.
,,
Aids to Forecasting the Performm~e of Water Floods
R, V.HIGGI)W
MEMBER AIME
D. W. BOLEY
A. J. LEIGHTON
JUN1OR MEMBERS AIME
,. ‘ABSTRACT
This paper presenrs a contpute;. method to obtain the
shape factors and equal cell volumes oj the channels for
any well spacing pattern frotn a potenriotnetric model.
By using this progruw the authors have processed the
clata jor the seven-spot, direct litretdvive and the staggered
line-drive pattertts. The data jor the five-spot pattert; had
been previously processed by a noncotnputer method attd
tow inchided for completeness. The shape factors and
volames for [he chaunels m-e presented itt tables for those
who want to use thetn to process dam using their own
permeability relationships itnc! viscosities of their reservoir
oils. The authors fume used [he dara and sels of repre -
,sentutive pertneub!lity cur~,es 10 process sample calcula-
tions oj waterffod performances. The cou tparison oj the
calctilated results shows Ihaf the infi[tence of well spacing
is small.
The pertneabi[i(ies o~ fhe }zwervoir rock to oil and water
had a greater influet)ce on oil recovery for a given pore-
volume throughput of water than the well spacing pat-
retvt. The more ww - wet the re,rwwir rock, tile” berret-
ttte possibility bf pertne;ibilities which ore couciticive to
good ?ecovery.
The, vis<o$silyoj [he reservoir oil al.w influences the re~
covery morf than t!te well spacing pcttiern, The reduction
ih the percen tcsge recovery oj oil with increase in viscosity
of the reservoir oils is stncdl when oil viscosities are itt the
range of 0.1 to $.. A bov’e this range the reductions in re-
co>;ries ftre exIensive. Saniple c;utparisotts oj the dute
required for diflereut p0fie17tS to recover the oil are pre-
sented. Results of an exatnpIe calculatioti are given to
, show rhe eflect of the pernleahility profile on recovery.
INTRODUCTION
The effect of well spacing pattern on the recovery of
oil when flooding with eilher gas or water has been studied
by many investigators. Ivfuskat et al.’ presented an analysis
using conductivityy, sweep ‘efficiency and unit “mobility
to the time of breakthrough. Dyes et al.’ used experi-
mental techniques, (X-ray. shadawgraphs) and different”
Mobility rptios, ,Th y presented quantitatively the relatiOn-.
ship bet,ween mobi ity and sweep efficiency at and after
breakthrough. HaLI \ d presented a method to :predict
wates$ood performs J ce for arbitrary well spacing patterns
and ~obility ratios, Craig et aL,”’using techniques similar
to Dyes et rd. to determine sweep efficiency f& a five-
spot ‘pattern, added tkae“l~seof ‘relative perm-eability curves --
at breakthrough’ and thereafter. Douglas et al,’ usd rela-
ikiiimd manuscrhl received in S@iety of Petroleum Enahwers office
March SO, 1964. Revised mmmsc,ipt receivid JUIY S. 1984. Paper
presented nt S[xfi 131fm”lrJ Semmtary I@cwerv Syfiposlum of SPE.
Ma 4.5, 1984, in Wi@hka Fstls. Tex.
a&,efc:enccs xiven at end of piper,
, .,
1ss76
.’
i
U. S. BUREAU OF MINES
SAN FRANCISCO, CAIIF.
tive permeabllities and continuously changing saturations
throughout the entire five-spot flood pattern. In obtaining
their solutions they used finite-difference equations. Hig-
gins and Lei~hton””’ also used relative perrneabilities and
continuously changing saturations throughout the pattern
before and after breakthrough. They employed techniques
that. process a flood-pattern calculation on the computer
in about one rpimde. The inethods of Douglas er al, and
Higgins and Leighton both checked closely the Iaboraiory
resuIts for a wide range of rnoki!ity ratios.
This paper presents some sample performances calcw
Iated by the Higgins and Leighton method that show the
effect on recovery of difierent permeabi]ities and viscosities
using the seven-spot, the line-drive turd the staggered
line-drive, as well as the five-spot flood “pattern. No prev-
ious paper has presented these data using different per-
meability curves and continuously :hanging saturations
throughout the Hood patterns. The @per also p;esen[s
( 1) the results and analyses of the” flood-pattern predic-
tion, (2) ihe computer techniques for determining the
shape factors and volumes from the potentiometric models
for the foregoing flood patterns, and ,(3 ) the shttpe factors
a’iid volumes of the ch~rtnels of the flood pattern in the
event reservoir engineers may like to process waterflood
calculations using their own pertneabil ity curves tind res-
ervoir oils.
DESCRIPTION OF MtiTHOD
l’OLUMESANI} SIJAI’E FACTORS
The use of channels taken from u potentiometric model
(see Fig. 1 ) to aid in calculating the performances of
water floods of nonlinear. patterns has been thoroughly
explained in the Iiteratitre.c” Therefore, very little theory.
discussion, or proof rzgarding this phase will he repeated
in this paper, “
The computer method presented in this paper to calcu-
late the volumes and the shape factors of the channels
of potentiometric models employs the tra#ezoidaI rule for
the volumes and the Pythagorean theorem (the hypotenuse
equals the square root of the sum of the squares of the
two. sides of a right trianj.je) for the shape factors.
In calculating the volume of a channel, the area of each
cell in. the channel is determined and then mult iplicd by
the ‘thickness to obtain the volume. In determining the
areas of the cells, trapezo~ds are constricted whose verti-
cal sides are snaced Ar aoart. m shown in “Fiz, 2. The
