SPE 113856

A New Diagnostic Analysis Method for Waterflood Performance

Zhengming Yang, SPE, Aera Energy LLC

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., 31 March–2 April 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

ABSTRACT

Despite the widespread application of reservoir INTRODUCTION

simulation to study waterflood reservoirs, petroleum
engineers still need simple predictive tools to forecast ‘X-Plot’ Approach
production decline, estimate ultimate oil recovery, and
diagnose the production performance from the historical Ershaghi et al (1978, 1984) developed the ‘X-
field data. Plot’ waterflood analysis technique on the basis of the
semi-log linear relative permeability ratio
Based on the Buckley-Leverett equation and the ( k ro / k rw = Ae − BS W
) for intermediate saturation values.
assumption of a semi-log relationship between relative
By applying this linearity feature and the Buckley-Leverett
permeability ratio and water saturation
equation, a linear relation between an 'X' factor and oil
( k ro / k rw = Ae − BSW , where A and B are constants), a recovery factor ER was developed.
consistent analytical solution can be derived as
E 1 , where qoD is the oil fractional flow,
q oD (1 − q oD ) = ( V ) ER = m X + n (1)
B tD
tD is the fraction of cumulative liquid production to total Where, X = ln(
1 1 (2)
− 1) −
formation volume PV, and EV is the volumetric sweep fw fw
efficiency. Two equivalent linear plots can be developed: −1
a log-log plot and a reciprocal time plot. The log-log plot m= (3)
has a slope of -1 and intercept of EV/B. The reciprocal B (1 − S wi )
time plot has a slope of EV/B and an intercept value of 0. 1 1 μ
Both plots can be applied for the diagnostic analysis of n= ( S wi − ln A w ) (4)
1 − S wi B μo
waterflood reservoirs.
The slope m and intercept n can be obtained from
Model and field case studies show the benefits of production data if the swept volume is known. Other than
this technique as a production decline analysis tool in predicting waterflood performance by extrapolating the
forecasting the waterflood production decline and the linearity between X and ER, Eqs. 3 and 4 can also be used
ultimate oil recovery. This method can also be applied as a to compute the constants A and B for a ‘field’ relative
diagnostic tool to evaluate various aspects of waterflood permeability ratio. Water-cut should be greater than 0.5
performance. Examples include assessing waterflood for this linear plot to be valid based on the general
maturity, calculating volumetric sweep efficiency, observation of field data.
distinguishing the normal waterflood breakthrough from
the premature water breakthrough through hydraulic As we will see in this study, only for a system
fractures, and examining the consequences of operational with 100% volumetric sweep efficiency can the relative
changes. The appropriate use of this analytical method will permeability parameters A and B be found. For a system
help to optimize the field waterflood operation. with imperfect volumetric sweep efficiency, only the
combination of the parameters B and volumetric sweep
efficiency EV (or swept oil volume N) can be found rather
than each individual parameter.
2 SPE 113856
For a practical field problem, the volumetric
sweep efficiency is less than 1. Eq. 1 can be rewritten as
(Huh et al, 2007)
N p = ER ⋅ N = m' X + n' (5)
where Np is the cumulative oil production, N is the oil in
place in the flooded volume, m'=mN; and n'=nN. In the
field cases, Np can be measured from production data and
N is generally unknown.
There are two unknown parameters in the system:
the relative permeability ratio parameters B and the swept
oil volume N (related to the volumetric sweep efficiency
EV). The parameter A depends on B and N through Eq. 4.
It might not be possible to obtain both parameters from the
production history data by the X-plot method itself. Some
other method such as history match in reservoir simulation
or laboratory measurement must be applied to obtain the
relative permeability ratio parameter B. Once B is
available, N can be determined from production data.
Alternatively, the floodable oil volume N needs to be
known and then the true relative permeability parameter B
can be determined. Huh et al (2007) applied an iterative
procedure to estimate the floodable oil volume N; in this
