, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 16– Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production,

WWL Well B41.
14 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

Figure 20– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Pro- Figure 23– Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance
duction, WWL Well B41. Time, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 21– Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus

Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. Figure 24– Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance
Time, WWL Well B41.

Figure 22– Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus

Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41.

Figure 25– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-

sus Production Time, NRU Well 3106.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 15

Figure 26– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver- Figure 28– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-
sus Production Time, NRU Well 3106. sus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 27– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-

sus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106. Figure 29– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-
sus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106.
16 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

Figure 32– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-

Figure 30– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-
sus Production Time, WWL Well B41.
sus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 31– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver- Figure 33– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-
sus Production Time, WWL Well B41. sus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 17

Figure 34– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver- Figure 36– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-
sus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41. sus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41.

Figure 35– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-

sus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41. Figure 37– Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 38– Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumu-

lative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106.
18 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569

Figure 39– Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Figure 42– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance
Production, WWL Well B41. Time, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 40– Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumu-

lative Oil Production, WWL Well B41.

Figure 43– Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well

B41.

Figure 41– Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, NRU Well

3106.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 19

Figure 47– X - Plot, WWL Well A17 (example failure of the X-

Plot Method).

Figure 44– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance

Time, WWL Well B41.

Figure 45– X-Plot, NRU Well 3106.

Figure 46– X-Plot, WWL Well B41.