SPE-169587-MS

A Pattern-Based Approach to Waterflood Performance Prediction Using

Knowledge Management Tools and Classical Reservoir Engineering
Forecasting Methods
Emre Artun, SPE, Middle East Technical University - Northern Cyprus Campus; Maurice Vanderhaeghen and
Paul Murray, SPE, Quantum Reservoir Impact

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western North American and Rocky Mountain Joint Regional Meeting held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 16–18 April 2014.

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 ma terial 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
Estimating future performance of waterflooded reservoirs is a challenging reservoir engineering problem in complex
reservoirs that are poorly defined. Flow simulation models characterized by limited spatial data of a key heterogeneity do not
always represent the reservoir dynamics for water movement. In this paper, an efficient and rapid workflow is presented to
estimate the recovery performance of an existing vertical-well, pattern-based waterflood recovery design using knowledge
management and reservoir engineering in a collaborative manner. The knowledge management tool is used to gather
production data and calculate pattern-based recoveries and injection volumes by defining pattern boundaries and allocating
annual well injection/production volumes in a systematic manner. Classical reservoir engineering forecasting methods,
namely, a combination of oil cut versus cumulative recovery performance curves, and decline curve analyses are applied to
forecast the performance of the waterflood pattern of interest. The methodology is first applied to a synthetic reservoir model,
and then to data from a real field developed by an inverted 9-spot recovery design. Extrapolating established trends of oil cut
vs. recovery for each pattern for both the synthetic and real cases quantified future performance assessments. Time can also
be attached to the performance by introducing liquid rate constraints. Forecasts based on real data highlighted the optimistic
nature of the dated full-field simulation history match and provided a more realistic forecast for business planning.
Forecasting using both constant and declining liquid rates differentiated the impact of deteriorating reservoir pressure and oil-
cut trends on individual pattern oil rate forecasts thus defining current efficiency of each pattern. The methodology as a result
turned into a simple yet powerful forecasting workflow that can be used by any asset team. This study is a very good example
of how knowledge management tools can be used to increase the capabilities of classical forecasting methods in reservoir
engineering.

Introduction
Secondary recovery and pressure maintenance by waterflooding is a significant recovery process in the life of an oil field.
This is a critical reservoir management practice for optimum recovery from undersaturated oil reservoirs. Varying reservoir
characteristics and limited water injection capacities make it critical to have a good understanding of the reservoir and
managing the waterflooding design and operations to maximize the efficiency.
Good understanding of the reservoir geology and sufficient amount of high-quality surveillance data typically end up in a
robust flow-simulation model that represents the reservoir flow dynamics reasonably well. These models are used as
decision-making tools to design the water injection process such that volumetric sweep efficiency is maximized. However, in
the case of highly heterogeneous reservoirs, the challenge associated with adequate reservoir characterization often makes
fundamental understanding of the reservoir flow dynamics difficult to predict. It was shown in very early experimental
studies of waterflooding that heterogeneities can affect the sweep efficiency significantly regardless of the pattern design and
result in a wide range of efficiencies (Crawford, 1960).
Waterflood performance prediction has been a deep interest to the petroleum industry since the early years of scientific
studies related to reservoir engineering. Studies that are based on the fundamentals of Arps’ (1945) decline curves and
experimental studies (Crawford, 1960) are followed by development of simple analytical tools throughout the years as a
result of continuing interest (Higgins and Leighton, 1963; Higgins et al., 1966; Hiatt, 1968; Khan, 1971; Craig, 1973;
2 SPE 169587

Chapman and Thompson, 1989). With the advancement of computational technologies and power, numerical simulation has
become a standard tool for waterflood performance prediction (Thomas and Driscoll, 1973; Tompang and Kelkar, 1988).
However, due to the aforementioned challenges related to reservoir description and representation in the model construction
process, interest in empirical and simple tools has not been altered. Empirical methods are powerful by incorporating only
measured, quantitative data that inheritably accounts for geological complexity coupled to the chosen recovery process.
A number of empirical and analytical studies that incorporate modern computational tools to improve prediction of
waterflood performance have been presented in the petroleum engineering literature. These studies all focus on measured
quantities related to reservoir performance. Examples of these studies include the use of fractal geostatistics (Di Julio, 1993),
artificial neural networks (Mohaghegh et al., 1993; Nikravesh et al., 1996; Aminian et al., 2000), decision trees (Fedenczuk
et al., 2002), capacitance-resistance (CRM) models (Sayarpour, 2009), and associative modeling and ant colony optimization
(Popa et al., 2012). In addition to these, classical decline-curve analysis based methods have been studied comparatively
which identified advantages and disadvantages of various methods (Bondar and Blasingame, 2002; Can and Kabir, 2012).
In this study, a combination of well-known reservoir engineering methods and a practical knowledge management tool are
used collaboratively to predict the performance of waterflooding patterns. Knowledge management is primarily used as part
of a short-term forecasting initiative. The main objective was to follow a pattern-based approach to focus on injection
patterns to identify flood performance, group trends and outliers. This is done by defining pattern boundaries and allocating
fraction of well production accordingly using the knowledge management tool. This has put the focus on individual patterns
rather than individual wells or the field in general. Allocated annual injection and production volumes of patterns are used to
utilize some of the well-known reservoir engineering forecasting and visualization methods such as water-oil-ratio (WOR)
extrapolation method, classical decline curve analysis, and bubble maps. The workflow is utilized for both a synthetic
reservoir model and real field data with inverted waterflooding patterns. In the following sections, the methodology followed,
results obtained, and main conclusions drawn from the study are presented.

