SPE 10068 SPE Soni of tran tages FAME A Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data by Iraj Ershaghi* and Doddy Abdassah," University of Soutern California *Momber SPE-AIME ‘Copyright 19%, Sel of Petroleum Enginaers of AME ABSTRACT [A prediction method based on the use of perform ance history of a waterflood proposed In 1978 by Ershaghi_ and Onoregie’ is scrutinized here. Using a reservoir simulation approach, performance data for sone hypothetical waterFloods are generated to test the application of the proposed technique to various Flood patterns, reservoir properties, and field operating conditions. Recently published results on the behavior of relative permeability curves for Iniseible processes are used to further substantiate the assumptions Inherent in the proposed technique. The limitations of the technique are discussed and application to sone actual case studies are presented. INTRODUCTION Conventional waterFloods and modified waterfloods using various additives still constItute the bulk of the fluid Injection projects active in the United States and elsewhere.’ During the history of a water Injection project, reservoir engineers are expected to predict the future performance using the past Fesponse data. A review of literature shows that over the last forty years, there have been gany techniques proposed for such prediction purposes.* These tech hiques range fron enpirical correlations to various analytical models. In addition to these techniques, the advent of reservoir simulation has resulted in the availability of @ very powerful tool for perform ance prediction. Many operators are still reluctant to use reser- voir simulators because of insufficient reservoir data or insufficiently trained personne! to conduct Simulation studies. The simple models often fai! because of the assumptions inherent in such models as to the nature of the displacement mechanism or the inadequate representation of the real reservolr conditions. Many years of Field and laboratory research by the petroleum industry and the academia has resulted in a better understanding of the multitude of References and illustrations at end of paper: paraneters influencing the efficiency of fluid injec~ Elon projects. It has becone a well-established fact that for Imiscible displacenents, reservoir hetero- geneity, relative perreabi lity characteristics, flulé Viscosities and flood pattern are the most important Factors. No prediction method can successfully be used In a field project where the real reservoir Is repre sented by laboratory derived data and inadequately defined reservoir heterogeneity. A successful prediction technique requires Input from the real reservoir performance. A lunped paraneter model that would enbody all properties of the reservoir and the ‘operating conditions can lead us to a realistic estination of future performance. In 1978, Ershaghi and Onoregie! presented a technique for extrapolation of water-cut vs. recovery curves in waterflood operations. The technique allows one to generate a field composite relative permeability ratio curve that includes reservoir Properties as well as operational problens. The main assunptions were that first the plot of pi log Git) vs. S, 1s a straight Nine and second the leaky-piston displacenent concept of Buckley and Leverete® Is applicable. Since the original publication, many operators have contacted the authors with questions and conments| relative to the application of the technique to their specific cases ranging from natural botton water drivel to modified waterfloods. Two additional papers about the technique have appeared in the literature by others. This publication is aimed at clarifying certain anbiguities about the technique and to provide helpfull guidelines for Its application. REVIEW OF THE TECHNIQUE i Assuning