~No.
SPE 340
THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION
Factors Influencing the Optimum Time
to Start Water Injection
By
Charles M. Tarr
George J. Heuer
Continental Oil Company ~Vv
We recently attended a spacing hearing
in a relatively new oil state. The hearing
was one of the longest ever held before a
state conservation commission. It covered,
among other things, many of the aspects of
petroleum engineering. Many of those attend-
ing the hearings as witnesses, attorneys and
commission representatives appeared to have
the idea that water injection was almost al-
ways successful in increasing oil recovery.
They also had the impression that the proper
time to start water injection was "inunedi-
atel~'. A review of many industry magazines,
technical publications and petroleum engi-
neering textbooks shows that, while there
are many articles and papers on water injec-
tion, waterflooding and pressure maintenance
through water injection, few of the publica-
tions discuss projects which were failures.
It is easy to see how non-technical, intelli-
gent people can get the erroneous impression
that water injection is almost always suc-
cessful. If one reviews the mass of articles
in trade publications on pressure maintenance
and notes that they are almost always justi-
fied by large increases in recovery, one can
also get the impression that water injection
should start as soon as possible.
The experience and knowledge we gained
while planning, operating and analyzing the
results of over a hundred water injection
projects proves that the above two impres-
sions are not always correct.
Predicting the optimum time to start
water injection is a very complex problem
because it depends on many factors. To
simplify this paper, we assume the operator
wishes to recover the maximum ultimate oil
regardless of time. Also, in this paper, we
are ignoring other methods of increasing re-
covery such as gas injection, insitu combus-
tion, etc.
~.c,~
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
__ .~
The total ultimate recovery can be divid-
ed into recovery before water injection p~us
recovery after water injection. Often we can
do little as engineers to affect total pri-
mary recovery other than to use the reservoir
energy which is available as efficiently as
possible. However we can, as engineers, de-
cide when and in what manner water injection
should be started tp gain the optimum ulti-
mate recovery. In practice, with a good
reservoir where such factors as permeability
distribution, oil viscosity, water saturation,
etc. are favorable, a good rule of thumb is
"water injection should be started at the time
the reservoir reaches the bubble point".
When studying the problem of when water
injection should be started in a specific
reservoir, we find that many factors are in-
volved so the optimum time for water injection
into a particular reservoir may range from
immediately to never.
Some of the factors affecting optimum
time for water injection are discussed below.
They are all inter-related, however, for sim-
plicity we will attempt to discuss the factors
as though they are independent variables not
in any way related. Each factor can to some
degree be evaluated to determine the optimum
time to start water injection.
Recovery Mechanism:
The forces which enable us to recover
hydrocarbons from reservoirs to a very large
extent govern the adaptability of the reser-
voir to water injection.
One would usually expect a reservoir
with a strong natural water drive not to be
subjected to water injection unless there w~re
some very unusual circumstances such as tre-
mendous reservoir size or to increase the
rate of production.
 2 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE OPTIMUM TIME TO START WATER INJECTION
A reservoir with good gravity drainage,
such as the Lakeview Pool in Kern County,
California, is another example of reservoirs
which probably should not be waterflooded if
we are attempting to obtain maximum recovery.
In the case of good to fair gravity drainage
reservoirs, water injection probably should
be used only to increase producing rates
because we would be substituting an inferior
recovery mechanism for a more efficient re-
covery mechanism.
Another recovery mechanism where water
injection would not normally be attempted
is in reservoirs with large gas caps. Here,
there is usually sufficient reservoir energy
so an external source of energy is not re-
quired for efficient oil recovery.
Reservoirs with gas caps and thin oil
rings are often not amiable to water injec-
tion. In these reservoirs, down-dip water
injection forces oil up-structure and a
large percentage of the oil invading the
gas cap area is lost as residual oil satu-
ration. Water injected into the oil ring
soon follows the pathway of least resistance,
breaks into the gas saturated area and be-
comes ineffective as a medium for increasing
oil recovery.
The above types of reservoirs normally
are not amiable to water injection so the
optimum time for water injection may be
"never".
In general, the good reservoirs for
water injection are those where the natural
energy is less efficient than that provided
by water injection. These include solution
gas drive reservoirs, liquid expansion res-
ervoirs and reservoirs with inefficient water
drives, reservoirs with small gas caps and
combinations of these types of reservoirs.
Formation Volume Factor:
Gas in solution swells the reservoir oil
and, therefore, reduces the amount of stock
tank oil in every barrel of residual oil re-
maining in the reservoir behind the displac-
ing fluid.
The effect of the Formation Volume Fac-
tor on recovery by water injection can be
evaluated by assuming the residual oil satu-
ration behind the flood front, expressed as
a fraction of total pore space, is the same
regardless of when injection starts. We can
then calculate the total stock tank barrels
of oil in the swept portion of the reservoir
which will remain as "residual oil satura-
tion" at different pressures for the pro-
ject.
Figure 1 is an example of a number of
formation volume factors determined from a
number of samples at different structural
locations from a reservoir with over 1,200
feet of oil column. The reservoir oil has
little gas in solution. Figure 2 is an
example of a reservoir where we had over
600 cubic feet of gas in solution per barrel
of stock tank oil. By inspection of Figures
1 and 2 and considering only F.V.F., one can
see that the timing of water injection in
the first reservoir could have only about a
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
4% effect on recovery through water injection
while on the second reservoir the effect of
this factor could vary water injection recov-
eries by as much as 35%. These percentages,
of course, apply only to the pore space
swept by water.
When considering only the effect of
F.V.F., one can say the optimum time to
start water injection pressure-wise is when
the reservoir is at the bubble point, as
less stock tank oil will be left as residual
oil by the injected water.
Viscosity of Crude Oil:
The viscosity of crude oil is often
plotted as viscosity vs. pressure on P.T. V.
analysis reports. In these reports, we all
realize that less gas is in solution as
