FIELD CASE

HISTORY

Empirical Prediction of Recovery Rate

in Waterflooding Depleted Sands
JAMES L. BUSH
JUNIOR MEMBER AIM.E
DONALD P. HelANDER
MEMBER AIME

Abstract
The prediction of recovery rate in waterflooding is becoming increasingly important as the percentage of total
U. S. oil production recovered by waterflooding continues
to increase. Since the first method of predicting waterflood
recovery was proposed in 1949, various studies have shown
that two factors afJect the success or failure of a water
flood to a much greater degree than all others. These
jactors are, in the order of their importance, total cumulative waterflood recovery and rate of recovery. This study
presents a method of predicting waterflood recovery rate
hased on the performance of 86 successful Oklahoma
waterfloods.

Introduction
In 1964, secondary recovery as a percent of total state
wide production was 71.2 percent in Colorado, 68.6 percent in Illinois, 32.6 percent in Oklahoma, 30 percent in
Texas and 12.1 percent in Louisiana. As U. S. primary
crude oil reserves found by exploration continue to decrease, secondary recovery - 30 percent of which is from
waterflooding - must increasingly be a source of reserves.
Fig. 1 shows actual secondary recovery as a percent of
total U. S. production for the period 1950 through 1965,
and the USBM projection for the period 1966 through
1980.'
Since secondary recovery and waterflooding are becoming increasingly more important and widespread, it becomes more pressing to find more accurate methods of
predicting their performance, both in total recoverable
secondary barrels and in the rate at which these barrels
are recovered. The purpose of this study is to arrive at a
set of empirical parameters for use in the prediction of
recovery rates when waterflooding sands which, for all
practical purposes, have been depleted by primary production methods.

Waterflood Recovery Rate Data

Monthly production and injection data were obtained
for 86 successful waterfloods located in 23 Oklahoma
counties. These floods represent 56 separate fields and 23
different sands (Fig. 2).

APCO OIL CORP.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.
U. OF TULSA
TULSA, OKLA.

Tables 1 and 2 give the basic information concerning

each of the waterfloods studied. Productive areas of the
floods vary from 30 to 3,050 acres. The total cumulative
waterflood recovery from all floods to Jan. 1, 1967, has
been 84,898,188 gross bbl with an ultimate cumulative
recovery of 92,530,942 gross bbl obtained from the 2,106
producing wells. Average waterflood recovery to Jan. 1,
1967, for each of the 86 floods is 987,188 gross bbl, with
an average ultimate waterflood recovery of 1,075,941 gross
bbl. Total water injection (Table 2) to April 1, 1967, has
been 1,231,653,314 bbl into a total of 1,892 injection wells.
Flood Life Periods

Waterfloods can be divided into the following distinct

periods.
Initial Response - the period from initial water injection until the first response to injection in the form of an
oil production increase. During this period the oil production rate may decline or remain constant. The reservoir
voids are filled, free gas goes back into solution, and the
reservoir pressure is restored. Of the successful waterfloods
studied, the percentage of the total flood life in this period
varied from 0.5 to 21.2 percent. The arithmetic average
was 8.3 percent and, in 75 percent of all waterfloods

...
'"cr

50

'"
CL

40

...
vi

..J
0)
0)

,:

vi

..J
0)
0)

...
'"
0
u
0
'",..cr cr
C

20

0..

cr III
<t
c ::;
Z

(~

SEPTEMBER, 1968

+r--~

'0

..J

<t

'" .......0
U

III

1950

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office

March 21, 1968. Revised manuscript received Aug. 8, 1968. Paper (SPE
2109) was presented at SPE Eighth Secondary Recovery Symposium
held in Wichita Falls, Tex., May 6-7, 1968. Copyright 1968, American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
'References given at end of paper.

11

cr 0
> u
::>

30

/)

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

YEAR

Fig. I-Secondary recovery as a percentage of total

U. S. recovery.
933

[i.e., the injection rate per unit volume of reservoir decreases]; and (4) the reservoir voids increase as a result
of primary production.
Production Incline - the period from the initial oil
production increase due to water injection until the peak
oil production rate is reached. During this period the flood
front begins to affect the producing wells and oil production is steadily increasing. There is normally very little

analyzed, this period was in the 5 to 11 percent range.

In predicting the length of this period, the 8.3 percent
average should be used for the most probable case. However, judgment can be used to obtain even better predictions. Therefore, this period will vary from 5 to 11 percent
as (1) the sand goes from heterogeneous to homogeneous;
(2) the type of flood goes from pattern to line drive to
peripheral; (3) the injection well spacing becomes wider

15

10

Ii:.

i------~--r-:7-"----lI8

Ii.

29

, ,.

,-..1

1-------- 1

0'"

'''EOId

GAR

"

O ... , S

~-j (_
,,~

,,'

--,

IP A Y

. .G

0"

E 630
0M
0 65

.Stillwat.r

L N

'L

".to.

ff07

J2I

0l-_~___

L _____--j

~ Stowno.I---"""

2E4Ii"

1
,

...

t-

)-

0"

0.

r--------

i_

_ _ _ _ _ ~_I

I
I

-~

II!.

r--~ oj

Ii.
Z

4:Wol1en

-!c

TON

'Pauls VOllty

J'<i:'..

.Okmuloe.

r-

I
rLT~

.-

2~.

"Hol~envill.

I P

' :..

N TOT

,.

~~:.~

15

~
047

'I

MUS KO GEE
I

-L -----

UGH E S

,0

r-

i
L____ J

-"AdO

Nj

0 K M U L GEE \

~
0

"O m o . .

I ~ ~
I~'-r~ ~'~,l~
I

L,

F U S KEEl

25

20

I ~_____ ~
..
S.m"o~
I
"
""SEMINOLE'

1
I

r-~
l

'

10K

)eCb:l,

0""

!L

""I

------i~~r

"\41

.It,

:nwzg

Chandl.r.

T _ll-L

082.

~!5tt.4,10

'I

.,...

'

To'"

"

IC

~'O

~
1
OKLAHOMA"

10

~ 03

0"

--------- I

_Oklahoma 0"

-,

J'L I N

I,
I,C,t,

L:#, -r----o;or(--

"0.>0

r---

~"

~\~'-..JI---o<t-~~Q1S-!

!IL
'L

\1:

0'"

0"0"",

_ _I.:-,A W NEE

'

,_~~

I~\

tlPo....

'-- ______ ,__ --L_...,-__ J

15

AGE

0"

0' N O B

20

.
Powhuaka '

--6~-1-:~

IN 0 W A T A

j'Cf,,:,m.',.. tNowota \

r- /
25

'1ct;"O ,

29

C II

r---

'0" 0",\~--" I
L---_~
L ____ J
0

l_,

T tE

HEN

..
790078

"1

Ill.

1'-

r------J

~ (-,--~j

"--./

LEGEND
01

LOCATION 8

WATER FLOOD PROJECT NUMBER

Fig. 2-Location of waterflood projects.

