WATERFLOODING

By

James T. Smith
WiUiam M. Cobb

DE17'97
/—N

COPYRIGHT

By

James T. Smith
P. O. Box 1990
Cody, Wyoming 82414
Telephone: (307) 527-6494
Fax: (307)527-6688

And

William M. Cobb
12770 Coit Road, Suite 907
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 385-0354
Fax: (972)788-5165
E-Mail: wcobbassoc@aol.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced

in any form without permission of the authors.

0197
^ TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
L INTRODUCTION

Factors Controlling Waterflood Recovery 1-2

Waterflooding versus Pressure Maintenance 1-4

11. REVIEW OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID FLOW

Wettability 2-1
Definition 2-1
Importance 2-3
Determination 2-4
Factors Affecting Reservoir Wettability 2-5
Sandstone and Carbonates 2-5
Native-State, Cleaned, and Restored-State Cores 2-6
Capillary Pressure 2-7
Definition 2-7
Importance 2-7
Sources of Data 2-7
Effect of Reservoir Variables 2-8
Fluid Saturation 2-8
Saturation History 2-9
Pore Geometry 2-10
Averaging of Data 2-11
J-function 2-11
Correlate with Permeability 2-13
Relative Permeability 2-16
Definition 2-16
Air Permeability 2-17
Absolute Permeability 2-17
Effective Permeability 2-17
Relative Permeability 2-17
Importance 2-18
Sources of Data 2-18
Effect of Reservoir Variables 2-19
Saturation History 2-19
Wettability 2-20
End-Point Values 2-21
Averaging of Data 2-22
Date Averaging Methods 2-22
• ••

ni
 PAGE _
^
Adjust Average Data to Account for Different Irreducible
Water Saturations 2-23
Default Relative Permeability Relationships 2-27
Problem 2-35

ffl. INITIAL OIL IN PLACE

Oil Saturation 3-2

Porosity 3-5
Net Pay 3-6
Conventional Selection of Net Pay Using Porosity Cutoff 3-8
Net Pay Determination After Accounting For Data Scatter 3-11
George and Stiles Fieldwide Net Pay Method 3-11
George and Stiles Well Net Pay Method (Weighting
Factor Method) 3-17
Permeability Cutoff Determination 3-22
Permeability Cutoff Based on Fillup Time 3-22
Permeability Cutoff Based on Watercut 3-27
Original Oil-In-Place - Material Balance Versus Volumetric
Estimates 3-29
Primary Production Net Pay Versus Secondary Floodable
Net Pay 3-30
Problem 3-36

IV. MECHANISM OF IMMISCIBLE FLUID DISPLACEMENT

Introduction 3-1
Fractional Flow Equation 3-2
Effect of Wettability 3-8
Effect of Formation Dip and Direction of Displacement 3-9
Effect of Capillary Pressure 3-10
Effect of Oil and Water Mobilities 3-11
Effect of Rate 3-12
Variations of Fractional Flow Equation 3-13
Frontal Advance Equation 3-14
Prediction of Waterflood Behavior in Linear Systems 3-17
Buckley-Leverett Theory 3-17
Stabilized Zone Concept 3-19
Welge Procedure 3-22
Water Saturation at the Front 3-22
iv
 PAGE

Average Water Saturation 3-25

Performance at Water Breakthrough 3-29
Performance After Breaiithrough 3-35
Application to Radial Flow 3-40
Gravity Under-Running 3-40
Effect of Free Gas Satu ration 3-40
Summary 3-41
Problems 3-43

V. FLOOD PATTERNS AND AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

Introduction 4-1
Mobility Ratio 4-2
Basic Flood Patterns 4-4
Direct Line Drive 4-4
Staggered Line Drive 4-6
Five-Spot 4-6
Nine-Spot 4-7
Seven-Spot
Areal Sweep EfHciency 4-9
Causes and Effects 4-9
Areal Sweep Efficiency At Breakthrough 4-13
Areal Sweep Efficiency After Breakthrough 4-17
Other Factors Affecting Areal Sweep EfHciency 4-19
Peripheral and Line Floods 4-25
Selection of Waterflood Pattern 4-26
Summary 4_27
Problems

VI. RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY

Areal Permeability Variations 5-1

Detection of Areal Permeability Variations 5-2
Effect of Areal Permeability Variations 5-2
Vertical Permeability Variations 5-3
Detection of Stratification 5-4
Quantitative Evaluation of Permeability Stratification 5-4
Single-Value Representation 5-5
Permeability Variation 5-6
Stiles Permeability Distribution 5-13
v
 PAGE

Lorentz Coefficient 5-15

Miller-Lents Permeability Distribution 5-20
Selection of Layers 5-24
Effect of Crossflow Between Layers 5-25
Vertical Sweep EfHciency 5-25
Problems 5-28

Vn. INJECTION RATES AND PRESSURES

Factors Affecting Water Injection Rate 6-1

Radial System, Unequal Mobilities 6-2
Regular Patterns 6-5
Unit Mobility Ratio 6-5
Non-Unit Mobility Ratio 6-9
Regular Patterns, Unequal Mobilities 6-13
Injectivity In Five-Spot Patterns 6-14
Prats, et al Method 6-14
Craig Method 6-14
Problem 6-18

VIII. PREDICTION OF WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE

Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily With Areal Sweep 7-1

Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily With Reservoir
Stratification 7-3
Dykstra-Parsons Method 7-3
Mathematical Development 7-4
Recovery Correlations 7-12
Performance Predictions 7-15
Stiles Method 7-27
Vertical Coverage 7-27
Water Cut And Water-Oil Ratio 7-31
Oil And Water Producing Rates 7-32
Cumulative Oil Recovery 7-33
Summary of Equations 7-33
Procedure for Predicting Performance 7-34
Prats, et al. Method 7-44
Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily With Displacement
Mechanism 7-45
Buckley-Leverett Method 7-45
vi
^ PAGE
Roberts Method 7-46
Craig-Geffen-Morse Method 7-48
Higgins-Leighton Method 7-48
Prediction Methods Based On Numerical Models 7-49
Prediction Methods Based On Empirical Models 7-49
Problems 7-53

CGM CRAIG-GEFFEN-MORSE METHOD

Introduction CGM-1
Initial Calculations - Single Layer CGM-3
Stage 1: Performance Prior To Interference CGM-7
Stage 2: Performance From Interference To Fillup CGM-11
Stage 3: Performance From Fillup To Breakthrough CGM-14
Stage 4: Performance After Water Breakthrough CGM-17
Multi-Layer Performance CGM-32
Problems CGM-36

IX. WATERFLOOD SURVEILLANCE

Introduction 8-1
Production Curves 8-2
Decline Curves 8-2
Exponential Decline 8-6
Hyperbolic and Harmonic Decline 8-8
Other Production Graphs 8-8
Percent Oil In Produced Fluid 8-8
Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Production 8-9
X Versus Cumulative Production 8-10
Oil Cut Versus Cumulative Production (Coordinate Graph) .. 8-15
Summary of Production Graphs 8-15
Transient Pressure Testing 8-15
Pressure Buildup and Pressure Falloff Testing 8-16
Step Rate Test 8-17
Hall Method of Analyzing Injection Well Behavior 8-24
Pattern Balancing 8-30
Injection Profile Testing 8-39
Interval Selection for Waterflood Monitoring 8-42
Injection Profiles 8-44
Alteration of Injection Profiles 8-47
vii
 PAGE ^
Flood Front (Bubble) Maps 8-48
Water Testing Program 8-53
Dissolved Gases 8-54
Microbiological Growth 8-54
Minerals 8-55
Total Solids 8-55
Produced Water 8-55
Pie Charts 8-55
Project Review 8-57
Problems 8-60

• ••

VIII
 INTRODUCTION

Waterflooding is the most widely used fluid injection process in the world today. It has
been recognized' since 1880 that injecting water into an oil-bearing formation has the
potential to improve oil recovery. However, waterflooding did not experience fieldwide
application until the 1930s when several injection projects were initiated,^"^ and it was not
until the early 1950s that the current boom in waterflooding began. Waterflooding is
responsible for a significant fraction of the oil currently produced in the United States.

Many complex and sophisticated enhanced recovery processes have been developed
through the years in an effort to recover the enormous oil reserves left behind by
inefficient primary recovery mechanisms. Many of these processes have the potential to
recover more oil than waterflooding in a particular reservoir. However, no process has
been discovered which enjoys the widespread applicability of waterflooding. The
primary reasons why waterflooding is the most successful and most widely used oil
recovery process are'*'^:

♦ general availability of water

♦ low cost relative to other injection fluids

♦ ease of injecting water into a formation

♦ high efficiency with which water displaces oil

The purpose of these notes is to discuss the reservoir engineering aspects of

waterflooding. It is intended that the reader will gain a better understanding of the
processes by which water displaces oil from a reservoir and, in particular, will gain the
ability to calculate the expected recovery performance of a waterflood project. While this
discussion will be limited to the displacement of oil by water, the displacement processes
and computational techniques presented have application to other oil recovery processes.

1 -1
I. Factors Controlling Waterflood Recovery
Oil recovery due to waterflooding can be determined at any time in the life of a
waterflood project if the following four factors are known.

1. Oil'iii'Place At the Start of Waterflooding ~ The oil-in-place at the time of

initial water injection is a function of the floodable pore volume and the oil
saturation. Floodable pore volume is highly dependent on the selection and
application of net pay discriminators such as permeability (and porosity)
cutoffs. A successful flood requires that sufficient oil be present to form an oil
bank as water moves through the formation. An accurate prediction of
waterflood performance or the interpretation of historical waterflood behavior
can only be made if a reliable estimate of oil-in-place at the start of
waterflooding is available. Oil-in-place considerations are discussed in
Chapter 3.

2. Areal Sweep Efficiency ~ This is the fraction of reservoir area that the water
will contact. It depends primarily upon the relative flow properties of oil and
water, the injection-production well pattern used to flood the reservoir,
pressure distribution between the injection and production wells, and
directional permeability. The prediction of areal sweep efficiency will be
discussed in Chapter 5.

3. Vertical Sweep Efficiency — Vertical sweep refers to the fraction of a

formation in the vertical plane which water will contact. This will depend
primarily upon the degree of vertical stratification existing in the reservoir and
will be discussed in Chapter 6.

4. Displacement Sweep Efficiency ~ This represents the fraction of oil which

water will displace in that portion of the reservoir invaded by water. Chapter 4
will discuss methods of determining the displacement sweep efficiency.

Methods for predicting oil recovery by waterflooding will be presented in Chapter 8.

1-2
Waterflood recovery can be computed at any time in the life of a waterflood project
from the following general equation:

Np = N * * Ey * Ej) (Eq. 1.1)

where

N = the oil in place in the floodable pore volume at the start of water
injection, STB
E^ = the fraction ofthe floodable pore volume area swept by the
injected water
Ey = the fraction ofthe floodable pore volimie in the vertical plane
swept by the injected water
Ed = is equal to the fraction ofthe oil saturation at the start ofwater
injection which is displaced by water in that portion of the
reservoir invaded by water

Waterflood recovery is dependent on a number of variables. The variables which

usually have the greatest impact on waterflood behavior are listed below:

♦ Oil saturation at the start of waterflooding. So

♦ Residual oil saturation to waterflooding, Sor (Sorw)

♦ Connate water saturation, Swc

♦ Free gas saturation at the start ofwater injection, Sg

♦ Water floodable pore volume, Vp, BBLS (This takes into account the
permeability or porosity net pay discriminator)

♦ Oil and water viscosity, jlo and |J,w

♦ Effective permeability to oil measured at the immobile connate water saturation,

(ko)s"^wir.

♦ Relative permeability to water and oil, krw and kro

1-3
 ♦ Reservoir stratification, (Dykstra-Parsons coefficient, V)

♦ Waterflood pattern (symmetrical or irregular)

♦ Pressure distribution between injector and producer

♦ Injection rate, BWPD

♦ Oil formation volume factor, Bq

♦ Economics

11. Waterflooding versus Pressure Maintenance

Maximum combined primary and secondary oil recovery occurs when waterflooding
is initiated at or near the initial bubble point pressure. When water injection
commences at a time in the life of a reservoir when the reservoir pressure is at a high
level, the injection is frequently referred to as a pressure maintenance project. On the
other hand, if water injection commences at a time when reservoir pressure has
declined to a low level due to primary depletion, the injection process is usually
referred to as a waterflood. In both instances, the injected water displaces oil and is
a dynamic displacement process. Nevertheless, there are important differences in the
displacement process when water displaces oil at high reservoir pressures compared
to the displacement process which occurs in depleted low pressure reservoirs. The
differences in the displacement mechanisms will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

1-4
 CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1. Carll, J.F.: The Geology of the OH Regions of Warren, Venango, Clarion, and
Butler Counties, Pennsylvania, Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania (1880)
III, pp. 1875-1879.

2. History ofPetroleum Engineering, API, Dallas, Texas (1961).

3. Fettke, C.R.: "Bradford Oil Field, Pennsylvania and New York," Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, 4th Series (1938) M-21.

4. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water/1ooding. Monograph

Series, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1971) 3.

5. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.

1-5
 REVIEW OF ROCK PROPERTIES AND FLUID FLOW

An understanding of the basic rock and fluid properties which control flow in a porous
medium is a prerequisite to understanding how a waterflood performs and how a
waterflood should be designed, implemented, and managed. The purpose of this section
is not to teach the fundamentals of rock and fluid properties - a basic knowledge of these
is assimied. However, certain multiphase flow properties will be discussed as they apply
to waterflood systems.

I. Wettability

A. Definition

In a rock/oil^rine system, wettability can be defined as the tendency of a fluid to

preferentially adhere to, or wet, the surface of a rock in the presence of other
immiscible fluids. In the case of a waterflood, the wetting phases can be oil or
water; gas will often be present, but will not wet the rock. When the rock is
water-wet, water occupies the small pores and contacts the rock surface in the
large pores. The oil is located in the middle of the laige pores. In an oil-wet
system, the location of the two fluids is partly reversed from the water-wet case.
Water usually continues to fill the very small pores but oil contacts the majority
of the rock surface in the large pores. The water present in the large pores in the
oil wet rock is located in the middle of the pore, does not contact the large pore
throat surface, and is usually present in small amounts. Water fills the smallest
pores even in the oil-wet system because oil never enters the small pore system
due to capillaiy forces and consequently, the wettability of the small pores is not
expected to change.

Wettability concepts and the location of oil and connate water in the layer pores
can be illustrated with a simple diagram. Consider the "large" pore in Figure 2-1
which contains both oil and water.

2-1
 FIGURE 2-1

PLANE VIEW, CROSS-SECTION VIEW, AND FLUID DISTRIBUTION

IN A HYPOTHETICAL WATER-WET OIL-WET AND FRACTIONAL-WET PORE

TORTUOUS PORE

PORE CROSS-SECTION AT POSITION A-A

• * \

CONNATE WATER
• •

OIL

WATER-WET OIL-WET FRACTIONAL-WET

It is important to note, however, that the term wettability is used for the wetting
preference of the rock and does not necessarily refer to the fluid that is in contact
with the rock at any given time. For example, consider a clean sandstone core
that is saturated with a refmed oil. Even though the rock surface is coated with
oil, the sandstone core is still preferentially water-wet. Wettability is not a
parameter that is used directly in the computation of waterflood performance.
However, wettability can have a significantimpact on such parameters as relative
permeability, connate water saturation, residual oil saturation, and capillary
pressure which directly effect waterflood performance. Anderson^"^ published a
series of excellent papers which discuss wettability and its impact on rock,
saturation, and fluid flow behavior.

2-2
B. Importance

The performance of a waterflood is contiolled to a large extent by wettability.

Reasons for this are:

1. The wettability of the rock/fluid system is important because it is a major

factor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a reservoir. In
general, one of the fluids in a porous medium of uniform wettability that
contains at least two immiscible fluids will be the wetting fluid. When the
system is in equilibrium, the wetting fluid will completely occupy the smallest
pores and be on contact with a majority of the rock surface (assuming, of
course, that the saturation of the wetting fluid is sufficiently high), the
nonwetting fluid will occupy the centers of the larger pores and form globules
that extend over several pores. Since wettability controls the relative position
of fluids within the rock matrix, it controls their relative ability to flow. The
wetting fluid, because of its attraction to the rock surface, is in an unfavorable
position to flow. Furthermore, the saturation of the wetting fluid cannot be
reduced below some irreducible value when flooded with another immiscible
fluid. With all other things equal, a waterflood in a water-wet reservoir will
yield a higher oil recovery at a lower water-oil ratio (WOR) than an oil-wet
reservoir. Chapter 4 presents information that allows an engineer to quantify
the effects of wettability on flood performance.

2. Wettability affects the capillary pressure and relative permeability data used to
describe a particular waterflood system. It is found, in measuring multiphase
flow properties, that the direction of saturation change (saturation history)
affects the measured properties. If measurements are made on a core while
increasing the saturation of the wetting phase, this is referred to as the
imbibition direction. Conversely, when the wetting phase saturation is
decreased during a test, it is referred to as the drainage direction. Different
capillaiy pressure and relative permeability curves are obtained depending

2-3
 upon the direction of saturation change used in the laboratory to make
measurements.

The direction of saturation change used to determine multiphase flow

properties should correspond to the saturation histoiy of the waterflood. Thus,
it is necessary to know the wettability of the reservoir. For example, a
waterflood in a water-wet reservoir is an imbibition process; whereas in an
oil-wet reservoir, it would be a drainage process. Different data would apply
to these two situations.

C. Determination

Historically, all petroleum reservoirs were believed to be strongly water-wet.

This was based on two major facts. First, most clean sedimentary rocks are
strongly water-wet. Second, most reservoirs were deposited in aqueous
environments into which oil later migrated. It was assumed that the connate water
would prevent the oil from touching the rock surfaces.

Reservoir rock can change from its original, strongly water-wet condition by
adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter originally
in the crude oil. Some crude oils make a rock oil-wet by depositing a thick
organic film on the mineral surfaces. Other crude oils contain polar compounds
that can be adsorbed to make the rock more oil-wet. Some of these compounds
are sufficiently water soluble to pass through the aqueous phase to the rock.

The realization that rock wettability can be altered by adsorbable crude oil
components led to the idea that heterogeneous forms of wettability exist in
reservoir rock. Generally, the internal surface of reservoir rock is composed of
many minerals vsrith different surface chemistry and adsorption properties, which
may lead to variations in wettabiHty. Fractional wettability is also called
heterogeneous, spotted, or Dalmation wettability. In fractional wettability, crude
oil components are strongly adsorbed in certain areas of the rock, so a portion of

2-4
 the rock is strongly oil-wet, while the rest is strongly water-wet. Note that this is
conceptually different from intermediate wettability which assumes all portions of
the rock surface have a slight but equal preference to being wetted by water or oil.

Several methods are available to determine the wettability of a reservoir rock.

These methods have been detailed in the literature^*''® and will not be discussed

here. They are:

♦ Contact Angle

♦ Imbibition ~ Displacement Core Tests

♦ Capillary Pressure Tests

♦ Relative Permeability Tests

♦ Others

D. Factors Affecting Reservoir Wettability

The original strong water-wetness of most reservoir minerals can be altered by the
adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter that was
originally in the crude oil. The surface-active agents in the oil are generally
believed to be polar compounds that contain oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur.
These compounds contain both a polar and a hydrocarbon end. The polar end
adsorbs on the rock surface, exposing the hydrocarbon end and making the
surface more oil-wet. Experiments have shown that some of these natural
surfactants are sufficiently soluble in water to adsorb onto the rock surface after
passing through a thin layer of water. In addition to the oil composition, the
degree to which the wettability is altered by these surfactants is also determined
by the pressure, temperature, mineral surface and brine chemistry, including ionic
composition and pH.

£. Sandstone and Carbonates

The types of mineral surfaces in a reservoir are also important in determining

wettability. Studies' show that carbonate reservoirs are typically more oil-wet

2-5
 than sandstone resei'voirs. Laboratoiy experiments show that the mineral smface
interacts with the crude oil composition to determine wettability.

F. Native-State, Cleaned, and Restored-State Cores

Cores in three different states of preservation are used in core analysis: native
state, cleaned, and restored state. Anderson^ indicates the best results for
multiphase-type flow analyses are obtained with native-state cores, where
alterations to the wettability of the undisturbed reservoir rock are minimized.
Anderson'swork defines the term native-state as being any core that was
obtained and stored by methods that preserve the wettability of the reservoir. No
distinction is made between cores taken with oil- or water-based fluids, as long as
the native wettability is maintained. Be aware, however, that some papers
distinguish on the basis of drilling fluid. Anderson further defined native-state to
be cores taken with a suitable oil-filtrate-type drilling mud, which maintains the
original connate water saturation. Fresh-state refers to a core with unaltered
wettability that was taken with a water-base drilling mud that contains no
compounds that can alter core wettability.

The second type of core is the cleaned core, where an attempt is made to remove
all the fluids and adsorbed organic material by flowing solvents through the cores.
Cleaned cores are usually strongly water-wet and should be used only for such
measurements as porosity and air permeability where the wettability will not
affect the results.

The third type of core is the restored-state core in which the native wettability is
restored by a three-step process. The core is cleaned and then saturated with
brine followed by reservoir crude oil. Finally, the core is aged in reservoir crude
at reservoir temperature for about 1,000 hours. The methods used to obtain the
three different types of cores are discussed in more detail in References 1 through
6.

2-6
11. Capillary Pressure

A. Definition

Capillary pressure can be qualitatively expressed as the difference in pressure

existing across the interface separating two immiscible fluids. Conceptually, it is
perhaps easier to think of it as the suction capacity of a rock for a fluid that wets
the rock, or the capacity of a rock to repel a non-wetting fluid. Quantitatively,
capillary pressure will be defined in this text as the difference between pressure in
the oil phase and pressure in the water phase. For example:

Pc = Po~'Pw (Eq. 2.1)

B. Importance

1. Capillary forces, along with gravity forces, control the vertical distribution of
fluids in a reservoir. Capillary pressure data can be used to predict the vertical
connate water distribution in a water-wet system.
2. Capillary pressure data are needed to describe waterflood behavior in more
complex prediction models and in naturally fractured reservoirs.
3. Capillary forces influence the movement of a waterflood front and,
consequently, the ultimate displacement efficiency.
4. Capillary pressure data are used to determine irreducible (immobile) water
saturation.

5. Capillary pressure data provide an indication of the pore size distribution in a

reservoir.

C. Sources of Data

Unfortunately, capillary pressure data are not available for most reservoirs,
especially older reservoirs developed with no thought of subsequent enhanced
recovery projects. The only reliable sources of data are laboratory measurements
made on reservoir core samples. These measurements are seldom made due to the
time and expense of obtaining unaltered core samples and conducting necessary
tests. The laboratory tests'* most commonly used are:

2-7
 ♦ Restored State (porous diaphragm) Method
♦ Centrifuge Method

♦ Mercury Injection Methods

Most laboratory measurements are made using either air-brine or air-mercury

systems. Consequently, the resulting data must be converted to actual reservoir
conditions, taking into account the difference between interfacial tensions of
laboratory and reservoir fluids and the difference in wettability effects of the
fluids. This conversion can be made using the relationship:

^ ^ (acos0)R
PcR = PeL(;^
where:

PcR = capillary pressure at reservoir conditions, psi

PcL = capillary pressure measured in the laboratory, psi

a = interfacial tension

0 = contact angle

Capillary pressure data from another reservoir having similar rock-fluid

characteristics can also be used but is not generally recommended.

When this is necessary, a correlating function such as the "J-function" (to be

discussed later) is generally used.

D. Effect of Reservoir Variables

1. Fluid Saturation

Capillary pressure varies with the fluid saturation of a rock, increasing as the
wetting phase saturation decreases. Accordingly, capillary pressure data are
generally presented as a fimction of wetting phase saturation.'' A typical
capillary pressure curve for a water-wet system is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

2-8
 FIGURE 2-2
EFFECT OF SATURATION HISTORY ON OIL-WATER
CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES FOR A WATER-WET ROCK

Drainage

imbibition

20 40 60 80 100
V\feiter Saturation, percent

2. Saturation History

As noted previously, the direction in which the fluid saturation of a rock is

changed during measurement of multiphase flow properties has a significant
affect on measured properties. This hysteresis effect is obvious in Figure 2-2.
The direction of saturation change used in the laboratory, or in other models,
must match the direction of saturation change in the reservoir to which the data
will be applied.

2-9
3. Pore Geometry

Other factors being equal, capillary pressure is inversely proportional to the

radius of the pores containing the fluids.' If all pores were the same size in a
rock, the capillary pressure curve would ideally be described by Curve 1 in
Figure 2-3. However, all rocks exhibit a range of pore sizes which causes a
variation in capillary pressure with fluid saturation. In general, the slope of the
capillaiy pressure curve will increase with increasing pore size heterogeneity.
This is illustrated by Curves 2, 3, and 4 on Figure 2-3 which represent a
homogeneous, moderately heterogeneous, and very heterogeneous reservoir,
respectively.

FIGURE 2-3
EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY
ON CAPILLARY PRESSURE CURVES

Curve 4

Curve 3

Curve 2

Curve 1

20 40 60 80 100
WSater Saturation, percent

2-10
E. Averaging of Data

Even when good capillary pressure data are available, it is generally found that
each core sample tested from a reservoir gives a different capillaiy pressure curve
than every other core sample. Thus, an obvious question arises. How do we
determine which curve represents the average behavior of the reservoir to be
waterflooded? Two methods are commonly used to resolve this problem: (l)the
J-fimction and (2) correlation with permeability.

1. J-function

This function was developed by M. C. Leverett'® in an attempt to develop a

universal capillary pressure curve. The dimensionless J-function relates
capillary pressure to reservoir rock and fluid properties according to the
relationship.

. i

where:

J(Sw) = J-function at a particular water saturation, dimensionless

Pc = capillaiy pressure, dynes/cm^
a = interfacial tension, dynes/cm

k = permeability, cm^ (1,0 cm^ = 1.013 x 10® D)

(|) = porosity, fraction

f(0) = wettability function, dimensionless

This equation was developed with the idea that, at a given saturation, the value
of J(Sw) would be the same for all rocks regardless of their individual charac
teristics. For example, suppose the capillaiy pressure is measured for a rock
with permeability (kj), porosity ((j)]), using fluids with interfacial tension

2-11
(aj), and the wettability function is f(0) = COS 6 = 1.0. The capillary
pressure for the rock will be some value at Sw Now suppose we
measure the capillary pressure in a second rock with properties ^2 >
and f(6) =1.0. At saturation Sw (same as for Core 1), a value ofcapillary
pressure Pq2 will be obtained. If the J-function conelation works, the
J-fimction for Cores 1 and 2, at saturation Sw, will be equal even though the
values of capillary pressure are different. For example:

Pc2 (^2 4
Ji(Sw) - J2(Sw) - ^ 02(1.0)V<|)2 y
(Eq. 2.4)

Further, this relationship would be tine at all saturations so a plot of J versus

Sw should be the same for all rocks, as depicted by Figure 2-4.

FIGURE 2-4
J-FUNCTION VS WATER SATURATION

20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

2-12
 Ideally then, it would only be necessary to know the interfacial tension,
average porosity, and average permeability of the reservoir to be flooded to
obtain the proper capillary pressure curve for any reservoir.

Unfortunately, the method does not work universally, i.e., capillary pressure
for all cores, or reservoirs, will not plot on a common curve. This is due pri
marily to the difference in pore size distributions and rock wettability between
cores. Rock samples of different permeability and porosity characteristics
generally would not be expected to have equivalent pore size distributions.
Further, because of handling, cleaning, and in situ variation in wettability, it is
simply not adequate to assume in Eq. 2.4 that f(0) =1.0. However, for a
given reservoir, or for a gioup of reservoirs with similar lithology, this plotting
technique is often satisfactory for smoothing capillary pressure data and
determining the capillary pressure curve that applies at average reservoir
conditions. Consequently, this method is probably used more commonly than
other techniques for averaging data.

2. Correlate with Permeability

This method is based on the following empirical observation. If capillary

pressure is determined for several cores from the same reservoir (so that CT and
f(0) remain relatively constant) and the logarithm of permeability is plotted as
a function of permeability for fixed values of capillary pressure, then straight
lines or smooth curves result. This is illustrated by Figure 2-5. If the average
effective permeability of the reservoir is known, the correct average capillaiy
pressure curve can be obtained by simply entering the subject graph with the
average permeability to read values of capillary pressure as a flmction of
saturation.

2-13
 FIGURE 2-5
CORRELATION OF
CAPILLARY PRESSURE WITH PERMEABILITY
1,000 1 :1

TJ
E
100
1
h\
\ \
1 k
n
(0 \ \
0 11 I1 \1
E

1
10 \ \

Pc5 Po4 Pc3 Pc1

20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

EXAMPLE 2:1

Capillary pressure data measured on five cores from a sandstone reservoir are
presented below.

2-14
 Water Saturations for Constant Capillary Pressure, percent
k, md 75 psi 50 psi 25 psi 10 psi 5 psi
470.0 18.5 22.0 29.0 39.0 49.5

300.0 22.5 25.5 34.0 45.5 56.0

115.0 30.0 34.0 41.0 53.5 65.0

50.0 36.0 40.5 51.0 64.0 77.0

27.0 41.0 44.0 55.0 69.0 81.5

The geometric mean permeability of the reservoir, based on 43 core samples, is

155 md. The interfacial tension, Gl, of the air-brine system used to measure
capillary pressure, is 71 dynes/cm. The reservoir oil-water system has m
interfacial tension, Gr, equal to 33 dynes/cm. Find a capillary pressure curve
that will apply to average reservoir conditions, i.e., the geometric mean
permeability.

SOLUTION

Figure 2-6 shows that capillary pressure data can be correlated with
permeability. The laboratory values of capillary pressure versus saturation,
corresponding to k = 155 md, are shown in the following table. The values of
capillary pressure, converted to reservoir conditions, are also tabulated.

Sw, percent PcL.PSi PcR-glPcL'PSi

27.2 75 34.9

31.5 50 23.2
39.2 25 11.6

51.0 10 4.6

62.8 5 2.3

2-15
 FIGURE 2-6
CORRELATION OF CAPILLARY PRESSURE,
SATURATION. AND PERMEABILITY FOR EXAMPLE 2.1
1,000 L 1 '
1 1
4

V \ \
TJ
E \\\
\\ 155 md

CO
0)
E
100 ww
\\
I \\f Y -Y—Y
V
\ 1

~ " 75 psi 50 psi 25 psi 10 psi 5 psi ""

10 ,1.1,1.1,
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

III. Relative Permeability

A. Definition

Before engaging in a discussion of relative permeability, a brief review of the

different permeability terms which frequently appear in technical reports or as
part of technical conversations is in order. The different permeability terms are:

2-16
 ♦ air permeability, md

♦ absolute permeability, md

♦ effective permeability, md

♦ relative permeability, dimensionless

1. Air Permeability - the routine permeability measured on a core sample. This

measurement is conducted using a gas, such as nitrogen or natural gas, and
does not usually take into account the Klinkenberg effect.® Air permeabilities
are frequently used as estimates of absolute permeability. However, unless the
Klinkenberg correction is performed, air permeability can overstate the
absolute permeability by a factor of 1.5 or more.

2. Absolute Permeability - the permeability of a core sample when filled with a

single liquid such as water or oil. Absolute permeability is independent of the
fluid but is dependent on the pore throat sizes. Absolute permeability is most
applicable in aquifer studies because the aquifer usually contains a single fluid,
water.

3. Effective Permeability - the permeability to water, oil, or gas (kw, ko, kg)
when more than one phase is present. Effective permeability of a phase is
dependent on fluid saturation. Application of Darcy's Law for determination of
production (qo or Qw) or injection (iw) rates utilize effective permeability.
Effective permeability to oil and water are most commonly used in waterflood
analysis.

4. Relative Permeability - the ratio of effective permeability to some base

permeability, usually the effective permeability to oil measured at the immobile
• «

(irreducible) connate water saturation, (ko)Q . , kro = ko/(ko)c

"^wir "^wir,

krw =kw/(ko)s^.^ . Since the effective permeability of arock depends

^0^
on the fluid saturation, it follows that relative permeability is also a function of

2-17
 fluid saturation. When the base peiineability is (ko)s^.^, then the relative
permeability to oil at the immobile connate water saturation, (kro)c . , is
•^wir
1.0. In relative peiineability measurements prepaied prior to about 1975,
laboratories frequently used the uncorrected air permeability as the base
permeability. The net effect is to cause the (kro)^ . value to be less than
'^wir
1.0, usually in the range of 0.6 to 0.8.

B. Importance

As the name implies, relative permeability data indicate the relative ability of oil
and water to flow simultaneously in a porous medium. These data express the
effects of wettability, fluid saturation, saturation history, pore geometiy, and fluid
distribution on the behavior of a reservoir system.^®*^ Accordingly, this is
probably the single, most important flow property which affects the behavior of a
waterflood. When using (ko)s^.^ as the base permeability, the relative perme
ability to oil and water ranges between 0.0 and 1.0 when plotted versus water
saturation. This scale allows for easy comparison of one set of relative perme
ability versus another set from a different core sample. The comparison is made
by a simple overlay.

C. Sources of Data

1. Laboratory measurement on representative core samples possessing appropriate

reservoir wettability

a. Steady-state method

b. Unsteady-state method

2. Use data from similar reservoir

3. Mathematical models

2-18
 4. History matching

5. Calculate from capillary pressure data

D. Effect of Reservoir Variables

1. Saturation History

Figure 2-7 shows the effect of saturation history on a set of relative perme
ability data. It is noted that the direction of flow has no effect on the flow
behavior of the wetting phase. However, a significant difference exists
between the drainage and imbibition curves for the non-wetting phase. This
again points out the need for knowing wettability. For a water-wet system, we
would choose the imbibition data; whereas, drainage data would be needed to
correctly predict the performance of an oil-wet reservoir.

FIGURE 2-7
EFFECT OF SATURATION HISTORY
ON RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA

100 1

/
I 1/Vetting P hase

V
/

/
80

(U
2
(D
a
I
\\
60
f

I
CO
Q)
E

40
/
/
ro
o
tr
20
\V
20 40 60 80 100
Wetting Phase Saturation, percent

2-19
2. Wettability

Wettability affects the fluid distribution within a rock and, consequently, has a
very important effect on relative permeability data. This is indicated on Figure
2-8 which compares data for water-wetand oil-wet systems.

FIGURE 2-8
EFFECT OF WETTABILITY
ON RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
100

\
80
! 11

0)
!
<u 1 1
a.

ds 60
jg
io / Oil Wet

/
CO
a>
E V\fater Wet
•. y
I 40 •, /
\ /
I
TO \/
0) ^ % /
OH /
\f • #
/
20

V V'
%
0
%
%
«

-** V
20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

Several important differences between oil-wet curves and water-wet curves are
generally noted.

a. The water saturation at which oil and water permeabilities are equal
(intersection point of cui*ves) will generally be greater than 50 percent for
water-wet systems and less than 50 percent for oil-wet systems.

2-20
 b. The connate water saturation for a water-set system will generally be
greater than 20 percent; whereas, for oil-set systems, it will normally be
less than 15 percent

c. The relative permeability to water at maximum water saturation (residual

oil saturation) will be less than about 0.3 for water-wet systems but will be
greater than 0.5 for oil-wet systems.

These observations may not hold true for intermediate wettability rocks.
Further, for high permeability values (ko)s . )100md , these findings
may not be true^. For example, water-wet rocks with large pore throats (high
permeability) sometimes exhibit immobile connate water saturation of less than
10 to 15 percent. Nevertheless, Figure 2-8 indicates the shape and magnitude
of relative permeability curves can give an indication of the wettability
preference of a reservoir for moderate to low levels of permeability; i.e.,
md.
^wir

£. End-Point Values

Summary water-oil relative permeability tests are frequently conducted on core

samples. These summary tests are often referred to as "end-point" tests because
they reflect Sor, (ko)s^jj.5 and (kw)sQj.- Results of these tests are
less expensive than normal relative permeability tests, but they can provide useful
information on reservoir characteristics. Listed below are end-point test data for
three sandstone cores.

2-21
 Water-Oil End-Point Relative Permeability Tests*
Initial Conditions Terminal Conditions

kA,md 4),% S^ir, % ko,md Sor, % kw,rnd kro krw

9.4 14.5 27.5 6.4 35.4 1.8 1.0 0.28
3.7 15.8 37.6 2.4 34.2 0.8 1.0 0.33
18.0 13.8 24.7 13.0 38.3 4.6 1.0 0.35

*Tests conducted at confining overburden pressure

F. Averaging of Data

1. Data Averaging Methods

Again, we often face the problem of having several permeability curves for a
particular formation, all of which are different. It is desirable to select one set
of curves which will apply at average reservoir conditions, i.e., at the average
formation permeability. Methods to accomplish this are:

a. Determine the saturation at different values of kroor krw/krofor each of

the different sets of data (use same values of permeability or permeability
ratio in obtaining saturations from the different permeability curves). This
is probably done most often using krw/kro- The saturations obtained at
equal values of permeability are arithmetically averaged to define the
average set of permeability data.

b. In some cases, a plot of krw/kro versus water saturation for each core will
yield a correlation with permeability as shown in Figure 2-9. However,
smooth curves rather than straight lines will often result. If the effective
average permeability is known, an average permeability curve can be
determined from the correlation.

2-22
 FIGURE 2-9
CORRELATION OF RELATIVE PERMEABILlPi^ DATA
WITH ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY

100

20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

2. Adjust Average Data to Account for Different Irreducible Water

Saturations

This is not necessary for oil-set systems, but in the case of water-wet systems,
the situation often occurs where the accepted value of irreducible water
saturation does not agree with the average relative permeability data chosen to
represent the reservoir. The procedure for converting the data to a different
irreducible water saturation is:

2-23
a. From the average relative permeability cui'ves, read values of kro and krw
at different values of oil saturation.

b. Multiply each ofthe saturations from Step (a) by 777^^—•

l.u

c. Plot values of kro and krw from Step (a) versus the normalized
saturations from Step (b).

d. Using the normalized curve obtained from Step (c), the permeability data
can be placed back on a total pore volume basis, using any desired value of
initial water saturation, by multiplying the normalized saturations by

^1.0- .
It is also possible to normalize the relative permeability data before the data are
averaged.

EXAMPLE 2:2

Relative permeability curves measured on three cores from the Levelland Field,
San Andres formation, in West Texas are shown in Figure 2-10. The average
initial water saturation of this reservoir is believed to be 15 percent. Find the
average oil and water relative permeability curves for this reservoir and adjust
the curves to the average connate water saturation.

2-24
 FIGURE 2-10
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA FOR EXAMPLE 2.2

100 1

\1
V

1
80

ra 60
0)

1 2 3
q!
s
^ 40
a>
DC

1\ X1 / y
20

20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

SOLUTION

The calculations necessary to average, normalize, and adjust the curves to a

new saturation basis are presented in the following tables for the oil and water
data. The average permeability curves, adjusted to 15 percent irreducible water
saturation, are presented in Figure 2-11.

2-25
 Conversion of Oil Permeability Data
(All Values in Percent)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
K Swl Sw3 Q
•^wAVG So (6) *(1.0-0.15) (Sw)nEW
1.0-S^i
LOO 8.0 25.0 37.0 23.3 100.0 85.0 15.0
0.90 11.0 27.5 39.0 25.8 96.7 82.2 17.8
0.80 13.5 30.0 41.0 28.2 93.6 79.6 20.4

0.70 16.5 32.5 44.0 31.0 90.0 76.5 23.5

0.60 20.0 35.0 46.0 33.7 86.4 73.4 26.6

0.50 23.0 37.5 48.5 36.3 83.1 70.6 29.4

0.40 26.5 40.5 51.0 39.3 79.1 67.2 32.8

0.30 30.5 44.0 54.5 43.0 74.3 63.2 36.8

0.20 35.0 47.2 58.0 46.7 69.5 59.0 41.0
0.10 41.1 51.0 63.2 51.8 62.8 53.4 46.6

0.50 46.0 54.0 67.0 55.7 57.8 49.1 50.9

0.01 52.5 58.0 72.5 61.0 50.8 43.2 56.8
0.00 56.0 60.5 76.0 64.2 46.7 39.7 60.3
1

C/5

Conversi on of Water Permeabi lity Data

All Values in Percent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

So
K s... Sw2 Sw3
c
"^wAVG 1.0-S^j (6) *(1.0-0.15) (Sw)nEW

0.50 62.0 73.0 86.5 73.8 34.2 29.1 70.9

0.40 59.0 70.0 83.5 70.8 38.1 32.4 67.6

0.30 56.0 67.0 80.5 67.8 42.0 35.7 64.3

0.20 52.0 63.5 76.5 64.0 46.9 39.9 60.1

0.10 46.5 58.5 71.0 58.7 53.8 45.7 54.3

0.05 42.5 55.0 67.0 54.8 58.9 50.1 49.9

0.01 36.0 48.0 62.0 48.7 66.9 56.9 43.1

0.00 8.0 25.0 37.0 23.3 100.0 85.0 15.0

2-26
 FIGURE 2-11
NORMALIZED AND ADJUSTED
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES FOR EXAMPLE 2.2

100

ro 60

20 40 60 80
Water Saturation, percent

G. Default Relative Permeability Relationships

The most reliable source of relative permeability data is from laboratory

measurements performed on cores obtained from the reservoir of interest. For the
measurements to be meaningful, considerable care and effort must be expended to
ensure that the in situ reservoir wettability is preserved during coring, surfacing,
storage, and measurement operations. Failure to preserve native wettability will

2-27
cause the measured relative permeability values to be of little use for reservoir
analysis.

Unfortunately, many reservoirs considered for waterflooding are characterized by

the absence of relative permeability or, at best, by unreliable data. In these
situations, it may be necessary to use certain "default" relative permeability
models for data.

Several authors have presented mathematical models which can be used to

describe relative permeability relationships for the simultaneous flow of oil and
water. The relationships are restricted to reservoirs in which flow is through the
matrix. Consequently, those results are not applicable for flow through reservoirs
possessing significant vugs or natural fractures.

Corey'' has suggested that for a drainage process (waterflood of an oil-wet rock):

4
krw —S
rw — Owe (Eq. 2.5)

where:

Sw-S^ir
Swe — (Eq. 2.6)
" 1i . u
0-S •

with:

Sw = water saturation, fraction

Swir ^ irreducible water saturation, fraction

and:

kfo = (1.0 —Swe)^ .1-0 "" Swe (Eq. 2.7)

Where there is simultaneous flow of oil and water in a water-wet system during
an imbibition process. Smithsuggests that:

2-28
 \ —
'^Sw ~ Sm,;
wir (Eq. 2.8)
krw —S w
u . o - s wir

and:

SW -Syyir
kro = 1.0- (Eq. 2.9)
1.0-S^r-S or

where:

Sor = residual oil saturation, fraction

More recently, Hirasaki'^ summarized certain relative data compiled by the 1984
National Petroleimi Council'*' (NPC). As part of a national enhanced oil recovery
study, it was necessary to forecast remaining waterflood recovery in many
reservoirs throughout the United States. In many instances, reservoir data such as
rock wettability and relative permeability were not available. Consequently, an
NPC technical committee recommended default relative permeability relation
ships similar to those presented by Molina*^. These relationships are listed below.

f .
wir
^EXW
krw = (krw)^•or vl.O - Sor
(Eq. 2.10)

and:

kro = (kro)s„.
^l.O-Sw-Sor^ (Eq. 2.11)
Wir V1.0— Sof-

where:

EXW = water relative permeability exponent

EXO = oil relative permeability exponent

(kro)s^jj. ^ relative permeability to oil at the irreducible water

saturation (usually 1.0)

2-29
 (krw)s = relative permeability to water at the wateiflood residual oil
or

saturation (usually about 0.25 to 0.4 depending on

wettability)

Sor = residual waterflood oil saturation, fraction

Sw = water saturation, fraction

^wir = irreducible water saturation, fraction

In addition to Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11, the NPC also provided certain other defauh
data which are listed below.

Parameter Sandstone Carbonate

Oil relative permeability end-point 1.0 1.0

Water relative permeability end-point 0.25 0.40

Oil relative permeability exponent 2 2

Water relative permeability exponent 2 2

Residual oil saturation, percent 25 37

A comparison of these default end-point values with the statements listed on page
20 of Craig® suggests a possible conclusion that carbonate reservoirs behave as if
they are oil-wet. This observation should not be interpreted as an indication of
rock wettability but the result of attempting to "average" a large amount of data.

Finally, Honapour*^ provides a thorough review of the empirical equations used to

compute two phase (oil/water or gas/oil) and three phase (gas/oil/water) relative
permeability.

EXAMPLE 2:3

A carbonate oil reservoir is being considered for waterflooding. At the present

time, the immobile (irreducible) water saturation is estimated to be 25 percent.

2-30
Compute a pair of oil and water relative permeability curves that could be used in
the evaluation of the waterflood.

SOLUTION

In the absence of specific data, the default relative permeability relationships

described by Eq. 2.10 and Eq. 2.11 will be utilized. The following data are
estimated from analog fields or from the NPC default values.

Sorw = 35 percent (analog field)

" 10(''asedonkbase =(ko)s^^)

(krw)sor = 0.35 (assumes intermediate wettability)

EXO = 2.0 (1984 NPC)

EXW = 2.0 (1984 NPC)

EXW
Sw ~ S,'wir
krw - (krw)s or 1.0 - Sof- Swir _
EXO
1.0 —Sw —Spr
kro - (kro)s„^ 1.0- Sor - S^vir j
wir

Substituting:

2.0
Sw ~ 0.25
krw = (0.35) 1.0-0.35-0.25

and:

1.0-Sw-0.35 2.0
kro =1.0
1.0-0.35-0.25

Finally, krw and kro can be computed and plotted as a function of water
saturation.

2-31
 Sw, percent krw kro
25 0.000 1.000
30 0.001 0.766

35 0.022 0.562

40 0.049 0.391

45 0.088 0.250

50 0.137 0.141

55 0.197 0.062

60 0.268 0.016

65 0.350 0.000

FIGURE 2-12
OILM/ATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
I—!

1 i

1\ 1 i

0.8
1

•8 0.6
^o\
0)

i
s.
.1
TO 0.4
<i>
(T
/
!
0.2

20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, percent

2-32
 CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES

1. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brime Inter

actions and the Effects of Core Handling on Wettability," JPT (Oct. 1986) pp.
1125-44.

2. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 2: Wettability

Measurement," JPT (Nov. 1986) pp. 1246-62.

S.Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 3: The Effects of

Wettability on the Electrical Properties of Porous Media," JPT (Dec. 1986) pp.
1371-78.

4. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 4: The Effects of

Wettability on Capillary Pressure," JPT (Oct. 1987) pp. 1283-1300.

5. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 5: The Effects of

Wettability on Relative Permeability on Relative Permeability," JPT (Nov. 1987)
pp. 1453-68.

6. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey - Part 6: The Effects of

Wettability on Waterflooding," JPT (Dec. 1987) pp. 1605-20.

7. Willhite, G.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.

8. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas, Texas (1971) 3.

9. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1960).

10.Leverett, M.C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids," Trans., AIME (1941).

11. Corey, A.T.: "The Interrelation Between Gas and Oil Relative Permeabilities,"
Producers Monthly, (November 1954).

12.Smith, C.R.: Mechanics of Secondary OH Recovery, Reinhold Publishing

Corporation, New York (1966).

13.Hirasaki, GJ., Morrow, F., Willhite, G.P.: "Estimation of Reservoir Hetero

geneity From Waterflood Performance," SPE Paper 13415, Unsolicited technical
paper submitted for publication during Fall 1984.

14. National Petroleum Council: Enhanced OH Recovery, (June 21, 1984).

2-33
15. Molina, N.N.: "A Systematic Approach to the Relative Permeability in Reservoir
Simulation," SPE Paper 9234 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical ^
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas. ^
16.Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L., and Harvey, A.H.: Relative Permeability of
Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press, Boca Raton , FL (1986).

2-34
 PROBLEM 2:1

REVIEW OF ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES

A series of laboratory studies resulted in the following average relative permeability data
for an oil reservoir. (Note that the base permeability is the air permeability - it is old
data.)

Sw, percent krw kro

25 0.000 0.565

30 0.002 0.418

35 0.015 0.300

40 0.025 0.218

45 0.040 0.144

50 0.060 0.092

55 0.082 0.052

60 0.118 0.027
65 0.153 0.009

70 0.200 0.000

These data indicate the irreducible water saturation in the reservoir is 25 percent. Well
logs and core analysis suggest, however, that the true irreducible saturation is approxi
mately 15 percent. Adjust the permeability data so they represent an irreducible water
saturation of 15 percent and present the data in normalized form on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0.

2-35
 i iiiBiia
I••••••I
i !••••••
i!••••••

to
I

u>
o\

) ) )
 ^1.

Wettability Literature Survey-—

Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions
and tlie Effects of Core Handling
on Wettability
William Q. Anderson, SPE, Conoco Inc.

Summary. Wettability is a major fiactor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a
reservoir. The wettability ofa core will affect almost all types ofcore suudyses, including capillary pressure,
relative permeability, waterflood behavior, electrical properties, and simulated tertiaiy recovery. The most
accurate results are obtained when native- or restored-state cores are run with native crude oil and brine at
reservoir temperature and pressure. Such conditions provide cores that have the same wettability as the
reservoir:
The wettability oforiginally water-wet reservoir rock can be altered by the adsorption ofpolar compounds
and/or the deirasition of organic material that w^ originally in the crude oil. The degree of alteration is deter
mined by the interaction ofthe oil constituents, the mineral surface, and the brine chemistry. The procedures
for obtainmg native-state, cleaned, and restored-state cores are discussed, as well as the effects ofcoring,
preservation, and experimental conditions on wettability. Also reviewed are methods for artificially controlling
the wettability during laboratory experiments.
Introduction
This paper is the first of a series of literature surveys demonstrated by allowing water to imbibeintt> the core.
covering the effects of wettability on core analysis. The waterwilldisplace the oil from the rocksur&ce,in
Changes in wettability have been shown to affect capil dicating that the rock surfitce **prefers*' to be in contact
lary pressure, relative permeability, waterflood behavior, with waterradierthanoil. Similarly, a coresaturated with
dispersion oftracers, simulated tertiary recovery, irredu water is oil-wet if oil will imbibe into the core and dis
cible water saturation (IWS), residual oil saturation place water from the rock surface. Depending onthe spe
(ROS), and electrical properties.For core analysis cific interactions of rock, oil, and brine', thewettability
topredict thebehavior ofa reservoir accurately, the wet ofa qrstem canraiige from strongly water-wet tostrong
tability ofa core must be the same as the w^tability of ly pil-wet. When the rockhas no strong preference for
theundisturbed reservoir rock. Aserious problem occurs either oilor water, thesystem is saidto be of neutral (or'
because many aspects ofcore handling can drastically af intermediate) wett^ility. Besides strong and neutral wet
fect wettability. tability, a third type is fractional wettability, where differ
entareas of thecorehave different wetting preferences. ^
Water-Wet, Oil-Wet, andNeutrally Wet. Wettability The wettability. of the ix>ck/fluid system is important
is defined as **the tendency of onefluid to spread onor because it is a majorfector controlling thelocation, flow,
a^ere toa solid surface inthe presence ofother immis and distribution of fluids in a reservoir. In generd, one
cible fluids."' In a rock/oil/brine system, it isa meas of thefluids in a porous medium of uniform wettability
ure of the preference that the rock has for either the oil that contains at least two immiscible fluids will be the wet
or water. When the rock is water-wet, there is a tenden ting fluid. When the system is in equilibrium, the wet
cy for water to occupythe small pores and to contactthe tingfluid willcompletely occupy the smallest pores and
majority of the rocksurface. Similarly, in an oil-wet sys be in contactwitha majority of the rock surface(assum
tem, the rock is preferentiallyin contact with the oil; the ing,of course, thatthe saturation of the wetting fluid is
location of the two fluids is reversed from the water-wet
sufficiently high). Thenonwetting fluid willoccupy the
case, and oil will occupy the smallporesand contact the centers ofihe largerporesandform globules thatextend
majority of the rock surface.It is important to note, how over several pores!
ever, that the term wettability is used for the wetting
preference of the rockand does not necessarily refer to Inthe remainder ofthis survey, theterms wetting and
thefluid thatis in contact withthe rockat anygiven time. nonwetting fliiid will be used in addition to water-wet and
For example^ consider a clean sandstone core that is oil-wet. This will help ustodraw conclusions about asys
saturated with a refined oil. Even though the rock sur tem with the opposite wettability. The behaviorof oil in
face is coated with oil, the sandstone core is still preferen a water-wetsystemis very similarto the behaviorof water
tially water-wet. This wetting preference can be in an oil-wet one. For example, it is generally assumed
thatfor a system with a strong wetting preference, the
Copyright 1SB8Society of Petrotoum Engtnaere wetting-phase relative permeability is onlya function of
Journal of PetroleumTechnology. October 1986
1125
 TABLE 1—DISTRIBUTION OF RESERVOIR WETTABILITIES BASED ON CONTACT ANGLE**

Contact
Angle Silicate Cart>onate Total
(degrees) Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoirs
Water-wet 0to75 13 2 15
Intermediate wet 75 to 105 2 1 3
Oil-wet 105 to 180 15 22 37
Total 30 25 55

its own saturation—i.e., it shows no hysteresis. fected the wettability behavior in the contact-mgle tests.
Owens and Archer^ measured the gas/oil drainage per- As discussed later, this probably causes an overestima-
meabiliQr, where the oil was the strongly wetting fluid, tion of the oil-wetness. Therefore, the large percentage
andcompared it with thewater/oil imbibition rdativeper of reservoirs found to be oil-wetis less significant than
meability, wherethe waterwasthe strongly wetting fluid. the general indications that not all reservoirs be water-
The water-imbibition relative permeability (strongly wet and that the reservoir wettability varies widely.
water-wet system) was a continuation of the oil-<)ndnage Contact-angle measurements made by Chiliiigar and
relativepermeability (strongly oil-wetsystem), demon Yen^ suggest tfiat most carbonate reservoirs range firom
strating the analogy b^een systems ofopposite wietta- neutrally to oil-wet. Th^measured the wett^ility of161
bilities. limestone, ^lomitic Itoestone, calcitic dolomite, and
Historically,all petroleumreservoirs were believedto dolomite cores. The cores tested i^luded (1) 90 cores
bestTongjiy water-wet Thiswasbased ontwomajor &cts. from Asmari limestones and dolomites from the Middle
First, almost all clean sedimentary rocks are strongly Bast;(2) 15dolonute coresfromw^ Texas;(3) 3 cores
water-wet. Second, sandstone reservoirs weredeposited of Maidison limestone from Wyoming; (4) 4 carbonate
in aqueous environments into which oil later migrated^ cores from Mexican oil fields; (^ 4carbonate cores ^m
It wasassumed that theconnate water would prevent the the Rragiu oil field in the People's Republic of China;
oil from touching therock sur&ces. In 1934, Nutting^' (6) 16 rarbonatecoresfrbm ^berta; (7) 19 chalkcores
realized thatsomeproducing reservoirs were, in fact, ac from the North Sea; (8) 5 samples from India; and (9)
tually strongly oil-wet. He found that the quarte surfaces - 5samples from Sovietoil fields in the Urals-Vol^ region.
of the Tensleep sandstone in Wyoming had adsorbed Table2 showsthe distribution of wettabilities.with 80%
heavyhydrocarbons m layers about0.7 /un thick (about of thereservoirs eitheroil-wet or strongly oil-wet. Some
1,000molecules) so firmly thatth^ could notbe removed of the strongly oO-wet reservoirs were oil-wet because
by gasoline or various solvents. When tiiehydrocarbon of a bitumen coating. Note that the range of contactan
fihn was removed by firing the core, the film could be gles considered to be neutraUy wet is smaller than the
restored by soaking the cores in crude oil overnight. range given in Table' 1. This demonstrates the variation
Examples of otherreservoirs thatare generally recog from i»per to paper of the cutoff angles between the
nized as strongly oil-wet are the Bradford sandis of the different wetting states.
Bradford pool, Pennsylvania, and the Ordovician As discussed in more detail later, reservoir rock can
sands of the Oklahoma City field. More recently, change from itsoriginal, ^ngly water-wk condition by
Treiber etaL^ used the water advancing contact dngle adso^on ofpolar compounds and/or the d^sition of
to examine the wettability of 55 oil reservoirs. In this organic matter originally in die crude oil.Some
procedure, deoxygenated synthetic formation brine and crude oils make a rock oil-wetby dq>ositing a thick or-
dead anaerobiccrudes were tested on quartz and calcite gamc film on the mineral sur&ces. Othercrude oils con-
crystals at reservoir temperature. Contact angles (meas t^ polar compounds that pan beadsdrjM to make the
ured throughthe water) from 0 to 75** [0 to 1.3 rad] were rrck more oil-wet. Some of these comiwunds are suffi
deemed,water-wet; from 75 to 105® [1.3 to 1.83 rad], ciently water soluble to pass dux>ugh the aqueous phase
intermediate wet;andfrom105to 180"[1.83to 3.14^], to the rock.
oil-wet. As summarized in Table 1,37 of the reservoirs
tested were classihed as oil-wet, 3 were of ihtermediate F^ctioiial Wettability. The realization that rock wetta-
wettabilily, and 15 were water-wet. Most of the oil-wet bUity canbe altered by adsoibable crude oilcomponents
reservoirs were mildly oil-wet, with a contact angle be led to die idea diat heterogeneoils forms ofwettabil^ exist
tween 120 and 140** [2.1 and 2.4 rad]. Of die carbonate in resovoir rode. Generally, the internal surfaceof reser
reservoirs included, 8% were water-wet, 8% were inter voir rock is composed of many miner^ with different
mediate, and 84% were oil-wet. Most of the carbonate surface chemistry and a^rption proi)erties, which may
reservoirs were from the west Texas area, however, so leadto variations in.wettability. Fractional wettability—
there is a geographical bias in the data. also called heterogeneous, spotted, or Dalmation
Treiber et al. cautioned that these findings could not wettability—was' propo^ by Brown and Fatt" and
be consideredrepresentative of a truly randomsampling others. In fractional w^biiity, crdde oil compo
of petroleum reservoirs. The sampleswerebiasedberause nents are strongly adirorbed in ceit^ areas of the rock,
(1) all were operations for the same company, (2) most so aportion of^e rock isstrongly oil-wet, while the rest
were beingconsidered for sometypeof flooding, and (3) isstrongly water-wet. Note that this iscdnoq>tually differ
some of the reservoirs had demonstrated unusual ^ entfrom intermediate wettability, which asieiimwe thqt all
havior. A fouhh consideration is how much the use of portions oftherock surface have a sli^tbut equal prefer
degassed fluids rather than the real formation fluids af- ence to being wetted by water or oil.
1126
Joaroal of Petrolomi technology, October 1986
 Mix^d Wettability. Salathiel^^ introduced the term
mixed wettability for a special type of fractional wetta-
bility in which the oil-wet surfaces form continuous paths
through the larger pores/^'^ The smaller pores remain
water-wet and contain no oil. The fact that all of the oil
in a mixed-wettability core is located in the larger oil-
wet pores causes a sniall but finite oil permeabUity to ex
ist down to veiy low oil saturations. This in turn permits
the drainage of oil during a waterflood to coiitinue until
very low oil saturations are reached. Note that the main
distinctionbetweenn^ed and fractionalwettabiliQr is that
the latter impliesneither specificlocationsfor the oil-wet
surfaces nor continuous oil-wet paths.
Salathiel visualizes the generation of mixed wettability
in the following manner. When oil initially invaded an
priginally water-wet reseivoir,it displaced waterfromthe
largerpores,wlule thesmaller poresremained water-filled
becauseof capillary forces. A mixed-wettability condi
tion occurred if the oil deposited a layer of oil-wet or
ganic material only on those rock surfaces that were in
direct contact with the oil but not on die brine-covered
surfaces. Oil-wet deposits would not be formed in the
small water-filled pores, allowingthem to remain water-
wet. The question that Salathiel did not address was how
the oil first came into direct contact with the rock. As the
oil moves into the larger pores, a thin layer of interstitial
water remaii^ on the pore walls, preventingthe oil firom
contacting the rock. Under certain coiiditions, however,
the water film separating the crude and the mineral sur
face can rupture. Hall et al. and Melrose^ recently
developed a theoretical modd for the stability of these
thin watfir films that shows that the water films become
thinner and thinner as more oil enters the rock. The water
film is stabilized by electrostatic forces arisingfrom the
electrical double layers at the oil/water and water/rock
interfaces. As the water film thickness is further re
duced, a critical thickness is reached where the water films
in the larger pores become unstable. The fihns rupture
and are displaced, allowing oil to contact the rock.
Native-State, Cleaned, and Restored-State Cores.
Cores in three different states of preservation are used
in core analysis: native state, cleaned, and restored state.
The best results for multiphase-type flowanalyses are ob
tained with native-state cores, where alterations to the wet
tability of the undismrbed reservoir rock are minunized.
In this set of papers, the term "native-state** is used for
any core that was obtained imd stored by methods that
preserve the wettability of the reservoir. No distinction
is made between cores taken with oil- or water-based
fluids, as long as the native wettability is maintained. Be
aware, however, that some papers distinguish on the ba
sis of drUling fluid (e.g., see Treiberet al ^). In these
papers, "native-state** refers only to cores taken with a
suitable Oil-filtrate-typedrilling mud, which maintains the
original connate water saturation. "Fresh-state*' refers
to a core with unaltered wettabiliQr that was taken with
a water-base drilling mud that contains no compoundsthat
can alter core wettability. Here, the term native-state is
used for both cases.
:The second type of core is the cleaned core, where an
attempt is made to remove all the fluids and adsorbed or
ganic material by flowing solvents through the cores.
Cleaned cores are usually strongly water-wet and should
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
TABLE 2-DISTRIBin-ION OF CARBONATE
RESERVOIR WETTABILITIES"
Contact
Angle Percent of
(degrees) Reservoirs
Water-wet 0to80 8
Intermediate wet 80 to 100 12
Oikvet 100 to 160 65
Strongly ol^wet 160 to 180 15
be used only for such measurements as porosity and air
permeability where the wettability will not affect the
results.
The third type ofcore istheresbred-state core, inwhich
the native wettability is resto^ by a three-step process.
The core is cleaned and then saturated with brine, fol
lowed by crude oil. Finally, the core is aged at reservoir
temperature for about 1,000 hours. The methods used to
obtain the three different types ofcores will be discussed
in more detail later.
Factors Affecting the Original
Reservoir Wettability
The original strong water-wetness of most reservoir min
eralscan be alteredby theadsorption of polarcompounds
and/or the deposition of onsanic matter that was origi
nally in the crude The surface-
active agents in the oil are generally believed to be polar
compounds that contain oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sul-
fijj. 36,37,40,41,ss,S6,64-«8 These compounds contain both
a polar and a hydrocaiton end. The polar end adsorbs
on the rock surface, exposing the hydrocarbon end and
making the surfscemoreoil-wet. Experiments haveshown
thatsomeof thesenaturalsur&ctants are sufficiently solu
ble m water to adsorb onto the rock sur&ce after passing
through a thin layer of water.
In addition to the oil composition, the degree to which
the wettability is alteredby thesesurfiictants is also-deter
minedby the pressure, temperature,mineralsur&ce, and
brine chemistry, inclu^gionic composition and pH. The
effectsof pressureand temperature be discussedlater
in thesection on experimental conditions. Hie importance
ofthe mineral surfiice isshown by die contact-an^e meas-
uranents discussedearlier, in which a large majority
of the carbonate reservoirs tested were oil-wet, while
many ofthe sandstone reservoirs were water-wet. Several
researchers have found that some pohr compounds af
fect the wettability of sandstone and carbonate surfoces
in different The chemistry of the
brine can also alter the wettability. Multivalent cations
sometimes enhance the adsorption of surfactants on the
mineral surface. The brine pH is also important
indetenn^tion of the wettability and other interfacial
properties of the crude/brine/rock system. In alka
line flooding, for example, alkaline chemicalscan react
with some crudes to produce surfactants that alterwetta-
Siirface>Active Compounds in Crude Oil. While the
surface-active components of crude are found in a wide
range of petroleum firactions,^* they are more prevalent
in the h^vier fractions of crude, such as resins and
1127
 asphaltenes. These surfactants are believed to be polar Several researchers^'*^® analyzed wettability-altering
compoundsthat contain oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur. compounds extracted from cores. Jennings^® removed a
Theoxygen compounds, which are usually acidic, include portionof the wettability-altering compounds by extract-
the phenols and a large number of different carboxylic mg a non-water-wet core with toluene, followed by a chlo-
acids. Seifert and Howells®^ showed that the car roform/methanol mbcture. An imbibition test showed that
boxylic acids are interfacially active at alkaline pH. The some of the wettability-altering compounds had been re
sulfUr compounds include the sulfides and thiophenes, moved during the second extraction because the core was
with smaller amounts of othercompounds, such as mer- more water-wet. The material removed during the sec
captans and polysulfides. The nitrogen compounds, ondextraction contained poiphyrins andhigh-molecular-
are generally either basic or neutral and include carba- weight partiffinic and aromatic compounds.
zoles, amides, pyridenes, quinolines, and porphy- . Denel^ et used adistillation process to separate
40,87-90 •njg poiphyrins can fonn inter&cially active crude oils into fractions ofdifferent moleculki' weight.
metal/poiphyrin conq>lexes witha numberof different me A clean, dry core was saturated with the crude oil frac
tals, indu^g nickel, vanadhmi, iron, cq^, zinc, titani tion to be tested, then aged for 24 hours. Ah imbibition
um, calcium, and magnesium.'*"®^ test based on the relative rate of imbibition was used to
Because the surfactants in crude oil are composed of determine the wettability alteration. The original
a largedimiber of veiycomplex chemicals thatrepresent crude oil and die heaviest residue left after distillation had
only a small fraction ofthe crude, identifying which com the grratest effect onthe wettability; they were the only
pounds are in^rtant in altering the wettability has not fluids diatmade therockoil-wet. Thisimplies diata con
been pi^ble.^*^ In addition, attempts to correlate hulk siderate portion ofthe sur&ctants inthe crude oil had
crude properties with theability ofthecrude to alter wet- a laig<s molecularweight. Manyof the lower-molecular-
tabiUty have been unsuccessful. McGhee et aL^ satu weight fractiotts, however, also decreased the water-
rated Bereacores with brine, oilflooded them to IWSwith wettability, demonstrating that the surfactants in crude
different crudes, then incubated them at 140**? [eO^C] have a broad range of molecular weights. Cuiec'^ ob
for 1,000 hours to allow thewettability to reach eqiiilib- tained similar results. Note that Denekas etnl and Cuiec
rium. TheU.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) wettability in both used drycores and that adsorption ofthewettability-
dex was then measured and compa^ with bulk properties altering compounds wouldprobably have beenalteredif
of the crude. They found no corrdation between the the cores contained bi^ during the aging process.
USBM index andinter&cial tension (EFT), organic acid A number of researchers haveexamine theinterfecially
contend percent nitrogen, or percent sulfur ofthe crude. active materials that are concentrated at the oil/water in
Cuiec®® measured 5ie Amott wettability index of terface. (jenerally, these materials can also be adsorbed
restored-state cores and found no correlation between wet on the rock surface to alterwettability. 37.84.99-102
tability and amounts of acids, bases, aromatics, resins, tell and Niederhauser^^ managed to separate these ma
nitrogen, or sulfur. In all cases, when the restored-state terials from the crude oil and found that they formed a
cores were water-wet, the crudes hadlow asphalteneand hard, black, nonciystalline substance that was asphaltic
sulfur contents. However, otherlow-asphaltrae and low- in nature.
sulfiir crudes rendered cores neutrally or oil-wet.
Experiments that determined the general natureof the Adsorption Throu^ Water Films. Experiments have
surfactants and thecrude oil fractions in which tfiey are shown that natural surfactants in crude are oftm suffi
concentrated without attempting to determine exactly ciently soluble in water to adsorb onto the rock surface
whichcompounds causewettability alteration havebeen dfter passing through a thin layer ofwater.
moresuccessful. Johansen and Dunning^'^ found that Measurements comparing asphaltene adsprption in cores
asphaltenes were responsible for changing somecrude- with and without watershowthat in many cases a water
oil/water/glass systems from water-wet to oil-wet. The film will reduce butnotcompletely inhibit asphaltene ad
system was oU-wet when the crude was used but water- sorption. Because the water and aspl^tenes will
wet when the deasphalted crude was used. The addition coadsofb, however, thewaterfilmmaya^ter the detailed
of a very small amount (0.25%) of the whole crude to adsorption tnechaniCTn.*^'.'^ Lyutiii and Bunfyn^ found
thedeasphalted cruderestored the oil-wettingness of the thattheasphaltene adsoi^^on from Arlanciiidein an un-
system. Donaldson and Crocker^ and Donaldson^ consolidated sandpack was about 80^ ofthe dry value
measured wettability alteration caused by the polarcom at a watersaturation of 10%PV, decreasing to40% when
poundsextractedfrom several differentmineraloils. First, the water saturation was increase to.30% W. Berezin
thewettability of a series of uncontaminated Berea plugs etaL^ examined the adsorption oftisphalten^ and res
was measured with brine and a refined mineral oil. The ins from crude onto cleaned sandstone cores. With Tui-
.average USBM wettability index was 0.81,-or strongly ma^ crude, a water saturation of Mboiit I7%.reduced the
water-wet. After cleaning, the USBM wettability index adsorptionJ)y about a factor of three. With two other
of the plugs was measured with brine and a 5% mixture crudes, a water saturation of about 20% completely in
of the extracted polar organic compounds in the refined hibited the adsorption. Such complete inhibition by the
minerd oil. The plugs were significantly less water-wet, water film would be expected in reservoirs that remain
withUSBM wettability indices ranging from0.45 (water- water-wet, with no significantadsorptionfrom the crude.
wet) to —0.09 (neutrally wet), demonstrating that polar Reisbeig and Doscher®® aged clean glass slides in
compounds in crude can alter the wettability. Note that crude oil floating «bove brine and observed the forma- /
there was apparently no aging time with the polar com tionof oil-wet fihns. The formation and stability of the
poundsin the plugs, so equilibrium wettabilities may be oil-wet film on the slide was observed by lowering the
more strongly oil-wet. slideintothe brineand observing whethbr the brine dis-
1128 Joumal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
placedall of the crude oil from the slide. They first aged
a cleanglassslidein crudeand found thata film, deposited
over several days, made the slide moderately oii-wet.
They modified the experiment by immersing the slidein
water before aging it in crude. Surprisingly, the oil-wet
film formed much more rapidly. When a NaCl solution
was used instead of water, Ae slide also became oil-wet,
but it was necessary to age the slide for a longer period
of time.
Sandstone and Carbonate Surfaces. The Qrpes of min
eral sur&ces in a reservoir are also imrartant in deter-
mming wettability. Both Treiber cfa/. ^ and Chilingar
and Yen^ found that carbonate reservoirs are typically
more oil-wet than sandstone ones. Two other sets of ex
perimentsshowthat the mineralsurfaceinteractswiththe
crude oil composition to determine wettability. The first
set examinesthe adsorption onto silica and caibonate sur
faces of relatively simple polar compounds; the second
set examines the adsorption of crude.
Simple Polar Compounds. When the effects of brine
chemistiy are remov^, silica tends to adsorb simple or
ganic bases, while the carbonates tend to adsorb simple
organic acids. This occurs because silica norm^y
has a negatively charged, weakly acidic sur&ce in water
near neutral pH, while the carbonates have positively
charged, weakly basic surfaces.
These surfaces will preferentially adsorb compounds
of the opposite polarity (acidity)by an acid/base reaction.
Wettability of silica will be more strongly affected by the
organic bases, while the carbonates will be more strong
ly affected by the organic acids. This was found to be the
case in experiments on the adsorption and wettabiliQr al
teration of relatively simple polar compounds on sand
stone and carbonates. The compounds were dissolved in
a nonpolar oil, and the contact angle of the oil/water/min
eral system was measured on an initially clean, strongly
water-wet crystal surface. Generally, adsorption and wet
tability alteration occurred with basic compounds on die
acidic silica surfaces and acidic compound on the basic
carbonate surfaces. Acidic compounds had very little ef-
fiect on silica, and basic compounds had little effect on
the carbonates. Note, however, diat
most ofthe adsorbed compounds changed the wettability
only from strongly to mildly water-wet, rather than to
oil-wet.
The acidic compounds that adsorbed and altered the ' quartz sands and sands containing both quartz and car
wettability of the carbonates in preference to silica inbonate. They found that the adsorption on the quartz sands
cluded naphthenic acid^^'*^ and a number of carboxyl- was as much as an order of magnitude lower than the ad
ic acids (RCOOH), including caprylic (octanoi^,'^
palmitic (hexadecanoic),^^ stearic (octadecanoic),
and oleic (cis-9-octadecanoic) acids. Basic compounds
that adsorbed on the acidic silica surfaces included iso-
quinoline^^ and octadecylamine [CH3(CH2)i7NH2].'®®*^°®
Cram"^ and Morrow et al. ^ examined the adsorption
and wettability alteration on quartz and dolomite ofa num
ber ofrdatively low-moleci^-weight conqx>unds found
in crude oils. Basic nitrogen compounds gave advancing
contact angles up to 66** [I.IS rad] (water-wet), with
higher angles for quartz than dolomite. Sulfur compounds
tested provided angles of 40** [0.7 rad] or less with
no systematic differences between the two surfaces. The
contact angles either were stable or decreased with time
(i.e., the system became more water-wet). The acidic
Joumal of Peiioleum Technology, October .1986
oxygen compounds gave higher angles on dolomite than
quartz, up to 145® [2.5 rad] for octanoic acid
(CH3(CH2)6C00H] and up to 165° [2.9 rad] for laur-
ic acid [CH3(CH2)ioCOOH]. Note, however, that the
oxygen-containing acidic compounds appear to react
graduallywith the dolomite,so the contactanglesare un
stable and the system gradu^y becomes more water-wet.
Cram et al noted that none of the relatively simple com
pounds theytestedcouldcreatea stable, oU-wet surface.
Therefore, they concluded that the compounds responsi
ble for wettability iteration in crude were higher-weight
polar compounds and other portions of the asphaltenes
and resins.
Indiemoreconq)lex crude/brine/rock systems, themin
eral surface will not necessarily have a preference for
compounds of the oppositeacidity. The simple systenis
discussed here tested each rarfactant individually and re
moved the effects of brine chemistry. In the s^on on
brinechemistry,it will be shownthat multivalent cations
can promotethe adsorption of surfactants with the same
acidity as the surface. In addition, the adsorption of any
single surfactant in the crude might be enhanced or
depressed by the adsorption of other compounds^
Adsorption From Crude. A number of researchers
found differences in the adsorption of crude oil com
ponents onto dry sandstone and carbonate sur-
4i;72-74,i09.iro Denekas et al.^^ separated out the
acidic and basic organic compoundsfrom crude and test
ed them in initially clean, d^ cores by the method de
scribed earlier, lliey found that the wettability of
sandstone was altered by both the acidic and basic com
pounds, while the Umestone was more sensitiveto the ba
sic nitrogenous organic compounds.
Several experimenters have compared the adsorption
of asphaltenesfirom crude onto initially clean, dry sand-
packs composed of either quartz or disaggregated core
material that contained both quartz and caibonate.
They found that adsorption was greater in disaggregated
core material. Tumasyan and Babalyan measured the
adsorption of asphaltenes from Kyurovdag crude onto
quartz and cleaned, disaggregated Kyurovdag core ma
terial diat contained 10.4% caibonate. The adsorption was
about 8X10"^ mg/cm^ for quartz and about 18xlO~^
mg/cm^ for the corematerial, an increase of more than
a factor of two. Abdurashitov et al. ^ measured the ad
sorptionof asphaltenes onto similar-sizedfractionsof pure
sorption on the sands containing both minerals. These re
sults are very qualitative, however, because the specific
surface area of the quartz packs was lower than the area
of the mixed minerd sandpacks, which also reduces the
amount of adsorption.
Brine Chefnistryk The salinity and pH of brine are very
important in determining wettability because th^ strongly
affect the surface charge on the rock surface and fluid in
terfaces, wluch in turn can affect the adsorption of sur-
£iictants.^'*^ Positively charged, cationic surfactants
will be attracted to negatively charged surfaces, while
negatively charged, anionic surfactants will be attracted
topositively ch^^ surfaces. The surface charge ofsil
ica and calcite in water is positive at low pH, but nega-
1129
 tive athigh pH. Forsilica, the sur&ce becomes negatively
chareed when the pH is increased above about 2 to
3 7 83,105 while csdcite does not become negatively
charged until the pH is greater than about 8 to
9.5. As discussed in the previous section, sili
ca is negatively chargednear neutral pH andtendsto ad
sorborganic acids, while calcite is positively charged and
tends to adsorb organic bases. Calcite wiUadsorb cation-
ic surfEictants rather than anipnic surfactants, however,
if the pH of the solution in which it is immersed is in
creased above 9.
The pH also affects the ionization of the surface-active
organicacids and basesin the crude.^ In alkaline water-
flooding, a relatively inexpensive caustic chemical—
^ically sodium hyctoxide or sodium orthosilicate—is
addedto the injection water. The hydroxide ion reacts
withorganicacidsin acidiccrudeoilsto producesurfac
tants that alter the wettability and/or adsorb at the oil/brine
interface to lower IFT. Seifert and Howells'^ examined
the interfwiallyactivematerialsin a Californiacrude oil.
They found that the crude contained a large amoimt of
carboxylic acids that form soaps at alkaline pH.
Hie possibility of EORduringan alkaline flood dqjends
onthe pH and salinity ofdie br^, the acidity ofthe crude,
and the original wettability of ^ system. Cooke
etal.^ discussed the effects of salinity onwettability in
alkaline floods where the soapsare formed by the inter
action of the alkaline water with the acidic crude oil. In
relatively fresh water, the so^s thatare formed are solu
ble in water, promoting water-wetness. If the system is
initially oil-wet, EOR may occur by a wettability rever
sal from oil-wet to water-wet. *7»2o.n4,ii5
hand, in high-salinity systems, EORmayoccuras a re
sult of a water-wet-to-oil-wet wettability reversal. As the
salinityis increased, the soaps becomealmostinsoluble,
adsorb on the rock surfaces, and promote oil-
wetting.®**^^ If the system is initially water-wet, Cook
et al. statethat EORin a highlysalinesystemmayoccur
by a water-wet-to-oil-wet wettability reversal mech
anism.
In silica/oil/brine systems, multivalent metal cations
in the brine can reduce the solubility of the crude sur
factants and/or promote adsorption at the mineral sur
faces, causing the system to become more oil-
wet.6.34,77,79,8T.ii6.ii7 Multivalent metal ions that have
altered the wettability of such systems include Ca***^,
Mg'*"^, Cu"*"^, Ni"*"^, andFe"*"^. Treibere/oi.^ exam-'
ined the effects of trace metal ions in the brine on die wet
tability. They measured the contact angles on quartz of
dead anaerobic crudes in deoxygenated synthetic forma
tion brine and found that as little as 10 ppm of Cu or
Ni could change the wettability from water-wet to oil-
wet. Brown and Neustadter"^ placed crude oil droplets
in a contact-angle apparatus filled with distilled water.
They found that the addition of less than 1 ppm of Ca
or Mg would alter the wettability, making the system
more oil-wet. The addition of trace amounts of Fe'^' also
changed the wettability with some of the crudes tested.
These multivalent ions have also been shown to increase
the oil wetness of soils stabilized with cut-back
asphalt. (Cut-backasphalt is an a^halt treated with
an inexpensive solvent, such as gasoline, to reduce the
viscosity.) Hancock**^ treated several strongly water-wet
soils with cut-back asphalt. He found that the oil wetness
1130
of the soil after the asphalttreatmentwasgreatlyincreased
by pretreating the soil with a solution of ferric or alumi
num sulfate. ^
Morrow et al. aged glass slides in Moutray crude, ^
washed the slides to remove the bulk crude, and then used
isooctane and distilled water to measure the water-
advancing angle. They found that the wettability strong
ly depended on the amount of trace ions in the system.
Whenthe glassslide was extremelyclean, no residual fihn
was deposited by the crude, and the system was water-
wet. Next, they treated the glass with ferric (Fe"*'^) or
other transition metalionsbeforeexposing it to the crude.
They obtained contact angles up to 120 to 140** [2.1 to
2.4 rad], with the angle dependent on the choice of ion
and its concentration.The ferric ion was particularly ef
fective in altering the wettability.
There appear to be two related reasons for the effects
of these multivalent ions on the wettability. First, they
can reduce the solubility of the surfactants in the crude
and brine, helping to promote oil-wetting.®***^ Second,
they behave as **activatoiis*' for the surfactants in th^
crude. **Activator** is a term used in the flotation indus
try for ions or compoundsthat, while not sur&ctantsthem
selves, enhance surfiEictant adsorption on the mineral
sur&ce andincrease the floatabUity. Generally, the acti
vators act like a bridge between the mineral surface and
the adsorbing surfactant, helping to bind the sur&ctant
tothe surface.^ Asshown previously, clean quartz has
a negatively charged surface and tends to adsorb (posi
tively charged) organic bases from solution. The (nega
tively charged) acids in solution will not adsorb on the
sur&ce because they will be repelled by the like charge
on the quartz surface. For example, clean.quartz is not
floated by fatty acids, indicating that the quartz remains
water-wet. At die proper pH conditions, however, the
wettability can be changed and the quartz can be floated
by the addition of sm^ amounts of many multivalent
metallic cations, including Ca"*"^, Ba"*"^, Cu"*"^, Al"*"^,
and fiQ+i n,T9^,im jhese ions adsorb on the quartz
sur&ce,providing positively chargedsitesfor the adsorp
tion of the fatty acids.
For examole, Gaudin and Chang''^ and Gaudin and
Fuerstenau^^ studied the adsorption of laurate ions on
quartz. When sodium laurate, CH3(CH2)ioCOONa, is
added to thewater,it dissociates intoa negatively charged
laurate ion and a positively charged Na*** ion. Because.
quartz develops a negative surface charge as a result of
the dissociation of H'*' ionsfrom the Si-OH groups on
the .silicasurface, the negatively charged laurate ion is
repelled from the negatively charged quartz surface.
Henceno adsorption occurs.However, adrarptionoccurs
whra, for example, divalent Ca"**^ or Ba*^^ ions are
added as the activator. These positive divalent ions can
adsorb on the surface, allowing the negatively charged
surfactant (in this case, the laurate ions) to adsorb in as-
sociatibnwith them. Researchers with other experimen
tal systems also state that divalent ions can bind to a
negatively chargedsurfactantto form a positive, cationic
surfactant/metal complex, which is then attracted to and
adsorbs on the negativelycharged quartz surface.
Clays. Several researchers have studied the adsorption
of asphaltenes and resins onto clays, and found that ad
sorption can make the clays more oil-wet.
Jotunal of Pttroleoni Tedmology, October 1986
 Stable monttnonllonite forming water-wet and neutrally wet (after cleaning) zones show

enik ?°u
^ unknown what caus^ th^^stdeaning
significant amounts of neutral wettability ofthis neutrally wet zoto

