FLOOD SURVEILLANCEWATERFLOOD SURVEILLANCE Introduction Engineering aspects of a waterflood do not end with the completion of an initial engineering and geological report, an economic evaluation of project profitability, or management approval of an AFE. Engineering aspects of waterflooding are an ongoing activity. A large number of technical papers have been presented in the literature which describes waterflood prediction techniques. Unfortunately, the literature has been to a great extent silent on methods and procedures which the operating engineer can use to monitor performance of actual reservoirs. In the beginning, the operations engineer usually has a rate and reserve forecast. Actual performance usually does not agree with predicted performance. These differences can frequently be attributable to the use of "average data" rather than data which is specific to a particular geological layer or a particular area of the field. Forecasts also differ from actual production performance due to the lack of accurate fluid seturations(S,, Syeco Sigs Soy): tock properties (Kyy, Kays wettability), and geological descriptions (stratification, permeability distribution, V’, rock continuity). Further, even if forecasts are made utilizing an accurate data base, the production forecasts can differ from actual behavior due to operational considerations. It is normal for the operation and timing of installations to be different from that projected. Well conversions are delayed (especially high production rate oil wells), drilling and re-work of existing wells do not always meet schedules due to oil price changes, corporate budget constraints, or changes in management practices. Nonetheless, if forecasts are made using predictive models which incorporate reasonably complete and accurate rock, fluid, and geological data, estimates of ultimate waterflood recovery should be reasonably correct. Unfortunately, the timing of actual events such as fillup, initial water breakthrough, and peak production is more difficult to achieve.The primary objectives of this chapter are to provide tools, techniques, and procedures which will supplement prediction techniques so as to assist in the surveillance of ongoing activities and to aid in the alteration of the initial waterflood design. In addition, procedures presented should assist in quantifying the flood performance. Waterflood surveillance includes close monitoring and professional management of the entire waterflood operation including production wells, injection wells, injection facilities, water quality, and metering capabilities. As a general objective, a surveillance program should allow for the maximum oil recovery to be achieved at the lowest water-oil ratio and operating cost. From a reservoir viewpoint, this can be consist of achieved by maximizing the waterflood recovery factors which primarily Ey, Ey, and Ep with a minimum amount of injected water. Production and Injection Test Analyses A. Maps A sound waterflood surveillance program requires that high quality and easily readable maps be prepared for each important geological flow unit. It is essential that one large scale map showing only bottomhole locations for each active and inactive injector and producer be prepared. Extra information such as wellbore trajectories is usually not helpful. Such extra information can be displayed on other maps. These maps do not need to show wellbore trajectories and shallower or deeper zone completions. Also, it is desirable to have pore volume maps for each flow unit with pore volume computed on a pattern by pattern basis for each flow unit. The net pay cutoff parameters should be clearly delineated. Good quality structure maps can be helpful in showing faults, fluid contacts, and the productive area of a field. Lastly, a finely gridded cross-section can be helpful in defining vertical flow barriers and lateral discontinuities. 9-2 . |Production Well Testing Procedures Production and injection graphs are valuable tools for monitoring and detecting changes in both well and reservoir performance. Production and injection trend analysis is usually based on allocated oil, gas, and water production or injection data which comes from well tests. Production trend analysis (decline curve analysis) is an accepted industry procedure for evaluating remaining recoverable reserves. Production or injection trends frequently form the basis of working over wells, stimulating wells, setting bridge plugs, installing larger equipment, or drilling of new wells. It is recognized that if well tests are not reliable, unnecessary well work may be carried out or production opportunities may be missed. Decisions to make capital expenditures on individual wells or a larger portion of the field are tied to production and injection trend analysis. Clearly, there is a need for frequent and reliable well tests. Each production well should be tested monthly for 8 to 12 hours or more. High volume or strategic production wells should be tested at least twice a month. Changes in production by more than a pre-determined percentage for these strategic wells should automatically result in a re-test with the information being brought to the field reservoir or production manager’s attention. Production test procedures and test equipment used early in the life of the field (during primary depletion) when water cuts are low, may need to be changed under waterflooding when total fluid production is greater and water cut is much higher. Test equipment and flow meters should be calibrated on a regular basis to insure that oil, water, and gas measurements are reliable. A reliable and regular well testing program is an integral part of any type of reservoir monitoring and reservoir management program. Production and Injection Trend Analysis injection trend analysis is a valuable tool in monitoring and detecting changes in well and reservoir performance. Traditionally, oil, water, and 9-3gas production rates are plotted versus time for individual wells, groups of wells, and entire fields. Most engineers agree the most reliable trend analysis occurs when well evaluations are conducted using accurate well test data. A well-by-well review allows the analyst to incorporate recent changes in production behavior resulting from reservoir performance or well work activities. Production trend analysis for groups of wells, while commonly used in the industry, may be less accurate because it is difficult to account for individual well workovers, mechanical changes to existing wells, the shut-in of old wells, or the addition of new wells. The grouping of wells to evaluate production trends tends to combine the good, the bad, and the ugly wells and may give an unrealistic picture of reservoir behavior. 1. Production Wells Various graphs of production data can provide valuable insight into the performance of an ongoing waterflood. Before discussing some of the more common graphs used in waterflooding, it should be noted that many of these graphs represent a simple carryover from primary depletion to waterflooding. Because the reservoir drive mechanism in waterflooding is much different than in primary depletion, the production trend analysis tools which may be applicable for primary depletion may not be applicable for water injection. For example, a considerable number of technical papers have discussed the conditions under which exponential, harmonic, or hyperbolic decline curves develop during primary depletion. Reference 1 summarizes these methods. Significantly, none of the declines may be applicable in waterflooding. As mentioned, in Eqs. 4.49 and 4.50 in Chapter 4, oil and water production rates are directly related to the water injection rate. Consequently, changes in the rate of water injection into existing wells or the drilling of new injectors may alter the rate of oil production and the decline rate but may not result in changes in remaining reserves. 94S 4 3 a £ z 5 s g 3 s & Decline curves in waterflood analysis have limited theoretical justification. Nevertheless, when production data are plotted on various types of graphs, linear trends frequently develop and may be used for evaluating and forecasting purposes. As a result, many decline curves represent empirical evaluations. Listed below are some of the common plots used to evaluate production and injection performance. Coordinate Graph A coordinate graph showing oil production rate, water production rate, and gas/oil ratio (GOR) (not gas production) versus time can be one of the most valuable diagnostic plots in assessing waterflood behavior. By using a linear scale, as shown in Figure 9-1, it is easy to see small but important changes in the data trends. Figure 9-1 Single Pattern Production and Injection Data vs Time —=aor Se waterin} ou/49s ‘40DIfa semi-log graph of oil rate versus time is used, frequently the log scale tends to mask or obscure small changes in production, The GOR graph can provide great insight into gas fillup. If there is free gas saturation at the start of water injection, the GOR is likely to be much greater than the initial solution GOR. During the ges fillup period of the waterflood, the GOR declines. This can be a valuable indicator that reservoir pressure is increasing, gas is being dissolved in the oil, and oil response should be anticipated in the near future. As gas fillup occurs in all of the important geological flow units, the GOR will decline to and level out at the solution GOR existing at the start of water injection. Exponential Decline Curves (and Hyperbolic and Harmonic) In primary depletion there are certain conditions in which it can be mathematically demonstrated that oil (or gas) production rate will decline exponentially (or hyperbolic or harmonic). In an exponential decline, oil production rate is plotted versus time on semi-log graph paper. In waterflood operations, if oil production rate forms a straight line, it is an empirical decline which is exponential, Figure 9-2 is an example of oil production rate versus time characterized by exponential decline behavior. 9-6Figure 9-2 Oil Rate vs Time Center Production Well in a 5-Spot Pattern = = 5 = 5 a ¢ 3 re 5 # of Years Eq, 9-1 describes exponential decline. Dt (Eq. 9.1) d= Ge where: Qj = initial production rate at start of decline where t= 0.0, BOPD D. = exponential decline, fraction/year Q_. = production rate at future time ¢, BOPD ft = time since the start of decline, years Integration of Eq. 9.1 with respect to time yields: 9-7Nor (25% }+365 (Eq. 9.2) where: N, ‘pt = cumulative oil production, STBO By rearranging Eq. 9.2, it can be seen that: D* Ny a Eq. 9.3 365 (Eq. 9.3) UU Eq. 9.3 describes a straight line. That is, if the oil production rate is declining exponentially, then oil production rate (qj) plotted versus cumulative oil production (V py) on coordinate graph paper is also a straight line. This graph can be extrapolated to the economic limit and ultimate production can be estimated. Eq. 9.3 removes the time factor, however, from a mathematical perspective, Eq. 9.3 is equivalent to Eq. are The advantage of using the oil rate versus cumulative production graph is that it is easier to observe changes in oil production rate which may be masked on a log scale. Figure 9-3 is a graph of oil rate versus cumulative production. 9-8€ = S = S a = g s @ oO Figure 9-3 Oil Rate vs Cumulative Oil Produced Center Production Well in a 5-Spot Pattern 60.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0) Cumulative Oil, MBO The data used in Figure 9-3 are also the data used to construct Figure 9-2. Any graph, such as shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3, in which historical oil production rate trends are extrapolated for estimating future production should be used with caution. It should be recalled from previous discussions that changes in future water injection rates (into existing or new wells) would be expected to have an effect on future oil production rates but do not necessarily change ultimate recoverable reserves. Future changes in injection may only accelerate recovery. Injection wells For each injection well, a linear graph should be maintained which shows daily water injection rate, average daily wellhead injection pressure and estimates of average reservoir pressure versus time. Average pressure points 9-9should be gathered at least every two years, particularly during the early years of the waterflood. These pressure measurements provide insight into the voidage replacement ratio and may be helpful in evaluating Hall plots which are discussed in a later section. Patterns A pattem (or cluster of wells) analysis is helpful when evaluating reservoir performance in localized areas. Pattern graphs are similar to those constructed for individual wells except that pattern graphs represent allocated oil, water, and GOR data. For example, in a perfect injection centered five-spot pattern 25 percent of the oil, water and GOR data for each of the four producing wells would be assigned to the production graph. A principal difficulty of performing pattern analysis is production allocation for injection centered patterns (or injection allocation for production well centered patterns). This is complicated due to the fact that waterfloods are usually characterized by irregular patterns, out of balance injection and production rates, directional permeability trends, or wellbore operational issues. Figure 9-4 shows a production centered five-spot pattern. Figures 9- 5 and 9-6 show production and allocated injection versus time.Figure 9-4 Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern NWell Figure 9-5 Production and Allocated Injection for a Production Centered 5-Spot Pattern Production Rate, MB/Day 0/498 ‘NOD. 9-1LFigure 9-6 Annotated Production Centered 5-Spot Pattem Rate, MB/Day 08/498 ‘NOD Figure 9-6 is annotated and indicates when the five wells. which create the five-spot in Figure 9-4 were initially drilled as producers and later converted to injection. Voidage Replacement Ratio (VRR) (Monthly and Cumulative) The VRR is defined as being the sum of the water injection and natural water influx divided by reservoir voidage, measured at reservoir conditions. VRR is usually evaluated on a monthly basis. In many instances, natural water influx is negligible; however, in some instances it may be important. Monthly reservoir voidage, evaluated at reservoir conditions, is calculated using Eq. 9.4 Voidage = , * By + Gy * By +q,(GOR-R,)B, (Ea. 9.4) Where" oil rate, STBOM Io yy = Water rate, STBWM GOR = current monthly producing GOR, SCF/STBO py u solution GOR, SCF/STBO. = water formation volume factor, RB/STBW_ oil formation volume factor, RB/STBO tg = gas formation volume factor, RB/SCF If the VRR for a given month is equal to or greater than 1.0, the reservoir pressure is being maintained or increased for the month. If the ratio is less than 1.0, reservoir pressure declines for the month. When computing the reservoir voidage, it should not be assumed the free gas term is negligible without making appropriate calculations. Due to leaking faults, poor cement casing bond, discontinuous sands depleted prior to water injection, a gas cap, or an inactive aquifer, it is common to lose some of the injected water to areas outside of the floodable pore volume. The volume of water lost varies from reservoir to reservoir, but this writer’s experience is that 10 to 50 percent of the injected water is lost. Therefore for computing effective injection volumes, the actual injection needs to be reduced by the estimated percentage of water lost out of zone. In the absence of other information, it can be assumed that 20 to 30 percent is lost. Cumulative VRR is the cumulative injection and natural water influx since the start of injection divided by cumulative reservoir voidage since the start of injection, As long as this cumulative VRR is equal to or greater than 1.0, 9-13after taking into account injection losses, reservoir pressure since the start of water injection will be maintained or inereased, Many engineers compute @™y cumulative VRR by using cumulative reservoir voidage since the date of initial production from the reservoir with the idea that waterflood response will not occur until VRR is 1.0. This is not correct. Waterflood response within the most permeable layers will occur when gas fillup is achieved as discussed in Chapter 4. When the cumulative VRR computed since initial production reaches 1.0, reservoir pressure will have increased back to near the original reservoir pressure. Figure 9-7 presents a graph of monthly and cumulative VRR since the start of injection. Figure 9-7 Monthly and Cumulative VRR Since the Start of Injection Cum VRR Since Initial Procuction i 4 7 8 9 0 14 12 13 14 “ine, Monts 5. Spaghetti Graph The reservoir analyst should not try to include too much data on a single @ graph. Frequently, analysts attempt to plot five or six production variables 9-14i i : i such as oil, water, and gas production rate, GOR, water injection rate, water cut, and well count on the same graph, Consequently, the graph becomes cluttered and important production trends may not be identified. Figure 9-8 is an example of a spaghetti graph. Figure 9-8 Spaghetti Graph for a Production Well It was only after each production parameter was plotted on separate graphs as illustrated in Figures 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, and 9-13 that important production trends were observed leading to improved reservoir management strategies. The message is to construct simple graphs until sudden changes or gradual trends can be seen. At the time significant changes occur, graphs may be combined to help identify causes and effects of field activities. 9-15Oil Production, BOPD Figure 9-9 Single String of Spaghetti — Oil Rate vs Time 140 430 120 Figure 9-10 Two Strings of Spaghetti — Oil & Water Rate vs TimeFigure 9-11 Two Strings of Spaghetti — Oil Rate & GOR vs Time ‘SOR, MSCFIBO (ll Proaueton, BOPO Figure 9-12 Spaghetti String — Exponential Decline 1000 = = = 100 Oil Production (BOPD) 10 0 2 4 6 8 1012 14 16 18 20 22 26 25 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 9-17Figure 9-13 Spaghetti String —- Exponential Decline 400 cum oi- 60 Water/Oil Ratio Plot A common tool used to evaluate reservoir performance and forecast ultimate recovery is a semi-log graph of WOR versus cumulative oil production. WOR is plotted on the log scale and cumulative oil production (JV, ‘p) ison the linear axis. ‘This graph has been used for many years in the petroleum industry for evaluating waterflood behavior but very little technical data has been published on its limits of application. References” suggest that a graph of WOR versus Ny for WOR values exceeding 1.0 to 2.0 can be extrapolated to higher WOR values to estimate ultimate recovery. Again, like other production plots, the WOR versus NV, graph is most dependable when it is applied on a well-by-well basis so that the good, bad and ugly (low, medium, and high) WOR wells are not combined. Finally, at very high WOR values, the data points bend upward and form a vertical line as the 9-18reservoir is completely swept to a residual oil saturation and maximum waterflood recovery is achieved. It is recalled from a previous discussion in this chapter and from discussions in Chapter 4 that oil and water production rates are influenced by water injection rate. Significantly, when applied on a well-by-well basis, the WOR versus Np, plot is independent of injection rates. Eq. 4.28 shows that: wor =—2»—» Bo. (Eq. 4.28) 10-f, By Figure 9-14 is an example of a WOR graph for one well in a waterflood pattern. The data used in this graph were used to construct Figures 9-2 and 9-3. Figure 9-14 WOR vs Np Center Production Well in 5-Spot Pattern 250 © 300-350 Cumulative Oi, MBO 9-19Figure 9-15 is a WOR plot for a group of production wells. Multi-well graphs are usually more difficult to analyze than single wells due to different conditions in the various wells. Figure 9-15 WOR vs Np - Group of Production Wells 04 05 08) OTB Cumulative Oi, MBO Oil Cut A decline curve which has been successfully used in many waterflood projects is a graph of the fraction of oil in the total produced well stream (oil cut) versus cumulative production. As seen in Eq. 4.47, WOR is related to water cut and consequently, oil cut (f, =1—f,,). The oil cut is plotted on a log scale and cumulative production is plotted on a linear scale. The oil cut graph is similar to but different from the WOR plot. Figure 9-16 is an example of the oil cut plot. 9-20FIGURE 9-16 Oil Cut (Fieldwide) vs Cumulative Oil Production 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Np, MBO While there are no specific theoretical guidelines, but because oil cut is related to WOR, it would be reasonable to expect the limitations of WOR plots extend to oil cut plots. Since the WOR plot is most reliable when applied to individual wells for WOR values greater than 1.0 to 2.0, oil cut plots should be applied to individual wells using production data where the oil cut is less than about 70 percent. When applicable, the graph can be extrapolated to the oil cut economic limit to estimate ultimate recovery. X Plot Ershaghi and Omoregie' suggested an altemate method of analyzing waterflood performance. Their method is a graphical technique which is 9-21referred to as an X plot. They recommend plotting X versus cumulative production where: X=-|In 1019 _LO (Eq. 9.5) tw tw and: Sw —4y (Eq. 9.6) Io + Iw References**® indicate the X plot is a more accurate method of plotting waterflood data for extrapolation purposes. For actual fractional flow, fy, data greater than 0.5 (WOR > 1.0), a linear relationship between X and N, ‘p may develop when applied on a well-by-well basis. Extrapolation of these data permit an estimate of future recovery as a function of XY and fy, Figure 9-17 is an example of the X plot. 9-22FIGURE 9-17 X vs CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION Economic Limit s 4 x 3 oll Recovery at Economic Limit 2 0 1 2 3 4 Cumulative Oil Recovery, MMBO. The X plot is not the answer to all problems. The basic theory behind this graph assumes a 1-D Buckley-Leverett model without consideration of (1) stratification or (2) changes in areal sweep efficiency after water 9-23breakthrough. Like other production plots such as the oil cut and WOR methods, the X’ plot methodology should be used with caution. Oil Cut versus Cumulative Production (Coordinate Graph) Several experienced engineers have recommended (without theoretical justification) the use of a simple coordinate graph of oil cut (or water cut) versus cumulative oil production as an excellent method for forecasting production in mature waterfloods (where the oil cut is less than about 30 percent). In several confidential consulting projects, it has been observed that this graph yields results which appear to be very consistent with results from other empirical plots. Figure 9-18 is an example of a coordinate graph of oil cut versus cumulative oil production for a mature stratified, carbonate waterflood. This figure presents actual field data and shows an apparent increase of 20 MMSTBO in ultimate oil recovery attributable to a pattern realignment and pattem regularization which occurred at a cumulative production of about 290 MMSTBO. A conventional semi-log graph of oil production rate versus time gives similar results. 9-24FIGURE 9-18 Oil Cut vs Cumulative Oil Production Showing Effects of Pattern Regularization Continued Wateriood Forecast | (Ultimate = 414 MMBO at 5.0% Ol Cut) Pattern Regularization Forecast (Utimate = 434 MMBO at 5.0% Oil Cut) | Waterfiood Pattern Regularization a 6 3 350 400 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, MMBO 10. Recovery Factor versus Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Injected A useful tool in waterflood analysis is a coordinate graph of oil recovery factor versus hydrocarbon pore volumes of water injected. Hydrocarbon pore volume, HPV, is simply net pore volume multiplied by the initial oil saturation at the time of field discovery. That is: HPV =V*(1-Swe) (4. 9-7) where: HPV = hydrocarbon pore volume, RB V., = net floodable pore volume, RB P 9-25Swe = connate water saturation (S,,, > imeducible water), fraction Figure 9-19 is a graph of RF’ versus W;/ HPV (hydrocarbon pore volumes of water injected) where W; is cumulative injection. FIGURE 9-19 RECOVERY FACTOR vs HYDROCARBON PORE VOLUMES INJECTED < 3 2 o a g So o ing = go 8 o a 10 20 Wj/HPV, Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Injected An important function of this type of graph is to compare how individual pattems or clusters of wells compare to theoretical values, field average values, or similar plots from other fields. Efforts should be made to determine why actual performance for a group of wells is similar to or different from the theoretical or field average plots. Plotting RF versus W; / HPV removes the time element from the graph and allows for a comparison of actual performance to a base performance where actual injection rates are different from the original injection rates. 9-2611. 