934

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

rs>
t'j

..,
~

TABLE I-DATA ON SUCCESSFUL OKLAHOMA WATER FLOODS

t'j

::;:
!XI
t'j

PrOject

Project Name

Operator

Taunah
Big Pond Allen SU
Silver Unit
E, Cushing Red Fork SU
E. Cushing
Deep Fork Skinner SU
Skinner se

20
21
22
Z1

Sand #1
Mills
:"I. Glenn Sand #3
Big Ponel
Helton
N. Glenn Sand #2
Spocogee
Glenn Sand
Sapulpa
Yarhill
Iron Post Unit
Mannford Unit
Martha Nolan
Barnes SU
Brown
Katie Third Deese SU

Kewanee
Sinclair
Gulf
Big Four
Wood Oil Co.
Gulf
Gulf
Fair Oil Co.
Fair Oil Co.
Fair Oil Co.
Harry Geiger
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Homestake
Layton Oil Co,
Gulf
Texaco
Gulf
Rockwile, Inc.
Calvert Explor.
Conoco
Humble

24

NE Roady Deese SU #15

Helrnerich & Payne

...'"
'i:>

'"
00

10
II
12.
13
1..Jo
15
16
17
t8
! ')

2S
26
28
29
30
Jl

Grief Creek Booch SU

XW Ha\"kins Unit
Altus Unit
N. Davenport Prue SU
S. Davenport
Sporleder
Davenport Unit

Pan American
Ashland
Gulf
Calvert Explor.
Kingwood
Kingwood
Mobil.

32
33
3.
35
36
37

SE Sac & Fox Unit

Blukely_J ohns on
N. Happy Hill Skinner SU
N. Happy Hill Unit
KE MamrrlOth Senora SU
E. Payson Skinner S"l'

Sterling
Texola
Calvert Explor.
Calvert Explor.
Texaco
Gulf

38

Slat~ Radon

27

40
41
42
.3
44
45
46
47
48

Tenneco
S, Payson Unit
"fierson & Cochran
Skcllyville Prue SU
Sunray D- X
H\.U1,ble
E. Sparks
E.Sparks Prue"SU
Kingwood
Sporn Lower Skinner SU
Skelly
NW Tryon Red Fork SU
K. A. Ellison
N. Mt. Vernon Lower SkinnerSuTidewater
NW Evansville Unit
Texaco
Muskogee
Kingwood
).,tuskogee Unit Dutcher Sand
Sohia

4<)

S. Ceres Bartlesville SU

Conoco

50
51
52
53

N. Ceres Bartlesville SU
N. E. Ceres
Alluwe
N. Dill Unit

B. B, Blair
B. B. Blair
Edward C. Lawson
Phillips

39

Location
Sec. -Twp. -Range
29-3Z-1S-9W
35-36-15N-7E
16~ 17*20~21 *28~ 19N~8E

Z3-24-19N-7E
Z4-Z5-19N-7E
2-3-1 O-11-lZ-14N- RE
12~13*14N-8E

21-28-1BN-12E
18-19-18N*lZE
27-33-34-18N_12E
21-18N-12E
30-31- 3Z-18N-12E
29-1BN-12E
17-19- 20-Z1-18N-12E
I3-IBN-IIE
IB-19-Z0-18N-IZE
34-35-15N~8E

22- 23- 26 - 27 - 35-14N- 8E

5-6-7-8-19N-9E
9-18N-llE
IO-15-16-Z1-23N-3W
lO-20N~4W

25~36-2N-2W;

14-15-Z2-23-14N-bE
34-15N-SE
33-14N-3E; 4-13N-3E
24-25-17N-5E
27- 28-33-34-13N-3 E
2'>-26- 34-35-36-13N-4E
31-13N-SE; 6-l2N-5E
l-Z-3-1Z-12N-4E
36-13N-4E

5-6-7-8-12N-SE
5-6-8-15N-6E
9-13N-5E
4-5-8-9-13N-SI::
ZO-21-22-27-28-29-17N-3E
34-17N-3E; 23~lO-1l-16N-3E
26-1bN-3E
34~35-16N~IW;

2~3-15N-IW

8-14N-18E
27 -28-32-33~ 34~ 15N-18E
3-14N-18E:
23-24-25-26- 34~ 35-23N-l W

Gulf
Ashland
W. S. Bogie
Burke Royalty
Sohio

59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Flat RO<lk
Wildhorse
Cleveland
Put cell- Widener
Stiner-Goss
Garr SU
S. W. Yale Peru SU
Ford - Haymond
Martha Sherman
Allen

Keener Oil
Gilcrease Oil
Producers Oil Co.
Gulf
Ashland
Calvert Explor.
Calvert F.:xplor.
Mobil
Sunray D-X
Delhi-Taylor

66
67
68

'i:>
CO

'"

Producing
Formation

iliill

Cotton
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek & Tulsa
Creek & Tulsa
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Creek
Garfield
Garfield

NE Walters
Big Pond
Cushing
E. Cushing
E. Cushing
Deep Fork
Deep Fork
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Fool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Glenn Pool
Iron Post
Iron Post
Mannford
NW Sapulpa
Barnes
Brown

Cisco
Allen
Red Fork
Red Fork
Red Fork
Skinne r
Skinner
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Skinner
Lower Skinner
Skinner
Bartlesville
Barnes
Lower Layton

2250
2600
2500
2600
2700
2450
2450
1500
1500
1500
1450
1500
1500
1500
1550
1420
2500
2450
2100
1800
2030
4500

Garvin

Golden Trend

Third Deese

6500

Garvin
Hughes
Hughes
Jackson
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln

NE Roady
Grief Creek
Spaulding
Altus
Davenport
Davenport
Davenport

Deese
Booch
Lov.er Booch
Granite Wash
Prue
Prue
Prue

4650
3000

Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln

Davenport
Davenport
Davenport
N. Happy Hill
N.Happy Hill
Mammoth

Depth

Skinner
Skinner
Skinner
Prue
Prue
Prue
Lower Skinner
Red Fork
Lower Skinner
Lower Skinner
Dutcher

4200
4000
4150
3130
3550
3550
4000
4100
4180
5250
1250

Muskogee

Muskogee

Dutcher

1300

Z8-29~33-14N-14; 4-5~13N~14E

26-34-35-36-14N-14E
1-2-13N-14E
8-Z0N-12E
33-2ZN-IOE
18-19-21N-B.E:;
27-34-21K-BE
7-18N-5E; 12-1BN-4f:
4 -')-8-9-18r-;-5E
23-26-19N-5E
12-13-19K- 5
l3-'14-19N-5E
21-27,28-5N-8J:;

Okmulgee
Osage
Osage
Pawnee
Pa\\nee
Payne
Payne
Payne
Payne
Payne
Pontotoc.