case, the true relative permeability ratio parameter B (and
A) may be calculated from field production data.
The X-plot method does not have explicit time
dependency. The time-dependency of X-plot is implied in
the water fractional flow and then the X factor. Without
knowing the fractional flow curve, we cannot directly
relate time or injection (or liquid production) volume to
the X factor to forecast oil recovery.
Time-Dependent Water-Oil Ratio
Based on the same semi-log linearity feature of
the relative permeability ratio, Yortsos et al (1999) derived
the time-dependent water-oil-ratio (W) with displacement
time (tD =QL/PV) defined as the fraction of cumulative
liquid production to the total swept volume of the subject
formation,
(W + 1) 2 (6)
= Bt DS
W fundamentals and the pioneer work in the subject area, a
This theoretical analysis result has some significance to
understand the waterflood process. First, the water-oil-
ratio W is related to the displacement time tDS=QL/PVS.
This time-dependency will facilitate the field application.
Second, the water-oil-ratio W depends on the displacement
time tDS (fraction of PVS) rather than the calendar time t
(in days) directly. The displacement time includes the
operational aspects of water injection. Water injection rate
generally changes with calendar time. Unless the water
injection rate is strictly constant or a known function of
calendar time, the displacement time and water-oil-ratio W
cannot be related to the calendar time analytically. An
assumption of constant injection rate or a known analytical
function of time is not practical in field conditions. The
theoretically derived time-dependency of water-oil-ratio
reflects one of the important physical differences between
primary depletion and waterflood.
In primary depletion, the oil production decline is
caused by the pressure depletion. The main operational
effort for primary depletion is to maintain producers in the
appropriate flowing conditions (pumped off, for example).
No additional operation affects deeply into the formation.
Arps (1945) proposed an empirical decline model for the
production decline: qo = qoi /(1 + bDit ) (1/ b ) , which
has three types (exponential with b=0; hyperbolic
(0<b<1); and harmonic with b=1). Fetkovich (1980)
provided a theoretical basis for the Arps equation by
relating the Arps empirical equation to the single-phase
flow solutions, which is a direct relationship between oil
production rate and the calendar time.
For a waterflood, on the other hand, reservoir
pressure is generally constant and the oil production
decline (or increase of the water-oil-ratio) is caused by oil
saturation reduction that depends on the volume of water
injection. As a result, the time-dependency of oil
production decline in waterfloods includes the impact of
injected water volume. The frontal displacement theory
suggests the dependence on the displacement time tDS
(volume of cumulative water injection or liquid
production, as shown in Eq. 6) rather than on the calendar
time t directly. A harmonic decline model was proposed
by Lijek (1989) for waterflood with the semi-log relative
permeability ratio and constant injection rate assumption.
However, forcing waterflood production declines to fit the
frame of Arps decline model needs to introduce
inconsistent mathematical and physical assumptions
regarding the frontal displacement (Yang 2007).
Therefore, the Arps decline model may not be appropriate
for waterflood performance analysis.
ANALYSIS
A New Diagnostic Analysis Method
Based on a critical understanding of waterflood
new diagnostic analysis model for waterflood performance
has been developed. A rigorous solution of the oil
fractional flow is derived based on the Buckley-Leverett
equation and the semi-log relative permeability ratio. The
solution of oil fractional flow can be mathematically
transformed to linear forms on the log-log scale and
reciprocal time scale without introducing any additional
physical assumptions. These plots can be applied to
forecast the oil fractional flow and then to calculate the oil
rate with known liquid rate. This analysis technique
improves the reliability of ultimate oil recovery and
production forecasts because it more appropriately
considers waterflood flow mechanisms. This method can
quantitatively define the 'maturity' of a waterflood,
SPE 113856 3

