PETE 323-Reservoir

Models

Spring, 2001

11/11/18 1
 MBE to estimate N and U-
Water drive case

 Commonly used
 Most computationally intensive
 Ideally suited to spreadsheets
 Usually assumes m known and that
cw and cf insignificant

11/11/18 2
 MBE to estimate N and U-
Water drive case
 (Bo  Boi )  (R si  R s )Bg Bg 
  m(  1) 
B B
N p (Bo  (R p  R s )Bg )  NBoi  
oi gi

 c w Swc  c f 
 (m  1)( ) p 
 1  S wc 

 (We  Wp )B w General Form of Schilthuis equation

We changes with time and

pressure. We can be approximated by Uf(p,t)

N is constant.

11/11/18 3
 MBE to estimate N and U-
Water drive case

Ignoring cf and cw N p (B o  (R p  R s )B g )  Wp B w
N
 (B o  B oi )  (R si  R s )B g Bg 
and letting We = Uf(p,t)
  m(  1) 
B oi  B oi B gi 
 

y  a  bx U * B w f ( p, t )
 (B o  B oi )  (R si  R s )B g Bg 
  m(  1)
B oi  B oi B gi 
 

11/11/18 4
 Fractional flow curve
Swet krw kro fw
0.2 0 1 0
0.25 0.000977 0.826446 0.032659  w 0.7    20 Sor= 0.25 Swi= 0.2
0.3 0.002864 0.669421 0.108916
0.35 0.006498 0.528926 0.259809
0.4 0.0128 0.404959 0.474539 Rel. Perm and fw
0.45 0.022923 0.297521 0.687632
0.5 0.038273 0.206612 0.841084
0.55 0.060526 0.132231 0.928967 1
0.6 0.091641 0.07438 0.972377 0.9
0.65 0.13388 0.033058 0.991432
0.8
0.7 0.189816 0.008264 0.998478
0.75 0.26235 0 1 0.7
Kr and fw

0.6
0.5 fw
0.4
0.3
Slope of fractional 0.2
flow curve
0.1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Sw

11/11/18 5
 Frontal Advance Concepts

Average Sw from x=0 to x=L

Point A

Craig Ch 3 -- see interpretation

of fractional flow curve
after water breakthrough

Sw at x=L

11/11/18 6
 Frontal Advance Calculations

 Draw fw curve from rel. perm.

 Construct straight line from Swi to
point A
 This determines breakthrough Sw
and average Sw.
 Slope of fw curve at point A gives
Wi in pore volumes

11/11/18 7
 Frontal Advance-- at
Breakthrough
Example:
Fractional flow curve
 w 0.7    20
Swet krw kro fw
0.2 0 1 0 1
0.25 0.000977 0.826446 0.032659
0.9
0.3 0.002864 0.669421 0.108916
0.35 0.006498 0.528926 0.259809
0.8
0.4 0.0128 0.404959 0.474539
0.45 0.022923 0.297521 0.687632 0.7
0.5 0.038273 0.206612 0.841084
0.55 0.060526 0.132231 0.928967 0.6
0.6 0.091641 0.07438 0.972377
0.65 0.13388 0.033058 0.991432 0.5 fw
fw

0.7 0.189816 0.008264 0.998478

0.75 0.26235 0 1 0.4

Swave at BT = 56% 0.3

0.2
Sw at x=L at BT = 46%
0.1

Recovery factor at BT = 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(Save-Swi)/(1-Swi) = Sw

(.56-.2)/(1-.2) = 0.45 (45%)

fw =.74
11/11/18 8
 Frontal Advance-- after
Breakthrough
Fractional flow curve
Point A= BT
Point B slope =1.0, 1
Swave=0.58, RF =47.5% D
0.95
Wi = 1 PV,fw=0.83 C
0.9

Point C slope = .90 0.85

Swave=0.62, RF = 52.5% fw fw
0.8
B
Wi = 1/.9= 1.11 PV,fw=.94
0.75
A
Point D slope = 0.24 0.7

Swave=0.68, RF = 60%
0.65
Wi = 1/.24 = 4.16 PV,fw=.99 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Sw

11/11/18 9
 Frontal Advance-- after
Breakthrough
Frontal advance calculations

120

RF fw WOR Wi
47.5 0.83 4.882353 1 100

52.5 0.94 15.66667 1.11 80

60 0.99 99 4.16

WOR
60

40

20

0
40 45 50 55 60 65
recovery factor-RF

11/11/18 10
 Buckley Leverett comments
 Theory useful to understand details of
immiscible displacement
 Transition zone is actually very small in
real reservoir situations
 Actual waterflood performance often
depends more on reservoir
heterogenieties and well configuration
than on relative permeabilities and
viscosities!

