PETE 323-Reservoir Models

Spring, 2004

08/02/21 1
 Waterflooding and Enhanced
Recovery (“improved recovery”)
 Waterflooding and non-miscible gas
injection are “traditional methods”.
 Traditional methods are often called
“secondary recovery”
 Enhanced recovery is a US Government
term that refers to: Steam injection, polymers,
hydrocarbon miscible, Carbon dioxide, surfactants,
bacteriological, in-situ combustion, etc.

08/02/21 2
 Waterflooding
 Started by accident in Pennsylvania in the
late 1800’s
 Produced more oil than any other improved
recovery method
 Involves immiscible displacement of one
fluid (oil) by another (water)in the reservoir
 Water is usually plentiful and cheap.

08/02/21 3
 Immiscible displacement
 “Immiscible” means that the interfacial
tension between two phases in the reservoir
(e.g. water and oil) is greater than zero
 Thus the two phases can’t “mix” molecularly
 Understanding immiscible displacement
requires a knowledge of “frontal advance
theory”---see Dake, Chapter 10 and Craig,
Ch 3

08/02/21 4
 Assumptions for incompressible and immiscible
displacement.

 Present: a wetting phase (usually water) and

a non-wetting phase (usually oil)
 Wetting phase displaces non-wetting phase
 One set of relative permeability curves
governs flow
 Rock is homogeneous

08/02/21 5
 Dake’s Assumptions
 Water displacing oil in water-wet rock
 Under conditions of vertical equilibrium
 Incompressible flow
 Linear flow
 Diffuse flow

08/02/21 6
 Relative permeability
One set of imbibition curves

Non-wetting

kr wetting

Swc Sn-wr

Swet
1-Swr
08/02/21 7
 Fractional flow of water
k d w
A w
q qw  w dx
fw  w  
q t q o  q w  A k o d o  A k w d w
 o dx  w dx

For horizontal flow and zero capillary pressure :

 o   w and d o  d w

1 1
fw  
 w ko  w k ro
1 1
kw o k rw  o

08/02/21 8
 Fractional flow of water

For flow in dipping beds :

d o  dp o  o gsin ; d w  dp w   w gsin; and
dp c  dp o  dp w

 3 kk ro A  p c 
1  1.127 x 10   0.433 sin  
q t  o  x 
fw 
 w k ro
1
k rw  o

08/02/21 9
 Frontal Advance-- visualization

A portion of the reservoir

08/02/21 10
 Frontal Advance-- visualization
 A portion of the
reservoir with Saturation S oil
Original connate water
original oil and water
Distance x
saturation
O&w
 start to inject water w oil oil
water
on one side
 produce oil and Injected water
O&w
o il
water from the other w w a te r
side

08/02/21 11
 Frontal Advance---equations
Sor

Injected water

Sw
o il
w a te r
x
Take a slice from this reservoir

dx
q w  w (x) q w  w (x  dx)
Mass flow rate in Mass flow rate out

08/02/21 12
 Frontal Advance---equations

 ( wSw)
Rate of increase of mass  Adx
t

Mass flow rate in - Mass flow rate out = Rate of increase of mass in volume element

 ( wSw)
q w  w (x) - q w  w (x  dx)  Adx
Divide both sides by dx and take the limit as dx approaches zero
t
CONTINUITY EQUATION

 (qw  w ) (S w  w )
  A
x t
08/02/21 13
 Frontal Advance---equations
For incompressible flow,
 w  constant so that

qw S w
  A
x t
Since Sw is a function of both time and distance, the total differential of S w is

S w S w
dS w  dx  dt
x t

08/02/21 14
 Frontal Advance---equations
S w S w
dS w  dx  dt
x t

Injected water
o il
w a te r

Consider a plane of constant water saturation moving through the reservoir.

If the water saturation at the plane does not change then S w  cons tan t
S w S w S w S w dx
dS w  dx  dt  0 So that 
x t t x dt

08/02/21 15
 Frontal Advance---equations
q w q w Sw q w dx
chain rule :   , substituting :  A
x Sw x Sw dt
if q w is constant and q w  q t f w (Sw ), then
dx  velocity of constant saturation front  q t df w (Sw ) The Buckley-Leverett
dt A dSw Equation

The B-L equation indicates that the velocity of the plane of constant saturation is proportional
to the slope of the fractional flow curve (first derivative of the f -S
w w function)