12, The base performance graph can also be obtained from reservoir simulation or from analogous fields. When making comparisons between adjacent fields or between patterns, it is assumed that factors such as (1) permeability variation, (2) fluid saturation at the start of injection, (3) fluid properties, and (4) relative permeability are similar. Multiple Trend Forecasting with Field Production Constraints In 1998, Wilson, et al.’ presented several interesting ideas related to combining multiple production trends to improve predictions of the future performance of the single primary phase when production constraints exist. Two methods are described in detail which specifically account for mature waterflood performance and gas-handling constrained production. ‘The waterflood analysis accounts for waterflood response when total constrained liquid production is sometimes limited by the ability to process and lift large volumes of water along with decreasing amounts of oil. The method forecasts total liquid rate and water-oil ratio versus cumulative oil production. Several field examples are discussed. Summary of Production Graphs Engineers have developed and utilized many different types of production plots for monitoring and predicting waterflood performance. Baker*? does a good job in summarizing many of these plots. Nevertheless, it is clear that no complete theoretical basis for constructing many of the production plots exists. The various graphs should generally be considered as empirical plots which historically have been found to be helpful in monitoring performance. The graphs may be influenced by a number of factors such as injection rate, infill drilling, pattern geometry, the degree of pattern balancing, relative permeability characteristics, fluid properties, fluid saturations, directional permeability, and reservoir stratification. Yet these graphs, when applied on an individual well basis, can be helpful in estimating future production with a 9.27continuation of historical injection, production, and operational procedures. It is also clear that if operations are changed (infill drilling, pattern re- e alignment, increased injection, well stimulation, etc.), these production plots may show the incremental benefits derived from the changes. Finally, when used correctly on a well-by-well basis, the graphs can provide valuable insight into existing waterflood behavior and how current operations and oil production can be improved ILL Pressure Transient Testing The performance of injection wells and production wells is of major importance in waterflooding operations. It is important that a complete testing program be used before and during injection to determine the condition of the reservoir. A number of parameters including formation flow capacity, formation damage, average reservoir pressure, and formation parting pressure can be determined from a properly designed and analyzed test. In general, the major objectives of a testing program are to monitor changes in formation damage, reservoir pressure, and parting pressure gradients. e Robertson and Kelm!? have descried a testing program used by one company to accomplish these objectives. ‘The pressure tests which are most frequently conducted in a waterflood surveillance program include: * buildup + falloff @ step rate * Hall plot In major projects, a pulse test or interference test is occasionally run to determine pressure communication between wells and to estimate inter-well rock properties. e 9-28Anytime a production or injection well is performing below expectations, a pressure e buildup or falloff test should be considered. A. Pressure Buildup and Pressure Falloff Testing A complete waterflood surveillance program should include a regular schedule for conducting pressure buildup and pressure falloff tests. The general objectives of these tests are to determine flow capacity, k/, wellbore flow restriction (skin), and average reservoir pressure, J). It would be desirable (in a perfect world) to conduct these tests on each production and injection well on an annual basis. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to live in the ideal world. As a result, itis recommended that 20 to 25 percent of the key wells (both producers and injectors) be tested on an annual basis. Change in average reservoir pressure D is one of the most usefull diagnostic tools available in a surveillance program. Average pressure values can be posted on e maps and iso-pressure contours can be constructed. It is recognized that while these maps are not theoretically correct, they provide considerable reservoir insight regarding the degree of reservoir fillup, injection efficiency, and the Voidage Replacement Ratio in various segments of the field. A number of technical books have been published on conventional well testing. References 11, 12, and 13 summarize the important design and interpretation features of pressure tests. It is beyond the scope of this section to discuss pressure testing in more detail. Several technical papers have discussed the use of pressure falloff tests to estimate the distance to various flood fronts such as water fronts and oil banks. Due to saturation gradients which exist in the water zone, reservoir stratification, and the lack of a properly balanced pattern, it is the experience of the writers that flood e front distance calculations are difficult at best. Further, confidence in a calculated distance would likely be very low. 9-29B. Step Rate Test To realize maximum injectivity without fracturing the reservoir, it is necessary to have a reliable method of determining the fracture pressure. Fracture gradients are generally known for most areas, but the actual fracture pressure in a given reservoir can vary from well to well. Further, the fracture pressure can vary with time and operating conditions within a given well largely due to reservoir pressure. As reservoir pressure declines, formation parting pressure (FPP) decreases. Conversely, as reservoir pressure increases during fillup, the FPP increases, In several instances" where substantial primary depletion has occurred, the FPP at the start of waterflooding has been found to be only slightly greater than a hydrostatic column of salt water. The parting pressure will often increase with injection during the early life of a flood. An approximate fracture pressure can also be obtained from the instantaneous shut-in pressure following a stimulation treatment; this is approximate, however, and as noted previously, the pressure can change for a number of reasons. The best method available to determine safe injection pressures is the step rate test'®. Singh, et al.'® and Gidley, et al.'” (Chapter 15, and Appendix 1) presented a comprehensive review of the variables affecting the step rate test (SRT). Generally, the test well is either shut-in or stabilized at a reduced but constant injection rate prior to the start of the SRT. Ideally, the shut-in period should be long enough so that the bottom-hole pressure stabilizes near the static formation pressure. Alternatively, if the well is stabilized at a reduced injection rate, the stabilization period should be long enough to achieve a steady-state or a pseudo steady-state condition. The SRT that follows consists of a series of constant-rate injections with rates increasing from low to high in a stepwise fashion. Each constant-rate step is normally of equal time length. Injection rates and pressures are recorded for each step and analyzed to determine the FPP. 9-30The conventional analysis method assumes a steady-state Darcy flow into an injection well and is based on Eq. 9.8. aad Y, Py; =P +| 141.24} n2 +5 | fi, (Eq. 98) Kh\ ty If a steady-state condition is achieved during each injection step, 7% will be constant. It is further assumed that during the test, J can be assumed constant. A linear relationship will therefore exist between the injection pressure Dyyj at the end of each constant-rate injection step and the corresponding injection rate For most SRTs, step time lengths are seldom long enough to reach a steady-state condition. In this case, 7 can be replaced by Tq (the drainage radius as defined by Aronofsky and Jenkins'*). If time step size is constant, a linear relationship should still exist between Dy; and i, for the test data below parting pressure. This is because the logarithmic term (In rq /7,) will be constant for each injection rate during the test. A Cartesian plot of Dyy; Versus 7, is made for the SRT data. When the injection pressure exceeds parting pressure the resulting fracture acts as an additional fluid conductor which changes (reduces) the slope of the Dy; versus 7,, curve accordingly. This is illustrated by the D,,; versus iy, plot of the simulated data as shown in Figure 9-20.FIGURE 9-20 BASIC PLOT FOR STEP RATE TEST Fracture Pressure Lo... a a g a ie a S S 3 2 = Injection Rate, BPD The pre-parting data falls on a straight line and is governed by Eq. 9.8. Normally, another straight line is drawn through the points above the parting pressure as shown in Figure 9-20. The pressure corresponding to the point where the two lines intersect is interpreted as the parting pressure. This method provides an approximate estimate of parting pressure. Since the fracture length continues to increase above the FPP, there is no theoretical basis for drawing a second straight line through the points above the parting pressure. Accordingly, on the vertical axis, this line extrapolates back to a pressure point which is much higher than the pretest pressure, J. The value of the intercept with respect to the pretest pressure provides a qualitative indication that the pressure points corresponding to the second straight line are above the parting pressure. Many engineers are concemed that this test will fracture and permanently damage the formation. This should not be a concem if the test is properly conducted. When using this test for the first time in a field, rates should be increased slowly 9-32until a fracture pressure is definitely established. Tests in other wells can then be designed so that pressures will not exceed this pressure for appreciable lengths of time. Multi-rate pressure transient analysis techniques can be used in some cases to analyze the results of a step rate test for permeability and skin. However, rates must be carefully controlled during each flow period for this analysis to be accurate. It is recommended that Reference 17 be studied in more detail to review other factors which may affect SRT analysis such as injection time step size, wellbore storage, skin damage, and rate increment size. EXAMPLE 9:1 A 2800-foot water injection well located in a developed flood in the Permian Basin of West Texas has undergone a step rate test, The test data were measured as shown. Prior to the test, the well was shut-in for seven days. Analyze the data and determine: (a) the fracture pressure of the reservoir, (b) the fracture gradient, and (©) the optimum water injection rate. 9-33TABLE 1 (Date 77, bbls / day | Bottom-Hole Pressure, psi e 3/28/99 631.0 | 1,940.0 74 199 0.0 1,615.0 474799 100.0 1,683.0 F599 175.0 1,725.0 47 6199 250.0 | 1,760.0 417199 325.0 1,812.0 478199 400.0 1,824.0 47999 475.0 1,857.0. 4710/99 4/11/99 1,870. F299 1,880.0 | 4713/99 1,901.0 A499 1,920.0 SOLUTION The step rate data are plotted in Figure 9-21. It is observed that two straight lines e are defined by the data; the intersection of these lines defines the reservoir fracture pressure as 1825 psi and the optimum water injection rate as 370 bbls per day. 9-34FIGURE 9-21 STEP RATE TEST (EXAMPLE9:1) 2000 = 1900 ;—_—— 1800 + 1700 Bottom-Hole Injection Pressure, psi 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Injection Rate, BWPD Based upon this information: Fracture gradient = 1825 psi / 2800 feet or 0.65 psi/ftAn issue which frequently is discussed in waterflood operations is the impact of vertically induced fractures on waterflood recovery. These fractures can result from either conventional hydraulic fracturing or by injecting above the FPP for extended periods of time. The effect of such fractures can be helpful, harmful, or have negligible effect on recovery. In general, if the direction of the fracture is such that it is parallel to a line connecting two adjacent injectors, overall areal sweep efficiency will be enhanced and recovery should increase when compared to the non-fractured reservoir. In this case, vertical fractures may be helpful. On the other hand, if the direction of the vertical fracture is such that it is parallel to a line connecting two adjacent producers, overall areal sweep efficiency may be reduced and oil recovery will decrease when compared to the non-fractured case. Fracture orientation is not always known. As a result, Reference 19 presents a review of the technical literature as well as information which considers the effect of fracture length on sweep efficiency as a function of mobility ratio and fracture orientation. In general, if the fracture length is less than approximately ten percent of the distance between the injector and producer, areal sweep efficiency will not be significantly affected. In tight or low permeability waterfloods, it is frequently necessary to inject above the fracture pressure to inject meaningful quantities of water. In these instances, it is desirable to create a short hydraulic fracture possessing a high conductivity. Subsequent water injection should take place at injection pressures which are below fracture pressures so as to prevent fracture growth as a function of time. Even so, injection above the fracture pressure or into hydraulically fractured wells makes it very difficult to control the vertical distribution of the injected water which could be harmful to vertical sweep efficiency. Finally, it should be noted that based on fracture theory and the work of Dyes et al” as reviewed in Reference 17, injection rates in reservoirs with short fractures (ten percent of the distance between injectors and producers) show about a 2.5 to 3.0 increase over injection rates for comparable non-fractured systems. If actual 9-36injection rates show more than a threefold increase, it could be that skin damage was removed, a much longer fracture length (greater than ten percent) is present, or that injected water is being lost “out of zone”. C. Hall Method of Analyzing Injection Well Behavior In 1963, Hali* presented a technique for interpreting routinely collected injection well data to draw conclusions regarding “skin effects” at water injection wells. Buell et al” studied the application of the Hall Plot for injection well analysis for both waterfloods and polymer injection projects. The required data includes average monthly bottom-hole injection pressure (wellhead injection pressures can be used if they are correctly converted to bottom-hole pressures by accounting for the hydraulic head and friction pressure losses in the tubing), average reservoir pressure (P)), monthly injection volumes, and injection days for the month. The procedure assumes gas fillup has occurred (GOR has collapsed), the mobility ratio is 1.0 and steady-state injection is present such that the injection rate can be expressed as: j, = £.00707 KP — B) a9) nu) n+ 7 w At this point, it is assumed thatk, 2, 11,7,,Tyy, and S are constant. Thus, Eq. 9.9 reduces to: hy = C(Dyyi — B) (Eq. 9.10) where: 9-37eC OUTaE 4.9.11) a) i%«s| ty Rearranging Eq. 9.10 results in: (Pwi- P) (Eq, 9.12) Integration of both sides of Eq. 9.12 with respect to time gives: t S t; [5(Pwi p)dt =—foi,dt (Eq. 9.13) e The integral on the right-hand side is cumulative water injected. Hence, Eq. 9.13 becomes: = W, $6( Pw ~p)at=— (Eq. 9.14) where: W;, = cumulative volume of water injected at time £, bbls Examination of Eq. 9.14 indicates that a coordinate graph of the integral term versus MW; should form a straight line with a slope of 1/C.. This type of graph is called a Hall Plot. If k, A, ,7,,7yy and S are constant, then from Eq. 9.11, the value of C is constant and the slope is constant. However, if the parameters change, C’ will also change and thus the slope of the Hall plot will change. Herein lies the value of the method. Changes in injection conditions may be noted from the Hall plot. For example, if wellbore plugging or other restrictions to injection are gradually occurring, the net effect is a gradual increase in the skin 9-38factor. As S increases, C decreases and, thus, the slope of the Hall Plot increases. Conversely, if S is decreasing as would be the case when injection exceeds fracture pressures causing fracture growth, then C’ will decrease and the slope of the Hall Plot will decrease. Figure 9-22 is a Hall plot for various injection, conditions. FIGURE 9-22 HALL PLOT FOR VARIOUS INJECTION WELL CONDITIONS 300 . A g 250 4 wi 200 5 & 7 © 1504 ¥ & 100 5 | ‘3 (A) No Change with MR=1.0 S07 --f BEER ener a (©) Gradual - Skin and/or MR>L.0 Gas Fillup | (&) Abrupt- Skin 0 T i i 7 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cunmlative Water Injection, MBThe most difficult part of developing a Hall Plot is the evaluation of the pressure- integral function on the left side of Eq. 9.14. Fortunately, the integral can be easily solved. Consider Figure 9-23 which shows a graph of monthly bottomhole injection pressure, Py; , and periodic estimates of average reservoir pressure, D. FIGURE 9-23 BOTTOM-HOLE INJECTION AND RESERVOIR PRESSURE vs TIME 4500, — Bottom-Aole Injection Pressure 3 3 s a a 2 5 a a 2 a 4 Reservoir Pressure Time, Years Usually P can be estimated at regular intervals, such as one per year. A straight line connecting annual DP estimates will provide a basis for estimating D. less frequently, such as on a monthly basis. Consider the following example.Example 9:2 e During the last six months, the data listed below have been estimated for an injection well. Compute the information necessary to prepare six points on a Hall Plot. TABLE 2 Month Pyi2PSi PD, psi At, days | i,, BPM 10 2,240.0 | 1,300.0 11.0 11,000.0 20 2,270.0 13020 | 280 | 28,000.0 3.0 2,285.0 1,304.0 30.0 30,000.0 40 2,290.0 1,306.0 16.0 16,000.0 e 5.0 2,298.0 1,308.0 31.0 31,000.0 a) 2312.0 1310.0 28.0 28,000.0 Solution, Ifit can be assumed that the tabulated values of Py; and D are average for the month, then: S5(Pwi - p)dt= xAp x At where: AP = Pwi-P At =number of injection days for the month 9-41TABLE 3 Month Ap At DAp x At W; psi_ _ days psi-days x 10° | BWPM BW 10 940 11.0 103 11,000.0 | 11,000 2.0 968 28.0 374 28,000.0 | 39,000 3.0 981 30.0 66.8 30,000.0 | 69,000 4.0 980 16.0 82.6 16,000.0 | 85,000 5.0 990 310.) «1133 31,000.0 | 116,000 60 1,002 28.0 1414 28,000.0 | 144,000 ‘These data make up a portion of the data presented in Figure 9-24.FIGURE 9-24 HALL PLOT FOR WATER INJECTION WELL 150 & % 4 i 2 % a 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Cumulative Water Injection, MB Changes in the Hall plot will occur gradually and, as in production decline curve analysis, several months (6 or longer) of injection history may be required to reach conclusions about injection behavior. Finally, several words of caution are in order because changes in the slope of the Hall plot can be the result of other factors. Early in the life of an injection well before gas fillup, the radii of the water and oil zones will increase with cumulative injection and cause the value of C to increase resulting in the Hall plot being concave upward. Therefore, during the gas fillup period, the increasing radii create the effect of an increasing skin 9-43factor. Also, the Hall plot assumes a mobility ratio of 1.0. If the actual mobility ratio is greater than 1.0, then after gas fillup the Hall plot tends to behave like curve D in Figure 9-22; if the mobility ratio is less than 1.0, the Hall plot will tend to follow curve C. Finally, as average water saturation in the reservoir increases over time, k,, increases and may affect the slope. After gas fillup, if it can be assumed that the difference between Dy; and D, does not materially change, then preparation of the Hall plot is greatly simplified. In this situation, P can be neglected. If the difference between P,,; and P is constant, and D is ignored, the Hall plot is only shifted on the vertical scale ‘without changing the slope or its interpretative procedures. Under this condition, the bottom-hole injection pressure, P,y;, is simply the wellhead injection pressure plus a hydrostatic gradient minus a friction loss term. These two terms can usually be assumed constant and neglected. As a result the left hand side of Eq. 9.14 simply becomes the integral of the wellhead injection pressure. On the other hand, if the difference between P,,;and P is not constant, the failure to include D can result in changes in the slope leading the reservoir analyst to incorrect conclusions regarding changes in skin factor. The consequences of ignoring P is discussed in more detail in Reference 22. To determine whether average reservoir pressure is changing, it is necessary to conduct regular pressure buildup/falloff tests and to monitor monthly VRR plots. The objective of the Hall plot is to detect changes in the injection well skin factor. Itis not a perfect tool but can, under certain conditions, provide reasonable insight on skin changes. The best tool for quantifying injection wellbore skin damage is a properly designed, well executed, and fully analyzed pressure falloff test.IV. Pattern Balancing @ In a large multi-pattem waterflood, significant improvements in the efficiency of the waterflooding process can be achieved through carefull management of the flood injection rates in each waterflood pattem. Balancing injection and production rates within and between patterns should substantially reduce produced water handling requirements, improve long-term production rates, and enhance ultimate recovery. In balanced patterns, important events such as fillup or water breakthrough for the various patterns will occur at the same time. To illustrate the principle of pattem balancing, consider two five spot pattems which are a part of a developed five spot system as depicted in Figure 9-25. FIGURE 9-25 TWO 5-SPOT PATTERNS FROM A DEVELOPED 5-SPOT SYSTEM WITH STREAMLINES At AND A2 Note the two analogous stream lines Al and A2. Consider the time to initial water breakthrough for patterns 1 and 2. For the patterns to be balanced, water breakthrough at the producing well on stream lines Al and A2 will occur at the same time. That is: toe = boo (Eq. 9.15) typ, = time to water breakthrough in patter 1, days 9-45fyy2 = time to water breakthrough in pattem 2, days Also, the time to water breakthrough is the cumulative water injected to breakthrough divided by the average daily injection rate as shown in Eq.9.16. W, el (Eq. 9.16) wl fon i, and from Eq. 5.11 of Chapter 5: Wier =VpE soa Swor ~ Swot» BW €q. 5.11) = daily water injection rate, BW/D VE soa Soe ~ Swot De (Eq. 9.17) wl Referring to Eqs. 9.15 and 9.17, itis clear that Vert apa Supe ~Swelt _ Vpr# abe Swbe ~ Swe)2 (4.938) Aa ing If the two patterns are similar such that variables including the fractional flow graph, mobility ratio, average permeability, directional permeability, and stratification are similar, then Eq. 9.18 reduces to: V, V, wl eee (Eq. 9.19) Aol — Fw2 or 9-46(Eq. 9.20) Equation 9.20 indicates that water injection into various patterns or segments of the field should be in proportion to the pore volume, For example, if a pattern contains 10 percent of the reservoir pore volume, then 10 percent of the total injection should be into that pattern. Several writers (References 23, 24, and 25) appear to indicate that a slight modification to Eq. 9.20 is appropriate. These authors suggest that injection rate should be in proportion to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, Vip. That is: dup 7 Ppa (Eq. 9.21) im Vor where rr (Eq. 9.22) and V, = pattem pore volume, bbls Swe = connate water saturation(S\,. 2 S\yi,), fraction Sop = residual oil saturation to water injection, fraction In summary, to achieve a balanced waterflood project, the fraction of total field injection into an individual pattern should be in proportion to the pattern displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, Vpp. relative to the field displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, Vip¢ . In other words: 9-47Yop 4 Gin pattern = Vy, ‘of (Eq. 9.23) Df where lyf = target field injection rate (if the connate water and waterflood residual oil saturations between the patterns are similar, Eqs. 9.20 and 9.21 are equivalent.) Moreover, for an ideally balanced patter, total oil production from each pattern should be in proportion to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume. Consider the following example. Example 9:3 Six five-spot patterns (A, B, C, D, E, and F) are shown in Figures 9-26 and 9-27. The solid lines represent no-flow boundaries caused by the reservoir pressure distribution and the stream lines for ideally balanced patterns. The displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, Vp, is tabulated below. If field-wide injection rate is to be maintained at 6,000 BWPD, determine the necessary injection and production rates to maintain a balanced five-spot pattern in the field. TABLE 4 Pattern | Vp, Mbbls A 3.000 B 2.500 Cc 1,500 D 1,000 E 1,500 F 500) Total 10,000 9-48FIGURE 9-26 DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERNFIGURE 9-27 @ THEORETICAL WATER INJECTION RATES DURING AND AFTER FILLUP TOTAL FLUID PRODUCTION RATES AFTER FILLUP FOR BALANCED FIVE-SPOT PATTERNS Solution Balanced patterns require that injection and production rates into and out of each e pattern be in proportion to the pattern displaceable pore volume. 9-50TABLE 5 Percent of Pattern | /p»Mbbls | Total Vp | i,,, Mbbls | A 3,000 30 1,800 B 2,500 25 1,500 c 1,500 15 900 D 1,000 10 600 E 1,500 5 ~ 900 F 500 5 300 TABLE 6 Production Volumes From Each Pattern at Various Wells Based on Pattern Injection, Patten | 1.0 | 20 [30/40] 50 | 60 | 7.0 | 80 | 9.0 | 10.0| 11.0 | 12. A_[450{ 450| 0) 450] 450 0 Om) oO] of 0) 0 B o| _375| 375| 0] 375 | 375 0 0 O//aez0) eee Ueno c (0) |i mm 0]/82251|pmm225 O[_225| 225 of of of 0 D 0 of of 0] 150 | 150 o[ 150; 150; O| 0] 0 E 0 o; of 0 0 Oi imer225] mmi225 O[ 225] 225[ 0 F 0 of; o; of o| oO o|75[ 75] 0] 75| 75 Totals [450] 825] 375] 675| 1,200 | 525] 450] 675] 225] 225| 300) 75 Not only must the production rates be correct, the allocation of production from each pattern must be in the manner shown. Achieving this sort of injection and withdrawal is at best very difficult and is most likely impossible. Consequently, precise pattern balancing is usually not possible in actual waterflood operations. 9-51The concept of pattern balancing is further complicated by the presence of actual reservoir flow boundaries (pinchouts, sand discontinuity, fluid contacts, etc.). One e example is shown in Figure 9-28. This diagram shows that well locations and reservoir boundaries affect the pattern shape. FIGURE 9-28 FIVE-SPOT PATTERN WELL ARRANGEMENT WITH EFFECTS OF RESERVOIR LIMITS. O O O O y) O O ESERVOIR LIMITS Consider the problem discussed in Example 9:3 and whose injection and production spe, | values are shown in Figure 9-27 under balanced conditions. Let us assume that due to @ 9-52areal heterogeneities, injection well damage, variations in flow capacity or reservoir pressure, it is not possible to physically inject (or produce) at the desired rates. Further, assume that a decision is made to inject at a rate of 1,000 BWPD per well (we assume this can be achieved without exceeding formation parting pressures). Further, assume the presence of reservoir limits. Because of the aforementioned reservoir complexities, the no-flow boundaries (see Fig. 9-29) will, in practice, result in irregular patterns which will probably not be accurately known. 9-53FIGURE 9-29 RESERVOIR PATTERN DEVELOPMENT WITH FIVE-SPOT WELL LOCATIONS, OUTER BOUNDARY EFFECTS, AND UNBALANCED INJECTION AND PRODUCTION Nonetheless, the pore volume in each pattem (whatever the shape) can be approximated by the percentage of the total injection rate into the patter. Hence, for equal injection rates, each pattern in Figure 9-29 contains approximately 16.6 percent (1/6) of the total pore volume. It is clear that while injection and production wells may be physically located on a five-spot (or any other arrangement), the flow patterns which develop within the reservoir may be vastly different depending on (1) the 9-54location and type (no-flow or constant pressure) of outer boundary and (2) injection and production rates from individual wells. The above discussion allows the determination of target injection and production rates in terms of the fieldwide injection rate,iyg At some low value of iys all the wells in the project will be able to achieve the target rate, satisfying the equalities expressed in Eq. 9.23 and leading to an ideally balanced flood. Unfortunately, the fieldwide injection rate at which all patterns can be balanced is usually below the optimum economic injection rate. Consequently, a8 diye is progressively increased, fewer and fewer wells are able to achieve their target rate and the project becomes increasingly unbalanced. Nevertheless, if the optimum balanced injection rates could be achieved, then given a sufficiently long period of time, the ideally balanced flood will produce the most recovery for the least amount of water production. For additional discussion on this topic, please see Reference 24. Finally, the actual pattern which may develop within each geological zone is dependent on the number of wells completed within the zone. Consider Figure 9-30 Initial inspection of the well location map indicates a possible developed five-spot pattern. A more complete analysis of this flood shows the injection wells to be completed in different zones. For example, Figure 9-31 shows the injection and producing wells completed in Zone 1 and a possible pattern configuration. Figure 9-32 shows wells competed in Zone 2. 