Res Eng CH 18

Immiscible Displacement
18
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 8. IMMISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT IN GAS DRIVE

SYSTEMS
2. THE REASON FOR WATER INJECTION 8.1 Mobility Ratio for Gas Oil Systems.
2.1 Zone Isolation 8.2 Gravity Segregation
2.2 Permeability 8.4 Other parameters
2.3 Oil Viscosity
2.4 Undersaturated Reservoirs
2.5 Overpressured Reservoirs
2.6 Reservoir Depth
2.7 Facility Design
2.8 Thermal Fracturing
2.9 Water Handling
3. BASIC WATERDRIVE THEORY

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Water-Oil displacement at Microscopic and
Macroscopic levels
3.3 Relative Permeability
3.4 Fractional Flow
4. DISPLACEMENT THEORIES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Buckley- Leverett Theory
4.3 Welge Analysis
4.4 Calculations for Oil Recovery
4.5 The Impact of Viscosity.
5. TWO DIMENSIONAL BEHAVIOUR-

SEGREGATED FLOW
5.1 Introduction
6. COPING WITH HETEREOGENEITY

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Vertical Heterogeneity
6.3 Areal Hetereogeneity
6.4 Vertical Sweep Displacement Calculations for
Layered Reservoirs
6.5 Ordering of the Layers
6.6 Impact of Capillary Pressure in Homogeneous
Systems
6.7 Impact of Permeability Distribution on
Waterflooding
7. APPLICATION TO FIELD PERFORMANCE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Having worked through this chapter the Student will be able to:
• Describe briefly the various benefits of water injection.

• Present a simple equation for the fractional flow of water in terms of water and
oil flow rate.
• Comment briefly on the impact of ;angle of dip, capillary pressure, and velocity
on the fractional flow.
• Plot a set of relative permeabilties and identify end-point relative permeabilities.
• Define mobility ratio and present an equation for it and calculate its value given
relative permeability data.
• Generate a fractional flow curve given relative permeability and viscosity data
for injected and displaced fluids.
• Derive the Buckley-Leverett Frontal Advance Equation.
• Show the shape of the fractional flow curve and its associated derivative curve
and the progressive saturation displacement profile for the following three
types of displacment;
• Water displacing viscous oil
• Water displacing avery light oil.
• Water displacing medium denisty oil
• Determine the breakthrough fractional flow, saturation and time for a diffuse
flow displacement process.
• Calculate the oil recovery at breakthrough for a water displacing oil process.
• Calculate the oil recovery after breakthrough, using an equation or the Welge
construction.
• Comment on the impact of oil viscosity on the fractional flow curve and the
displacement process.
• Show how the relative permeability curves for segregated flow are two straight
lines between end point relative permeabilities and saturation values.
• Generate a set of pseudo relative permeability values for segregated flow and
use them to generate a fractional flow curve for such flow conditions.
• Calculate breakthrough and subsequent fractional flow, saturation and recovery
for segregated flow conditions.
• Present an equation expressing the recovery in terms of vertical and areal
recovery efficiency.
• Generate pseudo relative permeabilties and subsequent fractional flows for
layered reservoir systems for both layers where cross flow exists and where no
cross flow occurs.
• Sketch the water flood profiles for different permeability distributions.
• Describe how a reservoir fractional flow curve can be generated and used to
justify increased water injection to improve oil recovery.
• Be aware of the application of immiscible displacement theory in gas oil and
dry gas wet gas displacement processes.
2
18
1. INTRODUCTION
In previous chapters we have examined the various fundamental properties associated
with the behaviour of fluids when subjected to pressure and temperature changes and
the characteristics of reservoir porous media in relation to its pore volume and
transmission characteristics. At another extreme scale we have reviewed the various
drive mechanisms responsible for providing the energy to move hydrocarbons in a
reservoir. We have also examined the various volumetric methods used to relate the
volumes of fluids produced in relation to the overall pressure decline of the reservoir
and the original volumes in place and energy support provided by attached water and
gas.
It is the purpose of this next chapter to bring some of these topics together in the
context of those reservoirs where the principle drive mechanism is that associated with
the immiscible displacement of oil. The subject will be mainly presented in the
context of water displacing oil, and then later the application to gas displacing oil will
be covered.
The topic of water drive in the chapter on drive mechanisms showed that this drive
mechanism provided the highest recovery factor in relation to reservoir depletion. For
this reason therefore water drive provided by intervention, that is when water is
injected into the reservoir through injection wells, is common practise in oilfield
operation.
The modelling of water drive in reservoirs in relation to understanding the displacement

behaviour and associated recovery is generally carried out using computer based
numerical reservoir simulation at dimension scales considerable compared to the
scale at which the physics of immiscible displacement takes place. In this chapter we
will review and consider some of the important properties important to predicting the
displacement and then examine analytical techniques which can be used to provide
predictions of behaviour in immiscible displacement processes. The methods
presented are not intended to displace using reservoir simulation but as an
encouragement to use the methods to understand the contribution of the various
parameters involved rather than blindly use the numerical simulation results where the
large sizes of the ‘grid blocks’ inevitably disperse behaviour which occurs at pore size,
centimetre or a few metres scale.
Most of the reservoir engineering texts cover this topic. The author considers that
Dake 1,2 and the text of Chierici3 provide excellent detailed analysis of the topic
In the next sections; we will review some of the reasons for using water injection, then
review some of the basic properties used in prediction, derive the fractional flow
equation and then examine procedures used to determine the movement and
displacement of fluids within a reservoir.
2.THE REASON FOR WATER INJECTION
Water injection is the main intervention method used in reservoir development,

primarily because of the associated recovery achieved and also the availability of the
injection fluid. Historically it is termed a secondary recovery process in recognition
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 3

of the application of using it after a reservoir has been depleted by its natural energy,
and the pressure has dropped below the bubble point. The perspective here is using the
injected water to displace some of the remaining oil and thereby recover more oil.
Water injection can have two benefits, and for this reason it being termed as a
secondary recovery process causes some confusion. Allowing a reservoir to fall
below the bubble point we have seen leads to solution gas drive and resulting low
recoveries. Keeping the reservoir above its saturation pressure by the injection of
another fluid maintains the energy of the process providing good well productivity and
more important keeps the reservoir fluid in single phase. This voidage replacement,
pressure maintenance process using water injection has been common practise in
major offshore oil sectors where there is plentiful supply of clean injection material.
Dake1, in his text, outlines the engineering benefits of water drive in the context of the
North Sea, a major area where water injection has been practised for over twenty five
years.
It should be recognised that with water injection come many technical challenges not
the least the fact that injected fluids will eventually arrive at the producing wells where
they will present a disposal challenge. Historically, returning the fluids from where
they came was the straightforward answer. With increasing concern of environmental
contamination, disposal of produced oily water to the sea is being gradually replaced
by a recycle process where rather than a once through process, the water is reinjected
into the formation. This is termed produced water injection. Dake1 outlines the
following benefits of water injection:
2.1 Zone Isolation

Although a field might be supported by an active aquifer providing natural pressure
support, in some cases faulting within the reservoir structure, can result in zones being
isolated from pressure support, figure 1 . If no intervention was used the zone would
produce by its natural energy with a rapid loss of pressure and resulting poor recovery
resulting from solution gas drive. Also as we saw in the section on water influx, in
order to predict aquifer pressure support a considerable amount of aquifer characteristics
are required. The cost of collecting this information prior to production are high and
therefore it is not until oil production starts can the strength of any aquifer be
determined. In many offshore fields therefore water injection is planned as part of the
development since the associated facilities required and the implication on platform
design are such that a delayed decision to implement water injection once production
has started is very costly.
Zone Isolation
OIL
OIL Sealing Fault
AQUIFER OIL
Figure 1
AQUIFER
Zone isolation.
4
18
2.2 Permeability
A characteristic of a number of offshore oil producing regions, for example the North
Sea, is the moderate to high permeabilities, which enable production wells to be very
productive reducing the required number of wells. Since the major cost in offshore
production is the offshore structures then minimising well slots results in minimising
the number of platforms. Maintaining high productivity through pressure maintenance
can be obtained through water injection when good injectivities can be achieved.
2.3 Oil Viscosity

As discussed in the chapter on rock properties the displacing characteristics at pore
scale are influenced by the relative mobility of the two fluids, the fluid being displaced
and the fluid displacing. The ratio of the mobility of the displacing fluid to the
displaced fluid is a ratio of Darcy’s law as applied to the system. The different
parameters being the permeability of the one fluid in the presence of the irreducible
saturation of the other, the end point relative permeability, and the viscosity of the
fluids. The mobility ratio for water displacing oil is expressed as, M where:
k′ k′ (1)
M = rw / ro
µw µo
In sectors like the North Sea, Dake1 points out that relatively low oil viscosities lead
to high flow rates and the favourable oil viscosity compared to water gives a mobility
ratio for some North Sea reservoirs of less than 1. This means that at least at
microscopic level the water cannot move faster than the oil and therefore displaces the
oil in a piston like manner. If M is greater than one, the case where oil viscosities are
higher, then the higher velocity of the water causes an increasing instability and water
fingers through the oil and breaksthrough early compared to piston like behaviour.
The behaviour is illustrated in the sketch below, Figure 2. As pointed out this
behaviour only relates to the microscopic scale, and at reservoir scale the various
heterogeneities and the influence of gravity will have a big impact on the reservoir
flooding behaviour.
Injection Production
Water Oil
M<1
Stable Displacement
Injection Production
Figure 2
Impact of mobility ratio on M>1
horizontal displacement. Unstable Displacement

2.4 Undersaturated Reservoirs
As pointed out in the material balance chapter, when a reservoir is above its bubble
point, i.e. it is undersaturated, then if there is no pressure support from an aquifer the
pressure declines rapidly. This pressure decline can be detected using pressure
surveys in an open hole well as the dynamic behaviour of the reservoir is reflected in
the various layers making up the formation. This is demonstrated in the context of the
Montrose field3. where following production the pressure depth profile was determined
for successive development wells through the oil zone and basal aquifer. The pressure
profile did not follow the original water pressure gradient established during the
evolution of the field but reflected the permeability variation and communication
between the various sand layers, figure 3 As more development wells are drilled
pressure surveys continue to confirm the layering of the formation ,figure 4 This
powerful application of pressure surveys to determine the communication characteristics
of a reservoir enables waterfloods to be planned and simulated much more effectively.
Gr% Sw%
0 100 100 0
Reservoir pressure - psig
θ%
0 50 2500 3000 3500 4000
Top paleocene
Perforations Original 8100
Layer 1 pressure
gradient
Layer 2
2500 8200
True vertical subsea depth - metres
Layer 3
True vertical subsea depth - feet
8300
2550
8400
Layer 4
8500
2600
8600
2650 Layer 5
8700
8800
Figure 3
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Pressure depth profile for
Reservoir pressure - MPa montrose field well.3
6
18
2.5 Overpressured Reservoirs
In those areas where reservoirs are overpressured ( chapter 2), the overpressure
provides extra energy support. This additional pressure enables high production rates
in the early time period and also information from the reservoir of the dynamics of the
various units making up the system particularly if pressure depth surveys are carried
out during this period. The overpressure provides an opportunity to ‘feel’ the reservoir
during the early production period without the reservoir dropping below the bubble
point and reducing oil recovery.
Reservoir pressure - psig

3000 3200 3400 8000
2450 A6
A8 Original
A15 A11 pressure
8100
A17
A18 gradient
True vertical subsea depth - metres
2500 8200
True vertical subsea depth - feet

8300
2550
8400
8500
2600
8600
2650 8700
symbol Well number Date
22/17-A6 05/04/77
A8 27/01/78 8800
A11 20/12/77
2700 A15 15/08/78
A17 02/11/78 8900
A18 28/03/79
Figure 4
9000
Pressure depth profiles for 18 20 22 24 26 28
Montrose Field wells.3 Reservoir pressure - MPa
2.6 Reservoir Depth

The cost of offshore production facilities are such that it is important to maximise the
functionality of each platform. If waterflooding is carried out then the water flooding
wells are generally at the extremities of the formation. The wells slots on the platform
therefore have to be capable of reaching these limits, figure 5. The deeper accumulations
provide the drillers with an easier task to reach the outer limits of the reservoir using,
deviated and vertical wells. The application of horizontal wells in recent years also
enables shallower accumulations to be reached.

Sea Level
Sea Bed
Crestal
Producer
OIL
Figure 5
WATER
Application of deviated
Injector
wells from one structure to
reach limits in the
reservoir.
2.7 Facility Design

In planning water injection, at least two important considerations are required. The
injection perspective; where should injection take place in relation to the various
zones of the formation and the ability to inject in relation to formation characteristics,
and secondly and equally important the time and associated cost of handling the water
when it eventually arrives at the production wells.
2.8 Thermal Fracturing

It is beyond the scope of this text to go into detail, but in recent years, as experience
in large waterflood operations has been obtained, new insight is developing on how
reservoirs have reacted. Of great significance is the phenomena of thermal fracturing.
In waterfloods where large injection flow rates are required large pumps are utilised
which can handle the necessary capacity. In many offshore zones where the injection
water is cold, the reduction in temperature around the injection well reduces the
natural fracture gradient and the pumps capable of overcoming the resistance of flow
through the formation generate a pressure greater than the fracture gradient causing
the formation to successively fracture. This generates a high surface area for flow and
therefore injectivities have been maintained compared to those expected from
predictions using simple radial flow around a well. This thermal fracturing
phenomena enabling good injectivities to be maintained is causing some companies
to consider using forced fracturing associated with water injection where temperature
gradients in warmer regions or with warm injection fluids will not reduce the natural
fracture gradient. Such could be the case when reinjected produced water is being
used. Although good injectivities can be achieved due to fracturing a greater
understanding of the stress sensitivity of the formation is required. The fracture will
follow the natural direction according to the natural stresses and strength characteristics
of the formation. A concern is that such fractures will cause the injected water to by-
pass the desired flood front and cause premature water breakthrough. Figure 6
8
18
Thermal
Fracture
Producer
Produces
Premature
Water
Breakthrough
Desired Water
Figure 6 Injection Flood
Front
Impact of fracture on water Injector
injection flood profile.
2.9 Water Handling

The handling of water is a major technical challenge in the oil industry particularly in
offshore operations, where many operators as fields mature find themselves handling
more water than oil. This technical challenge is also increasing as water disposal
options in relation to reducing oil emissions become more limited. Those involved
in providing associated production and treating facilities require important information
from the reservoir engineer. A schematic layout of a typical offshore water injection
scheme is shown in figure 7. Some key information required is, when will water
breakthrough to the producing wells, and how much water will be increasingly be
produced? The water handling facilities required are not insignificant and therefore
good forecasts are important. A more demanding challenge to the reservoir engineer
and outside the scope of this text is how can we manage the reservoir to reduce water
production.
WATER INJECTION DESIGN Gas-sales or

Injection re-inject
Water Gas/Oil/Water
Treatment Separation
Injection
q o Sales
Pump
Treat/
qw Dump/
Inject
Sea Level
q o + qw
qi
Seawater
Sea Bed
Figure 7
Schematic of ffshore
facilities for Water Reservoir
Injection.
.

Dake2 points out an equation which links the reservoir engineer to the production
engineer which is:
q =q B +q B (rb/d) (2)
wi o o wp w
where qwi = injection rate (assume Bw = 1)

qo + qwp = produced fluids requiring separation
qwp = produced water for disposal or reinjection
He points out that this simple equation is fundamental to the process.

In water injection, the injection rate, qwi is maintained constant, since this is the drive
in water drive, and is therefore under engineering control. The right hand side, the
fluids requiring facilities for treatment are under the control of the reservoir. Dake
points out that this equation is not just a statement of material balance but it can be
regarded as a ‘platform equation’ since it contains the key elements associated with
topside capacities.
If water breaksthrough prematurely then, since the water injection rate has to be
maintained to maintain the reservoir pressure, there is an inevitable reduction in oil
production.
Equations were presented by Dake2 which he used to illustrate the impact of these
reservoir considerations on production capacities. The injected water in the reservoir
provides two functions maintaining pressure and displacing oil. Until breakthrough,
only oil is produced, after water breakthrough an increasing watercut occurs.
This watercut or fractional flow is defined as:
q wp where ‘s’ denotes surface conditions. (3)

fws =
q o + q wp
Expressing the equation in terms of water production and substituting in (2) gives:
f (4)
q wp = q o ws
1 − fws
 B f 
and q wi = q o  Bo + w ws  (5)
 1 − fws 
In his text Dake2 gives an example of the use of these equations to highlight the
commercial impact underestimating water breakthrough and the serious impact of not
being able because of platform limitations to increase water handling facilities.
Behind these commercial calculations is the importance for the reservoir engineer to
predict the producing watercut as a function of oil recovery.
In this next section we will review the basic parameters which are used to predict the
displacement process and then present the basic theory of water drive presented by
Buckley and Leverett over 20 years ago. The theory is a combination of behaviour
at the microscopic scale and that at a macroscale and then is applied at a reservoir scale.
10
18
3 BASIC WATERDRIVE THEORY
3.1 Introduction
Before examining the various methods used in predicting the behaviour of reservoirs
under a constant injection process, such as water drive or gas injection, we will review
some of the important basic properties relevant to the application. The method
presented is applicable to both water injection and gas injection where an immiscible
displacement process occurs. An immiscible displacement process is where there is
no mixing of the respective injection and displaced phases at the pore level through
mass transfer of components. This is distinguished from a miscible displacement
process where the injected phase mixes with the displaced phase by mass transfer of
the components from the respective phases, for example in a CO2 enhanced oil
recovery process.
As in many reservoir engineering processes we are combining properties, measurements

and application over a huge range of physical scales. Such an example of this is in
immiscible displacement calculations in oilfield oil recovery predictions. It is
important to keep this relative scale perspective in mind so as not to make an
unrealistic ‘jump” in application of data beyond its significance.
In water-oil displacement considerations we are dealing with a process which takes

place at a range of scales. At pore level or the microscopic scale, where the isolation
and movement of the respective phases is dependant on fundamental properties such
as; interfacial tension, wettability, viscosity, pore size and shape to name the obvious.
At a significant larger scale, the macroscopic scale, we measure behaviour and
generate properties at the laboratory level where fluid movement and displacement
are examined at core plug scale, such as permeability, relative permeability and
capillary pressure. The field scale,or behavioural scale, where the impact of
characteristics at another quatum leap level of scale will impose behaviour on those
measured at microscopic and macroscopic scale. For example the heterogeneous
characteristics of the various layers of the formation giving rise to different mobilties
within the layers and the large thicknesses of the layers resulting in vertical segregation
perspectives.
An illustration of these different perspectives is shown in figure 8, where the oil water
displacement process is illustrated at two, microscopic, and reservoir behaviour
scales. This scale up perspective is considerable and should not be forgotten, if not
‘giant leaps of faith” might be made using data beyond its range of applicability. The
engineering of sub surface behaviour such as a water injection process can be
compared to the engineering of an oil refining plant. In the later, the process takes
place in vessels and pipes of centimeters and metres size over an area of a some
hectares. In a reservoir, the pipes and vessels, ‘the pores” are of micron dimensions
and are considerable in number to cover depths of hundreds of metres with an area
perhaps of tens of square kilometres.
Over recent years, considerable effort has been put into scale-up considerations in
relation to reservoir simulation, where rock properties at microscopic level can be
combined with geological characteristics at various scales to provide greater confidence
in field scale predictions. This topic is covered in the Geology and Reservoir
Simulation modules .

3.2 Water-Oil displacement at Microscopic and Macroscopic levels
Figure 8(b) illustrates the remaining oil at microscopic level following displacement
by water. This remaining or residual oil is held by the competition between the
interfacial tension forces and the viscous flow forces associated with fluid flow. This
topic was covered briefly in the rock chapter, when the pore doublet model was
presented, explaining how the continuous phases of oil is broken leaving oil ganglia
held by capillary forces . The residual oil saturation, Sor, in the water swept rock can
be in a range of 10-40% of the pore space. Figure 7(a). At the field displacement level
the nature of the reservoir fromation and well locations causes some of the rock to be
unswept by the water. These leads to two residual oil saturations, in the swept portions
oil at residual oil saturation and in the unswept portions oil at original oil saturation.
(a) Swept
Zone
Water
Oil
Rock Grains
Water
Injection Oil at Residual
Wells Oil Saturation
(b)
By-Passed
Oil at Original
Oil
Oil Saturation
Figure 8
(a) microscopic
Oil
Producers displacement (b) Residual
oil remaining after a water
flood, .
This microscopic behaviour illustrates its effects in macroscopic properties of relative

permeability, and capillary pressure curves.
3.3 Relative Permeability

Permeability is a macroscopic property of the rock describing its resistance to flow in
terms of fluid velocity, fluid viscosity, pore size and shape, and pressure gradient. This
flow resistance term comes from Darcy’s law:
12
18
Q k ∆p
u= =
A µ ∆l
in relation to figure 9.
∆P
A Superficial
Q Fluid Velocity
Figure 9
Darcys' law for
permeability distance
This equation is for single phase flow only and does not apply to flow resistance when
two phases ( for example oil and water) are present. For this purpose the concept of
relative permeability is used, which is a measure of the permeability of one of the
phases and is a function of the phase saturations.
For example the relative permeability of water, krw is expressed as follows;
k
k rw = ew (7)
k
where kew is the effective permeability to water calculated from Darcy’s law when oil
and water are present, and k is the absolute permeability (single phase).
Darcy’s Law in linear flow for the two fluids allowing for gravity effects in an inclined
configuration, figure 10, is
kk ro A  ∂p o 
qo = −  + ρo gSinθ
µ o  ∂x 
(8)
kk rw A  ∂p w 
qw = −  + ρw gSinθ
µw  ∂x 

qt
(Cross section view)

h
qi
qo
qw
y
x z
ø
O X
Production
Injection
O w (Plan view) X
Figure 10
Configuration of water
O X injection in a reservior
The relative permeabilities are a function of saturation and reflect the surface, and
wettability forces of the fluid-rock system. An example of relative permeabilitiy
curves for a water oil rock is given in figure 11.
k'ro
End point
relative
k'rw permability.
kr
Figure 11
0 Swc Sw 1-Sor 1.0
Relative permeability
Irreducible Water Saturation Residual
Water Oil
curves for an oil-water
Saturation Saturation system
14
18
Identified on the curves are the two conditions at the limiting saturation of the
respective phases, the end point relative permeabilties for oil and water k'ro and k'rw.
k'ro – the relative permeability to oil in the presence of irreducible water saturation and
k'rw– the relative permeability to water in the presence of residual oil saturation.
Dake2 reminds his readers that rock relative permeabilities are obtained from one
dimensional core flooding experiments, where often a cleaned core is flooded with
water and then the oil displaced with water. Two types of experiments are then used.
A viscous displacement of oil with water or a steady state experiment where co-
injection of water and oil at increasing ratios of water to oil.
Dake2 also notes that the relative permeability data, used in subsequent reservoir
engineering calculations are unlikely to be representative of field characteristics.
They have probably been carried out at flow rates orders of magnitude higher than in
the reservoir, often using a synthetic oil not necessarily representative of the reservoir
fluid, and with wetting characteristics probably different than in the reservoir.
In the viscous displacement experiment the injected water, starting at the irreducible
connate water level, Swc, where the water is immobile, generates increasing saturations
in the core as a result of displacing oil. This increases until the saturation in the core,
where there is no more oil mobile in the core and the saturation to water, is 1-Sor, where
Sor is the residual oil saturation.
If we express the volume of the pores in the core plug as the pore volume, PV, then
the oil displaced from the core flood experiment, is the movable oil volume, MOV,
which is;
MOV = (1 − Sor − Swc )PV
The importance of end point relative permeabilities was presented earlier in this
chapter in the context of mobility ratio, M, where ;
k′ k′
M = rw / ro (1)
µw µo
At the end point conditions this represents the maximum velocity of the water flow
compared to the maximum velocity of the oil.
3.4 Fractional Flow

Considering flow in a core plug or a reservoir, the ratio of the flow of water at any point
is termed the fractional flow ,fw ,where:
qw
fw = (9)
qw + qo
The oil rate qo can also be expressed as;

qo = qt − qw
If the Darcy equations for water and oil are subtracted (using field units P in atmos.)
the equations become;
 µ µ  qµ  ∂P ∆ρg sin θ 
q w  w + o  = t o + A c −  (11)
 kk rw kk ro  kk ro  ∂x 1.0133 × 10 6 
where;
∂Pc ∂p o ∂p w which is the capillary pressure in the direction of flow and,
= −
∂x ∂x ∂x
∆ρ = ρw − ρo is the density difference of water and oil.
If values for flow rates using Darcy’s Law are now substituted in fraction flow
equation (equation 9) it becomes;
kk ro A  ∂Pc ∆ρg sin θ 

1+  − 
q t µ o ∂x 1.0133 × 10 6 
 (12)
fw =
k µ
1 + ro w
k rw µ o
Dake2 has also simplified this equation as;
1− G where G is a positive gravity number; (13)

fw =
µ k
1 + w ro
µ o k rw
kk ro A∆ρg sin θ in field units. (14)

G = 4.886 × 10 −4
q tµo
where ∆ρ is the specific gravity difference relative to water.

The above term not only considers gravity effects but also includes a velocity term ,v,
which is qt/A
The impact of the various components of this equation is worthy of consideration.
The angle of dip. If water is being injected downdip than the gravity term, ∆ρgsinθ/
1,0133x106 will be positive, reducing the fractional flow of water and it would be
positive for gas being injected downdip in a gas displacing oil senario. The density
difference in gas displacing oil systems is larger and therefore the significance is
greater. If the dip angle is zero, ie. horizontal flow, then the gravity term is zero.
The impact of capillary pressure, is illustrated from the slope of the capillary pressure
and saturation with distance curves, figure 12 since;
16
18
1-Sor
Pc
- dPc Sw - dSw
Swf
+ dSw
Figure 12
+ dX
Capillary pressure curve Swc
and saturation distribution

Swc 1-Sor
as a function of distance Sw X
∂Pc dPc ∂Sw

= ⋅
∂x dSw ∂x
i.e. the capillary pressure term is also positive increasing the fractional
flow, for a water displacing oil system as the two function gradients are negative. The
capillary pressure term is often neglected because the saturation with distance profile
is unknown being the objective of the displacement calculation, which we will
consider later.
Velocity. This velocity is the superficial velocity, the rate divided by the cross
sectional area,A. The actual velocity is larger because of the impact of porosity. The
impact of velocity is small. Dake2 notes that the value for G for an edge water drive ,typical
of the North Sea, is 0.22kro and a comparative bottom water drive is 10.29kro. This
demonstrates the stability of the bottom water drive, where piston like displacement
will inevitably occur.
If both the angle of dip, and capillary pressure effects are neglected the fractional flow
equation becomes;
1
fw = µ k
1 + w ro (15)
µo k rw
The fractional flow equation enables a fractional flow versus saturation curve to be
generated from relative permeability data. This curve is influenced by a number of
parameters not least the viscosity of the respective phases. Its shape varies but can
have a shape as given by figure 13 below.

1.0
ƒw
Swc 1-Sor Figure 13

Sw
Fractional flow curve
EXERCISE 1
Plot the water-oil relative permeability from the following data set. Indicate the end
point relative permeabilities.
Sw Krw Kro
0.20 0.0000 0.8800
0.25 0.0021 0.6710
0.30 0.0095 0.5170
0.35 0.0210 0.4070
0.40 0.0347 0.3135
0.45 0.0536 0.2420
0.50 0.0788 0.1793
0.55 0.1050 0.1320
0.60 0.1386 0.0891
0.65 0.1785 0.0550
0.70 0.2184 0.0297
0.75 0.2636 0.0110
0.80 0.3150 0.0000 Table E1
An interesting presentation was given by Mayer-Gurr4. as illustrated in figure 14

where the capillary pressure, relative permeability and fractional flow curves are
presented. The impact of various well locations are considered.
18
18
Capillary Pressure Height

Above Free Water Level
Oil & Connate Water
A
Transition Zone
B
C Free Water
0 50 100 Level
100 100% Water

% Relative Permeability k'rw
50
k'ro
kro krw
0 50 100
100
% Water Cut
Figure 14 50
The relationship between
capillary pressure, relative
permeability and fractional 0 50 100
flow in a reservoir4 % Water Saturation
The capillary pressure curves represents the transition zone saturation profile associated
with the advancing imbibition process as a result of water injection. If a well is located
at A, the well will only produce oil since although the water saturation is 10%, the
relative permeability to water is zero. At B, the 45 % saturation level the well will
produce both water and oil with a water cut of 50%. At location C, the advancing water
has isolated an irreducible oil saturation and the well produces only water.
The redistribution of the saturation profile giving rise to a height saturation function
is called vertical equilibrium, and depends on a number of factors, including; a large
vertical permeability, small reservoir thickness, a large density difference between the
injected and displaced fluids, high capillary forces, low fluid viscosities and low
injection rates. It is not the intention of this chapter to present the associated
procedures, which would be part of a full numerical simulation analysis.

Case Oil Viscosity Water Viscosity
"µo" (cp) "µw" (cp)
1 35.0 0.5
2 4.5 0.5
3 0.4 1.0
EXERCISE 2
Water is to be injected into a horizontal core, with the relative permeability charac-
teristics of table 1, to displace oil. Determine the mobility ratios, and the fractional
flow curves for the following three cases.
4.DISPLACEMENT THEORIES
4.1 Introduction
To model the displacement process a number of theories have been successfully
applied. These theories are aimed at providing the important predictions of reservoir
performance including the proportion of hydrocarbons recovered. In the methods
presented , there are a number of assumptions.
The displacement is incompressible, which implies that steady state conditions exist,
that is the pressures within the reservoir at any point remain constant.
This will occur if, the following reservoir flows exists;
qt=qo+qw=qi
where
qt = the total flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.
qo = the oil flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.
qw = the water flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.
qi = the water injection flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.
Diffuse flow conditions exist. Diffuse flow means that the saturations at any point in
the direction of linear displacement are uniformly distributed over the thickness. This
diffuse flow assumption enables a one dimensional simple analysis to be used for the
displacement modelling. In a simple core flooding relative permeability test such an
assumption is not unreasonable. Diffuse flow can also be encountered in a reservoir
where the injection rates are high preventing the establishing of vertical equilibrium
and for low injection rates where the thickness of the reservoir is small compared to
the thickness of the transition zone.
20
18
4.2 Buckley- Leverett Theory
The theory that has established itself in reservoir engineering for displacement
calculations is that by Buckley and Leverett in 19425. Their theory is for linear,
immiscible, one dimension displacement, in which the total flow rate is constant in
every cross section, (incompressible). The theory determines the velocity of a plane
of constant water saturation moving through a linear system, such as a core in a water
flood test. Figure 15. The theory is well founded on the conservation of mass principle.
dx
Water Water
qw ρw x + dx + Oil
A qw ρw x
Figure 15 ø
Mass flow through a linear Porosity L
core.
Consider the linear system in which water is displacing oil. The systems has a porosity
of φ and we are considering the principle of conservation of mass around a volume
element of length, dx. Therefore;
Mass flow rate in –mass flow rate out =rate of increase of mass in the volume.
∂x
q wρw x − q wρw x + dx = Aφdx (ρwSw ) (16)
∂t
or
 ∂  ∂
q wρw x −  q wρw x + (q wρw )dx = Aφdx (ρwSw ) (1)
 ∂x  ∂t
This becomes
∂ ∂ (17)
∂x
(q wρw ) = − Aφ ∂t (ρwSw )
Since we are assuming incompressible flow, ρw is a constant. Therefore;
∂q w ∂S (18)
= − Aφ w
∂x t ∂t x
The differential of water saturation is
∂Sw ∂S
dSw = dx + w dt (19)
∂x t ∂t x
We are examining the advancement of a particular saturation value. Since Sw is

constant dSw=0.
Then
∂Sw ∂S dx (20)
=− w
∂t x ∂x t dt sw
Also
∂q w  ∂q ∂S  (21)
= w ⋅ w
∂x t  ∂Sw ∂x 
t
Inserting equations 20 and 21 in equation 18 gives;
∂q w dx (22)
= Aφ
∂Sw t dt Sw
For incompressible flow, the total injection rate, qt is constant, and the water flow rate
is the total rate times the fractional flow, qw=qt x fw. Rearranging equation 22 therefore
gives:
dx q t ∂fw (23)
v Sw = =
dt S w Aφ ∂Sw Sw
where vSw is the velocity of the plane of saturation, Sw.
This is the Buckley-Leverett equation, and is also the equation of characteristics. It

indicates the velocity of a plane of saturation moving through the linear system. It
enables the calculation of Sw as a function of time and distance and indicates its
dependance on the derivative of the fractional flow curve.
Clierici6 has presented a very thorough analysis of the displacement process for three
fractional flow curves.
In understanding the use of the equation it is important to appreciate the initial

boundary conditions, for our injection process. These are;
Sw = Swi for 0 < x ≤ L,t = 0

(24)
Sw = 1 - Sor for x = 0, t ≥ 0
That is the system is at its initial connate water

If the initial conditions at t=0 are applied to the general equation;
dx q ∂fw
vSw = = t
dt Sw Aφ ∂Sw S
w
22
18
and the equation is then integrated a general solution to the displacement process is
obtained which enables the calculation of Sw in terms of x and t.
q t  dfw 
[x(S )] w
t
= x 0 (S w ) +  t
φA  dSw  sw
(25)
This equation describes a series of straight lines, the characteristics, with an initial
ordinate value of x0(Sw) and a slope of q t  dfw 

 
φA  dSw 
Sw
Clierici considers three cases
Case 1 For viscous oils

In this case the viscosity of the displaced phase, the oil, is considerably greater than
the injected water phase. The fractional flow curve has a concave downward shape,
figure 16A and its gradient fw′ increases from Sw=1-Sor to a maximum value at
Sw=Swi+∆Swi. Figure 16B
1 x
A C qt dfw
Swi Αθ dSw Swi+ ∆Sw
fw
Figure 16 ∆S
w
+
Displacement of viscous oil S iw
by water6. 0
S1
A = Concave downwards B xo(Siw)
fractional flow curve dfw
xo(S1) S2
dSw
B = Velocity of water xo(S2) 1 - S or
saturation Sor
0
C = Characteristics of water 0 Swi S1 S2 1 0 t
saturations Sw Sw
The velocity of saturation is therefore maximum where Sw is just greater than Swi and
decreases to a minimum at Sw=1-Sor . Figure 16C, The progression of water profiles
are shown in figure 17 and shows the fraction of water at breakthough at the producing
end. As can be seen the breakthrough saturation is just greater than Swi and explains
why for a very viscous oil breakthough occurs with low water saturations and then
gradually increases until the saturation reaches an unacceptable level.

Water
Injector Producer
1
Sor
Sw
t=0 t1 t2 tBT
Swi Figure 17
0 Progressive saturation
0 L
X profile for a concave
downwards fractional flow
curve6.
Case 2, Very Light Oils

In this case when the oil is very light with a low relative viscosity and large
gravitational effects for example with a highly dipping structure, and with very low
velocity, a concave upward fraction flow curve is generated, Figure 18A, resulting in
a fw′ curve decreasing from its value at Sw=1-Sor to a minimum value at Sw=Swi , figure 18B
1 x
A C Figure 18
fw
Displacement of oil by
∆S w water for a concave
S wi+
xo(Swi) upwards fractional flow
S1
0 curve (light oil
S2 qt dfw
B xo(S1) displacement).6
Αθ dSw Swi+ ∆Sw
dfw A = concave upwards
dSw xo(S2)
or
-S
fractional flow curve. B =

1
Sor
velocity of water saturation.
0
0 Swi S1 S2 1 0 t1 t2 t3 t C = characteristics of water
Sw saturations Sw.
The implications of this are that the highest velocity is for the highest water saturation,
Sw=1-Sor and that saturations less than this cannot exist since they would be overtaken
by the Sw=1-Sor saturation. Figure 18C, There is therefore a quick build up of a shock
front with a saturation, Swf=1-Sor . The producing characteristics are shown in figure
19, where , until the shock front arrives water-free oil is produced and thereafter only
water is produced. The oil remaining in the reservoir with a saturation of Sor .
24
18
Water
Injector Producer
1
Sor
Sw t1 t2 t3 tBT
t=0
Figure 19
Progressive saturation Siw
0
profile for a concave 0 L
upwards fractional flow X
curve.6
Case 3 Typical medium density oils.

Figure 20A presents the fractional flow curve for a medium density and viscosity oil,
where the displacement velocities are not unlike field values. The S shaped curve
generates the two curvatures we have considered in case 1 & 2. With the correspond-
ing derivative values, fw' . The slope in the fw curve increases from its starting value,
Sw=1-Sor and then decreases. Figure 20B
1 x
Figure 20 A C
Displacement of oil by
fw
S wi+ ∆S w
water for a rock with an S- xo(Swi)
shapeed fractional flow S1
xo(S1)
curve (light oil 0
S wf
displacement). B S2
dfw xo(Sw,f)
A = S shaped fractional
dSw xo(S2)
flow curve. B = velocity of 1 - S or
Sor
water saturation. xo(1-Sor)
0
C = characteristics of water 0 Swi S1 S2 1 0 t1 t2 t3
t
saturations Sw.6 Sw
The development of the saturation, would be such that their would be a steady increase
in the velocity of the increasing saturation, but this would reach a maximum at a
saturation Swf, where Swi<Swf<(1-Sor). Behind this the velocities would decrease with
decreasing Sw, figure 20C.
.
The impact on the process is such that a shock front is developed, at the value Swf, the
saturations greater than this moving at a lower velocity, behind this shock front there

is a steady increase in the saturations moving at decreasing velocity. This process is
illustrated in figure 21, which shows that water free oil is produced until breakthrough
at a saturation of Swf,and a breakthrough fractional flow of fwbt . The saturation then
climbs until it reaches the irreducible oil saturation level when only water is produced.
Water
Injector Producer
1
Sor
Sw t1 tBT
t=0 t2 t3
Figure 21
Siw Sw,f
0 ProgressiveSaturation for
0 L an S-shaped Saturation
X
Curve6.
The velocity of the stabilised shock front can be calculated from a material balance
across the front. Chierici4 explains this using figure 22. He designates R to represent
conditions ahead of the front and L those behind. Firstly for case two, piston like
displacement
Front at time t Front at time t + dt
q w,L q w,R
x
S w,L dxf S w,R Figure 22
Conditions ahead (R) and
behind (L) Water Front6
If the velocity of the front vf=dxf/dt, then

(
q w, L dt − q w, R dt = Aφ Sw, L − Sw, R dx f ) (26)
Since
qw= qtfw
dx f q (fw, L − fw, R )
vf = = t (27)
dt Aφ (Sw, L − Sw, R )
Since qt=Aut
Then
26
18
dx f u t (fw, L − fw, R ) (28)
vf = =
dt φ (S w , L − S w , R )
This is the Rankine-Hugoniot condition for the frontal velocity of shock fronts for
physical systems.
If we specify our limiting conditions then
Sw,L=1-Sor
fw,L=1
Sw,R=Swi
fw,R=0
Therefore:
(fw, L − fw, R )
=
1
= tan α (29)
(S w, L − Sw , R ) 1 − Sor − Swi
Where tan α is the angle on the Sw vs. fw curve joining (Swi,0) and (1-Sor,1)
fw
α
Figure 23 0
0 Swi 1-Sor 1
Calculation of Front
sw
Velocity using Rankine-
Hugonist conditions6
From the Buckley-Leverett equation, eqn 23
dx u ∂f
vSw1−Sor = = t w
dt 1− S or φ ∂Sw 1− S
or
Therefore from eqns. 23,28 & 29 we have;

dx u ∂f u (fw, L − fw, R ) u t 1 u
vS1−S = = t w = t = = t tan α
or
dt 1− S or φ ∂Sw 1− S φ (Sw, L − Sw, R ) φ 1 − Sor − Swi φ
or
(30)
If we apply in a similar fashion the Rankine-Hugoniot condition to case 3 for the shock
front we have for our limiting conditions ;
Sw,L=Swf
fw,L= fw(Swf)
Sw,R=Swi
fw,R=0
In equation 30, this gives us:
dx u df u t (fw, L − fw, R ) u t fwf u

vS wf = = t w = = = t tan β (31)
dt wf φ dSw wf
φ (Sw, L − Sw, R ) φ Swf − Swi φ
Examination of these equations generates a convenient graphical procedure to

determine the conditions at the shock front.
dfw fwf
tan β = = (32)
dSw wf Swf − Swi
That is a tangent drawn to the fractional flow curve from the point (Swi,0) which meets
the curve at the conditions of the shock front. Figure 24 below
fw(Swf) dfw
tan β = dS S
w w,f
fw
Figure 24
β Graphical Procedure for
0
Swi Sw,t 1-Sor Determining the Conditions
of the Shock Front
28
18
If we now consider the time, tbt it takes for this shock front to move though our linear
system we generate a useful equation which we will use later in water injection
performance calculations.
L Lφ Swf − Swi (33)

t bt = =
v f u t fw S
wf
where L is the distance from injector to producer.
4.3 Welge Analysis

In 1952 Welge(7) presented a method to obtain the average saturation behind the shock
front, which is useful in determining the oil recovery. Figure 25 gives the saturation
profile as the shock front breaks through at the producing end, a distance L from the
injection end.
Water is being injected at a rate qw
Time for breakthrough tbt
L ALφ Swf − Swi

t bt = =
Vf q w fw
1-Sor
Sw
Sw Swf
Figure 25
Water Saturation as a Swi
Function of Distance before X1 X2
Breakthrough X
Before water arrives at the exit, the volume of oil produced is equivalent to the volume
water injected. Wi = qw x t. At breakthrough the volume of oil produced, Np is the
difference between the initial oil volume, (ALφ(1-Swi), less that remaining in terms of
an average saturation, Sw, at breakthrough, (ALφ(1-Sw))
Swf − Swi
N pbt = q w t bt = ALφ = ALφ( Sw − Swi ) (34)
fwf
Therefore:

Swf − Swi
Sw − Swi = (35)
fwf
from equation 32 this can be written as:
1
Sw − Swi =
 dfw  (36)
 
 dSw  Swf
Combining equations 35 and 36 gives
Swf − Swi Sw − Swf  df 

1 − fwf = 1 − =
Sw − Swi Sw − Swi
[ ]
= Swbt − Swf  w 
 dSw  Swf
(37)
rearranging this equation becomes:

1 − fwf
Swbt − Swf +
 dfw  (38)
 
 dSw  Swf
This is Welge's equation for average saturation and and combining with equation 16
gives:
1 − f 
dfw  wS  1
wf (39)
= =
dSw S S w −Swf S w −Swi
wf
There is also a graphical significance in the above equation. The line of the tangent
drawn previously at the breakthrough point cuts the line fw=1 at an x-axis of Sw = Sw .
The construction is illustrated in the figure 26
Sw
1.0
fwf
Swf, f
wf
fw
Figure 26
Swi Swf 1-Sor Determination of Average
Saturation Behind Front
30
18
EXERCISE 3
Fractional Flow - Diffuse Flow Conditions

Oil is being displaced by water in a horizontal, direct line drive under the diffuse
flow condition. The rock relative permeability functions for water and oil are listed
in table E.1. Pressure is being maintained at its initial value for which Bo = 1.36
bbl/STB and Bw = 1.01 bbl/STB.
Data Summary
Oil formation volume factor Bo = 1.36 bbl/STB
Water formation volume factor Bw = 1.01 bbl/STB
Initial water saturation Swc = 0.20
Draw the fractional flow curves and calculate the cumulative oil recovery at break-
through for the following combinations.

1 35.0 0.5
2 4.5 0.5
3 0.4 1.0
4.4 Calculations for Oil Recovery

The objective of Welge’s work was to enable oil recoveries to be determined. We will
now develop the equations and methods to calculate oil recovery over the displace-
ment period both before water breakthrough and subsequent to it. We should not
forget at this stage we are discussing the displacement process and associated recovery
in a relatively small core plug, of oil by water.
In analysing recoveries it is convenient to express the volumes of fluids injected and

recovered in terms of pore volumes, (PV). For our core plug with a length L, cross
section area, A, and porosity, φ, the pore volume is.
PV = AφL . (40)
Before water breakthrough, only oil exits from the core at a rate equivalent to the rate
of water being injected, since it is an incompressible system. At breakthrough
therefore the pore volumes of fluids involved are;
(
N pd bt = Wid bt = q id t bt = Sw bt − Swi ) (41)
Npd = pore volumes oil produced at water breakthrough. Wid = pore volumes water
bt bt
injected at water breakthrough

qid is the water injection rate expressed in pore volumes, ie.
q
q id = i (42)
AφL
tbt is the time taken for the water to breakthrough, which is;
Wid bt
t bt = (43)
q id
Sw bt average water saturation at water breakthrough
At breakthrough , when x=L in the Buckley Leverett equation (equation 23), the
following convenient result exists;
Wi dfw (44)
x S wbt = L =
Aφ dSw S wbt
Therefore ;
1
Wi
Wid = = dfw (45)
LAφ
dSw
S wbt
In equation 45 above therefore the oil recovery at breakthrough is also equal to the
inverse of the slope of the breakthrough characteristic, the slope of the line drawn from,
Swi, tangent to the fractional flow curve, figure 26. The oil recovery at breakthrough
is fully given by the equation below.
( )
N pd dt = Wid bt = q id t bt = Sw bt − Swi = 1
dfw (46)
dSw Swbt
After breakthrough, the fractional flow saturation profile at the exit of the core
increases as shown in figure until the irreducible oil saturation, Sor, is reached where
fw=1, as the flood front moves through the core. Figure 27
32
18
1 - Sor
Sw
Swbt Swe
Swbt= Swf
0 X L
Figure 27
Water Saturation profiles
after breakthrough
From Welge’s equation 38 where the saturation value is now Swe, the average
saturation remaining is now
S w = Swe + 1 − fw S  / dfw (47)

we  dS w S
we
This can also be expressed, in terms of injected pore volumes of water, using the
Buckley Leverett relationship, so that
(
S w = Swe + 1 − fw S
we
)Wid
(48)
The oil recovered associated with this average saturation is given by;
N pd = S w −Swi = (Swe − Swi ) + 1 − fw S ( we

)W id
(49)
Equation 47 also gives a useful construction to determine the average saturation.

Since;
1 − f 
dfw  wS 
we (50)
=
dSw S
we
( S w −Swe )
As for breakthrough the average saturation is the intersection at fw =1 of the tangent

drawn to the fractional flow curve at the exit fwe saturation value. Figure 28
Sw
1-Sor
fw= 1
Sw,bt Sw
(1-fwe)
Swe,fwe
(Sw - Swe)
fw
dfw = 1-fwe
dSw Sw - Swe
Swe Figure 28
Swbt Welge construction for
Determination of Average
S after
Water Saturation
breakthrough
The procedure for the oil recovery calculations is summarised below.
1. Generate a fractional flow vs. water saturation curve for the system to be studied,
using the appropriate relative permeability data.
2. Draw a tangent to the fractional flow curve from the initial Sw = Swi position at fw=0.
At the point of tangency are the conditions of breakthrough ;
(i) fw=f wbt, Sw=S wbt and extrapolation of line to fw=1 gives the average water
Saturation value. Swbt
Also
dfw
( )
(ii) N pd bt = Wid bt = q id t bt = Sw bt − Swi = 1
dSw S
(41, 45)
wbt
(iii) The time for breakthrough is
Wid bt
t bt = (43)
q id
3. After breakthrough, select a saturation value greater than the breakthrough value
and
34
18
(i) fw=fwe, Sw=Swe and extrapolation of line to fw=1 gives the average water saturation
value. Swe
(ii) Oil recovery at this point is;
N pd = S w −Swi = (Swe − Swi ) + 1 − fw S W

id (49)
we 
Wi 1 (45)
Wid = =
LAφ dfwe
dSwe
Wid e
(iii) Time t e = (43)
q id e
Step 3 is then repeated for increasing values of Swe up to Swe = 1-Sor.
The results can then be plotted to produce recovery of oil as a function of time. As
shown in figure 29. Up to A, the breakthrough point, the recovery is linear as the oil
recovered is equal to the water injected however after this point the recovery follows
a shape determined by the fractional flow curve above the breahthrough saturation.
Breakthrough
Np Point
Figure 29
Oil Recovery up to and
after breakthrough Time
4.5 The Impact of Viscosity.

The various analysis demonstrate the impact of the fractional flow curve on the
recovery before and after displacement. Earlier we demonstrated the various shapes
of the curve as impacted by the relative viscosities of the fluids. Figure 30.

1.0
µo
= 100
µw
A
µo
=1
fw µw
B
µo
= .01
µw
C
Figure 30
Fractional Flow Curves for
different Oil/Water
Swi 1-Sor Viscosity Ratios
Sw
In this figure, Case A gives the shape for a system where the ratio of oil viscosity to
water viscosity is high, say around 100. This could be for a very dense, viscous oil
which gives rise to unstable displacement, with by-passed oil and premature water
breakthrough. To generate the oil production would require a considerable number
of pore volumes of injected water. To improve recovery for this system increasing the
temperature of the injected fluid can improve behaviour. Although the temperature
decreases the viscosity of both fluids, there is a greater impact on the oil. M>>1
In case B, the viscosity ratio is considerably lower giving rise to a more stable and
favourable displacement with a shock front developing. M = 1.
In case C, where the curvature of the fractional curve is opposite to that of case A, the
shape results from a low oil to water viscosity ratio. In this case which might be
representative of a light oil, the mobility ratio M is <<1 and leads to piston like
displacement. The three saturation profiles for these cases are illustrated in figure 31
below.
36
18
1-Sor
C
Sw A M around 1
M<1
M>>1 B
Figure 31
Water Saturation Swi
Distributions in Systems for
Different Oil/Water
Viscosity Ratios
EXERCISE 4
Oil Recovery Prediction for a Waterflood - Diffuse Flow Conditions

Water is being injected at a constant rate of 1,200 bbl/d/well in a direct line drive in
a reservoir whose rock and fluid properties, as well as the flood pattern geometry,
are listed in the data summary table below. The relative permeabilities for oil and
water are the same as for the previous exercise.
Data Summary
Injection rate Qi = 1,200 bbl/d/well
Water viscosity µw = 0.5 cp
Oil viscosity µo = 4.5 cp
Residual oil saturation Sor = 0.20
Porosity φ= 0.22
Dip angle θ= 0°
Reservoir thickness h= 50 ft
Distance between injection wells w= 800 ft
Distance - injectors and producers L = 2,000 ft
Assuming that diffuse flow conditions prevail and that the injection project starts
simultaneously with oil production from the reservoir, determine:
1) the time when breakthrough occurs
2) the cumulative oil production as a function of both the cumulative water

injected and the time.
The procedure we have just described was for diffuse flow conditions which is a one
dimensional problem. The uniform distribution of saturation over the thickness was
likened to the water flooding of a core plug. Clearly reservoirs are not so simple, the

next step therefore is to examine the scale-up of the one dimensional situation more
realistic reservoir situations, where the reservoir has thickness and vertical permeability
giving rise to, segregated flow and where the reservoir is not homogeneous but is made
up of different permeability layers.
5.TWO DIMENSIONAL BEHAVIOUR- SEGREGATED FLOW
5.1 Introduction
The analysis so far has been focused around the displacement in a core flood where
diffuse flow has been assumed. That is a uniform saturation distribution over the
thickness of the core. The challenge is now to consider how the application of this one
dimensional analysis so far can be applied to real field applications where at least a
two dimensional perspective is required.
The first real perspective is that of segregated flow where the relative density
perspectives of the two fluids lead to a saturation distribution over the thickness of the
displacement path. This type of displacement was studied by Dietz 8. He considered
that “ water encroachment on a monoclinal flank can be studied in a representative
cross section of a field and the problem is therefore reduced to one or two dimensions.
A sharp interface, rather than a transition zone is assumed between the oil- bearing and
the flooded part of the formation. No pressure drop is assumed across the interface.”
The situation for segregated flow in two dimensions is illustrated in figure 32.
lug
Core P
Oil
Water
Saturations: Mobility: Saturations: Mobility: Figure 32

