SPE 10024

SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

Waterflood Design (Pattern, Rate, and Timing)

by Surendra P. Singh, * Conoco Inc. and O. Gerald Kiel* Conoco Inc.

'Member SPE-AIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
BeJlng, China, 18-26 March, 1982. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989

ABSTRACT

Waterflooding is the oldest and by far the most (i) Waterflooding - those which displace oil
important method used by the petroleum industry to from semi-depleted and depleted
increase recovery from both onshore and offshore reservoirs, that is, increasing recovery
reservoirs. Waterflood design is a complex problem through the more efficient displacement
that must ultimately be handled on an individual process.
reservoir basis. This paper presents factors that
should be considered in designing both onshore and (ii) Pressure maintenance - those which
offshore waterfloods. maintain a pressure in new or part ially
depleted reservoirs for sustaining the
The need for careful examination of the production rate.
following factors is discussed:

1. Reservoir geology and method of

deposition The main difference between secondary recovery
(waterflooding) and pressure maintenance operations
2. Primary production mechanisms and stage is the amount of reservoir pressure existing at the
of depletion time the operations are begun. If the reservoir
pressure is fairly high, the operation is called
3. Reservoir and fluid properties pressure maintenance, but, if the pressure has been
substantially depleted, the operation is called
4. Reservoir pressure secondary recovery. Both operations should increase
ultimate recovery from the affected reservoir.
5. Well spacing and possible waterflood Under normal circumstances, pressure maintenance
patterns operations will not bring about the rate increase
that a waterflood will since it is installed when
After these factors are discussed, the effects the reservoir producing rate is at a higher level.
that pattern selection, timing and
injection/producing rates have on project economics Many factors important to waterflooding are
are discussed. A spec ial emphasis is placed on also important to pressure maintenance, so that it
offshore waterflooding since it is now of is difficult to define a definite point of
significant concern. separation between the two processes. Accordingly,
a major portion of the information presented in this
INTRODUCTION paper is applicable to both waterflooding and
pressure maintenance by water injection.
Waterflooding was first used over 100 years
ago, but it was not until the 1950's that it gained In this paper, we have made an attempt to
popularity when field applications increased at a review the reservoir engineering and geological
rapid rate. At the present time, waterflooding is parameters which control waterflood recovery. Also
so well regarded as a reliable and economic oil included is a discussion of criteria used in
recovery technique that almost every field that does selecting a water injection rate, pattern and the
not have a natural water drive, is being or soon timing of water injection. No attempt has been made
will be waterflooded. Waterflood projects from a to provide details of methods of forecasting
reservoir engineering viewpoint, are very tedious waterflood recovery; however, the types of
and require detailed data. There are two basic techniques generally used today are mentioned.
classifications of water injection projects:
References and illustrations at end of paper.

203
2 WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING) SPE 10024

EVALUATING WATERFLOOD PROSPECTS Bof = Formation volume factor during water-

flooding, RB/STB.
There are a number of reservoir factors which
have a profound influence upon the success of a Swc = Connate water saturation, fraction.
waterflood project and unfavorable values for any
one or two of these factors can result in the Sor = Residual oil saturation after
complete failure of a flood, even though other waterflooding, fraction.
factors may be quite favorable. These engineering
factors involved in evaluating potential waterflood = Primary recovery efficiency, fraction of
recovery normally fall into two general categories, original oil in place (OOIP).
primary and secondary variables (1). The primary
variables are utilized directly in the arithmetic Ev = Overall volumetric sweep efficiency,
calculation of recoverable reserves, while the fraction of reservoir volume, fraction.
secondary variables affect the estimate of these
reserves indirectly through the primary variables. Ed = Maximum unit disp~acement efficiency (to
The primary variables are: be defined later), fraction.

1. Primary recovery efficiency Npwf = Waterflood reserves, STB.

2. Connate water saturation A sensitivity analysis of waterflood recovery

using equation (1) can be performed to examine the
Volumetric sweep efficiency effect of the primary variables on oil recovery.
4. Residual oil saturation to waterflooding
Certain of the six primary variables are more
5. Crude oil shrinkage directly susceptible to evaluation than are others
under most field condit ions. The crude shrinkage
6. Floodable reservoir pore volume can usually be determined or estimated fairly
closely. Log and core data can provide reasonably
The secondary variables are listed below, with the accurate estimates for connate water and residual
numbers in parentheses indicating the primary oil saturations. Detailed geologic studies are
variables they affect: needed to determine floodable reservoir pore volume.
The remaining factor, overall sweep efficiency, has
1. Geologic (structure, continuity) been the subject of a tremendous amount of
considerations (1, 3, 6). experimental and theoretical discussion.

2. Permeability magnitude and its variation

(1,3,4). As related to waterflooding, a brief discussion
of geological and depositional environment factors,
3. Oil viscosity (1, 3, 4). primary production mechanisms and stage of
depletion, fluid and rock properties, and of factors
4. Relative permeability (1, 3, 4). affectin~ recovery efficiency (Ev x Ed) is given
below.
5. Flood pattern (3, 4).
GEOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING WATERFLOODING
6. Reservoir pressure (5).
One of the first steps in organizing reservoir
7. Economic factors such as crude price, depth of information for waterflooding is to determine the
reservoir, well spacing, operating costs, etc. geometry of the reservoir. The structure and
(1,3,4,6). stratigraphy of the reservoir control the location
of wells, and to a large extent, dictate the methods
Callaway (1) developed a relationship for by which a reservoir may be waterflooded. For
estimating total waterflood recoverable reserves: example, if a suitable structure exists and the
remaining oil saturation is sufficient, a peripheral
Npwf =
V12 ( 1 - Swc) x {1 - Rp - Boi x ( 1 - Ev x Ed)} type flood may result in a higher areal sweep
efficiency than conventional pattern or line drive
Boi Bof
floods.
and (1)
Most water injection operations to date have
been conducted in fields exhibiting only moderate
Ed = 1 - (Sorl (1 - Swc (2)
structural relief. In such pools, the dip may be so
where: small that it has no not iceable effect on
waterflooding. Thus, the location of injection and
Vp Floodable reservoir pore volume producing wells may be made to conform to property
= lines and known sand conditions. Such a practice
(7758Ahl6), barrels
may not prove successful in reservoirs where oil and
Boi Original formation volume factor, gas distribution has been controlled by a high
= relief structure.
RB/STB.