Methodology
The methodology followed in this study is composed of two principal components: 1) an organized knowledge management
through appropriate workflows and tools, 2) classical reservoir engineering forecasting methods. These two groups of
methods are explained in this section. The primary objective of this study is to forecast the performance of water injection.
The methodology starts with utilizing proper knowledge management practices that accesses and manipulates data for the
forecast. After obtaining forecasts using constant and declining liquid rates, the contribution of declining reservoir pressure
and oil cut trends to the overall decline of a given pattern can be estimated. This systematic approach results in a simple
workflow that is shown in Fig. 1. The detailed explanations of each step of the workflow are included in the following
subsections.

Figure 1: The workflow followed to forecast pattern performance and calculate contributions of pressure and wate r to the overall decline.

Knowledge Management. Knowledge management can be broadly defined as a systematic approach to getting the right
information or data to the right people at the right time (Behounek, 2003). As higher volumes of data become available in
relatively shorter time frames with newer tools, technologies and processes, the oil industry requires asset teams to analyze
the data at the same pace, and make quick and reliable decisions to manage assets better, increase production and create
value. Therefore, proper knowledge management has become a necessity in every stage of oil field operations. However, this
is a challenging process especially in large enterprises (>50,000 People, >1 million BOPD) due to communication and
interface issues (Al-Saad et al., 2013). Data challenges exist including disparate data sets as well as disparate data systems.
Production and injection data, while stored in similar repositories, are metered differently including frequency and variance.
SPE 169587 3

Key data for analysis, such as described in this paper, requires data that may reside within oil and gas applications, such as
FINDER®, GEOLOG®, ECLIPSE®, LANDMARK®, and other systems that lack clear inter-operability. Looking ahead these
challenges are only going to intensify with the adoption of Big Data technology such as VMonitors and down-hole sensors
coupled with SCADA systems for real-time surveillance and monitoring.

A goal of knowledge management over the years has been the ability to integrate information from multiple perspectives to
provide the insights required for valid decision-making. In order to best manage an asset, field development decisions are
made based on a variety of inputs from production, to costs, to equipment procurement, to drawdowns, to voidage, to
pressure, to facility constraints. The total picture is what should drive decisions, such as; where to inject, how much to inject,
and whether to re-design the injection strategy or the injection well itself. In order to make sound decisions regarding the
water injection strategy, a holistic picture of field performance is required, specifically injection-pattern performance to date.
However with the volume, variety, and velocity by which the data was being made available, expecting a comprehensive,
field-wide analysis of injectivity performance would be very difficult and time-consuming with traditional forecasting and
analytics tools – such as simulation software. The complexity amplifies with the advancement in well completion/design
technologies and field development strategies that include drilling more non-conventional, maximum reservoir contact
(MRC) wells rather than conventional wells.

Knowledge Management Tool (AVAILS+): The knowledge management tool that is primarily used is called AVAILS+
which was developed as a part of a short-term forecasting initiative. It is an empirically-driven tool, deriving its forecast and
monitoring capabilities from observed reservoir and well-performance data, moving away from simulation-centric reservoir
forecasting methods (Al-Saad et al., 2013). The initiative is successfully implemented by engineers to perform a series of
analysis and empirical modeling on the diverse collection of data including injection pattern analysis as seen in the
operational indices close-up (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Operational Indices Close-up: AVAILS+ supports a suite of integrated, reservoir-focused analysis whose primary goal is to
determine the forecast assumptions and operational indices that will drive the annual production forecast (after Al-Saad et al., 2013).

The knowledge management (KM) tool AVAILS+ envelopes a variety of key data sources and provides the end-user with
statistical outputs in highly visual manner (dashboards). The empirically-driven data sets can be kept up to date in a timely
fashion while the interface allows for engineers to interact and filter, limit, or augment the data based on their insights. The
tool is developed on TIBCO Spotfire® software, a leading analytics software package providing a high degree of speed and
flexibility in data aggregation, relation, and transformation coupled with highly visual outputs (dashboards).
4 SPE 169587

To compliment this study, the KM tool enabled engineers to isolate subsets of injectivity performance by pattern or similar
clustered subsets of data (Fig. 3). By grouping and analyzing the data within these meaningful subsets allowed for deeper and
more robust analytics to be performed. The results of which could be cross-analyzed with other injection patterns (i.e., data
subsets) in order to gain a deeper understanding of the injection performance fundamentals.
FieldField

Well-01
Well-02
Well-03
Well-04
Well-05
Well-06
Well-07
Well-08
Well-09
Well-10

Figure 3: Selecting and reviewing pattern performance within the KM tool. The mashup of data coupled with logical hierarchies, such as date,
enable engineers to interact with, pivot, and analyze subsets of pattern performance in the field.

