Water-f lood Calculations*t

FLOYDE. SUDER'
AND

JOHNC. CALHOUN, JR.@

billty, porosity, and connate-water saturation. The dlstrlbution of permeabilities throughout the cored wells was utilized to glve a measure of the succ e s s i v e production of oil and water in the producing well, on the assumpt~onthat flood~ngoccurred in a horizontal plane only. The calculated values were found to compare favorably with the actual l e a s e figures. The method of calculation is suggested a s a possible routine approach to water-flood problems.
ever, nowhere in the literature d o e s a conlplete presentation of the method e x i s t . From a different standpoint, S t i l e s has a l s o given a prediction of t h e floodability of a heterogeneous formation. Both S t i l e s ' method and that used here a r e b a s e d upon the assunlption t h a t the displacement of o i l by the entering water occurs in a piston-like fashion. Both require the knowledge of a residual-oil saturation below which the formation cannot be flooded. Both methods assume t h a t flow through a heterogeneous formation c a n be represented by t h e aum of the flow through a number of individual beds s e p a r a t e d from one another and flooded borlzontally wlth no crossflow. Stiles' approach i s b a s e d upon a previous knowledge of the a c t u a l amount of water t o be injected, and requires the assumption of uniform flooding conditions in a l l beds. T h e method t o be used here, on the other hand, permits a prediction of the water injection from core d a t a and pressure d a t a and can consider different s a t u r a t i o n conditions In every unit bed. Although the l a t t e r calculation .is somewhat more tedious, in t h e example to be presented t h e r e s u l t s would a p p e a r t o warrant the extra effort. In the following d i s c u s s i o n , the d a t a utilized are representative of a n e x i s t i n g oil field. T h e d a t a a r e t h o s e obtained by coring; t h e injection press u r e s a r e t h o s e actually used on t h e field; and t h e s c h e d u l e by which both water and oil w e l l s were c o n ~ p l e t e d i s given. F o r obvious r e a s o n s , a c t u a l

ABSTRACT BY the use of techniques6whlch have been previously presented in the literature and by further extension of such techniques, calculations have been made on the behavior of a water flood. These calculations Include the prediction of the amount of water injected into the intake wells on the flood, and the amounts of oil and water produced from the flood. lnfonation for the calculations was available on a large nunber of cored wells. These core data were used to arrive at such quantities a s permeaI t has been recognized by petroleum engineers for many y e a r s t h a t the heterogeneity of a formation p l a y s a n important role in determining i t s economic floodability. It i s important to be a b l e to predict t h e effect of heterogeneity from b a s i c d a t a prior t o t h e Initiation of a flood. T h e o b j e c t of t h i s report IS t o glve c a l c u l a t i o n s on the performance of a water flood which show how t h i s effect c a n b e evaluated. T h e calculations are based upon core data, a knowledge of the operating pressure, and a s c h e d u l e of well completions, which information i s generally a v a i l a b l e or decided upon before a flood i s initiated. On a water-flood operation i t i s axiomatic that t h e removal of oil i s directly dependent upon the water which c a n be injected into the f o r m a t ~ o n . T h l s i d e a promoted the development of a prediction of water-intake r a t e s by Yuster and c a l h o u n l . In that report it w a s suggested that the injection d a t a could be utilized t o predict oil recovery, but t h e numerical c a l c u l a t i o n s were not carried out. In other presentations Yuster 2 1 3 gave the e l e m e n t s of the oil-recovery prediction in further detail. How-

* Thls paper l s based upon mater~alpresented by Floyd E. Suder to the Unlverslty of Oklahoma In partla1 fulf~llmentof requirements for h ~ master's degree. s @ T h e Ohlo 011Company. Eureka, Kansas. @School of Petroleum Englneerlng, The Unlversrty of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla.. slnce removed to The Pennsylvania State Colege, State College, Pa. Presented by Floyd E. Suder.

?t

References are at the end of the paper.