4-23N~lE

B-9-16~17-25N-17E

2-3-11N-8E
31-10N-9E
10-11-IZ-IZN-2W
1~Z~IZ-13N-14E

3400
3000
3400
4410
3500
4560

Payson
Payson
Payson
Skellyville
E. Sparks
E. Sparks
Sporn
N. W. Tryon
N. Mt. Vernon
Evansville
Muskogee

Ceres
Ceres
Cp.res
Allu\\e

29-32-33-24N-IE;

Prue
Prue
Prue
Skinner
Cleveland
Senora

1400
3370
3000
3400

Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Logan
Muskogee

Noble
Noble
Noble
Nowata
Okfuskee &.
Seminole
Okfuskee
Oklahoma
Okmulgee
Okmulgee

1-12-13~23N-IW

26-2,7-34-35~12N~8E

Cohee'
Munger Skinner SU
McMurray
Bald Hill
Bald Hill

Pool

30-31~2N-IW

1-1Z-1N-ZW: 5-b-lN-lW
36-2N-IW; 31-2N-IE
7-1N-IW; 6-1N-IE
11-12-13~ 14-7N~ 9
21-22-27-28-6N_ 8E
2-3-10-1N-20W
27-34-15N-SE
14-15-14N-SE
35-15N-5E
34-35-15N-5E
2-3-1 O-11-14N- 5

3~4-9-22N~IW

54
55
56
57
58

County

Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville

4500
4400
4300
47,

Olympic
Munger
Bald Hill
Bald Hill

Cromv.ell
Senora
Skinner
Booch
Booch

3600
1730
5700
1200
1150

Bald Hill
Flatrock
Wildhorse
Cleveland
Lauderdale
N. March
W. Norfolk
Yale - Quay
Yale - Quay
Yale - Quay
Allen

Booch
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Peru
Peru
Peru
Bartlesville
Bartlesville
Allen

1200
1500
1850
2200
2350
2850
2800
2800
3200
3120
825

N. Dill

Year of
Original Dlscovery

Month of lnitial
Watet' InjectlOn

1947
1927
1912
1938
1938
1920
1920
1908
1908
1908
1909
1905
1905
1905
1906
1905
1917
1917
1922
1920
1911
1948
1946

7/57
2/60
5/59
10/60
4/59
11/52
10/57
12/53
8/58
10/57
5/56
1/58
5/56
6/58
5/60
10/55
2/56
7/56
3/61
10/58
8/58
1/55
8/58

1949

5/60

1946

3/51
1/54
5/58
9/58
10/61
5/59
7/50

1934
1946
1946
1946
1924

z1

Months

Months

Months

20
19

17
5
2
13

9
10

10
8

11

12
5

3
11

26
12

9
10
11
12
13

1952
1946
1953
1954
1951
1952

3/56
5/56
4/58
5/57
6/60
3/58

29
22
16

1952
1953
1945
1950
1950
1937
1949
19')3
1945
1908
1909

9/59
5/61
9/58

10
5
16
18
10
9

6/56
10/59
12/58
1/55
7/61
5/58
12/61
8/60

18
10
42
16
27
36
20
76
35
34
52
12
29
34
15
43
30
32
12
14
22
24
18

76
54
33
54
64
121
82
71
58
68
70
83
91
61
56
87
90
87
42
73
74
117
71

20

55

18
32
42
23
10
20
55

109
112
53
67
42
60
130

42
45
33
20
33

14
12
31
13
26
20
12

59
61
55
59
69
64

64
51
53
96
51
68
64
54

47
61
116

1936
1949

4/52
4/57
11/56
.12/55
7/54

15
35
10

27
9
I'
19

154
55
103
113
130

12
24
26
31
43
22
17
39
29
19

68
94
45
119
39
63
32
98
89
86

6/52
1/55
5/57

38
26
II

24
24

10

64
33

96
36
12
48
36

96

83
85
55
59
79
128

154
152
104
88
89
170

97
147
89
108

121
162
136
139
135
133
82
102
212
121
161

99

106

78

1<)16

104
270

109.
149

19
43
25
39

3/56

72
202

72

7'

12
22

153
168
161
142

12
57
42
33
12

!-l.S

133

7/55
9/57
3/59
2/53

23

177

109
124
110
109
75

12

26

1947
1950
1914
1940

24
21
16

151

36
108
60
84

26

5/59
3/53
9/59
1/53

96

III

72

25

Il/52

12
36
12
42

142
145
l45
148
123
105
102
99
42
85
110
129
113

138
95
116
105
138
194
123
215
145
154
200
167
182
190
147
153
143
138
59
III
137
156
142

9/51

1912
1915
1926
1929
1950

100
66
57
84
109
145
94
129
102

Total F100d
Life (Month,,)

23

45
42

1/55

24
12
24
30
45
24
12
58
44
43
72
62
54
87
67
18
12
12

z3
Months

104
64
90
180
105
126

12

z2
Months

37
36
60

47
24
48

4'

84
97
176

15-:1
102
127
161
178

,.
68

99
100
24

38
36
16

144
219
61
63
32
136
125
102

130,

227
174

164
146
181

198
BY
142
191

266
110
10'

56
213
180
132

water production during this period, which in this study

varied from 2.9 to 44.1 percent of the total flood life. The
arithmetic average was 18.6 percent, and in 89 percent
of all floods the percentage was from 6 to 30 percent.
This period is not so exactly defined as the initial response
period due to the varied characteristics of reservoirs. In
some cases, such as seen in Floods 8, 85 and 86 in Table
1, the peak rate is reached at some extended time after
fill up. This is often true in reservoirs with high water
saturations. This period will vary from 6 to 30 percent
under the same reservoir conditions as previously mentioned for the initial response period.
Production Decline - the period after the peak rate is
reached until abandonment. This period begins once the
peak rate is reached, and oil production begins to decrease
as the water cut increases. Once this period is reached, a
reasonable estimate of the ultimate waterfloodrecovery
generally can be made. This period constitutes the largest
percentage of the total waterflood life. In the examples
studied it varied from 60 to 87 percent, with an arithmetic
average of 71 percent. This period will be the longest for
waterfloods having low economic limits and the most
heterogeneous sand.

000000000
00trl0<'100U"lN
....... COC'"l...cOOtrlNC'"l
M ...... N"otNN ..............

The total life of the 86 waterfloods studied varied from

4.7 to 22.5 years. However, 66 percent of them had a
total life from 9 to 14 years; only 3.5 percent had a total
life less than 7 years and 4.6 percent had a total waterflood life longer than 18 years. Therefore, there is little
probability that a single-zone waterflood will have a total
life of less than 7 years or greater than 18 years. In addition, the flood life has been defined as the time from
initial injection until abandonment, and the average waterflood has a I-year installation period over which a considerable portion of the investment is made and must be
discounted; therefore, the minimum life of a successful
single-zone waterflood should be considered to be approximately 8 years from inception. The total waterflood life
will increase as (1) the water injection rate decreases;
(2) the reservoir voids increase; and (3) the type of flood
goes from pattern to line drive to peripheral.

o
o

oUJ

=>
z
1=
z

()

Recovery In Relation to Total Flood Life

;:;
~

'"

~ ~~~~~

~ ~~~~~

~ ~~~~~

tf.)

........... N

It)

C
C

.~

3
c
0
0

:'

.
~
"

~"

N
k

>

'".
'".
.,'"
S

jJ

-"
~

.~

"0

"
,n

il

"
h

936

-"

"

"

'"

Next to total reserves, the most critical factor affecting

the profitability of a waterflood is the rate at which those
reserves are recovered.' The factor controlling recovery
rate is the maintenance of good injection volumes throughout the flood life. In the waterfloods studied, injection
rates normally were maintained at fairly constant levels
and the oil recovery rates have some common characteristics.
One waterflood characteristic to be noted is the percentage of the total ultimate waterflood recovery produced
during the fillup period. Of the floods studied, 84 percent
produced from 13 to 40 percent of their reserves during
the incline period. However, this period represents only 6
to 30 percent of the total flood life. The range of recovery
was 7.8 to 62.4 percent with an arithmetic average of 29
percent. Recovery increases as the reservoir becomes more
homogeneous.
Cumulative production during the decline period, from
peak through abandonment, varied from 36.5 to 92.2 percent, with an arithmetic average of 71 percent. A total of
84 percent of all waterfloods produced from 60 to 87
percent of their reserves during this period, which represents 80 to 94 percent of the total flood life. Recovery
during this period increases as the reservoir becomes more
heterogeneous.
No flood required less than 17 percent nor more than
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