The KM tool contains all the field data which primarily includes the well names, locations and production/injection history
for this study. This tool, while keeping all the required data in an organized manner, also allocates well production/injection
to each injection pattern, based on pre-defined hypothetical pattern boundaries and location of the wells. To obtain the pattern
production volumes, well production volumes are allocated to the pattern(s) depending on its proximity to the pattern(s). This
allocation is rather simplistic that ignores deviations due to the heterogeneity in the reservoir. If the heterogeneity and
connectivity in the reservoir can be well-defined, a more accurate set of allocation factors of the produced volumes could be
determined through methods such as 3D streamline simulation (Thiele and Batycky, 2006). Fig. 4 illustrates the allocation
process for inverted water-injection patterns:
- If a producer is located on a boundary that belongs to only 1 pattern, %100 of the well produced volume is allocated
to that pattern (e.g., Well-1 - Pattern-1)
- If a producer is not located on a boundary but inside the hypothetical boundaries of a pattern, %100 of the well
produced volume is allocated to that pattern (e.g., Well-2 - Pattern-1)
- If a producer is located on a boundary that is shared between 2 patterns, 50% of the well produced volume is
allocated to one of the patterns and other 50% is allocated to the other pattern (e.g., Well-3 - Patterns 1 and 3)
- If a producer is located on a boundary that is shared between 4 patterns, 25% of the well produced volume is
allocated each of the 4 patterns (e.g., Well-4 - Patterns 1, 2, 3 and 4)

Well-1

Well-2

Pattern 1 Pattern 2

Well-4
Well-3

Legend
Producer
Pattern 3 Pattern 4
Injector

Pattern boundary

Figure 4: Allocation of well production to injection patterns based on their location with respect to the pre-defined pattern boundaries.
SPE 169587 5

Classical Reservoir Engineering Forecasting Methods. Water-oil-ratio (WOR) Extrapolation Method: There are many
extrapolation methods that supplement the decline curve analysis used in the industry. It was shown that when there are no
planned operational changes in a fully-developed waterflood, a plot of fractional water cut (fw) vs cumulative recovery (Np)
can be used to estimate ultimate recovery at a given economic water-cut (Ershaghi and Amoregie, 1978). Baker (1998) stated
that plotting water-oil-ratio (WOR) versus cumulative recovery for a given pattern or a group of patterns, and comparing it
with the average behavior of all patterns could give a qualititative indicator of volumetric sweep efficiency. Successful field
applications of the method were presented in the literature (e.g. Currier and Sindelar, 1990). Another variation of the same
approach is plotting the logarithm of the fractional flow of oil (fo) versus cumulative oil recovery (Np) which results in a
straight line for a producer under an established water flood (Bondar and Blasingame, 2002). In this study, latter form of the
plot is used to identify established trends for the pattern-based production. After plotting the logarithm of the fractional flow
of oil (fo) vs. cumulative recovery (Np), established trends are defined with an exponential equation in the form:

𝑓𝑜 = 𝑎𝑒 𝑏𝑁𝑃 (1)

After identifying the coefficients a and b the established exponential trend between log(fo) and Np the ultimate recovery can
be calculated by extrapolating the trend to a desired value of water cut (fw=1-fo).

Production Forecast with Constant or Declining Liquid Rate Constraints: Once establishing a reasonable trend using the
WOR extrapolation method, it can be used for forecasting future performance of a given injection pattern. Two possible
approaches include assuming 1) Constant liquid rate production, 2) Declining liquid rate production. Constant liquid rate is
useful when there are certain facility limits for liquids or the reservoir is produced at the desired off-take rate and operating
pressure. Another important assumption that lies under constant liquid production is that there is efficient pressure
maintenance around the injection pattern. This can be identified by looking at historical liquid production rate. Stable liquid
production indicates that pressure is maintained with water injection and the decline in oil rate is only due to increase in the
water production. However, if there is an observable decline in the liquid production rate as well, it shows that the pressure
is not maintained and the decline is due to both deteriorating pressure and increasing water production. Then, it is more
realistic to follow the second approach which takes into account the declining liquid rate in the reservoir. Both of the
approaches could be utilized for forecasting purposes but it is important to analyze historical performance to have an
understanding of the actual reservoir dynamics.