WATER-FLOOD CALCULATIONS
./

26 1

d a t e s , numbers, .and locations q e omitted. All calc u l a t i o n s are, made relative td t h e completion of t h e first group of wells. T h e s e q u e n c e of c a l c u l a t i o n s t o be presented i s the prediction of: 1, water injection for a s i n g l e well; 2, water injection for the total number of w e l l s as they were s u c c e s s i v e l y completed; 3, o i l production for a s i n g l e well; 4, o i l production for the total number of w e l l s a s they were s u c c e s s i v e l y completed; 5, water production for a s i n g l e well; 6, water production for the t o t a l number of w e l l s a s they were s u c c e s s i v e l y completed; and, 7, produced water-oil ratios.

.' stock-tank b a s i s . 3. 6 = 15.6 percent. Average porosity, found in the same manner a s average permeability.

In order t o c a l c u l a t e water r a t e s , the following operating conditions were known:

Cornputarion of Water Injection

In the average reservoir there is a heterogeneity of s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s laterally a s well a s vertically. T h e reservoir under d i s c u s s i o n w a s no exception. F o r the entire reservoir, therefore, it w a s n e c e s s a r y t o reduce the permeability variation in the vertical direction only s u c h a s would e x i s t in a single well representative of the entire reservoir. It w a s hoped thereby t o make one average calculation suffice for the entire formation. In t h e a r e a under consideration, d a t a on 7 8 cored w e l l s were available. Individual permeabilities ranged horn zero t o around 1 5 0 md. An average permeability for the reservoir w a s found by computing t h e millidarcy-foot c a p a c i t y for a l l w e l l s , and dividing t h e t o t a l by the summation of the s a n d thickn e s s for a l l wells. An average of 7.53 md w a s found in t h i s manner. T h i s average permeability w a s u s e d to estimate an average value of connate water prior to flooding. T h i s w a s estimated by reference t o a linear plot of log permeability v s . connate water that w a s obtained from d a t a on s e v e r a l c o r e s taken with oil-base muds. An average well s a n d s e c t i o n of 38.1 f t w a s found by averaging t h e s a n d t h i c k n e s s e s for a l l wells. A s i n g l e homogeneous bed 38.1 ft thick and of 7.53 md w a s chosen, therefore, t o represent a n average for the purpose of injection calculations. F o r t h i s average bed the following conditions were found:

4. rw = 0.328 ft. T h e radius of the 74-in. hole u s e d for input wells. 5. W = 6 6 0 ft. T h e water-to-water well d i s t a n c e on 10-acre spacing. 6. P = 1,100 psi. T h e pressure difference between the s a n d face and the reservoir during flow, t h e formation being assumed t o be originally a t atmosvheric Dressure. T h e following d a t a were assumed in order t o permit calculations:

7.

percent oil saturation from Leverett's curve for unconsolidated sand. 8. So= = 22 percent. R e s i d u a l oil saturation a f t e r flood, based upon flood pot t e s t s . 9. p = 1 centipoise. The v i s c o s i t y of the injected fluid. With t h e foregoing information, the water-injection r a t e w a s computed for the average bed in three s t e p s : 1, for the original period of radial water encroachment from t h e input well; 2, for the steadys t a t e period after a l l pore s p a c e w a s filled with liquid; and, 3, for the period in between t h e s e 2 phases. T h e period of radial encroachment w a s assumed to l a s t until sufficient water had been injected t o fill the bed completely with liquid to a point halfway between t h k C i n p u t and producing wells. T h i s limit i s b a s e d on . e l e c t r o l y t ~ cs t u d i e s reported by Muskat 6, in which he shows departure from a rad i a l encroachment a t t h i s point in t h e 5-spot s y s tem. T h e t o t a l volume of water in barrels injected t o the e n d of radial encroachment w a s computed from:

Ii

= 0.50 relative permeability t o water a t 2 2

V, =

0 . 1 7 8 . ~- h+(l-Sw-So) ~

w2

(1)

