SPE 157996
Optimizing Water Injection Rates for a Water-flooding field
Feilong Liu, Charlie Guthrie and David Shipley, Chevron Energy Technology Company
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
Setting proper water injection rates for the injection wells
is a key factor to successfully operate an oil field under water
flooding. The success of such activity could (a) reduce water
cycling at field, section and pattern levels; (b) improve
water/oil ratio (WOR) and areal sweep efficiency; (c)
improve oil production and recovery by directing water
injection to specific zones and areas; and (d) reduce OPEX by
improving water utilization.
Typically, the onsite engineers adjust injection rates using
heuristics. While this does improve performance we feel that
a more systematic approach can be developed which will lead
to further gains. In this paper, we present a systematic
method, using the linear programming, to optimize the water
injection target rates.
In this method, the reservoir is considered to be a system
which can be modeled as a collection of continuous-time
impulse responses that convert injection rates into a
production rate. A very simple two parameter parametric
model, like diffusivity-filter, has been used to quantify the
injector-producer continuous-time impulse responses channel
model and the Extended Kalman Filter has been used to
establish the allocation factors between injectors and
producers in the water-flooded field. Subject to constraints,
including the total available water amount, the maximum and
minimum injection rates, the maximum total production fluid
for a producer and a gauge setting, a linear programming
optimizer has been applied to determine the optimized water
injection rate, based on the established allocation factors.
This method was pilot tested on a Chevron oilfield for 3
months. The decline curve for 6 months and for 2 months of
historical oil production data have been calculated. The 3
month pilot test result indicated that the optimized oil
production matches the historical 6-month decline curve very
well with about 22% less total daily water injection. Also we
saw about 2% incremental production above the historical 2-
month decline curve (again with about 22% less total daily
water injection). These results suggest that this systematic
method may provide a way to optimize the water injection
target rates.
I. Introduction
Waterflooding is by far the most widely used secondary
recovery method in the oil industry. As the name implies,
waterflooding involves injecting water into an oil reservoir
and driving the oil into the production well. Currently,
waterflooding is responsible for a big portion of world oil
production, and successful waterflood management is hugely
important to the world oil supply.
Waterflood management is a broad topic involving a
range of activities, some of which are performed only once or
twice during the life of the waterflood; others are performed
periodically based on analyses of recurring measurement
data. Among which, setting water injection target rates for the
injection wells is one of the key periodical activities. The
success of such activity could (a) reduce water cycling at
field, section and pattern levels; (b) improve water/oil ratio
(WOR) trend and areal sweep efficiency; (c) improve oil
production and recovery by directing water injection to
specific zones and areas; and (d) reduce OPEX by targeted
water utilization.
Typically, the oil production in a waterflood field is
constrained by a combination of the reservoir condition,
flowing pipeline network and surface facilities. Adjusting the
water injection rates can help control the oil production from
the producer. Hence, how to determine the optimal water
injection target rates, subject to all kind of constraints at the
field, to maximize the oil production is important to the
onsite engineers. However, due to the complex dynamic
interaction between reservoir, injection wells, production
wells and surface facilities, this is not an easy task.
So far, some optimization approaches [2] on adjusting
water injection rates have been proposed, but few of them
have been piloted or applied in an operating field. The onsite
engineers typically set rates using heuristics. What they
regularly do is to look at the production history and bubble
map, and then decide where to inject more water and where
to inject less. These approaches, while helpful, leave room for
further improvement.
To overcome these difficulties, we propose a systematic
method, using the linear programming, to optimize the water
injection target rates in which [3-4]:
2 SPE 157996
1) The reservoir is considered to be a system which can
be modeled as a collection of continuous-time
impulse responses that convert injection rates into a