lenjgth Ofthe ,&les is the &ifferenbe. between an” ordinate . .. ,
cut off by the top and bottom of t$e cell — usually equipo- - I
tentials. The coordinates of the points along “an equipo- .,
tential or streamline are obtained by Lagrange’s; equation “
of interpolation for which the constants are coordinate
points at the intersection. Three intersections for con- .
]O11R?4A1. 4SS” PtCV~4)LEIJM ‘rECHNOLOCY
. . . .:. . .4.
.”. -- ,:. -.:.- .’, - ..
-, ------- -----
.—F..-— Q—__— .: –—: :_’__”_<”_
.-. .
. ,
, /’
stsmts are used in the Lagrange equation., The program
has been written so that the required intersections, as the
computation progresses, are obtained by the program se-
. shape factors for cells of equal volume, For the examples
lecting them by use of subscripts.
An ilhsstrrrted example of the divisiori of a cell into
small trapezoids is shown in Fig. 2. For prograsnming
, The execution of tbe program (see flow diagram, Fig.
convenience, a cell is divided into a left, tuiddli and right
area, as shown by the heavy lines. Qy so doing, the inter-
sections. are easy reference points from which to deter-
mine the size of Ax and to calculate the Y’s by use of the
Lagrange equation for the abscissa points along the equip-
otentials and streamlines to determine the length -of
the y%.
The shape fssctor for each cell is obtained first by cal-
culating ‘the length of the sides and averaging, and the
+ame for the length of the top and bottom of the cell.
Then the mean length of the two sides divided by the
mean length of the top and bottom is tie shape factor,
w the thickness of the channel is unity. In equation form:
~ = .L1 ~.Li
L, + L,. ‘
For extr&nely irregular cells, Henley” obtained the shape
factor by using inscribed circles. This added feature was
not used in ,this paper.
To obtain the lengths of the cell boundaries by the
computer using Pythagorean theorem, a length of a
boundary of a cell was divided into a number of small
divisions and the Lagrange equation “looked up” the
y ordhates of the divisibrr ~point for each x which is an
accumulation of the AX’S.Using these coordinate points.
the length of the arc, which is the length of the cell
boundary, was obtained by ‘he equation
.——. —
Length = ~ ~ (x,,,,-- x,,)’ + (-Y,,.,– Y,)’~
,L=l
which is equivalent to adding a number of small hypo-
tenuses to obtain the length of a curve line. This is il-
lustrated in Fig. 2.
The cumulative sums of volumes of the cells were in-
.,.,
-,_. .. . . -.
,, r S@polemriat Itnes
_ + - ———
Streamlines
FIL. 1–EWJIIWTENTIAL LIXES .A.XDSTREAMLINES LIM:D TO
., CATJXJLATEPERFORMANCEOF A FIVS.SSIOT WATER FLOIML
5EP’rEMfs Ers. 196. I
,-
,.~ . . ,,., . . . .. . . .
-. _! &....: .-. = . .
,’
.,,
,---, ---- ;/
..
dexed by the computer and, in the same manner, the cutil-
trlative sums of the shape factors. Using these cumula-
tive, the Lagrange equation was used to calculate the
presented in this paper, the total volume of a channel was
divided by 40, resulting in 40 cells of equal volume.
13) on a high-speed, digitsd computer for a well spacing
pattern, including the listing on the magnetic tape of 40
shape factors for each channel surd the volumes of chan-
nels, took hrdf a minute. ‘
The program was tester-l on the areas of se~eral sectors
of annuli (the approximate shape of it cell) and on the
length of tf?e chords of a circle. The results, using about
10 divisions per section with three (left, middle and right)
sections to a cell. duplicated the, areas and lengths ob:
tained by, analytical equations to four significmst figures.
FLOOD PREDICTIONS
The waterflood predictions were nmde by the method
presented by Higgins and Leighton}’ The h]ethpd as-(
sumes no crossflow between “channels. The oil and water
saturations change throughout the entire pattern as the
water flood progresses, as required’ by the f’elative. per-
meabilities and fluid mechanics relating thereto, That is,
wherever there is a pressure gradient there is flow, and
these gradients exist throughout the entire pattern as
shown by the potent iomet ric pattern, The method checks
the performances of’ a laboratory five-spot pattern using
,oils of different viscosities. ‘
~ The two-phase (water arid oi! ) merhod insletid of /hc
three-phase’” (oil, gas and water) method was used in
this report to make the forecast predictions. If “the three-
phase method httd been used, a series of different origimil
gas saturations would normally be included. Even then.
“with the same starting gas saturations, the results would
be of the same reIative order of magnitude as that for
just water and oil.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SHAPE FACTORS ANl) ‘VOLUNfiS
The shape factors and channel vohrmes for the’ direct,
line-drive, five-spot, seven-spot and staggered line-drive
are shown in Tables 1 and la. Except for the five-spoi
pattern, these results were obtained employing the poten-
tiometric models contained. in Muskat’s book;” by use
of the computer program described in the paper. If any
petroleum engineer has access to u computer and would
like to use permeability relationships and the oil and water
viscosity ratio applicable, to his particufm reservoir, the
shape factors and volumes are available in Tables 1
and la.
.
Sttmmlm —
. .
I
FIG. 2—CELL lkJLTiDSD BY STREAMLINES AND lSOIWTENTIAL LIXES”
A DrIITIOXS TO lLLUS(TRATECOMPUTF.R %LI’TION ‘.>
.wrTH
%WEMATICAI.LT’. z.
.-.
1077
.
..— -.. _
 ,:
. .
,,
.- -. -. ,“
,-