pressures are decreased, therefore, the
major change in viscosity is not caused by
a reduction in pressure but by changes in
composition of the liquid hydrocarbon mix-
ture. Here again w.e have included as
Figures 3 and 4, viscosity data for the
same field for which F.V.F. data was illus-
trated. The data indicates that the period
in the pressure history of a reservoir when
oil viscosity will be lowest is at the bubble
point pressure.
The effect of oil viscosity is handled
in many water injection calculations through
the mobility ratio where
krw Uo
M =E
ro lL
--w
or in the fractional flow equation where
1
k ro llw
1 + krw U
o
If injected water is not heated or
treated in some way to change its vlscosity
at reservoir condition, the only variables
are ~ which depends upon fluid saturations
and Uo which is controllable to some extent
by the composition of the hydrocarbon mixture
 CHARLES M. TARR AND GEORGE J. HEUER
in the reservoir ahead of the flood front.
We assume here that the most efficient oil
displacement will take place when the mobi-
lity ratio of the driving fluid to driven
fluid is small. The smaller the mobility
ratio, the better our displacement of oil
should be by water injection. Therefore,
optimum time for water injection as a func-
tion of reservoir crude oil viscosity is
when the mobility ratio is as small as
possible, or again, at the bubble point
pressure.
As an example from data, we determine
that k ro = 100 and the viscosity of
krw '
water at 1310 F. equals 0.554 cpo
If we use the viscosity values on Figure 4,
the lowest value of Uo is 0.75 cp at bubble
point pressure so if the water injection
starts at that pressure, M = 0.018 x 0.75
= 0.0135. If the waterflood were conducted
at 100 psig when Uo = 1.45 cp, M would now
equal 0.0261.
Relative Permeability:
In this paper, we have considered the
relative permeability of oil to be the oil
permeability in the presence of the connate
water saturation ahead of the displacing
fluid. Our relative water permeability is
water permeability in the presence of resi-
dual oil saturation behind the advancing
front.
A sample kw/k o curve is shown in Figure
5. This factor has little bearing on when
a water injection program is started but
has a great deal to do with the results of
the project. The field for which Figure 5
applies is a fairly large sandstone strato-
graphic trap partially surrounded by an
aquifer with thp. reservoir rock grading
from clean sand to shaley sand and sandy
shales. We had fair to good reservoir data,
production information, etc. for the field
which was developed by a number of organi-
zations and then unitized. It looked like
a good water injection project. A pattern
waterflood was installed. The results were
somewhat erratic even though injection rates
per foot of net pay were very carefully
balanced. After a good deal of study, un-
successful remedial work, etc., we deter-
mined the results were probably caused by
varying water saturations in different parts
of the reservoir. We may have started our
3
waterflood on different spots on the ko/kw
curve as shown by points "A" and "B" on
Figure 5. Toward the center of the reservoir
our oil saturations were at point "A" and had
normal recoveries. At certain edge wells,
we were at point "B" and recovered almost no
oil as a result of water injection. Perhaps,
on projects with seemingly minor edgewater
encroachment, we can explain poor secondary
oil recoveries by kw/ko curves and not spend
money needlessly on remedial work trying to
recover oil which is non-recoverable. With
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
excellent data on fluid saturations, we might
even decide water injection is not economi-
cally feasible.
Permeability Distribution:
In our discussion of permeability dis-
tribution and our use of it in calculation,
we have made the assumption of no cross-flow.
The total recovery of primary oil can
be fairly well estimated by various calcu-
lations if we have sufficient information
on certain fluid properties, saturations
and pressures. During primary depletion as
a result of solution gas drive, all porous
reservoir rock which has any permeability
to hydrocarbons will contribute to the pro-
duction of our various wells. During water
injection in a water wet reservoir, rocks
which were initially oil productive usually
have a lower permeability to water than to
oil. Because of this, some rock may in
effect be nearly impermeable to water; and,
hence, will not be affected by water injec-
tion. Oil not displaced from this rock is
bypassed by the injected water and is there~
by unrecoverable. The optimum time to start
water injection will not be affected by
permeability per se, if there is sufficient
permeability to allow adequate injection
rates. However, the variation and distri-
bution of permeability can effect the pro-
blem, especially if a large percentage of
the reservoir rock has low permeability
values.
To illustrate this point, suppose we
consider all rock having an air permeability
of 0.1 md or higher (and adequate porosity
and oil saturation) as being net pay in our
material balance calculations. In the same
reservoir, we may find that only rocks hav-
ing a permeability of 2 md or higher will
be affected by water injection and be con-
sidered "floodable net pay". This last
permeability value can be determined by
several methods.
 4 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE OPTIMUM TIME TO START WATER INJECTION
Calculations may show that while almost
100% of the reservoir rocks contribute to-
ward primary production, a much smaller
volume is subject to oil displacement by
water. In this type of reservoir, we can
calculate the effect of permeability distri T
bution on the problem of the optimum time
for water injection.
An example of the effect might be about
as follows. If we produce all of the pri-
mary oil (18% of oil saturation in this case)
then waterflood 40% of the section and re-
cover 40% of the remaining oil in this sec-
tion, our total recovery would be 0.18 +
0.40 x 0.40 x (1 - 0.18) = 31.12% of initial
oil-in-place.
If we had started water injection at
the bubble point pressure, one would expect
to recover something like 50% of the stock
tank oil from 55% of tke reservoir rock for
a total recovery of 27.5% of the STO-in-
place.
In one reservoir we tabulated our per-
meability information and found that 33% of
the rock had permeabilities below 0.1 md,
the cut-off for primary net pay (this in-
cluded less than 2% of the porosity), 64%
of the rock had permeabilities below 1 md
and 84% of the rock had permeabilities
below 10 md. In this case if we had used
2 md as a cut-off point to determine the
rock which would be influenced by water
injection, 74% of the formation would have
been eliminated or, to put i t another way,
secondary net pay was only 40.6% of pri-
mary net pay.
The actual calculations to determine the
optimum time for water injection considering
permeability distribution and many other
factors involve making material balance cal-
culations at a number of pressures to deter-
mine primary production and waterflood cal-
culations at the same pressures to determine
recovery through water injection. These
two recoveries can be plotted as recovery
vs. pressure, the two curves added and the