204
SPE 10024 S. P. SIOOH, O. G. KIEL
Structural features such as faults, or
stratigraphic features such as shale outs, or any
other permeability barriers, will usually influence
waterflood design. An otherwise suitable reservoir
may be so highly faulted as to make any injection
program unattractive. For efficient production each
fault block must be considered a separate reservoir.
Vertical permeabilities, which may be less than
horizontal permeabilities because of grain
orientation and cementing material, can be measured
on core samples. But, it is also necessary to
determine distribution of non-pay intervals because
small amounts of impermeable rock can profoundly
affect vertical permeabilities (2) even i f it is
discontinuous and randomly distributed. Proper
description requires knowledge of the depositional
environment. Natural fractures can cause serious
by-passing of the injected water unless patterns are
carefully oriented (see discussion of factors
affecting areal sweep efficiency).
Conditions of the depositional environment
(e.g. deltaic, reef, etc.) determine the type of
deposit which will occur. For example, layering
caused by depositional sequence and facies change
both affect lateral cont inuity. A thorough
understanding of these environments is essential for
determining distribution, continuity and internal
characteristics such as porosity, permeability,
silt/clay interbedding, and flow barriers, etc. of
reservoir rock. As an example, a depositional study
(3) of the Boundary Lake field in British Columbia
(Canada) showed that the reservoir is comprised of
thin continuous porous zones confined above and
below by dense beds. This type of reservoir lends
itself to a pattern type waterflood. Detailed
correlation and mapping of individual zones is a
prerequisite for assuring that every zone is being
waterflooded.
A dramatic change occurred in continuity
concepts (Figure 1) when surface and subsurface
studies of the San Andres formation in the Wasson
Field in West, Texas showed that gross modeling of
continuity was not adequate (4). The revised model
consists of 10 mappable pay units, some of which are
not continuous between wells drilled on 40-acre
spacing. The pay intervals are, at places,
separated by impermeable barries that prevent cross
flow. On the basis of this concept of "continuous"
and "non-continuous" pay, infill drilling on 20
acres spacing was initiated. The work of George and
Stiles (5) also illustrates the techniques used to
quantify the discontinuous nature of porosity zones
within the gross reservoir section by constructing a
relationship between pay continuity and well spacing
(Figure 2). They also attempted to show that
floodable pay, even though continuous, is not
necessarily floodable because of irregularities in
bed geometry between wells. Pract ical applicat ion
of the floodable pay concept shows that as the
average distance between injectors and producers
decreases, floodable pay increases. This concept
becomes important when evaluating infill drilling
and pattern changes.
205
3
PRIMARY PRODUCTION MECHANISMS AND STAGE OF DEPLETION
The driving forces which cause oil and gas to
flow to the wellbore can be divided into four basic
types: depletion drive, gas cap drive, water drive
and gravity drainage. If more than one of the above
forces is a major contributing factor, the reservoir
is called a "combination drive" reservoir, e.g., a
reservoir with both a free gas cap and an external
water drive.
One would usually expect a reservoir wi th a
strong natural water drive not to be subjected to
water injection unless there are some very unusual
circumstances such as tremendous reservoir size or a
lower rate of production. Another primary recovery
mechanism where water flooding would not normally be
attempted is in reservoirs with large gas caps.
These reservoirs have sufficient natural reservoir
energy so an external source of energy is not
required for efficient oil recovery. Here, it is
assumed that there are no unfavorable flow barriers
to stop gas cap expansion to provide pressure
support in the oil zone. Also, in general,
reservoirs with gas caps and thin oil rings are
often not good candidates for waterflooding because
downdip (or bottom) water injection may force oil
into the gas cap area where it frequently is
unrecoverable.
A reservoir with good gravity drainage is
another example of reservoirs which probably should
not be waterflooded if we are attempting to maximize
recovery. Gravity drainage is a much more efficient
recovery mechanism as compared to displacement by
water. In the case of fair gravity drainage
reservoirs, water injection probably should be used
only to increase producing rates.
In depletion drive (dissolved gas drive)
reservoirs natural energy is less efficient than
that provided by water injection. Such reservoirs
are good candidates for waterflooding. Also
reservoirs with inefficient water drives, and those
with small gas caps can benefit from water
injection.
In depletion or weak combination drive
reservoirs, distribution of free gas saturation
depends on the stage of the reservoir's depletion
(pressure reduction). A higher gas saturation would
require larger water volumes for reservoir fill up
and oil production response would be delayed. If
gas saturation is fairly high, it may not be
possible to form an oil bank and oil production will
occur at high water cuts. Several authors (6) have
experimentally shown that, for a given oil
saturation, recovery by waterflooding increases
with increasing gas saturation up to a certain
limit. The effect of gas has been to cause lower
residual oil saturations behind the front than could
be obtained by waterflooding the same system in the
absence of gas. However, the degree of improvement
in oil recovery has not been established
quantitatively to any degree of accuracy.
4 WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING) SPE 10024

FLUID AND ROCK PROPERTIES Directional trends in permeability in a given strata

The most important fluid and rock properties
which affect the susceptibility of a reservoir to
waterflooding are formation volume factor (FVF), oil
viscosity, rock permeability and its distribution,
and relative permeability. The effect of FVF on
waterflood recovery can be evaluated by assuming the
residual oil saturation behind the front is the same
regardless of when water injection starts. We then
calculate the number of stock tank barrels of oil in
the swept portion of the reservoir which will remain
as residual oil saturation at different pressures
for the project. It can be shown that stock tank
barrels of oil left in the swept area is minimum if
the waterflood is started when the reservoir is at
bubble point pressure.
will also cause early breakthrough if patterns are
not aligned properly (to be discussed later).
REVIEW OF FACTORS AFFECTING DISPLACEMENT,
AREAL AND VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCIES
The fraction of oil that will be removed by
waterflooding is a function of the following
efficiency factors:
1. Areal sweep efficiency, Ea
2. Invasion or vertical sweep efficiency,
Ei
Unit displacement efficiency, Ed

