PET 502: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING 111 2023/2024 LECTURE NOTES

CONTENTS

1. Secondary recovery: water injection

2. Sweep efficiency: Stiles methods and Dykstra-Parsons method.

1. Secondary Recovery

Introduction

The terms primary oil recovery, secondary oil recovery, and tertiary (enhanced) oil recovery are
traditionally used to describe hydrocarbons recovered according to the method of production or
the time at which they are obtained. Primary oil recovery describes the production of hydrocarbons
under the natural driving mechanisms present in the reservoir without supplementary help from
injected fluids such as gas or water. In most cases, the natural driving mechanism is a relatively
inefficient process and results in a low overall oil recovery. The lack of sufficient natural drive in
most reservoirs has led to the practice of supplementing the natural reservoir energy by introducing
some form of artificial drive, the most basic method being the injection of gas or water. Secondary
oil recovery refers to the additional recovery that results from the conventional methods of water
injection and immiscible gas injection. Usually, the selected secondary recovery process follows
the primary recovery but it can also be conducted concurrently with the primary recovery.
Waterflooding is perhaps the most common method of secondary recovery. However, before
undertaking a secondary recovery project, it should be clearly proven that the natural recovery
processes are insufficient; otherwise there is a risk that the substantial capital investment required
for a secondary recovery project may be wasted. Tertiary (enhanced) oil recovery is that additional
recovery over and above what could be recovered by primary and secondary recovery methods.
Various methods of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) are essentially designed to recover oil,
commonly described as residual oil, left in the reservoir after both primary and secondary recovery
methods have been exploited to their respective economic limits. Figure 1.1 illustrates the concept
of the three oil recovery categories.

1 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.1: Oil Recovery Categories

Water Injection/Waterflooding

Water injection or water flooding is a secondary hydrocarbon recovery technique where produced
water, treated or demineralized water, or freshwater is injected into a well’s formation under high
pressure and temperature conditions to recover more of the oil initially in place (OIIP).

The importance of water injection

In an oil reservoir the fluids (water, oil or gas) which occupy the empty spaces or pores in the rocks
are at static equilibrium due to the action of the forces of pressure and gravity, and the capillary
force. When production is started by the producer wells, this induces a movement of the fluids in
place which are then transferred from the pores to the surface. Forces of inertia (low) and viscous
frictions then appear. This fluid movement requires physical driving phenomena. The natural
drives or those which are potentially part of the reservoir are:

2 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

  The single-phase expansions of the reservoir rock and of the fluids: gas, undersaturated oil
or water accompanying a pressure drop,
 The expansion of the gases dissolved in the oil, if the pressure falls below the bubble point,
 The expansion of an aquifer under the accumulation,
 The expansion of a gas cap,
 Imbibition (the water drives out the oil).

Except in the case of gases or of the presence of an active aquifer (fed from the exterior), the
natural recovery rates obtained are low (20 to 25 %). In addition, the production falls as the
pressure drops. Although we can assist the fluids to rise up in the tubings (activated by pumping
or gas lift), there are major disadvantages in terms of recovery if a reservoir is allowed to become
depleted. Injecting water into the reservoir allows the pressure to be maintained. This is known as
assisted recovery, sometimes also called "secondary recovery". The injection of water (drawn
from a source other than the reservoir itself), or the re-injection of water associated with the crude
after separation, is the most commonly used assisted recovery process (80 % to 85 % additional
oil produced).

Water injection will very often be used in the following cases:

 low energy oil reservoir: undersaturated oil, aquifer relatively inactive or of negligible
volume,
 low permeability oil reservoir
 oil reservoir with a geometrical configuration such that the natural water entries leave large
unswept zones.

The aim of water injection is to optimize production and increase the recovery by:

 maintaining the pressure,

 sweeping the oil in place.

3 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Figure 1.2: Water injection in oil well

Factors to Consider in Waterflooding

The decision to implement a waterflood development largely lies with the reservoir engineer. In
planning a waterflood project the following reservoir characteristics must be considered:

 Reservoir geometry
 Fluid properties
 Reservoir depth
 Lithology and rock properties
 Fluid saturations
 Reservoir uniformity and pay continuity
 Primary reservoir driving mechanisms

Each of these topics is discussed in detail in the following subsections.

Reservoir Geometry
The areal geometry of the reservoir will influence the location of wells and, if offshore, will
influence the location and number of platforms required. The reservoir’s geometry will essentially

4 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

dictate the methods by which a reservoir can be produced through water-injection practices. An
analysis of reservoir geometry and past reservoir performance is often important when defining
the presence and strength of a natural water drive and, thus, when defining the need to supplement
the natural injection. If a water-drive reservoir is classified as an active water drive, injection may
be unnecessary.

Fluid Properties

The physical properties of the reservoir fluids have pronounced effects on the suitability of a given
reservoir for further development by waterflooding. The viscosity of the crude oil is considered
the most important fluid property that affects the degree of success of a waterflooding project. The
oil viscosity has the important effect of determining the mobility ratio that, in turn, controls the
sweep efficiency. High oil viscosity leads to unstable displacement front and unfavorable
microscopic sweep.

Reservoir Depth

Reservoir depth has an important influence on both the technical and economic aspects of a
secondary or tertiary recovery project. Maximum injection pressure will increase with depth. The
costs of lifting oil from very deep wells will limit the maximum economic water–oil ratios that can
be tolerated, thereby reducing the ultimate recovery factor and increasing the total project
operating costs. On the other hand, a shallow reservoir imposes a restraint on the injection pressure
that can be used, because this must be less than fracture pressure. In waterflood operations, there
is a critical pressure (approximately 1 psi/ft of depth) that, if exceeded, permits the injecting water
to expand openings along fractures or to create fractures. This results in the channeling of the
injected water or the bypassing of large portions of the reservoir matrix. Consequently, an
operational pressure gradient of 0.75 psi/ft of depth normally is allowed to provide a sufficient
margin of safety to prevent pressure parting.

Lithology and Rock Properties

Thomas et al. (1989) pointed out that lithology has a profound influence on the efficiency of water
injection in a particular reservoir. Reservoir lithology and rock properties that affect flood ability
and success are:

• Porosity

• Permeability

• Clay content

• Net thickness

5 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 In some complex reservoir systems, only a small portion of the total porosity, such as fracture
porosity, will have sufficient permeability to be effective in water-injection operations. In these
cases, a water-injection program will have only a minor impact on the matrix porosity, which
might be crystalline, granular, or vugular in nature. Although evidence suggests that the clay
minerals present in some sands may clog the pores by swelling and deflocculating when
waterflooding is used, no exact data are available as to the extent to which this may occur. Tight
(low-permeability) reservoirs or reservoirs with thin net thickness possess water-injection
problems in terms of the desired water injection rate or pressure. Note that the water-injection rate
and pressure are roughly related by the following expression:

The above relationship suggests that to deliver a desired daily injection rate of iw in a tight or thin
reservoir, the required injection pressure might exceed the formation fracture pressure.

Fluid Saturations

In determining the suitability of a reservoir for waterflooding, a high oil saturation that provides a
sufficient supply of recoverable oil is the primary criterion for successful flooding operations. Note
that higher oil saturation at the beginning of flood operations increases the oil mobility that, in
turn, gives higher recovery efficiency.

Reservoir Uniformity and Pay Continuity

Substantial reservoir uniformity is one of the major physical criteria for successful waterflooding.
For example, if the formation contains a stratum of limited thickness with a very high permeability
(i.e., thief zone), rapid channeling and bypassing will develop. Unless this zone can be located
and shut off, the producing water–oil ratios will soon become too high for the flooding operation
to be considered profitable. The lower depletion pressure that may exist in the highly permeable
zones will also aggravate the water-channeling tendency due to the high permeability variations.
Moreover, these thief zones will contain less residual oil than the other layers, and their flooding
will lead to relatively lower oil recoveries than other layers. Areal continuity of the pay zone is
also a prerequisite for a successful waterflooding project. Isolated lenses may be effectively
depleted by a single well completion, but a flood mechanism requires that both the injector and

6 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

producer be present in the lens. Breaks in pay continuity and reservoir anisotropy caused by
depositional conditions, fractures, or faulting need to be identified and described before
determining the proper well spanning and the suitable flood pattern orientation.

