A M Sam Sarem
Waterflooding
INTRODUCTION
Waterflooding is a process used to inject water into an oil-
bearing reservoir for pressure maintenance as well as for
displacing and producing incremental oil after (or sometimes
before) the economic production limit has been reached. This
is done through the displacement of oil and free gas by water.
In waterflooding, water is injected into one or more injection
wells while the oil is produced from surrounding producing
wells spaced according to the desired patterns. There are
many different waterflood patterns used in the industry, the
most common of which are illustrated in Figure 1.
QUICK ESTIMATION OF WATERFLOOD
RECOVERY
The overall recovery (ER) is a product of displacement
efficiency (ED), invasion or vertical sweep efficiency (v) and
the pattern or areal sweep efficiency (Ep).
ijp ^ O V P
where
Eg = overall recovery (fraction of initial oil in place
recovered)
ED = displacement efficiency or volume of oil displaced
divided by total oil volume (fraction)
Ev = vertical or invasion efficiency (fraction of vertical
reservoir section contacted by injection fluid)
EP = pattern efficiency or pattern swept by total pattern
area
The displacement efficiency is a function of residual oil
saturation (Sor) of the swept region. The following equation
gives the displacement efficiency as a function of Sor and the
interstitial (irreducible) water saturation (S^):
ED = ( 1 - S O T - S J / ( 1 - S J
where
SOT = saturation of residual oil (fraction)
S^ = saturation of irreducible water (fraction)
The displacement efficiency depends upon the ratio of the
viscous to capillary forces or capillary number. In enhanced
recovery processes, the interracial tension between the oil and
water is reduced to improve the capillary number (Willhite,
1986).
The vertical sweep efficiency is a function of the vertical
heterogeneity (layering) and the mobility ratio (M). The
mobility ratio defined here is the ratio of the relative
permeability to water at Sor (k^) to the relative permeability
of the oil at Swi multiplied by the oil-water viscosity ratio
523
Unocal Science and Technology
Brea, California, U.S.A.
d" 0 //0 a s expressed in the following equation:
M = (k^/kj x (n0/lO
where
M = mobility ratio, or the ratio of relative permeability to
water at Sor divided by the relative permeability of
oil at Si multiplied by the oil-water viscosity ratio
k^ = relative permeability of water
fcro = relative permeability of oil
liB = viscosity of oil
^ = viscosity of water
The vertical heterogeneity is most commonly described by
the Dykstra-Parsons permeability variation (VDP), defined as
the ratio of the standard deviation of the permeability of
various layers (a) divided by the mean permeability ( k ), as
given in the following equation:
where
VDP = Dykstra-Parsons permeability variation
k = absolute permeability
k = mean permeability or sum of the permeabilities
divided by the number of permeabilities
In practice, the permeability variation is determined by
arranging the permeabilities in descending order and
determining the percent-greater-than values for each
permeability. From a plot of k versus percent greater than on
a log probability graph sheet (as shown in Figure 2), the
values of k at 50% and k at 84.1% are read, and VDP is
determined as follows:
M-IP = (fcjo -kMA)/%,
Dykstra and Parsons (1950) have published charts for
determining the vertical sweep efficiency (VD) or
conformance from the mobility ratio and the permeability
variation, as shown for WOR = 5 and 0.1 in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively.
The pattern efficiency is a function of the previously
defined mobility ratio, the flood pattern, and given water cut.
Figure 5 shows the pattern efficiency as a function of mobility
ratio and water cut for a five-spot pattern. Craig (1971)
shows similar plots for several other common patterns.
A word of caution is appropriate at this point. The
knowledge of directional permeability can be crucial in
placement of pattern injectors. The injectors should always
line up in the direction of maximum permeability. As shown
in Figure 6, infill drilling can rotate the flow pattern and in
some cases it can reduce the areal sweep efficiency, as
524 PART 10RESERVOIR ENGINEERING METHODS

-O^
^--x
f \
1 \ f/ \\
! A 1 A ',
\V
/ \ /
V \
*'/ \ ~o-''
TWO-SPOT THREE-SPOT

A INJECTION WELL

O PRODUCTION WELL

PATTERN BOUNDARY

0 O / O ^A Oi A O A O A O
o , o^K o
s.
A
O ' 0 ^
.y I
O / O ^A
I ^'
o X oX >
\ /

^
O I O
! '
^A'
!
O
^
< o / o V o / o \ A A
o
V
v
I
<;
I
o i o ^
"
oV oV o">
/ \ / \ /
o i o A o O I O ^ O ' O A A' O tf O tf O
REGULAR FOUR-SPOT SKEWED FOUR-SPOT FIVE-SPOT

A A O A A O Ov A O-O
/ \ /
/ \ /
O \A' O A O-O A
/ \
/ \
X
A---A' O A-A O o' A b-0
/ \ /
i \ i \
o A d o A b o' A
/ \
/ \
\ / \
A A' O \A oo' A bo
SEVEN-SPOT INVERTED SEVEN-SPOT

99999 0-+-0-+-0-+-0- f-0

l | >
I
I
I I
A A O A A A - .-A-- -A A---A--
I T
I I
I I
I
_ -A A A A o~ -o-~ooo
l ' I I
I I
A O A O
I
O A
6<j>6o6 0-1-0r - O - t - 0 +-o
I l I
l l l . ! . I
A A A A A I i * i i l
i
l ' ooooo ! ! ! ! I
I I t l i t I
A O A O A A A A A A- ,-A- _A^-
O A o A O
NORMAL NINE-SPOT INVERTED NINE-SPOT DIRECT LINE DRIVE STAGGERED LINE DRIVE

Figure 1. Flooding patterns. (From Craig, 1971.)