The viscosity of oil and water ( Mo. Mw ) and
the relative permeability characteristics of the
rock (kro, krw) affect the mobility ratio. In terms
of waterflooding, the mobility rat io is the water
mobility in the water swept portion of the reservoir
divided by the oil mobility in the unswept portion.
Mathematically:
M = krw x.!:!:!L
Mw kro
The reservoir oil viscosity appears explicity
in the above equation. Figure 3 shows the effect of
oil viscosity on mobility ratio for strongly water
wet and strongly oil wet rock (6). Regardless of
rock wetability preference, the mobility ratio
increases with increasing oil viscosity. The oil
and water viscosities and rock relative permeability
characteristics also enter into the fractional flow
equat ion, which for a horizontal system can be
written as:
Figure 6 depicts these three efficiencies (7).
Areal sweep efficiency is the pattern area that
has been displaced by water divided by the total
pattern area. Vertical sweep or invasion efficiency
is a measure of the uniformity of water invasion and
is defined as the cross sectional area contacted by
the injected fluid divided by the cross sect ional
area of the entire reservoir thickness behind the
injected fluid front. The unit displacement
efficiency is that fraction of initial oil
saturat ion that has been displaced from pores by
water, thus:
Soi Sor (5)
Soi
Other efficiency factors can be defined by a
combination of the above efficiencies. For example,
volumetric sweep efficiency Ev, is given by:

fw = --~--~-----
(6)
1 + kro Mw (4)
krwMo Overall recovery efficiency ER, by the
displacement process can be written as:
The oil recovery efficiency at breakthrough,
following breakthrough and cumulative pore volumes
of water required to produce oil up to a given water
cut are strongly influenced by this fractional flow AREAL SWEEP
relationship. Figures 4 and 5 show the effect of
oil viscosity and fractional flow curves for Numerous studies have shown that the areal sweep
strongly water wet and strongly oil wet rock, efficiency is a function of the following reservoir
respectively. It can be shown that, regardless of and operating variables:
wettability, a higher oil viscosity results in less
efficient displacement; that is, there is a lower
recovery at any water-oil ratio and increased 1. Flood pattern; that is well arrangement in
injected water volume is required to achieve that relation to one another and with respect
recovery. to reservoir boundaries.
The magnitude of permeability of the reservoir 2. Mobility ratio
rock controls, to a large degree, the rate of water
inject ion which can be sus tained for a specified Permeability orientation
pressure at the sand face. Reasonably uniform
permeability distribution is essential for a 4. Fracturing and fracture orientation
successful waterflood since this determines to a
great degree the quantities of injected water that 5. Formation dip
must be handled. If great variations in the
permeability of individual continuous strata within 6. Depleted zones
the reservoir exist, injected water will break
through early in high permeability streaks and will 7. Volume of water injected
cycle large volumes of water before lower
permeability streaks have been effectively swept.

206
SPE 10024 S. P. SINGH, O. G. KIEL
A wide variety of flood patterns (injection -
production well arrangement) have been studied.
Figure 7 shows the arrangement of various patterns
and Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of these
patterns (6). The efficiencies listed in Table 2
for various confined well patterns at breakthrough
indicate the effect of the type of pattern. A vertical fracture is in the line with the
comparison of the data for the two direct line drive
patterns indicate that sweep is a function of
spacing ratio, the greater ratio resulting in higher
breakthrough sweep efficiency. The areal sweep
efficiency of a developed pattern continue to
increase after water breakthrough. This
has been shown for five spot and line drives (8) and
for nine spots (9). The effect of off-pattern wells
was studied by Prats et al (10) and they found that
the oil recovery at breakthrough is always lower
with an off-pattern injection well. Sweepout beyond
normal pattern was studied by Caudle et al (11).
They found that at least 90 percent of the area
lying outside the last row of wells and within one
well spacing of these wells would ultimately be
swept by the injected water.
The patterns discussed above are geometrically
repeated arrangements for developing an entire field
or for pilot flooding. Another type of flood
pattern which is often utilized is the end to end
flood pattern or a form of peripheral flood pattern
where the producing wells are either shut-in or
converted to water injection once the injection
water breaks through. Ferrell et al (12) showed
that when producers are shut in at water
breakthrough, efficient areal sweep is obtained and
less injected water is required to recover the oil.
Operators of peripheral waterfloods often use this
technique, taking oil production from wells ahead of
the flood front and producing only the last well or
row of wells to high water-oil ratios.
The effect of mobility ratio on areal sweep
efficiency has been studied extensively with the aid
of reservoir models for different injection
patterns. The breakthrough sweep efficiency is
significantly affected by mobility ratio (decreases
with increasing ratio) and, following breakthrough,
the areal sweep increases by continued injection of
water. Figure 8 shows the fraction of a five spot
that will be swept at water breakthrough and at
increasing water cuts of the produced fluid for
different values of mobility ratio (3). Water cuts
can be related to cummulative volume of water
injected.
Landrum and Crawford (14) have studied the
effect of direct ional permeability on sweep
efficiency at unit mobility ratio, for a five spot
and direct line drive (square pattern). Their
results are shown in Figure 9 for two relative
positions of directional permeability. A 45 0
rotation of patterns could result in approximately
100 percent sweep for the five spot and
approximately zero sweep for a line drive.
207
5
The effect of vertical fractures on the sweep
of a pattern in the five spot well network has been
studied by Dyes, et al (15). They found the effect
of fractures to be a function of fracture length and
orientation for a given mobility ratio. Figure 10
present results for two cases, that where the
breakthrough streamline (unfavorable), and that
where the vertical fracture is 45 degrees displaced
from this streamline (most favorable orientation).
Also presented is the effect of fracture length for
the unfavorable cases. Dyes, et al concluded that
fractures up to one half the distance between wells
had little practical effect on the areal sweep
efficiency or values of the order of 90 to 98% sweep
could be achieved by operat ing to 90% water cut.
Also, the general conclusion to be drawn from these
results is that the producing wells should be
arrayed parallel to the fracture orientation or
maximum permeability axis.
Peripheral injection programs are often used in
dipping beds, but the high viscosity for some crudes
(low mobility) may dictate closer spacing of pattern
floods if economical producing rates are to be
obtained. Prats et al (16) have shown that in
addition to formation dip and the orientation of a
well array with respect to dip, operational
procedures affect the areal sweep even though
injection and production rates are balanced. If the
injection and producing wells are maintained at
constant injection and production heads,
respectively, the dip has no effect (horizontal data
apply). However, if the producing wells are
maintained at constant pressure, sweep efficiency is
reduced. In a partially depleted system, three
regions of differing mobil it ies could be present.
These are the un invaded depleted zone in which gas
is flowing, an oil bank, and the water bank. The
favorable mobility of the gas displacement by oil
results in improved sweep over that obtained if oil
and injected water are present (17).
Operating methods have an effect on the
breakthrough sweep effic iency, even in horizontal
systems, for example, in the case of an inverted
nine spot (Figure 11), the ratio of producing rates
of the corner wells to the side wells (18).
Unbalanced injection rates in five spots arrays have
been shown by Crawford to vary the breakthrough
sweep efficiency from 45 to 72 percent.
VERTICAL SWEEP
Variations in vertical sweep may be caused by
lensing, faulting, shale barriers, permeability
variations, and other reservoir heterogeneities.
Vertical sweep values in the range of 70% to 90% are
considered to be common in typical reservoirs.
Reservoirs with an extensive network of fractures
and/or areally widespread gas caps provide short
circuits for injected water thus drast ically re-
ducing vertical sweep.
6 WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING) SPE 10024