Water 1- Sor Krw'/µw Water Swi O
Oil Sor O Oil 1- Swi Kro'/µo Displacement under
segregated flow
In segregated flow, it is assumed therefore that ahead of the displacement interface,

only oil is flowing with water present at its irreducible saturation Swc. Whereas behind
the displacement front only water is flowing in the presence of irreducible oil. It can
be considered there is a piston like displacement of pushing oil ahead. In reality there
would not be a sharp interface but a transition zone, associated with the imbibition
capillary curve. In the present analysis we are assuming that this transition zone is
small in thickness relative to the thickness of the displacement layer.
38
18
In segregated flow using criteria presented by Coats9, vertical equilibrium, is
considered to exist. In vertical equilibrium the following conditions would exist;
• A large density contrast, between the displacing fluid and oil

• A high vertical permeability
• Low oil viscosity
• Strong capillary forces
• Low fluid velocity
A useful indicator of the dominating forces is that in relation to the ratio of viscous
forces to capillary forces:
uµ o
N vc = (51)
σCosθ
and viscous to gravity forces
uµ o (52)
N vg =
k o g(ρw − ρo )
Where Nvc and Nvg are the capillary and gravity numbers.
For vertical equilibrium , both of these are low, and indicate that as the displacement
front advances the saturation distribution is readjusted. This can be considered
therefore as a fixed saturation profile advancing through the oil.
If the velocity is low all the front will move at the same speed. This results in the
inclination of the front remaining constant and to the limit of zero velocity would
result in a horizontal interface. The gravity forces have enabled the front to stabilise
and for this reason, the term gravity stabilised is used. At high injection rates the
viscous forces dominate and cause a tongue of water to advance along the base of the
layer. If gas was being injected the tongue would advance across the top of the layer,
This displacement is termed non-stabilised.
The various flow profiles are illustrated in figure 33.

t2
dx -dy t
a) β 1
t0
t2
b)
t1 Figure 33
t0 Stable (a) and Unstable
Flow (b) in Segregated
Displacement.
In figure a, we have stabilised flow with the angle of inclination of the front remaining
constant and in b, the non-stabilised front we have the advancing tongue.
Dietz(8) analysed this to determine the conditions for stabilised flow. Considering
figure 33a. for the incompressible displacement at the interface. At stable conditions
then on the interface the velocity of the oil and water are the same. Then applying
Darcy’s law
kk ′ro  δp o  (53)
uo = u t = −  + ρo g sin θ
µ o  δx 
and for the water
kk ′rw  δp w 
uw = ut = −  + ρw g sin θ (54)
µw  δx 
where uw and uo and ut are the oil water and total velocities at the interface. Combining
these yields;
 µ µ  δ (55)
u t  o − w  = − ( p o − p w ) + ∆ρg sin θ
kk
 ′ro kk ′rw  δx
The condition for stable displacement is that the angle between the fluids interface
remains constant.
The capillary equation is
40
18
dPc = d( p o − p w ) = ∆ρg cos θdy (56)
Equation 55 above becomes
 µ µ  dy
u t  o − w  = ∆ρg cos θ + sin θ (57)
 kk ′ro kk ′rw   dx 
Expressed in terms of total flow rate the equation becomes
 kk ′rw 
 µw  kk ′rw A∆ρg sin θ  1 dy  (58)
 kk ′ro − 1 = µ wq t
+1
 tan θ dx 
 
 µo 
We have previously expressed the mobility ratio and gravity number as
k′ k′ kk ′ A∆ρg sin θ , equation 1 and 14

M = rw / ro , and G = rw
µw µo q tµo
in equation 58 above therefore
dy 1
M − 1 = G + 1 (59)
 dx tan θ 
The angle of the interface of the front can therefore be expressed as;
dy M −1− G
= − tan β =  tan θ (60)
dx  G 
The condition for frontal stability is that dy/dx must be negative i.e.
G > M-1
The limiting case is when dy/dx =0 and the water underruns the oil. This will occur
when:
G = M-1
This provides a relationship for flow which gives the limiting flow rate
kk ′rw A∆ρg sin θ (61)

q crit =
µ w (M − 1))
In field units this becomes; (bbl, psi)

4.9 × 10 −4 kk ′rw A∆γg sin θ where ∆γ is the specific gravity difference.(62)
q crit =
µ w (M − 1))
The various aspects of stability of the front can be summarised in the context of
equation 60.
M<1
Oil
β
Water
θ M=1
Oil
β
Water
θ
Oil M>1
β
Water Figure 34
Water-Oil front for 3
θ
stabilised flow conditions
1. M < 1 The front will always be stable regardless of the value of G. From Equation
60 above tanβ/tanθ <-1 Therefore β>θ. This is illustrated in figure Figure 34a.
2. M = 1 The front is always stable regardless of G . From Equation 60 above

tanβ/tanθ = -1 Therefore β>θ . This is illustrated in figure Figure 34b.
3. M > 1. The front will only be stable if G > M-1. In this case β<θ . This is illustrated
in figure Figure 34c. The limiting condition will be at the maximum velocity
associated with the critical flow rate expressed in equation 61 above.
These three conditions can be summarised , such that when displacement of oil by
water takes place under vertical equilibrium conditions (segregated flow), then gravity
will always stabilise the flow when the mobility ratio is less than or equal to 1. For the
conditions when M is greater than 1 gravity will stabilise flow up to a limiting flow
rate given by the critical flow rate qcrit.
5.2 Displacement Calculations for Segregated Flow

Figure 35 below illustrates the conditions in our segregated flow system. Clearly when
we place our core plug scale system on the diagram the associated relative permeability
values come into focus. Indeed the core plug cannot be identified since its size is so
small!
42
18
h
Oil
Sw=Swi
So=1-Swi
1- hw
hw
X
Water
Sw=1-Sor
Figure 35 So=Sor
Segregation Flow of Oil
and Water
If we consider a point in the displacement path we see that for our homogeneous
formation experiencing strong gravity segregation. we have a sharp interface over the
formation thickness. At any point x along the injection path therefore, if hw represents
the fractional thickness below the water oil interface, Then at the position x,y on the
interface, hw =y/h where h is the formation thickness.
The average saturation over this formation thickness is;
Sw = h w (1 − Sor ) + (1 − h w )Swc (63)
Solving for hw gives
Sw − Swc
hw = (64)
1 − Sor − Swc
since the two irreducible water and oil saturations are constant. Then hw is directly
proportional to the average saturation Sw.
The average relative permeability over the thickness, the thickness averaged relative
permeability, can therefore be expressed as;
k rw = h w k rw + (1 − h w )k rw (65)
Sw ( Sw =1− S or ) ( Sw = S wc )
k rw = 0 at Swc and k rw = k' rw at Sw = 1 − Sor .

(66)
Therefore k rw = h w k' rw
Sw
k′rw is the relative permeability to water in the presence of irreducible oil, the end point
relative permeability to water.

(67)
k ro Sw
= h w k ro ( Sw =1− S or ) + (1 − h w )k ro ( Sw = S wc )
(68)
k ro = k' or at Swc and k ro = 0 at Sw = 1 − Sor .
Therefore
k ro Sw
= (1 − h w )k' ro
k′ro is the relative permeability to oil in the presence of irreducible water, the end point
relative permeability to oil.
If hw is now replaced by the expression
Sw − Swc
hw = (69)
1 − Sor − Swc
we have
 S − Swc 
k rw = w  k ′rw (70)
Sw  1 − Sor − Swc 
and
 1 − Sor − Sw 
k ro =  k ′ro (71)
Sw  1 − Sor − Swc 
The equations above show that the relative permeability curves are linear functions of
the average water saturation. Figure 36 shows the presentation of these two equations.
k′ro
k′rw
kro Sw krw Sw
Figure 36
Linear thickness, averaged
Swi Sw 1-Sor relative permeabilities for
segregated flow
44
18
Also plotted are the relative permeability curves for diffuse flow, the situation for
measurements made in small cores.
The linear thickness averaged relative permeabilities, sometimes termed the psuedo
relative permeabilties, can be used in combination with the one dimensional Buckley
Leverett theory to determine the breakthrough and recovery calculations for our two
dimensional segregated flow condition.
The procedure in this case is to;
(i) Using the core determined relative permeability curves generate the linear
thickness averaged relative permeability lines. As shown previously only the end
point values are required for this purpose.
(ii) Calculate the fractional flow curve using the pseudo(thickness) average relative
permeabilties.
(iii) Apply the one dimensional calculations to determine breakthrough and recovery.
Dake1 amplifies further the topic with respect to recovery calculations for unstable
flow in a horizontal situation and generates the following relations.
Where volumes are expressed as moveable pore volumes MOV where MOV = PV
(pore volume) x (1 - Sor - Swc).
1
N pD =
M −1
( w iD M − w io − 1 )
(72)
At water breakthrough, the pore volume recovered is;
1
N pD bt =
M (73)
In this equation therefore for stable displacement when M=1, piston like displacement,
then NpDbt=1. Also for other mobility ratios to recover one pore volume the pore
volumes of water injected are
WiD = M
(74)
For the case of unstable displacement in a dipping reservoir where G<M-1, then
1 (75)
N pD bt =
M−G
and the maximum recovery of N =1 is when

pD bt
M
Wid = (76)
G +1
EXERCISE 5
Displacement Under Segregated Flow Conditions

1) Re-work example 6 for the same water injection rate (1,200 bbl/d/well) and
using precisely the same reservoir and fluid property data, but assuming that
displacement takes place under segregated flow conditions. Compare the results
with those obtained in exercise 5.
Additional Data
Absolute permeability K= 500 mD
Specific gravity of water in the reservoir γw = 1.02
Specific gravity of oil in the reservoir γo = 0.83
6. COPING WITH HETEREOGENEITY
6.1 Introduction
So far we have considered one dimensional flow for diffuse flow conditions and two
dimensional conditions with respect to segregated flow in a homogeneous system.
One of the most significant perspectives in reservoirs by nature of the process of their
formation is that reservoirs are heterogeneous. This heterogeneity has a considerable
impact on the displacement process in a reservoir.
There are two distinct types of heterogeneity, vertical heterogeneity, and horizontal
heterogeneity. The impact of these changes in reservoir characteristics have an
influence on the recovery of fluids in an injection/ displacement process. The total
recovery Np of the fluids in place N, is a combination of the fraction recovered in the
respective dimensions. ie.
Np
= EV × EA (77)
N
where:
EA is the areal sweep efficiency, which is the fraction of the oil recovered in the areal
cross section by waterdrive, natural or injected and
EV is the vertical sweep efficiency, which is the fraction of the oil recovered in the
vertical cross section .
The proportion of the reservoir formation swept by the water leaves an oil saturation
at the irreducible saturation level and that unswept is at the original saturation level.
Figure 37.
46
18
Oil at Original Water

Saturation, Swc
Producer Producer
Injector
Producer Producer
Aerial Sweep Efficiency Vertical Sweep Efficiency
Figure 37 Residual Oil

Aerial and vertical sweep
6.2 Vertical Heterogeneity

The process of generation of a reservoir rock system clearly generates variations of
rock properties as a result of various depositional processes. The major impact is on
the variation of permeability, which can vary considerably over a short vertical
distance. This permeability variation has a considerable impact on water drive
performance and therefore it is vital in the exploration phase or early in the life of a
development that this hetereogeneity perspective is well characterised. A layer in the
formation of very high permeability compared to the rest of the formation can have
a very serious impact on the oil recovery process. In the early development of the
North Sea where sea water injection was used for pressure maintenance, early
breakthrough of water came as a surprise as relatively thin but very high permeability
layers had not been identified. Another important perspective in the vertical sweep
behaviour is the connectivity between the layers.
In chapter 2, on reservoir pressure and in section 2.4 of this chapter, we discussed the
use of downhole pressure monitoring systems. In openhole use during the early
production of a field these pressure surveys are able to distinguish the various layers
in a formation and also their communication characteristics. These pressure surveys
have provided a very useful role in enabling waterdrive predictions to be made which
are representative of the formation. They also demonstrate the effectiveness in
allowing the producing reservoir to provide reservoir behaviour characteristics to
reduce uncertainties in future prediction senarios. Figure 38 shows a sketch from
Dake2 of the RFT surveys which would result from the two extremes of pressure
communication and where there is no communication.