1. Sw = 34.7 percent. Water saturation a t s t a r t of flood, found by averaging individual well water s a t urations. 2. So = 38.7 percent. Oil saturation a t s t a r t of flood, found by subtracting 011 produced during primary operations from original oil i n p l a c e , a l l on a

where:0.178 converts from cubic f e e t to barrels; h i s the t h i c k n e s s o f t h e bed, and the other q u a n t i t i e s a r e a s previously defined. T h e rate of water injection, in barrels per day, during the radial-encroachment p h a s e w a s computed from:

26 2

PRODUCTION PRACTICE, AND TECHNOLOGY

where the fictor:0.723 is that portion of the 5-spot assumed to be flooded. , ' , , '
W

where:

i s the position of the pressured radius given in the equation:

The following formula was used to compute the steady-state rate:

.'

in which V i s the cumulative water injection a t the instant that radial encroachment has reached the radius 5. T o find the time a t which a given radius of injection had been reached, it was assumed that the gas-space volume between two successive values of re was filled a t a rate equal to the average injection rate between the two limits chosen. In this manner, water-input rates and total input volumes a t a given time were calculated up to the limit of radial encroachment. The values are given in Table 1, and the injection curve over this interval IS shown in Fig. 1.

where the logarithm i s to the base 10. This rate i s assumed to apply a t all times following the initial production of oil.
Table

Water-in jection Calculation

A. R a i a l Encroachment Phase:
rc

Q
(Barrels per Day)

V
(Barrels)

(Ft)

(Months)

V,

= 47,990 b b l

B. Steady-state Flow:

TIME

MONTHS

Fig.

Calculated Water lniection Rates for Individual Average Well

= 84.38 bbl per day

The steady-state flow phase was assumed to have begun a t the time when the formation was completely filled with liquid. Although this i s not strictly true, and, in fact, the flood may speed up before the steady state i s reached, the object was to keep the present technique simplified a s much a s possible.' At the beginning of steady-state flow the total volume of water injected was computed from:

= 88,630 bbl C . Intermediate Phase: Average rate = 170*60 84'38 = 127.5 bbl per day.
L

Interim cumulative = 88,630

- 47,990

= 40,640.
10.48

y,

= 0.723 w2h+(l - Sw- So) 0.178

(4)

Interim time = 40,640 i127.5 =318.7days months. Time to beginning of steady state = 9.25 19.73 months.

+ 1048 =

WATER-FLOOD CALCULATIONS T h e water injected during the interval between t h e termination of the r a d i a l e n c r o a c hment p h a s e and the beginning of t h e steady-state p h a s e w i l l b e t h e quantity (VII- V'. If i t i s assumed that the injection rate during t h i s period is t h e average of the s t e a d y flow rate a t t h e c e s s a t i o n of radial encroachment, a time interval c a n be computed by dividing t h i s average r a t e into (VII- VI). Doing t h i s is equiva l e n t t o s t a t i n g t h a t the d e c r e a s e in injection r a t e is linear for t h a t interval of time. T h e interval of time calculated, when added t o the time a t c e s s a t i o n of radial encroachment, g i v e s the time when the steady-state flow p h a s e begins.

A tabulation of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s according t o t h e foregoing technique i s given in T a b l e 1. T h e res u l t i n g d a t a a r e plotted in Fig. 1, showing t h e radial-encyoachment p h a s e , t h e s t e a d y - s t a t e p h a s e , and t h e intervening assumed linear decline.
Injection w e l l s were drilled i n a t different t i m e s during the development of the reservoir. T h e a c t u a l schedule 6f injection w e l l s by months i s given in T a b l e 2. Therefore, t o compute the water injection for the entire reservoir, Fig. 1 w a s u s e d to give t h e injection for a s i n g l e well; and t h e sum for a l l w e l l s w a s cdmputed as e a c h new well w a s brought in. F o r example, a t the 10th month, 4 w e l l s had been under injection for 1 0 months and would have a total injection rate of 4 x 168, or 672 b b l per day; while 2 w e l l s were under their 1 s t month of injection a t a t o t a l rate of 2 x 220, or 440 b b l p e r day, t h u s giving a composite for t h e 10th month of 1,112 bbl per d a y for a l l w e l l s taking water. Similarly, a t the 1 3 t h month, i t w a s n e c e s s a r y to cons i d e r 4 w e l l s a t their injection r a t e for the 13th month, p l u s 2 w e l l s a t their injection rate for the 4th month, p l u s 4 w e l l s a t their injection rate for t h e 3rd month, p l u s 5 w e l l s a t their injection r a t e for the 2nd month. T h e r e s u l t s of the calculation, giving t o t a l int a k e rate for a l l w e l l s by monthly intervals, i s given in Fig. 2 a s the d a s h e d line. T h e s o l i d line i s t h e actual measured water injection on t h e reservoir. Fig. 3 s h o w s the same d a t a plotted as cumulative water injected.