A detailed discussion of all the factors The unit displacement efficiency is related to
affecting vertical sweep is beyond the scope of this oil-water relative permeability, viscosity,
paper. However, factors affecting vertical sweep capillary pressure, and gravity forces by the
are listed in Table 3 along with general statements following generalized fractional flow equation
regarding their effect on this parameter. In brief, (20):
formation stratification, permeability stratifica-
tion, mobility ratio, relative magnitudes of
gravity, capillary, and viscous forces (inject ion 1 +0.001l27 K x kro x~ {~L
aPe - 0.433 b,p Sin ad}
)10 qt a
rate), cross flow, and total fluid injected fw
)1w kro
determine the vertical sweep which can be achieved +--
in a waterflood. Figure 12 shows volumetric sweep )10 krw (8)
efficiency product of areal and vertical sweep at
breakthrough as a function of permeability variation
and mobility ratio for a five spot pattern with no where:
gas saturation (19).
fw = Fractional flow of water in the flowing
stream at any point in rock (water cut)
UNIT DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY
K = Formation permeability, md
kro = Relative permeability to oil
The unit displacement efficiency, expressed as
the fraction of oil displaced from a volume of rock krw = Relative permeability to oil
which have been contacted by the injection water,
depends on many physical parameters. Some of these )10 = Oil viscosity, cp
are:
)1w = Water viscosity, cp
1. Rock wettability - water wet, oil wet, or
neutral. qt = Flow rate, bid
2. Pore size and its distribution
(permeability) . ad = Angle of formation dip to the horizontal
( p p
3. Viscosity of fluids. b,p = Water oil density difference, w- 0),
gmlcc
4. Gravity forces.
Pc = Capillary pressure - pressure in oil phase
minus pressure in water phase
The wetability of a rock determines which fluid
coats its surface. In general, water as a L = Distance along direction of movement
displacing fluid is more efficient in a water wet
system as compared to an oil wet system. In A Area of cross section normal to flow
preferentially water wet rock the oil remaining at direction
floodout exists as trapped isolated globules in most
of the flow channels. In preferentially oil wet It should be noted that above the fract ional
rock, at conditions approaching flood out, the flow equat ion reduces to the simpler form given
residual oil exists in the smaller flow channels and earlier (Equation 4) when capillary and gravity
as a film in larger water filled pores. forces are neglected:
(~ = o 0 and ad=O.O)
aL
The pore size and its distribution controls the
magnitude of permeability, capillary pressure, and
fluid distribution in a multifluid system. The unit displacement efficiency at water
Unfortunately, this parameter can' not be measured breakthrough is found by constructing a fractional
directly and only approximations have been obtained flow curve assuming a negligible capillary pressure
term and by drawing a tangent to the fractional flow
~y ~ean of capillary pressure studies. Fortunately,
It lS not necessary for us to determine wetability, curve from a value of fw = 0.0 and a value of water
and pore size distribution of the reservoir rock to saturation corresponding to the connate water
determine unit displacement efficiency during saturation (assuming connate water saturation is
waterflooding. The effect of these factors is irreducible water saturation also). This tangent
included in the water - oil flow characteristics construct ion is shown in Figure 13. The value of
(relative permeability) of the reservoir rock. the water saturation at which the tangent intersects
Relative permeabilities, when measured on native fw = 1.0 line is the average water saturation in the
state reservoir rock samples at reservoir water invaded zone at breakthrough, S wbt). The
unit displacement efficiency at this time is (21):
temperatures, show the composite effect of pore
geometry, wetability, and the direction of
saturation change (drainage or imbibition).
S wbt - Swc (9)
= 1.0 - Swc

208
SPE 10024 S. P. SI~H,
The maximum unit displacement efficiency by
waterflooding is:
Sor
(10)
- Swc
This value of unit displacement efficiency was
used earlier in Equation which is used to
calculate waterflood reserves.
As can be seen from Equation 8 , for inclined
reservoirs the fractional flow curve is dependent
upon the formation permeability, the total flow
rate, the density difference, and dip angle in
addition to water - oil relative permeabilities and
viscosities. Also, by constructing fractional flow
curves, it can be shown that water displacing oil up
dip will result in a lower value of fw at any water
saturation than water displacing oil down dip. The
value of dip Rngle is measured from the horizontal
with flow moving up dip assigned a positive angle
and flow moving downdip assigned a negative angle.
Furthermore, worthy of mention here is the
effect initial wRter saturation has on the formation
of an oil bank in front of an advancing water front.
If the initial water saturation exceeds some
critical value, (such that it is no longer possible
to constrict a tangent to the fractional flow
curve), an oil bank may not form; and although
substantial oil recovery may be achieved, oil will
be produced at high water cut values.
EFFECT OF INJECTION AND PRODUCING RATES
ON OIL RECOVERY'
During the late 1950's, a controversy existed
on the effect of injection or producing rate on the
oil recovery of a waterflood. Let us consider the
following factors which have been mentioned in some
detail earlier:
(i) In horizontal reservoirs the displacement
efficiency is independent of rate.
(ii) The vertical sweep efficiency is
influenced by viscous, capillary and
gravity forces. The viscous forces result
from the pressure gradient and thus are
proportional to the flow rate. In water
wet rocks, capillary forces can be
efficient in displacing oil from less
permeable portions of the reservoir. With
lower injection rates more time is
available for imbibition. However,
published information (22) suggests that
rate variations of five-fold or more have
little effect on recovery. The degree of
gravity segregation depends on the
injection rate - lower values enhance the
tendency for water to under run the oil
and cause earlier water breakthrough.
However, the degree of gravity
segregation also depends upon horizontal
and vertical transmissibilities to fluid
movement. Again, published information
(23) supports that a significant change in
flow rate is required to effect small
changes in volumetric sweep resulting
from gravity forces.
209
o. G. KIEL 7
As concluded by Craig (6), it is impossible to
make a general statement as to an optimum water
injection rate because of the wide range of rock and
fluid properties in oil reservoirs. Furthermore,
technical studies suggest that injection rate
changes of five - fold or more are required to
significantly alter the effects of reservoir
capillary and/or gravity forces. TlJus, in
reservoirs with only a small amount of dip, oil
recovery should not be sil'nificantly affected by
variations in injection and production rates within
pract ical limits. In steeply dipping reservoirs,
when downdip peripheral injection is utilized,
slower rates should result in higher oil recovery.
In such cases, economic factors must be considered
in selecting an optimum injection rate.
OPTIMUM TIME TO START A WATERFLOOD
The optimum time to start a waterflood depends
on several factors. In the following discussion, it
is assumed that the objective is to maximize oil
recovery, although other economic objectives such as
maximum discounted rate of return may be desirable
in many cases.
As discussed by Tarr et al (24), two types of
factors dictate the optimum time to start
wa terflood:
1. Pressure dependent factors
2. Other factors such as permeability
variation, reservoir geometry, etc.
Since the formation volume factor has its
highest value at the bubble point pressure, a water-
flood initiated when the reservoir pressure reaches
this pressure, will leave minimum stock tank barrels
of oil trapped in the reservoir, provided pressure
during waterflooding is never allowed to go below
the bubble point. Thus when considering oil
shrinkage alone, one can say that optimum time to
start a h'aterflood is at the bubble point pressure.
At this pressure also, the reservoir oil
viscosity is at its minimum value, which improves
the mobility ratio and areal sweep. Other factors
which favor waterflooding at the original bubble
point pressure are (i) the producing wells have the
maximum producitivity index and (ii) flood response
occurs with minimum delay because the reservoir is
liquid filled at the start of the flood.
Reservoir geometry and permeability variations
can affect optimum timing for waterflooding if
recovery by water injection is expected to be
severely reduced due to a poor volumetric sweep. In
such cases, the actual method to determine the
optimum time for water injection should involve
calculations of ultimate recovery (primary plus
waterflood) as a function of the pressure at which
waterflood is to be started. A plot of recovery vs.
pressure can be used to determine the optimum
pressure, and hence the time to start water
injection.
8 WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING) SPE 10024

If water injection is started to optimize some 5. utilize existing wells and thus minimize
economic criterion (e.g. maximum present worth), drilling of new wells.
then the only way to determine the optimum time to
begin water injection is to compute total recovery, 6. Be compatible with the flooding patterns
rate, investment and income for several assumed of operators on other leases.
times of initiation. By comparing the results of
these calculations the best alternative can be At first, basically two different choices are
selected. available:

WATERFLOOD PREDICTION METHODS (a) Treatment of the reservoir as a whole

using a peripheral flood.
Over 30 calculation techniques have been
discussed in the waterflooding literature. A (b) Waterflooding utilizing a repeating
monograph (6) published a decade ago provides an pattern such as five spot, nine spot, etc.
excellent description and comparison of these
methods. The most desirable method of predict ing PHERIPHERAL FLOODING
waterflood performance would, of course, include all
pertinent fluid flow, well pattern and heterogeneity As the name implies, this technique ut ilizes
effect s. It appears that mathemat ical reservoir wells along the flanks of a reservoir for water
simulators have approached close to such a method. injection. For example, one of the worlds largest
These models require detailed reservoir data and the offshore waterfloods is the Umm Shaif field (27) of
expense of running performance predictions could be Ahu Dhabi which has 25 peripheral injection wells.
substantial for some complex three dimensional In such a flood, production wells can be shut in at
models. Other simple analytical methods, which many or shortly after water breakthrough, and the oil
times work reasonably well, have been presented by recoverable at these wells will be recovered at the
Higgins and Leighton (25), Craig et al (26), and next row of producers. Of course, the operator of a
Prats (27). peripheral flood may choose to convert watered - out
producers to injectors and thus keep injection wells
as close as possible to the water front without by-
DESIGN OF WATERFLOODS passing any oil. In dipping reservoirs this type of
flooding is preferred to take advantage of the
The reservoir engineering design of formation dip to even out of the waterflood front.
waterfloods involves: Some of the advantages and disadvantages of
peripheral flooding are as follows:
1. Specifying the rate of water injection.
1. Generally maximum oil recovery is
2. Establishing the waterflood pattern. obtained with a minimum of produced water.
Also, production of significant
3. Estimation of producing rates and quantities of water can be delayed until
expected oil recovery. only the last row of producers remains.
The interrelated factors affecting oil
2. Because of the limited number of injectors
recovery have been discussed earlier. It is
as compared to the number of producers,
difficult to estimate water injection rates with any
total water injection tends to be limited
accuracy using analytical methods. Frequently, the
as well as the number of producers
most reliable injection data is obtained from pilot responding to anyone time. Also, it
tests or from similar waterfloods located nearby. takes a long time for injected water to
fill up the gas space, with the result
SELECTION OF A FLOODING PATTERN
that production rate increases are
delayed beyond what they would be for a
The regular waterflood patterns yield areal pa t t ern flood.
sweep efficiencies in the high permeability layers
approaching 100 percent at economic water-oil Sufficiently high permeability is
3.
ratios. The proposed optimum waterflood pattern required to move water at the desired rate
should (6):
over a distance of several well spacings
if the operator does not wish to convert
1. Provide desired oil production rate. watered out producers to injectors.
2. Provide a sufficient water injection rate WATERFLOODING USING REPEATED PATTERNS
to support this oil production rate.
If a pattern waterflood is indicated, the
3. Maximize oil recovery with a minimum of engineer must decide the type of pattern. Where the
water production to lift, handle and wells are on square spacing, as is usual, five spots
dispose of. and nine spots are the most common flooding
patterns. Laboratory studies (28, 18) have shown
4. Take advantage of known reservoir rock
that both of these patterns yield nearly the same
characteristics such as directional
oil recovery and HOR performance. The choice can be
permeability, fractures, dip, etc. made primarily on the basis of water injectivity,