^z^3Sri=H £=f£HE%H«'
altCrmoHfSZ«ldT!,^SLS "ST™' '^' ^ "<*• ">»«« ^ ™% of tbe rock
form/acetone mixture *t^cted with achloro- airfecK. Itseems plausiblethat the chamositeclay renders

measured tteadsorption onto kaolinite ofasphaltenes dis- Artificial Variation of Wettability

solved mtoluene. The dry clay adsorbed a maximum of ac ua • ,
about 30 mg asphaltene/g clay The addition of 669, <l^nb^ previoiuly, a naUve-state core contains a
water to the clay reduced the adsorption to 13 mg/e In compounds that can adsorb
addition to reducing the adsorption the water film mv Possibly altenng the wettability during an ex-
alter the
cause thedetailed mwS^o7Sklte^^^^^
asphaltenes and water will coadsorb ^ For ex Ma"y«?«rchers have triedthe
artificially controlling to simplify
wettabilitytheirto
ample, in wntrast to Ws woric^^^v^^^^ value. The three methods most
Clementz found that the adsoiption of as^tenes onto "sedare (1) treatment ofaclean, dry core with
^ Berea cores in the presence of water did not reduce the chemicals, generally organochlorosilanes for
water sensitivity ofthe ifaniintto 104 Mndstone cores and naphthenic acids for carbonate cores;
C2) usmg sintered cores with pure fluids; and (3) adding
Non-Water-Wet Minerals. When aU ofthe surfece con- ^ fluids. Asintered teflon core with pure
^inants are carefully removed, most minerals, includ- ^ preferred method to obtain auniformly wet-
ing quartz, rarbonates. and sulfates, are stronely wettability ofthese cores is constant
water-wet. •»07.>24 p^on, flotation studies, however, a reproducible. The wettability of cores treated with
few minerals have been found that are naturally but weaUy ®^a®ochlorosUanes. naphthenic acids, or sur&ctants is
water-wet or even oU^wet. These minerals include sui- "if** variable because it also depends on such vari-
nir, graphite, talc, coai, and many sulfides. PyrophyUite ^ chemical used, the concentration, the treat-
and other talc-libe silicates (silicates with a sheet-like surface, and the brine pH. These
also neutrally wet to oil- **ave advantages, however, when heterogene-
wet. Tijgsg minerals are known tobe some- wettabiHty or wettabiUty alteration is studied.
what hydrophobic because air can beused to float them r\ ...
on water in froth flotation, implying alarge water/air/min- "fteatments. One
eral contact angle. Because tiiey are non-water-wet with ofmaking asandstone core uniformly non-water-
air, it is probable that they are also oil-wet w^ is to treat it with a Mlution containing an organo-
On the basis ofcore<leaning attempts in alimited num- ^^of^ilane compound. "3-139 variations of tiiis treat-
ber ofreservoirs, it appears Oat cores containing coal are fraction^v wetted
someumes naturally neutrally wet because tiiey can be ^ nuxed-wet cores. The or-
cleaned only to a neutraUy wet condition ratiii tiian a uf sUicon molecules with at-
strongly water-wet one.'29 Cuiec®® and Cuiec et "on-water-wet organicgroups, with
al.' cleaned unpreserved cores wiUi different solvents " ^isuaily
and then measured wettability. In four cases where cores ® y^ P**®nyl and n-0, 1, 2, or 3. These sub-
contained large amounts ofunextractable organic carbon hydroxyl (OH) groups on silicon
they were able to clean the cores only to neutral wettabill surfa^, eJcposmg the organic groups and ren-
ity. Wendel et al. "s deaned core from the Button reser- the surfaa wn-wato-wet. For exan^le, dimethyl-
voir contaminated witii an invert-oil-emulsion drillinB (CH3)2SiCl2 (Drifilm® orTeddol® ),
mud. Core from most zones mtiiis reservoir could be onAe outside oftiie silicate lattice ofglass,
cleaned to awater-wet state. However, in one zone that and <^ing CH, groups, which reduce
contained significant amounts ofcoal, tiie core was neu- «>"PO™ds in-
trally wet after cleaning. About 50% oftiie rock surface w ws trimetiiylchlorosi-
in the neutrally wet zone was covered by athin layer of ®wettability ofthe core is altered by flowing
organic matter less tiian 300 A[30 nm] tiiick. This layer wim h.l cbunpin. Phiups p««neum. Btmesvisg. ok.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
1131
a solution of the organosilane through it, allowing a suffi
cient time for the reactionto occur, and then flushing the
unreacted compound from the core. Some control of the
change in wettability can be achieved by variation in the
concentration of organosilane in the solution. For a com
plete description of the method, see Ref. 134.
In addition to uniformly treating cores, organochlorosi-
lanes are used to prepare fractionally wetted sand-
packs. Sand grains treated with organo-
chlorosilanes are mixed with untreated, water-wet sands.
The fraction of oil-wet surface is assumed to be the same
as the'fhiction of organochlorosilane-treated sand. One
problem, however, is that some of the organochlorosi-
lane is known to be transferred to the water-wet sand
grains, likely changing their wettability.^^ Another
method of obtaining fractional wettability is to form the
poirous medium from water-wet (glass) beads and oil-wet
(teflon) beads.
Mohanty andSalter*^^ have recently published a tech
niqueto generatemixed-wettabHiQr cores so that the large
pores have continuous water-wet surfaces, leaving the
small pores oil-wet. Note that in these cores, the wetta
bility is reversed from Salathiel's^^ mixed-wetts^ility
cores. Cleaned cores arefirst treated with organbsilanes
to render them uniformly oil-wet. The treated cores are
saturated with oil, flooded with heptadecane to displace
the oil, and then flooded with brine to ROS. Because the
core is oil-wet, the large pores are filled with brine, but
the small ones are filled with oil. Brine and heptade^e
may then be injected simultaneously to altier the fraction
of pores filled with oil or water. After the desired satura
tion is reached, the core is first placed in a cold water
bath(SO^F [lO^'C^) to freezedie hqjtadecane, thenan 11.S
pH.sodium hydroxide solution is injected to displace the
brine. MohanQr and Salter state that the alkaline solution
removesthe organosilanecoating from the larger, brine-
filled pores, leaving them strongly water-wet, while the
frozen heptadecane preventsany change in wettability in
the small oil-filled,oil-wetpores. Finally, die alkalineso^
lution is displaced with brine, and all ofthe fluids are re
moved, leaving a mixed-wettability core. After this
treatment, the cores imbibed both oU and water, indicat
ing that areas of the core were both water- and oil-wet.
Unfortunately, Mohanty and Salter did not test the cores
by oil flooding them to detemiinewhetherthey hada very
low water saturation after the injection of many PV*s of
oil. This would have verified the formation of continu
ous water-wet paths through the large pores, which would
be analogous to oil-wet paths in Salathiers cores.
One problem with organochlorosilanetreatments is diat
the wettability ofthe treated core varies dq)ending on such
variables as the organochlorosilane used, the concentra
tion. the treatment time, the time elapsed since the sur
face was treated, and the pH of the brine. No
dependable treatment has been reported for achieving a
given core wettability. Note that many organosilane-
treated cores are only neutrally to mildly oil-wet, instead
of strongly oil-wet. Coley et al. used Genend Elec
tric Co. silicone fluid No. 99 in concentrations ranging
fi'om 0.002 to 2.0% and were able to vary the contact
angle in glass capillaries only from 95 to 115" [1.7 to
2 rad]. Rathmell et al. found that cores treated with
dimethyldichlorosilane would still slowly imbibe water,
indicating that the cores were at most neutrally wet. In
1132
contrast, Newcombe et al. stated that contact angles
as large as 154** [2.7 rad] could be obtained for silica sur
faces treated with different concentrations of methylsilox-
ane polymer, but these contact angles tended to decrease
toward 90" [1.6 rad] as they, aged. Menawat et al.
treated sUica surfaces with various concentrations of four
differentorganochlorosilanes and obtainedcontactangles
from 75 to 160" [1.3 to 2.8 rad] with water and xylene
on the treated surfaces. Depending on the specific treat
ment, they found that the contact angle could gradually
increase or decrease as the ^stem aged. Because the wet
tability ofcores treated with organosilanes can range ^in
mildly water-wetto stronglyoil-wetdepending on the spe
cific treatment, the Amott or USBM method should be
used to determine the wettability of the treated core.
Quilon® treatments are another method that has been
used to alter the wettability of sandstone cores. Tiffin and
Yellig treated Berea cores with Quilon-C® to render
them uniformlyoU-wet. Workers at the Petroleum Recov
ery Inst. have used Quilon-S®, a related com
pound. The (^on confounds consistofa chrome
complex containing a hydrophobic fatty acid group in an
isopropyl alcohol solution. When (^on is injected into
the core, the molecules bind to the surface, expose the
&tty acid group, and render the rock surface oil-wet.
Note that wettability of the treated core probably varies,
depending on concentration, treatment time, etc., so it
should be measured with the USBM or Amott methods.
In many cases, the treated core is probably only neutral
ly to mildly oil-wet.
These treatments have been used on sandstone core with
the chemical binding to the silica surfaces. Organo
chlorosilane treatments, which adsorb on silica surfaces
by reacting with the hydrojtyl groups, are generally not
effective on carbonate surfaces."^'*®® A number of
researchers have used naphthenic acids to
render carbonate cores more oil-wet. The naphthenic
acids react with the calcium carbonate to form calcium
naphthenates, which are oil-wetting.*^ Note that
nafdidienicadds will not alter the wettability of sandstone
surfaces.
Sharma and Wunderlich;'^^ altered the wett^ility of
^rea plugs by saturating them with anasphaltic crude.
Diy plugs were vacuum-saturated with asphktic cniide oil,
then flushed with pentane, which tends to precipitate
asphaltenesonto the pore walls. The pentane was re
movedin a vacuum, leavingbehind a layer ofasphaltenes.
The plugs probablyhad mbced w^bility after treatment;
both oiland water would imbibe spontaneously. ^ Anad
vantage of this method is that it uses compounds found
naturally in the reservoir and might be a more realistic
treatment than the other treatments discussed above. Note,
however, that it is necessary to verify that the crude is
conqtatiblewith the pentane because some crudes will plug
the core when pentane is injected.
Artificial Cores. Several researchers have used artificial
cores and pure fluids to control wettabUity. The uniform
composition of the core and the absence of surfactants
combine to give a constant, uniform, and reproducible
wettability. The most popular material for the artificial
.core has been polytetrafluoroethylene (teflon). Stegemeier
and Jessoi'^' us^ porous packs ofteflon particles. More
recent experiments have used consolidated teflon
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
 cores, which are prepared by compressing teflon wet when water containing a mild acid is injected. The
powder and sintering it at elevated temperatures to most conunonly used amines have been hexyl^ne and
produce a consolidated core. Mungan*®^ completely n-octylamine. Mungan measured the water-advancing
describes the process. Lefebvre du Prey has alw us^ contact angle on a silica surface using water, n-
sintered stainless steel and alumina cores. hexylamine, and a refined oil. The contactangle with no
Teflonis preferredfor two reasons: it is chemically inert amines present was about 60® [1 rad], or water-wet. As
and has a low surface energy. Most minerals found the concentration ofamines was increa^, the contact an
inr^e^oir rock have a high surface energy, soalmost glegradually changed to about pO® [2.1 rad], or mildly
all liquidswill spread on and wet them againstair. The oil-wet. Inaddition toaltering thewettability, theamines
wettabUity ofsuch high-energysolids must be controlled partition between the oil and water and lower IFT.
with either adsorbed fihns on the solid sur&ce or surfac
tants in the fluids. Bothof these methods raise the prob
lem of changes in the wettability during the e^qperiment Atteration of the Original Wettability
as a result of adsorption/desoiption phenomena. On the As mentioned previously, alterations m wettability can
other hand, the surface energy of teflon is low enough afifect the resultsof mostcore analysed; Ideally, theseanal
that a wide range ofcontact angles can beobtained with' yses should be run with core wettability that is identical
various combinations of pure fluids that do not contain to the wettability of the undisturbed reservoir rock. Un
sur&ctants. The use ofpure fluidswith teflonalso avoids fortunately, manyfectorscan significantly alter the wet
difficulties withcontact-angle hysteresis associated with tability ofthe core. These factors can be divided into two
adsorption/desorption equilibrium and the problems as- general categories: (1) those that influence core wettabil
socia^ with contact angle and IFT aging phenomena. ity before testing, such as drilling fluids, packaging,
Thisis discussed m moredetail in Ref. 1. Many experi preservation, and cleaning; and (2) those that influence
ments in teflon cores use air or N2 and various fluids'to wettability during testing, such astest fluids, temperature,
vary the contactangle. Contact angles from 0 to 108® [0 and pressure.
to 1.9 rad] can be obtained by the properchoice of liq Thewettability of a corecanbe alteredduring thedrill
uid/gas pairs.For example, an air/water/teflon sys ing process by the flushing actions ofdrilli^fluids, par-
tem has a contact angle through the water of 108** [1.9 ticularlv if the-fluid contains surfectants*^*'^ or has a
rad]. Lefebvre du Prey*®' used mixtures of water, p}]77.ii4.i76 different from that of the reservoir fluids.
glycerol, glycol, andalcohols to represent thew^r phase The wettability may also bechanged bythe pressure and
andmixtures ofpurehydrocarbons fortheoilphase. Con temperature drop t^t occurs as the core isbrought to the
tact angles through the oil phase of from 0 to 168" [0 to surface. This^on expels fluids, particulvly the light
2.9 rad] were reported for his teflon, steel, and alumina ends, and changes the spatid distribution of the fluids.
cores. Inaddition, asphalten^ and othei- heavy ends may deposit
on the rock su^tc^, making them more oil-wet. The tech
niques used in handling, packaging, and preserving the
Surface-Active Agents. The use ofclean corcs and pure core can also alter the wettability through a loss of light
fluids with various concentrations of a single giirfacmnt ends,deposition of heavy ends,a^ oxidation. Thelabo
is the third way that researchers have controlled the wet ratoryproceduresfor cleaningand preparingthe core can
tability of cores. Owens and Archer^^ used barium change thewettability by altering theamount andtypeof
dinonyl sulfonate in the oil and reported stable contact material adsorbed on the rock surfrtce.
angle^p to 180® [3.1 rad] on a quartz crystal. Morrow Factors thatcadalterwettability during testing include
etal. ^ were unable to reproduce this work, finding a the test tempeiiiture and pressure. Generally, cores run
strong time dependence for thecontact angle. Th^ tried at atmospheric conditions are more oil-wet than those run
to control thewettability with octanoic acid, obtaining an at reservoir conditions because of the reduction in solu
gles from 0 to 15S® [0to2.7rad] ondolomite. They found bility of wettability-altering compounds. An additional
that the wettability could be niaintained for less than a fkctor influencing the wettability is the choice of test
day, however, after which the system became increasingly fluids: ceitain inineral oilscan alterthewettability. Core
water-wet as the octanoic acid slowly reacted with the an^yses are sometimes run with air/brine orair/mercu
dolomite. ry inplace ofoiland brine. These analyses implicitly as
A number of researchers 17.26,170-174 |^yg gnunes, sume that wettability effects are unimportant.
R-NH2, to smdy EOR causedby wettability alterationin Currently, direedifferent typesof cores are used in core
laboratory waterfloods. Wettabilityreversal from oil-wet analysis: (1) the native-state core, where everyeffort is
to water-wet and from water-wet to oil-wet are two of made to maintain the wettability of the in-situ rock; (2)
the proposed mechanisms for enhanced recovery during the cleaned core, where tiie intent is to remove all of &e
alkaline waterflooding.''"* In these laboratory smdies, adsorbed compounds from the rock and to leave the core
clean core, a refined oil, and a brine containing amines strongly wflter-wet;.and (3) the restored-state core, where
were used. The wettabilitywas reversed by changingthe the coreisfirst cleaned and then returned toitsoriginal
pH from alkaline to acidic. When the pH was alkaline, wettability. Thesedefinitions are used in the majority of
the amine group physically adsorbed on the rock surface, ^ more recent literature. However, insome papers, par
exposing the hydrocarbon chain to make the surface oil- ticularly older ones, the term restoi^-state is used for
wet. The wettabilitywas altered when the pH became what are actually cleaned cores (e.g., see Craig''). The
acidic because the amines formed water-soluble salts that work with native- and restored-state core is at either am
raipidly desorbed from the rock surfaces, leaving them bient or reservoir temperahire andpressure, while cleaned
water-wet. Hencea core that is oil-wet b^omes water- cores are usually tested at ambient temperature.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986 1133

 Native-State Core
Coring. In a native-state (fresh) core, every precaution
is takento minimize changes from the undisturbed reser
voir wettability condition, startingwhenthe core is first
flushed bythedrilling mud. In particular, a mud with sur
factants or a pH that differs greatly from the reservoir
fluids must be avoided. Oil-based-emulsion muds and
othermuds containing siir&ctants, caustics, mudthinners,
organic corrosion inhibitors, andlignosulfonates must be
avoided. Note that, while theyprobably exist, no
— V ^ • •• • smvmmv m m v w A VWWS W
that can preserve the reservoir wettability. J'^tiTr.ns
Threedifferent coring fluids for obtaining native-state
core have been recommended: (1) synthetic formation
brine, (2)unoxidized lease crude oil, or 0) a water-based*
mud with a minimum of additives. Bobek et al. rec
ommend coring with brine and no additives. Ifthis is not
possible, a water-based mud containing only bentonite,
carboxymethylcellulose, rock salt, and barite should be
used. This is recommended becausethey found that this
would notalter thewettability ofstix)ngly water-wet cores.
Note,however, thatthecarboxymediyl cellulose mayalter
the wettability of oil-wet cores, rendering them more
water-wet. Ehrlich and Wygal"' recommend a
synthetic formation brine containing CaCl2 powderfor
fluid loss control and noother additives. Mungan^^ rec-
onmiends coring with lease crude oil. Note that there are
two possible problems with the use of crude oil: (1) it
is flanunable, and (2)surfactants can be formed by oxi
dation of the crude, which could alter the •wetta
bility.^**®®
Unfortunately, veiylittle work hasbeen publisted about
theeffects ofindividual drilling mud conqxinente onwet-
t£^ility, particularly for oil-wet cores. Burkfaardt et aL
examin^ the effects ofmud filtrate flushing on restored-
state cores and found no significant effects. Unfortunate
ly, thecores were incontact with thecrude oil foronly
12to 16hours, so it is doubtfiil that the wettability was
restored before testing.
Bobek et al, tested several different drilling mud
components used in water-base muds on both water-wet
andoil-wet plugs. Thedrilling mudcomponents to betest
ed were dis^lved in or leached with distilledwater; dien
the resulting solution was filtered. Concentrationsof the
compounds were chosen to duplicate those encountered
inthefield. Water-wet limestone andsandstone plugs were
saturatedwith,the test solutionand wettability altoation
monitored by the imbibition method. Asdiscussed earli
er, they found that rock salt, carboxymethyl cellulose,
bentonite, and barite had no effect on the wettability of
these initially water-wet plugs. Starch, lime, tetrasodium
phosphate, and calcium lignosulfonate alter^ the wetta
bility of the sandstone and/or limestone plugs.
Drilling components that did not affect the water-wet
plugs were tested on oil-wet sandstone plugs. The dry,
initially water-wet plugs were made oil-wet before test
ing by saturation with Elk Basin crude and aging for one
day. Note^t becauseof the short durationof theaging,,
thewettability maynothaveb^ in equilibrium. Theaged
cores were flushedwith a drillingmud componentfiltrate;
then the wettability was measured by the imbibition
method. Salt did not affect the wettability, while carb
oxymethyl cellulose made the plugs more water-wet
(barite was not tested). Bobek et al found that the pH
1134
of the filtrates was an importantfactor in wettability al
teration. The original bentonite filtrate changed the wet
tability from oil-wet .to water-wet. When the pH was
lower^ into the neutral oracidic range, however, no wet
tability reversal occurred.
Sharmaand Wunderlich measured the wettability al
teration caused by different drilling mud components in
water-wet and oU-wet Berea plugs. The oil-wet Berea
plugswereprepared by treatment withan asphaltic crude
and pentane, as discussed previously. Dry plugs were
saturated with brine, injected with 10 to 12 PV's of the
drillingfluid component,aged for 15hours, then flushed
with 5 to 6 PV*s of brine. Wettabilitywas measured af
ter contanoination by a combined USBM/Amott method
developed by Sharmaand Wunderlich and compared
withtte wettability of controlsaiiq>les. The drilling com
ponents tested included bentonite, carboxymethyl cellu
lose, Dextrid® (an organic polymer), Drispac® (a
polyanionic cellulose polymer), hydroxyethylcellulose,
pregelatinized starch, and xanthan gum. These compo
nentsare generallycon^dered relativelybland, with only
small effects on the wettability.None of the components
affectedthe wettability ofthe water-wetplugs. However,
all of thecomponents, withtheexception of the bentonite
filtrate, made the oil-wetplugs significantly less oil-wet.
Thisindicates the needfor fintherresearchon accq>table
drillings muds for obtaining native-state core.
Several researchers have attempted unsuccessfully to
find suitablecommercially available oil-basedmuds for
obtaining native-state core. All of the oil-based
drillmg mud filtrates tested made water-wet cores more
oil-wet. Unfortunately, none of the reports identify the
specific drilling mud components used.
Core P&ckagiiig and Preservation. Once the core is
brought to the surface, it must be protected from wetta
bilityalteration causedby the loss of light endsor depo
sition and oxidation of heavy ends. On exposure to air,
sut»tanoes incrudecanrapidly oxidize tofonnpolarprod
ucts that are surfactants, altering the wettabili-
,y.34,73,103.115.175.181.182 addition, a thick oU-wet
residuefrom tiiecrude will be deposited on the rock sur-
&ce if the core is allowed to dry out. To preventwetta
bility alteration, Bobek et a/. recommended two
alternative packaging procedures thatare now generally
usedfor native-state cores. The first is to wrap the cores
at the wellsitein polyethylene or polyvinylidene film and
thenin aluminum foil. The wr^iped cores are thensealed
with a thick layer of paraffin or a special plastic sealer
designed to exclude oxygen and prevent evaporation. The
second, preferred method is to immerse the cores at the
wellsite in deoxygenated formation or synthetic brine in
a glass-lined steel or plastic tube, which is then sealed
to prevent leakage and the entrance of oxygen. Imbibi
tion wettability tests showed that the wettability of core
packaged by eitherof these two methods was unchanged
from the wettability measured at the wellsite. Instead of
deoxygenated brine, Mungan*^ recommended that the
cores be cut and stored in degassed lease crude oil. Mor
gan andGordanand McGhee etal.^ recommended
that the cores be stored in their wettingfluid, either for
mation brineor crudeoil. Thewettability would bedeter
mined by an imbibition test at the wellsite. Finally, note
that cores taken in a rubber sleeve, fiberglass, or PVC
Journalof Petroleum Technology, October 1986
 TABLE 3—EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO AIR AND PARTIAL DRYING ON
native-state core

Number Average Average

of Cores Displacement- Dispiacepoent-
Tested Description by-Water Ratio by-Oil Ratio
2 - Native state 0.97 0.00
3 Exposed to air at
70 to 100®F for 1 day 0.63 0.00
2 Exposed to air at
750F for 60 days 0.42 0.00
4 Exposed to air at
225«F for 7 days 0.18 0.00

^^pbttimd by UM of (ho Amon wttUMIIty ttst, rathw^tito oora from OH Zone B.. Staffing Couffiy,

linercanbepreserved if the endsare capped andsealed.
A number of experiments have demonstrated that ex
posure to air and diying can alter the wettabiliQr of core.
As discussed earlier, Treiber et al. ^ measured the wet-
tability of SO reservoirs using deo^grgenated synthetic for
mation brine and anaerobic crude. In some cases, the
contact angle showed that the reservoir was water-wet.
For some of those crudes, exposure to oxygen changed
the wettabiliQr to oil-wet. Bartell and Niederhauser
studied interfacially active materialsin crude, whichcon
centrate and form solid films at the oil/water inter&ce.
These materialscan also be adsorbedon the rock sur&ce,
rendering it oil-wet. Crudes and brines were obtained and
stored withoutexposure to oxygen. Most of these crudes
showed verylittle interfacial activity. Onexposure toair,
the crudes developed moderate-to-strong film-forming
tendencies, while the oil/waterIFT was lowered by as
much as 50%, indicating thatsurfactants wereformed by
oxidation of the crude.
Richardson et al. stored core from a mixed-
wettability reservoir^' using four different methods. Ox Probably the greatest, uncontrollable problem with
idation and drying of the core were prevented with the native-state coreis thealteration of wettability as thecore
firsttwomethods: (1)corewrapped in foilandsealed in
paraffin and (2) corestored inevacuated (deoxygenated)
formation water.The othermethods were (3)corestored
in aerated formation water and (4) core stored in cloth
core bags. The cores were oilflocided with kerosene to oil-wet.The decrease in temperature will also
IWS and then waterflooded. The average ROS for the decrease the solubility of some wettability-altering com
samples protected from oxidation and diying (MeUiods
1 and 2) was about 13%; for the samples submerged in
aeratedwater, about24%; and for the samples storedin
core bags, about 25%.
Bobek etal. used theimbibition method to compare
the wettability of native-state cores at the wellsite, cores
"allowed to weather, and cores stored by the two recom
mended methods discussed above.The wettability of the
cores stored by either of the two recommended methods
was the same as the wettabilitymeasured at the wellsite,
while most of the weathered cores became more oil-wet.
Amott^^ used his method to compare the wettability
of native-state coreswith similar coresthatwereexposed
to oxygen and allowed to partially dry, as shown in Ta
ble3. Thenative-state coreswerestrongly water-wet, with
a displacement-by-water ratio of0.97. In the Amotttest,
the displacement-by-water ratio is the ratio of the oil
volume displaced by spontaneous imbibition to the total
oil volume displaced by both imbibition and forced dis
placement. It is zero for neutrally and oil-wet cores and
Journal of Pecroleum Technology. October 1986
approaches one as the water-wetness increases. Similar
ly, thedisplacement-by-oil ratiois zerofor neutrally and
water-wet cores and approaches one as the oil-wetaess
increases. The coresbecame more oil-wet as they were
eitherexposed to the air for longer periods of time, or
at higher tenq)eratures. Similar tests onan initially weakly
water-wet core showed almost no change. On Ae other
hand, Mungan"^ used the imbibition method to meas
ure the wettability ofnative-state cores. In contrast to the
experiments discussed above, cores preserved in deaer-
at^ water were oil-wet, butbecame water-wet when ex
posed to air for 1 week. Chilingar jmd Yen^^ have also
reported that some cores became more water-wet on ex
posure to air, indicating that it is impossible to predict
howthe wettability willbe alteredby the oxidation of the
crude.
Mungan^^recommends flushing native-state core with
live crude oil before any flow studies are started. After
native-state cores have been prepared, they are usually
run at reservoir conditions with crude oil and brine.
is brought to the surface. When the pressure is lowered
to atmospheric, lightendsare lostfromdie crude,chaiig-
ing its prop^es. In addition, heavy con^nents can co^
out of solution and deposit on the rock, "pairing it more
pounds. Pressure coringprevents the loss of lightends.
However, the cores are frozen before removal, so
wettability-altering compounds candeposit. Unfortunate
ly, thereis no experimental workavailable on wettabili
ty alteration as the core is brought to the surface.
Cleaned Core
The second type of core used in core analysis is the
cleaned core. Craig^ recommends that cleaned core be
used for multiphase flow measurements only when the
reservoir is knownto be strongly water-wet because errors
in the core analysis will be introducedotherwise. There
are two mam reasons to clean core. The first is to remove
all liquids from thecore so diat porosity, permeability,
and fluid saturations era bemeasured. Core cleanmg for
ftese routine core measurements will not be considered
in thispaper. Thesecond re^n for cleaning is to obtain
a stron^y water-wet core, generally as a first step in
restoring the wettability of a contaminated core.
1135
 In obtaining aclwned core, an attempt is made to re- tenes '30.185 3^ ^ compounds,
move aU of the fluids and adsorbed mate]^. leaving a whUe the more strongly polar methanol (ethanol) removes
surface. Gant and Anderson'29 discuss the the strongly adsorbed polar compounds that are often
metho^us^tocl^core.Onecommonmethodisreflux responsible for altering wettability. In addition to
extraction (De^-Stark orSoxhlet) with asolvent such as toluene/methanol and toluene/ethanol, successful clean-
toluene, someumes followed by extraction with chloro- ing has also been reported with chloroform/ace-
k
where solwnte Alternauvely, aflow-through
are injected under pressure issystem
some- atone »«.»20;123
number chloroformMiethanol,as
of different series of solvents. well as
umes used. • • If the cleaning procedure is success- Cuiec and his coworkers made the most extensive study
water-wet. Cuiec«.« and ofcore cleaning for wettability restoration. In a recent
oAere • discussed the chemical reactions involved in paper. Cuiec er a/.»» stated that their core cleaning al-
e cleamM process. ways begins with atoluene flush to remove hydrocarbons
uuec • compared the efficiency ofdifferent solvents and asphaltenes. A number ofsolvents arethen tested to
mflow-through core cleaning. Initially water-wet outcrop determine the most effective, including (1) aseries ofnon-
sandstone wd limestone cores were saturated with differ- polar solvents, e.g.. cyclohexane or heptane; (2) acidic
ent cnidM (sometimes the cores also contained brine), then solvents, e.g., chloroform, ethanol, or methanol; (3) ba-
ag^. The aged cores were nonnaUy neutral- to oil-wet, sic solvents, e.g., dioxane or pyridine; and (4) mixtures
as determmed by the Amott wettability test. The cores ofsolvents, e.g., methanol/acetone/toluene. When none
were then cleaned with different solvents, and the Amott ofthese procedures are effective, other tests are performed
test WM u^ to determine cleaning efficienqr. Cuiec by combining the above procedures, using other solvents,
found that he could clean both sandstone and lunestone and increasing the circulation time
cores by flowing the foUowing seven solvents through the Toluene is generally not a'veiy effective solvent, but
core: pentane. hexane^eptMe. cyclohexane, benzene, it can alter the wettability ofsome core. Jennings's®
pyndine, ^ ethanol. CMorofonn. toluene, and methanol cleaned several cores by toluene extraction and found that
used smgly were not very effective. Cuiec also looked the wettabilities and relative permeabilities were not
at seve^ different acidic and basic solvents used individu- changed. He stated that this indicated that toluene-
aU^d found that the acidic solvents tended to be more extracted core retained the reservoir wett^iUty and could
beusedforndativepermeabiUtymeasurements.However,
limestone. This difference was at- this generally is not the case. Although itis less efficient
tobuted to the acidic nature ofthe sandstone surfece and than other solvents, we have found that toluene extrac-
basic na^ of the lim^tone surface. For example, tion can alter the wettability and relative permeabilities
^use ^dstone (sibca) h^ aweakly acidic surface, ofnative-state core. In somecases, neutrally wet or ihUdly
It tends to a(korb bases ^m the crude oU. When a oU-wet native-state core becomes strongly water-wet af-
stronger acid flows Arough the system, it wUl gradually ter extraction with toluene. The relative permeability
rwctwi^d strip offtiie adsorbed bases, leavingaclean curves also shift. Amott'^ also found tiiat toluene ex-
^129
Gant and Anderson'»suyeyed j most of the
.. core- traction can clean
for otherones, suchsome
as thecores.
stronglywhUe it had
oil-wet little coxes,
Bradford effect
experiments mthe literature. They found that TTierefore. because toluene extraction wiU alter tiie wet-
the ^t choice of rolvents depends heavUy on the crude tability and relative permeability of many native-state
and the nuneral sur&ces because they help determine the cores, measurements should be made on native-state cores
amount and type of wettability-altering compounds ad- before toluene extraction.
so^. Solvents to give good results with some cores One problem with acleaned core is that it is sometimes
^
et al. and Holbrook and Bernard ^botii found^tiiat material. Ifthisimpossible, to remove ofthe
occurs, the wettability all oftiie adsorbed
cleaned core
cl^ wre to astrongly water-wet sgte using will be left in someindefinite state, causing variations in
acWorofonn/methanol mixture, while Jennings" report- core analyses. Grist et al. cleaned cores by tiiree cur
ed that this was unsuccessful. For cleamng for routine renUy used methods and tiien examined how ROS and end-
rare analysis, iWI reports to cMorofonn is excel- point effective penneabilities varied after a waterflood.
lent for many imdcontinent crudes, while toluene is use- ROS was very similar fot aU mediods. However, the end-
nil for asphaldc crudes. point effective water permealnli^ varied by more than
In mraycasM, It appears that any single solvent is rela- afector ofthree between diffeentcleaning mediods. Their
tively ineffeave mcore cl^g and that much better explanation for this behaviorwas that some mahods were'
results cm te obt^ with a mixture or series of able to extract more of die adsorbed components, leav-
solwnts. ••"The foUowmg solvents have been report- mg die rodcmore water-wet. In die more «£«-wetcores
ed for sp^rombinatioM of erode and core to give die residuj) oU had agreater tendency to form trapped
10?So®"?' ."Id pore duoats and lowering wal«7^
meaWlity-Tlieteaeflecdvetf^
loiuene. was overmght reflux extraction with toluene. More ef-
Many ofthe researchers cited above have found that fective was reflux extraction with toluene followed by 2
toluene used alone is one oftiie least effective solvents, days of extinction witii a mixture of chloroform and
However, when combined witii other solvents, such as metiianol. FinaUy, tiie most efficient metiiod was reflux
metiianol (CH3OH) or etiianol (CH3CH2OH),®' extraction with toluene followed by 3 weeks ofextrac-
toluene is often very effective. The toluene is effe^ve tion witii chloroform and metiianol. In tiie last stage of
in removing the hydrocarbons, including asphal- cleaning, methanol was used alone.
1136
Journal of Petroleum Technology. October 1986
 Another drawback of cleaned cores is that it is occas-
sionally possible for cleaning to change an originally
water-wet rock to an oil-wet one. The extraction proccss
may quickly boil offtheconnate water, allowing the re
maining oilto contact therock surface and form oil-wet
deposits that are almost impossible to remove.
The cleaning experiments discussed examine the best
methods to remove crude oil constituents from the pore
walls. In many cases, coreisalsocontaminated with drill
ingmud surfactants, which must alsoberemoved before
thewettability of a corecanbe restored. Thebest
choice of solvents depends on thecrude,themineral sur
faces, affd the drilling mud surfactants. Gant and
Anderson*^' cleanedBerea sandstonesnd Guelph(Bak
er) dolomite plugs contaminated with an invert-oil-
emulsion drilling mud filtrate. Thebest solvent forboth
rock types was a 50/50 mixture of toluene/methanol, or
theequivalent, containing 1% ammonium hydroxide. A
three-step ofiethod (three successive Dean-Stark
extractions—toluene, followed by glacial acetic acid, fol
lowed by ethanol) wasthe second bestchoice.for Berea,
while 2-methoxyethyl ether was the second bestdioice
for dolomite, demonstrating that the choice of solvents
can depend on the mineral surfaces in the core.
Restored-State Core
Ifone could be positive that the origi^ reservoir wetta
bility had notb^n inadvertently modified, a native-state
corewould give results closest to those of thereservoir.
However, native-state corespresent several problems. The
necessary procedures to preserve the wettabiliQ^ are
troublesome and time-consuming. Even when all of the
precautions are taken, thereis still a possibility thatthe
wettability hasbeen changed through oxidation or through
deposition as thetemperature andpressure dropped when
the core wasbroughtto the surface. In addition, theques
tionarises aboutthe procedure to follow to obtainthe most
reliable information from cores in which the wettabiliQr
was altered.
When only core with altered wettability is available,
thebest possible multiphase measurements are obtained
by restoring the reservoir wettability with a thiee-stq>
process.'*''»'"'«''®-"5.»28.»30.i80.i88 The first step isto thatcoreshould beagedfor 1,(XX) hours (40days) at the
clean the core to remove all compounds from the rock
surface. After the core is cleaned, tiie second step is to
flow reservoir fluids into the core sequentially. Finally,
the core is aged at the reservoir temperature for a suffi
cienttimeto establish adsorption equilibrium. Several ex
perimenters havecompared measurements made on core
in the native,cleaned, and restoredstates.In eachexperi
ment, measurements in the restored state were almost
identical to theprevious native-state ones,demonstrating
that this procedure will restore wettability.
The first and most difficult step in wettability restora
tion is to dean the contaminate core by use of the
methodsdescribedto remove all compoundsadsorbedon
the surfaces and to make the core as water-wet as possi
ble. Allcompounds must be removed from the corebe
cause we have no knowledgeof which compounds were
adsorbed on the undisturb^ reservoir rock and which
were deposited afterward. The USBM or Amott wetta
bility measurements are used to'verify that the core is
strongly water-wet. Unfortunatdy, determining which sol
vent will successfully clean the core is still a trial-and-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
O »LMtMCOVtt«tOVtaOl.«tO
fiUt«co«fT» •QLtaok ivo
•• tft n » 40
TIM, MVS
4*
Rg. 1—Wettability changesfora re8tored«8tate coraand
the effects of flushing restorad^tate cores with refined
oils. Berea core and Big Muddy crude.
error process because the best choice ofsolvents depends
heavily on the crude oil, the mineral surfaces, and any
drilling mud contaminants. Further discussion can be
found in Ref. 129.
Inthesecond step, sequentially flowing reservoir fluids
intothecore,tiiecoreis saturated witii deoxygenated syn
thetic or formation brine and then flooded with crude oil
to gtmiiiatft die inflowofoil into the reservoir. When crude
oil for wettability restoration is obtained, precautions
shouldbe to minimizealterations to the crude. The
sample must be taken before any surfactants or other
chemicals are added to treat tiie crude. It should be taken
aslong aspossible after any well treatments toallow time
for these chemicals to be flushed from the well. Finally,
the crude should be sealed in air-tight containers as soon
as possible to oxidation and the loss of light
en^.
The step inwettabili^ restoration istoage thecore
at the reservoir ten^rature for a sufficient time to es
tablish adsorption equilibrium. Theaging time required
to re-establish reservoir wettabili^ varies, dependingon
die crude, brine, and reservoir rock. Generally, we feel
reservoir temperature. Thisaging period waschosen
for two reasons:severalexperiments haveshownthat up
to 1,000 hours is'required to reach wetting equilibri-
64,65,115,189-191 ^ i QfjQ hours is rougMy the length
of time inquired forthecontact angle measured on a flat
surface to approach its equilibrium value.In
somecases, the restorationtime can be significantly less
than 1,000 hours. Mungan*^ was able to restore the wet
tability afteraging for6 days, while thewettability of the
rock/oil/brine system used by Schmid^ and Ruhl et
aL was restored after only 3 days. Salathiel^^ was able
to restore a mixed-wettability state to samplesafter 3 days.
Cuiec et describes two reservoirs in which the wet
tability wasrestored afteronlya fewhours, withno fur
ther changes in the wettability for agingtimes as longas
1,000 hours.
There are two basicoptionsto determinethe agingtime
to restore wettability. We feel that it is most convenient
to ageallcoresfDr 1,000hours,which is roughly the max
imum time that the experiments discussed previously re
quiredto achievewettingequilibrium. Whilecores may
1137
 this is notaserious drawback because the aging cor^- (or wen generaUy run with refined oil
quire minimal attention. Another possibility if to deter- sure PrnmT"*^ temperature and pres-
mine the minimum aging time by measuring Ae wettabilitv th^ wettabUity,
ofthe core with the USBlTorXir^mS aTS^ ^
intervali during the aging period. The aeina ^redwres at i^rvoir conditions with Uve crude oU and
when the wettability reaches its eauSbrium is the best simulation ofreservoir con-

Th^ • j . experimental conditions on wettabDity will be discussed-

Uve (l)>»«voirvs.ro<mlen,«aniie.C)livevs.dead^c^
erode Wh«,
When live crude oils and the reservoir at Changing
i^oirthe pressaie, and (3)
temperature hac refined vs. erode oik.
two diffemnt kntii
p^ure are used, the solubilities of the wettability- ofwhich tend to make the core more water-wet at Wcher
dtermg compcjmds should have their reservoir valu«. temperatures. First, an
IS possible that the wettability will differ when dead increase the solubility of wettabilitv-alterinp enm.
cn^ at ^bient pressure are used. At the present time, pounds. Some of these compounds will even desorh
^ difference is im- from the surface as the temperature increases. Second
Fig.ishows«.echan^intf«USBMwett,bai.yin.
Aseries ofBereaplugs was been noted in experim^ with^^\^
in^ o"' ^ brine, where it was foimd Uiat cores atUeher
w«e n»re water-wetl^Xa^^
—oftune, after wluiA the USBM wettabiUly was were no compounds that couM adsorb aiKi desorb.
w-0.8) t^oderately oil-wet (W= -0.3) advancing contactMcCafferya)'
angle on quartzmeasutJT water-
of n-tetradecane and
and Blanrfni/ plugs flushed withSoltroP brine. Theaiiglewasabout40° (0.7 lad] at77<'Fr2S*C1
Loi^ Sf If Cuiec®^ found
""f• that it is sometimes •»"
was raised to «> a«>0«ri50®Cl
3(X)®F 15-10.3 rad^^
WJenUve^oilsatthereservoirpressureandtem-

oil-wet and the small ones are 'water-wet Di^^the no effects ofpressure are not known at pres-

S=SSiS=
Sy«SS£i'?,SaS,i;
ignored. As discussed previously, the wettabUity^the perata^l^»F^5g?CT^^ n'SSST®^
core depends on the ionic compositionand pH ofthe brine MPal^ ^ ^ pressure (1.200 psi [8.3

on wettaWlity male it ce^iv to sanra^^l^ SSTn '
Once anative- or restored-state core is obtained, core anal-
yses can be performed. These tests can be nra with either
crude or refined oil at ambient orreservoir temperature .
and pressure. Because wettability effects are being ig- ""fencing materials would require a correspondinelv
1138
^^'S^tsrsTTwithduu.
that this alters the wetta-
!:s»isr.r,^.tsEis
^ ^ achieve adsoipdon equi-
and obtain native wettabiUty (about 1,000 hours)
h^thesized that the desorption of wettabiUtv- ^
'"?« "Ould oftime-Wthis is correct, the origin^ wetta-
beunchanged iflaboratory tests ..tin,
oil and brine were conducted quickly enough.
Journal ofPetroleum Tecfaoology, October 1986
 The only experiment to test this hypothesisthat we are
aware of was conducted by Wendel.* He aged Big Mud
dy crude in Berea sandstone at IWS to develop his
restored-state cores. The cores were flushed with one of
two refined oils, Soltrol 170 or Blandol, to determine how
theyaffected the wettability. The resultsare shownin Fig.
1. Blandol didnotsignificantly affectthewettabiliQr, while
Soltrol 170 changed the core from oil-wet to neutrj^y wet.
The wettability alteration could be caused by either
surface-active impurities in the Soltrol or desorption
of previously deposited oil-wetting crudecompounds from
the pore wallsintothe Soltrol. It is notknown which ex
planation is correct. Wendel did not attemptto filter the
refinedoils througha chromatographic columnto remove
surface-active compounds. Thesecontaminants are known
to have a large effect on contact-angle measurements,
whichare extremely sensitive to small amounts of con
taminants. Wettability measurements in core should be
less sensitive, however, because the ratio of surfricearea
to volume is much hi^er.
Conclusions
1.The wettability ofa reservoir sample affects its c^il-
lary pressure, relative penne{d)iliQr, waterflood behavior,
dispersion, and electrical properties. In addition, simu
lated tertiary recovery can be dtered. The tertiaiy recov
ery processes affected by wettability include hot-water,
surfectant, miscible, and caustic flooding.
2. Cleaned, strongly water-wet cores should be used
only in such core analyses as porosiQr and air.permeabil-
ity, where the wettabili^ isunimportant. In ad^tion,
may be used in other tests when the reservoir is known
to be strongly water-wet.
3. The wettability oforiginally water-wet mineral sur
facescan be alteredby the adsoiptionof polar ccmqxmnds
and/or the deposition of organic matter that was origi
nally in the crude oil. Surfactants in the crude oil are
generally believed to be polar compounds that contain
oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur. These compounds are
most prevalentin the heavier fractionsof crude oil, such
as the resins and asphaltenes.
4. WettabiliQr alteration is determined by the interac
tion of the oil constituents, the mineral surface, and the
brine chemistry, including ionic composition and pH. In
silica/oil/brinesystems, trace amountsof multivalent me
tal cations can alter the wettabiliQr. The cations can reduce
the solubiliQr of crude oil sur&ctants and/or activate the
adsorption of anionicsurfactants onto the silica. Multiva
lent ions that have altered the wettability of silica/oil/brine
systems include Ca"*"^, Mg"*"^, Cu'*'^, Ni"*"^, and Fe"*"^.
5. Work on mineral flotation indicates that coal,
graphite, sulfur, talc, the talc-likesilicates,and many-sul-
fides are probablynaturallyneutrallywet to oU-wet. Most
other minerals—including quartz, carbonates, and
sulfates—are strongly water-wet in their natural state.
6. Contact-angle measurements suggest that most car
bonate reservoirs rdnge from neutrally to oil-wet as a re
sult of the adsorption of surfactants from the crude oil.
7. Very littlework has been reportedabout the changes
in wettability caused by drilling mud additives. Thi^
different coring fluids have been recommended to obtain
native-state core: (1) synthetic formation brine, (2) un-
'PeiMiul eoimnunlcstion with DJ. WandM, Petrotoum Testing SsivioM, S«nU
Fe Springs. OA. Nov. 1880.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
oxidized lease crude oil, or (3) a water-based mud with
a minimum of additives. Because of surfactants in the sys
tem, no commercially available oil-based or oil-emulsion
muds are known that preserve the native wettability.
8. Thewettability of a nativQ-state corecanbealtered
by loss of light ends and/or thedeposition and oxidation
of heavy ends.Twoalternative packaging procedures can
be used to minimize these effects. The first is to immerse
the cores in deoxygenated formation or synthetic brine
and place them ina glass-lined steel or plastic tube, which
is then sealed against leakage and the entrance of oxy
gen. Analternative procedure is to wrap thecores at the
well^site in polyethylene or polyvinylidene film andthen
in aluminum foil. The wrapped core is thencoated with
a thick layer of paraffin or a plastic sealer.
9. Becauseof the increased solubiliQr ofthe wettability-
altering compounds at the higher temperature and pres
sure, die crude-oilA)rine/Qore system is usually more
water-wet at reservoir conditions than at ambient condi
tions.In addition, the contactanglemeasured tfuough the
water will geneikly decrease as the temperature is in
creased, and the system will become more water-wet,
even if no surfactants are present.
10. Extraction with toluene can alter the wettability of
somenative-state cores, causingsome initially neutrally
wetor mildly oil-wet coresto become strongly water-wet.
Measurements on native-state cores should be made be
fore toluene extraction.
11. During theattempted restoration of a cleaned core
toits original wettabiliQr, thecore should besaturated with
brine, oilflooded, and ^eiiaged atthe reservoir condi
tionsfor 1,000 hcmrs. This willenablea mixed-wettabiliQr
conditionto be restored, ifthis was the original wetobil-
i^. In addition, it willallow thebrinechemistry to influ
ence fte restored wettability. An alternative procedure,
which completely saturates tfte corewithcrude oil, should
be avoided.
12. The three commonly used methodsfor artificially
controlling wettability during laboratory exponents are
(1) treatment of the core with chemicals, generally or-
ganochlorosilane solutions for sandstone cores and
naphthenic acids for carbonate cores; (2) usingsmtered
teflon cores with pure fluids; and (3) ad^g surfactants
to the fluids. To obtain a uniformly wetted core, a sin
teredtefloncore withpure fluids is preferredbecause its
w^tability ismore constant and repr^ucible than the wet-
tabiliQr of cores treated with organochlorosilanes,
naphthenic acids, or surfactants. However, these treat
ments have advantages when heterogeneous wettability
or wettabiliQr alteration is studied.
Acknowledgments
I am gratefulto Jeff Meyers for his manyhelpfulsugges
tions and comments. I also thank the management of
Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Anderson, W.O.: "Wettabili^ Literature Survey—Psrt 2; Wet-
isbili^ Measurement," to be published in JPT (Nov. 1986).
2. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Surv^—Fart 3: The Ef-
of Wettabilityon the Electrical Properties ofPorous Media,"
to be published in/PT (Dec. 1986).
3. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literature Survey—Part 4: The Ef
fects ofWettal^ on Cairillaiy Pressure," pqwrSPE 1S271avail
able at SPE, Richardson, TX.
1139
 . Banell. F.E. and Miller, F.L.: "Degree ofWetting ofSilica by
Crude Petroleum Oils," Ind. Eng. Oiem. (July 1928) 20, No.
/f 738-42.
. Batycky, J.P.: "Towards Understanding Wettabiliiy Effects on
Oil Recovery," InU. Energy Agency Workshop on EOR, Bar-
tlesville Energy Technology Center (April 24, 1980) CONF-
8004140, U.S. DOE (Feb. 1981) 116-43.
6 Cooke, C.E. Williams, R.E., and Kolodzie, P.A.: "OilRecov
eryby Alkaline Waterflooding," JFT{\91A) 1365-74.
7 Craig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects ofWatetflood-
mg. Monograph Series. SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3.
8 Dodd, C.G.: 'TTie Problem ofDetermining Petroleum Reservoir
Rock WettabUity," paper SPE 14800 available atSPE, Richard
son, TX.
9, Donaldson, E.C.,Thomas, R.D.,and Lorenz. P.B.; "Wettabili
iyDetermination and Its Effect onRecovery Efficiency," SPEJ
(March 1969) 13-20.
10. Donaldson, E.C. and Thomas, R.D.: "Microscopic Observations
ofOil Displacement in Water-Wet and Oil-Wet Systems," paper
SPE 3555 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual
Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
11. Donaldson, E.C. and Kayser, M.B.: 'Three-Phase Fluid Flow
inPorous Media," Baitlesville Energy Technology Center, report
DO^ETC/IC-80/4. U.S. DOE (April 1981).
12. Dullien. F.A.L.: Porous MetUa: FUdd Transport andPore Struc
ture, Academic Press, New York City (1979).
13. Hjelmeland, O.S. and Torsaeter. O.: "Wettability, the Kqt to
Proper Laboratory Waterflooding Experiments," Intl. Energy
Agency Workshop on EOR, BdrUesvUle Energy Technology
Center (April 24,1980) CONF-8004140, U.S. DOE (Feb. 1981)
1-24.
14. lonescue, E. and Maini, B.B.: "AReview ofLateratoiy Tech
niques for Measuring Wettability ofPetroleum Reservoir Rocks,"
Petroleum Recovery Inst. report 1983-3, Calgary (Oct. 1983).
15. I^ey, P.T. and Nielsen. R.F.: "Wettability in Oil Recoveiy,"
Wortd on (March 1951) 132, No. 4, 145-54.
16. Krcmesec, VJ. and Treiber, L.E.: "Effects ofSystem Wettabil
ity on Oa Displacement by Micellar Flooding," /PT(Jan. 1978)
52-60.
17.
Leach, R.O. etal.: "AUboratory and Field Study ofWettabili
tyAdjustment in Waterflooding," JPT(pdb. 1962) 20fr-12; Trans.,
AIME, 225.
18. Marsden, S.S.: "Wettability-^lts Measurement and Application
1° 110^°°^®'"''* 1965)30, No.
19. Marsden, S.S.: "Wettability; The Elusive Key toWaterfloodine,"
Pet. Eng. (April 1965) 37, No. 4, 82-87,
20. McGee, J.,Crocker. M.E., and Marchin, L.M.; "WettabiUty:
State-of-the-Art. AReview ofthe Literature," Natl. Inst. forPe
troleum Research, report NlPER-58. Bartlesville. Aug. 1985.
21. Mungan, N.: "Enhanced Oil Recoveiy Using Water asa Driv
ing Fluid: Part 2—Interfacial nienomena and OO Recoveiy: Wet
tability." Wortd Oil, 192. No. 4 (March 1981) 77-83.
22. Mungan, N.: "Enhanced Oil Recoveiy Using Water asa Driv
ing Fluid: Pan 3—Interfiuial Phenomenaand Oil Recoveiy: Capil
larity," World Oil(May 1981) 192, No. 5, 149-58.
23. Prats, M.:ThemudRecovery, Monograph Series, SPE. Richaid-
son, TX (1982) 7, 55-57.
24. Raza, S.H., Treiber. L.E.. and Archer. D.L.: "Wettability of
Reservoir Rocks and ItsEvaluation," Producers Monthly (April
1968) 32, No. 4, 2-7.
25. Schoenberger, K.: "The Role of Wettability in Oil Reservoir
Recovery," ^doel-Erdgas Zeitschrift (April 1982) 98. No. 4,
130-35. English translation available from the John Crerar Libraiy,
Translation No. 85-10244 (•BLL) 48A.
26. Wagner, O.R. and Leach. R.O.: "Improving Oil Displacement
Efficiency by Wettability Adjustment," Thinr.; AIME (1959) 216,
65—72.
27. Brown, RJ.S. andFatt,I.: "Measurements of Fractional Wetta
bility of Oil Field Rocks by the Nuclear Magnetic
Method," Trans., AIME (1956) 207. 262-64.
28. Owens, W.W. andArcher. D.L.: "The Effect of Rock WettabU-
ity onOil-Water Relative Permeability Relationships." JPTOuly
1971) 873-78; Trans., AIME. 251.
29. Nutting, P.O.: "Some Physical and Chemical Properties ofReser
voir Rocks Bearing onthe Accumulation and Discharge ofOil."
Problems of Petroleum Geology, W.E. Wrather andF.H. Lahee
(eds.). AAPG, Tulsa (1934) 825-32.
1140
30 . Andresen, K.H.: "Discussion of Nature and Importance ofSur
face Forces inProduction ofPetroleum." Drill, andProd. Prac..
API, New York City (1939)442-48.
31.. Marsden, S.S. and Nikias, P.A.: "The Wettability ofthe Brad-
ford Sand. I.." Producers Monthly (May 1962) 26. No. 5,2-5.
32. Marsden, S.S. and Khan, S.: "The Wettability ofthe Biadfoid
Sand, D; Pyrolysis Chromatography Studies," Producers Monthly,
(June 1965) 29, No. 6, 10-14.
33. Katz, D.L.: "Possibilities ofSecondaiy Recoveiy for the Okla
homa City WUcox Sand," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 28-43.
34. Treiber, L.E., Archer, D.L., and Owens, W.W.: "A Labora
tory Evaluation ofthe Wettability ofFifty Oil Producing Reser
voirs,"SPEf(Dec. 1972) 531-40; Trans., AIME. 253.
35. ChUingar. G.V. and Yen. T.F.: "Some Notes on WettabiUty and
Relative Peimeabiiities ofCaibonate Reservoir Rocks. H,"Energy
Sources (1983) 7. No. 1, 67-75.
36. Beoner. F.C.. Riches. W.W.,andBaiteU. F.E.: "Nature andIm
portance of Surface Forces in Productitm of Petroleum." Drill
and Prod. /Vac.. API, New Yoric Qty (1939) 442-48.
37. Benner. F.C. and BaiteU. F.E.: "The Effect ofPtdar Impurities
Upoo Cq)illaiy and Sur&ce Phenomena inPetndeum Production,"
Drill andProd. Prac., API, New YorktSty (1942) 341-48.
38. Benner. F.C.. Dodd. CO.. and BaiteU. F.E: "Displacement Pies-
aoesforPetroleum Oil-Water-Silica Systems," OlA GasJ. (Nov.
12, 1942) 41. No. 27, 199-208.
39. Benner, F.C.. Dodd. C.O..andBaneU, F.E.: "Evaluation ofEf
fective Diqdaoement Pressures for Petntoon Oil-Water-Silica Sys
tems," Fundamental Research oa Occurrence and Rea>very of
Petroleum, API. New Yofk City (1943) 85-93.
40. Cnun. PJ.: "Wettability Studies With Non-Hydrocari)on Con-
.stituents ofCrude Oil," Petroleum Recoveiy Researdi Inst.. re
search report RR-17 (Dec. 1972).
41. Denekas. M.O., Mattax. C.C.,and Davis. G.T.:"Effect ofCnide
Oil CSnnponents onRock Wettability." rniw.. AIME (1959)216.
330-33.
42. Lowe. A.C.. Phillips, M.C.,andRiddiford. A.C.:"On theWet
ting ofCarixmateSurfiKes byOilandWater."7. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(April-June 1973) 12. No. 44. 33-40.
43. Fatt. Land Klikoff. W.A.: "Effect ofFractional Wettability on
Multqihase Flow Through Porous Media." Thuis.. AIME (1959)
216. 426-32.
44. Gimatudinov. S.K.:"The Nature of theSurfiux of Minerals of
Oa-Bearing Rocks." &v. Vys^ Ucheb. Zavedenii, i Caz
(1963) 6, No. 7. 37-42.
45. Holbrook, O.C.andBernard, G.C.: "Determination of Wetta-
biHty by Dye Adsorption," 2>«w.. AIME (1958) 213, 261-64.
46. Iwankow. E.N.: "A Correlation of Interstitial Water Saturation
and Heterogeneous Wettability." Producers Monthly (Oct 1960)
24. No. 12. 18-26.
47.
Salathiel. R.A.: "Oil Recoveiy by Surface Film Drainage in
Mixed-Wettability Rocks." /PT(Oct. 1973) 1216-24; Trans.,
AIME. 255.
48. AIba.P.: "Discussionon ^ect ofFractional Wettability on Mul
tiphase Flow TTuough Pbrous Media," Trans., AIME (1958) 216,
426-32.
49. Moore. J.: "Laboratoiy Determined Electric Logging Parame-
tenoftiie Bradford Third Sand." (March 1958)
22. No. 3. 30-39.
50. Sdunid. €.: "The Wettability of Petroleum Rocks and Results
ofExperiments to Study tiie Effects ofVariations in Wettability
ofCore Samples." Erdoel und Kohle-Erdgas-Petrochemie (1964)
17. No. 8. 605-09. English translation available from tiKJ(^n
Crerar Ubrary. Translation No. TT-65-12404.
51. Hall. A.C., Collins, S.H., and Melrose, J.C.: "Stability ofAque
ous Welting Fihns inAtiutbasca TarSands," SPE/(April 1983)
23. No.2. 249-59.
52.
Melrose. .J.C.: "Ipterpretation of Mixed WettabUity States in
Reservoir Rocks," paper SPE 10971 presented at tiie 1982 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and'Exhibhion. New Orieans. Sent
26-29.
53. Blake. T.D. and Kitchener, J.A.: "Stability ofAqueous IHlms
on Hydrophobic Mediylated Silica," J. Oiem. Soc., Faraday
Trans. I (1977) 68, 1435-42.
54. Takamura. K.and Chow. R.S.; "A Mechanism forInitiation of
Bitumen Diq)lacement From Oil Sand," J. Cdn. Pet Tech.
(Nov.-Dec. 1983)22, No. 6, 22-30.
55. Donaldson, E.C.and Crocker. M.E.: "Characterization of tiie
Cnide Oil Polar Compound Extract," Bartiesville Energy Tech-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
 nology Center, report DOE/BETC/RI-80/5, U.S. DOE (Oct.
1980).
56. Donaldson, E.G.: "Oil-Water-Rock Wettability Measurement,"
preprints,American Chemical Soc., Div. of Petroleum Chemis-
tiy (March 29-ApriI 3, 1981)26, No. 1, 110-22.
57. Baldwin. B.A. andGray.P.R.: "Fluid-Surfece Interactions in Oil
Reservoirs." paperSPE492S (1973)available at SPE. Richard
son. TX.
58. Jennings, H.Y.: "Surface Properties of Natural and Synthetic
Porous Media." Producers Monthly (March 1957) 21. No. 5.
20-24.
59. Lyutin, L.V. and Oleinik,I.P.: "Adsorptionof Asphaltenes by
Quartz," Nauehiu-Tekhn. Sb.po Dobydie Vses. Nefie-Gas.
Nauchn.-Issled. Inst. (1962)16.78-81. Englishtranslationavail-
able from the John Crerar Libraiy, Translation No. 65-12831.
60. Lyutin, L.V. andBurdyn. T.A.: "Adsorption of Asphaltenes in
a Stratum and Its Effect on Permeability and OO I^oduction."
Tr., Vses. N^egasov. Naudh.-Issled. Inst. (1970) S3, 117-30.
English translation available from theJohnCrerar Libraiy,Trans
lation No. 75-10925-081. * 83.
61. McCaffeiy, F.G., Sigmund, P.M., andFosti,J.E.: "Pore Space
andDisplacement Characteristics of Carbonate Reservoir Rocks,"
Proa, Canadian Well Logging SodeQr Foimatitm Evaluatidn Sym
posium, Calgary (1977) B1-B16.
62. McGhee, J.W., Crocker, M.E., and Donaldson. E.C.: "Rela-
liveWetting Properties of CrudeOilsinBereaSandstone," Bart-
lesvilleEnergyTechnology Center, reportBETC/RI-78/9, U.S.
DOE (Jaii. 1979).
63. Turbovich, B.I.: "Comparison of the Wettability of Core Sam
ples From Water-Petroleum Parts of Strata and the Water-
Petrol«im-Collector (Transition) Zone," Nefiyanoe Ounyaistw
(1972)50. No. 11,47-48. Englishtranslation available fromL.U.
FranUin, Translation No.- LUFT>268.
64. Cuiec. L.E.: "Restoration of the Natural State ofCore Samples,"
paper SPE 5634 presentedat the 1975SPE AnnualTedmical Con
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. 1.
65. Cuiec, L.E.: "Study of Problems Relatedto the Restoration of
the Natural State of Core Samples." J. Cdn. Pet. Tedu (Oct.-
Dec. 1977) 16, No.4, 68-80.
66. Morrow. N.R., Cram, PJ., and McCaifeiy, F.G.: "Displace-
ment Studies in Dolomite With Wettability Control by Octanoic
Acid." SPEJ (Aug. 1973) 221-32; Trans., AIME, 255.
67. Neumann, H.J., Paczynska-Lahme, B., and Severin, D.: Om-
position and Properties ofPetroleum, Halsted Press, New York
City (1981) 1-46, 109-113.
68. Reisb^, J.and Doscher, T.M.: "Interfiicial Phenomena in Crude
OU-Water Systems," ProducersMonthly, 21, No. 1 (Nov. 1956)
43-50.
69. Berezin, V.M., Yarygina, V.S.,andDubrovina,N.A.: "Adsorp-
tion of Asphaltenes and Tar From Petroleum by Sandstcme,"
Nefiepromysl. Delo (1982) 5,15-17. Englishtranslation availa
ble fiom the John Crerar libr^. Translation No. 83-101Q7-08G.
70. Collins,S.H. and Melrose.J.C.: "Adsorptionof Asphaltenes and
Water on Reservoir Rock Minerals," paper SPE 11800present
ed at the 1983SPE Intl. Symposium on Oilfieldand Geothermal
Chemistry, Denver, June 1-3.
71. Kusakov, M.M. and Mekenitskaya, L.I.: "A Study of the State
of Connate Water in Oil Reservoirs," Research in Suiftce Forces,
B.V. Deiyagin (ed.) 12-18. English translation by Consultants
Bureau, New York City (1963).
72. Abdurashitov, S.A., Guesinov, M.F., and Tairov, N.D.: "Ef
fect of Different Rock Fractions Upon the Adsorption of
Asphaltenes From Petroleums of the Balakhany-Sabunchi-
Ramaninsk Deposits," Isv. Vyssh. Udid>.laved. (1966)9. No.
10, 63-65. English translation available from the John Crerar
Library, Translation No. 71-14451-081.
73. Barbour, F.A., Barbour, R.V., and Petersen, J.C.: "A Studyof
Asphalt-Aggregate Interactions UsingInverseGas-Liquid Chro-
matography," J. AppL Otem. BiotedtnoL (1974) 24, 645-54.
74. Ensl^, E.K., and Scholz,H.A.: "A Studyof Asphalt-Aggn^gate
Interactions by Heat of Immersion," J. Inst. Pet. (March 1972)
58, No. 560, 95-101.
75. Sinwdcpot, A.A. andChilingar, O.V.: *«ESectofPkdaiity andPres
ence of Carbonate Particles on Relative Permeability of Rocks:
A Review," The CompassofSigmaGammaEpalm (Jan. 1961)
39, No. 2, 115-20.
76. Somerton, W.H. and Radke, CJ.: "RoleofClays in the Enhanced
Recoveryof Petroleum," paper SPE 8845 presentedat Ifae 1980
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recoveiy, Tulsa, OK.
April 20-23.
77. Brown. C.E. and Neustadter. E.L.: "The Wettability of
Oil/Water/Silica Systems With Reference to Oil Recovery," J.
Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1980) 19, No. 3, 100-110.
78. Gaudin, A.M. andChang, C.S.: "Adsorption on Quartz. From
an Aqueous Solution, of Barium and Laurate Ions." Trans.,
AIME—Mining Engineering (Feb. 1952) 193. 193-201.
79. A.M. and Fuersteoau,D.W.: "Quartz FlotationwithAn-
imtTc Collectors," Thins.,AIME—Mining Enpneering(Jan.1955)
202,66-72.
80. Leja, J.: Sutfiux Chemistry ofFnOi Flotation, Plenum Press, New
York City (1982).
81. Morrow, N.R., Lim, H.T., and Ward, J.S.: "Effect of Crude-
(Kl-Induced Wettability Changes on OilRecovery," 5PEFE(Fd).
1986) 89-103.
82. .Sghtihmann, R. and Prakash, B.: "Effect of BaQj and OtherAc
tivators on Soap Flotation of Quartz," Trans,, AIME—Mining
Engineering (May I960) 187, 591-600.
Somasundaran, P.: "InterfacialChemistry of Particulate Flota
tion," Advances in IntetfadalPhenomena of Paniadate/Solu-
tion/Gas Systems; AppUcadons to Flotation Research, P.
Somasundaranand R.B. Grieves (eds.), AIChE SymposiumSer
ies (1975) 71, No. 150, 1-15.
84. Strassner, J.E.: "Effect of pH on Interfacial Films and Stability
of Crude OU-Water Emulsions," JPT (March 1968) 303-12;
Tmns., AIME, 243.
85. Seifert, W.K. and Howells, W.G.: "InterfaciaUy Active Acids
ina California CnideOil," Anafytical Otetmstry (April 1969) 41,
No. 4, 554-62.
86. Seifeit, W.K.andTeeter, R.M.: "Identification ofPtolycyclic Aro-
matic andHeterocyclic Cnide OilCaiboxylic Acids," AnalyHatl
Cheadstry (June 1970) 42, No. 7, 750-58.
87. Snyder, L.R.andBuell, B.E.: "Conqjoation TypeSeparation and
Gasification of Petroleum ttyTttration, Ion Exdiange..and Ad
sorption," J. Chem. Eng. Data(Oct. 1966) 11, No.4,545-53.
88. Sityder, L.R.:"Petroleum Nitrogen Conqxwnds andOitygen Com
pounds," Accounts ofOtemicalResearA (Sept. 1970) 3, No.9,
290-99.
89. McKay, J.F. etaL: "Petroleum Aqdialteoes: Chemistry and Com-
poation," Analytieal Chendstry ofLiqtddFud Sources: TarSands,
Oil Shale, Coal, and Petroleum, P.C. Uden (^.), Advances in
Chemistry Series, American Chem. Soc., Washington, DC(1978)
170, 128-42.
90. Spdght. J.G. and Moschopedis, S.E.: "On the Molecular Na
tureof Petroleum Asphaltenes," Chettdstry ofAsphaltenes, J.W.
Bungerand N.C.Li(eds.). Advances inChemistry Series, Ameri
can Chemical Soc., Washington, DC (1981) 195, I-I5.
91. Denekas, M.O. etaL: "MaterialsAdsorbed at CrudePetroleum-
Water Interfoces: Isolationand Analysisof Normal Paraffins of
High Molecular Weight,"Ind.Eng. Chem. (May 1951) 43, No.
5. 1165-69.
92. Dodd, C.G.. Moore,J.W., andDenekas, M.O.: "Metalliferous
Substances Adsorbed at Crude Petroleum-Water Interf^," Ind.
Eng. Chem. (Nov. 1952) 44, No. II, 2585-90.
93. Dunning, H.N.. Moore, J.W., andDenekas, M.O.: "Interfacial
Activities and Porphyrin Contents of Petroleum Extracts," Ind.
Eng. Chem. (Aug. 1953) 45, No. 8, 1759-1765.
94. Dunning. H.N., Moore,J.W., and Myers,A.T.: "Propertiesof
Porphyrins in Petroleum," Ind.Eng. Otem. (Sept. 1954) 46, No.
9, 2000-07.
95.. Moore. J.W. and Dunning,H.N.: "Interfacial Activitiesand Por-
l^yrin Contents of Oil-Shale Extracts," IndiEng. Otem. (July
1955) 47, No. 7, 1440-44.
96.. Cuiec. L.: "Rock/Crude^ Interactions and Wettability: An At
tempt to .Understand Their Interrelation," paper SPE 13211
presented at die 1984SPE AnnualTechnical Conferenceand Ex-
hibitiom Houstqn, Sept. 16-19.
97., Johansen, R.T. anbDunning, H.N.: "RelativeWetting Tenden
cies of Crude Oil by the C^Ularimetiic Method," Producers
Monthly (Sept. 1959) 23. No. 11, 20-22.
98 . Johansen. R.T. and Dunning, H.N.: "Relative Wetting Tenden
cies of Crude Oils by Caplllarimetric Method," U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, BartlesvUle Petroleum Research Center, Baitlesville,
USBM report RI 5752 (1961).
99 . Dodd, C.G.: "The Rheolo^cal Behavior of Films at Crude
Petroleum-Water Inter&oes," J. Phys. Chem. (May 1960)64, No.
5,544-50.
1141
 100 Hasiba. H.H. and Jessen, F.W.: "Film Forming Compounds From
Cnidc Oils, Interfacial Films and ParafTm Deposition," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1968) 7. No. 1. 1-12.
101 Hasiba, H.H. and Jessen, F.W.: "FilmProperties orinterrace
Active Compounds Adsorbed From CrudeOil at the Oil/Water
Interlace." paper SPE 1747 (1968) available atSPE, Richardson,
TX.
102 Kimbler, O.K.. Reed, R.L.. and SSberbeiB, I.H.: "Physical Char
acteristics of Natural FUras Formed at Crude Oil-Water Inter
faces," SPEJ (June 1966) 153-66; Trans.. AIME, 247.
103 Banell, F.E. and Niederhauser, D.O.: "Film Forming Consti
tuentsof Cnide PetroleumOils," FundamentalReseardi on Oc
currence and Rea>very of Petroleum, API, New Yoric City
(1946-1947) 57-80.
104 Clementz, D.M.: "Clay Stabilization in Hirough Ad-
soipUonofPetroleum Heavy Ends,"/Pr(Sei>t. 1977) 1061-66.
105. Stunun, W. and Morgan, JJ.: Aquatic Oiemistry, J. Wlqr and
Sons. New YorkCity (1970).
106 Block. A. and Sinuns. B.B.: "Desorptton and Exchange ofAd-
Mrbed Octadecylamine and Stearic Acid onSteel andGlass."J.
Colloid Inteiface Sci. (1967) 25, 514-18.
107. Gaudin. A.M.:Flotation, second edition. McOraw HOI Book Co.
Inc., New YorkCity (1957).
108. McCafTeiy, F.G. and Mungan, N.:"Contact Angle and Interfa
cial Tension Studies ofSome Hydiocaibon-Water-Scdid Systems."
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1970) 9, No. 3. 185-96.
109. Neumann. HJ.: "Investigations onthe Wettability ofFonnatiaQS
and on Oil Migration." Erdoel und Ktritto-Erdgas-Petrocheinie
(March 1966) 19, No. 3, 171-72. Englinh translatton available
from Associated Technical Services. Translation No. 74T93G.
110. . Tumaqran, A.B. and Babab^n, O.A.; "Adsoiptiai ofAqihaltenes •
During Filaation." DaU. Akad. Nauk. Avab. SSR (1964) 20.No.
9. English translation available from the J(dm (^erar Lib^,
Translation No. 65-14833.
111. • Somasundaran, P.and Agar. G.E.; 'TTie Zero Point ofCharge
of Calcite," J. Colloid Inteifoce Sci. (Aug. 1967) 24. No. 4.
433-40.
112. Mungan, N.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Water asa Driv
ing Fluid: Part 4—Fundamentals of Alkaline Roodmg," WoHd
Oil (June 1981) 192, No. 6, 209-20.
113. Castor, T.P.. Somerton, W.H.. and KeUy, J.F.: "Recovery Mech
anisms of Alkaline Flooding," Suifiice Phenomena inEnhanced
Oil Recovery, D.O. Shah (ed.). Plenum Press, New York City
(1981) 249-91.
114. Johnson, C.E.: "Status ofCaustic andEmulsion Methods." JPT
(Jan. 1976) 85-92.
115. Mungan, N.: "Certain Wettabtlity Effects In Laboiatcny Watsr-
noods."JPT(Fd). 1966) 247-52; Thnij.. AIME, 237.
116. Figdofe. P.E.:"Adsoiptioa ofSurftctants onKacdinite: NaQVer
sus CaQj Salt Effects." J. Colloid buerfitee ScL (June 1982) 87,
No. 2. 500-17.
117. Somasundaran, P. and Hanna, H.S.: "Adsorption of Sulfooates
onReservoir Rocks." SPEJ (Aug. 1979) 221-32; Thmi.. AIME,
269.
118. Hancock, C.K.: "Aluminum Sulfate and Iron Sulfates as Aux
iliaries in Bituminous Stabilization of Soils," Ind. Eng. Oiem.
(Nov. 1955) 47, No. 11, 2269-75.
119. Michaels, A.S.: "The Waterproofing ofSoils and Building Ma
terials," Waterproofing mdWater-Rqtelletuy, J.L.Moilliet(ed.).
Elsevier Publishing Co., New York City(1963) 339^.
120. Clementz. D.M.: "Interaction of Petroleum Heavy Ends With
Montmorillonite." Oaysandday Minerals (1976) 24.312-19.
121. Clementz, D.M.: "Alteration of Rock Properties Ity Adsorption
of Petroleum Heavy Ends: Implications for Enhanced OO Recov-
eiy," paperSPE 10683presentedat tiie 1982SPE/DOEEnhanced
Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK. April 4-7.
122. Cziarnecka. E. and Gillot, J.E.: "Formation and
of Clay Complexes With Bitumen From Athabasca OilSand,"
Clays and Clay Minerals (1980) 28, 197-203.
123. Reed, M.G.: "Retention ofCrude Oil Bases by Clay-Comaining
Sandstones," days and Clay Minerals (1968) 16. 173-78.
124. Glembotskii. V.A., Klassen. V.I., and Plaksin, I.N.: Flotation,
Primary Sources, New York City (1972).
125. Bailq^, R. and Gray. V.R.; "Cbntact Angle Measurements of
Water on Coal." J. Appl. Chan. (April 1958) 8, 197-202.
126. Chander.S.. Wie, J.M., and Fuerstenau.D.W.: "On the Native
Ht^ility and Surface Properties of Naturally Hydrophobic
Solids,"Advances in InterfadalPhenomena cfParticulate/Solu-
1142
tion/GasSystems; Applications to FlotationReseardi, P. Somasun
daranandR.B. Grieves (eds.)AIChE Symposium Series(1975)
71, No. 150, 183-88.
127. Klassen, V.l. and Mokrousov, V.A.: AnIntroduaion to the The
ory of Flotation, Butterworth and Co., London (1963).
128. Wendel, DJ., Anderson, W.G., and Meyers, J.D.: "Restored-
State Core Analysis fortheHutton Reservoir," paper SPE14298
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex
hibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
129. Gant, P.L. andAnderson, W.G.: "Core Cleaning for Restora
tion of Native WettabiKtyi" paper SPE14875 (Oct. 1985). Avafl-
able at SPE. Richardson, TX.
130. Cuiec, L.E., ^ngeron, D. and Pacsirszlty. J.: "On die Necessi
ty of Respecting Reservoir Conditions in Laboratory Displace
mentStudies," paperSPE7785presented at the 1979SPE Middle
East Oil Tedmical Conference.Bahrain, March 25-29.
131. Boneau. D.F.andClampitt. R.L.: "A Surftctant System forthe
Oil-Wet Sandstone oftheNorth Burbask Unit,"JPT(May 1977)
132. Trantham. J.C. andClampitt, R.L.: "DeterminatitHi of OilSatu
rationAfterWaterflooding in an Oil-Wet Reservoir—The North
Burbank Unit, Tract 97 Project," /PT (May 1977) 491-500.
133. Bass, R.L. and Poiter, MjC: "Silicones," Waterproeffing and
Water-Repellency, J.L. Moilliet (ed.), Elsevier Publishing Co.,
New Yoric City (1963) 136-87.
134. Col^, F.H.,Marsden, S.S..and Calhoun, J.C,:"A Stiidy ofthe
Effect ofWettal^ cm theBehavior ofFluids inSyittbctic Porous
Media." ProducersMonthfy (June 195® 20, No. 8, 29-45.
135. Gatenlty. W.A.andMarsden. S.S.: "SomeWettability Charac
teristics of Synthetic Porous Media," Producers MonUify (Nov.
1957) 22. No. 1.5-12.-
136. Kewcombe, J.. McGhee. J.. andRzasa. MJ.: "Wettability Ver
sus Displacement in Waterflooding in Unconsolidated
Columns." Trans., AIME (1955)204, 227-32.
137. RatfameU. JJ.. Bcson. PJl.. andPinkins, T.K.: "ResenranrWater-
flood Residual CMl Saturation FromLdMratoiy Tests,"/Pr(I^.
1973) 175-85; Trans., AIME, 255.
138. SIq^, A.K. and Drancfauk, P.M.: "Wettability Control ofGlass
Beads," Cdn. J. Chem. Eng. (Feb. 1975) S3, 3-8.
139. Warren. J.E. andCalhoun, J.C.: "A Study of Waterflood Effi
ciency in OU-Wet Systems," JPT(Fd>. 1955) 22-29; Trans.,
AIME, 204.
140. Talash, A.W. and Crawford, P3.: "EjqKtimental Flooding Char
acteristics ofUnconsolidated Sands," p^>er SPE36presented at
the 1961 SPE Permian Basin Oil Recov^Confiaeooe. Midland.
May 4-5.
141. Talasfa. A.W. andCnwfoid, P.B.: "Experimental Flooding Char-
Mteristict of75-FttccQt Water-Wet Sands," Producers Monthly
(Feb. 1961) 25, No. 2.24-26.
142. Talash. A.W. and Crawibnl.P.£.: "EjqKrimeotal Flooding Char
acteristics ofSO-Pfercent Water-Wet Sands." Producers Monthly
(April 1962) 26, No. 4. 2-5.
143. MohantyrKJC.^ Sailer, SJ.: "Multqihase Flow inPcnous Me
dia: m. OilMobilization, Transverse Dispnsion, and Wettabili
ty." paperSPE 12127 presented at the 1983 SPEAnnual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Fnuicisco, Oct. 5-8.
144. Davies, J.T. andRideal, E.K.:interfadalPhenomena, Academ
ic Press, New Yoric City (1961) 36-37.
145. Salter, SJ. and Mohanty, ILK.: "Multifriiase Flow inPorous Me
dia: I. Macroscopic Observations and Modeling," pqxr SPE
11017presentedat the 1982SPE Armual TechnicalConference
Exhibition. NewOrieans, Sept. 26-29.
146. Smghal, A.K., Mukheijee, D.P., andSomerton, W.H.: "Effect
ofHeterogeneous Wettability onFlow ofFluids Through Porous
Media." J. Cdn. PeL TeA. (July-Sept 1976) 15, No.3,63-70.
147. Laskowski, J. and Kitchener. J.A.: "The Hydi^hiUc-
Hydraphobk TniosititmonSilica."/. Colloidbueif^ScL (/^
1969) 29,Jio. 4, 670-79.
148. Menawat, A'..Henty,J.. andSiriwardane, R.: "Controlof Sur-
bee Energy ofGlass Ity Surface Reactions: Contact Angle and
Stability," J. CoUoid Interfax ScL (Sept. 1984) 101, No. 1,
110-19.
149. Tiffin, DX. andYellig, W.F.: "Effects ofMobile WateronMul-
tiiteContact MisdMe Gas Diiqtlarnnrnts,"5P£y (June 1983)23.
No. 3. 447-55.
150. looescoe, E., Baty(^, J.P., and Mami, B3.:"MisdUeDiqdace-
nentofResidual Oil—EffectofWettability CO Diq)eni(min Pnous
Media," Petroleum Recovery Inst, Calgaiy, report 1984-4 (OcL
1984)«
Journal of Petiolettin Technology, October 1986
ISl. Maini,B.B., lonescue.E.. and Ba^d^, J.P.: "MisdbleDisfdace-
memof Residual OU—Effea of Wettability on Dispersion in Ponxis
Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May-June 1986) 25, No. 3.36-41.
132. Novosad,J., lonescu-Forniciov, E., and Mannhardt. K.: "Poly
merFlooding inStratified Cores," paperno. 84-34^2 presented
at the 1984Petroleum Societyof CIM AnnualTechnical Confer-
ence, Calgary, June 10-13.
153. Novosad, J.: "The Effectof RockHeterogeneity andWetubiU^
on Chemieal Flooding,"Pmc., AGIP,SPAet al. Improved Oil
Recovery European Meeting, Rome (April 16-18, 1985) 2,
145-53.
154. Der, R.I.: "SteaiatoChromic Chloride,"IntL Eng. Chan. (April
1954) 46, No. 4, 766-69.
155. Sweeny, S.A. and Jennings,H.Y.: "The Electrical ResistiviQr
of Preferentially Water-Wet and Preferentially Oil-Wet Carbonate
Rocks." Producers Monthly (May 1960) 24, No. 7. 29-32.
156. Sweety, S.A. and Jennings, H.Y.: "Effect ofWettabiliQr on the
ElectricalResistivi^ of C^arbonate Rockfiom a Petroletmi Reser
voir," J. Phys. Otem. (May 1960) 64, 551-53.
157. ZierAiss, H. and Maltha, A.: "Regarding the Relationship Be
tweentheFormation Resisdvi^ IndexandtheOilRecovery Mech-
anism Daring Waterflooding Procedures," Erddl und
Kohle-Erdgas-Petrochemie (1967) 20, 549-52. English transla
tion available from the John Crerar Library, Translation No.
68-15700.
158. Sharma, M.M. and Wunderlich, R.W.; "The Alterationof Rock
Properties DuetoInteractions WithDrilling FluidConqxments,"
paper SPE 14302 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Las Vegas, Sept 22-25. .
159. Stegemeier. G.andJessen. F.W.:"The Relationship ofRelative
Permeability to Contact A^Ies,"Pft)c., Conference on the The-
ory of Fluid Flow in Porous Media, U. of Oklahoma, Norman
(March 23-24, 1959) 213-29.
160. Lefebvre du P^, E.J.: "Factors Affecting Liquid-Liquid Rela
tivePermeabilities of a ConsoUdatedPOraus Medium," SP£/(Rb.
1973) 39-47.
161. Mc^ifery, F.G.: "The Effect ofWettability on Relative Perme-
ability and Imbibitionin Porous Media," PhD thesis, U. of Cal
gary, Calgary, Alta. (1973).
162. McCaffery, F.G. and Bennion,D.W.: "The Effect of Wettabili-
ty on Two-Phase Relative PtrmeabiliUes." J. Cdn. Pel. Tech.
(Oct.-Dec. 1974) 13, No. 4, 42-53.
163. Morrow, N.R. and Mungan, N.: "Wettability and Capillarity in
Porous Media," Petroleum Recovery Research Inst., Calgaiy,'
rqwrt RR-7 (Jan. 1971).
164. Morrow, N.R.: "The ^ects ofSurface Roughness on Contact
Angle With Special Reference to Petroleum Recovery," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1975) 14, No. 4, 42-53.
165. Morrow, N.R.: "Capillary Pressure Correlations forUniformly
Wetted Porous Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1976)
15(4). 49-69.
166. Monow.N.R., andMcCaffeiy, F.G,: "Displacement Studies in
Uniformly Wetted Porous Media," WeOng, ^treading. endAdhe-
sion,G.F. Padday (ed.),Academic Press,NewYorkCity(1978)
289-319.
167. Mungan, N.: "Inter&dal Effects inTwtinjjfypi|f» Liquid-liquid IXs-
placement in PorousMedia," SPEI (Sept. 1966) 247-53;Trans.,
AIME, 237.
168. Mungan, N. and Moore, E.J.: "Certain Wettabitity Effects on
Electrical Resistivity in PorousMedia," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-
March 1968) 7. No. 1, 20-25.
169. Zisman, W.A.: "Relation of the Equilibrium Contact Angle to
Liquidand Solid Constitution." ContactAngle, Wettability and
Adhesion, Advances in Chemistry Series43. American Chemi
cal Soc.. Washington, DC (1964) 1-51.
170. Michaels, A.S. and llnuiiins, R.S.: "Chromatografdiic Trans
port of Reverse Wetting Agentsand Its Effect on Oil Displace-
ment in Porous Medb," 7>ai».. AIME (1960) 219, 150-57.
171. MichaeU.A.S., Stancell, A., and Porter, M.C.: "Eff^ofChio-
matographic Transportin Heitylamine on Displacement of OilIty
Water in Porous Media," SPEJ (Sept. 1964) 231-39; Trans.,
AJ^, 231.
172. Midiaels, A.S.andPorter, M.C.: "Water-Oil Djq>Iaoements from
PorousMediaUtilizing TransientAdhesion TensionAlterati(»s,"
AIChEJ. (July 1965) 11, No. 4. 617-24.
173. Morris,E.E. and Wieland, D.R.: "A Microscopic Stwfy of the
Effect of Variable WettabilityConditionson Inunisdble Fluid Dis
placement," paper SPE 704 presented at the 1963SPE Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 6-9.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986
174 Mungan. N.: "Role of Wettability and Imerfacial Tension in
Waterflooding,"SPEJ (June 1964)115-23; Trans., AIME,231.
175 Bobek, J.E.. Mattax, C.C.. and Denekas. M.O.: "Reservoir Rock
Wellability—Its SigniHcance and Evaluation," Trans., AIME
(1958) 213. 155-60.
176. Burkhaidt, J.A.. Ward. M.B.. and McLean. R.H.: "Effect of Core
Surfacing and Mud Filtrate Flushing onReliability ofCore Anal-
- ysis Conducted on Fresh Cores," paper SPE 1139-G, presented
at the 1958 SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Oct. 5-8.
177. Amott, E.: "Observations Relating to the Wettability of Porous
Rock." Trans., AIME (1959) 216. 156-62.
178. Thomas. D.C.. Hsing. H.. and Menzie. D.E.: "Evahiation of Core
Damage Caused by Oil-BasedDrilling and Coring Fluids," p^r
SPE 13097 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Confer
ence and Ej^bition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
179. Ehrlich, R.. and Wygal. R.J.: "Interrelation of Crude Oil and
Rock PropertiesWith the Recoveryof Oil tty CausticWaterflood
ing." SPEJ (Aug. 1977) 263-70.
180. Mungan, N.: "Relative Permeability MeasurementsUsing Reser
voir Ruids," SPEJ (Oct. 1972) 398-402; Trans., AIME, 253.
181. Bodustynski, M.M.: "Asfdtaltenesin PetroleumAs(^ts: Com
position and Formation," Otemistry efAsphaltenes, J.W. Bun-
ger and N.C. Li (eds.), American Chemical Soc., Washington,
DC (1981) 195, 119-35.
182. Richardson,J.G.. Peridns, F.M„ ^ Osoba, J.S.: "Differences
in the BehaviorofFresh and Ag^East Texas Woodbine Cores,"
JPT(S\xbc 1955) 86-91; Trans., AIME, 204.
183. Morgan, J.T. and Gordon, D.T.: "Influence of Pore Geometry
on Water-Oil Relative Permeabilities," JPT (Oct. 1970)
1199-1208.
184. Grist, D.M., Langl^, G.O., and Neustadter, E.L.: "The De
pendenceofWater Penneabilityon Core CleaningMethodsin the
Case of Some Sandstone Samples," J. Cdn. Pet. Tedu (April-
June 1975) 14, No. 2, 48-52.
185. API RecommendedPractice for Core-Analysis Procedure, API,
RP 40, first edition. New York City (Aug. 1960).
186. Jennings, H.Y.: "Effects ofLaborau^ Core Cleaning on Water-
Oil Relative Permeability," ProducersMonthly (Aug. 1958) 22,
No. 10, 26-32.
187. Duyvis,E.M. and Smits, LJ.M.: "A Test for the Wettability of
Carbonate Rocks," SPEJ (March 1970) 3-4.
188. ROM, W., Schmid,C.. and Wissman,W.: "DisplacementTests
With Porous Rock San^Ies Under Reservoir Conditions." Proc.,
SixthWorldPet. Cong., Fnuikfiirt (1963), Sec. 2, paper 11. PD6.
467-81.
189. Ehrlich, R., Hasiba, H.H.. and Raimondi, P.: "AlkaUne Water-
flooding for Wettability Alteration—Evaluating a Potential Field
Application," JPT (Dec. 1974) 1335-43.
190. Lonnz. P.B., DonaMson,E.C., and Thomas, R.D.: "Use ofCen
trifugalMeasurements of Wettability to PredictOil Recoveiy,"
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Baitlesville EnergyTechnology Center,
repon 7873 (1974).
191. Emery, L.W., Mungan, N., andNidwlsra. R.W.: "CausticSlug
Injection in the Singleton Field." /PT (Dec. 1970) 1569-76.
192. Hjelmeland, O.S. and Larrondo, L.E.: "Experimental Investi
gation of the Effects of Temperature.. Pressure, and Crude Oil
Conqiosition on Interfacial Properties,'! SPERE (July 1986)
321-28.
193. Colpitts, G.P. andHunter, D.E.: "Laboratory Displacement of
Oil by Water Under SimulatedReservoir Conditions," J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (1964) 3, No. 2, 66-70.
194. Ehlig-Economides,C.A. and Economides^ MJ.: "Pressure and
Temperature DqiradentProperties of theRock-Fluid Systems in
Petroleum andGeotheimal Fbrmations,** paper SPE9919 present
ed at the 1982 SPE California Regional Meeting, TtaVtHirftrfrf
March 25-26.
195. Kyte, J.R., Naumann, V.O., andMattax, C.C.: "Effectof R^r-
voirEnwroiunent onWater-Oil Displacements," JPT(June 1961)
579-82; 7>ai»., AlME, 222.
196. Johnson. R.E. and Dettre, R.H.: "WettabOity andContaM An
gles,"Surface andColloid Science, E. Matijevic (ed.), Wil^ In-
terscience. New Yoric City (1969)2. 85-153.
197. Poston. S.W. et al.: "The Effect of Tenqierature on Irreducible
Water Saturation,and Relative Permeab^ty of UnconsoUdated
Sands." SPEJ (June 1970) 171-80; Trans., AIME. 249.
198. Samaroo. B.H. and Guerrero. E.T.:"TheEffect ofTempeianire
on Drainage Capillary Pressurein RocksUsinga Modified Cen
trifuge." p ^ SPE 10153 presented at die 1981 SPEAnnual Tech
nical Conferenceand Exhibition. San Antonio. Oct. 5-7.
1143
 199. S^yal, S.K.. Raroey, H.J. Jr., and Marsden, S.S.: "The Effcci ei MAtrie CAnuAMtiAn
ofTemperature on CapOlaiy Pressure Properties ofRocks." Proc., WOtrlC Conversion FaCtOrS
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium. Lafayette. LA. May 6-9, degrees X 1.745 329 E-02 = rad
1973, NI-NI6. op fi —
200. Sinnokrot. A.A., Ramey, H.J. Jr.. andMarsden. S.S.: "Effect
ofTemperature Level Upon Capillary Pressure Curves," SPEJ
(March 1971) 13-22.
201. McCaffeiy.F.G.: "Measurement ofIntcrfacial Tensions andCon- JPT
lact Angles atHiATennierature and Pressure." J. Oil./Vf Tedu °5'^'™S^;^<SPEi393gf*rtw»dintt»Soci6iyoiP«roi«jTOEnQinMfioHk*
(July-Sept. 1972) 11. No. 3,26-32. iSeT P«bBe«tk» July 23.19S5. RMtiMl nunuwrtpt w-