the 1o9(gE*) vs. S, 1s @ straight Hines‘A PREDICTION TECHNIQUE FOR IMMISCISLE PROCESSES USING FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA SPE 10068 the concepts of fractional flow and the frontal advance theory proposed by Buckley and Leverett nay be used to derive the following relationship between the recovery and the Fractional water cut: = mextn where Eqs recovery x Fractional water cut Wy ko. PS ara ond » fron GE = ae linen some performance data on a developed water= Flood are available, the data may be plotted on a cartesian paper (Eqs. X) and from the slope and the intercept of the straight line values of a and b may be obtained. The plot itself can be used for extrap~ olation to higher water cuts. The values of a and b may be used to generate on effective Field relative permeability plot given the estimates of S,; and the Viscosity ratio. The generated plot, unlike the laboratory derived curves, 1 @ composite curve which includes not only the displacenent characteristics of the Fluids, but also the reservoir geometry, heterogene’ty| and the operational conditions of the Field. Because of the nature of the function X, it was recommended in the original paper to restrict the lise of the technique to fractional cuts above 50%. ISSUES RAISED The general questions raised with respect to the proposed technique and Its application include the Fol lonin 1. Validity of the straight Tine assunption for the plot of the relative permeability ratio. 2. Lower limit of the 50% water cut. 3. Application to non-linear reservoirs and causes of deviations of the E, vs. X plot fron a Straight line For sove field Spplicacions. In the Following sections, we Intend to respond to the above questions: | + Relative-Preneabi lity Ratio Plot The Tnearity of relative permeability plots vs. saturation on a seni-log graph can be observed on Conventional laboratory derived plots. This issue has, Ia recent years, been treated extensively by Bardon and Longeron,? Asar," ana Anaefule and Handy. These authors have reported on the effect of inter= Facial tension on the relative permeability ratio plots. In general, for high tension floods, such as ‘a waterflood, the linearity is maintained to oi! Eaturations close to the residual. For low tension Floods, however, a curvature develops on the plots. ‘The anount of curvature Is inversely related to the Interfacial tension. Water Cut > 50% The lower limit of fy = 0.50 has sone practical implications. In a perfedely homogeneous system, fone expects sone clean ol! production before the water breakthrough. Of! production before water break- through Is control led by the oi! velocity exceeding water velocity. At breakthrough and afterwards, the water velocity Is higher than the ol! and fron the definition of fractional Flow (f, ‘ro, Ow te Be f,, 18 above 0.5, This can be further substantiated fron a typical Fractional flow curve where the tangent to the curve at breakthrough results ina f, larger than the f,, at the point of inflection (Ie, f,=0-5) In real systems, because of substantial pernea- bility variation, water channeling say occur before the of bank is teached to the producing well and the water cut may increase before any substantial oi! Is produced. The attainment of f= 0.5 signifies the over taking of of! flow by waer, It is this stage ané beyond which 1s modeled by the proposed technique. Application to Non-Linear Reservoirs 7 Ciltes of deviation trons Linear Trend Studies conducted using reservoir simulation show] that the original model developed for linear systens applies equally well for non-linear systems. The effect of flood patterns, relative permea~ bility curves, and permeability variations were Studied for various hypothetical reservoirs using a reservoir simulation approach. Im the cases studied, we considered the