210
SPE 10024 S. P. SIOOH, o. G. KIEL 9

although reservoir heterogeneity is an important for pressure maintenance to keep oil product ion
factor. (See Table 1 for ratio of injectors to rates at the highest possible values. Also,
producers for different types of patterns.) abandonment water-oil ratios will be lower than many
onshore projects. Very careful early planning is
The mobility ratio is a measure of the mandatory for offshore reservoir development to
injectivity of a well relative to its productivity. maximize oil recovery.
At unfavorable mobility ratios (M > 1), water
injectivity exceeds the oil productivity of a The following is a list of engineering factors,
producer after fill up and the reverse is true at not necessarily from a reservoir engineering point
favorable mobility ratios. Thus, at an unfavorable of view, which should be taken into consideration in
mobility ratio, a pattern having more producers than the development of offshore waterfloods:
injectors is indicated to maintain balanced
injection and production rates. For favorable 1. Early delineation drilling, that is,
mobility ratios, the recommended pattern should have sufficient wells must be drilled to obtain
more injectors than producers. the best reservoir description as early as
possible. Reservoir data gathering in
As discussed earlier, the choice of pattern early wells (cores, logs, well tests,
must also consider direct ional permeability, the etc.) must be planned to get "ball park"
existence of reservoir fractures and their estimates of expected well productivities
orientation. The prudent engineer will arrange his and major reservoir heterogenetics for
pattern such that the direction of maximum early planning of production facilities.
permeability or fracture orientation is in the same
direct ion as the line joining the adjacent 2. Early coordination with Drilling
injectors. Department for best directional drilling
and completion program.
In brief, the choice of either a peripheral or
a repeating pattern flood is usually made on the
basis of reservoir size, dip, permeability and the 3. Determination of platform size to
need for a fast initial production response. accomplish desired drilling densi ty and
its capRbility to hold waterflood
WELL SPACING facilities.

The major factor in recovering oil by

waterflooding is ,reservoir heterogeneity. In 1945,
Craze and Buckley (29) concluded that recovery
efficiency is independent of well spacing. Some of
the leading experts in the oil industry believe that
well spacing is the key to solving recovery problems
caused by heterogeneity (30). It is not difficult
to see that in reservoirs with limited lateral
communication such as lenticular sands or
discont inuous porosity development in blanket
carbonate deposits, or in faulted reservoirs, there
should be an improvement in oil recovery with
reduced well spacing, but this is very difficult to
quantify. Certainly, reduced well spacing does
allow for higher total injection and oil production
rates.
4. Early determination of offtake levels
possible with pressure maintenance and/or
artificial lift.
5. Determination of a facilities plan; that
is, where separation will occur, the size
of major separators, offshore loading or
pipeline, central or widespread
injection, field operating pressures and
temperatures, recognttion of major long
lead items such as water injection trains
and gas lift compressors, early well
engineering design to determine tubular
sizes for maximum rates, etc.

OFFSHORE RESERVOIRS 6. Early "dump flood" evaluat ion prior to

pressured injection.
Waterflood operations in the offshore areas are
different, not so much in reservoir characteristics, 7. Injectivity testing to confirm oil/water
but in special operating considerations that exist relative permeability measurements. Also
in the those regions. First, a high economic limit identification of clay problems and other
is particular to offshore and the life of these water injection impediments such as scale
fields is shorter than onshore reservoirs. From the formation.
standpoint of well spacing, the luxury of having
wells close together does not exist. Thus, sand
continuity and fault patterns may not always be In addition to the above engineering
completely understood. Also wells are completed considerations, another important factor is a team
into more than one sand. approach. Since offshore development usually
requires "large" accumulations, it is very important
The uncertain reservoir configuration, to maintain continuity of manpower over the first
faulting, and large spacings usually preclude the few (five or so) years of a project. Here, the
possibility of a pattern -type flood. Also, since explorationist, engineer and project people must be
offshore operating costs are much higher than continually updated on new wells and how they fit
onshore, most water injection projects (in the the plan. Many changes take place in the early
absence of an active water drive) will be started years of a project.

211
10 WATERFLOOD DESIGN (PATTERN, RATE, TIMING)
SUMMARY
This paper presents important factors that
should be considered in designing both onshore and
offshore water injection projects. The need for
carefully examining the reservoir geology, primary
production mechanisms, stage of depletion, rock and
fluid properties, etc. is discussed. A brief review
of effects of injection and production rates,
pattern type, well spacing, and injection timing on
waterflood recovery is also presented. Since
offshore reservoirs are of significant concern and
do require speCial continued attention, a list of
important engineering factors pertaining to their
development is provided.
References
1. Callaway, F. H.: "Evaluation of Waterflood
Prospects", J. Pet. Tech., October, 1959, pp
11-16.
2. Richardson, J. G., Harris, D. G., Rossen, R.
H., and Van Hee, G.: "The Effect of Small,
Discontinuous Shale on Oil Recovery", J. Pet.
Tech., November, 1978, pp 1531-1537.
3. Jardine, D., Andrews, D. P., Wishart, J. W.,
and Young, J. W.: "Distribution and Continuity
of Carbonate Reservoirs", J. Pet. Tech., July,
1977, pp 873-885.
4. Ghauri, W. K., Osborne, A. F., and Magnuson, W.
L.: "Changing Concepts in Carbonate
Waterflooding -West Texas Denver Unit Project -
An Illustrative Example", J. Pet. Tech., June,
1974, pp 595-606.
5. George, C. J., and Stiles, L. H.: "Improved
Techniques for Evaluating Carbonate
Wa terfloods in West Texas", J. Pet. Tech.,
November, 1978, pp 1547-1554.
6. Craig, F. F., Jr.: "Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Waterflooding", Monograph Series,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas,
1971.
Herbeck, E. F., Heintz, R. C., and Hastings, J.
R. : "Fundamentals of Tert iary Oil Recovery -
Part I: Why Tert iary Recovery?", Petroleum
Engineer, January, 1976, pp 35-46.
8. Dyes, A. B., Caudle, B. H. and Erickson, R. A.:
"Oil Production After Breakthrough As
Influenced by Mobility Ratio", Trans. AIME
(1954) 201, 81-86.
9. Kimbler, O. K., Caudle, B. H., and Cooper H.
E., Jr.: "Areal Sweepout Behavior in a Nine
Spot Injection Pattern", J. Pet. Tech.,
(February, 1964), 199-202.
10. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Allen, E. E.:
"Effect of Off-Pattern Wells on the Performance
of a Five Spot Flood", Trans. AIME (1962) 225,
173-178.
212
SPE 10024
11. Caudle, B. H., Erickson, R. A., and Slobod, R.
L. : "The Enchroachment of Injected Fluids
Beyond the Normal Well Pattern", Trans. AIME,
(1955) Vol. 204, 79-85.
12. Ferrell, H., Irby, T. L., Pruit, G. T., and
Crawford, P. B.: "Model Studies for Injection
- Production Well Conversion During a Line
Drive Waterflood", Trans. AIME (1960) 219, 96-
98.
13. Caudle, B. H. and Witte, M. D.: " J. Pet.
Tech., December, 1963, pp 63.
14. Landrum, B. L., and Crawford, P. B.: "Effect
of Directional Permeability on Sweep
Efficiency and Production Capacity", Trans.
AIME, (1960), Vol. 219.
15. Dyes, A. B., Kemp, C. E., and Caudle, B. H.:
"Effect of Fractures on Sweepout Patterns",
Trans. AIME (1958) Vol. 213.
16. Prats, M., Strickler, W. R., and Matthews, C.
S.: "Single Fluid Five Spot Floods in Dipping
Reservoirs", Trans. AIME (1955) 204, 160.
17. Dyes, A. B. and Braun, P.H.: "Sweepout Patterns
in Depleted and in Stratified Reservoirs",
Prod. Mon. December, 1954, Vol. 19, No.2.
18. Cotman, N. T., Still, G. R., and Crawford, P.
B.: "Laboratory Comparison of Oil Recovery in
Five Spot and Nine Spot Waterflood Patterns",
Prod. Monthly (December, 1962),27, No. 12,
pp 10-13.
19. Craig, F. F., Jr.: "Effect of Permeability
Variation and Mobility Ratio on Five-Spot Oil
Recovery Performance Calculations", J. Pet.
Tech., October 1970, pp 1239-1245.
20. Leverett, M. C.: "Capillary Behavior in Porous
Solids", Trans. AIME (1941),142,152-169.
21. Welge, H. J.: "A Simplified Method for
Computing Oil Recovery by Gas or Water Drive",
Trans. AIME (1952),195,91-98.
22. Gaucher, D. H., and Lindley, D. C.:
"Waterflood Performance in a Strat Hied Five
Spot Reservoir - A Scaled Model Study", Trans.
AIME (1960), 219, 208-215.
23. Craig, F. F., Jr., Sanderlin, J. L., Moore, D.
W. and Geffen, T. M., "A Laboratory Study of
Gravity in Frontal Drives", Trans., AIME, 1957,
210, pp 275-282.
24. Tarr, C. M., and Heuer, G. J.: "Factors
Influencing the Optimum Time to Start Water
Injection", Paper SPE 340, presented at the
SPE-AIME 5th Biennial Secondary Recovery
Symposium, Wichita Falls, Texas, May 7-8, 1962.
25. Higgins, R. V., and Leighton, A. J.: "Computer
Method to Calculate Two Phase Flow in Any
Irregularly Bounded Porous Medium", Journal of
Petroleum Technology, June 1962, 679-683.
SPE 10024 S. P. SIOOH, O. G. KIEL 11