calculate the waterflood ultimate oil recovery, calculate With the historical production data, the ratio EV/B
the volumetric sweep efficiency, diagnose waterflood can be calculated from the log-log plot or the reciprocal
inefficiencies such as the premature water breakthrough time plot. When the ratio EV/B is known, Y and then qoD at
via hydraulic fractures, and assess the consequences of different tD can be directly calculated from Eq. 8.
operational changes. The appropriate use of this analytical However, we can directly forecast from the production
method as a diagnostic tool will help to optimize the field data on the log-log plot or the reciprocal time plot without
waterflood operation. calculating the parameters EV/B. Since tD=QL/PV, for the
linear section on log-log scale, Eq. 8 can be rewritten as:
The theoretical basis of this new diagnostic
analysis method was prepared in another manuscript EV
Y t D = (YtD )0 = = const (9)
(Yang 2007), with some detail of the model derived in B
Appendix A. The focus of the current paper is to t D0
demonstrate the application of this method. Y= ( )Y0 (9a)
tD
First, an oil fractional function Y is defined as, And
EV (10)
Y QL = (Y QL )0 = PV = const
Y = qoD (1 − qoD ) (7) B
where qoD is the oil fractional flow. QL0
Y= ( )Y0 (10a)
QL
The general form of the new diagnostic model is where the subscript ‘0’ stands for a reference point.
EV 1 (8)
Y =( )
B tD Eq. 9a indicates that the forecast can be done with
where B is the relative permeability ratio parameter and a known historical production data point ‘0’ without the
EV is the volumetric sweep efficiency. The parameter tD is need of calculating the parameters EV and B. Eq. 10a even
the fraction of cumulative liquid production to the total goes one step further: a forecast completely based on field
pore volume (PV) of the waterflood pattern area (swept measurable production data (in field units) without the
and unswept). need of knowing reservoir volume. The plot Y versus QL
(bbl) on log-log scale has the same feature. In this case the
There is an analytical solution for the cumulative slope is –1 and the intercept will be (EV/B)PV (at QL=1
oil production (Eq. A-24). However, it may not be bbl).
convenient to use the analytical solution for the On the reciprocal time plot of Y versus 1/QL, the
cumulative oil production in the field application because intercept is zero and the slope will be (EV/B)PV. However,
of its highly nonlinear form and its requirement of due to the extremely large PV value and extremely small
knowing the parameter B and breakthrough time (tDBT in 1/QL value in field conditions, it is practically preferable to
Eq. A-24). Nonetheless, it is a rigorous analytical solution use tD for the reciprocal time plot (Eq. 8 and 9). The
between the cumulative oil production and cumulative
conceptually infinite point where Y → 0 when t D → ∞
liquid production. The cumulative oil production can be
calculated as long as the Y function at different calendar is also useful for calculating the slope EV/B by connecting
times is calculated from Eq. 8. Therefore, Eq. 8 will be the known historical production data and the origin on the
applied as the basis of the diagnostic analysis in this paper. reciprocal time plot. The interpolation between the known
historical production data and the infinite conceptual point
In Eq. 8, the parameters depend on the definition is actually the forecast of the waterflood performance in
of the displacement time tD. If tD is defined by the swept this case.
volume only, then EV=1. In this case, however, the
unknown parameter will change from EV to N (see Eq. 5, Knowing Y, we can calculate the oil fractional
the oil volume in the swept zone), and the fundamental flow by converting Eq. 7:
nature remains the same - there are two unknown 1
parameters. qoD = (1 − 1 − 4Y ) (11)
2
Oil fractional flow can be converted to the oil rate based
Scenarios of the Application
on the known liquid rate.
Two types of linear plots exist from Eq. 8: a log- qo = qoD q L (12)
log plot and a reciprocal time plot. Plotting Y versus tD on
the log-log scale gives a straight line with slope –1 and
intercept EV/B (at tD=1). The plot of Y versus the where qo and qL are oil and liquid rates, respectively, both
reciprocal time 1/tD is also a straight line with intercept in field units (bbl/day). The future liquid rate is generally
value of zero and slope EV/B. These two plots are equal to the future injection rate based on a constant
equivalent. reservoir pressure condition and unit I/P
(injection/production) ratio. If the I/P ratio is not 1 due to
4 SPE 113856
leakage between reservoirs, calibration between the future
injection rate and production rate is necessary for
forecasting purposes.
Maturity of a Waterflood
The shape of the water fractional flow function
and the initial water saturation value will affect the water
fractional flow at breakthrough. Figure 1 shows the
fractional flow curve calculated with the parameters in this
model study (Table 1 and 2). Based on the Welge
graphical technique (Welge 1952), the general form of the
breakthrough tangent with initial mobile water saturation
is:
f wBT − f wi df w
=( ) BT = Bf wBT (1 − f wBT )
S wBT − S wi dS w
