Wamfkmding by Linear Displacement

. .
in Litde (lx&
F!EL!) CASE
HKYKM?Y

Field, ~Mississippi
IIJ
.. . . .
CHAPMAN CRON43UIST StiELL DEVELOPMENT CO.
MEMEIERAIME HOUSTON, rEXAS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

Abstract the Iowcr ToscalousiI ircnd in ~oulhwmtern Miwi\>ippi
(Fib l), The diwovcry well, Shell-I.cnlunn No. I, was
Since April, 1962, ,Yhc,ll Oil L’(I. iIus t)perumd a peripher. drilled on a sciwnic closure ilb(?ttt 2 miles srruthcmt of
ul Iittt’drive wulcr//f~(ul t)j rhc 10,750/t It)wer Tftrculofmu lower Tuscaloosa production at Swcetwater. The well WJS
(<’retacrtmb) l)enktmttl ,und in //ze Litilc ~“rcck /icld. Lo- completed in t!lc f)enknmn sand tit 10.752 ft, >nd on inilial
rtttcd itz wm//lwe\/crn Miwi. mippi in [he l~nvcr TmcN/tMmt potential it flowed 588 BOPD of 39° API crude on a
ffctfd, /ltr .lidd hwr ffi.rct)vvrccl by .$’hell in .lun.. 1958. I:!;,t. in. ch(lkc; p~i W:IS 730 ;Ind CIOR was 442:1. Develop
AJ)){Jng Ihc Iurgcrt in tlw trend, ihc uccl/tm/lnfi[m i~ c(m. mcnt proceeded rapidly on 40Wrc spdcing, and by
[r[)llcll .~!r<lligrfip/lirf///y and f)crf{r.r in UN cx!ensivc wrim the end of 1958 Ihe field was producing approximately
~)j tdltlvifd.poinr h dcpf]!il.s [fcros.v u n(,sr Ihul dip.~- 9,100 f3/D from 56 wells. Almost all this production came
.V{JIIIIYI() 1/![>\o14//i. I“lie crude oil is .?9° API gru~,ii~ llml from the northern half of the field. The southern part was
tt,,is highly lttldc.r\(4/14ruleJ U! ini[iul cf>trdifi(>n~. Eur/y prf). discovered in NOV, 1958. ata location almost 2 miles from
dmrim bt+{tvior intlictttcd u dep!etion drive wilh xlighl previously established production. Subsequent drilling es-
i~.(lt(,r i)tjltt.l; frrit)tflry rc(t)vt,ry Iv(IS (hlit)l[{lt,(l ltI /)[, 2.5 /)lil. tahlishcd an apparent conncclimr ilb(llll halt ;I mi]c wide
Iit,n /)/)/, t),, 24..5 pl,rfi,)ll :If .SIIN,LI INIL t)il fwiximflly ill
hetwccn thclwi)urea~. llwc%>prncnt of the field w~Is pmt.
pl(t(.(,. A! (I rc,.\IIII ,1] II f([lwrdtf~, mohifily r(t[i(! fI/t(/ r(> tically complctc hy 1961 with the drilling (JI 1.$? produc.
Iiittrkdhl.r fff)iJt!rt)t w(4 Prt)pcrlir.v, II){, vfdf{)tielrit, .\lt,t,f,p ur~ and 35 dry holes. %~mv usrly WCIIS wcru complclcd
clli[it’fwy i)t IIw hwlur/lmxl hfI.Y e.rwrtlcd W pf,r(.ctlf, l)c open hole tm[ mo\I arc c(~mplctwl with c:lsing cenwm[c(i
\p/Id rht~ Itiglt CVIIINIIIV Itwlcr ~(ililralifnt (.’i6 percctf l), //1(’ [hrough the pr{~ductive intervi]l and perforated ftw pro.
(Ii.vf);tt((,l)t(,lrf cjil.icmy h,v ~~”tilcritljt,[,lion Iut.v h’)) qtfiru duclion.
cljirhff. cfttll)rwy [t) frmliliotwl ctmcpls. hod m ttll
wrl,r(l {idd jlf MxLotff pcrffm)lum.r. Iflfifn(llc rc(twfv.v i< Geology
rttlci~lcttcd I(J I)(, -ftj ttlillit:tl /)/)/. A.r mt!irip(t!ed, 1111, pI’t I