PA’I’YERNFLOODS a line, This ratio is 1.5, whereas for the direct line-drive
The recovery efficiencies of the flood patterns are (square pattern.) the ratio is 1.0. The normal expectancy
shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, In order of recovery etliciency is for the diredt line-drive to be conside;abl.y less efficient
they are the stagg6red line-drive, seven-spot, five-spot and than the other patterns, but the use of continuously.
direct line-drive, the same order calculated by Muskat changing saturations and the effect of pressure gradient
er, al.’ In the poteqtiometric model for the staggered line- throughout the entire pattern showed little difference. The
drive, the distance between the line of input and output permanent effect of cusping at the well and retention in
wells was 1.5 times that of the distance between wells on corners must be of relatively small order as a function of

TASIE 1-SHAPE FACTORS AFtD CHANNEL VOLUMES iOR DIRECT llNE.DRIVE ANO~FIVE.SPOT PATTERNS

Direct llne.Drive Channel Number “ Flvo-Spot Channel Number

----
r-all . . .. —. —-. —.7
No.. .— ‘2 3 ,. 4 .’ 5 1 2
.——.. 3 4
19:604 14.155 14,167 1 I .424 13,960 17.372 .17.S80 19.620 36.582
1,761 .043 1,037 1.019 ,986 1.506 1 .55s 1,696 2.920
,TS6 .491 .666 .570 .623 .S06 .900 .950 1,848
.510 .332 .4!$5 .446 .43s .6?’ ,639 .670 I .197
.324 .259 .348 .335 .350 .495 i .495 .536 .92S
.244 .22s .3s6 .28S .290 .397 .39.7 .,440 ,768
.174 .221 .297 .244 .266 . .325 .331 .363 .643
,146 .175 .267 .249 ,251 .286 .2s2 .306 ;::;
.151 ,169 ,247 .209 .210 .256 .245 ,262
.165 .175 ,229 .196 .1S6 .221 .220 .229 .378
.193 .177 .223 .196 ,173 .211 .200 .203 .310
,239 .182 .221 .144 .170 .196 .1s5 .IB2 .252
,312 .197 ,215 .191 .167 .183 .172 .166 .205
.414 .21a .203 .la5 .167 .173 .162 .152 .167
,530 ..232 .1s7 .179 .164 ..166 .165 .139 ;~:;
.640 .245 .181 .169 .149 .161 .450 .128
.779 .266 ,181 .169 :144 .15s .147 .11s .10s
,908 .281 J:; .190 .1s5 .155 ,144 ,Ilo .096
,931 .2S7 .225 .171 .152 .139 .105 .0ss
933 .2ss .209 .231 .173 ,)50 ,124 .101 .0?2
,933 .2ss .209 .231 ,173 .150 .124 .101 .,082
.931 .2S7 .203 .225 .171 .152 .139 -.105 .088
I .?08 .2s1 ,190 .190 .155 .155 .144 .110 .096
.77q .266 .181 .169 .144 .15s .147. .11s .loa
.640 .245 .lSI .169 .149 .161 .150 :128 .12?
;:;: .232 .187 .179 ,164 .166 .155 .139 j:;
.21s ,203 .185 .167 .173 .162 ,152
.312 .197 ,215 .191 .167 .1s3 .172 .)66 .205
.239 .182 .221 .194 .170 .196 .1s5 ,IB2 .253
.193 .177 .223 .196 .173 .211 .20+3 .203 .310
.165 .175 .229 .196 .1S6 .231 .220 .229 .378
,151 ,169 .247 .209 .210 ,.245 .262 .451
.146 .175 ,267 .249 .251 :%; .282 .306 .535
.174 .221 ~ ,297 ,.264 .266 .325 .331 .363 .643
.244 .22a .326 .28S .290 .397 .397 ..440 ,768
.324 .259 .348 ,335 .35L1 .495 .495 .536 ,92S
.510 .322 ,455 .446 .43s .631 .639 .670 1.197
.7afi .491 .666 .570 .623 .s86 .900 .950 1.848
1.761”’ .843 1.037 1.019 .9S6 1.506 1 .55s 1.696 2.920
19.604 14.155 14.167 11.424 13,960 17.372 17.8ao 19.620 36.5a2
volume 718 s83 .%s5 508 “ .- 462 706 7a2 918 7s0
/

