Injection-Well Testing To Optimize
Waterflood Performance
D. C. Robertson, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production CO.
C. H. Kelm, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.
Introduction
During the late 1950's and early 1960's, West Texas
waterflood experiences, such as premature water
breakthrough and poor sweep efficiency caused by
improper injection-well operation, indicated the need
for a systematic procedure for optimizing injection-
well operation.
Many waterflood projects were initiated with
peripheral or other dispersed patterns having a low ratio
of injection wells to producing wells. During the
1960's, when allowables in prorated states started in-
creasing, individual per-well injection rates often were
increased to keep abreast of increased withdrawals.
These increases sometimes resulted in performance
problems that indicated the need for a better understand-
ing of the reservoir and the factors that affect it during
waterflood operations. Thus, there evolved a need for a
systematic procedure for maximizing injection and pro-
ducing rates, while allowing for adequate surveillance
of reservoir and operating conditions to preclude any re-
servoir damage that might jeopardize waterflood
recovery.
This paper presents a philosophy and method for
injection-well testing for optimizing injection-well op-
eration, thus maximizing recovery from a given water-
flood pattern. Injectivity is optimized by instituting a
planned series of step-rate tests, pressure falloff tests,
profile surveys, and temperature surveys during an ini-
tial start-up period of about I year, and by continuously
collecting and analyzing rate and pressure data, pressure
A method for injection-well testing is presented that is designed to optimize injection-well
operating conditions and to maximize oil recovery from a waterflood without causing
unnecessary damage to the reservoir. This is accomplished by instituting a systematic
program for data collection and testing on injection wells.
NOVEMBER, 1975
transient data, and profile data throughout the remaining
life of the injector.
Objectives and Basis for
Injection-Well Testing
The first objective of the systematic injection-well test-
ing approach is to allow maximum pressure differential
between the injector and the producer within formation
fracture pressure restraints. A simple application of
Darcy's law to injection wells shows injection rate to be
proportional to pressure differential. Consequently,
higher injection rates should result in quicker response
and higher production rates.
For several reasons it is imperative that this max-
imum pressure differential be attained below formation
fracture pressure. First, the fracture caused by injecting
above the formation fracture pressure is not necessarily
limited to the oil pay. Fracturing can be to an aquifer or
to a nonproductive interval. Thus, injecting above the
formation fracture pressure can result in significant inef-
fective injection that, if carried to extremes, could result
in less water effectively sweeping the oil pay. Second,
when injecting above the formation fracture
pressure, the direction of fracturing is not predictable.
In many reservoirs there is a preferential direction
of natural permeability or fractures, and although
the water movement normally is experienced in this
direction, fracturing in other directions is not pre-
1337
 cluded.' Thus, premature breakthrough to a producer
can occur, resulting in poor sweep efficiency.
Formation fracture pressure is exceeded during step-
rate tests and well stimulations. However, since the
time while formation fracture pressure is exceeded is
short, the fractures should heal when the injection pres-
sure is returned to below formation fracture pressure
and no permanent harm would be done to the reservoir.
Step-rate tests with 24-hour or greater steps should be
carried out no more than three points beyond the indi-
cated formation fracture pressure. Three points beyond
the break will define a straight line and will verify that
the fracture pressure has been found. Carrying the test
further only extends the fracture unnecessarily and gives
no more conclusive information. Close coordination be-
tween operating personnel and engineers should insure
that the time above fracture pressure is minimal.
The second objective of the systematic approach is to
provide early and continuous detection of near-wellbore
formation damage. Near-wellbore "skin" results in re-
duced injectivity because of the large pressure drop
necessary to overcome formation damage. Thus, time to
response is increased and oil response rates are reduced.
Formation damage generally is detected by an abnormal
decline in injection rate at constant injection pressure
and can be confirmed by running a pressure falloff test.
The third objective of the systematic injection-well
testing approach is to provide continuous monitoring to
insure the proper vertical distribution of water into the
pay. Obviously, water injected into nonpay intervals re-
sults in wasted injection fluid and potential reservoir
energy. Distribution of injected water can be deter-
mined by temperature surveys and radioactive tracer
profiles. Temperature surveys give a qualitative dis-
tribution of water, while the radioactive' tracer surveys
give a quantitative water distribution. 2-5
Vertical distribution of injected water conforming to
the vertical distribution of the hydrocarbon porosity-
thickness product in the reservoir should result in max-
imum oil recovery to water breakthrough. However,
water normally is expected to enter the reservoir accord-
ing to the permeability distribution. This is illustrated in
Fig. 1, which is a plot of the permeability-thickness and
porosity-thickness distributions vs depth in an actual in-
GAMMA NEUTRON
RAY
ZONE "8"
!Ph
RADIOACTIVE TRACER
% OF TOTAL ,. OF TOTAL
20.n. SURVEY
82'.
20.3%
VELOCITY INTERPRETATION
227% % OF TOTAL
029% ZONE "tJ.' WATER INJ
I
~
44%
~
51.2"1.
324'. 2039'.
Fig. 1 - Porosity-thickness product and permeability-
thickness product distribution compared