 Waterflooding 525

100
80
60

40 . X. k " ko
N. PERMEABILITY VARIATION. V '~J~

X -^05
20

i
i
1

0.4 0.6 1.0

i i . -i I I I i i
WOR = 5 BBL/BBL
1 2 5 10 4 0 5 0 7 0 8 0 B U 9 0 9849
PORTION OF TOTAL SAMPLE HAVING HIGHER PERMEABILITY
Figure 3. Vertical sweep efficiency (coverage) as a function of
WOR, M, and permeability variation (VDP), where WOR = 5. (From
Figure 2. Permeability variation example problem. (From Craig, Dystra and Parson, 1950.)
1971.)

Ev = 0.06 for M = 3, VDP = 0.7, WOR = 0.1 (from Figure 5)

exemplified in this figure for a five-spot and line-drive case.
As shown, the sensitivity of the sweep efficiency to the ratio of
maximum to minimum areal permeability depends heavily
upon whether the maximum permeability is in the direction
of injection to injection wells or injection to production wells.
EP = 0.57 for M = 3,1/M = 0.33,
WOR = 0.1(/w = 0.1 /(l + 0.1) = 0.09) (from Figure 6)
ER = 0.583x0.06x0.57 = 0.02
The rest of the solution is given in the following table:

Example of Estimation of Waterflooding Recovery:

Case vDP M WOR ED Ev EP En
Estimate the overall recovery of a five-spot waterflood for 1 0.7 3 0.1 0.583 0.06 0.57 0.02
the following cases: 2 0.7 1.5 0.1 0.583 0.09 0.61 0.03
3 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.583 0.27 0.61 0.10
Case M WOR 4 0.7 3 5 0.583 0.5 0.835 0.24
5 0.5 3 5 0.583 0.185 0.57 0.06
0.7 3 0.1
0.7 1.5 0.1
0.5 1.5 0.1 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF
0.7 3 5 WATERFLOODS
0.5 3 5
The foregoing analysis is one of many simplified
Other properties are as follows: approaches that can be taken as a first approximation for the
fcrwatSor = 0.2 prediction of waterflood recovery, as fully explained by Craig
^atS^O.95 (1971) and Bradley (1987). For a more accurate recovery
/ia = 10 cp at reservoir temperature prediction, mathematical modeling of the reservoir is
H^ = 0.7 cp at reservoir temperature essential. However, the most important aspect of reservoir
SOT = 0.30 modeling is the construction of the model, which requires
Swi = u.28 detailed knowledge of the reservoir characteristics. (For
information on geostatistical methods used to determine the
Solution: most probable realization of the reservoir structure, see the
statistics chapters in Part 6.) Once the most probable reservoir
ED = ( 1 - S 1 - - S B ) / ( 1 - S w l ) realization is determined, the history matching of primary
= (1 - 0.28 - 0.3) / (1 - 0.28) = 0583 production can be used to refine the model before it is used to
M = <Jcrw/kK)x(n0/nJ predict the waterflood behavior. For this purpose, any of the
= (10)(0.2)/(0.7)(0.95) = 3.0 many commercially available softwares can be used.
526 PART 10RESERVOIR ENGINEERING METHODS

a.
Q
>
Z
o
<
<
>
>
1-
co
<
til
5
oc
ai
o.
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.81.0 2.0 4.0 6.08.010
RECIPROCAL OF MOBILITY RATIO, 1/M

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Figure 5. Effect of mobility ratio on oil production for the five-
WOR = 0.1 BBL/BBL spot pattern. (From Craig, 1971.)

Figure 4. Vertical sweep efficiency (coverage) as a function of

WOR, M, and permeability variation (VDP), where WOR = 0.1.
(From Dystra and Parson, 1950)

100

90 --

80 -

70 -
, rr-r

60 LINE DRIVE

u 50-

UJ
O. 40|-
UJ
5 SPOT LINE DRIVE
</> 30 _j
9" -9 1 0 ~ T

i A i
20 j /'ME:

6 - 5 ^6
1 k 1
0--sii
10

0 ,J i i 1 l 1
1.5 2.5 3.5

K
NE/kSE

Figure 6. Effect of directional permeability on sweep efficiencies

for varied degrees of permeability anisotropes at a fluid mobility
ratio of 1. (From Landrum and Crawford, 1960.)