See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345764325

Water Flooding Design for a Libyan Oil Field: Amal field -"Case Study"

Preprint · November 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14518.11843

CITATIONS READS
0 453

3 authors:

Alfitouri Ibrahim Jellah Osama Mahmood Alabedi

Bani Waleed University, Libya university of Bani Walid
24 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mabrouk Al-Ghnai Anweer

college of engineering bani-walid university
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

OER Project in Libya View project

History Matching for Libyan Reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alfitouri Ibrahim Jellah on 12 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Water Flooding Dsign for a Libyan Oil Field:
Amal field - “Case Study”

Alfitouri Ibrahim Jellah, Osama Mahmood Alabedi, Mabrouk Al-Ghnai Anweer

Oil & Gas Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering/Bani Waleed University
Bani Waleed/Libya
E-mail: alfitouri.jellah@bwu.edu.ly

Abstract
1- NTRODUCTION
Water flooding is a proven oil recovery process. The
prediction of field water flooding performance involves The aim of this work is provide water flooding
many factors necessary to have reliable information on design for Amal field in order to restore its
the displacement efficiency, the areal coverage and the production rate as well as reservoir pressure to
vertical sweep efficiency. Each of these requires carful initial values.
sampling to get represented reservoir rock and fluid
properties measurements of reservoir heterogeneity.
For this, Excel & Water Drive softwares are used
benefiting from Dykstra Parson’s coefficient in
Amal field is being produced since 1965 with a good oil both of them in estimating reservoir permeability
flow rate reach 108,000 BOPD but during the life of the
variation and Calculating oil in place at start of
field, the production decreased to 18,000 BOPD in
water flooding and also Modified and Simplified
2014. Therefore, this study was conducted to increase
oil production by adding some energy to the reservoir Dykstra method to calculate oil recovery after
to increase average reservoir pressure and try to water flooding process.
maintain it to initial pressure and to increase
displacement, sweep efficiency.  PROBLEM STATEMENT
In this study, water flooding design was implemented
This study is to check the applicability of water
on sector model in the B-area in Amal field using five
flooding process for Amal Libyan field “Secondary
spots pattern. The study performed by using two
softwares “Excel & Water Drive”. Dykstra Parson’s
stage” in order to enhance oil production and oil
method was used to achieve a good water flooding recovery by injecting water as flooding to improve
design. When comparing the results obtained from two displacement and volumetric efficiency for Amal
calculation methods the minimum error was 0.03 field.
percent and maximum error was around 27 percent,
Amal field production history introduces a decline
average error was 5 percent. So, the results were
in production rate “See figure 1”.
acceptable and the process recommended for the B-
block.

Keywords: Water flooding; performance;

displacement; pressure; sweep effecincy; Dykstra
Parson.

Figure 1. Shows Oil Production Rate For Amal Field
It can be seen that the oil flow rate decreases with
time from 108,000 BOPD to 18,000 BOPD. The
decreasing in oil flow rate was due to decrease in
reservoir pressure “Loss primary energy” and the
decrease in displacement efficiency of Amal field
“B-Area”. So, the study was conducted to solve
this problem and to enhance reservoir
displacement efficiency.
 STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study was conducted on Amal oil field “B
Area” in order to achieve the following objectives:
1. Determine reservoir heterogeneity for
Amal B area by using Dykestra parson
method to calculate permeability
variation.
2. Perform a water flooding design for the
field in order to increase oil recovery.
3. Predict oil and water flow rate for the field
after water flooding.
4. Compare the results obtained from Excel
by results obtained from Water drive
Software.
2- RESERVOIR BACKGROUND
Reservoir Description
Amal field was discovered in 1959 by the well B1-
12. It is located along the eastern flank of the Sirte
Basin in Concession 12. Amal field covers an area
of 151,000 acres. The area is subdivided reservoir
wise in three main reservoirs: B, N & E based on
the oil PVT properties and pressure/production
performance. These three reservoirs share a
common aquifer and have an original field average
oil/water contact at 10250' SS. Amal field
development to date includes 166 wells six of
which drilled as appraisal wells were abandoned.
The wells in "B" and "N" reservoirs were drilled at
2.0 Km spacing initially and later on infill wells
were drilled to reduce the spacing to 1.4 Km, and
in some portions of "E" reservoir the wells are still
in excess of 4.0 KM spacing [8].
Amal "B" reservoir is located in the southern area
of Amal field. It is constituted by two main
producing formations: Maragh and Amal. Maragh
formation is divided into two basic units A and B,
while Amal formation is sub-divided in five basic
units denominated in ascending order from Amal
unit-I for the oldest one through Amal unit-V for
the more recent one.
Each of these formation units have been
subdivided in up to five sub-units (labeled by
suffixes A, B and E from bottom to top) to
identify where within the units the best
development of reservoir quality sandstone occurs.
Amal reservoir is unconformably overlain in
several places by carbonate members of basal
Rakb formation.
In significant portions of the "B" reservoir, the
Maragh formation, with its friable conglomeratic
sandstone, unconformably overlays Amal
formation. Maragh in B Area consists of sandstone
members of hard rock type exhibiting a wide
variation in reservoir rock characteristics and
production potential. Some Amal units consist of
tight matrix rock with varying fractured system.
Also, some units of Amal formation are tight and
may not contribute to production.
Amal PVT Data
Table 1. Amal field PVT data for B-Area
Property Value Unit
Initial Reservoir Pressure 4690 Psi
Bubble Point Pressure 1860 Psi
Datum Depth 9900 Ft
Reservoir Temperature 225 Fo
Oil Properties
Properties Value Unit
Oil Gravity 37.47 API
Gas Oil Ratio 396 SCF/STB
Initial FVF 1.297 Rbl/STB
Oil FVF @ Pb 1.258 Rbl/STB Figure 3. W.C & GOR produced for B-Field
Oil Compressibility 1.06E-05 Psi-1 3- DATA & METHODOLOGY
Oil Density @ Pb 44.262 Ib/Ft3
Initial Oil density 45.618 Ib/Ft3 Methodology:
Oil Viscosity 1.087 Cp The following procedure will be followed:
Water Properties
Property Value Unit 1. Collect the reservoir production history B-
Salinity 215000 PPM field.
Viscosity 0.463 Cp 2. Collect required data to design water flooding.
Compressibility 2.218E-06 Psi-1
Formation Volume 1.037 Rbl/STB 3. Using Dykstra Parson Coefficient to estimate
Factor reservoir permeability variation.
Density 69.89 Ib/Ft3
4. Calculate oil in place at start of water flooding.
Production History
5. Construct fractional flow curve for B-field
Amal field “B” was produced from 1966 by well
using relative permeability curve.
B-1 that completed and putted in production since
1966. The wells in Amal field was produced using 6. Calculate break through parameter “Np, time,
artificial lift system “gas lift and ESP pump”. The Sw …etc”.
average oil rate from B-field in 1966 was around 7. Use Modified and Simplified Dykstra method
5,200 BOPD with 0% water cut. The maximum oil to calculate oil recovery after water flooding
rate was 108,000 BOPD with 25% W.C. The last process.
recorded oil rate around 16,000 BOPD with 34%
W.C. the following figure shows Amal field 8. Calculate oil and water flow rate at each time
history production. during flooding period.
9. Compare the results from two method and
calculate the error.
Required Data

The main data required to achieve the objectives of

this study was listed below:
Oil & Water Fluid Properties

The oil properties were identified in table 1 above.