dl{(litw rwr h,fun dr(littin.q flff.iff~, 1964 dwe lr8(i ffwlitfu “l’he h)wer Tuscaloosa struc(urc in this area is a norlh.
itt~ rtvlff(.iif)t! i)t rlw II IIIItlWr iJ/ pr(xl!trin~, n,(,llv (Ii /l(md south now with maximum dips of shout 2“ on the flanks.
/)t))i/v otl~.(t)lit,(l, )rrt,.\.vIl tt,~ic,l([. Cfft)ld(r[ilfl, rerm,rr: m II] ‘I”herc is no discernible faulting at [tw producing h(lri~.on.
b{wf 4$.8 millilw ))1~1:t~wtt,rjlf)f)fl ftptvwlirnl.v Produclivc limits of thu field arc shown in l;ig. 2. which is
Jm., 196$,
dltllll(l Iw (0)llplcl(. h.v 1970. conhwrcci on a marker just al-mu the nwin prmfuuivv
v.onc. A common water level at 10.415 ft wh~uil was logged
introduction ;It ho[h lhe norlhwcst and southrasl rnds i~f Ihc tkld. There
is a grcm oil c~dunm of rvzrrly 10fl f[ [Fig. 2). Since Ihcrc is
N!I)sI\V;\lcrllOIXf\ dcscrihcd in reservoir unginccring lit. less than 40 ft of closure, it is apparent that the accumula.
cra[ure invohw rsa[[trn operations, the most common of tion is controlled str~.tigraphically, being Iimlted hy a sand
which is the five-spot pattern. Only occasionally are linear pinchout across the crest of [hc nose. “1’hc IUI;II pr(duc-
cfrives described, even though there probably are increasing
numbers being put into operation. Increasing usc of linear
floods may reflect [he accelerating trend towards early
application of fluid-injection programs when linear drives
arc moru Micient, as was the case at Little Creek.
Hmvcver. the Little Creek operation is unusual inwwertd
respects. It is one of a few successful watertloods con-
ducted in sands with connate water sattrrutions approaching
60 perccm. and it is among the deepest successful water-
tloods being operated anywhere. .>Mlsslssipti>%~_&ANDy . ~ (j‘-BAXi ,_,
HOOI(-}-OL
DEx TE&b ERVILLE
- J ,J1 --: ;U
!a
-. .-— . .._. .-,-&%~~XIEL
.- ..-..., —. . . . .._ . . . . . ,-,, LOUISIANA .. ..._- ---
. ..- -. -,-,..
Development 7-”” ““‘“”“- ‘“‘-- “’ ‘---- “. %4RQJGE !:
.. - ~~~. ,j
The Little Creek field was discovered in Jan., 1958, in -- :;;;RJIJSCALO.OSA. ( l-:’; ; . . . ,4
---.——- .—. -= -. —. .,-— ..-- .— ..- ——...—— .—— ——— — L.,:,i
orizinz,l mtinu.rril,t II in Society or Prtrolcum l;nfrinet. r* ~m.e
I.WVIW,
Aus?. 16. I!167. )G.viwd m:tnuscrlpt rwx.lvwl Mwch 8. 1s)68. Parw’ ( SPH
~ ~. ,jk ,-.:i
1x10) ,wn~ pt-um.ntt.,1-at ,~l>l.: 42nJ Ann”nl I.’nil Meeting held (n Houston.
o“ 30 ) .’,7’”?
~.
‘1.t.x., (A-l: 1.4. 1!167. 62 CoI]y,-ight 1$68 Amcricnn Instllute or Mining,
MILES. QL-.f .*-- ‘--l
Mt-tullur-utcal. ~nd Pelmku”m r.:n~,in-ewx. Inr. L. -..
 TABLE I—ROCK AND FLUID SATURATION DATA
Fluld Saturations
Initial oil saturation
Above transition zone 0.44
Transition zone 0.30
Weighted average 0.41
Waterflood residual oil saturation
Above transition zone 0.22
Transition zone 0.19
Weighted average 0,?; ..
Average Rock Properties
Porosity 0.234
Permeability 65 md

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

Fig. 2—I.i!\le Creek pr[)cluc(ivc limits.
live ilttit is approximately
pay is 29 ft.
6,200 ticrcs, and the average
environment similar 10 that of the modern Iowr Rio
Grandc.’J The underlying Q, mnd prohab]y was deposited
by an cartier, smaller stream.
Fig. 4a ancf 4b are Q and Q, sdnd isopach~, rcspcctivcly,
of net oil pay. As shown by the Q sand isopach, sand thick-
ness in the middle of the field is fairly uniform; but hstcr-
ally, the sand pinches out rapidly. The underlying Q, sand
is erratic and is absent over large areas of the field. How-
ever, there arc cx(cnsivc areas where Q and Q, sands arc in
ncl direct cmr[act with no separating shale break: thcw urc
identified by shaded areas in I-”ig. 4b.

Fig. 3 is a correlation section across the southern half of Typical electric log response is shown in Fig. 5, which
the field, illustrating the uniform sand development in the includes only the Q sand. Average porosity, permcahility
center and the rapid pinchout on the ffanks. lateral con- and water saturation for [he field arc shown in Table 1. Of
tinuity of the Q sand is excellent, and sand development in interest is the unusually low resistivity, shown in Fig. 5,
Wells 14-11 and 14-12 is typical of that observed over most and the co:.rcspondingly high calculated ini[ial water sfitura.
of the field. About half the wells penetrated On additional tion shown in Table 1. liigb connate water w~uratiorrs ap.
zone below the Q sand. This lower zone (Q, sand) is de- parently are characteristic of the lower Tuscaloosa sands
veloped erratically; its thickness varies from O to 25 ft in this area. ” This high immobile wetting-p!rasc sahtm
within the productive limits of the field. In some wells it tion probably is caused by a clay coating on the surface of
is separated from the overlying Q sand by shale, and in sand grains. This clay coating’s is shown in Fig. 6, which is
others it merges directly with the Q sand, Based on pres- a thin-section photomicrograph of the Q, sand in Well 2-3.
sure behavior and flood. out performance, the two sands Vertical limits of the original oil.water transition ?onc
apparently are u common reservoir. depended on local sand conditions. Generally, no clean oil
completions were made below 10,390 ft subsea, and [his
Corm were taken in many of the wells. The rock is a
cfcpth was uwf for the field average top of the trilniilion
moderately well cemented argillaceous sandstone. The de-
posit typically has large-scale cross beds of medium sand zone. The baw of Ihc transition ?.onu was m[imatcd to fw
at 10,415 ft subsea.
at the base which grade upward into smal!-scale lamina-
tions of very fine sand at the top. Other features include
Reservoir l?erf tsrnwnce
thin shale streaks, mud balls, carbonaceous streaks and
some calcareous cement. Based on these depositional fea- [ni[ial reservoir conditions and fluid properties arc Iishxf
tures, the over-all lithologic sequence and the gross shape in Table 2. Based on the.sc data, total oil initially in pkscc
of the sand body, the Q sand apparently is composed of .— — —.
‘:l{vtt.rtm.c. glvvn ,s1 t.nd of Iwitx,r.
a series of sand bars deposited in an ancient river in an . . . . . . ..-— -.. --—— ----—— ---------- —..—- -—— ---

WEST 15-1
I 14-12 14-11 14-10 EAST

-10,300—

.-1
““

.- .. .-
. .. .
. .