26. Craig, F. F., Jr., Geffen, T. M., and Morse, R. 29. Craze, R. C. and Buckley, S. E.: "A Fractural
A.: "Oil Recovery Performance of Pattern Gas Analysis of the Effects of Well Spacing on Oil
or Water Injection Operations from Model Recovery", Drill and Prod. Prac., API (1945),
Tests", Trans. AIME (1955) 204, 7-15. 144.

27. "World's Largest Offshore Waterflood Goes on 30. Van Everdingen, A. F. and Kriss, H. S.: "New
Stream", World Oil, 184 (5): 89-90, April, Approach to Secondary Recovery", Petroleum
1977. Engineer International", November, 1980, pp
27-40.
28. Crawford, P. B.: "Laboratory Factors Affecting
l>laterflood Pat tern Performance and Select ion",
J. Pet. Tech., December, 1960, pp 11-15.

213
 TABLE 1

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISPERSED

INJECTION PATTERNS (6)

Ratio of
Pracucing Hells Drilling Pattern
Pattern to In jection Wells Required

Four-spot Equilateral triangle

Skewed four-spot Square
Five-spot SquarE'
Seven-spot Equilateral triangle
Inverted seven-spot
(single inject ion well) Equilateral triangle
Nine-spot 1/3 Square
Inverted nine-spot
(single injection well) Square
Direct line drive Rectangle
Staggered line drive Offset lines of wells

TABLE 2

Areal sweep efficiencies at breakthrough for various confined patterns.

(Homogeneous, Isoptropic, Uniform Thickness, Horizontal Formations; Unit
Mobility Ratio; Equal Injection Rates.)

Type of Pattern Ea! at Breakthrough, Fract ion

Direct Line Drive, d/a = 1.0 0.570

Direct Line Drive d/a = 1.5 0.706

Five Spot 0.723

Seven Spot 0.740

Staggered Line - Drive, d/a 1.5 0.800

TABLE 3

FACTORS AFFECTING VERTICAL SWEEP

Reservoir Parameters Effect on Vert ical Sweep

1. Formation stratification Causes non uniform advance of water

(subdivision of format ion
into correlative non-
commun ica t ing zones)
due to differences in permeability,
porosity, and due to well completion
technique used (select ion of
wellbore interval open to wellbore,
wellbore stimulation of one zone
relative to other).

2. Permeability variation In a given zone, these variations

also create non uniform flood front
advancement prior to breakthrough
and can cause significant cycling of
injected water after breakthrough.

3. Mobility ratio In systems having permeability

strat ificat ion, an unfavorable
mobility ratio tends to increase the
effect of permeabili ty variat ion and
decrease the vertical sweep. The
reverse is true when the mobility
ratio is favorable. (19).

4. Gravity forces and Sweep at breakthrough, in horizontal

inject ion rate homogeneous systems, depends on the
ratio of viscous forces to the
gravity forces. Higher rates result
in higher sweeps in horizontal
systems.

5. Capillary forces In water wet systems, due to

imhibi t ion, capillary forces can
increase sweep in low permeability
layers.

6. Cross flow Cross flow between layers increases

vert ical sweep when a favorable
mobility ratio exists; the reverse
occurs with unfavorable mobility
ratio.

7. Volume of water injected Vert ical sweep increases with

increased water throughput.

214
 ...
PROD.
+
PROD
t
INJ.

OLD GEOLOGIC CONCEPT

CONTINUOUS PAY

t
INJ.
..
PROD.
t
INJ.
..
PROD.
t
INJ.

