PETROLEUM SOCIETY

PAPER 2004-058

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Bottom-Water Reservoirs,
Simulation Approach
K. ELKADDIFI, E. SHIRIF, M. AYUB, A. HENNI
University of Regina
This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

impact on waterflood performance. Moreover, the worse the

conventional waterflood performance was, the more effective
the polymer was as a mobility and blocking control agent. The
use of horizontal wells showed slightly better oil recovery over
vertical wells in a conventional waterflood of reservoirs under
bottom-water conditions. In addition, some certain well
combinations (horizontal production and vertical injection)
gave better oil recovery due to the increase in the swept area.

Abstract
In many light or moderately viscous oil reservoirs in
Saskatchewan and Alberta, a high inactive water saturation
zone of varying thickness and extent ("bottom-water zone")
occurs in communication with the oil zone above. As a result,
the primary production period is short, and water breakthrough
occurs very early in the life of the reservoir. Later, during the
secondary recovery stage, such a zone can have an adverse
effect on the waterflood efficiency. This Paper addresses the
problem of waterflooding such reservoirs.
This study was directed towards reducing water mobility in
the bottom-water zone for more efficient oil displacement. A
commercial simulator (CMG/IMAX) was used to conduct this
study. Polymer in various concentrations was used as a
blocking agent in the bottom-water zone and as a mobility
control agent in the oil zone. Different strategies were
investigated to reduce the water mobility in the bottom-water
zone and improve the vertical sweep efficiency. The variables
examined were: permeability ratio, oil viscosity, relative waterto-oil layer thickness, polymer concentration, injection rate and
injection point, as well as the effect of vertical and horizontal
injection and production well combinations.
The results showed that minimizing crossflow between
layers by blocking the bottom-water zone could increase oil
recovery. It was also found that for an unfavorable mobility
ratio, as the injection rate increases the ultimate oil recovery
increases. The injection of a polymer solution had a favorable

Introduction
The efficient and economic recovery of oil from reservoirs
under bottom-water conditions is recognized as a formidable
task. High water cuts and rapidly decreasing oil rates early in
the production life of such reservoirs have in many instances
prompted their suspension or abandonment at very low levels of
oil recovery. Reservoir characteristics and rock and fluid
properties combine to yield the single most important parameter
(mobility ratio) in a waterflood. A number of chemicals such as
polymers, emulsions, biopolymers, foam and carbon dioxideactivated silica gel have been used to control the mobility ratio.
One of the oldest techniques to control mobility of water in
waterflooding is the use of polymers. This control agent was
shown to be effective in the early sixties by Pye1. He performed
numerous field and laboratory studies of polymer flooding
using polyacrylamide solutions. It was observed experimentally
that the viscosity of the water-soluble polymer solutions

measured in the formation sample departed markedly from that

obtained using a viscometer. He quantified the unusual
departure of the measured values from the expected response as
the resistance factor. It was assumed that the permeability was
constant.

In view of the foregoing, when a stratified reservoir is being

studied for waterflooding, failure to account for crossflow can
lead to large errors in oil recovery prediction; however, under
bottom-water conditions, this effect is aggravated due to the
presence of the mobile water phase.

Pye pointed out that at constant flow the injection pressure

rose, this effect was not a core-plugging problem because the
system reached equilibrium after some time. It was also
observed that the extent of departure from the measured
viscosity value was most pronounced at low concentrations but
at higher concentrations the effect was approximately
proportional to the solution viscosity. It was suggested that this
unusual behavior was a property of only selected water-soluble
polymers, among which were the extensive family of
acrylamide polymers and copolymers. It was recommended
that rapid laboratory flood rates should be avoided in order to
keep the resistance factor constant.