displace- ment of a 20°API gravity ol! by water. The fluid properties are shown In Table I. Relative permeabi I~ Tty data ranged from those shown in Fig. 1 (base case) to other variations Incorporating changes in the curvature. A summary of cases run is shown in Table 2. For cases 1, 2, 4, and 5a permeability of 350 nd'was modeled. The total injec tlon rate was maintained at 600 BPD. Other properties| of the model Included an area of 120 x 120 sq. ft., a thickness of 28 ft., a porosity of 0.25 and an initial of] saturation of 0.8088, le layer with a In Case 1, the model considered four corner producing wells with a central injection well. Figure 2 shows the Ep vs. X plot for this case. relative perneabilit ratio plot was made linear above ko/ky = 0.06. "Thus in the transition region From f,,= 8.5 (k= .2) to f,, = 832 (x = ~ 2.605) TheSPE 10068 L ERSHAGHL AND D. ABDASSAH 3 the E, plot shows a curvature. After a cut of 0.832 and eB values as high as 0,98 the linearity of the plot is maintained. Changing the pattern to a peripheral flood (case 2), has very little influence on the projected recoveries under sini lar inject ion=production Schedule, Fig. 3. In Case 3, the incorporation of a Second layer with high permeability results In a Straight Tine with a change of slope indicating higher water cuts at similar recoveries, Fig. 4. A comparison of the recovery plots for Cases | and 3 is shown on Fig. 5. The change of slope indicates that the conposite relative permeability curve repre~ senting Case 3 is different from the data used in the rode! reflecting the higher velocities In the more permeable layer. To further investigate the effect of the opera- tional aspects two additional cases were studied for the model represented by Case I. Using the sane baste data, the Injection was stopped after 7 years. The model perfornance was Toni tored and the Eq vs. xX is shown ia Fig. 6. A-drop in cut results inthe deviation from the straight Tine. Another case included a variable Injection history. The effect of variable Injection rate was investigated. The change in the level of injection results ina slight varia~ tlon in the slope of Eqvs. X, Fig. 7. Resumption of the Initial injection Fate results in the formation of the initial slope on the Ep plot. The next test case included the effect of sRutting-in one of the Producers. Again @ change in the slope results which Ts totally independent of the basic reservoir proper tes used, Fig. 8. To generate data for low tension floods, the Following equations were used for derivation of che base relative-perneabi lity ratio plot. Low tension Floods are characterized with low exponents of a and & In the order of unity.!? These equations are not applicable at the end points, thus Wwe examined the graphs in the mid to upper ranges. Using a= B= 1.5 results ina slight curvature In the shape of the relative perneability ratio plot, Fig. 9. Applying this plot toe sode! like Case | the E, plot shown for Case 4 is obtained, Fig. 10. the dlviation from a straight line is evident at recoveries above 32%. If the waterflood is converted to a viscous flood, the E, plot will show a change In the trend. This can be Seen in Fig. 11 where a model similar to the Case I experiences 9 viscous waterflood of u,=6c.p. The plots of Fig. 2 and Fig. 11 are cBnpared in Fig. 12. The two straight lines maintain the sane slopes. Increase in water viscosity results in the shifting of the curve to higher recoveries. From the case studies shown above, it is clear that the linearity of Ey vs. X Is a function of the Hnearity of the relative permeability ratio plot and the Field operational progran. Anytine that the plot of the field data deviates from a straight Tine, 2 change in the properties of the injected fluid or jin production- injection scheduling should be suspected] In