08/02/21 16
 Fractional flow curve
Swet krw kro fw
0.2 0 1 0
0.25 0.000977 0.826446 0.032659  w 0.7    20 Sor= 0.25 Swi= 0.2
0.3 0.002864 0.669421 0.108916
0.35 0.006498 0.528926 0.259809
0.4 0.0128 0.404959 0.474539 Rel. Perm and fw
0.45 0.022923 0.297521 0.687632
0.5 0.038273 0.206612 0.841084
0.55 0.060526 0.132231 0.928967 1
0.6 0.091641 0.07438 0.972377 0.9
0.65 0.13388 0.033058 0.991432
0.8
0.7 0.189816 0.008264 0.998478
0.75 0.26235 0 1 0.7
Kr and fw

0.6
0.5 fw
0.4
0.3
Slope of fractional 0.2
flow curve
0.1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Sw

08/02/21 17
 Frontal Advance---equations

Recalling that
dx  velocity of constant saturation front  q t df w (Sw )
dt A dSw
t
1 df w (Sw ) Wi df w (Sw )
A dSw 0
 x q t dt 
A dSw

This allows a determination of the positions of different water saturation planes

08/02/21 18
 Frontal Advance---equations

Fractional flow curve

Wi df w (Sw )
x 
A dSw 1.2

Because of the inflection point, use of this 1

equation causes a problem:
here
0.8
The slope is the same at two different
values of saturation-- a physical impossibility! 0.6 fw

0.4

0.2 And
here
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Sw

08/02/21 19
 Frontal Advance---equations
So here is what Buckley and Leverett
did------
Area A = Area B

Wi df w (Sw )
1-Sor x 
A dSw

Sw Saturation
Area Shock front profile before
A water
breakthrough
Area B
Swi

08/02/21 20
 Frontal Advance---equations
Craig Ch 3 -- see interpretation of fractional flow curve after water breakthrough

Average Sw from x=0 to x=L

Point A

Sw at x=L

08/02/21 21
 Frontal Advance-- calculations
 Draw fw curve from rel. perm.
 Construct straight line from Swi to point A
 This determines breakthrough Sw and
average Sw.
 Slope of fw curve at point A gives Wi in pore
volumes

08/02/21 22
 Frontal Advance-- at Breakthrough
Example:
Fractional flow curve
 w 0.7    20
Swet krw kro fw
0.2 0 1 0 1
0.25 0.000977 0.826446 0.032659
0.9
0.3 0.002864 0.669421 0.108916
0.35 0.006498 0.528926 0.259809
0.8
0.4 0.0128 0.404959 0.474539
0.45 0.022923 0.297521 0.687632 0.7
0.5 0.038273 0.206612 0.841084
0.55 0.060526 0.132231 0.928967 0.6
0.6 0.091641 0.07438 0.972377
0.65 0.13388 0.033058 0.991432 0.5 fw
fw

0.7 0.189816 0.008264 0.998478

0.75 0.26235 0 1 0.4

Swave at BT = 56% 0.3

0.2
Sw at x=L at BT = 46%
0.1

Recovery factor at BT = 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(Save-Swi)/(1-Swi) = Sw

(.56-.2)/(1-.2) = 0.45 (45%)

fw08/02/21
=.74 23
 Frontal Advance-- after Breakthrough
Fractional flow curve
Point A= BT
Point B slope =1.0, 1
Swave=0.58, RF =47.5% D
0.95
Wi = 1 PV,fw=0.83 C
0.9

Point C slope = .90 0.85

Swave=0.62, RF = 52.5% fw fw
0.8
B
Wi = 1/.9= 1.11 PV,fw=.94
0.75
A
Point C slope = 0.24 0.7

Swave=0.68, RF = 60%
0.65
Wi = 1/.24 = 4.16 PV,fw=.99 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Sw

08/02/21 24
 Frontal Advance-- after Breakthrough
Frontal advance calculations

RF fw WOR Wi 120

47.5 0.83 4.882353 1 100

52.5 0.94 15.66667 1.11

60 0.99 99 4.16 80

WOR
60

40

20

0
40 45 50 55 60 65
recovery factor-RF

08/02/21 25
 Buckley Leverett comments
 Theory useful to understand details of
immiscible displacement
 Transition zone is actually very small in real
reservoir situations
 Actual waterflood performance often
depends more on reservoir heterogenieties
and well configuration than on relative
permeabilities and viscosities!