For the constant liquid rate forecast, first the liquid rate to be used for future forecast should be determined. This could be
either the stable historical liquid production rate, ql, of the pattern, or it could depend on certain facility limits, if there is any.
Using the last observed cumulative oil production value of the pattern, Npn, and the coefficients a and b of the exponential
trendline in Eqn. 1, fractional flow of oil, fo, and water, fw, can be estimated. Then, the oil and water flow rates can be
calculated using the following equations:

𝑞𝑜 = 𝑓𝑜 𝑞𝑙 (2)
𝑞𝑤 = 𝑓𝑤 𝑞𝑙 (3)

Finally, the cumulative oil recovery for next time step (e.g., next month), Np,n+1, can be calculated by adding the incremental
production using the estimated oil production rate in Eqn. 2, and multiplying it with the number of days in the month, m, to
account for the monthly cumulative production:

𝑁𝑝,𝑛+1 = 𝑁𝑝,𝑛 + 𝑚𝑞𝑜 (4)

Then, fo, fw, qo, and, qw are again calculated using the cumulative recovery at the new time step, Np,n+1. The forecast can
continue using the same procedure until the desired time of interest. When the forecast is completed, the oil rate, water rate,
and cumulative recovery vs. time forecasts are obtained. In this case, since the liquid rate is kept constant, the decline in the
oil rate is only due to increasing water production. In the case of the declining liquid rate, observed decline rate for the liquid
production is needed. This effective decline rate is determined by analyzing the historical liquid rate performance. Remaining
procedure is the same as the constant liquid rate forecast except using a declining liquid rate for each time step. The decline
observed in the oil rate is therefore a function of both the pressure decline and increasing water production.

Calculating Contributions to the Decline: Decline of the oil rate for the pattern under consideration would have two
components in natural water-drive or waterflooded reservoirs: 1) Decline due to decrease in pressure, 2) Decline due to
increasing water production. Depending on the conditions contribution of each of the two factors may differ. It is an
important reservoir management practice to characterize these contributions. As indicated above, two individual forecasts
6 SPE 169587

that consider either constant or declining liquid rate, capture different decline contributions. Constant liquid rate assumes that
pressure is maintained and the decline in the oil rate is only due to increasing water production. On the other hand, declining
liquid rate includes both the pressure decline, and increasing water production. Therefore, both forecasts can be used to
quantify the percentage contributions from each sources of decline. A simple way to calculate the decline contributions can
be followed by calculating the effective decline rate using the forecasted oil rates:

𝑞𝑜 ,𝑛 +1
𝐷 =1−
𝑞𝑜,𝑛 (5)

If we say that Dc is the effective decline rate of the forecast using constant liquid rate and, Dd is the effective decline rate of
the forecast using declining liquid rate, we can use these two decline rates to calculate the contributions. Since Dc includes
only the decline due to water contribution, and Dd includes both decline contributions; the percentage contributions of the
water production, Cw, and the pressure, Cp, can be approximated from:

𝐷𝑐
𝐶𝑤 = × 100 (6)
𝐷𝑑

𝐷𝑐
𝐶𝑝 = 1 − × 100 (7)
𝐷𝑑

Results and Discussion

Synthetic (Simulation) Case. To test the proposed methodology, a synthetic reservoir model is used in which 4 inverted 5-
spot water injection patterns are placed (9 producers, 4 injectors). The model grid structure is obtained from one of the
models provided by Computer Modeling Group (CMG-IMEX ® Reservoir Simulator). Some of the reservoir properties,
initialization, and well definitions are modified for this specific example. The reservoir is a heterogeneous reservoir and
undersaturated with an initial oil saturation of 0.88 and initial immobile water saturation of 0.12. There are around 4000
active grid blocks in the model with 28, 32, and 6 gridblocks in each direction, x, y, and z, respectively. Top of the structure,
location of wells, and hypothetical boundaries of injection patterns are shown in Fig. 5. Table 1 shows the contribution
percentages from each producer to each pattern (100%, 50%, or 25%). Again, it should be noted that this is a rather simplistic
approach for a heterogeneous reservoir with varying distances between injectors and producers. A more realistic set of
allocation factors could be determined and validated using other methods. These allocation factors only provide an
approximation to the performance of each pattern.

Figure 5: Structure top (ft), well locations and hypothetical pattern boundaries of the synthetic reservoir model.
SPE 169587 7

The schedule starts by drilling producers in a specific order to have a primary recovery period of 5 years. Producers come
online every 3 months with a maximum oil rate of 3000 STB/d and 350 psia bottom-hole pressure constraint. There is also a
field facility constraint of 10000 STB/d of liquid. After the primary recovery period, water injection starts by drilling
injectors at the centers of patterns again with a 1 well/3 months schedule. Injection constraints are maximum water injection
rate of 5000 STB/d and maximum bottomhole pressure of 5000 psia. The recovery with waterflooding continues for 10 years
which is also the duration of the analysis for the proposed methodology.

Pattern 1 (I1) Pattern 2 (I2) Pattern 3 (I3) Pattern 4 (I4)

Producer Contribution Producer Contribution Producer Contribution Producer Contribution
P8 100% P3 100% P2 100% P9 100%
P4, P6 50% P6, P5 50% P4, P7 50% P5, P7 50%
P1 25% P1 25% P1 25% P1 25%

Table 1: Contributions to the pattern production from each producer in the synthetic case.