[JPAY

CURRENT GEOLOGIC CONCEPT

NON CONTINUOUS PAY

FIGURE 1
OLD AND NEW GEOLOGIC CONCEPTS(4)

'A B
5' 5'

A B
II 5' :;;;::
"''WEDGE'' AREA
.....::::: 5'
III 10'
5' 5' "UNIFORM" AREA 5'

(a) (b)

>
!::
:;)
z
i=
z
0
U
I- 40
z
w
u
a: 20
w
a.. ~
~

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN WELLS FEET

(c)
FIGURE 2
FLOODABLE PAY CONCEPTS(4)

215
 10 . .____~------~----~----. .
o
~ ~~1
a: O\V 1
> d.~~
~ 1~------~~~~~~~~~------~------~
en
o
:2:
...I

o .1.---~~~-------+------~------~
a:
w
I-
oCt
:i:
.01 ..._ _..._ _ _....._ _ _..._ _. .
.1 1 10 100 1000
OIL VISCOSITY, CP

FIGURE 3
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON WATER OIL
MOBILITY RATIO (6)

1.0

0.9 0.9
a:
w 0.8
I- ffi 0.8 .---t--)~y+--I-I-I--t---t
oCt I-
:i: 0.7 oCt
u. :i: 0.7 ...._---1I----jr-'/
0 u.
:i: 0.6 o
0 :i: 0.6 ...._-1-1--1-1'-1---#--1 ~---+---I
...I
U.
o...I
...I 0.5 U.
oCt ...I 0.5 ...._---1I-I-iJ
z oCt
0 0.4 Z
I- o 0.4 '--111-1--1-+-+-1+---+---+--1
u I-
oCt U
a: 0.3 oCt
u. a:
u.
j 0.2 ~--Ir-~"'-+-J-4I ~ 0.2I-Jr-tt-/ f--V--f--f--+--I
~

0.1

o ....~...-j~-'-...-j~-'-....
20 30 40 50
60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
WATER SATURATION, % PORE VOL. WATER SATURATION, % PORE VOL.
FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5
EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON EFFECT OF OIL VISCOSITY ON
FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE, FRACTIONAL FLOW CURVE,
STRONGLY WATER WET ROCK(6) STRONGLY OIL WET ROCK(6)

216
 . , . - - - - -.. 8

SWEEP
EFFICIENCY
UNIT
DISPLACEMENT
EFFICIENCY

RESIDUAL OIL-~~~

FIGURE 6
FRACTION OF OIL RECOVERY BY WATERFLOODING
AS A FUNCTION OF 1) AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
2) VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY AND 3) UNIT
DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY (7)

.... - ---
I
I
I
-.--- --.,.-----....-----,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I I I

+ p ? +
: CORNER: SIDE :

;6 If----If ,e P ~_m_:~~~~ __ ~
I '
~
: ' :
:
: 7. 1
I
:
t: t--: a
1d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;6 }----}6 } p i WE~ :
INJEcTION

(a) DIRECT LINE DRIVE

I

.... ----..---- -- ------- ...

I

...
(d)
'
I
I
I

NINE SPOT

o Q 0
,e p jf---/f P ,I " ' ,
.... a-- o
,, ,, , ..;0.. ......... ,,' \" 0
.: T : Q"
,"
,'"0
/'" '.,4 - SPOT
'. 0
:d : 7 - SPOT \ : ,': '-
p p )Ll-} P o : 6-------~-----b
,

(b) STAGGERED LINE DRIVE
6. ,0 o
""""c:r'" "
P p p P o o
o o
P jIf-----A ;f SMALLEST AREA OF

,e

-
'

:I
jJ---
r--/6
a ---'I
d:I

p
o
o o
o FLOW SYMMETRY

o
JIf , , (e)
(e) 5 SPOT SEVEN AND
SPECIAL CASE OF (b) WHERE d/a = 1/2 FOUR SPOTS

FIGURE 7
DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF WATERFLOOD NETWORKS

217
 100

'#. 90
I
>
u 80
z
w
~ 70
LL
LL
W
~
60
::J
0Q,.
w 50
w
~
(I)
40
..J
<t
w
a:
<t
as
w

1
1 10 100 1000
MOBILITY RATIO

FIGURE 8
AREAL SWEEPOUT PATTERN EFFICIENCY AS A
FUNCTION OF MOBILITY RATIO FOR THE FIVE-
SPOT PATTERN OF VARIOUS PRODUCING CUTS (td)

100 100
THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL
PERMEABILITY ON SWEEP PERMEABILITY ON SWEEP
90 90
EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY

80 80

>
u 70
>
u 70
Z z
w w
60 u 60
LL LL
LL SQUARE LINE DRIVE LL
w 50 w 50 $SA
Q,. Q,. 0'l'/l
w w ;q'l'.,...
w w
~ 40 ~~Itt
~ 40
(I) I (I)

/ 5 SPOT LINE DRIVE 5 SPOT LINE DRIVE

r L11
1";--0--,

b.~]
30 cr----~ 30

~NKI
1
,I Li -
20 , --~~l
20 kSE I
~_.J

10 10

o .5 1 1.5 .2 2.5 .3 3.5 o .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

kx/kv kNE/ksE
(b) (a)
FIGURE 9
THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIONAL PERMEABILITY
ON SWEEP EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS DEGREES
OF PERMEABILITY ANISOTROPY FOR A FLUID
MOBILITY RATIO OF ONE (14)

218
 75~------~~~--~~~--+-----------i
*-
~
11. 120
W

~ 501-----"~~~------------_r--~----~__1
~ ~~ *- 100
ec ~ I
~ - >
0 80
25~~~------+_----------+_~~--~__1
z
w
MOBILITY RATIO = 1.1
O~ ________ ~
L = FRACTURE
______ LENGTH
________
~ ~
~
u.
u.
w
. 0 2 . 03

o 1 2
THROUGHPUT - DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES
3 11.
w 40
w
3:
en
.0' . 02

(al
Unfavoration Orientation 20
. 03

RELATIVE PRODUCING RATIO = 03/02

75.-------~~----------~--------_I FIGURE 11
#. EFFECT OF PRODUCING RATIOS ON SWEEP EFFICIENCY
t- ON NINESPOT PATTERNI18)
11.
W

~ 501-----#-----~----------_+----------__t
w
ec

251-~--------+_----------+_------~__i
MOBILITY RATIO = 1.1
L = FRACTURE LENGTH

1 2 3
THROUGHPUT - DISPLACEABLE VOLUMES
Swbt
(bl
1.0 ...- - - - - -. . .~. . .
Favorable Orientation
I
FIGURE 10
EFFECT OF FRACTURE LENGTH AND ITS
ORIENTATION ON AREAL SWEEP 1151 "

>
0
Z 100
!!!#. (PERM. VARIATION)
o-:I:.
80
u.C!I
:b::J
0
11.
wec 60
w:l:
3:~
en~
0
-w
40
ecec
~CD
w~ 20
~
....I V~O.8
0 0
> .01 .1 1.0 10 100 Swt
MOBILITY RATIO WATER SATURATION, % PV
FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13
VOLUMETRIC SWEEP EFFICIENCY AT BREAKTHROUGH, DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE WATER
FIVESPOT PATTERN; ZERO INITIAL GAS SATURATION 1191 SATURATION AT BREAKTHROUGH, Swbt

219