optimum pressure will be where the combined
recovery curve shows the greatest recovery.
An example of these curves is shown as
Figure 6.
Figure 6 is an illustration of ex-
tremely poor permeability distribution where
we might best start water injection at near
abandonment conditions for maximum recovery.
Fractures:
Basically, fractures in the reservoir
rock can be considered as part of the per-
meability distribution problem in deter~
mining the optimum time to start water
injection.
In primary recovery, energy is supplied
by the gas dissolved in the oil in the reser-
voir. Thus, fractures are pathways of high
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
permeability by which the oil can flow from
the matrix reservoir rock to the well bore.
Anything which makes it possible for oil to
travel more easily through the reservoir
will aid in primary recovery.
Energy is supplied to the reservoir on
water injection projects by means of water
under pressure at the injection wells. On
these projects, fractures act as pathways of
high permeability through which water travels
from the injection well to the producing
well. There is a very real tendency for the
injected water to bypass large volumes of
reservoir rock as it moves through the frac-
tures. This water does not displace oil
from the matrix rock and, hence, much of
the oil in the reservoir rock may be unre-
coverable. Thus, we say the effect of
fractures in reservoir rock cannot be bene-
ficial to water injection projects (assum-
ing there was enough matrix permeability for
a water injection project).
At the present state of our Art and/or
Science of Petroleum Engineering, the most
satisfactory method of determining perme-
ability variation is by core analysis. The
presence or absence of fractures can usually
be suspected by examination of fresh cores
on the rig floors. Fractures, if suspected
by core examinations, coring difficulties,
cementing difficulties and acidizing re-
sults, can be evaluated early in the life
of the reservoir. In one field, two com-
panies ran a number of pressure build-up
surveys to check on the effectiveness of
fractures. Figure 7 is a plot of cored
permeability vs. pressure build-up perme-
ability for 21 wells. It was calculated
that the matrix permeability accounted for
only 19% of the effective permeability in
this example. Figure 8 is in another part
of the same field showing pressure build-
up data and core data plotted for 24 wells.
In this example, we find that fractures
accounted for a much smaller share of the
effective permeability. Here, the matrix
rock contained 61% of the effective perme-
ability. In this case, fracturing is much
more pronounced in certain parts of the
 CHARLES M. TARR AND GEORGE J. HEUER
same reservoir. The straight line in both
figures was drawn for ease of evaluating
data. Points above the line show evidence
of fractures. The points below the line
indicate to us that the completion techni-
ques used may not have cleaned up the well
bore or sampling and/or core analysis methods
may have been faulty.
Fractures are generally more prevalent
in hard, brittle types of rocks, especially
those with low porosity and permeability.
The two things which, of course, concern
all of us are (a) are the fractures part
of a random system, or are they predomi-
nantly oriented in a certain direction and
(b) do they extend for long distances through
the reservoir? Our experience is not too
great, but we would generally assume the
open fractures are usually relatively short
and often predominantly oriented in some
direction. Partial answers to these pro-
blems might be found through examination
of all reservoir production figures, well
interference tests, pressure surveys, build-
up surveys, injection fall-off curves, and
material balance calculations. Often we
can minimize the detrimental effects of
fractures on water injeetion projects by
injection well location and control of rate.
In one series of calculations, we
included fractures in our permeability dis-
tribution and then made the same calculations,
excluding fracture permeability. In the
first case, we calculated that the rocks
with permeabilities above 11.5 md would be
affected by water injection while, in the
second case, we calculated that the net
floodable rock would have a permeability
cut-off of 2.2 md.
The presence of fractures should make
one cautious about early water injection
projects and even tend toward late water
injection projects on the theory that we
are certain of our primary production while
secondary recovery may be speculative. We
always favor pilot waterfloods in fractured
reservoirs just to evaluate the effect of
fractures.
Clay Content of Reservoir Rock:
In the Rocky Mountain Region, there
are several formations containing clays
which swell or deflocculate when contacted
by fresh water. These clays reduce the
permeability to water. This reduces injec-
tion rates, requires higher injection pres-
sures and extensive remedial work. In
shallcw reservoirs, where injection pressul~s
must be kept low to prevent rupture of res-
ervoir rocks, swelling clays may make fresh
5
water injection projects unfeasible.
The clay content of our formations
vary from area to area. The clays can
have a marked effect on producing rates,
project life and the over-all economics
of a project. If pilot projects are in-
stalled, we favor running frequent pressure
fall-off surveys to determine as nearly as
possible the stabilized water permeability
values.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
We do not know of any well engineered
water injection projects which were fail-
ures because of swelling clays. The clays
have a marked effect on the performance of
projects but they have little bearing on
when a project should be started. If
swelling clays are suspected, we favor very
early pilot projects to gather as much engi-
neering data as possible.
Free Gas Space:
On .this subject, it is hard to tie
laboratory tests to field information. The
major effect of maintaining a free gas
phase in the reservoir behind the displac-
ing fluid should be to reduce the volume of
residual oil remaining in the reservoir
rocks. It should also affect the kro/k rw
values, etc., and result in more efficient
oil displacement by water.
One method of evaluating the minimum
effect of a free gas saturation at various
pressures would be to determine the follow-
ing parameters:
1. Composition of the produced
gas at start of project.
2. Reservoir pressure when the
project starts.
3. Reservoir pressure during
injection project.
4. Gas saturation in the reser-
voir at start of project.
Knowing these items, we could calcu-
late which components of the produced
natural gas actually exist as gas in the
reservoir at the start of the project and
during the project. The components which
are miscible with the oil in the reservoir
at the reservoir pressures, obviously,
cannot occupy free gas space. Thus, we
could determine the composition of the gas
phase at the start of injection and during
the project. Also, we could determine the
pore space it might occupy if it were all
trapped by the displacing fluid.
 6 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE OPTIMUM TIME TO START WATER INJECTION