where the subscripts ‘BT’ and ‘i’ stand for breakthrough
and initial conditions, respectively. The water fractional
flow at breakthrough fwBT with initial immobile water
saturation is generally greater than ½. SwBT is always
greater than Swi for the discontinuous front to appear. With
increasing Swi, the corresponding SwBT and fwBT decreases
and the tangent slope increases. At the limit of SwBT → Swi,
fwBT→ ½ and the tangent approaches its maximum value
of B/4 due to the parabolic nature of Eq. 13. This analysis
theoretically confirms the general observation of field data
by Ershaghi et al (1978) that the X-plot linearity starts
from fwBT≥ ½.
Y in Eq. 7 has a parabolic form, as shown in
Figure 2, with its maximum value of ¼ at qoD = ½. Y
increases with fw when fw< ½ (qoD>½) and Y decreases
with fw when fw> ½ (qoD<½). The actual water fractional
flow at breakthrough depends on the shape of the
fractional curve and the initial water saturation. Therefore,
in the 1-D B-L solution, the function Y does not go
through the half of the parabolic curve between fw=0 and
fw= ½ if water is immobile initially. However, for the
average of a reservoir with multiple wells or a single well
with multiple layers, Y may cover the entire period. This is
due to the different timing of water breakthrough in each
producing well or layers and the existence of initial mobile
water saturation. Only when the water fractional flow is
greater than ½, the average performance behaves similar
to that of the 1-D B-L solution. This is a theoretical
indication that the oil saturation and oil relative
permeability reductions start to dominate the oil
production response at qoD≤ ½ (fw≥ ½). The fact that Y
reaches a maximum value of ¼ and starts to decrease with
a slope -1 on the log-log scale can be used as a
quantitative indicator of a ‘mature’ waterflood.
APPLICATIONS
Model Study: One Dimensional Homogeneous Case
A 1-D B-L displacement example here demonstrates the
application of the analytical solution technique. Table 1
lists assumed rock and fluid properties for this case.
Figure 3 shows the oil-to-water relative
permeability ratio calculated from the Honarpour (1988)
power-law correlation using data in Table 1. An
approximate semi-log linear section can be observed in the
intermediate saturation range of 0.4 to 0.65. The
parameters A and B (as shown in Table 1) are obtained by
regression of the linear section.
The breakthrough condition (as shown in Table
2) is solved from the Buckley-Leverett equation by the
Welge method that represents the historical data. The oil
fractional flow at breakthrough condition is converted to
the Y function as shown in Figure 4. Y at different
displacement times can be forecasted by extrapolating the
(13)
known data point with slope of -1. Eq. 11 is used to
calculate the oil fractional flow from Y. The result
forecasted by this log-log plot is exactly the same as that
directly calculated by the Welge method. The difference is
that Welge method requires knowing the relative
permeability parameter B and viscosity ratio in order to
create a fractional flow curve for the calculation. The
diagnostic model will only use the historical data to
forecast without knowing the fractional flow curve. Figure
4 also compares the oil fractional flow relationship and the
Y function, which converge at late time. The error between
the rigorous solution and the asymptotic solution (A-31) is
2
qoD (1 − qoD ) − qoD = qoD which decreases rapidly with
decrease of qoD.
Figure 5 shows the reciprocal time plot. Two data
points are used: the historical data in Table 2 and the
conceptually infinite point where Y → 0 as 1/tD → 0. We
can calculate the slope EV/B based on these two data
points. The production performance can be forecasted by
interpolation between these two data points. The
parameter EV/B, the Y function, and the oil fractional flow
qoD calculated with this new diagnostic method is the same
as that calculated with the Welge method from the
fractional flow function.
Field Case 1:
The Field Case 1 is for the waterflood in South Belridge
diatomite (Nott et al 1991). It is a 1600 ft thick, low
permeability, high porosity reservoir 40 miles west of
Bakersfield, California. As a standard operating method,
both injectors and producers were hydraulically fractured.
Waterflood started after a short primary depletion. In
addition to the historical production data, the oil-water
relative permeability curves are obtained from a history
match in reservoir simulation. The oil-to-water relative
permeability ratio for one of the diatomite intervals is
k ro k rw = 83940.82e −16.91797 Sw from this history match,
with B=16.91797.
The Field Case 1 will exemplify the application
of the new diagnostic model in calculating the volumetric
sweep efficiency and for diagnosing premature water
SPE 113856
breakthrough between injectors and producers.
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
As discussed earlier in this paper, there are two
unknown parameters in the model: B and EV. From the
field data itself, we cannot determine each individual
parameter. Some other procedure is needed to determine
one parameter, for example, the relative permeability
curves can be determined from a history match in reservoir