08/02/21 26
 Mobility Ratio--Craig Ch 4
ko
Mobility of oil  ahead of the shock front
o
kw
Mobility of water  at S w
w
Note that different authors use different definitions for
mobility of the displacing phase. Craig uses the mobility at the average displacing
phase saturation behind the front!
kw
w
M  Mobility ratio 
ko
o
Injected water
o il
w a te r
Transition

08/02/21 27
 Recovery efficiency
 Three types:
a. Microscopic
b. Areal
c. Vertical
 Microscopic=(1-Sor-Swi)/(1-Swi)
 Total recovery = oil in place*M*A*V
 “Volumetric efficiency”=A*V

08/02/21 28
 Areal sweep--Craig CH 5

Lots of patterns!

08/02/21 29
 Areal sweep at BT
Normal Five spot

Recommended
curve

producer

injector
Example: M=4
EA=Areal sweep=54%

08/02/21 30
 Recovery calculations at BT
 Assume N = 10,000,000 STB
 Use relative perms from above, assume xtransition =0
and no initial gas saturation.
 Assume a normal 5-spot and homogeneous reservoir
 M=1
 Oil recovery at BT =
N*EA*EM=10,000,000*0.7*0.6875 = 4,812,500 STB
(48.12%)

08/02/21 31
 Areal sweep after BT
This is what actually happens after BT.

If enough water in injected, EA will approach 100%

time
*From Waterflooding by Willhite

08/02/21 32
 Areal sweep at BT for Sgi>0
Water BT should occur at about the same time regardless of Sgi.
However,if Sgi>0 then oil recovery will be less because some of
the displaced material will be gas.
gas
Initial
oil

Oil “bank”

gas
later
oil
Wi

Gas is displaced by oil and is, in turn, displaced by water

This creates two shock fronts.

08/02/21 33
 Delayed flood response if Sgi>0
 If Sgi>0 then an oil bank is created.
 This may delay flood response until “fill-up”
is well underway.
 Fill-up volume = mobile gas volume in swept
area.
 Mobile gas = displaceable gas =(Sgi-
Sgr)*Pattern Area*EA*Reservoir thickness

08/02/21 34
 Other Patterns
Problem:
Which pattern gives
the highest EA at BT
for M=1?

Ans:

08/02/21 35
 Other factors affecting BT
recovery
 Cross-flooding (changing direction)
 Directional perm. (anisotropy)
 Reservoir Heterogeniety in general
 Formation Dip
 Off-Pattern wells
 Unconfined patterns
 fractures

08/02/21 36
 Peripheral flooding
 Not actually a “pattern” flood
 Has very high sweep if planned properly
 May have delayed oil production response
 Economics critical to decision to use

08/02/21 37
 Peripheral flooding
Areal view--

oil reservoir

Aquifer

Injectors producers

Can convert downstructure wells to injectors as flood front

advances

08/02/21 38
 Peripheral flooding

 Advantages:
 High areal sweep
 Keeps all wells producing--i.e. don’t have
to convert to injection
 Takes advantage of gravity to improve
vertical sweep

08/02/21 39
 Peripheral flooding
 Disadvantages:
 New wells to be drilled in aquifer where
info not as good as reservoir
 Low pressure aquifers may need recharging
 Upstructure producers may have delayed
response to injection

08/02/21 40
 Reservoir heterogeniety
 Heterogeniety strongly affects flood
performance
 High degree of heterogeniety causes low oil
recovery (low revenue) and high water
production (high costs)

08/02/21 41
 Reservoir heterogeniety

“Typical” reservoir

Homogeneous reservoir

From Craig

Example: In the “typical” reservoir about 65% of the flow capacity

(i.e. permeability) is contained within only 10% of the reservoir volume.

08/02/21 42
 Reservoir heterogeniety
Permeability variation demonstrated in production log of a producing well.

Major production entry points

08/02/21 43
 Predicting Waterflood Performance

 Large number of methods

 Each has severe limitations
 Use idealized reservoirs and operating
conditions
 Will look at three traditional methods:
Stiles Dykstra-Parsons
Craig-Geffen-Morse

08/02/21 44
 Stiles Method
 Assumes that the reservoir is linear and
layered with no cross-flow.
 All layers have the same porosity, relative
permeability, initial and residual oil
saturations.
 Transition zone length is zero (piston-like)
 Layers may have different thicknesses and
absolute permeabilities

08/02/21 45
 Stiles Method
 Probably the most limiting assumption is that
the distance of the advance of the flood front
is proportional to the absolute permeability of
the layer.
 This is assumption is only true if the mobility
ratio is =1.
 Nevertheless, the Stiles method is useful in
the fairly common case where M ~ 1

08/02/21 46
 Stiles Method
Lowest k
ith layer

Water in Water
and oil
out

hi = thickness of ith
Vertical slice of reservoir layer
ki= absolute
Highest k
permeability of ith
layer

08/02/21 47
 Stiles Method
Two important parameters need to be estimated :
1. R, recovery factor 
recovery factor from layers flooded out  recovery factor of partially flooded layers

qw
2. f w , water cut 
q w  qo

fw

R
08/02/21 48
 Stiles Method
Re-order layers:

Natural layering Highest permeability layer on

top,lowest on bottom.
Number layers from highest
permeability to lowest.

Highest permeability layer breaks thorough first, then second highest, etc.

08/02/21 49
 Stiles Method
n layers, with permeabilities k1
(highest), k2,…..kn (lowest)
The thicknesses of the n layers are
h1, h2,….. hn

Total physically recoverable oil (STB)

= 7758*Ap*h * *So/Bo
Ap=pattern area (acres)=WL/43,560
[W=pattern width (ft); L=pattern length (ft)]
h=total reservoir thickness (ft)
=porosity, pore vol./bulk vol
So=change in oil saturation=Soi-Sor
Bo=oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)

08/02/21 50
 Stiles Method
Example: seven layered reservoir

absolute k-md thickness-ft

210 20
190 12
70 5
50 7
30 15
10 30
3 18

08/02/21 51
 Stiles Method
Mathematical development:

At the time, Tj, that the jth layer has broken through, all of the physically recoverable oil will
have been recovered for that layer and from all layers having higher permeability.

Since the velocities of the flood fronts in each layer are proportional to the absolute
permeabilities in the layers, the fractional recovery at Tj in the ith layer will be

ki
(i  j  1 n )
kj

In the above example, the fractional recovery in layer 2 at the time layer 1 has broken
through (Tj) will be
190/210 =0.9047619048. That is, over 90% of layer 2 will be flooded out.

08/02/21 52
 Stiles Method
j n
Flooded
portion 
i 1
hi   i  j 1
hi *
ki
kj
R j  R(T j )  n

 h i 1
i
Partially flooded
portion
n j

ht   h ,
i 1
i hj   hi 1
i Total

hj 
1
kj  h * k
i  j 1
i i

R j  R (T j ) 
ht

08/02/21 53
 Stiles Method
qw
f w (T j )  surface water cut at Tj 
qw  qo
1.127 Wp j
 h * kw
i i
i 1
 B L
w w

1.127 Wp j 1.127 Wp n
 h * kw   h * ko
i i i i
i 1 i  j 1
 B L  B L
w w o o

j
 h * kw
i i
i 1
 B
 w w
j n
 h * kw  h * ko
i i i  j 1 i i
i 1 
 B  B
w w o o
08/02/21 54
 Stiles Method

Replacing all kw' s and ko' s with k * krw and k * kro, respectively,
 krwB
and defining A  o o
 kroB
w w
j
A  h * k
i i
f (T )  i  1
w j j n
A  h * k   h * k
i i i i
i 1 i  j 1
j
The term  h * k is the cumulative reservoir capacity of all layers producing only water.
i i
i 1
n
The term  h * k is the cumulative reservoir capacity of all layers producing only oil.
i i
i  j 1

08/02/21 55
 Stiles Method

Input variables in bold face

Bw= 1.02 krw= 0.35

Bo= 1.37 kro= 0.93
Vis water= 0.6 cp
Vis oil= 0.83 cp
Recoverable oil= 100,000 STB
A= 0.699249772
Layer absolute k-md thickness-ft cum thickness-ft capacity-md-ft cum capacity-md-ft R at B.T. Np-STB fw
1 210 20 20 4200 4200 0.3553 35532 0.4370
2 190 12 32 2280 6480 0.3730 37304 0.7508
3 70 5 37 350 6830 0.4999 49987 0.8054
4 50 7 44 350 7180 0.5615 56150 0.8620
5 30 15 59 450 7630 0.6617 66168 0.9378
6 10 30 89 300 7930 0.8822 88224 0.9904
7 3 18 107 54 7984 1.0000 100000 1.0000

08/02/21 56
 Stiles Method
fw as a function of Np

1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
fw

0.6000
0.5000
0.4000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Np

Note that the final 40,000 STB were recovered at water cuts >90%----maybe uneconomically!

08/02/21 57
 Stiles Method
Stiles method as presented above does not allow for fill-up due to
the presence of gas.
Since it is linear, it does not account for complex flooding
geometry.

Stiles is often used together with other methods to correct for

geometry and areal sweep. These combination methods also take
time into account by considering water injection rate.

qo

Time

08/02/21 58
 Reservoir heterogeniety

Usually permeabilities are “log-

normally” distributed.

That is, the logarithm of their values

form a normal (bell-shaped) probability
curve.
This can be demonstrated by plotting
permeabilities, arranged in order from
smallest to largest, on a “log-
probability” scale.

Dykstra-Parsons permeability
variation =
k50  k84.1
V 
From Craig k50
08/02/21 59
 Reservoir heterogeniety
 Dykstra-Parsons Perm. Variation, VDP:
 step1--arrange perms in increasing order
 step2--assign percentiles to each perm
number
 step3--plot on log-probability scale
 step4--compute VDP
k 50  k 84.1
VDP 
k 50

08/02/21 60
 Reservoir heterogeniety
 Dykstra-Parsons Perm. Variation, VDP:
 step1--transform permeability data [Ln(k)]
 step2--calculate s, the sample standard
deviation, of the transformed data
 step3--compute VDP

VDP  1  exp(s)

08/02/21 61
 Example—Calculation of VDP
Permeability Data (Table 6.1 of Craig)
2.9 7.4 30.4 3.8 8.6 14.5 39.9 2.3 12.0 29.0
11.3 1.7 17.6 24.6 5.5 5.3 4.8 3.0 0.6 99.0
2.1 21.2 4.4 2.4 5.0 1.0 3.9 8.4 8.9 7.6
167.0 1.2 2.6 22.0 11.7 6.7 74.0 25.5 1.5 5.9
3.6 920.0 37.0 10.4 16.5 11.0 120.0 4.1 3.5 33.5
19.5 26.6 7.8 32.0 10.7 10.0 19.0 12.4 3.3 6.5
6.9 3.2 13.1 41.8 9.4 12.9 55.2 2.0 5.2 2.7
50.4 35.2 0.8 18.4 20.1 27.8 22.7 47.4 4.3 66.0
16.0 71.5 1.8 14.0 84.0 15.0 6.0 6.3 44.5 5.7
23.5 13.5 1.5 17.0 9.8 8.1 15.4 4.6 9.1 60.0
Mean = 28.9 Std Dev = 93.8
Ln(k) ~ N( ,  2)
1.0647 2.0015 3.4144 1.3350 2.1518 2.6741 3.6864 0.8329 2.4849 3.3673
2.4248 0.5306 2.8679 3.2027 1.7047 1.6677 1.5686 1.0986 -0.5108 4.5951
0.7419 3.0540 1.4816 0.8755 1.6094 0.0000 1.3610 2.1282 2.1861 2.0281
5.1180 0.1823 0.9555 3.0910 2.4596 1.9021 4.3041 3.2387 0.4055 1.7750
1.2809 6.8244 3.6109 2.3418 2.8034 2.3979 4.7875 1.4110 1.2528 3.5115
2.9704 3.2809 2.0541 3.4657 2.3702 2.3026 2.9444 2.5177 1.1939 1.8718
1.9315 1.1632 2.5726 3.7329 2.2407 2.5572 4.0110 0.6931 1.6487 0.9933
3.9200 3.5610 -0.2231 2.9124 3.0007 3.3250 3.1224 3.8586 1.4586 4.1897
2.7726 4.2697 0.5878 2.6391 4.4308 2.7081 1.7918 1.8405 3.7955 1.7405
3.1570 2.6027 0.4055 2.8332 2.2824 2.0919 2.7344 1.5261 2.2083 4.0943
Mean = 2.3744 Std Dev = 1.2618 CV = 0.5314
V DP = 0.7169
Note: CV = s/k VDP = 1 - exp(-s)

08/02/21 62
 Dykstra-Parsons
 Based on empirical data from linear floods
 Uses M and V to estimate recovery and
WOR
Linear, horizontal waterflood with no x-flow

Water
water and oil

Layers with different permeabilities, log-normally distributed

08/02/21 63
 Dykstra-Parsons
Example:
Sw=.3, V= 0.6, M=2
Craig, Figs 8.1-8.4

For WOR =1
Er(1-Sw)=.11

Er=.11/(1-.3) =0.157

08/02/21 64
 Dykstra-Parsons
Dykstra-Parsons example
V=.6, Sw=.3, M=2
WOR as function of Np
N =100,000 STB
WOR Er-fraction Np-STB
1 0.157 15700
120
5 0.267 26700
25 0.379 37900
100 0.433 43300 WOR as function of Np
100