Two major observations can be made from the literature

survey. First, waterflooding under bottom-water conditions is
ineffective due to water channeling through the bottom-water
zone; however, a lack of suitable analytical expressions for fluid
flow in layered formations may lead to conclusions that may not
be valid. Second, injection of a blocking agent under bottomwater conditions has led to improved oil recovery,3-6 however,
the mechanism of this process is still not fully understood

The problem in recovering oil under bottom-water

conditions was first recognized in the early sixties when Barnes2
suggested the use of a viscous water slug to improve waterflood
efficiency in a reservoir partially invaded by bottom water. The
viscous water in Barnes' study referred to water thickened by a
chemical additive such that the viscosity of water was greater
than 1.0 cp. He argued that injecting a viscous water slug in
bottom-water reservoirs would (1) reduce the flood life, (2)
reduce lifting costs, and (3) increase ultimate recovery. He also
pointed out that the larger the size and the higher the viscosity
of the viscous slug injected into such a system, the greater the
crossflow of oil ahead of the displacing front, thus leading to a
higher oil rate during displacement. His visual model studies
showed that crossflow was most severe immediately ahead of
the front and diminished to zero at the producing well.
However, such a crossflow phenomenon was not described
quantitatively in the study.

Objectives
This study consists of numerical work. The principle
objective is to examine ways of efficiently waterflooding oil
reservoirs, with a bottom-water zone. In particular, it is intended
to study the effects on waterflood with chemicals as mobility
control agents and formation blocking, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of horizontal-vertical well combinations for
waterflooding formations where a contiguous water zone is
present below the oil zone. A commercial simulator
(CMG/IMAX) was used to conduct this study. Chemicals, such
as polymer (Polyacrylamide) solutions with different
concentrations are to be used for mobility control and formation
blocking.

The variables to be studied include: water-to-oil zone

thickness ratio, crossflow effects, injection rate, oil viscosity,
and polymer concentration. Oil recovery is to be examined as a
function of the above variables. Certain injection strategies,
where the injected fluid is injected at several points
simultaneously, are to be studied also.

Barnes' study was directed towards increasing the viscosity

of water. Other chemical slugs that could reduce relative
permeability to water were not considered. Unlike the viscous
water used by Barnes2, polymers have the ability to lower the
mobility by reducing the relative permeability to water, as well
as increasing its viscosity1, so that the mobility ratio is
improved.

Physical Model

Islam and Farouq Ali3,4 carried out an intensive

experimental study on the use of various chemical slugs in
waterfloods conducted under bottom-water conditions. The
chemical slugs included emulsion, air, foam and carbon
dioxide-activated silica gel. The study showed that emulsion
performed better (i.e., high oil recovery and low WOR) than the
other chemicals used.

Figure 1 provides a schematic of the physical model which,

have been used to simulate all runs. This physical model is
identical to the laboratory model used in previous8. The
physical model consist of a three-dimensional flow system,
packed with Ottawa sand, with two layers, one saturated with
oil and water, and the other by water only. The model had a
rectangular cross-section with inside dimensions of 90 cm
length, 9 cm depth, and 3.8 cm width. The injection and
production wells in the model are designed in such a way that
either type of well (vertical or horizontal) can be used as an
injector or producer. The model equipped with four vertical
wells and two sectional horizontal wells of a length 20 cm each.
The wells are 0.35 cm in diameter and made up of porous metal
that prevent any flow of Ottawa sand. The wells are so fitted
that their penetration can be adjusted to any depth. The core
holder had a lid along the bottom side. This design permits the
placement of a water layer of desired thickness. The sand pack
is to be kept compressed by means of a diaphragm. The relevant
properties of all fluids are presented in Table 1.

Yeung and Farouq Ali5,6 introduced three different

displacement techniques, the Emulsion Slug Process (ESP), the
Alternating Water Emulsion Process (AWE) and the Dynamic
Blocking Process (DBP) to improve the vertical sweep
efficiency while water-flooding bottom-water formations. For
emulsion with low surfactant concentration, the DBP and AWE
processes were found to give higher oil recoveries than the ESP
process under bottom-water conditions. For emulsion with
higher surfactant concentrations, the reverse was found to be
true. According to Yeung and Farouq Ali, the crossflow was
very prominent ahead of the flood front for high viscosity
fluids. It was concluded that a high surfactant concentration did
not necessarily give a higher oil recovery for both homogenous
and bottom-water reservoirs.
2

the rapid drop in oil cut are a good indication that the injected
polymer/water was going into the bottom-water zone.