Mobility Ratio

When one fluid displaces another, the outcome of the process is highly dependent upon the ease
with which each fluid flows through a porous medium. The relative permeability is one measure
of this, but there are other factors involved. For example, suppose the water is pushing a very thick,
heavy oil. Movement of the oil is sluggish at best, while the water is more mobile. Given sufficient
push, the less-viscous water tends to create channels or fingers through the oil phase, hence
bypassing it. The mobility of a fluid phase for some phase m is expressed as the ratio of its relative
permeability at a given saturation to its viscosity.

1.1

1.2

More often we are concerned with the mobility ratio, M, which is defined as the mobility of the
displacing phase divided by the mobility of the displaced phase. Clearly, a large value of M is
unfavorable, whereas a small value is favorable. Within the oil industry, the dividing line between
favorable and unfavorable is generally regarded as M = 1. Note that there is a particular saturation
at which the mobility of a given phase is evaluated. For displacement processes, the relative
permeability of the displacing phase should be evaluated at the average saturation of the displacing
phase behind the front. The oil relative permeability is that corresponding to the average oil
saturation in the oil bank. Thus we see that two different points in the reservoir are involved.

Figure 1.3: Fluid displacement (Piston-like)

7 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Primary Reservoir Driving Mechanisms

There are six driving mechanisms in the reservoir that basically provide the natural energy
necessary for oil recovery:

• Rock and liquid expansion

• Solution gas drive

• Gas cap drive

• Water drive

• Gravity drainage drive

• Combination drive

The recovery of oil by any of the above driving mechanisms is called primary recovery. The term
refers to the production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir without the use of any process (such as
water injection) to supplement the natural energy of the reservoir. The primary drive mechanism
and anticipated ultimate oil recovery should be considered when reviewing possible waterflood
prospects. The approximate oil recovery range is tabulated below for various driving mechanisms.
Note that these calculations are approximate and, therefore, oil recovery may fall outside these
ranges.

Water-drive reservoirs that are classified as strong water-drive reservoirs are not usually
considered to be good candidates for waterflooding because of the natural ongoing water influx.
However, in some instances a natural water drive could be supplemented by water injection in
order to:

• Support a higher withdrawal rate

8 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

• Better distribute the water volume to different areas of the field to achieve more uniform areal
coverage

• Better balance voidage and influx volumes.

Gas-cap reservoirs are not normally good waterflood prospects because the primary mechanism
may be quite efficient without water injection. In these cases, gas injection may be considered in
order to help maintain pressure. Smaller gas-cap drives may be considered as waterflood prospects,
but the existence of the gas cap will require greater care to prevent migration of displaced oil into
the gas cap. This migration would result in a loss of recoverable oil due to the establishment of
residual oil saturation in pore volume, which previously had none. If a gas cap is repressured with
water, a substantial volume may be required for this purpose, thereby lengthening the project life
and requiring a higher volume of water. However, the presence of a gas cap does not always mean
that an effective gas-cap drive is functioning. If the vertical communication between the gas cap
and the oil zone is considered poor due to low vertical permeability, a waterflood may be
appropriate in this case. Analysis of past performance, together with reservoir geology studies, can
provide insight as to the degree of effective communication. Natural permeability barriers can
often restrict the migration of fluids to the gas cap. It may also be possible to use selective plugging
of input wells to restrict the loss of injection fluid to the gas cap.

Solution gas-drive mechanisms generally are considered the best candidates for waterfloods.
Because the primary recovery will usually be low, the potential exists for substantial additional
recovery by water injection. In effect, we hope to create an artificial water-drive mechanism. The
typical range of water-drive recovery is approximately double that of solution gas drive. As a
general guideline, waterfloods in solution gas-drive reservoirs frequently will recover an additional
amount of oil equal to primary recovery.

Volumetric undersaturated oil reservoirs producing above the bubblepoint pressure must
depend on rock and liquid expansion as the main driving mechanism. In most cases, this
mechanism will not recover more than about 5% of the original oil in place. These reservoirs will
offer an opportunity for greatly increasing recoverable reserves if other conditions are favorable.

OPTIMUM TIME TO WATERFLOOD

The most common procedure for determining the optimum time to start waterflooding is to
calculate:

• Anticipated oil recovery

• Fluid production rates

9 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

• Monetary investment

• Availability and quality of the water supply

• Costs of water treatment and pumping equipment

• Costs of maintenance and operation of the water installation facilities

• Costs of drilling new injection wells or converting existing production wells into injectors

These calculations should be performed for several assumed times and the net income for each
case determined. The scenario that maximizes the profit and perhaps meets the operator’s desirable
goal is selected. Cole (1969) lists the following factors as being important when determining the
reservoir pressure (or time) to initiate a secondary recovery project:

• Reservoir oil viscosity. Water injection should be initiated when the reservoir pressure reaches
its bubble-point pressure since the oil viscosity reaches its minimum value at this pressure. The
mobility of the oil will increase with decreasing oil viscosity, which in turns improves the sweeping
efficiency.

• Free gas saturation. (1) In water injection projects. It is desirable to have initial gas saturation,
possibly as much as 10%. This will occur at a pressure that is below the bubble point pressure. (2)
In gas injection projects. Zero gas saturation in the oil zone is desired. This occurs while reservoir
pressure is at or above bubble-point pressure.

• Cost of injection equipment. This is related to reservoir pressure, and at higher pressures, the
cost of injection equipment increases. Therefore, a low reservoir pressure at initiation of injection
is desirable.

• Productivity of producing wells. A high reservoir pressure is desirable to increase the

productivity of producing wells, which prolongs the flowing period of the wells, decreases lifting
costs, and may shorten the overall life of the project.

• Effect of delaying investment on the time value of money. A delayed investment in injection
facilities is desirable from this standpoint.

• Overall life of the reservoir. Because operating expenses are an important part of total costs,
the fluid injection process should be started as early as possible. Some of these six factors act in
opposition to others. Thus the actual pressure at which a fluid injection project should be initiated
will require optimization of the various factors in order to develop the most favorable overall
economics. The principal requirement for a successful fluid injection project is that sufficient oil
must remain in the reservoir after primary operations have ceased to render economic the
10 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
secondary recovery operations. This high residual oil saturation after primary recovery is essential
not only because there must be a sufficient volume of oil left in the reservoir, but also because of
relative permeability considerations. A high oil relative permeability, i.e., high oil saturation,
means more oil recovery with less production of the displacing fluid. On the other hand, low oil
saturation means a low oil relative permeability with more production of the displacing fluid at a
given time.

Effect of Trapped Gas on Waterflood Recovery

Numerous experimental and field studies have been conducted to study the effect of the presence
of initial gas saturation on waterflood recovery. Early research indicated that the waterflooding of
a linear system results in the formation of an oil bank, or zone of increased oil saturation, ahead of
the injection water. The moving oil bank will displace a portion of the free water ahead of it,
trapping the rest as a residual gas. An illustration of the water saturation profile is shown
schematically in Figure 1.4. Several authors have shown through experiments that oil recovery by
water is improved as a result of the establishment of trapped gas saturation, Sgt, in the reservoir.
Willhite (1986) and Craig (1971) indicate that, in some instances, oil recovery can be increased if
the reservoir pressure is carefully controlled so as to leave optimum trapped gas saturation within
the oil bank. The idea is to reduce the residual oil saturation value, Sor, by an amount equal to the
trapped gas saturation. For example, if the residual oil saturation is 35% and if a trapped gas
saturation can be maintained at 5%, the residual oil saturation would be 30%. In this case, Sor
would be reduced by 14.3%. However, selecting and maintaining the optimum reservoir pressure
to maintain this critical gas saturation is difficult to achieve in practice. The theory of this
phenomenon of improving overall oil recovery when initial gas exists at the start of the flood is
not well established.

11 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.4: Water saturation profile during a waterflood

Khelil (1983) suggests that waterflood recovery can possibly be improved if a so-called “optimum
gas saturation” is present at the start of the flood. This optimum gas saturation is given by:

1.3

12 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

The above correlation (Eqn 1.3) is not explicit and must be used in conjunction with the material
balance equation (MBE). The proposed methodology of determining (Sg)opt is based on
calculating the gas saturation as a function of reservoir pressure (or time) by using both the MBE
and Equation 1.3. When the gas saturation as calculated by the two equations is identical, this gas
saturation is identified as (Sg)opt.