TA8LE 14—SHAPE FACTORS AND CHANNEL VOLUMES FOR STAGGERED LINE. ORIVE AND SEVEN.SFOT PATTERNS
.
Staggered Line-Drive Channel Number Seven.SpOt Chwwl Number
,-.,, . —.. . ..— .—. _—— . . ..— —— .
2 3 4 5 6 .—1 - 2 .—
15.650 15.395 1.{.64a I 5.31 I 12.952 7.ss5 7.32 I
1.430 1.283 i .333 l.zal. 1,549 3.085 3.224
1.004 .779 .588 .602 .590 .S46
.510 ,322 I:ii: .446 .3s7 .391 .349
.724 .535 .5s3 ,433 ..277 .335 .328
.64S .465 .570 .369 .224 .233 .- ,246
.614 Ai: .521 .349 .1s7 .21s .220
.5s9 .498 .326 .157 .204 ,199
,564 .414 .465 .313 .124 .185 .172
.53s .606 ,450 .311 .100 .166 .169
.521 .404 .44a .309 .6s5 .14s .152
.516 .402 .439 .313 .082 .146 .141
.513 .402 .405 .327 .080 .139 .139
,512 .401 .402 .342 .069
,520 ,232 .1s7 .179 .056
.499 .39s .392 .358 ‘ ‘0s1
.479 .397 .3s0 .360 .050
.465 .394 .375 .360 .osa
.455 .394 .374 .365 .074
.428 .392 .3:3 -.371 .113
.405 .3S8 .37! .313 j ;$
w: .387 ,36$ .274
,386 .360 .375 M:
.296 “.3ss”” I .360 3;$
.392 .3s5 .35s ,144
.215 .3s4 .355 .401 .159
.183 .3s3 , .342. .403 .172
.170 .379 .327 f22 .206
,156 .372 .312 .236
.140 .364 .309 .44s ,256
.113 .36s .311 ,450 ,300
;362 .313 ,465 ;:~:.
‘- %J “.::; “.326 -:$;;
.-.
.1s0
... .349, .4$7
..399 .369 .570 .546
.241 ,425 .433 .583 .639
.372 .509 .575 .720 .847
.603 .735 .58S .852 1.234
1.144 1 .2s1 1,233 2.070
16,SS4 1w 15.311 14.648 26.358
~41ume 620 494 464 464 1,346

1078s ‘ JOURNAL OF PETROLEUSS TECHNOLi2G~ ‘4

.. . ... . . . ,
—.
,.
 ,..
.. .~.”,
,. ,.
-. . . .. . — ,.
. . . . .’ .— !

.’

either paitern or viscosity, because as the viscosity in- 5 Cp or less, the recoveries are high enough that, if one
creases and the recovery decreases, the difference in re- is so interested, other factors may be neglected.
coveries between patterns differs little from that of Iinear The data in Fig. 6 show that the diRerences in relative
flow, However, the recove, vs time is widely dillerent, permeabilities, when the viscosity is the same, influence
especially for a linear mo c?’el, Linear flow was calculated recovery much more than. the well spacing pattern.’ The” ““
using the same shape factor for.all cells. relative p,ermeabl]itie$ as shown by the dashed curve in
The data in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 pertain to oils-having a Fig. 6 are for reservoir rock which is more water-wet than
viscosity of 5, 20 and 40 cp, r~pectively. Tbe data show that shown by the solid curve.
that the viscosity of’ the reservoir oil influences recovery The data in Fig. 7 show that an unfavorable pem]ea-
far more than well spacing patterns, ‘as the differences” in bility profile. in a reservoir can be a dominating factor on
recovery when the 3.0 displaceable volumes of water have recovery, The permeability variation of the layers ,is 0.5
been injected is much greater due to the differences i“ by the scale of Standing et al.”
viscosities than to the well spacing patterns.
‘ VOLUME INJECTED AND TIME
The data in Fig. 3 show what Dyes et al.: have men-
tioned as a result of their work; that is, if the viscosity is The time required to inject a given volume of water I
1.00 l;lJQ

.
‘TAG’~i ,;

f
7- SPOL8
. DIRECT LINE I
?- SPOT
DRIVE
STAGGEREO LINE *
// . 5-SPOT, 2CP oil DRIVE
I
o LINEAR
DIRECT LINE

/ o LINEAR
/-
{
,.