-L.I
-.SCALE’.INF’EET ;;” “ -

. . ... .
800400 “0°
FQ. 3—f$fest-east cro.m-section througk south halj of field.
 .

,,.___ .— . . .. . .--. — .- ————— was calculated by volumetric methods to bc 102 million

Ill .STB. Details of this calculation are shown in Table 3 in
which the reservoir was divided into a northern and south-
ern half, with volumes being calculated for both Q and Q,
sands.
It became apparent early in the ljfe of the field that the
primary producing mechanism would be liquid expansion
and solution-gas drive. Bottom-hole pressure dropped
rapidly, and by the end of 1959 the average pressure in
the nor~hern half of the field had dropped below 3,000 psL
[ncreasing- amounts of water were. produced. especially
from wells completed near the transition ~one. However.
material balance calculations indicated that water influx
would be relatively insignificant, and that primary recovery

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

cff]ciency would be only about 22 percent.c This figure
Imer was revised to 24.5 percent after observations of re-
servoir behavior under unit operations indicated slightly
more water influx ~han originally was estimated,’ Consider-
ing the depositional environment of :he sand body and its
limited areal distribution, absence of a large aquifer was to
be expected. Also, the producing mechanjsm in the nearby
lower Tuscaloosa fields of Mallalieu and Brookhavcn was
known to be primarily solution-gas drive.

lJnitization
[Jni!ization ufitrrts for secondary rccovcry began late in
I 1959 when it was recognized that fluid injec[ion would be
required to supplement the natural reservoir energy to otr-

-- 1. . .-. L— -.. -- —-l---

F’ig. 4LS-NC1 Q sum{ oil poy.

i —— ----
tain reasonable recoveries and production
Ihe traditional
high conna[e
fears concerning
water, attention
watcrfloods
rates. Because of
in sands with
was directed first to gas

:r
injection. These studies indicated that secondary rcccwery
by ruinjcction of 80 percent of the produced gas could

.— .— —..
..—.
—.—.——
-.-. increase the uitimatc recovery to about 31 percent.’” It W;IS
rccognizcsf that waterllootfing could yield a higher mwcry,
‘-‘1 1
1“
but conflicting hboratory cfeterminatiurrs of’ wrtcrfbuf rc-
siduai oil saturation ilnd unresolved quustiorrs about WCII
?~, ....

P’”~”:-
:“t~
“!
:
- ..
~
.. .... . .,.:.,.:,...,,,“..
,::.,
4

—. ..-. -. “Q” SAND

—— .
9
/
.-. ..—-—.

. ...

.,
. .
.-. .

21
. .
.-——

...
Nfj. 4b—iVe/” Q, sami oil pay.
..3 SELF
POTENTIAL
:’ -—_
204
*=-’
1+

3
-

Ffg. 5—Typicul electric log rc.rptmc,

..
 .

TABLE 2—lNiTIAL RESERVOIR CONDITIONS AND

FLUID PROPERTIES
Reservoir
..— .- .. conditions (at 10,375 ft subsea)
Pressure 4,840 psi
Temperature 248F
Oil
..-.. properties
——
Bubble point 2,150 psi
GOR 555 scf/STB
Tank 011gravity’ “39° API -
Formation volume factor 1.32 reservoir bbl/STB
Viscosity at p, 0.40 Cp
at pb 0.30 cp

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

Density at p, 0.70 gin/cc
at p, 0.67 gin/cc
Connate
.-— water-—. properties
-------
‘Salini~ 170,000 ppm
Viscosity 0.37 Cp
Density 1.07 gin/cc
,. .. -—- .— .-. ------ . . . ——
productivity hampered J rcliablu cvaluatiwr uf water in-
jection until early 1961. For example, l:tborat~r~ d~I~ in- work in this unusual rock, which sutwequcntly was borne
dicated waterflood residual oil stituratinns ranging from 6 out in practice. However, after several ymrs nf expcriurrcc
Irr 25 percent, Also, it was known that lhc production of with the flood, it became apparent from cxccllcnt flood-
water at Broukhzrvcn rcsultwl in productivity losses of as front behavior and volumetric calculations that the residual
much us 50 10 N) percent.’ Finally. Ihere wtis some con. oil saturation probably was higher than 15 pcrccnt. ‘1’hew
ucrn that. hccausc uf the low dip and mamivc siind, gravity observations led to an additional series of determinations
uncfcr. mnning of the w;itcr would Icad to pour con furm- of residual oil saturation using the newly dcvclopuf tolucrw
ancc. imbibition technique.” ‘I-his method indicated residual oil
The chief cause for conflicting measurements of resicftml saturations of ]Y and 22 percem (Table 1). ‘Th~s~ data, t~.
oil salutation was wctlability chiing~s that had occurred gctht’r with dctuilcd electric log dc[crmination~ 01 ct)nn~itc
during core handling; the problem was aggravated by the ~atcr saturation, were combined with [he cffectivc permc -
clay coating on the sand grains. The unusually low residual abilities estimated from pressure buildup curves in flowing
oil saturations measured by one Iabora[ory were attributed oil wells and pressure falloff curves in water injection wells
to abnormal wetting characteristics: the rock tended to be to develop a composite oil-water relative pcrmcabili[y re-
only slightly water-wet. A well was cored with untreated lation (Fig, 7).
lease crude as a circulating fluid to avoid contamination. Besides determining rcliab!e waterflood residual oil sat.
An extensive series of Iincar waterflood lests in both cx - urations and relative permeability data, an iickfitional prob.
[ractcd und uncxtracted plugs yicldwi a more consistrmt lcm was determining what effect gravity under.running
set of diita and indirmtmf a residual saturation of about 15 would have on sweep cfflcicncy. A detailed geologic study
percent. An additional series of tests with various brines indicated that there were no correlative high-permeability
indicated ~hat. even if fresh water were injected. there r.ones and that the sand could hc treated as a single unit.
would bc no significirnt IOW in permeability. These pcrnle- As nolcd in [tw Appendix, Ihc mcthwf USCCIto dctcrminc
ability data supported the concept that watertlooding would the angle at which water could bc cxpcctud to invade the