Craig (1971) presented two graphical correlations that are designed to account for the reduction in
the residual oil saturation due to the presence of the trapped gas. The first graphical correlation,
shown in Figure 1.5, correlates the trapped gas saturation (Sgt) as a function of the initial gas
saturation (Sgi). The second correlation as presented in Figure 1.6 illustrates the effect of the
trapped gas saturation on the reduction in residual oil saturation (Sor) for preferentially water-wet
rock. The two graphic correlations can be expressed mathematically by the following two
expressions:

1.4

And

1.5

13 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Figure 1.5: Relation between Sgi and Sgt. (Permission to publish by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers.)

Figure 1.6: Effect of Sgt on waterflood recovery. (Permission to publish by the Society of
Petroleum Engineers.)

14 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Example 1.1

An absolute permeability of 33 md, porosity of 25%, and an initial water saturation of 30%
characterize a saturated oil reservoir that exists at its bubble-point pressure of 1,925 psi. The water
viscosity is treated as a constant with a value of 0.6 cp. Results of the material balance calculations
are given below:

Using the above data, calculate the optimum gas saturation

The calculated value of (Sg)opt at 1,540 psi agrees with the value of Sgas calculated from the MBE.
Thus, to obtain the proposed additional recovery benefit, the primary depletion should be
terminated at a pressure of 1,540 psi and water-injection initiated. The injection into a solution
gas-drive reservoir usually occurs at injection rates that cause repressurization of the reservoir. If
pressure is high enough, the trapped gas will dissolve in the oil with no effect on subsequent
residual oil saturations. It is of interest to estimate what pressure increases would be required in
order to dissolve the trapped gas in the oil system. The pressure is essentially defined as the “new”
bubble-point pressure (Pb new). As the pressure increases to the new bubble-point pressure, the
trapped gas will dissolve in the oil phase with a subsequent increase in the gas solubility from Rs
to Rs new. As illustrated in Figure 1.7, the new gas solubility can be estimated as the sum of the
volumes of the dissolved gas and the trapped gas in the reservoir divided by the volume of stock-
tank oil in the reservoir, or:

15 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.6

Simplifying gives:

1.7

The pressure that corresponds to the new gas solubility (Rs new) on the Rs vs. p relationship is then
identified as the pressure at which the trapped gas will completely dissolve in the oil phase

Figure 1.7: Variable bubble-point pressures

16 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Example 1.2

The Big Butte Field is a solution gas-drive reservoir that is under consideration for a waterflood
project. The volumetric calculations of the field indicate that the areal extent of the field is 1,612.6
acres. The field is characterized by the following properties:

Thickness h =25 ft

Porosity =15%

Initial water saturation Swi =20%

Initial pressure pi =2377 psi

Results from the MBE in terms of cumulative oil production Np as a function of reservoir pressure
p are given below:

Assume that the waterflood will commence when the reservoir pres sure declines to 1,650 psi; find
the pressure that is required to dissolve the trapped gas.

17 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Solution Step 1. Calculate initial oil-in-place

N: N = 7758 Ah φ (1 – Swi)/Boi

N = 7758 (1612.6) (25) (0.15) (1 – 0.2)/1.706 = 22 MMSTB

Step 2. Calculate remaining oil saturation by applying Equation 1.8 at 1,650 psi:

1.8

Step 3. Calculate gas saturation at 1,650 psi: Sg = 1 – So– Swi

Sg = 1 – 0.619 – 0.2 = 0.181

Step 4. Calculate the trapped gas saturation from Figure 1.5 or Equation 1.4, to give:

Sgt = 12.6%

Step 5. Calculate the gas solubility when all the trapped gas is dissolved in the oil by applying
Equation 1.6

Step 6. Enter the tabulated PVT data with the new gas solubility of 814 scf/STB and find the
corresponding pressure of approximately 2,140 psi. This pressure is identified as the pressure that
is required to dissolve the trapped gas.
18 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Selection of Flooding Patterns

One of the first steps in designing a water-flooding project is flood pattern selection. The objective
is to select the proper pattern that will provide the injection fluid with the maximum possible
contact with the crude oil system. This selection can be achieved by (1) converting existing
production wells into injectors or (2) drilling infill injection wells. When making the selection, the
following factors must be considered:

• Reservoir heterogeneity and directional permeability

• Direction of formation fractures

• Availability of the injection fluid (gas or water)

• Desired and anticipated flood life

• Maximum oil recovery

• Well spacing, productivity, and injectivity

In general, the selection of a suitable flooding pattern for the reservoir depends on the number and
location of existing wells. In some cases, producing wells can be converted to injection wells while
in other cases it may be necessary or desirable to drill new injection wells. Essentially four types
of well arrangements are used in fluid injection projects:

• Irregular injection patterns

• Peripheral injection patterns

• Regular injection patterns

• Crestal and basal injection patterns

Irregular Injection Patterns

Willhite (1986) points out that surface or subsurface topology and/or the use of slant-hole drilling
techniques may result in production or injection wells that are not uniformly located. In these
situations, the region affected by the injection well could be different for every injection well.
Some small reservoirs are developed for primary production with a limited number of wells and
when the economics are marginal, perhaps only few production wells are converted into injectors
in a non-uniform pattern. Faulting and localized variations in porosity or permeability may also
lead to irregular patterns.
19 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Peripheral Injection Patterns

In peripheral flooding, the injection wells are located at the external boundary of the reservoir and
the oil is displaced toward the interior of the reservoir, as shown in Figure 1.4. Craig (1971), in an
excellent review of the peripheral flood, points out the following main characteristics of the flood:

• The peripheral flood generally yields a maximum oil recovery with a minimum of produced
water.

• The production of significant quantities of water can be delayed until only the last row of
producers remains.

• Because of the unusually small number of injectors compared with the number of producers, it
takes a long time for the injected water to fill up the reservoir gas space. The result is a delay in
the field response to the flood.

• For a successful peripheral flood, the formation permeability must be large enough to permit the
movement of the injected water at the desired rate over the distance of several well spacings from
injection wells to the last line of producers.

• To keep injection wells as close as possible to the waterflood front without bypassing any
movable oil, watered-out producers may be converted into injectors. However, moving the location
of injection wells frequently requires laying longer surface water lines and adding costs.

• Results from peripheral flooding are more difficult to predict. The displacing fluid tends to
displace the oil bank past the inside producers, which are thus difficult to produce.

• Injection rates are generally a problem because the injection wells continue to push the water
greater distances.

20 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.8: Typical peripheral waterflood. (After Cole, F., 1969.)

Regular Injection Patterns

Figure 1.9: Flood patterns.

21 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Due to the fact that oil leases are divided into square miles and quarter square miles, fields are
developed in a very regular pattern. A wide variety of injection-production well arrangements have
been used in injection projects. The most common patterns, as shown in Figure 1.5, are the
following:

• Direct line drive. The lines of injection and production are directly opposed to each other. The
pattern is characterized by two parameters: a = distance between wells of the same type, and d =
distance between lines of injectors and producers.

• Staggered line drive. The wells are in lines as in the direct line, but the injectors and producers
are no longer directly opposed but laterally displaced by a distance of a/2.

• Five spot. This is a special case of the staggered line drive in which the distance between all like
wells is constant, i.e., a = 2d. Any four injection wells thus form a square with a production well
at the center.

• Seven spot. The injection wells are located at the corner of a hexagon with a production well at
its center.

• Nine spot. This pattern is similar to that of the five spot but with an extra injection well drilled
at the middle of each side of the square. The pattern essentially contains eight injectors surrounding
one producer.

The patterns termed inverted have only one injection well per pattern. This is the difference
between normal and inverted well arrangements. Note that the four-spot and inverted seven-spot
patterns are identical.

Crestal and Basal Injection Patterns

In crestal injection, as the name implies, the injection is through wells located at the top of the
structure. Gas injection projects typically use a crestal injection pattern. In basal injection, the fluid
is injected at the bottom of the structure. Many water-injection projects use basal injection patterns
with additional benefits being gained from gravity segregation. A schematic illustration of the two
patterns is shown in Figure 1.10.

22 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.10: Well arrangements for dipping reservoirs.