As an example, assume the reservoir
is a depleted (100 psia) solution gas
drive reservoir where oil production has
equaled 15% of pore space. The reservoir
temperature is 120 0 F., the average pres-
sure behind the displacing water will be
1,000 psia and the gas composition from
a separator sample ta~en at 16 psia and
60 0 F. is as follows:
ComEonent Mol %
have less than 1% effect on the water injec-
tion program if all gas is trapped at 1,000
psia by the displacing fluid.
When reservoir pressures are increased,
the free gas not liquefied is compressed
so it occupies a smaller portion of the
pore space. The lower the pressure at
which gas is trapped, the greater the bene-
fits on oil recovery. Actually, gas under
most conditions moves through our reservoir
rock with more ease than either oil or wa-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023

Cl 59.5 ter because of its viscosity and the effect
C2 14.5 of relative permeability. Therefore, we
may assume only a fraction of the free gas
C3 16.6 is trapped by the displacing water.
i C4 1.5
n C4 5.0 Reservoir Rock Influenced by Water Injection:
i C5 0.9 In large reservoirs and in reservoirs
n C5 1.1 with close well spacing, usually most of
C6+ 1.0 the reservoir will be influenced by water
injection. In small reservoirs and in
100.0 reservoirs where the injection well con-
figuration does not provide good areal
From the equation 1 = Sw + So + Sg and coverage, we may find that a large part of
knowing initially Sg = 0, Sw has not the total volume of productive reservoir
changed, we know Sg now equals 15%. rock will not be influenced by water injec-
tion. If we assume that we will have pri-
The components of the separator gas mary recovery from the entire reservoir
are almost identical to the above when the and recovery by water injection from only
pressure is increased to 100 psia and the the portion swept by water, we may calcu-
temperature increased to 1200 F. When the late the optimum time for water injection
pressure is increased to 1,000 psia, 13% to determine maximum ultimate oil recovery.
of the gaseous components become liquids The effect of unswept area can be calculated
and 87% remain as gas. The 87% remaining similarly to the method outlined under
as gas has the following composition: permeability distribution where optimum
injection time is when the total recovery
ComEonent Mol % of primary and secondary oil is greatest.