Fig.

- Total F i e l d Water lniection Rates

TIME

MONTHS

Dashed L i n e i s Computed Solid L i n e i s Actual

average w e l l should be represented as a number of parallel beds of different but constant permeabilities. T o accomplish t h i s result, i t w a s first decided that the following permeability brackkts would b e used: 0 to 1 md; 2 t o 5 md; 5 t o 1 0 md; 1 0 t o 1 5 md; 15 t o 2 0 md; 2 0 t o 2 5 md; 25 to 3 5 md; 3 5 to 4 5 md; 4 5 to 55 md; 5 5 t o 6 5 md; 65 t o 7 5 md; and 75 md maximum. T h e footage of formation a s s i g n e d t o e a c h bracket w a s computed by dividing t h e t o t a l footage within a glven bracket in a l l w e l l s by t h e total footage for a l l brackets in a l l wells, and mul-

Computation of Oil Production

F o r computing the rate of oil production, i t w a s f e l t that one average bed would not suffice t o give t h e variation resulting from non-homogeneity of p e r m e a b l l ~ t y . It w a s decided, therefore, t h a t t h e

10

X)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

KX)

TlME

- MONTHS

Fig.

- Cumulative Total Field lniection

Dashed L i n e i s Computed Solid L i n e i s Actual

264

PRODUCTION PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY

Table 2
Schedule of Well Completions
Number of Water Wells Sand Face Input Pressure (Psi) 750 750 775 817 849 884 912 918 908 917 943 928 940 954 983 1,004 1,015 1,018 1,031 1,023 1,017 1,020 1,027 1,037 1,041 1,027 1,033 1,063 1,058 1,070 1,111 1,126 1,124 Number of Oil Wells 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Number of Water Wells 50 50 51 53 58 63 67 74 74 74 74 74 74 73 73 73 72 73 72 72 72 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 Sand Face Input Pressure (Psi) 1,147 1,161 1,181 1,158 1,132 1,123 1,095 1,098 1,110 1,126 1,156 1,158 1,184 1,228 1,245 1,270 1,300 1,293 1,282 1,308 1,300 1,293 1,303 1,327 1,3 17 1,321 1,339 1,349 1,351 1,359 1,376 1,375 Number of Oil Wells

Month

Month 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

11
23 23 23 30 30 30 30 30 33 36 42 45 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 55 54 57 58

,
,

. ,

tiplying this ratlo by 38.1, the average well thickness. For example, in all wells the total footage in the bracket 0 to 1 md was found to be 634.7 ft. The total footage of formation in all wells was 3,011.2 ft. The average thickness for this permeability bracket was, therefore, ft. A tabulation of the conjputed average thickness of each bracket in the typical producing well i s given in Table 3. Each of the permeability brackets chosen was assumed to represent a separate producing horizon, from which the oil would be produced at a rate equivalent to the rate of the water injected into it.