production rate. A very simple two parameters
parametric model like diffusivity-filter has been
used to quantify the injector-producer continuous-
time impulse responses channel model. The
Extended Kalman Filter has been used to establish
the allocation factors between injectors and
producers in the waterflooding field.
2) Subject to constraints, including the total available
water amount, the maximum and minimum injection
rates, the maximum total fluid production for a
producer and a gauge setting, a linear programming
optimizer has been applied to determine the
optimized water injection reallocation rate, based on
the established allocation factors.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the reservoir model, injector-producer channel
model, allocation factor and the optimization procedure;
Section III summarizes the pilot test at a Chevron field; and,
Section IV draws conclusions.
II. Procedure
A. Reservoir Model
The reservoir can be considered to be a system which can
be modeled as a collection of independent Injector-Producer
subsystem that convert injection rates into a production rate,
where each subsystem is modeled as a continuous-time
impulse response. Hence, for a reservoir with N injectors and
a single producer, the reservoir is represented by N
independent subsystems, and its reservoir model is depicted
in Fig. 1, where: i1 (t ), i2 (t ),  , iN (t ) , are the actual injection
rates that flow into the reservoir, n1 (t ), n2 (t ),  , nN (t ) are
the corresponding measurement noises for measuring
injection rates, and im,1 (t ), im,2 (t ),  , im, N (t ) are the measured
injection rates. Similarly p (t ) , n p (t ) and pm (t ) are the actual
production rate, the corresponding measurement noise for
measuring production rate and the measured production rate,
respectively. The channel production rate p cj (t ) is the rate
produced by injector j, which represents the amount of
production rate in p (t ) caused by injector j.
Let P ( z ) , Pjc ( z ) , and I j ( z ) be the z-transforms of the
production rates, the channel production rate produced by
injector j, and injection rates of the jth injector; and H j ( z )
th
be the reservoir impulse response between the j injector and
producer. As depicted in Fig. 2, the reservoir model can be
then formulated as,
N N
=
P( z ) c
j
=j 1 =j 1
∑
= P ( z) ∑ H j ( z)I j ( z) (1)
B. Injector-Producer Channel Model for Each Subsystem
A diffusivity filter [1] is normally used as a continuous-
time injector-producer channel model to quantify how the
reservoir converts the injection rates into total production
rate. Learning from expert knowledge (i.e., Chevron
Engineers) and the shape of a diffusivity filter, this
continuous-time impulse response has been assumed to be the
continuous-time uni-modal function depicted in Fig. 3, which
can be empirically characterized as
h(t ) = bte − at . (2)
Physically, a characterizes the delay time of the physical
channel, which directly relates to many factors of the channel,
such as permeability, distance, etc. The larger that a is, the
shorter the delay time, the larger the allocation factor and the
larger the impact from the injectors.
Because only sampled data (i.e., periodic measurements
of injection and production rates) are available for processing,
the continuous-time impulse response is sampled, and a
discrete impulse response has to be used in practice. As
depicted in Fig. 4, the discrete reservoir impulse response
between the jth injector and producer can be formulated as
γ j z −1
Lj
=
H j ( z) =
(1 − α j z −1 ) 2 ∑ h (i)z
i =1
j
−i
(3)
In equation (3) the middle part is an auto-regressive (AR)
model that has two equal poles, and the right part is a
moving-average (MA) model. Note that α = e − aT and
γ = bα T are the two parameters that characterize the AR
model, where T is the sample period; and h j (i ) ( j = 1,  , l )
and l are the weights and length of the MA model. Recall
that the AR model can be interpreted as an infinite-length
moving average (MA) [divide the denominator of (3) into its
numerator]. Hence, to better approximate the AR model, the
value of l is usually much greater than 2. Because of that, the
AR model will be used to estimate the model parameters,
whereas the MA model will be used for optimization.
C.Allocation Factor [3-4]
From the standpoint of systematic modeling, when we do
the inverse z-transform on the reservoir model in (1), the
relation between the fluid production rate and water injection
rates at injectors can be formulated as:
N N Lj
=
p ( n) ∑=
=j 1
Pjc (n) ∑∑ h (i) I (n − i)
=j 1 =i 1
j j (4)
As we may know, at fields, the onsite engineers change
injection rates I j (n − i ) infrequently, usually holding them
constant at a target injection rates, I j . Consequently, (4)
could be simplified into
 SPE 157996 3