Figure 2. Amal field "B" History Production.
Reservoir Rock Properties
The rock properties were divided to: 1) Average
Porosity of the formation this taken from routine
core analysis is equal 12 percent. 2) Average
Permeability of the formation is equal 16 md. 3)
Thickness of the formation was equal 62 ft. 4)
Relative Permeability data for water and oil taken
from special core analysis. The following table
introduce the oil and water relative permeability
for B-Field.
Figure 4. Oil and Water relative permeability for B-Field.
From the previous figure the initial water
saturation of this area equal 36.1 percent, the oil
relative at initial water saturation equal 1 and the
end point of water equal 0.415.
4- CALCULATIONS & RESULTS
Oil In Place at The Beginning of The Process
The oil in place was calculated using volumetric
equation that described below:
……...........…(1)
Where:
A= Area this equal 20 acer from selected sector
using scale around 20.1 acer for each 1cm2.
L= Distance from production and injection this
equal 500 Ft using the pattern area 20 acer to
calculate it use the following expressions
.
So= oil saturation at start of flooding equal 56.1%.
Bo= oil formation volume factor equal 1.272
Rb/STB.
Ns= oil initial at start equal 4.12 MMSTB.
Distance Between Injection & Production Wells
The distance was equal two-time radius of the
well. The pattern area equal 20 acer divided by 4.
So, the drainage area for each well equal 5 acer so
by apply the equation the radius will equal 246 ft.
L=2*260 =500 ft.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
The reservoir heterogeneity was calculated using
Dykstra Parson Coefficient as known Permeability
variation. The main data required was routine core
analysis “Permeability and thickness”.
The following was procedure to calculate
Variations.
1- Divide permeability samples so that all samples
represent layers of equal thickness. Arrange the
permeability data in the order of decreasing value.
2- Calculate for each sample the percent of
samples which have a greater permeability and
express this number as percent greater than.
3- Plot the data from previous step on log
probability paper. Plot K on the log scale and
percent greater than on the probability scale.
4- From the best straight-line fit of the data,
determine k at 84.1% probability and 50%
probability.
5- Compute the permeability variation, V, as
……..............…(2)
 The sector model of the flooding process was
taken around well 105 as injection wells and the
other wells in the corner was production wells.
From the last figure the five spot is considered the
best pattern for the B-Field in this study. In
general, the five spots considered the popular
pattern in the oil industry that encourage us to use
five spots as the study pattern.
Fractional Flow Constructions

Using relative permeability curve from chapter

Figure 5. Permeability Variation Chart.
three and the equation bellow to perform fractional
The variation of the reservoir formation was equal: flow curve and the derivative curve “dfw/dsw”.
The following table introduce the results.
• Divide relative permeability of oil to relative
Water Injection Rate permeability of water.
• Plot the relative permeability ratio and water
Water injection rate was estimated from injectivity
saturation in semi-log plot.
test. From the company record the best injection
flow rate for Amal field to reduce damage problem • Determine the correlation from the graph figure 7
was equal 1000 BPD.
• Determine Fw at each Sw point using the
Flooding Pattern previous correlation to describe relative
permeability ratio in the equation.
In water flooding design there are a lot of flooding
• Derive the following equation to perform
pattern “see chapter one”. The flooding pattern
fractional flow derivative.
was the one important key in water flooding
design and used to enhance sweep efficiency of
the flooding process. The flooding pattern was
....(3)
assumed five spots because the distributions of the
existing wells on the field helps to use five spots
either than the other pattern.

Figure 7 . Relative permeability ratio Vs water saturation.

Figure 6. The flooding pattern selection. The equation from previous figure was:
 ……………….(4) • From initial water saturation draw a tangent line to
mark the fw curve in point. Read the point and the
last point cross the figure at fw=1 was the average
Table 2. The fractional flow and derivative calculations. water saturation at breakthrough. Figure 9 shows the
Sw kro krw kro/krw Fw dfw/dfs results.
0.361 1 0 0 0.00677 0.20033 • Use the equation was described in chapter one to
0.438 0.471 0.057 8.26316 0.06332 1.76765 calculate the performance data at breakthrough such
0.468 0.31 0.087 3.56322 0.14185 3.62762 as time required, oil produced and WOR…etc.
0.501 0.191 0.119 1.60504 0.30649 6.33436
0.552 0.08 0.19 0.42105 0.66891 6.60001
0.589 0.032 0.245 0.13061 0.85887 3.61231
0.62 0.016 0.287 0.05575 0.93876 1.71326
0.657 0.0071 0.325 0.02185 0.9788 0.61834
0.69 0.0018 0.361 0.00499 0.99196 0.23754
0.723 0.00052 0.395 0.00132 0.99698 0.08974
0.742 0 0.415 0 0.99828 0.05108

The following figure introduce the fractional flow

and fractional derivative curve for Amal field Figure 9. Fractional flow curve at Breakthrough.

The last calculation results at breakthrough are

introduced in table 3.
Table 3. Breakthrough calculation results.

Steps Parameter Result Unit

1- Sw@BT 59 %
2. Avg. Sw@Bt 63 %
3- Fw 84.7 %
4- Dfw/dsw 3.7 --
5- Ed= 42.09 %
6- Edmax= 59.62 %
Figure 8. Fractional flow curve and derivative 7- Time@BT 6.86 Year
After construct fractional flow curve and derivative 8- Np 1.96 MMSTB
curve the water flooding calculation will started by 9- WOR 5.54 BBl/BBL
break through time calculations. 10- WORs 6.79 BBL/STB
Water Flooding at Break Through 11- WI"PVi" 26.9 %
12- Wi Volume 2.50 MMBblWater
The breakthrough performance calculation was the
important parameter to design water flooding
process for any formation. The performance was Water Flooding After Break Through
started by estimate water saturation at break through.
The steps for breakthrough performance was listed: The performance of after breakthrough calculation
was important to identify the recovery and
behavior of water flooding process for any
formation. The performance was started by
estimate water saturation after breakthrough at
selected water cut “the selected was fw= 98%
assumed value”. The steps for breakthrough
performance was listed:
• From assumed water cut “fw” draw a
tangent line to mark the fw curve in point. Read
the point and the last point cross the figure at fw=1
was the average water saturation at the assumed
water cut. Figure 4.4 show the results.
• Use the equation was described in chapter
one to calculate the performance data at
breakthrough such as time required, oil produced
and WOR…etc.
12- Wi 11.637 MMBblWater
Volume
Distance with Saturations
The distance with saturation was graph used to
describe the distance for water flooding in the
formation with change in injection time. This chart
used to identify the distance for each water
saturation before breakthrough and after
breakthrough. the steps for this calculation will
listed below:
• Calculate the front water saturation
“breakthrough saturation as defined in the last
calculations”.
• Calculate the slope “dfw/dsw” as defined
previously.
• Calculate the distance of the leading edge of the
water front from the injection well using:

….........(5)

• Select several values for water saturation Sw

greater than Swf and determine (dfw/dSw) at each
Figure 10. Performance after breakthrough
value.
• Calculate the distance from the injection well to
The last calculation results at breakthrough are each selected saturation by applying Equation 5.
introduced in table 4. • Establish the water saturation profile after t1
Table 4. Breakthrough calculation results. days by plotting results obtained in last step.
Steps Parameter Result Unit • Select a new time and repeat last steps to
1- Sw 67 % generate a family of water saturation profiles.
2- Avg. Sw 69.5 % • The time assumed was t1=60, t2=120, t3=240,
3- Fw 98 % t4=500, t5=1000, t6=1500, t7=2000, t8=2500 and
4- Dfw/dsw 0.8 -- t9=2700 days.
5- Ed= 52.26 %
6- Edmax= 59.62 %
7- Time 8.5 Years
8- Np 2.44 MMSTB
9- WOR 49 BBl/BBL
10- WORs 60.10415 BBL/STB
11- WI"PV" 125 %
 .......(9)

......(10)

Plot WOR versus EV on a Cartesian scale, as

shown schematically in Figure 12, and determine
the vertical sweep efficiency at breakthrough
EVBT by extrapolating the WOR versus EV curve
to WOR = 0.
Figure 11. Average water saturation after breakthrough.