^ .Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1986

Wettability Literature Survey—Part 6: The
Effects of Wettability on Waterflooding
W.G. Andersoiii* SPE, Conoco Inc.

Summary. The wettabiliQr of a core will strongly affect its waterflood behavior and relative permeability because wettability is a
major factor controlling the location, flow, and distribution of fluids in a porous medium. When a strongly water-wet system Is
waterflooded, recoveiy at water breakthrough is high, with litde additional oil production afterbreakthrough. Conversely, water
breakthrough occurs much earlier in strongly oil-wet systems, with most of the oil recovered during a long period of simultaneous
oil and waterproduction. Waterfloods are less efficient in oil-wet systems compared with water-wet ones because more water must
be injec^ to recover a given amount of oil.
This paperexamines the effects of wettabiliQr on waterflooding, including the effects on the breakthrough and residual oil
saturations (ROS's) and the changes in waterflood behavior caused by core cleaning. Alsocovered are waterfloods in
heterogeneottdy wetted ^stems. Waterfloods in fractionally wetted sandpacks, where the size of the individual water-wet and oil-
wet sur&ces are on the orderof a single pore, behave like waterfloods in uniformly wetted systems. In a mixed-wettability system,
the continuous oO-wet paths in the larger pores alterthe relative permeability curves and allow the ^stem to be.waterflooded to a
very low ROS after the injection of many PV's of water.

Introduction
Thispaperis thesixthin a seriesof literature surveys covering the
effects of wettability on core analysis. Wettability has been
shown to affect waterflood behavior, relative permeability, capil-
1^ pressure, irreducible water saturation (IWS), ROS, di^rsion,
simidated tertiary recoveiy, and electrical properties. Earlier
but less complete reviews covering the effects of wettability on
waterfloodmg and relative permeability can be found in Re£s. 6
through 17.
Waterflooding is a frequently usedsecondaiy recoveiy method
in which water is injected into thereservoir, diq)lacing theoil in
front ofit. Assuming that thereservoir is initially at IWS, only oil
is produced until breakthrough, thetime when water flrst appears
at theproduction well. After breakthrough, increasing amounts of
water and decreasing amounts ofoil arcproduced. The process con
tinuesuntil the WOR is so highthat the well becomes uneconomi
cal to produce.
Waterfloods in water-wet and oil-wet systems have long been
known to behave veiydifferently. Foruniformly wetted sys
tems, it is generally recognized that a waterflood in a water-wet
reservoir is more efficient than one in an oil-wet reser
voir. >0,15,18,19,23-28 example of the effect of wettability on
waterflood performance calculations is shown in Fig. 1. Steady-
stateoil/water relative permeabilities weremeasured inanoiitcrop
Torpedo sandstone using ia mild NaQ brine and a 1.7-cp
[1.7-mPa*s] refined mineral oil.Thewettability ofthesystem was
controlled byadding either(1)various amounts of barium dinonyl
naphthalene sulfonate to the oil, whichmadethe ^stem moreoil-
wet, or (2) Orvus K™ liquid (adetergent) tothe brine toachieve
a strongly water-wet ^stem witha contact angleof 0° through the
brine. Wettability wasmonitored by contact-angle measurements
on a quartzciystal. The measured relativepermeability curveswere
used to calculi field performance, assuming asingle 20-acre [8-ha]
five-spot with homogeneous properties. Oil and water viscosities
were assumed to be 1.74 and 0.35 cp [1.74 and 0.35 mPa*s], re
spectively.The calculated waterflood resultsare shownin Fig. 1,
where water breakthrough is the point at which each curve first
becomes nonlinear. Fig. 1 demonstrates that earlier water break
through and lessefficient oil recoveiy occuras the^stem becomes
more oil-wet.For example,8% lessoil willbe produced at a WOR
of 25 if the contactangle is 138** [2.4 rad], rather than47** [0.82
rad].
Waterflood recoveiy is controlledby the oil and water relative
permeabilities of a ^stem and by the water/oilviscosity ratio. In
*Now with Pvtieutato SoOd Resesreh.
CopyriBhilsar SociMy o( PMfoteum Enelnaem
Journal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987
laboratoiy-scale experiments, inlet and outlet end effects can also
affectthe recoveiy.The effects of relative.penneabilities and vis
cosity ratioon waterflooding aredemonstrated bythefractional flow
equation. If we neglect capillaiy effects and assume a horizontal
system, the simplified form of the fractional flow equation(e.g.,
see Craig^) is
1
fwiSw)- (1)
l+fn.*"
Mo kr
where
/ht = fractional flow of water,
water saturation,
= oil and water viscosities, respectively, cp, and
^ro'^fw = oil and water relative permeabilities, respectively.
Eq. 1 shows thatthe fractional flow of waterat a givensamration
is increased when die water/oil viscosity ratiois decreased. Decreas
ing thewater/oil viscosity ratio will cause eariier breakthrough and
less efficient oil production. Similar effects will occur when the
water/oil relativepeimeability ratiois increased. The oil and water
relative permeabilities are explicit functions of the water samra
tion. They are alsoaffected by pore geometiy, wettability, fluid
distribution, and samration. histoiy.^
Water-Wet Systems. Asdiscussed byAnderson,^ wettability has
a strong effect on relative permeability. As the core becomes more
oil-wet, the waterrelative permeability increases and the oil rela
tive permeability decreases. Thewater will flow more easily incom
parison with the oil during a waterflood, causing progressively
earlier breakthrough and less efficient recoveiy. Wettability
affectsrelativepermrabilityand waterflood behaviorbecause it is
a major factor controlling the location, flow, andspatial distribu
tion offluids in the core. Craig^ and R^ et al. have given good
summaries of the effects of wettability on the distribution of oil
and water ina core. Consider a strongly water-wet rock initially
attheIWS. Water, thewetting phase, will occupy the small pores
and forma thin film over all the rocksurfaces.29-32 oil, the non-
wetting phase, will occupy thecenters of thelarger pores. This fluid
distribution occurs because itismost energetically favorable. Any
oil placed in the small pores would be displaced intothe centerof
die lai^e pores by spontaneous water imbibition, becausethis would
lower the energy of the system.
1605

tetr WL-WET
J ±
0.4
1 I
OS 08
WATER INJECIEO, POK VOLUCS
Fig. 1—Effect ofwettabllity onwaterflood performanee cal
culation, 20.8ere five-spot. Ho=1.74 cp, |i»»0.35 cp.
Taken from Owens and Archer.^
During a waterflood ofa water-wet ^stematmoderate oil/water
vi^ity ratios, water moves through the poious medhun in afairly
uniform front.® The injected water will tend to imbibe into any
ai^-or medhun-sized pores, moving oil into die large pores where
itis easily di^laced. Ahead ofthe front, only oil is moving. In
the frontal zone, each fluid moves through itsown network ofpores,
but widi some wetting fluid located ineach pore.^ Inthis zone,
where both oil and water are flowing, a portion ofthe oil
incontinuous channels with some dead-end branches, while the re
mainder ofAe oil istrapped indiscontinuous globules. After the
water front pas^, almost all the remaining oQ is immobile,
ofsuch immobility in this water-wet case, there is little orno pro
duction ofoilafter water breakthrough. The disconnected residual
oil exists in two basic forms: (1) small spherical globules in
the center of the larger pores and (2) laiger patches of oil ex-
completely surrounded by
An idolized example ofa waterflood in a strongly water-wet
core isgiven in Fig, 2. Alarge fraction ofthe oil in place (OIP)
is produced before breakthrough (BT in figures), with very little
additional oU recovered after breakthrough. After breakthrough.
the WOR increases rapidly. Because littleonisproduced after break
through, the total oil recovery is essentially independent of the
voli^ ofwatCT injected.Note that whfle the waterfloods in Fig.
2 give a good idea of typical behavior for water-wet oil-wet
sandstone ^stems. Morrowhas pointed outthat theoilrecov
eries arehigher than average laboratory corefloods.
Oil-Wet Systems, inastrongly oil-wet rock, the rock is preferen
tially in contact with the oil, and thelocation of thetwo fluids is
reversed fhnn the water-wet case. Oil isgenerally found inthe small
poresandas a thinfilmon the rocksurfaces, while wateris locat
ed in thecenters .ofthe larger pores.
The interstitial water saturation appears tobelocated asdiscrete
droplets in the centers ofthe pore spaces in some strongly oil-wet
rese^oirs.A waterflood ina strongly oil-wet rock ismuch less
efficient than oneina water-wet rock. When diewaterflood isstan-
ed. the water will form continuous channels orfingers through the
centers of thelarger pores, pushing outoilin front of it. Oilis left
in the smaller crevices and pores. As water injection continues,
water invades thesmaller pores to form «nnttnn^fs chan
nels. ^ the WOR ofthe produced fluids gradually increases. When
sufficient water-filled flow channels form to permit nearly unre
stricted water flow, oil flow falls to a very low level.®
Fig. 2also contains an example ofawaterflood in astrongly oil-
wet core. Oil recovery before breakthrough isrelatively «maii with
most ofthe oilproduced after breakthrough. The WOR
1606
too
•rr»»- SO
WATER at. f
I ^
—r" s
30a
»|
B
STRONGLY
WATER-WET
STRONCLV
OU,-WET
•i- •f
DCATER WJGCTEO, PORE VOUJMES
Fig. 2—Typical waterflood performance In water-wet and oil-
wet sandstone cores at moderate oil/water vi'scosity ratios.
Taken from Raza et a/."
gradually after breakthrough. The waterflood in the oil-wet sys
tem is less efficient than the waterflood in the water-wet system
because more water must be injected to recover a given amount
of oil. The residual oil after the waterflood is found filling the
smaller pores, asa continuous film overthepore surfaces, andas
larger pockets of oil trapped and surrounded by water, Be
cause much of this oil is stillcontinuous through thethinoil films
andcan be produced at a veryslowrate,29.3i.34j5 rqs is notwell
defined. Incontrast tothe water-wet case, oil recovery isstrong
ly dependent on the volume of water injected.
In the reminder ofthis paper, the terms "wetting" and "non-
wetting" fluid will also beu^ inaddition towater-wet and oil-
wet. This will more easily enableus to draw conclusions about a
^stem with theopp<»ite wettabiliQr. For example, a waterflood
ina ^stem of onewettabiliQr will behave in the same manner as
woilflood in thesamesystem withthewettabilities reversed. Rela
tive permeability curves will also show that the fluids can exchange
positions and flow behavior.^*''
Breakthrough, PlracticaU and Ttve Residual Saturations. There
arc Utrce different oil saturations ofinterest in watcrflooding: break
through saturation, practical (or economical) saturation, and true
residual saturation. Note that these saturations are all averages over
the entire core because the references surveyed report oil recovery
as a fimction of PV's of waterinjected. All threesaturations are
essential^ equal ina strongly water-wet ^stem with a moderate
oil/w^ viscosity ratio. The saturations can differ greaUy, how
ever, inintermediate and oil-wet ^stems orinwater-wet systems
with a large oil/water viscosity ratio. Breakthrough occurs when
water is first produced at theoutlet of thesystem. Before break
through. a volume ofoilisproduced foreach volume ofwater in
jected, providing the most efficient recovery possible. The lower
the oil saturation in the reservoir rock at breaktfirough (and the
higher the oil recovery), the more economically attractive awater-
flood will be.
After breakduough, the WOR rises continuously, sothat more
water must be injected and more water produced for each addi
tional barrel ofoil recovered. When the WOR isso high tiiat die
waterflood isno longer economical, the sysxem isatdie practical
oreconomical ROS. There isgeneral agreement that the practical
ROS islower in water-wet systems; i.e., more oil isproduced in
a unifon^y water-wet system dian would be produced ina uni
formly oil-wet ^stemwith die same pore 6,13,26.27.2938
When dieeconomical saturation isreached inan or
oil-wet ^stem,there arestill continuous connections between much
ofdte oil diroughout die porous medium. Itispossible tocontinue
to produce small amounts ofoil at avery high WOR. Evenmally,
however, nomore oil will beproduced, and the true or
residual saturation will be reached. TTiis can take die injection of
tens to diousands ofPV's ofwater, depending on the wettability
ofdie ^stem. Widi mixed-wettabOity ^sterns, very low true ROS's
can be r^hed. as discussed later.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
 0B4-
ROOM TEI«>e(UtURE WO PftCSSURE
WEAKLY WATER-WET
ooomoNS
STRONOLV <KATER>WeT
2 3
WTGR MJCCTED-PORE VDUWeS
Rg. 3—Effect of wettabifity on waterflooding, native*8tate
ptug. The oil/waterviscosity ratio was 1.9. Talcen fromKyte
Note that this literature survey is concerned only with residual
saturations thatare obtained when capillary forces are predominant.
Thiscondition is satisfied when the capillaiy number (theratioof
viscous tocapillaiy forces) andBond number (the ratio of buoyant
to capillary forces) aresufficiently low thatviscous andbuoyancy
forces havea negligible effecton residual saturations. Additional
oil can be recovered during a waterflood when the viscous or
buoyancy forces become important, which willoccurwhen flow
rateis very laigeor when, forexample, a surfactant isused to lower
the interfacial tension (IFT). Under these circumstances, wettabiliQr
effects are also important in the recoveiy of additional oil, as dis
cussed by Lefebvre du Prey,^^ Melrose and Brandner,""*
Stegemeier,'*' and others,
Waterfloods in UnHormly Wetted Systems
Atypical example of thechange inwaterflood behavior asa ^stcm
becomes less water-wet for moderate oil/water viscosity ratios is
shown in Fig. 3. A single native-state carbonate plug was water-
flooded at twodifferent wettabilities. First,thesample was water-
fl(^edatroom temperature and pressure with ^thetic formation
brine and a reflned oil.Theviscosity oftherefined oilwas adjusted
to m^ch the reservoir oil/water viscosity ratio. An imbibition
test * measured withbrine and refined oils on plugs
showed that the native-;state core was weakly water-wet at room
conditions, because it imbibed a relatively smallamount of water
(3 to 8% PV). Afterthe room-temperature waterflood, thenative-
stateplugwasflushed withlivecrudeoil at reservoir temperature
and pressure, then waterflooded at reservoir conditions. Imbibition
tests with live crude and brine at reservoir conditions showed that
the native-state core was then strongly Water-wet, becauseit im
bibed about 50% PV of brine.
The strongly water-wet, reservoir-condition waterflood is much
moreefficient thanthe room-condition, weakly water-wet one. The
straightlineat the leftsideof the graphshows the recovery before
breal^rough, when one volume ofoil isproduced for each volume
of water injected. Breakthrough saturationis the pointat whichthe
curve first becomes nonlinear. After water bre^cthrough, the oil
saturation decreases lessrapidly because bothoil andwaterare pro
ducedat the outlet for each additional volume of water injected.
In thestrongly water-wet flood Cower curve), breakduough occurs
relatively late and very little oil is produ(^ after water break
through. The WOR rises rapidly. In the weakly water-wet flood,
however, breakthroughoccurs at an earlier time and die WOR rises
gradually. MorePV's of watermustbe injected to recoverthe same
amountof oil in the weaklywater-wet ^stem. The economical ROS
for the weakly water-wet ^stem willbehigher(lessoil recovered).
Journal of Pelroleum Technology, December 1987
I t I I
Fig. 4—Effect of aging on waterflood performance of uncon-
solidated sandpacks, water and live Singleton crude oil.
|te B 1.68 cp. Taken from Emery et
JS. »ti3Sw
0 O.M»
I
s
0.0*
at
am
•o.tB
4
»
M -I.IM
H.UI
CUM* Off o»r «r aoi. MO
J ' '
•m'Minn, ntc tnuaa
Rg. 5~-Effect of wettabllity on waterflood recoveiy using
brine, Squirrel crude oil, and organochlorosiiane-treated
Torp^o sandstone plugs, fl, b33 cp. Taken from Donald
son and Thomas."
Stmibr changes in waterflood and relative permeability behavior
in native-state core between reservoir and room conditions have
alsobeen observed byothers. Colpitts andHunter^' com
pared waterfloods in native-state cores at two different test condi
tions: (1) reservoir temperature and pressure with brineand live
crude and (2) room temperatureand pressure with brine and a re
flned mineral oil. Water breakthrough occurred later in the
reservoir-condition tests,andtheoil recoveiy wasgreater. Colpitts
and Hunteralso comparedwaterfloods in native-state core at room
conditions with the same core after it had been cleaned. Imbibition
tests showed thatthenative-state corewasweakly water-wet, while
thecleanedcorewas neutrally wet. The waterfloods in thecleaned,
neutrally wet core were less efficient than the waterfloods in the
native-state, weakly water-wet core.
Thechange inwaterflood behavior as wettabiliiy isaltered isvety
clearly seen inFig.4. Note thatthisfigure isinverted with respect
to the preceding one because it shows oil recovered rather than the
oilremaining inthecore. Although recovery before breakthrough
islinear, thisis notshown. Initially water-wet sandpacks were sam-
rated withwater,drivento IWSwithliveSingleton crudeoil, then
agedat leO^F[71 "C] and a pressureof 1,(XX) psi [6.9MPa], which
was sufficient to keep allgasinsolution. In Fig. 4, thewettability
of the sandpacks during waterflooding ranges flnom water-wet for
theupper curve (aged Shours) tooil-wet forthe lower curve (aged
1,100 hours). After 1,100 hours of aging, the sandpack had be
come oil-wet, as determined by an imbibition test. These water-
floods show that as the system becomes more oil-wet, less oil is
recovered after breakthrough for the injection of a givenamount
ofwater. Donaldson e/cd.^ found similar changes inwettability
and waterflood behavior when initially water-wet outcrop cores were
aged with brine and crude oil.
1607
 Contoet Angfa (6)
> 3 min. 24 hra.
0. 50
45 25
62 46
—o— 81 66
"A— 108 90
o 40
-o- 140 115
# 157 154
« 30
Gil-Wet
< 20
q:
3 ^WETTING QSPLACING NONWETTING
I—
<
</)
10 -
,Water«W;et
0 2 4 6 8 eral oil,and wateror a sucrose solution.The contactangle,
WATER INJECTED, PORE VOLUMES
Fig. 6—Effect of wettability on waterflood recovery using
brine, a refined mineraloil, and organochlorosllane-treated
uneonsolidated sandpacks. The system was Initially 100%
saturated withthe refinedmineral oil,which had a viscosity
of 1.31 cp. Average porosity of the sandpacks was 33.5%,
and the average effective olljMrmeabiiity was 11 darcies.
Taken from Newcombe e( a/.®*
Fig. 5 showsoil recovery fordifferent waterfloods as thewetta
bility was varied from water-wet tooil-wet. The wettability ofthe
corewasvaried by treatment with organochlorosilanes andmeas
ured with the USBM method, where +1 indicjitf-jf a strong
ly water-wet core, —la strongly oil-wet core, and 0 a neutrally
wet core. The oi^ganochlorosilane-treated corcs were saturated with
brine, driven with crude toIWS, then waterflooded. Once again,
the waterfl^ is more cfTicicnt when the core is watcr-wet. Other
work showingthat waterfloodsarc moreefTcctivc in watcr-wctvs.
oil-wet corcs can be found in Rcfs. 23, 28, and 53 through 56.
The effects ofwettability onoil saturation after breakthrough arc
shown in Fig. 6. Initially water-wet, uneonsolidated
treated with different concentratioos oforganochlorosilanes tovary
the wettability. The sandpacks were dried, 100% saturated with
a 1.31-cp [1.31-mPa*s] refined mineral oil, thenwaterflooded with
tap water while oil production was monitor^. Contact-angle meas
urements were made with water and oil on a flat silica plgtf, thnt
was treated along with thesandf^ck. These measurements proba
bly give only a rough indication ofwettability forthetreated sand
packs. The wettability ofa treated core varies with a large nnmbfr
of variables, including thetime elapsed since thesurface was treat
ed. *Newcombe etal.^^ found ttet the contact angle measured
through the water decreased asthe system aged. The first column
ofimasurements inFig. 6was made after 2or3minutes ofaging,
while the second column was made after 24hours of aging.
Fig. 6 shows that the residual saturation after 8 PV of water in
jection decreases asthe^stem becomes more water-wet, inagree
ment with the other experiments discussed previously. The oil
saturation at breakthrough also decreases as the 24-hour contact
angledecreases from 154® to 66° [2.7 to 1.2 rad]. In contrast to
the experiments above, however, as the 24-hour contact angle is
decreased from 66® to 25" [1.2 to 0.44 rad], the oil saturation at
breakthrough remains constant. Inaddition, the amount ofoilpro
duction after breakthrough increases, sothe strongly water-wet ^s-
tems are behaving in a somewhatoil-wet manner. Leach et al.^^
pointed out thatthis behavior wasapparently caused by a lackof
wetting equilibrium in thewater-wet sandpacks. When a water-wet
system containing waterandoil is in wetting equilibrium, the water
will beincontact with thepore walls. Thesandpacks used byNew
combe et al., however, were initially 100% oilsaturated. During
1608
FLOOD CHARACTERISTICS
SINTERED TEFLON® CORE
PERMEABILmr 680md
kHtiol Sol
POROSITY 30%
INTERFAaAL TENSION 4idyi«An
NONWETTING OSPLACtNG WETTING
e = l60*
2 4 6
CUMULAnVE INJECTION, P. V.
Fig. 7—Effect of wettability on recovery for an unfavorable
viscosity ratio of 12. OilMwet, aintered teflon core, refined min
0, is measured through the displacing phaseon a fiat teflon
plate. Taken from Mungan.^
a waterflood of this^stem, the waterwilleventually displace the
oilfrom tiie porewalls, butdiis isa relatively slow process. If water
is injected at too high a rate, wetting equilibrium will not be
achieved, andthesystem will a^iear more oil-wet, with signifi
cantoil production afterwaterbreakthrough. Leach etal. present
ed resultscomparing the effectsof water injection rate on ROSin
water-wet packs with andwithout an initial watersamration. They
found thattheapparent oil-wetness of the i»cks without an initial
watersaturationincreased as the water injection rate increased. In
summary, thewaterfloods inFig.6 show theeffects of wettability
on waterflooding. However, the floods in the water-wet systems
arealsoaffected bythetimelequired forinitially 100%-oil-saturated
sandpacks to reach wetting equilibrium.
As discussed Inthe |»pcr on relative permeability.^ a number
of experimenters have shown that thepositions and flow behavior
ofoiland water arcoften reversed when relative pcrmcabilitias in
oil-wet and water-wet ^sterns are compared.36Similarly, a
waterflood in a ^stem ofone wettability will behave in the same
were manner as an oilflood in the same system with the wettabilities
reversed. For example, Sarem^' treated Burbank cores
with prifilm™, an organochlorosilane, to reirfer them oil-wet.
Corn initially at ROS were oilflooded. Essentially no water pro-
ducdon wasobserved afteroil breakthrough forthese oil-wet cores,
which is analraous to waterflood behavior in a water-wet core.
Mungan'^*^compared oilfloods and waterfloods ina sintered
teflon corewith oilas the wetting fluid. A reflned mineral oil and
w^r orasucnse solution were used. The viscosity ratio was main
tained constant by varyingthe sucroseconcentration in the water.
Typical results are shown in Fig. 7. For the wetting-displacing-
nonwetting case (oilflood), the core was samratedwithoil. driven
tothe ROS with sucrose solution, then oilflooded. Asimilar proce
dure was used forthenonwetting-displacing-wetting case (water-
flood). The displacement when the wetting fluid is injected
(analogous to a waterflood in a water-wet core) is more efTicient.
Breakthrough occurs laterand is followed Ity only a small amount
of two-phase flow.
In sununary, when a uniformly water-wet core is waterflooded
ata moderate oil/water viscosity ratio, most ofdieoilisproduced
before breakthrough and water breakthrough occurs relatively late.
The produced WOR rises rapidly after breakthrough. Asthe
q^stem becomes oU-wet, breakduou^ occurs earlier. The produced
WOR rises more gradually, anda signiflcant amount of oilcanbe
produced after breakthrou^. Waterfloods in an oil-wet sys
tem are less efficient because more water must be injected to re
covera given amount of oil. When a laboratory coreis oilflooded,
thebehavior ofthe two fluids is reversed. Oilfloods arevery effi
cient when the system is oil-wet and become less efficient when
Journal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987

. ""iiT . '
Rcnxco Ot-AUMOUM
1
It 1
' _
1
/ ^
' .taooc*
/
/^
• -WkTOtWET
O-OtLWET
-i-rr....!
ai ii>
«aROI MJCCTCO-KMC VOUWC
Fig. 8->Effeet of wettabllity and viscosity on waterfloods In
oIKwet and water-wet sintered aluminum oxide cores. Taken
from Jennings.^
the system is water-wet. Suchoilfloods andwater/oil relative per
meabilities measured with the oil saturation increasing can ^ve
practical significance in EORprojects whenan oilbankis formed
in front of the injected fluids.
Interaction of Wettabllity and Viscosity Ratio
In thewaterfloods at moderate oil/water viscosi^ ratio discussed
previously, wettabili^ was veiy important in determining water-
flood behavior. There was little oilproduction afterbreakthrough
ina water-wet core,butsignificant production afterbreakthrough
in an oil-wet core.Actually, dieamount of production before and
after breakthrough is controlled by both the wettabili^ and the
oil/water vi^ity ratio, (see ^.1). When the oil/water
viscosiQr ratio is laige enou^, there will be a significant period
oftwo-phase flow atany wett^iliQr. An increase in oil viscosi^
lowers theoil mobility relative to thewater mobility. This change
in mobility causes an eariier water breakthrough andan increased
period of simultaneous oil and water production before ROS is
rcached.*'®®
For example, Richardson^' examined the effects ofviscosity ra
tioona 1-ft [0.3-m] -long, water-wet sandpack thatwas
with brine, oilfiooded, and then waterflo^ed
mPa*s]). When a 1.8-cp [1.8-mPa*s] oil was used, water break
through-occurred afterabout 0.6 PVof water injection with little
additional oil recovery. When a ISl-cp [151-mPa's] oil wasused,
water breakthrough occurred afteronly 0.3 PVof water injection.
After2.5 PV of water injection, only0.S PV of oil had beenre
covered andadditional oil wasstill being produced. Notethatdiis
difference in waterflood behavior was caused only bythechange
inthe oil/water viscosity ratio and not byproblems with achieving
wetting-phase equilibrium because both waterfloods could be de
scribed with the same relative permeability curves.
At high oil/water viscoshy ratios, waterfloods in both oil-wetaai
water-wet cores showa decrease in recovery at breakthrough and
a longer period of two-phase production. It is still true, however,
that a waterflood in a water-wet core is more efficient than a water-
flood inan oil-wet core.26-38 At any fixed oil/water viscosity ra
tio, water bre^rough will occur earlier in the oil-wet core, and
more water will have to be injected to obtain the same recovery.
Anexample of theinteraction between wettability andviscosity ratio
is shown in Fig. 8. The dashed line in Fig. 8 is the oil recovery
beforebreakthrough on thissemilog plot. Tworefined mineral oils
and two artificial cores of sintered alumiruim oxide were used. One
of the cores was used in its initial water-wet state, while the other
was treated with an organochlorosilane to render it oil-wet. The
results for the waterfloods with the 1.8-cp[1.8-mPa*s] oil in the
oil-andwater-wet cores are very similar to those discussed previ
ously. With the2,500-cp [2,500-mPa*s] oil, breakduough occurred
much earlier,aldiough wettability hadlittleeffect ontherecovery
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Decentbcr 1987
rfTT|- I 11114 I iiii[
I ri HI
n. CLEANED CORE
" m m r om
n T^rrrm
11 u> 10
WATER INJECTED, PORE VOLUMES
Rg. 9—Waterfloods using 1,200-cp crude or refined mineral
oils in nathr»«late or cleaned cores. Taken fromJennings.'*
at breakthrough. However, the waterflood in the water-wet core
was more efficient after breakduough.
Jennings^^ also compared waterfloods of high-viscosity crudes
in native-state and cleaned and friable and unconsolidated cores.
Threedifferent waterfloods werecompared: (1) livecrudein native-
state core, (2) live crude in cleaned core, and (3) refined oil in
cleaned cow. Theviscosity of therefined oil wasadjusted to match
the crude. Typicalresultsare shownin Fig. 9 for waterfloodswith
1,200^ [1.200-mPa*s] oils. The double-dashed line is the oil
recovery before breaktiirougfa. The waterflood of the native-state
eott ccmtaining livecrudewasmostefficient, followed by diewater-
flood oflive crude in the cleaned one. Least efEdent was the water-
flood of the refined oil in the cleaned core. Unfortunately, the
wettability before and after extraction was not measured, so it is
not known whether the core was more oil-wet or water-wet after
cleaning. In addition, tiie waterflood behavior and wettability of
thecleaned coresaturated widibrineand livecrudemight depend
ontheaging time.^ Even so. Jenning's results indicate the im
portance of using native-state cores.
The experiments by Jennings demonstrated diathighly unfavora
bleviscosity ratioscauseearly waterbreakttirough for botii water-
^ oil-wet cores. Conversely, when the oil/water viscosity ratio
q) [1.3 is very fovorable, there will be littie oil production after break
through ataity we^ility. Tlie waterflood look similar to water-
floods in strongly water-wet coreat moderate oil/water viscosity
ratio. Mungan^ examined the effects ofviscosity ratio for both
thewtttiiig fluid displacing thenonwetting oneandthereverse dis
placement (see Fig. 10). A sintered teflon core, refined mineral
oils (wetting phase), andwater or a sucrose solution (nonwetting
phase) were used. Theviscosity ratio was varied by using differ
ent sucrose solutions and blends of refined oils. As the viscosity
ratio was varied, thecontact angle through thewetting phase (oil)
variedfromabout30 to 50** [0.52to 0.87 rad], whichis reasona
bly constant:
Theupper pairofcurves inFig. 10show theeffects of viscosity
ratio when thewetting phase (oil) displaces thenonwetting phase
(sucrose solution or water) from a sintered teflon core. The cores
were samrated witii oil, waterfloode4 to ROS, and then oilflood-
ed. Thesedisplacements are analogous to a waterflood in a water-
wet reservoir core. Atfiivorable viscosity ratios, thebreaktiirough
^ economic recoveries areessentially equal. As die viscosity ra
tiobecomes more unfavorable (analogous toa higher oilviscosity
ina water-wet reservou- core), bodi thebreakduough and
recoveries decrease. Thebreakthrough recovery is slighdy smaller
thw theeconomic one.These results agreewitii therecoveries ob
tainedwhen flooding a water-wet core at moderateoil/water vis-
c(sity ratios.
Thelower pairof curves in Fig. 10show dieviscosity ratio vs.
the recovery when the nonwetting phase (sucrose solution orwater)
displaces die wetting phase (oil) from the teflon core. The cores
1609
 -nwORAOLE-
ceoNOMc NEOOvDrr
wrrTMG INJEETCD FLVW
BREAKTMflOUGH MCOMaiV
KEOOVENY
NONWCmNB tNJCCTEO PUilO
FUOO CMMUCTCmsnCS
sMnMSTcnm*oonc
^aRCMTMKXIGH mxNon fpagMiun coond
KROsrrr so%
COKDCTMU SO*-SO*
wnuu. UTUUTHN 90% RU
MiBwa>i.ioaoN3»««ii«rtiii
J.
• I l/t
tNSPLACeO/MCCTCO FUW VBOOSITY MTB
Rg. 10—Effoct ofviscosity ratio onrseovary, sinterad teflon
core, raflnad mineral oil, and aucrose aolutlon or water. The
upper pair of curves are the recovery when a wetting fluid
(refined mineral oil) displaces a nonwetting fluid (sucrose so*
iutionor water),wtiich is analogousto a waterflood Ina water-
wet core. The lowerpair of curvea are the recovery when a
nonwetting fluid displaces a wetting fluid, analogous to a
waterflood In an oil-wet core. Taken from Mungan.'*
were saturated with water, oilflooded to IWS, and then water-
flooded. These displacements areanalogous toa waterflood inan
oil-wet reservoir core. When the viscosi^ ratio isunfiivoiable, most
ofthe nonwetting phase isrecovered after breakduough, in agree
mentwiA results disaissedabovefor waterfloods in ofl-wet cores.
As die viscosiQr ratio becomes more fiivorable, the brealcthrough
reooveiy gradually approaches the economic recovery. Acompar
ison ofthe two sets ofcurves shows that the breakthrough and eco
nomic recoveries are lower when the nonwetting fluid isinjected.
Inaddition, Fig. 10 demonstrates that there will be very little two-
phase production until the economic recovery isreached ata very
favorable viscosiQr ratio, regardless ofthe wettability.
Inunsteady-mte relative permeability measurements, a core in
itially at IWS is waterflooded. Relative permeabilities arc calcu
lated from the pressure drop and the produced fluids by the
Johnson-Bossler-Naumann method. Because a signiflcant
amount ofoil production is required after breakthrough tocalcu
late relative permeabilities, viscous oils are generally used to in
crease dte period ofsimultaneous oiland water production.
viscous oils w used, the shape ofthe waterflood curve may not
be an indication ofthe wettabili^ and should be interpreted with
caution. Core iswater-wet if there is little production after break
through. On the other hand, two-phase production after break
through may be caused by either viscosity or wettability effects.
Residual Saturatiom in Uniformly
Wetted Systems
In this section, the effects ofwettability on ttebreakthrough, prac
tical, and ultimate ROS's inuniformly wetted ^stemswill te dis
cussed. Unfortunately, the conclusions must be considered to be
tentative. Experimental results, particularly instrongly water-wet
systems, often di^gree. In addition, alarge number ofother vari
ables affect the oil saturation during waterflooding, inriitHing vis
cosity ratio, saturation history, pore geometry, and injection rate.
Met and outietend effectscan also affectthe measured oil satura
tion inlaboratoiy-scale experiments. Finally, the experiments dis
cussed below report tiieaverage saturation in thecore, which will
be ^ected by core lengtii. During a waterflood, the oil saturation
is higherat the outietend of the core and decreases towardthe in
let because ofthe unsteady nature ofdie flood. The average satu
ration measured at any given time will depend on the
throughout die core and vary for cores ofdifferent lengdis.
Despite thelarge number ofodier variables atfecting theoilsatu
ration. some generalizations about wettability effects can bemadr.
1610
ULTIMATE
UJ 80 SPREAD BETWEEN THE
BREAKTHRCXJGH AND
ULTIMATE REDOVERiES
BREAKTHROUGH
0.4 OB
WATER MILDLY
COS
Fig. 11—Effect of wettabiiity on oil recovery, organochloro-
sliano-treated Pyrex glass core. The two fluids used were
brine (fi^ sO.94 ep) and a mixture of iwlodeeane and min
eral oil (fio b1.98 cp). Taken from Warren and Cathoun.**
(The labels **water>wet*' and "mildly olivet" are baaed on
our Interpretation of the data.)
There isgeneral agreement intfte literature with the following state
ments foruniformly wetted systems, although exceptions areknown
to exist.
1. Thebreakthrough, practical (ecohomical), anduirimat*. rqs's
areessentially equal andlowfor water-wet ^stems. Afterbreak
through, tiiere isalmost no oil production. The oil recovery ishigh
"ROS. I0,18,l9.24.26;t9,4943 'ccovery is inversely related to die
2. As the ^stem becomes ^re oil-wet, the breaktiirough
and economictd ROS's increase, so oil recovery decreases. The
economical ROS is lower than the breaktiirough saturation, and
thedifference between thetwo gradually increases. Small amounts
of oil are produced for a long time after breaktiirough, so tiic
economical ROS depends on the number of PV's of water in
jected.'®«'8-'»'^'26iW9.49j3.5W7
3. The ultimate ROS, which isthe saturation after a large num
ber ofPV's ofwaterare injected, isonly weakly depen^ton tiie
wettability. It is sU^y lower near neutral wettability (Mgher oil
recovery), but changes much less tiian tiie breaktiirou^ oreco
nomical oil saturations. *'«25.53,6S
4. Tliere issomedisagreementondie effectofwettalniity asacore
becomes very strongly water-wet compared widi moderately water-
wetsystems. Allduee ROS'sareessentially tiiesame, because diere
is mt production after water breaktiirou^, with all die oU trapped
indiscontinuous globules. Different experiments suggest, however,
tiiat the ROS in a strongly water-wet ^stem dccreases,^*^® re-
ma^ the same,®® or increases,"^*^ dqiending on such varia
bles asheterogenehy, pore geometry, injection rate, and inlet and
outiet end effects.
Note tiiat we are discussing the effects at low-to-moderate
OA/water viscosity ratios on tiie order of1to10. As discussed previ
ously,tftebreaktiirough andeconomical ROS'sincreases as tiieoil
viscosity increases; however, waterfloods are still more efficient
in water-wet ^tems tiian in oil-wet ones (see Eq. 1).
Breakthrough Saturations
Figs. 2 through 7show the changes inbreakthrough natiirRtion as
diewettability ranges from water-wet to oil-wet. Asthecore be
comes more oil-wet, the oilsaturation at brealcthrough increases
and the oil recovery decreases. Ina water-wet core, oil istrapped
behind the water from in discontinuous globules. After the water
front passes, almost dll the remaining oil isimmobile, allowing littie
orno production after breaktiirough.As tiie ^stem
becomes more oil-wet, tiie water begins to travel preferentially in
Journal of Petroleum Teclinology. December 1987
 MHvc t m aof€
WITCH MCCTID-^aK «QUaB
Fig. 12—Comparisonof a waterflood in a native-state core
vs. a waterfio^ in the same core after itwas eieaned ai^
rendered strongly water-wet. Talcenfrom Rathmeli et a/.
thelargest pores, with only weak imbibition into smallerones. This
causes early brrakthrough because many pores are bypassed. Be
cause the oil in the core remains connected, however, additional
011 can be produced after breakthrough.*-'®'^'*^'''^
For example, breakthrough in the more water-wet case of Fig.
3 occurs when the oil saturation is roughly 0.4, withverylittleoil
recoveredthereafter.The upper, weaklywater-wet curvegivesan
earlierbreakthrough whentheoil saturation is about 0.6 anda much
longerperiodof two-phase flow. In Fig. 4, the breakthrough (BT
in the figure) oil recovery was 50% PV when the sandpack was
water-wet (aged 5 hours). Breakthrough recoveiy decreased to about
37% whenthe sandpack was oil-wet(aged 1,100 hours). The ef
fect of wettabilityon the breakthroughsaturationis also shown in
Fig. 11, which will be discussed in more detail later.
Astheoil/waterviscosity ratioincreases, theoil recoveiyat break
r^. through decreases for bothwater-wet andoil-wet^stems (seeFip.
8 through 10). With the high-viscosity oils used by Jennings?^
breakthroughoccurred very early for all of the systems. In the sys
tem shownin Fig. 8, wettability effectson breakdirough wereunim
portant for the 2,S00-cp (2,S00-mPa*s] oil. Alternatively, Fig. 9
clearly showsthat wettability can still afTcct breakthrough even with
veiy-high-viscosity oils.
When a core becomes veiy strongly water-wet, oil recoveiy can
increase,decrease, or remainthe same, depending on other varia
bles such as heterogeneity, pore geometry, and injectionrate. In
addition, inletand outlet effects can affectdie recoveiy m laboratory-
scaleexperiments. Although theexperiments discussed previously
foundan increasein recovery, other experimentershavefoundthe
recovery to decreaseor remain the same when comparedwith die
recoveiy in moderately water-wet core. The upper curve in Fig.
12 is the oil recoveiy for a native-state core. Breakthroughoccurs
relatively late, and there is some oil production after breal^rough.
The lower curve, with an earlier breakthrough and little subsequent
recovery, is for the same core after it was cleaned and rendered
strongly water-wet. An imbibidon wettability test^*^ determined
that the cleaned core was strongly watw-wet, because it rapidly
imbibed a large volume of water. The native-state core was more
weakly water-wet, according to imbibition measurements, so break
throughand practicalrecoveiy decreasedas the core bccamemore
water-wet. Note that it is not known whedier the native-state core
had nonuniform wettability. As discussed in more detail later,
mixed-wettability cores canalso show more recoveiythanstrongly
water-wet ones.
Amon^ examined waterflood recovery in Ohio sandstone and
Alundum""^ plugs treated widi various concentrations of organo-
chlorosilanesto vary wettability.The fluids were brine and kero
sene, while wettability was measured by the Amott method.^ Fig.
13 shows the recovery after 2.4 PV of water was injected. Amott
found that the breakthrough recoveiy curves had a similar shape.
The lower curve in Fig. 13, for the Ohio sandstone plugs, has a
maximum as the Amott wettability index varies from water-wet to
oil-wet. The recovery at 2.4 PVs increasesas the wettability var-
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
00 OS
onxpKirr m mtm am otaueuBir or «. tana
Rg. 13—Amott wettability Index vs. waterflood oil recovery
after 2.4 PV water inleetion. Brine and kerosene, organo*
chiorosiiane-treated Ohio sandstone and Aiundum plugs.
Taken from Amott.*"
iesfrom strongly water-wet (displacement-by-water ratio°+1) to
water-wet (displacement-lty-water ratio^O.S). The recoveiy re
mains constant as thewettability variesfromwater-wet to neutrally
wet (bothdisplacement ratios=0). It is constant, thendecreases as
the wettability varies from neutrd to oil-wet (displacement-by-oil
ratios +0.5). Because theAmott wettability testis notveiysensitive
near wettability, the width ofthe maximum islarge.^
Similar data for breakdirough were observed by Ratiimell et
a/.*® as the vrattabUity wasvaried in 7- to 9-ft (2.1- to 2.7-m] -
longBerea corestreated widi various concentrations of Drifilm to
vaiy wettability. Imbibition testswereused to measure thewetta
bility. Breakdirough occurred at an oil saturation of 40% PV for
untreated, strongly water-wet coresand at roughly 33% PV for
moderately water-wet onestreated with a 0.3% Drifilm solution.
Corestreated withhigherconcentrations of Drifilm wereveiyweak
ly water-wet, with only very small amounts of water imbibition.
The oil saturation at breakdirough for these cores decreased fur
ther, to roughly 24% PV.
Theupper curvein Fig. 13,which is foran Aiundum core(sin
tered aluminum oxide), has a constant recovery until intermediate
wettability is readied, followed by a decline in recovery widi in
creasing oil-wetness. Thedifference in thetwocurves shows that
die wettability and pore geometry interactto influence die recov
ery. In the Aiundum core, whichis relatively homogeneous, wet
tability effects are less important. Similarly, Morrow^ found dut
die residual saturation reached during a capillary pressure meas
urement is not influenced by wettability when the porous medium
(a bead pack) is sufficiendy homogeneous.
Microscopic nonuniformities and heterogeneities can loweroil
recoveiy by making iteasier for oil tobe bypassed and trapped,^
particularly in strongly water-wet or oil-wet ^stems, where the
capillaryforcescausingfluid isolationand trappingare strongest.
Moore and Slobod^' noted that water will tend to imbibe into the
smallest pores when waterflooding a strongly water-wetrock. In
a strongly water-wet ^stem, tracer studiesshowthat a relatively
largefraction of die nonwetting fluid(oil) is locatedin nonflowing
de^ritic structures, particulariy atsamrations near ROS.^ As the
injected water Itypaisses them, the dendrites are trapped and isolat
ed by capillary forces. Hderogeneities increase the ROSttymaking
it easier for fte water to bypass and trap the oil.
Wardlaw^ used glass micromodels to observe the increased
trappingcaused by heterogeneities in stronglywater-wet systems.
The micromodels contained either lai^ge single pores or isolated
clusters of large pores surrounded by a continuous network of
smaller pores. Experiments were made widi both air/mercuiy,
where air was the wetting fluid, and water/air, where water was
the wetting fluid. In each case, the wetting fluid displacedthe non-
wetting fluid from the model (analogous to a waterflood in a water-
1611
 wet core). The wetting fluid advanced more rapidly in the fine pores
compared with the large pore, bypassing the nonwetting fluid in
the large pores and isolating it. Wardlaw then made one ofhis sys-
t^ neutrally wet by coating itwith a plastic and repeated the water-
displacing-air experiments. He found much less trapping ofthe air
in the large pores, indicating that heterogeneities were less impor
tant in his neutrally wet system.
Heterogeneities are also important in determining the residual
wetting phase in strongly wetted systems (i.e., oil inan oil-wet sys
tem). When thenonwetting phase is injected, it will tend to travel
through die larger pores, bypassing wetting fluid located in clusters
ofsmaller pores. Morrowused capillaiy pressure measurements
tocompare theIWS instrongly water-wet, homogeneous and het
erogeneous sandpacks. Thesandpacks were composed ofdifferent
fractions oflarge and small grains. In the honnogeneous sandpacks,
the large and small grains were mixed together, so the pore size
was relatively uniform throughout the pack. Inthis case, the ROS
was roughly 8% PV, regardless ofthe fraction ofsmall vs. large
grains.
"^e heterogeneous i»cks were composed of clusters ofsmall
grains (small pore size) in acontinuous matrix oflaige grains (large
pore size). Inthis case, the IWS was much higher, from 20to40%
PV, depending on the faction ofsmaller grains. The IWS was in-
crea^ becauK water was trapped inthe clusters ofsmall pores.
During thecapillaiy pressure measurements, thewater would drain
from the large pores, disconnecting and trapping the water inthe
small pores.The workby Wardlaw andMorrow inHjcates thein
teraction ofheterogeneities and wettabili^ indetermining residual
saturations.
Changes in Saturation Caused by
Inlet and Outlet End Effects
Inlet and outlet end effects arenot important on a reservoir scale.
However, they can significantly afifea measured oilsaturations and
recoveries in latoratoiy-scale experiments. The outlet end effect
is the accumulation ofAe wetting phase dt the outlet by Iq.
cal capillary forces."*''* In a water-wet core, capillary forces
cause a1^ water saturation near the outlet, retarding water break
through." During the waterflood ofa water-wet core, the capil
lary pressure, Pc-Po~Pw* ispositive in the interior ofthe core,
so the water pressure isless than the oil pressure. In contrast, the
capillary pressure outside thecore is zero because theinterfaces
between theoiland wiater arealmost flat. When thewater fiist ar-
rives at theoutlet of the core, the pressure in the water is lower
than the pressure inthe oil surrounding the outlet face; hence no
water will beproduced. Because water cannot beproduced,
itaccumulates near the outlet, allowing the capillary pressure to
decrease. When enough water has accumulated, theROS isreached
in a thin layer near the exit, where the capilla^ pressure is zero.
At this point, water breakthrough occurs b^ause die c{q)lllaiy pres
sures inside and outside thecore are equal. Theoutlet end effect
is largest at low flow rates, where capillaiy forces also a be used during floods of composite cores, diey reconunend die
sprrading of thedisplacement front. These twoeffects cause a de
lay in water breakthrough compared with thetime that water first
arrives at ^ end face ofthe core. To avoid this problem, most
waterflooding experiments aredesigned tominimize theoutlet end
effect and theinfluence of capillary pressure'on thedimlacement
front by mcreasing the flooding rate orthe core lengfli.'"-75 wh#.n
theflooding rateis increased, thezoneof excess wateraccumula
tion shrinks until it is negligible, causing the arrival and break
through of water to occur simultaneously.
For strongly water-wet cores, there isevidence that increasing
theflowrateto minimize theoutletendeffectincreases theseveri
ty ofan inlet end effect. An inlet end effect develops in strongly
water-wet media as the result of spontaneous, localized counter-
flow imbibition. Injected water will firstcontact thein
let face ofthe core in a localized area. If the wetting is strong
enough, water will spontaneously imbibe into the core atthe point
ofcontact, causing a simultaneous counterflow ofoiloutofthecore.
Water continues toenter inthis localized region asthe flood con
tinues, establishing a region of unstabilized, nonlinear flow.'" As
theflood proceeds, capillary forces redistribute the wateroverthe
entirecross-sectional area of thecore. The inletend effectwillbe
1612
most important in short cores and at high injection rates, where
the influence ofcapillary forces is relatively small. Where capil
laryforces have sufficient time to redistribute the water, the inlet
effect will be negligible; e.g., ina reservoir. Kyte and Rapoport'^
ranwaterflooding experiments with waterandglycerine solutions,
and a refined oil in artificial, strongly water-wet, sintered alumi
num oxide cores. They showed that the inlet end effect was impor
tant when the injection rate was high enough that the outlet end
effect wasnegligible. Theinletendeffect caused a decrease in the
oilrecoveiy at water breakthrough. However, theinlet end effect
did not significandy affect theoverall flooding behavior. The oil
recovery curve afterbreakthrough converged rapidly to thecurve
from a longer core where both inlet and outlet end effects were
negligible.
During awaterflood ofan oil-wet core, capillaiy forces will keep
the oil satur^on near the core outlet high, even after the remainder
ofthe core isatROS.'^''^*'® At low flow rates, the end effect and
the spreading ofthe displacement firont caused 1^capillary forces
will reduce the oilrecoveiy at breakthrough.'® As with water-wet
cores, oil-wet cores are generally flooded atrates high enough that
the outiet end effect and the effects ofcapillaiy forces onthe dis
placement firont are both negligible. Rapoport and Leas'® found
thatthe effiects of capillaiy forces were fnintmi7f!4i when
through S,
.(2)
where Listhe core length, cm, and II isthe flow rate per unit cross-
sectional area, cm/min.
Hinklqr ^ Davis" shidied end effects in composite cores,
wluch consist ofasmes ofshort core plugs butted together. Satu
rations along thelength of thecpre were measured with a micro-
wve scanner. Water-wet ^rea sandstone, water-wet Baker
limestone, and oil-wet T^^gias™ plugs were used. Tegraglas is
asynthetic porous medhim bon^iosed ofuniformly sized beads qwx-
ied together. Hinklcpr and Davis found that even when die plugs
were carefiiUy machined and placed under conqnession. saturation
discontinuities could occur between die plugs, giving rise toend
effects in each plug in the series. These endeffects could be re-
duced by adding a "bridging" material between the plugs, widi
comparable wettabOity and penneabi%. Fbr water-wet plugs, diey
found diat two water-w« bridging materials, tissue paper and filter
paper, were botheffective.Water-wet diatomaceous earth wasalso
effective, but diere was some indication ofdeterioration widi time.
A water-wet glass fiber membrane andanoU-wet teflon fUter mem
brane were both found to be ineffective. For the oil-wet Tegraglas
plugs. Hi^ey and Davis were not able to find an effective bridg
ing material. Thqr tried both water-wet tissue paper and oil-wet
teflon filter membranes.
Hinkley and Davis found that the end effects between the plugs
could also be minimized l^.increasing dieinjection rate forboth
ofl-wetandwater-wet plugs. Toestimate dieflow rates diatshould
Rapqxm and Leas scaling criteria (Eq. 2) widi die total lengdi re
placed by the length of the individual plugs.
PraeUeal ROS
The economical (practical) oilrecovery varies ina fashion Bimtiar
to breakdirough recoveiy, aldtough itdecreases more slowly as die
^stem becomes more oil-wet. The breakdirough and '•'^ffmical
recoveries areessentially identical ina water-wet corewidi a moder
ate oil/water viscosity ratio because litdeadditional oil is recov
ered aftCTbreakdnou^ As die system becomes more ofl-wet, much
more oil is produced intwo-phase flow after breakthrough, and
die economical recovery become larger dian die breakdirough
recovery. Because oil recovery and ROS areinversely related, die
practical ROS increases at aslower rate dian die breakdirough satu
ration.
The effects ofwettability on breakdirough and practical oil satu
rations (recoveries) are shown inFigs. 2dirough 7.Recall diat die
breakthrough saturation (recoveiy) occurs when the slope ofthe
curve first changes. When die economical ROS is reached, very
Utde additional oil isproduced for each additional PV ofwater in
jected, making the produced oU curve almost horizontal.
Jounml of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
 In the lower, more waicr-wcl curve of Fig. 3. the brcalcthrough
and economical ROS's are about 41 and 36% PV, respectively,
a difference of only 5% PV. In the upper, weakly water-wet curve,
the breakthrough saturationis about62 percentPV, whiletheeco-
nomical ROS is about 42% PV. a difference of about 20% PV.
r A comparison of the two curves shows that as the system became
less water-wet, the economical ROS increased by a relativelysmall
amount, 6% PV, while the breakthrough saturation increased by
a much larger amount, 20% PV.
This slower change in the economical residual saturation com
pared with the breal^rough saturation can also be seen in Fig.7,
wherea floodwiththe nonwetting fluiddisplacing the wettingfluid
(similar to a waterflood in an oil-wet core) is compared with the
reversedisplacement (wetting fluiddisplacing the nonwetting fluid,
similar to a waterflood in a water-wet core). When the differences
in the initial saturations are taken into account, the economical recov
eries are very similar, whilethe recoveriesat breakthrough differ
by about20% PV. Similarly,Figs. 2,4, and S showthe economi
cs recovery decreasing more slowly than the breakthrough recov
ery as the oil-wetness increases (economical ROS increasing more
slowly).
As the oil/water vi3cosity ratio (/to/Mw) increases, the economi
cal oil recovery decreases for both water-wet and oil-wet systems
(see Figs. 8 through 10). However, it is still generally true that
it is more efTicient to waterflood a water-wet system than an oil-
wet one.
True Residual Saturation
On the basis of a limited number of experiments, it appears that
the ultimate oil recoveiy, which occurs alter the injection of many
PV's of water, has a maximum under neutral or slightly oil-wet
conditions. The ultimate recoveiy corresponds to the
minimum true residual saturation and declines as the ^stem be
comes more strongly wetted in either direction. The diange in recov
eiy as the wettability is altered is relatively small, however, and
the ultimaterecoveiy is muchlessdependent on the wettabiliQr than
either the breakthrough or economic recoveries.
The true ROS does not appear to be affected by the oil/water
viscosiQr ratio. Rathmell eial.^ found nosignificant effeaonthe
ROS in water-wet and intermediate-wet core when the oil/water
viscosityratio ranged from I to SO. While the viscosity ratiodoes
not affect the final recovery, note that some oil-wet systems re
quire a very large numberof PV's of water before uhimatcoil recov
er is reached, particularly at high oil/water viscosity ratios.
Similarly, Slobod^ found that a large number ofPV*s ofnaphtha
(0.44 cp [0.44 mPa's]) were required to flood brine-filled (I cp
[1 mPa*s]), water-wet cores to IWS. This displacement with an
un&vorable viscosity ratio is analogous to a waterflood in an oil-
wet core. In one case, the water saturation at oil breakthrough was
roughly40% PV. Smallamounts of waterwereproduced fora veiy
long time after breakthrough. Roughly 1,200 PV's of naphthawas
required to achieve the IWS of 15% PV.
Jennings^^ compared the oilsaturations during waterfloods in
water-wet and organochlorosilane-treated, oil-wet sintered alumi
num oxideplugs.The plugswere initially 100%saturatedwithkero
sene, thenwaterflooded. The watersaturations at breakthrough were
very different: roughly 75 and 53% PV for the water- and oil-wet
plugs, respectively. After 40 PV of water injection, however, the
water saturations were roughly 85% PV for the water-wet plug,
and 81% PV for the oil-wet one. The oil recovery for the oil-wet
plug was still slowly increasing, while it had ceased for dte water-
wet plug, denwnstrating that the ultimate ROS's would be very simi
lar for the oil-wet and water-wet plugs if flooding had continued.
Fig. 14 shows the ultimate oil recoveiy after waterflooding as
a fimction of the wettability. The sessile-drop ratio, a method of
contact-angle measurement, was used to measure the wettabili-
ty.81.82 jjj method, a drop of oil is placed on the underside
r-i- of a smooth silica surface immersed in brine. The ratio, the height
divided by the diameter of the drop, is measured after the system
reaches equilibrium. The drop is small enough that gravitational
effects are negligible and may be considered to be a segment of
a sphere, makingit possibleto calculatethe contaa angle. A sessile-
drop ratio of0 corresponds to an oil-wet core (0-180" [3.14 rad]).
Journal of Petroleum Technology, £)ecember 1987
mmMuy KT
avwtno
Fig. 14~Effeet of wettability on ultimate oil recovery, syo'
thetle silica core, East Texas crude oil, and surfaetant-treated
brine. Takenfrom Kennedy et a/.*°
a ratio of0.5 to an intermediate-wet core (0=90° [1.57 nuQ), and
a ratio of 1 to a water-wet core (^bO**). The waterflooding experi
ments used an artificial core ofchdnically consolidatedsand, brine,
and East Texas cmde oil. Different sur&ctants in the fluids were
used to vaiy the wettability,while maintaininga constantIFT. The
maximum recovery (andminimum true residual saturation) occurred
at a slightly oil-wetcondition. As the wettability varied,however,
the change.in true ROS was small, about 5%. Kennedy etxU.^
also lookedat ROSin outcrop Woodbhwsandstonecores but found
that the data were too scattered to draw conclusions. At least i»it
of the scatter occurred because the IFT was not controlled in this
second set of e;q)eriments.
Warren and Calhoun^ measured breakdirough and ultimate
recoveries onsintered Pyrex™ glass cores, varying thewettabili
ty with different concentrations of Drifilm. Brine and mixtures of
organic liquids were used. The iiltimaterecoveiy was defined as
dte oil recovered after 20 PV of brine injection. In their experi
ments, the cores were first completely saturated with the organic
liquid (oil), then the breakthrbugh and ultimate recoveries were
measured during a constant-rate waterflood. Typical results are
shown in Fig.-l 1. Warren and Calhounmeasuredan apparent con
tact angle, Og, and assumedthat the wettability of their experiments
varied from neutrally wet (cos O^bO) to strongly oil-wet (cos
00^ 1). Because of this, their work is often cited as the only ex
periment in the literature where the maximum waterflood recov
eryoccurred tinder strongty oil-wet conditions (9^180** [3.14 rad]).
As discussedin detail in the Appendix, however, we feel that the
best interpretation of theseexperimentsis thatdie wettabilityachi-
ally varied from mildly water-wet to mildly oil-wet. With this in-
^retation, the breakthrough recoveiy is high when the ^stem
is water-wet, dropping sharply as the ^stem becomesmildly oil-
wet. The ultimate recoveiy rises slightly, with dte largest value un
der mildlyoil-wetconditions.Withtfiisinterpretation, the data from
Warren and Calhoun's experiments agree with the other literamre
cite(|.
The trapping of oil and gas on a microscopic scale is affected
by the geometric and topologic properties ofthe pores, the fluid
properties, and die wettability.^ It isgenerally accqited that max
imum recoveiy wOloccur near neutral wettabilitybecause die IFT's
that disconnect trapthe oil are mtnimiy^ 17,48,69,84,85 jjj g
strongly water-wet ^stem, the water will tend to travel through
die smaller pores, possibly bypassing some of the oil in the larger
pores.In addition, the sax>ng interfacial forces will tend, to dis
connect and to "snap ofT' some of the oil. In a strongly oil-wet
^stem, there is a tendencyfor the water to fingerdmnigh the larger
pores, also bypassing some oftheoil.^^ Incontn^, Acre will be
less tendency for the water to bypass and trap oil at neutral wetta
bility.
Experiments byWardlaw^*^ inglass micromodels support the
hypodtesis that trapping on a microscopic scale is minimized near
neutral wettability. As discussed eariier, Wardlaw^ found less
trappingin heterogeneous glass micromodelsat neutral wettability
dian in the micromodel when it was strongly water-wet because
1613