'"l':I'0
"i
l':I

TABLE 2-PRODUCTION AND INJECTION HISTORY DATA

iii:
t=

l':I

:=
....
~

Prod.
Proj. Area

~~

160
>40
870
>35
190
H2O
610
670

\II
CO

10

II
12
13
14

'15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
2.7
28

..
~

540
300
160
310
620
640
280
460
250
1450
490
2.40
300
120
1720
780
510
630
440
140

>9

310

30
31
32
33
34
35
36

30
1270
450
140
140
610
580

37

~Y__
68.0>4
61.917
175.282

__Z1~.
215,534

211,073

69.534

43,043
580,126

96.828
1,370,404

. 225,157
2,011,062
180,591
245.710
326.896

333,057
1,671,303

31,218
40,565
4.745
308,004

587.971

93.495

681.466

702,934

154,666
130.768
153,978
101,912

857,600
722.240
751,393

85,764
548.268
645.695
128.08l

355.456
117.Z89
2,51,801
92.435
40,142

123,061
167.256
295.732
241.383
213,156
278.608
282.356

111.892
74.712
63,552

591.472
597.415
1,492.808
1,485.925
647,263
719,912
278,718
439,009

194.198
191.800
269.641
165.408

568.268
742.759
367.630
502.341
483,823
206,22,4
2,12,317

105.655

2.339.773

5.127,462

147,471

229.878
214,914

142,694
85,806

95.375

523.585

777.924
392.746
3,319,071

71.2.22

3050

2.626.499

240

277.828

960

274,167

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

250
40
670
990
760
220
439
445

102.957
68.532
625,643
189.844

73,870

297.782

48

S60

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
51
58
59
60

710
270
360
lOa
560
80
570
360
1040
530
160
160

567,659
554.655
315.498
203. 049
68.048
549.528
61,771
115,280
31.129
lOa, 022
615,063
88,270
275,261
261.577
437,398

1.091.331
1,524,962
502,131
142,478
312.063
1.303,439
646.985
370,868
196,653
484.157
1,798.520
345.296
549.125
475.588
1.280,614
106,044
774,935
100.288
712.911
248.356
283.342

>4~

380
200
780

zoo

240
160
350
410

240,021
218,008
323,950

45,670

39

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69

Z4.487
6.935

278,280
153,959

38

61

_Z3_ _

Z2

554,234,
1,129,527
121,590
199.014

1.068.793
845.091

41,413

496.025
194.951
15,500
8,395
13.505

195.372
128,046

1.410.969
337,802
1.979,307

1,594.720
1,981,950
842,214
735,412
281,113
452,514
194,198

193.442
307.999
166.941

1.642
38,358
1.533
47,112
382.075

615,380
1,lZ4,834

4.015

367.630
506.356

158.190
25,017
38.158
1,898
511,405
33.245
14,617

5.883

642,013
231.241
250,475

0.2208
0.2212
0.3511
0.2625

Z79.925

0.5040

862.057
1.103,310

0.2095

1.049.136
837,157
2,142.988
2,627,645

970. >96
1.090.868
404,402
704,315
286,633
233,584
431,060
334,191

911,112
1,366,217
580,786
784.964

924.369
343,133

325.187
171,105

777.924
398,6l9

410.594
372,225
181,181
1,301,509

469.851
6.509.775

564,205
39.663

3,883,276

593.897

871,125

493. Z>5
Z9.959

1,622,152
151,549

1.896.919

2,336
132,226
78,545

201.350

254,506
269,882

1.201,019

1.826.662

923.636
799.580

1. 029. 186

309.445

29.407

338.852

460,027

194,332
108,404

654.359

415,747
6,570

27.056
60.481

159.366

406,186
1,507,078
1,531,532
502,131
169,534
312,544
1,462,805

646.985
42.000
8,770

82.186
125,395

316,845
181.110

14.617

412,868
205,423
566.343
1,923.915
345.296
549.125
792,433
1,461,724
120,661
774.935
100,288

31,631

144,542

16.806

265,162

6,4Q5

289.747

400

680,315

o. Z516
0.2916
0.4000

3.990.369

7.978.640

799,580

679.91~

308, 045
499,232
264,906
171,089
1,991.695
562,959

107.553

48.658
161,961

382.129
58,817
387,173
86,311
74,093
254.379

A/Nwf

5, t?38, 861
263,123
229.531
95,315

229.606

112.476

1.113,480
387,510
816.320
480,056
2.074.737
2.086.187

8l7.629
372.583
440,592
2.012,333
708,756
528,148

236,552
666.365
2.538,918
433.566
824.386
1,054.010
1,899.122
233,137

1.157,064
159,105
1,131,715
351.473
363.840
934,694

0.2227
0.3116
0.1024
0.2558
0.2457
0.1320
0.3258
0.2900
0.3575
0.3225
0.1118
0.2855
0.5005
0.3246
0.1767
0.3610
0.3549
0.3054

0.3261
0.2Z98
0.3714
0.2936

0.3592
0.3939
0.4736
0.4023
0.1516
0.4035
0.3187
0.1445
0.4045
0.2539
0.3425
0.1705
0.2231
0.1256
0.1984
0.1539
0.2736

0.2659
0.3859
0.5450
0.1544
0.2131
0.0812
0.2183
0.1316
0.1501
0.2422
0.2036
0.3339
0.2482
0.2303
0.4824
0.3302

WF Rec.
BO/Ac.
1925

1166
574
112.1

900
1778
923
5956
1596
3678
6551
2.700
3456
4106
3465

2371
1618
486
585
973
1437
2785

530
1752

1139
1246
2101
2451

1049
5104
6274
912
2587
1294
2134

Peak Production Rate

BCPO
SCPD/Well

280
407
554
344
106
1513
580
1469

904
582
502
4341230
1435

662
765
246

476
551

202
302
314
994
879
747
443
781
366
408
276
3654
Z36
396
216
1489

810

1166

2134-

5785
1152
1632

3632
1976
101B

6747
2726
1125
1354
1761
1898
1076
2593
2938
3028
1035
2203

181
311
2011

684
1706
745
680
469
20ll
1503
1365

279
264

23.3
52:2

43.1
12.6

16.8

9.6

24.6

54.3

11.8

7.5

43.2
30.5
38.7

1l.8
10.4-

30.1
36.4

41.8
25.5

39.7
37.8
34.9
23.2
20.5

41.5
14.9
34.0

61.0
21.5
138.0
45.7

16. Ii

49.5

72.0
64.7
89.7
86.4
192.. a
71. a
18.1

51. 9
62.8
28.5
100.4
124.2
52.3
33.5
51.6

71. 6

170.6

4790
2710
5152
4392
4998

2341

27.5
44.1
29. I

1232

82.1

1166

268
1670
264
668
341
588
6>6

26.8
59.6

0.3697

796

0.3421
0.2456
0.2036
0.2722

4715
2197
1040
2280

11. 7

29.4
10.3
20.8

8.9

1483

7.0

15.1
78.5
-43.2
41.8

3>1
525
523
472

10.3
11.3
10.8
17.3

14.7
7.7

539
4>6
318

1172

8.5
6.4
7. Z
17.9

7.2
26.3
14.5

18.6
12.0
61.8
67.4
71. 0
35.3

3593
8859
927
657
641

Peak Oil
Rate as

% of Inj.