Dykstra Method

To use Dykstra method to calculate water flooding

design and oil recovery from the process the
following steps should be followed:
• Perform the following preliminary calculations
to determine:
1. Pore volume PV and oil-in-place at start of Figure 12. Volumetric Sweep Efficiency Result.
flood NS
2. Water cut fw as a function of Sw
Calculate cumulative water injected at
3. Slope (dfw/dSw) as a function of Sw breakthrough by using:
4. Average water saturation at breakthrough Wi= PV*(SWbt-Swi)*EABT*EVBT .........(11)
5. Mobility ratio M using the following equation: Calculate cumulative oil produced at
breakthrough and time to breakthrough.
…….........…(6)
The following table introduce the main data
6. Displacement sweep efficiency at breakthrough required for Dykstra method.
EDBT. See chapter one.
Table 5. Main Data For Dykstra Method Calculations.
7. Areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough EABT.
Parameter Value Unit
Pore Volume 9309600 BBL
...........(7) OIIP 4.676757 MMSTB
Mobility Ratio 0.210153 --
• Assume the WOR value from
ED @ Bt 42.09 %
1,2,5,10,15,20,25,50,100 and calculate
Areal Sweep Efficincy @ Bt 0.940776 --
volumetric sweep efficiency using the
Variations 0.625 --
following equations
Fill Up Volume 0 BBL
EV @ BT 0.275 --
Wi Bt 1421827 BBL
NP@ BT 1.117788 MMSTB By derivation the equation (16) the water
Time to Break Trough 3.900759 Year produced can be estimated:

• Convert the assumed values of WOR to water .......(16)

cut fw and surface WORs. • Calculate the cumulative water injected Winj
• Determine the water saturation Sw for each at each selected WOR from:
value of fw from the water cut curve. ........(17)
• determine the areal sweep efficiency EA for • Calculate the time to inject Winj by using:
each value of fw.
........(18)
………………(12)

• Determine the average water saturation for each

value of fw by using:

.......
.....(13)
 Calculate the displacement efficiency ED for
each value of Sw.
 Calculate cumulative oil production for each
Figure 14. the produced and injection fluid with WOR.
WOR from following equation:
• Calculate the oil and water flow rates from
........(14) following equations:
 Calculate water produced by determine the
area under the curve after plot the oil produced ........(19)
with WOR in cartesian paper.
.............(20)

Figure 13. Oil produced at each assumed WOR.

From the last figure the WOR can be determined

using oil produced from the following equations:
Figure 15. Fluid Rate during Life of Flooding Process.
.............(15)
Water Flooding Recovery
To estimate water flooding recovery during water
flooding process the following steps should be
followed to get the results.
1- Calculate permeability variation, see chapter
three “V=0.625”.
2- The initial stock-tank oil in place in a barrel of
total pore volume is
.........(21)
3- The stock tank oil remaining in 1 bbl. of total
pore volume in the swept portion of the
reservoir is
.......................(22)
4- he oil remaining in the upswept portion, per
barrel of total pore volume is
......................(23)
5- The value of Total Oil Remaining in 1 BBL of
Total Pore T.O.R Volume by using
........................................(24)
WATER DRIVE SOFTWARE RESULTS
Water drive is a collection of classical Water drive
calculations and routines intended for Petroleum
Reservoir Engineers to:
• Analyze the water-oil displacement processes for
both homogeneous single layer and heterogeneous
multi-layered systems, and permit the calculation
of waterflood performance with time for oil
recovery, producing water cut and water injection.
• Examine and interpret the water drive
performance of reservoirs, or numerical simulation
models, from an inspection of their production &
injection history, by solving Wedge’s equation in
reverse.
• Calculate the waterflood performance with time
for a five-spot pattern, using the approach of
Craig, Geffen, and Morse for relating oil recovery
and producing water-oil ratio (WOR) to
cumulative injected water
• Calculate Dykstra-Parsons and Lorenz
Heterogeneity coefficients
• Calculate the waterflood performance with time,
using two approaches based on the original work
of Dykstra-Parsons, which also relates oil recovery
and producing water-oil ratio (WOR) to
cumulative injected water.
• For water coning in vertical and horizontal wells,
determine the critical flow rate, breakthrough time
predictions and performance calculations after
breakthrough.
Numerous other smaller routines, or general
utilities, are provided to allow efficient calculation
of mobility ratio, displacement efficiencies, areal
sweep, various conversion utilities and fitting
Corey curves to relative permeability data.
Note: This software was used to identify and
compare the results obtained from hand
calculation.
The main software used to perform a quick water
flooding design using the existing and popular
water flooding method was water drive solutions.
Water drive solutions software was used in this
study to verified the results obtained from hand
calculations “Excel Program”. The procedure and
results from software was listed below:
 Open water drive software and click on
the method that’s needed to perform water
flooding. The method was Dykstra. Figure
17 introduce the water drive software
main panel.
 Figure 16. Water Drive Software Main Panel. Figure 18. Dykstra coefficient plot.