Fig. 15—Average ROS aftercentrifuging vs. USBM wettabillty
index. Squirrel oiland organocittorosllane-treated Torpedo
sandstone cores, 77*F. Curve Is a least*squares fit Talcen
from Lorenz e( a/.^
there was less tendency tobypass and totrap the displaced phase.
In a second setof experiments, Waidlaw^ examined onemecha'
nism oftra|q)ing, isolation ofAedisplaced phase ina single pore
by acapill^ instabiliQr (snapK)fi) between die pore and an adja-
Mnt pore throat. Astron^y water>wet glagg micromodel consist
ing ofa series ofpore/pore-throat pairs was saturated with brine,
&endisplaced withair to IWS.Waterwasthenallowed to imbibe
into theqrstem. Inthisstrongly water-wet case, thewater traveled
around die outside ofthe pore, bypassing mc»t ofthe nonwetting
ph^ (air) inthe center ofthe pore. When the water reached the
^t dm^at, acapillary instabili^ trapped and isolated the remain
ing nonwetting phase by snapping off its connection inthe pore
throat. Wardlaw then treated the g^ sur&ce with awater-repellent
silicone, which caused a water/oil contact angle ofdxnit 90° [1.57
rad] (rieutral wettabiliQr). When the experiment was repeated, the
water interfiice advanced smoodily thrragh the tube, not allowing
any ofthe displaced airto betrapped. Wardlaw Tq)eated his ex-
perimrate with different fluid pairs and surface treatments to vary
wettabiliQr. He found significant trailing when the contact angle
was less tfian about 20° (0.35 radj. Above 20° [0.35 rad], die trap
ping decreased significantly. For contact angles greater than about
35° (0.61 rad], no residual air was trapped. Wardiaw's experiments
examined only a few of dielarge number ofdifferent mechanisms
tl^ can trap oil. Thqr demonstrate, however, that these mecha
nisms become much less effective near neutral wettabiliiy.
fa summary, breakdirough, economical, andtrue residual satu
rations areessentially equal forwater-wet cores at low-to-moderate
oil/water viscosity ratios, ondieorderof 1to 10.Fordiese condi
tions, residual oil isleft asdiscontinuous globules. Maximum break
through andpractical (economical) oil recoveries are reached under
water-wet conditions, while die maximum ultimate recovery occurs
when diesystem is neutrally to mildly oU-wet. Maximum recov
ery decTKises in a strongly oil-wet core because die watertravels
preferentially through the largest pores, bypassing much ofthe oil.
When the core becomes very strongly water-wet, oil recovery may
increase, decrease, orremain die same, depending on the pore ge
ometry, heterogeneity, and inlet and oudet end effects.
Comparison With CapOlaiy Pressure Data. In the experiments
discuss^ previously, capillary forces dominate the processes that'
trap residual oil in a core. Incontrast, neither buoyancy norvis
cous forces areimportant in trapping. These forces may aign be
neglec^in capillary pressure measurements. Because the forces
determining ROS aredie same, onewould expect die residual satu
ration determined from thecapillary pressure curve to be similar
to dieultimate ROS afterwaterflooding. Fig. 15shows dievaria
tion inROS with wettabili^ measured inanoutcrop iwnrtKttinf with
brine utd crude oil. Note that theROS data presented Lorwiz
etal.^ refer to the average saniration ofthe core, not the fece
saturation determined by Hasslerand Brunner's?® and Slobod et
o/.'s methods. The average saturation isalways smaevAtai higher
than the fece saturation, approaching it as the capillary pressure
difference across the core is increased. Inpresenting these data,
an assumption has been made that the capillary pressure is high
enough for the average and face saturations to be essentially equal.
1614
• WATER BREAKTHtOUCH
O FRACTIONAL FU>W OF WATER • 99%
WATER-WET, RREO CORE
WET, WEATMOtEO CORE
ae Ij6
WXIB) IIWECTEO, PORE WUMIES
ng. 16—Calculated waterflood data, contaminated, oti-wat
plug vs. the same plug after It was cleaned and rendered
water-wet. Based on an oil-water viscosity ratio of 4. Taken
from Keelah.*"
In these tests, die wettability was varied by use of different con
centrations ofDrifilm and assessed with the.USBM wettability in
dex, W. ROS decreases fh)m roughly 30% when die core isstrongly
oil- or water-wet toabout 20% when die system is neutrally wet.
Thecurve reaches a minimum at a slightly oil-wet condition, when
Wis slightly less than zero. This is in good agreement with the
waterflood measurements by Kennedy et aL,6S keeping in mind
tfiat die figures are inverted widi respect to eachother.
Effect of Trapped Gas on Waterflood Recovery
Some evidence suggests diatgashasdifferent effects on ROS'sin
water-wet and oil-wet porous media. Asreviewed in Craig,® the
ROS inwater-wet ^stems islower when cores contain a trapped
gassaturation during a waterflood compared widiwaterfloods widi
no traro^ gas. This result was confinned inexperiments by Kyte
etal.^ in water-wet systems. However, several experiments by
Kyte et al. indicate noeffectof gassaturation on die ultimate ROS
inoil-wetsystems.Artiflcial,sinteredaluminum oxidecores were
treated widi organochlorosilanes to change die wettability from
strongly watcr-wct. Theplugs were saturated widi gasandoil.then
waterflooded. While the gas affected the oilsaturation during die
eariy stages ofthewaterflood, there was essentially noeffect after
3 PV of water injection. In contrast, die residualoil in water-wet
reservoir andsintered aluminum oxidecoreswasaffected, drclin-
ing as die trapped gas saturation increased.
Kyte etal. proposed diat die wettability affected die results by
controlling thefluid distributions in diecore.Ina water-wet core,
die residual oil and gas are traiqied indie centers ofthe pores, while
the water occupies the rock surfaces. The trapped gas occupies a
portion ofthepore that would otherwise beoccupied widi residual
oil; therefore, ROS isdecreased byincreasing thegas saturation.
Incontrast, theresidual oil inan oil-wet system is located ondie
rock sur&ces, whiledie gas and water are located in die centers
ofthe pores. Because the residual oil and gas do not compete in
oil-wet ^stems, ROS is not affected by trapped gas.
Effects of Core Cleaning and Handling
The experiments described attempted tovary wettability systemat
ically. Indiis section, we will review some experiments diat show
how core cleaning and handling can drastically affect waterflood
l^vior by altering die wettability of core. Additional informa
tion on the effects ofcore cleaning and handling on relative per
meability can be found in Ref. 5.
Keelan^ examined the effects ofcontamination anri core clean
ing on waterflood recovery. Unsteady-state relative permeabiUties
were measur^ on an oil-wet weadiered core widi wettability-
^tering chemicals in the mud. Asecond set ofrelative permeabili
ties was nieasured after die core was cleaned and rendered water-
wet by flring at570°F (300°C1 in an oxygen/C02 atmosphere to
remove alladsorbed, wettability-altering compounds. Waterflood
Journal of Peiroleum Technology. December 1987
 TABLE l-AVERAGE ROS IN PRESERVED TABLE 2—ROS IN RESERVOIR CORE PLUGS^
AND cleaned cores*'
ROS (% PV)
ROS (% PV) Reservoir Native-State Wettability Native-State Cleaned
Reservoir Preserved-State Cleaned 1 Weakly water-wet 27.3 31.6
A 17.6 17.0 2 Weakly water-wet 15.8 33.2
B 17.2 16.4 3 Weakly water-wet 44.8 47.0
C 15.2 27.1 4 Water-wet 37.5 35.2
5 Weakly water-wet 29.4 36.4
6 Weakly water-wet 17.0 18.3
7 Oil-wet* 35.1 20.5
behavior wasthencalculated fromthe relative permeabili^curves, 8 Oil-wet, Intermediate* 22.0 19.8
assuming an oil/waterviscosity ratioof 4. A comparison of the two
waterflo^ isshown in Fig. 16. As expected, the waterflood in
the water-wet core is more efficient. Note that the fractional flow "bnbibad both oil and waisr.
of water is 95% in the water-wetcore after approximately 1.4 PV
wateris injected.In contrast,the oil-wetcore requiresroughly 2.2
PV ofinje^ water toreach the same fractional flow, demonstrat
ing the more rapid rise in WOR after breakthrough for water-wet TABLE 3—ROS AT WORolOO, FRACTIONALLY
WETTEO SANOPACKS**
^stems.
RQhl et made two series of measurements on core from Oil-Wet Sand ROS
the Hohne reservoir that demonstrated the effects of core handling (%) (%PV)
on waterflood behavior. In the first set of experiments, reservoir- 0 28
condition waterfloods were compared inwea^red cores vs. cores 25 35
that were cleaned and extracted with a benzene/alcohol mixture. 50 40
Both cores were flushed with brine, then driven to IWS with live 75 45
crude. During the waterflood, the weatheredcores acted more oil- 100 48
wet, with earlier breakthrough aiid lower recoveries.
RQhl et id. also compared three sets of waterfloodson extracted
core: (1) reservoir-condition waterflood with live crude and brine. Rathmell etdl. also examined the effects on waterflood perform
(2) room-condition waterflood with dead crude oO, and (3) room- ance of aging outcrop sandstone cores with crude oil. The ROS
condition waterflood with a refined mineral oil. The viscosities of of a7-ftX2.1^] -longTorpedosandstone corewas43.5% PVusing
the dead crude and the refined mineml oil were reduced with gaso brineanda refined mineral oil, widino oil production afterwater
line to matchthe live crude. There was essentially so difference breakdirough. A water imbibition test on a secondplug indicated
in behavior for waterfloods with live or dead chide. The water- tbattfaecprewaswater-wet, imbibing 40% PV of water. The same
floodswith the refined mineraloil were slightlymore water-wet, core was dgedwiflicrude for4 weeksat IWS. then waterflooded,
with 2 to 3% PV higher average recoveries at breakdnough and causingROSto decreaseto 34.7% PV. Again, no productionafter
5% PV higher average recoveries after the injection of 3 PV of water breakdirough was observed. Imbibitiontests on a plug indi
water. The e^qwrimems RQhl etal. are valuablefor demonstxsting catedthat the aged core was weaklywater-wet,imbibingonly 4%
the effects of aq)eriniental conditionson waterfloodbehavior. How PV of water.
ever, note that none of the experiments were at the reservoir wet- Lorenz et al.^ studied the effects of aging on waterflood be
tability. The cores were either weathered or extracted before the havior usibg Muddy J crude ill outcrop Cottage Grove sandstone
testing. Apparently, the extracted cores saturated with brine and cores. Beforeaging, the ^stem was water-wet, with essentiallyno
crude were not aged before testing, so the wettability was proba production afterbreakthrough. Afteraging forseveral weeks, break
bly not at equilibrium. through occurred eariier, wiUia longer period of simultaneous oil
Luffel and Randal^ compared ROS'& measured on prewrved and water production.
and cleanedcores from three reservoirs.The preservedcoreswere
taken with a water-basedmud, then sealed to prevent evaporation Fractiehal- ttnd lllxed*Wet Systems
and wettability alteration. Preserved samples were flooded with In die experiments in uniformly wetted porous media discussed
brine and kerosene to IWS, then waterflooded to determine ROS. previously, the wettability of the core was varied, while attempt
The sanq)les were then cleaned, saturated with brine and kerosene, ing toke^ the wettJibiUiy ofthe entire sur&ce as uniform as pos
andwat^ooded to determine ROS. Theresults areshown inTa sible. Many reservoir rocks have heterogeneous wettability,
ble 1. In two of the fields, there was essentiallyno differencein however, with variations in wetting preference on different sur-
ROS for preserved vs. cleaned cores. In Reservoir C, however, &oes. Additional wettabilityeffects will occur when the ^stem has
the average ROS for the preserved cores was 15.2%, vs. 27.1% nonuhiform wettability (either fractional or mixed), where portions
for the cleaned cores. For Reservoir C, Luffel and Randall state of the rock surfiice are water-wet, but the remainder are oil-
that the preservedcore measurements are in better agreementwith wd. Salathid^ introduced theterm **mixed" wettability for
the ROS of 17.9% calculatedfrom the reservoir performancedata. a special type offractional wettability in which the oil-wet sur&ces
Rathmell et al.^ compared ROS's fornative-state and cleaned form continuouspadis through the larger pores. The smaller pores
plugs. Wettabilitywas measured the imbibidmimetfradoa native- remain water-wet, containing no oil. Note that the main dikinc-
state plugs, while ROS's were determined on the native-state and tion between mixed and fiactional wettability is that the latter does
cleaned plugs by waterflooding. The results are shown in Table not imply dther specific locations for the oil-wet and water-wet
2. ROS was changed significantly in Reservoirs 2,5, and 7. The sut&ces or continuous oil-wet paths. In die ftacdonally wetted sys
ROS in Reservoir 2 increased from 15.8 to 33.2% PV. Imbibition tems discussed, the individual water-wet and oil-wet sur&ces have
tests showed that the cleaned plugs from Reservoir 2 were strong sizes on the order of a single pore.
ly water-wet. An example of the change in waterflood behavior
for Reservoir 2 before and after cleaning is shown in Fig. 12. The Fractional Wettability. Fatt and Klikoff^ measured the relative
oil saturation in Reservoir 7 decreased about 15% PV. Imbibition permeability ratio and the economical residual oil in fractionally
tests showed that Reservoir 7 was still oil-wet after cleaning; how wetted sandpacks formed by mixing treated and untreated sand
ever, it is possible that the cleaning altered the location of some grains togedier. Theuntreated sand grains were strongly water-wet,
of the adsorbed, wettability-alteringcompounds. Unfortunately,the while die remaining sand grains were treated widi Diif^ torender
wettability of the other reservoirs after cleaning is not givoi. How diemoil-wet. Notediat duringmixing, someDrifilmmay havebeen
ever, the results of Ratlunell et al. indicate the strong effects of transferred to some of the water-wetsand grains, probablygiving
cleaning on ROS in some reservoirs. them a nonzero contact angle.^ The absolute permeability of die
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987 1615

20 40 GO 80
WEI6HT-PEHCENT OIL-WET SAND
Fig. 17~Effeet of fiBetional wettabltlty on residual water
Mturatlon after the injection of 4 PV of oil. Taken from
Iwankow."
sandpacks was roughly 3.2 darcies. The fractionally wetted sand-
packs were saturated with water, driven to IWS with a 100-cp
[lOO-mPd's] refined mineral oil, then waterflooded. Table 3gives
the economical ROS measured ata WOR of100. Cleariy, ROS
increases asdiefraction ofoil-wet surfaces increases, whidi issimi
lar tothe changes that occurasaunifiDimfy wetted system becomes
more oil-wet.
Talash and Crawford®^® waterflooded aone-<]uaiter five-spot
model ^cked with different fractions ofwater-wet and oigano-
chlorosilane-treated, oil-wet sand grains. The fractional wettabili-
ty, oil/water viscosity ratio, and initial water, oil, and gas saturations
were all varied. For constant viscosity ratio and initial mtiiratiffns.
the oil recovery after 2 PV ofwater was injected decreased with
increasing oil fractional wettability. This isconsistent with the re
sults of Fatt and Klikoff.'^
Iwankow®® examined the effects of fractional wettability on
residual watersaturation using fractionally wetted sanrfpflrVs com
posed ofcleaned and fired, watcr-wet sand grains and oigano-
chlorosilane-treated, oil-wet sand grains. The sandpacks were
saturated with water, then injected with 4 PVs ofa refined miner
aloil. As shown in Fig. 17, ^e residual water saturation decreases
as thefraction of oil-wet sand increases. This is ennsjstfnt with
the results of Fatt and Klikoff'^ and Talash and Crawford.'"®
All thrw experiments found that the practical residual saturation
ofa fluid increases as the percent ofsand grains wet by that fluid
inoea^. The practical ROS increases as the oil fiacttcnial wetta
bility mcreases, while the practical re^ual water saturation in-
cre^ as the water fractional wettability increases.
Singhal etal. measured unsteady-state relative permeabilities
and recoveries infractionally wetted bead packs, where the frac
tional wettability was altered by changing the percentages ofwaler-
wet(glass) andoil-wet (teflon) beads. Distilled water anda series
ofrefined organic liquids were used, which gave contact angles
measured through thewater that ranged from 40to77® [0.7 to1.34
rad) for glass and 83to 157® [1.45 to2.74 rad] fi)r theteflon. The
glass was always the more strongly water-wet surfece, while the
teflon was always more oil-wetted for all ofthe fluid pairs used.
The dry bead pack was first saturated by water, then flooded with
an organic liquid to the residual water saturation. After cleaning,
the diy bead pack was saturated with the organic liquid and water-
flooded to the residual organic liquid saturation.
Generally, Singhal etal. found that the ultimate recoveiy ofthe
displaced phase decreased slightly asthefractional sur&ce area wet
ted to that phase increased. For example, the ultimate recovery of
anorganic liquid decreased asthepercentage ofoil-wet beads de
creased. Unfortunately, the alterations infractional wettability also
changed the bead (and pore) size distribution, because the giagc
beads were roughly eight times larger in diameter than the teflon
beads. The variations inpore geometry and specific surfitce area
may also have affected the ultimate recoveiy.
1616
In suinnury, rraclionaliy wctlcdsundpucks. where the individu
al water-wet and oil-wetsurfaces havesizeson the order of a sin
gle pore, behave similarly to uniformly wetted systems. The
practical ROS increases as the fraction of oil-wetted surface in
creases, and the waterflood behavior lies between the curves for
100% water-wet and 100% oil-wet sandpacks. Relative permea-
bility andcapillaiy pressure measurements as thefractional wetta
bility isvaried are also similar tomeasurements inuniformly wetted
cores. Inthenext section, mixed-wettability cores with continu
ous oil-wet paths will bediscussed. Inmixed-wettability cores, the
waterflood behavior isdrastically different from uniformly wetted
cores.
Mixed Wettability. InSalathiel's^ mixed-wettability cores, be
cause thelarge pores contain continuous oil-wet paths while the
sm^ ones are water-wet, the true ROS is much lower than the
residual saturation obtained inuniformly wetted systems. In uni
formly wetted core, the true ROS reaches a minimum when the
core's wettability ranges from neutrally to weakly oil-wet, where
Ae capillaiy forces are small. As the water-wetting tenden^ be
comes stronger, ROS increases because there is a ttadeacy toiso
late oil inthe larger pores. On the other hand, as the oil-wetting
tendenqr becomes stronger, the true residual saturation also in
creases because capillary forces trap the oil inthe smaller poxes.
Because tl^ pores are oil-wet, there isno driving force for the
waterto displace the oil from them. However, most of the oil in
the large pores isrecovered. Because a mixed-wettability system
combines thebest aspects ofwater- and oil-wet systems, itteaches
a low ROS. Compaied with a water-wet system, trapping is re
duced in die large, oil-wet pores. Compared with an ofl-wet sys
tem, trapping is reduced because the small pores in a
mixed-wettability ^stem are water-filled.
Salathiel visualizes the gyration ofmixed wettability in the fol
lowing manner. When oil initially invaded an originally water-wet
reservoir, itdisplaced water from the larger pores, while the smaller
pores remained water-filled be<ause ofcapillary forces. Amixed-
wettability condition occurred if the oil deposited a layer ofoil-
wetofganic material onlyon those rocksurfitces thatwereindirect
contact withtheoil but noton thebrine-covered surfeces. Oil-wet
deposits would not be formed in the small water-filled pores, al
lowing them to remain water-wct. In contrast to fractionally wet
ted sandj^cks and uniformly wetted systems, the organized nature
of the oil- and water-wct surfaces in mix^-wettability systems
affects multiphase flow measurements, including capillary pres-
sure.'».«).9M0i.i02 imbibition behavior,2.4.>03->05 electrical prop
erties,3''0i and relative permeability and waterflood be
havior. 101.103.106-108
During awaterflood ofamixed-wet system, the small pores con
tain no oO to be trapped. In addidon, the continuous oil-wet paths
in dte large pores allow oil to drain in films along the pore walls,
causing asi^ but finite oil permeability to exist down to very
low onsaturations. This, inturn, allows thewaterflood to remove
essentially all die oil initially present after dte injection ofmany
PVs of water. Richardson et al.waterflooded and oilflooded
native-state gut Texas Woodbine cores, which were later shown
by Saladiiel'* to have mixed wettability. The initial waterfloods
in dte native-state core had very low ROS, widi substantial oil pro
duced atvery high WOR's. After die injection ofroughly 40 PV
of water, ROS averaged about 12% PV for die nine native-state
samples tested.Three ofdie cores had veiy low ROS's, on
the order of2% PV. After the initial waterflood, the cores were
fqjeatedly oilflooded toIWS, then waterflooded. ROS gradually
increased, probably because of eidier hysteresis effects or wetta-
bilhy alteration. The cores were dien extracted. ROS after extrac
tion was even greater, averaging 30% PV. Imbibition tests showed
that the extracted core was more water-wet than the native-state
core, because it imbibed water more rapidly.
After dteexperiments of Richardson etal., Burkhardt etal.
made imbibition tests on preserved East Texas Woodbine plugs and ^
found diat die plugs would imbibe bodi water and oil, an indica
tion ofmnuniform wettability. Preserved cores were driven toROS
with brine, then allowed toimbibe kerosene. The cores were then
driven toIWS with kerosene and allowed toimbibe brine. The aver-
Joumal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987
 2.5 CP-OIL
'Ot 08 CP-OIL'
(MIXED WETTABILITY)
J L
3 6 10 20 90100200
wnER-WETMRE.
VfLOOD OF 23-CP aL-^
.MIXED WETTABILITY CORE,
rATERFLDOD OF 2.S-CP OIL
20 -MIXED-WETTASajTY CORE.^"
WATERFLOOD OF aS-CP OIL
I I
I 23456789
WATER INJECTED. PORE VOLUMES
Fig. 18—Comparison of waterflood behavior for mixed-wet
and water-wet cores (insert shows extension of mixed-
wettabllity flooding data). Outcrop Boise sandstone core,
brine, and either a 2.&«p reflned minerai oii or a 0.8<p iiep*
tane/cnide oii mixture were used. Mbced wettabiiity was ob
tained by aging the core with brine and the heptane/crude
oil-mixture. Taken from Salathiel.**
age amounts of oil and brine imbibition were 10.2 and 7.1% PV,
respectively. The imbibition of both oil and brine is an indication
that East Texas core has fractional or mixed wettabiiity with both
oil- and water-wet surfaces in the core.
Salathiel^ observed waterflood behavior similar to the Wood
bine core for a number of other fields at both reservoir and room
conditions, postulating thatthe low ROSwascausedby mixedwti-
tabiliQr. He was able to generatemixed-wettabiliQr sanqilesby ag
ing outcrop Boise sandstonecores with inine and a mixture of dead
East Texas crude oil and heptane for 3 days. A mixture of dead
crude and heptane was used because it would dqxisit a stable,
strongly oil-wet film on glass or quartz sur&ces in direct contact
with the mixhire, while adjacent areas of the surface in contaa widi
brine remained water-wet. Initially. Saiathiel tried dead crude, but
foundthat oil-wet films that were generatedalter 3 days whenonly
dead crude was used were much less stable and could be displaced
by brine after a relatively brief contact. Note that if Saiathiel had
wanted to restore the wettabiiity of an East Texas reservoir core, ,
it would have been necessary to saturate the core with brine and
crude, then age the core at reservoir conditionsfor a longer period
oftime. Because Saiathiel was studying displacement mech^ms
in mixed-wettability core, however, he did not need to reproduce
reservoir wettabiiity exactly. Cores were aged with brine and a
crude/heptane mixture at room conditionsbecausethis was the most
convenient method to generate mixed-wettability systems.
Fig. 18 compares waterfloods first in a strongly water-wet core,
then in the same core with mixed wettabiiity. First, the water-wet
outcrop Boise sandstone core was samrated with brine, driven to
IWS with a viscous refined mineral oil, oilflooded to rq>lace the
viscous mineral oil with a 2.S-cp [2.S-mPa*s] refined mueral oil,
then waterflooded. Second, after cleaning, the core was saturated
with brine, driven to PVS with a refined mineral oil, then oilflood
ed to replace the vi^us oil with a 0.8-cp [0.8-mPa*s] mixture of
heptane and East Texas crude. Next, the core was aged for several
days to generate the mixed wettabiiity, then waterflooded. Final
ly, the core was driven back to IWS, then waterflooded to displace
the same 2.5-cp [2.S-nfa*s] refined mineral oil. Note that the three
waterfloods had somewhat different initial oil saturations, with the
initial saturation for the water-wet flood (about 79% PV) roughly
halfway between the two mixed-wettability floods (85.2 a^ 72.1 %
PV for the 0.8- and 2.5-cp [0.8- and 2.S-mPa*s] oils). This in
crease in the IWS after the initial waterflood has been observed
in other mixed-wettability systems and will be discussed in more
detail.
As expected, the top curve of Fig. 18 shows that veiy little oil
is produced after breakthrough when the core is strongly water-
Journal of Petroleum TechRology, December 1987
j L j L I
J I L
5 10 20 50 100 200 50010002000 5000
PORE VOLUMES OF FLOOD WATER
Fig. 19—Extended waterflood data on a native-state East
Texas fleld core witii mixed wettabiiity. Taken from
Saiathiel.**
wet. The final oil saturatidn is about 35%. In the mixed-wettabflity
core, more oil is recovered after the injection of the same amount
of water, andadditional oilcanbe recovered bywaterflooding un
til die economicsaturation is readied. In the mixed-wettability core,
the true ROS is surprisingly low, ^roaching 10% or less. The
insert in Fig. 18shows howtherecovery ke^s increasing andthe
oil saturation decreasing asmany PV's ofwater are inject. Fig.
19showsthe recovery froma native-state Woodbine core thathas
mixedwettabiiity. Again, increased recoveryis obtainedafter the
injectionof many PV's of water so that the true ROS is very low,
9% or less. As in Fig. 18, the true ROS in Fig. 19 is not known
becausethe core was still producingveiy small amountsof oil af
ter 5,000 PV of water was injected.
Saiathiel pnqrased that the very low ROS was obtained by oil
draining throu^ films on oil-wet sur&ces inthe large pores. Film
drainageof oil on neutral- to oil-wet sur&ces has bera observed
inmicromodels. Mattax and Kyte^examined waterfloods inglass
micromodels. Some ofdie models were saturated widi brine, driven
to IWSwith crude, tfienaged for several hours. A visualexamina
tion of the fluid distributionafter aging showed that some of the
glass surfaces had becomeoil-wet, while the remainder were still
water-wet. During waterfloods of these systems, someof the im
mobile oil behind the waterfront was still connected to oil ahead
of the waterfront by thin filamentsof oil on the pore walls, proba
bly on the oil-wet surfaces. These thin filaments allowed a sub
stantial portion of the bypassed oil to drain before th^ finally
ruptured, trcqiping die remaining oil. Donaldson and Thomas^ ol^
served similar drainage through filaments during waterfloods in
neutral- to oil-wet micromodels packed widi sand.
Saiathielfoundthat the generationof the mixed-wettability state
was affected by the amount of water in the core during the aging
process.Initially water-wetoutcropBoisesandstone cores weresatu
rated with brine. The brine saloration was dien ledoced to the desired
value, generally.by floodingwith a refined mineraloil, whichwas
finally replaced with the mixture ofheptane and East Texas crude.
V^ low initial water saturations were obtained by gasflooding the
core, then evaporating some of the remaining water before flood
ing the core widi a refined mineral oil. After flooding widi die hep
tane/crude mixture, the core was aged for a period of 3 days to
generate mixed wettabiiity, then waterflooded. Fig. 20 shows the
oil saturation during waterfloodingplotted vs. water saturatbn dur
ing aging and film deposition. Each curve shows the oil saturation
after the injection of the specified number of PV's of water. The
top curve shows the oil saturation at breakdirough,. while die bot
tom curve shows ROS after.20 PV of water injection. In compari
son, an ROS of roughly 33% would be .expected for strongly
water-wet Boise sandstone cores. The minimum ROS (roughly 16
to 17%)occurred when die core containedajqiroximately 13to 20%
interstitial water during aging. It appears that at lower aging water
samrations, some of the snudl pores become oil-wet and trap oil,
which increases ROS. On the other hand, ROS may increase at
higher interstitial watersamrations becai^ portions of thelarger
pores remain water-wet, disturbing die continuity of the oil-wet
patiis.
1617

Rfl. 20—How water saturation during deposIUon of oil-wet
fI m^eets ROS's left by waterflooda, 0.8-cp heptane/crude
oilmixture and Boise sandstone.The top curveshowsthe
oilsaturationat waterbreakthrough, while the bottomcurve
PV of water Injection. Taken from
Salathlel.**
After theinitial waterfkxxl, Saladiid fiound OatAeIWS was much
higher than theinterstitial water saturation at which Hit cores had
been aged. Saladiiel states that the IWS for mixed-wettabili^ ^s-
temsis frequently higher than the IWS obtained when thecore is
water-wet or when diemixed wettabHity is originally generated.
To obtain the initial water saturation, itwas necessary toclean and
fire tlie cores to render them strongly water-wet, then rraeat the
procedure togenerate mixed wettabiliQr. Richaidson eta/.also
ob^rved high IWS after the initial waterfiood. Th^ waterflooded
their native-state Woodbine cores toa low ROS, then oilflooded
them. IWS measured after the first oilflood was relatively high,
with an average value of40% PV. After the second oilflood, the
average IWS decreased to34% PV, possibly because ofhysteresis
or wettabUity alteration. After cleaning, IWS was only 20%.
Richardson et al., ROW et and Schmid found that
the IWS measured during cafullaiy pressure measurements was also
higher for mixed-wet vs. water-wet cores. (For ftirther discussion,
see Ref. 4.)
Atthebeginning ofanoilflood ofa mixed-wet core, theoilwill
preferentially travel through the lai:ge, oil-wet pores. During this
time, much ofthe water in the small, water-wet pores is held by
capillary forces. Once the oil has displaced die water from the large
pores, the water inthesmall pores istrapped and immovable. The
IWS is lower for a strongly water-wet corebecause thewater in
the small pores remains connected through diin fiimg on the pore
surfaces and can still be dif^plamlx
Because continuous, strongly oil-wet paths areneeded for fihn
drainage, the generation ofmixed wettabiliQr isalso affected by
pore geometiyand mineralogy. In additionto waterfloods in out
crop Boise sandstone cores, Salathiel aged U|^r Austin sandstone,
Lissie sandstone. Woodbine sandstone, and Un)er Noodle lime
stone cores with brine and the heptane/iSast Texas crude mixture.
Film drainage was obtained with only the Upper Austin and Wood
bine samples. The U|q)er Noodle and Lissie cores had higher ROS's
(20 and 26%, respectively) and no film drainage, inHiraHng
mixed wettabiliQr was notobtained inthese cores. Saladiid felt that
die difference inbehavior might be aresult ofmineiali^
dieUpper Noodle isa limestone andtheLissie sandstone contained
carbonate ^stals.
Salathiel also found that pore geometiy was important in
generatmg mixed wettabUity. Heaged a glass bead pack with brine
and die heptane/crude mixmre and found that film drainage did not
occur. This was explained by die difference inpore geometry be
tween bead packs and consolidated cores. Inbead packs, most of
die irreducible water isheld in die form of"pendular rings" at
the point ofcontact between each pair of beads. These pwiHniar
rings prevent the dqiosition ofcontinuous oil-wet paths between
beads, preventing film drainage.
1618
80
BEFORE AGING
AGING
I Z
WATER INJECTED. PORE VOUUMES
Rg. 21—Comparison of waterfloods in a Beroa core before
and after aging for 1 year with brine and Loudon crude at
160*F.Taken from Wang.'*
Patd et al. obtained mixed-wet behavior in a Wasson field
(San Andres) core. The core was aged witfi interstitial water and
dead crude oil forseveral days, flushed widi a refined mineral oil
to an initial oil saturation of 58.4%, dien waterflooded. The oil
saturation at die end of die waterfiood was 20.8%, widi small
volumes of oil sdllbeing produced. Thecorewas Uien extracted
to alter its wettability, saturated widi brine, oilflooded widi a re
fined mineral ofl to an initial oilsaturadon of56.5%, and water-
flooded. Incontrast tothemixed-Wet core, thewaterflood was less
efficiem andnofilm drainage was observed. Thefinal oil satura-
fion was 33.9%, and oilproduction ceased before diewaterfiood
was terminated.
Salathiel^ and Patel et a/.'®' were able to obtain mixed-
wettability cores by aging water-wet cores widi brineand crude.
However, note that most cores restored inthismanner will no/have
mixed wettabiliQr. SalaAiel did not obtain mixed-wet behavior in
cores from two reservoirs. In many of ourexperiments, we have
found diat restored-state cores are neutrally tomildly oil-wet, radier
dan mixed-wet (e.g.. see Wendel et al.^).
The wettability ofa restored-state core Is affected by alaigc num
ber offactors, including die crude, die mineral surfaces, and the
brine chemistiy.' Mixed wettability will be generated when die
erode deposits an oil-wet film only on surfaces diat are in direct
contact widi die crude, but not indie small, water-filled pores. In
SOTie crude/brine/rock ^stems, however, the wettability can also
bealtered Iqr the adsorption ofsur&ctants ftom the crude. Over
alo^enou^ period oftime, these compounds can difiiise dirough
die interstitial water sothat die wettabili^ ofthe entire core, in
cluding diesmall, water-filled pores, becomes more oil-wet. Be
cause the restored-slate core may have mixed, fiactional, oruniform
wettability, die w^bility must be determined by waterfiooding,
TCtmeability, and wettability measurements.
Wang found that native-state Loudon core appeared to be
mixed wet because small amounts ofoil were still being produced
during waterfloods after more dian 30 PV ofwater injection. To
investigate diis phenomenon, waterflooding experiments were dien
made widi Berea core and Loudon erode. Aclean, initially water-
wet Berea core was saturated widi brine, driven toIWS widi Loudon
erode, dien waterflooded. After a number ofodier measurements,
the core was driven to IWS widi Loudon crude, aged at 160®F
[71 ®C] for 1year, flushed with fresh Loudon crude, then water-
flooded. The results are shown in Fig. 2L Before aging, diere was
no significant oil production after breakdirough, widi anROS of
42.5%. The ofl saturation at die end ofdie waterflood ofdie aged
core was only 25.7%. Steady-state relative permeability measure
ments, where more water was injected, showed diat ROS fordie
aged Berea was less dian 17% PV. The water relative permeabil
ity at ROS was 35% ofthe absolute water permeability, while the
water relative permeability ofasimilarunaged plug was only 3.4%.
Wang found diat die aged Berea plugs imbibed a smaller amount
ofwater less rapidly compared widi die plugs before aging. This
mdicates diat die aged plugs were less water-wet. Unfortunately,
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
 Wang did not measure oil imbibition, so it is not known whether
portions of the aged core were oil-wet.
It is possible thatRathmell et al,^^ alsowaterflooded a mixed-
wet core because the native-statewaterfloodin Fig. 12 is very simi
lar to the waterflood of the aged Berea in Fig. 21. Unfortunately,
it is not known whether film drainage would occur if the native-
state core in Fig. 12 were injected with many PV's of water.
Morrow et a/. compared waterfloods in strongly water-wet
Bereacores vs. floods when the cores were aged with brine and
Moutray crudeoil. The agedcoresdid nothavemixed wettability,
but may have had some type of heterogeneous wettability. The
water-wet Berea cores were saturated with brine, driven to IWS
with a refined mineral oil, wd waterflooded. Theagedcoreswere
samrated withbrine, drivento IWS (roughly 40%) with Moutray
crude, aged for 24 hours, then waterflooded. Compared withthe
water-wet core, the aged cores behaved similarly to the results
shown inFigs. 12and 21.Breakthrough occurred later, with greater
oil recovery. In contrast to the results shown in Figs. 12and21,
however, oilrecovery wasessentially complete after1.5PVinjec
tion, indicating that no film drainage was occurring.
^ed cores imbibed less water than the water-wet Berea cores,
indicating that the system was less water-wet. However, in con
trastto the muced-wettabiliQr ^stems, no oil wasimbibed. The lack
of oil imbibition and film drainage indicates that thesecoresdid
not have mixed wettability. However, there are some indications
that the cores were nonuniformly wet^. First, the water relative
permeabiliQr at ROS was lower afteraging, even though ROS had
decrea^. For uniformly wetted systems, the water relative per-
meabiliQr at a given saturation generally increases as the^stem
becomes less water-wet.^ Inaddition, contact-angle
showed that under certain conditions, Moutray crude would dqposit
a stable, oil-wet film onmineral sur&ces. Morrow etal. proposed
that aging with crude formed heterogeneous ("speckled") wetting.
Unfortunately, themechanism causing increased recovery with this
wettabili^ is not known.
In sununaiy, mixed-wettability cores have continuous oil-wet
paths through the larger pores, while the small pores arewater-
filled. When mixed-wettabili^ cores are waterflooded, film drainage
gives a very low ROS after the injection of many PVs ofwater.
When reflooded with oil after the first waterflood, mixed-wettability
cores have a high IWS. Mixed-wettability cores can imbibe both
water and oil bccausc the cores contain watcr-wct and oil-wet sur
faces. Capillary prc.s.surc and electrical properties arealso affected
by mixed wettabiliQr. Mixed wettability can begenerated insome
cores by saturating the cores with brine and crude at IWS, then
aging. In othercases, restored-state coreswill not be mixed-wet,
but will have fractional or uniform wettabiliQr.
Conclusions
1. Oil recovery duringwaterflooding is a fiinction of wettabili
ty, pore geometiy, fluid distribution, saturation, saturation histo
ry, andoil/water viscosity ratio. Wettability affects waterflooding
bycontrolling the flow and spatial distribution offluids ina porous
medium.
2. During the waterflood of a strongly water-wet ^stem at a
moderate oil/waterviscosiQr ratio, a large fraction of the OIP is
recovered beforebreakthrough. Afterbreakthrough, the water/oil
production ratioincreases rapidly, and litde additional oil is pro
duced after breakthrough. Because thereis almost no oil produc
tionafter breakthrough, the breakthrough, practical (economical),
and ultimate ROS's are essentially equal and low.
3. Duringthe waterflood of a strongly oil-wet ^stem at a moder
ate oil/waterviscosity ratio, waterbreakthrough occurs earlyand
most of the oil is recovered after breakthrough. Waterfloods are
lessefficient in oil-wetsystems than in water-wet ^stems because
more water must be injected to recover the same amount of oil.
_ 4. As the wettability of a system ranges from water-wetto oil-
wet, the breakthroughand economicalROS's increase, so oil recov
ery decreases.The economical ROSis lowerthanthe breakthrough
samration, and the difference betweenthe two gradually increases,
so that there is a longer period of simultaneous oil and water pro
duction. Small amountsof oil are producedfor a long time after
Journal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987
breakthrough; therefore, the economical ROSdepends on the num
ber of PV's of water injected.
5. The breakthrough and economic recoveries are dependent on
both wettability and the oil/water viscosity ratio. The decrease in
oil mobility at high oil/water viscosity ratios causes a decrease in
the oil recovery at breakthrough and an increase in the period of
oil and water production for cores of any wettability. On the other
hand, there will be a high oil recovery at breakthrough and little
subsequent oil recovery even in a strongly oil-wet core when the
oil/water viscosity ratio is very favorable. However, a waterflood
in an oil-wet or inteimediate-wet core is always less efficient than
the waterflood in a water-wet core at the same viscosiQ^ ratio.
6. The ultimateROS, the saturationafter a largenumberof PV's
of water are injected, is only weaklydependent on the wettability.
It is slightly lower near neutral wettabili^ (higher oil recovery),
butchangesmuchless than the breakthroughor economicoil sani-
rations.
7. There is some disagreement on the effects of wettabiliQr as
a core becomesvery strongly water-wet compared with moderate
ly water-wet^stems. All three ROS's are esseiitially the samebe
cause there is little productionafter water breakthrough, with all
the oil trapped in discontinuous globules. However, diffeirent ex
perimentssuggest that the ROS can decrease, remain the same, or
increase, depending on such variables as heterogenei^, pore ge
ometry, injection rate, and inlet and outlet end effects.
8. Infita^onally wetted sandpacks, where the size ofdie individu
al water-wet andoil-wet surfaces is on theorderof a single pore,
waterflood behavioris similar to the behaviorin uniformly wened
^stems. The practical ROS increases as the fraction of oil-wetted
surface increases, and the waterflood behavior lies between the
curves for 1(X)% water-wet and 100% oil-wet sandpacks.
9.-Ina mixed-wettabiliQr core,thelarger,oil-filled poresare oil-
wet and the smaller, water-filledpores are water-wet. The continu
ousoD-wet padis in thelargerpores enable a mixed-wettabiliQr core
to be waterflooded to a very low ROS by the injection of many
PV's of water. Othermultiphase flow properties, including capil
lary pressure, imbibition behavior, eledrical properties, relative
permeabilities, and IWS, are also affected.
10. The mostaccuratewaterflooding measurements are madeon
native-state core,«4iere thereservoir wettability is preserved. When
such core is unavailable, the core should be cleaned and reservoir
wettability restored. If a reservoir is oil-wet or intermediate wet,
but a clean, wat^-wct core isused, both the breakthrough and ec
onomic recoveries will be overestimated. Recoveries will also be
misestimated if the core has fractional or mixed wettability.
Nomenclature
= fractional flow of water
k„ s oil relative permeabiliQr
kf^ = water relativepermeability
L « core length, in. [cm]
Po == oil pressure,.psi [kPa]
Pw water pressure, psi [Ifa]
Pg » capillary pressure, psi [kPa]
• = water saturation, %
u IS flow rate per unit cross-sectional area, in./min
[cm/min]
W = USBM wettability index
0 s= contact angle
Of, » apparent contaa angle
Ho —oil viscc»i^, q> [mPa*s]
Mw = water viscosity, cp [mPa*s]
Acknowledgments
I amgrateful to JeffMeyers, DonBlankenship, andJeff Hawkins
for their many helpful conunents and suggestions. I alsothankthe
management of Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Anderson, W.G.: "Wettability Literabiie Survey—Part 1:Rock/Oil/
Brine Inteisctions andtheEffects ofCore Handling onWettability."
y/T(Oct. 1986) 1125-44.
1619
 Andenon, W.G.: "Weilabiliiy Literaiure Survey—Port 2;Weuabiliiy
Measurement," y/T (Nov. 1986) 1246-62.
Anderson, W.G: "Wetubili^ Literature Survey—Part 3:The Efiects
ofWeaabiitQr on the Electrical Propenies ofPorous Media," JPTCDec
1986) 1371-78.
4 Anderson, W.G.: "Weitability Literature Survey—Part 4:The Effects
ofWettabllity on Capillary Pressure." JPT(Oct, 1987) 1283-1300.
5 Anderson, W.G.: "Wettabillty Literature Survey—Part 5:The Effects
ofWettabiliQr on Relative Permeabili^." /Pr(Nov. 1987) 1453-68.
6 Craig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects ofWaetflooding,-
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3.
7, DuUien, F.A.L.: Porous Media: Fluid TransportaadPor^ SMtrrure
Academic Press, New York Ciiy (1979).
8.. Marsden, S.S.: "Wettability—Its Measurement and Arolication to
Waterflooding," J.Jpn. Assn. Pet. Tedu (Jan. 1965) 30, No. 1,1-10.
9. . Marsden, S.S.: "Wettability: The Elusive Key toWaterflooding,"
Pet. Eng. (April 1965) 37, No. 4, 82-87.
10. . Raa, S.H., Treiber, L.E., a^ Archer, D.L.: "Wettability ofReser
voir Rocks and Its Evaluation," Producers Monthly (April 1968) 32,
No. 4, 2-7,
11. . Hjelmeland, O. and Torsaeter, O:: "WettabiUty, the to Proper
LMoratory Waterflooding Ejqwiments," U.S. DOE CX)NF-8004140.
Proc., InU. Energy Agem^ Woricshop on EOR, Bartlesville Energy
Technology Center, Bartlesville, OK (I^. 1981) 1-24.
12. Honarpror, M., Koederitz, L.,and Harvey, A.H.: Relative Perniea-
ofPetroleum Reservt^, CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.(1986)
13. Morrow, N.R.: "AReview ofthe Effects ofInitial Saturation, Pore
Stnicture, and WettabUiQr on Oil Recovery Iqr Waterflooding," North
Sea m and Gas Reservoirs, Graham and Trotman Ltd., London
(1986).
14.Mungan, N.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery UsingWaterasaDriving Fhikl:
2—Interfedal Phenomena and OU Reco^: WettaW^," Wwld
Oil (March 1981) 192, No. 4, 77-83.
15. Mungan, N.: "EnhancedOil Reoiveiy Usiitg WaterasaDriving Fluid:
Plart 3—InterfadalPhenomena and Oil Reooveiy: Capillarity." World
Oil (May 1981) 192, No. 5, 149-58.
16. Sch6nberger, K.: "The Role of Wettability in 00 Reservoir
Recovery," &dOl-Erdgas2dtschrifi\k(i^ 1982) 98, No. 4,130-35.
English translation available from the John Crerar Litoary, U. ofChica
go, Translation No. 85-10244 (*BLL) 48A.
17. Taber, J.J.: "Research in Enhai^ Oil Recovery: Past, Present, and
Future," Siafoce Phenomena inEnhanced Oil Recovery, D.O. Shah
(ed.). Plenum Press, New Yoric City (1981) 13-52.
18. IGnney, P.T. and Nielsen. R.F.: "The Role ofWettabiUty in Oil
Recovery," Producers Monthly (Jan. 1950) 14, No. 3. 29-35.
19. Ki^. P.T. and Nielsen. R.F.: "WettabUity mOil Recovery," World
Oil (March 1951) 132, No. 4, 145-54.
20. Nutting, P.G.: "Chemical Problems in the Water Driving ofPttrdeum
From Oil Sands," Ind. A Eng. Chan. (Oct. 1925) 17, No. 10.
1035*36.
21. Nutting, P.G.: "Some Physical and Chemical Pnqieittes ofReservoir
Rocks Bearing on the Accumulation and Discharge ofOil," Problems
ofPetroleum Geology, W.E. Wrather and F.H. Lahee (eds.), AAPG,
Tulsa (1934) 825-32.
22. Uren. L.C. and Fahmy, E.H.: "Factors Influencing the Recovery of
Petroleum From UnconsoUdated Sands byWaterfboodins." Trans
AIME (1927) 77.318-35. " ® * jection in the Singleton Field." JPT(Dec. 1970) 1569-76.
23. Bobek. J.E.andBaU, P.T.: "Model StudiesofOil Displacement From
Thin Sands by Vertical Water Influx From Adjacent Shales," JPT
(Sept. 1961) 950-54.
24. Kyte, J.R.,Naumann, V.O., and Mattax, C.C.: "EfiectsofReservoir
Environment on Water-Oil Diq>lacements," JPTQvs^ 1961) 579-82.
25. Lorenz, P.B., Donaldson. E.C., andThomAs, R.D.: "UseofCtetii-
fiigal Measurements ofWettability to Predict 00Recovery," Report
7873. U.S. Bureau ofMines, BaitlesvOle Enersy Technoloey
Bartlesvflle, OK (1974).
26. Mungan, N.: "Interfocial Effects in immiscible ttrnftf Dis
placements inPorous Media," SPEJ (Sept. 1966) 247-53.
27. Owew. W.W. and Archer, D.L.: •♦The Effect ofRock Wettability
Oj^^M-WaterRelative PermeabUity Relationships,"/Pf(July 1971)
28. von ^gelhardt. W. and LQbben, H.: "Study ofthe Influence ofIn-
^adal Stress and Contact Angle (m the Dlq)lacememof(Ml by Water
in Porous Materials. I. Theoretical Principles and Performance of
Tests," ErdOl und Kohle (Nov. 1957) 10, No. II, 747-52. F-itgii«h
translation avaOable from the John Crerar Library, U. of
Translation No. 62-14556.
29. Donaldson, E.C. and Thomas, R.D.: "Microscopic Observations of
OO Displacement in Water-Wet and Oil-Wet Systems," paper SPE
3555 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
1620
30. Donuldson. E.C. and Crocker,M.E.: "Reviewof Petroleum OilSatu
ration and Its Determination." Report BERC/R1-77/1S. U.S. DOE
BartlesvUle Energy Research Center. BartlesvUle, OK (Dec. 1977).
31. Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L.: "The Effect ofViscosity and Capil
larity onthe Displacemem ofOO by Water." Producers Monthly (Aue.
1956) 20, No. 10. 20-30.
32. Pirson, SJ.: Oil Reservoir Engineering, McGraw-HOl Book Co.. New
Yoric City (1958).
33. Chatenever, A.: "Microscopic Bdiavwr ofFhiids in Porous Systems-
Final Rqxwt on Research Project47b," Researdi onOccurrenceand
Recovery ofPetroleum, API, New YoA Qty (1954-1955) 69-80.
34. Mattax, C.C.andKyte, J.R.: "EverSeea Water Flood?" Oil&Cm
J. (Oct. 16, 1961) », No. 42, I15t28.
35. Morris, E.E. and Wiel^,D.R.: "A Microscopic Study ofthe Effect
ofVariable Wettainlity COnditkms on Immiscible Fhiid Displacement,"
SPE 704 presented at the 1963 SPE Annual Meeting. New Orieans.
Oct. 6-9.
36. Geffen, T.M. etal.: "Experinwital Investigation ofFactors Affecting
Laboratory Relative PermeabOity Measurements," Trans., AIME
(1951) 192, 99—110.
37. Kamath, LS.K. and Marsden. S.S.: "AWettabUity Scale for Porous
Media," paper 14D presented atthe 1966 AlChE National Meeting.
Dallas, Fd>. 6-9. .
38. Jennings, H.Y.: **Waterflood Behavior ofHigh Viscosity Crude in
Preserved Soft and UnconsoUdated Cores," JPT(Jan. 19^) 116-20
39. Lefebvre du Prqr, EJ.: "Factors Affecting Liquid-Liquid Relative
PermeabUities ofa ConsoUdated Porous Medium," SPEJ (Feb. 1973)
39-47.
40. MOxosc, J.C. and Brandner, C.F.: "Role ofCapOlaiy Forces in Deter-
minii^ Mkxoscopic Di^)laoement Efiiciency in Oil Recovery Ity Water
Flooding,"/. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1974) 13, No. 4, 54-62.
41. Stegemeier, G.L.: "Mechanisms ofEntrapment and MobUization of
inPoroos Media," In^rovedOaRecovery bySuifoetamandPoly
merFlooding, D.O. Shah and R.S. Sdiechter (eds.). Academic Press
Inc., New Yoric CSty (1977) 55-91.
42. Batyclty, JJP.: "Dependence ofResktual OO MobUization on Welting
and Roughness." in Enhanced OUR^overy, D.O.
Shah (ed.). Plenum Press, New York City (1981) 413-51.
43. Jenks. L.H. etal.: "Coriqg for Reservoir Connate Water Saturations "
yPT (Aug. 1969)932-39.
44. Morrow, N.R. aiid Songkran, B.: "Effect ofViscous and Buttyancy
Faroes onNonwetting Phase Trqiping inPorous Media," PAe-
nomena inEnhanced OttRecovery, D.O. Shah (ed.). Plenum Press.
New Yoric City (1981) 387-411.
45. Payatakes, A.C.: **D3'Qsniics ofOil Ganglia During Immiscible Dis
placement inPorous Media." AnnualReviewofFluidMechanics. An
nual Reviews Inc., Palo Alto, CA (1982) 14,365-94.
46. Mattax, C.C., and Demkas, M.O.: "Reservoir Rock
Wettability—Its Signiflcance and Evaluation," Tians., AIME (1958)
213, 155-60.
47. Colpitts. G.P. and Hunter, D.E.: "Laboratory Displacement ofOil
byWater UnderSimulated Reservoir Conditk)ns,"y. Cdn. Pet. Tedu
(Summer 1964)3, No. 2. 66-70.
48. RathmeU, JJ., Braun, P.H.,and Perkins. TJC.: "Reservoir Water-
flood Residual OOSanirBtknFnxn Laboratory Tests."/Pr(M>. 1973)
175-85.
49. Emery. L.W., Mungan. N., and Nicholson. R.W.; "Caustic Slug In-
50. Donaldsm. E.C., Thomas, R.D., and Lorenz, P.B.: "WettabUity De-
termination and Its Effect on Recovoy Efficiency," SPEJ (March
1969) 13—20.
51. Donaldson. E.C. etal.: "Equipment and Procedures for Fluid Flow
and WettabUity Tests ofGeological Materials," Rqwrt DOE/BETC/
IC-79/5, U.S. DOE BartlesvUle Energy Technology Ceata, Bartles
vUle, OK (May 1980).
52. DonaUson, E.C.: "OO-Water-Rock WettabiUty Measurement."
Preprints, ACS Div. Petndeum Chemistry (Mardt29-iM)ril 3.1981)
26, No. I, 110-22.
53. Jttmings. H.Y.: "Surfiwe Properties ofNatural and Synthetic Porous
Media," Producers Monthly (March 1957) 21,No. 5, 20-24.
54. Mungan, N.: "Certain WettabUity Effects inLaboratory Waterfloods "
yj»r(Fd». 1966)247-52. •
55. Shankar, P.K.: "Experimental Investigation ofTwo-Phase (OU-Brine)
Relative PermeabUity Characteristics in MixedPhD
Wet Sandstone Systems
With ReferencetoOU Recovery Efficient," U. ofWater
loo. Waterioo, Ont. (1979).
56. vonEngeUiardt, W. and LQbben. H.:"Study ofthe Influence ofInter-
facial Stress and Qmtact Angle on the Displacement ofOU by Water
m^rous Materials. II. Test Results. For A^iUcation of
Active Substances inthe DepositTreatment." ErdOl und Kohle (Dec.
1957) 10, No. 12.826-30. ^gUsh translation available from the John
Crerar Library. U. of Chicago. Translation No. 62-14555.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. December 1987
57. Ncwcombc.J.. McChcc. J.. and Rzasa. M.J.: ••Wcilabiliiy Versus
Displacement in Waterflooding in Unconsolidated SandColumns,"
Trans., AIME (1955) 204, 227-32.
58. Leach, R.O., Geffen, T.M., and Beny, V.J.: "Discussion of Wetta-
bility Versus Displacement in Waterflooding in Unconsolidated Sand
Columns," yPT (March 1956) 61-63.
59. Saiem, A.M.: "Significance ofWater-Oil Relative Permeability Data
Calculated From Displacement Tests," Proc.. Conference on the
Theory of Fluid Flow in Porous Media," U. of Oklahoma, Norman
(March 1959) 191-209.
60. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: "Mechanism of FluidDisplace
ment in Sands," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 107-116.
61.Richardson, J.G.: "The Calculation of Wat^ood Recovery From
Steady-State Relative Permeability Data,"Trsu., AIME(1957) 210,
373-75.
62. Wendel, D.J., Anderson, W.G., and Meyers, J.D.: "Restored-State
Core Analysis forthe Hutton Reservoir," (Dec. 1987) - .
63. Johnson, E.F., Bossier, D.P., and Naumann, V.O.: "Calculation of
Relative Permeability From Displacement Experiments," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 370-72.
64.Welge, HJ.: "A Simplified Method forClompoting Oil Recovery by
Gas or Water Drive," Trans., AIME (1952) 195,91-98.
65. Kennedy, H.T., Buija, E.O., and Boykin, R.S.: "An Investigation
oftheEffectsofWetteUlityCRitheReooveiyofOilbyWatBrfkioding."
J. Phys. Oiem. (Sept. 1955) 59, 867-69.
66. Amott, E.:"Observations Relating tothe Wettabili^ ofPoroos Rock."
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 156-62.
67. Morrow, N.R.:"Irreducible Wetting-Phase Saturation in Porous
Media." Chem. Eng. Set. (1970) 25, 1799-1815.
68. Salter, SJ. and Mohan^, IC.K.: "Multiphase Ftow in PorousMedia:
I. Macroscqiic Observations and Modeling," paper SPE 11017
presented at the 1982SPEAnnuid Technical Conference andExhibi-
lion. New Orieans, Sept. 26-29.
69. Wardlaw, N.C.: "The Effectsof Pore Structureon DisplacementEf
ficient in Reservoir Rocks and in Glass Micromodels," pqier SPE
8843presented at the 1980SPE/DOEEnhanced Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, April 20-23.
70. Morrow, N.R.: "Small Scale Packing Heterogeneities in Porous
SedimentaiyRocks." AAPGBuUain (March 1971)55, No. 3.514-22.
71. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D., and Whiting, R.L.: PetroleumReservoir&i'
gineering: Physical Properties, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York
City (1960).
72. Baldly,J.P.etal.: "Interpreting Relative Permeal^^ and Wetta-
bility From Unsteady-StateDisplacement Measurements," SPEJ (June
1981) 296-308.
73. Kyte, J.R. and Rapoport, L.A.: "Linear Waterflood Behavior and
End Effects in Water-Wet Porous Media." Thms., AIME (1958) 213,
423-26.
74. Perkins, F.M.: "An Investigationof the Role of Capillaiy Forces in
Uboratory Waterfloods," Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 409-11.
75. Richardson, J.G. et ai.: "Laboratory Determination of Relative Pcr-
meabiUty," Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 187-96.
76. Heaviside, J..Black. CJ J.. and B^. J.F.: "Fundamentals ofRda-
tive Permeabili^: Esqieiimentaland TheoreticalCooskieratiotts," pqier
SPE12173 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Cooference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. S-8.
77. Jones-Parra, J.. Stahl, C.D.. and Calhoun, J.C.: "A Theoretical and
ExperimentalSoidyofConstantRate Displacements in WaterWet Sys
tems," Producers Monthly (Ian. 1954) 18, No. 3. 18-26.
78. Rapoport, L.A. and Leas. W.J.: "PropertiesofLinear Waterfloods,"
Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 139-48.
79. Hinkley, R.E. and Davis, L.A.: "Capillaiy Pressure Discontinuities
and End Effects in Homogeneous Composite Cores: Effect of Flow
Rate and Wettabili^," paper SPE 15596 presented at the 1986 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orieans, OcL 5-8.
80. Slobod, R.L.: "Attainment of Connate Water in Long Cores by Dy
namic Displacement," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 359-63.
81. Adamson, A.W.: Pf^sical OumMfryq^&igbces.fouithedition. John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1982) 332-68.
82. Johnson, R.E. and Dettre, R.H.: "Wettability and Contact Angles."
Surface and ColloidSdence, E. Matijevic(ed.), Wiley Interscience,
New York City (1969) 2, 85-153.
83. Warren. J.E. and Calhoun, J.C.: "A Study of Waterflood Efficiency
in Oil-Wet Systems," Tnms., AIME (1955) 204, 22-29.
84. Morrow, N.R.: "Interplay of Capillaiy, Viscousand Buoyancy Forces
in the Mobilization of Residual Oil." y. Cdn. Pel. Tedu (July-Sept.
1979) 18, No. 3, 35-46.
85. Wardlaw, N.C.: "The Effects of Geometiy, Wettability. Viscosity,
and Intetfacial Tension on Trapping in Single Pore-Throat Pairs," J.
Cdn. Pet. 7ec/i.(May-June 1982) 21, No. 3, 21-27.
86. Hassler, G.L. and Bninner. E.: "Measurement of Capillaiy Pressure
in Small Core Samples," Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 114-23.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, December 1987
87. Slobod.R.L., Chambers,A., and Prehn, W.L.: "Use of Centrifuge
for Determining Connate Water, Residual Oil, and Capillary Pies-
sure Curves of Small Core Samples," Trans., AIME (1951) 192,
127-34.
88. Kyte, J.R. etal.\ "Mechanisms ofWaterflooding inthePresence of
Free Gas." Trans., AIME (1956) 2(J7. 215-21.
89. Keelan, D.K.: "A Critical Review of Core Analysis Techniques."
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 11, No. 2, 42-55.
90. ROW, W., Schmid, C., andWissmann, W.: "Displacement Tests With
Porous Rock Samples Under Reservoir Conditions," Proc., Sixth
World Petroleum Conference, Frankfiiit (June 1963) Sec. 2,467-81.
91. ROhl, W.. Schmid.C., and Wissmann, W.: "Displacement TestsWith
Porous Rock Saoqiles Under Reservoir Conditions," Erd/U undKohle-
Erdgas-Petrodieme (June 1963) 16,No.6-1,504-11. English trans
lation available from the J(^ Crerar Libiaiy, U. of Chicago, Trans
lation No. 82-21848.
92. Luffel, D.L. and Randall. R.V.: "Core Handling and Measurement
Techniques forObtaining Reliable Reservoir Characteristics," paper
SPE 1642-G presented at the 1960 SPE Formation Evaluation Sym
posium. Houston, Nov. 21-22.
93. Brown, RJ.S. and Fatt, I.: "Measurements of Fractional Wettability
of Oilfield Rocks by the Nuclear Magnetic Relaxation Method,"
Trans., AIME (1956) 207, 262-64.
94. .^lathiai, RJi.: "Oil Recoveiy by Sur&ce Film Drainage in Mixed-
Wettability Rocks," JPT(Oct. 1973) 1216-24.
95. Fatt, L and Klikoff, W.A.: "Ef!iBCt of Fractional Wettabili^on Multi
phase Flow Through Porous Media." Trans., AIME (1959) 216,
426-32.
96. Talash, A.W. and Crawford, P.B.: "Experimental FloodingCharac
teristics of 75 Percent Water-Wet Sands," Producers MoasMy(Feb.
1961) 25, No. 2, 24-26.
97. Talash, A.W. and Crawford, P.B.: "Experimental Rooding Charac
teristicsof UncoQsolidatBd Sands," faper SPE 36 presentedat tiie 1961
SPE PermianBasinOil and Gas RecoveiyConference,Midland.May
4-5.
98. Talash, A.W. and Crawford, P3.: "Experimental FloodingCharac
teristics of50 Percent Water-Wet Sands," Producers Monthly (April
1962) 26, No. 4. 2-5.
99. Iwankow, E.N.: "A Correlation of Interstitial Water Saturation and
Heterogeneous Wettabili^," ProducersMrniAty (Oct. 1960) 24, No.
12, 18-26.
100. SingM. AJC,Mukhegee, D.P., and Scnneiton, W.H.: "Effect of Het
erogeneous Wettabili^ on Flowof FluidsThroughPorousMedia."
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1976) 15, No. 3. 63-70.
101. Richardson, J.G., Peridns, F.M.. and Osoba, J.S.: "Differences in
the Behaviorof Freshand AgedEastTexas WoodbineOnes," T/ou.,
AIME (1955) 204, 86-91.
102. Schmid, C.: "The Wettabilityof PetroleumRocksand Resultsof Ex
periments to Study the Effectsof Variations in Wettability of Core
Samples," ErdOlund Kohle-Erdgas-Petrodiemie (1964) 17, No. 8,
60sA)9. English translation avaitiA>le from.the John Crerar libraiy,
U. of Chicago, Translation No. Tr-65-I2404.
103. Burkhardt, iJi., Waid, M.B.. and McLean, RJI.: "Effect of Core
Sur&dng and Mud Filtrate Flushingon Reliabili^ of Core Analysis
Conductedon Fresh Cores," paperSPE 1139<3presentedat the 1958
SPE Annual Meetbg, Houston. Oct 5-8.
104. Mphan^, K.K. and Salter. SJ.: "MultifdiaseFlow in Porous Media:
m. Oil Mobilization, Transverse Dtspenion, and Wettability," paper
SPE 12127presentedat the 1983SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
105. Shanna, M.M. and Wunderiich, R.W.: "The Alterationof RockProp-
.eities Due to Interactions Witii Drilling Fluid Components," paper
SPE 14302 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sqit. 22-25.
106. Morrow. N.R.. Lim, H.T.. and Ward, J.S.: "Effect of CrudeOO-
Induced Wettabili^ Changes on Oil Recoveiy," SPEFE (Feb. 1986)
89-103.
107.. Patel, P.D., Christman. P.G., and Gardner, J.W.: "An Investigation
of Une}q)ectedly Low Field-ObservedFluid MobilitiesDaring Some
CO, Teitiaiy Floods." SPERE (Nov. 1987) 507-13.
108.. Wang, F.H.L.: "Effect of Wettability Alteration on Water-Oil Rela
tive Permeability, Dispersion, and Flowable Saturation in Porous
Media," paper SPE 15019 presented at the 1986 SPE Permian Basin
Oil and Gas Recoveiy Conference, Midland. March 13-14.
109.. Menawat, A., Heniy, J., and Siriwardane, R.: "Control of Surface
Energyof Glassby SuifaceReactions: ContactAngleand Stability."
J. Colloid Interface Sd. (Sept. 1984) 101, No. 1, 110-19.
110.. Bethel, F.T. and Calhoun, J.C.: "Capillaiy Desaniration in Uncon-
soUdated Beads," Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 197-202.
111.. CoIqt, F.H., Marsden,S.S., andCalhoun,J.C.: "A Snidyof theEffea
of Wettability on the Behavior of Fluids in Syndtetic Porous Media,"
Producers Monthly (June 1956) 20, No. 8, 29-45.
1621
 112. Holbrook. O.C. and Bernard. G.G.: "DetermlnaUon of Wcttabiliiy
113. 5^^ Adsorption."
..r. 7 Hann, H.J. and Weydema. AIME
Tnuu.. J.: (1958) 213,
"Discussion ofAStudy
261-64.ofWater-
Efficiency in Oil-Wet Systems," Trans., AIME (1955) 204,
240-42.
114. Mor^, N.R. and Mungan, N.: "Wetiabiliiy and Capillarity in Porous
Media," Report RR-T, Petroleum Recovery Research Inst.. CalRary
(Jan. 1971).
115. Morrow, N.R.: "C^illary Pressure ConelatiOQs fiw Unifiwinly Wetted
POP^ Media," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1976) 15, No. 4.
116. Morrow, N.R. ind-McCaffery, F.G.: "Displacement Studies in Uni-
fo^y Welted Porous Media," Wetting, ^reading, and Adhesion.
O.F. Paddqr (ed.). Academic Press. New York Ciiy (1978) 289-319.
117. Benner, F.C., Dodd, C.G., and BarteU, F.E.: "Evaluation ofEffec-
ttvepi^lacement Pressures for Petroleum Oil-Water-SilicaSystems,"
Fmdanei^Seseanh on OccurrenceandRecoveryofPetroleum. API,
New York City(1943) 85-93.
118. Calhoun, J.C.: "Criteria for Determining Rock Wettabilitv." Oil <S
Cos J. (May 10, 1951) 50, No. 1, 151.
119. McCfcffery, F.G.: 'The Effect ofWettability on Relative Pttmeability
^Alia, (1973). in Porous Media," PhD diesis, U. ofCalgaiy, Calgaiy,
' pressure.®*'" IMortunatdy, this method has iccently been
120. Singhal, A.K. and Drucbuk, P.M.: "WettabOity CMtrol ofGlass
121. SlaM, C.D.
^ and Nielsen, R.F.: "Residual OU and3-8.
Residual Water by
upi^ Pressure Techniques," ProducersMon^ (Jan. 1950) 14,
Pio« iy*22«
122. McCaffeiy, F.G. and Beimion, D.W.: •The Effect ofWetlability on
15'74) 13,. No. 4, 42-53. ^ (Oct.-Dec.
^IMndix-^ Re-Examlnatlon ofth» Wettablllty
In Wamn and Calhoun's Experiments
Fig. 11, taken from Warren and Calhoun,^ shows the bieak-
ftrough and ultimate recoveries during waterfloods ina sintered
Pyrex gla^ core, where the wettabili^ was varied wiA different
concentrations ofDrifilm. Apparent contact aitgles in the treated
core were calculated from the displacement pressure, which isthe
c^iUaiy presstire at which water will first enteraplug entirely satu-
with oil. On the basis ofthese measurements, Wanen and
Calhoun assumed that the wettabilily oftheir experiments varied
from wet (cos ^^=0) to strongly oil-wet (cos 5-=!).
Wifli this mteipretation, the results shown inFig. 11 are inserious
d^greement with the remainder ofthe literature cited inthe text.
First, the ultimate oil recovery occurs under very strongly oil-wet
condtuons (tf«=180- [3.14 radj). Second, the breakthrough and
ultimte reveries are very close, even when cos $a=0.4, which
IS oil-wet.
ences mtheHie other experiments
breakthrough and economical
dted in theriecoveries
text fijundeven differ
laigeatneu-
jalwett^i^ (d«90« 11.57 rad], costf-0). Fbrexan^see Figs.
3 through 5. ^ measure ofwettability, based on anarchaic ^ inaccurate scale.
is We
thatfeel
the thatabetter interpretation
wettability varies ofWanen
from mildly and Calhoun's
water-wet to mildlydata
oil-
wet. With this inteipretation, the data from Warren and Calhoun's
o^Jcriments agrees with the other literature dted inthe text. There
are two other reasons for believing that this inteipretation iscor
rect. First, most experiments that used Drifilm to vaiy wettability
were able to obtain only mildly oU-wet surfaces. Second, apparent
rontact angles based onthe displacement pressure are unreliable.
In some cases, these measurements may indicate that a^stem is
oil-wet when itisactually water-wet. We believe that this occurred
in Warren and Calhotm's experiments.
on a large minto ofvariables, sudi asto otganodiloiosilane
to concentration, to treatment tune, to time elapsed the
1622
surface was treated, and the pH of the brine.' While several ex-
races, strongly
m?many otherresearchers havereported oil-wet sur-
thattheirtreated
surfaces were at most neutrally to very mildly oil-wet.
Warren and Calhoun used an organochlorosilane treatment very
similar to that used in theearlier work of Bethel andCalhoun.^
Themaximum contaaangle that Bethel and Calhoun were able to
obtain with air and water was roughly 115' [2 rad] through the
water, according to capillary rise measurements in treated Eingg
capillary tubes. Most ofthe treated tubes were neutrally wet or
slightly waier-wet, with contact angles through the water of90°
[1.57 Fad] orless. Hie maximum contact angle that Col^ er a/. ^"
obtained with organochlorosilane treatments was 117® [2.04 radJ.
The results ofBethel and Calhoun, and Coley etal. inthe same
laboratory, mdke itlikely that the plugs used by Warren and Calhoun
also ranged from mildly water-wet to mildly oil-wet.
Warren and Calhoun measured wettabilities ranging from neu
trally wet to strongly oil-wet because they calculated apparent con
tact anglg, 00, on the basis of the displacement capillary
^own to be unreliable and will sometimes indicate that asystem
is ofl-wet whra it is actually water-wet orvice versa.^ Morrow
and Mtmgan. Morrow,"^ and Morrow and McCaffeiy"®
show that the apparent contactangle calculated from capillary pres
sure measurements has little relationship tothe true contact angle.
measured ona fiat plate. Positive di^lacement pressures can
be measured even when the injected fluid is the wetting fluid. In
this case, calcu^on ofan apparent contact angle would indicate
the wrong wetting fluid. Pc^ve displacement pressures for both
the wetting and nonwetting fluids, pa^cularly when the core is in-
itiaUy 100% saturated with the other fluid, have bten frequenUy
reported in to literature. »8.19,II7-I2i Morrow and McCaffery,'"
McCaffeiy,and McCaffeiy and Bennion"^ found that when
the core was initiaUy saturated with the nonwetting fluid, aposi
tive displacement pressure was required to force thewetting fluid
into die core for contactangles as low as49® [0.86 lad]. This means
placement-pressure measurements would erroneously indicate
this system to be oil-wet.
Ifsome ofWarren and Calhoun's plugs were weakly water-wet,
the experimenp cited show that itwould be possible for them to
measure a pKositive displacement pressure for water dKpiycing oil
from the core. Assuming acapUI^ tube model, the apparent con
tact angle calculated from the displacement pressure would erronc-
Msly indicate that the core was oil-wet. We feel that the work by
Warren and Calhoun is very valuable, particularly because itcon
tains the only experiments that cleariy show the relationship be-
tween to breakdirough and ultimate residual Mtmytions Their
"'jwever, should be corrected torange from mildly water-wet to
mildly oil-wet. With this inteipretatitni. toirexperitnents agree widi
to other literature cited.
SI Metric Conversloil Factors
cp X 1.0» E-03 Pa*s
degrees x 1.745 329 E-02 rad
dynes/cm x 1.0* E+00 mN/m
®F rP-32)/1.8 •c
'CemaniantactorltasaeL jpj
tor wvl«^F*b. 16.1997.
•orpuMettion Apffl 0.1887. Rmted nunuseript raochwd Jumto. 1887.
Journal ofFetroleuin Technology, December 1987
Three procedures enhance
relative permeability data
F.N. Schneider
Keplinger Laboratories Inc.
Tulsa
The value of relative permeability
curves can be increased and their use
expanded by using normalizing, aver
aging, and cross plotting procedures
described in this article.
Reservoirengineers use relative per
meability relationships to predict the
oil recovery performance of a project
area. Gas-oil laboratory flow data are
needed for either the solution gas
drive recovery process or gas injec
tion, whereas water-oil flow data ap
ply to the waterflood process. Labora
tory flow tests performed on core sam
ples provide the required data.
However, not many wells are cored
in a field, and relative permeability
tests are performed on a small number
of core samples from such wells. For
this reason, it is important to carefully
review routine core data and sample
petrology to select core samples that
are most nearly representative of the
reservoir rock.
Processing data. Despite the most
careful selection, one can expect to
see considerable variations in the
measured relative permeability char
acteristics. It is thus useful to process
the relative permeability data prior to
application using -methods that in
clude averaging the curvesand adjust
ing initial and terminal water-oil satu
rations.
in addition, sometimes capillary
pressure data are used for estimating
relative permeabilities.' Also, mea
sured two-phase data can be used to
generate three-phase relative perme
ability relationships, which are very
difficult to measure.^
Forthese purposes, the relative per
meability data obtained on individual
rock samples must be "normalized"
for best utilization. Muskat* may have
been the first to consider this concept.

Table 1

Sw~"Swi
Sw- =
1-Swi-So,

s„% V
Sampla Ntifflbtr 1
10
K. »'lbomd S« - 28%
1.0 0.0 0.0
25 0.27 o.oos 24.2
40 0.06 0.022 48.4
55 0.0043 0.080 72.6
60 0.0010 0.125 80.6
72 0.0 0.35 100.0
Sample Numbef 2 ko • 50 md S. - 20% S, - 26%
20 1.0 0.0 0.0
35 0.26 0.0070 27.8
50 0.060 0.035 55.6
60 0.013 0.092 74.1
70 0.0010 0.23 92.6
74 0.0 0.35 100.0
Sample Number 3 ko - 25 md S« - 30% S. - 22%
30 1.0 0.0 ' 0.0
40 0.40 0.0043 20.8
50 0.15 0.016 41.7
60 0.048 0.050 62.5
70 0.008 0.15 83.3
78 0.0 0.35 100.0

TECHNOLOGY Mav4.1987. at &C« loumal 45

 flp. 1 FiC

Original water/oil curves Normalized water/oil curves

Sample numoe- Permeabitity. mo
100
50
25
1.0

0.1
%

•s 0.01
0.01 GC

0.001 20 40 60
20 40 60 i 100
Brine uturstion, % pore volume Brine saturation, % pore volume
OGJ OQJ

Fip 3 Fig. 4

Average water/oil curves Averaged curves'

S^new) - S.* (1 - S. - S») ^ S.