OVERALL RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

The overall recovery factor (efficiency) RF of any secondary or tertiary oil recovery method is the
product of a combination of three individual efficiency factors as given by the following
generalized expression:

1.9

In terms of cumulative oil production, Equation 3.1 can be written as:

1.10

The displacement efficiency ED is the fraction of movable oil that has been displaced from the
swept zone at any given time or pore volume injected. Because an immiscible gas injection or
waterflood will always leave behind some residual oil, ED will always be less than 1.0. The areal

23 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

sweep efficiency EA is the fractional area of the pattern that is swept by the displacing fluid. The
major factors determining areal sweep are:

• Fluid mobilities

• Pattern type

• Areal heterogeneity

• Total volume of fluid injected

The vertical sweep efficiency EV is the fraction of the vertical section of the pay zone that is
contacted by injected fluids. The vertical sweep efficiency is primarily a function of:

• Vertical heterogeneity

• Degree of gravity segregation

• Fluid mobilities

• Total volume injection

Note that the product of EA EV is called the volumetric sweep efficiency and represents the overall
fraction of the flood pattern that is contacted by the injected fluid. In general, reservoir
heterogeneity probably has more influence then any other factor on the performance of a secondary
or tertiary injection project. The most important two types of heterogeneity affecting sweep
efficiencies, EA and EV, are the reservoir vertical heterogeneity and areal heterogeneity.

• Vertical heterogeneity is by far the most significant parameter influencing the vertical sweep
and in particular its degree of variation in the vertical direction. A reservoir may exhibit many
different layers in the vertical section that have highly contrasting properties. This stratification
can result from many factors, including change in depositional environment, change in
depositional source, or particle segregation. Water injected into a stratified system will
preferentially enter the layers of highest permeability and will move at a higher velocity.
Consequently, at the time of water breakthrough in higher-permeability zones, a significant
fraction of the less-permeable zones will remain unflooded. Although a flood will generally
continue beyond breakthrough, the economic limit is often reached at an earlier time.

• Areal heterogeneity includes areal variation in formation properties (e.g., h, k,ϕ, Swc),
geometrical factors such as the position, any sealing nature of faults, and boundary conditions due
to the presence of an aquifer or gas cap. Operators spend millions of dollars coring, logging, and
listing appraisal wells, all of which permits direct observation of vertical heterogeneity. Therefore,

24 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

if the data are interpreted correctly, it should be possible to quantify the vertical sweep, EV, quite
accurately. Areally, of course, matters are much more uncertain since methods of defining
heterogeneity are indirect, such as attempting to locate faults from well testing analysis.
Consequently, the areal sweep efficiency is to be regarded as the unknown in reservoir-
development studies. All three efficiency factors (i.e., ED, EA, and EV) are variables that increase
during the flood and reach maximum values at the economic limit of the injection project. Each of
the three efficiency factors is discussed individually and methods of estimating these efficiencies
are presented.

Displacement Efficiency

As defined previously, displacement efficiency is the fraction of movable oil that has been
recovered from the swept zone at any given time. Mathematically, the displacement efficiency is
expressed as:

OR

1.11

25 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Assuming a constant oil formation volume factor during the flood life, Equation 1.11 is reduced
to:

1.12

The displacement efficiency ED can be expressed more conveniently in terms of water saturation
by substituting the above relationships into Equation 1.12, to give:

1.13

If no initial gas is present at the start of the flood, Equation 1.11 is reduced to:

1.14

The displacement efficiency ED will continually increase at different stages of the flood, i.e., with
increasing ̅𝑆̅̅𝑤̅. Equation 1.12 or 1.14 suggests that ED reaches its maximum when the average oil

26 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

saturation in the area of the flood pattern is reduced to the residual oil saturation Sor or,
equivalently, when ̅𝑆̅̅𝑤̅ = 1 – Sor

Example 1.3

A saturated oil reservoir is under consideration to be waterflooded immediately after drilling and
completion. Core analysis tests indicate that the initial and residual oil saturations are 70 and 35%,
respectively. Calculate the displacement efficiency when the oil saturation is reduced to 65, 60,
55, 50, and 35%. Assume that Bo will remain constant throughout the project life.

Solution
Step 1: Calculate initial water saturation:
Swi = 1− 0.7 = 0.3
Step 2: Calculate ED from Equation 1.14:

Example 1.3 shows that ED will continually increase with increasing water saturation in the
reservoir. The problem, of course, lies with developing an approach for determining the increase
in the average water saturation in the swept area as a function of cumulative water injected (or
injection time). Buckley and Leverett (1942) developed a well-established theory, called the
frontal displacement theory, which provides the basis for establishing such a relationship. This
classic theory consists of two equations:

• Fractional flow equation

• Frontal advance equation

The frontal displacement theory and its main two components are discussed next

The Fractional Flow

27 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
When two fluids — e.g., water and oil — flow simultaneously through a porous medium, we are
interested in knowing what fraction of the total fluid is water and what fraction is oil. Actually, if
we know one of the fractions, then the other can be obtained by subtracting the known value from
one. Consequently, we focus on the calculation of only one — i.e., the water fraction, fw. This is
also called the water cut.

Assumptions of the Fractional Flow Formula

 Diffuse flow
 Incompressible fluid
 Linear displacement

Diffuse flow means that the saturations at any point in the direction of linear displacement are
uniformly distributed over the thickness. This diffuse flow assumption enables a one dimensional
simple analysis to be used for the displacement modelling. In a simple core flooding relative
permeability test such an assumption is not unreasonable. Diffuse flow can also be encountered in
a reservoir where the injection rates are high preventing the establishing of vertical equilibrium
and for low injection rates where the thickness of the reservoir is small compared to the thickness
of the transition zone. The displacement is incompressible, which implies that steady state
conditions exist, that is the pressures within the reservoir at any point remain constant.

The development of the fractional flow equation is attributed to Leverett (1941). For two
immiscible fluids, oil and water, the fractional flow of water, fw (or any immiscible displacing
fluid), is defined as the water flow rate divided by the total flow rate, or:

1.15

Where,

fw = fraction of water in the flowing stream, i.e., water cut, bbl/bbl

qt = total flow rate, bbl/day

qw = water flow rate, bbl/day

qo = oil flow rate, bbl/day

Consider the steady-state flow of two immiscible fluids (oil and water) through a tilted-linear
porous media as shown in Figure 1.11.
28 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Figure 1.11: Linear displacement in a tilted system.

Assuming a homogeneous system, Darcy’s equation can be applied for each of the fluids:

1.16

1.17

where subscripts o, w = oil and water

ko, kw = effective permeability

𝜇𝑜 , 𝜇𝑤 = viscosity

29 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

po, pw = pressure

𝜌𝑜 , 𝜌𝑤 = density

A = cross-sectional area

x = distance

α = dip angle

Sin (α) = positive for updip flow and negative for downdip flow

Rearranging Equations 1.16 and 1.17 gives:

Subtracting the above two equations yields:

1.18

From the definition of the capillary pressure pc:

Differentiating the above expression with respect to the distance x gives:

1.19

Combining Equation 1.18 with 1.19 gives:

30 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.20

where ∆ρ = 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 . From the water cut equation, i.e., Equation 1.15

1.21

Replacing qo and qw in Equation 1.20 with those of Equation 1.21 gives:

1.22

In field units, the above equation can be expressed as:

1.23

31 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Noting that the relative permeability ratios 𝐾𝑟𝑜 /𝐾𝑟𝑤 = 𝐾𝑜 /𝐾𝑤 , and, for two-phase flow, the total
flow rate qt are essentially equal to the water-injection rate, i.e., iw = qt, Equation 1.23 can be
expressed more conveniently in terms of 𝐾𝑟𝑜 /𝐾𝑟𝑤 and iw as:

1.24

Equation 1.24 can be easily remembered using the following format given in equation 1.25

1.25

Where:

And β is a unit conversion factor given here as 0.001127

To employ Equation 1.25 in the form cited above, one must a priori know the capillary pressure
gradient along the length of the system. This information is generally not available; consequently,
as a first approximation, this term is usually neglected. In a horizontal system, sin α = 0 and the
gravity term vanishes. Thus, the fractional flow for water becomes
32 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
 OR 1.26

where iw = water-injection rate, bbl/day

fw = water cut, bbl/bbl

kro = relative permeability to oil

krw = relative permeability to water

k = absolute permeability, md

The fractional flow equation as expressed by the above relationship suggests that for a given
rock-fluid system, all the terms in the equation are defined by the characteristics of the reservoir,
except:

• water-injection rate, iw

• water viscosity, 𝜇𝑤

• direction of the flow, i.e., updip or downdip injection

Equation 1.24 can be expressed in a more generalized form to describe the fractional flow of any
displacement fluid as:

1.27

where the subscript D refers to the displacement fluid and Δρ is defined as:

∆ρ = 𝜌𝐷 − 𝜌𝑜

For example, when the displacing fluid is immiscible gas, then:

33 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.28

The effect of capillary pressure is usually neglected because the capillary pressure gradient is
generally small and, thus, Equations 1.24 and 1.28 are reduced to:

1.29

and

1.30

Where,

= gas injection rate, bbl/day

= gas viscosity, cp

= gas density, g/cm3

34 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 𝑞𝑤
From the definition of water cut, i.e.,𝑓𝑤 = (𝑞 we can see that the limits of the water cut are 0
𝑤 +𝑞𝑜 )
and 100%. At the irreducible (connate) water saturation, the water flow rate qw is zero and,
therefore, the water cut is 0%. At the residual oil saturation point, Sor, the oil flow rate is zero and
the water cut reaches its upper limit of 100%. The shape of the water cut versus water saturation
curve is characteristically S-shaped, as shown in Figure 1.12. The limits of the fw curve (0 and 1)
are defined by the end points of the relative permeability curves.