with actual profile survey.
1338
jection well. The accompanying radioactive tracer pro-
file shows that the water is being injected according to
the permeability distribution. This information and this
type of analysis thus can be used to design a workover
if redistribution of the water is desired.
The j(mrth objective 4 the systematic injection-well
testing approach is to monitor the extent of vertical
fracturing. Pressure falloff tests are used to determine
the extent of vertical fracturing. Slopes from plots of
pressure vs the log of shut-in time and plots of pressure
vs the square root of shut-in time are used to calculate
the vertical fracture extent. 6
Successive pressure falloff tests are useful to de-
termine whether the fracture length is growing with
time. If water injection is supposedly below formation
fracture pressure and if successive pressure falloff
tests show the fracture l.ength to be growing, then it is
advisable to rerun the step-rate test and redetermine
fracture pressure.
Start-Up Procedure
Initial Conditions
The first step in the start-up procedure is to establish an
initial limiting pressure that is below the formation part-
ing pressure. If the well being converted to injection is
in an area already under waterflood and from which
there is already some formation fracture pressure data as
a result of step-rate tests, then a limiting pressure can be
selected that is in line with the lowest known fracture
pressure in the immediate area. It is desirable to allow a
safety margin between the newly set limiting pressure
and the lowest offsetting fracture pressure for the fol-
lowing reasons: (1) the inability to measure fracture
pressures from step-rate tests with pinpoint accuracy;
(2) the inability to control operating pressures precisely,
particularly during the early life of the injector when the
relationship between injection rate and pressure are
changing fairly rapidly; and (3) fracture pressures often
vary significantly from well to well.
In general, a safety margin of about 200 psi, a
number obtained through experience and observation,
has been found to be satisfactory in West Texas water-
flood operations. The safety margin can be varied,
however, depending on the confidence level in past
step-rate testing and on the estimated fracturing pressure
of the new well.
If there are no nearby injection wells, then the frac-
ture pressure of a formation can be estimated from the
instantaneous shut-in pressure noted from stimulation
treatments. Since this method is even less accurate than
analogy to offsets, a somewhat larger safety margin
should be used. A safety margin of about 300 psi usu-
ally is satisfactory.
There are correlations in the literature 7 ,H that express
normal fracture gradients in pounds per square inch
per foot as a function of formation depth. Fracture pres-
sure from offsetting or similar reservoirs also can be
used to calculate a fracture gradient for a specific geo-
graphic area.
Stabilization
The second step in the start-up procedure is to achieve
injection rate and pressure conditions that are suffi-
ciently stabilized to allow the running of a pressure
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
falloff test, a step-rate test, and a temperature survey.
A degree of stabilization is desired that results in an es-
sentially constant rate or pressure for about 1 month
with the other (rate or pressure) held constant. If a well
takes water at a positive surface pressure, then the de-
gree of stabilization can be measured easily by hold-
ing either rate or pressure constant and measuring the
other. If rate is held constant, care must be taken that
pressure does not exceed the limiting pressure set in the
previous section.
In some cases, positive surface pressure may not be
reached by the time stabilization has occurred. Thus, a
method is needed for estimating when injection stabili-
zation is expected to occur. Fig. 2 is a plot of dimen-
sionless flow rate vs water-bank radius. This plot was
developed by making initial flow calculations while
holding constant all variables except water-bank radius.
A dimensionless flow rate of I was assumed for a
water-bank radius of 10 ft. Shown below are the equa-
tions involved in developing the plot. Taking Darcy's
equation,
Q = 7.07 X 1?-3 kwh (Pi -p) ,
ILwP,J) In re/ r U'
and rewriting to hold constant all variables except
water-bank radius gives
Q = constant
In re/ru.
Points along the curve then were calculated as follows:
Q2 = QI In rl/rw .
In r2/rW
Thus, a well with a dimensioniess flow rate of 0.3
would have an injection rate 0.3 times the rate it had at
the time the water-bank radius was 10 ft. The calcula-
tion is of a general nature rather than for a specific field
or project.
Fig. 2 illustrates that, while maintaining a constant
injection pressure, most of the decrease in injection rate
will occur by the time a water-bank radius of ISO ft is
formed. Thus, when cumulative injection is sufficient to
result in a 150-ft water-bank radius, "stabilization"
should have occurred. This stability will only occur at
a 150-ft water-bank radius if the water front is advanc-
ing evenly throughout the entire pay interval. In actual
field situations, this even advancement does not occur
because of pemeability variation within the vertical pay
section. Thus, a water-bank radius (calculated on the
basis of total net pay) greater than ISO ft is usually re-
quired to achieve an adequate degree of stabilization.
Field experience from West Texas Grayburg and San
Andres waterfloods indicates 300 ft to be a more real-
istic stability point. Of course, it is preferable to actu-
ally measure the degree of stability, using a subsurface
bomb, if necessary.
First Test Series
When stabilization of rate and pressure has occurred, a
pressure falloff test and a step-rate test should be run.
This generally occurs at least 3 months after initial in-
jection since this much time is required to confirm
stability. The pressure falloff test should be analyzed
NOVEMBER, 1975
for fracture length, reservoir flow capacity (kwh), and