Cl 64.962 Resaturation:
C2 14.635
Resaturation is considered an areal or
C3 14.558 horizontal effect whereby injected water
i C4 1.134 forces mobile oil into the free gas space
n C4 3.448 so the unswept portions of the reservoir
i 0.489 are resaturated with oil. A paper at this
C5 meeting by Messrs. Cobb, Felsenthal and
n C5 0.560 Heuer and others discusses this effect
C6+ 0.214 from laboratory and field information. l ,2
100.000 On water injection projects, the areal
coverage by injected water depends upon the
The pseudocritical pressure of the mobility ratio. The coverage is generally
above gas is 661.54 psia and the pseudo- very good. It is generally over 90% at
critical temperature is 451.97 0 R. so the limiting WORe The inclusion of this factor
Z factor equals 0.74. When the reservoir in reserve calculations is considered the
gas is compressed isothermally from 100 most conservative approach. If resatura-
psia to 1,000 psia, its volume changes to tion is considered in evaluating the opti-
15% x 0.87 x 0.74 x ~ = 0.96% of pore mum time for water injection, it should
space. In this example, we have taken a tend to show early water injection is
depleted reservoir at 100 psia, conducted desirable.
a waterflood and using an actual gas sample
find that at most free gas saturations can
 CHARLES M. TARR AND GEORGE J. HEUER 7