11/11/18 11
 Mobility ratio--Craig Ch 4
ko
Mobility of oil  ahead of the shock front
o
kw
Mobility of water  at S w
w
Note that different authors use different definitions for
mobility of the displacing phase. Craig uses the mobility at the average displacing
phase saturation behind the front!
kw
w
M  Mobility ratio 
ko
o

Injected water
o il
w a te r
Transition

11/11/18 12
 Predicting Waterflood
Performance
 Large number of methods
 Each has severe limitations
 Use idealized reservoirs and operating
conditions
 Will look at three traditional methods:

Stiles
Dykstra-Parsons
Craig-Geffen-Morse

11/11/18 13
 Stiles Method
 Assumes that the reservoir is linear and
layered with no cross-flow.
 All layers have the same porosity,
relative permeability, initial and residual
oil saturations.
 Transition zone length is zero (piston-
like)
 Layers may have different thicknesses
and absolute permeabilities

11/11/18 14
 Stiles Method
 Probably the most limiting assumption is
that the distance of the advance of the
flood front is proportional to the
absolute permeability of the layer.
 This is assumption is only true if the
mobility ratio is =1.
 Nevertheless, the Stiles method is useful
in the fairly common case where M ~ 1

11/11/18 15
 Stiles Method
Lowest k
ith layer

Water in Water and

oil out

hi = thickness of ith
Vertical slice of reservoir layer
ki= absolute
Highest k
permeability of ith
layer

11/11/18 16
 Stiles Method
Re-order layers:

Natural layering Highest permeability layer on

top,lowest on bottom.
Number layers from highest
permeability to lowest.

Highest permeability layer breaks thorough first, then second highest, etc.

11/11/18 17
 Stiles Method
n layers, with permeabilities k1
(highest), k2,…..kn (lowest)
The thicknesses of the n layers are
h1, h2,….. hn

Total physically recoverable oil (STB)

= W*So**H*L/(5.614*Bo)
W=reservoir width-ft
so = change in oil saturation
-porosity, pore vol./bulk vol.
H=total reservoir thickness, ft
L=reservoir length,ft
Bo-oil formation volume factor, res
vol/sur.vol.
11/11/18 18
 Stiles Method
Example: seven layered reservoir

absolute k-md thickness-ft

210 20
190 12
70 5
50 7
30 15
10 30
3 18

11/11/18 19
 Stiles Method
Mathematical development:
At the time, Tj, that the jth layer has broken through, all of the
physically recoverable oil will have been recovered for that layer and
from all layers having higher permeability.
Since the velocities of the flood fronts in each layer are proportional
to the absolute permeabilities in the layers, the fractional recovery at
Tj in the j+1th layer will be

kk
kj
In the above example, the fractional recovery in layer 2 at the time layer 1
has broken through (Tj) will be
190/210 =0.9047619048. That is, over 90% of layer 2 will be flooded out.

11/11/18 20
 Stiles Method
j n
Flooded
portion 
i 1
hi   i  j 1
hi *
ki
kj
R j  R(T j )  n

 h i 1
i
Partially flooded
portion
n j

ht   h ,
i 1
i hj   hi 1
i Total

hj 
1
kj  h * k
i  j 1
i i

R j  R (T j ) 
ht

11/11/18 21
 Stiles Method
qw  Means at time Tj
fw ( T j ) 
qw  q o

1.127Wp j
 hi  kw i
 w Bw L i 1

1.127Wp j 1.127Wp n
 hi  kw i   hi  ko i
 w Bw L i 1  o Bo L i  j 1

j
 hi  kw i
i 1
 B
 w w
j n
 hi  kw i  h  ko
i i
i 1 i  j 1

 B  B
w w o o
11/11/18 22
 Stiles Method
Replacing all kw' s and ko' s with k * krw and k * kro, respectively,
 krwB
and defining A  o o
 kroB
w w
j
A  h * k
i i
f (T )  i  1
w j j n
A  h * k   h * k
i i i i
i 1 i  j 1
j
The term  h * k is the cumulative reservoir capacity of all layers producing only water.
i i
i 1
n
The term  h * k is the cumulative reservoir capacity of all layers producing only oil.
i i
i  j 1

11/11/18 23
 Stratified Reservoirs -
Stiles Method
Absolute k-md Thickness-ft
210 20
190 12
70 5
50 7
30 15
10 30
3 18
j n
Ki
 hi   hi 
Kj
Rj  R  t j  
i 1 i  j 1
n

 h i
11/11/18 i 1 24
 Stratified Reservoirs -
Stiles Method
Exercise using Stiles method
Bw = 1.02 krw = 0.35
Bo = 1.37 kro = 0.93
w = 0.6 cp
o = 0.83 cp
Recoverable oil= 100,000 STB
A= 0.699249772

Layer absolute k-md h h kh  kh R at bt Np-STB fw

1 210 20 20 4200 4200 0.3553 35532 0.4370
2 190 12 32 2280 6480 0.3730 37304 0.7508
3 70 5 37 350 6830 0.4999 49987 0.8054
4 50 7 44 350 7180 0.5615 56150 0.8620
5 30 15 59 450 7630 0.6617 66168 0.9378
6 10 30 89 300 7930 0.8822 88224 0.9904
7 3 18 107 54 7984 1.0000 100000 1.0000

11/11/18 25
 Stratified Reservoirs -
Stiles Method
Stiles Method

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
fw

0.60
0.50
0.40
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Np

11/11/18 26
 Stratified Reservoirs -
Johnson Methods

R  1  Sw   0.15 V  0.54
0.15 M  1.8
R  0 .27 Sw  0.45
1  0.45

11/11/18 27
 Stratified Reservoirs -
Johnson Methods

11/11/18 28
 Stiles Method
Stiles method as presented above does not allow for fill-up due
to the presence of gas.
Since it is linear, it does not account for complex flooding
geometry.
Stiles is often used together with other methods to correct for
geometry and areal sweep. These combination methods also take
time into account by considering water injection rate.

qo

Time

11/11/18 29