To demonstrate the effect of heterogeneity in permeability in each layer, 3 cases were constructed with varying Dykstra-
Parsons coefficients of permeability variation of 0, 0.38 and 0.69. These models are defined as low, mid, and high,
respectively, in terms of the permeability heterogeneity. In the low case, permeability is constant in all layers (10 md), and
the variation increases in the mid case, and increases more in the high case with the Layer-5 having a permeability of 250 md.
The variation is applied by adding high-permeability layers to the reservoir to study the effects. Table 2 shows the horizontal
permeability and thickness distribution for all layers in the model.

Layer Average thickness (ft) Low-case perm (md) Mid-case perm (md) High-case perm (md)
1 21 10 5 5
2 23 10 10 10
3 45 10 50 50
4 30 10 10 10
5 43 10 5 250
6 19 10 5 5

Table 2: Layer thickness and permeability distributions of the synthetic model for low-, mid- and high-heterogeneity cases.

As the first step of the methodology outlined in the previous section, pattern-based recoveries are calculated using the
contribution percentages shown in Table 1 after running the model for 15 years of primary recovery and waterflooding
period. Annual oil and water production volumes are used to calculate the annual average oil-cut values to construct oil-cut
vs. recovery plots. In Fig. 6, log(fo) vs. Np plot for an example pattern in the synthetic case is presented for different
heterogeneity cases. As seen in the graph, variation in the permeability affects the recovery performance for a given pattern in
terms of the ultimate recovery when the trends are extrapolated to an oil-cut of 0.05. The shapes of trends are different and it
can be noted in the plot that an earlier water breakthrough is observed in the high case, due to the 250 md layer introduced. It
is also observed that while the trend is established immediately after the water breakthrough for the homogenous (low) case,
it takes a while for the appropriate trends to be established for the mid and high cases. This highlights the importance of
characterizing heterogeneities in the reservoir as the degree of heterogeneity may have a significant impact on the
performance of injection patterns.
Low Mid High

0.50
fo

High Mid Low

0.05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Np, MMSTB

Figure 6: Log(fo) vs. Np Trends established and extrapolated for an injection pattern for low-, mid-, and high-heterogeneity cases.
8 SPE 169587

Fig. 7 shows the trends for all patterns for the mid-case. This kind of analysis provide with an opportunity to compare
patterns with each other and identify underperforming, problematic patterns. After identifying the exponential trends, the
coefficients of Eqn. 1, a and b are obtained which define the log(fo) vs. Np relationship for each pattern. For each pattern, and
for each case of the synthetic model, these coefficients are listed in Table 3. After analyzing the historical average rate of the
liquid rate and its decline behavior, forecasts for the constant and declining liquid rates are obtained. Fig. 8 shows the 2-year
forecasts for Pattern-3 for the mid-heterogeneity case, as an example. This pattern was characterized with stable liquid rate
that results in a very small difference in the oil rate (~22 STB/d) between constant and declining liquid rate forecasts. After
obtaining forecasts, the decline contributions are calculated using the declines observed in the oil rate within 12 months of
time in both forecasts. Using Eqns. 5, 6 and 7, the decline contribution percentages shown in Fig. 9 are calculated. By
looking at these contribution charts, it is possible to identify patterns that are affected more by deteriorating reservoir
pressure, or more by water that has broken through.
Pattern-1 Pattern-2 Pattern-3 Pattern-4

0.50
fo

Pattern-3
Pattern-2 Pattern-1 Pattern-4
0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Np, MMSTB
Figure 7: Log(fo) vs. Np Trends established and extrapolated for 4 patterns pattern for the mid case.

Table 3: Coefficients for the exponential fit obtained for the pattern behavior in the synthetic case.

Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4

a -0.036 -0.047 -0.029 -0.025
LOW
b 1.431 1.592 1.315 1.313
a -0.034 -0.057 -0.026 -0.027
MID
b 1.278 1.537 1.149 1.146
a -0.023 -0.057 -0.043 -0.065
HIGH
b 1.020 1.076 1.257 1.440

Pattern-3
1700 0.270
Oil Rate (decline due to water)
1690 Oil Rate (decline due to pressure and water)
Water Cut (constant liq. rate) 0.265
1680 Water Cut (declining liq. rate)
Oil rate, STB/d

Water Cut

1670 0.260
1660
0.255
1650
1640 0.250
1630
0.245
1620
1610 0.240
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time, months
Figure 8: Oil rate and water cut estimations for the duration of 2 years using constant and declining liquid rates for Pattern-3 in the mid-case.
SPE 169587 9

LOW MID HIGH

Pattern 1
Pattern 2
Pattern 3
Pattern 4

Figure 9: Contributions of pressure and water to the overall decline of oil rate in each pattern for each synthetic model case.

Real Case. In this part of the study, a region with 4 inverted injection patterns are considered from a field in the Middle East
that has around 12 years of waterflooding history. The carbonate reservoir has heterogeneous permeability distribution with
thief zones that is believed to affect the waterflooding performance significantly. Characterizing thief zones in the reservoir
model such that water movement in the reservoir is represented is a challenging process. Therefore, it is very important to
validate the reservoir model as much as possible with other methods such as rather simplistic reservoir engineering methods
that rely on observed data. In this paper, we focus on the collaborative knowledge management-reservoir engineering
workflow presented above by highlighting its practicality for a real case.