simulation or laboratory measurements. When the relative
permeability parameter B is available, the volumetric
sweep efficiency can be calculated from Eq. 8. The
historical production data is plotted on the reciprocal time
scale as shown in Figure 6. At 1/tD=6, the development
drilling has been completed and the water flood reaches
maturity. The slope of this portion of the plot reads as
EV/B=0.0327. From the history match in reservoir
simulation, B=16.91797. Therefore, the volumetric sweep
efficiency is then 0.553 in this case. The comparison of
this volumetric sweep efficiency value with the type curve
in Craig monograph (Craig 1971) indicates that the value
is in a reasonable range.
Water Channeling and Premature Breakthrough
Due to the close well spacing and change of
stress condition, some hydraulic fractures may link up the
injectors and producers. In this case, premature water
breakthrough from injectors to producers could appear.
When premature water breakthrough happens, injected
water will shortcut to the producers without effectively
displacing the oil in matrix. The new diagnostic method is
able to quantitatively differentiate the premature water
breakthrough from normal water breakthrough in a
waterflood.
Figure 7 compares the Y function for two
producers. The Y function for the normal water
breakthrough (Well A) has a slope -1 on the log-log scale.
The Y function in this case can be applied to forecast. The
Y function for premature water breakthrough (Well B) has
no consistent feature. The premature water breakthrough
depends on operating condition (injection rate) rather than
following the Buckley-Leverett fractional flow model.
Therefore, the Y function for premature water
breakthrough does not have any more application than to
demonstrate the existence of the premature water
breakthrough problem. This diagnosis can be the basis for
making an appropriate operational change. Remedial
action is required for premature water breakthrough on
either the injectors or producers once further work
recognizes the interaction of injector and producers (Liu
2007).
Field Case 2:
The Field Case 2 is for the Upper Main Reservoir
at Huntington Beach Field, California. The reservoir
started production by primary depletion in 1945 and
waterflood initiated in 1972. Figure 8 shows the plot of I/P
ratio versus cumulative liquid production in fraction of
reservoir pore volumes. I/P ratio stabilizes at
5
approximately 1.3 following the formation fill-up period.
It is an indication of fluid leakage from the Upper Main
formation possibly to the lower formation ‘Lower Main’
based on field observation. As long as the pressure field is
in steady state, the analysis technique can still be applied
even when I/P ratio is not 1. However, the future liquid
rate will not be equal to the planned water injection rate. A
calibration factor of 1.3 is necessary for forecasting
purposes.
The Field Case 2 will exemplify the application
of the new diagnostic model in waterflood maturity
definition, performance evaluation and impact of an
operating condition change, as well as production decline
analysis and ultimate oil recovery calculation. The
displacement time tD is based on a total reservoir volume
of 5x108 bbl.
Maturity of the Waterflood
Figure 2 shows the plot of Y versus water
fractional flow. Due to the parabolic nature of Eq. 7, Y
increases with fw when fw is less than ½, and Y decreases
with fw when fw is greater than ½. Figure 9 plots the Y
function versus the displacement time tD on the log-log
scale for the entire period from primary depletion to
waterflood. The variation of Y before water injection was
caused by formation water production and the
development activities. Pilot water injection started in
1972. The Y function reaches its peak value of ¼ and then
starts to decrease around 1978. This point of Y=¼ is a
quantitative indication of waterflood maturity in the pilot.
Before reaching this maturity point, the dominant
production mechanism is primary depletion and transition
to waterflood. When the Y function reaches ¼ and starts to
decrease, the dominant production mechanism is the
reduction of oil saturation and oil relative permeability, the
indication of a mature waterflood from a field average
viewpoint. The production decline of a mature waterflood
can be predicted by extrapolation with slope of –1 on the
log-log scale of Y versus tD or QL (Eqs. 9 and 10).
Evaluation of Operating Condition Change
Figure 10 shows Y with the emphasis on the
mature waterflood period. A major redevelopment such as
infill drilling, well shut-in, or conversion will change the
volumetric sweep efficiency. However, when the
volumetric sweep efficiency stabilizes, the Y function
versus tD on a log-log scale resumes a straight line with
slope of -1 and intercept EV/B. The Y function can be
converted to the oil fractional flow qoD and then the oil rate
qo based on Eqs. 11 and 12. The plot of Y can accurately
forecast the oil fractional flow after water breakthrough.
The parameter EV/B is the intercept of the log-log plot and
the slope of the reciprocal time plot. Any operating
decision that causes a change of volumetric sweep
efficiency will change the intercept of the linear section on
the log-log plot; however, the slope -1 of the plot does not
change. Any increase of volumetric sweep efficiency is
beneficial to the ultimate oil recovery and any decrease of
the volumetric sweep efficiency is detrimental to the
6 SPE 113856
ultimate oil recovery. Figure 10 shows several shifts of the
linear section of the Y function on the decline trend and a
corresponding change of the ultimate recovery. Therefore,
the analytical technique developed in this study can be
applied as a waterflood diagnostic tool to assess the impact
of changing operating conditions. The plot predicts the
future oil fractional flow and then oil rate by assuming
there is no further redevelopment and the volumetric
sweep efficiency stabilizes (Baker, 1998).
The impact of changing operating condition is
also obvious on the reciprocal time plot with changing
slope as shown in Figure 11. The change of slope on the
reciprocal time plot is visually more significant than the
change of the intercept on the log-log plot due to the
nature of logarithmic function in hiding variation. It is
evident that an infill-drilling program increased the
ultimate oil recovery while a later conversion of producers
to injectors was detrimental to the ultimate oil recovery.
Based on the diagnostic analysis of the field results, we
gain insight that can be used to optimize ultimate
recovery.
Forecast by Production Decline Analysis
It is convenient to forecast by production decline
analysis using the new diagnostic method on a worksheet
where each entry is a certain time interval (for example
monthly). For prediction purposes, the future liquid
production rate must be estimated based on the water
injection plan. All other data can be predicted based on
that liquid production data and the techniques previously
discussed. Figure 10 shows the Y function of historical
data and the prediction at different times. The major
operational changes such as infill drilling and well
conversion cause a change in volumetric sweep efficiency
and the shift of the straight line. However, the slopes
remain at –1. A moving average of the historical data may
sometimes be appropriate in the linear section to
characterize the performance trend without interference by
monthly operational fluctuations. A reference point ‘0’ can
be obtained from the data. Based on the reference point,
the forecast can be done with Eqs. 9a or 10a. Figure 10
shows the prediction versus displacement time. Figure 12
shows the oil production rate history and predicted oil
production rate on a calendar time scale. It is compared
with the forecasts by the exponential and harmonic decline
models (after fitting the field data). The prediction result
by this analytical model for this field is qualitatively
similar to using a super harmonic function (b>1) in Arps
model for waterflood. However, the analysis technique
developed here is based on the displacement mechanism
and does not require empirical curve fitting; its use
reduces the uncertainty in forecasting waterflood ultimate
recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
A diagnostic analysis method was developed based on
the analytical solution of oil fractional flow (qoD) versus
displacement time tD for mature waterflood reservoirs. The
major findings from this study include:
(1) The diagnostic plots have two linear forms:
The Y function (qoD(1-qoD)) versus tD on the log-log
scale has slope -1 and intercept EV/B.
The Y function versus 1/tD has intercept 0 and slope
EV/B.
(2) The Y function is an appropriate indicator for
waterflood maturity. The Y function for a reservoir
average reaches a maximum value of ¼ and starts to
decrease with a slope -1 on a log-log scale. When the
Y function reaches ¼ and starts to decrease, this is a
quantitative indicator of a mature waterflood.
(3) Model and field case studies show the benefits of the
diagnostic method in the following areas:
It is used as a production decline analysis tool for
forecasting the waterflood production and the ultimate
oil recovery. The method can be applied as a
diagnostic tool to evaluate various aspects of
waterflood performance. Examples include assessing
waterflood maturity, calculating volumetric sweep
efficiency, distinguishing the normal waterflood
breakthrough from the water channeling caused by
premature water breakthrough through hydraulic
fractures, and examining the consequences of
operational changes.
The appropriate use of this analytical method will
help to optimize the field waterflood operation.
NOMENCLATURE
A = constant of the semi-log relative
Permeability ratio.
B = exponent of the semi-log relative
Permeability ratio.
ER =recovery factor.
EV =volumetric sweep efficiency (fraction).
f =fractional flow (fraction).
kr =relative permeability (fraction).
M =mobility ratio.
N =swept oil volume.
n =exponent of power-law relative permeability.
PV =formation pore volume (bbl).
Q =cumulative production (bbl).
q =production rate (bbl/day).
qoD =oil fractional flow (fraction).
S =saturation (fraction).
t =time.
W =water/oil ratio.
xD =dimensionless distance.
x =variable.
y =variable.
Y =a function of oil fractional flow.
κ =oil/water relative permeability ratio.
μ =viscosity.
Subscripts
BT =breakthrough.
SPE 113856 7