skin effect. Special attention, however, should be given
to the existence of wellbore skin. If skin does exist and
there is a need for increased injectivity, then a workover
should be performed. Before performing this workover,
a temperature survey should be run to detect any gross
deviations from the desired vertical distribution of in-
jected water. This will allow design of a workover that
is best suited to correct all problems that might exist. If
a workover is performed, a pressure falloff test should
be rerun after the workover, before proceeding further
with the first test series, since more pay may now be
taking water.
The step-rate test should be run to a sufficiently high
pressure to obtain two or three points above the break
point if injection-system capacity permits. The forma-
tion fracture pressure thus obtained, or the highest point
obtained without a break in the step-rate test, should be
used as a basis for establishing an operating limit for
each well. Again, some safety margin should be used
between operating pressure and formation fracture to
account for the inability to measure precisely fracture
pressure, even with step-rate tests, and the inability to
exercise exact rate and pressure control in most field
situations. Confidence in operating personnel and the
field equipment will dictate the safe limiting pressure
below formation fracture pressure for operating injec-
tion wells. A safety margin of 50 psi has been found to
be sufficient for this situation.
The well should now be stabilized for several days
at the new operating limit and a shut-in temperature
survey should be run. Actual reservoir conditions
will dictate the optimum shut-in time for running the
temperature survey and achieving maximum defini-
tion; however, 24 to 48 hours is generally a suitable
shut-in time.
The temperature survey is delayed until after stabili-
zation at the new limiting pressure so that it will be in-
dicative of the injection-water distribution at actual
operating conditions. A temperature profile obtained at
higher or lower pressure conditions might appear
somewhat different since the well has a relatively low
cumulative injection at this point and since various
zones within the gross pay section still might be at dif-
ferent pressures because of different primary depletion
histories. Thus, at this point, injection profiles are fairly
sensitive to operating pressure with respect to individual
zonal pressures in the pay section.
If the temperature survey shows a totally unaccept-
~ 1.0
.9
~
u.
fI)
fI)
!oJ
...J
Z
o
enz
!oJ
~ .4~~----~----------------------~
o o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
WATER BANK RADIUS, FT.
Fig. 2 - Dimensionless flow rate vs water-bank radius.
1339
able profile, such as all of the water going into a thin
zone or below total depth, remedial work should
be performed.
Second Test Series
The next step in the start-up procedure is taken when
the well's cumulative is about twice the stabilized
value. From a practical standpoint of cost and sched-
uling, this series of tests should not be started be-
fore at least 7 months of injection occurs. At this point, a
radioactive tracer survey is run, followed by a pres-
sure falloff test and a temperature survey. The radio-
active tracer survey is run to obtain a quantitative distri-
bution of injected water. A temperature survey also is
obtained during the same series of tests. This allows
comparison of the temperature survey and the radio-
active tracer survey so that, in subsequent test series,
only a temperature survey needs to be run. If this sub-
sequent temperature survey is the same as a temperature
survey run in conjunction with the radioactive profile,
then it can be assumed that approximately the same
quantitative distribution exists. The pressure falloff test
is again analyzed for reservoir flow capacity (kwh),
fracture length, and skin and is compared with the
previous pressure falloff test results. If the latest pres-
sure falloff test indicates a significant fracture length in-
crease, then a new step-rate test should be run to check
the one obtained originally.
As before, remedial work should be performed to
correct skin problems or significant problems in wa-
ter distribution. If skin continues to be a problem,
injection-water quality and compatibility with the forma-
tion water should be considered as a potential problem.
A significant reduction in the reservoir flow capacity
also might indicate a clay swelling problem in reser-
voirs exhibiting these tendencies. These possibilities
should have been investigated before initiating the wa-
terflood. However, conditions can change and further
laboratory tests would be in order.
Although a good deal of testing has been done on
each well during the start-up period, significant prog-
ress has been made toward defining several important
reservoir and well characteristics (kh, fracture length,
and formation fracture pressure) and maintaining each
injector at very near its optimum operating condition
during its first year of operation. This approach has the
benefit of maximizing injection and, thus, of hastening
response time while not causing damage to the reservoir
around the injector that might later jeopardize ultimate
waterflood recovery or cause severe premature water
breakthrou gh .
The reservoir data thus obtained is useful in monitor-
ing and analyzing performance of the waterflood and
provides a basis for determining transmissibility data for
use in reservoir modeling and predictions.
Continuous Monitoring
Economics and manpower often will not allow a com-
pany to perform pressure falloff tests on each of its in-
jection wells monthly, bimonthly, or even annually to
determine wellbore damage and extent of fracturing.
Thus, a method of monitoring is needed. First, for
every injection well, it is necessary to maintain a plot,
at least monthly, of the representative injection rate and
pressure during the month. If possible, the representa-
tive data should be derived from daily readings obtained
by field personnel. Diligent observation of rate and
4400
BEFORE WORKOVER