9-55FIGURE 9-30 APPARENT FIVE-SPOT PATTERNFIGURE 9-32 ACTUAL PATTERN IN ZONE 2 Waterflood patterns do not start injection at the same time. It is recognized that even in a multi-patterned field, the start of injection in the different patterns takes place at different times. Therefore, even in the ideal pattern case, events (gas fillup, water breakthrough, ete.) will occur at different times for the different patterns. However, if injection into each pattem and each geological layer is in proportion to the pore volume of that pattern and geological layer, the “no-flow boundaries” that develop would be similar to the “no-flow boundaries” for the ideal system. Of course, it is recognized that the “ideal” pattem would only occur if such factors as permeability, skin factors, and pressure drop are identical. Since this does not occur in the field, it is likely that ideal patterns never exist within the reservoir even though the well bore locations may give the appearance of an ideal pattern. 9-57In summary, it is very difficult to predict the exact shape of a flood pattem. Many factors determine the final shape including well location (and completion intervals), injection and production rates, reservoir heterogeneities, and reservoir boundary locations. Because of these complexities, some companies have elected to subdivide the reservoir into several areal segments (which may contain several pattems) and to simply balance overall injection and total reservoir withdrawal within each areal segment. . Volumetric Sweep Efficiency Calculation of volumetric sweep efficiency in a mature waterflood is important. It provides an indication of the fraction of the reservoir which has been swept or not swept by the injected water. Additional oil recovery potential exists in the unswept portion of the reservoir. Volumetric sweep efficiency of the injected water, Ey,,,, is a combination of areal sweep and vertical sweep efficiencies as illustrated in Eq. 9.24. yw =E4*E, (Eq.9.24) In most waterflood analyses, volumetric sweep calculations are computed using estimates of net injected water volume. In many reservoirs, net injection volume cannot be computed due to poor injection records or the loss of injection water out of zone. Cobb and Marek” describe a technique for computing volumetric sweep efficiency using only oil production data. The method is based upon a volumetric material balance and standard waterflood principles. It can be applied to those oil reservoirs possessing a free gas saturation at the start of injection or when no free gas is present. The procedure, however, is only valid after free gas fillup, and has application in ‘many mature waterfloods. The method is also applicable for water-drive reservoirs or reservoirs which have both water injection and aquifer influx.Results of the analysis are dependent upon floodable pore volume, oil saturation at the start of the waterflood, connate water saturation, and average water saturation in the water swept portion of the reservoir. The procedure can be applied to both regular and irregular pattems. The method is illustrated with the use of a five-spot pattern; however, the method has direct application for any regular or imegular pattem waterfloods after gas fillup. If a free gas saturation does not exist at the start of injection (implementation of water injection when reservoir pressure is above the initial bubble point pressure), the technique may be applicable from the start of initial injection, Figure 9-33 shows waterflood saturations early in the life of a waterflood prior to gas fillup. The conventional water zone, oil zone, and unaffected part of the reservoir are shown. These regions and saturations have been discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5 and References 27 and 28, The oil saturation in the water zone is 1— Sy, (Sy, = Sippy before and at breakthrough) where S,,, is estimated from waterflood fractional flow theory. The oil saturation in the oil bank is 1— Si, and the oil saturation in the unaltered region can be calculated using Eq. 3.9. 9-59Figure 9-33 Water and Oil Banks and Unaltered Zone Prior to Fillup in a Single Layer of a 5-Spot Pattern Producer ‘When the leading edge of the oil zone (or oil bank) reaches the producing well, gas fillup is achieved as depicted in Figure 9-34. 9-60Figure 9-34 Water Bank and Oil Bank At Gas Fillup in a Single Layer of a 5-Spot Pattern Producer Figure 9-35 depicts the position of the water zone and oil zone after water breakthrough. Note that after gas fillup, the oil remaining in the reservoir resides in the water zone and oil zone. This observation allows for the development of a volumetric material balance equation on the reservoir oil which can be solved to determine volumetric sweep efficiency of the injected water. 9-61Figure 9-35 Oil and Water Banks in a Single Layer after Water Breakthrough Producer Figure 9-36 depicts a multi-layered reservoir prior to reservoir fillup. In Figure 9-36 certain layers have reached gas fillup but the reservoir as a whole has not achieved fillup. 9-62Figure 9-36 Stratified Reservoir Showing Flood Front Banks before Reservoir Fillup INJECTOR PRODUCER, Unaltered Injected Sf Water, Bank With continued injection, gas fillup is obtained in all significant layers possessing permeability and porosity values greater than the net pay cutoff values as depicted in Figure 9-37. (Reservoir fillup can be characterized by a period of stable producing GOR after falling from a higher GOR value early in the life of the waterflood project.) Figure 9-37 shows that water breakthrough has occurred in some layers and water breakthrough has not occurred in other layers. The volumetric sweep efficiency technique proposed in the Cobb and Marek paper assumes that gas fillup has been 9-63achieved in all layers. Also, the oil remaining in the reservoir is located in the water swept portion of the reservoir and the oil bank portion of the reservoir as illustrated in Figure 9-37. Figure 9-37 Stratified Reservoir after Reservoir Fillup INJECTOR oil PRODUCER With the above mentioned assumptions, it is possible to write the following material balance: 9-64(Oil in place at start of waterflooding) = (Produced oil since the start of injection) + (Oil currently in reservoir) (Eq. 9.25) where: (Oil in place at start of waterflooding) = (Eq. 9.26) 0. (Produced oil since the start of injection) = NV, ‘p: STBO (Eq. 9.27) Following reservoir gas fillup as illustrated in Figure 9-37, it is possible to show that: (Oil currently in reservoir) = (Oil in water bank) + (Oil in oil bank) and ViE,,(.0—5, (Oil in water bank) oF wl 0- Sy). STBO Eq. 9.28) oe Vij (.0-E, sw )(L. 0-Sye) (Oil in oil bank) = ——— 7 ————, STBO Eq. 9.29) 0 Substituting Eqs. 9.26, 9.27, 9.28, and 9.29 into Eq. 9.25 and solving for Ew Jeads to: N,B PP 41.0-S, Swe E,, => (Eq. 9.30) If S,,can be assumed constant as in the case of piston-like displacement, Eq. 9.30 becomes the equation of a straight line relating E,,, to NV Pp 9-65That is: ww G+HN, (Eq. 9.31) where G= (Eq. 9.32) and B. (Eq. 9.33) HA =——?__ Vp (Sw ~ Swe) Equation 9.31 shows that the volumetric sweep of the injected water, E\,,, is a linear function of the oil production, VV, ‘p> Further, E,,ycan be computed at any time after gas fillup if By, Syo,SyysSp, and Vycan be estimated, ‘The technique assumes negligible changes in B, during the life of the waterflood. For moderate to low mobility ratio waterfloods, Si, can be approximated by two methods. First, 5, can be approximated by S\,py obtained from waterflood fractional flow theory as described in Figure 4-20 of Chapter 4. Second, Sy, can be approximated by 1— S,,. where S,,. is the waterflood residual oil saturation. In fact, 5, changes after water breakthrough and increases from S\,p, to (1.0—S,,.). Also, it may be possible to approximate Sy, by the following relationship: 5 ~ Sub + (1.0-S,,) Ss (Eq. 9.34)For these conditions, after gas fillup, E,,,, can be graphed as a function of NV p using historical production data and Eq. 9-30. If ultimate oil recovery under current waterflood operations can be estimated from decline curve analysis, the volumetric sweep efficiency plot, or Eq. 9.30, can be used to compute ultimate volumetric sweep efficiency. Further, the production benefits resulting from increasing volumetric sweep efficiency through altemate operations can be quantified if the increase in volumetric sweep can be estimated. The volumetric sweep procedure is illustrated with the aid of an example. Example 9:4 A large multi-layered sandstone reservoir is under waterflood. At the start of injection, the reservoir pressure was below the initial bubble point pressure. However, the waterflood has responded favorably, Cumulative oil recovery to date since the start of water injection is 40,000 MSTBO. Production decline curve analysis indicates remaining oil recovery under current operations is 5,000 MSTBO. Key reservoir fluid saturations and oil properties at the start of water injection, floodable pore volume, and production values since the start of water injection are summarized below. 9-67TABLE 7 VOLUMETRIC SWEEP ANALYSIS Conditions at Start of Waterflood Connate Water Saturation = 22 percent Gas Saturation = 8 percent | Oil Saturation = 70 percent Oil Viscosity = 03 ep Residual Oil Saturation = 31 percent Oil Formation Volume Factor = 157 — Total Unit a Pore Volume = 350,000 MB | Cumulative Oil Production since Start of Injection = 40,000 Current Volumetric Sweep Efficiency (Eq. 9.30) = 0.552 ‘Remaining Oil Production under Current Operations = 5,000 MB Estimated Waterflood Ultimate Recovery = 45,000 Ultimate Volumetric Sweep Efficiency under Current = 0.600 Operations (Eq. 9.30) The operator of the project desires to know if there is an opportunity to increase recovery beyond that projected by decline curves through an infill drilling or an injection well realignment program. Application of Eq. 9.30 provides possible answers as to the remaining recovery potential. Using historical production data obtained after gas fillup, volumetric sweep efficiency of the reservoir was computed. The volumetric sweep efficiency values are summarized in the following table and are presented in Figure 9-38. 9-68TABLE 8 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION AND VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY Cumulative Oil Production, MSTB Volumetric Sweep Efficiency rz 30000 0.46 35000 0.50 40000 0.55 Figure 9-38 Volumetric Sweep Efficiency for Waterflood Project (Pore Volume Based on 6.0% Porosity Cutoff) Cumulative OF Production = 40.0MMSTB Remahing Oil Production 5.0MMSTE Estimated Ulimate Recovery = 45.0 MMSTE 0 10 2 30 40 50 60 70 80 Production Since Start of Waterflood, Np, MMSTBThe calculated current volumetric sweep is 55.2 percent and the calculated ultimate volumetric sweep efficiency under current operations is approximately 60 percent. This means that at the economic limit under current operations, 40 percent of the reservoir will not have been swept by the injected water. Moreover, conventional waterflooding theory’”* indicates that the oil saturation in this unswept part of the reservoir will be equal to (1.0-S,,.) To determine the potential for a re-engineered waterflood, including infill drilling and/or pattern realignment, a waterflood model was used to estimate the volumetric sweep efficiency of a well-managed project. Results of the model work indicated ultimate volumetric sweep efficiency values of approximately 85 percent could be achieved at the WOR economic limit. Extrapolation of the line in Figure 9-38 (or using Eq, 9.30) to 85 percent volumetric sweep indicates ultimate recovery could be increased from an expected value of 45,000 MSTBO to approximately 71,000 MSTBO, an increase in recovery of 26,000 MSTBO. Engineering and geological judgment caused the operator to believe that the additional 26,000 MSTBO was too high. Therefore, Eq. 9.30 was evaluated in more detail. In particular, the accuracy of the factors used in Eq. 9.30 such as floodable pore volume and average water saturation, S,,,, were reassessed. Sensitivity Analysis Net pay determination. The floodable pore volume of 350,000 MBO as shown in the Table 7 was originally computed using a six percent porosity cutoff. While this value may accurately depict the oil-in-place that contributes to primary production, the six percent porosity cutoff value was deemed too low to compute net pay for the waterflood project. A reevaluation of net pay under water flood operations using the water-cut methodology described in Chapter 3, indicated a permeability cutoff which translated to a porosity cutoff of 10 percent. Using this higher cutoff value, revised floodable pore volume calculations resulted in approximately a 25 percent reduction in 9-70pore volume. With the revised pore volume, new estimates of volumetric sweep efficiency were computed for this sandstone reservoir. Figure 9-39 presents these revised calculations. It indicates that volumetric sweep efficiency under current operations to recover 45,000 MSTBO is projected to be 74 percent. Therefore, from Figure 9-30, it can be determined that if infill drilling or pattem realignment can be implemented to increase sweep efficiency to 85 percent, an additional 8,400 MSTBO could be obtained giving a remaining ultimate recovery of 13,4000 MSTBO (8,400 + 5,000). 9-71Figure 9-39 Volumetric Sweep Efficiency for Waterflood Project (Pore Volume Based on 6.0% and 10.0% Porosity Cutoff) 1 —f BEOMNSTE alert eee ins Ey = 0.85 " 08 : - , “ 7 3 ay 06 10% Peesily Cubs HK V Avra 04 , { Cumulative Oll Production = 40.0MMSTB Romahing Ol Producion = _50MMSTB Estimated Ulimate Recovery = 45.0 MMSTE 02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Production Since Start of Waterflood, Np, MMSTB Average Water Saturation. The oil viscosity for this reservoir at the start of waterflood (and throughout the life) is 0.3 cp. This low oil viscosity results in a favorable mobility ratio and a fractional flow graph which gives piston-like displacement. Therefore the average water saturation, S,, for the analysis is estimated to be (1.0—S,,,,). Core data indicate the residual oil saturation is 31 9-72percent, yielding an average water saturation in the water swept portion of the reservoir e of 69 percent, This 69 percent value is used in Figures 9-38 and 9-39. However, some limited data indicated the residual oil saturation could be as high as 36 percent, giving an average water saturation in the swept zone of only 64 percent. Using a floodable pore volume which has been reduced by 25 percent (based on the 10 percent porosity cutoff) and an average water saturation of 64 percent in the swept zone, E,,,, values were recomputed from Eq. 9.30 and results are presented in Figure 9-40. Figure 9-40 Volumetric Sweep Efficiency for Waterflood Project (Pore Volume Based on 10.0% Porosity Cutoff) e sok 1 6% Resisual Ot ‘Saturaton = 31% 0 (0) 20) 30, = 40 0) 60) ‘Cumubatve Oi Preducson Remaning Ol Preducton Estimated Ulimate Recovery 40.0 MMSTE SOMMSTS 450MMSTB e@ Production Since Start of Waterflood, Np, MMSTB 9-73For these new conditions, the current volumetric sweep efficiency is 76 percent and that the sweep efficiency at a recovery of 45,000 MSTBO will be 84 percent. If the maximum practical volumetric sweep efficiency is only 85 percent, there appears to be very little recovery to be gained through infill work. This example illustrates an application of the method on a field wide basis. However, the method could be applied to a smaller area of the field such as a single pattern or a group of patterns. For unfavorable fractional flow graphs in which piston displacement is not valid, volumetric sweep efficiency is not a linear function of cumulative oil production as assumed in the previous example. For non-piston displacement, the average water saturation in Eq, 9.30 is a function of cumulative water injected (and therefore time). In this situation, it is more difficult to determine average water saturation. As an approximation, it may be possible to take the water cut from the pattem or area of the field under study and relate that to an average water saturation from the fractional flow curve using the tangent line methodology discussed in Chapter 4. If average water saturation can be computed as a function of water cut (or WOR), then volumetric sweep can be computed versus WOR. Further, if future oil recovery can be estimated from WOR versus NV, ‘p Plots, future values of volumetric sweep can be computed at future WOR values. The following observations can be made regarding this volumetric sweep method, + A procedure is presented that allows for the determination of volumetric sweep efficiency of a waterflood based upon waterflood principles after gas fillup for both regular and imegular patterns, including the effects of water influx. + The technique utilizes data that can be estimated from oil production records, geological information, core analysis, and fluid property data. 9-74+ The method provides a basis for computing current and ultimate volumetric sweep efficiency under existing waterflood operations using only oil production data. + The procedure requires reliable estimates of floodable pore volume and average water saturation in the water swept zone. It is likely that in most field applications, floodable pore volume (as opposed to primary depletion pore volume) is the greatest source of potential error for this analysis. |. Injection Profile Testing It has been shown in previous chapters that oil reservoirs are generally stratified. Seldom does nature provide a reservoir which can be characterized as a single homogenous layer. Stratification can create major problems in waterflooding operations and lead to low vertical sweep efficiency. Waterflood prediction techniques assume all injection water enters the various layers in proportion to the flow capacity (actual injection is related to layer skin factor, radius to water and oil, areal sweep of the injected water, and mobility ratio as well as flow capacity) of each layer. In other words: (kh). tayer (2h) s-tayers (Injection Rate); 1 ayer (Eq. 9.35) Unfortunately, this natural injection behavior creates a problem. Thin, high permeability intervals serve as highly conductive streaks or channels for the injected water, These channels prevent efficient flooding of the other zones. Core and log analysis may give valuable clues as to the probability of this occurrence, but in many instances, injection history is required to verify channeling. Accordingly, injection water seeks the zones of highest permeability, but to flood all layers simultaneously, water should be injected into each layer based upon the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, PHAS),,.. For ideal injection behavior, layer injection rate should conform to: 9-95(GhAS je Ji-Layer (Injection Rate); Layer = TGR aes (Eq. 9.36) where ¢ = effective layer porosity, fraction h = effective layer thickness, feet ASjc = 1-Sye —Soy For many reservoirs, the AS). value can be assumed constant for each layer. Exceptions include thick reservoirs of low permeability which possess large water saturation transition zones as govemed by capillary pressure relationships or zones with significantly different values of S,,. If ASj¢ can be assumed constant for all layers under investigation, Eq. 9.36 reduces to: ih) (Injection Rate);.1 ayer = Pi tayer (Eq. 9.37) X(Gh) anLayers ‘A comparison of Eqs. 9.35 and 9.37 more clearly explains the stratification problem. Injection rates tend to be govemed by Eq, 9.35, but to achieve uniform flood front movement in all layers and to maximize vertical sweep efficiency at low WOR values, injection rates should conform to Eq. 9.37. Figures 9-41 and 9-42 depict waterflood front position when injection conforms to flow capacity and displaceable pore volume, respectively. It is relatively clear that maximum vertical sweep efficiency and recovery efficiency are achieved when the injection rate into each zone is in proportion to PhAS),,. of the zone.FIGURE 9-41 WATER INJECTION INTO A STRATIFIED SYSTEM BASED ON ZONE kh kh percent of total FIGURE 9-42 WATER INJECTION INTO A STRATIFIED SYSTEM BASED ON ZONE PORE VOLUME PhS ie percent of totalVIL. Interval Selection For Waterflood Monitoring When monitoring a field flood, it is desirable to identify several major porosity intervals within a given injection well which are correlatable to adjacent producing wells. In theory, it may be possible to identify a large number of these intervals. From a surveillance consideration, it is usually satisfactory to combine these layers so as to treat the well as if it contains only five or six layers. Ifa thin, high permeability streak is present, it may be desirable to treat this as a single layer. Normally, the five or six zones are selected using natural geological zone boundaries such as shales or dense non-pay intervals. Figure 9-43 presents a porosity log for a thick, dolomite San Andres interval of West Texas. Six intervals identified as M-1 through M-6 are shown. It is assumed that AS),,. is constant for all zones. The average Gh for each layer is shown. 9-78FIGURE 9- 43 SONIC LOG FOR SAN ANDRES RESERVOIR 20- Sonic Travel Tina ns/ft: 40 se mieaicccrre BieenwinavoryVII. Injection Profiles One of the most important measurements conducted in a water injection well is an injection profile. Figure 9-44, with the perforations and profiles, permits a visual assessment of the distribution of the injected fluid between perforation sets as well as within a set. Injection profiles identify perforation sets that are not taking injected water, possibly because the perforations are plugged. Also, profiles reveal contrasts of injectivity within a perforation set. High concentration of injected water over small intervals indicates zones of high permeability which are frequently called thief zones Failure to correct or alter profiles within thief zones will result in early water breakthrough and will usually result in poor vertical sweep, lower oil recovery, and undesirable surface water production. FIGURE 9-44 TYPICAL INJECTION PROFILE Injection Rate Percentage Analysis T 25% 0% 5%, 100%} 9-80Figures 9-45, 9-46, and 9-47 present useful bar charts which allow the operations engineer a visual means of comparing actual injection profiles with ideal profiles based on PhAS),, Figure 9-45 INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL IDEAL PROFILE 21 120% 7 30% 23 18% Z4 30% po 0 25 50 Initial Inj Date__7-1-98 we ts Inj.Profle _IDEAL ? Based on #hASyo 9-81Figure 9-46 INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL ACTUAL vs IDEAL 7/1/01 12 Z1 120% 34% Z4 32% 0 25 50 Date 71-01 i= 800 B/D Pyj=_625 psi Cum Inj, 1000 __ MBW Previous Inj. Survey E Cum Inj @ Last Survey__0__ MBW. Cum Inj. Since Last Survey_1000 Bw 9-82Figure 9-47 ACTUAL vs IDEAL 10/1/04 INJECTION PROFILE HISTORY FOR EXAMPLE WELL 16 Z1 120% 32% t 0 25 Cum Inj. Since Last Survey__900__MBw Various types of profile measuring devices exist, from radioactive injection techniques to continuous spinner surveys. These services are provided by many e service companies. The cost per survey depends on such factors as location, well depth, and injection pressure, but the cost is usually not expensive. 9-83 50 Date 10-1-04 iy = 600_B/D Pyj=_770_psi Cum inj. 1900 __ MBW. Previous Inj. Survey _7/4/01__ Cum Inj @ Last Survey_1000_ MBWWhen monitoring a waterflood, it is recommended that an injection profile be conducted every six months during the fist wo years ofa well’s injection life. After @ ‘two years, surveys should be conducted annually. After remedial work on an injection well, it is recommended that a survey be conducted 30 to 60 days after completion of the work program. The major objective of an injection survey is to provide a means of monitoring the injection water and to ensure injection distribution conforms with zonal PhAS;,,. Also, by measuring the injection volume into each zone, flood front maps (bubble maps) can easily be constructed. Injection profile tests will pay substantial dividends as they lead to increased vertical sweep and ultimate recovery. Perhaps the single most valuable tool for monitoring waterflood operations is the injection survey. It tells us where the injected water is entering the formation. Without this knowledge, it becomes very difficult (impossible?) to perform meaningful production or reservoir engineering calculations using either analytical or numerical simulation procedures. IX. Alteration of Injection Profiles e It is beyond the scope of this course to discuss all the methods of altering or changing injection profiles. Most service companies are capable of providing technical expertise on this issue. Some of the techniques which have been successfully used in the industry include: + selective perforating 4 low pressure squeeze cementing * acidizing * thief zone blockage through injection of fine grain sand | + thief zone blockage through injection of certain polymers | 9-84Publications by Seright, et al?**°*!5?53 provide an excellent discussion on the use of polymers for injection profile management. Itis important to note that the benefits of profile modification may not be observed for several months after the work. The real benefit must be determined at the production well. The time required to see changes in WOR trends or water production rate at producing wells is usually measured in months or years rather than days. Nevertheless, it should be a daily goal of the surveillance engineer to ensure that the long term injection strategy is to inject into each layer in proportion to each layer’s PRASp.. Finally, action steps implemented during a waterflood surveillance and management program such as injection profile modifications, should be considered in view of how they may affect alternate recovery operations such as CO) injection. Flood Front (Bubble) Maps ‘A waterflood surveillance tool which can be useful in monitoring flood behavior is a flood front map or bubble map. The bubble map is a pictorial display showing the location of the various oil and water flood fronts. The bubble maps allow visual differentiation between areas of the reservoir that have been swept by injected water and those areas that have not been swept. Early in the life of an injection well, it can usually be assumed that water and oil banks are radial in shape around the injector as shown in Figure 9-48 9-85FIGURE 9-48 RADIAL WATER AND OIL BANKS The outer radius of the oil bank can be computed from Eq, 4.37. 1 5.615W; Ling \2 yr, =| ——— (Eq. 4.37) e thos g where: T. = radius of oil bank, feet @ — = porosity, fraction h = interval thickness, feet 9-86S., = gas saturation at start of injection, fraction & W, = cumulative water injected, bbls Einy = layer injection efficiency The WV; represents the “apparent” cumulative water injection into a geological layer thickness . The apparent volume of water allocated to each layer is based on injection surveys and/or rock properties of the layer such as permeability and porosity. Further, based on numerical simulation history matches of actual waterflood performance and from field observations, it is generally recognized that actual production performance is less than anticipated performance. This difference is frequently attributed to a deficiency in injection. In short, actual performance behaves as if portion of the injected water is lost. The layer injection efficiency, E.jny. takes into account this Jost water phenomenon. Injection efficiency values generally range from 0.5 to 0.9 but they are difficult to precisely quantify. In thick, heterogeneous, low permeability formations, E,j tends to be low. Personal experience suggests that a value of 0.50 to 0.75 may be expected in carbonate reservoirs, whereas for thin, clean and continuous sands, a value of 0.75 to 0.90 could be expected. Further, it has been observed that injection efficiency into the pay zones may increase with time. For example, early in the life of a waterflood, the injection efficiency may be in the order of 40 to 50 percent whereas by the time fillup occurs in most zones, the overall efficiency may increase to 70 to 80 percent. The injection efficiency will be dependent on reservoir conditions including the presence of natural or induced fractures, injection above fracture pressures, presence of leaking faults, gas cap injection, loss to inactive aquifers, the presence of porous but laterally discontinuous zones, and mechanical integrity of the injection well bores. 9-87Tf all of the injection water is assumed to remain within the water bank, the water bank radius can be estimated from Eq. 4.41: (Eq. 4.41) Swot ~ Swe r = radius of water bank, feet Swbt = average water saturation behind front, fraction S, we connate water saturation, fraction Inspection of both Eqs. 4.37 and 4.41 indicates that distance to the various fronts is dependent on the gas saturation, Sg Unfortunately, the gas saturation in some reservoirs cannot be accurately calculated. Yet, even in these situations, it is possible to compute 7 using the following water material balance relationship present in Eq. 4.38. : 5.615 W; Ey \2 a (Eq. 4.38) (Sor ~Sye) : For approximate calculations, S\,p, 1.0 —S,, and: L , -(aui tS) cae zGh(.O=S,, Sc) where: 9-88Sop = residual oil saturation to water injection, fraction Bubble maps should be updated each six months for the first two years of a flood and on an annual basis thereafter. Further, bubble maps should be constructed on each of the major identifiable and correlatable intervals as previously discussed. The use of bubble maps provides certain obvious benefits. First, they graphically delineate portions of the reservoir that need additional injection or curtailed injection. Secondly, bubble maps help identify areas within the reservoir that would support infill drilling opportunities. After water breakthrough, front shapes are more difficult to construct. Frequently, bubble maps are manually constructed. However, in larger fields, the procedures are computerized. In some instances, bubble maps are generated using numerical or front tracking simulation models. Simulation models provide certain advantages over the conventional manual graphs because they can more easily account for variations in variables which effect fluid movement including porosity, thickness, directional permeability, irregular well locations, and pressure differentials between wells, incorporate the effects of offset wells, and account for flood front movement after water breakthrough in offset wells. The utility of profile management and bubble map monitoring early in the life of an injection well is illustrated with an example. Example 9:5 Bubble Map Construction An injection well with injection profiles described in Figures 9-45, 9-46, and 9-47 has been subdivided into four zones (Z-1, Z-2, Z-3 and Z-4) for surveillance purposes. Given the following rock properties and fluid saturations, estimate the radius to the water and oil banks as of 7/1/01 when 1,000 MB of water had been injected. 9-89Sg = 14 percent Swe = 25 percent Swor = 55 percent Ejnz = 80 percent Layer | Porosity, percent | Net Thickness, feet ZI 244 | 18.0 Z2 26.4 25.0 Z3 18.0 22.0 | Z4 15.6 45.0 Date: 7/1/01 e Layer | Injection | Water Injection | re*(Eq. 4.37) | 1(Eq. 4.41) — feet Z-1 12.0 120.0 528.0 360.0 Z-2 44.0 440.0 825.0 564.0 Z3_|_ 340 | 340.0 936.0 639.0 Z-4 10.0 | 100.0 382.0 261.0 * Bing = 80% The flood fronts for each layer are presented graphically in Figure 9-49 9-90FIGURE 9-49 FLOOD FRONTS FOR FOUR GEOLOGICAL ZONES AS OF 7/1/01 4000 FEET 528 XL. Injection Analysis This section provides a general method”? for analyzing water injection behavior in a mature waterflood. The displaceable hydrocarbon saturation, DHSS. is defined as: DHS =1- So — Sop (Eq. 9.39) where Swe = connate water saturation, Syye 2 Syyjp» faction Sop = residual oil saturation to waterflooding, fraction Further, the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, DHPV is defined as: 9-91DHPV =Vp(1~ Sie — Sor) (4.9.40) where = floodable pore volume, barrels EXAMPLE 9:6 At the start of waterflooding, the oil, gas, and connate water saturations are 55 percent, 10 percent, and 35 percent respectively. “The irreducible water saturation is 22 percent and the residual oil saturation is 38 percent. The floodable pore volume is 20 million barrels. Compute the DHPV . DHPV =V,,(1— Swe - Sor) Substituting: DHPV = 20MMB* (1—0.35 — 0.38) DHPV =5.4MMB Consider a bounded or closed reservoir or pattern in which: * there is no influx or efflux out of the pore volume + there is no loss of injected water to non-oil pay zones + there is negligible change in the oil formation volume factor. For these assumptions at reservoir conditions, one net barrel of injected water results in one net barrel of produced hydrocarbons. Moreover, the maximum net water which 9-92can be injected during the waterflood operation is equal to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume. That is: ,- WB) max = DHPV (Eq. 9.41) where = cumulative injected water, BW = cumulative produced water since the start of injection, BW y= produced water formation volume factor, RB/STBW Define the net displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume injected, Vp, as the ratio of net water injected to the displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume. That is: net water injected, BBL displaceable hydrocarbon pore volume, BBL Eq. 9.42) or W,-W,B,y py 9.9.43) Vp d- Swe — Sor) A. Analysis Without Free Gas (S, = 0) At the start of injection (when W; = 0), the produced oil at that instant is the result of a primary drive mechanism and is denoted by a primary recovery 9-93factor,(RF’) y. Also at the start of injection Vp is 0.0. Conversely, when the entire reservoir (E_4 = Ey =1.0) is waterflooded to the residual oil saturation, Sop» the incremental recovery factor attributable to injection is denoted by (RF), where (Eq. 9.44) where 'S,, = oil saturation at the start of waterflooding, fraction (1.0 — Sy, if Sg =0.0) When the reservoir is waterflooded to residual oil, the value of Vip is 1.0. ‘Therefore, during a waterflood, RF ranges from (RF’) ,, to (RF) p where Ip F (RF) p = (RF) + (RF); (Eq. 9.45) Because each net barrel of injected water results on one barrel of produced oil when measured at reservoir conditions, a coordinate graph of RF’ versus Vp will yield a straight line. This type of graph has been called a conformance plot in References 8 and 9. References 24 and 25 refer to these graphs as a Stags plot because such plots were first presented in Reference 23. 9.94e Example 9:7 An oil reservoir whose reservoir pressure is above the initial bubble point pressure (Sig = 0) is to be waterflooded. The primary oil recovery factor at the start of the injection, (RF’) }p» is 4 percent. The connate water saturation is 35 percent (the irreducible saturation is 25 percent) and the waterflood residual oil saturation is 30 percent. Assume that B, is essentially constant during the waterflood. Plot RF’ versus Vp for this reservoir. ‘The final (or maximum) waterflood recovery factor, (RF’) -, can be computed from Eq. 9.45 as: e (RF) p = (RF), + (RF), from Eq. 9.44 1-S),.25, (RF), <1 Sve =Sor Swe 1-0.35-0.30 RF), =———- Bey 035 and (RF), = 0.54 Finally: e (RF) p =0.04+0.54 9-95(RF) p = 0.58 For (RF) | p of 0.04 (four percent), the value of Vp = 0 and for (RF) pof 0.58, the value of Vip = 1.0. Results are shown in Figure 9-50. Figure 9-50 Ideal Reservoir Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected (REDE ‘~ 06 Seeded 05 04 2 03 02 0.1 0Once the RF’ versus Vp plot has been constructed, actual production and injection data can be plotted on the same graph and a comparison with the theoretical performance can be made. Reference 23 indicates that when field data are plotted on the theoretical graph, the field data frequently deviate from the theoretical line. If it is assumed that the theoretical line is correct (that is if Vp, Sy, Soy, and W, are correct), the departure of the field data from the straight line can be used to infer (1) the loss of injection out of zone, (2) water influx, or (3) inter-pattern flow as illustrated in Figure 9-51. 9-97Figure 9-51 Injection Analysis Showing Effect of Eflux/Influx into Pore Volume 06 05 > Inflow of Oi or Water z from Outside of V, ’p 04 ~ 7 theoretical Loss of Oil or Injected 0.2 Water Outside of V,, 0.4 0 0 0.2 0.4 06 08 1 W,-W,Byy a EXAMPLE 9:8 A waterflood project was initiated when the reservoir pressure was above the bubble point pressure. Pressure has been maintained such that changes in fluid properties 9-98(B, and Hy) are negligible. At the present time, the cumulative injected water is 24.5 MMB and the cumulative produced water is 16.0 MMB. Compute the water injection efficiency, Ejpg , into the pore volume, V, Other reservoir data are tabulated below. B,, ~ 1ORB/STB Sor = 36 percent B, = 135RB/STB (RF), = Spercent Syye = 32percent (RF); = 47-1 percent S, = S®percent (RF) p = 53.1 percent = 31,250 MBW Vy . Using actual injection and production data, the calculated values of RF’ and Vp are tabulated below: RF 0.00 0.207 0.05 0.072 | 0.50 | 0.219 010 | 0.093 | 055 | 0.230 015 | 0115 | 0.60 | 0.242 0.20 | 0.137 | 065 | 0.254 0.25 0.154 0.70 0.269 030 | 0.164 | 0.75 | 0275 035 | 0173 [ 080 | 0290 040 | 0191 | 085 | 0300 The theoretical RF’ versus Vip straight line is seen in Figure 9-52. The actual values of RF and Vp are also plotted on Figure 9-52. Note the actual points fall below the theoretical line. By comparing Figure 9-52 with Figure 9-51, it appears that injected water is being lost from the pore volume, ie Consider the last field 9-99data point. For a recovery factor of 0.30, the ideal value of Vp is 0.51 whereas the calculated value of Vip is 0.85. If it is assumed the error is related to the cumulative injection, MV, then it is possible to write: a Eing *W;, -WyBy Vinh Swo — Sor) or 0.51 = Zine (24-000MB —16,000MB) ~~ 31,250MB(1 - 0.32 —0.36) or Eing = 0.861 This analysis illustrates that 14 percent of the injected water is being lost outside of the pore volume, V,. 9-100Figure 9-52 Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected 06 . Analysis With Free Gas (Sy > 0) The previous paragraphs illustrate application of the RF” versus Vp graph when there is negligible gas. As mentioned throughout this manual, it is likely that at the start of injection most projects possess a free gas saturation. Accordingly, this 9-101generalized injection analysis graph needs to be modified to account for free gas. If the free gas saturation at the start of injection is Sg. the net volume of injected water necessary to reach fillup is governed by Eq. 4.33 that states: We Eq ViSe (Eq. 4.33) Therefore, for a homogeneous reservoir, the value of Vp at gas fillup is obtained by substituting Eq. 4.52nto the numerator of Eq. 9.43 which gives: VS, Vpp => (Eq. 9.46) Vy h-Swe — Sor) or V, Se =—_4__ (Eq. 9.47) DF y_ Sve —Sop Eq. 9.47) Assume that oil production during the fillup period is negligibly small. During reservoir fillup, Vip increases from 0 to Vip and with negligible oil production, RF is constant and is equal to (RF’) p+ Once fillup is obtained, then for each net barrel of injection, there will be one barrel of oil produced when measured at reservoir conditions. As a result, after fillup, there is a linear relationship between RF and Vp. Finally, when Vip becomes unity (1.0), the RF’ reaches its final value, (RF’) jr, which is governed by Eq. 9.45. 9-102Example 9:9 For the reservoir system described in Example 9:8, assume that at the start of injection, a gas saturation of 10 percent is present. Construct a RF” versus Vy graph. Assume that before and after fillup, the change in B, is negligible, At the start of injection, (RF’) |p is 6 percent and So Syo Se 1-0.32-0.10 S, =0.58 The final recovery factor from Eq. 9.45 is Cy Ca: from Eq. 9.44 ot 0.58-0.36 RF), =—22 +8 R= O58 (RF), = 0.379 9-103Substituting into Eq. 9.45: (RF) ¢ = 0.060 +0.379 e (RF) p = 0.439 or 43.9% [As a side note, observe that the (RF’) with a gas saturation is less than the (RF) - without gas (43.9% versus 53.1%).] Next, compute Vip at fillup from Eq. 9.47. S, Vopr = rs ee 0.10 e Se DF “10.32 -0.36 Vpp = 0.312 Figure 9-53 isa graph of RF’ versus Vp. For comparison, the RF’ versus Vp line for the case of no gas saturation is shown on the upper dashed line.FIGURE 9-53 Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected The solid line of Figure 9-53 assumes a homogeneous reservoir, In practice, reservoirs are comprised of multiple layers of varying pore volumes and permeability. As a result, fillup of the most permeable layer occurs first with fillup of the tight zones occurring last. As a result, the RF’ typically increases prior to reaching full reservoir fillup. The following actual case study illustrates the effects of stratification. 9-105EXAMPLE 9:10 Injection Efficiency Calculation An oil reservoir has been waterflooded for 20 years. Given the tabulated data, construct the RF versus Vp graph, and compute the injection efficiency. OoIP Bop PP (RF)p 49,638 MSTBO (at bubble point) 20 percent 64 percent (start of waterflood) 16 percent 36 percent 1.15 RB/STB (start of waterflood) 1.27 RB/STB 5,171 MSTBO (start of waterflood) 11.6 percent (start of waterflood) 9-106"TABLE 10 @ YR | W,,MBW W,,.MBW iL 603 0 2 2,264 1 3 3,952 1 4 3,515 8 5 7,353 22 I HG: "9,238 56 7 12,081 93 [3 14,791 176 _9 17,235 382 10 19,918 | 721 ul 22,667, 1,205 2 25,347 1,742 13 27,740 2,327 14 29,882 3,083 15, 32,760 4,046 16 35,68 | 4,858 7 37,587 3,715 e 18 40,071 6,861 19 42,593 8,080 [20 44,210 9,213 The (RF) p from Eq. 9.45 is: (RF) jy = (RF) p +(RF) 0.64 — 0.36 RF) p = 0.116 (F)r 64 (RF) p = 0.554 At gas fillup, Vp from Eq. 9.47 is: 9-107S, Vor = DF 1-S,, ~Sor yy = 016 PF“ 1-0.20-0.36 0.364 Vor These calculations can be summarized as follows: Vp RF% 0.000. | 11.6 0.364 11.6 1.000. 55.4 These three points define the horizontal and diagonal parts of the injection efficiency graph shown in Figure 9-54, 9-108FIGURE 9-54 Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected 0.6 « & 8 £ g 8 8 £ 2 g 3 3 ae Next, RF versus Vp are computed from production records, shown below, and plotted on the theoretical graph as illustrated in Figure 9-55 9-109TABLE 11 YR Vp = he V1 - Swe — Sor) 1 0.018 2 0.66 3 0.114 4 0.159 - 3 0.212 6 cement 265 7 0.346 8 0.422 _| 9 0.487 10 0.554 ul 0620 | 12 0.681 13 0.733 14 0.773 5 0.829 16 0.886 17 0.920 18 0.958 19 0.996 20 _ 1.010 9-110FIGURE 9-55 Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected 0.6 2 ae ES © 5 s 3 & g 8 8 & > 5 3 3 @ 0.75 The data points tend to lie to the right of the diagonal line. After 20 years the actual RF js 0.369. Itis expected that for this RF’ , a value of Vp from the theoretical P D diagonal should be 0.73. The actual value of Vp is 1.010. If it is assumed the discrepancy is attributable to injection water losses, it is possible to compute an injection efficiency. Adjust the last data point in the following manner: 9-111WE inj —WyBw Vp= = 0.73 (for RF = 0.369) Vy d= Swe — Sor) At 20 years: 44,2108 ~9,213 0, 78,800(1—0.20—0.36) and Ejyj = 0.78 From this analysis, it can be concluded that at /east 22 percent of the injected water is lost to “thief zones.” Re-compute Vip by adjusting each value of W; by the injection efficiency, E,,,, factor of 0.78 as illustrated below. 9-112TABLE 12 YR RF 0.780; — WB, Vp =e Vo - Swe — Sor) 1 0.117 0.014 2 120 0.051 3 0.124 0.089 4 0.28 0.124 3 0.136 0.165 6 0.149 0.207 7 0.163 0.270 8 0.181 Os25mmms [9 0.199 (Osea 10 0.214 0428 ll 0.231 0.476 a] 0.246 0.520 13 0.265 0.557, 14 0.285 0.584 5 0.306 0.621 16 0.324 0.661 17 0.339 0.681 18 0.351 0.704 19 0.361 0.725 [20 0.369 peeeae 0.7298 Re-plot the adjusted data on the theoretical graph as shown in Figure 9-56. Finally, if a straight line is constructed which connects the end point RFs, an obtuse triangle is created within which the data points should fall. It is noted in Figure 9-56 that the RF values begin to increase immediately. That is due to (1) primary recovery during fillup not being negligible or (2) effects of stratification. 9-113FIGURE 9-56 e Recovery Factor vs Net Displaceable Pore Volumes Injected 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 5 g 3 8 = 5 3 8 & > $ 8 8 a W,-WyBy, Vpn = ? Voll = Swe — Sor) C. Numerical Simulation A theoretical graph of RF’ versus Vip could be constructed using numerical simulation which takes into account variables such as stratification, primary production during fillup, and variations in S\,., Sg. and S,, between layers. e 9-114This plot would be nonlinear and concave upward until reservoir fillup but would @ become a straight line after fillup. XII. Water Testing Program In the early days of waterflooding, only the quantity of water was considered, not quality. As waterflooding projects increased in number and as waterfloods matured, the petroleum industry began to notice that higher injection pressures were required to maintain desired injection rates and that corrosion problems increased. More recently, it has become clearly evident that water quality is as important as water quantity**?°°°97, The absence of water quality control can prove disastrous to waterfloods and can result in engineering and economic failure. ‘After a water source is identified, a water analysis is required to determine the following. + compatibility with reservoir water + compatibility with swelling clays in the reservoir + whether a closed or open injection facility is needed the treatment program necessary to have an acceptable water for the reservoir and to minimize corrosion of the equipment ‘Water analysis in the injection system should be conducted on a regular basis, such as quarterly or semi-annually. These analyses should be to determine the presence of dissolved gases, minerals, microbiological growth, and dissolved solids (all undesirable constituents of water). A. Dissolved Gases Dissolved gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen promote @ corrosion, Carbon dioxide and oxygen also contribute to the formation of precipitates which cause reservoir plugging and thus lowers injection rates. 9-115B. Microbiological Growth The control of colonies of one-celled animals and plants is of concem to operators attempting to maintain suitable water for injection. Aerobic, anaerobic, fungi, and algae growths will cause reservoir and equipment plugging. Major emphasis is required to control sulfate-reducing bacteria. The presence of the sulfate ion is essential for the growth and reproduction of these colonies which in tum cause plugging. The sulfate ion reacts with the bacteria to create a sulfide ion which in tum reacts with iron. Iron sulfide is a serious plugging material. A by-product of the reaction is F7>S', an extremely corrosive agent. Minerals Water should be checked for mineral content. Some form of iron is one of the most common plugging agents encountered in injection wells. Low iron content is desirable in any water. Sulfates are also of interest; they lead to substantial amounts of deposition. Chlorides are the primary indication of salinity or the strength of the brine or the presence of fresh water. Chloride tests can be used to track the progress of a waterflood. Also, barium is a difficult and troublesome mineral. Barium sulfate is difficult to remove. In general, it is undesirable to mix water with significant amounts of barium with water containing high sulfates. D. Total Solids Total solids means the combination of dissolved solids and suspended solids and should be minimized. Suspended solids are the suspended or precipitated material in the water. They can lead to plugging of injection wells. Dissolved solids can precipitate at the injection well face or in the formation and lead to plugging which reduces injectivity. 9-116E, Produced Water Water sample analysis is also important in production wells and can assist in a waterflood surveillance program. Samples should be collected and analyzed on a regular basis (semi-annually), Initially, produced water probably represents formation water and when analyzed provides excellent estimation of water resistivity, R,,,, for log analysis. Water sample analysis can be used as an indicator of water breakthrough and possibly the source of the produced water. XIEL Pie Charts A tool that is helpful in monitoring multi-zone waterfloods is a pie chart completion map. It provides a quick visual presentation of the current perforated producing and injection pay intervals. For multi-zone waterfloods, this is valuable help. In the event new perforations are added or old perforations are closed, the pie map should be updated, Figure 9-57 is a simple example of a pie chart showing the current perforated intervals for a four-layered reservoir. 9-117FIGURE 9-57 EXAMPLE PIE CHART SHOWING EXISTING PERFORATIONS Z4 A Z2 2-3 Lease Lines (——) Open Perforations WEEE Closed or No Perforations It is observed that the center injection well and three of the corner producers are completed in Zones 1, 3, and 4. The producer in the lower right corner is completed only in Zones 2 and 4. Pie charts such as these when updated on an annual basis provide a quick reference to the existing and historical perforations of a well and the entire field. 9-118XIV. INTEGRATED WATERFLOOD MONITORING Integrated monitoring is a process. Integrated monitoring is not a single test or measurement or a reservoir study done at a single point in time, but it involves bringing together a number of tests and measurements in which the reservoir manager utilizes to evaluate the overall efficiency of the injection project on a real time and ongoing basis. No single measurement or tool answers all of the questions. Listed below is a summary of important tests and plots which, in the aggregate, can be used to provide insight as to the current and future management efficiency of a waterflood project. These steps enable problems and inefficiencies to be recognized as soon as possible and the results of the corrective action to be incorporated into the overall process. 1. Maintain a clean well location map showing only bottom hole locations for each important geological flow unit. Use crisp symbols identifying current producers, current injectors, and shut-in or abandoned wells. The wells should be clearly marked so that when the map is placed on the wall, it can be easily read by someone standing 10 to 15 feet away. Avoid trying to put too much data on this map; i.e., well trajectory, injection or production rates, shallow or deep well completions. The idea is to have a simple clean map showing the well locations without any clutter. 2. Re-evaluate net pay, permeability, porosity, water saturation, and shale volume cutoffs and update the geological model with pore volume being computed for small areas of the field, such as patterns, for each flow unit. This should be done on a regular basis (at least every two years) and incorporate the data collected as part of the monitoring discussed throughout this section. Any new data (log, core, pressures) collected as part of a drilling program should be immediately incorporated into the geologic model. 3. Conduct production well tests on a regular basis. Ideally, well tests should be conducted two times per month with each test lasting at least six to eight hours. Calibrate test equipment, as needed, to ensure test results are reliable. 9-119Well tests provide the information necessary to allocate field-wide production to individual wells. Individual well data are analyzed using various types of decline curves and form the technical basis to evaluate waterflood performance for that specific well. Care should be taken to accurately measure all fluids, oil, gas and water. Free gas production, in particular, is often overlooked but can contribute significantly to reservoir voidage problems. . Keep the fluid levels in the producing wells in a pumped off condition. This is a Golden Rule in waterflooding. By keeping the fluid levels pumped down, bottom hole producing pressure can be minimized, throughput rates can be increased, waterflood recovery is accelerated, primary production from discontinuous or low permeability sands not responding to injection can be maximized, and decline curve analysis becomes more reliable, Fluid levels should be recorded at the same time as the well is being tested so that this information is compatible. Prepare production rate vs, time graphs for each well. These plots should be simple with the results being graphed on Cartesian paper. The idea is to plot the data such that it can be viewed and not distorted by a logarithmic scale, The key data to be shown on the plot is oil production rate, water production rate, GOR, and reservoir voidage. Reservoir voidage should take into account any free gas production. Individual well graphs require frequent and reliable production tests. . Prepare graphs of oil production rate versus cumulative oil production for each well on a linear scale. This rate versus cumulative plot is equivalent to rate versus time on semi log paper; it eliminates the log scale, and allows the analyst to more clearly note changes in oil production. When using this graph for extrapolating purposes to estimate future oil recovery, considerable care must be used because in a reservoir in which gas fillup has been achieved, oil production decline rates can be altered by changing water injection rates. 9-120That is to say, the oil rate and water rate are directly related to the injection rate, 7. The GOR (not gas rate) versus time plot is one of the best tools for identifying when reservoir gas fill-up has occurred. At gas fill-up, the GOR will have declined to the solution GOR evaluated at the reservoir pressure at the start of injection. 8. Plot WOR versus cumulative oil production on a semi-log graph for each well, To determine ultimate recovery at different WOR values, utilize and extrapolate those data points in which the WOR is greater than approximately 1.5 to 2.0. After gas fillup, changes in water injection rate impact both the oil and water production rates in the same percentage. Consequently, changes in the injection rate from established injectors should not alter estimates of future oil recovery obtained by the WOR plot. However, if new injection wells are placed in service, they may distort the volumetric sweep pattern of the prior injectors. If this occurs, estimates of future oil production at a given ‘water oil ratio may change. 9. Annotate all production and injection plots for each well by noting significant events that can affect production trends including pump changes, well stimulations, perforation changes, drilling of offset production or injection wells, or changing offset well injection rates. 10. Prepare a linear graph showing recovery factor (RF) since the start of water injection versus hydrocarbon pore volumes injected (HPVI). Compare actual RF versus HPVI from small segments of the field, such as a pattem, with the RF versus HPVI for the entire field. This graph provides a comparison of how the small segment of the field is performing relative to the total field. If a numerical simulation model for the field exists, compare field RF versus HPVI with RF versus HPVI developed in the simulator. 9-121That is to say, the oil rate and water rate are directly related to the injection rate. 7. The GOR (not gas rate) versus time plot is one of the best tools for identifying when reservoir gas fill-up has occurred. At gas fill-up, the GOR will have declined to the solution GOR evaluated at the reservoir pressure at the start of injection. 8. Plot WOR versus cumulative oil production on a semi-log graph for each well. To determine ultimate recovery at different WOR values, utilize and extrapolate those data points in which the WOR is greater than approximately 1.5 to 2.0. After gas fillup, changes in water injection rate impact both the oil and water production rates in the same percentage. Consequently, changes in the injection rate from established injectors should not alter estimates of future oil recovery obtained by the WOR plot. However, if new injection wells are placed in service, they may distort the volumetric sweep pattern of the prior injectors. If this occurs, estimates of future oil production at a given water oil ratio may change. 9. Annotate all production and injection plots for each well by noting significant events that can affect production trends including pump changes, well stimulations, perforation changes, drilling of offset production or injection wells, or changing offset well injection rates. 10. Prepare a linear graph showing recovery factor (RF) since the start of water injection versus hydrocarbon pore volumes injected (HPVI). Compare actual RF versus HPVI from small segments of the field, such as a pattern, with the RF versus HPVI for the entire field. This graph provides a comparison of how the small segment of the field is performing relative to the total field. If a numerical simulation model for the field exists, compare field RF versus HPVI with RF versus HPVI developed in the simulator. 9-12111. Prepare a voidage replacement ratio (VRR) plot versus time for each pattern, each flow unit, and for the entire field. Remember, pattern totals may contain fractions of certain well’s contribution if an individual well is in more than one pattern. In preparing this graph, the analyst should account for free gas production and recognized that water injection efficiency will probably be no more than about 80 percent. When accounting for free gas production and water injection efficiency, if the resulting VRR is greater than 1.0, reservoir pressure is increasing. If the VRR is less than 1.0, reservoir pressure is declining unless there is water influx from the aquifer. Clearly, it should be realized that, when looking at the field as a whole, the reservoir pressure could be increasing or decreasing, but in localized areas, reservoir pressure may be just the reverse. 12. If the injection pressure is constant during gas fillup, the water injection rate will decline over time for all values of the mobility ratio. 13. If pressure between the injector and producer well is constant after gas fillup, injection rate will decline, remain constant, or will increase if the mobility ratio (MR) is less than 1.0, is equal to 1.0, or is greater than 1.0 respectively. Changes in water injection rate directly affect oil production rate and water production rate. Caution is urged in the use of conventional decline curves when projecting future recoverable oil and gas volumes because the rate of decline is directly affected by the injection rate and injection rate is directly related to mobility ratio. 14. Maintain a graph of water injection rate and well head injection pressure for each well in the field. If equipment is not in place to monitor at the wellhead on a daily basis, well tests should be performed at least twice a month using the production well testing standards discussed in point 3. These tests should be used to allocate monthly injection volumes. 9-12215. Conduct pressure buildup (PBU) and pressure falloff (PFT) tests on 1/4th to V/Sth of the producing and injection wells each year. This means that each well is tested at least once every 4 to 5 years, These pressure tests provide the best estimates of average reservoir pressure and indicate how pressure is changing with time. These tests also give the best indicators of wellbore skin damage and wellbore permeability. 16. Perform injection profile surveys (PLTs) on new injection wells after three months, six months, and 12 months of injection. Thereafter, run surveys on an annual basis for the next three years and then at least one survey every two years. “These surveys provide critical information on where the injection water is going. If the engineer or geoscientist does not know how much water is entering the various flow units, it is very difficult for that person to perform reliable reservoir management calculations. Frequent surveys are needed due to the fact that the injection profiles change over time if the skin factor changes, if new wells are drilled, or if MR is not equal to 1.0. 17. Immediately following the PLTs in the injection wells, shut those wells in for five to seven days and obtain a pressure falloff test. Following the pressure falloff test, conduct a step rate test starting with low injection rates and gradually increasing to higher values. ‘This test gives the best opportunity to determine the reservoir pressure at that time, 18. Maintain a Hall plot on each injection well to identify possible changes in the injection well skin factor. Remember, the routinely constructed Hall plot assumes gas fillup has been completed, average reservoir pressure is constant, and MR is 1.0. If reservoir pressure is gradually increasing, this change in pressure creates the effect of a positive skin: 9-123- Variable Hall Plot Results Gas fillup not yet achieved Skin factor increasing ‘Average reservoir pressure increasing | Skin factor increasing ‘Average pressure is decreasing Skin factor decreasing ‘MR greater than 1.0 Skin factor decreasing MR less than 1.0 - Skin factor increases 19.In a pattern waterflood, inject into each pattern in proportion to the pore volume. (Unfortunately nature honors KH and not pore volume). 20. Construct injection efficiency plots as described in Section XI. These plots provide an indication as to the amount of injected water that goes out of zone. Results are strongly dependent on the accuracy of pore volume, residual oil saturation to waterflooding, and initial connate water saturation, XV. Project Review ‘The most important part of a reservoir monitoring program in primary or waterflood operations is a well review conference. These conferences, normally held on a quarterly basis, include the reservoir engineer, operations engineer, development geologist, and several representatives from the field office. The purpose of the meetings is to review injection and production behavior for individual wells and the field as a whole. Another purpose is to ensure free exchange of information from all parties, discuss the status of previous well recommendations, propose future well work, and address general injection, production, and well testing issues. Each well in the project should be reviewed at least one time per year. Problem wells should be reviewed more frequently. These well reviews should help to ensure that each well is operating in the most efficient manner. 9-124The project review builds and maintains a good working relationship between the e engineers and field personnel. This close relationship serves to promote teamwork, smooth operations, and improved recovery. 9-125. Lee, W.. CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES Fetkovich, MJ.: “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June 1980), pp. 1965-1077. Lo, KK., Wamer, H.R. and Johnson, J.B: “A Study of Post-Breakthrough Characteristics of Waterfloods,” SPE Paper 20064 presented at 60° California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, April 1990. Yortsas, Y.C., Choi, Y., Yang, Z, and Shah, P.C.: “Analysis and Interpretation of Water/Oil Ratio in Waterfloods,” SPE Journal, (December 1999), p. 413. Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: “A Method for Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery Curves,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1978), p. 203. Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.: “A Prediction Tecknique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (April 1984), p. 664. Ershaghi, I., L-L., and Hamdi, M.: “Application of the X-Plot Technique to the Study of Water Influx in the Sidi El-Itayem Reservoir, Tunisia,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (September 1987), p. 1127. Wilson, S.J., Miller, M.R., Frazer, L.C., and Digert, S.A.: “Multiple Trend Forecasting Accounts For Field Constraints, “SPE Paper 39929 presented at Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Denver, Colorado, April 1998. Baker, R.: “Reservoir Management for Waterfloods — Part I,” The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (April 1997), p. 20. Baker, R: “Reservoir Management for Waterfloods — Part I,” The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (January 1998), p.12. ). Robertson, D.C., and Kelm, C.H.: “Injection Well Testing to Optimize Waterflood Performance,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (November 1975), p. 1337. . Matthews, C.X. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, ‘Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1. . Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5. Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1982) 1. 9-12614, 15. 16. 7. 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H.: “Fracturing Gradients in Waterfloods of Low- permeability, Partially Depleted Zones,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (June 1971), p. 727. Felsenthal, M.: “Step Rate Tests Determine Safe Injection Pressures in Floods,” Oil & Gas Journal, (October 28, 1974), p. 49-54, Singh, PK., Agarawal, R.G., and Drase, L.D.: “Systematic Design and Analysis of Step-Rate Tests to Determine Formation Parting Pressure,” paper SPE 16798 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30. Gidley, J.S., Holditeh, $.A., Nierode, D.E., and Veatch, R.W., Jr: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1989) 12. Aronofsky, J.S. and Jenkins, R.: “A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas Flow,” Trans., AIME, (1954) 201, pp. 149-154. Bargas, C.L. and Yanosik, J.L.:. “The Effects of Vertical Fractures on Areal Sweep Efficiency in Adverse Mobility Ratio Floods,” paper SPE 17609 presented at the 1988 SPE International Meeting, Tianjin, China, November. Dyes, AB., Kemp, CE. and Caudle, B.H.: “Effect of Fractures on Sweepout Patterns,” Trans, AIME, (1958) 213, pp. 245-249. Hall, H.N.: “How to Analyze Injection Well Performance,” World Oil, (October 1963), pp. 128-130. Buell, RS., Kazemi, H., and Poettman, F.H.: “Analyzing Injectivity of Polymer Solutions with the Hall Plot,” paper SPE 16963 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30. Stags, H.M.: “An Objective Approach to Analyzing Waterflood Performance,” paper SPE presented at Southwest Petroleum Short Course (Spring 1980 Lubbock, Texas. Anthony, J.L. and Meggs A.J.M.: “An Approach for Determination of Economically Optimum Injection and Production Rates in a Large Multi-Pattern Waterflood,” paper SPE 16957 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30. Chapman, L.R. and Thompson, R.R.: “Waterflood Surveillance in the Kuparuk River Unit with Computerized Pattern Analysis,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (March 1989), p. 277. Cobb, W.M., and Marek, F.J.: “Determination of Volumetric Sweep Efficiency in Mature Waterfloods Using Oil Production Data,” SPE Paper 38902 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8. 9-12727. 2 aan 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. E Ef x a Craig, F.F., Jn: The Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas, TX (1971) 3. . Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3. Seright, R.S.: “Placement of Gels To Modify Injection Profiles,” paper SPE 17332 presented at 1988 Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 16-21 Seright, RS: “A Review of Gel Placement Concepts,” New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Center, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, New Mexico 87801, PRRC 96-21, July, 1996. Liang, Jenn-Tai, Seright, R.S.: “Further Investigations of Why Gels Reduce Water Permeability More Than Oil Permeability,” SPEPF (November 1997) 225-230. Seright, R.S., Lane, RH. and Sydansk, R.D.: “A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water Production.” SPEPF (August 2003) 158-169. Seright, R.S.: “Clean Up” of Oil Zones after a Gel Treatment,” paper SPE 92772 presented at 2005 SPE Intemational Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodland, Texas, Feb. 2-4, Frick, T.C.: Petroleum Production Handbook, Volume II, Reservoir Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, 1962. Vetter, O.J.: “Oilfield Scale - Can We Handle It?,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (December 1976), p. 1402. Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, V., and Harauka, A.: “Prediction of Scale Problems Due to Injection of Incompatible Waters,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (February 1982), p.273. Patton, C.C.: Oilfield Water Systems, Campbell Petroleum Series, 1215 Crossroads Bivd., Norman, OK (1981). 9-128PROBLEM 9:1 WOR, CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION, AND VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCIES Figure 9:1-1 is a graph of WOR versus cumulative oil production for a producing well located in the center of a five-spot pattem which is surrounded by four injection wells. Figure 9-4 illustrates the well location. Cumulative oil production to date since the start of water injection is 552 MBO. The pattern consists of the following data: V, = 6,056 MBBL Sw = 68% (Assume constant) Sg = 5% B, = 120RB/STBO Swe = 32% . Compute the current pattern volumetric sweep efficiency, E),,y, using Eq. 9.30... . If the WOR economic limit is 25:1, what is the expected ultimate oil recovery at the economic limit under current operations. . What is the expected E,,,, at the economic limit? . If the reservoir is infill drilled and the volumetric sweep efficiency is increased by 20 percent, what is the anticipated incremental oil recovery? 9-129OL OSIM ‘I 90 eageinuing 0 v0 60 so 20 £0 00 ulayeq }0dS-¢ palajuay Jeonpoig & 4104 Maq pue ‘dN ‘YOM b-1:6 aunBi4 ro r Ob YOM * 0001 9-131WHAT RESERVOIR PARAMETERS DO I NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN IMPLEMENTING A NEW WATERFLOOD? I. Remember the four driving forces which collectively control waterflood recovery: ° Np=NxEag XEy XEp Where © Np =Displaceable Oil (Ultimately Recoverable), BBL © N_ =Oilin Place at Start of Waterflood, BBL © Ex, =Areal Sweep Efficiency, Fraction © Ey = Vertical Sweep Efficiency, Fraction (Also E x Evy = Volumetric Sweep Efficiency) And * Ep = Displacement Efficiency of Oil in Volumetrically Swept Portion of Reservoir, Fraction ‘A. What's the Oil in Place at start of waterflood, N? Did you properly consider Oil Saturation, Net Pay, and Porosity? * Oil Saturation, So * Compute So at start of waterflood * Did you use reliable estimates of Swe, Bo, Bopp. and primary recovery factor? * How does So compare with Sor?Is So sufficient to create an oil bank? What's maximum recoverable waterflood oil in reservoir at start of waterflood if E 4 and Evy = 100%? Pore Volume x (So ~ Sor) Nmax = Did you evaluate Bo at reservoir pressure at start of waterflooding? Why not? That would be a good estimate! * Net Pay, h + How did you select net pay cutofis? Did you use local "rules of thumb" or actual special core analysis? Remember - air permeability vs. porosity plots are not reliable! Plot oil permeability measured at immobile water! Did you distinguish between net pay for primary production and net pay for secondary injection? If you don't, you could be making a huge mistake! Secondary net pay is usually less than primary net pay! Did you consider lateral continuity? + Prepare detail cross sections * Porosity, 0 How did you quantify E 4? How did you consider such factors as Pattern, Did you rely on logs? How does log porosity compare with core porosity? Remember a 1-2 unit porosity difference in low porosity reservoirs could impact waterflood pore volume and ultimate waterflood recovery by 15 - 20%. Directional Permeability, Mobility Ratio, and Volumes Injected? es‘What is the basis for your pattern? Does your pattern require new wells? Injectors or producers? Does it attempt to utilize existing wells? Remember, old, fracture-stimulated wells can be poor injectors! Injected water cannot be controlled and production will ultimately suffer! Did you take advantage of directional permeability trends with proper injection well orientation to maximize areal sweep efficiency? Failure to do so will result in poor recovery. Waterflood MR "rule of thumb" —M = 0.333xoil viscosity! Remember, as reservoir pressure increases, little or no free gas redissolves in oil! It's been produced! Thus Bo decreases and oil viscosity increases with increasing pressure. How did you compute MR? Is krw evaluated in water region and kro in displaced oil bank? Did you evaluate viscosity at reservoir temperature and pressure existing at start of waterflood? In high gas saturation reservoirs, does water breakthrough occur before fillup? Did you consider that in reservoirs with existing free gas saturations, the advancing oil bank moves into areas not easily swept by injected water? This is a resaturation effect. No, this is not a "gas cap" issue! Important message: Areal sweep is governed by the pressure distribution, MR, and directional permeability trends between the injector and producer! Check this with CUSA Chi Tube streamline model. Even for ideal well patterns, these three factors can cause the actual reservoir flow pattern and areal sweep to be vastly different from that predicted using a pattern based on simple well locations.C. Did you consider vertical sweep efficiency? Did you take into account stratification, MR, and gravity segregation? * Did you.select "actual" geological layers or did you develop layers... using a statistical approach such as with the Dykstra-Parsons co-efficient? If actual layers, did you consider sub-layering? * Did your forecasting possess sufficient layers to replicate actual reservoir stratification or did you use a minimum number to simplify calculations! * In selecting number of layers, did you consider F. F. Craigs’ JPT paper on reservoir description in October 1979? * Does the model Dykstra-Parson permeability variation agree with the actual reservoir? * Did you account for vertical crossflow? This can: be important when vertical permeability is moderately high (1-5 md or greater) due to the large cross section area available for vertical flow. Crossflow is usually more important in sandstones without interbedded shales. + Reservoirs with high vertical permeability can result in poor vertical sweep due to gravity segregation of water and oil! In these cases, closer well spacing and increased injection rate helps! * Interlayer crossflow in favorable MR (less than unity) can increase oil recovery. D. Did you consider the efficiency with which the injected water displaced the oil within the volumetrically swept pore volume, Ej). * Remember that Ep is an indicator of the decrease in oil saturation in the swept portion. * Did you consider that the oil saturation in the water swept portion of the reservoir i a, greater than Sor b. governed by fractional flow a and Ww 4c. decreases as injection throughput increases * Remember if So at start of waterflood is low, then little moveable oil exists and Ey will be low. IL. Water Injection Rate Calculations * For constant bottomhole (essentially constant wellhead) injection pressure, injection rate will decline sharply (10-30%) until fillup regardless of MR! * After fillup (and with constant bottomhole injection well and producing well pressure), injection rate will gradually increase (MR > 1.0) or decrease (MR < 1.0) depending on the MR. © Many variables affect injection rate such as ko, kw, oil/water viscosity; pattem, MR, skin (injector and producer), bottom hole injection pressure, producing pressure (high fluid levels also decrease injection), distance between wells, and pattern. The next time injectivity is a problem, don't automatically assume skin damage! * Injecting above fracture pressure will increase injection by only a 2-3 fold factor. Larger increases indicate (1) wellbore skin or (2) water going out of zone! I bet you thought you fraced into "new pay"! * Is actual vertical distribution of water in proportion to kh? No! Now you wonder why actual performance does not agree with predicted performance? * Second important message: Actual injection should usually exceed projected injection by 15-20% or more to account for thief (gas cap, natural fractures, aquifer, poor cement, porous but discontinuous zones, etc.) zone losses!Waterflooding Surveillance and Monitoring: Putting Principles Into Practice ‘Martin Terrado, Surye Yudono, and Ganesh Thakur, Chevron Energy Technology Company Summary ‘This paper iustrates how practical application of surveillance and monitoring principles is a key to understanding reservoir perfoc- ance and identifying opportunities that will improve ultimate oil reeovery, Implementation of various principles recommended by Jndustry expers is presented using examples from fields currently in production. ‘Practices ia processing valuable information and analyzing data ‘rom different perspectives aze presented in 2 methodical way on the folowing bases: field, block, patter, end wells. A novel di- agnostic plot is resented to assoss well performance and identify problem wells for the field. Results from the application of these practies in a pilot area ‘ae shared, indicating thatthe nominal dectine rate improved from 33 to 18% pec year without any infill drilling. The change in the ecline rate is stuibuted primarily to effective waterflood manage- ‘ment with a methodical approach, employing'an integrated mult- fanctional team. “Although the suggested techniques can be applied to eny oil field undergoing a wateflood, they are of great value to mature Watefloods that involve significant production history. In these cases, prioritization is key aspect 10 maintain focus on the op- portunities that will add the most value during the final period of the depletion cycle. Case stdies illustrating the best surveillance practices ae discussed. Introduction Surveillance and monitoring techniques were fist discussed in SPE literature in te early 1960s (Kunkel and Bagley 1965), Since thea, several highly recognized authors have published related ‘materials (Thala 1991; Thakur and Satter 1998; Talash 1988; Gulick and McCein 1998; Baker 1997, 1998; SPE Reprint 2003) Industry experts recommend the following valuable principles: + The key ingredients of any surveillance program are planning and sceurat data collection. + To understand reservoir flows and reduce nommniqueness {in interpretations, it is crucial to implement a multilevel surveil Ince effort. * A single technique in isolation is not generally indicative Decause different parameters can cause similar plot signatures * Controlled waterlooding through the use of pater balanc- ing requires time and technical efforts—engineering and geologi- ccal—during the life ofthe project. ‘+ Valuable insights into the performance of the waterfood can be gained from individualwell plots such as Hall plots. * Surveillance techniques should always be & precursor to in- depth smdies, including sumerical simulation, "A process to consistently evaluate the performance of a reser- voir—from field to block to pattern to well Ievel—is discussed ‘with the help of real-life examples. Type plots and maps are used to identify opportnities and promote team discussions to effec- tively manage a reservoir undergoing waterfiood. Production his- tory and basic reservoir characterization serve a8 primary input variables forthe recommended analysis. Cepon © 07 Sey ot Petwum Enews “Ta eer (9P 2000) wns apt pestinon athe 206 SP Ao Tet Bere are Eaton, Sn deca, Yo, ao Sogo nd end ue ‘Son Giga mantis 2008 Pata maraneotnshed Ky Sor Paps ee apron 18 in 7. 552 ‘Table 1 desoribes the main characteristics of the felds pe- sented as examples, “The frst example is from El Tropial field in Argentina, Tis sandstone reservoir is located onshore, with primary-drive ‘mechanism of solution-gas drive. The average permeahility and porosity axe 75 md and 17%, respectively. The field was discov- fred in 1991, and water injection started in 1993. ‘The second example corresponds to the Bangko field located in Indonesia. This sandstone reservoir is located onshore, with aqui- ‘fer support. The average permeability and porosity are 330 md and 25%, respectively, The field was discovered in 1970, and water injection sated in 1992, “The third example corresponds to the Meren field located in Nigeria, This sandstone reservoir is located offshore, with 3 tmixed-primary-dive mecanism, including aquifer suppor and ‘gus-cap expansion. The average permeability and porosity are 1,000 md and 27%, respectively. The field was discovered in 1965, and water injection started in 1984. ‘A Multilevel Approach ‘After reviewing many waterfiood case suis, one of the key lessons leamed is to use a methodical approach to understend where the opportunities exist, thus preventing the implementation of biased action plane or bastily-aade judgments. This is espe- cially important in the current environment, were optimization of Jnoman and capital resources isa cxitical ise. “The proposed procedure goes from a large scale tothe detiled, as follows. Fleld Level. When looking at « eld under waterflood, the first intent should be to determine the overall health of the asset. The following are the key aspects to investigate: 1. Whats the pimary-drive mechanism or mix of mechanisms? 