 After click on the Dykstra-parsons method
the following panel will be opened.
 The permeability variation from software
equal 0.604.
 The permeability variation from software
equal 0.604.
 The next step was to calculate vertical
sweep efficiency by clicking on Vertical
sweep button. The following figure shows
the vertical sweep efficiency data.

Figure 17. Dykstra-Parsons Panel.

 The first data was to calculate the Dykstra

coefficient “Variation” by click on the
coefficient button. The data panel will be
opened and the required data was
imported to the panel. Figure 17 introduce Figure 19. Vertical Sweep Efficiency Data and Results
Panel.
the Dykstra coefficient data panel.

 The Vertical sweep efficiency EVi equal

0.878.
 The last calculation from software was the
recovery performance and prediction
calculations. This can be calculated by
clicking on the recovery performance
button.
After clicking on recovery performance button, the
following data was needed and should be inserted
in the recovery panel. Figure 22 shows the
recovery performance panel and data required for
calculation
Figure 20. Mobility ratio data for Dykstra method.
Figure 21. Reservoir properties and prediction data
needed for Recovery performance.
 The breakthrough will happen after 1447
days “4 years after water flooding”.
 The first calculation was the recover factor
from water flooding design.
Figure 22. The recover performance calculations.
 The oil recover factor after water flooding
design equal 0.244.
 The predicted results will be introduced in
the following figure.
Figure 23. Prediction flow rate for flooding process.
The following steps are used to perform a simple
water flooding design using Dykstra method. The
oil flow rate before breakthrough equal 786.2 and
water rate equal zero, at break through the oil flow
rate reduce and water flow rate increase with time.
The final economic oil rate will equal 47 BOPD
after 20 years from water flooding either wise at
this point the water flow rate around 900 BWPD,
water cut will reach 93% and water oil ratio will
equal 20.
4. CONCLUSION
Based on the research performed in the course of
this study, the main conclusions are:
1. Amal field was produced since 1965 with
average oil rate around 45,000 BOPD. The
maximum oil rate from field reach 108,000
BOPD after that was declined to 18,000
BOPD. The oil recovery at the end of 2015
was equal 35%.
2. Amal field was considered as un-homogenies
reservoir pointed from Dykstra coefficient “V”
equal 0.625.
3. The water flooding process was designed for
Amal field “B-area” by using Dykstra method
applied by two programs “Excel and water
drive software”.
4. The water injection was produced after 1424
days “3 years and 11 months”. The oil
produced at the breakthrough was around 1.12
MMSTB with water cut equal 87% and the
average water saturation in the reservoir equal
63%.
5. The water flooding process was assumed
stopped after water cut reach 94% and oil flow
rate equal 45 BOPD. Because the operation
cost was higher than benefit.
6. The oil recovery factor from water flooding
process was 27% at the end of prediction
period added to the oil recovery before water
flooding process and the time to produce this
recovery was 20 years after starting flooding.
7. The total oil recovery from Amal field at the
end equal 62% from OIIP.
8. The water drive software was used to perform
water flooding. The resulting from both using
calculation methods was very close with
average error around 5%.
9. The maximum error between results was equal
27% and the minimum equal 0.03%.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following areas for future researches are
recommended, utilizing the outcomes of this
study:
1. Its recommended to perform aa formation
evaluation on Amal field “B-area” reservoir to
estimate layer properties “Reservoir Zonation
Method” in order to use the other water
flooding methods like Craig method and
compare the results from used method
“Dykstra”.
2. Its recommended to use another method like
Lorenz method to estimate reservoir
heterogeneity and compare it with Dykstra
coefficient.
3. Perform a simulation study conducted on
Amal field “B-area” simulation method to
predict oil production by using water flooding
process to verified results obtained from this
study.
4. Its recommended to perform a pilot test in
Amal field in sector model like the sector that
used in this study to reduce uncertainty in the
results.
5. To perform an economic evaluation model in
the calculation results to finish this study
about water flooding design.
Acknowledgment:
The authors would like to express their thanks to
Harouge Oil Operations & NOC-Libya for
providing data to complete this study.