In Fig. 10, the map of the injectors and producers in the patterns with defined boundaries is shown. Considering the defined
pattern boundaries, the production from the surrounding producers are allocated using the proportional distribution explained
in the previous sections. Then, annual pattern oil and water production volumes are calculated accordingly. Established oil
cut vs. cumulative recovery plots for these patterns are shown in Fig. 11. These fitted behaviors are described with Eqn. 1
with coefficients a and b. These coefficients obtained for each pattern are shown in Table 4. These fitted behaviors are
extrapolated to the water cut of 0.95 (or oil cut of 0.05) to estimate ultimate recovery (Np) as shown in Fig. 11. Another
useful application of this approach is to estimate ultimate recovery factors. Cumulative productions can be also represented as
10 SPE 169587

recovery factors if it is possible to estimate the original oil in place of the bounded volume of a given pattern. Fig. 12 shows
the extrapolation plot for all patterns with the recovery factor on the x-axis. This gives a clear understanding of the ultimate
recovery factors for each pattern and their comparison with each other. Another useful analysis can be accomplished when
the estimated ultimate recoveries or recovery factors are shown as a bubble map (Fig. 12). This would provide a regional
overview of individual pattern performances. The ultimate recovery values and recovery factors at the water cut of 95% are
tabulated in Table 5. These forecasts highlighted the optimistic nature of the dated full-field, history-matched simulation
model which provides higher recovery factors than 12%-24% range obtained both for the field in general and for the studied
patterns.

The established trends are then used to estimate the future performance of each pattern. To achieve this, two options are
considered: constant and declining liquid rate. As explained in the Methodology section, constant liquid-rate forecast is for
patterns which are well maintained in terms of pressure, but suffer from increasing water production. On the other hand,
declining liquid-rate also captures the declining reservoir pressure. In this kind of patterns, it is important to understand the
contributions of increasing water production and pressure decline to the overall decline in the oil production. Therefore, these
contributions are also calculated for the forecasted rates.

5000
Producers
P3
4500
Injectors
4000

3500

3000
P2
Y, m

2500
P4
2000

1500

1000

500
P1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
X, m
Figure 10: Map of injectors and producers and hypothetical pattern boundaries for the area considered in the real case.

In this example, the last record of liquid production rate is assumed to be constant during the forecast for the constant-decline
rate forecast. This value can also be set as the facility constraint for the handling of the daily liquid volume. For the declining
liquid-rate forecast, recent averaged liquid rate records are considered to characterize the amount of decline for the pattern.
This decline rate gives an indication of the expected pressure decline in the pattern with current practices. When we analyzed
the recent observed performance, it is observed that the produced liquid rate for Pattern-1 has been constantly declining (Fig.
13) and the liquid rate for other three patterns have been stable. The effective exponential decline rate for Pattern-1 was
estimated as 0.12. This decline rate is used to forecast the performance with declining liquid rate. In other patterns, due to the
stable liquid rates, a decline rate of 0.001 is used as a generic decline rate to represent the much less amount of pressure
decline.

Starting with the last production record, future recoveries were estimated by using the pattern production trend that was
obtained using the WOR extrapolation method. Fig. 14 shows these estimations for the duration of 2 years for the oil rate and
the water cut. It is seen in these plots that in Pattern-1, including the declining liquid rate makes a significant change in the
forecast. This is due to the observed decline in the liquid production rate from this pattern. In all other patterns, because of
the stable liquid production rate, constant or declining liquid rates do not differ much from each other.

After obtaining these forecasts, effective annual decline rates are calculated for each pattern’s forecast using Eqn. 5.
Assuming that this decline rate would include only the decline due to increasing water production for the constant-liquid rate
forecast, and also that it would include the total decline due to water and pressure for the declining-liquid rate forecast, these
individual contributions are calculated using Eqns. 6 and 7. Fig. 15 shows these distributions for the four patterns under
consideration. Because of the much higher decline rate observed in the liquid rate of Pattern-1, forecasted rates indicate that
SPE 169587 11

90% of the decline would be due to the pressure decline. Other patterns (Patterns 2, 3, and 4) were not experiencing an
observable decline rate in recent years. Therefore, this was reflected in their declining liquid rate forecast by using a
relatively low decline rate of 0.001. This resulted in pressure-related decline in the range of 8-16%, with the majority of the
decline is due to increasing water production. This approach allows to quantify these contributions, and therefore to compare
individual patterns with each other to identify most problematic injection pattern(s) and source of the problem in a broad
manner.

a) Pattern-1 b) Pattern-2

0.50 0.50

fo
fo

y = 0.8803e-0.062x y = 1.0079e-0.039x
0.05 0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Np, MMSTB Np, MMSTB

c) Pattern-3 d) Pattern-4

0.50 0.50
fo
fo

y = 1.0193e-0.064x y = 0.9396e-0.08x
0.05 0.05
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Np, MMSTB Np, MMSTB

Figure 11: Capturing pattern performance using log(fo) vs. Np plot and extrapolating the observed behavior to estimate ultimate recovery at
water-cut of 95%.

Table 4: Coefficients for the exponential fit obtained for the pattern behavior in the real case.

Pattern 1 Pattern 2 Pattern 3 Pattern 4

a -0.062 -0.039 -0.064 -0.080
b 0.880 1.008 1.019 0.940

Table 5: Forecasted cumulative oil production and recovery factors for each pattern.

MMSTB
Pattern Np @ fo=0.05 RF @ fo=0.05
1 45.9 17%
2 76.1 24%
3 47.0 20%
4 36.7 12%
12 SPE 169587

Pattern 1
Pattern 2
Pattern 3
Pattern 4
0.50
fo

Pattern-4 Pattern-1 Pattern-3 Pattern-2

0.05
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Recovery Factor

Figure 12: Capturing pattern performance using log(fo) vs. recovery factor plot and extrapolating the observed behavior to estimate ultimate
recovery at water cut of 95%. Visualizing regional pattern performance using a bubble map.

15000
Actual
14500 Decline fit
Liquid rate, STB/d

14000
13500
13000
12500
12000
11500
11000
10500
10000
10 11 11 12 12
Time, years

Figure 13: Liquid rate vs. time for Pattern-1 during the last 3 years.

Conclusions
A practical methodology is presented to estimate future performance of waterflooding patterns. The methodology
incorporates classical reservoir engineering forecasting methods with a practical knowledge management tool to analyze
performances of individual patterns. The knowledge management tool allowed grouping and analyzing the patterns so that
deeper and more robust analytics were performed. The methodology is demonstrated for a synthetic reservoir model, and a
real case for a reservoir in the Middle East.

The main characteristic of the study is that it focuses on injection patterns through hypothetical-boundary definitions, and
approximating pattern-based cumulative volumes, while most of the studies presented in the literature focuses on individual
wells, injector/producer pairs, or the field. Using patterns in the analysis provides the opportunity to focus on the problem at a
scale that is in between broader field-based scale and localized well-based scale. This helps to identify problems such as
injectivity problems or artificial lift problems related to patterns so that required actions can be prioritized and taken. Another
aspect of the study is its predictive ability using either constant or declining liquid rates. This allows implementing different
artificial lift conditions, or facility constraints in the field. It is believed that presented workflow can be utilized efficiently by
asset teams in a collaborative manner and result in significant value creation by optimizing strategies related to injection
patterns. The methodology could also serve as a process to set clear objectives for more detailed numerical simulation studies
for the reservoir under consideration.

One of the limitations of this methodology is the challenge associated with determining the fractions used to allocate
production from wells. While an approach like the one presented in this paper could be followed which distributes the
volumes based on locations of wells, a more accurate distribution of volumes can be estimated using methods such as 3D
streamline simulation. Another limitation is that in reservoirs where the recovery mechanism is mostly by expansion due to
large pressure declines (~1000 psia), rather optimistic results may be obtained in terms of the water displacement efficiency.
Therefore, it very is important to understand the reservoir drive mechanisms before interpreting the results of the study.
SPE 169587 13

a) Pattern-1
4000 0.75

3500

3000 0.70

Oil rate, bopd

Water cut
2500

2000 0.65

1500

1000 Water Cut (Constant liquid rate) 0.60

Water Cut (Declining liquid rate)
500 Oil Rate (Decline due to water)
Oil Rate (Decline due to water and pressure)
0 0.55
1 6 11 16 21
Time, months
b) Pattern-2
10000 0.57
Water Cut (Constant liquid rate)
9000
Water Cut (Declining liquid rate) 0.56
8000 Oil Rate (Decline due to water)
Oil rate, bopd

7000 Oil Rate (Decline due to water and pressure) 0.55

Water cut
6000
0.54
5000
0.53
4000
3000 0.52
2000
0.51
1000
0 0.50
1 6 11 16 21
Time, months
c) Pattern-3
7000 0.75

6000 0.70

0.65
5000
Oil rate, bopd

Water cut
0.60
4000
0.55
3000
0.50
2000 Water Cut (Constant liquid rate)
Water Cut (Declining liquid rate) 0.45
1000 Oil Rate (Decline due to water) 0.40
Oil Rate (Decline due to water and pressure)
0 0.35
1 6 11 16 21
Time, months

d) Pattern-4
4000 0.75

3500

3000 0.70
Oil rate, bopd

Water cut

2500

2000 0.65

1500

1000 Water Cut (Constant liquid rate) 0.60

Water Cut (Declining liquid rate)
500 Oil Rate (Decline due to water)
Oil Rate (Decline due to water and pressure)
0 0.55
1 6 11 16 21
Time, months

Figure 14: Oil rate and water-cut estimations for the next 2 years using constant and declining liquid rates for all patterns in the real case.
14 SPE 169587

a) Pattern-1 b) Pattern-2
10% 16%

90% 84%

c) Pattern-3 d) Pattern-4

8% 13%

92% 87%

Figure 15: Contribution distributions to the overall decline of oil rate in each pattern in the real case.