The implications of the above discussion are also applied to defining the relationship that exists
between fg and gas saturation, as shown in Figure 1.12. Note that, in general, any influences that
cause the fractional flow curve to shift upward (i.e., increase in fw or fg) will result in a less
efficient displacement process. It is essential, therefore, to determine the effect of various
component parts of the fractional flow equation on the displacement efficiency.

Note that for any two immiscible fluids, e.g., water and oil, the fraction of the oil (oil cut) fo
flowing at any point in the reservoir is given by:

1.31

35 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.12: Fractional flow curves a function of saturations.

Equation 1.31 indicates that during the displacement of oil by waterflood, an increase in fw at any
point in the reservoir will cause a proportional decrease in fo and oil mobility. Therefore, the
objective is to select the proper injection scheme that could possibly reduce the water fractional
flow. This can be achieved by investigating the effect of the injected water viscosity, formation
dip angle, and water-injection rate on the water cut. The overall effect of these parameters on the
water fractional flow curve are discussed next.

Effect of Water and Oil Viscosities

Figure 1.13 shows the general effect of oil viscosity on the fractional flow curve for both water-
wet and oil-wet rock systems. This illustration reveals that regardless of the system wettability, a
higher oil viscosity results in an upward shift (an increase) in the fractional flow curve. The
apparent effect of the water viscosity on the water fractional flow is clearly indicated by examining
Equation 1.29.

Higher injected water viscosities will result in an increase in the value of the denominator of
Equation 1.29 with an overall reduction in fw (i.e., a downward shift).

36 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.13: Effect of oil viscosity on fw

Effect of Dip Angle and Injection Rate

To study the effect of the formation dip angle and the injection rate on the displacement efficiency,
consider the water fractional flow equation as represented by Equation 1.29

37 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Assuming a constant injection rate and realizing that (𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌0 ) is always positive and in order to
isolate the effect of the dip angle and injection rate on fw, Equation 1.29 is expressed in the
following simplified form:

1.32

where the variables X and Y are a collection of different terms that are all considered positives and
given by:

Updip flow, i.e., sin(α) is positive. Figure 1.13 shows that when the water displaces oil updip (i.e.,
injection well is located downdip), a more efficient performance is obtained.

38 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.13: Effect of dip angle on fw

This improvement is due to the fact that the term X sin(α )/iw will always remain positive, which
leads to a decrease (downward shift) in the fw curve. Equation 1.32 also reveals that a lower water-
injection rate iw is desirable since the numerator 1 – [X sin(α)/𝑖𝑤 ] of Equation 1.32 will decrease
with a lower injection rate 𝑖𝑤 , resulting in an overall downward shift in the fw curve.

• Downdip flow, i.e., sin(α) is negative. When the oil is displaced downdip (i.e., injection well is
located updip), the term X sin(α)/𝑖𝑤 will always remain negative and, therefore, the numerator of
Equation 1.32 will be 1+[X sin(α)/𝑖𝑤 ], i.e.:

39 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

which causes an increase (upward shift) in the fw curve. It is beneficial, therefore, when injection
wells are located at the top of the structure to inject the water at a higher injection rate to improve
the displacement efficiency. It is interesting to reexamine Equation 1.32 when displacing the oil
downdip. Combining the product X sin(α) as C, Equation 1.32 can be written:

The above expression shows that the possibility exists that the water cut fw could reach a value
greater than unity (fw > 1) if:

This could only occur when displacing the oil downdip at a low waterinjection rate iw. The resulting
effect of this possibility is called a counterflow, where the oil phase is moving in a direction
opposite to that of the water (i.e., oil is moving upward and the water downward). When the water-
injection wells are located at the top of a tilted formation, the injection rate must be high to avoid
oil migration to the top of the formation. Note that for a horizontal reservoir, i.e., sin(α) = 0, the
injection rate has no effect on the fractional flow curve. When the dip angle α is zero, Equation
1.32 is reduced to the following simplified form:

1.33

40 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

In waterflooding calculations, the reservoir water cut 𝑓𝑤 and the water-oil ratio WOR are both
traditionally expressed in two different units: bb/bbl and STB/STB. The interrelationships that
exist between these two parameters are conveniently presented below,

where Qo = oil flow rate,STB/day

qo = oil flow rate, bbl/day

Qw = water flow rate, STB/day

qw = water flow rate, bbl/day

WORs = surface water-oil ratio, STB/STB

WORr = reservoir water-oil ratio, bbl/bbl

fws = surface water cut, STB/STB

fw = reservoir water cut, bbl/bbl

i) Reservoir fw – Reservoir WORr Relationship

1.34

Substituting for WOR gives:

1.35

Substituting for WOR gives:

41 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.36

ii) Reservoir fw – Surface WORs Relationship By definition:

Introducing the surface WORs into the above expression gives:

1.37

Solving for WORs yields:

1.38

iii) Reservoir WORr – Surface WORs Relationship

From the definition of WOR:

42 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Introducing the surface WORs into the above expression gives:

1.39

OR

iv) Surface fws – Surface WORs Relationship

Or

1.40

v) Surface fws – Reservoir fw Relationship

1.41

43 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Example 1.4

Use the relative permeability as shown in Figure 1.14 to plot the fractional flow curve for a linear
reservoir system with the following properties:

Perform the calculations for the following values of oil viscosity: 𝜇𝑜 = 0.5, 1.0, 5, and 10 cp

Solution: For a horizontal system, Equation 1.33 can be used to calculate 𝑓𝑤 as a function of
saturation.

44 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.14: Relative permeability curves for Example 1.4

45 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Results of the above example are documented graphically in Figure 1.15, which shows the
apparent effect of oil viscosity on the fractional flow curve.

Figure 1.15: Effect of 𝜇𝑜 on 𝑓𝑤

46 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Example 1.5

The linear system in Example 1.4 is under consideration for a waterflooding project with a water-
injection rate of 1,000 bbl/day. The oil viscosity is considered constant at 1.0 cp. Calculate the
fractional flow curve for the reservoir dip angles of 10, 20, and 30˚, assuming (a) updip
displacement and (b) downdip displacement.

Solution

Step 1. Calculate the density difference ( 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 ) in g/cm3:

Step 2. Simplify Equation 1.29 by using the given fixed data:

47 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Step 3. Perform the fractional flow calculations in the following tabulated form:

48 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Frontal Advance Equation

The fractional flow equation determined earlier is used to determine the water cut f w at any point
in the reservoir, assuming that the water saturation at the point is known. The question, however,
is how to determine the water saturation at this particular point. The answer is to use the frontal
advance equation. The frontal advance equation is designed to determine the water saturation
profile in the reservoir at any given time during water injection. Frontal advance equation include
equations describing the velocity and position of planes of constant water saturation traveling
through a linear system of water displacing oil. Buckley and Leverett (1942) presented what is
recognized as the basic equation for describing two-phase, immiscible displacement in a linear
system. It indicates the velocity of a plane of saturation moving through the linear system. It
enables the calculation of Sw as a function of time and distance and indicates its dependance on
the derivative of the fractional flow curve. The equation is derived based on developing a material
balance for the displacing fluid as it flows through any given element in the porous media:

Volume entering the element – Volume leaving the element = change in fluid volume.

Consider a differential element of porous media, as shown in Figure 1.16 having a differential
length dx, an area A and a porosity ф.