References
1) Anderson, W.G., 1986), “Wettability
Literature Survey” - Part 1: JPT.
2) Buckley, S. E. and Leverett, M. C. (1942),
14)
“Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands,”
Trans., AIME, 246,107-116.
3) Craig, F.F., Jr., (1971), The Reservoir
Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas, Texas. 15)
4) Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R. L., (1950), “The
Prediction of Oil Recovery by Waterflood”,
Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United
States, 2nd Ed., API 160-174. 16)
5) Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L., and Harvey,
A.H., (1986), Relative Permeability of
Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL
6) Jellah, A. I. et al, (2016), “Water Injection
17)
Performance Calculations in Intisar 103A Oil
Field, Libya” , Paper presented at ICCPGE
conference, Al-mergib University, Libya.
7) Leverett, M.C., (1941). ‘Capillary Behavior in
Porous Solids,” Trans., AIME.
8) Reservoir Description, Harouge Oil Company 18)
(2018).
9) Stiles, W. E., (1949) “Use of Permeability
Distribution in Waterflood Calculations,”
Trane. AIME, 286, 9-13.
10) Welge, H. J., (1952), “A Simplified Method 19)
for Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water
Drive, Trans’ AIME , 196, 91-98.
11) McCaskill, A. J. (1983, May 1). A Libyan 20)
Experience. Petroleum Society of
Canada. doi:10.2118/83-04-07
12) DesBrisay, C. L., & Daniel, E. L. (1972, 21)
July 1). Supplemental Recovery
Development of The Intisar “A” and “D”
Reef Fields, Libyan Arab Republic.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/3438-PA
13) DesBrisay, C. L., El Ghussein, B. F.,
Holst, P. H., & Misellati, A. (1982,
View publication stats
August 1). Review of Miscible Flood
Performance, Intisar “D” Field, Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/10245-PA
felebuegu, A. O., & Zydan, Z. H. (2016,
December 5). Field Evaluation of
Improved Oil Recovery Methods in a
Libyan Oilfield. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:NA
Brundred, L. L., & Brudred, L. L. (1955,
January 1). Economics of Water
Flooding. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/459-G
Goodyear, S. G., Reynolds, C. B.,
Townsley, P. H., & Woods, C. L. (1996,
January 1). Hot Water Flooding for High
Permeability Viscous Oil Fields. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/35373-MS
Ilikbaev, V. V., Virt, V. I., Kulikov, I. V.,
Kosolapov, V. O., Kazykhanov, R. I., &
Varavva, V. Y. (2020, October 26). Oil
Rim Water Flooding Improvement
Experience. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/201906-MS
Pajonk, O., Schulze-riegert, R.,
Krosche, M., Hassan, M., & Nwakile, M.
M. (2011, January 1). Ensemble-Based
Water Flooding Optimization Applied to
Mature Fields. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/142621-MS
Ervin, P. S. (1947, January 1). Water
Flooding In Haynesville Field, Louisiana.
American Petroleum Institute.
Borisov, P. K. (1967, January 1). Water
Injection into Oil Formations (Flooding).
World Petroleum Congress.
Dong, Y., Dindoruk, B., Ishizawa, C.,
Lewis, E. J., & kubicek, T. (2011,
January 1). An Experimental
Investigation of Carbonated Water
Flooding. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/145380-MS