- 38.1 = 8.02 634'7 x 3.011.2

The production from the well would then be a summation of that obtainedfrom the ind~vidualhorizons. the proBecause the horizons vary in ~ermeability duction from them will occur over different time intervals. Inasmuch a s the water-injection curve was computed for the one average bed, the question arises a s to how to proportion this rate Into the individual permeability brackets. The method finally chosen represents only one p o s s ~ b l eway of making the calculation. Another has been described in a preliminary calculation7 to the present one. In the calculation reported herein, i t was assumed that each of the permeability brackets would

WATER-FLOOD CALCULATIONS

265

Table 3
Summary of Calculations for Single-well O i l Production

k
Bracket (Average No. Md)

kh h
(Feet) (Millidarcyfeet)

kh
(Fraction)

4
(Barrels)

v2

VO
(Barrels) (Months)

(Barrels)

(Months)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13
Total

.5 1.5 3.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 87.5

8.02 4.05 7.96 8.% 4.43 1.85 1.32 0.904 0.281 0.091 0.0279 0.0886 0.0925

4.01 6.08 27.8 67.4 55.4 32.4 29.7 27.1 11.26 4.55 1.67 6.20 8.10 281.77

0.0142 0.0216 0.0987 0.2592 0.1966 0.1150 0.0154 0.0962 0.0400 0.0161 0.0059 0.0220 0.0287 0.99%

18,660 9,422 18,528 20,890 10,306 4,304 3,071 2,103 654 212 85 206 215

30,370 15,340 30,140 34,000 16,780 7,005 4,998 3,923 1,064 345 112 336 350

11,710 5,918 11,620 13,110 6,474 2,701 1,927 1,321 410 133 47 130 135 55,636

495.0 154.0 57.0 18.0 9.41 6.54 5 .OO 3.85 2.68 2.12 1.76 1.52 1.16

815.0 261.0 103.0 39.2 17.35 11.13 8.44 7.38 3.52 3.58 3.15 2.51 1.95

take water a t e a c h month in proportion t o t h e fraction of the total millidarcy-foot capacity which t h e bracket represents.. F o r example, t h e bracket with a n average permeability of 30 md h a s 9.62 percent of the total millidarcy-foot capacity. During t h e 5 t h month of injection,when the t o t a l injection rate p e r month i s 5,442 bbl, (read from Fig. 1 and converted t o a month basis), t h i s bracket will have a rate of

523.5 bbl. Similarly, e a c h bracket would have i t s

own rate for e a c h month. In T a b l e 4 a r e llsted the injection r a t e s by bracke t s for the first 10 months of a well's injection period. V a l u e s beyond 10 months were computed, but are not shown. F o r e a c h bracket, i t w a s assumed t h a t n o production would occur untll a l l the g a s s p a c e in that

Table 4
Water-iniection Rates Into Assumed Permeability Brackets for F i r s t

10 Months

Bracket
NO.

Q1

Injection Rate per Bracket by Alonths

,
Qg Q7

9 2

Q3

Q4

Q5-

QB

Q9

(21 o

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Total

266

PRODUCTION PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY no oilproduction, From 1.16 months to 1.52 months, production w a s from one bracket only, a t a r a t e of 170.2 bbl per month. From 1.52 months until 1.76 months, production w a s from t w o brackets, a t a t o t a l of 300.6 bbl per month (170.2 + 130.4). T a b l e 5 i s the complete tabulation of t h e t i m e s a t which e a c h bracket began producing, and quit producing; and the c h a n g e s by months during the producing period. Shown a l s o a r e the times a t whlch e a c h bracket began producing water. Per-day r a t e s a r e computed by dividing the monthly r a t e s by 30.4. T h e per-day r a t e s for oil a r e plotted vs. time int e r v a l s in Fig. 4 , a s a block of production over t h e time interval. T h e dotted curve r e p r e s e n t s a reasonable average decline curve for the well. T h e water-rate d a t a are plotted similarly in Fig. 5, with an average water-production curve a l s o shown. T h e single-well c u r v e s of Fig. 4 and 5 were u s e d t o compute the total field-productlon curve in a manner similar t o t h a t by which the single-well water injection w a s used to calculate total for t h e field. T h i s involved adding a new curve t o the composite every time a new well w a s put on production. T h e solid-line block production c u r v e s of Fig. 4 and 5 were u s e d for coniputatioin rather than t h e average dotted curves. T h e s c h e d u l e of producing w e l l s is given in T a b l e 1. I t might be a point of debate whether t h e schedule of injection wells, or t h e s c h e d u l e of producing wells, should be u s e d for thiscomputation. In orderto note the effect upon

bracket w a s filled with liquid. T h i s volume i s designated by and w a s calculated for e a c h bracket from: V, = 0.723 hl@ (I-Sw- So) 0.178 (6)

V'

w2

where:h, i s the t h i c k n e s s of the bracket under consideration. T h e time when the individual bracket commences t o produce oil i s that a t which the cumulatlve water injected into the bracket i s This time i s d e s i g n a t e d a t tl.