general, where the deviation fron the Ep plot indicates a definite new trend because of changls in the Field conditions, the new trend must be used for extrapolation purposes, Fig. 13. PROVED GRAPHICAL TECHNIQUE An improved graphical technique for the &; was suggested by Robertson"? In this approach, "s Special coordinate system is created where one works directly with cut values and no conversion to X Is required. A sanple graph paper for use by the reader is shown in Fig. Th. Also a tabulation of X versus cut values fron 0,501 to 0.999 Is shown in Table 3. plot CASE sTup ‘The application of the proposed nethod to various published waterfloods is reviewed below. The data are plotted as water cut in fraction versus recovery. Dil recoveries, depending on the source of the original data, are either in terns of fraction of original of! in place or in terns of curulative production. For each case, If the data points deviate from a stratght Tine, explanation from the source publication are included. 1+ Placer Lease, Tensleep This study reported by Thompson is about the behavior of a reservoir under water Influx. Perform ‘ance history plotted on the cut-cun plot shows a Tinear trend. The effect of shutting-in of the high water cut producers can be seen fron the points above the straight Vine, Fig. 15. 2 > East Burbank?* This is the case of a stratified reservoir being uaterflooded with nunerous corrective actions through out its life for minimizing water channel ing. Figure 16 shows the cut vs. recovery plot. Two parallel straight lines are evident fron the graph. The shifting of the original straight Tine to the Fight indicates the success of the stimulation job, 3 = Olympte Poot, oktahond! ‘aad Main and 33. East Pool, callfornta Terrabonne"® reported on the application of the proposed technique to the Olympic pool and the Main fand East pool. Figures 17 and 18 Show the cut-cun Plots. For the Olympic pool, the data points fern a linear trend. For the Main and 99 East pool the trend is deviated fron the straight line by Injectivity reduction into low permeability sands and the high Injectivity of thief zones. Selective plugging opera~ tlon resulted in the return of the performance plot to the basic trend.[A PREDICTION TECHNIQUE FOR IMMISCIBLE PROCESSES USING FIELD PERFORMANCE OATA SPE 10068, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 10. Gupta, $.P., and Trushenski, S.P.: "Micellar Flooding =~ Conpositional Effects on O11 Displace- The proposed method of cut-cum plot reviewed in ment," Trans. AINE (1973) 11-125. this paper is applicable to waterfloods or modified waterflood at cut values above 50%. The exact 11, Robertson, Jack A. of State Lands Connission, Starting point of the linear plot depends on the Personal Comminication. starting point of the linear trend of the relative Permeability ratio curve. The higher the water cut, | 12. Thompson, J.A.: ‘Formation Analysis and Reservoir’ the better the linearity of the cut=cun plot. Perfornance Study -- Tensleep Reservoir, Hani ton Done Field," JPT (Feb. 1981). In real systens, the changes In volumetric sweep efficiency may cause deviation from an established | 13. Warner, G.C.: "Waterflooding @ Highly Stratified Vinear trend for a given reservoir. Corrective Reservair," set (Oct. 1968) 1178. actions such as selective plugging and shutting-In high water cut wells may result in the reestablish- | 14. stiles, W.E.: "Olympic Pool Vaterflood,"" JPT rent of the original linear trend. (Feb. 1357) 29. For prediction purposes, the late performance | 15. Messer, P-H., and Dobeek, H.R.: “Performance of data may be extrapolated to high water cuts. Since a Multizone Peripheral Waterficod, Hain and 99 for high tension floods relative permeability ratio East Pool, West Coyote Field, California, curve approaches a linear trend at high water satura- SPE 4181," paper presented at Calif. Regional tlons, the proposed method should not be used during Meeting, ‘Bakersfield, CA (Nov. 8-10, 1972). the early stages of a waterflood. 