2. What is the current recovery factor, and how many pore ‘volumes of water have been injected? 1. How is the static reservoir pressure behaving through dime? 4, What are the monthly and commulaive voidage-replacement ratios (VRS)? 'S.How is the total uid production behaving (Le, isi io- cexeasng, flat, or decreasing)? 6. How is the gasfoil ratio (GOR) performing? 17. What ae the water-production and water/oil-ratio trends? 8, Whet is the water-injection rate, and how does it compare to the total reservoir voidage in reservoir barrels? 9, How much excess capacity is available for production and injection? Will field improvement be restricted by limitations of current feilities? 10. How do the productivity and injectivity per well compare? 11 Isiajection greater than or less than the fracturing pressure? Does the fracturing pressure change from one part of the fed to another? Does it change as a function of the reservoir pressure in ‘given par of the field? 'VRR. VRR through time will give an idea of whether enough ‘water is being injected and is available inthe field. Both monthly snd cumulative Values should be monitored, When monthly VRR is greater than 1.0 unity and reservoir pressure is not increasing, ‘outof-zone injection loss from the target zone or severe thieving is suspected. When monthly VRR is less than 1.0 unity and es cexvoir pressure is not decreasing, influx of fuids is suspected eg, agoifer influx into the control area). Plotting the oil rate (log scale) vs, time along with the VRR vs. time helps one understn the relationship between these two variables, (Osber 2007 SPE Reservoir valuation & Enginecag‘TABLE 1—FIELD EXAMPLES OVERVIEW Fila name Trapial ‘Bangko Meren | County Argentina Indonesia Nigeria OnshoralOtshore Onshore ‘Onshore Offshore e Geologie Description Sandstones Sandstones Sandstones ‘Natural Drive Mechanism Solution-Ges Drive Aquifer Some AqulletGas 9 Permeabity, md 5 590 700-10,000 Porosity, % 15418 28 20-87 Of Gravity, “API 37 4 a Ol Viscosity, ep 14 42 1522 Initial Pressure, psi 850 770 2,200-2,600 | Otiginal Oi in Place, (OOIP), 990 1639 2400 milion bbl ‘Curent Production Data Data Date anvary 2008 September 2005 November 2005 Oi Rete, BOPD 41,800 40,000 69,000 Cumulative Oi, ition Bb! 478 550 970 Water Injection Rate, BID 434,000 415,000 175,000 Waa % 88 4 6 No, of Active Producers 380 210 78 No. of Active Injectors 250 30 16 WP Ratio 19:10 44.0 6:10 Injection Scheme Inverted 7-spat_ Perera Pecpheral Mig, 1 shows El Tropil field, where a direct relationship be- tween VRR and oil-production rate is observed. Oil rate declines ‘when VRR drops below 100%, and it improves when VRR is close ‘o or greater than 100%. Its important to mention that no aquifer support exists in this field ‘The second example, shovm in Fig. 2, comesponds to Bangko ‘eld, where aquifer support does exist It shows that oil ae is not 4s dependent on VRR asin the first example Tae lest examplo, shown in Fig 3, comesponds to Meren field, where some aquifer support exists, ‘Mapping. Time-lapse maps of GOR, water cut (Wa), and dynamic and static pressures are easy to obtain and ate ex tremely weful Once these maps are prepared, it i imporant 1 spend a reasonable amount of time looking for the flew ing charectrss: e Areas WAIN TOW Wing (70%), producing GOR above di solved-gnfll rato (R), and Tow sie presses shoul te as- Signed high priory. Solutions to these eases inekde incremen- tally incresing the injection rates, ling new injectors, rcoe- verting producers to injector Areas with high Way (95%), GOR similar to Rand high well ud dynamic levels shold be reviewed fo pursing of tnd ifrocessary, redncing the water injection, especially if wae is 2 180% $$$. 400 ‘Of Rate (MBOPD) Time (Months) Fig. 1—£1 Trapial field VRR plot showing a direct relationship between VRR and oll rate. ‘October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Enginecing‘Om Rate (MBOPD) ‘Time (Months) Fig. 2~Bangke field VRR plot. Oil rate is not as dependant on VAR as in El Traplal fel. + Examination of «dynamic bottombole-flowing pressure map will indicate if producers are being pumped off efficiently. It i important to keep the levels down to allow maximum pressure ‘gradient and, therefore, maximum flow between injectors and pro- ducers. Additionally, a lower dynamic pressure minimizes cross flow effects between layers. Ta calculating theortioal water injection, flood-front maps will sid in visualizing which areas are mature and which ae in need of ‘more water-injecton points, Beoause there are many assumptions regarding fluid flow when calculating the flood front (eg. the ‘existence of good cement behind pipe), this map should be taken {nto consideration on a qualitative basis only. "Figs, 4 through 7 lustre maps of I Trapial field for a given ate, After a detailed evalustion ofthese, one concludes thatthe ‘waterflood has different levels of maturity. The south is more matuze, With high Woy, GOR valves close to R,, and static pressure ‘near ociginal values. At the same time, the north area shows low Way GOR greater than R,, and lower static pressures, suggesting ‘an area with improvement opportunities. Infill drilling and con- versions could be recommended after looking at the next levels of evalution. Plotting the Total Liquid Production. Examination of the totalsliquic-production trend through time can give insights to the following: 1. Is the total lignid production flat? Is this because of facil ties constrains? 2 Is the total liquid production increasing? If so, how much of this is owing to new drills and how much is resulting from base production optimization? 3. 1s thee adzec relationship beeen VRR and ligud production? Fig. 8 shows Bangko field data where maximum facility ce- pacity bas been reached at ¢ total Liquid rate of 550,000 BD. ‘Watertlood optimization under this condition is limited; thus, up- grading the facilities is currently under study. ig. 9 shows Meren field data. Notice that VRR has beca above 100% for the last 1S years with an increasing toul Liquid production, This has resulted in stable oil rates as sexo inFig 3. +4000 400% 300% 200% VRR(%) +100 Rate (MBOPD) ° so 100 150 250 200 300 Time (tonths) Fig, 3Meren field VAR plot. 558 ‘October 2007 SPE Retervoir Evaluation & BagineesagFig. 4—E! Trapal fold Wap showing contrasting Wow: cuts in the south of the field and low cute In the north, igh Pore Volumes Injected (PYD. Recovery-factor (RF) vs. PVI plots and Wy Vs. PVI plots are useful in understanding the drive mechanism and the maturity ofan asset. This is a simple exercise and a useful benchmarking metic. igs. 10 and 1, respectively, show these plots for the dee ficids presented. Fig: 10 suggests thet Bangko fleld has some aqui- fer support as implied by the RF value of 22% before water in- Jection. The field office bas confirmed this point, based on the history of pressure support. Fig. 10 also shovrs a2 RF for Meren {Held of approximately 20% before the initiation of water injection, ‘his estimate of RF iste result of the gas cap expansion and some squifer support inthe flanks ofthe feld. ig. 11 shows that the Wg for Bangko field hes been epproxi- rately 80% from the beginning, atypical characteristic of aquifer supported fields. By contrast, EI Trapil field, which does aot have sguifer support, required approximately 04 PVT to reac the same Wem level. Validating the Pattern Configuration. A good exercise to pet- form a this level isto calculate the average total uid production snd injection rate per well st reservoir conditions. After doing 30, the UP ratio is calculated, This value should be close to the one ‘given by the pattem injection selected forthe field. As a reminder, ‘A five-spot pater gives a 1:1 UP ratio, making itnccessery to have ‘one injector for each producer. Ifthe UP ratio is close to 2:1, an inverted seven-spot patter will be optimal, and a 3:1 UP ratio vill be suitable for an inverted nine-spot pattem (Thalkur and Set- ter 1998), Table 1 shows the UP ratios forthe three given examples. The {UP ratio is approximately 2:1 for El Trapial; therefore an inverted seven-spot patter Was chosen forthe field, Had the decision been aade to develop using a fivespot pattern, the number of injector wells would have been much higher and unnecessary cepital, penditures would have oocured, Fig, 6—£1 Trapialfleld statio-reservoirpressure map showing low values in the north of the field and higher values In the south of the fea (tober 2007 SPE Reservoir Bvluaion & Engineer Fig. 5—£1 Traplalfleld GOR map showing low GOR in, the ‘southeast ofthe field and higher than A, values inthe northiest of the fel In the cases of Bangko and Meren fiolés, the ratios were beeween 4 and 7, indicating a much higher value of injection relative to production rates. These two cases had periphen| wae terfloods with average permeabilities in the range of 05 to 10 ddacies, higher reservoir continuity and conductivity, and some aguifer support The “ABC” Plot. When looking at afield with hundeds of wells, identifying the performance ofall wells can be oversbelm- ing. Additionally, well review mestings are usually time eonsura- ing and difficult to keep focused. A different approsch tas been taken by using a plot called the “After-Before-Compare” (ABC) ‘plot. This plot uses well-est production data from two distinct dates end comipares oil end water rate between those dates same dates are used for all the wells, Tn the x-axis, the ratio of curent water rate to previous water rate is ploted. I te y-axis, the ratio of eurrent cil rat to previous oil rate is plotied. Esch poist in the chart represents single well in which several bebaviors can be quickly identified: «+ Wells without change. These are wells that fall within the (1, 1) coordinate point area, It is not necessary to spend time ca these wells as long as they have been tested properly and frequenly throughout the selected period. Fig. 7—E1 Traplal field floodstront bubble map showing good Injection in the south and opportunities to inject more water in the north, a8 depioted by the sizo of the 2D bubbles. 55ooo z 400 100% i g 3 am 0% . o ° = 0 = 200 Te ents Fig. 6—Bangko field total liquid production. + Total-iguid-rate increase. Teese ate the wells that responded to the water injection. They fall onthe 45°-slope line and above the 1) coordinate point. + Toat-liguid-rate decrease, These ate problem wells. They fall on the 45° slope line and below the (1, 1) coordinate point. “Team discussions should focus on root causes. The first intent should be to differentiate ifthe cause is a result of artificil-lift efficiency or reservoir conditions. + Wao increase, These are the sells that fall onthe lover tight pert ofthe 45° slope line, This isthe expected behavior of wells 4 waterflood asset however, special attention should be given to ‘yells falling outside the overall tend. Channeling may be causing ‘a higher than usual W.,, behavier. * Woe decrease. These ae the wells tat fall on the upper le ‘att ofthe 45° slope line, This area of the char will be unpopulated Inostof the time. We have learned that new wells may fall inthis tea when the intial well est shows high W,. because of comple- tion fluids that are stil being produced. ‘Fig. 12 shows the El Trapial field ABC plot between April 2003 and Faly 2003. ‘A 3-moath period bas been used for this field. We have learned ‘that using a shorter period didnot show any significant changes for Several wells (i.e. if thre is @ lack of new well-test data). On he ‘er hand, choosing longer periods could create difficulties wien tying to identify root causes for changes, especially if the fields Under a large amount of development activity such as workover, {nil deiling. and injection rate changes. Therefore, cach field will hhave an optiatum period for analysis depending on well-estfe- ‘quency and field activity. ‘Note Gat the same plot can be used to assess injector-vell pesformance if wellhead pressure and injection rate are ploted. ‘This will low the users to monitor injectivity trends ata field lve Block Level. The objective of this next level is to evaluate Low cificient the waterflood is pecforming, thus giving insights int the existence of furare opportunities. ‘Whea the field comprises hundreds of wells it is helpful to subdivide the feld into groups defined by area. The geological Timits of tese blocks should be honored, such as faults or hycaa~ Leally-known barriers, However, in many instances, it will be $6. $$ {0% rood os i g mone 5 g I 3 a | ox ew eae Time (Months) Fig. 9—Meren feldtota liquid production. 556 (October 2007 SPE Resevoir Evaluation & EngngJo z E sen i i p= Pore Volume jc fraction) Fig. 10—Benchmark between fields of recovery factor vs. pore volumes injected. necessary 1 use wells as boundaries based on pressure boundaries or streamline simulation. Each block will include both producer and injector wells. Although one can decide the number of blocks > 2, Details cof the derivation are found in Appendix B, but physially it ‘means that the cumulative amount of walar injected mst be large relative tothe term PV) ei ‘THREE DIMENSIONAL (8D) GENERALIZATIONS Tester dew i cowie tenon sone ic SOSSES'L hee or ct ale nn seman eeu aadratnde ete Bae END heeigthbe nat pomeee a Stipe Dial any tates, For simplicity the capillary pressure is set to zero in this emu. Based on previous studies®.10, she eect of capillary pressure on fractional flow and oil recovery is expected to. be wall. Qualitatively, the capillary pressure causes water to imbibe into regions not yet swept by the waterflood and spread the displacing water into portions of the reservoir having lower water Eaturations or zones of lowar permesbilities. It ie also assumed that litle or no fre gas is present in the reservoir, a rescencble ‘acsumption for most watertloods A S:1 staggered line drive is assumed in the base « Simulations; all simulations were made using ARCO's standard black-oil numerical reservoir simulator. Figure 2 shows the pattern layout. Well 2 is the near producer while Weill 3 is the producer far from injector Well 1. The symmetric pattern element covers 10 acres and js 30 feet thick; the gid is SelGx6, The base reservoir description is homogeneous with 500 md permeability. The oll'water viscosity ratio‘ shou and Bp is equal to 1.0, The eonnate water saturation is 95% the plot of legio(krw tro) versus water saturation has « slope, by of 7.92, Figure 2a shows the logio(WOR) vs SOIL REC (¥¢ OOIP) for the pattern in a case where kyikh = 0.0 (n0 vertical erots ow), To Simulate a balanced flood, the injection rate for Well 1 is 225 BPD with Well 2 producing at 162.5 BPD and Well 3 at 625 BPD. Figure 2 shows the logio(WOR) behavior of Wells 2 and 3 ‘After the WOR hes inereased to about 3 as shown in Figure straight line results when logio(WOR) is plotted cumulative oil, ‘level and at the wll lve Figure 2a represents the base case against which other cates will be compared. ‘The siraight line slope at the well level depends on the actual prescribed rates; however, relative to the logio(WOR) vs ‘cumulative produced el for the pattern, the reciprocal of the slope Qv/dlegxGVOR) = OOP AQ/OOTYalagut WOR) =02100Pegayslo(ermraximetly tim grea) DORIS, MHOMAAETD OOPS yc ICPVITTS 2) ® where b is 7.92, Bois 1.0 and Sye is 0.95, That is, similar tothe 3D case, thera is a straight line relationship between th TogioCWOR) and cumulative produced oil for the pattern a whole. Moreover, the value of the slope (equal to HCPVI Swe), except for the inelusion of the formation volume facta Bp term which is taken to be essentially constant in all case, is the same as the 1D ease in Eq(l). HOPV is the hydrocarbon pore volume which is (1-Sye) times the pore volume, PV.SPE 20064 K. K. LO, H. R. WARNER, JR. AND J. B. JOHNSON For comparison, Ershaghi’s -X factor is compared with In(WOR) vs %¢ OIL REC in Figure 2c. For this 8D-pattern ca In(WOR) actually results in a straight line earlier than the 2 factor. 7 ‘To show the slope is inversely proportional to the pore volume, PY, a case with 1/2 the previous value of HOPY was run. Figure 8a shows the WOR-recavery carve for the pattern. The slope is ‘unchanged when normalized by the new HCPV, implying that ‘Eq() stil holds relative to the new HOPV. Similarly, a ran was made in which the relative permeability data were changed s0 that b was trie the previous value (bei464). Figure 3a shows the clope of the straight line is also doubled, confirming the Eependence of the slope («bBg(1-SygVHCPY) on b. Figuro 33 shows the effect of changing the cil formation volume factor by a factor of 2 (By=2). As expected, this figure shows thatthe slope of the straight line is unchanged from the ba ost WORF OIL REC- straight line. Individual Well Production Rates The petter straight ine slope was found to be independent ofthe relative preduction rates of the 2 producers, when the total pattern production rate was balanced by injection. This i ‘same pattern seraight line was obtained by reversing Well 2 and Well 3's production rates. Pattern Geometry Since the slope (1-Sy,)bBo/HCPV (2bByPY) btained for the $:1 staggered line drive is independent of any {geometric parameters of the pattarn, this result was investigated for several rans made with different pattern geometries. In Figure 5, the pattern WORRecovery curves for's 3:1 and a 2:1 stezgered line drive, a Sspot and a T-spot pattern are shown. ‘The slopes are the ste forall the patterns, confirming the fact the elope is independent of patiem geometry. Note that although the slope is independent of pattern geometry, ultimate recoveries ata given economic WOR limit for different pattern geometries fare not necessarily the same since the intercepts can be different, Viscosity Ratio Another interesting feature of Ba(t) is that the slope is independent of the viscosity ratio. This implies that the post-breskthrowgh waterflood performance of a reservoir, as meagured by oil recovery per log cycle change in WOR, Js independent of the vioosity ratfo. Figure 6 compares three 3D, simulation eases in which only the viscosity ration are changed (Note that the high ultimate cl recoveries on this figure are due fo an assumed Sorw of only 5% for these comparison Smulations). ‘The same result holds in 3D where only the Intercepts aro different, consistent with Eq(W). Of eourse, production decline ar a function of time will be different even {hough the slopes of lg( WOR) vs curmslative oll are the same, Additional Drilling The effect of additional drilling was, fnvestigated by turning on the two producers in the pattern at ferent times, In one case, Well 2 (see Figure 1) was,shut in far 10 years while Well 8 was producing at 225 STBPD, At the fend of 10 years, Well 2, considered an infill well, started producing at 62.6 STBPD and Well 3 was producing at 162.5, STBPD. The results are shown in Figure 7, and the WOR- Recovery curve for the pattern ie virtvally the same as the bese caso that bas Well 2 producing during the entire period (Figure 2), ‘The second ease considered only Well 2 producing for the frst 10 years. Well 3 mes then turned on. In this case, the WOR- Recovery curves, es shown in Figure 8, are very diferent. This fs expested, beeause, when Well 3 was shut in, Well 2 was Dprodacing from helf of the pattern, Well 8 is not an infil well because ef its lotion. As toon as Well 8 started producing, the ‘WOR of the pattern dropped, and started increasing back toward fa straight Ine parallel to Ghat calculated before: Well 3 was producing. {In summary, additional dling does not sffest the patter slope unless the producing wells recover additional oil which would otherwise be unawept. Although not shown here, the effect of shutting in a high WOR producer will cause an initial drop in the pattern slope after which the original slope is again approached. The logyo(WOR) versus cumulative oll production plot does not reflect the effect of rate acceleration brought on by {nll drilling or the fact that shutting in high WOR production ‘wells reduces the overall watereut without hurting the ultimate recovery. Gravity To evaluate the effect of gravity, the permeability ratio. eylkh was varied to study its effect on the straight line. In the limit of zero ky/kh there is no cross flow, and a uniform Gisplacement results, As shown in Figure 9, the case where Teylkn=0.1 is very elaee to the case with no cross flow (ky/h=0). ‘Avcase was ran where kvlkh=t; for this ratio, segregaled Dow results, The WOR-Recovery curve for the pattern, as chown in Figure &, while appeacing more or less Linear, no longer satisfiee Eq(). No systematic dependence of the slope was found, Moreover, unlike Bg(2), the slope of the curve depends on the mobility ratio, which ‘makes the slope difficult to characterize, Permeability Contrast The results to far apply to. single zone ‘with uniform permeability. Most reservoirs have multiple zones with varying permeabilities. ‘The extent to which the inear relation of E(t) holds in waterflooding multiple zones with differing permesbilities is analyzed by considering two opposite limits.” First, consider waterfiooding twa zones Which $Bq(l) should stll hold with the pere volume being he sum cf the pore volumes ofthe two zones. Now eonsider ease 2 in which the Permeability of one of the zones js much less than the soeond. “Here little uid wil be entering the zone with the much lower permeability. The pore volume should only be that of the zane ‘with the higher permeability. Hence, in ease 3, the slope ofthe trsight line ie jast (1-Sy)bB/HCPY, while in case 2, the slope is 20-Sy_)BBQ/HCPY, Given these two opposite Himits, a reservoir with two zones hhaving intermediate permeability contrasts will have slopes Somewhat intermediate, Figure 10 shows that the WOR- Recovery curves for the different. permeability contrasts exhibit straight lines, but the straight line portion starts at x higher WOR with increasing permeability contrast, Eq(W) holds for a 2:1 and a 4:1 permeability contrast. At e 10:1 contrast, the slope ig no longer equal to (-Sqa)bByHCPY. At 00:1 contrast, the theoretical case 2 is approached in which the pore volume is only that of the high perm layer. Permeability contrasts deley the appearance of the straight line for the entire pore volume until all the zones have broken through. ‘This is consistant with the 1D theoretical result here, in general, the level of WOR at which a straight line is, established depends on when breakthrough occurs for each layer, which in turn depends on such factors as the mobility ratio. A final straight line is established when all the zones Ihave broken through. This, for practical pargoses, may never ecur due to an econemically Emiting watercat prior to all snes breaking through, Grid Orientation It is well known that grid orientations affect reeoveries!2, Although no plots are presented, the ra4 A STUDY OF THE POST-BREAKTHROUGH CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERFLOODS SPE 20064 simulations for the limiting grid orientations show that while the intercepts of the straight lines are affected by the grid orientation, the slopes remain the same. Hence, grid crientation does not affect the slope relationship of Eq). APPLICATIONS In this section, the results are applied to two sctusl field ‘vaterfoods whith are at high watercats. Instead of comparing pattern data with the simulation results, data on a multiple Dattern element and on a Seld scale have been analyzed and compared with the theoretical slope in Eq(W). Given thet Ba) holds for a pattern flood, it implies that one ean apply Eq(l) to any reservoir area containing repeated patterns if the wells wore drilled rapidly compared to the duration of the waterflood ‘and if balanced production/njeetion is mainteined For Field 1, the reservoir consiate of two separate thin sandstone Intervals (about 20 fe each) whose permeability contrast is less han 3, Based on the results in earlier eections, uniform frontal Aisplacements are expected and the slope in Bat) should depend on the entire pore volume of the two intervals. Figure 11 shows ‘the WOR-Recovery data for the rerervoir. There is some noice Jn the data at low and high WOR however, a straight line fronds clear on the figure. Ifa straight line is Bt to the data, the Inverse of the elope is about 10.7 MMSTBOMlog cycle. The slope of the relative permeability ratio, b, is about 11. Using Eq), the ‘OOIP is estimated st 99 MMSTBO (et an initial water saturation of 22%), which agrees well with an estimate of 100 MMSTBO Dated on volumetric caleulations. igure 12 shows the log WOR) curve for a symmetric pattern area of Field 2. Field 2 consists of many zones with permeability contrast that vary from 1 to 10, Hence, the elope of the straight line is not expected to depend on the entire pore volume. “The area contains approximately 60 wells and had Dalanced injection and production. ‘Two straight lines can be identified above the WOR of 1 (Note in Figure 12, the natural logarithm, In, of WOR is plotted against comulative ol), with In(WOR) increasing in a straight line initially, and, at a Teter stage, a second straight line with a smaller slope than before The second slope with a slower rate of increase of InWOR) was due to recompletioné and shutting in high WOR well, If the slope ofthe first straight line is used and water is estimated to hhave broken through et sbout 74% PV (based on a pattern study with a dotailed vertical geologic description of the reservoir), the OOTP is estimated to be about 189 MMSTBO. This compares well with a volumetric estimate of 200 MMSTBO. In many cases, core relative permesbility data are not available or cannot be used due to reservoir : ‘2 sot of ‘pseudo relative pa ‘constructed to represent overall reserveir performance, The to applications presented above were used to estimate eriginal oil in place for the reservoirs. Alternatively, one could cbtain ‘pseudo! wateroil relative permeability slopes of the reservoirs if the volumetrie original cil in place estimate is assumed to be correct, This may be useful for the stady of a reserveir which is at a late stage of waterficoding, which has good OOIP vhumetrit, and which is being! considered et an BOR candidate, CONCLUSIONS Bated on the 1D theoretical analysis and the 9D simulation results, several conclusions ean be drawn: T 1) Im a fully developed pattern waterflocd, a linear relationship existe between the logarithm of the WOR ‘the cumulative ofl produced for individual wells, pat laments, multiple pattern elements, and the entire Sel ‘The slope for each plot is equal to i-Swe)DBOHCPY, where is the somilog slope of the watar-oil relative permeability ratio vs water saturation plot and HOPV is the hydrocarbon, pore volume of the particular area in question. This slope is independent of the oil/water viscosity ratio. 