Empirical Prediction of Recovery FIELD CASE HISTORY Rate in Waterflooding Depleted Sands JAMES BUSH JUNIOR MEMBER AIME DONALD , HELANDER MEMBER AME Abstract The prediction of recovery rate in waterflooding is be- coming increasingly important as the percentage of total U.S. oll production recovered by warerftooding continues to increase. Since the first method of predicting waterflood recovery was proposed in 1949, various studies have shown that two factors affect the success or failure of a water- flood 10 a much greater degree than all others. These factors are, inthe order of their importance, total cumula- ‘ive warerflood 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 712 percent in Colorado, 68.6 per- cent 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 de- crease, 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 19802 Since secondary recovery and waterflooding are becom- ing increasingly more important and widespread, it be- comes 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 pro- duction 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 diferent sands (Fig. 2) So SS eee ‘Atay wa presented at SEE" Eighth Seoondnry”Weovery Smposram Bala Wilts Pa, Toray 7,196 ©, Coporaht 1908, Amerian Esau OPMHLRe ialunital” and Peasium ioinces Ine ‘nafeencn given at end of Dever Arco Olt core. OKLAHOMA Cr, OKLA, oor Tulsa TSA, ORLA Tables 1 and 2 give the basic information concerning ‘each of the waterfloods studied, Productive areas of the foods 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 fan average ultimate waterflood recovery of 1,075,941 gross bb, Total water injection (Table 2) to April 1, 1967, has been 1,231,653,314 bbl into a total of 1,892 injection wels. lod Life Periods Waterfloods can be divided into the following distinct periods. Initial Response —the period from initial water injec: tion until the first response to injection in the form of an oil production inerease. During this period the oil produc- tion 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 lood life in this period vvatied from 0.5 to 21.2 percent. The arithmetic average was 83 percent and, in 75 percent of all waterfloods Fig. 1—Secondary recovery as a percentage of total U.S. recovery.analyzed, this period was in the S to I1_ percent range. In predicting the length of this period, the 83 percent average should be used for the most probable case. How- fever, judgment can be used to obtain even better predic: tions. 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 t0 peripheral; (3) the injection well spacing becomes wider Iie. the injection rate per unit volume of reservoir de- creases]; 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 produc tion is steadily increasing. There is normally very little ° {st \eciagg |evsnoees| v Fig. 2—Location of waterflood projects:SdOOTINSIYM VNOHYTHO INsss309NS NO VIVa—T FIevLTABLE 1 CONTINUED 3 | water production during this period, which in this study varied from 2.9 to 44.1 percent of the total lood life. The | arithmetic average was 186 percent, and in 89 percent Ai ‘of all floods the percentage was from 6 to 30 percent. ‘This period is not So exactly defined as the intial response fl | period due to the varied characteristics of reservoits. In 4 some cases, such as seen in Floods 8, 85 and 86 in Table |, the peak rate is reached at some’ extended time after ae > seeeegsee fillup. 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 men- tioned 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 waterflood recovery 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. The total life of the 86 waterfloods studied varied from 4.7 to 225 years. However, 66 percent of them had a total life from 9 to 14 years: only 3 percent had a total life less than 7 years and 46 percent had a total water: flood life longer than 18 years. Therefore, there is litle | probability that a single-zone waterflood will have a total if of less than 7 years or greater than 18 years. In addi tion, the flood life has been defined as the time from initial injection until abandonment, and the average water- flood has a I-year installation period over which a con- siderable 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 approxi- mately 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 Recovery In Relation fo Total Flood Life 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 through: fut the flood life. In the waterfioods studied, injection rates normally were maintained at fairly constant levels and the oll recovery rates have some common character- istics. i One waterfood characteristic to be noted is the percent. age 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 78 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 per- Cent, 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 repre- ‘ents 80 to 94 percent of the total flood life. Recovery during this period inereases as the reservoir becomes more wowed heterogeneous. No flood required less than 17 percent nor more than3 Viva ANOISIH NOLLO3INI GNY NoLLONGOYd—z 31e¥LTABLE 2 CONTINUED 53 percent of the total life to produce one-half of the waterflood reserve. The arithmetic average was 34.8 per- cent. A total of 80 percent of all floods recovered one- half of their waterflood reserves in the first 26 to 46 per- cent of the flood life ‘The time required to recover three-fourths of the ulti- ‘mate waterflood 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 onehalf and three-fourths of the reserves decreases as the injection rate and sand homo- geneity increase. During the last 40 percent, or approximately one-half the flood life of the average waterflood, only 25 percent fof the reserves i 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 oper ating cost very small; the second reason is that this period is discounted more heavily. An example is Flood $8. Dur- ing the first half of the flood life, 91 percent of the ulti imate waterflood reserves and 94 percent of the ultimate net profit (after taxes and discount) were realized Production Rates One critical factor affecting the economics of a water ood project is the time required to recover the waterflood 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 pro- ductivity 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 flood life and reserve rocovery rate, it i still significant that 65 per tent of the floods 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 well in a 20-acre five-spot waterflood should produce at approximately onehalf the rate of a well in a 40-acre fivespot flood, all other factors being equal. Only 96 percent of the floods had a peak production rate over 75 BOPD/well, ‘The arithmetic average production rate was 41.4 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 {rom permeability meas- turements’ or from experience in other floods of a given reservoir. Of the floods studied, SI 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 ofl rate was 226 percent of the total water injection. ‘Therefore, with a reasonable knowledge of total injec tion rate, a range of peak rates can be calculated to deter. mine 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. Decline Rate After Peak ‘Only 10 percent of the floods declined at less than 20 petwent per year in the first year after peak; 70 percent ff the floods declined at 20 to 55 percent per year, withthe curves for the majority flattening after the tirst year. The arithmetic average was 41.5 percent per year. The decline rate after peak will increase as the sand homo- seneity increases Method of Predicting Proposed Waterflood Recovery Rate A summary of the data may be used to predict three ‘heoretical waterflood cases: (1) 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. Calewlate Waterflood Recovery —When core data are available, the standard volumetric method should be used to calculate waterflood reserves as follows: a. Pore volume = 7,758 . Original reservoir oil in place ¢. Original STB in place = b/B, 4. STB in place after primary = ¢ ~ (N, i 8 a-s. /Ah) (8) 2 (Su) OR Reservoir oil in place after primary = Residual oil after waterflooding fe Noy in reservoir bbl at R h. Nu, in STB at R= e/B, Al values are in barrels per acre-foot. It is our experi ence that an over-all recovery efliciency factor R of 0.6 is, jn most cases, a good average value, unless experience in @ ven 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, porosi 'y, 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 nccessary. to predict the water injection rate Q.,. This normally is done by using a factor of B/D/net ft of sand or B/D/net acreft 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 10. respectively. Riley' uses an average of 10 to 12 B/D/net {tof sand or 0.5 to 1.0 B/D/acre-ft of sand. and Guerrero and Earlougher’ use 0.75 10 1.0 B/D/acre-fe of sand. TABLE 3—EMPIRICAL WATERFLOOD ‘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: Qy, = LF(Kh)(p.,/1000). A plot of injectivity factor (IF) vs average permeability (8) 1s used to determine IF. ‘This method is limited 10 reservoirs in which core data are available 3. Caleulate Total Flood Life—The anticipated total waterfiood life from the date of initial water injection untit abandonment can be predicted in one of two ways, depending on the availability of date. The first method is based on total cumulative water injection as a frac- tion of the reservoir pore volume, The total flood life in months would be calculated as follows: total ood life = 7,788 Ah 9 (1.25)/304 0. Either constant or varying injection rates can be as sumed 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 Ner(Wi/Ne1)/304 Qu Either constant or varying water injection rates can be assumed in using this method also. The normal range for the ratio W,/Nyy is 7:1 to 15:1 as stated by Riley.* Only IV of the 86 waterfloods studied had ratios below 11:1 4. Calculate Time From Initial Injection 10 Oil Produc- tion 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, 83, and 50 percent of the total waterfiood life, respectively. 5. Calculate Length and Waterflood Reserves of Pro duction Incline Period —For the maximum, average and tminimum recovery rate cases, the length of the production incline period is 30.0, 18.6, und 60 percent of the total waterflood life, respectively. The reserves produced during this period are 400, 290, and 130 percent of the total ultimate waterflood reserves, respectively. 6. Caleulate Time and Amount of Peak Oil Production Rate— For the maximum, average and minimum recov- ery rate cases, the peak oil rate will be 3100, 226, and 120 percent. respectively, of the total field-wide water RECOVERY RATE PARAMETERS Peak oil fate, BOPD/well, Maximum Average Minimum Recovery, Recovery Recovery Parameter Rate Case Rate Case Rate Case Peak ol rate 83 percent of total water injection 310 226 120 50.0 ar 10.0 Percent of total ultimate waterfiood reserves reduced during incline period 400 29.0 130 Petcent of total ultimate waterflood reserves Droduced during decline period 60.0 710 87.0 Decline rate first year after peak oll rate, percent/year 550 aro. 200 Percent of total waterfiood life required to produce 50 percent of total ultimate waterfiood reserves 46.0 348 260 Percent of total waterfiood Ife required to produce 76 percent of total ultimate waterfiood reserves 60.0 500 38.0 Percent of total waterfiood life, inital response period io 33 5.0 Percent of total waterfload life, production incline. period 3010 186 690 ‘8.0 us 140 Total food life, yearsinjection rate in barrels per day. The time to reach the peak rate after water injection is begun should be 41.0, 269. and 11.0 percent of the total waterflood life, respec: tively 7. Calculate Time Required to Produce 50 and 75 Per cont of the Ultimate Waterflood Reserves —~ For the maxi- ‘mum, 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 260 percent, respective ly. 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 pro: duced during the production incline period, and the time roquired to produce 50 and 75 percent of the ultimate reserves, the performance curves for the maximum, aver- age 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 10-acre five-spot Bartles ville sand waterflood: Flood 2 is a 20-acre five-spot Lower Yates sand waterflood; Flood 3 is a 4-mile long by ¥4-mile wide sandbar type of reservoir with injection wells spaced along its axis at 1,800-ft intervals; Flood 4 is a conven- tional 40-acre five spot pattern; and Flood 5 is a peripheral waterflood. Guerrero and Earlougher’ use five methods of predic tion on Floods I and 2, They are the Stiles; Arps; Dykstra- Parsons; Prats ef al.) and Guerrero-Earlougher methods. All but the last are analytical rather than empirical. From their study, Guerrero and Earlougher conclude the fol: lowing, 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 ac- tual waterflood performance curve. 4, The analytical methods predict a much longer water- flood life than actually is experienced. 5. The analytical methods do not give satisfactory re- sults in the prediction of performance of depleted sands. The proposed empirical method docs 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 Table 4 and Figs, 3, 4 and 5. From the results of these predictions, the following was observed, based on the 86 Oklahoma flelds 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 fillup, the data for the floods studied indicate that this is not necessarily s0, probably because more injected water than ‘TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF EMPIRICAL PREDICTION METHODS Guereero: ‘Actual Proposed Earlougher Riley Performance Mathod __ Method Method NORTHWEST TRYON Cumulative waterfiood recovery — Nay, BbT 1,029,186 1,155,000 1,155,000 1,147,200 Gumulative water Injected —W, bbl 9,725,720, 12,630,000, 18;200,000 11/478,000 Initial response period, months 7 7 10 3 Production ineline period, months 2 1B 5 4 Months to produce 0.5 Nu, 35 23 30 2 Months to produce 0.75 Nu, 50 2 48 32 ‘Total flood life, months 82 83 100 66 Total producticn during incline period 229,606 335,000 310,000, 107,000, Peak oil rate 1,760 1.130 1,040 1/320 ‘Average dally water injection — Qus, BWPD 31900 5'000 8,000 5,700 SOUTH CERES BARTLESVILLE SAND UNIT Cumulative waterfood rece Ney, BBI 2,220,000 2,220,000 2,494,232 ‘Cumulative water Injected —-W,, bbl 30,300,000, 36,400,000 24'942'320 Initial response period, months 5 32 23 Production ineline period, months 13 ii Montns to produce 0.5.N. 7 a7 Months to produce 0.75 Noy 119 7 Total flood life, months 196 ait 110 Total production during incline period 354,655 486,000 420,000 Peak bi ate 1/503 1.180 2/500 Average dally water injection — Qui, BWPD am srs 7429 NORTHEAST JONES ‘Cumulative waterflood recovery — Nj, BBI 3,579,139 3,442,400 3,442,400 2,163,200 Cumulative water Injected —W., Dbl 15/000/000 18/960,000 22,752,000 217632000 Initial response period, months: 15 4 12 8 Production incline period, months a 7 5 4 Months to produce 0.8 Ny 50 57 59 43 Months to produce 0.75 Nu 7 74 a1 60 Total flood life, montis 123 133 148 342 1,284,119 1,376,360 2,534,000 168,172 2312 1,562 1,267 2632 42010 5.068 5.068 5,20010, 00 nor: | Bash Yo ert Eon ai-t9} yez-af 23-19] 21-16/ 19-15] 22-19| 20-10] 19-19) los 1953 | 1954 | 1955 | 1956 | wos [i9se [use | 1980 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 Fig. 3—Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 3. 