120
80
100
For Economic Limit of
WOR 60
80
WOR=75, Np =41,000 STB
40
WOR

60

40
20
20
0
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Np Np

08/02/21 65
 Scheduling Recovery

To place the predictions on an actual time and

rate basis requires information on injectivity.
• iw = q o + q w
• tbt = NpbtBo/iw
• t > tbt:
qo = iw(1-fw)
t = NpBo/qo

08/02/21 66
 Interference

The injected water flows radially out until the

oil banks from adjacent injectors interfere.
r rei

hSgi rei2 h Sw  Swi r

  2
Wi  
5.615 5.615

08/02/21 67
 Fillup

Space occupied by gas must be replaced or

“filled up” by water before the production
wells respond fully to the water injection; ie,
fillup is necessary to establish a liquid
connection between the injection well and
the producing well.
Wi = 7758AphSgi

08/02/21 68
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Cumulative water injected is independent variable.
Divide the displacement into stages:
• Case A—Sgi = 0
+ I. To Breakthrough
+ II. After Breakthrough
• Case B—Sgi  0
+ I. To Interference
+ II. Interference to Fillup
+III. Fillup to Breakthrough
+IV. After Breakthrough
08/02/21 69
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
A. Buckley-Leverett Analysis (Craig: 3.1, 3.5, 8.4)
w 0.65  3.5 Sor= 0.25 Swi= 0.24
Sw krw kro fw  fw/  Sw fw'
Rel. Perm
0.20 0.00 1.00 0.00
0.25 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.29
0.30 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.30 0.30 1
0.35 0.01 0.53 0.05 0.50 0.74 0.8
0.40 0.01 0.41 0.14 0.84 1.60 0.6
0.45 0.02 0.30 0.28 1.33 2.90

Kr
0.4
0.50 0.04 0.21 0.49 1.87 4.14
0.2
0.55 0.06 0.13 0.70 2.27 4.34
0.60 0.09 0.07 0.861 2.39 3.13 0
0.65 0.11 0.03 0.947 2.31 1.73 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.70 0.15 0.01 0.990 2.15 0.86 Sw
0.75 0.20 0.00 1.000 1.96 0.20

Sw*= 0.66 ED = 0.55 k rw= 0.12 k ro= 0.86

M= 0.73 EABT= 0.73

08/02/21 70
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
B. Craig-Geffen-Morse Method (Craig: 8.4, App E)
Initial Calculations (Table E.5)
Area= 40 h= 30 = 0.21 dip= 0 Sgi= 0.1
p= 1000 rw= 0.5 k= 100 B o= 1.288 Bw= 1

Vp= 1955016 bbl EA= 1.22E-06 W i

N= 1001794 Stb re= 1.68 W i1/2
W iBT= 596846 bbl r= 0.39 re
W iIN = 153554 bbl iwIN = 6.36E+04 [5.42ln(r/rw)+4.07ln(re/r)]-1
W iF = 195502 bbl ibase= 1.13E+03 bbls/day

08/02/21 71
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Stage I. Performance Prior to Interference (Table E.6)

W i (bbls) re (ft) r (ft) i w (bbl/d) avg i w  t (days) t (days)

10000 168 65.6 2102 4.8 4.8
25000 266 103.8 1943 2022 7.4 12.2
50000 377 146.8 1837 1890 13.2 25.4
100000 533 207.6 1743 1790 27.9 53.3
153554 660 257.3 1689 1716 31.2 84.5

08/02/21 72
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Stage II. Performance from Interference to Fillup

W i (bbls) EA iw (bbl/d) avg iw  t (days) t (days)

153554 1689 84.5
195502 0.24 1044 1366 30.7 115.2

08/02/21 73
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Stage III. Performance from Fillup to Breakthrough (Table E.7)

W i (bbls) EA iw (bbl/d) avg iw  t (days) t (days) qo (Stb/d) Np (Stb) ER

195502 0.24 1044 115.2 810 0 0.00
300000 0.37 1032 1038 100.7 215.9 801 81132 0.08
400000 0.49 1021 1027 97.4 313.3 793 158772 0.16
500000 0.61 1010 1015 98.5 411.8 784 236412 0.24
596846 0.73 998 1004 96.5 508.3 775 311603 0.31

08/02/21 74
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Stage IV. Performance after Breakthrough (Table E.8)