D =dimensionless, displacements. k ro (A-1)

c =connate water. = Ae − BSW
k rw
e =exit end (producer).
i =initial condition. For the purpose of this study, the analysis starts with the
L =liquid. one dimensional Buckley-Leverett displacement equation
o =oil phase.
or =residual oil saturation. ∂S w ∂f w (A-2)
+ =0
s =swept. ∂t DS ∂x D
w =water phase.
0 =reference point. The flow function fw is defined by
1
fw = (A-3)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1+ κ / M
where κ = kro / krw and M = μo / μ w . The solution of Eq.
The author wishes to thank Aera Energy LLC for the
A-2 at producer (xD=1) is
permission to publish this work. The author is grateful to
many engineers for their encouragement, especially Roy
Engineer for his assistance in analyzing the field cases and
xD 1 df κ'/ M (A-4)
( ) xD =1 = = ( w ) Sw =Swe = −
Brent Carnahan for reviewing the manuscript. t DS t DS dS w (1 + κ / M ) 2
Taking the derivative of Eq. A-1 and substituting into Eq.
REFERENCES A-4 lead to the time-dependent water-oil-ratio (W).
(W + 1) 2 1 (W + 1)(W − 1)
Arps, J.J.: “Analysis of Decline Curves,” Trans. AIME (1945), t DS = ⇒ dt DS = dW (A-5)
BW B W2
160, 228-247.
Baker, R. O., “Reservoir Management for Waterfloods – Part 2,”
The time tD is defined as the pore volume of cumulative
JCPT (Jan. 1998) 12-17. liquid production
Craig, F.F. Jr.: Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, t DS = Qo D + QwD ⇒ dt DS = dQo D + dQwD
SPE Monograph Series, Richardson, Texas (1971), vol. 3, (A-6)
p71.
where QoD and QwD are cumulative oil and water
Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.:” A Prediction Technique for
Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data,” JPT production, respectively, all are dimensionless. The water-
(1984) 664-670. oil ratio, by definition, is
Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: “A Method for Extrapolation of
Cut vs. Recovery Curves,” JPT (1978) 203-204. W = dQw D / dQo D (A-7)
Fetkovich, M.J., “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,”
JPT, June 1980, 1065-1077. Substituting Eq. A-7 in Eq. A-6 leads to
t DS
Honarpour, M. and Mahmood, S.M., “Relative Permeability dt dQoD 1
Measurements: An Overview,” SPE 18565 (1988). QoD = ∫ DS ⇒ qo D = = (A-8)
0
W +1 dt DS W + 1
Huh, Dae Gee and Ershaghi, Iraj, "A Method for Computation of
Volumetric Sweeps for Individual Wells in Waterflood," The dimensionless oil rate is equivalent to the oil
paper SPE 110199 (Nov. 2007). fractional flow. Water-oil-ratio is zero before water
Lijek, S.J., “Simple Performance Plots Used in Rate-Time breakthrough time tDSBT, which can be solved by the
Determination and Waterflood Analysis,” paper SPE 19847 Welge method (1952) from the Buckley-Leverett equation
(Oct. 1989). df 1 (W + 1) 2
Liu, F. and Mendel, J.M., "Forecasting Injector-Producer t DS = ( w ) −BT1 = = BT (A-9)
Relationships from Production and Injection Rates Using
BT
ds w Bf w (1 − f w ) BT
BWBT BT