--—. —- —.-— .-- —— - ---—---———— ____________.- .-— . ...- -—-. . . .

TABLE 3—VOLUM ETRIC DATA

Above transition zone

Net Oil In Place Ultimate
North —-.
Half AcreFeet
.---— -------- S., (STt3)
.—.—.. . . ..-. .. s.., . B.., . Recovery
. . . ----
QSand”-- “- -
Above transition zone 85,380 0.44 51.7 x 10” 0.22 1.30 24.1 x IV
Transition zone 11,930 0.30 4.9 x 10’ 0.19 1.31 1.7 x 1o’”
Q, Sand
Above transition zone 11,080 0.40 6.1 x 10” 0.21 1.26 2.7 X 10
Translt}on zone 2,910 0.30 1.2 x 10’ 0.19 1.31 0.4 x lU
South Half _:.= . .. . . -.. .— .-
..-— - . ... . .. . . . . . . .—. - . . . . . .. ..,- .. .
,..
. . . . .. . . . . . ..—. .—.
---------- ..
Q S&d “-”
Above transition zone 43:170 044 26.1 x 104 0.22 1.36 -12.5 X 10”
llansition zone 13,220 0.30 5.5 x 10’ 0.19 1.31 1,9 ‘--x io”

Q, Sand ‘ ‘“
Above transition zone 8,020 - 0.40”. 4.4 x 10’ 0.21 1.36. 2. OX.1O”. ~
Transition zone 0.30 2.0 x .]g 0.19 1.31 .0.7 x 10
—-.4,940
.— .— ——
TO?ALS
. .
180,650 101.9 X 10’ (560 STB/NAF) 46.0 X 10’-(250 STB/NAF)
!. .-. ,.. . .
 .

oil-bearing sand was based’ on equations developed by scale operation because of the diversity of ownership, It
Dick’ These calculations indicated that gravity under- later became apparent that part of the problem was caused
running would not be a problem if high injection rates by using lower-than-actual residuaI oil saturations, which
were maintained.’ led to using higher-than-actual effective permeabilities to
Both five-spot and linedrive patterns were considered. A wa~cr. Also, injection operations were plagued with mech-
peripheral line drive was chosen’ because the average re- anical difficulties with the injection pumps, These diflicuhies
servior gas saturation was low and fillup would not be a were overcome by doubling the number of injection wells,
problem, and because the wells were still capable of pro- by undertaking a program of remedial treatment and by
ducing top allowable. Additional advantages of the line modifying the injection pumps. As a result of this program,
drive were that the capital investment to install water- total injection was increased rapidly, and by early 1963
distribution facilities would be smaller, ‘the sweep eficiency injection exceeded reservoir voidage. .
would be improved, and it would not be ncccssary to handle Production and injection equip”mart, described in detail
large volumes of produced water since wells could be suc- by McLain ei u1.,) is completely automated. All production
cessively shut in us the water front advanced across the is handled through nine centralized tank batteries that re~