/. . ,’

?.-. I
1 I I 1 1
I I t I i 3.0 4.0 ‘ 5.0
o
i.o z .0 3.0 4.o~ t)lk:LACEABLE2’oVOLUMES WATER INJECTEO ,Id
DISPLACEABLE VOLU?jES WATER INJECTED ,Id
FIC, >O~L RW.OWRY vs CUMULATIVEINJECTION UsmC 4.0.cP ON.
lJJG, 3—tJtL lkcOvERY v~ Cu~lULAIWk; lNJECTION UsINc 5*CP (XL AND ~IFFERENTW-ELL ~PACISC pA’rTs~Ns (SINGLE LAYER,
AND J) WFEIWSIT W&LL ~FACING PATTERM (SINGLE LAYER, Ii,.,nlkr,.,,, ==0.2/0.1).
-- k,,,,#,,,,~ = 0.2/0.1). ‘ .,
‘,
If. .
1.00
\

a:
~ STAGGEREO
0.75 ‘LINE DRIVE

s
m.
a
w
v

DIRECT LINE DRIVE

G LINEAR
,8

.- ...,-
,

:11r
E“’.””

.-.-’..
;.25

‘o
,.
,
,“.’.

.,. . . . .. ..
*

4,0’
,.... }.
DlSk&EA8L$’$OLUMES -3$41 ~ER INJECTED }~
tilSPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER INJECTEO ,Id

,!, .
,. IJIG, &OtL RECOVERY vs CU~IULATIvE INJIic:TION Usmc 20.cP On.
FIG. 6-EVFWT OF DIFFERENCEIN RWATIVE PERMEABUITY CURVES
AND DIFFeRENT. W-ELL S-PACINGPATTERSw (SINGLE LAYEII,
ON OIL RIXOWSIY vs CkJWUATWE INJECTION (DIRECT LINE.IJRWE
~ ‘ k.om/k~t(m=o.2/olL PATTERN, ZO-CF OIL, SINGLE LAYER). ,:
i- ,’ .

‘sk PTt3MtS lEIt, 1964 ., 1079

b. . . . .. . . . .<
.. . .
.-, . . . . . , ... ...-’.
—+ -— ———--. —-—-:----- -— -... – :* —_..— _:.,
:’. ,. . . . . . .. .. .
 ,.,
,, ..
,,, ,

is a function of the radius of the wel!. the distidnce be-
tween wells, the well pattern, effective permeabilities, and
the viscosity of the oil and water. When planning the dis-
tance between wells, normally a uniform radius is used
for all wells.
For a simple comparison of the effect of well patterns
on the time JO inject a given volume of water, equal areas
of the elements of a pattern were used, the ,distance; he- ~
tween wells was a function of the equal area requirement.
and the diameter of the well, effective perrneabilities, the
viscosit] of the oil and water, and the input ~nd output
pressures were held constant. With these restraints, only
the effect of pattern elements on time is: compared:
The data in Figs. 8 ynd 9 show that the order in in-
creasing time required to inject pore volumes of water is
the dhect line-drive, Jhe staggered linedrive. the five-~pot
and, firtaliy, the seven-spot. In Figs., 8%and 9,, the viscosity
of the oil is 5 and 20 ~p. respectively,
Fig. 10 shows the’ relationship of equal elements in LI
pattern to the rest ,$f the area that will be flooded. An
examination of’ th~’ pattern configuration in the figure
shows that. while the eiement under consideration is ‘being
flooded. mirrc+image elements and elements ,on the;other
,
I.oc
SINGLE LAYE~
side of the input well also will be flooded durirt~ the
same time, Ftg, 10 shows that four elements would be
flooded from one well in the ‘direct ,itnd stawzered line-
drive patterns, eight in the five~spot and six i~”the seven-
spot, Using the times shown in Fig, 9, when one displace-
able volume has been flooded, for example, the time in
“years per element per input well for the respective p~t-
terns would be
I,85 3.33
=’ ().46. ;Q+~. = 0.50. y= 0.42, ,,+!.= 0.76.
4
According to this wtsy of comparing the time. the Iowes[
tinie is for the five-spot and, in increwing order, the
direct line-drive, the sta~gered line-drive and the seven-
spot. The latter comparison is not rigorous because the
injection rate is not constant: nevertheless. the comp;wi -
son shows the relative order ‘of’magnitudes,
[n an arra!~ of wells of either the line-drive” or [hc
staggered line-drive. [here is one input well and one output
well. In the five-spot [here are one ~tiipl[t and four onc-
quarter input wells or equivalent to one input or a ,nct
of two wells—one input and one output, In the seven-
s~ot there are 6/3,,. or two input wells. and one output
well, In the foregoing p~ra raph the quotients for the tinw
per element per input ‘wefI would he the swne pe~ pal-
tern except for the seven-spot, which would be reduced
/--— by a divisor of two, as there are two ,-input wells in ;I”
/ .. - seven-spot pattern. ,/
<-

/
/ ~
/
80 LAYER
““,-: l!
/4
‘i

/.

/’ /’

TIME , yew,
.3 .,
., 9-()[1. 1{1.:C0WX% USISC‘x) , 011.-,A.\l)I)lwslw>’1
- -U_
,,* f+. Vs ‘h,!,:

J
WKI.I.511 AcisL; I’ATTER3S ( 51sGLI.: 14.! YI:[I. k o.,,,,/7.8,,, =’0,2/0:1 ) .