16. Terrebonne, R.: "Application of the Proposed REFERENCES, Cut-Cum Plotting Technique to Published Water~ Floods," Internat. Report, State Lands Connission 1, Ershaghi, I, and Onoregie, 0.: "A Nethod for (may 18, 1981). Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery Curves," Journal of Petroleum Technology (Fed. 1968) 203. 2. Matheny, S.L., Jr.t MEOR Methods Help UItinate Recovery," Oi} and Gas Journal (Karch 31, 1980). 3. Craig, F.F., dre: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE Monograph No. 1 (isn) 78. 4. Buckley, $.£., and Leverett, M.C.: "Mechanism of Flood Displacement in Sands," Trans. AIME (942) 107. 5. Meehan, N.D.: "Forecast Made Easier for Developed Waterfloods,"" O11 and Gas Journal (uly 7, 1980) 112. 6. Borgia, G.C.: "Predicting Waterflood Performance in Developed Projects," 011 and Gas Journal (July 28," 1380) 205. 7. Bardon, C., and Longeron, D.: “Influence of Very Low Interfacial Tensions on Relative Pernea- bility," SPE 7609, paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of SPE, Houston, TX (Oct. 1-3, 1978). 8. Asar, Heke: Influence of Interfacial Tension on Gas-011 Relative Permeability In a Gas Condensate Systen, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of So. calif. (hay 1380). 9. fmaefule, J.0., and Handy, L.L.: "The Effect of Interfacial Tensions on Relative Of I-Water Perneabilities of Consolidated Porous Media," SPE/O0E 9783, paper presented at 1981 SPE/DOE Second Joint’ sympostun of Enhanced O11 Recovery, Tulsa, OK (April 5-8, 1981).Tobie 2 ate Fate schoo, Benais Pa ty : Pe iecton 6005/0 ave Pameaby of Fig | . Ijecton 150. B/O/W Cee OMe Pameabay of Fi. , ijpeton 60080 3 Layer i [k= 350 md)n «23 1 Production 150 B/D/W he Permeabity of Fig. | Layer 2 [k= 8600 mh «548 4 lyecton 600 B/W Freducon 150. B/D/WTABLE 3 cut x cut x cut x cut x cut x +301 _-2.0000 7383 -2:0227 609 -2.0851~ .663 -2. f8S0 ~ T7IT—=2. 3283 —WE02 70000-1556 210235 1410 -210867 l4g4 -211872 1718 -2.3273 1503 -2/0001 1557 -2.0249 +611 -2.0882__ 1465 1719 _-2.3303 504 TEES Srcasz 612-2. 0897 66 72023334 1505, 1357 =7.0260- 1613-20913 1467 — l72t +2338 1506 _=210003 1360 =7:0267-_1414 -210928 1 4663” =211962_1 722 -2.3998 7507 é01 -21o735 1488-21878 1309 “2i3010 1743. -2.4798 £343 "2.0174" leo2_-210749 "+636 _-2. 1697 i764 -2.43a36 Hs Shoe 3 "He fois cea 3 ES SEEGERS 88 ae (ES CES te 1aies 2B: ae GH CEES EEGTABLE 3 (cont.) cut x cut x cut x cut x cut x 1774 ESTO 02S =Z 7827 879 =3.1207 FIT =S. TOSS 987-8. 3450 1772 =215150 e246 -2. 7682 3317205 1963. -5.4230 1901827 -2.7737 =3.7387 _1999_-5.5100 L774 =2.8230 82S 2.777382 —=3.1453 FS T.TSIT 90S GOSS 1775 -2:5271 1828 -2.7648 lass -311597 1937 +3.7668 991 -517107 1776 ~2.5312_ 1830 -2.7905 _‘as4 -311421 +938_=3.7327__‘992__-5.9285 T777 =ES3SS_1631_-217961 Teas =3.1706 + 939-3. 7989, 99S 8.9520 — 1778-25394 —.832=2-8015 1gs4 -311792 1940 -3.8154 1994-41162 1779_=215435_ 1833 -2.8075 73113791981 _-3:8321 _i995_-6.2985. 17S0=2.5477— 1934 -2.8133 1966+ S42 =.BAST — 996 —=6. S217 i7e1 -2.5519 835 -2:8191 i3i20s4 1943 =3/8685 1997 “12095 L7s2_-2.5861__1936_-2.8249 alzi43 1948 -3:8941 1999" 7.2151 ss =2. 5808 2837 =a: 3233 19353. 9021 99927. 9088 i7e4 -215eae fa98 7312324 1946 -319204 785 _-2.5689 1839 2312416 1947 -3.9390 Ves 225732 B80 3.2508 5.9530 1787 -2:5776 :86t 312602 1949" =3.9773 1783 _-2.5319 1296 312696 _1 950" -3.9971 789 97_-312792 +951 4.0172 1790 944 -2.9731 —Lese—sarseEa «9st -410378 l7e1_-2is9s2__1843_-2:8793_ le99 312565 _1953__-4.0588 +782 =2.8997 845 =2,S658~ 1900 -3.3083 —. 9SF =F, 050S— 1793 _-2le041 1847 —=2:8919" 1501 -3.3183 L955 4.1022 1794 “-2.e057_194G—=2.8982 1902 73.3283_s9gs "As 124e TJos waisi7a 1850 “2.9111 90a -313487 1980-01710 179?