5.

Production e n s u e s from e a c h bracket following t h e t ~ m e a t a r a t e e q u a l t o the water injection inti to the bracket, which r a t e v a r i e s a s described previously. production c e a s e s from the bracket when the water injected h a s reached t h a t volume n e c e s s a r y t o fill up the original g a s s p a c e , p l u s t h e s p a c e vacated by a l l the produced oil. T h i s volume is called V2 and w a s calculated from:

T h e t ~ m ewhen the cumulative water injected i s e q u a l t o V2.was d e s i g n a t e d as t2.

5, I\,

F o r e a c h of the b r a c k e t s chosen, the v a l u e s of tl, and t2 a r e l i s t e d i n T a b l e 3. Vo v a l u e s a r e

equal t o (V2- L>) a n d represent the total produced oil in e a c h bracket. From the v a l u e s of tl a n d t2 in T a b l e 3 a n d t h e r a t e s of injection in T a b l e 4, a production curve for the well w a s constructed a s shown i n Fig. 4. F o r example, u p t o the time of 1.16 months there w a s

TIME

MONTHS

Fig.

Calculated O i l Production Rate for Individual Average Well Solid L i n e i s Computed. Dashed L i n e i s Average

WATER-FLOOD CALCULATIONS

267

TIME

MONTHS

Fig.

- Calculated Water Production Rate for Individual Average Well

Solid L i n e i s Computed. Dashed L i n e i s Average

the computed r e s u l t s , both s c h e d u l e s were used. R e s u l t s of the a i l c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e in Fig. 6. T h e d a s h e d line g i v e s the computed behavior b a s e d on the schedule of injection w e l l s , the dotted line g l v e s the computed behavior based upon the s c h e d ule of producing wells, a n d the solid line i s a c t u a l production. R e s u l t s of the water-rate calculation a r e given in Fig. 7. Here the d a s h e d line i s computed on the b a s l s of t h e producing-well schedule. A field water-oil r a t i o per month w a s computed by dividing the v a l u e s in Fig. 7 by t h o s e in F i g . 6. T h e r e s u l t s are. shown in F i g . 8. Again the s o l i d

line - i n d i c a t e s the a c t u a l measured v a l u e s of t h i s quantity. Cumulative o i l production w a s calculated by using the computed o i l ' r a t e s shown in Fig. 6. T h e computed and a c t u a l cumulative c u r v e s are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig.

- Total F i e l d Water Production Rates

Dashed L i n e is Computed Solid L i n e i s Actual

TIME

- MONTHS

Discussion of R e s u l t s
Fig. 6 Total Field O i l Production Rates Dashed L i n e i s Computed from Schedule of Water Wells. Dotted L i n e i s Computed from Schedule of O i l Wells

' TlME

MONTHS

T h e object of s u c h a calculation as described herein i s twofold. One object i s a comparison of the computed a n d a c t u a l field behavior. Interpreta-. tion may be both qualitative and quantitative. A second object i s t o t e s t the applicability of certain

268

PRODUCTION PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY

Single Well Production from Summation of Individual Bracket O i l and Water Production Figures

Time
(Months)

-Oil R a t e s
Water R a t e s

Table 5
,

..

Qo

. Qo

Add

Subtract

Add

Q , : .
per hlonth

Q,.
per D a y

Subtract

per Month

per Day

WATER-FLOOD CALCULATIONS

269
.

production c u r v e s d o not show s o s a t i s f a c t o r y a n agreement between a c t u a l and computed d a t a a s do the injection curves, there is, nevertheless, reasonable correspondence. Low oil-production figures could have resulted from a misjudgement of either t h e original oil in p l a c e or of the final o i l residual. There i s sufficient agreement t o indicate that the assumption of a piston-like removal of the oil w a s justified, and t h e flooding is e s s e n t i a l l y in a horizon tal plane. I t is hoped, therefore, t h a t these computations will not be t a k e n merely as a b a s i s for d i s c u s s i n g the behavior of a particular reservoir. O n the contrary, they are presented in order t o outline a technique whlch i t is f e l t will aid in planning projected floods, and which c a n be used a s a b a s i s for a better understanding of the p r o c e s s of water flooding.

TlME

MONTHS

Fig.

Producing Water-oil Ratios Dashed L i n e i s Computed s Solid ~ i n ie Actual

theoretical mechanisms t o field behavior. When a favorable comparison i s obtained, i t may b e concluded that the assumptions on which the calculations are made have some validity, and that s u c h computations might be made t o predict beforehand t h e probable behavior of a projected flood. In the articular i n s t a n c e reported, the agreement between the computed curves and a c t u a l c u r v e s i s good. T h e agreement on water-injection c u r v e s would indicate that there i s some hope of e x p r e s s ing the heterogeneity of a reservoir by average figures for engineering calculations. Although t h e

Yuster, S T; Calhoun, J. C : Behavior of Waterinjection Wells, Producers Monthly 9 [I] 40-48, Nov. (1944); The Ocl Weekly (in two parts), P a r t I: 116 [ ] 28-37, Dec. 18 (1944), P a r t 11: 116 [ 3 4 ] 4 4 4 5 , Dec. 2 5 (1944). 2 ~ u s t e r ,S. T: Proceedings of the F i f t h Annual T e c h n i c a l Meeting, Bradford D ~ s t r i c t R e s e a r c h Group, Mineral Industries Experiment Station, T h e P e n n s y l v a n i a State College, S t a t e College, Pa. 3Yuster, S. T: P r o c e e d i n g s of the Sixth Annual T e c h n i c a l Meeting, Bradford District R e s e a r c h Group, Mineral Industries Experiment Station, T h e P e n n s y l v a n i a State CoUege, State College, Pa. Stiles, Wm. E: Use of Permeability Distribution in Water-flood Calculations, Trans. Am. l n s t . hlcncng W e t . Engrs. (Petroleum Development and T e c h nology) 186, 9-13 (1949). . Leverett, h1. C: F l o w of Oil-water Mixtures through Unconsolidated Sands, Trans. Am. l n s t . Vcning hlet. Engrs. (Petroleum Development and Technology) 132, 1 4 9 (1939). 61\luskat, RI: F l o w of Homogeneous F l u i d s in Porous hledia, Chapt. IX 5 0 7 4 1 7 , AlcGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New Tork, N. Y. ' ~ u d e r , F l o y d E: material for master's degree in petroleum engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla. (1949).
DISCUSSION

'

REFERENCES

TlME

MONTHS

Fig.

Total Field O i l Cumulative Production Dashed L i n e i s Computed Solid Line is Actual

6.H. Andresen (The Carter Oil Co., Tulsa): T h e paper is a commendable attempt a t pointlng the di-

270

PRODUCTION PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY tention t h e great number of f a c t o r s which require , additional investigation. Gradually, a s t h e various q u a n t i t i e s applied in the c a l c u l a t i o n s will be studied and more accurate d a t a will become available, t h e proposed method c a n b e refined t o the point where it c a n be applied t o predicting a c c u r a t e l y t h e behavior of water-flood operations for a n y field, where the n e c e s s a r y field and laboratory information c a n be secured.