Examples:
The following examples are calcula-
tions made on different portions of one
large carbonate reservoir where the effect
of fractures and unswept areas were not
considered. We assumed no cross-flow. In
each case over 2,500 core analysis samples
were available, numerous PVT analyses were
run by various organizations showing gradua-
tions in fluid composition throughout the
reservoir. The permeability distribution
We wish to thank the Continental Oil
Company for permission to present this
paper. We also wish to thank the employees
of various sections of our Research Depart-
ment for gathering basic data and develop-
ing the computer programs which were used
by the authors in this paper.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023

varied for the two cases as shown by curves lEarlougher, R. C., Robinson, J. M. and
A and B on Figure 9. Note curve B has a Lynn, A. B., "Study of Core Analyses
larger portion of reservoir rock with Data From Flooded Out Oil Sands",
permeabilities below 0.1 md than on curve SPE-121 (1961).
A. The distribution of the matrix perme-
ability is much poorer on curve A than on 2Callaway, F. H., "Evaluation of Water-
curve B. flood Prospects", Journal of Petroleum
Technology, V. 11 No. 10:11 (1959).
Figure 10 shows the total recovery
of oil-in-place (both primary and second-
ary) plotted against the average reservoir
pressure at which the water injection pro-
ject would be started. The curve marked
A is for the permeability distribution
marked A on Figure 9, while curve B in
Figure 10 corresponds to the permeability
distribution marked B on Figu~e 9. The
curves show that in one portion of the
reservoir the optimum time to start water
injection was at or near 950 psi while for
another portion o.f the same large reservoir
the optimum time is anytime after 550 psi.

Conclusions:
We have not discussed all factors
which affect water injection projects.
We have tried to very brief~y touch on
some of the more important. factors affect-
ing the optimum time to start water injec-
tion.

The factors which are dependent upon

pressure will indicate water injection
should start at near "bubble point" pres-
sures for maximum recovery. Other factors
such as permeability distribution, recovery
mechanisms, fractures, reservoir geometry,
etc. which are not dependent upon pressure,
and which are often difficult to evaluate,
may indicate water injection should start
at near abandonment conditions.
Industry is able through use of high
speed computers to evaluate many of the
factors affecting water injection projects.
By making primary and secondary recovery
calculations at various pressures and stages
of depletion, industry can optimize ulti-
mate recovery by conducting water injection
projects at the most favorable reservoir
pressures.
 RESIDUAL OIL AT 60° F
1.050 ......--...---~---r---r---,---r----,
TEST TEMPERATURE 131· F. SAMPLE NO. B-490-DHN
1.36 36

~~
BUBBLE POINT PRE SURE~
OftIGINAL "IIESEIIVOIR PllESSUIIf
15:10 II 1622 PSIG

1.04' ~----il---::-=::l-:---+--+--+----t---j 1.32

/ ~ 32

... /
V ..
0-
1.28 28
0

V
1---4------d..,--,--}--"......+ - - - t - - - t - - - - 1
1.040
... 0

0
•'" :0..
Z ...

.....
...
0;
1.24 24
."'-"
",

....
"~
/
"0

.
0
... 0
..
Il. ...

... ...
...0

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023

1.20 20

~ 1.030 I--IJHio...J.~--+----+---"......_=_-_t---+--_1 ..
'"
IL

'"
.oj
/
@
A ", 2160 (SIG 1
EST ORIGINAL RESERVOIR PRESS" ~~
00:
- ...
Zo:

...
5 0 1.16 16
:E"-
0'"
a
® MID-~ORMATlO~ .. 0:

/ I I
0 PRESSURE
f :E B 2106 Pt 'G
"Ie
~'b
"",
1.025 1-ll-l----1-::t:==-__d - - " " " ' } - - - + - - - t - - - t - - - - j '"...
0 1.12 12 ~~
>
'">
! @
I
SAMPLING DEPTH PRESSURE
II
..
!l:"
.;
.....
;:: C 2086 PSIG
.....
... :E
z'"
1.020 1J.j-~-l---+---+---+--=::"-.;:-1t---t-------: ..'" 1.08 8 u_
. ...
0:
",0

1.04 4

1.015 JI,l:....---I----I---}---+---t---t-----"-.;;;-j
o 200 400 600 100 1000 1200 1400
PRESSUIIE - PSIG
1.00 o
o 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400

FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR vs. PRESSURE PRESSURE. PSIG

COMPOSITE OF RESERVOIR FLIJID ANALYSES

DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION - SHRINKAGE DATA
FIGURE I FIGURE 2

18
WEL~
NO.5

TEST TEMPERATURE 131° ~ SAMPLE NO. B-490-DHN

17 20

16 18
@ EST. ORIGINAL RESERVOIR PRESS.

I 2160 (SIG I
., 16
® MID-~ORMATlO~ PRESSU~E
\ I 2106 ylG I
'"en0
..
14
0-
.... 14

;:
Z

'"u
...0;..
I
13 ...'"
...

..
0
12
\ \
® SAMJUNG DEPtH PRESSJRE
20B6 PSIG

~
:::;
0 ..J
.,u 12 i 10
> ,:
...0; "
II
.
0
u
8
~ .......... i~~L
> ........

10 6
BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE -1622 ~ ®

8 L---2JOO---4-ooL-----6~00-------80LO---~10~0~0~--~1~2~00:---~1400
0
2
o 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
PRESSURE - PSIG
PRESSURE. PSIG
VISCOSITY VS. PRESSURE AT 92° F. VISCOSITY
COMPOSITE OF FLUID ANA .. :SES FIGURE 4
FIGURE 3
 --r-- .. _-- . - .. _-

16
~:\ .,

14 f---
~
~
J \
r\
IL

........
o
o
0;
L

..
!';
12
r\ \ . II:
o
Z
:I:

.....~
0
c
0
z
::>
:I: 10
1\ IE

i..