Lo 2.0 3.0 4.0 ~ 5.0 ‘ikti lIARtis ()\ (:[RVI:S AI)[C.AI’I.: l.~. ?.(]. (,H :;.(] ]hl,LACIAllLl .“/
DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES WATER lNJECTEO,ld l’t R.I M K* or WATER l\ JwwI.

h. ‘7—fiFFtzT or ]%llltwill.[TY PROFILK (Is 011. RI.:CfJIXKYvs . ~-;.. . .

CI!XIJLATIVS lNJE(~[ON (DIRECT LINE-I)SUVS PAT-IWX. X)-m> OII;.’ . .......
.,, . . , ~!:

k,?r,,n/r,cn,= 0.4/0.1,u = ‘0.5).

f– --l -. IWJK
m+ w LS
... , .\, -... ., W.atumwl Wu LA

-i
\
-< “ }
\
)-- --i
/
,, ‘\
.. 00
v
:. .~ .1
l,,
-2
TM;
-.
yam”
-3 _ . ...4. -.
I
..< . ●. )----<::.
- ‘
....}..
/
}’
...

.,[
FM SW,
FIG. 8—OH, kwsRY w TIw’u USIXC 5.cP_611, ,ix!)l)riwnw>r x. .( , \,
SE “of six
WSLL SPACHG PATTEWiS (SLYCLE l,AYER. k.r,,n/T5[m =02/0.1).
TICK *lARKS ox CURVES lMUCATE’ 1.0, !2.0 OR 3.tl [) IWI.A\:EAIII.I.
‘.. \OLUIEs (1F WA’I+R ]XJIXTKII.

10RO , ,101’RNAL OF Pln’n’hl.

r;l:lr TI.:CIIX{)LOI;X >
~.
. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . -., .. . . . . . .
-,.:
—— . ..1
 / ,, ..
:“’; ’1’”
9,. -

,. ./’
,, / ,,
., . .. —. . . -.

f.

TABIE 2-HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF SPACING OF A 576.ACRE FIELD USING EQUAL WELL AtW PATTERN DENSITIES,” AND ASSUMING TIME TO FLOOD AN
ELEMENT IS IN RATIO OF AREA OF ELEMEN1 10 THAT OF 7HE MODEL
\
(1) 12) (3) (41 (5] [6) :. ‘ (7) (8: (9) (lo)
Time/ lime
Accas[ 6.acfe Accerdlng
Acr~/{W~l 1, No, Patterns Acpra~/ptJsm Elements Elemc.nt Ele& t, !@ Spocino
No. Wells/ g::+ par Col 6 +. (Col 9 >
Cal 2 __,_
Pattern ‘w 5 Pattern cOcdJ __ _P&8j C018}
———.. +60
..._Pnltern
.._- Acre
—. wells ——. .. —----- . .—. ... —..
Equal Well Density
Llno.drive 576 48 12 2 24 — 24 4 6’ I ,%s 1,85
Strzmbred
Ilne.drive .576 48
~
12 2 , 24 ;j .4 2,00 2.00
Five.tPot f176 4a 12 , 2. 2A 2.33 1.67
Ss.wwpot 576 48 12 3 16 36 1: 4.s4 2.2?
Equoi Faltern Densl&’
Line-drive 576 48 12 2.,24 24 4 1,85 1.85
stawersd
Ilne.drlvo :;j 4s , 12 2 24 24.4 6, 2.00 2.00 !
Five.spot 46 12 2 :: 24 2 3.33 ;,:{
Swen. spot 376 ?2 a 3 24 1: 2 4.54

— .- —.-— . .. .’_.—. —.. _.. _..-— __ —..

The total numberof wells (input and output) inafiekf
is also i factor in selecting the spacing pattern. Accordi-
ngly, the details for SLhypothetical example are shown
in Table 2. In calculating the times shown in Lines 3, 4,
7 and 8 in the last column of Table 2, it was assumed
that the time to flood an element smaller thant hat of LL
model is in the. ratio of the area of the element to that
of the mode]; therefore, the times are indicative only.
The final choice would depend upon the well diameters.
degree of fracturing, if any, capital costs and interest
chdrges. Thert* the number of wells and pattern cars,.be
calculated to nfaximize the return of the money m-
revested.
CONDUCTIVITY
The iriformation presented in the previous sdction is
the result of analysis 01 oil recovery and pore. volumes
injected vs time. References in the literature have been
cited to show that recovery calculations agree with lab-
oratory and field results. Laboratory ‘data for rate and
recovery, outside of that of Henfey,:’ are meager and in-
direct. -Henley’s laboratory system was a“ single injection
well with three offset producers in a fluid-flow model. This
is more complicated than a five-spot. Substantial agree-
ment for most cases was obtained both as.,to recovery, as
a ‘functiop of cun)ulative injection and tll)~e rate of re-
covery. between the calculated results by the Hi~Rins and
Leigh~on method and the laboratory pe_rforn~an&& Max-’
imum discrepancy between experimental and calculattid
reCovery was abot!t 0.08 PV for”one oil viscosity (32 cp).
However, there are unresolved factors, including possible
experimental errors, that further research may resolve.
from laboratory flow da~a after breakthrough. This graph
has a time element ‘inherent in “it, The same parameters
of conductance mtio vs water cut, determined using the
Higgins-Leighton method, show substantial agreement with
Cau~le et al. See Fig. 11. , .,
Aronofsky and Ramey” show conduc~~nce ratio vs nose
advance of, a“flood front before breakthrough, Their data
were obtained using an electrolytic model of a ;ive-spot
patt$rn. Their data and corresponding data obtained using
the Higgins-Leighton method are presented in Fig. 12,
The agreement, is good near the start of the flood anLI
differs considerably as the !lood front approaches the
producing well. In a personal letter ~amey mentioned
that agreement might be poor at breakthrough. The usc
COMPARISONS .,of Aronofsky and Ran{ey’s electrolyteic model for u mobili-
; tv of 10 resulted in a much hi uher conduc~ance at break-
t~rough than did fluid-flow ‘cx~eriments of Caudle etd.
Accordingly, the performance of Higgins and Leighton
curves shown in -Figs. 1I and 12 are of the right order.
CONCLUSION . /
A computer method to ob@in [he shape factors and
vohrme$ of charm+ from a potent iometric model /for
any well spacing pattern is presented, The modern tom-
puter makes it possible to examine the Factors influencing
the re$ow!ry of oil from water ffoodis more thoroughly’ -
than lier@ofor& :
“The results presented in the paper show that the most
favorable factors for a successful flood. in order of h-n- ,
portance, would be ( 1) a good oil saturation, (2) a fav-
orable permeability profile, (3) a low oil viscosity, (4)
favorable relative permeability curves w those associated