N N  Lj  where N is the total number of injection wells.

=
p ( n) ∑=
Pjc (n) ∑ ∑ I j  h j (i ) 
i 1 
(5) 2) Minimum and Maximum injection rate. The
minimum injection is to assure that the reservoir
=j 1 =j 1=  
pressure is higher than bubble point pressure; while
the maximum injection rate is to assure that the
The allocation factor, AF j , from the jth injector to the
injection will not break the wellbore or damage the
producer is then defined as well etc. This constraint can be formulated as:

 Lj 
( I j )min ≤ I j ≤ ( I j )max (11)
γ j z −1
=AF j  =
 i =1 ∑
h=
j (i ) 

=
H j ( z ) | z 1=
(1 − α j z −1 ) 2
|z 1 (6) where ( I j )min and ( I j ) are the minimum and
max
  maximum injection rate for the jth injection well.
3) Maximum production rate for a producer. This
which shows how much the injection rates from the jth constraint sets to assure that the total production rate
injector will inpact on the fluid production at a producer. The will not exceed the allowed facility capacity of the
total fluid production in (5) can be simplified into surface facility. This constraint can be formulated
N N as:
=
p ( n) ∑=
Pjc (n) ∑I j AF j (7) N
=j 1 =j 1
It can be seen from (3) and (6) that the area under each
=
pk (n) ∑I j =1
j AFk , j ≤ ( pk )max (12)

discrete impulse response has been used to evaluate the

allocation factor for each injector; hence, the greater the area,
where ( pk )max is the maximum capacity of the
the more an injector impacts a producer. surface facility, such as rod pump.
As explained in [3-4], the unknown parameters α j and 4) Maximum production rate for a gauge setting. This
constraint is similar to the maximum production rate
γ j are estimated from an EKF, and the allocation factors for a producer. We can’t allow the total production
from each injector to a producer is then calculated by (6) rate for the gauge setting to exceed its maximum
using the estimated parameters α j and γ j . Both the capacity. Let’s assume that a gauge setting is
connected by K producers, this constraint can then
unknown parameters and allocation factors are time-varied. be formulated as:
K K N
D. Optimization
According to (7), the oil production from the kth
=
=
∑
pk (n)
k 1
∑∑ I
=
k 1 =j 1
j AFk , j ≤ ( GS )max (13)
producer, Oilk , and the total oil production from M wells,
Oil , can be formulated as
where ( GS )max is the maximum capacity of the
surface gauge setting facility.
N
=Oilk So )k pk (n) ( So )k ∑ I j AFk , j
(= (8) Combining all those constraints, the optimization
j =1 problem is then described as:
and a) Unknown variables: I j for all injectors;
M M N b) Objective function: maximize the total oil production,
=
Oil ∑=
Oilk ∑ ( So )k ∑ I j AFj (9)  M N 
=k 1 =k 1 =j 1 i.e., Max ( Oil ) = Max  (
 k 1 =j 1 ∑
So ) k I j AF j  ;
 ∑
=  
Respectively, where ( So )k is the oil cut for the kth producer. c) Constraints:
Recall from the introduction, the oil production in a N

waterflood field is constained by a combination of the ∑I

j =1
j ≤ ITotal (10)
reservoir condition, flowing pipeline network and surface
facilities. The common constraints in the field are:
1) Total available water for injection. The total
( I j )min ≤ I j ≤ ( I j )max (11)
available water for injection to a field is usually N

determined by field-level strategies, considering =

pk (n) ∑I
j =1
j AFk , j ≤ ( pk )max (12)
many important issues, such as the subsidence, the
OPEX on buying fresh water etc. This constraint can K K N
be formulated as:
N
=
=
∑
pk (n)
k 1
∑∑ I
=
k 1 =j 1
j AFk , j ≤ ( GS )max (13)