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023

r-----+-----4------~~'\8---1------~----+------
...~
.
-IE
::>

..
...
"-
8
\ o
l-
II:

...~
z ~
0

......
;:: OJ

--- --
--- c II II:
::>

..
:E
IE
0
- - - r-- - r----- II:
----r----r-----r------'H----~----- ---- L_I----
IL

- - ----------- - - - - ~--- - - - ---- 4 I-- - - Z

o

-I ~==l=:_=:=-::c_ ~_=.::..=-__ l=:=_ :=~=-C=--:=t=I_:_:::__=

_ ==-t_=~~:::;:==F-=--=-_=J_F-=_=_--=:J- -- ~-
\ '--I----
TOTAL RECOVERY
;::

...
C
:E
o

~~-------~~-- -- --
------ ----- -- ----- --- ---
-;---:~- -:- - :- - ,f_:~ -:-:~- - - -: :- ~f_-:-~-~-=-----~
~: ---
PIMA Y
REfOVE~Y
SECONDARY
rEC0I'ERY
I l
PRIMARY
_+~jCONDARY
----- ---I-- --- ------- I
o 4 8 12 16 20 8 12 16 16 20 24 28
--------~- --- -----
CUMULATIVE OIL RECOVERY"" OF ORIGINAL SlOCK TANK OIL

-01ILO---2LO----~--4.L0-------.!!Io":-----6-!-0:c-----:7!-:0-------=80 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

TOTAL WATER SATURATioN - "" PORE SPACE PRESSURE AND OIL RECOVERY
WATER-OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY RATIO FIGURE II

fIGURf,: 5

10,000
8,000
1,000 • • V I
.0,000
8,000
1,000
. · V
4,000 V ! 4,000 . V
...'"
ci
·2,000
./ '...ci"
• 2,000
~

.. .// .
!
I

&1,000
oJ
800
/. ~
L
I

95 1,000
800
.
i V •... 1/
...
..f
~
600

400 .. • V I'
...il
IE
SOO
400
1/
. .·
...
• 200
. . V f
~
200
1/
0

.
IE
IL
V ....
IE
[7
l-
e;
fc
100
10
10
. 1/
l-
e;
I
.,c
100
80
10
l/ .
u
40 V 40
[7
~ "...9
"-
20
V 20
[7
10 V
~
~ ~ i~ ~ i § i~ !
10
/
~ ..
o o
2
o 000
8 8 88
FLOW GA~AC)ITY fIIOII GOIIf ANALYSIS-IN MOo FT. FLOW CAPAGITY FROM GORE ANALYSIS -IN MD. FT. .. --<£
COMPARISON OF FLOW CAPACITY (Koh) FROM COMPARISON OF FLOW CAPACITY (Koh) FROM
PRESSURE BUILDUP AND CORE ANALYSIS ON 21 WELLS PRESSURE BUILDUP AND CORE ANALYSIS ON 24 WELLS
APPROXIMATE lKoh BUILDUP IS 529.9'1; OF lKoh CORE ANALYSIS APPROXIMATE lKoh BUILDUP IS 164.0'1; OF ZKoh CORE ANALYSIS

FIGUIIE 7 FISUIIE 8
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPESRS/proceedings-pdf/62SRS/All-62SRS/SPE-340-MS/2085211/spe-340-ms.pdf by guest on 18 October 2023
r----r----t"-" "-
10,000
7,000 1600
s,ooo ~ I
'B' I
CALCULATION BASED ON
3,000 PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION
1400

"'--
1,000
700
1200
~
500
\\
, '\
300
..
~
100
J ...
II:
1000
I

,
::>
70
I :: I 1\
50
III i 800
K. 30
II:
7
l/If ~
.....
: 600
I
/
0
7 / II:
/
5
7 / /
400
3

/ V /
I. 0
/ /
200
/
O.7
/ / CALCULATI~:~ BASED ON
o. 5 PERMEABILITY ·DISTRIBUTION

o.3 0 I I
/~
V 24 25 27 21 29 31
TOTAL OIL RECOVERY - , ORIGINAL OIL IN PLACE
.1
00 W ~ ~ ~ 50 ~ ro ~ ~ ~
TOTAL OIL RECOVERY AS A FUNCTION OF
CUM. , OF SAMPLES
RESERVOIR PRESSURE WHEN WATERFLOOD INITIATED
PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 9