Figure 1.16: Water flow through a linear differential element

49 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

During a differential time period dt, the total volume of water entering the element is given by:

Volume of water entering the element = qt fw dt

The volume of water leaving the element has a differentially smaller water cut (fw – dfw) and is
given by:

Volume of water leaving the element = qt (fw – dfw) dt

Subtracting the above two expressions gives the accumulation of the water volume within the
element in terms of the differential changes of the saturation dfw:

Simplifying:

Separating the variables gives the Buckley-Leverett equation as

1.42

The above relationship suggests that the velocity of any specific water saturation Sw is directly
proportional to the value of the slope of the fw vs. Sw curve, evaluated at Sw. Note that for two-
phase flow, the total flow rate qt is essentially equal to the injection rate iw, or:

50 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.43

Where, iw = water injection rate, bbl/day.

To calculate the total distance any specified water saturation will travel during a total time t,
Equation 1.43 must be integrated:

1.44

Equation 1.44 can also be expressed in terms of total volume of water injected by recognizing that
under a constant water-injection rate, the cumulative water injected is given by:

1.45

Where,

iw = water injection rate, bbl/day

Winj = cumulative water injected, bbl

t = time, day

(x)Sw = distance from the injection for any given saturation Sw, ft

Equation 1.45 also suggests that the position of any value of water saturation Sw at given
cumulative water injected Winj is proportional to the slope (dfw/dSw) for this particular Sw. At any

51 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

given time t, the water saturation profile can be plotted by simply determining the slope of the fw
curve at each selected saturation and calculating the position of Sw from Equation 1.45. Figure
1.17 shows the typical S shape of the fw curve and its derivative curve. However, a mathematical
difficulty arises when using the derivative curve to construct the water saturation profile at any
given time. Suppose we want to calculate the positions of two different saturations (shown in
Figure 1.17 as saturations A and B) after Winj barrels of water have been injected in the reservoir.
Applying Equation 1.45 gives:

Figure 1.17: The fw curve with its saturation derivative curve

Figure 1.17 indicates that both derivatives are identical, i.e., (dfw/dSw)A = (dfw/dSw)B, which
implies that multiple water saturations can coexist at the same position—but this is physically

52 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

impossible. Buckley and Leverett (1942) recognized the physical impossibility of such a condition.
They pointed out that this apparent problem is due to the neglect of the capillary pressure gradient
term in the fractional flow equation. This capillary term is given by

Capillary term =

Including the above capillary term when constructing the fractional flow curve would produce a
graphical relationship that is characterized by the following two segments of lines, as shown in
Figure 1.19.

Figure 1.19: Effect of the capillary term on the fw curve

- A straight line segment with a constant slope of (dfw/dSw)Swf from Swc to Swf
- A concaving curve with decreasing slopes from Swf to (1 – Sor)

53 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Terwilliger et al. (1951) found that at the lower range of water saturations between Swc and Swf, all
saturations move at the same velocity as a function of time and distance. Notice that all saturations
in that range have the same value for the slope and, therefore, the same velocity as given by
Equation 1.43:

We can also conclude that all saturations in this particular range will travel the same distance x at
any particular time, as given by Equation 1.42 or 1.43:

The result is that the water saturation profile will maintain a constant shape over the range of
saturations between Swc and Swf with time. Terwilliger and his coauthors termed the reservoir-
flooded zone with this range of saturations the stabilized zone. They define the stabilized zone as
that particular saturation interval (i.e., Swc to Swf) where all points of saturation travel at the same
velocity. Figure 1.20 illustrates the concept of the stabilized zone. The authors also identified
another saturation zone between Swf and (1 – Sor), where the velocity of any water saturation is
variable. They termed this zone the nonstabilized zone (Variable zone). Experimental core flood
data show that the actual water saturation profile during water flooding is similar to that of Figure
1.20. There is a distinct front, or shock front, at which the water saturation abruptly increases
from Swc to Swf. Behind the flood front there is a gradual increase in saturations from Swf up to the
maximum value of 1 – Sor. Therefore, the saturation Swf is called the water saturation at the front
or, alternatively, the water saturation of the stabilized zone.

Welge (1952) showed that by drawing a straight line from S wc (or from Swi if it is different from
Swc) tangent to the fractional flow curve, the saturation value at the tangent point is equivalent to
that at the front Swf.

54 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.20: Water saturation profile as a function of distance and time.

The coordinate of the point of tangency represents also the value of the water cut at the leading
edge of the water front fwf. From the above discussion, the water saturation profile at any given
time t1 can be easily developed as follows:

Step 1: Ignoring the capillary pressure term, construct the fractional flow curve, i.e., fw vs. Sw.

Step 2: Draw a straight line tangent from Swi to the curve.

Step 3 : Identify the point of tangency and read off the values of Swf and fwf.

Step 4: Calculate graphically the slope of the tangent as (dfw/dSw)Swf.

Step 5: Calculate the distance of the leading edge of the water front from the injection well by
using Equation 1.44, or:

55 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Step 6: Select several values for water saturation Sw greater than Swf and determine (dfw/dSw)Sw
by graphically drawing a tangent to the fw curve at each selected water saturation (as shown in
Figure 1.21).

Figure 1.21: Fractional flow curve

Step 7. Calculate the distance from the injection well to each selected saturation by applying
Equation 1.46, or:

56 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Step 8. Establish the water saturation profile after t1 days by plotting results obtained in Step 7

Step 9. Select a new time t2 and repeat Steps 5 through 7 to generate a family of water saturation
profiles as shown schematically in Figure 1.20.

Some erratic values of (dfw/dSw)Sw might result when determining the slope graphically at
different saturations. A better way is to determine the derivative mathematically by recognizing
that the relative permeability ratio (kro/krw) can be expressed by Equation 1.46 as:

1.46

Notice that the slope b in the above expression has a negative value. The above expression can be
substituted into Equation 1.33

(recall eqn 1.33)

to give:

1.47

The derivative of (dfw/dSw)Sw may be obtained mathematically by differentiating the above

equation with respect to Sw to give:

57 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.48

The data in the following example, as given by Craft and Hawkins (1959), are used to illustrate
one of the practical applications of the frontal displacement theory.

Example 1.6

The following data are available for a linear-reservoir system:

58 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Solution

Step 1. Plot the relative permeability ratio kro/krw vs. water saturation on a semi log paper and
determine the coefficients a and b of Equation 1.46, as shown in Figure 1.22, to give

Figure 1.22: Relative permeability ratio.

59 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Step 2. Assume several values of water saturation and calculate the fractional flow curve and its
derivatives by applying Equations 1.47 and 1.48:

1.47 1.48

Step 3. Plot fw and (dfw/Sw) vs. Sw on a Cartesian scale as shown in Figure 1.23.

60 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.23: Water cut curve and its derivative.

Draw a straight line from Swc and tangent to the fw curve. Determine the coordinates of point of
tangency and the slope of the tangent (dfw/dSw)Swf, to give:

𝑑𝑓
(𝑆𝑤𝑓 , 𝑓𝑤𝑓 ) = (0.596, 0.78) and (𝑑𝑆𝑤 ) = 1.973
𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑓

This means that the leading edge of the water front (stabilized zone) has a constant saturation of
0.596 and water cut of 78%.

61 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Step 4. When constructing the water saturation profile, it should be noted that no water saturation
with a value less than Swf, i.e., 59.6%, exists behind the leading edge of the water bank. Assume
water saturation values in the range of Swf to (1 – Sor), i.e., 59.6% to 75%, and calculate the water
saturation profile as a function of time by using Equation 1.36:

Step 5. Plot the water saturation profile as a function of distance and time, as shown in Figure 1.24

62 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 1.24: Water saturation profile for Example 1.6

The above example shows that after 240 days of water-injection, the leading edge of the water
front has moved 365 feet from the injection well (235 feet from the producer). The water front
(leading edge) will eventually reach the production well and water breakthrough occurs. The
example also indicates that at water breakthrough, the leading edge of the water front would have
traveled exactly the entire distance between the two wells, i.e., 600 feet. Therefore, to determine
the time to breakthrough, tBT, simply set (x)Swf equal to the distance between the injector and
producer L in Equation 1.44 and solve for the time:

Note that the pore volume (PV) is given by:

Combining the above two expressions and solving for the time to breakthrough tBT gives:

63 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 1.49

Assuming a constant water-injection rate, the cumulative water injected at breakthrough is

calculated from Equation 1.49 as:

1.50

It is convenient to express the cumulative water injected in terms of pore volumes injected, i.e.,
dividing Winj by the reservoir total pore volume. Conventionally, Qi refers to the total pore
volumes of water injected. From Equation 1.50, Qi at breakthrough is:

1.51

64 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Example 1.7

Using the data given in Example 1.6, calculate:

1. Time to breakthrough
2. Cumulative water injected at breakthrough
3. Total pore volumes of water injected at breakthrough

Solution

Step 1. Calculate the reservoir pore volume:

Step 2. Calculate the time to breakthrough from Equation 1.4:

65 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

66 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
 2. SWEEP EFFICIENCY

Sweep efficiency can be referred to as the percentage of original oil in place displaced from the
formation by a flooding fluid (e.g water). There are three types of sweep efficiencies commonly
encountered in waterflooding applications which include:

1. Areal sweep efficiency

2. Vertical sweep efficiency
3. Volumetric sweep efficiency

Areal sweep efficiency

The areal sweep efficiency EA is defined as the fraction of the total flood pattern that is
contacted by the displacing fluid. It increases steadily with injection from zero at the start of the
flood until breakthrough occurs, after which EA continues to increase at a slower rate.