∑I
j =1
j ≤ ITotal (10)
Typically the oil cut for a producing well will not change
4 SPE 157996
very quick; hence we assume the ( So )k are constant over a
short period. Because the objective function and constraints
are all linear, this problem is then a problem of linear
optimization under constraints. Therefore, linear
programming is adopted to solve this problem.
III. Pilot Test
This work has been piloted in a Chevron oilfield starting
on 09/03/2009. A group of 46 injectors, 23 shallow zone
injectors and 23 deep zone injectors, have been carefully
selected by the onsite engineers. Considering the boundary
issue, only 12 producers surrounded by these 46 injectors
have been selected for observing the production performance.
The allocation factors between injectors and producers
were estimated by the EKF using 1 year historical production
data. Based on the reservoir and surface facility condition, the
total available water for injection, the minimum and
maximum injection rates, the maximum production rate for
all producers, and maximum production rates for all gauge
settings were calculated. All these data will fit into the
optimizer to generate the optimal injection target rate for this
pilot area over the testing period. These optimal injection
target rates were then sent to the onsite engineer for their
daily injection control.
The injection target control is depicted in Fig. 5; the total
fluid production rate and total oil production rate are depicted
in Fig. 6; and the 2 months’ decline curve analysis for total
oil production rate is depicted in Fig. 7-8, respectively.
We observe that:
1) from Fig. 5, the injection control is good over the
testing period. Before the pilot, i.e., 09/03/2009, the
average total actual injection rate is around 9000 bbl
per day, while after pilot, this became around 7000
bbl per day. In about 7% of injectors, the actual
injection rate is more than 10% different from the
target injection rates;
2) from Fig. 6, the total oil production after 9/3/2009 fit
very well with the 6 months’ decline curve
(determined by historical data from 3/3/2009 to
9/3/2009). This means, the total optimized oil
production matches the decline curve of 6 month
history very well with about 22% less total daily
water injection;
3) from Fig. 7-8, the decline curve is generated for the
most recent 2 months history data (i.e., 7/3/2009 to
9/3/2009). Comparing with such decline curve, we
can actually see about 2% total oil production
increment with about 22% less total daily water
injection;
4) both analysis indicated the benefit of this work,
which is either cut the OPEX cost on injecting less
water, or increase the production and cut the cost.
IV. Conclusions
This paper has presented a systematic method, using the
linear programming, to optimize the water injection target
rates.
This work was tested on a Chevron oilfield, and the
decline curve over 6 months and 2 months historical oil
production data have been calculated. The 3 month pilot test
result showed that the optimized oil production matches the
decline curve over 6 month history very well with about 22%
less total daily water injection; and about 2% increment over
the decline curve of 2 month history, in addition to about
22% less total daily water injection. All results suggest that
this systematic method may provide a way to optimize the
water injection target rates.
Nomenclature
EKF = Extended Kalman Filter
AF = Allocation Factor
AR = Auto-regressive Model
MA = Moving Average Model
j = 1,  , N : Injector index
i1 (t ), i2 (t ), , iN (t ) : Actual Injection Rates
n1 (t ), n2 (t ), , nN (t ) : Measurement Noise of Injection Rates
im ,1 (t ), im ,2 (t ), , im , N (t ) : Measured Injection Rates
p (t ) : Actual Production Rate
n p (t ) : Measurement Noise of Production Rate
pm (t ) : Measured Production Rate
p cj (t ) : Channel Production Rate Caused by Injector j
T: Sample period
n: Discrete time step index
h(t ) : Channel model
H ( z ) : z-transform of channel model h(t )
P ( z ) : z-transform of total production rate p (t )
I i ( z ) : z-transform of injection rate ii (t )
Pjc ( z ) : z-transform of the jth channel production rate p cj (t )
a and b: two parameters of the continuous channel model
α j and γ j : two parameters of the discrete channel model
References
[1] Albertoni, A. and Lake, L.W. Inferring Interwell Connectivity
Only From Well-rate Fluctuations in Waterfloods. SPE Res Eval &
Eng 6 (1): 6–16. SPE-83381-PA, 2003
[2] X. Liang, D. B. Weber, T. F. Edgar, L. W. Lake, M. Sayarpour,
A. AI-Yousef, “Optimization of Oil Production Based on A
Capacitance Model of Production and Injection Rates”, 2007 SPE
Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, Texas,
USA, 2007 (SPE 107713)
[3] Feilong Liu, Jerry Mendel and Amir Mohammad Nejad,
“Forecasting Injector/Producer Relationships From Production and
Injection Rates Using an Extended Kalman Filter”, SPE Journal
(December 2009), 653-664 (SPE-110520).
[4] Feilong Liu, “Intelligent Signal Processing for Oilfield
Waterflood management”, Ph.D Thesis, University of Southern
California, 2008
 SPE 157996 5

h j (i )
i1 (t ) h1 (t )

im ,1 (t )
p1c (t )
n1 (t ) ∑

n p (t )
i2 (t ) p2c (t )
h2 (t )
p(t ) pm (t )
n2 (t ) ∑
im ,2 (t )
Σ Σ

 pNc (t )
i
iN (t ) hN (t )
Figure 4: The sampled impulse response h j (i ) (the solid dots
im , N (t ) represent the non-zero samples).
nN (t ) ∑

Figure 1: The Reservior Model for reservoir with N injectors

and a single producer.

I1 ( z ) H1 ( z )
P1c ( z )

c
I2 ( z) H 2 ( z ) P2 ( z )

∑ P( z )

Figure 5: Step change of total injection rate, and the numbers
PNc ( z ) of injectors within ±10%, <-10% and >+10% of target.
I N ( z) H N ( z)

Figure 2: The Reservoir Model in z-Transform Domain.

Figure 6: The total oil and fluid production before and after
the pilot test on 09/03/2009, and the corresponding linear and
exponential decline curves of last 6 months’ historical total
Figure 3: One example of the impulse response between an oil production.
injector and a producer.
6 SPE 157996

The Decline Curves and their prediction on total oil production

600

550

500
Total Oil Production

450

400

Actual Oil Prd

350 Hyperbolic
Exponential
Linear
300
01/01/09 04/01/09 07/01/09 10/01/09 01/01/10
Date

Figure 7: The total oil production before and after the pilot
test on 09/03/2009, and the corresponding linear and
exponential decline curves of last 2 months’ historical total
oil production.

Figure 8: The total oil production before and after the pilot
test on 09/03/2009, and the corresponding linear and
exponential decline curves of last 2 months’ historical total
oil production.