_=2ie22q__1351_-219176 1905 _-313590 1959 -4.1951 = 3695 S80 ET wes 1907 -3:3801 i961 -4.2450 1800_-2:8363 1908 3.3908 1962-42710 Tar -2.8410 OSS =Z. 9440 —190F =F. AOTS_1 963-4. 2976. Te02 -2leas7 1856 -2.9507 1910 -3.4125 —l3ea 4.3269 1957_-219575__ 1911-34236 1965 ~4.3531 BIZ—=Sv4SAS 946-4, 9620 i913 -314361 1967 “414118 iyi4 =314576 1943 -4.4826 861-2. 8681-1915 —=3 8892-1969 _=4, 4783 lesz -219921 1916 -314309 1970 -a.s071 les -219992_ 1917 -3149281971_-415409 1864 =3, 0063 918-3: 5088-972 =4.5750 — 1965 =3.0138 1919 3151701973. 4.6129 866 _=3.0208 1920 -3.5293__ 1974" =4.6500 §55996° 7867-9, 0291 —+921—=g13aTE—. 975 =4. 5892 — 72!3047 1es8 2.0985 1922 3.5544 1978 4.7300 2217088 1869-30829 1923 3.5673 _1977_-4.7726 1870-3. 0804 —192a—=3: 5802-975 1971 -310879 1925-38934 1979 _=4.8635, Eilzisa _1e72_-3.0656__ 1928 3.8067 _ 1980 “4. 7a06 1873 =3.0732 1927 = 5. 820E-— STS. HESS 2217389 1874 310810 1928 314340 1962 -5.0178 S. 9B _1929_ 316379 1983, Te7S-3.0866 T9503 Ia77 -3lioge 3 3st Teasex= fin - 0-4] 100 001 E T_T _1 13 E o/kw vs. Sw 3 c (CASE |, 2, 3) q 0001 00) Fig 4 =Relative permeabiiy ratio plot used for Cases 12 RECOVERY VS x CASE | PINJECTION WELL. PRODUCTION WELL 10 20 30 RECOVERY (%) Fig. 2-Cutcum plot for Case 1RECOVERY VS x CASE ¢ INJECTION WELL. PRODUCTION WELL 0 lo 20 30 RECOVERY (%) Fig. 3~Cut-Cum plot for Case 2 RECOVERY VS x CASE 9] 5 WELLS PATTERN ¢ | LAYER |: h=23ft, jo "ol LAYER 2: h= Sft LAYER | CAYER 2 ° 10 20 30 RECOVERY (%) Fig. 4—Cut-Cum plot for Case 3S = -[inti7tw -1) - fu] ow 0 10 20 30 RECOVERY (%) Fig. 5— Comparison of the performance for Cases 1 and 3 6 T T T T INJECTION RATE = 6008/0 PRODUCTION RATE = [50 B/D/W «aL ol 1 L 1 L 0 10 20 30 40 50 RECOVERY, % Fig. 6—Cut-Cum plot for Case 1 if the Injection stops after 7 years27 7 T 4b 4 4 i ! 4 27 v Zab 0 4 7 ‘ v | ~*~ IP % 10 : TINE, YEARS — oO 10 20 30 40 50 RECOVERY, % Fig. 7 — Effect of variable injection rate on the Cut-Cum plot of Case 1 6 T T T T 1 2 1. SHUT IN WELL NO. 2 i 5 PS °] AFTER 7 YEARS f 4 § .} | nm suurinwetts no2 7 ZS NOSAFTERIZ YRS. | 14 1, 23 a 4 2 4 7 x) -| n 1 1 L 10 20 30 40 50 RECOVERY, % Fig. 8 - Cut-Cum plot for Case 1 if one or two producers are shut-in after some periodko/kw vs Sw (CASE 4) ol ool oo 02 04 «06 08 10 Fig, 9 Rolavo permeability ratio plot generates fr low tension Hoods T T T T 6E CASE 4 4 2 1 soak 4 “lz 4 ° aL 4 iL 4 0 L L 1 1 ° 10 20 30 40 RECOVERY (%) Fig, 10-Perlarmance ofa lon tension HoosT T WATER VISCOSITY = 6 Cp at, Eat | zy | 1 1 1 1 10 20 30 40 RECOVERY, % Fig. 11-Cut-Cum plot for Case One under a viscous waterflood 50 2 so 2 = y ee eo 4 1 L 1 L 0 10 20 30 40 RECOVERY, % Fig. 12— Comparison of Cut-Cum plots for low and high viscosity waters 50Krw/Kro Sw © so EES | | ero METHOD NOT ¥ Fee Fig. 13- Changes in the trend of Cut-Cum plotF —=— = =— NOWOved “1nd 910} cUuM Fig. 14~ Improved graphical scale for plotting the Cut-Cum dataCUT, FRACTION PLACER LEASE, TENSLEEP Mn mT mT TTT TT i Ce: prrrte a tt i TE i ! Ut a aE 20 40 60 80 CUMULATIVE OIL RECOVERY AS % OOP Fig. 15—Pertormance of the Placer Lease, Tensleep on the Cut-Cum plot 100CUT, FRACTION EAST BURBANK 5 10 15 20 CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTS, MILLIONS OF STB Fig. 16 Performance of the East Burbank flood on the Cut-Cum plotCUT, FRACTION Tn Mn | | HH | {| / il HN UI 2 WN) TA WAT A | l iT i {i ] =O 1 j j i | | AAA po i i T itt sot l nit ool I 260H Hh UH Ss rT I | 7254 I ry ‘ THN o TT : i cant i ttt i oO 2 4 8 10 12 4 16 18 20 * CUMULATIVE GRoss OIL 104 BBLS Fig. 17— Performance of the Olympic Pool on the Cut-Cum plotyh Tr NOLLOWHd ‘LD 2 Elo Sele g E = = Se = ° = === =a, —— = = = o — oe . = = w = = = ° CUMULATIVE GROSS OIL 10® BBLS Fig. 18— Performance of the Main and 99 East Pool on the Cut-Cum plot