Simulation Model
The physical model described in the previous section was
use to simulate all runs. A three-dimensional three-phase black
oil commercial simulator (CMG\IMEX) was used in this study.
IMEX includes features such as comprehensive well
management, polymer flooding, horizontal wells, dual
porosity/permeability, flexible grids and many more. IMEX is
also capable of modeling a heterogeneous distribution of
porosity, permeability, saturation and depths to the formation
top. This multiple layer model allows investigation of the
crossflow of fluid in porous media at various vertical
transmissibility values. The effect of selected parameters on
additional oil recovery over that by waterflood and polymer
flood have also been investigated.

Based on the results presented in Figures 2 and 3, it is

concluded that plugging the bottom-water zone completely is
the key to successful oil recovery. However, despite the fact
that the mobility ratios were favourable (polymer flood) in both
the oil and the bottom-water zones, it took 0.25 PV of fluid
injection before the oil rate started to increase. Thus, it seems
that the low oil rate during the initial production stage of a
bottom-water reservoir is unavoidable due to the crossflow.

Effect of Varying Injection Rate on

Recovery
The results for an unfavorable mobility ratio (waterflood) are
given in Figure 4, which shows that recovery increases
considerably with an increase in injection rate. This indicates
that recovery under bottom-water conditions is sensitive to
injection rate over the range investigated in this study. The
increase in recovery for unfavorable mobility ratio with
increasing flow rate is credited to the significant increase in
crossflow. Figure 4 shows the early time behavior for a 300
cc/hr injection rate is different compared to other injection rate
cases. This behavior is probably due to the fact that the gravity
forces are more dominant than the viscous forces. This
phenomenon will prevent the cross flow of oil into the bottomwater zone, which will result in oil production only from the top
layer (oil zone). Thus, increasing the injection rate will affect
crossflow, which results in an increased recovery (higher
injection rates produce higher oil recovery but, may not be
feasible in the field for practical reasons). In other words,
crossflow is a function of injection rate as was concluded by
Lambeth and Dawe7.

A total of 24 simulation runs was conducted to study

waterflooding and various injection strategies with the use of
polymer under bottom-water conditions. These runs were made
primarily to illustrate the capability of the simulator and to
predict water and polymer flooding. In essence, these runs
duplicated the same conditions of all runs in the previous
study8.

Discussion of the Results

In this study, 24 Simulation runs were conducted to study
water and polymer flooding under bottom-water conditions. All
runs conducted at constant injection rate. The principal
objectives were to examine the use of polymer as a mobility
control and blocking agent under bottom-water conditions, to
study the crossflow effect, explain the flow mechanisms
involved in the respective processes and obtain a simplified
description of the process involved. In this section, the results
obtained from the Simulation model as well as the experimental
results of previous studies1-8 are discussed and compared where
appropriate.

It should be noted that Yeung5,6 concluded in their studies

that crossflow is independent of flow rate and they also
concluded that crossflow under bottom-water conditions takes
place near the injection end. Figure 5 shows that for a
favourable mobility ratio, the oil recovery is insensitive to
injection rate

Polymer versus Waterflood

Polymer flooding1,2 has been recognized as one of the most
promising means of enhanced oil recovery. It can increase oil
recovery by reducing the mobility ratio by two major
mechanisms: (1) increase the water viscosity; (2) decrease the
relative permeability to water. Figures 2 and 3 combine the
histories of polymer and waterfloods under bottom-water
conditions for the two base runs. For most of the polymer runs
conducted, 500 ppm polymer solution was used. This polymer
solution had a viscosity of 2.1 mPa.s at a shear rate of 10 rps.