33.7

26.4
74.2
30.0
19.0
13.3

6.3

16.6

Number Prod. Wells

Present ~

13
7
16
14
7
16
7
39
20
17
10
10

13
11
56
14
10
35
19
42
30
18

7
29
19
16
7
21

33

15

7
5
Zl

13. I

15.3
24.4

23
3
8
2
5Z
15

7.1
59.4
31.4
10.3
22.8
17.2
11.9
26.7
31.8

38.6
39.2
8.0

33. a
16.4

20.6

6.6
38.8
40.4-

10
34

o
3

6
52
55

o
o

15
7

11.422.0

20
43

J>
11
Z7
37

18
28

o
2

16

20

,.
5

21

20
26
Z2

3
IZ

16

50
lZ

88
14

31
14
67

1
64

3Z
15
70
12
Zl

25

5
35

2Z

2Z

28
6

6
17

15
43

20
33

22
8

20
40
19

19
34
19
8
7
12
5Z
85
13
19
16
15
10
34
13

14.3
16.0

18
33
23
8
20
2
80
17

9
39
23
47
33
>4

11
5Z

lZ

16.1

17.4-

2Z

12
39

24
10
10

21

11

5.7
l7.1

34
12
67
21
15
20
5
26

23
Z

18.3
24.0

38

25
11
8
33
25
18

1l.5

21.2
l7.6
13.1
28.7

lZ

25.8

15.0
18.2

o
37
17
17
10
11
34
15

2Z

Cumulative Injection
41 ~ 1967
~

16

25
10
I
14
17

66.5

30.5
65.0

10
14
8

lZ

46. :;
16.1

18

53

Number of Injection Wells

12
31
51

Injection Rate
(BWPD/Well)
Average
Peak

2,935.707
5.391,854
9.746,690
2.151,871
3.357.791
'36.740,989
9,507.540
73,858,599
21,984.912.
30.487,705
7,741.866
10,161,040
32,734,969
34,876,420
8,952,937
24,083.713
5.218,035
14.191.252
5,895.043
6,281,310
4.651,488
1,917,623
17,558,369
9.746.030

127
181
143
97
232
228
211
351
376
418
230
204
380
353
221
333
157
245
198
362
232
238
3J5
245

13.026,222
11.937,060

139
212
359
351
193

135
326
242
97
329
320
300
550
616
5J4
500
470
553
496
245
393
288
287
242
397
365
377
595
269

108

4.669.699
9.790.665
1.020,901
109.737,261
7.731,454
5.465.609
3,740,752
20,598,911
5,246,952
39.869.555
9,344,970
9.196,855
1,401,590
2,694,800
23,689,734
8,998,187

9,725,

no

1,858,419
8.856.601
9,650,872
14.400,077
2.5,318,208

147
350
411
356
321

289
164
256
621
338
271
197
308
192
289
166
318
137
167
162
316
322
179
341

192
30Z
835
489
291
300
330
223
348

220
436
151
239
254
605
623
264
737

III

141

65

221

17
30

11

13
9

5.256.180
5. u66, 774
32.163.504
20,859,500

501

614

10.378,982

"7

M3

7
16
68

10
28
80
14
12

4.575,818
9.106,076
29,199,282
18,940, 000
38,610,125
7,947,907
18.064,080
3,134.233

147

281
155

8
3

11
5
41

o
4

18
20

17.7
17.8
5.4
16.1
5.9
J 5. 5
24.7
16.8
32.0
2.3
12.8
21. 8

10.4
19.7
2l.:;
9.5
23.9
18.9
17.0
20.0
36.4
32.2
8.-1:

14.9
16.0

20.4

16.-1:

19.7
148.0
5.2

It. 622.4
13.2.

6.6
abd.
2.7.8
8.5
7.0
12.5
11.8
abd.
15.7
27.8
21.8
25.2
44.9
36.0

21.-1:
abd.
27. I
11. 95.8
20.39.9
abd.
16.7
15.614.7
32.9

B.7
33.6

6. ()
14.1
20.5
15.3-

abd.
abd.
14.3
6.7
33.8
8.0
16.2
3.7
38.8
20.1
abd.
7.3
21. 7
S.2
9.7
12.6

abd.
abd.
11. J.
6.7
11. 26.6
33. ().
10.1
14.0
S.7
abd.
5.2
14. J.
26.7
8.7
12.2

2.4
9.0
33.0
abd.
20.6
13.1
12.2
71. 5
abd.
abd.

15.2
13.3
17.4
abd.
21.4
2.0.1
15.6abd.
abd.

18.2
22..0
abd.
abd.
25.5
4.4
4.3
40.0

abd.
abd.
6.S
26.5
ZO.O
12.9-

30

Present WOR Present Cumul.

4-1-1967
WOR 4-lw1961

34
43

3,512,191
7.511,860
8.835.457
1,349,516'
12,045,598

"3

97
101
464

6~

914

1000+

373
270

517
393

4~

338

758

5~

74

lU

72

119

10.6

.~

~_~O

__

~_

"0

"'0"'0

"'0

53 percent of the total life to produce one-half of the

watertlood reserve. The arithmetic average was 34.8 percent. A total of 80 percent of all tloods recovered onehalf of their watertlood reserves in the first 26 to 46 percent of the tlood life.
The time required to recover three-fourths of the ultimate watertlood reserves varied from 33 to 72 percent of
the total flood life; and 75 percent of all floods recovered
three-fourths of their reserves in the first 38 to 60 percent
of the flood life. The arithmetic average was 50 percent.
The time to recover one-half and three-fourths of the
reserves decreases as the injection rate and sand homogeneity increase.
During the last 40 percent, or approximately one-half
the flood life of the average waterflood, only 25 percent
of the reserves is produced. Also, during this period the
profit realized is relatively smalL One reason is that the
production rate is usually only slightly above the economic
limit, making the profit margin as a percent of the operating cost very small; the second reason is that this period
is discounted more heavily. An example is Flood 58_ During the first half of the tlood life, 91 percent of the ultimate watertlood reserves and 94 percent of the ultimate
net profit (after taxes and discount) were realized.

~~~N~~~O~O~_ON~~A

......

-~~--~~-

__ N_Nro

N~~-OOO~~_~~~~~~ro
O~roNro~~_~ONro_~~N~
~~~~~_O~~~~~~_~_N

O~~~~~~O~~~M~~~~~

~~~~~~ro~_~~o_~~O~
N~~~~~~~~ONOM~MroM

~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~ii

...... _-< co
..... N
......

I"'l

N~

0...rJ 0

r- ................
'1< '1' .....

NN 0

U;

001

r- 0 .....
0
..... ..........
NN'"

.,.....,0 N

....

......

..........

......

Production Rates

0'00....0001
<""\"1'

...... 0....0 N

One critical factor affecting the economics of a waterflood project is the time required to recover the watertlood
oil. This is determined by the productive capacity of the
producing wells and the injection capacity of the injection
wells. Methods such as the one proposed by Earlougher'
can be used to determine injection capacity. The oil productivity can be determined by two methods - one on an
individual well basis and the other on a field-wide basis.
Although the per-well production rate parameter varies
more widely than the previous ones dealing with tlood life
and reserve recovery rate, it is still significant that 65 percent of the tloods analyzed had an average production
rate of from 10 to 50 BOPD/well at peak rate. This
parameter is greatly affected by the well spacing, so that
a well in a 20-acre five-spot watertlood should produce at
approximately one-half the rate of a well in a 40-acre
five-spot flood, all other factors being equal. Only 9.6
percent of the tloods had a peak production rate over 75
BOPD/well. The arithmetic average production rate was
41.1 BOPD/well.
The most accurate criterion for determining peak rate
is on a field-wide basis as a percent of the total water
injection rate. The injection rate can be determined with
a reasonable degree of accuracy from permeability measurements' or from experience in other floods of a given
reservoir. Of the floods studied, 51 percent peaked at a
total rate of 12 to 31 percent of total injection rate. Only
11 percent peaked at a higher rate than 40 percent of total
water injection. The arithmetic average peak oil rate was
22.6 percent of the total water injection.
Therefore, with a reasonable knowledge of total injection rate, a range of peak rates can be calculated to determine the maximum and minimum peak rates and the
most probable peak rate. The peak oil production rate
will increase as the water injection rate increases, as the
formation becomes more homogeneous, as the formation
permeability increases, and as the well spacing decreases.

.
o

ow
::J
Z

r-

.-f< N
f

0' 0

.... "<I' N....o

r- M ....0 ...... 0'

..... r-

trll

ll1

i=

z
o

01l"lN"1't-lI"IO'I'-lf10'

~~z~~~~~m~

()

C\I
W

..J
CIl

OO""O"1'o,r- .... ""O ...... O'''<!'_''''ON''''O''''OU; .....

............ =N""O .... N .....

~~a~m~o~m~~~~m~~~
U;~NMNMN

............

'"

.
~
~

N
N "
"<I'N""O

01

~ O"<!'''<I'OOO

~ N ~ .....
_ .,..O'NNO'O'co
'" '"
~ .... ~
......

.O'NO'OOONO'ONMMI.!"lOOOO....oOO

OON~~~NM~~~~Noro~M
...... ....o .......... ....ooor-OtrlooNm

~NO'Nrlf1 .... NOO'~Nr-OO""OMf""ONmoo....o

........... m

.....

01

.q< r- M .....
N N
":I' r- 0 ...0....0 lI"\ ....
M ""O""ONr-....o
0....0 ..-I If''l
""ONOO
O'IX)r-""OO'MI.!"l

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__

nN~

-.

~~~~.N~~.

Jl

o.

0"<I''''''' .... 01

mor- ...... N"1'OOO' .............. O'I'-Noom .....

~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~

'" ~ _

~. ~ ~ N

~. ~

01

~~~O_~~~~~~~~~~NN
M_O_NNOO~NON~M~_oom

N
m _ _ _ _ _ N_
_
ii~igt~~ii~~~~~i~
N

N~O

..

__

il
938

O_N~~m~~oo~O_NM~m~
~~~~~~~~~~ooooooroooooro

.
2

no

-"

"0
0
0

Po
0

'"c
0

"0

0
0

u
0

'd
0

"Po
-"
~

0
0
'd

"
0

0
"0

~Po

"0

Po

Po

"0

"0

Ii

0
0

'2

">

>

."

. .
~

]1

I 1 1q
i J1
"'"0

" "'
u

~. ~ N ~ _ ~ 0 ~ M . N
M
O'fOOOOO r-r-m"""1'r-....o....or-o 00....0
moo
A
A
0000
A
_
r-o
. . . . ....
_OONOO
_
..
_
0'U'"l
..
_____
OM_

'd
0

"

"t

>

11

'" '"

.:!'

Decline Rate After Peak

n

"

Only 10 percent of the floods declined at less than 20

percent per year in the first year after peak; 70 percent
of the tloods declined at 20 to 55 percent per year, with
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

the curves for the majority flattening after the first year.
The arithmetic average was 41.5 percent per year. The
decline rate after peak will increase as the sand homogeneity increases.

Method of Predicting Proposed

Waterftood Recovery Rate
A summary of the data may be used to predict three
theoretical waterflood cases: (l) the average recovery rate
case, (2) the minimum recovery rate case, and (3) the
maximum recovery rate case. Table 3 shows the value of
the various parameters for each of the three cases. By
using these parameters, the most probable recovery rate
case can be predicted by use of the following proposed
method.
1. Calculate Waterflood Recovery - When core data
are available, the standard volumetric method should be
used to calculate waterflood reserves as follows:
Pore volume = 7,758 cp
Original reservoir oil in place = a (l - Sw)
Original STB in place = b/B oi
STB in place after primary = c - (Np/Ah)
Reservoir oil in place after primary = d (Bo)
f. Residual oil after waterflooding = a (S or)
g. N"I in reservoir bbl at R = (e - OR
h. N"f in STB at R = g/B o

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

All values are in barrels per acre-foot. It is our experience that an over-all recovery efficiency factor R of 0.6 is,
in most cases, a good average value, unless experience in a
given area or reservoir dictates the use of a different value.
When core data are not available, it can be assumed
that waterflood recovery is equal to primary recovery,
although this assumption is subject to considerable error
due to varying factors of connate water saturation, porosity, primary recovery efficiency and residual oil saturation.
Nevertheless, it is a good control point when tempered
by volumetric calculations to test its validity.
2. Calculate Water Injection Rate - To calculate total
waterflood life by either of these methods, it is necessary
to predict the water injection rate Q"i' This normally is
done by using a factor of B/D/net ft of sand or B/D/net
acre-ft of sand. These factors, determined as a result of
experience gained in waterflooding in a given area and
type of sand, vary widely from formation to formation,
but should be in the range of 8 to 15 and 0.75 to 1.0,
respectively. Riley' uses an average of 10 to 12 B/D/net
ft of sand or 0.5 to 1.0 B/D/acre-ft of sand, and Guerrero
and Earlougher' use 0.75 to 1.0 B/D/acre-ft of sand.

A more sophisticated method of predicting injection

rates has been proposed by Earlougher.' This method is
also empirical and is based on injection data from over
1,000 cored wells. It uses the following equation to predict
injection rates: QWi = IF(kh)(p,tl1000).
A plot of injectivity factor (IF) vs average permeability
(k) is used to determine IF. This method is limited to
reservoirs in which core data are available.
3. Calculate Total Flood Life - The anticipated total
waterflood life from the date of initial water injection
until abandonment can be predicted in one of two ways,
depending on the availability of data. The first method
is based on total cumulative water injection as a fraction of the reservoir pore volume. The total flood life
in months would be calculated as follows: total flood
life = 7,758 Ah cp (1.25)/30.4 QWi'
Either constant or varying injection rates can be assumed in using this method, although generally a constant
rate is assumed to facilitate calculations. Guerrero and
Earlougher' determined that the normal range for total
water injection as a percent of the pore volume is 1.25 to
1.70, with an average of 1.50; however, in dealing with
the 86 case histories of waterfloods, it was found that the
1.25 ratio as proposed is more representative of actual
performance. Riley uses a range of 1.25 to 1.50 PV.
The second method of predicting total waterflood life
is by use of the ratio of cumulative water injected to
cumulative waterflood oil produced. The total flood life
in months would be calculated as follows: total flood life
= N"f(W.jNwf )/30A Q",.
Either constant or varying water injection rates can be
assumed in using this method also. The normal range for
the ratio Wi/N"'f is 7:1 to 15:1 as stated by Riley.' Only
11 of the 86 waterfloods studied had ratios below 11: 1.
4. Calculate Time From Initial Injection to Oil Production Increase - For the maximum, average and minimum
recovery rate cases, the time from initial injection to the
first oil production response should be 11.0, 8.3, and 5.0
percent of the total waterflood life, respectively.
5. Calculate Length and Waterflood Reserves of Production Incline Period - For the maximum, average and
minimum recovery rate cases, the length of the production
incline period is 30.0, 18.6, and 6.0 percent of the total
waterflood life, respectively. The reserves produced during
this period are 40.0, 29.0, and 13.0 percent of the total
ultimate waterflood reserves, respectively.
6. Calculate Time and Amount of Peak Oil Production
Rate - For the maximum, average and minimum recovery rate cases, the peak oil rate will be 31.0, 22.6, and
12.0 percent, respectively, of the total field-wide water

TABLE 3-EMPIRICAL WATER FLOOD RECOVERY RATE PARAMETERS

Parameter
Peak oil rate as percent of total water injection
Peak oil rate, BOPD/well
Percent of total ultimate waterflood reserves
produced during incline period
Percent of total ultimate waterflood reserves
produced during decline period
Decline rate first year after peak oil rate, percent/year
Percent of total waterflood life required to produce
50 percent of total ultimate waterflood reserves
Percent of total waterflood life required to produce
75 percent of total ultimate waterflood reserves
Percent of total waterflood life, initial response period
Percent of total waterflood life, production incline period
Total flood life, years
SEPTEMBER, 1968

Maximum
Recovery
Rate Case
31.0
50.0

Average
Recovery
Rate Case
22.6
41.1

Minimum
Recovery
Rate Case
12.0
10.0

40.0

29.0

13.0

60.0
55.0

71.0
41.0

87.0
20.0

46.0

34.8

26.0

60.0
11.0
30.0
9.0

50.0
8.3
18.6
11.5

38.0
5.0
6.0
14.0
939

injection rate in barrels per day. The time to reach the

peak rate after water injection is begun should be 41.0,
26.9. and 11.0 percent of the total waterflood life, respectively.
7. Calculate Time Required to Produce 50 and 75 Percent of the Ultimate Waterflood Reserves - For the maximum, average and minimum recovery rate cases, the time
required to produce 50 percent of the ultimate waterflood
reserves should be 46.0, 34.8, and 26.0 percent, respectively. The time required to produce 75 percent of the reserves
should be 60.0, 50.0, and 38.0 percent, respectively.
8. Plot Waterflood Performance Curve - Knowing total
flood life, peak rate, the time intervals for the initial
response and production incline periods, the reserves produced during the production incline period, and the time
required to produce 50 and 75 percent of the ultimate
reserves, the performance curves for the maximum, average and minimum recovery rate cases can be plotted easily
by trial and error.

Comparison of Prediction Methods

To compare the accuracy of the proposed empirical
method with that of previous methods, reservoir data
were gathered on the following waterfloods: Floods 1
and 2 as reported by Guerrero and Earlougher;' Flood 3,
South Ceres Bartlesville Sand Unit; Flood 4, Northwest
Tryon Red Fork Sand Unit; and Flood 5, Northeast Jones
Cleveland Sand Unit. Flood 1 is a lO-acre five-spot Bartlesville sand waterflood; Flood 2 is a 20-acre five-spot Lower
Yates sand waterflood; Flood 3 is a 4-rnile long by ~ -mile
wide sandbar type of reservoir with injection wells spaced
along its axis at 1,800-ft intervals; Flood 4 is a conventional 40-acre five-spot pattern; and Flood 5 is a peripheral
waterflood.

Guerrero and Earlougher" use five methods of prediction on Floods 1 and 2. They are the Stiles; Arps; DykstraParsons; Prats et al.; and Guerrero-Earlougher methods.
All but the last are analytical rather than empirical. From
their study, Guerrero and Earlougher conclude the following.
1. The empirical method more nearly predicts the true
peak oil production rate.
2. The analytical methods predict reserves that are
considerably higher than actually experienced.
3. The empirical method more nearly predicts the actual waterflood performance curve.
4. The analytical methods predict a much longer waterflood life than actually is experienced.
5. The analytical methods do not give satisfactory results in the prediction of performance of depleted sands.
The proposed empirical method does as well as the
Guerrero-Earlougher method in predicting Floods 1 and 2.
To compare further the Guerrero-Earlougher and Riley
empirical methods with the proposed one, predictions were
made by each method for Floods 3, 4 and 5. The results
of the predictions vs actual performance for each empirical
method are shown in T,able 4 and Figs. 3, 4 and 5. From
the results of these predictions, the following was observed,
based on the 86 Oklahoma fields studied.
1. The proposed method and the Guerrero-Earlougher
method more nearly predict the time of first response in
oil production.
2. The proposed method is considerably more accurate
in predicting the time from the first production increase to
the peak production rate. While the Guerrero-Earlougher
method assumes that peak production rate occurs at fill up,
the data for the floods studied indicate that this is not
necessarily so, probably because more injected water than

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF EMPIRICAL PREDICTION METHODS

Proposed
Method

GuerreroEarlougher
Method

1,029,186
9,725,720
7
12
35
50
82
229,606
1,760
3,900

1,155,000
12,630,000
7
15
29
42
83
335,000
1,130
5,000

1,155,000
15,200,000
10
5
30
48
100
310,000
1.040
5,000

1,147,800
11,478,000
9
4
22
32
66
107,000
1,920
5,700

SOUTH CERES BARTLESVILLE SAND UNIT

Cumulative waterflood recovery - N wI, bbl
Cumulative water injected - W" bbl
Initial response period, months
Production incline period, months
Months to produce 0.5 Nwl
Months to produce 0.75 NWI
Total flood life, months
Total production during incline period
Peak oil rate
Average daily water injection - QWi' BWPD

2,086,187
25,318,208
25
26
64
99
196
554,655
1,503
4,771

2,220,000
30,300,000
15
33
61
88
176
644,000
1,740
5,675

2,220,000
36,400,000
32
13
76
119
211
486,000
1.180
5,675

2,494,232
24,942,320
23
11
47
67
110
420,000
2,500
7,429

NORTHEAST JONES
Cumulative waterflood recovery - N w /, bbl
Cumulative water injected - W.. bbl
Initial response period, months
Production incline period, months
Months to produce 0.5 Nw/
Months to produce 0.75 Nwl
Total flood life, months
Total production during incline period
Peak oil rate
Average daily water injection - QWi, BWPD

3,579,139
15,000,000
15
31
50
67
123
1,284,119
2,312
4,010

3,442,400
18,960,000
14
37
57
74
123
1,376,960
1,562
5,068

3,442,400
22,752,000
12
5
59
81
148
2,534,000
1,267
5,068

2,163,200
21,632,000
8
4
43
60
142
168,172
2,632
5,200

Actual
Performance
NORTHWEST TRYON
Cumulative waterflood recovery - N wl , bbl
Cumulative water injected - Wi, bbl
Initial response period, months
Production incline period, months
Months to produce 0.5 NWI
Months to produce 0.75 Nwl
Total flood life, months
Total production during incline period
Peak oil rate
Average daily water injection - Qw .. BWPD

940

Riley
Method

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

10,0 00

r-...
3

1,0 00

BOPD

10 0

'7;)K\

1/
2 --Fl'

.....-::::::~

I j; "
I if

"

~
y

~~
.~

~.,

~ 1'.
'-....... l~
,

1-_

---

r- -

2 1'---3 I---

~'"

Bush

. - Guerr

.-

~'!:

t--,

"\

~
-- J

-~--~

ro-Ear ougher

Riley

I--_

l'\\

\V

\
\

......... ,

21-19 \22-1

23-19 21-14

19-15

22-19

20-18

19-19 18-1\

10-14

8-10

8-11

3-8

\ 3-6

2-4

1953

1955

1957

1958

1959

1960

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1954

1956

1961

Fig, 3-Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 3.