a) Pressure
Original water
pressure gradient.
Depth
Pressure gradient
post production.
b) Pressure
Original water Figure 38

pressure gradient. Pressure profiles pre and
post production (ref Dake)
(a) layers in communication
Depth
Pressure gradient (b) non communicating

post production.
layers
Clearly in actual reservoirs there could be some layers in communication and others not.
6.3. Areal Hetereogeneity

The areal hetererogeneity similarly reflects the impact of a number of reservoir
parameters related to flow on the sweep efficiency. Other imposed impacts also have
an influence for example, well spacing and configuration. Dake2 considered that there
is more uncertainty in the areal sweep perspective as against the vertical sweep
behaviour. He suggests that vertical sweep calculations be done which in combination
with production data of recovery can be used to history match the areal sweep
behaviour.
6.4 Vertical Sweep Displacement Calculations for Layered Reservoirs

The methods we have used for diffuse flow and segregated flow can also be applied
to layered systems, both with respect to those where there is communication between
the layers, cross flow, and those where there is no communication, no cross flow.
The procedure used for those systems where there is cross communication, cross flow
or no communication are very similar and follow the same pattern. We will follow the
general procedure and then look at the variations which are dependant on the
various communication and segregation perspectives.
(i) The first step is to identify the various layers in the reservoir and the respective
characteristics. Figure 39 shows the various layers as they exist in their natural order
48
18
in the reservoir. For each of the layers, the following characteristics are required;
thickness hi, permeability ki, porosity φi. Connate water saturation Swci, irreducible
oil saturation Sori, end point water relative permeability k'rwi and the oil end point
relative permeability k'roi, where i defines the layer.
6 Water Sori Oil Swci
Figure 39 2
Layered reservoir in natural
order 1
(ii) Consider the vertical pressure communication between the layers and decide if
there is cross flow or no cross flow.
(iii) Decide the flooding order of the layers and generate the thickness average,
pseudo-relative permeabilities. As each layer floods out, then the following
equations apply.
n N
( )
∑ h jφ j 1 − Sor j + ∑ h jφ jSwc j
j =1 j = n +1
Sw = N
(78)
∑ h jφ j
1
Subscript j refers to the ordering of the flooding out of the layers.
n
∑ h j k j k ′rw j
j =1
k rw n = N
(79)
Sw
n ∑ h jk j
1
and
N
∑ h j k j k ′rw j
k ro n = n +1N (80)
Sw n
∑ h jk j
1
(iv) These pseudo-relative (thickness averaged ) permeabilities are then used to
generate the fractional flow curve.

(v) The problem can now be solved using the 1-D approach using the Welge
procedure.
6.5 Ordering of the Layers

The ordering of the layers is where the reservoir engineer has some control.
Clearly if there is a very strong vertical equilibrium with strong segregation then the
bottom layer will flood out first and therefore j=i ,in the description of the layers and
is illustrated in figure 40.
2
Figure 40
1 Flooding out sequence for
strong vertical equilibrium
Flooding Out Sequence
The other extreme is where there is a total lack of cross flow and then the layers will
flood out according to the velocity of the displacement in each layer.
The velocity of each layer i is given by
k i k ′rw i
vi∞ (81)
φ
(
i 1− Sori − Swc i )
j in the above equation then represents the layers in descending order of their velocity.
For the case where there is no communication, Stiles10 in 1949 considered the flooding
out of the layers with respect to those reservoirs were the mobility ratio is close to
unity. His approach is illustrated in figure 41 where the natural ordering of figure 39
is reordered according to the velocity in each layer.
50
18
Layers According to Velocity
4
1
6
Figure 41
Stiles reordering (layers 5
reference) figure 39
Clearly the ordering of the layers impacts on the pseudo relative permeabilities which
results in a subsequent fractional flow curve. However once the fractional flow curve
has been generated the breakthrough and recovery analysis procedure is the same as
for the 1D case.
6.6 Impact of Capillary Pressure in Homogeneous Systems

So far we have neglected the impact of capillary pressure both with respect to diffuse
flow where the saturation distribution is uniform over the thickness or the other
extreme where in segregated flow we have an oil water contact. If capillary pressure
is significant relative to the reservoir thickness, then the thickness of the associated
transition zone cannot be ignored. If the reservoir is thin relative to the transition zone
thickness than diffuse conditions can be considered to apply. If however the transition
zone is negligible then the displacement can be considered segregated.
If neither of these extremes occur, for example where the thicknesses are similar, the
capillary pressure needs to be taken into account when generating the pseudo relative
permeabilities. Dake1 gives a thorough account of this. It is summarised briefly below.
Figure 42 from Dake1 gives a capillary pressure curve and relative permeability data
for a rock with a transition zone of around 30 feet in thickness.
Figure 42 illustrates the three conditions for a homogeneous reservoir for diffuse flow,
segregated flow and when capillary pressure is significant, for the average relative
permeability curves (a) and the oil recovery as a function of time (b).

A
1.0
Diffuse Flow (Rock Curves)
k'ro Segregated Flow

Intermediate (Finite Capillary
Transition Zone)
krw kro
k'rw
0
0 1.0
Sw
B
.6
Diffuse Flow
Npd
Segregated Flow
(PV)
Intermediate (H ≈ h)
qi = 1000 rb/d
Figure 42 (a and b)
Pseudo relative
permeability and oil
recovery curves for diffuse
0
flow, segregated flow and
0 7 Wpd (PV) capillary pressure
0 35 Time (yrs) influenced cases (Dake1)
52
18
A B
1.0 1.0
.8 .8
Oil Oil
.6 .6
krw kro krw kro
.4 Water .4 Water
Figure 43
.2 .2
Relative permeabilty curves
for three layered system 0 0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
(a) high permeability at top Sw Sw
(b) high permeabilty at base
Dake1 illustrated the impact of the relative position of the high permeability layer is
illustrated in figure 43 the thickness average relative permeabilities. The impact of
water breakthrough is clear from the fractional flow curves figure 44. The top curve
gives almost immediate breakthough as the high permeability on the bottom
breaksthrough. Whereas with the high permeability on the top a better breakthrough
profile is obtained.
1.0
.8 High Permeability
at the Top
.6
High Permeability
fw at the Base
.4
Figure 44
Fractional flow curve for .2
layered systems high
permeability at the top, high 0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
permeability at the base Sw
6.7 Impact of Permeability Distribution on Waterflooding

The example above illustrated the impact of the relative value and position of different
permeability layers. It is interesting to note that the absolute value of permeability is
not so significant as the relative contrast of the permeability values. Clearly these
permeability variations are generated as a result of the depositional environment.
These depositional environments have been illustrated by both Dake1 and Archer11
and the sketches from Archer11 illustrating how such extreme permeability profiles
can result are shown in figure 45&46. This topic was also covered in the chapter on
permeabilty variations. The various saturation profiles resulting from four permeablity
distributions are shown in figure 47.

Levee
e
Weak Fin
Eros i o
Current
on
siti Growth of
tion )
po
n of
Channel
e Point Bar cre e
Migration Strong n dD Ac e Lin
Sa m
Ba
al (Ti
Current ter
La face
nk
e r
ars Su
Co
GR
Permeability
Injection
Figure 45
Oil
Depth
Effect of unfavourable
permeabilty distrubution in
Production waterflooding (Archer11)
(a) Unfavorable
Water
Coarser Sediment in
Shallow Turbulent Water
Sea Level
Wave Energy
Increasing
e
Siz
r ain ion
gG sit
s in e po
rea u sD
Inc eo
Advance
an of Bar
Fine Sediment in ult
Deeper Quiet Water Sim
GR GR
Profile (A) Profile (B)
Injection
Permeability
Oil
Water Figure 46
Depth
Effect of favourable
Production
permeabilty distrubution in
(a) Favorable waterflooding (Archer11)
54
18
k
Super-Homogenous
D
Worst Case
D
D
Tunnel
Figure 47
Random
Permeabilty distribution D
and resulting waterflooding

profile
As we have seen the resulting fractional flow curve determines the quality of the water
flood as shown by the saturation at breakthrough and the subsequent oil production
with time, The shape of the fractional flow curve is influenced by a number of factors,
including the relative viscosities, end point permeabilties and permeability distribution.
Figure 48 from Dake illustrates the impact of mobility ratio and permeability on the
fractional flow curves for the two extreme conditions of permeability distributions.
Figure 48a for the situation where the permeability increases with depth and figure
48b with the permeability decreasing with depth.
A B
1.0 1.0
M=16.1
M=1 M=16.1
0.8 0.8 M=1
bt
0.6 0.6
fw fw
Figure 48
0.4 0.4
Fractional flow curves for
(a) coarsening downward
0.2 0.2
permeability distribution
(b) coarsening upward
0 0
(Dake)2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw Sw

Considering figure 48a the curves for both extreme mobility ratios and unfavourable
high permeability at the base, both give a concave downwards shape. With a mobility
ratio of M=16 the breakthrough and displacement is very poor and although the
mobility ratio of M=1 is better the result leads to a long displacement process to
recover the oil. In figure 48b however with the high permeability contrast to the top,
the mobility ratio gives piston like displacement over the whole displacement and
even for a high unfavourable mobility ratio contrast of 16 there is a breakthrough point
better than the mobility ratio of 1 with the opposite permeability contrast.
The impact of these various permeability contrasts on the water production development
versus time is illustrated in figure 49. The early water breakthrough at a low water cut
requires a considerable time to displace the oil. In the other extreme case the piston
like displacement obtained with a favourable mobility ratio and a permeability profile
increasing to the top leads to a delayed waterbreakthrough then a rapid increase in
water cut over a much shorter period.
1.00 Piston-Like
Recovery
Up
0.80 in g
en
rs
wn
a
Co
Do
M = 16.1
nin g
0.60
se
fw M = 16.1
Coar
0.40
wn
Do
g
0.20 M=1
n in
se
ar
Co
Mov = 0.594 HCPV Figure 49
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Reservoir fractional flow of
NPD (HCPV)
water as a function of the
vertical sweep efficiency11
It is not practical to include exercises on all the topics in this text. Dake1,2 and Chierici4
give a number of examples illustrating the various aspects.
7. APPLICATION TO FIELD PERFORMANCE
So far we have considered the displacement process from a predictive perspective.

The displacement equations generated can also be used to examine actual field
waterflood performance and then use the generated information to determine future
waterflood strategy. This novel approach has been developed by Dake2 in his second
text.
His method is based on the development of a reservoir fractional flow curve from
production data. Production data provides values of oil production, water injection,
exit fractional flows as a function of time, i.e. Np. Wi,and fws. When these are converted
to dimensionless pore volume based values they become Npd, Wid and fwe.
56
18
Using the recovery equation developed earlier
N pd = S w −Swi = (Swe − Swi ) + 1 − fw S W

id (49)
we 
the unknown Swe can be obtained, thus enabling a reservoir fractional flow curve to
be generated. Figure50 gives the water cut developed for a reservoir and its eratic
nature and figure 51 gives the generated reservoir fractional flow curve for a fractured
limestone reservoir. The function in figure 51 is quite smooth and often coverts the
more erratic watercut versus time profile into a manageable curve.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Watercut
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Figure 50
0
Watercut development for a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
fractured limestone Cumlative Production (MMstb)
reservoir (Dake)
Core Data
at Sor
0.8
0.6
fwe
0.4
0.2
0.525 0.65
Figure 51
0
Reservoir fracture 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
flowcurve Swe (PV)

Extrapolation of the fractional flow curve for the last few data points to the fw=1
position gives a value for the average recovery obtained at that point, which in the
example presented gives a value of Sw avg.=0.525. The core value of the water
saturation at irreducible oil saturation, suggests a prediction extension of the reservoir
fractional flow curve as shown. Analysis of this curve would provide the future oil
recovery against time for the development assuming injection rates remain the same.
Allowing the water cut to go up to the value given of 0.98 would yield an average
saturation of 0.65 and a 31% increase in recovery compared to the last data point
position. Such an improvement however has to be considered against the further factor
of 2.5 for the time taken to achieve such recovery. However another option is to
increase the injection rate if facility upgrades are possible and therefore reduce the
time to achieve the recovery increase.
It is interesting to note for the example cited, Dake2 indicates that the operator had
made provision in the original facility design for such upgrading of water injection and
handling facilities.
This option of the operator being able to progress round the extended reservoir
generated fractional flow curve to generate better recovery is an interesting approach.
Dake2 suggests that this simple approach provides an effective means in relating the
ultimate recovery to the total water injected over the field life and is particularly useful
for the ’difficult’ field where the fractional flow curve has the characteristic concave
downward shape.
8. IMMISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT IN GAS DRIVE SYSTEMS
The discussion has so far has centered around immiscible water oil displacement. The
methods generated however can be used for gas displacing oil systems where the
process is immiscible. That is when there is no component transfer between the gas
and oil phases. Again for a full account of the topic the reader is referred to Dake (2).
From the presentation focused on water oil displacement a number of key perspectives
have been identified, the mobility ratio, the permeability variation and the impact of
gravity. In the context of gas oil systems these topics are even more significant.
8.1 Mobility Ratio for Gas Oil Systems.

The gas to oil ratio for gas displacing oil is very unfavourable because of the large
viscosity variation between the phases. For example
k ′rg k ′ro 0.5 1

M= / = / = 20 (82)
µ g µ o 0.025 1
Consequently gas drive is very unstable since the gas is able to move considerably
faster than the oil under the same pressure differential.
This unfavourable mobility ratio results in a very unfavourable fractional flow curve
for horizontal flow.
58
18
The fractional flow equation for horizontal gas drive is;
1
fgh =
µ g k ro (83)
1+
µ o k rg
Typical one dimensional gas-oil relative permeability and fractional flow curves are
given in figure 52 and shows the very unfavourable form of the fractional flow curve.
In reality in field applications the full laboratory relative permeability curves are not
used, but only the ‘end point’ values, since in gas drive systems gravity dominates
leading to segregated flow with a sharp gas oil interface.
k'ro 1.0
k'rg fg
kr
Figure 52
Laboratory-measured, one-
0 1-Sor-Swc 1.0 0 1-Sor-Swc 1.0
dimensional gas-oil relative
Sg Sg
permeabilities and
fractured flow (Dake2)
The equations used for calculating recovery are the same as for the water –oil
displacement, that is one can use the Buckley- Leverett theory and the associated
Welge analysis. For the recovery of oil in gas drive therefore the recovery equation
becomes
(
N pd = Sge + 1 − fge G id ) (84)
where Gid is the pore volumes of gas injected, and which is from the Buckley Leverett
equation equal to the reciprocal of the slope of the fractional flow curve at the exit gas
saturation and fractional flow.
8.2 Gravity Segregation

This is the dominant perspective in gas drive and is illustrated in figure 53. Figure 53a
shows the displacement front with vertical gas drive where a stable interface is shown.
This would be the characteristic of gas cap drive behaviour. In this gas injection
perspective the vertical velocities are low. However in figure 53 b where flow is along
the bedding of the reservoir then the unfavourable mobility ratio together with the
arge gravity impact can cause the gas to override the oil. Its control therefore is
difficult

Gas
Injection
a)
Gas
Oil
Oil
Production
Gas
Injection
b)
Gas Oil Figure 53

Vertical and parallel gas
injection
The prediction of performance can be carried out in the same way as for the layered
two dimensional systems for water, where thickness averaged pseudo relative
permeabilities are generated and then the calculation reduced to the one dimensional
form.
The thickness average saturations and relative permeability equation are as before but
in the context of gas oil values. In this case of course the layers flood from the top to
the base.
∑ h φ (1 − S
j= l
j j or j − Swc j )
Sg = N
∑h φj= l
j j
(85)
n
∑ h k k'
j= l
j j rg j
k rg = N
(86)
∑h k
j= l
j j
60
18
n
∑ h j k j k ′ro j
j =1
k ro = N (87)
∑ h jk j
j =1
From these equations the fractional flow curve is generated and it is important to note
in this case the gravity impact is involved since
1− G
fg =
µ g k ro (88)
1+
µ o k rg
where G is a positive gravity number which in field units is
kk ro A∆ρ sin θ
G = 2.743 × 10 −3 (89)
vµ o
∆ρ is the specific gravity difference based on water =1.
v is the average Darcy velocity,q/A of the gas injection front and whereas the actual
velocity v' is equal to
q
v′ = (90)
Aφ(1 − Sor − Swc )
Using the fractional flow curve the method of Welge (equation 49) can then be used
to generate oil recovery, in relation to gas injected in a similar way as for water
injection.
The following equations are used in the analysis
N pd =
(
Sg′ + 1 − fg G iD ) (91)
1 − Swc
where S'g and fg are the averaged saturations and fractional flows determined on the
fractional flow curve after breakthrough.
Npd is the oil volume expressed in hydrocarbon pore volumes.
GiD is the gas injected in pore volumes and is the reciprocal of the slope of the fractional
flow curve.
8.3 Impact of heterogeneity

The depositional aspects of the formation can influence the fractional flow curve and
therefore the flood front profile. Whereas with water displacing oil the coarsening
downwards of the rocks gives high early breakthrough for water , with gas injection
this improves the flood profile as the higher permeability in lower layers counteracts
the density difference perspective.

8.4 Other parameters
The stability of the flood front is influenced by a number of formation parameters
including, k,q,µo,∆ρ and also the injection rate. Clearly the only parameter the
engineer has control over is the rate. Figure 54 from Dake2 shows the impact of
varying the velocity. Plot A is for the case where gravity is ignored. Case B shows the
impact of reducing the velocity to 1 ft/day and curve C to 0.25ft/day. With curve A a
very unfavourable displacement results whereas with B, the curve has an inflection
point and therefore a breakthrough point. Curve C gives an even better curve with a
higher breakthrough condition.
fg
bt A: Horizontal (fg = fgh)
B: v = 1 ft/d
C: v = 0.25 ft/d
B C
Figure 54
Sg = 0 1-Sor-Swc Influence of the velocity of
Sg
gas flood on the stability of
frontal advance (Dake2)
In analysing gas produced in a gas injection process consideration has to be taken of

the solution gas produced which is not part of the reservoir gas produced in these
displacement calculations.
Dake2 develops the equation for the GOR in terms of the fractional flow value and the
respective formation volume factors.
B
5.615 o
Bg
GOR = + Rs scf/stb (92)
1 
 f − 1
 g 
where Rs is the solution GOR at the flooding pressure.
fg is the pseudo fractional flow for gas in consideration of the gravity term for
inclined systems
where
62
18
1− G
fg =
µ k ro (93)
1+ g
µ o k rg
Dake2 provides a field example of the application of these equations for immiscible
displacement in a heterogeneous reservoir.
8.5 Gas Cycling

In the chapter 4 on phase behaviour we discussed the characteristics of retrograde gas
condensate reservoirs, which if allowed to fall below the saturation pressure, the dew
point, liquid condensate separates in the formation and is considered to be stranded
in the formation. Maintaining pressure above the dew point, prevents this retrograde
condensation behaviour. Gas cycling can be a considered option for reservoirs with
a high condensate to gas ratio, where the separated gas is reinjected into the formation,
and which with imported gas, to replace the gas equivalent of exported condensates,
maintains the pressure. In partial gas cycling the pressure declines as a result of not
supplementing the injection for the sold condensates and also where gas is exported
during high demand periods. Figure 55 illustrates the process.
Condensates to
Export
Sea Level
Gas Imported
from another
Field Sea Bed
Wet Gas
Dry Gas
Production
Injection
Dry
Gas
Wet
Gas
Figure 55
Gas cycling

In this process we have dry gas displacing wet gas. The process is very costly with
respect to the compression facilities required and therefore a range of techno-
economic studies would be required before such a scheme is implemented. Two key
parameters would be involved not the least the price of oil to justify the recovery of
otherwise lost liquids, and also the flooding behaviour. The ideal situation would be
for all the wet gas to have been displaced when the dry gas breaksthrough into the wells
and then to convert the reservoir into a gas producing system when it would be hoped
gas export facilties were in place. Clearly dry gas displacing wet gas is a miscible
process with interaction of components at the dry gas/ wet gas interface. A
unfavourable displacement would give early dry gas breakthrough and cesation of the
project since the activity of circulating dry gas would not be very profitable!
The common approach to modelling these processes is to use full compositional

reservoir simulation. Coats12 has indicated that whereas for partial gas cycling
compositional simulation is required more simple analysis can be used for depletion
and full gas cycling. Dake2 in his second text goes through an example using the
Buckley Leverett displacement approach to calculate the recovery characteristics for
a full gas cycling process.
For a miscible dry gas displacing wet gas senario, the core relative permeabilties are
simple linear functions since no residual wet gas saturation remains after contact with
dry gas. Figure 56
1.0 k'rgw k'rgd 1.0
Dry Wet kr Figure 56

Gas Gas
Dry gas recycling flooding
experiment and resulting
1-Swc one-dimensional relative
Miscible Sgd
Front permeabilities
The other important parameter in the development of the fractional flow is the
mobility ratio, which using example fluid data gives;
k ′rgd k ′rgw 1 1
M= / = / = 1.5
µ gd µ gw 0.02 0.03
The resulting ratio although greater than 1, provides a reasonable stable displacement
perspective.
The heterogeneity of the reservoir will also have an impact on the process. High
permeabilties at the top will favour earlier breakthrough since the drier, less dense gas
will tend to migrate to the upper part of the reservoir. Whereas high permeabilties
towards the base will counter balance the density impact. Figure 57. High permeability
layers within the formation like water flooding can be a concern providing an easy path
for injected gas leading to early breakthrough.
64
18
Production
Injection
Permeability
Dry Wet
Thickness
a)
Production
Injection
Permeability
Wet
Figure 57 Dry
Influence of permeability
Thickness
distribution of the
b)
efficiency of gas recycling
under the VE condition
Solutions to Exercises
EXERCISE 1
Plot the water-oil relative permeability from the following data set. Indicate the end
point relative permeabilities.
Sw Krw Kro
0.20 0.0000 0.8800
0.25 0.0021 0.6710
0.30 0.0095 0.5170
0.35 0.0210 0.4070
0.40 0.0347 0.3135
0.45 0.0536 0.2420
0.50 0.0788 0.1793
0.55 0.1050 0.1320
0.60 0.1386 0.0891
0.65 0.1785 0.0550
0.70 0.2184 0.0297
0.75 0.2636 0.0110
0.80 0.3150 0.0000
Table E1

SOLUTION
Plot
1.00
Relative Permeability
0.90
Krw
0.80 Kro
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Water Saturation "Sw"

Figure E1
End point relative permeabilities:
k'ro = 0.88 @ Sw = 0.2

k'rw = 0.3150 @ Sor = 0.2
EXERCISE 2
Water is to be injected into a horizontal core, with the relative permeability character-
istics of table 1, to displace oil. Determine the mobility ratios M, and the fractional
flow curves for the following three cases.

1 35.0 0.5
2 4.5 0.5
3 0.4 1.0
Table E2
SOLUTION
k' rw / µ w
Mobility ratio = (1)
k' ro / µ o
1
fw =
fw for horizontal flow = µ k (15)
1 + w ro
k rw µ o
Case mw/mo M
1 0.01 25.06
2 0.11 3.22
3 2.50 0.14
Table E3
66
18
The Fractional flow in the reservoir for the three cases can be calculated as follows:
Fractional Flow (fw)

Sw Krw Kro Kro/Krw µw/µo (1) µw/µo (2) µw/µo (3)
0.01 0.11 2.50
0.20 0.000 0.880 Infinite 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.25 0.002 0.671 319.5238 0.1797 0.0274 0.0013
0.30 0.010 0.517 54.4211 0.5626 0.1419 0.0073
0.35 0.021 0.407 19.3810 0.7832 0.3171 0.0202
0.40 0.035 0.314 9.0346 0.8857 0.4990 0.0424
0.45 0.054 0.242 4.5149 0.9394 0.6659 0.0814
0.50 0.079 0.179 2.2754 0.9685 0.7982 0.1495
0.55 0.105 0.132 1.2571 0.9824 0.8774 0.2414
0.60 0.139 0.089 0.6429 0.9909 0.9333 0.3836
0.65 0.179 0.055 0.3081 0.9956 0.9669 0.5649
0.70 0.218 0.030 0.1360 0.9981 0.9851 0.7463
Table E4 0.75 0.264 0.011 0.0417 0.9994 0.9954 0.9055
0.80 0.315 0.000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
1.00
0.90
0.80 M = 25
fw (rbbl/rbbl)
0.70
0.60
0.50 M = 3.22
0.40
Case 1
0.30 M = 00.4 Case 2
Case 3
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Figure E2 Sw
EXERCISE 3
Fractional Flow - Diffuse Flow Conditions

Oil is being displaced by water in a horizontal, direct line drive under the diffuse flow
condition. The rock relative permeability functions for water and oil are listed in table
E.1. Pressure is being maintained at its initial value for which Bo = 1.36 bbl/STB and
Bw = 1.01 bbl/STB.
Data Summary
Oil formation volume factor Bo = 1.36 bbl/STB
Water formation volume factor Bw = 1.01 bbl/STB

Compare the values of the producing watercut (at surface conditions) and the
cumulative oil recovery at breakthrough for the following combinations.