Effect of Varying Thickness Ratio

In general, the effect of oil-to bottom-water thickness ratio is
predictable in the sense that the larger the oil-to-bottom-water
thickness ratio, the more oil will be recovered. Figures 6 and 7
show the results of the Simulation model used in this study.
Figure 8 shows a plot of cumulative oil recovery versus
thickness ratio at one PV of fluid injection. Figure 8 compares
the recovery of the Simulation model for an unfavourable and
favourable mobility ratios. It is concluded that the thickness
ratio does play a significant role on waterflood performance
under bottom-water conditions over the range considered.

Figure 3 shows the production history of waterflood runs.

Notice that the oil cut dropped very rapidly to 21.6%. This
value of the oil cut was sustained for a period of 0.20 PV of
fluid injection before it started to increase to a value of 29.1%.
Thus, it appears that there is a pseudostable region where the oil
cut is approximately constant for a Newtonian fluid
(waterflood) flooding a bottom-water formation. This rapid
drop in oil cut indicates that the water was going into the
bottom-water zone. A similar pseudostable region was observed
in most bottom-water Runs.

Effect of Varying Oil Viscosity on Recovery

The effect of oil viscosity is also predictable in the same
sense as the thickness ratio. Figures 9 and 10 show a
comparison of oil recovery for 11.0 mPa.s, 34.3 mPa.s, and 68.0
mPa.s oil viscosity, respectively. The dependence of recovery
on oil viscosity is predictable in the sense that low oil viscosity
gives higher oil recovery. This behavior is caused by the
reduced resistance to oil flow in the transverse direction as well
as in the flow direction. This increases the crossflow of oil into
the bottom-water layer, from where it can be produced more
quickly. Figure 11 compares the results of the Simulation
model used in this study at one PV of fluid injection for

Figure 3 also shows the production history for polymer

flood. Notice that the oil cut decreased rapidly to less than
24.4%, while the pressure increased to the maximum value. A
pseudostable region where the oil cut is approximately constant
for a non- Newtonian fluid (polymer flood) flooding a bottomwater formation is also observed. This pseudostable region and
3

Polymer was used as a blocking agent to lower the water

mobility in the bottom-water zone. Figure 15 shows the effect
of injection strategies on cumulative oil recovery. The
cumulative oil recovery for the single injection method resulted
in higher recovery than the simultaneous injection process.
This result contradicts Yeungs finding, because the flow of
fluids in porous media cannot be controlled externally. This is
because the direction of the flow is affected by flow rate,
mobility ratio, mobility of the existing fluids in the porous
media, density difference of fluids, permeability and thickness
ratio, capillary pressure behaviour, crossflow, and the geometric
factors.

favorable and unfavorable mobility ratios. It is concluded that

the recovery is very sensitive to oil viscosity.

Effect of Varying Polymer Concentration

The effect of polymer concentration is also predictable in the
same sense as the thickness ratio. In this study, four different
polymer concentrations were used as mobility control and
blocking agents. It was found that polymer concentration plays
an important role in oil recovery. The effect of polymer
solution concentration is more understandable because the
higher concentration polymer solution that has a larger apparent
viscosity, the higher oil Recovery.

Effect of Using Horizontal Wells

Figure 12 shows the plot of injected pore volumes versus oil
recovery of 500 ppm, 1000 ppm, 1500 ppm, and 2000 ppm
polymer, respectively. The calculated end point mobility ratio,
M0, for a 500 ppm polymer solution, with a viscosity of 2.1
mPa.s at a shear rate of 10 rps displacing oil with a viscosity of
34.3 mPa.s, is 1.7. The cumulative oil recovery at one pore
volume of fluid injection shown in Figure 13 for several
polymer concentrations. The increase in polymer concentration
is more effective on the incremental oil recovery, because
polymer concentration directly reduces the mobility ratio by
increasing the water phase viscosity and the reducing effective
water permeability as well.