//
C.audle et al.” present a graph showing the relationship with reservoir rocks that are preferent iah:: w~ter-wet and

~
between a ratio of conductrmces and watef tilt determined (5) the well spacing pat~ern. The nLnnber, the diameter
6

I — FLUID FLOW MODELS by CAUOLE d 01

I 5 -“

!0 - - CALCULATE , ri1GG8NS. LEIGHTON METHOO — POIEM110s[ la:c IMIDELS b, 4!+ONQ$ WY .1 .,

,., . 4
t ,“ A
h. ‘- CALCd.
LWJ H, GG!US LflG”TOS ItL?”S.
.
.t I

AA
. . ~0- 8 -,
,. .
“
,.
,.
MOBILI1 ;-RATIO ,,10 ~
I
;6 -

: !.
=4
g 0,

. - ~ MOSILITY RATIO .3 <

---
-- --
---- ----
t - =______ -_-— . .
-. .’...
. . . .. .. . . ... . .
~.—. . . . . ..
,
0;;;’ ::
7 e. 91
WATER CUT , f:
NOSE ADVANCE, ,w<,”l “,

SEPTEMBER, I!J64°
., -.,
,,-. .. . . .5. . ..-,
- -’ . .. . . . .. . .. ,.
 -i m .,

.- ..-. ...

COmput*avemae cross-mcttbml
●ma
b.wm
ot

(mu elfaacs)
omh
+ Iwgtb
cell
of
* (POngtb
t.p)tz.
o).
c.f
--- . . ..

RI = fraction of recoverable oil produced comput-

“d by dividing cumulative oil produced by
maximum producible to a very high water-
oil ratio’
x“., — x“ = decremental value of x corresponding to
.,
, .. . . . .

I
Yt,;I – Y“ along any side ,
Ax = same as x.+, - xti ,

w
frttamottam by PEr-
t21vfde 42
y,,+,- )’,, = decremental value of y corresponding{ to a e
r pmurtcutars
fxom top 01 bottom compute
Slmpa facfm of amdl Ax along any side
depandfng
on posltfon.1 CM22 h cell. wetage Ieugtrdwe,rwe
mo&l sad its @@pa. (See , crem-aemtand area, Ay = same as Y.+1- y.
f@lre 2), J
y,, – y~, = height of one side of trapezoid-either the
I Pr2nt identffyiaa wbacrlpts of
each cettp ●lga Um valuram, cu.
top or the bottom lies on an equal potential
2Jiv2d~ mctiwu oi cell ceparat.d
mutativs VQlurnds, Arakm fmctero ‘litter
/ \ by Wzpondlcuks into wmau and cttnuzfatfve slkwa I?actc.m.
.f!Idth trap wids, (See figure 2). v = permeability’ variation index’” , ,
,/

r-
/
Divtdetotal cbrinnelvolurna into
y = conductance ratio-ratio of injection rate to
Sum areas of trapezoid. fer
rzew equalvolurm C-USand initial inject ion rate (constant total pressure
acclanllfate. I drop) .,.
eadh 9ecti0n. fben *urn areas of
,’
SectIon*.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..
Set *Pox and by 81OOS
the alden.
top and Wttom 01 ●ach cell. The authors wish to express their appreciation fo C. Q.
Compute length
1 \
0[ nfds =
Cupps and C, S. ,@nd of the U. S, Bureau of Mines,
t
II ~:=,v
@X12+ I
(AY)2 Print identifying m!b~czipts far and W. C. Sheldtm and H. P, Meabon of the Marathon
I equal volume cells, a:so tie Oil Co. for their review comments. The authors also wish
to thank H. J. Ramey, Jr,, Texas A & M U., for explana-
Repeat for nextcell, tory information regarding his use of conductance ratio
and nose advanc~ in Ref. 14. I
ClBTOP
REFERENCES
i%, I-3-GENERALIZED. N.(Iw l) IA~RAM FOR COMPIWR PtKOtJtAM.