rection in which future efforts may usefully be directed t o predict injection r a t e s , as w e l l as oil and water production r a t e s , and final recoveries b y water flooding from a given reservoir. Due t o the complicated nature of the p r o c e s s of o i l d i s p l a c e ment by water, and due t o our limited knowledge of t h e fundamental l a w s governing t h i s mechanism, many assumptions and simplifications become nece s s a r y in performing the calculations in t h e paper. Some of the a s s u m p t i o n s open t o question a r e t h e following: Oil is probably not d i s p l a c e d to the minimumresidual saturation by a piston-like action. T h e oil ;emaining in t h e s a n d after the flood-pot t e s t is the minimum residual, which roba ably cannot b e obtained in a field flood. T h e connate water content generally v a r i e s in different p a r t s of a reservoir and is dependent on t h e permeability of t h e s a n d . T h e average v a l u e c a n have no true meaning e x c e p t a s rough approximation. T h e assumption that the average formation press u r e i s atmospheric most likely i s in error by a t l e a s t 50 to 100 p s i , u n l e s s vacuum w a s applied a t that pool. T h e relative permeability t o water in a water-oil s y s t e m is a fairly s e n s i t i v e function of oil and water saturation. T h e dependability of using a n average value of the s a t u r a t i o n s is questioned a s much a s t h e applicability of Leverett's curve, obtamed on unconsolidated s a n d s , for a s p e c i f i c reservoir. T h e u s e of the v i s c o s i t y of water alone in the flow s y s t e m of oil, water, and g a s is a simplification which may e n t a i l considerable error. Probably not a l l t h e g a s in the Pore i s d i s p l a c e d by water during the flood process. T h e s e and other assumptions and simplifications were made t o s t u d y the behavior of a given reservoir. T h e oil recovery a t the end of 60 months s h o w s a variation of some 35 t o 40 percent between computed and observed v a l u e s , which can be considered a good agreement. In consideration of the p e a t number of n e c e s s a r y assumptions, it is f e l t t h a t s u c h c l o s e agreement between computation and field d a t a i s a coincidence rather than a n indication of the dependability of t h e method. I t would be very dangerous t o believe that, on the b a s i s of the proposed method, oil production and r e c o v e r i e s f o r any reservoir could be predicted with dependability. T h e paper h a s the great merit of bringing t o at-

W. A. Heath (Earlougher Engineering, T u l s a ) : I should like t o commend Dr. Calhoun and Mr. Suder very highly for a n e x c e l l e n t presentation of a correlation between calculated water-flooding performa n c e and a c t u a l field water-fl~oding performance. T o me, t h e value of t h i s paper l i e s in i t s indication to the industry that, if t h e water-flood engineer i s given the proper tools\with which t o work, much of the g u e s s work c a n be eliminated from the prediction of water-flooding performance. Such t o o l s a v a i l a b l e to Dr. Calhoun and klr. Suder c o n s i s t of a n accurate determination of net s a n d t h i c k n e s s through t h e medium of 78 cored wells, permeability and porosity v a l u e s of the sand throughout t h e pool, evaluation of connate water content of the s a n d through the u s e of oil a s the circulating fluid in s e v e r a l of the cored w e l l s , and laboratory flood-pot data. D a t a on s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were developed by coring input w e l l s in progressive expansion of flood development. Obviously, the t ~ m e for collecting t h e s e t o o l s t o place in t h e hands of t h e water-flood engineer is during t h e i n i t i a l development of t h e pool. T h i s infomation will enable the water-flood engineer to determine in advance of water-injection operation: a, proper input well spacing; b, waterinjection r a t e s ; c, overall water requirements; d, production r a t e s ; e, life of flood; f, oil recoveries; and g, proper s i z e s of plant and equipment. I t i s true t h a t Dr. Calhoun and hlr. Suder assumed. certain v a l u e s for some of the unknown v a r i a b l e s . T h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e s e assumptions might be argued a t length among various engineers; however, i t a p p e a r s , from the c l o s e agreement between calculated performance and a c t y a l field performance, that the proper a s s u m p t i o n s were made in t h i s ins t a n c e . I am s u r e that the management of a n y oil company would be more than pleased to obtain s u c h close relationship between predicted and a c t u a l performance. With more c a s e histories of waterflooding ~ e r f o r m a n c e s u c h a s ~ r e s e n t e d , the unknown v a r i a b l e s may b e more readily evaluated.