Completion of Start-Up
This phase of the start-up occurs at three times the
well's stabilized cumulative injection and at least I year
IS 0 2 3 4 5 S 7 8 9 10
after initial start-up. At this point, a third pressure fall- SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME. VHRS.
off test is run on all injectors and is compared with
the first two tests. As before, remedial action may
be required.
During these tests, one-half the newly converted
4400
wells are again step-rate tested to determine fracture
pressure. If there is a significant change from the previ-
.~ 4000 AFTER WORKOVER
ous step-rate test, then all wells should be step-rate
tested again. It is during the early life of an injector that ui
a:: 3S00
fracture pressure is expected to increase with cumu-
lative injection. 8 ,9 Thus, it is possible that a signifi-
~ = +30 psi
II:! 3200
Il.
cant increase in fracture pressure may be noted and
that all wells will need to be step-rate tested again and
that their operating pressures will need to be adjusted.
~
~
2E 2400
2800
",
"'-
",<>-
~,

This, of course, will allow maximization of rates and , ...... "'0... ......... __ 0...
~
will contribute to quick, early response. If a new
operating pressure is set that is significantly different
I-
a! 2 ---"'---0... __ -0..._-0

from the old one, then another radioactive profile sur- ISOOO!---,----2,-----:3,---4::-----:5:-----:S,-----:::7,------,.8----,--9--10
vey and temperature survey should be run at the new SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT -IN TIME. VHRS.
rate and pressure, since the old profile no longer may be Fig. 3 - Pressure falloff tests before and after workover to
representative. remove skin.