Figure 2.1:. Areal sweep efficiency schematic

The areal sweep efficiency depends basically on the following five main factors:

1. Mobility ratio M
2. Flood pattern
3. Cumulative water injected Winj
4. Pressure distribution between injectors and producers
5. Directional permeability

67 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 If directional permeability trends can be identified, injection and production wells can be
arranged to take advantage of the trends to enhance areal sweep efficiency. It is also possible
to maximize areal sweep through a careful management of pressure distribution and proper
injection–production pattern selection.

Mobility Ratio

In general, the mobility of any fluid λ is defined as the ratio of the effective permeability of the
fluid to the fluid viscosity, i.e.:

2.1

2.2

2.3

The fluid mobility as defined mathematically by the above three relationships indicates that λ
is a strong function of the fluid saturation. The mobility ratio M is defined as the mobility of
the displacing fluid to the mobility of the displaced fluid, or:

68 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 2.4

Muskat (1946) points out that in calculating M by applying Equation 2.4, the following
concepts must be employed in determining kro and krw:

• Relative permeability of oil kro. Because the displaced oil is moving ahead of the water front
in the non-invaded portion of the pattern, as shown schematically in Figure 2.2, kro must be
evaluated at the initial water saturation Swi.

69 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 2.2: Oil and water mobilities to breakthrough.

• Relative permeability of water krw. The displacing water will form a water bank that is
̅
characterized by an average water saturation of 𝑆𝑊𝐵𝑇 in the swept area. This average saturation
will remain constant until breakthrough, after which the average water saturation will continue
̅ ). The mobility ratio, therefore, can be expressed more explicitly
to increase (as denoted by 𝑆𝑊2
under two different stages of the flood:

1. From start to breakthrough

2.5

70 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

2. After breakthrough

2.6

Equation 2.6 indicates that the mobility of the water krw/μw will increase after breakthrough due
̅ . This will result in a proportional
to the continuous increase in the average water saturation 𝑆𝑊2
increase in the mobility ratio M after breakthrough, as shown in Figure 2.3.

71 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 2.3: Mobility ratio versus time relationship.

In general, if no further designation is applied, the term mobility ratio refers to the mobility ratio
before breakthrough.

Flood Patterns

In designing a waterflood project, it is common practice to locate injection and producing wells in
a regular geometric pattern so that a symmetrical and interconnected network is formed. As shown
previously in section1, regular flood patterns include these:

• Direct line drive

• Staggered line drive

72 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

• Five spot

• Seven spot

• Nine spot

By far the most used pattern is the five spot and, therefore, most of the discussion in the remainder
of the chapter will focus on this pattern. Craig et al. (1955) performed experimental studies on the
influence of fluid mobilities on the areal sweep efficiency resulting from water or gas injection.
Craig and his co-investigators used horizontal laboratory models representing a quadrant of five
spot patterns. Areal sweep efficiencies were determined from x-ray shadow graphs taken during
various stages of the displacement as illustrated in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: X-ray shadow graphs of flood progress.

Two mobility ratios, 1.43 and 0.4, were used in the study. Figure 2.4 shows that at the start of the
flood, the water front takes on a cylindrical form around the injection point (well). As a result of
the continuous injection, pressure distribution and corresponding streamlines are developed
73 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
between the injection and production wells. However, various streamlines have different lengths
with the shortest streamline being the direct line between the injector and producer. The pressure
gradient along this line is the highest that causes the injection fluid to flow faster along the shortest
streamline than the other lines. The water front gradually begins to deform from the cylindrical
form and cusp into the production well as water breakthrough occurs. The effect of the mobility
ratio on the areal sweep efficiency is apparent by examining Figure 2.4. This figure shows that at
breakthrough, only 65% of the flood pattern area has been contacted (swept) by the injection fluid
with a mobility ratio of 1.43 and 82.8% when the mobility ratio is 0.4. This contacted fraction
when water breakthrough occurs is defined as the areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough, as
denoted by EABT. In general, lower mobility ratios would increase the areal sweep efficiency and
higher mobility ratios would decrease the EA. Figure 2.4 also shows that with continued injection
after breakthrough, the areal sweep efficiency continues to increase until it eventually reaches
100%.

Cumulative Water Injected

Continued injection after breakthrough can result in substantial increases in recovery, especially
in the case of an adverse mobility ratio. The work of Craig et al. (1955) has shown that significant
quantities of oil may be swept by water after breakthrough. It should be pointed out that the higher
the mobility ratio, the more important is the “after-breakthrough” production.

Directional permeability

Landrum and Crawford (1960) have studied the effects of directional permeability on waterflood
areal sweep efficiency. Figure 2.5 illustrate the impact of directional permeability variations on
areal sweep efficiency for a line drive and five-spot pattern flood. Note that because of the impact
of directional permeability, most of the existing areal sweep efficiency correlations are based on
idealized cases with severe imposed assumptions on the physical characteristics of the reservoir
such as: •Uniform isotropic permeability distribution • Uniform porosity distribution • No fractures
in reservoir • Confined patterns • Uniform saturation distribution • Off-pattern wells

Two key elements affect the performance of waterflooding that must be included in recovery
calculations: (1) water-injection rate, i.e., fluid injectivity, and (2) effect of initial gas saturation
on the recovery performance.

74 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 2.5: Effect of directional permeability on EA

Fluid Injectivity

Injection rate is a key economic variable that must be considered when evaluating a waterflooding
project. The waterflood project’s life and, consequently, the economic benefits will be directly
affected by the rate at which fluid can be injected and produced. Estimating the injection rate is
also important for the proper sizing of injection equipment and pumps. Although injectivity can
be best determined from smallscale pilot floods, empirical methods for estimating water injectivity
for regular pattern floods have been proposed by Muskat (1948) and Deppe (1961). The authors
derived their correlations based on the following assumptions:

•Steady-state conditions

• No initial gas saturation

• Mobility ratio of unity

75 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Water injectivity is defined as the ratio of the water-injection to the pressure difference between
the injector and producer, or:

2.7

where I = injectivity, bbl/day/psi

iw = injection rate, bbl/day

ΔP = difference between injection pressure and producing well bottom-hole flowing pressure.

When the injection fluid has the same mobility as the reservoir oil (mobility ratio M = 1), the
initial injectivity at the start of the flood is referred to as Ibase, or:

For a five-spot pattern that is completely filled with oil, i.e., Sgi = 0, Muskat (1948) proposed the
following injectivity equation:

2.8

OR

2.9

76 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Water Fingering and Tonguing
In thick, dipping formations containing heavy viscous oil, water tends to advance as a “tongue” at
the bottom of the pay zone. Similarly, displacement of oil with a gas will result in the gas
attempting to overrun the oil due to gravity differences unless stopped by a shale barrier within the
formation or by a low overall effective vertical permeability. In linear laboratory experiments, it
was observed that the fluid interface remains horizontal and independent of fluid velocity when
the viscosities of the two phases are equal. If the oil and water have different viscosities, the
original horizontal interface will become tilted. In a dipping reservoir, Dake (1978) developed a
gravity segregation model that allows the calculation of the critical injection rate icrit that is required
to propagate a stable displacement. The condition for stable displacement is that the angle between
the fluid interface and the direction of flow should remain constant throughout the displacement
as shown in Figure 2.5b. Dake introduced the two parameters, the dimensionless gravity number
“G” and the end-point mobility ratio M*, that can be used to define the stability of displacement.
These two parameters are defined by the following relationships:

1. Dimensionless gravity number. The dimensionless gravity number G is given by:

2.9b

77 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Figure 2.5b: Stable and unstable displacement in gravity segregated displacement:
(a) Stable: G > m – 1, M > 1, and β<θ ; (b) Stable: G > M – 1, M < 1, β > θ; and
(c) Unstable: G < M – 1.