Figures 16 and 17 show the effect of horizontal wells and

vertical wells on oil recovery with bottom-water zone. Using
horizontal wells indicates that the performance of the
waterflood without the bottom-water zone is reduced (results
are not shown) as the horizontal wells are used for injection and
production. Reducing the swept area causes this phenomenon.
However, waterflooding with horizontal wells shows higher
recovery than vertical wells in the presence of a bottom-water
zone. This higher recovery is credited to fact that horizontal
wells are suitable for reservoirs under bottom-water conditions
and the tendency of horizontal wells to reduce water coning.
Conventional waterflooding under bottom-water conditions,
using a combination of vertical injectors and horizontal
producers (Figure 17), shows better oil recovery than horizontal
wells (injector/producer).

Effect of Barrier on Recovery

Two runs were conducted to investigate the effect of a
barrier (no crossflow allowed in the middle of the pack) on oil
recovery in the presence of a bottom-water zone, and to
determine the region of crossflow. In order to examine the
effect of an impermeable barrier, no transmissibility allowed
between the oil zone and the bottom-water zone. The notransmissibility section was applied in the middle section of the
reservoir and extended over 50% of the total length of the core.
Other than this, the conditions were the same as those in the
base Run. Figure 14 shows the Simulation results of this
investigation. It is concluded that crossflow is very beneficial
for waterflooding reservoirs under bottom-water conditions
because the oil will be produced from both zones (oil zone and
water zone). The results also support the conclusion made in
the previous studies that crossflow takes place at the flood front.

Conclusions
Based on the Simulation results obtained in this study,
the following conclusions are reached:
1.

2.

Effect of Injection Strategies on Recovery

To elaborate on the differences between the two injection
strategies used in a conventional waterflood (with or without the
help of a blocking agent), the term "single" and "simultaneous"
fluids injection are used, respectively. The two strategies are
described individually in the following:

3.
4.

The single-fluid injection process consists of injecting the

displacing and/or blocking fluids into the model through a
single perforation interval, usually located in the oil zone. In an
ideal situation, it is desired for the blocking mode to take place
in the bottom-water zone, and the displacing mode to take place
in the oil zone.

5.

The simultaneous fluid injection process developed by

Yeung5,6 consists of injecting displacing and blocking fluids
into the corresponding layers simultaneously. Yeung claims
that better control of the displacement process is obtained using
this process. That is, when displacing the oil zone, the blocking
process in the water zone is externally controllable.

6.

7.

Oil recovery during a waterflood in a reservoir under

bottom-water conditions is sensitive to injection rate,
oil viscosity, crossflow, and water-to-oil formation
thickness ratio.
Waterflooding a reservoir with a bottom-water zone
shows poor performance, with a decrease in oil
recovery as the thickness of the bottom-water zone and
the oil viscosity increase, and the injection rate
decreases.
Crossflow takes place around the flood fronts.
The polymer augmented waterflooding runs showed
better oil recovery than waterflooding runs using
vertical wells; however, the increase in oil recovery, in
the presence of a bottom-water zone, was more
significant. On the other hand, the worse the
conventional waterflood is, the more effective is the
polymer-augmented waterflood under bottom-water
conditions.
Conventional waterflooding using horizontal
production and vertical injection wells showed better
oil recoveries than vertical production/injection or
horizontal production/injection wells cases in the
presence of a bottom-water zone.
Oil recovery during a polymer flood in a reservoir
under bottom-water conditions is insensitive to
injection rate and injection strategies.
Oil recovery during a polymer flood is sensitive to
polymer solution concentrations. The lower the
polymer solution concentration, the lower the oil

recovery for both homogeneous and bottom-water

conditions cases.

Acknowledgement

3.

Islam, M. R. and Farouq Ali, S. M.: "Waterflooding Oil

Reservoirs With Bottom-Water", CIM 87-38-26, 38th
Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary (1987).

4.

Islam, M. R. and Farouq Ali, S.M., "The Use of Oil/Water

Emulsion as a Blocking and Diverting Agent," Paper 5
Session 1, presented at the Advances in Petroleum
Recovery and Upgrading Technology Conference (1987).

5.

Yeung, K. and Farouq Ali, S. M.: "How to Waterflood

Reservoirs with a Water Leg", CIM 93-27, presented at the
CIM Tech. Conf., Calgary, Alberta (May 9-12, 1993).