1340 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

pressure curves provides early detection of abnormal falloff tests should be run before and after any remedial
injection-well performance. work to evaluate the results of that work.
If reliable, periodic measurements of bottom-hole in- This last point is illustrated by Fig. 3, which shows
jection pressure and static reservoir pressure can be ob- pressure falloff tests taken before and after an injec-
tained, the routine surveillance can be improved by tion-well workover to correct skin damage. The pres-
regularly calculating the injectivity index. The injectiv- sure falloff data, when plotted on a pressure vs square
ity index is the injection rate divided by the pressure root of time plot, show a pressure drop near the well-
differential to flow in the reservoir. A change in this bore of 584 psi when the early time portion of the
index indicates a change in flow capacity and can be curve is extrapolated back to zero. The amount of skin
useful in detecting formation damage and improvement warranted a small acid stimulation of 3,000 gal in an
(fracturing). It should be noted that changes in flow attempt to remove the damage. Also shown is a plot
capacity do not necessarily indicate a problem but are of the pressure falloff test data after the acid stimula-
often the normal consequence of changing saturation tion. It shows that the near-wellbore pressure drop was
conditions in the reservoir. reduced to about 30 psi. The removal of the skin also is
confirmed by comparing the before and after injection
Periodic Testing rates and pressures.
Injection-well performance curves, along with pressure
falloff tests, step-rate tests, radioactive tracer profile Injection
surveys, and temperature surveys, should be used to Injection Bottom-Hole
monitor injection-well performance. To monitor reservoir Rate Pressure Skin
flow capacity (kwh), skin damage, and fracture lengths, (BWPD) (psi) (psi)
pressure falloff tests should be obtained on wells every Before workover 575 4,084 584
third year. This is not to say that these are the only After workover 830 3,350 30
pressure falloff tests that should be conducted. If there
are indications of wellbore damage at any time, pres- Step-rate tests should be run periodically on injection
sure falloff tests should be run. Of course, pressure wells since it has been found that the formation fracture

- - - - - - - - - - 1 CONTINUOUS MONITORING
I. RATE a PRESS. VS. TIME
2.1NJECTIVITY INDEX DATA

1. POSSIBLESTEP
RATE TEST ON
REMAINING WELLS
2.POSSIBLE PRO-
FILE SURVEY a
TEMF' SURVEY

1.
l'
SET OPER- PRESSURE I RADIOACTIVE H:1. PRESSURE FALL-I
PERIODIC TESTING J
ATING
PRESSURE
1. ANALOGY
FALLOFF TRACER
2 STEP RATE 2 PRESSURE
TEST FALLOFF
OFF TEST
2 STEP RATE TEST
1/2 OF WELLS
I 1. PRESSURE FALLOFF TEST
f
(EVERY 3 YRSJ
2.CORRELA- 3 TEMP 3.TEMP

1I
2. STEP RATE TEST (AS
TIONS SURVEY SURVEY NECESSARY)

~ ~
3. TEMP SURVEYS (ANNUALLY)
4. RADIOACTIVE PROFILES (AS
IPOSSIBLE
WORK OVER
I
POSSIBLE
WORKOVER
II IPOSSIBLE :
WORKOVER
NECESSARY)

~
IPOSSIBLE :
WORKOVER
I

a.
,
::::J
f-
<J) a::
<J)
w
a:w ~
w <J)

a:w <J) lJ..

o
<J) f-
<J) Z
f- W o
<J)
W f- i=
f- a w
f-
z ..J
a.
<J) o
u ~
a:: w o
~ <J) u
~START-UP------~>I
~I__________________~I------------------~I----------~JrJ----~1
o I 2 Ir END OF
APPROX. TIME SCALE (YRS.) PROJECT
Fig. 4 - Schematic diagram of systematic injection-well testing approach.