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

field. placed 67 batteries operative before unitization. All wells
A simple linear model involving one injection well and are produced on gas lift. Water injection is through a
a row of production wells was used to calculate well injec- closed system that operates completely unattended. The
tion rates as a function of time, Using well known relations, design capacity of the system is 50,000 f3/D at an injection
total pressure drop at the injection well was calculated as pressure of 1,800 psi.
the sum of the radial and the linear pressure drops. Sweep
cff]ciency was estimated to be 90 percent, based on pub-
Flood Performance
lished linear flow model studies,’ and conformance was Fig. 8 is an isobaric map made shortly after unit opera-
mtimatcd to be 90 percent to allow for possible isolated tions began. Pressure in most of the northern half of the
lenses of sand.’ Results calculated for this symmetry c]e- field had dropped below the bubble point. Inside the area
mcnt were summed, with appropriate adjustments being cncluwd by the 1.50(J-psi iwsbar. !hc GOR averaged 2,100
made for starting time, to yield a reservoir prediction. CU ft/bb]. AISO shown on Fig. 8 is the position of the IO
In view of the reservoir shape, it was decided to operate percent water-cut line, which corresponds closely to the
tlw iicld as two scfmratc floods. Bccausc the wsuthcrn half original po~ition of the water. oil transition zone. The first
of the field was discovered almost a year later than the conversion to water injection involved 11 wells in the north
n~)r[hern half. bottom- frolc pressures in Ihc south were dill half of the field, seven cm the west and four on the east.
about 1,000 psi higher than those in the north. The initial However, this proved to be inadequate to offset voidage,
pldn was to convert 13 wells for injection in the north as and additional wells were used for injection service.
soon as the unit could be formed, and to convert eight By April. 1963, 29 wells had btien converted to injection.
WCIIS in the south about 6 months later. and the line-drive array was complete in both the north
Participation in the unit was based 75 percent on pro- and south halves of the field (Fig. 9). The response is
duction capacity and 25 percent on net productive sand. shown in Fig, 10, which depicts the field’s performance
“~herc is no force.pooling law in Mississippi, and it is note- since discovery. Daily water injection was close 10 capacity
worthy that all 1,525 interested par[ies eventually signed and equaled about 125 percent of voidage. The downward
the unitirzition agreement. Unit operations began in March, trend in reservoir pressure had been reversed, and the GOR
1962: in April, water injection began into 11 wells in the was returning to normal.
nor(hcrn half of the field, Injection into the southern half During the fill-up period [hat followed, injectivity vas
began in Dec., 1962. maintained at capacity, and production of extraneous fluids
Actual water injectivity was about half the value that was minimized. Most of the production was taken from
had been calculated from laboratory permeability data wells with high PI and low GOR. Wells with GOR’S in
available whcrr the flood was started. Unfortunately, it had excess of 1,100 cu ft/ bbl were shut in. Oil producers were
not been possible to conduct injectivity tests prior to full. shut in at 50 percent water cut to minimize backward

.-__. _—. ____ ___ .-. —.,

10 . —______ ...- . .._ .. ______

09 . ..—.
08 -

07 - —-.
06
05 -
1’
0.0 .

.0.! : ,: ..”..._. — ..—

. ..s .——
.-. . .-
02
. . .. . . . . .
0.I “-”-” -
0 -.-1- .L...L .,_
O 0.1. 0.2 0.3 0,4 0.5 0.6 07 08 09
. ... . . . .. . .<. - ,.
SW”’ ”-” -
Fig. 7-Oil- water relutive permeability at Little Creek. Fig, 8—1.robrirs and position OJ “f?uod front. (July; 1962].
.,-
 .

cusping of oil.’ Shut-in WCIIS were tested periodically and The final stage of the flood in the north half of the field
were converted 10 injection when they tested 100 percent will involve sweeping the remaining oil south to the good
salt water. density of producers near the northwest corner of Section
As a result of this program, the areas of free gas saUrra- 2. Injection rates are being adjusted and injection points
gradually arc being shifted northward to accomplish this.
tion were reduced rapidly, and by the end of 1963 the
field GOR had returned to normal. Oil production was In the south half of the field the final stage of the
maintained at close to allowable rates until the middle of flood will involve sweeping the remaining oil to the good
lc)~4 when the current d~c]in~ b~g;ln. This decline. which density of producers in the small neck of sand in Sections
had been anticipated, resulted from the gradual decrease in 3 and 10. F3g. 12 shows the flood front already in this neck
productive area as the flood fronts advanced across the of sand at the first of 1967. However, several wells in the
field. Location of these flood fronts, defined .by the 10 middle of Section 11 s!ill were not w,atered out. at that
percent water-cut line, and the reservoir pressures as of time. In the last year or sti ‘it has become ”morc difficult ““ ;
June. 1964, are shown in Fig. 11. By this time 28 additional to map the location of the flood front in the south half
injection’ ‘points had been added in front “of those shown of the field due to a high. water-cut area in the middle” of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

on Fig. 9, and one injection point had been added in the the oil bank. This high-water-cut area was first detected
small sand neck in the southeast corner of Section 11. As during the latter part of 1964. Source of the water was
tnese additional injection points were added to keep up traced to Well 11-12 in which it appeared that water was
with the flood fronts, the less effective injection Points channeling behind casing from an up-hole water-bearing
several rows behind the front were shut in. sand. Although the leak was repaired, enough extraneous
The position of the front and the active injectors as of water had bwm charged to the oil bank to affect the water
Jan., 1967, are shown on Fig. 12. By Jan., 1968, the pro- cut in wveral surrounding wells. As the area of untloodcd
ductive area had been reduced further. Cumulative pro- oil shrank duc to encroachment of the flood fronts. it be-
duction at that time was 44.8 million bbl of oil, 25.1 Bcf came ditlkult to distinguish between wells producing cx-
of pas and 8.6 million hbl of water. Total cumulative in. tratwous water and [hose producing injected flood water.
jcc;on W;IS 51.3 million bbl of water.

Fig. !)-Isobars [April, 1963).

.. —-..-—. .- —-—..- —-—.—.. —.-. ... —-.-

L_ToL
29 25
-

“*” ~ “>
09 90
$
32 0
j
, -
AvG OIL BANKPRESSURE
Jh
~ ““ ~.. ,--,.
3
‘~–~.-l~- , , I
m r
25,000 ~ 50,000 olL PRODUCTION~#f~~ATER ,NJ
~ 10
y 20,000 ? 40,000
w
I \
.: ~5,00: ~ ~o,-~orJ $
:-... - ..’, - - . .- .--’-. -
[h
g 10,000z 20,000 ,. :-:” ~ tL#”
E
: 5,000 g 10,000 +-
k, -~WELL/;ALLGWABLE .- ,.. . .-.
.-~nn
,-, ”” ,
6 )
I 0:
. \
~,. -
.-.L__.._-J:---
...”.
1-
. .-,.”...- .. . .
I -7.. I ,
.. S2—I.ocatioit of /lood froni’ “and. a~Ii&” ihjectiwk“’. -‘
- Ffg. 10—Reservoir perforntume. - (Jan.; 1967).
. . . . :0 ... ..
 Amdys+is of Flood Performance sign capacity, these gratfiunls avcragud 0.S psi/ft. T
varied from 0.2 to 2.5 psi/ ft. depending on the rela
llcxausc of the often erratic nature of alluvi~l deposits. position of the flood front and the injection WCIIS,
irn early cl)ncern at Little Creek was that injcctcd waler production and injection mtes, and location in the f
might channel through high-permeability zones, resulting Flood front advance rates varied from 07 to 12.0 ft/d
in early breakthrough and bypassed oil. Of particular con- With frontal advance rates of this or&r of magnitucfc,
cern was the possibility of leaving unswept large areas of flood fronts should bc CIOW to vertical.
the erratic Q, sand. Because of this, a comprehensive sur-
WC]] responsr to the appruach of thcw higll-pressu
veillance program has been maintained to detect irregular
I1OOCIfronts has been quite dramalic. f30ttom-hole press
encroachment or areas of unswept oil in both ihe Q and
has increased rapidly and production rate commonly
Q, sands. In a few of the WCIIS the Q and Q, sands arc
increased,. fourfold before brca$through,. Rmponsc a
se~~rdtcd by shale and some of these are completed i_n th~ “-
breakthrough has been eqr.ral]y dramatic: most of the W
Q, sand only. Production behavior of these wells was corn.
have gone to 100 percent water within 3 months of tlo
pared with that of nearby. Q sand wells and was found to
front breakthrough. The cflccl L)f this sharp rcspunsc
hu similar, Two of these wells were recompleted from the
br noted on Fig. IO. Bctwccn May and Aug.. 1964. t

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

Q, sand into the Q sand as soon as the flood front was de-
was a loss of abcw[ 3,500 f3/D production capacity.
tected. In both cases, the water cut in the Q sand was sim-
sharp drop was caused by the rapid watering out of
ilar tu that of the Q, sand. It appears from these observa -
~Ld producm in [hc eastcrnmmt column of wulk in
[iL)!IS that the two sands are floodlng out uniformly. From
tiuns 35 and 2. Howwwr. by Oct., 1964. the high prL,\
Iimc to lime, WCIIS in the watered-out area have bum
front Iwgan to affect the ncxl row of WCIIS. and produc[i
lcslcd to insure thal no rucovurable oil had bum left by
incr~’ased sharply. The sutsscqutm~ watering OUI of thcsu
channeling or erratic water encroachment. Several WUIIS
other wells early in 1965 arrested this temporary riw.
ilavc btcn retested after changcs wert made in the injeclion
the dcclirw is cxpcctcd tu con[inuc uncheckd [{l dcplcti~
and production.mtc pattern that might have moved by-
pawd oil to thmn due to changes in established streamline One phenomenon of interest was the rcsaturatiurr of
p;ltt~rns. No silch byp,lsscd oil has ever been dctcctcd, A crvl)ir oil by free gas during IL)64 and 1965 as lhc priwu
mow n(~tcworthy occurrtincc at Little Creek was the very dcclinc in Ihc rcscrvuir was rcvcrscd and pressures p~
wsiform advance uf thud frmm. This is illustrated in Fig. back through itw original bubble puinl. floIILmI.hole s
13, whiuh shuws successive positions of the front at ycisrly plcs were taken periodically in I numhcr of UCIIS. and
inlcrvah since injection began. ura[ion pressures of the rccuvcred oil wcru ctmlp. ]rcd
the static reservoir pressure at thu Iimu of mmpiing.
An additional concern was that, due 10 the massive sdnd
dcvclopmerst and very low dip, the injected water might the average. the saluratiorr prc=mrrc v.as N ithin 60 ps
the stal,c reservoir prcssuru. indiua[ing resolution of
under-run the high-gravi[y oil, resulting in a low conform-
prCVit)US]y lihL’rdtLLi frLX g~~ Liurillg rL’prU\\llrillg {J(
ance cfTicicncy. Initial calculations indicated that. duc tu
rcsctvoir oil.
the fnvorablc mobilily. a stable water.oil interface would
hc formmi and that the ratio ut’ gravity {O viscolls forces
would be low tinough to preclude under.running as long !{ WOVC1’Y W+l i male iill(l (’ompariw)n
;Is the water was injcctcd at reasonably high rates. Validiiy W’ith Other }~ielrfs
of these calculations has been demonstrated by operating
cxpcriencc. The injection of water at a high rate resulted
flccause uf Ihc uniformity of Ihe Iluod ir(>nts. it IIJS
in devclopmcrrt of appreciahlc pressure gradients across the
possible to actually rmmsurc the volume of rwvvoir
Ilood front (Figs. 9 and 11). C)nce injection was up to de.
flooded ot]t :Is the ffoud has prugrcswxf. and t,) nlak~
Iiablc calculations of the volumetric swrcp ctlicicncy
Such calculations depend on the values used for ho[h
gas and residual oil saturatiurrs. Indcpcndcnt Calcul,tlii
wwrc matic in two different areas tlf the ticld. unc w
pressures were ahovc the initial bubble point and
where they were bcluw the initial huhhlc cn)int. Rc’\idlli\l
oil saturations were based on data from the ‘toluenc imh
tion technique.” Calculated volumctrit sweep cilicicnc
ranged frrrm 90 to 92 pcrcurt. This range uf v;ilmx is
tircly consistent with obscrvccf behavior. and agrees
linear model studies.: Based on 92 pcrccnt volumetric sw
c~]ciency. the ultimate rccovury was calculated to bc
mil}ion ST13, or 44 pcrccnt uf original.’ In arriving at
figure, the vahrc of the oil furmaton v(~lun]c fac[or ist
lloud front B,., was adjusted to rctlcct the obwrvcd p
surm at which flood-out occurred. In view of the conti
ing cxce]]cn[ flood pcrforrnance, thc rccovcry rCC
was rcviwd upward to 46 million bbl. ” The original
umcs, saturations and ultimate rccovcrics from va r
.. —.- .
- ;;riTas o“f the field ~-~c-shown “in” Table “3:-
Of interest are. recovery c~cicncies reported (or sup
mental recovery projects in two tither. lower Tuscaloo
oil fields, Brookhavcn und McComb (Table- 4). “l-he
C~>mb. project ,was started -in. April,’ 1961: Reported
prope~tics? i.c.,.porosity, water saturation and pcrmcahilit
arc ,similar to those-al I.ittlc Creek; Howrycr, the over
.—
. ... . .. ... ..- ..- . . . .. .
.: MAY 1968 - -
 TABLE 4-ESTIMATED RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES — LOWER TUSCALOOSA FIELDS
ol~nog~:glly
Secondary Total
_____ Field
. . (-~!ll!on.- —-
bbl) ..(mfi~%~bl)
——.. ————— (million bbl) _..Method
.__, (rniulofl bbl)
Srookhaven 172.0 36.0 (21 percent) z91K17–_&RG~j Gas drive 65.0 (38 Percent)
Little Creek 101.9 25.0 (24 PWCWtt) 21.0 (21 percent) Waterflood 46.0 (45 Percentj
McComb 71.7 12,9 (U3 percent) 18.2 (25 percent) Waterflood 31.1 (43 percent)
———-