W i (bbls) EA W i (pv) fw'|Sw2 Sw2 fw2 Sw*  Npu

596846 0.73 0.42 2.39 0.600 0.861 0.658 Fractional flow curve 0.324
716215 0.78 0.50 2.00 0.630 0.913 0.673 0.293
835585 0.82 0.58 1.74 0.650 0.947 0.680 0.264
954954 0.86 0.65 1.54 0.661 0.956 0.690 0.95 0.237
1074323 0.89 0.72 1.39 0.669 0.963 0.696 0.215
0.85
1193692 0.92 0.78 1.27 0.675 0.968 0.700 0.196

fw
1313062 0.95 0.85 1.18 0.680 0.973 0.703 0.75 0.180
1432431 0.97 0.91 1.09 0.685 0.977 0.706 0.167
0.65
1551800 0.99 0.98 1.02 0.690 0.981 0.709 0.156
0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
1671169 1.00 1.04 0.96 0.693 0.984 0.710 0.000
1790539 1.00 1.12 0.90 0.697 0.987 0.712 Sw 0.000
1909908 1.00 1.18 0.85 0.700 0.990 0.712 0.000

 Nps WOR Np (pv) Np (Stb) ER krw|Sw* M iw (bbl/d) avg i w  t (days) t (days) qo (Stb/d)
0.094 1.8 0.205 311520 0.31 0.116504 0.728608 998 508.3 324
0.062 2.3 0.238 361418 0.36 0.128725 0.805033 1021 1010 118.2 626.6 281
0.039 3.0 0.262 398123 0.40 0.134381 0.840409 1032 1027 116.3 742.8 243
0.034 3.5 0.286 434437 0.43 0.141603 0.885569 1044 1038 115.0 857.9 219
0.029 4.0 0.306 464715 0.46 0.146442 0.915836 1055 1049 113.8 971.6 200
0.026 4.5 0.324 491123 0.49 0.150095 0.938682 1066 1061 112.6 1084.2 183
0.022 5.1 0.338 513498 0.51 0.152956 0.956571 1089 1078 110.8 1194.9 171
0.019 5.6 0.352 534817 0.53 0.156017 0.975715 1112 1100 108.5 1303.4 161
0.016 6.2 0.365 554191 0.55 0.158546 0.99153 1123 1117 106.8 1410.3 150
0.016 79.2 0.370 560996 0.56 0.159594 0.998089 1134 1129 105.8 1516.0 14
0.013 97.8 0.372 563913 0.56 0.161516 1.010106 1134 1134 105.2 1621.3 11
0.010 127.5 0.372 564334 0.56 0.161793 1.011841 1134 1134 105.2 1726.5 9

08/02/21 75
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Results

t (days) i w (bbl/d) qo (Stb/d)

0
4.8 2102
12.2 1943
25.4 1837 Rates vs Time
53.3 1743
84.5 1689
2500
115.2 1044 0
115.2 1044 810
2000
215.9 1032 801
313.3 1021 793 Rate (B/D)
411.8 1010 784 1500
508.3 998 775
508.3 998 324 1000
626.6 1021 281
742.8 1032 243 500
857.9 1044 219
971.6 1055 200 0
1084.2 1066 183 0 500 1000 1500 2000
1194.9 1089 171
Time (days)
1303.4 1112 161
1410.3 1123 150
1516.0 1134 14
1621.3 1134 11
1726.5 1134 9

08/02/21 76
 Craig-Geffen-Morse
Results

Np (Stb) WOR
0
81132 WOR vs Recovery
158772
236412 20.0
311603 0.0
311520 1.8

WOR (Stb/Stb)
15.0
361418 2.3
398123 3.0 10.0
434437 3.5
464715 4.0 5.0
491123 4.5
513498 5.1 0.0
534817 5.6 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
554191 6.2
Cumulative Oil Production (Stb)
560996 79.2
563913 97.8
564334 127.5

08/02/21 77
 Note on all Waterflooding
Models
 Models have inherent limitations
 PETE 323 Models useful for initial planning
 Best overall approach is numerical reservoir
simulation--still many problems.
 Main problem with all models is unknown
reservoir heterogeniety, especially in
carbonate reservoirs!

08/02/21 78
 Improved Oil Recovery (other than waterflooding)

 Gas injection
 CO2
 Hydrocarbon miscible
 Thermal
 Surfactant
 Polymer

08/02/21 79
 Gas injection
Gi

Gp and Np
Gas cap

08/02/21 80
 Gas injection-modeling
 (Bo  B oi )  (R si  R s )B g Bg 
  m(  1) 
B B Schilthius equation
N p (Bo  (R p  R s )B g )  NB oi  
oi gi

 c w S wc  cf 
 (m  1)( ) p 
 1  S wc 

 (We  Wp )B w

With gas injection:

R p  (G p - G i )/N p

Note: if Gi gas composition is significantly different from Gp concentration then

black oil material balance equation (Schilthius ) not valid . May still be used as a
rough estimator.