•—Avmaefl

Brine saturation, % pore volume Brine saturation, % pore volume

*SWttec 1025%Wtitiwt8f Mtumtten and 30%mWuil oilutuntion OOJj

When normalizing, the saturation erences. water-oil relative permeability rela

change reduces to the fractional vol
ume of displaceable oil. Normalized
saturations facilitate the numerical an-
alyses.
Data averaging, shifting, and esti
mations apparently are in common
use but the physical basis for these
techniques is difficult to locate. Thus,
the purpose here is to describe these
methods and to provide literature ref-
46 Otl&Cas)oumal.May4,1987 TECHNOLOGY
Three relative permeability cases
are examined:
1. Water displacing oil
2. Gas displacing oil
3. Cross plots to develop relative
permeability curves that relate directly
to a paranieter such as permeability.
Water-oil data. In performing reser
voir calculations, a reservoir engineer
frequently must process a group of
tionships so that they become useful
parts of an oil recovery calculation.
The process consists of normalizing,
averaging, and sometimes shifting the
available relative permeability curves
so that they become more.applicabie
to a particular project area that was
cored. Normalizing the curves fulfills
three purposes:
One, it removes the effect of differ-

Crossplot of water curves
/
Wtttr ntetm HfRifltbittty
0.C01 0.004 0.01 o.(M
100
\
75
\ \ 1\
\
50
I
i •
V \
25 • \A
V\
s
V
40
Brme sttuntion. % pon volume
enl initial water saturations and resid
ual oil saturations, which are impor
tant relative permeability variables,
but curve shapes are preserved.
Two, it permits averaging the vari
ous oil or water saturations at selected
levels of relative permeability. The
'ssujt is a single 14, (relative perme
ability oil) curve and a single
(relative permeability water) curve.
And three, the average curves can
easily be shifted to the average con
nate water saturation and residual oil
^turation believed to exist in the pro
ject area. One shift procedure is as
follows. A second procedure is de
scribed later.
To normalize, either oftwo equiva
lent equations can be used.
They are:
C. S.-Swi
1-Swi-So,
where:
5 = Saturation
Because it isnormal practice to plot
relative permeability vs. water satura
tion, the second equation is used here
in an example calculation. This pro
vides normalized water saturations
(Sw*) which begin at zero water satu
ration and end at 100% water satura
tion. Original data and calculated re
sults are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The results are plotted In Fig. 1-4.
These steps are necessary:
1. Selea values of Sw beginning at
SO Oil &Gas Journal, May4.1987 TECHNOLOGY
fit:. 5
Water/oil curves vs. permeability level
PeimMbiltty. mi
0.1 0.4
100 60
1.0
i——
0.1
-s 0.01
V V
0.001
60 80 100
OGJ^
Swi and compute for each pair of
curves. The resulting normalized rela
tive permeability curves now begin at
Sw* = 0 and end at Sw* «= 1, yet the
curve shapes are preserved. Stone^
and Todd, et al.,' favor this type of
equation.
2. Select and values which
provide values for eact set of oil
and waterrelative permeability curves
(Fig. 2) and compute the arithmetic
average value for both the oil and
water relationships. A single pair or
curves now exists.
3. Using the normalized average
curves (Fig. 3), shift the two curves
(Fig. 4) to the desired initial water
saturation and the desired residual oil
saturation using:
Sw(new) «= Sw*(l - Swi- So,)+S^j
This procedure shifts each curve
proportionately to higher or lower wa
ter saturations, which depend on
higher or lower average initial and
final reservoir water saturations. In the
example, S^i isequalto 25% and So, is
equal to 30%.
Up to this point, the original values
ofSwi and So, wereobtain^ from core
analysis data. Now, it may be expedi
ent to consider other methods for de
termining more applicable reservoir
^turation values. These procedures
includeboth special core analysis and
field methods.
Logs and well tests examine rock
volumes that are much greater than
those obtained from individual core
samples. The methods are well sum
Pi>: h
30
20 40 60 100
Bnne salutation, % pore voUme
marized In Reference 8. Accurate Swi
values can be obtained from native-
state cores, i.e., those drilled with oil-
base mud, or by using resistivity log
techniques. As descri^ in the pre
ceding reference, numerous ways ex
ist for measuring waterflood residual
oil saturations. Among them are pres
sure core analysis, log-inject-log tech
niques, and single-well tracer meth
ods. Those methods can independent
ly provide Sw. and So, values that are
not solely determined on relatively
small core samples.
A second, more simple procedure
can be used for the core data where
the residual oil saturation depends on
the initial water saturation. That is,
higher initial water saturations com
monly produce lower residual oil sat
urations.^
Also, relative permeability ratio
curves frequently shift toward higher
water saturations for higher Swi values.
These considerations are the physical
basis for using the following equa
tions:
Sw —Swi
Sw*
_ So.
So*
1-Swi
Normalized water saturations now
range from Sw = 0.0 to.Sw<1.0. The
»me procedures are used for averag
ing the groups of original relative per
meability curves and shifting average
curves to reservoir saturation values.
 The author... laWeJ
Fred N.
Srhneidfr »*. vice- Calculation of average normalized curve
president 01 ke
pi ingpr LAboratorief Nomuiized water uturatiens Nonuliztd water saturatioiu
Irtc., Tuisa. k,. w. S,. U k» n. S,. %
Schneider received
Rel. K No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Avg.
degree> in me-
chiinical and petro 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 __ _

leum engineerin}*
ironi ihe Universi
ties ot Iowa and
Oklahoma, gaining
Schneider several vears of
field experience in
south central Oklahoma. He also spent
28 years with Antoco Production Co.,
where he conducted fluid flow re
search on porous media. He is an author
of several SPE articles.
In this application, the final water-
oil relative permeability curves begin
at the average reservoir initial vvrater
saturation and end at a maximum
water saturation. However, this value
is somewhat variable because it is
dependent on the average Swi condi
tions derived from core or field mea
surements.
Both of these averaging procedures
can also be used for a tertiary process.
A«ertiary displacement usually begins
at water floodout; that is, an immobile
oiJ saturation is present. In this case,
the displacement of the high water
saturation by oil develops because the
residual oil saturation achieves re
newed mobility due to the injection of
an agent (e.g., carbon dioxide or en-
richra gas) that is miscible with oil.
Cross-plots. More useful relative
pemrieability curves can be generated
for oil recovery calculations ifan orig
inal data set is used in a cross-plot
technique. The objective is to estab
lish a relationship, for example, with
porosity or permeability level. When
these values increase, the relative per
meability data measured on a sample
group may become more efficient, the
data shifting at given values of relative
permeability toward lower oil satura
tions and thus, exhibiting higher oil
recovery.' If this trend exists, cross-
plotted data can provide relative per
meability curves that relate to a specif-'
ic porosity or permeability level.
In the following example, perme
ability is chosen as the trend parame
ter. The water-oil relativepermeability
curves of Fig. 1 are used again, but
now with a different objective. The
three samples have permeabilities
ranging from 25 to 100 md and initial
water saturations of 10 to 30%.
Two cross-plots can be prepared,
one for oil and one for water relative
permeability. In the example, for
brevity only the results of the water
relative permeability plot are shown.
Also, the curves have not been nor
malized. The procedure is:
0.35 19.8 21.3
0.1 40.9 46.4
0.04 52.2 60.8
0.01 65.2 76.0
0.004 72.5 B2.9
0.001 80.2 91.8
• As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, plot
the brine saturations at selected levels
of relative permeability using the orig
inal data.
• Choose desired levels of perme
ability (e.g., 30, 60. and 100 md) and
plot oil and water relative permeabili
ties vs. interpolated water saturations.
Fig. 6 presents the results. Now
each chosen set of oil and water
relative permeabilities can be used in
oil recove^ calculations for a specific
permeability zone.
Gas-oil data. The effect of an immo
bile water saturation on gas-oil drain
age relative permeability relationships
i& less pronounced than for the water-
oil system. Water saturations lower
than 20% pore volume have a mini
mal effect on measured data and if
there is an effect, it develops mainly
for the kn relationship at low oil satu
rations.
Thjs channel flow concept* of oil
displacement suggests that the dis
placement of oil by gas, both usually
nonwetting pha.ses with respect to wa
ter, occurs in the large pore networks
first.
Only when the oil saturation
reaches a relatively low value is oil
24.0 21.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
49.8 45.7 75.2 75.4 75.6 75.4
64.6 59.2 57.8 58.1 58.4 58.1
80.9 74.0 33.7 34.0 34.8 34.2
89.0 81.5 19.2 19.6 21.0 19.9
96.6 89.5 1.8 3.1 3.9 2.9
permeability reduced somewhat due
to the presence of water. The effect
then tends to increase k„t/km ratio
values at a given low oil saturation,
thus reducing displacement efficien
cy. Three references (4, 5, 6) describe
the effect of initial water saturation on
gas-oil and water-oil relative perme
ability relationships.
In averaging curves, it is common
practice^ to simply compute for a
group of core samples the arithmetic
average gas saturation at different lev
els of km and k^. Others prefer to
compute the geometric averages of k^
and kq; at given gas saturation values.
Arithmetic averages assume a layered
system, whereas, geometric averages
assume an irregular arrangement on
nonuniform permeabilities.^
Geometric average values are
somewhat lower than arithmetic aver
age values, but because both curves
are lowered the effect on the k^/ko
curve is small. Averaging k, values at
selected gas saturations or averaging
gas saturations at selected k, values
produce equivalent relative perme
ability curves.
References
1. Corey, A.T.. and Rathjens, C.H., "Effect of
Stratification on Relative Permeabiltty," Trans.
AIME 11956) 207. 358-360.
2. Stone. H.L. "Protiabilitv Model for Estimating
Three-Phase Relative Pemneabtlit>'.'' J. of Pet.
Tech.. Februar\' 1970. pp. 214-218.
3. Muskat, M., Physical Principles of Oil Produc
tion, McCraw-Hill (1949). p. 295-296.
4. Leverett. M.C.. and Lewis, W.B., '^eady Flow
oi Cas-Oii-Water Mixtures through Unconsoli-
dated Sands." AIME Tech. Pub. 1206, 1940.
5. Sayre, A.T.. "A Studv of the Effects of Connate
Water Saturation on Water Flooding," Pennsyl
vania State College M. Sc. Thesis (unpublished
1947). Also see Pirson, "Elements of Oil Reser
voir Engineering," 1950. p. 304.
6. Ce^en. T.M., Oweru. W.W., Parrish, O.R.,
and Morse,R.A.. "Experimenulinvestigation of
Faoors Anecting Laboratory Relative Perme
ability Measurements," Trans. AIME (1951)
192. 99-110.
7. Todd. M.R/. Cobb. W.R.. and McCaner. E.D..
"CO; Flood Performance Evaluation for the
Cornell Unit, Wasson San Andres Field,"). Pet.
Tech., October 1982.2271-2282 (Note error in
equation of Fig. 1).
8. interstate Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma
City, "Detemiination of Residual Oil Satura
tion," June 1978.
9. Felsenthal. Manin. "Correlation of kgfko Data
with Sandstone Core Charaaeristics," Trans
AIME (1959) 216, pp. 258-261.
10. Warren, J.E.. Skiba. and Price. H.S., "An Eval
uation of the Significance of Permeability Mea
surements." J. Pet. Tech., August 1961.

TECHNOLOGY Ma>'4.1967.Oil &GasJournal 51

 INITIAL OIL-IN-PLACE

To accurately predict waterflood recovery, it is necessary to estimate the reservoir oil-in-

place at the start of waterflooding. As indicated earlier, the basic oil recovery prediction
equation used in waterflooding can be summarized as:

Nj) =N * Ea * Ey * Ed (Eq.3.1)
where:

Nj) = oil displaced by water injection, STB

(It will be shown in later chapters that, in many instances, significant
amounts of displaced oil maynot be produced due to gas re-saturation
effects.)

N = oil-in-place at start ofwaterflooding within thefloodable zones, STB

= areal sweep efficiency, fraction

Ey = vertical sweep efficiency, fraction

Ej) = imit displacement efficiency, fraction

The oil-in-place atthe start ofwaterflooding is given by:

N= 7758Ah(|)So
g- •0
(Eq. 3.2)
where:

A = floodable area, acres

h = floodable pay, feet

(|) = porosity, fraction

So = oil saturation at start of theflood, fraction

Bo = oil formation volume factor atstart ofthe flood, RB/STB

3-1
Three major difficulties encountered in using Eq. 3.2 are the determination of well net
pay, porosity, and oil saturation.

I. Oil Saturation

Most waterfloods are implemented late in the life of the reservoir after significant
primary production has occurred and at a time when the reservoir pressure is below
the bubble-point pressure. As primary production occurs, reservoir pressure declines
below the bubble-point, solution gas evolves from the oil in the reservoir, and a free
gas saturation forms within the oil zone. The development of a free gas saturation is
characterized by the production of a portion of the gas and an increase in the gas-oil
ratio. Despite some production of the gas, a large portion of it remains in the
reservoir. Consequently, the oil saturation at the start of waterflooding can be
substantially lessthan the oil saturation at the discovery of the field.

The average oil saturation at any time during the primaiy production period can be
determined as:

o _ Reservoir Oil Volume

® Reservoir Pore Volume ( •)
The reservoir oil volume consists of the number of barrels of oil in the reservoir at the
time of interest and can be estimated as:

Stock Tank OilVolume = OOIP at bubble-point pressure - Primaiy Oil

Produced below bubble-point pressure (Eq. 3.4)

or:

r \

Reservoir Oil Volume = - NppJ Bq (Eq. 3.5)

where:

3-2
 = original oil-in-place at the bubble-point pressure, STB

Npp = primary oil production between the bubble-point and current

reservoir pressure, STB

Bo = oil formation volume factor at prevailing pressure, RB/STB

The reservoir pore volume can be estimated using a volumetric material balance
where:

Vp(LO-Swc)
BqIj

Solvingfor pore volume gives:

A7 ^ob^ob
P~(1.0-Swc) (Eq.3.7)
where:

Bq5 = oil formation volume factor at the bubble-point pressure, RB/STB

Swc = connate water saturation at the time ofdiscovery, fraction
Substituting Eq. 3.5 and Eq. 3.7into Eq. 3.3 leads to:
/ \

^ (,Nob-NppjBo ^
= rNpbBobT"
l,1.0-Swc>/
Rearranging results in the average oilsaturation equation.
/ XT \
N B^

This equation plays a very important role inestimating waterflood potential.

3-3
 EXAMPLE 3:1

A reservoir is a candidate for waterflooding. The primary oil recovery factor below
the bubble-point pressure is 12 percent. The connate water saturation is 36 percent,
and the oil formation volume factors (Bq) at the bubble-point and current pressure
are estimated from PVT charts to be 1.35 and 1.05 RB/STB, respectively. Estimate
the oil saturation at the bubble-point and current pressure.

At the bubble-point, no free gasis present within the oilzone. Consequently,

So = 1.0-Swc = 1.0 - 0.36 = 0.64 or 64%

The current oil saturation can be estimated using Eq. 3.9.

(
So =f1.0 - Nr»r»^/^R ^
JfD^J(l-0 ~Swc)
So =(1.0-0.12)(i||)(1.0-0.36)
So = 0.438 or 43.8%

The gas saturation is:

Sg = 1.0 —Swc "" So

Sg= 1.0 - 0.36- 0.438
Sg = 0.202 or 20.2%
This example clearly indicates that the change in reservoir oil saturation is much
greater than the primary oil recovery factor of 12 percent.

Eq. 3.9 provides a means of computing the average oil saturation within the pore
volume. It is significant to recognize that the actual oil saturation may vary between
geological zones as a result of differential primary depletion, gas cap expansion, or
water influx.

3-4
II. Porosity

The most accurate determination of porosity is from cores when core porosity is
measured under overburden conditions. However, only a small percentage of the
wells in most fields will have cores. Consequently, porosity is usually determined
from logs. To provide the most reliable porosity values from logs, it is desirable to
calibrate the porosity logs using appropriate core data. The usual calibration tech
nique is to plot core porosity versus porosity log measurement such as sonic travel
time. At, orbulk density, p, and then develop a relationship between the parameters.
For example, Figure 3-1 is a plot of core porosity versus sonic travel time. While
there is scatter in the data, it is clear a relationship exists. In most instances, the
relationship is approximated by a straight line similarto that shownin Figure 3-1.

FIGURE 3-1
CORE POROSITY VERSUS
INTERVAL TRAVEL TIME FROM SONIC LOG
0.20

.9 0.15

w 0.10

O 0.05

0.00
50 55 60
Sonic Travel Time, At

3-5
 The relationship is:

(]) = A + BAt (Eq. 3.10)

where the constants A and B are estimates from the data plot. The parameters A
and B can be considered calibration constants from the reservoir under investigation.
Similar graphs could be made using density or neutron logs. Once the relationship
between porosity and log property is known, it should be used in the non-cored wells
to determine porosity as a function of the log measured parameters. When core data
are imavailable, the default relationship between (|) and At is the conventional
Wylie-time equation whichis discussed in most logging textbooks.

in. Net Pay

The net pay is an important parameter in determining oil-in-place. It may be the

single most difficult parameter to estimate in a reservoir analysis. Estimation of this
parameter can be difficult in reservoirs that are characterized by numerous porosity
zones or those that possess a high variation in permeability. For example, many
carbonate reservoirs are characterized by gross producing intervals which may be
several hundred feet thick yet only a portion of the interval contributes to production.
Once the net pay is determined for each well, the porosity associated with the pay
can then be determined.

The value assigned to N in Eq. 3.2 has no meaning unless it contains oil-in-place
which can be recovered during primary, secondary, or enhanced recovery operations.
It follows that the value of h assigned to a well must represent that portion of the
formation with sufficient oil satm-ation, lateral continuity, and permeability to permit
oil production for the particular recovery process imder consideration. This can be
accomplished by identifying those zones which are continuous and contain adequate
moveable oil saturation, and applying a permeability cutoff. Hence, all continuous
intervals with moveable oil and possessing a permeability greater than the cutoff are
considered pay and all intervals with permeability less than the cutoff are considered
non-pay.

3-6
Unfortunately, net pay cannot be directly determined from a permeability cutoff, in
most instances, due to the limited availability of cored wells. Nonetheless, if
sufficient core data are available, it is frequently possible to develop a correlation
between porosity and permeability. Typically, a semi-log plot is prepared with
permeability plotted on the log scale, and the permeability cutoff can then be used to
define a corresponding porosity cutoff. Figure 3-2 is a typical permeability-porosity
plot

FIGURE 3-2
TYPICAL PERMEABIUTY-POROSITY RELATIONSHIP
1,000

•o
E 100 0

.o
CO
(D •
10
E o

I oX o
O

£ 0

o
3
O

0.1
4 8 12 16
Core Porosity, percent

Application of Figure 3-2 presents three major problems. First, air permeability
values fi-om core data are usually plotted versus core porosity. It is well known that
air permeability overstates reservoir penneability. A more technically correct
permeability is the effective permeability to oil measured at the immobile or
irreducible connate water saturation, (ko)s^j.- Second, considerable scatter in the
data may exist without a precise permeability-porosity relationship being developed.

3-7
Last, net pay is highly dependent on the selection ofa permeability cutoff. Each of
these three points are addressed below.

A. Conventional Selection ofNet Pay Using Porosity Cutoff

Figure 3-2 is the typical permeability-porosity plot prepared by most engineers

and geologists. The plot represents permeability values from "routine" core
analysis. Routine core permeability is usually measured usmg a gaseous material
such as air, nitrogen, or natural gas and is intended to measure absolute
permeability. Moreover, these "air" permeabilities have not been corrected for
Klinkenberg effects.^ As a result, the routine air permeability, ka, tends to
overstate absolute permeability. (Absolute permeability is the permeability of a
rock when it is filled with a single fluid. Absolute permeability has application in
aquifer analysis because water isthe only fluid present but, absolute permeability
has no practical application within the oil column where multiple fluids coexist.)

Darcy's law for computing injection or production rates makes use of effective
permeability. Effective permeability is the permeability to water or oil when
other phases are present. As discussed in an earlier chapter, effective
permeability to oil orwater is equal to the product ofeffective permeability to oil
measured at the immobile irreducible water saturation, (ko)s . , and relative
Avir

permeability. This is due to the fact that (ko)^ . usually serves as the base or
reference permeability when computing relative permeability to oil and water
(kro 3nd krw). The appropriate and technically correct value of permeability
used in the construction ofFigure 3-2 is (ko)s . .
Table 3-1 compares ka with (ko)s^ for several core samples. It should be
noted that (ko)s . is always less than ka. Figure 3-3 is a graph showing the
Avir

relationship of ka and 0^o)s^ versus porosity for the data presented in Table
3-1. It is noted that, for a given permeability cutoff; the porosity cutoff is
increased when using the (ko)s . relationship. Since ka overstates effective

3-8
permeability, it leads to a porosity cutoff that is too low and thus results in an
optimistic estimate of net pay.

TABLE 3-1
Comparison of kj, and (k^)s^r ^ Sandstone Reservoir
under Consideration for Waterflooding
Sample ka,md (ko)s^.md
1 10.7 0.346 0.045
2 11.9 0.767 0.190
3 11.2 0.704 0.197
4 12.6 5.300 3.310
5 12.2 1.220 0.617
6 14.8 11.500 4.770
7 10.3 0.190 0.036
8 14.2 4.380 1.350
9 9.0 0.335 0.112
10 10.3 0.595 0.094
11 14.0 4.430 1.430
12 9.8 0.299 0.066
13 13.4 4.210 1.360
14 14.3 10.600 3.270
15 12.9 1.430 0.489
16 16.6 25.000 12.500
17 15.5 12.200 5.400
18 11.7 1.100 0.270
19 10.5 0.520 0.110

For example, consider Figure 3-3. If a permeability cutoff of 1.0 md is selected,

the porosity cutoff using the ka trend yields a value of 11.6 percent. The
corresponding porosity cutoffusing the 0^o)s^ trend is 13.2 percent. For this
particular reservoir, the total field pore volume using a porosity cutoff of 11.6
percent was estimated to be 40 percent greater than the corresponding pore
volume computed using a porosity cutoffof 13.2 percent.

3-9
 FIGURE 3-3
COMPARISON OF kg and (ko)swjr VERSUS POROSITY
FOR A CONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE RESERVOIR
100

1 10 . •

Air Perm eability, kg O o

o

n 1 X 'O

(D ' •
(D
• ^
E •

OIlPi3rmeability, (1
L_

n
m 0
^o^Swlr
Q- 0.1
o °

0.01
8 10 12 14 16 18
Porosity, percent

Values of 0^o)s^ are obtained from relative permeability tests or relative

permeability end-point measurements conducted on core samples. It is noted that
these 0^o)s^ values should be measured on core samples possessing
appropriate reservoir wettability.

After the porosity cutoff is estimated, it can be used with the available porosity
logs to determine net pay. All laterally continuous intervals containing adequate
moveable oil saturation and possessing porosity values greater than the porosity
cutoff are considered net pay. All intervals possessing porosity less than the
porosity cutoffare considered non-pay andareneglected in allftiture calculations.

The net pay for each well can be combined with the thickness weighted average
porosity (above the porosity cutoff) to yield a net porosity-thickness for eachwell.
A map of (t)h for each well can then be plotted and contoured to produce a
porosity-thickness map. When planimetered, this map gives the desired pore
volume, Ah<|).
3-10
B. Net Pay Determination After Accounting For Data Scatter

Permeability-porosity correlations, as described in Figure 3-2 or Figure 3-3, using

either ka or (^0)5^^ to determine porosity cutoffs are frequently
characterized by significant data scatter. This scatter can introduce considerable
error in the selection offloodable net pay cutofi* criteria and, subsequently, in the
oil-in-place calculations.

George and Stiles^ noted in one West Texas carbonate reservoir that the
porosity-permeability relationship was so poor that the conventional permeability-
porosity technique previously described could not be used. For example, when a
permeability cutoff of 0.1 md was used, it was found that some core samples with
porosity less than two percent had permeabilities greater than 0.1 md, while other
samples with porosities as high as eight percent had permeabilities less than 0.1
md. To improve the oil-in-place calculations, George and Stiles offered new
procediu*es for estimating net pay. One procedure is applicable when only the
total field oil-in-place is needed or when most wells in the field have similar
porosity. This procedure is referred to as thefieldwide net pay determination
method. A second procedure is recommended when an accurate net pay
determination is required for each well. This second technique is referred to as
the wellnet pay determination solution andmakes use of a weightingfactor based
on core data.

1. George and Stiies Fieldwide Net Pay Method

In the normal process of analyzing a permeability versus porosity plot, a line

must be fit through the data points. Several different straight line (or curve
fitting) techniques can be used. Each technique will yield a different porosity
cutoff for a given permeability cutoff. The fieldwide net pay technique of
George and Stiles eliminates this problem. The fieldwide technique yields a

3-11
single porosity cutoff that gives fieldwide pore volume, based on core samples,
with permeability greater than the permeability cutoff.

The fieldwide net pay method requires core data be available and analyzed
according to the following procedures.

a. Select a permeability cutoff (for accurate results, the cutoff should be

0^0)8^,)-
b. From the core data, define actualpay as being all cored footage possessing
a permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Compute the actual (|)h
for all pay above the permeability cutoff.

c. From the core data, define apparent pay as being all core footage
possessing a porosity greater than a porosity cutoff. This step does not
require the selection ofa single value ofporosity cutoff. Instead, apparent
payis computed as a function of porosity.

d. Select several values of porosity cutoff ranging from zero to the mflvimnm
value of porosity. Usually, these values are selected in increments of two
porosity units such as two, four, six, ei^t, etc. percent. For each value of
porosity cutoff; compute the apparent pay. On coordinate paper, plot
apparent <|)h versus the porosity cutoffused to define the apparent <|)h. The
curve inFigure 3-4 is a hypothetical example ofthis type ofrelationship.

3-12
 FIGURE 3-4
APPARENT POROSITY-THICKNESS VS POROSITY CUTOFF

5 10 15
Porosity Cutoff, percent

e. Enter the actual <|)h determined from Step b on Figure 3-4 and read the
corresponding porosity as shown on Figure 3-5. This porosity value
represents the porosity cutoff where apparent pay is equal to actual pay.
This value ofporosity, when utilized in all wells, should lead to the proper
(bh of the field.

3-13
 FIGURE 3-5
APPARENT POROSITY-THICKNESS VS POROSITY CUTOFF
•S 8

CO
(/}
QJ c
c 6
o

Actual <j)h
^4
'w
2
£
"c 2 -

a?
CD
Q. Porosity Cutoff
Q.
1
< 0
5 10 15 20
Porosity Cutoff, percent

EXAMPLE 3:2

Twenty-nine wells in a consolidated sandstone reservoir have been cored.

Conventional ka values have been measured on 2,551 core samples. Figure 3-6
is a conventional semi-log graph relating ka to porosity. Using the fieldwide net
pay method of George and Stiles described in the above paragraphs, estimate the
porosity cutoff which causes the apparent pay based on a porosity cutoff to be
equal to theactual pay based ona permeability cutoff.

3-14
 FIGURE 3-6
CONVENTIONAL SEMI-LOG PLOT OF AIR PERMEABILITY VS POROSITY
FOR ACONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE (2551 SAMPLES)
1.000 E n
• ^ o o °

s 10

< 0.1
Least Squares ©
Straight Line Fit
10 15 20
Porosity, percent

The appropriate permeability cutoff is 3.0 md to oil measured at irreducible

(immobile) water saturation, (ko)g^^5 and corresponds to an air
permeability, ka, of6.0md.

The actual pay (aud pore volume, (|)h) for all cores possessing ka values of
6.0 md or greater is 267 porosity-feet

The apparent pay (and related pore volume) is computed for different porosity
cutoff values listed below.

3-15
 Porosity Cutoff Apparent Cumulative
percent Porosity-Thickness, feet
2 370
4 369
6 368

8 358

10 330

12 296
14 254

16 192

18 88

20 23

22 1

Apparent porosity-thickness versus porosityis shownin Figure 3-7.

FIGURES-?
APPARENT POROSITY-THICKNESS VERSUS POROSITY CUTOFF
^ FOR A CONSOLIDATEDSANDSTONE RESERVOIR
0)
^ 400

10 15
Porosity Cutoff, percent

Enter actual (or true) porosity-thickness of 267 feet, based on the permeability
cutoff, on the vertical scale and read the porosity cutoffvalue of 13.2 percent
as shown in Figure 3-8.

3-16
 FIGURE 3-8
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE POROSITY CUTOFF
FOR FIELD PORE VOLUME CALCULATIONS AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR DATA SCATTER
400

0) •—•—
a
</>
v>
0) 300
I 267
X
True Net Pay Pore Volume
200 - Based on Permeatsility Cutoff

S
£
I 100
(5
Ol

<
1 ! 1 .

10 13.2 15 20 26
Porosity Cutoff, percent

This value of 13.2 percent takes into account the scatter in data. It is the porosity
cutoff thatyields a pore volume which is equal to the pore volume for those core
samples in which permeability is greater than the permeability cutoff.

2. George and Stiles Individual Well Net Pay Method (Weighting Factor
Method)

George and Stiles noted that, while the procedure outlined above gives reliable
pore volume, there are some /ie/ds in which are we//s that have produced
significant amounts of oil which are given no pay because all porosity is below
the cutoff. This failure to allocate pay created problems for certain wel/s
during waterflood xmitization proceedings when unit participation formulas
included net pay. The problem was that wells which had produced primary oil

3-17
were given little or no credit for secondary operations because they contained
no netpay when using a straight porosity cutoff.

To achieve a better distribution of porosity feet on a well-to-well basis, a

second method for net pay determination method was developed and is
outlined below.

a. Select a permeability cutoff.

b. Select a low porosity range, such as 2.0% < (|) < 3.0%, and determine
the number of feet of core having a porosity within this range. Define this
value as apparent pay. Compute the weighted average porosity of all core
footage within thisporosity range. For example,

. _ (|)ihi +(|)2h2 + +hn

hi +h2 + +hn

c. Determine how many feet of the apparent pay from Step b have a
permeability greater than the permeability cutoff. Define this value as
actualpay.

d. Compute the ratio of actual pay to apparent pay (the weightingfactor) and
plot this ratio versus the weighted average porosity cutoff from Step b on
Cartesian coordinate paper.

e. Repeat Steps b through d for increasingly larger values of the porosity

cutoff i.e., 3.0% < (j) < 4.0%; 4.0% < (|) < 5.0%; etc. Plot the
weighting factor for the porosity range versus the average porosity within
the range. Figure 3-9 is an example. While some scatter will exist, George
and Stiles suggest that a straight line fit ofthe data will normally provide an
adequate description of the weighting factor versus porosity relationship.
Note that there may be a minimum value of porosity below which the
weighting factor is zero (no net pay) and a TnaYimiim value of porosity
above which the weighting factor is unity, that is the actual pay will equal
3-18
 the apparent pay. For example, in Figure 3-9, all intervals possessing a
value of porosity less than three percent have no pay, whereas for all
intervals possessing porosity greater than 20 percent, actual pay will equal
apparent pay.

FIGURE 3-9
RATIO OF ACTUAL PAYTO APPARENT PAY
(WEIGHTING FACTOR) VERSUS POROSITY
1.00

c 0.75 -
s?
CO
Q.

t>»
0.50 -

s.
CO 0.25 -

0.00
10 15
Porosity, percent

f. For each porosity interval identified on the porosity log, compute the net
pay using the following equation.

Pay thickness determined

NET PAY = [ from log for particular ] * [ Actual Pav ]
valueof porosity Apparent Pay
(Eq. 3.10)

The ratio of actual pay to apparent pay or weighting factor is obtained fi-om
Figure 3-9 for the particular value of porosity being considered. Suppose
for example the porosity of a particular interval is ten percent; hence firom
Figure 3-9, the weighting factor is approximately 0.4. This means that
statistically throughout the field, all layers with a porosity of ten percent
have a 40 percent probability of possessing a permeability greater than the

3-19
 penneability cutoff. Consequently, each one foot interval possessing ten
percent porosity will be assigned 0.4 feet of net pay.

When this technique is used, wells with low porosities will not be excluded but
will be given a limited amount of pay. Both total pore volume and pore
volume distribution within the field will be realistic. This method for
estimating net pay is preferable to those methods previously described.
However, more work is required because each porosity interval in each well
must be weighted. In fact, an equation for the straight line determined from
Figure 3-9 can be computed. This equation can be combined with all logs in
the field such that each foot can be weighted.

EXAMPLE 3:3

Consider the conventional peimeability-porosity plotpresented in Figure 3-10.

FIGURE a-10
CONVENTIONAL SEMI-LOG PLOT OF PERMEABILITY VS POROSITY

1,000

•
•

100 •

•
m
•o • • •
•

E
•

L 10
• •
: 2md • •
• •
•. * ,
® 1 <
"X •

• •

0.1 •

•
•
•
,15.3
• «

0.01
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Porosity, percent

3-20
The permeability data for this reservoir represent (ko)c values. A
'^wir
permeability cutoff of 2.0 md is appropriate for this field. It is necessary to
develop a ratio of which the numerator is actual pay and the denominator is
total thickness for a particular porosity range. This ratio is sometimes defined
as a thickness weighting factor.

For this particular data set, the following table is established.

Porosity Range, % Net Pay above 2.0 md «

Apparent Pay ' ™ion
0-12 0
12-14 3/11=0.273
14-16 11/20 = 0.550
16-18 15/18 = 0.833
18 or greater 1

Figure 3-11 presents a graph ofthese data. Average porosity within the range
is plotted on the horizontal scale. The vertical scale is the ratio of net pay
above 2.0mdto apparentpay for the porosity interval.

FIGURE 3-11
WEIGHTING FACTOR VS POROSITY
® 1.00

£ 0.25

12 14 16 18
Porosity, percent

3-21
 The vertical scale can be used as a weighting factor for each foot of potential
pay. The graph indicates for any foot of interval possessing a porosity value
less than about 11 percent, receives a weighting factor of zero and is counted as
non-pay. For any foot of reservoir with a porosity greater than about 18
percent receives a weighting factor of unity. A foot of rock with a porosity
between 11 and 18 is weighted with the appropriate factor from Figure 3-11
and is credited with a partial foot of pay. For example, a foot of interval
possessing a porosityof 14 percentis credited with 0.38 feet of pay. Similarly,
a foot of interval possessing a porosity of 17 percent is credited with 0.83 feet
of pay.

The gross interval in each well in this field can be weighted on afoot byfoot
basis. After weighting, (|)h values can be computed on a well basis for
accurate reservoir pore volume determination. Statistically, this technique for
computing pore should be more accurate than using a straight porosity cutofif
such as 15.3 percentas evaluated from Figure3-10.

C. Permeability Cutoff Determination

Determination of a penneability cutoff may not be a simple task but it is one of

the most important parameters used in reservoir analysis. The penneability
cutoff, for the same reservoirs, will change depending upon whether the oil
production is by primary, secondary, or tertiary methods. A major technical
hiu-dle that reservoir engineers, geologists, and managers must cross is an
understanding that penneability cutoffs for waterflooding are usually much
greater than the cutoff values used in primary analysis.

1. Permeability Cutoff Based on Fillup Time

Consider Figure 3-12 which depicts a partly depleted single geological layer
that extends from an injection well to a production well. Consider the case in
3-22
which during primary depletion, the injection well served as a production well.
During primary depletion, the zone produced oil through both well bores and
the layer contributed to primary production. Hence, the layer represented net
pay during primary production phase. Now that waterflooding has
commenced, the question which must be resolved is "Will this layer contribute
or produce waterflood oil?" If the zone does not contribute secondary oil, it
must not be included in the net pay determination for secondary recovery
purposes.

FIGURE 3-12
INJECTION AND PRODUCTION RESPONSE IN A SINGLE LAYER
WITH A FREE GAS SATURATION PRIOR TO GAS FILLUP

INJECTION PRODUCTION
WELL WELL

Water Oil
Zone Bank

Secondary oil production commences when the oil bank, shown in Figure 3-12,
is displaced to the producing well. Accordingly, the secondary net pay
permeability cutoff is dependent on those factors such as gas saturation,
distance between wells, injection to producing well pressure drop, mobility
ratio, and injection well skin factor which control injection rate^ and thus the
time for the oil bank to reach the producing well.
Time enters into the secondary net pay permeability cutoff calculation. For
example, if the oil bank in Figure 3-12 is displaced to the producing well
within an acceptable time period it would be called pay. However, if an
unacceptable response time (say 10 years or greater) is required for the oilbank
to reach the producing well, then the zone may not qualify as pay. As will be
discussed in more detail in a later section, the time required for the oil bank to
reach a production well is equivalent to the "free gas" fillup time. This
technique used to compute the permeability cutoff is referred to as the fillup
timemethod. This time is computed based on the following concept:

Wif
tf=^ (Eq.3.11)
where

Wjf =water required to reach gas fillup for the layer, barrels

iw =water injection rate into the layer, barrels per day (See Chapter 6)
tf = fillup time, days

Further,

Wjf =(Pore Volume ofLayer)(Free Gas Saturation) (Eq. 3.12)

Wif =(7758Ah(|))Lay,,*Sg

EXAMPLE 3:4

A waterflood is to be initiated in a 4,000 foot deep reservoir which is

developed on a 40 acre, five-spot pattern. Primaiy oil production is the result
of a solution gas drive. Initial reservoir pressure was 1800 psi, and the
pressure at the start of waterflooding is 500 psi. At the start of injection, the
calculated oil, gas, and connate water saturations are 60, 15, and 25 percent,
3-24
respectively. Assume a zero skin factor for both the injector and production
wells.

1. For the reservoir conditions listed below, compute the minimum

permeability (the permeability cutoff) which will experience oil production
response within 15 years of the start of injection.

Mobility Ratio = 1.0

Oil Viscosity = 2.0 centipoise

^wi = 2600 psi

^wf = 200 psi

Si = 0

Sp = 0

d = 933 feet (40 acre pattern)

rw = 0.25 feet

(|> = 12 percent

2. If the injection well is effectively stimulated throughout the waterflood such

that the skin factor averages a value of -4.0, would the permeability cutoff
be altered?

SOLUTION

1. The time required to achieve waterflood oil response (flUup) for the lowest
permeability zone in 15 yearsis computed in the following manner.

Wif, bbls
365 * iw, bbls/day

Wif=7758Ah(|)Sg

3-25
 Wif= 7758 *40 *h* 0.12 *0.15
Wif=5586*h, bbls
and from Table 7-1 of Chapter 7:

0.00354 *(ko)s.*h*(p^-P^'
lw =
£
1^0 In ^rw/ -0.619+0,5 I^Si +Sp
0.00354 ♦ (ko)s^ *h(2600- 200)
lw =
933
2.0 In
V0.25/
-0.619+0.5(0+0)

iw = 0.588 * (ko)c•^wir. * h, bbls/d

Finally, fortf = 15 years:

5586 *li
15 =
365 * 0.558 ♦ (ko)c *h '
'^wir

(ko)s . =1.82md
^^wir

(This probably represents an air permeability of3.0 to4.0 md)

2. Ifit is assumed that a - 4.0 skin factor could be maintained at the injection
well, the injection rate is altered to:

0.00354 ♦ (ko)s^ *h ♦ (2600 -200)

Iw =
^933^^
2.0 h
V0.25y
- 0.619 + 0.5(-4.0+ 0)

iw =0.758 *(ko)s^^ *h
The minimum permeability (penneability cutofiE) to obtain fillup in 15 years
is:

Wif
tf = 365 * iw

3-26
 15 5586 *h
365 ♦ 0.758 *(ko)s„,, *h
'wir

(ko)s•^wir• =1.35 md

It is noted in Eq. 3.11 and illustrated in Example 3:4 that since the h tenn
appears in both the numerator and denominator, they cancel. Hence the
permeability cutoff computed in this method is independent ofthickness.

2. Permeability Cutoff Based on Watercut

A second technique for estimating permeability cutoff is described in this

section and is referred to as the watercut method. This method is more
complicated than iQitfillup time method described in the previous paragraphs.
However, the watercut method is applicable for reservoirs with or without a
free gas saturation at the start of the waterflood. The permeability cutoff is
dependent on actual reservoir stratification and the rock and fluid properties
withinthe different layers.

The watercut method can best be illustrated with the aid of Figure 3-13. This
figure presents a three-dimensional view of a typical injector and offset
producer. The reservoir is subdivided into a number of layers. There is no
procedure that precisely defines the number of layers but 15 to 20 layers
should be sufficient. A waterflood prediction is made for the multi-layered
system using a prediction technique such as the one proposed by
Craig-Geffen-Morse^ (described in detail in Chapter 8) or a numerical
simulationmodel. The waterflood is carried out to an economic limit watercut
such as 96 percent as presented in Figure 3-13.

3-27
 FIGURE 3-13
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATERFLOOD AT 96 PERCENT WATER CUT
FOR PERMEABILITY CUTOFF DETERMINATION

INJECTOR PRODUCER AT 96 PERCENT

WATER CUT

UNAFFECTED (GAS) ZONE

WATER ZONE

OIL BANK
 Upon reaching the economic limit, each of the layers within the waterflood
model should be examined. The permeability cutoff can be defined as being
the permeability below which a negligible amoimt (for example 5 percent) of
the theoretical waterflood oil has been recovered at the waterflood economic
limit.

D. Original Oil-In-Place - Material Balance Versus Volumetric Estimates

Estimates of original oil-in-place, either by material balance or volumetrics, are

difficult for many fields. The OOIP determination is complicated by ancient or
insufficient data, logs are frequently old, core data may be limited, and accurate
reservoir pressures are not available. In heterogeneous reservoirs where sufficient
production and pressure data are available to make reliable material balance
calculations, it has been found that the volumetric original oil-in-place was much
greaterthan that calculated by material balance.

Volumetric calculations assume that all formation thickness with permeability

greater than the permeability cutoff (or porosity cutoff can be used to compute
OOIP. Unfortunately, many porosity stringers are not continuous between wells,
and in fact, some zones are not penetrated by wells. Because of the lack of rock
continuity, only those intervals connected to a wellbore will affect material
balance calculations. Furthermore, those porosity zones which are continuous
between wells but have no effective well completions will have no affect on the
material balance. Thus, OOIP calculated by material balance depends on well
spacing, porosity continuity, and effective well completions.

George and Stiles suggested that the ratio of material balance to volumetric OOP
can be considered as a measure of reservoir continuity resulting from a
combination of well spacing and effective completion intervals. Stiles'* has
indicated that in one West Texas field, the material balance OOIP was estimated
to be 738 MMSTBO. A volumetric OOIP of 1,029 MMSTBO was calculated

3-29
 using a sixpercent porosity cutoff. If both values are assumed reasonably correct,
the ratio of material balance to volumetric OOIP of 0.72 is a measure of rock
continuity and effective well completions. Stiles indicated that continuity
calculations indicated 75 percent of the total pay was continuous for primary
spacing of 40 acres. Hence, most of the difference between material balance and
volumetric original oil-in-place can be reconciled by the lack of continuity.

Determination of lateral continuity is difficult. Appropriate estimates of this

parameter can only be made after considering all relevant data including material
balance studies, geological cross-sections, stratigraphy, and pressure test data.

E. Primary Production Net Pay Versus Secondary Floodable Net Pay

During primary production, all effectively perforated intervals possessing

permeability greater than the permeability cutoff contribute to production.
Furthermore, some zones possessing permeability less than the permeability
cutoff may contribute to production. Production from the low permeability zones
is best described with the aid of Figure 3-14.

3-30
 FIGURE 3-14
CROSS SECTION VIEW ILLUSTRATING WATERFLOOD PAY AND NON-PAY

Layer 1 (ko)s^lr ^ P®""®3blllty Cutoff

Layer 2 (ko)Swir ^ Pe""®ablllty Cutoff
Layers (ko)Swir ^ Cutoff

Layer 4 (
(ko)Swir ^ Cutoff ^ / Layer 5
(MSyyjr ^ Permeability Cutoff

Layer 6
3==^
(ko)s^j^ >Permeability Cutoff
Layer? (ko)Svy[r Penneabillty Cutoff
—

Figure 3-14 is a cross section between two producing wells during primary
production in a reservoir characterized byseveral porosity intervals. Layers 1 and
3 are continuous between the production wells and possess permeability values
greater than the permeability cutoff. Layer 2 is continuous but possesses a
permeability which is less than the permeability cutoff. With respect to
conventional radial flow. Layer 2 is treated as being non-productive. However,
after some primary production from Layers 1 and 3, they become partially
pressure depleted. If modest values of vertical permeability are present, oil will
frequently travel a short distance in the vertical direction, as in Layer 2, until it
enters a zone of high permeability and will then move radially to a producing
well. This vertical crossflow can account for production that is normally not
anticipated using previously described cutoffs and results in primary production

3-31
 being more favorable than is otherwise predicted. Also as seen in Figure 3-14,
Layers 4, 5, and 6 contribute to primary production.

In many reservoirs, it is uncommon to find porosity zones that are continuous

over large distances. In fact, some zones may be continuous over several
thousand feet while others extend only a few feet. To be flooded, ^pay interval
must:

1. possess permeability above the cutoff

2. be continuous between aninjection well and producing well,

3. contain moveable oil saturation

4. be injection supported, and

5. be effectively completed intheproducing wells.

Figure 3-14 illustrates the continuity concept. Only Layers 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are
continuous. However, since Layers 2 and 7 possess permeability less than the
permeability cutoff no water enters the layer; accordingly. Layers 2 and 7 are not
injection supported and are not treated as pay.

It is usually difficult to map individual stringers accurately. This difficulty is

illustrated with the aid of Figure 3-15. It helps to illustrate the
contiQuous-discontinuous nature of thin porosity zones. Recently, Stiles'^
reviewed a statistical technique used to estimate reservoir continuity. In his
approach, continuity between wells was defined as the fi-action oftotal pay in a
well connected to another well. Each stringer was considered continuous if it
correlated between pairsof wells and discontinuous if it could not be correlated.

3-32
 FIGURR
NO.zosa HO.asT

^ Net Pay At Well Bore

North-south cross-section at Fullerton Field.

The upper curve in Figure 3-16 is an example of a continuity curve in one West
Texas field. As can be seen, rock continuity decreases as the distance between
wells increases.

FIGURE 3-16
CONTINUOUSAND FLOODABLE PAY FOR MEANS FIELD
(WESTTEXAS)

^ 0.75
Continuous Pay

O 0.50 Floodable Pay

0.25

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Horizontal Distance between Wells, feet

3-33
Because of inregularities in layer geometiy, all continuous zones are not
floodable. Consider Layer 6 in Figure 3-14. It is apparent that the zone, while
continuous between wells, is not completely floodable. Since the shape of the
porosity zone between wells is not known, it is difficult to predict performance in
this layer. Stiles used a Monte Carlo technique to determine the fraction of the
irregular layerIhickness which could be expected to flood. The overall result was
the lower curve in Figure 3-16 which relates floodable pay expressed as a fraction
of total pay.

For a specific distance, floodable pay will always be less than continuous pay
which, in turn, will be less than total pay. Practical application of the floodable
pay concept shows that as average distance between injectors and producers
decrease, floodable pay increases. This concept becomes important when
evaluating infill drilling or pattern changes.

3-34
 CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

1. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, (1960) - Chapter 2

2. George, CJ. and Stiles, L.H.: "Improved Techniques for Evaluating Carbonate
Waterfloods in West Texas," Journal ofPetroleum Technology (November 1978),
p. 1547.

3. Willhite, F.P.: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3

4. Stiles, L.H.: "Optimizing Waterflood Recovery in a Mature WaterQood, The

FuUerton Clearfork Unit," paper SPE 6198 presented at the 1976 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans.

3-35
 PROBLEM 3:1

^ OIL IN PLACE

The original discovery pressure of an oil reservoir was above the bubble point pressure.
The primary producing mechanism was fluid expansion and solution gas drive.
Cumulative primary production is 3,200,000 STBO (3,200 MSTBO) of which 700
MSTBO was produced as the reservoir pressure declined from the original discovery
pressure to the bubble point pressure. Given the following rock and fluid property data,
estimate the current average oil and gas saturation in the reservoir.

Swc —26%

Boi =1.35RB/STB
Bob = 1.41 RB/STB
Bo =1.10RB/STB

A = 880 acres

h =24 ft.

(|) = 16%

3-36
 PROBLEM 3:2

NET PAY WEIGHTING FACTOR - MIDDLE EAST RESERVOIR

A Middle East oil resei^voir is being evaluated for wateiflood potential. Figure 3:2-1
presents a semi-log graph ofka and versus porosity.

1. Compute and compare the porosity cutoff for a 10 md penneability cutoff using
the ka and (^o)s^jj. coiTelation.
2. Figure 3:2-2 is a plot of versus porosity. Compute and plot percent
core samples within a porosity range possessing permeabilities greater than a 10
md cutoff value versus porosity.

3-38
 FIGURE 3:2-1
PERMEABILITY VERSUS POROSITY
FOR A MIDDLE EAST RESERVOIR

10,000

(0
g
o
1,000
CO
•o

CO
CO
100
CO

n
(0
o
E
Urn
o 10
Q.

♦
1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Porosity, percent

) ) )
) )

FIGURE 3:2-2
PERMEABILITY VERSUS POROSITY
FOR A MIDDLE EAST RESERVOIR

10,000

0)
0)
mwmm

2 1.000
(0
"O

E
100 Ko
___ -owi
.
mmm

n
(0
(D
E 10
o
Q.

1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Porosity, percent
 SATURATIONS WITHIN THE OIL COLUMN AT DIFFERENT
STAGES OF PRIMARY PRESSURE DEPLETION

swc nso sg

5^ 100

Sg = 22%
Sg = 35%

So = 75%
So = 67%
So = 53%
So = 40%

3000 psi 2000 psi 1000 psi 300 psi

(Bubble Point)
 1,000

100

'd 10

5 >

0.01
 CARBONATE RESERVOIR WATERFLOOD FIELD

1000
-

100
-

"d

• 10

iS 0.1

- M
B ®
1 1 1 1 1

0.01
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Porosity - %

) —) >
Improved Techniques for Evaluating Carbonate
Waterfloods in West Texas
C. J. George, Exxon Co.. U.S.A.
L. H. Stiles, SPE-AIME. Exxon Co.. U.S.A.
Introduction
Detailed studies of three waterfloods in Permian carbo
nate reservoirs of west Texas resulted in new depletion
planswithmajorq>erating changes, includinginfilldrill
ing and pattern modifications. An important aspect of
these studies was the close coordination of geologic and
engineering wotIc that produced a consistent approach to
the relationship between reservoir description and field
procedures us^ to improve ultimate recovery.
The Fullerton, Means, and Robertson fields are lo
cated in west Texas about 50 to 75 miles nc^west of
Midland (Fig. 1). These reservoiis have been producing
oil since the mid-1930*s and later were unitized with
Exxon Co., U.S.A., as operator.
These three units are typical of many west Texas car
bonate waterfloods in which waterflooding began in the
early 1960's and progressed through several expansion
phases. Although economically successful, results were
often less than predicted. As problems with early water-
floods began to develop, old concepts changedand led to
more detailed studies. Ghaurietal.^ reported several of
these changing concepts in 1974. "hie same year,
DriscolP summarized some approaches that had been
used to improve waterflood recovery.
To better relate reservoir description to past per
formance and future operations, a special study group
composed of an engineer-geologist team was formed to
conduct in-depth studies of these threereservoirs. Tech
niques used in these studies were largely refinements of
014»-2l36/7e/0011-6739S0a2S
@ 1978 SooMy OiPeloleum Ensmeors ol AIME
Detailedstudies ofthree waterfloods in Permian carbonate reservoirs ofwest Texas resulted in
new depletion plans with major operating changes, including infill drilling andpattern
modifications. Close coordination ofgeologic and engineering work produced a consistent
approach tothe relationship between reservoir description andoperations when calculating
ultimate recovery.
NOVEMBER. 1978
those used previously in the Permian Basin area; how
ever, some new concepts and approaches were devel
oped. A practical requirement was having to use avail
able data that, in some cases, were almost 40 yeais old
and often of poor quality.
Reservoir Description
Geology
The fields studied are located geologically in the north
eastern part oftheCentral Basin Platform, ashallowshelf
area separating theDelaware and Midland basins during
Permian time. Fig. 1is a geological province mapshow
ing various basin and platform areas during Permian
time.
The Robeitson and Fullerton fields produce mainly
from the Clearfork formation of Permian Leonard age,
while Means Field produces primarily from the San
Andres formation of Permian Guadalupian age. These
fields, even though varying slightlyin age, geographical
location, and producing depth, exhibit similar deposi-
tionaland lithologic characteristics that affectwaterflood
performance.
These reservoirs are characterized by numerous poros
ity stringers within a gross, vertical, carbonate section
that may be several hundred feet thick..Thesecarbonates
were deposited as limestone in a shallow shelf envi
ronment and most of the limestone later became
dolomitized. Sediments of the Means and Robertson
fields were deposited along the shelf margin, while those
of the Fullerton area were deposited farther along the
1547
 TABLE 1—AVERAGE RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
NORTHWEST Field
SHELF Fullerton Means Rot>ertson

Reservoir
Area, acres 17,300 15,723 4,B00
Depth, fl 7,000 4,400 6.500
EASTERN Gross thickness, ft 600 300 1,400
Porosity, % 9.6 9.0 6.3
Permeablity. md 3 20 0.65
Connate water, % 22 29 30
BASIN
Riid
Stock-tank gravity, 'API 42 29 32
01 viscosity, cp 0.75 6 1.2
Formatton volume factor 1.62 1.04 1.25
Saturation pressure, psi 2,370 310 1,700

Fig. 1—Permian Basin geological provinces.

shelf, away from the margin. The reservoirs exhibit a
complex interfmgering of variouscarbonatefaciestypes.
Many sea transgressions and regressions duringdeposi
tionshowrapid lithologic changes in the vertical section
at any given place, and are responsible for the highly
stratified reservoirs. Although some structural closure
exists, most hydrocarbon trapping iscontrolled bylateral
and vertical limits of porosity and permeability.
The schematic block diagram of the Means Held
(Hg. 2) illustratesthe complexrelationshipof the various
facies types typical of thesefields.Deposition herewasin
an intertidal-lagoon-bank sequence. The best pwosity
generally is in the oolitic facies. whidi was depositedin
shallow water and formed an of&h(»« l»nk protecting the
lagoon from waves. A skdetal facies was d^sited in
front of the oolite tenk and also has good porosity,
mainly secondary porosiQr formed by leaching of the
skeletalmaterial.The lagoonalfacies has lesser porosiQr
and is characterized by numerous thin p(»t>sity zones
interbedded with shales and carbonate muds. Shelfward
from the lagoonal facies is the intertidal facies, com
posedof anhydrite and micriticdolomite with little or no
porosity. Thisdiagramis generalized but helpsto explain
some problems in waterflooding from injectOTS to {h-o-
ducers in this type of reservoir.
Physical Properties
Physical properties of the reservoirs are shown in Table
1. These fields are representative of many other Permian
fields widi generally low porosity and permeability. Low
permeability is compensated partially by low-viscosity
reservoir crude oil. llie reservoir crude oils at Fullenon
and Robertson fields with viscosities of 0.75 and 1.2 cp,
respectively, are typical of many west Texas Permian
fields; however, the Means crude oil with a viscosity of 6
cp is an exception.
Producing Characteristics
Primary production from Fullenon and Robertson fields
was almost entirely by solution gas drive, while Means
Field primary production combined fluid expansion with
weak water drive, ftimary recovery factors as a percent
of originaloil in place were estimatedat 18%for Fuller-
ton, 15% for Means, and 8% for Robertson fields. These
relatively low primary recoveries were the reason for
initiating waterfloods in the three fields.
Calculation of Original Oil in Place
A major objective of these studies was^.to determine the
volumetric original oil in place and to mapthe distribu
tion of pore volume by zone within the reservoir. To
accomplish this, calculations were required for net pay,
porosity, andporosity-feet. These calculated values were
used to construct net-pay md porosity-foot contour maps
to determine the pore-voluine distribution.
Net-P&y and Porosity Determination
The most accurate determination of porosity is from

"ttoauS:

Fig. 2—Means Field(San Andres)schematic.

IMS JOURNAL OF PKTROLKUM TF.CHNOLOGY

 cores, but since only a small percent of wells in these
reservoiis were cored, porosities from uncored wells had
to be determined from logs. Many types of logs were
available, but a single type of log was never common to
all wells in a field. Some wells have never been logged.
The most common log was the gamma ray neutron log,
many of which were 15 to 25 years old. Neutron logs
have certain limitations for quantitative porosity mea
surement, but over all provide reliable porosity determi
nations fcM* these cases.

Determination of Porosity Cutoff

From limitedcore data, the relationship between porosity
and permeability was studied to fmd a porosity cutoff for
use whendetermining net pay. A permeability cutoff of
0.1 md, whid) commonly is applied to many Permian
caibonate reservoirs, was used. Porosity cutoffs then
were determined from plots of core porosity vs core
permeability for all wells with enoughcore data. Fig. 3
is an example from the Means Field for which the po
rosity cutoff corresponding to a 0.1-md permeability
cutoff is 3%.
In Robertson Field the correlation between porosity
and permeability was so poor that the conventional tech
nique described above could not be used. When a per '0 4 B 12 16 20 24
CORE POROSITY - *
meability cutoff of 0.1 md was assumed, we found that
some core samples with porosities less than 2% had Rg.a^Core permeabiity vscore porosity atMeans Field.
permeabilities greater than 0.1 md, while other samples
with pcM'osities as high as 8% had permeabilities less than
90
0.1 md. To improve the oil-in-place calculations, a tech
nique wasdevelopedto account for this scatter.
Actual pay was defined as all core sainples above the
permeability cutoff, which in this case was 0.1 md, while
apparent pay was defined as all core samples above a f POROSITT C0l0rF>4.2%
f ri

specific porosity cutoff. The relationship between these

two values was used to ifind a porosity cutoff. Fig.4 is a
plot of apparent pay vs porosity cutoff for the Robertson
10
Upper QearfOTk. With a zero cutoff the apparent pay is
44.5 porosity-ft; as the cutoff increases, the apparent pay
decreases until porosity-feet approaches zero at a cutoff
of 14%. In this example, the actual pay (samples with
permeability greater than 0.1 md) was 29.9 porosity-ft. 1 1 ' «
The correct cutoff for original-oil-in-place calculations is
the porosity value whereapparent pay is equal to actual POROSITY CUTOFF-PERCENT
pay. In thiscase, a cutoff of 4.2% was indicated. Rg. 4—^Apparent paywpo^r^^c^off in Rot>eitson Upper
This methodis adequate when total field original oil in
place is needed or when most wells in the field have
similar porosityranges. Although a cutoff of 4.2% is the
correct average value, a significant number of samples
with lowerporosityhave permeabilities greater than 0.1
md. In some fields there wUI be wells that have produced
significant oil, although these would be given no pay
because all porosity is below the cutoff. A method for
achieving a tetter distribution of porosity-feet is shownin
Fig. 5. Thisplotshowsthe percentof apparentpay thatis
actual pay based on permeability cutoff. For example,
56%of thesamples with 3% porosity wouldbe pay. and
85% of the samples with 10% porosity would be pay.
When this technique is used, a low-porosity cutoff is
„ selected and each porosity interval is factored by the
proper value from Fig. 5. Wells with low porosities will 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
not be excluded but will be given a limited amount of pay. POROSITY - PERCENT
Both total original oil in place and distribution of pore Rg. 5—Apparent and actual pay for Robertson Upper Clearfork
volume throughout the field will be realistic. The ap- Unit.

1549
NOVEMBER. 1978
 proach shown in fig. 5 is preferable to that in fig. 4; count for about 85% of all logs, a separate porosity scale
however, more work is required because each porosity was calculated for each cored or uncored well. The most
interval must be factored. common procedure was to use neutron zero as 100%
pcH-osity and a dense streak as 1 or 1V^% porosity, with
Core and Log Correlations odier values on a logarithmic scale between these end
Only a small percentage of wells was cored in these three values, fi-om the gamma ray curve, a shaliness cutoff was
fields, and porosities from uncored wells had to be de determined, using about 25% of the total gamma-ray
termined from logs. Oncored wells,core porosity vs log deflectionas thcrcutoffvalue, based on experience. After
porosity or log units can be plotted, and a log-porosity all Ic^s had been worked for porosity, a foot-by-foot
scale can be determined for best agreement with core correlationof core porosity with neutronlog porositywas
porosity. For the available neutron logs, unfortunately, perfoimed for each cored well, one of which is shown in
theplotisusually valid onlyforthat particular well,since Fig. 6. These plots indicated that, over all, neutron
neutronlogresponseis highlysensitiveto variablecondi porosities were slightly low compared with core
tions such as hole size and condition, type of logging porosities. In this example, 12% neutron porosity is
tool, and logging company. equivalent to about 13.5%coreporosity. Individual plots
In Means field, where ganmia ray neutron logs ac- were combined into one plot, whidi then was us^ to
adjust neutron porosity values upward, according to the
curve shown in fig. 7. This misthodallows maximum use
of core data and makes neutron porosities more reliable.
Computer Geology Study
In theRobertson study, a computertechnique wasusedto
calculate net pay and porosity. The gross vertical section
at Robertson field is about 1,400 ft thick, with actual net
pay about 200 to 300 ft thick, broken vertically into as
many as 50 to 60 separate porosity stringers at any given
location. For mapping and smdy purposes, the reservoir
was divided veiti^ly into 14 zones.
To use the computer, old logs were digitized for the
155 wjells in die study area. Several computer programs
were developed, enterii^ data such as porosity scales,
porosity cut(tf&, gamma ray cutofCs, and zone tops.
Programs then calculated porosity and net pay for each
foot, and these values were totaled by zone, by well,
and for the entire unit. Also, computer-drawn contour
maps were made fw structure, net pay, and porosity-feet
(Fig. 8).
One benefit from digitizing the logs was that detailed
scale logs were obtained for intervals not previously
logged on a detailed scale. After digitizing, a log can be
plotted back at any desired vertical or horizontal scale.
4 8 12 16 20
By using tfiis method, Idgis were obtained for the first
NEUTRON POROSITY - PERCENT
time at the desired scale for about 20% of the total
Rg. 6—Core vs neutron porosityfor Means Field. section. New logs then were used in cross-sections of
these wells, where previously only a stick diagram could
20 be used.
The computer's main advantage was its rapid calcula
tion of foot-by-footporosity and reservoir pore volume.
516
u Comparison of Mapping Methods
Volumetrics for the Means and Robertson studies were
12 derived from contour maps of porosity-feet (fig. 8),
whereas volumetrics for the Fullerton study were based
•A on a combination of net-pay maps and isoporosity con
o
tour maps. Using maps of porosity-feet is prefeired since
o 8
having the porosity of each foot is more accurate than
ae averaging porosity for larger intervals.
o
o 4 At Fullerton field, net-pay maps for nine mapping
zones were already available. Because of the large
number of wells (more than 700), reworking eadi log for
foot-by-foot pcn-osity values to calculate porosity-feet
L.
4 8 12 16 20 was not feasible. Instead, an average porosity value by
NEUTRON LOG POROSITY - PERCENT zone for each cored well was obtained from core analysis.
Fig. 7—Core-log porosity correlation for Means Field. Since only a limited number of wells were cored, addi-
I5.S0 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
tional well control was obtained by calculating porosity
from certain well logs.Theseaverage porosity values for
each well for that particular zone then were contoured,
resulting in an isoporosity contour map. From the
isoporosity and net-pay maps, porosity and net-pay val
ues were obtained for each zone of every well in the field.
Relationship Between Volumetric and
Material-Balance Original Oil in Place
Obtaining accurate data for calculating original oil in
place, either by volumetrics or material balance, is dif
ficult for most Permian fields. Logs arc usually old, core
data may be limited, and accurate reservoir pressures are
not easy to obtain in tight reservoirs. In the past when
enough pressure data were available to make reliable
material balance calculations, volumetric original oil in
place usually was much greater than that calculated by
material balance. In these cases, material balance valves
usually were assumed more reliable. Thisapparently was
confirmed by production history and estimated ultimate
recoveries. •
If all data were exact, volumetric original oil in place
should represent the true value and shouldbe relatively
independent of well spacing. Originaloil in place calcu
latedbymaterial balance represents oil inplacecontacted
by producing wells. Since all pay stringers are not con
tinuous between wells, only those connected to a well-
bore will affect material balance calculations. Further
more,porosi^ zones thatarecontinuous between wells,
but'have no effective well completion, will not affect
calculations. Thus, original oil in place calculated by
material balance depends on well spacing and effective
completion intervals.
Rg. 8—Computer-drawncontours lor Robertson Field (Zone U-1 isopach, porosity-feet).
NOVEMBER. 1978
The ratio of materialbalance to volumetricoriginal oil
in place can be considered a measure of reservoir con
tinuity resulting from a combination ofwell spacing and
effective completion interval. Ofthe three fields studied,
only Fullerton had a pressure production history accurate
enough to calculate a realistic original oil in place by
material balance. Stiles' reported that the material bal
ance original oilinplace was 738 milhon bbl. Avolumet
ric original oil in place of 1,029 million bbl was calcu
lated using a 6% porosity cutoff. If both values ^e
assumed reasonably correct, then the ratio of material
balance to volumetric original oil in place of 0.72 is a
measure of reservoir continuity and effective well com
pletions. Continuity calculations indicated that 75% of
the total pay was continuous for primary spacing of 40
acres. Thus, most of the difference between material
balanceand volumetricoriginal oil in place can be recon
ciledby die lack of continuous pay.
Continuous and Floodable Pay
Continuous Pay
Peimian carbonates typically have many separate poros
ity stringers throughout, a vertical interval of several
hundred feet. Only rarely will a stringer extend over the
entire field. Some are continuous for several tfiousand
feet, while others extend only a few feet. Fig. 9 is a
cross-section at Fullerton Field, illustrating the discon
tinuous nature ofthese stringers. Because ofthenature of
porosity zones and available data, itis usually difficult, if
not impossible, to map individual stringers accurately.
Ghauri et a/.* discussed the discontinuous nature of in
dividual stringers in Wasson Held. In support of a
waterflood-allowable request to the Texas Railroad
1551
 W. tOSf
Commission, Shell Oil Co.** as operator of the Denver
Unit, Wasson (San Andres) Field, presented results of
quantitative continuity calculations with a graph of per
cent continuous pay vs horizontal distance.
Stiles' discussed a similar statistical tedinique to
measure reservoir continuity quandtatively. Continuity
between wells was defined as the fraction of total pay in a
well connected to another well. In'this technique, three-
dimensional reservoir stratification was represented by
two-dimensional cross-sections, with the distance be
tween pairs of wells varying from 1,320to 5,280 ft. Each
stringer was considered continuous if it correlated be
tween pairs of wells, and discontinuous if it could not be
correlated. Continuity for each pair of wells in a study
area was plotted on a graph showing percent continuity vs
horizont^ distance. The upper curve in Fig. 10 is an
example of an average curve for one study area in Means
Field. As shown on this curve, continuity decreases as
distance between wells increases.
Ml MT AT
wiu t m
rMWtlMII
HTMtamut
All continuous beds were considered equally flood-
Fig. 9—North-south cross-section at Fullerton Field. able, regardless of their geometry. Although this ap
proach was an imjH-ovement in the attempt to define
floodable pay, it was obviously conservative because
of this assumption.
Floodable Pay
All net pay, even tfiough continuous, is not necessarily
floodable b^use ofirregularities inbed geometry. Fig.
FLoboAeLEJ^i^-.^ 1la is a schematic cross-section illustrating diree beds
WY
between Wells A and B. Bed I is continuous, has the
2 40 same thickness at each wellbore, and would be consid
ered 100%floodable if either well was an injector. Bed n'
20 -
is discontinuous and would not be floodable. Bed III,
however, is a special case since thickness is not equal at
each wellbore. Whenthe above deflnition ofcontinuity is
"idbo" 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 used. Bed m would be 100% continuous; however, it
HORIZONTAL OtSTANCE BETWEEN WELU-FEET
actusdly would be less than 100% floodable because of
Rg. 10—Continuous and floodabte pay for Means Field.
irregularities or **zig-zags** in bed geometry between
wells. A method was developed for improving estimation
of the unfloodable portion of irrejgularbeds.
Since diere is no control between wells, the exact
5* 5* shape of a pwosity zone between wells is unknown. It
may be similar to Hg. 1la, or may approach the uniform
5' thinning of Fig. lib. In Fig. lib, the cross-section was
divided into two areas, a **uniform** rectangular section
.
and a triangular "wedge** area. A two-dimensional
cross-section model was used to investigate jnobable
m 10' wedgeshapes and effects of those shapes on oil recovery.
5' The model was divided into 10 layen with two layers
representing the uniform section and eight layers repre
(a) senting the wedge section. A triangular distribution was
assumed, with Fig. 1lb having the most |»-obableshape.
Eadi layer in the wedge area was assigned a most-
probable fraction of the distance from Well A to Well B,
according to this triangular distribution. The wedge layer
adjacent to the unifmm section was given the longest
most probable length, with each successive layer having
a progressively shorter length.
'WEDGE" AREA A Monte Carlo technique was combined with triangu
"UNIFORM' AREA 5'
lar distribution to determine probable wedge geometries.
Using this approach, random numbers were selected so
that eadi layer would be continuous for some fraction of
(b) the distance from Well A to Well B. In all cases, the
Rg. 11—Schematic cross-sections with wedge effect. two-layer uniform section was continuous; however, the
1552 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
length of the layere in the wedge section varied so that a be investigated. These altemaiives may include infill
sawtooth shape similar to BedIII in Hg. 1la developed drilling, pattern changes, and workovers to increase both
for each case. Eachshape was flooded and recovery was geologically floodable pay and fraction of original oil in
compared with the uniiform section. The uniform area place flooded.
was considered 100% floodable. Results of this program
Operattorul Changes
indicatedthat, on an average, 75% of the wedgearea was
floodable; or,conversely, 25% was notfloodable. Brons' The three flelds had been flooded for 5 to 12 years when
discusses general use of Monte Carlo technique and studies began. All were economically 'successful; how
triangular distribution. ever, opportunities forimproving operations andincreas
Floodable pay curves were developed by combining ing ultimate recovery did occur. As a result of studies
appropriate uniform and wedge volumes withpreviously using the above techniques, major operating changes
deriv^ continuous pay curves. Uniform and wedge sec were recommended, including infill drilling and pattern
tions were calculated for each of wells in a snidy modiflcation:
area. Floodable payforeachpairis theproduct of percent Fullerton Means Robertson
Recommendati on
continuity andthe sumoftheunif<»m section plus75%of
the wedge area. Each point was plotted as percent of Inflll wells 61 71 80
floodable pay vs hcMizontal distance, similar to the con Conversions 124 54 0
tinuity curve. The lower curve inFig. 10isanexample of Pattern:
floodable payexpressed as a percent of total pay. For a Existing 3tol 3tol 80-acre
speciflcdistance, floodable pay will always be less than line line flve-spot
continuous pay, which, in turn, will be less than total drive drive
pay. Practical af^lication of the floodable pay concept
shows that as average distance between injectors and Prq>osed 160-acre 80-acre 80-acre
one-
producers decreases, floodable pay increases. This con one- one-

ceptthenbecomes impcxiaht when evaluating infill drill to nine- to nine- to nine-

ing and patternchanges. spot spot spot
Additimal
Effective Well Completions recovery,
million bbl 22 22
In a homogeneous reservoir, ultimate recovery from
waterflooding for all regularpatterns is about the same.
The Fullerton recommendations were reported ear
In most Permian carbonates, such as those studied here,
more than 50 individual pay stringers may exist. Only lier.^ Recommended programs for Fullerton and Means
rarely will all suingersbe completed in a specific well. fields were completed in 1976. Evaluation of these
When a pay stringer is not completed effectively in a programs indicated potential for more infill drilling.
given well, a partial pattern exists for that stringer and Through June 1978, 75 wells had been completed at
Fullerton and 98 wells at Means. In the Robertson Unit,
recovery is less than for a complete pattern. To be 36 of theprq)Osed wells havebeendrilled. InHll drilling
flooded,a payinterval must(1)becontinuous betweenan
is in progress in all three flelds.
injection and producing well,(2) be injection supported,
and (3) be effectivelycompletedin a producing well. Conclusions
The Robertson Clearfork Unit is an extreme example
1. Problems in waterflooding Permian carbonates of
of waterflooding onlya fraction of total pay. Fig. 12is a west Texas occur basically becauseof the stratified na
two-well schematic illustrating these three requirements
ture of the pay, discontinuities, andineffective wellcom
forflooding a pay interval. Stringers A, D, F, andH, with pletions .Solutions andcorrective measures tobeusedare
two-thirds the total volume, are geologically floodable.
derived from a goodgeologic description thatdetermines
Of these, only Stringers D and H are completed effec the quantiQr and distribution of netpay,volumetric origi-
tively inthe{n-oducing well.Stringers CandHarereceiv
inginjection support; however. ZoneC is notcontinuous.
Only PayInterval H, with 17% totalpay, meets all three
conditions for flooding. In the Robertson Unit, 59% of ntOOUOKC «ELL MjCCTIW «cu
the pay was geologically floodable, 30% was injection
supported, and 45% was completed effectively in the
producing wells. After considering theeffect of adjacent
patterns, we estimated that only 14% total original oil in
place was being waterflooded. Of
MT COMtCUB
»iiaat er
MT M n M
•»% suPfoaru
•u%
Application of Technology
Summary of Techniques
With methods described above, better values for both the
amount and distribution of original oil in place can be 3>
obtained. Use of the floodable pay concept with well
completion and proflle data can provide anestimate ofthe
fraction of total pay being flooded. When actual perfor Coviia^ix >

mance of mature waterfloods indicates that significantly •(»:!»• ic»». M' •'*

less thantotal payis being flooded, alternative planscan Fig. 12—Schematicof percentof payflooded.
1553
NOVHMBER. I'JTS
nal oil in place, and floodable volume at the injector-to-
producer spacing.
2. In the studies described here, techniques were de
veloped to improve the calculaticm of original oil in place
and to better determine the relationship between flood-
able volume and injection pattern. This relationship was
the basis for majw program changes in each field.
3. In carbonate reservoirs such as those found in the
Permian Basin, volumetric original oil in place may be
larger than the value calculated by material balance be
cause of discontinuities and ineffective well comple
tions. When this condition exists, the ratio of material
balance to volumetric original oil in place can be con
sidered a measure of reservoir continuity and effective
well comfdetions.
4. Close coordination of geologic and engineer-
Original(mnuief4ptra«M«dinSocietyolPMDlMnEnginM(*elioa8»pL20.1977.
Psptr acwpM tor puMiatiow Fab. 23,1978. Raviaad mantncripi Mf 10.
107& Papv (SPE 6739) int |VM«niad «tm SPE-AMtE52nd AnnMl FaOTocMcal
Conlwanoa and ExttMion, Iwld in Oarwar. Oct 9-12.1977.
!554
ing work throughout a project results in the most effi
cient approach to reservoir description and study
recommendations.
References
1. Ghuiri, W. K.. Osborne, A. F., and Magnuson. W. L.: "C3unging
Concepts in Carbonate Waierflooding. West Texas Denver Unit
Ph>ject — An Illustrative Example.*! 7. /»«, Teeh. (June 1974)
595-666.
2. Driscoll. VanoeJ.: "Recovery OpdmizationThroughInfill Drilling
Concepts. Analysis andHeldResults,"paper SPE4977 pitsented
at the SPE-AIME 49ih Annual Fall Meeting. Houston. Oct. 6-9.
1974.
3. Stiles. L. H.: "Optimizing Waterflood Recovery in a Mabtrc
Waterflood. The F^lenon Clearfork Unit." paper SPE 6198 pie-
tented at tbeSPE-AlME 5 Itt Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition. New Orleans. Oct. 3-6.1976.
4. "Application forWaterflood Response Allowable forWasson Den
ver Unit." hearing testimony before Texas Railroad Commission
presented byShellOilCo.. March 21.1972. Docket 8tA.61677.
5. Brons. Fblken: Siatistiesfor Petroleum Engineers. Society of Pe
troleum Engineers ofAIME. Dallas (1969)Ch. 3.7-13. jrpT
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 MECHANISM OF IMMISCIBLE FLUID DISPLACEMENT

I. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the mechanism

by which a fluid is displaced from a reservoir by an
immiscible injection fluid. The primary emphasis of this
text is on the process of waterflooding and, accordingly,
equations and solution techniques will be presented spe
cifically for the process of oil displacement by water. The
reader should be aware, however, that the methods presented
are also applicable to other displacement processes involving
immiscible fluids. Other applications, for example, are the
immiscible displacement of oil by gas, primary recovery by
gravity drainage and primary recovery by natural bottom-water
drive.
This discussion will be concerned particularly with the
determination of how much oil can be displaced from a portion
of reservoir rock which has been contacted by water. Oil
which is displaced can be predicted at any time in the life of
a waterflood if the following information is known:
1. Oil in place at start of the waterflood, N
2. Areal sweep efficiency,
3. Vertical sweep efficiency, Ey
4. Displacement sweep efficiency, E^
If this information is known at a particular time in the life
of a project, oil displaced Njj, due to waterflooding can be
computed according to the following equation:

Njj = N E^ Ey Ej) (3.1)

If the gas saturation at the beginning of waterflood operations
can be neglected, then the displaced oil, N^, is approximately
equal to the produced oil.
Determination of initial oil in place is generally
based upon geological information, or material balance
calculations which utilize the production history of the
reservoir. These methods will not be discussed by the author.
Areal and vertical sweep efficiency refer, respectively, to
the fraction of reservoir area and the fraction of vertical
reservoir section which is contacted by water. These sweep
efficiencies are influenced by many factors which include
well pattern, well spacing, fluid and rock properties and
reservoir heterogeneity; methods used to predict these
efficiencies will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Collectively, areal and vertical sweep efficiencies determine
the fraction of reservoir volume which will be contacted by
injected water. Finally, the fraction of initial oil in place
which will be displaced from that portion of the reservoir
contacted by water is determined by the displacement sweep
efficiency.
It will be assumed in this chapter that areal and vertical
sweep efficiencies are unity and that initial gas saturation is
negligible so that emphasis can be placed upon the determination
of Ep. Accordingly, linear flow models will be used to study
the mechanism of immiscible fluid displacement.

II. Fractional Flow Equation

The fractional flow equation relates the fraction of

displacing fluid (water) in the total fluid stream, at any
point in the reservoir, to properties of the reservoir.
According to Darcy*s linear flow equation, the flow rate of
water at any location in the reservoir is

k. A 3Pw
w
= -0.001127 0.00694 sin a (3.2)
as
w

3p
w
- 0.00694 p„ sin a (3.3)
or
3s " " 0.001127kJV w

Similarly, the pressure gradient in the oil phase is

3p
o _
- 0.00694 sin a (3.4)
ds 0.001127kgA

3-2
where: q'o = oil flow rate at reservoir conditions, bbl/day
= water flow rate at reservoir conditions, bbl/day
= pressure in oil phase, psia
= pressure in water phase, psia
w
= oil viscosity, cp
= water viscosity, cp
w
= distance to point of interest in the reservoir,
measured from some reference point along the
direction of flow, ft
= effective water and oil permeabilities at the
w
water saturation which exists at a distance,
s, from some reference point in the reservoir, md
= cross-sectional area of the linear reservoir
through which fluid is flowing, ft^
w
= density of reservoir water and oil at reservoir
conditions, Ibm/ft^
a = angle measured between horizontal (positive
x-axis) and the direction of flow, in the
counterclockwise direction, degrees

The sign convention for Eqs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 is illustrated
in Fig. 3.1.

Up-dip Flow Down-dip Flow

Fig. 3.1: Sign convention for inclined flow.

3-3
 Recall that capillary pressure was defined by Eq. 2.1
as:

(2. 1)
Pc = Po - Pw

Thus,
_ ®Po ®Pw (3. 5)
3s ds 9s

or
3s 0.001127k^ 0.001127kjjA

+ 0.00694 Cp„ - p^jsin a w

(3. 6)

reservoir flow rate, q.^, is the sum of the oil

flow rates, i.e.,

(3. 7)

, the fraction of water flowing in the total

is:

f = **" =521 (3. 8)

" 1o It

the fraction of oil flowing is:

f. = — = 1 - f. (3.9)
w
It

Introducing the definitions of Eqs. 3.7 and 3.8 into Eq.

3.6, results in the following relationship for the fraction
of water flowing at any point, s, in a linear flow system:
0.001127k A
0
3Pc
1 +
ds w O'
"o^t
"w
(3.10)

"o K
Equation 3.10 is commonly referred to as the fractional flow
equation.

3-4
 The fractional flow equation is a very important
relationship because it makes possible the determination
of the relative flow rates of oil and water at any point
in a porous flow system. Furthermore, it incorporates all
factors which affect the displacement efficiency of a water-
flood project; i.e., fluid properties (y^, y^, P^, P^, '
rock properties Ck^,k
o w
, So , Sw ), flow rate (q^),
u
pressure
gradient (9p/3s), and structural properties of the reservoir
(a, direction of flow). If the total flow rate is constant,
and if fluid properties can be assumed constant (i.e., not
functions of pressure), it is important to note that
fractional flow is a function only of saturation.
If sufficient reservoir data are available, i t is
possible to use Eq. 3.10 to compute the fraction of water
flowing in a reservoir as a function of water saturation.
This data when plotted as f versus S on cartesian paper
W wi

forms what is widely referred to as a fractional flow curve.

A typical fractional flow curve is depicted by Fig. 3.2.

l.G

100
wir

Fig. 3.2: Typical fractional flow curve.

3-5
It will be shown in subsequent sections that this plot is
very useful in the prediction and analysis of reservoir
behavior during a waterflood.

EXAMPLE 3.1

Data for an oil reservoir which is proposed for water-

flooding is presented. Construct the fractional flow curve
for this reservoir. Capillary pressure gradients can be
assumed negligible.

18% = 2.48 cp
"o
Swi = 30% c
1.37 RB/STB
8o
' 0.62 cp 1.04 RB/STB
s

^w
= 1000 bbl/day k 45 md
=

^t
0.8 s
1.03
A 50,000 a s
30»

s„,
w'
% k
ro
k
rw

30 0.940 0
40 0.800 0.040
50 0.440 0.110
60 0.160 0.200
70 0.045 0.300

80 0 0.440

SOLUTION

The general fractional flow equation was presented

previously as Eq. 3.10. If the capillary pressure gradient
is neglected, this equation reduces to:

0.001127k^A
1 - 0.00694(p
w
- P^Dsin a
^0%
w

1 +
% ^
r\

3-6
 k_ md
o ro ro

p = 62.4y = (62.4) (1.03) = 64.3 lbm/£t

W Vr

= 62.4y^ = (62.4)(0.8) = 49.9 lbm/£t^

p - p = 14.4 Ibm/ft'
w o

sin a = sin 30° = 0.5

(0.001127)(45)(k ) (50,000)
ro"
1 - 0.00694(14.4)(0.5)
(2.46) (lOODT
0.62 '^ro
^ ITU Erw

1 - O.OSl k
ro
fw =
1 + 0.25 ^^
rw

Calculations of f versus S are summarized in the follow-

W W

ing table and are presented graphically in Fig. 3.3.

1 - 0.051 k_
^ '^ro V fw • k'
1 + 0.25
rw

30 0.940 0 0

40 0.800 0.040 0.160

50 0.440 0.110 0.489
60 0.160 0.200 0.827
70 0.045 0.300 0.962
80 0 0.440 1.000

In order to have a high displacement efficiency and,

correspondingly, an efficient waterflood, it is required
that the fraction of water flowing at any reservoir location
be minimized, i.e., we want f^ to be as small as possible at
a particular value of water saturation. Recognizing this
fact, it is possible by analysis of Eq. 3.10 to determine
the effect which various reservoir variables will have on

displacement efficiency.
3-7
 l.QQ —I"! ...

-H
1
-1-
A

/
/

m
0.80
/
i
4
r
/
f
i
t
0.60 i
I
t
"w m

/
r
0.40 / •

/ •

A
f
J
/
I
0.20

>

4.
jj
30 40 50 60 70 80
S^, %
Fig. 3.3: Fractional flow curve for Example 3.1.

A. Effect of wettability

At a particular water saturation, the effective

permeability to water, k^, will be smaller in a water wet
rock than in an oil wet rock. Accordingly, the denominator
of Eq. 3.10 will be larger for a water wet rock and the
corresponding value of f^ will be smaller. This relation
ship is depicted graphically by Fig. 3.4 which shows a
comparison of fractional flow curves for a reservoir under
both oil-wet and water wet conditions. Since i t is
desirable to minimize f^ at a particular saturation
condition, it is obvious from Fig. 3.4 that water-wet

3-8
reservoirs will yield a higher displacement efficiency and
higher oil recovery than comparable oil-wet reservoirs.

1.00

Oil-
0.80 —

0.60 —

w Water-Wet

0.40 —

0.20 —

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

S„, »
Fig. 3.4: Comparison of fractional flow curves
for oil-wet and water-wet reservoirs.

B. Effect of Formation Dip and Direction of Displacement

When a waterflood is conducted in a reservoir with
significant dip, the magnitude of dip and the direction of
water injection relative to the dip angle can have con
siderable influence upon oil recovery. The effect of
formation dip is dictated by the gravity term, (P^"Po)sin a,
in Eq. 3.10. When the sign of this term is positive, the
effect of gravity will be to minimize f^;
W
this can only

3-9
occur when water displaces oil up-dip so that o < a < 180.
Conversely, when 180 < a < 360, i.e., when water displaces
oil downdip, the effect of gravity is to decrease the dis
placement efficiency. Figure 3.5 shows the effect of
formation dip on the fractional flow curve. The obvious
conclusion from these observations is that water should be
injected dDwh)-dip to obtain maximum oil recovery.

1.0
Down-dip
Zero-dip
— Up-dip
0.80 —

0.60 —

0.40

0.20 —

10 20

Fig. 3.5: Effect of formation dip upon fractional

flow.

C. Effect of Capillary Pressure

Capillary pressure was defined previously by Eq. 2.1

as:

^c ~ ^o " ^w

3-10
The capillary pressure gradient in the s-direction is:

9P 8p 9p
c _ *^0 _
as ~ 3s 3s

In a water-wet rock, this gradient will be a positive

number; accordingly, its effect will be to increase the
value of f w and to decrease the efficiency of the waterflood.
It would be desirable in a waterflood to decrease, or
eliminate, the capillary pressure gradient. This can be
accomplished by altering the wettability of the rock or by
decreasing, or eliminating, the interfacial tension between
oil and water. Several enhanced recovery processes have the
capability to accomplish this; these processes are beyond
the scope of this text, however, and will not be discussed
further.

D. Effect of Oil and Water Mobilities

Improved oil recovery results from decreasing the water

mobility, or by increasing the oil mobility,
The effective permeabilities to oil and water are affected
primarily by the fluid saturations existing in the reservoir.
These can be controlled to some extent by the time in the life
of a reservoir when a waterflood is conducted. For example,
if a solution gas drive reservoir is permitted to undergo
significant pressure depletion before initiating a water-
flood, a large free gas saturation will exist in the oil
zone at the time of flooding. The effect of this gas will
be to reduce the effective permeability to oil; this in
turn has the effect of increasing f^. This problem can be
eliminated by initiating the flood earlier in the life of
the reservoir before the gas saturation develops.
A displacement process can be improved by increasing
the water viscosity or by decreasing the oil viscosity.
Water viscosity, for example, can be increased by the
addition of polymers. Oil viscosity can be decreased by
using various thermal recovery processes such as steam

3-11
flooding. The effect of oil viscosity on the fractional
flow curve is depicted by Fig. 3.6 for a particular set
of reservoir conditions.

1.00

0.80 —

0.5 cp

0.60 —

"w

0.40 —

0.20 —

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Fig. 3.6: Effect of oil viscosity on the fractional

flow of water.

E. Effect of Rate

The effect of rate varies depending upon whether water

is moving up-dip or down-dip. Keeping in mind that the
objective is to minimize f^, it is clear from Eq. 3.10 that
a low value of q^ is desirable if water is moving up-dip.
Conversely, a large rate should be used for down-dip dis
placement. From a practical standpoint, the rate will gen
erally be controlled by economics and the physical
limitations of the injection equipment and reservoir.

3-12
 It is concluded that the fractional flow equation gives
valuable insight into the factors which affect the efficiency
of a waterflood, or other displacement processes. A summary
of observations made from this equation is:
1. Up-dip displacement of oil by water leads to
a lower f^ and better displacement. The
displacement improves as the angle of dip
increases.

2. Down-dip displacement results in a larger f^

and poorer displacement, the displacement becoming
less efficient as the down-dip angle increases.
3. The capillary pressure gradient increases f^ and
results in lower displacement.
4. A large density difference (p^-Pq) improves up-
dip recovery but decreases down-dip recovery.
5. Improved oil recovery results from a small water
mobility, or a large oil mobility,
6. Increasing rate improves the efficiency of down-
dip flood but causes lower efficiency in up-dip
flood.

F. Variations of Fractional Flow Equation

Many situations exist where insufficient information is
available to evaluate the capillary pressure gradient. In
other cases, the effect of capillary pressure is negligible.
The fractional flow equation in both of these situations
reduces to the following form:

7.83xlO''k|jA(p„-Pjj)sin a
f =I
w u k
(3.11)
^O w

If it can be further assumed that gravity effects are

negligible, Eq. 3.11 reduces to

3-13
 fw = (5.1^
1 +
''o ''w

or to the equivalent form

«. • (3.13)

"o '^rw
Equation 3.13 is the most widely used form of the fractional
flow equation.

III. Frontal Advance Equation

The fractional flow equation relates the fraction of oil

and water flowing at any point in the reservoir to the fluid
saturation at that point. However, a complete analysis
requires that we know the saturation distribution of the
various phases at any given time, as well as the manner in
which this distribution changes with time. The frontal
advance equation will provide this information.
Consider the simultaneous linear flow of oil and water
in a porous system of cross-sectional area. A, and length.
Ax, as shown in Fig. 3.7.

k, (|>

w/x* f
w/x+Ax

Ax

x+Ax

Fig. 3.7: Linear model for derivation of frontal

advance equation.

3-14
A material balance for this segment of the reservoir rock
can be written as:

Rate of water Flow rate of Flow rate of

(3.14)
Accumulation water in water out

These terms can be expressed symbolically as

CO
-

Flow rate of water in = ^t^w/x'

Flow rate of water out = ^^t^w/x+Ax'

MAX
S.615 [at J X +
Ax'

With substitution of these terms, the material balance becomes:

as.
w
-5.615q^ ^w/x+Ax " ^w/x (3.15)
7t ^ . Ax $A Ax
* * I-

Take the limit of this equation as Ax approaches zero to

obtain:

-5.615q -5.615q^
dS

at
w

(t)A
f^fwl
[ax Jt
8

<f>A
I'M ax
(3.16)
t k 4

Equation 3.16 gives the water saturation as a function

of time at a particular location, x, within the linear system.
A more useful expression, however, would be one that gives
the saturation as.a function of location at a particular time.
This is possible if it is observed that the water saturation
is a function of both position and time, i.e..

(3.17)

Therefore, the total derivative of S,, is:

w

3-15
 3S
w
fas '
w
•iSw = ax
dx +
at
dt (3..

Since we are interested in determining the saturation

distribution in the reservoir, the procedure taken here
will be to trace the movement of a particular water
saturation. If a fixed water saturation, S , is considered,
W

then dS^ =0, so that

as as
w w
dx + dt (3.19)
ax at

as fas
and
w w fdxl
at 3t (3.20)
w

This mathematical identity can be substituted into Eq

3.16 to yield

dx
5.615q^ af.w
Ht as
(3.21)
w
w

If the total flow rate is constant, f is independent of

W

time; accordingly.

af df
w w
IF5w 35w (3.22)

and

fdx" 5.615q^ df^

3t (3.23)
w
w

Integration of this expression yields the following

equation which is widely referred to as the frontal

3-16
advance equation:

S.eiSq^t d£„ S.615W. df^

—3s; = -ipr-3s;
where:

X = distance traveled by a fixed saturation, S^,

during time, t, ft
q = total flow rate (same as injection rate),
bbl/day
t = time interval of interest, days
= cumulative water injected, reservoir bbls
df^
-T^ = slope of the fractional flow curve at the
w water saturation of interest

IV. Prediction of Waterflood Behavior in Linear Systems

A. Buckley-Leverett Theory

It was shown by Buckley and Leverett^ that the frontal

advance equation (Eq. 3.24) can be used to compute the
saturation distribution in a linear waterflood system as a
function of time. According to Eq. 3.24, the distance, x,
moved by a given saturation in the time interval, t, is
proportional to the slope of the fractional flow curve at
the particular saturation of interest. Therefore, if the
slope of the fractional flow curve is graphically determined
at a number of saturations, it is possible to calculate
the saturation distribution in the reservoir as a function
of time. Furthermore, the saturation distribution can be
used to predict oil recovery and required water injection
on a time basis. This procedure, however, was observed by
Buckley and Leverett to give a saturation distribution that
is physically impossible.
The problem arises because of the shape of the fractional
flow curve. It is noted on Fig. 3.2 that equal values of
slope, df /dS , can occur at two different water saturations.
According to Eq. 3.24, this means that two different

3-17
saturations can occur at the same location in the reservoir
at the same time--this is not possible. Moreover, under some
conditions it can be shown that theory predicts a triple-
valued distribution. An example of the multivalued saturation
distribution resulting from this situation is shown in Fig. 3.8

100

Reservoir Oil
wm

S^, I 50 Flood
* . \ Water

* .* • \ .* Initial Water

Distance

Fig. 3.8: Multivalued saturation profiles

In order to rectify this mathematical difficulty, it

was suggested by Buckley and Leverett that a portion of the
saturation distribution curve is imaginary, and that the
real curve contains a discontinuity at the front. The
method for finding the real curve is illustrated by Fig.
3.9. The imaginary portion of the curve is shown as a
dashed line. The real curve is shown as the solid line
which becomes discontinuous at a distance x^. This distance
is based on a material balance of the injected water, and
can be determined graphically by locating the front in such
a position that the areas A and B are equivalent.

3-18
 100

t = t
^wm

S , % 50
w*

Distance

Fig. 3.9: Location o£ flood front by Buckley-Leverett

procedure.

The Buckley-Leverett procedure illustrated in Fig. 3.9

neglects capillary pressure. Consequently, in a practical
situation, the flood front will not exist as a discontinuity,
but will exist as a stabilized zone of finite length with a
large saturation gradient. This was recognized and presented
in a paper of fundamental importance by Terwillinger, et al^.
B. Stabilized Zone Concept
The first of many papers which confirm the frontal
advance theory was presented by Terwillinger, et al^. While
applying this theory to a gravity drainage system, they
found at the leading edge of the front a zone where displac
ing fluid saturations all moved at the same velocity.
Accordingly, the shape of the front was observed to be
constant with respect to time. This zone was termed the
stabilized zone. Further, it was foimd that by using the

3-19
complete fractional flow equation (including capillary
effects) along with the frontal advance equation, that the
saturation distribution computed using Buckley-Leverett
theory matched the saturation distribution observed experi
mentally. The stabilized zone is illustrated in Fig. 3.10.

Nonstabilized
zone where

= 0

Stabilized
w Zone
ax
Front at \ Front at
= const. time t time t

Distance

Fig. 3.10: Saturation distribution showing existence of

stabilized and nonstabilized zones.

It was also observed that the saturation at the leading

edge of the stabilized zone, could be defined as the
tangent point on the fractional flow curve obtained by draw
ing a tangent line originating at the point (S^ = S .,
W W1

f^ = 0). This was later proven by Welge^. Accordingly,

the velocity of this particular saturation is proportional
to the slope of the fractional flow curve at this point, i.e.,
the slope of the tangent line. Now, since all saturations
in the stabilized zone move at the same velocity, it follows
that df /dS,. must be the same for all saturations in the
w w
stabilized zone and that this slope is defined by a line
drawn tangent to the fractional flow curve from the initial
water saturation. The fractional flow curve with the described

3-20
tangent line is illustrated in Fig. 3.11.

1.0

Curve demanded
by stabilized k
zone \ /||
\ /li
^ /' i
/ '
1

1
1

w 0.5 / 1
/ /
1

1
•

/ / 1
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / 11
—Zf'
50 100
wi 'wf

Fig. 3.11: Fractional flow curve showing

stabilized zone effect.

Thus, it is concluded that the saturation distribution

in the stabilized zone —^wf^ should be computed
based on the slope of the tangent to the fractional flow
curve. Many mathematical and experimental studies conducted
more recently have verified the presence of the stabilized
zone. Also, several studies have considered the effect that
the stabilized zone has on waterfl.ood performance. It is
generally accepted that the length of the stabilized zone
is negligibly short at practical flood rates and that the
method of Welge Cto be covered later) can be used to predict
linear flood results.

3-21
 Behind the flood front is a zone where the saturation
distribution does change with time. Appropriately, the zone
is referred to as being nonetab'ilized. In contrast to the
stabilized zone, saturations change very little with distance
in this zone, and we can write « 0. Since the capillary
pressure term in the fractional flow equation can be written,
according to the chain rule, as

!!c _ (3.25)
ax 3S^ ax

it follows that the capillary pressure gradient can be

neglected in this zone. The nonstabilized zone is illustrated
in Fig. 3.10.

C. Welge Procedure

1. Water saturation at the front

This method^ greatly simplifies the graphical procedure

of Buckley and Leverett, but requires that the initial water
saturation be uniform. At some time after the displacement
process begins, the saturation distribution will appear as
depicted by Fig. 3.12.

Front
• • ••

w . *.• . . • •.»
• . . • * . • .

S .
wi

Fig. 3.12: Saturation profile during flood.

3-22
The area of the shaded rectangle between and is

r^wf
f^ wf wi;) = J 3X dS
w
(3.26)
Swi

where: S^£ = water saturation at the front

Substituting x from Eq. 3.24 into Eq. 3.26,

wf 5.615q^t df
w
dS.
f^'wf "wi 0A 3S w
w
wi

5.615q^t
x.(s .-s 0 =
f^ wf wi*^ - Vs^.

Thus, . _ s.eisq^t (3.27)

If Eq. 3.24 is written for the special case where

X = X^,
5.615q^t df.
X- = •. ^ w
(3.28)
f (|)A 35w S =S ^
w wf

Equating Eqs. 3.27 and 3.28,

df
w ^"/Swf " '"/Swi (3.29)
dS S r - S .
w wf wi
S„f
The graphical interpretation of Eq. 3.29 is that a line
drawn tangent to the fractional flow curve from the point
^^w/S .» ^wi^ will have a point of tangency equal to
VTX

3-23
(fw/S » ) *» i.e., the point of tangency is the water
w£
saturation at the front. This is illustrated by Fig. 3.13

point

100

S„. %

Fig. 3.13: Determination of water saturation

at the front from the fractional flow
curve.

In regard to Fig. 3,13, two important points are noted,

a. The tangent line to the fractional flow curve should
always be drawn from the initial water saturation. In
some cases, the initial water saturation will be
greater than the irreducible water saturation and the
tangent line will not originate from the end of the
fractional flow curve. Construction of the tangent
line in this situation is illustrated by Fig. 3.14.

3-24
 1.0

point

100
wir

Sw

Fig. 3,14: Construction of tangent line when

S . > S . .
wi wir

b. The saturation, is constant from the time the flood

begins until breakthrough; \f will increase after break
through until it reaches S^.
2. Average water saturation

The average water saturation behind the flood front can

also be determined using the fractional flow curve. Consider
again the saturation distribution at some time during the
flood as illustrated by Fig. 3.12. The total water in the
reservoir behind the front is:

Total H2O
/I S^dx = MjfwmX
(3.30)

3-25
where S = maximum water saturation = 1-S
wjii or

^w£ wm
Total H2O = <(iA
/ X dS
w
(3.31)

wf

/wm
*dSw (3.32)

•e- *wf

Substitute Eqs. 3.24 and 3.27, respectively, into Eq. 3.32

to obtain:

Total H2O = 5.615 q^tS^^

fdf 1
w
/wmdf^ (3.33)
3s
w
Vf
Vf

By definition, the average water saturation behind the

front is

5 „ Total water behind front „ Total H2O (3.34J

w Total flooded pore volume 4)AX^

5.615q^tS^£ [«w] 5.61Sq, t

or
w

Vf
rj (3.35)

Vf

By substituting Eq. 3.28 into this expression, the follow

ing expression for § is obtained:
Ifl

i-f
wf
s j: + (3.36)
wf

as
w

3-26
 All of the information required to compute S using
Eq, 3.36 is available from the tangent point of the frac
tional flow curve. However, an easier graphical procedure
can be developed by considering the fractional flow curve
depicted by Fig. 3.15. It is observed on Fig. 3.15 that

(S„A. 1.0)
1.0

'wf
^^wA' wf^

S . %
w* '

Fig. 3.15: Determination of slope relationships

for the fractional flow curve.

the tangent line intersects the line corresponding to f^ = 1.0

at a saturation which is arbitrarily defined as The
slope of the tangent line can be defined in terms of this
saturation according to the equation

df
w
HS"
w ^wA " ^wf

3-27
This can be rearranged to solve for

1 - f
wf
^wA ~ ^wf ^ (3.37)
df.
w

3^
w

Comparing Eqs. 3.36 and 3.37, it is evident that S = S ..

W WA
It is concluded, therefore, that S can be obtained by
simply extending the tangent line to the fractional flow curve
to the point where f = 1.0. This is illustrated by Fig.
3.16.

1.

100
Swi
Sw
Fig. 3.16: Graphical determination of S
w

3-28
3. Performance at Water Breakthrough

It was shown previously that SIV will remain constant

during a waterflood until the time of water breakthrough.
Accordingly, the average water saturation in the reservoir
at the time of breakthrough, will be equal to S^.
This means that the water saturation in the reservoir in
creases by an amount as a result of the water-
flood, and that the oil saturation decreases by an equiva
lent amount.. This saturation change is a measure of the
efficiency of the displacement process.
Oil production due to waterflooding can be computed
according to Eq. 3.1, i.e.,

Np = N Ey Ej,

Since we are working with a linear system, it is assumed for

now that

= 1.0

Therefore,

Np = NEjj

The displacement sweep efficiency, E^, is the oil recovery due

to waterflooding expressed as a fraction of the oil volume which
existed at the beginning of the flood in that part of the
reservoir which has been contacted by injected water, i.e.,

F = Qil production due to waterflooding

D " Water contacted oil volume ^

° 3 . (3.39)
5.615 (^-^wi^

Oil production at the time of breakthrough is computed as

Vt = - S„,) (3.40)
3-29
which results in the conclusion from Eq. 3.39 that
S 1,^ - S .
_ wbt wi
'Dbt - 1 - S . (3.41)
wi

At breakthrough, x = L, and Eq. 3.24 can be

rewritten as:

-1
5.615q^t
asw (3.42)

Considering the left-hand side of this equation, it is

observed that

^ „ bbls water injected

bbls/pore volume

Pore volumes of
water injected
^ibt (3.4^
at breakthrough

Therefore, -1
rdf„i
ibt as (3.44)
w

Equation 3.44 shows that the number of pore volumes of

water injected at breakthrough is simply equal to the
inverse of the slope of the tangent to the fractional flow
curve. With a constant flow rate, the time to break
through can be computed as the ratio of cumulative water
injected to water injection rate, i.e..

t bt -~ "ibt „ S.eiSq^
'''^Qibt (3.45)

3-30
MODIFICATION FOR THE PRESENCE OF A PRE-EXISTING GAS SATURATION

At any time in the life of a waterflood after gas fillup,

the following material balance equation can be written:

OIL REMAINING OIL AT START ' WATERFLOOD "

IN RESERVOIR OF WATERFLOOD OIL PRODUCED

The oil remaining in the reservoir will consist of two parts -

oil in the swept region where the average oil saturation is
(1 • j and oil in the unswept region where, due to resatu-
ration of the gas space with displaced oil, the oil saturation
is (1 - . Accordingly,

OIL REMAINING'
IN RESERVOIR

- Vpd - W

Further,

OIL AT START ' - S . - 3 .)

wi
OF WATERFLOOD B

WATERFLOOD "
= N
OIL PRODUCED

Substituting these expressions into the material balance

equation,

t - SJ - V(1 - E^Ey)(l - S„.)]

=k • 'wi - Sgi)] - N

3-30A
Rearranging to compute the oil production due to water-
flooding,

V (s - s oEaE,, - v s .
N = -P w wi-* AV p gi
P

V res - S .)E.E„ - S .1
N = w wi^ A V gi-*
P ®o

The displacement efficiency, Ej^, is the oil recovery

due to waterflooding expressed as a fraction of the oil
volume that existed at the beginning of the flood in that
part of the reservoir which has been contacted by injected
water, i.e..

T, _ WATERFLOOD OIL PRODUCED

^D " WATER CONTACTED OIL VOLUME

V_
res - S OE^E„ - S .1
•n _ O
w wi-* A V gi-"
^D " T"
(1 - - Sgi)E^Ey

s - s . -
w W1 Ej^Ey
® 1 - ^gi

The pore volumes of water, Q^, which must be injected

to achieve a cumulative oil production, N^, are not affectec
by the presence of free gas at the start of a waterflood.

3-30B
 EXAMPLE 3.2

A waterflood is to be conducted in an undersaturated

oil reservoir which has dimensions that will result in
linear flow. The average cross-sectional area is approxi
mately 78,000 square feet. Additional reservoir data are

iw = 7000 bbl/day
'
B,,
w
= 1.02 RB/STB
S . = 251 u = 1.39 cp
wi o
(f) '= 22% \i^w = 0.50 cp
k = 50 md a = 0
B^ =1.25 RB/STB

Sw^ ^o/^w
0.25 00

0.30 36.95

0.35 11.12

0.40 4.84

0.45 2.597

0.50 1.340

0.55 0.612

0.60 0.292

0.65 0.098

0.70 0.017

0.72 0.000

If the first row of producers is located 1320 feet from the

injection wells,
(a) determine the oil recovery (STB) at the time of break
through;
(b) determine the time until breakthrough, days;
t

(c) determine the displacement sweep efficiency at the

time of breakthrough.
(d) How many barrels of water must be injected to obtain
breakthrough?

3-31
Areal and vertical sweep efficiencies are assumed to be
unity. Further, the capillary pressure gradient can be
neglected.

SOLUTION

Neglecting gravity and capillary forces, the fractional

flow equation reduces to the form of Eq. 3.13:

fw = k y
1 + ^
rw ^o

The fractional flow data for this reservoir are summarized

in the following table:

f S
Sw w w
f
w

0.25 0.000 0.55 0.820

0.30 0.070 0.60 0.905
0.35 0.200 0.65 0.966
0.40 0.365 0.70 0.994
0.45 0.517 0.72 1.000
0.50 0.674

These data are plotted in Fig. 3.17.

(a) The oil recovery at breakthrough is determined by

Eq. 3.40:

N
pbt wbt - Swi)
The average water saturation in the reservoir is determined
by drawing a line tangent to the fractional flow curve; the
intersection of this line with = 1.0 defines.S , . As
" WD t
depicted by Fig. 3.17, ^wbt = 0.614 for this reservoir;
consequently.

3-32
 Swbt =
1.0

ii
s:::aKEssi3E:t:iE:»:i:c::niii

w
KKs::
£syS2»
0.4

0.2

i
100

S , %
w'

Fig. 3.17: Fractional flow curve for Example 3.2.

N = C0.22)C78.000 ft'UlSZO ft! (0.614 - 0.25)

pbt
ft bbl
5.615 1.25
EET STF

= 1.175 X 10® STB

Cb.) Based upon Eq. 3.45,

= 5.61Sq^

3-33
 -1
fdf
w
Q.ibt dS
= S , ^ - S .
w
wbt wi

Qibt = 0-614 - 0.25 = 0.364

- (0.22) C78,000H1320) CO.3641

^bt (S.615)(7oo03 ^
tbt = 209.8 days

(c) The displacement sweep efficiency at breakthrough is

defined by Eq. 3.41:
§ -
Tj „ _^t wi _ 0.614 - 0.25
Dbt 1 1 - 0.25

Epbt = 0.48S

(d) The pore volumes of water injected is defined by

Eq. 3.44:

'dfj-
Q.ibt Hsw
0.364

The cumulative water injection is

"ibt = Qibt Vp

♦AL
Q.ibt 5.615

= 0.364
(0.22H78.000) ri320')
5.615 "

W. = 1.468 X 10® bbls

3-34
4. Performance after breakthrough

After breakthrough, the saturation at the outlet will

increase continuously from to S,,„. At the time the
' wt wm
saturation at the outlet is S
w2
where < S, « <
wf w2 — wm'
Welge® shov/ed that:
a. The average water saturation in the reservoir at the
time the saturation at the outlet is S , IS given
w2
by the equation

1-f.
w2 02
S = S ^ + S o + (3.46)
w w2 w2
df df
w w
as dS
w w

Graphically, this means S can be determined by draw-

W

ing a tangent to the fractional flow curve at the

saturation ^2* Extrapolation of the tangent to f^ »
1.0 gives the value of S . Knowing this saturation,
W

the oil recovery at this time can be computed. By

making these computations at a number of saturations
between and a composite of recovery versus
outlet saturation can be obtained. This is illus
trated by Fig. 3.18.
After breakthrough, water is produced at a surface
producing water-oil ratio (WOR) equal to

WOR
_ _ ^t^w2^o „ ^w2 ®o (3.47)

where is determined at S^2' ^ mobile water

saturation exists in the reservoir when the flood
is initiated, water will be produced before break
through; a modification for this situation was shown
in a previous section.
The number of pore volumes of water injected at the
time = S^2 "the outlet end is given by the
relationship

3-35
 S V^ S
wbt w

•w2

"wf

®wf ®w2

Fig. 3.18: Determination of S,, after

® w
breakthrough.

-1
df
w
(3.48)
Qi H5
w
'w2

Knowing this quantity and the water injection rate,

the time required to reach this stage of the flood
can be computed.
d. Oil and water flow rates at the time the saturation
is equal to = S^2 outlet end of the linear
system are given by the following equations:

STB/D (3.49)
= T

(3.5
'Iw = W
STB/D

3-36
 In summary, the Welge method can be used to predict
oil recovery, water-oil ratio, and cumulative water injected,
as a function of time for a linear waterflood. These
calculations are illustrated by Example 3.3.

EXAMPLE 3.3

Example 3.2 presented the data for a reservoir which

was subjected to a waterflood. Predictions of oil recovery
at the time of water breakthrough were presented in that
example. Extend these calculations to include after break
through performance and compute:
(a) Recovery, STB*s, as a function of producing WOR;
(b) Recovery, STB*s, as a function of cumulative water
injection;
(c) Recovery, STB's, as a function of time.

SOLUTION

The fractional flow data for this reservoir were com

puted in Ex. 3.2 and were presented graphically in Fig.
3.17. Calculations in Ex. 3.2 resulted in the following
information at the time of breakthrough:

= 1.175 X 10® STB

tbt = 209.8 days

Swbt =
W^bt = 1-468 X 10® bbls
For computations beyond breakthrough, that portion
of the fractional flow curve which represents the non-
stabilized zone 1 is shown enlarged in Fig.
3.19. By selecting a number of saturations between
a history of oil and water production can be
computed using the slope and average water saturation
corresponding to each value of chosen. These compu-
tations are summarized in the following tables.

3-37
1.0

0.95

0.90

0.85

uni;::::::;::::::::

0.80
Sw£ = 53%
£ -= 0.775

0.75

S^, %

Fig. 3.19: Tangent construction to non-stabilized

portion of fractional flow curve for
calculations beyond breakthrough --
Example 3.3.

3-38
 Incremental Recovery
Key (see beyond breakthrough,STB
Fig.. 3.19) ^w2 AN =V (S -S , ^)/B
p p^ w wbt^ 0

1 53.0=S^^ 0.775 2. 747 0

2 55.0 0.820 2.093 63.6 71,000

3 57.5 0.865 1.753 65.2 122,600
4 60.0 0.905 1.462 66.5 164,600
5 62.5 0.940 1.132 67.8 206,500
6 65.0 0.965 0.875 69.0 245,000
7 67.5 0.983 0.548 70.6 297,000
8 70.0 0.994 0.400 71.5 306,600

-1
W. = V Q.
N , STBxlO 1 p^i
\2 Qi bbls X 10

53.0=S 1.175 0.364 1.468

wf
55.0 1.246 0.498 2.008
57.5 1.298 0.570 2.299
60.0 1.340 0.684 2.759
62.5 1.382 0.883 3.562
65.0 1.420 1.143 4.611
67.5 1.472 1.825 7.362
70.0 1.482 2.500 10.085

W.
Sw2'^ ^ ~ 7000'^^^^ WOR Qq, STB q^, sur. bbls.
53.0=S^f 210=t^^ 4.2 1260 5319
55.0 287 5.6 1008 5627
57.5 328 7.9 756 59 36
60.0 394 11.7 532 6211
62.5 509 19.2 336 6451
65.0 659 33.8 196 6623
67.5 1052 70.9 95 6746
70.0 1441 203.0 34 6822

3-39
D. Application to Radial Flow

Felsenthal and Yuster** extended the frontal advance

method to radial systems and found that the average water
saturation behind the front, and the saturation at the front,
could be determined in the same manner as for linear flow.
This same observation should apply to any waterflood in which
the flow lines are all straight lines.
E. Gravity under-running
When flooding zones of relatively large thicknesses,
the question of gravity under-running occurs. A method has
been presented by Dietz®'® which can be used to determine
the angle at which water can be expected to enter an oil
bearing sand. This method applies to floods with favorable
mobility ratios in reservoirs which are horizontal, or have
relatively low dips. According to Dietz, the angle, $,
between the formation and the flood front will be:
//////////
2045q^ ^w %
Tan B = -
^rw ^roj water — » - o i l
(3.51,
Ak(Y - Y )
° n n r) r / / /
Practical units, as previously defined, are used in the
equation. The relative permeability to oil is defined at
the initial oil saturation and the relative permeability to
water is expressed at the average water saturation behind
the front. It is noted that as q^ increases, the front
becomes more vertical (i.e., B approaches 90°). An
application of this method is given by Cronquist^.
F. Effect of free gas saturation

Several investigators have pointed out that a small

gas saturation, if trapped in the oil bank will result in
an increase in oil recovery from a water-wet rock. This
additional recovery seems to result from an alteration of
relative permeability characteristics and the occupation
of space by the gas that would otherwise be filled with oil.

3-40
Correlations are presented by Craig® which relate the
reduction in residual oil saturation to the trapped gas
saturation. It is advisable, however, that preliminary
experimentation be conducted before these results are
applied to a specific field.
V. Summary

The basic frontal advance theory for immiscible fluid

displacement has been developed and illustrated. From this
material, it is seen that, in most cases, relative perme
ability and viscosity ratio control the displacement
behavior. However, factors such as gravity and capillary
pressure must be considered in special cases. Procedures
were shown which could be used to approximate•saturation
distributions, production history, and WOR behavior of a
waterflood process.
The limitations of this method must always be considered
Basically, the method was derived for a linear, homogeneous
reservoir having constant rock and fluid properties. It was
further assumed that the total throughput rate is constant
and equal to the water injection rate. Areal and vertical
coverage were taken to be unity, and it is assumed that all
injected water contributes to the displacement process (i.e.,
no water lost at the boundaries, or to other formations).
Thus, the main contribution of this model is to give
us an understanding of the displacement behavior in that
portion of the reservoir contacted by the injected water.
When flow is not linear, or when areal or vertical heter
ogeneities exist which reduce coverage of the injected
water, modifications to the model must be made, or a
completely different model must be used. Modifications for
vertical heterogeneities will be discussed in a subsequent
chapter. Reductions in areal coverage due to non-linear
flow will now be discussed.

3-41
 REFERENCES

1. Buckley, S. E. and Leverett, M. C.: "Mechanism of

Fluid Displacements in Sands," Trans, y AIME (1942)
146, 107-116.

2. Terwilliger, P. L., Wilsey, L. E., Hall, H. N., Bridges,

P. M. and Morse, R. A.: "An Experimental and Theoretical
Investigation of Gravity Drainage Performance," Trans, ^
AIME (1951) 192, 285-296.

3. Welge, H. J.: "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil

Recovery by Gas or Water Drive," Trans,, AIME (1952)
195, 91-98.

4. Felsenthal, M. and Yuster, S. T.: "A Study of the

Effect of Viscosity in Oil Recovery by Waterflooding,"
paper 163-G presented at SPE West Coast Meeting, Los
Angeles, Oct. 25-26, 1951.
5. Dietz, D. N.: "A Theoretical Approach to the Problem
of Encroaching and Bypassing Edge Water," Proo,,
Koninkl. New. Akad. Wetenschap (1953) B56, 38.

6. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir lEngineering,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York (.1978)
372.

7. Cronquist, C.: "Waterflooding by Linear Displacement

in Little Creek Field, Mississippi," Trans., AIME
(1968) 24Z.

8. Craig, F. F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of

Waterflooding, SPE Monograph Series (1971) 3, 39.

3-42
 PROBLEMS: Mechanism of Immiscible Fluid Displacement

1. Oil is being displaced by water in a horizontal, linear

flow system where capillary pressure effects are
negligible. The relative permeability data for oil
and water are presented® in the following table:

Sw ^rw ^ro
0.20 0 0.800
0.25 0.002 0.610

0.30 0.009 0.470

0.35 0.020 0.370
0.40 0.033 0.285
0.45 0.051 0.220
0.50 0.075 0.163
0.55 0.100 0.120
0.60 0.132 0.081
0.65 0.170 0.050
0.70 0.208 0.027
0.75 0.251 0.010
0.80 0.300 0

Pressure is being maintained at a constant value for which

= 1.3 RB/STB and = 1.0 RB/STB. Compare the values
of average water saturation and displacement sweep
efficiency, at the time of water breakthrough for the
following fluid combinations:

Case cp y^w /u^o

Pw' CP
1 50 0.5 0.01
2 5 0.5 0.1
3 0.4 1.0 2.5

The fractional flow curves for each of these cases is

presented in Fig. 3P.1.

3-43
 1.0 tULcr::
Case 1

O.Oli^ Case 2

0.8

Case 3

0.6 Ky

"w

0.4 I
•nnHKMvia

0.2

20 40 60 80 100

S^, %

Fig. 3P.1; Fractional flow curves for Prob. 1.

2. Consider the following data for a linear reservoir which

is to be waterflooded:

= 1000 bbl/day
(|> = 18%
S . = 20%
wi

50,000 ft^
0.62 cp
w
2.48 cp
400 ft
=1.15 RB/STB
B^ =1.0 RB/STB
3-44
 s k k
w ro rw

0.20 0.930 0.000

0.30 0.600 0.024

0.40 0.360 0.045

0.50 0.228 0.124
0.55 0.172 0.168

0.60 0.128 0.222

0.70 0.049 0.350
0.80 0.018 0.512
0.85 0.000 0.600

If areal and vertical coverage are unity, and capillary

pressure is negligible, determine the following infor
mation at breakthrough and at those times when the
saturation at the front is 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75%:
a. Cumulative oil recovery, STB, versus time
b. Producing water-oil ratio versus time
c. Cumulative water injection, bbls, versus time
d. Oil producing rate, STB/D, versus time
e. Water producing rate, surface bbls/D, versus time
3. An oil reservoir which approximates a linear system is
to be waterflooded. Pertinent rock and fluid properties
of the reservoir are:

Sw f
^0 ^rw w

0.20 -
0 0
0.25 0.800 0.018 0.049
0.30 0.610 0.04 0.130
0.35 0.425 0.07 0.273
0.40 0.280 0.10 0.448
0.45 0.175 0.13 0.628
0.50 0.110 0.16 0.768
0.55 0.063 0.20 0.878
0.60 0.031 0.26 0.950
(Table continued on next page)

3-45
 NO. 34a-20 OIETZOEN GRAPH PAPER EUGENE DIETZBEN CD.
20 X 2D PER INCH MADE IN U. 8. A.

•••••••••••••••••I
 NO. 340-2a DICTZBEN GRAPH PAPER EUGENE DIETZOEN CO.
MAOC IN U. B. A.
20 X 20 PER INCH ) )

lllllillll "ill
•••••••
SSESSSSSSSbSS ••••••«
• ••Mil
•••••••
•••••••

•••iiiiaai
!••••••
nsliii!

•••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••a
Hiiaalaaiiiiiiaai
•••••••••••••••a
 0.65 0.011 0. 32 0.985
0.68 0.0028 0.36 0.996
0.70 0 - 1.000

k S
400 md s:
62.IS lb/ft'
Pw
•^0
s=
0.853 cp 47.2 lb/ft'
PQ =

"w
s
0.375 cp ♦ s
0.22
a = 0 s
1.32 RB/STB
Bo
A = 10,000 ft^ s
1.03 RB/STB
c
2500 RB/Day
It

If the distance to the nearest producing well (consider

this distance as the length of the linear system) is
660 feet,
a. how much oil, STB, between the injection well and
producing well is theoretically recoverable by
waterflooding?
b. how much total oil, STB, will remain in the
reservoir at breakthrough?
c. Consider the waterflood at two separate times
when the water saturations at the producing well
are 57.5% and 65%, respectively. At these two
conditions, determine
(i) Cumulative oil recovery, STB
(ii) Cumulative water injection, surface bbls
(iii) Surface water oil ratio
(iv) Oil flow rate
(v) Water flow rate
d. It has been determined from past experience in this
type of reservoir that the economic limit will
correspond to a surface water-oil ratio of 35.
How long will it take to reach the economic limit?
How many STB's of oil will have been recovered at
this time?
e. Suppose the initial water saturation in this
reservoir had been 30% rather than 20%, ^

3-48
 (i) Calculate the cumulative oil recovery at
breakthrough.
(ii) How many barrels of water will have been
produced at the time of breakthrough?

n
3-49
 EUGENE DIETZOEN CO.
NO. 340-20 DIETZOEN GRAPH PAPER MAOC IN U. B. A.
20 X 20 PER INCH

llitilKit
 RESERVOIR engineering/management

Guntong Field: Development and

A^anagement of a l^ultiple-Reseryolr
Offshore Waterflood
.p. W.,e, SPE,

Summary
nt Guiitong field, the largest waterfiood field in offshore peninsular and lateral continuity of these sands vary fieldwide. The best reser
Malaysia with an oil-jn-place (OIP) of about 200 million voirs are commonly developed in distributary channels and their
has associated
been producing since 1985. The field contains 13 stacked reservoirs range deltaic deposits. Reservoir porosities and permeabilities
with small gas caps and limited aquifer support, This paper describes from 18-t^-54-% and 50 to 300 md, respectively,
Development of Guntong was enhanced by application and in
some of the significant reservoir, geologic, and facility challenges tegration
laced danng development and management ofthis complex reservoir use of geoscience technologies. An example is an extensive
of the
system. Acombination of five-spot and peripheral waterfiood pat- carbo^n-indicator three-dimensional (3D) seismic data with direct-hydro-
ems was selected to provide ihe required area) coverage, and reser which revealed many modeling, fusion analysis, and time-slice analysis,
voirs were commingled into two operational groups. Key reservoir previously unknown reservoir parameters!
resulted inbetter prognosis ofthe oil/water contacts
managementstrategies to maximize performance include determina (owes), more accurate time/depth conversion, recognition of
tion ofoptJmum target reservoir pressures, use ofaPC-basedprogram sand-vs, shale-filled channels, and better modeling of areal reser-
to guide production and injection targets, and meeting pattern-balanc voir distribution.
ing and capacity-enhancement programs. The response to the reser and Fig. 3b showsFig. 3a shows an example ofa3D seismic section,
ahorizontal slice ofthe 1-25 reservoir. The ter-
voir management efforts has been favorable, with an all-time-high amplitude anomaly in the section suggests that the
production rate of J4000 m^/d recorded in 1994.
rn
nlledAT1-23 channel.
^ channel-shaped
This is one of manyfeatures of the
examples thatproven
helped tosand-
de
Introduction termine optimal placement ofthe development wells.
The Guntong field is in the South China Sea. 210 km off the east
April 1978 and is currently being developedf^eldand was discovered in '
managed by Esso
Production Malaysia Inc. (EPMI) as acontractor to Petroliam Nati
fihd. (Petronas). the Malay.sian-national oil company. Development
started jn 1985 when drilling began on the Guntong Aplatform, fol
lowed by the Guntong Band Cplatforms in 1987. Atotal of94 wells
b" _(EFB and Cre, respectively).
Blocks 3 singles, inAfourth
the Eastplatform,
and Central Fault
Guntong
D, was installed in 1994. and production started in mid-1995 to de
velop the West Fault Block (WFB) ofthe field.
Reservoir Description
Guntong is an oval-shaped, east-west trending compressional anti
cline located between two structurally similar fields, forming the
Tabu-Guntong-Palas trend. The field is approximately 12 km long
and 7km wide, with an area] closure of about 50 sq km and maxi
mum vertical relief ofabout 250 mat the 1-25 level in the EFB. The
^ northern flank and 9to 14° on the south 'Fig.1—Location of EPMI's contract area.
L Era, CFB and WFB.
the north-south trending
The fault faultsthedivide
separating WFBthehasfield into
amaxi
mum throw of 180 mand is interpreted to be sealing. The fault that
separates the EFB and CFB diminishes downward and is interpreted
to be sealing only mthe Upper Ireservoirs and nonsealing in the
LowerI and Group J reservoirs. i
The main reservoirs in Guntong are found stratigraphically in r
Groups Iand J, which are of Early Miocene in age (16 to 20 million ^
years ago). Thirteen reservoirs in Group Iand one in Group Jhave S
proved to be productive in the field. The Group I sandstones are P
dominated by depositional fades ranging from low-energy subtidal, i
margmal manne to lower coastal plain environment. They consist
Of very-fine- to medium-grained sandstone, occasionally laminated 1
with siltstone and claystone. The thicknesses, reservoir quality,
opyr^ftl 1996 SodBty of Patfolaum Enginaera ^
fO'rwlevye March 1996. Raviaad manuaeript raeahnd 2
S?199S aPE Aala Pacillc OU and Gas Con/arenca held In Kuala Lumpur,
ine 199S aPE 29270) flSSraaamad
20-22 March. ai Fig.
FIc 2—1-25 reservoir porosity top structure map.
JVT # December 1996
 Vi-j^aoN iciis^ -.V'
o^SSS^SS^BSSBfate •AtPM'Ae.-r'-^L
TOI|TO«Ol^ riw.
'• '• i-M BASE reiic" -'•!
\tfiCXEO HWIlONi'jro:W J«*ttONi«MiEC • v: ••
:i-!.vi,:
BELOW i-iJaAjartAK'.'^
i(bj"; <•;•
4lli

r.; r.' "• ".^

- • • 8 oil MOOUCt* • ;•. ;•

•ir^WATM mJtCTOIl; •',:
,^vo«TOtaoi f^}:'
, C) ciimiOATt .h

Fig. 3-1-25 reservoir 3D seismic section (top) and horizontal Fig. 4—Waterflood pattern in 1-25reservoir.
siice (bottom).

Development Concept managing multiple sand members in the Upper and Lower I reser
The major accumulations in the EFB and CFB are in seven Group 1 voirs. Efforts are focused on the major reservoirs. The following are
sandstones, which contain about90% of the OTP. Most of the reser the key reservoir management strategies.
voirs have small gas caps and waterdrive is weak because ofboth poor 1.Achieve waterflood pattern balancing on the basis ofremaining
quality ofsandstone offstructure and the limited extent ofthe aquifer. displaceable oilin each pattern to ensure that all sands are flooded
Oil production under natural depletion alone would result in rapid de uniformly. Continuous monitoring offlood advancement and itsareal
clinein both pressure andoil rate. The limited natural drive mecha and vertical conformance isessential to achieving this objective.
nism, combined with the favorable water/oil mobility ratio observed 2. Operate the waterflood at an optimum pressure level to maxi
with the I-sandstone crude, led to early waterflooding. mize oil displacement. Our studies indicate that reducing the reser
Predevelopmfiint reservoir model studies recommended theuseofan voirpressure until the critical gassaturation isreached achieves this
inverted seven-spot waterflood pattern.' However, extensive injectivity objective. This optimum pressure level is referred toas thecritical
testing in the first development well showed water injectivity to be low gassaturation pressure, To achieve this strategy, the production
er than anticipated. Fracftire gradient and low relative permeability to andinjection rates must beproperly controlled so that the reservoir
water were identified as the limiting factors. The waterflood pattern pressure is maintained atornear pjgc.
was modified to acombination five-spot and peripheral patteni tb' jpro- 3.Target an injection volume bank of30 days, with a range of0
vide aWgher injector-to-producer ratio. Fig. 4illustrates this pattern. to 60 days. Bank days are tiiose days that the field can continue pro
The presence ofseven individual major I-sand reseryoirs and six ducing ataspecified rate without water injection until the pressure
rninor I-sand-i^servoirs required evaluation ofthe most cost-effec level drops topjgc. The bank days are continuously calibrated when
tive meaii^dfdepleUng the reserves. These reservoirs are developed field-measured reservoir pressures areobtained.
in two groups, characterized by similar pressure systems and fluid 4.Manage the gas caps torecover oil updip ofthe most upstruc-
properties. The Upper I group consists of five reservoirs, and the ture wells. This is done by estimating the current gas/oil contact
Lower I group consists of eight reservoirs. The strategy of com- • location by means ofmaterial balance and individual well gas/oil ra
mingled production and injection inthese Isands waschosen onthe tio (GOR), R, performance evaluation. The producing Rofthe wells
basis ofmodel studies that resulted in insignificant recovery differ may then be controlled to prevent potential shrinkage ofthe cap.
ences between commingled and noncommingled development. A A comprehensive reservoir surveillance program supports these
noncommingled completion strategy would require 1.5 to2 times strategies and is discussed later.
as many wells asthe commingled case todevelop the reserves. The
J sands are developed separately and are being produced by com Optimum Operating Pressure
bination ofgas-cap expansion and gas injection. "Die basic philosophy ofthe critical gas saturation pressure-deple
The complexity and rapid pace ofthe field development required tion strategy isto pr^uce the field in amanner that will maximize
a very high level ofinteraction between Petronas and EPMI toensure a free gassaturation behind thewater front tominimize theresidual
asmooth and successful development prognim. Ref. 2 discusses the oil saturation. As discussed later, maintaining a critical gas satura
interaction and teamwork thatled to the successful field development. tion, Sgct inaximizes oil recovery and simultaneously minimizes un
desirable side effects ofhigh-/? production and increased oilviscos
Production and Injection Performance ity. The term pjgg generally refers to the pressure where sufficient
Production from Guntong Awas initiated in the fourth quarter of gas evolves from theoil so thatit becomes mobile in thereservoir.
1985, and sustained injection was initiated in late 1986. The produc Core analysis indicates an average value of3.5% for 5^^, which,
tion peaked at about 14 000 mVd in 1994. Up to mid-1996,36 x lO^ when combined with laboratory pressure/volume/temperature data,
m^ ofoil, or65% ofthie estimated ultimate recovery from the Group provides estirnated^gc values of13 583 and 16 548 kPa for the Up
Isandstones, has been produced. The water-injection rate peaked at perIand LowerIpackages, respectively. Static bottomhole pressure
22 000 mVd in 1990, before full implementation ofpattern balanc (BHP), Ai-i, surveys conducted in 1992 showed that psgc in some
ing. As pattern balancing was introduced, injection rates from se wells had fallen to lowerthan these estimates, even though the wells
lected wells were reduced. Aconcerted effort to improve the injec did not exhibit elevated producing Ras would be expected. These
tion performance was initiated in 1992 by acidizing wells to correct observations indicated that the values forpsgc may actually be low
injection profiles and remove formation damage. The acldization er, prompting EPMI to define thep^gg mechanisms betterand tocon
campaign, discussed later, Isongoing. duct field tests.

"'7 Cha'Isngos Slmulaaon Work. Asimplified twoKfiraensional, Utree-phase

^I reservoir management elective is to maximize the timely deple- mechanisms
'^e'voir simulation
associated withmodel was developed
producing at less than to invesUgaie the
The Simula-
tion of all sand members. This is challenging because It Involves tion work highlighted the possibUity ofusing awell's producing Ras
1140
December 1996 • JPT
 Gas Displacing Oil >
v6oo:-

2
:":.>400 i%.'vIr

• i'i-fe

l^^aOO;'?

- ••v^ • - L f.. ^:;.

m IMOO -MioO'-UskM'
bperaHn^^
Fig. 5—GOR performance of Upper 1radial model at various
operating pressures. Fig. 6~Factors affecting reservoir recovery at reduced
pressures.

atrigger to indicate when the reservoir pressure achieves the target Thep,^c field test started in the first quarter of1993. Inthe second
Psgc value. Fig. 5shows the simulation-calculated Rvs. producing quarter of1994, Rofthe UpperIreservoir test well. Well GuA-16U,
days for various reservoir operating pressures. Note that Rremains es began to rise (Fig. 7). The p^^c value corresponding to the point of
sentially at its solution value, while the reservoir operating pressure Rincrease was 12 273 kPa. To verify the Rperformance, the test was
is higher than pjg^. Operating at reservoir pressures lower than pjgc continued for an additional 4months; this led to afurther pressure
liberates more gas, and the Rcorrespondingly increases. From these drop of275 kPa. This Upper Ip^^^ is1310 kPa lower than the labora
observations, the optimum tai^et operating pressure (psgc) can be de tory estimated value. At the conclusion ofthis test, the pressures in
fined as the maximum pressure at which gas becomes mobile at the the two other Upper I observation wells. Wells GuB-26 and
well drainage radius. When this point is reached, gas saniration is GuC-16U, were about 200 kPa higher than inWell GuA-I6U and
maximized without being produced at the well. their Rhad not increased yet, thus confirming alower value bfp«£.-
Incremental recovery from operating a waterflood at reduced Offset-pattem wells also did not show any Rincrease, suggesting
pressure is abalance ofthe opposite effects ofincreasing gas satura that gas was not migrating from the test patterns. The test for the
tion and decreasing oil formation volume factor, Bg, determined Lower Ireservoir group indicated p^gc of13 893 kPa, 2655 kPa less
from the simulation runs. Fig. 6shows aplot that contains incremen than the previously estimated value, which was based on laboratory
tal oil recovery at surface conditions vs. reservoir operating pres work. Thispj^e was from Well GuB-lL as shown byrising Rperfor
sure. Note that the incremental oil recoveiy (relative to depleting the mance in second quarter 1995. Operating reservoir pressures are be
reservoir at the bubblepoint pressure, pb) is expressed as afraction ing reducedin line with these test results.
ofthe original OIP. The short-dashed line shows the incremental re
covery resulting from gas displacing oil. Because gas is always the Reservoir Surveillance Activities
nonwetting phase, the residual oil saturation decreases when the res Comprehensive reservoir surveillance activities are necessaiy to
ervoir pressure declines to less than pb, leaving less oil in the reser implement the reservoir management plan. These activities can be
voir. Areservoir operating pressure at or less than psgc minimizes categorized into three main areas: (1) planning and monitoring pat
tern balancing, both areally and vertically; (2) performing initial and
the reservoir barrels ofoil remaining inthe reservoir.
^Counteracting the beneflt of gas displacing oil discussed pre periodic pressure surveys; and (3) monitoring water injecrivity and
viously is the decrease in Bo (denoted by the long-dashed line in Fig. injection-water quality.
6). Although operating the reservoir at pressures less than pi, results
Pattern Balancing. Pattern balancing a waterflood field offers
in fewer remaining reservoir barrels of oil, dividing by an ever-de gains in both maintaining oil rate and operational efficiency. A
creasing value for Bg reduces the gain in recovery atsurface condi badly balanced flood will tend to recycle much ofthe injected water
tions. The solid line shows the net increase in oil recoveiy at surface to previously flooded producers and underinject into patterns that
conditions. The best reservoir operating pressure that is acompro retain substantial unproduced oil. The complexity of muldzone,
mise between recovery gain caused by gas displacing oil and loss multipattem operations requires significant planning for each
caused by decreasing B^ is uniquelyIn this example, depleting
the reservoirat 13 790 kPa provides a3.8% increase in the expected completion's production and injection targets. FLDFRNT, a PC-
recove^. With model results supporting the use offield-measured
producing Rvs. Awj as areliable means of determining prj„, field
testing to determine this value was conducted.

Psgc Field Testing, p^g^ field testing was performed by (1) inducing
netwithdrawal from the test patterns to reduce the BHP, (2) observing
the/? performance through weekly well tests, and (3) taking^w sur iiffi
veys on aperiodic basis (2- to 4-month intervals). T^e net withdrawal
iiaiftsii
•

was carefully designed by increasing oil production rates from the test i4d(id;iv'

weUs and curtailing the water-injection rates from the offset injectors -twK;;
toachieve a target Aw reduction of 138 to207 kPa/month.
Atotal ofseven wells was selected asp^g^ test candidates (Fig. 5).
Selected wells (1) provided areal coverage ofthe majorreservoirs, (2)
were strucmrally away from the gas cap to ensure that any Ranomaly
was caused solely by operating at less thanft^f, (3) had patterns with
high net withdrawal capacity and low to accelerate progress of
reaching p^gg, and (4) were wells that produced neither water nor
emulsion to provide good well-test data and uninterrupted testing. Fig. 7—Page testresults from theA-16U well, Upper Ireservoir.
JPT • December 1996
1141
 4-—w f..jigtuijvumij' c»mai)wcscrivii saoiiuy 10managetne
Guntong field.

FLDFRNT Development. Developed at EPMI. FLDFRNT calcu

lates production and injection rates ofindividual completions to bal
ance water advancement through the reservoir, taking into account
the completions' actual flow capacities and split ratios. Additional
ly, it can quickly forecast oil and water production by use offrac
tional-flow analysis along with reservoir relative permeabilities.
FLDFRNT predictions compare favorably with the reservoir simu
lator for both small test cases and the full-field Guntong model. mM
FLDFRNT requires as input the remaining displaceable oil vol
ume, ateach model cell, from ahistory-matched simulation model. "i.p.
Itweights the production or injection rates for each completion on
the basis of this displaceable oil volume that is available to be pro
duced orswept. As anideal objective, FLDFRNT balances the rates
so that each producer isflooded at the same time. More realistically, Fig. 8—Millipore datafrom Guntong Aplatform.
however, FLDI^NT incorporates each completion's actual flow
capacity and split ratio to balance the water advance as optimally as pressure level. Thep,„ information isalso used to quantify and to cal
possible and still meet the total-field oil target. ibrate water-injection bank days as well as to adjust the individual in-
FLDFRNT recommends rates that maximize the production and jectiori and prdauction targets accordingly. Each well's producing R
injection for patterns that have the largest remaining displaceable oil is routinely monitored through periodic well tests in addition to pres
volume and minimizes those patterns that have less- oil. It has also sure surveys toensure that the reservoir pressure ishigher than
been used to highlight wells that have insufficient flow capacity or
poor split ratios relative to the conformable displaceable oil volume Water Ii^ectivityand QualityMonitoring. Because the field is in
ateach well. This predictive feature allows quantification ofthe incre jectivity limited (i.e., production will be balanced by the amount of
mental oil recovery that may be achieved with improvements in pro water that can beeffectively injected tomaintain pressure), sustain
files orinjectivity. In practice, FLDFRNT's recommended rates are ing water injectivity is crucial to the management ofthe field. Moni
modified to account for local BHP variation, well availability, and R toring injection-water quality is done to minimize formation plug
performance before incoiporating these specific instructions to the ging caused by injected water. Daily injection rate and flowing
field operations. This is necessitated by the coniJtant changes in well wellhead pressure for each completion are used tojnonitor well in
status and also by the fact that FLDFRNT is a two-phase oil/water jectivity with time. Millipore data from passing the injection water
volumetric model and does not account for pressure variations or through amicroscopic filter membrane are measured daily and are
pi^ence of agas ph^e. Effective pattern balancing has resulted in indicators ofthe plugging tendency ofthe injection water. All these
oil-production capacity maintenance and water-production trends data are electronically ^nsmitted into the mainframe computer
that are consistent with forecasted performance. database on a daily basis, thus providing the reservoir engineers
with up-to-dateinformation.
Reservoir Surveillance Tools. Bubble maps, aided by simulation The water-injection guideline^ specifies a 0.3-mUlipore level or
and FLDFRNT, water-cut performance, and produced-waterchloride lower as good quality, 0.3 to 0.6 as tolerable quality on temporary
levels are other reservoir surveillance tools used to monitor areal basis, and levels greater than 0.6 as unacceptable quality. Water
flood-front progression continuously. Full-suite production logging quality with levels in excess of0.3 for an extended period is dis
tools (PLT), temperature logs, and oxygen-activation logs have been carded overboard. Fig. 8shows aplot ofmillipore level at Guntong
used to assess vertical conformance ofcommingled-completions. A platform for January through December 1995. Inaddition to the
Chloride levels of the produced water are periodically analyzed millipore readings, more comprehensive water-quality indicators
and used to confirm its source (i.e., injected seawater orformation • are measured atthe water-injection plant located atthe adjacent1^-
water). The significant contrast inchloride level between seawater pis B platform. Such measurement includes particle-size distribu
and formation water (typically 18 000 to 20 000 ppm and 1000 to tion, corrosion- and scale-inhibitor concentration, biocides, iron
3000 ppm, respectively) allows determination ofthe water source. counts, dissolved oxygen, iron,chloride, andother such factors.
The chloride-level trend collected from interior producers showed AHairs'^ plot is generated by plotting cumulative injection tub
a^adual biiildup ofsalinity level suggesting that connate water is ing-head
being mobilized ahead ofthe injecfed seawaten Asimilarphenome injectivitypmsure (THP) vs. cumulative injection volume. Constant
ischaracterized by astraight line, while an upward curve
non was also observed inthe adjacent Tapis waterflood field. indicates injectivity deterioration (e.g., results of formation dam
Ensuring good vertical conformance is crucial because most • age); and, conversely, a downward curve indicates injectivity im
wells are completed in multiple reservoirs. Most ofthe long strings provements (e.g.,results of a successful acidstimulation or fractur
have been surveyed with PLT logs, while temperature surveys are ing). Data gathered to date show that well injectivities are being
used whenever practical in an attempt to assess the vertical profile maintained, wi^ the possible exception ofone aquifer well. The
of the short-string completions qualitatively. In 1993, a trial pro causes ofinjectivity decline in this aquifer injector are uncertain.
gram was successfully conducted with an oxygen-activation log to
assess the vertical conformance ofthe short-string water-injection
Production Optimization Challenges
completions quantitatively. Since then, we have run a number of The major production optimization challenges for Guntong are (I)
surveys, and results have been encouraging. improving pattern balancing and well injectivity by correcting
skewed vertical profiles and removing formation damage, (2) re
Pressure Surveys. Initial pressure buildup (PBU) and injection fal- storing low THP and water-producing completions, and (3) restor
loff(IFO) tests were performed in most of the oil producer and water- ing rnechanically idle completions.
injectiori completions, respectively. These pressure surveys, com Initial IFO/PBU and profile surveys showed tiiat several wells
bined with production-Zinjection-profile surveys, provide invaluable were damaged and had skewed verticd profiles. An acidization pro
data for reservoir description and completion performance. The data gram was initiated in the fourth quarter of1992 in an attempt to cor
showed considerable formation damage in the early wells, likely the rect these problems and to increase injectivity. A multistage acid-
result ofthe completion practices used atthat time. These data led to diversion technique was used in these commingled completions, with
successfiil enhancement of the completion practices by the drilling benzoic acid flakes as diversion agents. For water-injection wells, the
team,^ which resulted in less damage in subsequent wells. acid mixtures were bullheaded into the formation with awell-service
PeriodicAw surveys are taken inkey wells (about 30to 50% ofthe um't, while acoiled-tubing unit was used for oil producers to allow im
active oil producers) every 6 to9 months todetermine the reservoir mediate backflow ofthe spent acid. The acidization program in Gun-
1142
December 1996 • JPT
 TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF INJECTION CAPACITY/SPLIT
RATIO BEFORE AND AFTER ACID JOBS
' Guntong Well A-18L
Capacity SplitRatio Sand-Thickness
(m^/d) (%) Ratio
Sand
Sand Before After Before After (%1
1-80
1-85
1-100/102 140 230 62 33
1-104 80 240 34 35
Total 230 695 100 100
:••' '"VK- •inL ii]i. inuinitYiiL liiViiu' cin'roti CTL ciO'.cii' "ciL Guntong Well B-12L
US 0 205 0 28
1-80 0 175 0 24
1-85 0 10 0 1
Fig. &—Injectivity Index before and after acid stimulation.
M 00/102 55 235 48 31
tong water injectors has been very successful, with a total incremental 1-104 60 120 52 16
injection capacity from 17 active completions of more than 5800 Total 115 745 100 100
m/d. The individual-well injectivity has increased several-fold (Fig. •
9). Postacid PLT surveys conducted in two wells (Wells A-18L and Acknowledgments
confirmed that the skewed profiles have been successfully re We thank the managements of Petronas and EPMI for iheir support
stored to closer to the ideal undamaged profiles (Table 1). and permission to publish this paper and also all our colleagues who
When water breakthrough started in 1991, the water formed a provided input and vetted this paper, without whom the completion
stable emulsion that caused severe operational upsets. Several wa- of the paper would not have been possible.
ter-producing completions were shut in because the produced water
could not be effectively separated at the offshore platforms. Since References
then, numerous options were evaluated and eventually resulted in 1. Hui, S.K. and Pillai, H.: "Waterflood Development of the Guniong and
the success of treating the produced water with an acid-based de- Tabu Fields," paper 17690 presented atthe 1988 SPE Offshore South East
mulsifier. Water production also caused several wells tobe shut in Asia Conference, Singapore, 2-5 February.
because of lowTHP. Gas lifting was introduced on the Guntong A 2. Osman, M.S. and Tliye, K.C.: "Guntong Field: Pelronas/EPMl Coopera
tion Towards Optimizing Field Development," paper presented at the
platform and has now been extended to the Guntong Band Cplat 1989 ASCOPE Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
forms. APC-based programmable logic controller is also in imple 3. Chang, C.K.: "Water Quality Considerations in Malaysia's First Water-
mentation stage foreffective gas-lift surveillance. flood," ypr (September 1985) 1689; Trans., AIME, 279.
_ Restoration of mechanically idie completions is critical in manag 4. Hall, H.N.: "How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Weil Performance,"
ing a multizone, multipattem waterflood, Downtime from one well World Oil (October 1963) 128.
causes imbalances in production/injection, complicating the manage
ment of the reservoir. Comprehensive monitoring of idle completions SI Metric Conversion Factors
and active well-servicing jobs are ongoing, with the objective to re bblx 1.589 873 E-01=m3
store these completions. An idle completion inventory is reported in ft X 3.0488 E-01=m
the mainframe computer database and updated on amonthly basis. ft3x2.831 685 E-02=m3
md X 9.869 233 E —04 =^m-
Near-Term Plan mile X 1.609 344* E-l-00 = km
An updated fine-gridded Group I sandstone reservoir model is un psi X 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
der development. The objectives of this model are to define the sq mile X 2.589 988 E + 00 = km2
flood-front progression better and to assess means to improve the Oonvsrsion laclorla exact.
management ofthe field further (i.e., production/injection strategy
water shut-off, and other such factors). This will becritical because
ofexpenses involved in controlling water production as the water- Nong Chlk Is the Subsurface Engineering Unit Supervisor
flood reaches a mature stage. In The Offshore DIv. of Esso Production fvlalaysia Inc. (EPMI), re
sponsible for managing productionoptimization, reservoir sur-
Conclusion velHance, and workover engineering. He holds a degree from
The development and management ofwaterflood reservoirs in the Nottingham U. In the U.K. Samsuddin Selamat, Reservoir Engi
Guntong Field has been and continues to be challenging. Applica neering Adviser, EPMI, is responsible for providing technical ad
vice h reservoir management and surveillance. Heholdsa de
tion of new as well as existing technoiogies and concepts in under gree In pefroleum and natural gas from U. Technology of
standing the reservoir geology, challenging existing data (e.g.,p„c), Malaysia. Mohd RohonI Ellas Is Senior Petroleum Geologist In the
conducting surveillance activities, and capacity-maintenance pro- Exploration Dept., EPMI. His currentspeciallzahon is In area of
sadsfactoiy performance ofthis complex field to sequence stratigraphy. Heholds a degree In economicgeolo
date. This entailed ahighly integrated approach involving geology, gyfrom the U. ofToledo. Ohio. J.P. White Is wfth Exxon Production
reservoir engineering, and operations personnel and the support of ResearchCo. In Houston. Heworkedon reservoir simulation and
Petronas for the various proposals made to manage this field. Con reservoir management of the Guntong field while on assign-
tinuous innovations from all panics involved will be necessary for ment With EPMI. Photograbh Is unavailable. M.T. Wakotoke Is
'With Exxon U.S.A. In New Orleans. Previously, hewas onosslgn-
continued success atthe Guntong field jPX irn^t with EPMI, where he worked on reservoir management
strategyfor the Guntong field. PhotographIs unavailable.
Nomenclature
Bg = Oil formation volume factor |
Pb = bubblepoint pressure, m/Lt^, kPa \
Psge —Critical gas saturation pressure, m/Lt^, kPa I
Aw= StaticBHP, m/Lt2, kPa I
GOR.L3/L3.m3/m3 I
Sgc - Critical gas saturation |
Sor = Residual oil saturation Amran Samsuddin

JPT. December 1996

 FLOOD PATTERNS AND AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

I. Introduction

The frontal advance theory developed in Chapter 3

assumes that flow between injection and producing wells is
linear (all flow paths are straight lines) and that 100
percent of the reservoir pore volume is contacted by in
jected water. Although this behavior may be approximated
in some elongated reservoirs, ideal linear flow would be
possible only if fluids could be injected into, and pro
duced from, the entire reservoir cross section rather than
through the limited area of a wellbore. This problem is
complicated further by the fact that most fields are
developed, and waterflooded, using some regular well pattern.
Looking at these fields areally, both injection and pro
duction take place at points. If the patterns are sym
metrical, the shortest travel path and the largest pressure
gradient will occur along a straight line between producers
and injectors. Accordingly, the injected water which travels
along this streamline will reach the producing wells first.
Water traveling along longer streamlines will not have
reached the producing well at the time of breakthrough and,
consequently, part of the reservoir will not have been
contacted by water at that time. That fraction of a water-
flood pattern which has been contacted by water at a given
time during a flood is referred to as the pattern sweep
efficiency^ Ep, or areal sweep efficiency^ E^. Technically,
pattern sweep efficiency should be used when referring to
field applications, and areal sweep efficiency should only
be used when referring to the results of model studies;
practically, however, most engineers use the term areal sweep
efficiency for all situations. In general, areal sweep
efficiency will depend upon the mobility ratio, the geometric
configuration of the flood pattern, reservoir hieterogeneities
and the amount of water injected into the pattern area.
II. Mobility Ratio

One of the most important characteristics of a water-

flood is the mobiHty ratio. It is defined^ in terms of the
effective permeability and viscosity of the displacing and
displaced fluids involved in the flood according to the
following relationship:

"• R..io. aaiilg l\

k
^ ^ X,Displacing ^ lyJDisplacing
Displaced k
Displaced

For a waterflood,

_ ^w^^w
w' ^w »
_ ^w^o
w^o _
_ ^rw^
rw*"^© f..
• OUT
""o^^o " OC
^o^w " ITlir
^ro^w

It is important to note that the relative permeabilities to

water and oil in Eq. 4.3 are defined at two separate points
in the reservoir, i.e., is the relative permeability to
water in the water-contacted (flooded) portion of the reser
voir and k^Q is the relative permeability to oil in the oil
bank (unflooded portion of reservoir).
It should be pointed out that the definition of mobility
ratio expressed by Eq. 4.3 has been standardized by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) since 1957. Prior
to this time, however, when most laboratory studies of
waterflooding were conducted, mobility ratio was defined
at the user's discretion. Therefore, when using technical
literature related to mobility ratio, an engineer is advised
to be fully aware of the definition employed.
Equation 4.3 shows that mobility ratio is a function
of effective permeability which, in turn, is a function of
fluid saturation. This presents a problem because, as
was shown in Chapter 3 by the frontal advance theory of oil

4-2
displacement, a saturation gradient exists behind the flood
front. Since is the relative permeability to water
behind the front, the following question arises: Which value
of water saturation behind the front should be used to
determine A significant study by Craig, et al.^ led to
the widely accepted conclusion that k should be evaluated
rw
at the average water saturation, It was further
determined in this same study that k should be evaluated
ro
in the oil bank ahead of the front, i.e., at S .. Thus,
wi
based on these conclusions.

y ^^rw^S ,
" ° v"'nr~n—

Average water saturation behind the front remains

constant until the time of water breakthrough. It follows,
based upon Eq. 4.4, that mobility ratio will also remain
constant until breakthrough. When engineers use the term
mobility ratio^ they are usually referring to the pre-
breakthrough value. The mobility ratio after breakthrough
is not constant; instead, it increases continuously in
response to the increasing average water saturation in the
reservoir which, in turn, causes k to increase.
X W
Mobility ratio is generally termed favorable or
unfavorable depending on whether its value is less than or
greater than unity. When M = 1, the mobilities of oil and
water are identical and they encounter the same resistance
to flow within the reservoir. When M < 1, oil flows better
than water and it is easy for water to displace oil; this
condition generally results in high sweep efficiencies and
good oil recovery. Conversely, when M > 1, water flows
better than oil and is not very effective in displacing oil.
In general, sweep efficiency and oil recovery tend to
decrease as mobility ratio increases. The most commonly
encountered values of mobility ratios encountered during
waterflooding range from 0.02 to 2.0^.

4-3
 The most important use of mobility ratio is to
determine sweep efficiency. It will be shown in sub-
sequent sections that sweep efficiency can be predicted
for waterfloods in fields with certain well patterns if
mobility ratio is known.

III. Basic Flood Patterns

Although many older fields were developed using an

irregular well spacing, a better understanding of reservoir
mechanics and conservation principles in recent years has
resulted in relatively uniform well spacing and drilling
patterns. At the time a waterflood begins, a field is
generally completely developed. Since infill wells are
expensive to drill and equip, we will generally have to
work with the well patterns that exist. Accordingly, a
field should be developed on a pattern that will be suitable
for subsequent enhanced recovery operations. For this
reason, a basic understanding of the commonly used flood
patterns is needed.

A. Direct line drive

As noted previously, the only way to achieve 100 percent

areal sweep at the time of breakthrough would be to inject
fluid over an entire vertical plane. This is not physically
possible but can be approached somewhat with a pattern where
the producing and injection wells directly offset each
other. The sweep efficiency of this pattern, depicted by Fig. 4.1,
improves as the d/a ratio increases, where d is the distance between
adjacent rows of producers and injectors, and a is the dis
tance between adjacent wells in a row. The relationship
between d/a and is presented in Fig. 4.2 for a unity
mobility ratio. It should also be noted that the ratio of
producers to injectors is unity for this pattern.

4-4
 0 o
1 9
I
I
I I

fI
-A-
!•* • I I

0
I
I
I •
I •
o;
•i a
i
1 I-
I
i:
A-—
i i ! i
I
6 6 O O

O producing well

^ injection well
"""• pattern boundary

Fig. 4.1: Direct line drive pattern,

•I.DIRECT LINE DRIVE-MUSKAT^*

2.STA6GERE0 LINE DRIVE-MUSKAT^
3.STA66^ED, LINE DRIVE- P^RaTSSS
5 '0 04 as L2 1J6 2j0 a4 as i2 3.6 4.0
d/a

Fig. 4.2: Flooding efficiency of direct line (1)

and staggered line drive (2 and 3)
well networks as a function of d/a.
Mobility ratio = 1 (Ref. 1)'.

4-5
B. Staggered line drive

As shovm by Fig. 4.3, the staggered line drive is

simply a modification of the direct line drive where rows
of producing and injection wells are moved in such a
manner that wells in alternate rows are displaced one-half
the inter-well distance. The effect of this staggering,
as shown by Fig. 4.2, is to significantly increase the
breakthrough efficiency as compared to the direct line drive,
especially for low d/a ratios. Accordingly, if the develop
ment pattern permits, this flood pattern is preferable to
the direct line drive.

I o I g*—®—K> ,
I 1*1 I
* 111 '
A A i A A
I I I

I i-;-:'-. !
1 O I •. • o • •I o I
I I I I ^
I ! • • • * • .1 I
I ' I I
^ —A— —— — — — — A
I I I I
! I I I
I I I I
' O ' G ' O '

Fig. 4.3: Staggered line drive pattern.

C. Five-Spot

The five-spot pattern, depicted by Fig. 4.4, is a special

case of the staggered line drive where the d/a ratio is 0.5.
This is the most commonly used flooding pattern resulting
primarily from the regular well spacing required, or at least
used, in most areas. Note that the drilling pattern required
to have a five-spot is square, and that the ratio of producers

4-6
 to injectors is unity. The five-spot is a highly conductive
pattern since the shortest flow path is a straight line
between the injector and producer. Also, the pattern gives
good sweep behavior. The square drilling pattern which
yields the five spot is also flexible enough that other
flood patterns can be generated simply by rearranging the
position of the injection and production wells. Examples
are the skewed four-spot, the nine-spot, and the inverted
nine-spot.

A O A o A

/ \
<\ O X O
^ o o V' o
O o
Fig. 4.4: Normal five-spot pattern.

D. Nine-Spot

This pattern, illustrated by Fig, 4.5, can be developed

from a square drilling pattern. The injection well place
ment for this pattern leads to an injection-production well
ratio of three. This type of system is very useful if a
high injection capacity is needed due to low permeability or
similar problems. The inverted nine-spot is probably used
more than the normal nine-spot. In this case, producing
wells outnumber injection wells by a factor of three. The
inverted pattern is useful where fluid injectivity is high.

4-7
 I I
I I
I I
A A-.-r-A-T-TrA
A- A- A
I •|
* ** . • •
I . I
I •I

;iS •
•
.
• *
•
•
* •
#

•
•
* •
•
•
.1
•A
•I
• I
I
• - • . i
A—
I I
I I
I I
I I
A A

Fig. 4.5: Nine-spot pattern.

One of the major advantages of the nine-spot is

flexibility. Directional movement of water and premature
breakthrough in certain wells can necessitate major conver
sions in flooding patterns. Some patterns are very difficult,
and expensive, to convert, and may require extensive infill
drilling. The inverted nine-spot, however, can be revised
to result in a 1:1 injector-producer ratio pattern, either
five-spot or line drive, with minimum effort.
E. Seven-Spot

This pattern, depicted by Fig. 4.6, has two injection

wells per producer and has merit where injectivity is low.
Very seldom, however, will a field that is already developed
have this pattern. The pattern required is an equilateral
triangle, or can be considered a staggered line pattern with
ad/a ratio of 0.866. If a field is not developed on this
pattern, too many infill wells are generally required to
make the pattern feasible.
An inverted seven-spot is also used occasionally.
This pattern, also termed a four-epot, has two producers
per injector.

4-8
 A O ^
\ /
\ /

o O

A-- •••. O.- • A--

: .V

o o
/ \
/ \

A o \

Fig. 4.6: Seven-spot pattern.

IV. Areal Sweep Efficiency

The amount of oil which can be displaced by water-
flooding is directly proportional to areal sweep efficiency.
This was indicated previously by Eq. 2.1 which shows that

Njj = N Ed E^ Ey (2.1)

It was shown in Chapter 3 how frontal advance theory can

be used to predict the displacement sweep efficiency, Ejj.
The purpose of this section is to analyze those factors
which affect areal sweep efficiency and show how it can
be determined using commonly available information. The
vertical sweep efficiency, Ey, will be discussed in a
subsequent chapter.
A. Causes and Effects

Two major factors which affect areal sweep efficiency

are mobility ratio and well pattern. It was indicated
previously that a decreasing mobility ratio causes the sweep
efficiency to increase. Correlations of sweep efficiency

4-9
versus mobility ratio will be presented in a subsequent
section for several commonly occurring well patterns.
Unfortunately, we do not have too much control over the
mobility ratio' of a flood unless an enhanced recovery
process is used which results in permeability, wettability
or viscosity modification. We can, however, significantly
alter performance by the type of injection-production well
pattern selected for a flood.
The flooding pattern formed by injection and pro
duction wells is the primary factor in determining the
pressure distribution within a reservoir and, accordingly,
the path which injected water will follow in travelling
from the injection well to the producing well. Figure 4.7
shows the results of a potentiometric model study of one
quadrant of a five spot pattern. In particular, this
figure shows* the isopotential lines, flow lines (streamlines),
and the flood front at two different locations. One of the
basic laws of fluid flow is that flow lines will be per
pendicular to isopotential lines; this fact, illustrated by
Fig. 4.7, explains why the pressure distribution in a
reservoir controls fluid movement.
The velocity with which a fluid will travel along a
particular streamline is, according to Darcy's Law, pro
portional to the pressure gradient along the streamline.
In the five-spot quadrant depicted by Fig. 4.7, the shortest
distance between injector and producer is along the
diagonal (Streamline A) connecting the wells. Since all
streamlines are subject to the same pressure drop, it
follows that the largest pressure gradient and the highest
fluid velocity will occur along the shortest streamline.
Consequently, water flowing along the diagonal will be the
first to break through at the producing well. It is noted
on Fig. 4.7 that at the time of water breakthrough along
Streamline A, water flowing along Streamlines B and C is
still a significant distance from the producing well. It
is because of the slow fluid .movement along these outer

4-10
 Fig. 4.7: Potentiometric model study of the 5-spot
network showing the isopotential lines,
flow lines, and the flood front at two
different times (After Ref. 3).

streamlines that part of the reservoir remains unswept at the

time of breakthrough.
Figure 4.8 depicts the flood front location in a
quadrant of a five-spot at several times during the life
of a flood. The areal sweep efficiency at any time during
the flood is defined simply as the ratio of the swept area
to the total area. A five-spot system containing fluids
with a unit mobility ratio will typically have a sweep
efficiency of approximately 70%.
The streamlines shown on Fig. 4.7 are subject to the
assumption that the injection fluid has the same resistance
to flow as the displaced fluid, i.e., M = 1, When the
resistance to flow of the displacing and displaced fluids
differ, the streamlines will have a different appearance.
If the mobility ratio is greater th.an unity, there is less

4-11
 SSSSS.V
. •••••*.•. •••*•/
:-:;V:v;v;.v

AREA
Ea = AREA + AREA

Fig. 4.8: Flood front location at successive times

in a five-spot pattern.

resistance to the injected fluid than to the displaced

fluid. The effect of M > 1 is to make the non-diagonal
streamlines longer than in the case where M = 1. There
fore, fluids travelling along these outside flow lines have
a lower velocity than when M = 1, and the resulting areal
sweep efficiency will be less. The opposite is true when
M < 1; the streamline distance travelled is shorter, the
velocity is higher and the areal sweep efficiency is
greater than when M = 1. The effect of mobility ratio on
streamline length and shape is depicted by Fig. 4.9.

4-12
 OUTSIDE STREAMLINE OUTSIDE STREAMLINE
Ai

M>1 M=1
N
,L
>
L
M<1 M=1

Cv)'M>1 < Cv) M=1

M=1

Fig. 4.9: Effect of mobility ratio on length and

shape of streamlines, and upon areal
sweep efficiency.

B. Areal Sweep Efficiency at Breakthrough

The measurement of areal sweep efficiency has received
considerable attention in the literature. An excellent
summary of these studies is presented by Craig^. Typically,
sweep efficiency data are presented on a plot of E^ versus
log Mfor a particular well pattern. When using these data,
however, you must be aware of what type well pattern the
data represent. Four types of well patterns occur.
1. Isolated pattern
This is a pattern which exists in a liquid
filled reservoir which has no boundaries and no
other wells. It is possible with isolated
patterns to have an areal sweep efficiency at
breakthrough greater than 100%; this is because
fluids from the injection well can sweep oil from
outside the pattern.

4-13
 2. Developed pattern
This is a pattern in a field where the
total field is developed on the same pattern.
Sweep efficiency data for developed patterns
have the widest application for waterflood
predictions.
3. Normal pattern
A pattern which contains one producing
well.

4. Inverted pattern
A pattern with one injection well.
Figure 4.10^ presents areal sweep efficiency data for
a developed five-spot pattern. It is noted that for M < 1
the results of most studies are in good agreement. However,
there is considerable disagreement for M > 1; this is due
primarily to differences in equipment and fluids used to
make the measurements. It is generally agreed that the solid
line on Fig. 4.10 is most representative of reservoir flood
ing operations. Data for the isolated five-spot pattern,
both inverted and normal, are presented in Fig. 4.11; this
figure shows, as was mentioned previously, that isolated
patterns can have sweep efficiences greater than 100%.

100 ^
1
e

5290
g^eo PATTERN AREA
u.

'S
§70

^560 'Ss;:
5^50 A
4a
ai 10 10 too
MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.10: Areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough,

developed five-spot pattern CRef. 1).

4-14
 240 PATTERN AREAS
4ft--———< a

Sgaod
Qes ?roi
= UJ
g®-l60 NORMAL
fERT < 3
!l3g
feilZO
r
7 p"—
9Z%1 at 11« CO
A
Inj.
0*——0
80 INVERTED

N()RI iL
11
<_ 40

0.1 1.0 10 100

MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.11: Areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough,

isolated five-spot pattern (Ref. 1).

Sweep efficiency data are presented^ in Figs. 4.12 and

4.13 for the developed normal and developed inverted seven-
spot pattern. Because of better measurement techniques, it
is concluded that the solid lines on these graphs represent
the most realistic data.

>;gioo ^
/ \
/ \

< 0 >
ui§ \ /
V. —/
PATTERN AREA
Si \ V
•

MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.12: Areal sweep efficiency at break

through, developed normal seven
spot pattern (Ref. 1).

4-15
 \
oX PATTERN AREA
\
Q.a»
«s._

MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.13: Areal sweep efficiency at break

through, developed inverted
seven-spot pattern (Ref. 1) .

The sweep efficiency of direct line drives and staggered

line drives depends upon the d/a ratio, where d is the
distance between adjacent rows of wells and a is the distance
between like wells. The relationship between and d/a
was shown previously in Fig. 4.2 for a mobility ratio of
unity. Figures 4.14 and 4.15 depict the relationship between
^Abt mobility ratio for the developed direct line drive
and staggered line drive, respectively, for d/a = 1.0.

100

s|'»
UlS \ I
I
i
I
A a
go. 80 V
PATTERN AREA

2ii7o >>
s
"560
sS
\
V
s
40.
OJ U) 10 100
MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.14: Areal sweep efficiency at

breakthrough, developed direct
line drive, d/a =1.0 CRef. 1)

4-16
 100

O »•—O—n O
SS I
I A
Id
I
i±i£ A--—6

s«^80 PATTERN AREA

-S
SiiTO A

riiso
"S
S^so
<

1.0 10 100
MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.15: Areal sweep efficiency at

breakthrough, developed staggered
line drive, d/a =1.0 (Ref. 1).

C. Areal Sweep Efficiency After Breakthrough

With continued injection beyond breakthrough, the areal
sweep efficiency of a developed pattern will continue to
increase until it reaches 100%. The producing water-oil
ratio also increases rapidly after breakthrough, however,
and it may not be economically feasible to operate a flood
sufficiently long to attain complete areal coverage.
Obviously, the increase in areal sweep beyond breakthrough
will be a function of how much water is injected into the
system; it is desirable in planning a waterflood to know
the relationship between these two variables.
Figures 4.16 and 4.17 present correlations of areal
sweep efficiency versus mobility ratio for the developed
five-spot pattern which are applicable after breakthrough.
Similar correlations are presented in Appendix D of SPE
Monograph 3^ for other well patterns.

4-17
 100

0.4 0.6 ae LO 2:0 4.0 «.o •jOIO

RECIPROCAL OF MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.16: Effect of mobility ratio on

oil production for the
developed five spot pattern
CRef. 1).

aa a4' a«ojLo 2.0 4.0 co 1.010

RECIPROCAL OF MOBILITY RATIO

Fig. 4.17: Effect of mobility ratio on

displaceable volumes injected
for the developed five-spot
CRef. 1).

4-18
^^0^ Two experimentally determined factors are used in the
correlations presented in Figs. 4.16 and 4.17:
1. Displaceable pore volume,

Vp = displaceable volume
^ Wj ^ \
^ ^^p^pattern^^^o^max ^^p^pattern^^ ^wir ^or^
= cumulative water injected, bbls

(V 1 = pore volume in pattern, bbls

^ p pattern
(AS ) = maximum displaceable oil saturation
0 max

2. Fraction of flow from swept region,

ilf = fraction of total flow which is coming from

swept region (this will be equal to f^ if
only water is assumed to be flowing in the
swept zone)

Another simple and useful correlation for areal sweep

beyond breakthrough in five-spot patterns is presented in
Fig. 4.18. This correlation, developed experimentally by
Craig, et al^., requires knowledge of at = 1)
and the ratio of cumulative water injected, W^, to cumulative
water injected at breakthrough, Application of this
correlation will be presented in a subsequent chapter dealing
with waterflood predictions. The correlation for presented
by Fig. 4.18 can also be expressed by the following equation:
W.
= 0.2749 In 1

"ibt
D. Other Factors Affecting Areal Sweep Efficiency

As indicated previously, most areal sweep correlations

were developed for an ideal reservoir. When using this
information or when predicting the sweep efficiency by other
available methods, one must be aware of the many factors
related to a waterflood system that can cause significant

4-19
 Wi/Wibt

IHif-iihi

Fig. 4.18: Effect of injected fluid

volume on areal sweep
efficiency after break
through, developed five-spot
(Ref. 2).

variation in predicted results.

1. Fractures

If a flood pattern is established so that the direction

between injectors and producers corresponds to the fracture
orientation, the results will probably be disastrous. This
arrangement results in early water breakthrough and a low
sweep efficiency. The problem can be rectified by arranging
the injectors and producers so that the direction of a line
connecting them is perpendicular to the fracture orientation.
It is possible that recovery with this arrangement will
exceed that of a homogeneous system due to the fracture act
ing as a plane-source of water.
2. Directional permeability
When the permeability is much greater in on6 direction
than in other directions, fluid will obviously attempt to
flow in the direction' of maximum permeability. The effect
of this directional permeability is the same as the effect
of a fracture, although probably not as drastic. Accordingly,
the injectors and producers should be arranged along a line

4-20
perpendicular to the direction of greatest permeability.
Figures 4.19 and 4.20^ compare the sweep efficiency of a
five-spot system with directional permeability when operating
under the most favorable arrangement and under the least
favorable arrangement.

.J .* .9 .c.r S t T • 910
MOaiLITY RATIO

Fig. 4.19: Sweepout pattern efficiency in a five-spot pattern

of anisotropic horizontal permeability. The most
favorable arrangement has the direction of maximum
permeability parallel to lines through injection
wells, as illustrated here. Permeabilitv contrast
is 16 to 1 (Ref. 1].

I I I I I I I
.4 .9 * .7 .• JLO Z

MOtlLITT RATIO

Fig. 4.2Q; Sweepout pattern efficiency in a fire-^spot pattern

operating under the least favorable arrangement;
i.e., with the direction of maximum permeability
parallel to a line from an injection well direct
to producing well. Permeability contrast is 16 to
1 CRef. 11.

4-21
3. Areal permeability variations
Many different types and variations of areal perme
ability changes can occur across a reservoir. These may
occur due to changes in compaction, cementation, deposi-
tional environment, etc. This type of areal heterogeneity
must be handled on an individual basis with the effect on
sweep being determined from mathematical models, lab models,
or experience. The detecion of areal heterogeneities will
be discussed in a subsequent section.

4. Formation dip

It was shown in Chapter 3 that water should be injected

in an updip direction in a non-horizontal reservoir to
maximize oil recovery. Accordingly, repetitive well
patterns are generally not used in this situation. Instead,
it is often desirable to inject water along the downdip edge
of the field to take maximum advantage of gravity effects.
5. Off-pattern wells
When a well is irregularly spaced in an otherwise normal
pattern, the effect is to cause early water breakthrough in
the wells nearest the injector and late breakthrough in other
wells. The composite performance, however, will remain
essentially unchanged.

6. Sweep beyond edge wells

A significant portion of a reservoir generally lies
between the edge wells and the reservoir boundary. If the
boundary is within the well spacing of the edge wells, it
has been found by Caudle** that essentially all the oil in
this part of the reservoir will eventually be contacted by
water. In a field application, however, this will depend
upon the geology of the reservoir and the amount of water
throughput beyond breakthrough which is economically feasible.
7. Isolated patterns

When a field is developed using a repetitive flood

pattern, each pattern tends to behave independently of the
4-22
of the others since the oil and water in that portion of
the reservoir arc confined by the influence of adjacent
patterns. If a flood pattern is established in an other
wise infinite reservoir, fluids are not confined to the
pattern area, and it is possible to compute a sweep efficiency
greater than 1001 based on produced fluids. This situation
is depicted by Fig. 4.21. An understanding of the sweep
behavior of isolated patterns is especially important when
interpreting the results of pilot waterfloods.

Isolated
Five-spot

Fig. 4.21: Sweep behavior in isolated five-spot

pattern.

4-23
8. Initial gas saturation j
Most laboratory studies of areal sweep behavior have
been conducted in models which were initially filled with
liquid. Most reservoirs which are waterflooded, however,
contain an initial gas saturation. What effect does a gas
saturation have on the sweep efficiency correlations previously
considered?
When water is injected into a reservoir with an initial
gas saturation, model studies show^ that the injected water
will move out radially until either (1) the leading edge of
the oil bank contacts an oil bank formed about an adjacent
injector, or (2) the oil bank encounters a producing well.
When either of these events occur, the water front will begin
to cusp toward the nearest producer. If at this time the
flood front would also have been radial in an initially liquid-
saturated reservoir, the areal sweep at water breakthrough
with initial gas present would be the same as in a system
with no gas. Accordingly, the performance at and after
breakthrough would be the same for these two systems. Total
oil produced, however, by the system with initial gas would
be less than in the liquid filled reservoir by an amount
equal to the initial volume occupied by the gas.
If gas fillup occurs at a higher sweep than that at
which radial flow would occur in an equivalent liquid-filled
system, the areal sweep performance of the system with
initial gas present would be better than that predicted by
the sweep efficiency correlations.
Most waterfloods are conducted in reservoirs where the
gas saturation is such that fillup occurs before the flood
front would cusp in an equivalent liquid-filled system.
Accordingly, initial gas does not affect areal sweep or
residual oil saturation in most waterfloods.
9. Irregularly spaced wells
Unfortunately, many fields are drilled using random well
locations. Published sweep studies are generally of little

4-24
 help in these situations, and each case must be handled
individually. If the project is large enough to justify
laboratory or mathematical model studies of the field, then
these are recommended. Otherwise, the concept of using
stream tubes, as introduced by Higgins, et at^ y might be
used. This technique has been utilized in several applica
tions®''*®'® to predict the behavior of enhanced recovery
projects. Beyond this, one must rely on experience, common
sense, and luck.

V. Peripheral and Line Floods

In contrast to the use of repetitive patterns, a
peripheral flood utilizes the edge wells along all, or a
part, of the reservoir boundary as injection wells. If a
single line of wells along one side, or down the middle, of
the field is used, we often refer to it as a line flood.
This type of flood generally requires fewer injection wells
per producer than most pattern floods, thereby requiring
a smaller initial investment. Also, this type of flood
generally results in less produced water than a pattern
flood. This is particularly true when operators shut in the
production wells which experience water breakthrough and
continue to produce only those wells ahead of the water
front. It was shown by Ferrell, et al^, in a study of end-
to-end floods, that less injected water is required to
recover the oil, and that good areal sweep is still obtained,
if producing wells are shut in soon after water breakthrough.
If this procedure is used, however, it should be obvious
that the reservoir permeability must be high enough for
water to move at the desired rate over long distances from
the injection well under the imposed injection pressure. If
this is not possible, the production wells can be converted
to injectors after breakthrough. This can involve long
injection lines and considerable expense, however, and is
generally not desirable.
A further advantage of a peripheral type flood is its
— flexibility. Maximum advantage of dipping reservoirs and

4-25
reservoirs with permeability variations can be utilized.
Also, line or peripheral patterns are generally well suited
to conversion to a more dense injection pattern if per
formance dictates such a change.
A major disadvantage of peripheral floods occurs when
a reservoir has a high gas saturation. No significant
recovery response will occur in a reservoir until the gas
space is filled with water. Consequently, there may be a
long time delay and considerable water injection expense
before this type reservoir responds to water injection. This
can be critical to a small operator who needs a quick
return on his investment.

VI. Selection of Waterflood Pattern

The choice of waterflood pattern is one of the most

important decisions an engineer must make when planning a
flood. This decision must be consistant with the existing
well pattern, the geology of the reservoir and the injection
and production objectives of the flood. The economics of
most floods will dictate that the flooding pattern be _
consistent with existing wells, or that a minimum of infill
drilling be required. This will automatically eliminate some
patterns from consideration. Most development patterns,
however, offer several possibilities of injection-production
well arrangement. A square development pattern, for example,
permits the use of five-spot, skewed four-spot, normal or
inverted nine-spot, line drive or peripheral drive; the
decision in this situation would be dictated primarily by
reservoir characteristics.
The relative injection-production capacity of a reservoir
will often dictate the pattern. Suppose for example that we
have a square development pattern and are considering either
a five-spot, skewed four-spot, and normal or inverted nine-
spots. All of these patterns offer different ratios of
producing to injection wells. In particular this ratio is
1:1 for a five-spot, 2:1 for a skewed four-spot, 3:1 for an

4-26
inverted nine-spot, and 1:3 for a normal nine-spot. If,
for example, high injection capacity was needed to increase
reservoir pressure, the normal nine-spot would be a likely
choice. This decision; however, would have to be compatible
with reservoir geology.
If a field contains significant heterogeneities such
as fractures or permeability trends, this will generally be
the overriding factor in pattern selection. It is essential
in such situations to prevent adjacent injectors and pro
ducers from lying along a line parallel to the direction of
maximum permeability or fracture orientation. This will
cause early water breakthrough and result in very low areal
sweep. The optimum pattern in this situation will be one
where the line connecting adjacent injectors is parallel to
the direction of the permeability or fracture trend.
In summary, a good waterflood pattern should meet the
following criteria^:
1. Provide desired oil production rate.
2. Provide sufficient water injection capacity to
yield desired oil production rate.
3. Maximize oil recovery with minimum water pro
duction.

4. Take advantage of reservoir non-uniformities such

as fractures, permeability trends, dip, etc.
5. Be compatible with existing well pattern and
require a minimum of new wells.
6. Be compatible with flooding operations of
other operators on adjacent leases.
VII. Summary

A successful waterflood operation requires that the

areal sweep efficiency be reasonable high. This is only
possible if the mobility ratio is sufficiently low, and if
a flood pattern is chosen that takes advantage of reservoir
heterogeneities such as fractures and directional permeability.

4-27
and allows for sufficient injection and production capacity.
Many sweep studies have been made that aid in the prediction
of sweep efficiency for basic flood patterns in horizontal,
homogeneous, liquid filled reservoirs undergoing steady state
flow. Sweep predictions for reservoirs with irregularly
spaced wells, dipping reservoirs, or reservoirs with hetero
geneities, must be made using laboratory models, mathematical
models, stream tube models, or from experience with similar
systems.

4-28
 REFERENCES: Flood Patterns and Areal Sweep Efficiency

1. Craig, F. F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects

of Waterflooding, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
miiriTgTiriv
2. Craig, F. F., Jr., Geffen, T. M. and Morse, R. A.:
"Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern Gas or Water
Injection Operations From Model Tests", Trans., AIME
(1955) 204. 7-15.

3. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied Petroleum

Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall,Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N. J? U55i)j.
4. Caudle, B. H., Erickson, R. A. and Slobod, R. L.:
"The Encroachment of Injected Fluids Beyond the Normal
Well Pattern", Trans., AIME (1955) 204, 79-85.
5. Higgins, R. V. and Leighton, A. J.: "A Computer Method
to Calculate Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded
Porous Medium", Trans., AIME (1962) 225, 679-683,
6. Baldwin, D. E., Jr.: "Prediction of Tracer Performance
in a Five-Spot Pattern", Trans., AIME (1966) 237, 513-517
7. Davies, L. G., Silberg, I. H. and Caudle, B. H.:
"A Method of Predicting Oil Recovery in a Five-Spot
Steamflood:, Trans., AIME (1968) 243, 1050-1058.
8. LeBlanc, J. L. and Caudle, B. H.: "A Streamline Model
for Secondary Recovery", Soc. Pet. Eng. ^ (March, 1971J
7-12.

9. Doyle, R. E. and Wurl, T. M.: "Stream Channel Concept

Applied to Waterflood Performance Calculations for
Multiwell, Multizone, Three-Component Cases", ^
Tech. (March, 1971) 373-380.

10. Ferrell, H., Irby, T. L., Pruitt, G. T. and Crawford,

P. B.: "Model Studies for Injection-Production Well
Conversion During a Line Drive Water Flood", Trans.,
AIME (1960) 219, 94-98.

4-29
WATER, OIL, AND UNALTERED GAS ZONES EARLY IN LIFE OF WATERFLOOD
BEFORE OIL ZONE BREAKTHROUGH (BEFORE RESERVOIR FILLUP)

Unaltered
Gas Zone
^Oil
Zone

^ R

Water Zone
 WATER ZONE POSITION
AT OIL ZONE BREAKTHROUGH (RESERVOIR FILLUP)

Oil Zone

|.f ''

Water Zone
 WATER ZONE AFTER FILLUP
BUT PRIOR TO WATER BREAKTHROUGH

Oil Zone

^^mmm

Water Zone
 'f'mM
V0Mw:mwb§
mmmmsmmm
/r-V'-,*.

wmmmm

•immrn
M^m
 PROBLEM 4:1

Presented below are the data for an oil reservoir being considered for a waterflood.

Svv, % kfw kro fw

28.0 0.000 1.000 0.000

32.2 0.003 0.810 0.011

36.4 0.012 0.640 0.053

40.6 0.027 0.490 0.142

46.9 0.061 0.303 0.376

51.1 0.091 0.202 0.573

55.3 0.127 0.123 0.669
61.6 0.192 0.040 0.935

65.8 0.271 0.003 0.986

70.0 0.300 0.000 1.000

1^0 = 1.50 cp Bw = 1.0

1-^
Hw = 0.50 cp = 20 percent

Swc = 28.0 percent h = 15 feet

Bo = 1.35RB/STB Well spacing = 40 acres

The fractional flow curve for this reservoir is presented in Figure 4P.1.

1. Compute the mobihty ratio prior to breakthrough for a waterflood in this

reservoir.

2. Determine the areal sweep efficiency which should be obtained in this

reservoir at the time of water breakthrough for a five-spot pattern.

3. Compute the volume of water injected into this layer at the time of water
breakthrough.

4-30
W0.5
 PROBLEM 4:2
i'^\

Consider a partly depleted single layer of a 160 acre five-spot pattern that is to be
waterflooded. The layer is characterized by the following data.

A = 160 acres MR = 2.0

h =5 feet p = 400 psi

(j) =18% T =180''F

Swc =24% Z =0.95

Sg =15% API =28°

So =61% Bo =l.lRB/STBO@400psi

Swf =50% Sorw=30%

Swbt=58%

P-o = 5 cp
1. Compute the SCF of free gas and STBO in the layer at the start of waterflooding.
2. If the free gas is re-dissolved during the fiUup period, what is the increase in the
solution gas to oil ratio?

3. Compute the volume ofinjected water to reach gas fillup, Wjf.

4. Compute the ai*eal sweep efficiency E^of the injected water atfillup.
5. Compute the ai'eal sweep efficiency E^j^^-at water breakthrough.
6. Compute the volume of injected water necessary to reach water breakthrough,
Wibf
7. What is areal sweep of the injected water when the cimiulative water injection is
twice the volume required to reach breakthrough?

8. How many ban els of water are required to reach 100 percent areal sweep?

9. If the oil production during the fillup period is negligible, how many STBO will
have been displaced at fillup?
4-34
10.How many STBO will have been displaced andproduced at water breakthi'ough?
11. What is the maximum theoretical recoverable oil?

4-35
 RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY

Throughout our previous discussions, a reservoir has

basically been considered as a single-layered homogeneous
porous system. Using this ideal reservoir, we have been
able to predict the efficiency with which water displaces
oil from the water^contacted portion of the reservoir. We
can also predict the fraction of the reservoir area that
will be contacted by the injected water, as a function of
reservoir geometry and reservoir fluid properties. These
observations must be tempered, however, by the fact that no
reservoir can be considered homogeneous on a macroscopic
scale.

Reservoir heterogeneity probably has more influence

than any other factor on the performance of a fluid injection
project. At the same time, it is the most difficult effect
to quantify. Our purpose in this chapter is to discuss how
areal and vertical permeability variations can be determined,
and how these variations can be quantified for inclusion
into waterflood prediction and performance calculations.
I. Areal Permeability Variations
Exclusive of fractures and permeability trends which
were discussed in the previous chapter, areal changes in
. permeability tend to be much less severe than vertical
variations. Consequently, areal variations tend to have
less effect on the outcome of a flood than do vertical
changes. This is not suprising because we expect a formation,
especially sandstones, to exhibit lateral continuity; the
material deposited during a given geologic period should be
of the same physical nature over a relatively large surface
area. This is fortunate because, due to the large spacing
between wells, we have few test points with which to define
the areal characteristics of a reservoir.
 This is not meant to imply that areal permeability
variations are not important. To the contrary, changes in
the environment or process of deposition, compaction,
tectonic processes (which can cause fractures), or cemetation,
can cause large areal variations in the permeability of a
reservoir which should be accounted for in the selection of
flood patterns and in the prediction of performance. The
most severe problems involve fractures and directional
permeability, as previously discussed.
Some carbonate rocks are particularly difficult to
describe because much of the permeability development occurs
after deposition due to solution, dolomitization, recrys-
tallization, etc. Lateral continuity of physical properties
cannot be assumed in this environment.

A. Detection of Areal Permeability Variations

Methods which are commonly employed to detect and
quantify areal variations in permeability are:
1. Mapping of core data, log data, and well test
data
2. Detailed lithological studies
3. Pressure transient tests (including pulse tests,
and interference tests to detect and quantify
directional permeability trends)
4. Environment of deposition - Recognition of
depositional environment (channel sediment,
delta sediment, beach sediment, etc.) allows us
to infer probable directional changes in grain
size, grain orientation, permeability, etc.
5. Injection and production well behavior
6. Performance history matching using mathematical
simulators
7. Fracture detection - areal photo interpretation
pressure transient analysis, tectonics analysis,
inflatable packers, step-rate tests, core
studies, etc.

5-2
B. Effect of Areal Permeability Variations

The best way to account for the effect of areal

permeability variations on waterflood performance is to
determine its effect on areal sweep efficiency. As indicated
in Chapter 4, numerous studies have been made to determine
areal sweep efficiency, many of these for systems with
areal heterogeneities. Perhaps, by some fortuitous set of
circumstances, one of these studies will match the con
ditions in the reservoir being considered. More probably,
you will have to conduct your own study. Several possibilities
exist:
1. Mathematical model - probably the best approach,
but can be expensive
2. Streamtube model
3. Analogy - extrapolate performance based on
behavior of reservoirs with similar characteristics
4. Previous sweep studies
5. Laboratory models - time consuming and expensive
II. Vertical Permeability Variations

Whereas a given layer of rock may exhibit lateral

similarity due to its deposition from a common source at a
common geologic time, we find that a reservoir may exhibit
many different layers in the vertical section that have
highly contrasting properties. This etratifioation can
result from many factors including change in depositional
environment, change in depositional source, and particle
segregation.
When vertical permeability stratification occurs to a
significant degree, as it does in many reservoirs, it will
probably have more influence on waterflood performance than
any other physical reservoir characteristic. Water injected
into a stratified system will preferentially enter the layers
of highest permeability and will move at a higher velocity
in these layers. Consequently, at the time of water break-
through in high permeability zones, a significant fraction

5-3
 of the less permeable zones will remain unflooded. Although
a flood will generally continue beyond breakthrough, the
economic limit is often reached soon thereafter. Unless an
engineer has initiated a program to combat the effects of
stratification, a large fraction of the reservoir oil will
remain untouched by water, and unrecovered, at the time the
project is terminated.
Recognizing the effect that stratification can have on
ultimate waterflood recovery, it is important that we be
able to detect stratification, and to quantify the effect
that it may have.
A. Detection of Stratification

In contrast to areal heterogeneities, vertical

stratification is easy to detect since the producing horizon
is generally penetrated by several wells. Within the small
area sampled in each well, log and core data give a good
picture of the vertical variation in properties. Further
information is obtained from pressure transient tests, pro-
duction logs, and the behavior of production and injection
wells. If a particular strata occurs in several wells, we
feel reasonably certain that it is continuous across the
field, and we can estimate what it is like between the wells.
If the strata cannot be traced from well to well, we have
no idea what it is like between wells and performance pre
dictions become very difficult. The following methods of
quantifying vertical permeability variation assume that each
strata exhibits areal continuity over that portion of the
reservoir being studied; this may involve the entire reser
voir, or simply the wells within a single flooding pattern.
B. Quantitative Evaluation of Permeability Stratification
The question which concerns us here is how to express
quantitatively the effect of permeability stratification on
the injection and production behavior of a waterflood
system. Several different techniques are commonly used to
accomplish this.

5-4
1. Single-value representation

One approach to the problem is to ask the following

question: What single value of permeability should be
assigned to a homogeneous reservoir, having the same size
as the stratified reservoir, for it to. behave in the same
manner as the stratified reservoir? It has been common for
engineers to determine this single-value permeability by
simply taking a weighted average of the permeabilities of
each layer; i.e.,

k-h^ + k-h^ +
1. „ 1 1 Z Z
+ k^h
nn /'c•l^
h,1* 2
h, + ---- hn

where k^, k2, ^n " permeabilities of individual

layers which compose the
formation of interest
hi, h2, h^ = thickness of individual layers

It is unfortunate that this procedure has been used so

often because it gives optimistic results. This averaging
method is not recommended.
Several model studies* using simulated flow patterns
in variable permeability media have shown that the best
single-value representation of permeability is obtained by
taking the geometric mean of the available data; i.e.,

ic = Ckj Xk2 Xkj X X (S.2)

If this relationship is applied to a vertical section, the
formation should be divided into intervals of equal thick
ness so that each value of permeability is weighted equally.
Equation 5.2 can also be applied to find the best
areal average permeability. For example, suppose several
wells penetrate what has been determined by well-to-well
correlation to be a common strata, and it is desired to
assign a single value of permeability to that strata. If

5-5
each permeability value represents an equal area, then Eq. ^
S.2 will give a good representation of the average areal
permeability.
Although it is convenient for mathematical purpose
to replace a variable permeability reservoir with an
equivalent homogeneous reservoir having a single perme-
ability, it must be realized that this simplified model has
severe limitations. For example, it can be used to study
the potential productivity or injectivity of a well.
cannot be used, however, to study such facets of a wa e
flood as the water-oil ratio behavior after water bre
through, cumulative water requirements, etc. Calculations
of this type require a prediction model which accounts in
detail for the permeability contrast in the reservoir.
The following models attempt to accomplish this.
2. Permeability Variation
The first statistical approach to predicting the effects
of variable permeability was presented by Law^ who showed
that a random sample of permeability data will generally
have a log-normal distribution. Dykstra and Parsons , in
a paper of fundamental significance, utilized this i ea
to compute a coefficient of permeability variation This
method assumes the reservoir is composed of a
• strata, or layers, each having a different permeability with
no cross-flow between the layers. The basic procedure for
determining the permeability variation using this layer-
cake model is:
a. Divide permeability samples so that all sampl
represent layers of equal thiokneee, i.e., 1 foot.
b. Arrange the permeability data in the order of
decreasing value.
C. Calculate for each sample the percent of samples
which have a greater permeability and express
this niimber as percent greater than. This is
illustrated by the following table:

5-6
 k, md % greater than
10 0

9 10

8 20

7 30

6 40

6 40

6 40

5 70

4 80

3 90

d. Plot the data from step 3 on log-probability

paper. Plot k on the log scale and percent
greater than on the probability scale. This
plot is illustrated by Fig. 5.1.
e. From the best straight line fit of the data,
determine k at 84.1% probability and 50%
probability.
f. Compute the permeability variation, V, as

„ ^ ^SO • ''84.1 (S.3)

50

The value of V computed in step (f) is a.quahtitative

indicator of the degree of reservoir heterogenity. A value
of V=0 indicates a homogeneous system, whereas increasing
values of V indicate increasing degrees of heterogeneity.
Dykstra and Parsons^, as well as other authors, have used
V to predict the expected performance of a waterflood.
These methods will be discussed in Chapter 7,'

5-7
 8-S
*T1
OQ iiiiiiiniiininuiinniiQijiiiiiiiiiijjniijii lllllliilHIIUIiinUIUIl
••••••lllllllllllllilllllllllllHIIIHIIIIIIIIIIUIIII uiiiniiiniHiiiHiiimitttiiuuuiiiinnHitiiiiiiiitii
•••••••••iiiiuiiiiiniiuiintDiuiifiuiiniHiuiiiihiiu
•iMiiaaMMMAaaiiitliiMiniHiiiMiimiiiiiiiMJUiNiiuiiUM
tn
••••iiiniiiiiiniTimiiiniiiimiiiiinBimiiiniiinaiiiiiniuninniinfiinnRiiinniiiiiiiminifliunnHi
•••••••••••iiiiiuiiiiiuiiiniimuuiiiiiiuiitimiuujwHHuuniuuiniuuuwiiiDnuiuiuiiiuiuiiHwiHiiuui
••iiiiuniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiuiiDifiiQiinuiiiniiiiiiinniiiininiiiiiiitiiDiiujiiiHiRiiitiHun!
•••uaiiiiiniiiuiiniiiiimiHninuiiuiiiiHnwmnninHUMiiiiinuiuuiiiiiiniiiiiinustiuiimiiiiiHinfltiiii
H HHMUlHBaMaKHIIIIIMIUUIUUIIUtUUIinillllDinfllUUUDIHHHHHaHHaimilHIUUtniUUIIlUHBIIUIIIISantMIIIUHin
uan nuiiiiiiiiuiMuiinfniJi itttiinuiiia ••»•••••• naiauiiiiMuiUMBUiiiinKnnnuiiMMiniiiim
T3
H- • MTimiimii tiiHimi r u n i i i n mil lira lira
O
0
OQ
1
•a
o
cr
pa
o* utniiiiiiiHJtntinniiniiiinmiimuiiiD
• •••iiiiiiiuiiujiiuniiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiuinni
• ••••IIUIIIIIIHIUIIIIJIHIIIIIM limillUHni
h-
M*
rf
•T3
h-»
O P j/TTI
•
11HI u 11 mn • • Mj MI n UM n^. H111
iiuMiniiiiiiiiiiiiiH iittiir.uuui
o
•-I
3
o
Q»
HBamaamMMMiiiminuuinimiiwiirA. ^wiirMiiniiirwMM«« • Ml I m n uot n m KM n a uiit luM utu ID a
O* m n I nil i m nm iiM n w noi lun lua DM
•••••uHiiuniiiHiiuiir \v—w imuuiuutiiiHimBMiBaB I ini I mi noi utflita iHM UMi I ufl lua mii
•••••••MIIUUIllllllUJQMlUM^ifHillUIUJaiMiUtfi •••••• lun HOiuui lufltn u Hiiiaimmiutf
••••••••iiniiiiiiiiirnnKitHJinrainiinnimiiffiiHnni iiHi ittflutii nsfttEiiiuHni iiifliusiufl
miiiiiiiHiiiiuuiirninsiiffliijfliuuiiuiiiiiiitfflffitiniiii iiiHiuHntfltitiiKflimiBDiyBiitiiin
iiiiiiiiumuiHiiiniiiiriiiiiynisiiiiiiii
O.
0)
rf
(D
—jMi—MM maHMHiMimnniiHo am
••••••••••—•wmniioiiroiinginii—HwntwHann—•••••MM—mmnnitMUtTiBnoimM—wtnmti
•••••••uiiiiiinujiiHJtmjiiHiRtiiaiJiiuiiiniHBiMnuainiiHniiaHiHiiinRfflBBiaiiiBiiiiijiiiiitaR
•••uaaninniiuuiiiuuuiUiniiuiiniiniiimniuHuuiHHMMuiiaiiiiiiiiiniMiflniflRiiMiiiiiiiuiinHimii
••••••••nunmmiimmflitiuiiiiiiHUHHJHniiHmiiiMiMMMinimiaimiiiBnaiBiiiuHHuiiiitiitaiia
uMMannmuMi
1 iflflttanaiiraiiu
ifflmiyi
w
 EXAMPLE 5.1

Table 5.1 presents the core data for a hypothetical

reservoir presented in SPE Monograph 3. Use the Dykstra-
Parsons method to determine the permeability variation of
this reservoir

Table 5.1: Core Analysis for Hypothetical Reservoir

Cores from 10 Wells, A Through J; Each Permeability
Value (md;) Represents 1-ft of Pay
Depth
A B C D E F G H I J
ft.
30.4 3.8 8.6 14.5 39.9 2.3 12.0 29.0
6,791 2.9 7.4
24.6 5.5 5.3 4.8 3.0 0.6 99.0
6,792 11.3 1.7 17.6

6,793 2.1 21.2 4.4 2.4 5.0 1.0 3.9 8.4 8.9 7.6

2.6 22.0 11.7 6.7 74.0 25.5 1.5 5.9

6,794 167.0 1.2
10.4 16.5 11.0 120.0 4.1 3.5 33.5
6,795 3.6 920.0 37.0

6,796 19.5 26.6 7.8 32.0 10.7 10.0 19.0 12.4 3.3 6.5

6,797 6.9 3.2 13.1 41.8 9.4 12.9 55.2 2.0 5.2 2.7

6,798 50.4 35.2 0.8 18.4 20.1 27.8 22.7 47.4 4.3 66.0

6,799 16.0 71.5 1.8 14.0 84.0 15.0 6.0 6.3 44.5 5.7

6.800 23.5 13.5 1.5 17.0 9.8 8.1 15.4 4.6 9.1 60.0

SOLUTION

The Dykstra-Parsons method requires that all permeability

values, irrespective of their position in the reservoir, be
combined and arranged in the order of decreasing permeability.
When this ordering is completed, we calculate for each
permeabililty the percentage of permeability values which are
greater in magnitude than the subject value -- this percentage
is reported as peTcent gveatev than* Table 5.2 shows the
pevQBTi't gvectcT "than calculations for this reservoir. These
data are plotted on log probability paper as shown by Fig.
5.2.
From Fig. 5.2 it is observed that

5-9
 kgQ = 10.2 -'md
'^84.1 °

The permeability variation is computed from Eq. 5.3, i.e.,

„ _ •'so " ''84.1

Ic
*^50

„ _ 10.2 - 3.0
V° TO—

V = 0.706

S-10
 Table 5.2: Dvkstra-Parsons Calculations for Ex. 5.1.

k, md % Greater k, md % Greater k, md % Greater

Than Than Than

920.0 0 17.0 34 5.9 67

167.0 1 16.5 35 5.7 68

120.0 2 16.0 36 5.5 69

99.0 3 15.4 37 5.3 70

84.0 4 15.0 38 5.2 71

74.0 5 14.5 39 5.0 72

71.5 6 14.0 40 4.8 73

66.0 7 13.5 41 4.6 74

60.0 8 13.1 42 4.4 75

55.0 9 12.9 43 4.3 76

50.4 10 12.4 44 4.1 77

47.4 11 12.0 45 3.9 78

44.5 12 11.7 46 3.8 79

41.8 13 11.3 47 3.6 80 ^
39.9 14 11.0 48 3.5 81

37.0 15 10.7 49 3.3 82

35.2 16 10.4 50 3.2 83

33.5 17 10.0 51 3.0 84

i-i
.

32.0
o 18 9.8 52 2.9 85
CM
30.4 19 9.4 53 2.7 86

29.0 20- 9.1 54 2.6 87

27.8 21 8.9 55 2.4 88

26.6 22 8.6 56 2.3 89

25.5 23 8.4 57 2.1 90

24.6 24 8.1 58 2.0 . 91

23.5 25 7.8 59 1.8 92

22.7 26 7.6 60 1.7 93

22.0 27 7.4 61 1^5 94

21.2 28 6.9 62 1.5 94

29 6.7 63 1.2 96

19.5 30 6.5 64 1.0 97

19.0 31 6.3 65 0.8 98

18.4 32 6.0 66 0.6 99

17.6 33

S-11
 t I e.» e.i ».i e.o« e.oi

100
gisiiin
gissasii
mmmw
niiiiaii
= = EH = 5E
ISiigs^H
i liiiii
c=saspaa
^31=1°!
liiiiilll
iBaaaiasi

imiiiilililliililli
SSsS lilllsil
iiSKaa
ilirBSB
Ilii
teiiiili
tn
\\ms§m
I
iliiilil. ISiiigi
ts)
nms
iiiiiiiillill III! iiiiilf
liiHiisiiiiinii
IS!!illiiliiI!!l!llli!aiii
sSsmi
IHIiiil!
aaaeesi
isss=;

iliiSsi
Percent Greater Than • H Mill
llll
k<S 111!
M " M M n.l MJM.t
e.ei e.e8 e.t m i t

Fig. 5.2; Log probability plot for Ex. 5.1.

) )
3. Stiles permeability distribution
The Stiles method" utilizes a layer-cake model as did
the method of Dykstra and Parsons. The Stiles procedure
for expressing vertical variation in permeability is as
follows:
1. Arrange all permeability data, regardless of
which well it came from, or its vertical
position within the formation, in the order
of decreasing permeability.
2. Determine the distribution of flow capacity, kh,
within the formation. It is convenient to
express this distribution in dimensionless form
as is illustrated by the following table:

Ah k kAh C = ZAC h = ZAh. h- =^

Ah^ •^1 (kAh)j ACj c
^ I I'l
Ah2 (kAh)2 AC2 *^2 h-2
Ah 3 (kAh)3 AC3 C-3 = 1.0 ^3 h-3 = 1.0
>^3
= lAh £kAh 1.0

3. Plot the capacity distribution curve for the

reservoir; i.e., C vs h'. This is illustrated
by the solid curve, ABC, in Fig. 5.3.
4. Use the capacity distribution curve to determine
the permeability distribution curve. You will
note, since capacity is defined as the perme
ability-thickness product, that permeability
is the derivative of capacity with respect to
thickness; i.e..

(5.4)
^ = HK'

SO that dimensionless permeability is

dC ft;
HP"

5-13
 Therefore, the permeability distribution curve
can be obtained by differentiating the capacity
distribution curve. This can be accomplished
graphically by dividing the h' axis into equal
increments (ten should be sufficient); the
necessary calculations are illustrated in the
following table:

AC
AC Ah Plot Point
Ain"

h'j/2
^2 " - h h'j + (h'2-h'j)/2

1.0 h 1.0 1.0 - C„ 1.0 - h 10

•10 10

The permeability distribution curve is obtained by

plotting k* versus the plot point indicated in the
table. Note that the plot point is simply the midpoint
of the interval used to compute k*. The permeability
. distribution is-indicated by the dashed curve on Fig. 5.2.
A major criticism of this method is that it does not
account for the position from which each permeability value
was obtained, i.e., each sample is treated as random data.
However, this method has been successfully used, and is
currently one of the most commonly used methods of
expressing permeability variation. We will show in Chapter
7 how this type of permeability distribution is used to
predict waterflood behavior.

5-14
 1.0

ma5C'

- C

Fig. 5.3: Stiles* capacity and permeability

distribution curves.

4. Lorentz Coefficient

Another method of expressing vertical permeability

variation, which utilizes the Stiles permeability dis
tribution, was presented by Schmalz and Rahme®. They
observed that the area between the capacity distribution
curve and the diagonal (Fig. 5.3) is a measure of reser
voir heterogeneity. For a homogeneous system, the capacity
distribution curve would overlay the diagonal. As a
measure of heterogeneity, a number called the Lorentz
coefficient was defined as

area ABCA
Lorentz Coefficient = (5.6)
area ADCA

It has been shown that this coefficient when plotted

as a function of percent recoverable oil recovered at
breakthrough, yields a straight line. Furthermore, the

5-15
straight line relationship reportedly continues to hold
when the coefficient is plotted against recovery at higher
water cut percentages. The method experiences limited
application, however, because the coefficient is not unique;
i.e., several different permeability distributions can yield
the same Lorentz coefficient.

EXAMPLE 5.2

Shown in the following table are permeability data®

for a reservoir to be waterflooded. These permeabilities
have already been rearranged in the order of decreasing
permeability.. Plot the capacity and permeability distribu
tion curves for this reservoir.

Sample Thickness Permeability

No. Ah, ft k. md
1 1 776

2 1 454

3 1 349

4 1 308

5 1 295

6 1 282

7 1 273

8 1 262

9 1 228

10 1 187

11 178

12 1 161

13 1 159

14 1 148

15 1 127

16 1 109

17 1 88

18 2 87

19 1 77

20 9 49

5-16
 SOLUTION

Calculations of capacity distribution and permeability

distribution are shown in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4, respec
tively. A plot of these data are presented in Fig. 5.4.

« IkAh K.
Ah, ft k, md kAh, md-ft ^ = kh
776 776 0.1529 0.0345
1
454 454 0.2423 0.0690
1

349 349 0.3111 0.1034

1
308 308 0.3717 0.1379
1

1 295 295 0.4299 0.1724

1 282 282 0.4854 0.2069

1 273 273 0.5392 0.2414

1 262 262 0.5908 0.2759

1 228 228 0.6357 0.3103

1 187 187 0.6726 0.3448

1 178 178 0.7076 0.3793

1 161 161 0.7394 0.4138

1 159 159 0.7707 0.4483

1 148 148 0.7998 0.4828

1 127 127 0.8249 0.5172

1 109 109 0.8463 0.5517

1 88 88 0.8637 0.5862

2 87 174 0.8980 0.6552

1 77 77 0.9131 0.6897

9 49 441 1.0000 1.0000

h = 29 kh = 5076

5-17
 Table 5.4: Calculation of Permeability Distribution

c h' 1,. » AC Plot Point

AC Ah'
^ Ah*

0.1529 0.0345 0.1529 0.0345 4.4334 0.017

0.2423 0.0690 0.0894 0.0345 2.5938 0.052
0.3111 0.1034 0.0688 0.0344 1.9939 0.086
0.3717 0.1379 0.0606 0.0345 1.7597 0.121
0.4299 0.1724 0.0582 0.0345 1.6854 0.155
0.4584 0.2069 0.0555 0.0345 1.6111 0.190
0.5392 0.2414 0.0538 0.0345 1.5597 0.224
0.5908 0.2759 0.0516 0.0345 1.4968 0.259
0.6357 0.3103 0.0449 0.0344 1.3026 0.293
0.6726 0.3498 0.0369 0.0345 1.0684 0.328
0.7076 0.3793 0.0350 0.0345 1.0169 0.362
0.7394 0.4138 0.0318 0.0345 0.9198 0.397
0.7707 0.4483 0.0313 0.0345 0.9084 0.431
0.7998 0.4828 0.0291 0.0345 0.8455 0.466
0.8249 0.5172 0.0251 0.0344 0.7256 0.500
0.8463 0.5517 0.0214 0.0345 0.6227 0.534
0.8637 0.5862 0.0174 0.0345 0.5028 0.567
0.8980 0.6552 0.0343 0.0690 0.4970 0.603
0.9131 0.6897 0.0151 0.0345 0.4399 0.672
1.0000 i.ooop 0.0869 0.3103 0.2799 0.845

5-18
 •i

Fig. 5.4: Stiles capacity and permeability

distribution curves for Ex. 5.2.

5-19
5. Miller-Lents Permeability Distribution

Miller and Lents' suggested an approach that retains

the positional identity of the permeability source. They
believed that a reservoir rock is deposited in essentially
horizontal layers and that permeability data derived from a
particular vertical position in a well should be averaged
only with data from a similar position in other wells to
define the characteristics of that particular layer. This
is in contrast to the Dykstra-Parsons and Stiles techniques
which lump all the permeability data together regardless
of its original position in the reservoir.
In application, individual strata or layers which
compose the reservoir must first be identified by well-to-
well correlation, or by statistical methods. The perme
ability data from all wells penetrating a particular layer
are then averaged (geometric mean) to define the perme
ability of that layer. This is repeated for other existing
layers. The end-result is still a layer-cake model, but
the positional identity of the data is preserved. At this
point, the Stiles or Dykstra-Parsons methods can still be
applied to the averaged data, but the results will be
different than when the data are grouped in the order of
decreasing permeability.
Published studies by Elkins^'^, et al. indicate that
the Miller-Lents approach to handling heterogeneities yields
a better match with actual field performance than does the
Stiles method when applied to cycling operations in gas
condensate reservoirs. Published comparisons are not
available, however, for waterflood systems. The Stiles
approach seems to be more commonly used throughout the
industry.

5-20
^
EXAMPLE 5.3

Consider the permeability data in Table 5.1. These

data were analyzed in Ex. 5.1 to determine the Dykstra-
Parsons permeability variation. Determine the permeability
variation of these data using the Miller-Lents positional
approach and compare the results with the Dykstra-Parsons
variation.

SOLUTION

Whereas the Dykstra-Parsons method disregards the

positional identity of the data, this method requires that
layer identity be retained. Table 5.1 presents perme
ability data for ten wells each of which contains ten layers.
The approach used will be to determine the geometric mean
permeability of each layer; the average permeability of each
layer will be plotted on log probability paper to determine
the permeability variation.
The geometric mean permeability is defined by Eq. 5.2.
Applying this relationship to the permeabilities in the first
layer at each well,

^1 (2.93 (7.4) (30.4) (3.8) (8.6) (14.5) (39.9) (2.3) (12.0) (29.10)]
kj = 10.0 md

Average permeabilities in the remaining layers are

determined in the same manner; these values are summarized
in the following table:

5-21
 Layer ic, md
1 10.0

2 6.8

3 4.7

4 10.4

5 20.5

6 12.1

7 8.6

8 18.4

9 14.3

10 10.9

The average permeabilities are now rearranged in the order

of decreasing permeability and the percent greater than is
computed for each value. These calculations are presented
in the following table:

ic, md Percent Greater Than

20.5 0

18.4 10

14.3 20

12.1 30

10.9 40

10.4 50

10.0 60

8.6 70

6.8 80

4.7 90

These data are plotted in Fig. 5.S. Using the data from
Fig. 5.S, the permeability variation is computed to be
.. ''so - V.l _ 10.0 - S.95
v = —-nni

V= 0.40S ^
This compares to V= 0.706 computed using the conventional
Dykstra-Parsons method.
5-22
 £Z-S
Tl
h"
OQ
• uiHiisuraiHunm
•UNNtUltWttlUlitil
umM ttAJ 11 • IM roM I ua
t/l
tn [••oiiiniiiiiinnniiiniiiiiiinniiniiiiiniiiminEuiiii laniiiniiHiiraininiiffliiiiiiiTBiiinnBintDi^iiiTi
••••••••••••inniiiiiuiiHiitmiuuiiiiuuiniimuuiHiui nunHMurainiiuiniiiuuimHUUiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiitwuut
••••iiniiiiiiimuiunuiuniiiiuiiiiiFiimiiiuiiiiiiiii iinmiiiiHinniiDniniiifiiHtiJiiinimfiittfiiiffiiifli
•••••niiiiHiiniHiniiinsiiiDiiiuiiwiittiiuuiuitHnii "•"""•""iiniiiiinmnmnnmnmitniimi
o
OQ
KMirTTTinmnmmnnMitmitLii] inrrum
TS
•-J
o
or
» ••••iiiniiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiir
cr •••••uiiiuiiiiiiuimiimiiiuifiiiiiiiii
•••••••••••iiiiiiiiiniiimnumtiiuiiMi
MVHMMMBHBHIVIIItlllllllUlirillintUBJIIII:
•••II tllUlllUllllftUHMIfii
T3
ri« n a n n • 11 Hi rn n I m uto (ffu m i l ra u UK B M Ml
M • flimfl »mfl • • 11 • M If I u I rtu 1un uiii I n u IM11 nui MM (rtu
O ••• u •• fl Mj •• t n III t a 11 m rrm u K a • t M l u fft u a I fira tfiB
H m H a M S • vmxn n vu I u n m M icniffM u u IM mjD I u u imi
O
K»
T3
O
3
<P
(tt
o*
n m I f 11H) rm I ui • n u •H UJ aM 1111M i n m
u 11 m t iti t nui rtM MAM I • If i I u n N tn oiu
i t HHi n m iitfl mu tmtn i v U H i aiM (Mfl
r+
CL
pa • M m nMi WMi »MJ uhj i«:i uMi WMi I mil n • un
r+ • • l u a I Hn 11 ru Htn rmi fifl n IM otti »U4J IKB tm
03
Hi
O
•i lllDIUilliillffiffilliiiii
CIl
X UMi UM UMl Liuuxa ioai ItiAJ llHi UIB Ba
•
tn iiiWMiii—iiiiiMWiiiniiiiirrniim
# loaiiamittaitiiiiBiinaanmiB
HuiifiatiJBtnHaisiniminiuiTiQiiin
04 IDfllBHniBHiieiail nmnnnBinaaHBniii
m mil Hi mni m HiiMi CMH
BBBBUfflimSBIBIGUilBlffllll
UM BM ma uai aanM •taraa BM Itffl
IHDaBBraiBlllBllfllDBIlilinS
W
C. Selection of Layers ^<0^
A big question which is encountered early in the effort
to predict stratification effects, is how to recognize and
select the individual zones which compose the reservoir.
The basic Dykstra-Parsons and Stiles methods result in
layer selections which have no physical meaning, although
these methods can still be applied when the layers are chosen
based on position. It seems logical that a zonation tech
nique should be used which recognizes the actual location of
strata within the reservoir. Several possibilities exist:
1. Natural barriers - Zone selection is sometimes
made easy by the occurence of shale barriers
which break the^eservoir into naturaL .zones.Life
is seldom this simple, however.
2. Equal thickness - This is often used because it '
is simple and it retains the positional identity
of the strata. The major limitation is that it
does not account for natural zonation within the
reservoir.
3. Equal flow capacity Clch) - Probably better than
(2) since it better reflects the effect of high
permeability zones which control the water-oil-
ratio behavior of a flood.
4. Statistical zonation - A statistical method
which eliminates much of the bias in zone
selection was suggested by Testerman^®. The
permeability data from each well are statistically
divided into zones so as to provide maximum
permeability contrast between zones, and yet
have minimum permeability variation within a
given zone. The zones are then traced from
well to well by statistical correlation. This
method has received considerable use, but it
does require the use of a computer.

5-24
 5. Geological zonation - Zones are selected based
on similar lithological characteristics. This
approach requires much detailed information
from cores, well logs, lithological analyses,
etc., but results in the most natural zonation
possible. A very good approach, but is time
consuming and expensive.

D. Effect of Crossflow Between Layers

The methods previously discussed contain the common

assumption that a reservoir is made up of a series of layers,
each having horizontal continuity, where each layer is
insulated from its neighbor except at the wellbore of pro
ducing and injection wells. Accordingly, the crossflow of
fluid between layers is neglected. Although some reservoirs
contain shale beds or shale streaks which prevent crossflow,
most reservoirs have sufficient vertical permeability and
vertical continuity to experience flow between layers.
Many experimental and mathematical studies have been
conducted to evaluate crossflow effects. These studies,
summarized in Chapter 7, Monograph 3, indicate that for
favorable mobility ratios (M < 1), crossflow effects tend
to improve recovery performance beyond that predicted by
the layer cake models. However, unfavorable mobility ratios
tend to reverse this trend. Most studies which have compared
field performance with studies predicted using layer-cake
models, show that the predicted results are generally
pessimistic.

III. Vertical Sweep Efficiency

As a result of permeability stratification, and other

effects to be discussed, injected water is seldom able to
contact the entire vertical cross-section of a reservoir.
As a measure of the efficiency with which water covers a
reservoir in the vertical plane, we define the term vertical
sweep efficiency, Ey. This term is also sometimes referred

5-25
to as invasion sweep efficiency and designated by the symbol,
Ej. Vertical sweep efficiency is defined as the hydro
carbon pore space contacted by injected water divided by
the hydrocarbon pore space behind the water front (the
water front is defined by its most forward position).
As noted in previous discussions, the vertical sweep
efficiency is significantly affected by stratification due
to the preferential movement of fluids in the more permeable
zones. This is complicated further by several additional
factors:
1. Mobility ratio - Vertical sweep improves with
decreasing mobility ratio
2. Crossflow - Discussed previously
3. Gravity forces - Gravity effects can significantly
reduce vertical sweep in some reservoirs. However,
a general correlation is impossible due to effects
of rate, vertical permeability, stratification,
etc. Lab tests indicate that increasing the rate
tends to minimize gravity effects. In practice,
however, rate increases of several fold are
required to cause significant changes in per
formance. Changes of this magnitude are
generally not practical.
4. Capillary forces
A summary of studies on vertical sweep efficiency is
provided in Chapter 7, Monograph 3.

5-26
 REFERENCES: Reservoir Heterogeneity

1. Warren, J. E. and Price, H. S.: "Flow in Heterogeneous

Porous Media", Trans., AIME (1961) 222, 153-169.
2. Law, J.: "Statistical Approach to the
Heterogeneity of Sand Reservoirs", Trans., AIME (1944j
155. 202-222.

3. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R. L.: "The Prediction of Oil

Recovery by Waterflood", Secondary Recovery of Oil in
the United States, 2nd Ed., API (1950) 160-174.
4. Stiles. W. E.: "Use of Permeability Distribution in
Waterflood Calculations", Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
5. Schmalz, J. P. and Rahme, H. D.: "The Variation in
Waterflood Performance with Variation in Permeability
Profile", Prod. Monthly (1950) 15, No. 9, 9-12.
6. Garb, F. A.: "Waterflood Calculations for Hand-Held
Computers," World Oil (June, 1980) 205-210.
7. Miller M. G. and Lents, M. R.; "Performance of Bodcaw
Reservoir, Cotton Valley Field Cycling Project: New
Methods of Predicting Gas-Condensate Reservoir Per
formance Under Cycling Operations Compared to Field
Data", Drill, and Prod. Pract., API (1947) 128-149.
8. Elkins, L. F. and Skov, A.M.: "Some Field Observations
of Heterogeneity of Reservoir Rocks and Its Effects on
Oil Displacement Efficiency", paper SPE 282 presented
at SPE Production Research Symposium, Tulsa, Okla.,
April 12-13, 1962.

9. Elkins, L. F., Brown, R. C. and Skov, A. M.: "Comparison

of Performance During Cycling and Blowdown with Various
Prediction Methods - Washington Cockfield "D" Gas
Condensate Reservoir", paper SPE 5531, presented at 50th
Annual Fall SPE Meeting, Dallas, Texas, Sept. 28 -
Oct. 1, 1975.

10. Testerman, J. D.: "A Statistical Reservoir Zonation

Technique", ^ Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1962) 889-893.

5-27
 PROBLEM 7:2

Routine air permeability data, ka, information obtained from several wells producing
from asandstone reservoir is available for analysis. The peimeability cutoff, (ko)s^.^
is 0.3 md. This is equivalent to ka of 1.0 md. These permeability values have been
analyzed in the order of decreasing permeability as listed below after applying the 1.0 md
cutoff Figure 7:2P-1 is a Dystra-Parsons plot of the ka data for those samples with
permeability above the cutoff. Also, O^o)s^jj. measurements are available for 15
'wir

samples. Figure 7:2P-2 is agraph relating (ko) g^wir. to ka.

1. Compute the Dysti*a-Parsons coefficient for this resei-voir.

2. Compute the permeability values, (ko)s , which should be assigned to a

10 layer equal-thickness waterflood prediction model to analyze waterflood
performance.
 DYKSTRA-PARSONS EXAMPLE

Cumulative Cumulative Samples

Air Permeability Number of Number of for Ka > 1.0 md
md Samples Samples percent greater than
186.0 1 1 0.00
38.0 1 2 1.85
34.0 1 3 2.78
24.0 1 4 3.70
22.0 1 5 4.63
20.0 7 6.48
19.0 1 8 7.41
18.0 1 9 8.33
17.0 1 10 9.26
16.0 12 11.11
15.0 1 13 12.04
15.0 1 14 12.96
14.0 1 15 13.89
13.0 1 16 14.81
12.0 18 16.67
11.0 21 19.44
10.0 1 22 20.37
8.9 1 23 21.30
8.6 1 24 22.22
8.5 26 24.07
7.7 1 27 25.00
7.5 29 26.85
7.0 1 30 27.78
6.8 32 29.63
6.4 1 33 30.56
6.0 1 34 31.48
5.8 1 35 32.41
5.7 1 36 33.33
5.5 38 35.19
5.3 1 39 36.11
5.1 1 40 37.04
4.7 2 42 38.89
4.5 3 45 41.67
 DYKSTRA-PARSONS EXAMPLE

Cumulative Cumulative Samples

Air Permeability Number of Number of for Ka > 1.0 md
md Samples Samples percent greater than
4.2 2 47 43.52

4.1 1 48 44.44

4.0 1 49 45.37

3.9 51 47.22

3.8 1 52 48.15

3.7 1 53 49.07

3.6 55 50.93

3.4 57 52.78

3.3 1 58 53.70

3.1 1 59 54.63

3.0 . 61 56.48

2.8 1 62 57.41

2.6 1 63 58.33

2.4 1 64 59.26

2.3 66 61.11

2.2 1 67 62.04

2.1 1 68 62.96

2.0 74 68.52

1.9 1 75 69.44

1.8 1 76 70.37

1.7 1 77 71.30

1.6 2 79 73.15

1.5 4 83 76.85

1.4 3 86 79.63

1.3 3 89 82.41

1.2 10 99 91.67

1.1 6 105 97.22

1.0 3 108 100.00

Permeability cutoffis (ko)Swir ~ md or = 1.0md

 Ikyikstra-Parsoms €hraph
for an Air PermeahUity Greater than 1.0 md
100.0
1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
'
•
•
~ "
•e
>>• •
5 •
•
s 10.0
T
1 %
'
\
%
s
1^
• " "1 • 1
•
1
•
1
1
•
1)
•
1
1.0
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 85 90 92 94 96 98
Cumulative Probability (% Greater Titan)
 DyUstra^Parsons Graph
far an Air Permeahility Greater than 1,0 md
100.0
•XS
4 10.0
(Q
a>
£
1.0
"4 6 Tw IS 20 30 ^0 SO 60 70 80 85 90 92 94 96
Cumulative Probability (% Greater Than)
 .STRATIFICATION EXAMPLE

Dykstra-Parsons V = 0.69

Mean Air Permeability = 3.7 md.

Average Net h = 3.0 feet

Net h, ft. Kair, md. Koil, md.

1 3.0 25.00 12.50

2 3.0 12.20 5.40
3 3.0 8.10 3.15
4 3.0 5.80 2.10
5 3.0 4.30 1.46
6 3.0 3.20 1.01
7 3.0 2.33 0.69
8 3.0 1.67 0.45
9 3.0 1.10 0.27
10 3.0 0.52 0.11
t

AVERAGES 6.42

from from
Dyk/Par Ko vs Ka
plot plot
SPECIAL CORE ANALYSIS DATA

Air Oil
Permeability Permeability
md md

0.346 0.045
0.767 0.190
0.704 0.197
5.300 3.310
1.220 0.617
11.500 4.770
0.190 0.036
4.380 1.350
0.335 0.112
0.595 0.094
4.430 1.430
0.299 0.066
4.210 1.360
10.600 3.270
1.430 0.489
 (ko)swir versus kgjr - from Special Core Analysis
10.00
u
E 1.00
CO
0)
E
g 0.10
0.01
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Air Permeability, md
) )
 PROBLEMS: Reservoir Heterogeneity

1. The following data represent the geometric mean

permeabilities as averaged areally using core data
from eight wells -in a reservoir that is to be water
flooded.

Depth . ft. Cumulative Thickness Permeability

From To ft. md

3220 3221 1 35

3221 3222 2 47

3222 3223 3 58

3223 3224 4 109

3224 3225 5 77

3225 3226 6 127

3226 3228 8 159

3228 3229 9 148

3229 3232 12 178

3232 3235 15 228

3235 3238 18 295

3238 3240 20 262

3240 3243 23 308

3243 3245 25 454

3245 3248 28 402

3248 325'3 33 507

3253 3256 36 550

3256 3260 40 730

3260 3261 41 660

3261 3263 43 720

3263 3265 45 600

3265 3266 46 517

3266 3267 47 552

3267 3268 48 330

3268 3269 49 237

3269 3270 50 83

5-28
 (a) What is the weighted average permeability of the
reservoir?

(b) What is the geometric mean permeability of the

reservoir?

(c) What is the permeability variation as defined

by Dykstra and Parsons?
(d) How does k at 50 percent probability compare
• with the geometric mean permeability?

2. A waterflood is planned for a lease which has an

average sand thickness of 10 feet and the following
permeability profile as determined from core analysis
on five wells:

Subsea Depth, ft Absolute Permeability

From To md

2050 2051 35

2051 2052 51
2052 2053 27
2053 2054 116
2054 2055 60
2055 2056 237
2056 2057 519
2057 2058 98
2058 2059 281
2059 2060 164

(a) Plot the permeability and capacity distribution

curves for this reservoir.
(b) The three most permeable feet of the formation
contain what percent of the total reservoir flow
capacijty?

5-29
 "Ill I!
I;H It
um
imi
um
• ••••! M M HUI lUU KMf n u i u m UM UM itm raniuifiniMitiiiim
• •• • •• M m n i l I fttui BMi BM u • • m MMi n n i tiui •e EW1 n 111 n e s i EfiM imi
 CUaCNL U . S CO.
NO. 340-20 OICTZOBN ORAPH PAPCR HAUC IN u. •. A.
20 X 20 PER INCH

1/1

04

Isililiill
 INJECTION RATES AND PRESSURES

Advance information on the relationship between injection rate and injection pressure is
useful, and often critical, in the design and analysis of any enhanced oil recovery project.
In particular, an estimate of injection rates and pressures is needed during the planning
stage of a waterflood for the purpose of sizing injection equipment and pumps and for the
purpose of predicting oil recovery rates. Further, it is possible in low permeability
reservoirs that the injection rate required for a project to be economically feasible will
necessitate injection pressures which exceed the fracture pressure of the subject formation
and which, if imposed on the formation, could result in poor reservoir sweep efficiency
(areal and vertical) and substantially decreased oil recovery. In those cases where a high
degree of uncertainty exists, it might become necessary to conduct a pilot flood to
determine injection rates and pressures required for economic operations. Such pilot
injection tests should be carefully designed and analyzed due to the fact that short term
injection tests lasting only a few days may lead to substantial and misleading results.

The purpose of this chapter is to present methods which can be used to predict injection
rates and pressures in terms of information commonly available for a waterflood project.
When the mobility ratio of a flood is unity, this can be accomplished using simple
analytical relationships which require only a knowledge of the waterflood pattern and
properties of the reservoir. Calculations for mobility ratios different from unity are more
difficult and require the use of approximate analytical techniques or experimental
correlations. In general, prediction of rates and pressures are more difficult after water
breakthrough than before.

I. Factors Affecting Fluid Injectlvity

During a flooding operation, the injectivity, the rate at which fluid can be injected per
unit pressure difference between injection and producing wells, depends upon the
following factors

6-1
 A. Physical properties ofthe reservoir rock and fluids, such as:
ko, kw, kro, krw, M-Oj M-w, h, Sj, Sp

B. Area swept by the injected water and oil bank.

C. Fluid mobilities in the water zone and oil bank.

D. Well geometry, pattern, spacing, and wellbore radii.

E. Bottom-hole injection pressure, producing well pressure, and average reservoir

pressure atthe start ofinjection

Some ofthese factors cannot be changed. Others, however, such as the flood pattern,
injection well pressure, and producing well pressure can be selected to best achieve
the desired injection-production performance. The effect of these factors on fluid
injectivity will be considered in the remainder ofthis chapter.

II. Radial System,Unequal Mobilities

Since fluid mobilities are equal throughout the reservoir in unit mobility waterfloods,
the position of the flood front has no effect upon water injectivity after gas fillup.
When mobility ratio is different from unity, however, resistance to fluid injection
varies depending upon the relative amounts of oil and water in the reservoir. When
the mobility ratio, M, is less than unity, oil flows better than water; when M is
greater than unity, water flows better than oil. It follows that total fluid mobility in
the reservoir will change as increasing amounts ofwater are injected, thereby causing
the injectivity to change. These functional relationships between injectivity, mobility
ratio, and flood front position can be shown explicitly by analyzing a simple
geometric pattern.

Early in the life of an injection well and prior to gas fillup, both the water zone and
oil zone are radial about the injection well. The zones will continue to be circular
about the injection well until the radius ofthe oil bank reaches a distance ofabout 70

6-2
percent of the distance between the injector and producer. Consider the radial system
depicted by Figure 6-1 which has a central injection well of radius Tw.

FIGURE 6-1
IDEAL FLOW SYSTEM
WITH RADIAL OIL AND WATER BANKS

WATER

ApplyingDarcy's steady state radial flow equation for incompressible fluids, it can be
shown^ that the injection rate at any mobility ratio, M, and any injection well skin
factor is equal to:

0.00707khAp
_i_ . ii;0_, re (Eq. 6.1)
I In f I In |-
krw kro ^

where:

iw = water injection rate, bbls/day

h = net pay, feet

k = base permeability used to define relative permeability, md

[usually the effective permeability to oil at irreducible water,

kro = relative permeability to oilin oil bank at Swc

6-3
 krw = relative permeability to water in water bank at

r = radius of water bank, feet

re = radius of oil bank, feet

/ —s-
Fw = effective wellbore radius, feet = FwC ^

Tw = wellbore radius, feet

Sj = skin factor at injection well, dimensionless

Ap = applied pressure differential, psi
(difference between pressure at formation face of injection well,
pw, and pressure inreservoir atthe outer edge of oil bank,
pe, usually assumed as the average reservoir pressure at start of
injection)

jlo = oil viscosity, cp

|j,w = waterviscosity, cp

EXAMPLE 6:1

1. A new injection well is to be placed in service in an oil reservoir where the

reservoir pressure has declined below the bubble-point pressure. Current
reservoir pressure is 800 psi. Bottom-hole injection pressure is expected to be
2600 psi. Compute the water injection rate early in the life of the well when
the radius to the water and oil banks are 200 and 388 feet, respectively.
Assume the injection well skin value is zero. Other data are given below.
10 md h = 8 feet

1.0 M = 0.45
O^ro)swc
0.30 Sg = 8%

1^0 0.9 cp Swbt 56%

6-4
 |j,w = 0.6 cp Swc ~ 26%

Tw ~ 0.33 feet

Early in the life of an injection well during which the flood fronts are circular
about the injector, water injection can be computed using Eq. 6.1 where:

0.00707 khAp
lw =
krw fw

where fw = Tw for S = 0.
^ 0.00707(10X8X2600-800) ^
Iw
0.6
0.30 0.33 1.0 200

2. If the injection well is effectively stimulated such that a negative skin of -4

exists, compute the water injection rate for the conditions described above.
First, the effective injection well radius is computed.

^ / -s-
Tw — TwC *

fw =

fw = 18.0 feet

and:

. 0.00707(10)(8)(2600-800) ,
0.60 I 200 0.9 , 388
Bo'^TT-'To'" 200

III. Regular Patterns

A. Unit Mobility Ratio

When fluid mobihties in the water zone and oil zone portions of the reservoir are
equal, i.e., M = 1, fluid injectivity does not change as the flood front advances

6-5
 after gas fillup. Further, injectivity for a particular well pattern is independent of
the size of the area swept by water but is directly proportional to the fluid
mobility involved. The determination of injectivity under these conditions
reduces to a geometrical problem which results in simple analytical relationships.