rock quality probably is poorer than at Little Creek,’’and of the illustrations used in this paper. and to E. G. Wcrrcn
the irregular injection pattern has led to Iess uniform flood who painstakingly reworked the original I@ogy and pre-
fronts. These” factors may account for the slightly iower- pared the geologic maps. - .. . . . . . .. .
recovery efficiency.
Referessccs
Brookhaven has been the location of a gas. injection
program since June, 1948S and the estimated recovery of 1.Dietz, D. N.: “A Theoretical
Approach 10 the Problem of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

65 million bbl$ is weli supported by production perform- Encroaching and Bypassing t3dgc Water”, Proc. fJ56, Ko-
ance and extensive engineering calculations. Considering nikl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap ( 1953) 83.
the reported erratic nature of the sand and thelarge perme- 2. Ferrell, Howard, Irby, T. L, Pruitt, G. T. and Cruwford,
ability variation, a recovery et%ciency of 38 percent by gas P. B.: .’Model Studies for Production-lnjcwiion Well Con-
version During Line Drive Wdkr Floods’”, Trufi!., AIME
drive seems unusually high, As the reservoir oil initially ( 1960) vol. 219, 94-98.
was quite urrdersaturatcd, it might be suspected that a
3, Ffe!cher, P. B., Broocks, W. R. and Womfrow, J. M.:
significant part of the recovery may be due to mass trans- “Crrsc History of Wsster Pressure hlisintcnwrcc operistiorr+
fer, similar to that observed at Raleigh? However, during in Ihe McComb Unit”’, J. Pef. Tech. (April, 1967) 457-463.
gas injection the reservoir pressure was maintained at only 4. JUSIUS,J. B., Cassinghtsm, R. W., Blornbcrg, C. R. isnd
900 psi above the original saturation pressure: this probably Ashby, W, H,: “Pressure Mi]intcniincc by Gas Injeu!ion
is not high enough to cause significant rcductionof residual in the Brookhaven Field, Mississippi”, Trum., Al M E ( 1954)
oil due to mass transfer. Vol, 201, 97-107.
5. Cassingham, R. W. and Blombcrg, C. k.: “Supplcrr,cnt,
Economics 1962: Pressure Mtsintenanuu by Gus Injection in flrook-
haven Field, Mississippi”, A lMti Rcfrrinr .Scri[’$ ~(’ 4
Estimated total capital required initiaily to develop the (1962) 53-54.
field was S22 million: Had the field been produced by 6. Little Creek Unitization ‘Jcchnicid Grmmillec: “RePort on
prima rydcpletion, about 25 million bbl of oil would have Fcasibilily and Fxonomics of Scuondw’y Wxovcry”, Jack.
been rucovered, or 1.i4 bbl per dollar invested.Additional
son, Miss. (Aug. 18, 1960).
invcstmmrt for watertlooding was about !32.2 million; in 7. Little Creek Unitization I“cchniad Conwnitlce: ‘“i?epurt on
return, an additional 21 miliion bbl of oil will be recov.
;~i~ility of Waler Flooding”, Jackson, Miss. (March,
crcd, or 9.55 bbl pcr additional dollar. An additional
benefit of unit operations was reduced operating costs. 8. Little Creek Uniti@ion Technical Cosnmit[ec: Mi//t(/r,.s ()/
Operators Cmnmhfcc Meeling No. 10, Jackson, Miss. (Dec.,
Priortou nitization,t hiscost was29cents/hbl; after unhi- 1964).
zatiorr. it was 22ccnts/bbI.’
9. Mchmr, B. D., Hurdie, J. M. and Ca$\ingban], R. M.:
“An Eflicient Gas Displaccmen[ Project—Rillcigh Field,
Nonleilclatui’E? Mississipp~’, J. Per. Tech. ( May, 1965) 509-514.
10. McLain, J. M. et al.: “How Shell Equipped a 10,800-foot
g= gravitational constant Mississippi Waterflood”, World Oil (Dec., 1963 ).
h = formation thickness
I I. Pickell, J. J., Swanson, B. F. and Hickman. W. B.: “Appli-
k =absolutc permeability cation of Air-Mercury and Oil-Air Capillary Prewurc Data
k,,. = rciative permeability to wister at residuai oil in the Study of Pore SIructurc [intf Fluid Dislrifsulion”,
saturation SOc. Pef. Eng. J. (March, 1966) 55-61.
k,. L= refative permeability to oii at initiai water sat- 12. E. G. Wcrrcn: Personal communication.
uration 13. R. M. Sneider: Personal communication.
~lcw = water injection rate
14. P. W. Hansen: Personal communicu[ion.
s., = ffood water saturation (equal to i –s,,. –s,,, )
u ‘: volumetric velocity 15. Buckley, S. E. and Levere!t, M. C.: “Mechanism of Fiuid
v = actual interface velocity