2) The pattern-element slope of the logWOR)-cumulative oil streight line is independent of the pattern geometry, the relative production rates of the producers and infill Guiling, Well shut-ins lower the waterent and hence fect the slope of the straight line temporarily, although the pattern-clement slope is asymptotically approached as production continues. 8) The result ofthis paper ean be used to diagnose watefiood performance. In a pattern element in which fluid injection fand withdrawal are balanced, the absence ofa straight ne may be due to gravity segregaticn and/or feld operational changes such a8 well shut-ins, Ifa straight line fits past production data, the future performance can be predicted lusing the straight line extrapolation for the case of teontinued current operations, NOMENCLATURE Svmbolet a Constant in the logio(krw/o)-Sw straight lin > Slope of the loguoCkrw/kro)-Sw straight line Bo i formation factor, RVB/STB ed Constants in Equation (4) fy Wetereut, fraction 8 Formation thickness, & keke Horisantal and vertical permeabilities, respectively, md la Natural logarithm Togiedog ‘Logarithm tothe bese 10 OHLREC Recovered oil, STB ooiP ‘Original ofl fa place, STB Pv Pore volume of the pattern or reservoir, RVB Qo Cumulative water injected and produced ol, respectively Swe Connate water saturation Sow Oil and water saturation WOR Water oil ratio, STBWSTBO Host Ol and water viscosities, respectively, ep SOIL REC Oil recovered asa percentage of OOIP, % consistent unite ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The author would like to thank J. Bolling, J. Killough, 7. Perkins, F. Stalkup, T. Brinegar end A. Tran for helpfel iseussions in connection with this work. 1. Craig, F., "The Réservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterllocding,” SPS Monograph, Vel. 8, 1971, REFERENCES eeSPE 20064 K. K. LO, H. R, WARNER, JR. AND J. B. JOHNSON Erahaghi, 1. and Omeregie 0., “A Method for Extrapolation of Cat vs Recovery Curves," JPT, 80, .208, 1978 8. Ershaghi, E., Handy, L. L, Hamdi, M., "Application of the xPlot Technique to the study of Water Influx in the Sidi Elltayen Reservoir, Tunisia” JPT, p.1227, September 1987. Ershaghi, E. and Abdassah, "A Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Deta,” PPT, p.664, April 1984. 5. Celhoun Jr, J.C., Fundamentals of Reservoir Enginesrine” University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Olishoma, 3960, p 99-104. 6. Bardon, C. and Longeron, D., “Influence of Very Low Interfacial Tensions on Reletive Permeability,” SPE Peper 7609 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct 13. 1. Aser, HK. and Handy, L 1, "Influence of Interfacial ‘Tension on Gas-Oil Relative Permesbility in Ge Condensate System," SPE Paper 11740 presented at the 198% SPE Calif, Regional Mesting, Ventura, March 23-25, 8, Amsefule, J. 0. and Handy, L. L,, "The Effect of Interfacial Tensions on Relative Oil/Water Relative Permeahilties of Consolidated Porous Media,” SPEJ, p.371, ‘ane 1981, 9. Welge, H. J., "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recoveries by Gas or Water Drive," Trane. AIME, 195, pt, 1952, 20, Costs, K. H,, George, W. D. and Marcum, B, E., "Three: rnefonal Simulation of Steamflooding,",’ Trans. AIME, 252, p.578, SPEI, 1974 11, Wellington, 8. L. and Vinega, H. J, "X-Ray Computerized Tomagraphy," HJ, JPT, 28, p.885, 1987, 12, Robertson, G. B, and Woo, P. T., "Grid Orientation Effects and the Use of Orthogonal Curvilinesr Coordinates in Reservoir Simelations,” SPE 6100, Sist Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans. 13, Collins, R. E., Flow of Fluids Throweh Porous Media, The Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1976, APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF EQ) ‘The derivation of Ba(1) relating log(WOR) and cumulative off for the 1D flow of incompressible, immiscible aide starts with the Buckley-Leverelt solution of water displacing ofl in a porous medium. ‘Water it injected into © system with length L at x=0 ‘while at x=L, both Ode are produced, The cumulative produced tilis dencted by Qo end the cumulative water injected is denoted by Qw. Amaterial balance, together with the use of the Buckley-Leverett ndition (Bq(6-47), p 150, Ref. 19) yields, Sg(L) = [PV (1S) Qy + Qu aQo/dQyI PV (AAD ‘where Se is the oll saturation at x=, PVs the pore volume, and Swe isthe eonnata water saturation TogWOR) = logtt - dQo/4Qy) -logCEQo/dQy) (A-2) = Togtuty) + logtkrw/kro) (8) We also assume thet the relative permeability dita satisty assumption (: og Ckrwikro) =log(a) +b Sw Aa) BqstA-2), (A-8) and (Ad) => Log(WOR) = logla Holy) +b Sw Ba(A-1) => 800) = 1S) = 1 (Yb) log WOR) + (Ub) logts tote) = LPV (8p) Q0+ Qy AQo/EQw PV Finally, esing assumption (ii) in the text and the result in Appendix B for d give, og WOR) - 1HI-SyreVOOIP] Qo - logtat/in) = bye +7100 which fe Eq(1) in the text relating og(WOR) and Qo, APPENDIX DERIVATION OF EQ(4) In this section, we derive atsumption (i) based on the Buckley- Leverett solution. Using the material balance equation in Azpendix A, we differentiate it with respect to Qw and substitute Bg(A-2) in Appendix A in the equation to get VIE) (4 y 4AM - EQY/AQy) = Qw provided dQoldQw > 1, Cy is constant of integration. One can verify hy differentiating with respect to Qw that the assumption AQo/dQw << 1 is indeed satisfied.@ renee sranena osetinas ens onncmmurmmotnmnew @ (as YR N zen o cH 9. ‘oreg 609 sonny Kncoee HOB wRNEd ee wnBy ‘qu our porodderg Fre sod wow3 amouNAS | andysarey soronpoig 0 gm eang henodou WOM eked ye 9 0688 Poboxon SOE png eunon, vores pins a enna oocomuoMDPHEa tsiee a¢ aE onou wosona mn HonooLr ORIG, Une Seams % 88 oy os assy wy gee oon 5 oe Oo oo oO sowyon si poy sods Aaygooues Mle = e . e {HOM))05B9] weniag UO AYE JO mH G amNY A sing hcotrNoM Oa nea Barbs 7 ” ‘ t t roy roe —— — ° = Z| sar i = = =| = =| = FP Ed + ung hoa sc ISS one Zan opnuog saan bons WOMNIOM ae 9 nts se seu ee ve [] sone oa. BE] moems 0 =— = —— FE] iowa = = = = pL Zz E = 5 5 ears sme zon) = ae Sa oe =| ime x | =|ou 2:1 Porm Comat #24: Perm Conmaat (= 10:1 Porm Comast won, stawssto0 OIRecoey Four 10 Patan oe fOR) Recovery Cuves "win Sitar Peony Cones a a Cumulative Oi Recovery, MMSTEO 199 17 IWR} Camu Ot Desa For eld‘win cumon une 36i5) Powe 12 WOR) - Cumsav Oita For Shmmenio Pater Aes of ad oeMeasuring the Quality ED. Hoke” SE, ond AR, Borger, SPE. Boon Co US. Good reservoir managements key to successful exploitation ofy- Jc from a quality prospective (Le, benchmark foam ideal, "best pac tie” standard to ensue tht all Gpparuniies are idenied), Reservoir Management Processes Fig. Lis atemplat tht lusratestheproceses that make up reservoir. management an their relationship to one another. The chat ie besed fon the multfonetionaleam concepe where the reservoir manege- ‘ent team (RMT) members are the technical and operating profes sionals who perform the reservoir management fash: the Feservoir ‘management leadership tam (RMLT) members ae the tnd managers responsible for eeating the environment for effecve ‘Reservoir management; andthe suppon systems ar those needed To serve reservoir managerrent and other company functions. Only the RMT and RMLT will be addressed inthis paper The following ce Seriptions define the processes conducted bythe RMT and the RMILT, RMT. A. Compiling and Organizing Data. Organizes reservoie-de- svipton ad performance data that ae needed currently and inthe future to maximize the valu ofthe resources B. Describing the Reservoir, Develops an up-c-date, detsled esciption of the reservoir that incerporetes avallable date and technology into afeldwide imerpretation that is consistent withob- served historical reservoir performance, . Determining the In-Place Resource, Develops «quantitative ‘sessment ofthe potently valuable resourees ina fila including & description of the level of eraimy Inherent inthe determination, DIE. identifying Prioitcng Opportunites, denies and screens ote) oppornities that could increas the economic vale ofthe Teservoi. Opporuniies may involve invesments andor reservoir Fanagement sutepes, Includes recognition and evaluation of fis oy 187 Sac Perce Esher (tsa arc med 2 My 108 Pow pm op 2 Sapa ‘ere pvr nest tenes eat toe Somee boon Bae 2 ofa Reservoir Management Program nd benefits nd selection of he most atractive opportunities for fur- ‘her advencement Evaluating Opportunities. Applies the toolstechnclogy 10 complete an assessment ofthe production and recovery benefits of an opportunity. Alternatives ae also evaloted as nesessery to opt nize the economic value af the resource, Outputs would be recom. ‘mendations to fund projects andlor implemen changes to the dele "ion plan, the strategy for most effectively producing the reservoirs 6. Obtaining Approvals and Funding, Obiains the necessary sanagement approvals and endorsements for recommendations fo seguir data, fnd projects or revise the depletion plan. 4H, Designing Operating and Surveillance Plans. Develops plans that define te operating and surveillance activities necessary fo implement the depietion plan. The operating plan provides guide lines for reservoir management sctvites c.g. withdrawal andlor injection rates anda wellbore tization stheme). The surveillance plan identifies te reservoir description and performance quired for currect and far ue, UJ. Implementing and Operating. \memeating isthe actual im plementation of workover, ling, facility modifestons, and proj ss consistent with he operating plentofnrense the economic vue ‘ofthe resource, Operating invalves the activites asociated with on going opertions ofthe exising wells and faites consistent with he operating and surveillance plen. I includes a cost-effective process {or acquiting reservir-descrpion and performance data. K.Analyzing Performance Data. Analyzes information that is obtdined from messurng the actual performance of well, ceser- Voirs, and faites and compares it with expected performance from theoretically based models. The deviations from expectations an be used 10 increase the understanding ofthe related proce and provide insight toad in ideaifying future opportanities to im esse the economic value ofthe resource. ‘UM, Determining Needs To Advance Ideas and Determining Technical Redesign Requirements. Tdeniies dota, enalyss, of technology needs and cots that could reduce the risks aed improve the definition of the opportunity. The intent ofthese questions isto ‘in insight into how opporunities net initialy implemented can be ‘ohanced Futer trough adtional analysis andor data acquisition, ‘M0. Research Opportunity Inventories. Lists technology needs and investment opportunites that are developed and updated by ‘ther RMT processes RMLT, B Measuring Reservolr Management. Determines the scope, ronagement andrelevance of dota used measure the quality and the quality improvements of the reservoir management proces. MR. Process Planning/ideniring Improvements, Systemati- cally develops suategies and goals that define opportunities to im- rove the qutlity ofthe reservoir management process S. Improving Customer Satisfaction. Objctively measures the ! of customer satisfaction, x Assessing Skills, Determines skill tquired to develop and ‘manage a reservoir and assesses the staff's current proficiency in those sil Developing Skills Makes plans foratendance at schools and seminars and for wrk ssigamentsto improve skills consisent with technical needs, Also includes development of local training pro- grams designed to meetspecifc local needs aot met cost-effectively by other programs. ~ Jonuary 1997 «FerFig, {Reservoir management template, Y-Deploying Skills. allocates reservoir management techies! staf consistent with established prortis and skills requirement 0 ‘maximize profitbiiy consistent with division objectives. The pros- ss shoul consider the longer-erm benefit of skis development. 'W. Sharing. Shares each division's individual learnings with ot- ers to identify deparmentwide improvement needs. "X Stewardship. Reports reservoir management performance and resist ensure hat weil plans re consistent with management goals. ¥ Alignment. Ensures that all associates involved in reservoir management understand is importance, thei oles, andthe quality objectives. “Z Recognition, Ensures ha bth individual and team secomplsh- meni in retervor mangement ate given ie recognition deserve. ‘Measuring Reservoir Management Performance ‘Two questionnaires have been designed to measure the quality b= ing achieved for those RMT snd RMLT activites identified onthe reservoir management template, An RMT's or RMET's pevfor- mance rating foreach question is judged on a scale of one (seldom) to four essentially always) compared with abest-proctce standard thats determinéd bythe group doing the assessment. Best preetice tends tobe somewhat subjective, but scores are surprisingly similar ‘when different knowledgeable persensconducta survey. Best proc tice wil vary depending onthe Field or fields involved. A prime as~ Sse that represents significant resource with along remaining life ‘would be hel to diferent standards than smaller resourees that ore ina mature stage of development. Surveys that use the quetion- ‘ies ae intended tobe self assessments performed by the various MTs and RMLT's in an organization “Thereal svengihs ofthe sorveys are (1) a systematic consideration ofall reservoir management seis, 2) improved commmunicwion| land understanding ofthe multifunctional sss by the tam (3) den tieaton of srengihe tobe sustained and areas fr improvement. IPT « January 1997 (4) a method for measoring improvement wih subsequent s3rveyS (Questions forthe surveys are inthe following section. RMT Questionnaire. ‘A: Compiling Organizing Daa. Noe that the inet is 1 deer sine the conden ofthe database management system and ot {svi ine nod foraequiring more ata. Aetonall, the hard-copy nebo refers fo papercopy information, which could bE suf tient fr lest complet is. AS the compleity and sie ofthe r= ‘Sues increase, he eal would be computer Saboses 1. Dothecaabnses (bard sopy/ompate) meet il he following Contin ll existing stologic end seophysial data Contin il enginesring and operational ds. Tovegate with eachother. Ener fe Ey fous 2. Are procetesresponsi Entering Mstorcl dae. Enerng newly acquired dra Correcting erorsin be dts, B, Deserbing the Reserate, {ls the fulbsetion core coverage adequate io describe the reservoir? isthe modemlog ens adequate to sci the reserve? 5. Ise geophysical coverage adequate tm describe the reserve? 5.5 Has the potential i free-dimensinal seismic oF in 1¥0- dimensional t improve the resevoit description been eveuated adequately? dace maps and nterpreatons felwide, upto dt, and ine rally consistent? "EAte geological geophysisl and ceserveir engineering inter. pretions ineritd and consistent with observed Geld beovion? (6 Do the servoir eseritons ue erent tehical, coneept? 8 tes effective for following?Fig, {Reservoir manages Y.Deploying Skills. allocates reservoir management techricel staff consistent with etblshed pricties and skills requirement 0 ‘xm profitbiliy consistent with division objectives. The proc ss shoul consider the longererm benefit of sil development 'W. Sharing, Sheres each divisions individual learnings with oti- ers to identify deparmenchide improvement needs. "X Stewardship. Reports reservoir management performance and ess to esut tha wekplans are consent with rarspement goa. ¥. Alignment. Esures that al associates involved in reservoir manegement understnd is importance, tei oles, andthe quality objectives. 7Z. Recognition, Ensues tha both individual and eam secomplish— nents in reerisiz mansgement ze give he ecogniion deserve. Measuring Reservoir Management Performance ‘Two questionnaires have been designed to measure the quality be ing achieved for those RMT and RMLT activities igeaified onthe reservoir management template, An RMT's or RMLT's perfor ‘ance rating foreach question is judged on a seale of one (seldom) to four (estenially elways) compared witha bestpretice standard thats cetermindd by the group doing the assessment Best practice tends io be somewhat subjective, but cores are surprisingly similar ‘when differen, knowledgeable persons eonducta survey. Best prac tice wil vary depending onthe Field or fields involved. A prime s~ ‘se thet represents 2 significant resource with along remaining life ‘would be held o different standards then smaller resources that ore ina matare stage of development. Surveys that use the question- ‘aires ae intended tobe self assesiments performed by the various [RMT's and RMLT's in an organization ‘Theredlstengths ofthe surveys are (1) a systematic consideration ofall reservoir management activites, (2) improved coimuniation tnd undertnding ofthe mulifunctonal issues bythe eam, (3)iden- tieation of azengths tobe sustained and areas fr improvement n SPT + Scnuary 1997 (4 a method for measoring improvernent wih subsequent sorveys {Questions forthe surveys are inthe following section. RMT Questionnaire, "A. Compiling/Organizing Data. Note thatthe inten is 10 deter nine the condition ofthe database management sysiem and not © sss the need for sequiring more data, Aditionelly te hard-copy Sarabase refers papercopy information, which could bE suft- ent for less complex fields, As the complexity and size ofthe re- Source Increasen, he ideal would be computer databases. {Do the etsbeses (ard capy/eompute) eel he following Contain all existing geologic end geophysical data. Contain all engineering and operational dais. Titegrate with each ater Error fee. aay 10 use. 2. Are prcedures/responsibilis effective for following? Entering historical data Entering newly eequied dat. (Correcting errors inthe dst, B. Describing te Reservoir ils the ful-section core coverage adequate to describe the reservoir? 2 Is the madem-log density adequate to describe the reservoir? 3 isthe geophysical coverage adequate to describe the reservoir? 53.5 Has the potential in thre-eimensonalsesmic oF in 1¥0- dimensional to improve the reservoir description been eveluaed adequately? 4, Are maps and interpretations fleldwide, upto date, and iner- rally eonssten? “bRre geologicallgeophysical and reservoir engineering inter- pretutions integrated and consistent with observed field behavior? 16 Do the sservoir ceeription®usecurentechnfcal coneepIs? 37. Ace echnclogy exper perion wth a high degree of kl and jose in reservoir dexerpion/anopement) om bok ‘ihn ad oie the diston consulted? Mettciving the Deseron. 8. Do sjtems exe otep inergeations caren? 8 Isreservoindeserpion documentation complee? €. Determining the InPlce Resource 1. Is there a ute of ere measurement to provide confidence inlog-dexemined rock popes snd ui smuion? Ze tere sufiient Mul tmples Io provide conten in pessore/olomeftempersture rellonhps? 3.Does an efficent system exist for convening reserve de scription velunes? 4: Areal potently vue resources inclded in the ase sent (i ger 3 plot gu, ir Selim, COs). 5 Ar ihe techie! incense panied and heir impact understood? 4 doamenaion of nplace volumes compete? DIE, Ieeiying an Privcng Opportunites, Poses pat should nelude an opted inventory of a potently recoreraie resoures, ceding hae coment Saeco reserve ch culd be developed pending improvements neennoogs. pacing ep tony and oer pening condtons. i. Does te proces fr ienyng opportunites incorporate a fieldwide vs. wellbore analysis? a “e 2: Does the proces fridenfying opportunities incorporate ine pat from necessary tecal and i intons? 3: Aedes documented nd rsdn on invent sytem? 4. the inventory oped st appropiate inervls cont with resource sie and oppor 5 When oppor involve potential reserve sions ae shey propery ess ect 8 Ae reserve celery defiitins understood by members of ine RMT? 7. Are pores evlted with conven ester neadng longterm stgis? "Evaluating Opportunites for Field Development and Ime proved Depletion "ere pei work plo, neuding data neds and schedules, developed for eich poet ned? 2. Are he ark plans tered seo technic! and operating fonctions? 5. Are responsibil and leedrsip cleat define? 42. Have-eapers had the oppomanty to offer comment! svagestons? 5s there sicient ces to exper? Arabi. 6s thee a resent perfermance adel hat ncorprstes upo- diz eseroldescripion and eases performance expects? “ls the mae appropriate for he se nd complexity othe 8. Are motel pediions consent with perfomance ats? 8. Ar shemaive developrenepltion scenes consieed? 10. isthe eservaiepermance medel stim Cocumerod toprovideexpanatonandeoniniy when eam mores str? iiss there an economie model the neoportes te ses, sch, as css, pie foecans, pulser and lea boundares, fy Timittons, andor oyay-owner sues? 12. Does the mode! oes the economic drivers on he bss of specif ls data? 13. 1s the economic model sffienly documented to provide explanation and coninsty shen ear members transfer? 1. Obtaining Approve nd Funding. i. re the proestes fr obining Expedite athoriztion andestog? 2. Ae tes processes docomenes? 4H: Designing Operating and Sureionce Plans. 1.Does a writen plan ex's providing operating guidelines to fei personne 2Dees the sien surance pln provide for obsning seeded date? 3, Does welbore uly plan exis? ws 4, re ke resercis performance indeaors dened in the glen? 5. Is input fom field personnel included? {, Do operating and surveillance plas recognize uncertainties snd provie sufeient fexiility? 1s management's endorsement obtained? US. Implementing and Operating. 1 De felé personnel have sufficient information to know key Issues? 2. Do depletion planners and felé personnel communicate'on Implementation of the plan? 3. Are dua collected as planned? 4.-Are sufficient data cofecied to ensure that ihe operations plan is being followed? ‘5. Are ongoing dara-ollecton costs and value understood and ‘endorsed by appropriate management? K. Analyzing Performance Data. I. Ave data being collected to eure thatthe reservoteis pe: forming as expected? 2, Does a reservoir performance analysis compare acral per formance with expectations from the theoretical madeling work? 3 Are recommended adjustments to operating and surveillance plans made systematially? 4. Are revised plans reviewed periodically with echnical expers? UM, Determining Needs To Advance Ideas and Determining Technical Redesign Reguirements. 1. Are plans formulated acquire new information or analyses necessary ojimprove assessments of key opporomties and advance the idea? 2. Are these plans documented? 3. Are the costs of improving the assessments consistent with benefits? "MO. Research Need/Opportunity Inventory. 1. Atelist of technology tobe developed by research developed snd updated repulrly? 2, Is an opportunity inventory maintained? RMLT Questionnaire. P Measuring Reservoir Management. 1, Does the RMLT pecodially define and document the critical components of depletion plan that need measuring and what those 2. Has the RMLT established ways o collect the data needed 0 reesure the eral components? 3. Are there efficient processes for snalyzng the data? O/R. Process Plonning/tdentifying Improvements 1. Do processes exist fr documenting reservoir management 2.Do documented processes exist for identifying the nesds Ge esos, sls apne, efter) of people mansiag the reservoir? 3. Do documented processes exit that establish responsibilities for supplying tbe need of people involved in managing the reservoir) 4.Are-there documented processes that esublish quality _guitements of iteral and external suppliers? 5, Does the RMLT set nea (1 to years) and longer-(> 5 yeas) ten goals to improve the reservoir managernent process and develop strategies (ie, team organization and development to achieve ther? ‘6, When setting these goal, does the RMLT consider business needs, current capabilities, and benchmarking data? (Note: bench marking isa methed of determining how your process compares ‘with those of other departmental groupe andlor competitors) S. Improving Customer Satisfaction. 1. Have reservoir management eusomers been identified? 2 Have customer needs, quality characteristics, and use of prod. ct been identified? 3. Does a process exst-fr measuing and improving customer satisfaction? T. Assessing Skil 1. Does the RMLT syseratically ascess the skills needed to shanage ther reservoirs? '2 Does the RMLT systematically asses the staff's current pro- ficiency in those needed skills? January 1997 «TPTFig. 2-RMT survey results. 3, Are the assestment process and assessments documented? 4. Does the RMLT identify the need fr cuside expert skills and srrang to fill hat need? ‘5 Does the RMLT collet information measure the effet ess ofthe process for devermining skills and training needs and use {his information to identify opportunities for improvement? U, Developing Skil. 1. Does the RMLT implement tsining programs onthe basis of assessment ofthe sa’ proficiency in reservoir management skills? 2 Doss the RMLT supplement training with cosching and de velopmental work asignmens in reservoir management? 3 are theze development and raining plans documented? 1. Does the RMLT assess the effectiveness ofthe sil-evelop- ment processes? ¥. Deploying Skil 1, Docrtes and process exist for ensuring that usecf technical staf is consistent with business pronties and sil requirement 2, Does the RMLT periodically re-examine the enters 3. are the erteriaand the proces documented? 44 Doesthe RMLT collet information to measure the effetiver ness ofthis process and iden opportunities for improvement? ‘W. Sharing 1 Does the RMLT have a proces within the organization for shacing approaches and lessons learned? 2. Does the RMLT communicate theic organization's ap- proach and lessons learned regarding reservoir management fo ther organizations? 5: Is this sharing process document 4 Does the RMLT elle information to meesure th effetive- snes of this process and identify opportunites for improvement? 5. oes & process exist for identifying snd commonicating i= provements existing technology and new technology needed to Schieve business goals? X, Stewardship. 1. Does the RMLT tske an active role in reviewing reservoir goels with management and seek their feedback or with hese goals? 2 Is the repoming process documes 3, Does the RMLE collect information to measure the eff ness ofthis press ad identify opportunites for improvement? ¥. Alignment, ‘Dees the RMLT actively communicate desired seservoir sanagement goals end quality characteristics to the organization? 2 Does the RMLT encourage mulifunctional cooperation in formulating reserveir management plans and goals? "3 Ar the communicating processes documented? 44 Does the RMLT collet information to measure te effective~ ness of this process and identify opportunities for improvement? 