6.

Yeung, K. and Farouq Ali, S. M.: "Waterflooding Bottomwater Formations Using the Dynamic Blocking Method",
Petroleum Society of CIM/AOSTRA Technical Conference,
Banff, Alberta (April 21-24, 1991).

7.

Lambeth, N. and Dawe, R. A.: "Viscous Effects for

Miscible Displacements in Regular Heterogeneous Porous
Media", Chem. Eng. Res. Des. (January 1987), 52-

8.

Shirif, E., El-Kaddifi, K. and Hromek, J.: Waterflood

Performance Under Bottom-water Conditions:
Experimental Approach , SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering (February 2003), 28-38.

We thank the management of Petroleum Technology

Research Centre in Regina for the financial support provided for
this work.

NOMENCLATURE
Cp
hw/ho
hw/ho = 0
o
w
qinj
ppm
rps

Polymer concentration, ppm

Bottom-water to oil zone
thickness ratio
Homogeneous pack (no bottomwater)
Oil viscosity, mPa.s
Water viscosity, mPa.s
Fluid injection rate, ml/hr
Part per million
Revolution per second

REFERENCES
1.

Pye, D. J.: "Improved Secondary Recovery by Control of

Water Mobility", J. Pet. Tech. (August. 1964), 911-16.

2.

Barnes, A. L.: "The Use of a Viscous Slug to Improve

Waterflood Efficiency in a Reservoir Partially Invaded by
Bottom Water", J. Pet. Tech. (October 1962), 1147-53.

Table 1
Rock and Fluids Properties
Core length
Cross-sectional area
Bulk volume
Average porosity
Average absolute
permeability
Viscosity of oil 1, o1
Viscosity of oil 2, o 2
Viscosity of oil 3, o 3
Viscosity of water w
Density of water w
Density of oil 1 o1
Density of oil 2 o 2
Polymer used
Polymer molecular
weight
Polymer viscosity at a
shear rate of 10 rps

90.0 cm (35.43 in)

34.2 cm2 (5.3 in2)
3078.0 cm3 (178.83
in3)
36.21 %
10.48 um2 (10.61
Darcies)
34.3 mPa.s (34.3 cp)
68.0 mPa.s (68.0 cp)
11.0 mPa.s (11.0 cp)
1.0 mPa.s (1.0 cp)
0.9982 g/cm3 (62.287
lb/cf)
0.8123 g/cm3 (50.687
lb/cf)
0.8576 g/cm3 (53.514
lb/cf)
Polyacrylamide (Low
Anionic/Medium Mol.
Wt.)
3.0-4.5x106
2.1 mPa.s (2.10 cp)

Table 1: Rock and Fluid Properties

Horizontal
Wells

3.8cm

Oil Zone
Water Zone
90
cm

Figure 1: Schematic of the Simulation Model

9cm

Vertical
Wells

Comparison of Polymer and Water Flood Under Bottom-Water Conditions

80

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

Injector

Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

60

40

20

Waterflood
Polymer Flood (500ppm)
0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6
PV of Fluid Injected

2.4

2.8

3.2

Figure 2: Bottom-Water Run, Water/Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s, Cp = 500 ppm)

Comparison of Production History: Polymer vrs Waterflood

90

110
Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

Oil Cut for Water Injection

Oil Cut for Polymer Injection
Water Injection Pressure
Polymer Injection Pressure

70

90

Oil Cut (%)

60

70

50
50
40
30

30

20
10
10
0

-10
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 3: Bottom-Water Run, Water/Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s, Cp = 500 ppm)

Injection Pressure (Kpa)

Injector

80

Effect of Injection Rate on Oil Recovery

40
Injector

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

Producer.

Oil Zone

35

Bottom-Water

30
25
20
15

q = 300 cc/hr
10

q = 600 cc/hr

q = 1200
1200 cc/hr
cc/hr

5
0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 4: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

Effect of Polymer Injection Rate on Oil Recovery

80

Oil Zone

Injector

q = 450 cc/hr
q = 1200 cc/hr

Producer.