~$pfi~ment in Sands”, Trans., AIME (1942) Vol. 146,
-.
~ = angle between formation and oil-water interface
PO = oil viscosity APPENDIX
P’,, = water viscosity
P. = oil density Calculation of Interface TiltAngle iil Favorable
P. = water density Mobility Waterflood
#J = porosity
A commonly used technique to predict waterflood be-
havior is the J3trckley-Leverett method.” The method is
. . . .. Acknowledgment
.... . .,.-. . . .. . . . ... ... . . . . applicable in low dipping reservoirs, provided that flow ––
In preparing this paper, matcriai was drawn “freely-from rates arc high enough so the viscous forces dominate the
existing reports and film of Shcli Oil .Co. The. author is gravity forces. Applying the method yields a profile of
grateful to both Shell and the unit owners, and especially average. water saturation as a function of linear distance
to the many individual contributors to the success of the from the injection well, For displacements at an unfavor-
flood for ailowing this materiai to be presented. Apprecia- , able mobility ratio, this saturation profile is a mathematical
tion is expressed particularity to M. L. Mardick who made representation of the linear advance and growth of a - ~
the reservoir perfo~ance calculations and_prepar&f many system of low-viscosity water fingers. For displacements ~,
—
-, . . . . . . .. . .. . . ,, . ...,. ./. . . . .-
-
 at a favorable mobility ratio, the saturation profile repre- F~. 2 may be modified to dutcrmine the interface ang
wnts the ]incar advance of a stable interface. as a function of the observed intcrfacc advance rate
In predicting the behavior of waterffoods at favorable
mobility ratios, it is quite useful to know the relation
bctweur the injection
clination of the water.oi!
or frontal advance rate and the in-
interface. This may be done by
tan /3 =
–1.147
-----
x lo’vljA.,
–------—
-::- –
(- –~~ - -–k~’~ --’
~:-
) ‘
(
k(p,, -- p,,)
uiing a relationship derived by Dielz.’ For horizontal or
low dipping rwscrvoirs, the tangent of the angle betwwnr wtwre the Darcy velocity n has bum rcplaccd by the prod
the formation and the water-oil intcrfacc will bc uct v&.,, and the unit for v is ft/day. l;or Little Cree
conditions. this becomes
. .- tan, ~=-45v - -:. . . . .. . . .:..-,(5)
“4 ( --F;”’––;+- ) ““” ““”” ““ ‘“
tan ~=-- ------ . (1)
For frontal advance rates excccding 0.5 ft/day, the inte
kg(p. .- p.,) .
face angle should exceed 87°.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/20/05/525/2221351/spe-1810-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 22 March 2023

In oillicld units (B/D, ft, msf, cp, gin/cc), this bccomcs

p~ Equations
scopic behavior
derived by Dietz’ are to predict the macro
of stable fluid-fluid interfaces in linea

tan/3~~
-- 2,045u
.— ( --
.-k’?
k(p,. – p.)
--- -~
-.-’:- ) . . . . (2)
homogwreous reservoirs. 1n strongly water-wet
this Interface will be prcccdcd by a small capillary
tion zone. In any natural system, this simple representa
system
trans

tion will be altered by pattern sweepout effects and ro

wi-erc the gravi[;ltimral constant : has been included in helerogenchies. Ntwerthcless, the concept relating interfac
tbc constant 2,045, Examination of [he signs in this equa- tilt to flow rate has been it uwful tool to evaluate t
tion indicates that, for waterflood at a favorable mobility waterflood pcrforrnancc at Lit!le Creek. ***
ratio, the angle will bc negative, thtireby rcprcwntirrg the
physical tcnduncy for the water to under-run the oil. The
equation predicts that as flow rate u incrcascs, the ten.
sfcncy tn under-run will be reduced: i.e.. [hu intcrfacu grad.
ually will bccomc more nearly vertical.
IIy using the average rock and fluid properties for Little
(’ruck shown in Tables 1 and 2 and I:ig. 7, a relation can
hc rfevclupcd to predict thu intcrfacc irnglc as a function
of wawr injcwlcd into a simple, linear mmfcl on 40.acre
spacing.

q
tan/1 ~- O.12 -~~ ‘ “ “ . “ ‘3)

For water injection rates cxccudirrg 10 f3/D/ft of forma-

tion. Ihc interface angle should exccwl 45°.

. .. . . . . . . . . .- ..’ .-- .,. -. .- . ..- ----- . . . .. ---- .. . . . . . . . --—

. -------- .--’
.>..>. . .. .