7 Recognition 1. Does the RMILT havea proces for recognizing individual and team accomplishment? ', Does the RMLT collet information to measure te effective ess of this process an identify opportunities for improvement? ‘Survey Results Fig. 2 and 3 illustrate typical survey results. The RMT that com pleted the questionnaire hae responsibilty for a large eld that hes [Significant remaining hydrocarbons and requires large staf effort te manage the reservoir To obtain these resuls, each eam member ‘Completed the questionnaire and then the eam met to reach consen~ Sus In aisition to the numerical scores, the ream collected coms treats foreach process concerning strengths, areas for improve tment, and. bares to making the improvements. The team ssesoment shows determining implace volumes and identifying, 3 prioritizing opportnities are strenghs that need tO be sustained while management of data isan area for improvernent Fig. 2-RMT survey results JRT + Janucry 1997‘The RMLT results show a less satisfactory outcome overall sn ‘were helpful in identifying forthe managers and supervisors where they could make significant improvement in establishing the envi «ronment forreservoir management. These resis will based foe tablish specific improvement plans and a& a baseline to mesure long-term progres toward a best-practice siandard. Conclusions Overall, use ofthis approach wes beneficial. 1, The assesment techniqueool can be effective a developing ‘common terminology and thereby improving communication, 2. The provess can ensure a comprehensive review and ¢ more complete listing of improvement opportunities. 3. Comparison with en ideal or with best practices can create & 4 Joint pplication of he techigue by eos fietionel ems prO0P ‘personnel and subsequen: ciscusion ean significantly improve come ‘munications and build a consensus forthe improvement pan 5. Some method of documenton and messurement is needed 9 eterrine how wel resericr management ising done overtime nd how welt is being sustsined despite personne and prony changes. 6, Questionnaires and erating system have been proposed a8 & ‘means of measuring how well reservoir management is being 2p plied and improved overtime, a Acknowledgments ‘We thank our Reserve Additions Team, Bll DeWit Jim Hemi, ‘Tom Lewis, Join Lohmar, Jim Mims, Gary Mize, Tom Pasquini, Ronnie Pauik Riek Vierbuchen, and Gey Weeden, fo heirmany contributions, References 1, Blea, AL and Fox. Mi: “Optimum Plan of Depeton.”papsr SPE 17535 presented sine 1988 SPE Calilernia Regina Mectng. Long Beach, Calor, 2325 March 2 Wickman. 7S: “A atone for Reservoir Meragenent Esnncmic.” JPT (eter 1988) 885. Bees SH "Dot Aegon and Ansys Foundainsl and Ent Reserve Management” JPT pe 1982) £66 4. Stu A, amon: ad Hoong MT. “negated Reservoir Mansat- iment JP7 (December 1984) 1057 5 Ses. LH. and Magruder 1B: "Resevoir Menegement inthe Means Sin Anes Uni." JPT (Ape 1982) 49: Trane, AIME, 295, 6. Thur GC: "mplonentton of Reserva Mangement Program” paper SPE 20748 presencd athe 1990 SPE Annual Technical Cote {nce end Exhsiion, New Ole, 23-26 September, “opend, T: "Tae Oneborg Reservoir Management Plnning: A Case latory From the Oseerg Fel." paper OTC 6140 presented a th 988 DffshoveTehraogy Confrence, Houston, 14 Mey. Wiggine M.L znd Stanaman-RA:"hn Approashia Reservoir Manage rent” paper SPE 20747 preseicd she 1590 SPE Annuol Testes Confrence and Eshbiion New Ovess, 23-26 Scpembet Edward. Holstein, cureniva consultant in Houston, relved fom Baton Corp. n 1994 otter 39 ye08 of sevice. During he corserwin Exon, heheldan: Gheorng postions. through Suttne U3 andserved oxb aac don Reservar engineer forthe Fost Texos Div. Joint inferest ‘Manager fer the Southeastern DW: Headquarters Coordinator for Teriary Recovery, Reserok Engineering. ond Heodquatos Coareinetor fo Tacrnocay. He nolas 0 8s degree ftom Oxicho- masote U-ancan WSdegiee fam Ochoa U,.botninchert cal engheoing. A Dstngushed Member Halter hes served on many Seciety commitiees anc was o 1995 Speakers Bureau Specker ona Tore SHE Resonor Engineering Review Chct- ‘man. Allon Betgarcurent ie Resource Development getter Exton C2. S.A Aoki interest Grgcrizotion. DuInghe ‘SSiear wih Bae, na has wersec m9 vorehy of reservar aA eeting, operatond, ong menegement assghments on cof pany properties in fxs, Csromia, cna Aloka, Serge holcs 28s ‘egree in chemical engheerng tom Texos ABM O. Januory 1997 «er“The reservoir management aspects of waterflooding... span the time before the start of waterflood to the time when the secondary recovery either is uneconomic or is changed to an enhanced recovery.” 80 Waterflood Surveillance Techniques—A Reservoir Management Approach G.c. Thakur, SPE, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Introduction Billions of barrels of adsitioal reserves have been generated thro0gh waterlooding, one of the mos imporart methods of im proving recovery from oll reservoirs. With the unceriay ofthe economic applcab- ity of EOR techies ase result of oi-price instability, optimization of waterfloding as Decome more significant than ever ‘The reservoir manegement aspects of vwstercoding are not resvcted oan inital tnginering and geological report, economic jusfeation, and project approval by man ‘agement, Rather, these ongoing seives span the tine before the sar of waterflood to the time when the tecondary recovery tither ie uneconomie ori changed tan e3- Ihanced recovery ‘A reservoir management approach to ‘waterflood surveillance considers a system consisting of reserveir characterization, fluids and their behavior inthe reservoir, creation and operation of wells, and surface processing of thet, These ae incerrels- £4 pars of a unified system. The fonction of reservoir management ip Wate‘lood sar Yellane i t provide facts, inforzation nd knowledge necessary to control opera tions end to obtain the maximum posible Tnitial production forecasts may not al sways dgree wih seal performance. Diff ees may eiee from eldwide averaging ‘of data in the prediction model, inadequate seological deseription, and well-completon problems. Thus, attempts should be made fo resolve the differences ad controled sus ance should be cared out improve field performance. Guidelines for waterflocd managemeat should inelade information on (1) reservoir characterization, Q) estimation of pay areas containing recoverable ail, (@) azalysis of toring, and (6) wel ioformation data base, 4 “Today, sffciet performance hi avlele that survellancetechnignes can documented in deal. Tas paper highligh ‘vaterloodng in light of praca reservoir management practices. Cate studies that - Tosrate th best survellance practices are referenced. Reservoir Management Reservoir management cin be defined asthe judiiour use of various tecanigues to mex mize benefits or economic recovery fom a reservoir 56 Fig. 1 desribes the ites ‘lon required among the various fonctions “The retervoir management epprosch to vraterfood surveillance must use a coupled system conssing of wel, surface facies, fd the reservoir. All must be coasigered ina balanced way to maximize economic od recovery. also, eam effort involving peo- ple fom various functional areas mands {ory for development and implementation of | suceessflrevervois management progran, Koy Factors in Waterflood Surveillance “ath? and Teach ad Srange® the tay motoring pois in te adiont spaced eye Pig. 2) Inthe pst ee Teen was focused ly om eservi pec- formance. Howoyes te eppiaion of theresrvor mangement approath tas come indus precce to ince wes, clos, water youn, a Operating com Sis onaelne pet is imgeriant o concider the flowing ems in te design a iiplemeniation of Teompretccive waterloo’ survellace og (Table 1. Pecos tod deed reserva de serpin. 3 eerie perfomance en way tes imate seep efieny and ol rcovery a ps of api. miproceeton wells ead Ge ore 08 fd Pr War guaay and vesting 5, Matsteanee sod performance off Monthy comparion of aca and be cei performance to monitor waeBoo! Savior ent effete Tneseoir management ifermeion syvem and performance conocer Seal pesormanee dat) 2 Diagnossof existng/ Potent prot Yes and tei ots (Cotober 1981 -sPTspEDistinguished Author sens 9. Economic surveillance 10. Teamwork. Sometizes a waterfiood surveillance pro- n is unsuocessful if teamwork does not exist among the engineers, geologists, and field operations personnel. Etfective wae flood manegement requires a multiiscph ary team approach. Itis important that all isciplines (Fig. 1) be involved, and each must understand the requirements, needs, and rationale of other fonctional groups. to improve success ir managenent Reservoir Characterization and Perform- ‘ance Monitoring. °12 1. Physical characteristics ofthe reser- voir. Reservoir characteristics must be de- fined: permesbilty, poresty, thickness, areal and vertical variations, areal and ver- tical distributions of oll sataration, gasfoil and oillvater contacts, anisotropy (ovient- cd facture system or directional permeabil- ity), dase sess, reservoir continuity, vertical flow conductivity, and portion of ay containing te bulk'of recoverable (i158 To manage a waterflood accurate Sy duailed nombdge of be rset chitectre also is necessary.17 Figs. 3 and 4 show some examples of geological charac- terization, involving changing geological concepts and zonation. Bradley et 2.1 dis- cussed similar ideas in their integrated p- proach to refining reservoir description through monitoring Guid movements inthe Pradboe Bay reservoir. 2. Primary performance. Well indicating relatively high cumulative production may indicate high permeability and porosity, higher pay-zone thickness, or another pay zone. Oa the other hand, wells indicating relatively low cumulative production may indicate poor mechanical condition, well- bore skin damage, or isolate pay interval. «3. Produetion curves. Percent oll cut in produced stream (log scale) vs. curmlative recovery during secondary performance ‘may result nn estate of ture recovery or may indicate improvement inthe water- flood performance asa result of more ani- Forminjection profile. Fig. 5 illustrates the performance curve of a typical sucessful IPT + October 1891 waterfioed, and Fig, 6 Ulostrates various ex- samples of waterfloods. Lo er al.}? discuss results supporting the application of plot of log (WOR) vs. cumulative ofl for weter- ood analysis. 4, GOR. Decreasing GOR's indicate that ‘uid fill-up is being achieved. Increasing GOR’s indicate that voidage isnot replaced by injection, '. Flood front map. This pictorial ds shows the location of various flood fronts. ‘The maps, often called bubble maps, allow visual differentiation between areas of the reservoirs that have and have not been swept by injected weter.20 Before fil-up, Eqs. 1 and 2 can be applied to estimate the outer radius of the banked ofl and the weter-bank radius (:staz)" 7 on (en) ee ‘where rap outer radi of the banked oil, A; Joy scumulative water injected, bbl; ton at start of injection, frac- ayer injection efficiency (fraction cof water volume that enters the layer wher effecive waterflood is taking place); and hethickness, & @ where rg'watet bank radius, t; Se average Water saturation behind front, fec~ sion; and S,=connate water saturation, fraction, If zones are correlative from well to well and if limited vertical communications ex- {st, then the bubble map cxa be drawn for cach zone. The bubble map can be used to identify areas that are not flooded and areas with infill drilling opportunities. Cone? used a simple numerical model- ing approach to prepare isobaric and water frout maps that identified areas of high gas and water sasration, 6. X plot 225 Because extrapolation of pest performance on the graph of water cut vs, cumulative oil is often complicated, a method was devised to plot recovery factor Ys. X that yielded a straight line, X'was de- ned as (2-)-2 ® TR vere fe=frational wir ct Ms tend more peel en the om ventional pet of meter et. culate {Stun yes ener eats he he wer Si exces 073, 7. Hall pion, This techie, used to antes inssion-ve dt, i bed 09 ot of comulatve pressure ve. etzalath Eiecion ircan provide a weath of infor fon regeing te craters of a Ineston el 2 shown in Fig. 7- ny inthe fe of en injsion wel, be werden edus wil eens wth tine, sige ope fo concave pear, a5 Show by Seen ebag 7 tte Ai op, Line bA nets sae or rma i {Son Anineening slope at is sonsave Tverd grea ileus «postive sa of poor wuer qaily (se D). Siar Slopes nay coat ame treatment d= Shed to improve efecive, voiunetic Sep. Inthe, homer se slope wl rs iperese sd ion say constant Line Bindcaes a deveasag rope, inciting equi aor ajecon ove paring pre Suv. The injection ander te later cond fn can be verted by roming spate team Avery low dope vue, as sbowa by Line Cy ian adcaon of poseibe chan teleg of out-of ane inpeoa, 3 Convelal wactfond 27 Maxizn prot and recovery woul be realized all ets reached tne Rood-ot pint szlax ously. Tis meas profcig te lnges Gh vtuoes om te vets ening tere stv": Tis seer wl resin ‘Sum ite wh nintnum operating expense ‘fale yeatnng maimed recovery. Noe Tay ite ise lge vacation in PV, is tts tea becuse coh wel looted t prouston/ijetn raison te Bas oF PY pecs 9. Pato blaring 7829 Minimizing cipro arose boundaries ie Proves We cure othe mootized ol and ances te volun of seed water Pat ‘Entalanng general teases see Fsteney. Im sein, reigument of 008 pater incojunction sth pater alt= Ep provides moe opporoay ro eraseRESERVOIR ENGINEERING atoLoy cropavsics ‘CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTION | OPERATIONS Fig, 4—Reservolr management approach fl ezovely Simple reservoir modeling ‘work can be of great help. For example, ‘Thomas and Driscoll concluded that in the Slaughter el sigifcent amounts of of ‘would be rapped in a poorly swept aea if no changes were made inthe producer ijec- tor configuration, 10. Produced-wateranabst, 299 Injec- ted-water breakthrough can be detected by ronitoring the chloride contest ofthe pro- duced water if there isa significant difer- ence inthe salinities. 11. Injection profile surveys. Petite sur veys of injection-vell Dud-enty profiles ‘en detect formation plugeing, injection ot ofthe target zone, thief zones, and under- Injected zones, Alleation of injection volumes with deta obtained from the pro- Sle surveys allows tacking of waterfiood isories of cach zone Walls. 2435 1. Problem areas. Formation plugging, fnjection out of the target zone, and nou aniform injection profile caused by satif- cation are all problem areas. They cause jor problem in waeriood operations and low vertical sweep efieney. Tho, igh- permeability lyers serve as highly conduc- te seaks for the injected water 2. Well completion. Condition of the casing andlor cement bond plays an impor teat role wateroadsurvelance, Beoase of poor cement, water ow can occur be- ‘isd the casing. Also, openhole injectors ant producers, and fractured wells wih large ns2 propucTion ENGINEERING CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH volume treatments are not generally desir thle, The later condition may sometimes ave a significant negative effect on sweep eleieney. Not that these conditions donot preclode a sucessfl waterlond but require fore concenrated efforts in surveillance 3. Injection well esting. These tests are conducted to optimize wateflood perform nce by maximizing pressure differenti, ‘minimizing sin damage, ensuring proper isrbution of water, and monitoring the ex tent of fracturing. © 4. Quality of producers, Poor producers make poor injectors. 5. Converting producers. Producers are converted and high gas producers are shat in to accelerate fll-up ‘ime. 6, Backpressure. Ifthe producing wells are not pumped off, a backpressare is a> plied to eau erossfow. As a result, the Iowpressre zones may not produce, 7. Changing injection profiles»? This canbe done with Selective injection equip- seat, selective perforating, low pressure fgueeze cementing, aidizing, and tie ne Mlockage trough polymer Seamens. 20 8, Regular well cleanout. 9. Completion and workover techniques (weltbore cleanout, completion and work ver fluids, perforating and perforation cleaning, peekers‘), 10. Tubing selection and corrosion coatings TH. Seale removal and iehiblon 121 Speaife recommendations fo injec- onlproduction well, water-source wel, and ‘welbesds, 13, Flow regulation (surface and Jown- ‘ole regulation, single ual-sving inestion 14, Profits cour (palymer, cementing, chemical, microbial. Faclities\Opefations. The liteatore oo ‘waterfiood survellance is generally aimed at reservoir performance. Overall project success, however, is often extealy affected by daly field operations. While reservoir engineers and geologits play avery impor. tant roe in reservoir pecformance and water- food optimization, fclesoperations set sre concerned with daily management of field operations, information collection, and ‘Surface equipment considerations should Include surface gathering and storage 55 ‘em, injection pomps, water dstbution sys ms, metering, water teatment and fitering system, oll water separation, corrosion nd seal, plantand equipment sizing, handling of separated waste prodocts Wator-Quality Maintenances3.44 water quali is not maiatained, higher in- Jeeton pressures are roquired ‘to sustain esd injetion rates. Als, comosion prob Jems inereave with time when lower-quality water is used, Tes important to protect the injection system against corrosion to reserve ts physieal integrity and to prevent, the generation of corrosion products deally, the water quality shouldbe such thatthe reservoir does not plg and injec- tivity is pot Tost during the life of the flood “However, ost considerations often prohibit the use of such high-qaliy water. The ex: pense of obtaining and preserving good (guilty water must be balanced against the Tose of income incurred as 8 resalt of de eased ol recovery and increased workover ‘nd remedial operations requiremants.<° ‘Questions are often asked about the teminttion of acceptable. water quali Tighter formations require berer-quality ‘water. Sometimes poor-quality water can be injeted above paring pressures, but injec tion through fscrures could reduce sweep ficieny, ‘Although tis impossible to predict quan- ttavely the minimum water quality re ‘quired for injection water into a given formation, some authore® have anempted to define inlestion water-quality require: tents from onsite esting. Table 3 and Fig. 8 describe other considerations regarding interesting to note that Incompatible ‘acum and eufte waters were injected into ‘he Baylor County Watertlood Unit No. 1.47 Prodosd and makeup waters were not mixed instead, they were injected through {vo separate systems and. into separate swells. Roebuck and Crain®? reported that to problems were encountered through mit- {ng and precipitation inthe reservoir, ner ‘were any prosieme inte producing system experienced, cetober 1881 eset[Water Treatment Produation Faciitios Injection Facies 7 [Production Waits Reservoir |. [lajecton Welle Fig, 2—Waterflood cycle. Monitoring Facilities. Reservoir. * Production/njecton. Presi (porable test equipment, id- level esting; repeat formation, bud tall- off, and step-rate tess; feidwide pressure Surveys to determine pressure gradiat for ‘ese on balancing injecsoniproduction rates). * Rate (oil, water, gas, water-cut, GOR, well esting producion/neton allocation). * Pauem balancing (voidage control, aeaterizal sweep ciency using suean™ tube meds). * Waterfloed patter realignment + Observation monitoring wel 4 Reservoir sweep and bypassed ol racture comntunications. lef zones and channels + PV injected, + Geviyunderiing nd fingering ing Wels, « Production/injection logging (opeaholel cased hole, temperature/spinner/tacer). ‘ Tnjected water in target zone. ‘+ Hall plors (well plugging/sirulation), 1 Tracer (single well/interwel) + Tagging fill + Cement integrity. * Downhole equipment. * Surface equipment. * Wellbore fractures, ‘onnation damage! perforation ploging. «+ Pumped-off condition * Corrosion/scale-inhibition residuals. * Monitoring equipment and maintenance Water System. * Presence of corrosive dissolved gases (C0, H,S, 02); miberals; bacterial growth; dissolved solids; suspended solids, concen- ‘ration and composition; ion analysis; pH. * Corrosvity (corrosion coupons and cor- rosion rate monitoring), oil content (dis- persed or emulsified oil in water), and iron sulfie. * On-site or laboratory analysis. * Data gathering a the water-source wel, ‘water-injection wells, and several points in the injection system, Case Histories Means San Andres Unit. Stiles docu- sented a comprehensive surveillance pro- {gram used at the Means San Andres Unit. A detailed surveillance program was devel- coped and implemented in 1975. Itinclnded ‘monitoring production (oi, ges, and water) and water injoction, contoling injection pressures with step-ate tess, pater balanc- ing with computer balance program, running injection profiles ta ensure optimum disti- ‘bution, selecting specific production pro- files, and choosing fluid levels t0 ensure pampott of producing wells. “The following were implemented during tertiary recovery (water-alternating-g2s in- eae “Effective waterficod management requires a multidiscipiinary team approach.” Jection), but they also apply to waterflood surveillance * Areal flood balancig (optimizing the arrival of flood fronts at producers) per- formed by annual pressure-faloff tests in ‘each injector and computer balancing programs. * Production/injection monitoring * Data acquisition and monitoring. + Patter performance monitoring to max- {mize oll recovery and flood efficiency by ‘evaluating and optimizing the performance of each paern * Optimization (it must be dynamic and sensitive to changes in performance, tech- nology, and economics). * Vertical conformance monitoring to op- timize vertical sweep efficiency while minimizing oot-of-zone injection. Several cross sections were constructed for each pat- tem to ensure completions in all the flood able pay. Amnual profiles were run on all injection wells. For exch profile, casing o packer leaks were identified, out-of-zone in- jection was identified, and zonal injection ‘rom profile was compared with porosity feet profiles. ‘The main objective of an injection survey {s 1 provide a means of monitoring the in- jection water so that efforts can be made to ensure that injection rates conform with ‘zonal porosity-thickness. These effors have ‘pad substantial dividends in increased ver- teal sweep and ultimate recovery. PT + October 1997monitored to determine the dependence of | cations in food design, infill drilling, and Ee acta Rea ead aaa ool ‘I FROG N sey end protacvinyon geo te crt silanes, Ths waeiod ue Ges TAs asia toes The conuming geologic surveilance ane incorporated soeh common ecnighes ‘ecute uel interning the as computergenerted analyses of produc on amas and predicting Gon’njecton dai, wate-bank rai orb Geir eect on waterood reponse, Se mgps, pressure costour maps, aie Lin monitoring, and pei tems ike cae 4 Comment af fits personne! ‘hl moaioring ofthe relationship borwess 4 Commtoant of fel personne ing | pleaton of reservoir management tech. reservoir witirawals andthe waterne=- EPicgm fumbers(nslecpinary | ques was key co the succes of tis ton rae, Thelater was monitored on Pott Sloparton meeting ech oha's | patrons 2% Sareilnce information 2 uot end fdviual beery bass {tational bletves) Ibu esc description dea provided ew Based upoo an energy balance of ines ffsighs info water movement and zonal son and withéravals, South Hobbs Unit Production atthe South ception. Operating decisions bated on $5, R-Ray ee ——— dren? Toe season for boone peforn- _Suvelane was ed fr Pete ver LLSiecancagresve progam che sre tl and horizontal conformanes: C888 were Bw ? teez was mages roptm fv login, pesue bau aad peda ee Del FYE, RST veilence genera recor, espe OG ton et, and permeabiy da from core eee ee ate, STB: ati efees ce preducton talis were ed frie vera conform- S™B:, $0701 ee 1, Liteapecity ofa mmber of wells wes se sorveiance radon ters, eer Con olution GOR, injemsed $b that a pumpeé-off condition Voir pressure data, and interference tests a 3 eee Se ce, Sista: ad qymanir prison 1-Aplan of ation, involving all functions 2. Flexible plan 3, Management support > Operating ressres inthe sli bat- To achieve vertical eoformenee,injes- Gy, eo/somisortereretiend, erty edue- on wells vere acidiactreteated in OT EBoatapecsre rough the wipes back moliple tages to crn connecting veil g_._Foo“e) ig to the well fracture systems. Temperature surveys, 3. Adverse effects of sale accumulation noise logs, and Howmeters were used for wae Aenzused by remal end preventive the vertical conformance surveiliance, The With 80Opsi PVT data and injection and measur ‘enire section in the producing wells was production rates of 416,000 and 70,000 onion ‘pressures just under the opened without acid fracturing to maintin STBVD water, he oil rate for producing parting pressure were maintzined. the flexibility of future water production, GOR's of 700 and 750 scfSTB are 148,000, TE Per suveyswerematoensurethat Flowmeter/gradiomanometer surveys, and 138,000 STBID, respectively (Ba= hoi entering nao te proper tones fa he peessure buildops along with core analysis 1.213 RBVSTB, B,=0.008125 RBI/scf, ant right emus Ent, noise loge and gemma ray logs were R,=339 sc(/STB), The above rate model ‘sed for monitoring. In addition, pulsed- was history matched with actual perform West Yellow Creek Field. Gordon and neutron-caprre logs racked edgewater en- ance in individual battery areas and then Owen® described the imporance of 2 croachmeat. tsed to invesigee the effects of changes in Gorough, welkorganized reservoir sorvel- Radioactive tracer dita provided a means operating policy. Saree ine WeetYellow Creek field. This of determining the source of water break- A significant effort wes also made to im Mion awvelved many acdvites, including through, which was later confirmed by the prove the vertical sweep efficiency in both Gresouretlon tess, a computerized flood interference test performed between the exising and new water-injetion wel Pilcneing program, and a produced-water producer apd the suspect injection well. On, Cemented liners were installed in openiole By+B,(R-R)” sapling program. the bass ofthese rei, injection rates were producers thet were converted to injection, fdjusted‘o minimize trapped ol bebind the and the zones to be flooded were selecively Ventura Field, Schneider’! described the waterfront. perforated, All new producers and injectors role of geological factors onthe design and ‘were cased through the 2ones of interest and rae Shbsee Stwaterfioods in the strocra- "Wasson Denver Unit, Ghauri%6 and selectively peforated rather than completed Sty complex revervoirsinthe Veotre cid, Ghauri er a5? described several innova- opeabole, which bad been practiced befor. Ch, Geclogie factors svongiyiufuenced tbe tive techniques to increase this unit's pro- Treating pressures during acid simulation foils of injection wells nd the responses duction rates and reserves, incioging novel jobs were Kept under formation fractring EP producing wells, "The waterlood was geological concepts (Fig. 3), major modii- pressures to meintan zonal isolation, andar sco TT OLD GEOLOGIC CONCEPT CURRENT GEOLOGIC CONCEPT ConTiNuoUS PAY NON-CONTINUOUS PAY Eat pay Fig. 9—Geologie concepts. net (October 1991 «PT