08/02/21 81
 Gas injection-notes
 Injected gas may not be of the same composition
as produced gas--complicating predictions
 Gas usually swells the oil volume, reduces oil
viscosity if it goes in solution and maintains
reservoir pressure.
 If injected high on structure, gas injection
enhances gravity drainage --this usually results in
good oil recovery.

08/02/21 82
 CO2
 Under high pressure becomes miscible
(mixes) with oil
 Mobility ratio tends to be high because of
low CO2 viscosity
 Forms corrosive mixture with formation
water
CO2/oil
CO2 Oil
mixture

08/02/21 83
 CO2--patterns

Viscous finger

Waterflood-good sweep CO2--low sweep

WAG--CO2 followed by water--reduce Sor

and increase EA.

08/02/21 84
 Hydrocarbon miscible
 May be high pressure, rich gas or LNG
 Economics critical--requires cheap injection
material
 Works like CO2 without corrosion problems
 Rarely used today

08/02/21 85
 Thermal
 Two types: In-situ combustion and steam
 Mainly confined to heavy (high viscosity)
oil recovery
 Major “enhanced recovery” process in use
 Consumes much energy :
In-Situ--air compression energy
Steam--converting liquid water to vapor

08/02/21 86
 Thermal--incentives
Example: Kern River, California

Tf=100 deg.F , o=1,000 cp

If Tf = 300 deg F, then o =10 cp

*From Improved oil recovery, IOCC

08/02/21 87
 In-situ combustion
 Three main types:
a.dry forward
b.reverse (rare)
c.wet
 All need air to burn in-situ oil to provide
reservoir heat

08/02/21 88
 In-situ combustion
heat Forward Combustion

Combustion
products

air

Oil

heat

Burned region Burning Hot Oil bank

& Coke water

Steam&
light
hydrocarbons

08/02/21 89
 Wet In-situ Combustion
 Inject water after or
during air injection Start burn

 Takes advantage of
water’s high latent
heat
 Forms in-situ steam Start water
flood using heat from
combustion

08/02/21 90
 Steam
Water supply
Steam generator

Heat loss

Heat loss

08/02/21 91
 Steam
 Liquid water converted to vapor at the surface
 Typically injected at 80% vapor quality to
avoid precipitation of solids
 Vapor creates “convected heat bank” in the
reservoir
 Vapor heats oil and condenses in the reservoir

08/02/21 92
 Steam
 Projects typically start with cyclic steam
injection (test reservoir response, clean up
wells and get early cash flow)
 Second stage: Steam injection
 Third stage: water inject to salvage residual
heat

08/02/21 93
 Cyclic Steam
 Injection followed by
production (“huff and
Primary
puff”) decline
 Repeating a number of qo
cycles

Inj. Production

Time

08/02/21 94
 In-Situ vs Steam
In-Situ Steam
 Uses air
 Uses water
 Burns oil
 Heat losses in inj.
 Causes complex
Wells
reaction
 Corrosion from
 Fairly easy to start,
combustion gasses stop and control
 Needs close monitoring,
 High recoveries
may be hard to control
 High recoveries

08/02/21 95
 Surfactant
 Reduce interfacial
tension between
Critical
displaced phase (i.e. oil) i
concentrations

and displacing phase

(i.e.water) to reduce Sor
Surfactant
 Surfactants mixed with concentration
injection water either as
Low Con. High Con.
“slug” or continuous
injection

surfactant oil
Surfactant Slug
08/02/21 96
 Surfactant
 Chemicals expensive
 Electrically polar nature +

of surfactants causes loss

on some rock
 Alkaline flooding--use of -
+
cheap chemicals that react
with organic acids in oils +
+
to produce surfactants in- rock
+

situ
 Research continuing----

08/02/21 97
 Polymers
 Uses high molecular weight, water soluble
chemicals to increase water viscosity
 Higher water viscosity will decrease M and
give better sweep
Traditional WF Polymers

Low sweep High sweep

08/02/21 98
 Chemical flooding (surfactants
and polymers)
 Sometimes combined to give advantages of
both (high sweep and low Sor)
 Chemicals expensive (except alkaline
flooding)
 Modeling difficult because of complex
transport phenomena
 Pilots essential!

08/02/21 99
 Lessons learned from past pilots
 Carefully decide goals of pilot (field
experiment), publish for all to see
 Area(s) chosen should be representative of field
 Lean toward collecting
pilot
“too much “data
field
 View results objectively and scientifically
 Experiment with variations of the recovery
method(s)

08/02/21 100