10,000

I -3!'N
1,000

"2

II

~_1

~\

v~

III

BOPD

l
\

100

1 - - - ' - - - Bush
2
Guerr ro-Ear lougher
Riley
3- -

~~I"
~
\ ~J~ ~,

'\ ~ "\

lA~1,

1\

I
\

17-22 17_22

18-22

18-22

12\28

12-~1

1956

1958

1959

1960

1961

10
1953

1954

1955

1957

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

Fig. 4-Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 4.
SEPTEMBER, 1968

941

accurate in predicting the oil recovery with respect to time

than were either of the other two empirical methods.
The proposed method presents maximum, average and
minimum recovery rate cases whereas Guerrero-Earlougher
present only an average rate case and Riley presents a
maximum rate case. It must be pointed out that the Riley
method was proposed for "average high rate" waterfloods
only and, therefore, cannot be compared in the strictest
sense to the proposed method except for the maximum
recovery rate case.

is realized is lost and exerts no flooding effect. This is

evidenced by the fact that there is less than 100 percent
return of injected water in most floods.
3. The proposed method is more accurate in predicting
the time required to produce one-half and to produce
three-fourths of the total cumulative waterflood reserves.
4. Use of a total injection of 1.25 PV rather than the
1.5 PV proposed by Guerrero-Earlougher makes the proposed method more accurate in predicting the total flood
life. For the floods studied, the 1.25 PV seems to be more
accurate.
5. The proposed method and the Guerrero-Earlougher
method use the same basic volumetric formula to calculate reserves and are considerably more accurate than
the rule-of-thumb method, which assumes 1 bbl waterflood oil/bbl primary oil (or some modification thereof).
However, when core data are not available, the rule-ofthumb must be used.
6. All three empirical methods gave satisfactory results
in predicting the peak oil rate; however, both the proposed method and the Guerrero-Earlougher method tend
to be low. The Riley method is the most accurate in predicting the peak oil rate.
7. All three methods predicted higher total cumulative
water injected than actually was injected in the three example floods studied. However, they also predicted higher
average water injection rates than actually occurred, which
tended to compensate when waterflood life and peak oil
rate were calculated as a percent of injection.
The proposed empirical method for the prediction of
waterflood recovery rates, like those of Riley and Guerrero-Earlougher, is considerably more accurate than are
the analytical methods in the prediction of recovery rates
from depleted sand reservoirs. In addition, for the three
cases studied, the proposed empirical method was more

Conclusions
Based on the data as presented in this study, which
deals with 86 fields in Oklahoma, the following conclusions have been reached.
1. The empirical methods more nearly predicted waterflood recovery rates of depleted reservoirs than did the
analytical methods.
2. In the cases studied, the proposed empirical method
was more accurate than either of the other two empirical
methods.
3. The two parameters. most subject to error - peak oil
rate and total flood life - are determined directly from
injection rates; therefore, the area needing considerably
more research and study in determining waterflood recovery is the prediction of injection rates on a flood-wide
basis.
The prediction technique presented as a result of this
study is easily understood, takes a minimum of engineering time and can be used even on reservoirs where no
fluid characteristics or rock properties are available. While
it is not proposed that this method replace the more
sophisticated analytical methods, it is a very practical
technique that should be used to verify the results of other

10,000

/ir" "~
/r
2,

1,000

'

......

...........

f /,
BOPD

\r"'v-

JvVy

100

--1-

r-.",
..........

w
"//

1~

--

2f--3f---

~ --, .....

- -- -

--

~ .....;:::: ....

- ---.-

~ '~

--.\ 1\

'\'-....

i'~

',~ r-.---.
\

\A.

H
I\

Bush
Guerr ro-Ear ougher
Riley

38-28

38-28

38-28

38-28

41-25 41-25

39-25

36-28

36-28

10 3

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1959

1960

1961

1962

10
1950

1951

1952

1958

...

---':t'l
\

I
II

I 1963

\\

1
1964

Fig. 5--Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 5.
942

JOURNAl. OF PETROLEUM TECHNOI.OGY

prediction methods. A greater degree of accuracy may be

obtained by considering the influence of factors causing
deviation from the average case such as those presented.
This can be accomplished by varying the average case
values within the limits proposed for each parameter.
The method of prediction presented as a result of this
study applies to the waterflooding of depleted sands and
is not necessarily applicable to semidepleted sands. For
application to multiple stage waterfloods, it is possible to
superimpose the technique as applied to each individual
stage to obtain a composite waterflood recovery rate curve.

Nomenclature
A = area, acres
= oil formation volume factor
= oil formation volume factor at discovery reservoir conditions
h = net sand thickness, ft
IF = injectivity factor; B/D/md-ftjl,OOO psi at the
sand face
k = permeability, md
N p = cumulative primary oil recovery, STB
N wf = total cumulative waterflood recovery, STB
cf> = porosity, fraction
P'f = water injection pressure at the sand face, psi
Q", = water injection rate, BID
R = oil recovery, fraction of mobile oil
Soc = residual oil saturation after waterflood, fraction
of pore vQlume
Sw = connate water saturation, fraction of pore volume
W, = cumulative water injected, bbl
B,
Bo '

References
1. Lambert, D. E.: "The Secondary Recovery Boom", World

SEPTEMBER, 1968

Oil (Nov., 1965) 161, No.6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21.
2. Krumme, George W.: "The Sensitivity of Profitability to
Variations in the Economic Performance of Waterfloods",
MS thesis, The U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla. (1965).
3. Earlougher, R. C.: "Prediction of Water Injection Rates
from Permeability Data", paper 1049-G, presented at SPE
Petroleum Production and Reservoir Engineering Conference,
Tulsa, Okla., March 20-21, 1958.
4. Riley, E. A.: "Economic Factors in Waterflooding", paper
presented at Eleventh Annual Southwest Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock, Tex., April 23-24, 1964.
5. Guerrero, E. T. and Earlougher, R. C.: "Analysis and Comparison of Five Methods Used to Predict Water-Flood Reserves and Performance", paper presented at spring meeting
of the Mid-Continent District, API Div. of Production,
Tulsa, Okla., April, 1961.

***

James L. Bush (right) is the manager of economics and

evaluation for Apco Oil Corp. A graduate of The U. of
Tulsa, Bush received his BS degree in petroleum engineering in 1958 and his MS degree this year. Donald P.
Helander (left) is the director of the Information Services
Dept. and associate professor of petroleum engineering at
The U. of Tulsa. He received his BS and MS degrees in
petroleum engineering from Tulsa in 1957 and 1960. In
1965 he graduated from The U. of Oklahoma with a PhD
in engineering science.

943