,,
L Muskat, M, and Wyc%.ff,R, ~.: ‘6ATheoretical Analysis of
Waterflooding Networks”, Trans., AIME (1934) 107, 62.
and the fracturing of wells, if any, wcltld depend upon 2. Dyes, A. B., Cmdle. B. H, and Erickson, R. A.: “Oil Produc-
an individual’s capital structure and objectives, as these tion Aft&r Breakthinupfr as Inffnenced hy Mobility Ratio’”.
. .
would affect rate of recovery and. return, Trurrs,,AIME (1954) 201, 81.
For those who have access to computers,, methods are ~~ :3.Hauber, W, C.: “Prediction of Waterflood Perforulan{w fol
presented through which a waterflood project may be t~or- Arbitrary Well Patterns and Mobility Ratios”. .foar. Per. Tech.
(Jan., 1964) 95.
ougbly anaJyzed. For those who do not or who have less .$. Craig, F. F., Jr., 6efTen, T. M. and Morse, K. A.: “Oil k>.
interest, enough’ cj;rvcs are presented -to find the relative covery Perfonrrance of Pattern Gas or Water Injection Operti-
order of magnitude of the factors related to a project. tions from h~odel Tests”, Trorr.s.,AIME (1955) 204, 7.
5. Dougla~ Jim, Jr., Peaceman, D, W. and Rachford, H. H., Jr.:
“A Method” for Calculating MuIti-Dimensional Imndwihle Dis.
,, - NOMENCLATURE . placement”, Trans., AIL$E(1959) 216, 29’/. ~
‘
/r “= water cut #. Higgfns, R. V, and Leightor, A. J.: “A Computer Method m
., Calculate Tw&Phasq Flmv in Any Irregularly Bounded Pnr.
f,, = volume of water injected divided” by the nlax- ous Medium”, Jour. Pet. reck. (June, 1962) 679.
imum oil displaceable by flooding to a very 7. Higgins, R, .V. ,and Lei hton, A. J.: “Principles and (join.
high water-oil ratio uter Technt ues for Ca fcrrlatipg Performauee of a Fh,e-Spo:
&aterflooif-’?wo.Phase Flmv”, RI ‘6305, USBM (1%3).
Z,,m = a scale to measure the shape of oiI permea- tt. Sqrbororrgh, J. B.: Numwicrd fifachemutical,Annlys;s. Se{’rd
bilityy curve ratio of relative permeability to Ed,, The Johns Hopkins Press (1950) 86.
oil at midpoint of saturation range between 9. Henley,, D. H.: ““Method for Studying Waterlloodiug Us(ng
irreducible to relative permeabllit y to oil at Analog, DigitaI, attd Rock Modelg”, Paper prese~ed at 24th
irreducible water Technical Conference w Petroleum, Pennsylvania State U..
University Park, Pa. (t)ct, 23-25, 19&+).
Z.,.m = a scale to measure the shape of water pe% 10. Higgins, R, V. and Leighton,, A. J.: ‘Wou]puter Prediction of
meability curve, ratio of relative permeability Water Drive of Oil and GM Mixtures Through Irregularly
,
to water at midpoint of saturation range be- Bounded Porolis Media-Three. k base Flow”, .lour. Pet. Te~Ir.
tween irreducible to relative permeability to (Sem.. 1962) 1048.
water at irreducible pi] -, 11. ~lus’ka~, M.:” fihysical Principles of Oit, Prodr@ion, McGraw.
‘- - . HiR Book Cc;. Inc., N. Y. (1949) 661-664. .
kv.mlkr~m= ratio 10 measure effect of shape ‘of “oil and 12. Standing, ~I; B., Lindblad, E, N, and Parsqs, R.’ L.: “Calcu-
water permeability curves on recovery . latfng Recoveries by Cycling” From, a Retrograde Reservoir of
L., = length of top of cell Varfabl~’ Permeahffity”, Trans., AIME (1948) 1?4, 173,
13, Gqdle, B, H. ati~ Wittq “ M. D.: “Production Potential
L, = le~gth of bottom of cell ., Chan es During Swee .Out in a Five-Spo~ System”, ‘Trans,,
L, = length of left side of cell ‘ . AI~ (1959) 216, &t,
~ .Lr = lengt$ of right side of cell . 14. Aronofsky, J. S., and Rame , H. J., J~: “Mobflity Ratio-Its
. ... .----- .. InffW,nCS. On Injee~jon or. 6 rodnction Hi.s!oriq in F&@p@ **.. - . . j,._
n,= num-ber of”dividoris “- “ ~ Water Flood”, Trans.. AIIME (195!) 207, 208.
,., ,
.. .

...
,. ... ;.,
10s2 JoURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
,.
.. . . . . !,-. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . :., .