Deppe' and Muskat^ have developed simple mathematical fonnulas which relate
injection rate and injection pressure for a number of regular well patterns. In
addition to assuming a unit mobility ratio, these equations assume steady state
flow and are limited to reservoirs where no gas is present or to reservoirs
following gasfillup. These equations are summarized in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Injectivity Equationsfor Regular Patterns with Unit Mobility

Ratios

Direct Line Drive^

f A ^ 0.003541(ko)s . hAp
(|>1J - r ^
Ho ln7|^+1.570|-1.837+0.5(^Si +SpJJ

o o o

A
Z_A- \

o o o

6-6
Staggered Line Drive'
0.003541(ko)Q . hAp
(^0 :
iw -
"^wir

In tI;-+1.570 1.837+0.5 (sj +Sp)

^0

/ \

o o o

Five-Spot^ 0.003541(ko)s^j^hAp
lw = / \

1117^-0.619+0.5 tSi +SpJ

O
d/

6 O

6-7
 Seven-Spot^ 0.004723(ko)s"^wir. hAp
lw =
1^0 In 7^-0.569+0.5 ^Sj + Sp

o..

o :::o
A--""
o o
o

Nine-Spot' 0.003541(ko)s^^h(Ap)ij.
l+R
2+R
In -0.272+0.5(s, +Sp) ^0

0.00708(ko)s^^h(Ap)i^,
* vv — r - ^
3+R
h+R In 7^-0.272+0.5^8}+Sp^ 0.693} „
2+R.
R = Ratio ofproducing rates ofcomer well (c) to side well (s).
(^P)i.c = Difference in pressure between injection well and comer well (c). 1

(^P)i,s = Difference in pressure between injection well and side well (s).

c s c

o o o

so A Os

o o o
c s c

6-8
 These equations have also been summarized by Willhite'.

B. Non-Unit Mobility Ratio

The equations Hsted in Table 6-1 are valid after fillup when the mobility ratio is
unity. The permeability term is the effective permeability to oil measured at the
irreducible water saturation, in most waterfloods, the mobility

ratio is different from unity, the calculated injection rate obtained from these
equations must be adjusted using a correction factor defined as the conductance
ratio. The actual injection rate is computed as:

iw = yibase ^-2)
where:

Y = conductance ratio

ibase water injection rate, bbls/day (steady-state water injection

rate in an oil-filled pattern with immobile connate water for a
unit mobility ratio)

and ibase defmed by the equations listed in Table 6-1 for the various patterns.
The conductance ratio, y, is an experimentally determined factor based on the
work of Caudle and Witte"* which, when used in Eq. 6.2, gives the correct
injection rate. The conductance ratio is presented in Figure 6-2 as a function of
mobility ratio, M, and areal sweep efficiency ofthe injected water, E^. Note in
Figure 6-2 that for M = 1.0, y = 1.0, and iw is a constant. For M > 1.0, y
and iw increase with increasing sweep efficiency. When M < 1.0, y and iw
decrease with increasing sweep efficiency.

6-9
 FIGURE 6-2
CONDUCTANCE RATIO FOR LIQUID FILLED FIVE-SPOT PATTERNS
(REFERENCE 4)
10

On
S.
<D
O O
C

3
•o
c
o
O

0.1
0.1 1 10
Mobility Ratio

:> )
The areal sweep of the injected water required by Figure 6-2 can be computed as:

Before water breakthrough:

Wi
Ea = (Eq. 6.3)
^p(Swbt~Swc^
After water breakthrough3,5,6.

Wi
EA = 0.2749 In + E^bt (Eq. 6.4)

The conductance ratio and Equation 6.4 have been estabhshed for a developed
five-spot pattern. Nevertheless, both can be combined with the equations in Table
6-1 to compute injection rates for other patterns with a high degree of accuracy.

EXAMPLE 6:2

1. For the injection well described in Part 1 of Example 6:1, compute the water
injection at gas fillup at which time = 0.27. Assume the well is part of
an 80-acre five-spot pattern in which the diagonal distance, d, between the
injector and producer is 1,320 feet. The producing well pressure is set at 500
psi. After gas fillup, water injection is computed using Eq. 6.2 where:

iw —yibase
For afive-spot pattern, i^ase obtained from Table 6-1 to be:
0.003541(ko)s^jj.liAp
^base ~
fAo In 54-0.619+ 0.5 I^Sj +Sp
which is the injection rate after gas fillup for M = 1.
0.003541(10)(8)(2600-500)
^base "•
0.9 111-^-0.619+0.5(0+0)
6-11
 ibase = 86 BWPD
Next, compute the conductance ratio, y, to correct for the actual M = 0.45.
At fillup, = 0.27 and from Figure 6-2, y is determined to be 0.80. The
actual water injection rate at fillup is:

iw = (0.80)(86) = 69 BWPD
2. Compute the water injection rate at fillup for the well conditions described
above except that both the injection and production wells are effectively
stimulated and possess negative skin values of -4.

0.003541(10)(8)(2600 - 500)
^base = 180 BWPD
0.9 ln^-0.619 +0.5((-4)+(-4))
and:

iw = (0.80)(I80) = 144 BWPD

To summarize, prior to fillup the injectivity (iw/Ap) will rapidly decrease up to

fillup. After fillup, the injectivity will increase if M > 1 or decrease if M < 1. This
behavior is shown in Figure 6-3. Also, as indicated in Figure 6-3, the most dramatic
injectivity changes occur during the early part of the flood, whereas changes become
less pronounced during latter stages of the flood. From a practical viewpoint, it is
noted that short term injectivity tests conducted in depleted fields can result in overly
optimistic injection rates which cannot be sustained during the major portion of the
life of the flood.

6-12
 FIGURE 6-3
WATER INJECTION RATE VARIATION
(RADIAL SYSTEM)

\\ •
t/} \V-
Q.

CD M>1.0 "
\ \ \
N\ .
V
\
V
V
*
• M= 1.0
0> 1

T3
C
M<1.0

>

•G
0

-— Flllup of Gas Space

0)

Cumulative Injected Water Volume (or Time)

IV. Regular Patterns, Unequal Mobilities

Studies by Muskat^ of steady state pressure distributions in various well patterns with
unit mobility ratio show most of the pressure change between injection and producing
wells occurs in areas near the wells where flow is essentially radial. Even for the
complex nine-spot pattern, radial flow occurs in the vicinity of injection and
producing wells^ Even when mobility ratios differ from unity, experimental studies'
indicate that near-well flow patterns are radial.

Recognizing that radial flow occurs near injection and producing wells and, as
indicated in the previous section, the largest changes in injectivity occur in these
radial flow regions, it was concluded by Deppe^ that the injection rates in any pattern
can be approximated by dividing the pattern into regions where radial and linearflow
6-13
 predominate. As a result, Deppe showed that simple equations could be developed to
compute injection rate for a variety of geometrical configurations including both
regular and iiregular patterns.

V. Injectivity in Five-Spot Patterns

The five-spot pattern is the most commonly used flooding pattern for reasons
discussed in previous chapters. It follows that this pattern has also been subject to
more extensive theoretical and experimental injectivity studies than other patterns.

A. Prats, et al Method

Prats, et al® developed an analytical method whereby injection rates can be

calculated for an enclosed five-spot well pattern where oil, gas, and water
saturations are present. Most reservoirs which have undergone significant
pressure depletion during primary recovery will have a fi-ee gas phase at the time
secondary recovery is initiated. This is one of the few methods which has
attempted to quantify the effect of an initial gas saturation. Figure 6-4 illustrates
an idealized picture of fluid regions which will exist between the producing and
injection welP. The flood is divided into three displacement periods.

1. Start of flood to oil bank interference.

2. Oil bank interference to oil breakthrough (gas fillup).

3. After oil breakthrough - this also includes after water breakthrough.

The positions of oil and water banks at the beginning and end of each of these
periods are shown in Figure 6-4.

B. Craig Method

Craig^'® developed an excellent method for predicting injection performance

which can be applied to stratified systems with or without free gas present. This
method, which uses the correlations of Caudle and Witte'* to predict injection rate
6-14
as a function of mobility ratio and areal sweep efficiency, considers water
injection in four states which are similar to the periods presented in Figure 6-4.
They are:

1. Stage 1: Start of the flood to interference.

2. Stage 2: Interference to gas fillup.

3. Stage 3: Fillup to water breakthrough.

4. Stage 4: After breakthrough.

A detailed description of this method will be presented in a later chapter as part of

the Craig-Geffen-Morse method^ of waterflood prediction.

6-15
 FIGURE 6-4

STAGE 1

o----- ?

1 I w
/^L
Interference
1 ^ ^
1 Between Oil Banks
1

o c)

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

m
Water Production

Water Bank Q Gas Region Q O'' Bank

6-16
 REFERENCES

1. Deppe, J.C.: "Injection Rates~The Effect of Mobility Ratio, Area Swept, and
Pattern," Trans, AIME (1961) 222, pp. 81-91.

2. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill Book Company,

Inc., N.Y. (1949) 650.

3. Willhite, G.P.: Wateiflooding, Textbook Series, SPE, Dallas (1986) 3.

4. Caudle, B.H. and Witte, M.D.: "Production Potential Changes During Sweep-Out in
a Five-Spot System," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, pp. 446-448.
5. Craig, F.F.., Jr., Geffen, T.M. and Morse, R.A., "Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern
Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests," Trans, AIME (1955) 204, pp.
7-15.

6. Craig, F.F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, Monograph

Series, SPE, Dallas (1971) 3.

7. Dyes, A.B., Caudle, B.H. and Erickson, R.A.: "Oil Production After Breakthrough as
Influenced by Mobility Ratio," Trans, AIME (1954) 201, pp. 81-86.
8. Prats, M., Matthews, C.S., Jewett, R.L., and Baker, J.D.: "Prediction of Injection
Rate and Production History for Multifluid Five-Spot Floods," Trans, AIME (1959)
216, pp. 98-105.

6-17
 PROBLEM 6:1

A new waterflood is planned for a 6,000 foot reservoir which has been partially depleted.
Original reservoir pressure was 2700 psi and current reservoir pressure is 1000 psi. The
flood is to be implemented on 160-acre five-spot patterns. The distance between an
injector and producer is 1,867 feet. It is estimated that the reservoir fracture gradient is
0.62 psi/ft. Other data are listed below.

Other Data

Mobility Ratio = 3.0

= 30 md
(ko)s
^ •
-^wir

= 1.0
(kro)Swc
= 0.25

h = 22 ft

rw = 0.25 ft

1^0 = 6.0 cp

Hw = 0.5 cp

= 14%
Sg
Swc ~ ^wir = 24%

= 56%
^wbt
1. Determine the instantaneous water injection rate early in the life of the
waterflood when the radius of the water and oil banks are 20 feet and 30 feet
respectively. Next, compute the injection rate at a later time when the radius of

6-18
 the water and oil banks are 400 feet and 600 feet respectively from the
injection well. The injection well skin is zero.

2. If a skin is allowed to develop at the injection well and reaches a value of +8,
what is the maximum injection rate that can be obtained when the water and oil
banks are 400 feet and 600 feet respectively from the injection well?

3. At the time of gas fillup, the areal sweep efficiency of the injected water at is
0.44. If the producing well pressure is maintained at 500 psi, compute the
water injection rate at this time for the case of a zero skin at both the injection
and production wells.

4. Compute the water injection rate at water breakthrough if the producing well
pressure is maintained at 500 psi and the skin factor at both the injector and
producer is maintained at zero. For M = 3.0, the of the injected water is
about 0.56 for a five-spot pattern.

6-19
 PREDICTION OF WATERFLQOD PERFORMANCE

This chapter is concerned with the problem of predicting

waterflood .behavior. Given a particular waterflood prospect,
we would like to predict information such as the time required
for water breakthrough, oil recovery at breakthrough, water-
oil ratio performance after breakthrough, production-time
performance, oil production-water injection performance,
etc. Numerous methods have been proposed to accomplish this,
each differing in the manner of handling heterogeneity, areal
sweep calculations, water injection performance, displacement
efficiency, or many other variables which can affect water-
flood performance.
For purposes of description, waterflood prediction
methods can be categorized into five groups. These groups,
as defined by Craig^, consider primarily:
1. Areal sweep effects
2. Reservoir stratification
3. Displacement mechanism
4. Numerical methods
5. Empirical methods
The most successful and most commonly used prediction methods
in each of these categories will be discussed.

I. Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily with Areal Sweep

It was shown in Chapter 4 that areal sweep efficiency
can be correlated as a function of mobility ratio, pattern
geometry, and cumulative water throughput. The most commonly
used correlations are those developed by Caudle and co-
workers. Many of these correlations were discussed in
Chapter 4; others are presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix
C of SPE Monograph III*. An application of these correlations
to the prediction of waterflood behavior is illustrated by
Example 7.1.
 EXAMPLE 7.1

Consider the following data for a five-spot well

pattern:
Pattern area « 40 acres (20 acre well spacing)
Average net pay thickness = 15 ft
Porosity = 20%

Soi ' 704

= 30%
or
Mobility Ratio = 2.1
Pattern Injection Rate = 200 RB/D
B - 1.25 RB/STB
0

(a) What is the time until breakthrough and the oil

recovery at breakthrough?
(b) What pattern sweep efficiency- and cumulative oil
recovery can be expected after injecting 0.6 pore
volume of water? How long will it take?

SOLUTION

(a) Vp « (7758)(40 ac)(15 ft)(0.20) « 930,960 RB

Displacable pore volume « (Vp)(0.70 - 0.30) « 372,384 RB
From Fig. 4.10, « 60%

V. •

fwi V "i = • • f930.960') (0.6) «= l.S

(930,960).(0.70-0.30J
P D

From Fig. 4.17, E, = 90%

7-2
 K - C372,384 RB)(0.90)
1.2S RB/STB _ 268,111 STB

^ (930.960H0.6) ^ 2793 days

^ 200 RB/D

Because of their many limitations, the use of areal

sweep correlations, for the type of calculations illustrated
by Example 7.1, should be limited to only the most cursory
type of analysis. Among the many limitations are the
following:
1. Correlations were developed using miscible fluids
and, consequently, assume piston-like displacement;
i.e., no oil is assumed to flow behind the front.
Unless the residual oil saturation is judiciously
. selected, recovery calculations can be very
optimistic.
2. Correlations do not account for areal or vertical

heterogeneities.
3. Change in mobility ratio after water breakthrough
and its subsequent effect upon areal sweep
efficiency are not accounted for.
4. Does not account for the effects of varying pressure
which results from holding injection rate constant.

II. Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily with Reservoir

Stratification

The effects of stratification, if not accounted for, can

cause disastrous errors in predicted waterflood behavior.
Methods which have been successfully used to account for
stratification are discussed in this section.

A. Dykstra-Parsons Method

Dykstra and Parsons^ developed a method of predicting

waterflood behavior in stratified systems which is particularly
useful if a rapid approximation of waterflood recovery is
needed. This method requires knowledge of the vertical
permeability variation, V, the mobility ratio, M, the initial

7-3
water saturation, , and fractional oil recovery at a
specified water-oil ratio.
This method is subject to several assumptions and
limitations which can affect the accuracy of waterflood
predictions:
1. Layer-oake model with no crossflow between
layers
2. Piston-like displacement with no oil production
from behind the front
3. Linear flow
4. Steady-state flow
5. Except for absolute permeability, rock and fluid
properties are the same for all layers
6. Gas fillup occurs prior to flood response
The theoretical Dykstra and Parsons model is considered
first. We will show how it can be used to predict oil
recovery in stratified systems.

1. Mathematical Development

The linear flow model consists of a series of equal-

thickness layers arranged in order of decreasing permeability;
this is illustrated by Fig. 7.1 which depicts the reservoir
at the time of water breakthrough in the most permeable bed.
In order to describe water-oil flow behavior in this
stratified system, consider it first at the time when water
has advanced a distance 1-^ in the most permeable layer; this
is illustrated by Fig. 7.2.

7-4
 = L

^iwf* Pwf'^

k
n

^ n *

k, > k, > > k^

1 z n

Fig. 7.1: Linear flow model for Dykstra-Parsons method

Fig. 7.2: Layer 1 early in life of flood.

7-5
The total pressure drop across this layer is:

(7.1)
= Piw£ - Pwf = ^Pl " ^P2

In terms of Darcy*s linear flow equation for steady-state

incompressible flow,

(7.2)
_

APi jr-TT—
Vl

Ap. (7.3)

i L
- w (7.4)
Ap

Substituting Eqs. 7.2 - 7.4 into Eq. 7.1, and solving for
the average fluid mobility, Ic/u, in the layer.
. 1

"wh . "of'- - (7.S)

T—
w
* F

-1

or = kjL r rw
— F ro
(7.6)

Therefore, the average injection flux is:

f ^

ic
_ Ap
(7.7)

-1

Ap
K^i, (7.8)
rw ro

7-6
 The actual velocity of the flood front is given by
the expression

_ _ "i (7.9)
dt 4iiS
w

where W
represents the change in water saturation across
the frotit. Therefore,

-1
dZ^ k^Ap
dt k—
rw
^ —ITr o

and
At.
^ = constant = —r
dZ /dt (7.10)
4>A rw ro
w

Similarly, for the second layer,

-1
k.Ap
Vz . ^0(^-22)
"2-535- rw
~T.r o

^AP = constant = —F
(7.11)
w rw ro

Equating Eqs. 7.10 and 7.11,

dZ
Kh . 1 <122 \ h
iq Ht rw ro
k2 dt ^rw ro

dZ. dZ, k y Z- + k vi^(L-Z-)

ro w 2 rw^oj^ 2/
= k
•2 at T—Ic—
rw ro
1 3t Tc—IT
rw ro

Multiply through by k^^/y^ to obtain:

•2
dZ.

dt H ^ ^ a-z., = k
1 Ht
dZ,

7-7
 Introducing the definition of mobility from Eq. 4.5,

k2[Zj + M(L-Zj) dZi = k, Z, + M (L-Z,) dZ, (7.12)

The position of the water front in layer 2 at the time

of breakthrough in layer 1 can be determined by integrating
Eq. 7.12 as follows:

r 2 f

/ Zj + M(L-Zj3 dZ, = k, + M(L-Z2) dZ.

rZ, MZ
. Ml2 - •f" + MLZ2

Zj (1-M) + ZMLZj

(1-M)Z2^ ♦ ZMLZj - (1 +M) = 0

(1 - M) -I- 2M ^^2 ^^2 (1 +M) =0

Solving this quadratic equation for Z2/L,

^2
-M ♦ *p-
^1
a-Hh
IT
1-M

M - m2 . ^ (1 - M^)
^2 *1
IT (7.13)
M - 1

Equation 7.13 gives the fractional distance which the flood

front has moved through layer 2 at the time of breakthrough
in bed 1.

7-8
 An analysis similar to that used for bed 2 can be used
to determine the position of the flood front in any bed at
the time of breakthrough in bed 1. In general, the fractional
distance the front has moved in bed n is:

7 7 ^^
M- ^ (1 -
n _ ^1 = a (7.14)
n
M - 1

The vertical coverage by the water front, C^, at the time of

breakthrough in bed 1 is given as:
n

Cy = n

i-i
i=2 ^
n

1 + a2 + aj + .. . . + a
n
(7.15)
n

The foregoing procedure can be used to determine the

vertical coverage at the time of breakthrough in any bed.

n
M -
f 2 i 2 1

i=x+l M - 1
Cv = n

n
^ _ X ^ M(n-x) 1 N m2 +
"-v n (M-l)n " CM-l)n (7.16)

In addition to coverage by the waterflood, we are also

interested in the producing water-oil ratio. Consider first the
case where the mobility ratio is unity. At the time of

7-9
water breakthrough in bed x,

q.
'w
WOR =

WAp
P,w

WOR =
li=l
J1
WAp
E Mr.
i=x+l

VSii
I
i =l
I'm
(7.17)
WOR

^i'^oi
i=x+l

When the mobility ratio is different from unity, the

water-oil ratio equation must take into account the position
of the flood front in each bed. After breakthrough in the
first layer, water production from the first layer can be
computed using Darcy*s linear flow equation:

k„AiAp lCjAj4p
(7.18J
^wl = y L
^w
rw

At the time of breakthrough in bed 1 the flood front has

moved a distance Z2 in bed 2. The oil producing rate from
bed 2 at this time can be computed using Darcy's law and
the average mobility in bed 2 at that time:

avg
A2AP
%2 = •
-1

1o2 °
y, z - ^2)^

A2Apk.
(7.19)
lo2 irZT
2
U„(L - 22)
rw TO
7-10
The water oil ratio, considering only these two beds, is

kl^r^AiAp

WOR =
k^ApA-

F
rw ro

k. A, F~~ ~T
_ 1 1 rw ro
WOR =
k~ A^
(7.20)
Kz ^2 u
^w
L

rw

If the reservoir contains n-layers, the water-oil ratio at

the time of breakthrough in bed 1 is:

WOR = •- (7.21)
^ki
Aj ^7
I
i=2
TT^
(1 - M^)
h

This can be expanded to the general case where water has

just broken through in bed x:
X

z
i=l
'W1

WOR =
n

2
i=x+l
'01

X
\ A.k.

WOR
_ i=l
=
n
(7.22)
A.k.

Z 1^ + (1-M^)
i=x+l
7-11
2. Recovery Correlations

Dykstra and Parsons applied their mathematical model to

an idealized reservoir containing 50 layers of varying
permeability to prepare a correlation between permeability
variation, V, and vertical coverage, C^, for a range of values
of water-oil ratio and mobility ratio. These correlations
are presented in Figs. 7.3 through 7.6 for water-oil ratios
of 1, 5, 25 and 100, respectively. They also conducted
linear waterflood tests on a large number of cores from
California sands. These cores were saturated with oil, water
and gas in varying amounts and flooded to determine fractional
recovery. The fractional recovery, Ej^, was then correlated
as a function of vertical coverage, water-oil ratio and
initial water saturation as shown by Fig. 7.7. Johnson^
has made these correlations easier to use by combining Figs.
7.3 - 7.7, thereby eliminating the variable, C^. The Johnson
plots are presented on Page 80 of Reference 1.

1.0

1^
0.8

0.6 N N K
Nj
- 0.4
C; V
s

CO
0)

E
Q. 0.2

0.2 O.A 0.6 0.8 1.0

coverage, C

Fig. 7.3: Permeability variation versus vertial

coverage for WOR = 1.

7-12
 eg
0)

E
0)
a

0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

coverage,

Fig. 7.4: Permeability variation versus vertical

coverage for WOR = 5.

€8
O
0
VI
a
o.

coverage,

Fig. 7.5: Permeability variation versus vertical

coverage for WOR = 25.

7-13
 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

coverage, C

Fig. 7.6: Permeability variation versus vertical

coverage for WOR = 100.

0.6

0.5

0.4

oc
CO o
s
0.3

uf 0.2

0.1 \

0.002 0.004 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0

Fig. 7.7: Fractional recovery as a function of vertical

coverage.

7-14
 VIII-36

PREDICTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATER FLOOD

1.0
i I : i I ; I
Fifurc VZZX-12a

lielLSUI

IMMl yiiBUiTipiiH

J-
IlLEUJ
Hear* VZn-12b ,

55n^

il
rnoi

w i MPca:,
i^rr.
eOVEflAGC, c

7-14A
 VIII-37

PREDICTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATER FLJ300

r Figure VIII.13a
I. . . I . •i.

s; riX -rvw.:
XT- v~VV.

RAP^

^^pg^ Fifiire VIXI

V>%~

""Tl

i::: i

•T=3?«:

fMttH

0.4 o.a

COVERAGE, C

7-14B
 VIII-38
PREDICTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATER FLOOD
I- •-
Figure VIII-14
ERAG
RlitCljipi
BOni
Fiffure vm-IS
•nikiiaCMS
Off p#ife>
0.4 0^
COVERAGE. C
7-14C
 VIII-39

PREDICTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATER FLOOD

Figure VIZI-L6 :

a tL

TvlVaRi/iiidki ~'"
0 liQt wrr 1...

WTsJ.
M'.zflaJt::!.
1 .Ul t::-

fflfl ••!"•
U!Hl.r=-
0.4 o.a
COVERAGE, C

7-14D
 VIII-39a

PREDICTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATER FLOOD

n n9 0 4 O.A OA I.O

!• Fifttr« VZZI-18

'£• afi WT80>

ers£fi

Figure VnX-19

hbf-.:.

P££Jffl

0^ 0.4 QM

COVERAGE, C

7-14E
3. Performance Predictions

The following procedure is utilized to predict waterflood

performance if it is assumed that displaced oil is equal
to the produced oil:
1. Determine the permeability variation, V, using
the procedure discussed in Chapter 5.
2. Determine the mobility ratio, M.
3. Use V and M to obtain Cy at WOR values of 1, 5,
25, and 100.
4. Compute an appropriate pattern areal sweep effi
ciency, E^, fraction.
5. Compute the cumulative oil production corresponding
to each value of WOR;

Np = Nd = N * Ed * Ea * Cy (5-12)
where N = oil in place at start of waterflood
7758Ah(^So
Bo

Ea = Areal Sweep

_ Sq - Spr
" So

^ ~ " Sg - Spr
1 ~ S^c ~ Sg

6. Plot Np versus WOR. Extrapolate this curve back

to a zero-WOR to obtain the recovery at break
through. Based on a predetermined WOR for the
economic limit, read the cumulative recovery at
breakthrough from the graph. This is illustrated
in Fig. 7.8.

7-15
 OS

B (WOR)dN

N , STB

Fig. 7.8: WOR-Np relationship for Dykstra-Parsons

Procedure.

7. Compute the injected water required to fill-up

the gas space:

Wf = Vp(l-So-Swi) (7.23)

8. Compute the injected water required to replace

oil production as a function of Np:

Wo ~ NpBo (7.24)

9. Compute the injected water required to replace

water production as a function of Np:

(7.25)

(WOR) dNp
•p -
/ (7.26)

Wp can be computed as a function of Np by graphi

cally integrating the WOR-Np curve in Fig. 7.8
at several values of Np.

7-16
 10. Compute cumulative water injected as a function
of Np, and as a function of time:

° **'0 (7.27)
w.
t =

Steps 7-10 can be summarized in tabular form as shown:

W
^p Wf P
W.
1
t

"01 pi ''ii h
'^p2 "02 W -
P2 «i2 ^2
- • • • •

•
• •
• •

Wf • • • •

pn
W4:
f
w W w. t
on pn in n

A study by Mobarack** indicates that the previously

described Dykstra-Parsons procedure agrees with computer
simulations results when the gas saturation is negligible.
Further, this study suggests that the experimental recovery
correlations of Dykstra and Parsons, previously presented
by Fig. 7.7, should not be used.

EXAMPLE 7.2

The permeability data for an oil reservoir are presented

in Table 7.1.

7-17
 Table 7.1 Permeability distribution
for Ex. 7.2.
Layer h, ft k, md
1 10.0

2 6.8

3 4.7

4 10.4

5 20.5

6 12.1

7 8.6

8 18.4

9 14.3

10 10.9

Additionally, the average rela ive permeability data for this

reservoir are presented in Tab e 7.2
Table 7.2: Relative Permeability data
for Ex. 7.2.

Sw ^rw ^0
0.36 0 0.180

0.38 0.004 0.130

0.42 0.008 0.082

0.46 0.015 0.050

0.54 0.038 0.020

0.58 0.063 0.014

0.62 0.100 0.008

0.66 0.155 0.002

0.70 0.214 0

Other data are:

= 2.72 cp
= 0.75 cp
Well Pattern « five-spot
Oil in place at beginning of flood 32 X 10® STB
15000 RB/D
w
B 1.25 RB/STB

7-18
 B =1.05 RB/STB
w
S :: = 0.0 ^
gl
S . = 0.36
wi

Use the recovery correlations of Dykstra and Parsons to

determine:

a. N as a function of WOR
p
b. as a function of
c. N as a function of time
P
SOLUTION

a. The first step in this procedure is to determine the

Dykstra-Parsons permeability variation. This requires that
the permeabilities be rearranged in the order of decreasing
permeability and that the percent greater than be computed
for each value; these calculations are summarized in Table
7.3.
Table 7.3: Calculation of Percent Greater
Than^ Ex. 7.Z^
Percent Greater Than
—

20.5 0

18.4 10

14.3 20

12.1 30

10.9 40

10.4 50

10.0 60

8.6 70

6.8 80

4.7 90

These data are plotted in Fig. 7.9. Using the data from
Fig. 7.9, the permeability variation is computed to be
^50 ' ^84.1 10.0 - 5.95
V ^ —nrrs—

V = 0.405

7-19
 ) ) )

•t.n MJMJ tlJ W W M M >.t •.t o w PW

100 liSiiSI
immi
niiiii
nmm
lliilii

lliajii
Hiiiii!

SEiibBB
iiijjijg
-•§
10 i|i3!ESin!j!!|E = gigia^^iiyiiiiiisigsgii \\m
iiillilHiiniiii iiii?
•vj \m\
I
N>
O
mm
ES=Sb2 liriliii!H!!il!l!iliilllll!l
illB!

BSaSCB
ESE533 :Ece=i=:===

ES=5i:ii! lEsiSsEa
ssssa
sasss
!!•••"•
Percent Greater Than liiKsa
ISiSBBS

Fig. 7.9: Log probability plot of permeability data for Ex. 7.2.
The mobility ratio is defined as

^rw >^o
u
^ro

The Dykstra-Parsons method assumes piston-like displacement;

accordingly, kj.© is taken at the initial water saturation and
k,^ is taken at the residual oil saturation behind the front.
Therefore,

„ „ (Q.214U2.72 CD) ^ _
" (0.180)(0.75 cp)
Vertical sweep(coverage), Cy, can be obtained from the Dykstra-
Parsons charts as a function of WOR. Results are summarized in
Table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Vertical sweep versus water-oil ratio, Ex. 7.2

WOR Cv

0.1 0.24
0.2 0.29
0.5 0.40
1.0 0.51
2.0 0.63
5.0 0.79
10.0 0.88
25.0 0.94
50.0 0.96
100.0 0.98

Oil recovery in STB*8 is computed using Eq. 5.12, i.e.,

Np = N Ej) Ej^ Cy
and N = VpSo/Bo
= NBon „ (32x10^ STB)(1.25 RB/STB)
P 1-Swi" (1-0.36)
Vp = 62.5 X 10® RB
Np = (62.5x10® RB)(So) EdEaCv/Bo = (62.5x10®RB)SoEdEaCv/Bo
So-Sor
Since Ed = go
Np -= (62.5x10®)(So-Sor)(Ea)(Cv)/Bo

7-21
The areal sweep efficiency at any point in time during the flood
varies from layer-to-layer; it also varies within each layer as
a function of cumulative water injection. The basic Dykstra-
Parsons calculation assumes linear flow and, accordingly,
does not consider these effects. It will be assumed in this
project that the average areal sweep efficiency is equal
to the sweep efficiency at breakthrough; this may be somewhat
pessimistic but, when coupled with the optimistic Dykstra—Parson s
calculations which result from assuming piston-like displacement
of oil, it should give a reasonable prediction of oil recovery.
The sweep efficiency correlations used to obtain E^s
require a different definition of mobility ratio than used
in the Dykstra-Parsons displacement calculations. In order
to obtain E^s at breakthrough from Fig. 4.10, the mobility
ratio is computed according to £q. 4.4:

„ „ Po ^'^rw^Swbt
Ww (^ro^S^i
Fig. 7.10 presents the fractional flow curve for this reservoir;
it is determined from this graph that S^bt « 0.548, and it
is jfound by linear interpolation from the relative permeability
data that the corresponding value of kp^ is 0.043. Thus,

^2.72 ctj)(0.043) ^ ««
« " (0.75 cpHO.lSO) = 0-®^
From Fig. 4.10, E^s = 70%, and from relative permeability
table, Sor = 30%.

Np = (62.5x10®)(0.64-0.30)(0.70)Cv/1.25
Np = 11.90xl0®Cv
Calculations of cumulative oil recovery are summarized in
Table 7.5 as a function of water-oil ratio, and are presented
graphically in Fig. 7.11.

7-22
 S„bt = 0-548

Mh
0.5

20 30 40 SiO 60 70 80 90
s„. *

Fig. 7.10: Fractional flow curve for Ex. 7.2.

7-23
 Table 7.5: Cumulative oil recovery versus water-oil ratio
Ex. 7.2.

WOR Cv Np, STBxlO^

0.1 .24- 2.85

0.2 .29 3.45
0.5 .40 4.76
1.0 .51 6.07
2.0 .63 7.59
5.0 .79 9.40
10.0 .88 10.47
25.0 .94 11.19
50.0 .96 11.42
100.0 .98 11.66

b. The cumulative water injected at any time is computed

according to the relationship:

= Wf + Wq + Wp

The water required to replace the produced oil, Wq, is computed

according to £q. 7.24, i.e.,

Wo = NpBo

The water required to replace produced water is defined by

Eq. 7.26 and is obtained by graphically integrating the area
under the WOR-Np curve in Fig. 7.11. The water required
to fill up gas space is zero in this project since there
is no initial gas saturation. These calculations are summarized
in Table 7.6.

7-24
 100
•il: h;:

liui
90

80

y:::naa

70 nnHiHH!!!

60

ce:

§ 50

40 tsr.nxunixn::::::
HEH !::•

30

20
iiiiiiiiHcHiiiiE

10

xiuJluru:!** ituzxixi] u :

Np, STB X10®

Fig. 7.11: Ciomulative oil recovery versus water-
oil-ratio for Ex. 7.2.

7-2S
Table 7.6: Cumulative water injection versus water-oil ratio,
Ex. 7.2.

WOR N , STBxlO® W^, bblxlO® Wp, bblxlO® W., bblxlO®

P

0.1 2.85 3.56 0.03 3.59

0.2 3.45 4.31 0.12 4.43
0.5 4.76 5.95 0.58 6.53
1.0 6.07 7.58 1.56 9.14
2.0 7.59 9.49 3.84 13.33
5.0 9.40 11.75 9.70 21.45
10.0 10.47 13.09 23.06 36.15
25.0 11.19 13.99 39.28 53.27
50.0 11.42 14.27 47.91 62.18
100.0 11.66 14.58 65.91 80.49

c. Waterflood performance can be put on a time basis using

Eq. 7.28, i.e..

These calculations are summarized by Table 7.7.

Table 7.7: Cumulative oil recovery versus time, Ex. 7.2.

WOR Np, STBxlO® t, days

0.1 2.85 239

0.2 3.45 295
0.5 4.76 435
1.0 6.07 609
2.0 7.59 889
5.0 9.40 1430
10.0 10.47 2410
25.0 11.19 3551
50.0 11.42 4145
100.0 11.66 5366

7-26
 WATERFLOOD - MATERIAL BALANCE
GAS RESATURATION EFFECTS

OIL IN RESERVOIR AT ANYTIME

= OIL AT START OF WATERFLOOD - OIL PRODUCED

OIL IN RESERVOIR AT ANYTIME

= [VpEAEvSor + Vp(l-EA*Ev)Soi]/Bo

OIL AT START OF WATERFLOOD

= VpSo/Bo

WATERFLOOD
OIL PRODUCED = Np

Therefore:

^p^A^v^or **• Vp(l-EA*EY)Soi = VpSo - Np

Solving for Np
Np = [VpSo " VpE^EySor ~ " E^Ev)Soi]/Bo

Np = Vp[So + E^EySoi - Ej^Ey^or ~ SqiJ/Bo

Np ~ ^pt^o ~ ®oi ®A®v^®oi ~ Sor^^/®o

7-26A
 B. Stiles Method

The Stiles® method is one of the most commonly used

methods for predicting waterflood behavior in stratified
reservoirs. The method is subject to the following
assumptions and limitations:

1. Layer-cake model with no crossflow

2. Linear and steady-state flow
3. Equal rock and fluid properties, with the
exception of absolute permeability, in all layers
4. Piston-like displacement
5. The distance of flood front penetration into
each layer is proportional to the capacity Ckh)
of the layer. This is equivalent to assuming the
mobility ratio is unity.
6. Fillup occurs in all layers prior to flood
response.

1. Vertical Coverage

The first step in the Stiles method is to prepare .

dimensionless capacity and permeability distribution curves
for the reservoir. This procedure was presented in Chapter
5; typical capacity and permeability distribution curves
which will result from this procedure are depicted by Fig.
7.12.
It is assumed in this method that flow is linear and
that the distance of penetration of the flood front is
proportional to permeability. This means that the front of
advancing water will have the same shape as the permeability
distribution curve. Consider Fig. 7.13 which depicts the
permeability distribution of a reservoir; if this distribution
curve is thought of as the flood front, then for clarity
we can assume that the lineiF represents the injection well
and line cH^ represents the producing well. The position of
the flood front after h^ beds have been flooded out is cfb;
the fraction of the reservoir flooded at this time is propor-
^ tional to the area (X+Y). Since the total reservoir volume

7-27
 1.0

k •
max

1.0

Fig. 7.12: Typical Stiles permeability and

capacity distribution curve.

7-28
 Flood Front

Fig. 7.13: Use of Stiles permeability distribution

curve to depict shape of flood front.

7-29
is equivalent to the area (X+Y+Z), it follows that the
fraction of reservoir flooded, i.e., the vertical coverage
is equal to

y+Y
Vertical Coverage = (7.30)

It can be shown® that the area under the permeability

distribution curve is unity, i.e.,

W + X + Y = 1.0 (7.31)

Since the capacity distribution is the integral of the

permeability curve, the capacity corresponding to the
dimensionless formation thickness, h^, is

C = W + X (7.32)

Combining Eqs. 7.31 and 7.32,

Y = 1.0 - (W + X)

Y = 1.0 - C (7.33)

It is further observed from Fig. 7.13 that

X= (ae)(ac) = h|kj
In the general case where h* fraction of the total formation
thickness has flooded out,

X = h»k' (7.34)

It follows that the vertical coverage, C^, defined by

Eq. 7.30, can be rewritten as:

7-30
 k'h + (1-C) (7.35)
= •p

Equation 7.35 can be used to compute vertical coverage of

the water front as a function of the fraction of formation
which has flooded out; the only information required for
this calculation is the capacity and permeability distri
bution curve.

2. Water Cut and Water-oil Ratio

Referring again to Fig. 7.13, that portion of the for

mation with permeabilities greater than will be flowing
water. The formation capacity flowing water, therefore, is
C, and the formation capacity flowing oil is (1-C). According
to Darcy*s Law, the water production rate from that portion
of the formation with a capacity C is:

rw 1
*w
(7.36)
w

Further, the oil producing rate can be expressed as:

q « (1-C) (7.37)
^o

Thus, the total reservoir production rate is:

^t " ^o " ^ w (7.38)

^ Vy, ~ior~
o o

The surface water cut, defined as the fraction of

total surface production which is water, can be computed
as

7-31
 r
L ^ rw
B y
w
(WC)c =
C ''rw ^ 1-C ''ro
I'w "o

c
•'o ®o]
I'ro
fk
rw
B0 1
c + (1-C)
F"
^w w

o
CA
(WC) S • CA + (l-C)o (7.39)

where:
^rw
(7.40)

Likewise, the surface water cut at reservoir conditions is

CA»
(WC) (7.41)
CA» + (1-C)

where: ^rw ^o
(7.42)
^w ^o

The producing water-oil ratio can be computed as:

WOR =^In ^1-C (7.43)

3. Oil and Water Producing Rates

If steady state flow is assumed, the total reservoir
flow rate will be equivalent to the water injection rate,
i.e.,.

^o ^ ^w "w (7.44>-^

7-32
It follows that the production rate of water can be
computed as:

IwR =

Accordingly, the oil production rate, expressed at

reservoir conditions is:

loR = - %K'

The surface oil production rate is:

q-c = STB/D (7.4 73

4. Cumulative Oil Recovery

Cumulative oil recovery can be computed at any time in

the life of a flood in terms of the vertical coverage at
that time. The relationship between these variables is:

j, = VP(S °\
. - S )E. C
^ (7.48)
P ®o

where: = cumulative oil recovery, STB

Vp = reservoir pore volume, RB
oil saturation at beginning of flood, fraction
S = residual oil saturation to waterflooding,
fraction
= oil formation volume factor, RB/STB

5. Summary of Equations

Vertical coverage: C^ =

• CMB /B
Surface water cut: (WC)g = * (1-C)

7-33
 CM
Reservoir water cut: CM (l-C)
CMBq/B^
Producing water-oil ratio: WOR = —^-7^—

V
Cumulative oil recovery: B ^^oi'^or^^A
^ o

Reservoir water production rate:

Reservoir oil production rate: = i^ - ^WR»

^oR
Surface oil production rate: q^^ = B^' STB/D
o

6. Procedure for Predicting Performance

1. Arrange the permeability data in the order of
decreasing permeability and prepare a plot of
dimensionless permeability, k*, and dimensionless
capacity, C, as a function of dimensionless for
mation thickness, h*. Preparation of this plot
was discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and was
illustrated by Fig. 7.12.
2. Divide the dimensionless permeability and capacity
curves into increments of equal thickness (i.e.,
ten layers) and select from the curves values of
k* and C to represent each layer; i.e., read
values of k* and C at h' = 0.1, 0.2, ..., 1.0.
3. The cumulative oil production, water-oil ratio,
water production rate, and oil production rate can
be put on a time-basis using the calculations
outlined in the following table:

7-34
h- k- C Np * WCr

I'l" "l' 4 '^vl V " 0 0

^2* ^2* ^2 ^v2 ^p2 (W0R)2

^10 ^10 ^plO (WOR)^q ^^wR^lO

*indicates value before breakthrough in the indicated bed

n ^^os^. ^^^os^ • 1 N .-N . ,

*%R (%s)aVG= 1^ ^ AVG
iw/«o ^w Ati
>>2' (1or52 (%s^2 "2 ^2
• • • • • •

• • • •

1—1
O (^los^lO '^^''osl0*''os9^ ^^10 ^10
/—\
(Xi
*indicates value before breakthrough in the indicated bed
O
c•r
i•H o
EXAMPLE 7.5

A flood is planned for an 80-acre lease which has an

average sand thickness of 10 feet and the following perme
ability profile as determined from core analysis on five wells:

7-35
 Subsea Depth Absolute Permeability
ft md

From to

2050 2051 35

2051 2052 51

2052 2053 27

2053 2054 116

2054 2055 60

2055 2056 237

2056 2057 519

2057 2058 98

2058 2059 281

2059 2060 164

Other Reservoir Data:

Average Porosity = 25%

Average Connate Water = 23%
Recovery by Primary Depletion = 140.5 STB/acre-foot
= 1.251 bbl/STB (no initial gas cap)
B^ at depletion = 1.085 bbl/STB (beginning of flood)
k in oil bank 0.85
ro
k = behind oil bank » 0.25
rw
4.50 cp
= 0.79 cp
' 15.6% (after flooding)
or
1000 RB/D
""w
' 82%
b2 = 1.0 RB/STB
w

Use the Stiles method to calculate the waterflood response of

this reservoir.

SOLUTION

A summary of calculations required to construct

capacity and permeability distribution curves are presented
in Tables 7.8 and 7.9, respectively. The capacity and
permeability distributions are presented graphically in Fig.
7.14.
7-36
 (kAh).
Ah, ft kAh, md-ft AC " C = ZAC h = EAh
k, md ZkAh

0.3268 0.3268 1 0.1

519 1 519
0.1770 0.5038 2 0.2
281 1 281
0.1492 0.6530 3 0.3
237 1 237
0.1033 0.7563 4 0.4
164 1 164
0.0730 0.8293 5 0.5
116 1 116
0.0617 0.8910 6 0.6
98 1 98
0.0378 0.9288 7 0.7
60 1 60
0.0321 0.9609 8 0.8
51 1 51
0.0220 0.9829 9 0.9
35 1 35

27 0.0170 0.9999 10 1.0

27
ht = 10 ZkAh = 1588 11

Table 7 -9: Permeability distribution. Ex. 7.3.

h' Ah ' . ^plot

0. 1 0.1 3.268 0.05

0. 2 0.1 1.770 0.15

0. 3 0.1 1.492 0.25

0. 4 0.1 1.033 0.35

0. 5 0.1 0.730 0.45 .

0. 6 0.1 0.617 0.55

0. 7 0.1 0.378 0.65

0. 8 0.1 0.321 0.75

0. 9 0.1 0.220 0.85

1. 0 0.1 0.170 0.95

The vertical coverage at the time of breakthrough in

each bed is computed using Eq. 7.35:

« „ k*h* (1-C)
S " k*

7-37
 The surface water cut before breakthrough ih each bed is

C. ,MB /B

where: M
^rw % fo. 251 r4.
1.68
^ro ^w [o. 85J [o. 79J

1.82 C
Thus, iU
CWC)
1 + 0.82

5.0

tn
O

4.0 •
u

X X
<p

I
•H •H
U
CO
a .O
td 3.0 cd
u a>
S
tn
tn o
o Cu
iH
e mm
m
o tn
•H
V) 2.0 Jh
C c
o o
E •H
•H V)
Q c
Q)
E
•H
o
1.0

Fig. 7.14: Dimensionless capacity and permeability

distribution curves, Ex. 7.3.

7-38
Similarly, the reservoir water cut before breakthrough
in each bed is:
o
•

00 1.68 C._
1
(WC)j, = 1 + 0.68

Vertical coverage and water cut calculations are summarize!

in Table 7.10. Note that values of k* and C were obtained

from Fig . 7.14.

Table 7. 10: Coverage and water-cut calculations, Ex. 7.3.

h» k' C (WC)g (WC)r

0.1 2.53 0.33 • 0.365 0 0

1.62 0.51 0.502 0.473 0.453

0.3 1.13 0.65 0.610 0.654 0.636

0.4 0.85 0.75 0.694 0.772 0.757

0.5 0.65 0.83 0.762 0.845 0.834

0.6 0.50 0.89 0.820 0.899 0.891

0.7 0.37 0.93 0.889 0.936 0.931

0.28 0.96 0.943 0.960 0.957

0.9 0.22 0.98 0.991 0.978 0.976

1.0 0.17 1.00 1.000 0.989 0.988

The oil saturation at the beginning of the flood can be

CM
calculated
O
•
by material balance to be

'B
1-S
So = B
01
wi

where: N initial oil in place in reservoir, STB

N cumulative oil production by primary
depletion, STB
oil formation volume factor at initial
8oi reservoir pressure, RB/STB
B. oil formation volume factor at beginning
of flood, RB/STB

7-39
The initial oil in place can be estimated from the
expression

7758 Ah4)(l.S^.)
" rr
01

f77S8)(80 acHlO ftHO. 25) Cl-0.23)

= 1.2S1 bbl/iiYB

N = 955,021 STB

Cumulative oil recovery by primary depletion was 140.5 STB/ac

ft; accordingly,

Np =(140.5 |pjt)(80 ac)(10 ft)

Np <= 112,400 STB
Therefore, the oil saturation is:

112,400 STB 1.085 RB/STB (1 - 0.23)

S
^ • 955,021 STB 1.251 RB/m

S^
o
= 0.589

The free gas saturation at the beginning of the

flood is:

Sg = 1 - So -
S = 1 - 0.589 - 0.23
g
S„ = 0.181
g

This gas space must be filled with water before any flood
response will be achieved. The amount of water required to
fill the gas space is

W.. = V S„ = 7758Ah4)S„
ir p g g

7-40
 W.J = (77S8)(80 ac)(10 ft) (0.25) (0.181)
= 280,840 bbls

The time required to achieve fillup, assuming a constant

injection rate, is:

''if 280.840 bbls _ j....

tf = r-w
1006 bbls/1) - 281 days
Oil recovery can be computed according to Eq. 7.48:
- S_)E^ C,
N , -p^-oi T—or^-A -V
P ®o
(7758) (80 ac)(10 ft)(0.25)(0.589-0.156)(0.82)C
N.
P 1.085 RB/STB

Np = 507,752 Cy STB

Oil recovery calculations are summarized in Table 7.11

Table

h»
^v Np, STB ANp, STB
0.1 0.365 185,329 185,329
0.2 0.502 254,892 69,563
0.3 0.610 309,729 54,837
0.4 0.694 352,380 42,651
0.5 0.762 386,907 34,527
0.6 0.820 416,357 29,450
0.7 0.889 451,392 35,035
0.8 0.943 478,810 27,418
0.9 0.991 503,182 24,372
1.0 1.000 507,752 4,570

Oil production rate is computed using the following

relationship:

^ - "V
^ "os w;
7-41
The oil producing rates can be averaged over each production
interval and the time required to produce an increment of
oil, ANp, can be computed as
AN

"•wjos^AVG
Oil recovery calculations are summarized as a function of time
in Table 7.12.

AN„
h* q , STB/D At = \ t = t£ + ZAt
^os ^%s^AVG ^%s-'AVG

0.1 921.7 921.7 201.1 481.9

0.2 505.1 713.4 97.5 579.4

0.3 335.5 420.3 130.5 709.9

0.4 224.0 279.8 152.4 862.3

0.5 153.0 188.5 183.2 1045.5

0.6 100.5 126.8 232.3 1277.8

0.7 63.6 82.1 426.7 1704.5

39.6 51.6 531.4 2235.9

0.9 22.1 30.9 788.7 3024.6^

1.0 0 11.1 411.7 3436.3

00
o
•
After injecting for time t, cumulative water injected is

"i =

Further, the producing water-oil ratio before breakthrough in

each layer is

WOR =
Ci-lMBo/Bw
1-4-1

These calculations are summarized in Table 7.13.

7-42
Table 7.13: Water-oil ratio and water injection requirements.
Ex. 7.3.

h' W., bblxlO® WOR, bbl/STB

0.1 0.76 .0

0.2 0.86 0.9

0.3 0.99 1.9

0.4 1.14 3.4

0.5 1.33 5.5

0.6 1.56 8.9

0.7 1.99 14.7

0.8 2.52 24.2

0.9 3.31 43.7

1.0 3.72 89.3

Finally, a summary of cumulative oil production, oil producing

rate and water-oil ratio are presented as a function of time
in Table 7.14.

Table 7.14; Summary of waterflood calculations. Ex. 7.3.

t, days Np, STB q^, STB/D WOR, bbl/STB

482 185,329 921.7 .0

579 254,892 505.1 0.9
710 309,729 335.5 1.9
862 352,380 224.0 3.4
1046 386,907 153.0 5.5
1278 416,357 100.5 8.9
1705 451,392 63.6 14.7
2236 478,810 39.6 24.2
3025 503,182 22.1 43.7
3436 507,752 0 89.3

7-43
C. Prats, et al. Method

Application of the Prats method' to the determination

of injection behavior in a five-spot pattern was presented
in Chapter 6. Under the assumed condition of steady state
flow, the production rate from a bed will equal the
injection rate into that layer; this will occur, however,
only after gas fill-up. Therefore, the fraction of total
production from the jth layer will be

In terms of the dimensionless injection rate.

Zq^lDCt)
= _2 (7.50)
•^Dt
It was shown in Chapter 6 how f W
, O
f and f_§ can be
determined as a ftmction of dimensionless water injection,

^iD* knowledge of this information, it is possible

to completely define the product ion-time behavior of a
waterflood project. An excellent example which illustrates
the application of this method to the determination of
injection and production behavior during a waterflood is
presented by Prats, et al.' The general flow of these
calculations is summarized in Table 7.15.

Table 7.15: Summary of production rate calculations for

the Prats, et al. method.
tAn ^
§9 values of yP for each layer

t layer 1 layer 2 layer 3 layer ^ ^Dt iwt

7-44
 Table 7.15: (Cont'd.)

^0 It ''o 1w ^Dt "it

Primary assximptions and limitations of the Prats, et al.

method are:
1. Layer-cake model
2. Steady state flow
3. Requires experimentally developed correlations
4. Piston-like displacement in swept area
5. Five-spot pattern (subject to availability of
after-breakthrough sweep correlations)
III. Prediction Methods Concerned Primarily with Displacement
Mechanism

The methods considered thus far have assumed piston-like

displacement behind the water front. However, it is
generally recognized that a saturation gradient does exist
behind the front and that oil production can be expected after
water breakthrough from the swept area. The following methods
account for the mechanism of displacement in predicting
waterflood behavior.

A. Buckley-Leverett Method

The method of Buckley and Leverett®, as well as the

modifications of Welge®, were presented in detail in Chapter
3 for a linear, homogeneous reservoir. This method serves
as the basis for describing the mechanism of immiscible
fluid displacement in a waterflood. It has been shown that
this method can be extended to describe the saturation
behavior in radial systems^® and in five-spot systems^In
other extensions to be described, we will see that the method
can also be applied to multilayered systems.

7-45
B. Roberts Method

Robertssuggested that the performance of each layer

in a layered system could be computed using Buckley-Leverett
theory, with the injection into each layer being proportional
to the capacity of the layer. Assumptions and limitations
are:

1. All assumptions involved in the Buckley-Leverett

Method apply to each layer.
2. Layer-cake model with no crossflow.
3. Injection into each layer is proportional to the
fractional capacity of the layer.
4. Constant injection rate.
The following procedure for applying the Roberts Method .
is suggested by Langnes, et al.^^
1. Construct a fractional flow curve and determine
the average water saturation behind the front.
2. Draw several tangents to the fractional flow curve
at S values greater than the breakthrough
saturation. Determine SJff and f^'
wi
= dfW /dS W
corresponding to these Vi values. Plot f^* W
versus
S and construct a smooth curve through the points.
W

3. Define the layers within the reservoir and determine

the average permeability, porosity, and thickness
for each layer.
4. Compute the capacity, kh, and fraction of total
capacity, AC, for each layer.
5. Compute the injection rate into each layer.
iwj =
6. Calculate the cumulative water injection, j»
into each layer to reach each point chosen
in (2).
7758A.h.<|>.
3 3^3
W._. =
ij f .
w

7. Calculate and for each layer at each

point. Before breakthrough in a given bed,

7-46
 1 .
WJ

^Oj "

q . = 0

After breakthrough in a bed

i.
WJ

^oj K (1 - f^)

q. » i •f
WJ WJ w

8. Calculate the recovery at breakthrough,

and the time to breakthrough,
layer

^wbt ' ^wi

l^PjJ bt • A.*.h. T

bt
bt

9 Calculate the recovery, , and the time, t^ ,

to each point.
10 Plot the oil production rate for each layer as
a function of time. Use this plot to construct
a graph of total oil production rate versus time.
11 Repeat step 10 for the water production rate.
12 Use the total oil and water production rates to
construct a plot of WOR versus time.
13 Plot cumulative oil recovery from each layer as
a function of time and use this plot to construct
a graph of total recovery versus time.
14, Based on estimated expenses, decide on an
appropriate WOR cutoff and from the data in
Step 12, estimate the life of the project.

7-47
 15. Use the WOR-time cutoff to determine the projects
ultimate recovery from data in Step 15.

C. Craig-Geffen-Morse Method^^
This is one of the most thorough and most practical
prediction methods available for five-spot systems. The
technique is also applicable to other patterns if certain
required experimental correlations are available. The method
utilizes a modified Welge equation to consider the displace
ment mechanism in the swept area. Variations in injectivity
for constant pressure water injection are accounted for using
the experimental correlations of Caudle and Witte^**, and the
effects of increases in areal sweep efficiency beyond break
through are included on the basis of experimental correlations
presented by Craig, Geffen, and Morse.
Although the original paper did not consider multi-
layered systems, subsequent modifications by Hendrickson^®,
and by Wasson and Schrider^®, permit application to stratified
systems.
A detailed discussion of this method is presented in
Monograph 3, along with an example application.

D. Higgins-Leighton Method^'*
This method basically applies the displacement theory
of Buckley and Leverett to any flooding pattern for which
the isopotential and flow streamlines are available. It
is more complicated to use than previously discussed methods
and requires the use of a computer. To apply the method,
the reservoir is divided into flow channels based on flow
streamlines as determined from potentiometric model studies,
or other methods. Each stream channel is subdivided into
equal volume cells and assuming unidirectional flow, a
Buckley-Leverett type material balance on each cell yields
the rate of water accumulation and oil displacement from
which saturation gradients can be determined. From
individually calculated flow resistances for each cell, and
the total pressure drop between wells, instantaneous oil
and water flow rates can be computed.

7-48
 ) ) )
COMPARISON OF WATERFLOOD PREDICTION METHODS

Dvkstra-Parsons Stiles Cralg-Gef fen-Morse

1. Linear Flow 1. Linear Flow 1. Five-Spot Pattern

2. Layered System 2. Layered System 2. Layered System

3. No Crossflow 3. No Crossflow 3. No Crossflow

4. Piston Displacement 4. Piston Displacement 4. Buckley-Leverett Flow Accounts

(Limited To Favorable For Oil Production In Water
To Low Mobility Ratio Zone Before And After Break
Systems) through

5. Gas Flllup Of All Zones 5. Gas Flllup Of All Zones 5. Gas Flllup Of Individual
Before Production Response Before Production Response Zones Before Production
Response

6. Steady State 6. Steady State 6. Steady State

7. Constant Sweep Efficiency 7. Constant Sweep Efficiency 7. Increase In Areal Sweep After
I
Breakthrough Up To 100% Using
00
>
Experimental Data

8. Applicable For All Values 8. Vertical Injection Distri 8. Vertical Injection Distribu
Of Mobility Ratio bution Related To Layer kh tion Related To Layer kh
(Unit MR) (Unit MR)

9. Injection Rate Estimated 9. Injection Rate Estimated By 9. Variable Injection Rate Using
By Other Methods By Other Methods Experimental Data

10. Except For Permeability, 10. Except For Permeability 10. Layers Possess Different
Layers Possess Equal And Thickness, Layers Permeability, Porosity, And
Properties Such As h, Possess Equal Properties Thickness

Sot Sg, And S^ Such As h, Sot Sg, And

Sw

11. Requires Estimation Of 11. Requires Flow Capacity And

Dykstra-Parsons Permeability Curves From
Coefficient Core Data
 Data required for the method are relative permeabilities,
viscosities, absolute permeability, layer thicknesses, applied
differential pressure, and the isopotential and streamline
configuration for the particular well pattern studied.
A major limitation of the method is its dependence on
the resistance factors (shape factor) which must be known for
each cell to properly account for sweep variations induced by
the different cell geometries. These resistance factors have
been presented in the literature for many commonly used flood
ing patterns. A major assumption in setting up the cell
models is that stream channels determined using unit mobility
can be applied to any system.
This method has given very good agreement in matching
experimental and field waterflood results.
IV. Prediction Methods Based on Numerical Models
A complete solution to the multiphase, multidimensional
partial differential equations which govern fluid flow in a
porous and permeable media is probably the best prediction
model that we can use. Such a model can account for
directional variation in fluid and rock properties, layering
effects, crossflow, gravity, capillary pressure, irregular
boundaries, individual well behavior, etc. The effects of
varying injection patterns, well locations, injection and
producing rates, plus many other factors, can be studied
which were not possible using previously discussed models.
In general, mathematical models are very expensive to
develop and run. Furthermore, extensive amounts of data
are generally required to take advantage of the flexibility
and accuracy afforded by these models. Many studies simply
do not justify the use of such a model.
V. Prediction Methods Based on Empirical Models
Several models are available which attempt to relate
waterflood recovery to pertinent project variables based on
the past performance of waterfloods. Although these models
can generally give answers that are reasonably correct, they

7-49
should only be used to make a cursory analysis of a project.
They should certainly not be used as the basis for the final
design of a waterflood.
Some of the better empirical methods are summarized
in Chapter 8, Monograph III^.

7-50
 REFERENCES: Prediction of Waterflood Performance

1. Craig, F. F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects

of Waterflooding, Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers o± AiME, Dallas (1971).
2. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, H. L.: ''The Prediction of
Oil Recovery by Waterflooding," Secondary Recovery of
Oil in the Vnited States^ 2nd ed., API, New York
(1950) 160-174.

3. Johnson, C. E., Jr.: "Prediction of Oil Recovery by

Waterflood--A Simplified Graphical Treatment of the
Dykstra-Parsons Method," Trans. ^ AIME (1956) 207,
345-346

4. Mobarak, S.: "Waterflooding Performance Using Dykstra-

Parsons As Compared with Numerical Model Performance,"
Jour, "Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1975) 113-115.
5. Stiles, W. E.: "Use of Perme^ility Distribution in
Waterflood Calculations," Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
6. Cole, F. W.: Reservoir Engineering Manual, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston tl969J•

7. Prats, M., Matthews, C. S., Jewett, R. L. and Baker,

J. D." "Prediction of Injection Rate and Production
History for Multifluid Five-Spot Floods," Trans., AIME
(1959) 216, 98-105.

8. Buckley, S. E. and Leverett, M. C.: "Mechanism of

Fluid Displacement in Sands," Trans., AIMB (1942) 146,
107-116.

9. Welge, H. J.: "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil

Recovery by Gas or Water Drive," Trans., AIME (1952)
19S, 91-98.

10. Felsenthal, M. and Yuster, S. T.: "A Study of the Effect

of Viscosity in Oil Recovery by Waterflooding," paper
163-6 presented at SPE West Coast Meeting, Los Angeles,
Oct. 25-26, 1951.

11. Craig, F. F., Jr., Geffen, T. M. and Morse, R. A.:

"Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern Gas or Water
Injection Operations from Model Tests," Trans., AIME
(1955) 204, 7-15.

12. Roberts, T. G.: "A Permeability Block Method of Calcu

lating a Water Drive Recovery Factor," Pet. Engr. (1959)
Zl, B45-48.

7-51
13. Langnes, G. L., Robertson, J. 0., Jr., and Chilingar,
G. V.: Secondary Recovery and Carbonate Reservoirs,
Elsevier, New York (1972).

14. Caudle, B. H. and Witte, M. D.: "Production Potential

Changes During Sweepout in a Five-Spot Pattern," Trans, ,
AIME C1959) 216, 446-448.

15. Hendrickson, G. E.: "History of the Welch Field San

Andres Pilot Waterflood," J, Pet. Tech, (Aug., 1961)
745-749.

16. Wasson, J. A. and Schrider, L. A.: "Combination Method

for Predicting Waterflood Performance for Five-Spot
Patterns in Stratified Reservoirs," J. Pet, Tech,
(Oct., 1968) 1195-1202.

17. Higgins, R. V. and Leighton, A. J.: "A Computer Method

to Calculate Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded
Porous Medium," J, Pet. Tech. C*7une, 1962) 679-683.

18. Higgins, R. V. and Leighton, A. J.: "Computer Prediction

of Water Drive of Oil and Gas Mixtures Through Irregularly
Bounded Porous Media--Three Phase Flow," J. Pet. Tech.
CSept., 1962) 1048-1054.
19. Higgins, R. V. and Leighton, A. J.: "Waterflood Pre-
diction of Partially Depleted Reservoirs," paper SPE
757 presented at SPE 33rd Annual California Regional
Fall Meeting, Santa Barbara, Oct. 24-25, 1963.
20. Higgins, R. V., Boley, D. W. and Leighton, A. J.:
"Aids in Forecasting the Performance of Water Floods,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1964) 1076-1082..

7-52
 PROBLEMS: Prediction of Waterflood Performance

1. Shown below is a plot of producing (surface) water-oil

ratio versus cumulative oil production obtained from
Dykstra-Parspns calculations for an oil reservoir. Other
reservoir data are:

= 1.30 RB/STB
B^ - 1.0 RB/STB
i^ = 50,000 RB/D
12%
gi
30.0x10® RB

125

100

75
cc
o

50

25

1x10® 9x10®
Np, STB

7-53
 a. Calculate the cumulative water production to be
expected while producing 9x10® STB's of oil.
b. How long will it take for this production to
occur?
c. How long will it take for water breakthrough to
occur?

2. Consider the following information for a reservoir which

is to be waterflooded:
Porosity, ^ = 0.29
Connate water saturation, S =0.32
W

Bubble point formation volume factor, = 1.090 RB/STB

Oil formation volume factor at start ,
of flood, B^ ~ 1.062 RB/STB
Flood pattern area, A = 1,04 3 acres
Average formation thickness, h = 20.0 feet
Cumulative oil production from , ...
bubble point to start of flood 6,267,440 STB
Areal sweep efficiency, E^g = 0.70
Residual oil saturation after flooding, = 0. 368
Water injection rate, i « 4,800 BPD
Water relative permeability behind front, k^^ =0.20
Oil relative permeability ahead of front, k =0.80
TO
Water viscosity, « 0.50 cp
Oil viscosity, « 10.68 cp
Economic water-cut limit = 0.96
The permeability data for this reservoir is presented in
Table 7P.1 along with the percent greater than value for
each layer. A log-probability plot of permeability
versus percent greater than is presented in Fig. 7P.1.
Use the Dykstra-Parsons method to predict the
performance of this flood for:
a. Cumulative oil recovery versus producing water-oil
ratio
b. Cumulative water injection versus time
c. Cumulative oil recovery versus time

7-54
 SS-L

k, md

o
o o
o o

•n

OQ HHiannituti llWUttJIIIttllUI
I uii inu duum 11MI uu RUiimtMniiini

•-vj
*r3
iHiinmniniBflHiTinffiinnTKiiinnimiiniiiTiitiimmiiHiiiiiiiniiDiiiinDfniiiiiinHimiiiuoinoiiH)
•••••••uiuuHiHuiiiniuBgHiHUfBuiiiHiiuiiiuuuujHHamiuuiBiniiinuiuuumuiuuimuuuiuntuiimii

••jiuiiniiiiHiiuiiiiuiniiiifflQaitHfiiuiuiouraDiBHHHLiuiiiiiDiuntiuiDiDHiBuiitiiHinBiiieiitnmH
—»wi»w*iiinnHtiiiimimiiHMiiMnnf •—wr——

r*
0
OQ
1

T3
iniiiniiiiioiiitiiiHiiiDifiitniii
O Hiyiiiiiiiiunin]
O* limilllMUIHHIi IIlllllIlllliaQWIBSrUIUIUiHfltlP'*«5tUI
to nuitnaiRiHHHMi u HI nin iiHi ttm INT am u 1 n Hiu jaM
o* ainirwinHM—tj •H n u l u II iHiia out irn l u n uw r<ui iM tut
M in I na IUB ••••• wi • u a I u m i i n I uiu i m ra« I Mn I IMB iM (m
111 n I iin n ta B u u B B i I •••nnuf n H i a t n iiinimi uaM'uaa MoauoiuM

H»
Pt-

O
n n m n fM n m Hw Ml m n f i u I uru rrai m •em i s m IV. wiNinninniiHniiitiunfnniRW
T3 UMtnituiauiuxuinninnMiMuiiiMiBWD • Dwi WMI »r < n 111 u m u Kjc 111111 u H KM ma MBi
• •UlllllUlltMIHIDIiainBilllMIHMIIHUH] UBUB i'uinuiHiiinraaiimiMMiiu«nMiiii
l-» O u m • I i n t i I nil tim Ma l u a m i I riMi I tm ms
O (D
3

O
Hh a

T3 9
O o>
f+
3 o
o
0>
• ••imiimapu)—MiiM .mmiimi
a* H Mm a n DM iMi I n n M i u n uia
IMM BMi IM* wa m r - r aM mci UK) uu
M' =r
0)
9

-ani nut m MB n mM I uu mil 1M

tmi HUUDMnuiM luiimaiiM
o. mMnmitMiiniimiitfuiuHtifli
OS immBinuiiMiiHaimi
Pt- lUHIRtimtlllM
0>

f-h
o
•-J

O
o*
f11
••iimniiiiiRiinfl
ts) mflUlilfiUfiUiQI

!l! I!: IM i I 11
Sample No. k, md h, ft Percent Greater Than

1 1,132 1 0

2 791 1 5

3 562 1 10

4 416 1 15

5 325 1 20

6 271 1 25

7 238 1 30

8 217 1 35

9 199 1 40

10 182 1 45

11 163 1 50

12 142 1 55

13 121 1 60

14 101 1 65

15 84 1 70

16 70 1 75

17 59 1 80

18 49 1 85

19 33 1 90

20 4 1 95

3, An oil reservoir developed on a five-spot pattern is to

be waterflooded. Reservoir data are:
Porosity, ^ = 0.19
Connate water saturation, = 0.24
Initial oil formation volume factor, = 1.215 RB/STB
Oil formation volume factor at
beginning of flood, B^ =1.073 RB/STB
Area of five-spot pattern, A = 20 acres
Average formation thickness, h = 5 ft
Cumulative production to start „ ^cn STB
of flood. Np
Areal sweep efficiency, Ey^g = 0.85
Residual oil saturation after flooding, = 0.225
Water injection rate, i^ = 100 BPD

7-56
 Water relative permeability behind ^ o.20
flood front,
Oil relative permeability ahead ^ q gQ
of front,
Water viscosity, = 0.82 cp
Oil viscosity, = 4.34 cp
Economic WOR limit «= 25 bbl/STB

Permeability data for this reservoir are presented in

Table 7P.2 along with a summary of calculations to
determine the capacity distribution. Table 7P.3 presents
a summary of calculations to determine the permeability
distribution. Permeability and capacity distribution
curves for the reservoir are presented in Fig. 7P.2.
Use the Stiles method to determine the following
information as a function of time:
a. Cumulative oil recovery
b. Producing water-oil ratio
c. Oil flow rate
d. Cumulative water injected

7-57
 (kAh).
kAh, md-ft C = ZAC h = ZAh
, md Ah, ft " ZkAh ^ = Ht
776 1 776 0.1529 0.1529 1 0.0345

454 1 454 0.0894 0.2423 2 0.0690

349 , 0.0688 0.3111 3 0.1034

349 1

308 1 308 0.0607 0.3717 4 0.1379

1 295 0.0581 0.4299 5 0.1724

295
1 282 0.0556 0.4854 6 0.2069
282

273 1 273 0.0538 0.5392 7 0.2414

262 1 262 0.0516 0.5908 8 0.2759

228 0.0449 0.6357 9 0.3103

228 1

187 1 187 0.0368 0.6726 10 0.3448

178 1 178 0.0351 0.7076 11 0.3793

161 1 161 0.0317 0.7394 12 0.4138

1 159 0.0313 0.7707 13 0.4483

159

148 1 148 0.0292 0.7998 14 0.4828

127 1 127 0.0250 0.8249 15 0.5172

109 1 109 0.0215 0.8463 16 0.5517

88 1 88 0.0173 0.8637 17 0.5862

87 2 174 0.0343 0. 8980 19 0.6552

77 1 77 0.0152 0.9131 20 0.6897

49 9 441 0.0869 1.000 29 1.0000

h^=29 ZkAh=S,076

7-58
Table 7P.3 Permeability distribution,
Prob. 3.

h' Ah'
Slot
0.0345 0.0345 4.4334 0.0173

0.0690 0.0345 2.5938 0.0518

0.1034 0.0344 1.9939 0.0863

0.1379 0.0345 1.7597 0.1207

0.1724 0.0345 1.6854 0.1552

0.2069 0.0345 1.6111 0.1897

II

0.2414 0.0345 1.S597 0.2242

0.2759 0.0345 1.4968 0.2587

0.3103 0.0344 1.3026 0.2932

0.3448 0.0345 1.0684 0.3276

0.3793 0.0345 1.0169 0.3621

0.4138 0.0345 0.9198 0.3966

0.4483 0.0345 0.9084 0.4311

0.4828 0.0345 0.8455 0.4656

0.5172 0.0344 0.7256 0.5001

0.5517 0.0345 0.6227 0.5345

0.5862 0.0345 0.5028 0.5690

0.6552 0.0690 0.4970 0.6207

0.6897 0.0345 0.4399 0.6725

1.0000 0.3103 0.2799 0.8449

7-59
 Dimensionless Permeability, k'

»Tl
H-
OQ

tsJ

O
C o

0
ii <D
01 P
cr u !::c3:

O M
H H'
r+
o\

S-S
04 n
• ••aaiivBala

*S
p ••••iaaftiia
• •f••••vv pa
n ••iiiaaakia
aafiaMfaaaa
H- •Bi|aBaia|ai
•iaiftaa aaiM •faaiaaaaall

•aaiaisaai••
rf Maiiaaaiiii
H
H«
O*
C
rt
H'
O
3

Dimensionless Capacity, C

) ) )
 CRAIG-GEFFEN-MORSE METHOD

I. Introduction

The Craig-Geffen-Morse^ method of waterflood prediction is a steady state technique

which combines areal sweep effects, displacement mechanism, stratification, and
variable injectivity^ to predict waterflood performance in a five-spot pattern. The
method is valid with or without free gas initially present, provided there is no trapped
gas behind the front. The calculations can be adopted for use in other pattern floods
but do not account for edge or bottomwater influx. The method assumes 100 percent
vertical sweep efficiency within each layer of the stratified reservoir. Experimentally
derived correlations are used to determine areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough and
after breakthrough.

Calculations are made in four stages:

• Stage 1 - This stage begins with the start of water injection and ends when oil
banks formed around adjacent injectors meet. This meeting of oil banks is
termed interference. Stage 1 will not occur unless free gas is present at the
start of the flood. Oil production during this time period is simply a
continuation of previously existing primary production. No secondary oil is
recovered during this part of the flood.

• Stage 2 - This period extends from interference until all pre-existing gas space
is filled by injected water. Only primaiy oil production occurs during this
stage.

• Stage 3 - This period extends fi-om gas fillup to water breakthrough at

producing wells. Oil production caused by the waterflood begins at the start of
Stage 3. Furthermore, oil production during this stage is a combination of
incremental waterflood recovery and a continuation of primaiy recovery.
Water production begins at the end of Stage 3.

CGM-1
 • Stage 4 - This stage extends from water breakthrough to the economic limit.

Stages 1, 2, and 3 are illustrated in Figure CGM-1.

FIGURE CGM-1

STAGE 1

'^7~—^ Y

Interference
Between Oil Banks

STAGE 2

STAGES

m
Water Production

Water Bank Q Gas Region Q 0" Bank

CGM-2
 We will show first how waterflood predictions are made for a five-spot pattern
reservoir with only one layer. Extended calculations for multi-layered five-spot
reservoirs will be presented in a subsequent section.

n. Initial Calculations - Single Layer

Before considering the detailed procedures necessary to predict flood performance

during each of the four stages, it is convenient to present the following calculations.

A. Calculate pattern pore volume, Vp.

Vp = 7758Ah(|) (Eq.CGM.l)
where:

Vp = pore volume, bbls

A = reservoir area, acres

h = average net thickness, feet

(|) = average porosity, fraction

B. Calculate stock tank oil-in-place at the beginning ofthe waterflood, N o.
VpSo
No = — (Eq.CGM.2)
Do

where:

N0 = oil-in-place at start offlood, STB

So = oil saturation at start of flood, fraction

B0 = oil formation volume factor at start offlood, RB/STB

C. Calculate mobility ratio, M, prior to water breakthrough using Eq. COM.3 and
fractional flow data.

CGM-3
where:

kfw = the relative permeability to water evaluated at the average

water saturation in the water swept region, S , at water
breakthrough, fraction

kro = the relative permeability to oil at the connate water saturation,

Swc, at the start ofwaterflooding, fraction

Water viscosity can be estimatedfrom Figure CGM-2.

nGURECGM-2
EFFECT OF TEMPERMURE ON
viscosnroF saltwater
2.0

250,000 ppm
200,000 ppm
150,000 ppm
100,000 ppm
50,000 ppm
Oppm

0.0
30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 ISO 160 170
Temperature, degrees Fabrenbeit

CGM-4
D, Determine sweep efficiency at water breakthrough, using the mobility ratio
from Step C and the correlation shown in Figure CGM-3.

FIGURE CGM-3
AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH
(DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT PATTERN)

Mobility Ratio

E. Determine the maximimi value of gas saturation, Sg, for which the Craig-
Geffen-Morse method is valid.

cfSo Sobt (Eq. CGM,4)

where:

c coefiScient from Figure E.7, SPEMonographIIP

^obt average oil saturation in swept portion of reservoir at time of

water breakthrough, fraction

CGM-5
 If Sg > Sg, Craig indicates, without justification, that this prediction method
will yield higher WOR's and oil recovery values at any injected values than will
actually occur in the field. No basis for this calculation seems to exist in the
literature; in particular, this calculation is not referenced in the SPE textbook,
Watejflooding*.

F. Calculate cumulative water injected at the time of interference.

Tcr jh(|)Sg
" 5.615 (Eq,CGM.5)
where:

Wjj = cumulative water injected atinterference, bbls

Tgj = half the distance between adjacent injectors, feet

G. Calculate cumulative water injected at gas fiUup.

Wjf = VpSg (Eq.CGM.6) ^

where:

Wjf = cumulative water injected at gas fiUup, bbls

Sg = gas saturation at start offlood, fraction
H. Calculate cumulative water injected atthe time ofwater breakthrough.
/ \

^ibt ~^P^Abt l^^wbt ~~ SwcJ (E(|» CGM.7)

where:

Wjbt = cumulative water injected atbreakthrough, bbls

^wbt " average water saturation in swept region at breakthrough,

fraction

Swc = connate water saturation atstart offlood, fraction

CGM-6
m. STAGE 1; PERFORMANCE PRIOR TO INTERFERENCE

It is assumed during this period that the water and oil banks are radial in shape and
that Darcy's radial flow equation can be used to predict water injection into the
reservoir. Consider the injection wells depicted by Figure CGM-4.

FIGURE CGM-4
RADIAL WATER AND OIL BANKS
ASSOCIATED WITH INJECTION WELLS DURING STAGE 1

WATER WATER

For a constant pressure differential (Ap), the water injection rate prior to
interference will be:

0.00708khAp
lw = ^iw re
(Eq. CGM.8)
krw kro
rw

where:

iw = water injection rate, bbls/day

h = net pay, feet

k = base permeability used to define relative permeability, md

[usually the effective permeability to oil at irreducible water.

CGM-7