1 35.0 0.5
2 4.5 0.5
3 0.4 1.0
SOLUTION
For horizontal flow the fractional flow in the reservoir is:

1
fw =
µ w k ro
1+
k rw µ o
While the producing watercut at surface, fws, is:
qw
Bw
fws =
qw qo
Bw + Bo
Combining the above two equations leads to an expression for the surface watercut as:
1
fws =
B 1 
1 + w  − 1
Bo  fw 
Viscosity ratio µw/µo :
Case µw/µo Case Mobility Ratio

1 0.01 1 25.06
2 0.11 2 3.22
3 2.50 3 0.14
Fraction flow for case 1,2,3 calculated using fractional flow equation above and
tabulated in table E5.
Oil recovery, Npd - pore volumes Npd = Swavg - Swi
Equation 41 in text.
68
18

Sw Krw Kro Kro/Krw µw/µo (1) µw/µo (2) µw/µo (3)
0.01 0.11 2.50
0.20 0.000 0.880 Infinite 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.25 0.002 0.671 319.5238 0.1797 0.0274 0.0013
0.30 0.010 0.517 54.4211 0.5626 0.1419 0.0073
0.35 0.021 0.407 19.3810 0.7832 0.3171 0.0202
0.40 0.035 0.314 9.0346 0.8857 0.4990 0.0424
0.45 0.054 0.242 4.5149 0.9394 0.6659 0.0814
0.50 0.079 0.179 2.2754 0.9685 0.7982 0.1495
0.55 0.105 0.132 1.2571 0.9824 0.8774 0.2414
0.60 0.139 0.089 0.6429 0.9909 0.9333 0.3836
0.65 0.179 0.055 0.3081 0.9956 0.9669 0.5649
0.70 0.218 0.030 0.1360 0.9981 0.9851 0.7463
0.75 0.264 0.011 0.0417 0.9994 0.9954 0.9055
0.80 0.315 0.000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Table E5
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
fw (rbbl/rbbl)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 Case 1
0.20 Case 2
Figure E3 Case 3
0.10
Fractional flow plots for
0.00
different oil - water 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
viscosity ratios Sw
Fractional flow plots for three cases are shown in figure above, and the results
obtained by applying Welge's graphical technique, at breakthrough are listed in the
following table:
At breakthrough Extrapolated Oil recovery

Case Swbt fwbt fwsbt Swavg Npdbt
Fig.1.2 (reservoir) (surface) Fig.1.2 (PV)
1 0.28 0.52 0.59 0.37 0.17
Table E6 2 0.45 0.66 0.72 0.57 0.37
Welge's graphical solution 3 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.60
EXERCISE 4
Oil Recovery Prediction for a Waterflood - Diffuse Flow Conditions

Water is being injected at a constant rate of 1,200 bbl/d/well in a direct line drive in
a reservoir whose rock and fluid properties, as well as the flood pattern geometry, are
listed in the data summary table below. The relative permeabilities for oil and water
are the same as for the previous exercise.
Data Summary
Injection rate Qi = 1,200 bbl/d/well
Initial water saturation Swc =0.20
Residual oil saturation Sor = 0.20
Porosity φ = 0.22
Dip angle θ = 0°
Reservoir thickness h = 50 ft
Distance between injection wells w = 800 ft
Distance - injectors and producers L = 2,000 ft
Assuming that diffuse flow conditions prevail and that the injection project starts
simultaneously with oil production from the reservoir, determine:
1) the time when breakthrough occurs
2) the cumulative oil production as a function of both the cumulative water injected
and the time.
SOLUTION
The fractional flow in the reservoir (for horizontal flow) is calculated from:
1
fw =
µw kro
1+
krw µo
For this case, the water / oil viscosity ratio is:
µw/µo = 0.11
Results of the fractional flow calculations for this case are summarised in table E.7
70
18
fractional
Sw Krw Kro Kro/Krw flow fw
0.20 0.000 0.880 Infinite 0.000

0.25 0.002 0.671 319.5238 0.027
0.30 0.010 0.517 54.4211 0.142
0.35 0.021 0.407 19.3810 0.317
0.40 0.035 0.314 9.0346 0.499
0.45 0.054 0.242 4.5149 0.666
0.50 0.079 0.179 2.2754 0.798
0.55 0.105 0.132 1.2571 0.877
0.60 0.139 0.089 0.6429 0.933
0.65 0.179 0.055 0.3081 0.967
0.70 0.218 0.030 0.1360 0.985
0.75 0.264 0.011 0.0417 0.995
Table E7 0.80 0.315 0.000 0.0000 1.000
Fractional flow for µw/µo = 0.11

1.00
0.90
0.80 Water
Extrapolated
0.70 breakthrough Sw
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Figure E4 Sw
From the above figure, breakthrough occurs when:
Water saturation at breakthrough Swbt = 0.45

Fractional flow at breakthrough fwbt = 0.665
Extrapolated Savg at fw = 1 Savg = 0.572
Oil recovery
Npdbt = Widbt = Swavg − Swc)
Widbt = Npdbt = 0.37 (PV)
1) Calculation of the breakthrough time (in years)

For a constant water injection rate the time, in years,

Widbt * PV
t=
Qi * 5.615 * 365
Where: PV is the pore volume in ft3 :
PV = h*W*L*φ
PV = 1.76E+07 ft3
t= 2.66 years
or 972 days
2) Cumulative oil recovery

The oil recovery after breakthrough, expressed in pore volumes, can be calculated
using the equation:
N pd = ( S w − Swc ) = ( Swe − Swc ) + (1 − fwe )Wid

Where:
1
Wid =
dfw
dSw Swe
Allowing Swe, the water saturation at the producing end of the block, to rise in
increments of 5% (for Swe >=Swbt) the corresponding values of Wid are calculated in
table 2.2.
Swe fwe ∆Swe ∆fwe ∆fwe/∆Swe ∆Swe* Wid

(PV)
0.45 0.665 <= At breakthrough

0.05 0.134 2.68 0.475 0.373
0.5 0.799
0.05 0.076 1.52 0.525 0.658
0.55 0.875
0.05 0.057 1.14 0.575 0.877
0.6 0.932
0.05 0.033 0.66 0.625 1.515
0.65 0.965
0.05 0.016 0.32 0.675 3.125
0.7 0.981
0.05 0.013 0.26 0.725 3,846
0.75 0.994
0.05 0.006 0.12 0.775 8.333
0.8 1.000
Table E8
72
18
Time
Swe* Swe* - Swc fwe* 1-fwe* Wid Npd t
(from fig.2.1) (PV) (PV) (years)
At breakthrough => 0.450 0.665 0.372 0.3720 2.66

0.475 0.275 0.735 0.265 0.373 0.3739 2.67
0.525 0.325 0.841 0.159 0.658 0.4296 4.71
0.575 0.375 0.905 0.0905 0.877 0.4583 6.28
0.625 0.425 0.950 0.050 1.515 0.5008 10.84
0.675 0.475 0.975 0.025 3.125 0.5531 22.36
Table E9 0.725 0.525 0.988 0.012 3.846 0.5712 27.52
The values of fwe* in table E9, have been obtained from figure 2.1, for the corresponding
values of Swe*. The oil recovery, in reservoir pore volumes, is plotted as a function
of Wid and time in figure 2.2. The maximum possible recovery is one Movable Oil
Volume, i.e. (1-Swc - Sor) = 0.6 PV.
Oil recovery for Qi = 1200 bbl/d/well

0.60
0.50
0.40
Npd (PV)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
Figure E5 Wid (PV)
EXERCISE 5
Displacement Under Segregated Flow Conditions

1) Re-work example 4 for the same water injection rate (1,200 bbl/d/well) and using
precisely the same reservoir and fluid property data, but assuming that displacement
takes place under segregated flow conditions. Compare the results with those obtained
in exercise 5.
Additional Data
Absolute permeability K = 500 mD
Specific gravity of water in the reservoir γw = 1.02
Specific gravity of oil in the reservoir γo = 0.83
SOLUTION
From the relative permeability relations given in figure E6, the end point relative
permeability are:

1.00
0.90 krw
k'rw (end points)
0.80
Relative Permeability
kro
0.70 k'ro (end points)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Water Saturation (Sw)
Figure E6
Sw K'rw K'ro
0.20 0.000 0.880
0.80 0.315 0.000
Table E10
End point relative permeability to water: k'rw = 0.315

End point relative permeability to oil: k'ro = 0.880
Since:
The end poin Mobility Ratio "M" can be evaluated as:

k' rw / µ w
M=
k' ro / µo
M = 3.2216
Savg Savg
1.200
low
d flow
ef
fus
egate
Dif
1.000
Segr
Segregated Flow
0.800
0.600
fw
Diffuse Flow
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw
Figure E7
74
18
At the time of water breakthrough:
N pd = Wid
where: WiD is the cumulative water injection expressed in Pore Volume (PV):
Savg- segregation floow at breakthrough = 0.386
N pd bt = Savg − Swi
Since: 1 MOV = PV (1 - Sor - Swc)
Npdbt = 0.186 (PV)
Time
WiD NpD t
(PV) (PV) (Years)
At Breakthrough = > 0.186 0.186 1.333

0.420 0.352 3.006
0.720 0.468 5.153
0.960 0.524 6.870
1.200 0.561 8.588
1.440 0.584 10.305
1.680 0.596 12.023
Maximum Recovery = > 1.933 0.600 13.833
Table E11
Oil Recovery for Qi = 1200 bbl/d/well

0.60
0.50
0.40
Diffuse Flow
Npd(PV)
Segregated Flow
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Wid (PV)
Figure E8
In figure E8 plots of the oil recovery, assuming the segegated flow condition, are
compared with the results of exercise 2, assuming diffuse flow. The comparison
shows that, although the breakthrough occurs much earlier for segregated flow, the
ultimate recovery is obtained sooner and for a much smaller throughput of water.

REFERENCES
1. Dake,L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier,Amsterdam, 1978
2. Dake,L.P., The Practise of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier,Amsterdam, 1994
3. Bishlawi,M and Moore,R.l., Montrose Field Reservoir Management, SPE Europec

Conference, London,(EUR166), Oct.1980
4. Mayer and Gurr
5. Buckley,S.E. and Leverett,M.C. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands.

Trans,AIME,146,107-116, 1942
6. Chierici,G.L. Principles of Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Vol 2, Springer-

Verlag, Berlin , 1995
7. Welge,H.J., A Simplified Method of Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water

Drive, Trans AIME, 195,,91-98,1952
8. Dietz,D.N.,A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Encroaching and By-

Passing Edge Water, Proc. Ned.Akad Wet Ser B,56:83-92,1953
9. Coats,K.H.,Demsey,J.R. Henderson,J.H. The Use of Vertical Equilibrium in

Two Dimensional Simulation of Three Dimensional Reservoir Performance,Soc.
Pet.Eng J. Trans AIME, March.63-71,19971
10. Stiles,W.E., Use of Permeability Distribution in Water Flood Calculations,

Trans. AIME, 186, 9-, 1949
11. Archer,J.S.,Wall,C.G., Petroleum Engineering Principles and Practise, Graham

& Trotman, London,1986
12. Coats,K.L. Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance,SPE

Symposium Reservoir Simulation,New Orleans SPE 10512, 1982.
76

Res Eng CH 18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Res Eng CH 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immiscible Displacement

1. INTRODUCTION 8. IMMISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT IN GAS DRIVE

3. BASIC WATERDRIVE THEORY

5. TWO DIMENSIONAL BEHAVIOUR-

6. COPING WITH HETEREOGENEITY

7. APPLICATION TO FIELD PERFORMANCE

• Describe briefly the various benefits of water injection.

The modelling of water drive in reservoirs in relation to understanding the displacement

2.THE REASON FOR WATER INJECTION

Water injection is the main intervention method used in reservoir development,

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 3

2.1 Zone Isolation

OIL Sealing Fault

2.3 Oil Viscosity

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 5

Reservoir pressure - psig

True vertical subsea depth - feet

2.6 Reservoir Depth

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 7

2.7 Facility Design

2.8 Thermal Fracturing

2.9 Water Handling

WATER INJECTION DESIGN Gas-sales or

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 9

where qwi = injection rate (assume Bw = 1)

He points out that this simple equation is fundamental to the process.

This watercut or fractional flow is defined as:

q wp where ‘s’ denotes surface conditions. (3)

As in many reservoir engineering processes we are combining properties, measurements

In water-oil displacement considerations we are dealing with a process which takes

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 11

This microscopic behaviour illustrates its effects in macroscopic properties of relative

3.3 Relative Permeability

For example the relative permeability of water, krw is expressed as follows;

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 13

(Cross section view)

MOV = (1 − Sor − Swc )PV

3.4 Fractional Flow

The oil rate qo can also be expressed as;

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 15

∆ρ = ρw − ρo is the density difference of water and oil.

kk ro A  ∂Pc ∆ρg sin θ 

Dake2 has also simplified this equation as;

1− G where G is a positive gravity number; (13)

kk ro A∆ρg sin θ in field units. (14)

where ∆ρ is the specific gravity difference relative to water.

The impact of the various components of this equation is worthy of consideration.

and saturation distribution

∂Pc dPc ∂Sw

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 17

Swc 1-Sor Figure 13

An interesting presentation was given by Mayer-Gurr4. as illustrated in figure 14

Capillary Pressure Height

100 100% Water

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 19

This will occur if, the following reservoir flows exists;

qo = the oil flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.

qw = the water flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.

qi = the water injection flow rate in reservoir volumes/time.

Since we are assuming incompressible flow, ρw is a constant. Therefore;

The differential of water saturation is

We are examining the advancement of a particular saturation value. Since Sw is