Bottom-Water

Cmulative oil erecovery (%)

60

40

20

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 5: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (Cp = 500 ppm, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

1.6

Effect of Thickness Ratio hw/ho on Oil Recovery

80

hw/ho = 1/1
hw/ho = 1/2
hw/ho = 1/3
hw/ho = 1/5
hw/ho = 0.0

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

70
60

Injector

Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.4

2.8

3.2

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 6: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

Effect of Thickness Ratio hw/ho on Oil Recovery

80
Injector

70

Producer.

Oil Zone

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

Bottom-Water

60
50
40
30

hw/ho = 1/1
hw/ho = 1/2
hw/ho = 1/3
hw/ho = 1/5

20
10
0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.4

2.8

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 7: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, o = 34.3 mPa.s, Cp = 500ppm)

3.2

Effect of Thickness Ratio hw/ho on Oil Recocery

80
Injector

Producer.

Oil Zone

Waterflood
Polymer Flood

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

Bottom-Water

60

40

20

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Thickness Ratio (hw/ho)

Figure 8: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer / Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, o= 34.3 mPa.s, Cp = 500ppm)

Effect of Oil Viscosity on Oil Recovery

60
Oil Zone

Injector

Producer.

Bottom-Water

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

50

40

30

20

11 mPa.s
34.3 mPa.s
68 mPa.s

10

0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.4

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 9: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3)

2.8

3.2

Effect of Oil Viscosity on Oil Recovery

80
Injector

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

70

Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

60
50
40
30
20

11 mPa.s
34.3 mPa.s

10

68 mPa.s

0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.4

2.8

3.2

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 10: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, Cp = 500 ppm)
Effect of Oil Viscosity on Oil Recovery
70

Waterflood
Polymer Flood

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

60
50
40
30
20

Injector

Oil Zone

Producer.

Bottom-Water

10
0
0

10

20

30

40
Oil Viscosity (mPa.s)

50

60

70

Figure 11: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer / Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, Cp = 500 ppm)

80

Effect of Polymer Concentration on Oil Recovery

80
Injector

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

70

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

Producer.

60
50
40
30

500 ppm
1000 ppm
1500 ppm
2000 ppm

20
10
0
0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6
PV of Fluid Injected

2.4

2.8

3.2

Figure 12: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

Effect of Polymer Concentration on Oil Recovery

60

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

50

40

30
Injector

20

Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

10

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Polymer Concentration (ppm)

Figure 13: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

2500

Effect of Barrier on Oil Recovery

40

Oil Zone

Injector

35

Producer.

Bottom-Water

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

30

25

20

15

10

Crossflow Allowed
No Crossflow Allowed

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 14: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)
Effect of Injection Strategy on Oil Recovery
80
Injector

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

70

Producer.

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

60
50
40

Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

Injectors

Producer.

30
20

Single Injection Well

Simultaneous Injection /Two Wells

10
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 15: Bottom-Water Run, Polymer Flood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, Cp = 500 ppm, hw/ho = 1/3, o = 34.3 mPa.s)

Comparison of Oil Recovery for Horizontal and Vertical wells

60

Vertical well
Horizontal well

50
Producer

Cumulative OiL Recovery (%)

Injector

Oil Zone

40

Bottom-Water

30

20
Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

Injector

10

Producer.

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 16: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3,

= 34.3 mPa.s)

Effect of Horizontal / Vertical Well Combination on Oil Recovery

60

Cumulative Oil Recovery (%)

50

Vertical Injector/ Horizontal Producer

Horizontal Injector/Horizontal Producer

Producer

Oil Zone

Injector

Bottom-Water

40

30
Producer

Injector
Oil Zone
Bottom-Water

20

10

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

PV of Fluid Injected

Figure 17: Bottom-Water Run, Waterflood (qinj = 450 cc/hr, hw/ho = 1/3, o= 34.3 mPa.s)

0.9