10,009 ; { ff t jf | SCT caer Bopp | | "Tt } | | f NX | al | I 7 | \ \ | | Vat | | i \ . vrean| sna | naa | re-20 | abas af 1953 [vse | 955 | 1956 [aver [ives [ive [ove [roma [voce] ises [ives fives [om | ver Fig. 4 Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 4.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 15 PV proposed by Guerrero-Earlougher makes the pro: posed 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 volumetsic formula to cal- culate reserves and are considerably more accurate than the rule-of-thumb method, which assumes J bbl water- flood oil/bb! primary oil (or some modification thereof) However, when core data are not available, the rule-of- thumb must be used. 6. All three empirical methods gave satisfactory results| in predicting the peak oil rate; however, both the pro- posed method and the Guerrero-Earlougher method tend to be low. The Riley method is the most accurate in pre dieting the peak oil rate. 7. All three methods predicted higher total cumulative water injected than actually was injected in the three ex- ample floods studied. However, they also predicted higher Average water injection rates than actually occurred, which ended 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 Guer- rero-Farlougher, 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 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. Conelusions. Based on the data as presented in this study, which deals with 86 fields in Oklahoma, the following ‘conclu. sions have been reached, 1. The empirical methods more nearly predicted water flood 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 recov- ery 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 engineer: ing time and can be used even on reservoirs where no fluid characteristics or rock properties are available. While it ig 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 10,00 T T 7 T T 1 | | | nopp| p+ | | fo | Sy 100] ~ —+— T BS Gaciefro Eadioarhe] T TTT] sf — | —Jauey | | j | | | }oaha | | | | | | i \i | 24:20] 30:28| 28:28] v0.28] 41-25] 41-25 | s9-25| 6-20 | v6.28] 10h | ts0 | 1951 | 1922 [1955 [aves [105s [195s [1957 [iose [1959 Lavoe | 1901 | ase2 | 96s | 1900 Fig. S—Comparison of actual and empirically predicted waterflood recovery rates, Flood 5.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, itis possible to superimpose the technique as applied to each individual stage to obtain a composite waterflood recovery rate curve, ‘Nomenclature oil formation volume factor oil formation volume factor at discovery reser- voir conditions 1h = net sand thickness, ft JF = injectivity factor; B/D/mé-ft/1,000 psi at the sand face permeability, md cumulative primary oil recovery, STB ‘otal cumulative waterflood recovery, STB = porosity, fraction injection pressure at the sand face, psi water injection rate, B/D recovery, fraction of mobile oil residual oil saturation after waterflood, fraction ‘of pore volume connate water saturation, fraction of pore vol- cumulative water injected, bbl References [LLambert, D. E.z “The Secondary Recovery Boom”, World Oil (Nov, 1965) 161, No. 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21. 2.Krumme, George W.: “The Sensitivity of Profitability to Vanatioss jm the Economie Performance. of Watefloods", MS thesis, The U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Otla. (1965). 3.Farlougher, R, C.z “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, Av: “Eeonomic Factors in Waterooding”, paper presented at Eleventh Annual Southwest Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Tex., April 23-24, 1964, 5. Guerrero, ET. and Barlougher, R. C.: “Analysis and Com- ‘parison of Five Methods Used to’ Predict Water-Flood Re- Serves and Performance”, paper presented at spring meeting Of the Mid-Continent. District, "API" Div. of Production, ‘Tulsa, Okla, April, 1961 Se James L. Bush (right) is the manager of economies and evaluation for Apco Oil Corp. A graduate of The U. of ‘Tulsa, Bush received his BS degree in petroleum enginer. ing in 1958 and his MS degree this year. Donald. P. Helander (let) 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 jrom Tulsa in 1957 and 1960. In 1965 he graduated from The U. of Oklahoma with a PhD in engineering seience.