2. End-point mobility ratio. The end-point mobility ratio M* is defined by:

78 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 2.9c

Dake used the above two parameters to define the following stability criteria:
• If M* > 1. The displacement is stable if G > (M* – 1), in which case the fluid interface angle β<
θ. The displacement is unstable if G < (M* – 1).
• If M* = 1. This is a very favorable condition, because there is no tendency for the water to bypass
the oil. The displacement is considered unconditionally stable and is characterized by the fact that
the interface rises horizontally in the reservoir, i.e, β = θ.
• If M* < 1. When the end-point mobility ratio M* is less than unity, the displacement is
characterized as unconditionally stable displacement with β > θ (Figure 2.5b)

The author also defined the critical flow rate, icrit by:

2.9d

Duke (1978) pointed out that in horizontal or relatively low dip reservoirs with favorable mobility
ratios, the fluid interface angle β can be estimated from the following expression:

Practical units, as previously defined, are used in the above equation.

79 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Example 2.0

Solution
Step 1. Calculate the end-point mobility ratio from Equation 2.9c

2.9c

Step 2. Calculate the critical injection rate by using Equation 2.9d:

2.9d

80 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

The above example indicates that the water-injection rate must be 106 bbl/day to ensure a stable
displacement, which, when compared with the proposed injection rate of 800 bbl/day, is perhaps
not economically feasible to maintain.

VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY

The vertical sweep efficiency, EV, is defined as the fraction of the vertical section of the pay zone
that is the injection fluid. In other words. It is the ratio of pore space invaded or swept by the
displacing fluid to the total pore space

This particular sweep efficiency depends primarily on

(1) the mobility ratio and

(2) Total volume injected.

As a consequence of the non-uniform permeabilities, any injected fluid will tend to move through
the reservoir with an irregular front (See Figure 2.6). In the more permeable portions, the injected
water will travel more rapidly than in the less permeable zone. Perhaps the area of the greatest
uncertainty in designing a waterflood is the quantitative knowledge of the permeability variation
within the reservoir. The degree of permeability variation is considered by far the most significant
parameter influencing the vertical sweep efficiency.

Figure 2.6. Vertical sweep efficiency schematic

To calculate the vertical sweep efficiency, the engineer must be able to address the following three
problems: 1. How to describe and define the permeability variation in mathematical terms 2. How
to determine the minimum number of layers that are sufficient to model the performance of the

81 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

fluid 3. How to assign the proper average rock properties for each layer (called the zonation
problem). (To be discussed in class, see chapter four of Ahmed Tarek reservoir engineering text)

Calculation of Vertical Sweep Efficiency

Basically two methods are traditionally used in calculating the vertical sweep efficiency EV:

(1) Stiles’ method and

(2) Dykstra-Parsons method.

These two methods assume that the reservoir is composed of an idealized layered system, as
shown schematically in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Idealized layered system.

The layered system is selected based on the permeability ordering approach with layers arranged
in order of descending permeability. The common assumptions of both methods are:

• No cross-flow between layers

• Immiscible displacement

82 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

• Linear flow

• The distance water has traveled through each layer is proportional to the permeability of the
layer

• Piston-like displacement

The basic idea used in Stiles’ method and the Dykstra-Parsons method is to determine the frontal
position in each layer at the time water breakthrough occurs in successive layers. If the flow
capacity of each layer is defined by the product of permeability and thickness, i.e., kh, then the
water and oil flow rates from all layers can be calculated to yield the producing water-oil ratio.

Stiles’ Method

Stiles (1949) proposed an approach that takes into account the effect of permeability variations in
predicting the performance of waterfloods. Stiles assumes that in a layered system, the water
breakthrough occurs in a sequence that starts in the layer with the highest permeability. Assuming
that the reservoir is divided into n layers that are arranged in a descending permeability order with
breakthrough occurring in a layer i, all layers from 1 to i have already been swept by water. The
remaining layers obviously have not reached breakthrough. The method assumes that there is
piston-like displacement of oil, so that after water breakthrough in a layer, only water is produced
from this layer. After water breakthrough, the producing WOR is given by:

where C is the fraction of the total flow capacity represented by layers that have water
breakthrough. Based on the above concept, Stiles proposed that the vertical sweep efficiency can
be calculated from the following expression:

2.10

83 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

If the values of the porosity vary between layers, Equation 2.10 can be written:

2.11

Stiles also developed the following expression for determining the surface water-oil ratio as
breakthrough occurs in any layer:

2.12

With

2.13

84 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Example 2.1

The Dykstra and Parsons (1950) permeability ordering approach is used to describe a reservoir by
the following five-layer system:

85 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Solution

Step 1.Calculate parameter A using Equation 2.13:

Step 2.Calculate EV and WORs when breakthrough occurs in the first layer, i.e., i =1, by applying
Equations 2.11 and 2.12:

86 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

87 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Figure 2.8 shows the resulting relationship between the vertical sweep efficiency and producing
WOR. The curve can be extended to WOR =0 to give the vertical sweep efficiency at breakthrough
EV.

88 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 2.8: WOR vs. Ev

The Dykstra-Parsons Method

Dykstra and Parsons (1950) correlated the vertical sweep efficiency with the following parameters:
• Permeability variation V
•Mobility ratio M
•Water-oil ratio WORr as expressed in bbl/bbl

The authors presented their correlation in a graphical form for water-oil ratios of 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1,
2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 bbl/bbl. Figure 2.9 shows Dykstra and Parsons’ graphical correlation for
a WOR of 50bbl/bbl. Using a regression analysis model, deSouza and Brigham (1981) grouped
the vertical sweep efficiency curves for 0 ≤M ≤10 and 0.3 ≤V≤0.8 into one curve as shown in
Figure 2.10. The authors used a combination of WOR, V, and M to define the correlation parameter
Y of Figure 2.10

2.14

89 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

With

2.15

Figure 2.9 Vertical sweep efficiency curves for WOR = 50

90 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

 Figure 2.10: EV versus the correlating parameter Y.

The specific steps involved in determining the vertical sweep efficiency as a function of water-oil
ratios are summarized below:

1. Calculate the mobility ratio M and permeability variation V.

2. Select several values for the WOR, e.g., 1, 2, 5, 10, and calculate the correlating parameter Y
at each selected WOR.

3. Enter Figure 2.10 with each value of Y and determine the corresponding values of the vertical
sweep efficiency EV.

4. Plot WOR versus EV.

91 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

To further simplify the calculations for determining Ev, Fassihi (1986) curve-fitted the graph of
Figure 2.10 and proposed the following non-linear function, which can be solved iteratively for
the vertical sweep efficiency EV:

2.16

The Newton-Raphson method is perhaps the appropriate technique for solving Equation 2.16. To
avoid the iterative process, the following expression could be used to estimate the vertical sweep
efficiency using the correlating parameter Y:

Example 2.2

A layered reservoir is characterized by a permeability variation V of 0.8. Calculate the vertical

sweep efficiency EV when the producing water-oil ratio reaches 50 bbl/bbl assuming a mobility
ratio of 10.0.

Solution

Step 1. Calculate the parameter x by applying Equation 2.15

92 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Step 2. Calculate the correlation parameter Y from Equation 2.16:

Step 3. From Figure 2.10, determine EV to give:

𝐸𝑣 = 0.56

Volumetric Sweep Efficiency

The volumetric sweep efficiency, designated as EVOL, is the percentage of the total reservoir
contacted by the injected fluid. This efficiency is commonly called “fluid conformance” and is the
resulting product of EA and EV at any time during the waterflood process:

The Evol provides an indication of the fraction of the reservoir that has been swept or not swept
by the injected water. The volumetric sweep efficiency quantitatively reflects the potential for
additional oil recovery that exists in the unswept portion of the reservoir. This important water
flood surveillance parameter can be roughly estimated after the gas fill up with the assumption of
negligible changes in Bo from the following expression.

93 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Therefore, after the fill-up, the equation indicates that a plot of the Evol as a function of the
historical oil products NP would produce a straight line of the following form:

Example 2.3:

A multilayered reservoir is under waterflood. The following data are available at the start of the
flood. Swi=20%

φ=15%

Sor=30%

Sgi=15%

94 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

Bo=1.2 bbl/STB

h =29 ft A=6000 acre

95 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

96 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
97 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
Exercise

98 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes

99 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
100 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes
101 |Engr. Dr. A.N Nwachukwu lecture notes