NOVEMBER, 1975 1341

pressure increases with cumulative injection. This has
not ony been supported theoretically in the literature 8 ,9
but has been observed in the field. Hence, step-rate
tests should be conducted at various stages of cumula-
tive injection.
Additional step-rate tests should be conducted after
remedial work. This is especially true if new pay is ex-
posed in an injection well since it is possible that not all
zones have the same fracture pressure. If an interval in
a well is squeezed, a step-rate test probably should be
run only up to the formation fracture pressure indicated
by previous tests, but not above the previously indicated
break-point pressure. If the break-point pressure is ex-
ceeded, then the repaired zone might again cause
trouble. Naturally, if a formation fracture pressure is
found at a lower pressure, this point should be honored.
Radioactive profiling and temperature surveying is
necessary to monitor continuously the distribution of
water in the well bore and, thus, to determine whether
redistribution of water by a workover is necessary.
Hence, the injection profile should be checked annually
with a temperature survey. A radioactive tracer profile
then should be run if a significant change in distribution
is revealed by the temperature survey. A radioactive
profile survey also should be run after a significant
workover. The temperature survey also will indicate fill
in the wellbore. Temperature surveys naturally become
less definitive with time because of vertical heat con-
ductivity effects.
Fig. 4 shows the systematic approach to injection-
well testing that has been described. Although specific
times have been discussed for testing, the authors
realize that actual field testing cannot follow such a
rigorous schedule. This is because of equipment down-
times and work scheduling in the field.
Summary
This paper has presented one approach to injection-well
test scheduling. Although not the only viable approach,
it provides a means of defining various important well
and reservoir properties in minimum time and further
provides periodic reassessment of these properties to
take maximum advantage of changing reservoir condi-
tions. This optimization pays off in maximum produc-
tion rates and minimum time expenditure without causing
unnecessary damage to the reservoir. Although sound
in concept, the success of this approach is completely
dependent on full understanding and cooperation be-
tween the engineers designing and interpreting the
tests and the operational personnel performing the tests
and collecting the data.
Conclusions
Existing analytical techniques, when applied ina
systematic manner, will provide a basis for optimiz-
ing waterflood operations in minimum time by
(I) maximizing pressure differential, (2) minimizing
skin damage, (3) insuring proper distribution of water,
and (4) monitoring the extent of fracturing.
This, in turn, should provide maximum oil-producing
rate and maximum waterflood recovery while avoiding
any reservoir damage that could serve as a detriment to
effective sweep.
1342
Nomenclature
h = reservoir thickness, ft
kw = effective permeability to water, md
P = reservoir pressure, psi
Pi = formation-face injection pressure, psi
Q, QIo Q2 = injection rate, BWPD
re , rIo r2 = water-bank radius, ft
ru' = wellbore radius, ft
{3u' = water formation volume factor
/Lw = water viscosity, cp
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Amoco Production Co. for
permission to publish this paper. Special recognition is
extended to G. W. Tracy, E. E. Morris, W. R. Gran-
berry, V. J. Driscoll, and K. K. Clark for their con-
tributions in developing the procedures and techniques
described in this paper.
References
1. Alpay, O. A.: "Application of Aerial Photographic Interpretation
to the Study of Reservoir Natural Fracture Systems," J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1973) 37-45.
2. Smith, R. C. and Steffensen, R. J.: "Computer Study of Factors
Affecting Temperature Profiles in Water Injection Wells," J. Pet.
Tech. (Nov. 1970) 1447-1458; Trans., A[ME, 249.
3. Nowak, T. J.: "The Estimation of Water Injection Profiles From
Temperature Surveys," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1953) 203-212;
Trans., A[ME, 198.
4. Smith, R. C. and Steffenson, R. J.: "[nterpretation of Tempera-
ture Profiles in Water-Injection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1975)
777-784; Trans., A[ME, 259.
5. Bearden, W. G., Cocanower, R. D., Currens, D., and Dilling-
ham, M.: "[nterpretation of [njectivity Profiles in [rregular
Boreholes," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1970) 1089-1097.
6. Clark, K. K.: "Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water [n-
jection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1968) 639-643; Trans.,
A[ME,243.
7. Eaton, B. A.: "Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application
in Oilfield Applications," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-1360;
Trans., A[ME, 246.
8. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H. H.: "Factors That Can Be Op-
timized in Waterfloods of the Low-Permeability Reservoir,"
paper SPE 2854 presented at the SPE-A[ME Symposium on Prac-
tical Aspects of Improved Recovery Techniques, Fort Worth,
Tex., March 8-10, 1970.
9. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H. H.: "Fracturing Gradients in
Waterlloods of Low-Permeability, Partially Depleted Zones," J.
P'(. Tech. (June 1971) 727-730.
10. Donohue, D.A.T., Hansford, J. T., and Burton R. A.: "The Ef-
fect of Induced Vertically Oriented Fractures on Five-Spot Sweep
Efficiency," Soc. Pet. EnK. J. (Sept. 1968) 260-268; Trans.,
A[ME,243.
II. Hubbert, M. K. and Willis, D. G.: "Mechanics of Hydraulic
Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1957) 153-168; Trans., A[ME,
210.
12. Hazebroek, P., Rainbow, H., and Matthews, C. S.: "Pressure
Falloff in Water Injection Wells," Trans., A[ME (1958) 213,
250-260.
13. Simmons, J., Landrum, B. L., Pierson, J. M., and Crawford,
P. B.: "Swept Areas After Breakthrough in Vertically Fractured
Five-Spot Patterns," Trans., A[ME (1955) 216,73-77.
14. Crawford, P. B. and Collins, R. E.: "Estimated Effect of Verti-
cal Fractures on Secondary Recovery," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1954)
41-45; Trans., AIME, 201. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 19,
1974. Revised manuscript received Aug. 28. 1975. Paper (SPE 5130) was first
presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting. held in Houston. Oct. 6-9,
1974 Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Pe-
troleum Engineers, Inc.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY