Aids to Forecasting the Perfomnce of Water Floods

::?:D"f,.

A.
LEIGHTON
JUNIOR MEMBERS AlME

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a computer method to obtain the
shape factors and equal cell volumes of the channels for
any well spacing pattern from a potentiometric model.
By using this program the authors have processed the
data for the seven-spot, direct line-drive and the staggered
line-drive patterns. The data for the fiw-spot pattern had
been previously processed by a noncomputer method and
are included for completeness. The shape factors and
volumes for the channels are presented in tables for those
who want to use them to process data using their own
permeability relationships and viscosities of their reservoir
oils. The authors have used the data and sets of representative permeability curves to process sample calculationr of waterflood performances. The comparison of the
calculated resutts shows that the influence of well spacing
is small.
The permeabilities of the reservoir rock to oil and water
had a greater influence on oil recovery for a given porevolume throughput of water than the well spacing pattern. The more water-wet the reservoir rock, the better
the possibility of permeabilities which are conducive to
good recovery.
The viscosity of the reservoir oil also influences the recovery more than the well spacing pattern. The reduction
in the percentage recovery of oil with increase in viscosity
of the reservoir oils is small when oil viscosities are in the
range of 0.1 to 3. Above this range the reductions in recoveries are extensive. Sample comparisons of the time
required for different patterns to recover the oil are presented. Results of an example calculation are given to
show the effect of the permeability profile on recovery.
INTRODUCTION
The effect of well spacing pattern on the recovery of
oil when flooding with either gas or water has been studied
by many investigators. Muskat et al.' presented an analysis
using conductivity, sweep efficiency and unit mobility
to the time of breakthrough. Dyes et al.' used experimental techniques (X-ray shadowgraphs) and different
mobility ratios. They presented quantitatively the relationship between mobility and sweep efficiency at and after
breakthrough. Hauber" presented a method to predict
waterflood performance for arbitrary well spacing patterns
and mobility ratios. Craig et al.,' using techniques similar
to Dyes et al. to determine sweep efficiency for a fivespot pattern, added the use of relative permeability curves
at breakthrough and thereafter. Douglas et a l . h s e d rela-

OrlpinJ mauumript received in Scciety of Petroleum Engineers office

1964 Revised manuscript recetped July 8. .1964. Paper
p-ted
'at S i i Biennial Secondary Reanrexy Sympos~umof SPE.
4 6. 1064. in Wichita Fd8. Teoc.
erences given at end of paper.

bkmh 80

%-

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

U S. BUREAU OF MINES
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

tive permeabilities and continuously changing saturations

throughout the entire five-spot flood pattern. In obtaining
their solutions they used finite-difierence equations. Higgins and Leighton".' also used relative permeabilities and
continuously changing saturations throughout the pattern
before and after breakthrough. They employed techniques
that process a flood-pattern calculation on the computer
in about one minute. The methods of Douglas et al. and
Higgins and Leighton both checked closely the laboratory
results for a wide range of mobility ratios.
This paper presents some sample performances calculated by the Higgins and Leighton method that show the
effect on recovery of different permeabilities and viscosities
the seven-spot, the line-drive and the staggered
lin
ive, as well as the fivespot flood pattern. No previous paper has presented these data using different permeability curves and continuously changing saturations
throughout the flood patterns. The paper also presents
(1) the results and analyses of the flood-pattern prediction, (2) the computer techniques for determining the
shape factors and volumes from the potentiometric models
for the foregoing flood patterns, and (3) the shape factors
and volumes of the channels of the flood pattern in the
event reservoir engineers may like to process waterflood
calculations using their own permeability curves and reservoir oils.

"3

DESCRIPTION OF METHOD
VOLUM,ES AND SHAPE FACTORS

The use of channels taken from a potentiometric model

(see Fig. 1) to aid in calculating the performances of
water floods of nonlinear patterns has been thoroughly
explained in the literature.".' Therefore, very little theory,
discussion, or proof regarding this phase will be repeated
in this paper.
The computer method presented in this paper to calculate the volumes and the shape factors of the c h a ~ e l s
of potentiometric models employs the trapezoidal rule for
the volumes and the Pythagorean theorem (the hypotenuse
equals the square root of the sum of the squares of the
two sides of a right triangle) for the shape factors.
In calculating the volume of a channel, the area of each
cell in the channel is determined and then multiplied by
the thickness to obtain the volume. In determining the
areas of the cells, trapezoids are constructed whose vertical sides are spaced Ax apart, as shown in Fig. 2. The
length of the sides is the difference between an ordinate
cut off by the top and bottom of the cell - usually equipotentials. The coordinates of the points along an equipotential or streamline are obtained by Lagrange'skuation
of interpolation for which the constants are coordinate
points at the intersections. Three intersections for con-

stants are used in the Lagrange equation. The program

has been written so that the required intersections, as the
computation progresses, are obtained by the program selecting them by use of subscripts.
An illustrated example of the division of a cell into
small trapezoids is shown in Fig. 2. For programming
convenience, a cell is divided into a left, middle and right
area, as shown by the heavy lines. By so doing, the intersections are easy reference points from which to determine the size of Ax and to calculate the y's by use of the
Lagrange equation for the abscissa points along the equipotentials and streamlines to determine the length of
the y's.
The shape factor for each cell is obtained first by calculating the length of the sides and averaging, and the
same for the length of the top and bottom of the cell.
Then the mean length of the two sides divided by the
mean length of the top and bottom is the shape factor,
as the thickness of the channel is unity. In equation form:

For extremely irregular cells, Henleybbtained the shape

factor by using inscribed circles. This added feature was
not used in this paper.
T o obtain the lengths of the cell boundaries by the
computer using Pythagorean theorem, a length of a
boundary of a cell was divided into a number of small
divisions and the Lagrange equation "looked up" the
y ordinates of the division point for each x which is an
accumulatro~of the Ax's. Using these coordinate points,
the length of the arc, which is the length of the cell
boundary, was obtained by the equation
n

Length = C d (x.,, - x,)'

n=l

+ b,+,- Y.T

which is equivalent to adding a number of small hypotenuses to obtain the length of a curve line. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The cumulative sums of volumes of the cells were in-

Equipotentiol

dexed by the computer and. in the same manner, the cuniulative sums of the shape factors. Using these cumulative~,the Lagrange equation was used to calculate the
shape factors for cells of equal volume. For the examples
presented in this paper, the total volume of a channel was
divided by 40, resulting in 40 cells of equal volume.
The execution of the program (see flow diagram, Fig.
13) on a high-speed digital computer for a well spacing
pattern, including the listing on the magnetic tape of 40
shape factors for each channel and the volumes of channels, took half a minute.
The program was tested on the areas of several sectors
of annuli (the approximate shape of a cell) and on the
length of the chords of a circle. The results, using about
10 divisions per section with three (left, middle and right)
sections to a cell, duplicated the areas and lengths obtained by analytical equations to four significant figures.
FLOOD PREDICTIONS
The waterflood predictions were made by the method
presented by Higgins and Leighton.".' The method assumes no crossflow between channels. The oil and water
saturations change throughout the entire pattern as the
water flood progresses, as required by the relative permeabilities and fluid mechanics relating thereto. That is,
wherever there is a pressure gradient there is flow, and
these gradients exist throughout the entire pattern as
shown by the potentiometric pattern. The method checks
the performances of a laboratory five-spot pattern using
oils of different viscosities.
The two-phase (water and oil) method instead of the
three-phase'' (oil, gas and water) method was used in
this report to make the forecast predictions. If the threephase method had been used, a series of different original
gas saturations would normally be included. Even then,
with the same starting gas saturations, the results would
be of the same relative order of magnitude as that for
just water and oil.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

SHAPE FACTORS AND VOLUMES
The shape factors and channel volumes for the direct
line-drive, five-spot, seven-spot and staggered linedrive
are shown in Tables 1 and la. Except for the five-spot
pattern, these results were obtained employing the potentiometric models contained in Muskat's book," by use
of the computer program described in the paper. If any
petroleum engineer has access to a computer and would
like to use permeability relationships and the oil and water
viscosity ratio applicable to his particular reservoir, the
shape factors and volumes are available in Tables 1
and la.

I~nes

FIG. 2-CELL BOUNDED

BY STREAMLINES
AND ISOPOTENT~AL
LINES
WITH ADDITIONS
TO ILLUSTRATE
COMPUTER
SOLUTION
SCHEMATICAI.LY.
SEPTEMDER, 1964

PATTERN FLOOL)S

The recovery efficiencies of the food patterns are

shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. In order of recovery efficiency
they are the staggered line-drive: seven-spot, five-spot and
direct line-drive, the same order calculated by Muskat
et al.' In the potentiometric model for the staggered linedrive, the distance between the line of input and output
wells was 1.5 times that of the distance between wells on
TABLE I-SHAPE

a line. This ratio is 1.5, whereas for the direct line-drive

(square pattern) the ratio is 1.0. The normal expectancy
is for the direct line-drive to be considerably less efficient
than the other patterns, but the use of continuously
changing saturations and the effect of pressure gradient
throughout the entire pattern showed little difference. The
permanent effect of cusping at the well and retention in
corners must be of relatively small order as a function of

FACTORS AND CHANNEL VOLUMES FOR DIRECT LINE-DRIVE AND FIVE-S.POT PATTERNS

Direct Line-Drive Channel Number

Cell
No.
-

Volume

1
-

71 8

2
-

883

TABLE lo-SHAPE

611
No.

3
-

585

4
-

508

Five-Spot Channel Number

462

1
-

706

2
-

3
-

4
-

782

91 8

750

FACTORS AND CHANNEL VOLUMES FOR STAGGERED LINE-DRIVE AND SEVEN-SPOT PATTERNS
Staggered Line-Drive Channel Number

Seven-Spot Channel Number

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Valame

JOURNAL O F PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

1078

either p t t e r n or viscosity. because as the viscosity increases and the recovery decreases, the difference in recoveries between patterns differs little from that of linear
flow. However, the recovery vs time is widely different,
especially for a linear model. Linear flow was calculated
using the same shape factor for all cells.
The data in Figs. 3. 4 and 5 pertain to oils having a
viscosity of 5 , 20 and 40 cp, respectively. The data show
that the viscosity of the reservoir oil influences recover)
far more than well spacing patterns, as the differences in
recovery when the 3.0 displaceable volumes of water have
been injected is much greater due to the differences in
viscosities than to the well spacing patterns.
The data in Fig. 3 show what Dyes et al.' have mentioned as a result of their work; that is, if the viscosity is

5 cp or less, the recoveries are high enough that, if one

is so interested, other factors may be neglected.
The data in Fig. 6 show that the differences in relative
permeabilities, when the viscosity is the same, influence
recovery much more than the well spacing pattern. The
relative permeabilities as shown by the dashed curve in
Fig. 6 are for reservoir rock which is more water-wet than
that shown by the solid curve.
The data in Fig. 7 show that an unfavorable permeability profile in a reservoir can be a dominating factor on
recovery. The permeability variation of the layers is 0.5
by the scale of Standing et al."
VOLUME INJECTED AND TIME
The time required to inject a given volume of water

LINEAR

1.0
2 .O
3.0
OISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER

4.0
INJECTED ,Id

50

1.0
2.0
30
4.0
DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER INJECTED ,Id

5.0

FIG.3-OIL RECOVERY
vs CUMULATIVE
INJECTION
USING
5-CP011.
A N D DIFFERENT
W-ELLSPACING
PATTERNS
(SINGLE
LAYER,
k,,m/k,,,m = 0.2/0.1).

LINEAR

I
I

O 0

1.0
2.0
3.0
DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER

4.0
INJECTED ,Id

5.0
DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER

INJECTED ,Id

SEPTEMBER, 1964

is a function of the radius of the well, the distance between wdls, the well pattern, effective permeabilities, and
the viscosity of the oil and water. When planning the distance between wells, normally a uniform radius is used
for all wells.
For a simple comparison of the effect of well patterns
on the time to inject a given volume of water, equal areas
of the elements of a pattern were used, the distance between wells was a function of the equal area requirement,
and the diameter of the well, effective permeabilities, the
viscosity of the oil and water, and the input and output
pressures were held constant. With these restraints, only
the effect of pattern elements on time is compared.
The data in Figs. 8 and 9 show that the order in increasing time required to inject pore volumes of water is
the direct line-drive, the staggered line-drive, the five-spot
and, finally, the seven-spot. In Figs. 8 and 9, the viscosity
of the oil is 5 and 20 cp, respectively.
Fig. 10 shows the relationship of equal elements in a
pattern to the rest of the area that will be flooded. An
examination of the pattern configurations in the figure
shows that, while the element under consideration is being
flooded, mirror-image elements and elements on the other

r
2

--

SINGLE LAYER
/

side of the input well also will be flooded during the

same time. Fig. 10 shows that four elements would be
flooded from one well in the direct and staggered linedrive patterns, eight in the five-spot and six in the sevenspot. Using the times shown in Fig. 9, when one displaceable volume has been flooded, for example. the time in
years per element per input well for the respective patterns would be

According to this way of comparing the time, the lowest

time is for the five-spot and, in increasing order, the
direct line-drive, the staggered line-drive and the sevenspot. The latter comparison is not rigorous because the
injection rate is not constant; nevertheless, the comparison shows the relative order of magnitudes.
In an array of wells of either the line-drive or the
staggered line-drive, there is one input well and one output
well. In the five-spot there are one output and four onequarter input wells or equivalent to one input or a net
of two wells-one input and one output. In the sevenspot there are 6 / 3 , or two input wells, and one output
well. In the foregoing paragraph the quotients for the time
per element per input well would be the same per pattern except for the seven-spot, which would be reduced
by a divisor of two, as there are two input wells in a
seven-spot pattern.

1.0
20
3.0
DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER

4.0

5.0

INJECTED ,Id

r
/

--

"

PRCWCTION WELLS

/
'\

/
I

2
TIME, yrom

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

'NIECIIOH WELLS

r----, .

, ,

TABLE 2-HYPOTHETICAL

EXAMPLE OF SPACING OF A 576-ACRE FIELD USING EQUAL WELL AND PATTERN DENSITIES, AND ASSUMING TIME TO FLOOD A N
ELEMENT IS I N RATIO OF AREA OF ELEMENT TO THAT OF THE MODEL

(11

Paltern

I21

No.
Wells

Acre

131
Acres/Wel I .
Col 1 +
Col 2

141

Wells/
Pattern

(5)

(6)

No. Patterns
Cal 2 +
Col 4

(71

Acres/Pallern
CaI 1 +
Col 5

(8)

Elements
per
Pattern

Acres/
Element
Col 6 i
Col 7
-

(91
Time/
6-acre
Element,
(trom
Fig. 8 )

(101
Time
According
to S ~ c i n g
lCol 9 X
Col 8 ) i 6 . 0

Equal Well Density

Line-drive
Staggered
line.drive
Five-spot
Seven-spot
Line-drive
Staggered
line-drive
Five-spot
Seven-spot

576

48

12

576
576
576

48
48
48

12
12
12

2
2
3

576

48

12

24
24
24
16
Equal Pattern Density
24

1 .A5

1.85

4
8
12

6
3
3

2.00
3.33
4.54

2.00
1.67
2.27

24

1.85

1.85

576
576
576

The total number of wells (input and output) in a field

is also a factor in selecting the spacing pattern. Accordingly, the detaiis for a hypothetical example are shown
in Table 2. In calculating the times shown in Lines 3, 4,
7 and 8 in the last column of Table 2, it was assumed
that the time to flood an element smaller than that of a
model is in the ratio of the area of the element to that
of the model; therefore, the times are indicative only.
The final choice would depend upon the well diameters,
degree of fracturing, if any, capital costs and interest
charges. Then the number of wells and pattern can be
calculated to maximize the return of the money invested.
CONDUCTIVITY COMPARISONS
The information presented in the previous section is
the result of analysis of oil recovery and pore volumes
injected vs time. References in the literature have been
cited to show that recovery calculations agree with laboratory and field results. Laboratory data for rate and
recovery, outside of that of Henley,hre meager and indirect. Henley's laboratory system was a single injection
well with three offset producers in a fluid-flow model. This
is more complicated than a five-spot. Substantial agreement for most cases was obtained both as to recovery, as
a function of cumulative injection and time rate of recovery, between the calculated results by the Higgins and
Leighton method and the laboratory performances. Maximum discrepancy between experimental and calculated
recovery was about 0.08 PV for one oil viscosity (32 cp).
However, there are unresolved factors, including possible
experimental errors, that further research may resolve.
Caudle et al.I3 present a graph showing the relationship
between a ratio of conductances and water cut determined
12

24
24
24
36

- FLUID FLOW
-

MODELS by CAUDLE el

from laboratory flow data after breakthrough. This graph

has a time element inherent in it. The same parameters
of conductance ratio vs water cut, determined using the
Higgins-Leighton method, show substantial agreement with
Caudle et al. See Fig. 1 1 .
Aronofsky and Ramey" show conductance ratio vs nose
advance of a flood front before breakthrough. Their data
were obtained using an electrolytic model of a five-spot
pattern. Their data and corresponding data obtained using
the Higgins-Leighton method are presented in Fig. 12.
The agreement is good near the start of the flood and
differs considerably as the flood front approaches the
producina well. In a personal letter Ramey mentioned
ihat agreement might be poor at breakthrough. The use
of Aronofsky and Ramey's electrolytic model for a mobility of 10 resulted in a much higher conductance at breakthrough than did fluid-flow experiments of Caudle et al.
Accordingly, the performance of Higgins and Leighton
curves shown in Figs. 1 1 and 12 are of the right order.
CONCLUSION
A computer method to obtain the shape factors and
volumes of channels from a potentiometric model for
any well spacing pattern is presented. The modern computer makes it possible to examine the factors influencing
the recovery of oil from water floods more thoroughly
than heretofore.
The results presented in the paper show that the most
favorable factors for a successful flood, in order of importance, would be (1) a good oil saturation, (2) a favorable permeability profile, (3) a low o'il viscosity, (4)
favorable relative permeability curves as those associated
with reservoir rocks that are preferentially water-wet and
(5) the well spacing pattern. The number, the diameter

01

CALCULATED, HIGGINS - LEIGHTON METHOD

A .O

20

WATER CUT, I.

FIG.11-CONDIICTANCERATIO VS WATERCUT FROM FLUIDFLOW

MODELSOF CAUDLEAND WITTEA N D FROM CALCULATIONS
USING
HIGGINS-LEIGHTON
METHOD.
1081

4 0

60

30

100

NOSE I O V I N C E , 0slr.nl

FIG. 12-CONDUCTANCERATIO VS NOSEADVANCE

FROM ELECTROMODEL O F ARONOFSKY
A N D RAMEYA N D FROM CALCULATIONS USINGHIGGINS-LEIGHTON
METHOD.

LYTIC

SEPTEMBER, 1 9 6 4