Nomenclature

Variables Subscripts
C Decline contribution c Constant liquid rate forecast
D Effective decline rate, 1/time d Declining liquid rate forecast
N Oil volume in stock-tank conditions, STB l Liquid
a, b Exponential trend coefficients n Timestep
f Fractional flow o Oil
q Flow rate, STB/d p Pressure (Decline rate contribution)
m Number of days in the month Produced (Oil volume)
w Water

References
Al-Saad, B., Murray, P., Vanderhaeghen, M., Yannimaras, D., Naime, R.K. (2013). Development and implementation of the
AVAILS+ collaborative forecasting tool for production assurance in the Kuwait Oil Company, North Kuwait (KOC NK). In
Proceedings of the SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 7-10 October, Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Aminian, K., Bilgesu, H.I., Ameri, S., Gil, E. (2000). Improving the simulation of waterflood performance. SPE 65630. In
Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. 17-19 October, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Arps, J.J. (1945). Analysis of decline curves. SPE 945228-G. Trans. AIME, 160(1):228-247.

Baker, R. (1998). Reservoir management for waterfloods – Part II. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
37(1):12-17.

Behounek, M. (2003). Five elements for successful knowledge management. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 42(4):12-14.

Bondar, V., Blasingame, T. (2002). Analysis and interpretation of water-oil-ratio performance. SPE 77569. In Proceedings of
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 29 September-2 October, San Antonio, Texas.
SPE 169587 15

Can, B., Kabir, C. S. (2012). Simple tools for forecasting reservoir performance. SPE 156956. In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition Proceedings, 8-10 October, San Antonio, Texas.

Chapman, L., Thompson, R. (1989). Waterflood surveillance in the Kuparuk River Unit with computerized pattern analysis.
SPE 17429. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 41(3):277-282.

Craig, F. (1973). Engineering waterfloods for improved oil recovery. SPE 4425. SPE Distinguished Lecture.

Crawford, (1960). Factors affecting waterflood pattern performance and selection. SPE 1503-G. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 12(12):11-15.

Currier, J., Sindelar, S. (1990). Performance analysis in an immature waterflood: The Kuparuk River Field. SPE 20775. In
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition. 23-26 September, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Di Julio, S. (1993) North Vickers East waterflood performance prediction with fractal geostatistics. SPE Formation
Evaluation, 8(2):89-95.

Ershaghi, I., Omorigie, O. (1978). A method for extrapolation of cut vs recovery curves. SPE 6977. Journal of Petroleum
Technology. 30(2):203-204

Fedenczuk, L., Hoffmann, K., Fedenczuk, T. (2002). Predicting water flood responses with decision trees. PETSOC-2002-
028. In Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference of the Petroleum Society. 11-13 June, Calgary,
Alberta.

Hiatt, W.N. (1968). Simplified performance calculation for pattern waterfloods in stratified reservoirs. SPE 2007. In
Proceedings of the SPE-AIME 39th California Fall Meeting. 7-8 November, Bakersfield, California.

Higgins, R.V., Leighton, A.J. (1963). Waterflood prediction of partially depleted reservoirs. SPE 757. In Proceedings of the
SPE California Regional Meeting. 24-25 October, Santa Barbara, California.

Higgins, R.V., Boley, D.W., Leighton, A.J. (1966). Prediction of water floods by graphs. SPE 1456. In Proceedings of the
SPE-AIME Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting. 23-24 May, Denver, Colorado.

Khan, A.M. (1971). An empirical approach to water flood predictions. SPE 2931. Journal of Petroleum Technology.
23(5):565-573.

Mohaghegh, S., Ameri, S., Aminian, K., Chatterjee, U. (1993). Performance evaluation of water flood project in Southern
West Virginia. SPE 26937. In Proceedings of SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, 2-4 November, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

Nikravesh, M., Kovscek, A.R., Murer, A.S., Patzek, T.W. (1997). Neural networks for field-wise waterflood management in
low permeability, fractured oil reservoirs. SPE 35721 . In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional Meeting. 22-24 May,
Anchorage, Alaska.

Popa, A., Sivakumar, K., Cassidy, S. (2012). Associative data modeling and ant colony optimization approach for waterflood
analysis. SPE 154302. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional Meeting. 19-23 March, Bakersfield, California.

Sayarpour, M., Zuluaga, E., Kabir, C.S., Lake, L.W., (2009) The use of capacitance–resistance models for rapid estimation of
waterflood performance and optimization. J. Pet. Sci. Eng, 69(3):227–238.
Thiele, M.R., Batycky, R.P. (2006). Using streamline-derived injection efficiencies for improved waterflood management.
SPE 84080-PA. SPEREE, 9(2):187-196.
Thomas, J., Driscoll, V. (1973). A modeling approach for optimizing waterflood performance, Slaughter Field Chickenwire
Pattern. SPE 4070. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 25(7):757-763.

Tompang, R., Kelkar, B. (1988). Prediction of water flood performance in stratified reservoirs. SPE 17289. In Proceedings of
the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, 10-11 March, Midland, Texas.