Extended Kalman Filter," paper SPE 110520 (Nov. 2007). Therefore

Nott, D.C. and Hara, S.K., "Fracture Half-Length and Linear t DS t
dt DS DS
(A-10)
Flow in the South Belridge Diatomite," paper SPE 21778
(1991).
Qo D = t DS BT + ∫
t DS BT
W +1
= t DS BT + ∫ qo D dt DS
t DS BT
Welge, H. J., “A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery
By Gas or Water Drive”, Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 91-98.
Substituting Eq. A-5 in Eq. A-10 gives
Yang, Z.M., “Analysis of Production Decline in Waterflood
W
Reservoirs,” submitted to SPE Journal (Sept. 2007). 1 1 1
Yortsos, Y.C., Choi, Youngmin and Yang, Zhengming and Shah, Q o D = t DS BT +
B ∫ (
W
−
W 2
)dW (A-12)
P.C., “Analysis and Interpretation of Water/Oil Ratio in W BT
Waterfloods,” paper SPE 59477, SPEJ (Dec. 1999) 413- From the fractional flow definition and the condition at
424. water breakthrough, we have the following equations

APPENDIX A. Analysis of Waterflood Reservoir Based 1 1

= −1 (A-13)
on semi-log Relative Permeability Ratio W fw
The semi-log oil-water relative permeability ratio as used
in the X Plot by Ershaghi et al (1978, 1984) lnW = − ln(1/ f w −1) = BSw − ln A (A-14)
8 SPE 113856

fwBT 1 integrating gives

f 'wBT =BfwBT(1−f wBT) = ⇒ =B(SwBT −Swc) (A-15)
1 1 4 4
SwBT −Swc 1− fwBT QoD = (t DS BT + t DS ) + (t DS BT 1 − − t DS 1 − )
2 2 BtDS BT BtDS
Integrating Eq. A-12 with the relations in Eq. A-13
through A-15 leads to 1 ( 1 − 4 / Bt DS BT − 1) ( 1 − 4 / Bt DS + 1) (A-24)
+ ln[ ]
1 1 1 (W + 1) 2 1
)] (A-16a)
B ( 1 − 4 / Bt DS BT + 1) ( 1 − 4 / Bt DS − 1)
Q = [ln W + ] + [ BT
oD − (ln W + BT
B W B WBT WBT
1 1 1 1 1 − f wBT Asymptotic Solutions of Oil Fractional Flow
= [ln W + ] + [1 + − ln ]
B W B 1 − f wBT f wBT
(A16-b)
Let y = ln(qoD ) and x = ln(t D ) . Eq. A-20 can be
1 1 1 (A-16c)
= [ln W + ] + [1 + BS wc − ln A] rewritten as
B W B
1 1 1 1 (A-16d) 1 4
= [− ln( − 1) + ] + [ S wc − ln A] y = ln( ) + ln(1 − 1 − e − x ) (A-25)
B fw fw B 2 B
Eqs. A-16 shows equivalent relations between cumulative
oil production and waterflood performance parameters. The asymptote of Eq. A-22 is defined as
The equation can be converted to the ‘X Plot’ formula by
using the relation between cumulative oil production and y = k x+b (A-26)
the oil recovery factor, QoD=ER(1-Swc), which leads to The slope k can be found after using L'Hopital's rule three
1 1 1 1 1 (A-17) times
ER = [−ln( −1) + ] + [Swc − ln A]
B(1− Swc) fw f w 1− Swc B 1 4 −x
ln( ) + ln( 1 − 1− e )
y 2 B
k = lim = lim = −1
x→ ∞ x x→ ∞ x
Exact Solutions of Oil Fractional Flow
(A-27)
In order to develop the exact solution of oil fractional The intercept b of the asymptote is
flow, we need the relation between oil fractional flow and
water-oil-ratio. It is obvious from Eq. A-8 b = lim ( y − kx ) (A-28)
1 − qo D x→ ∞
W= (A-18) It is more convenient to convert Eq. A-26 to the
qoD
exponential form
Substituting Eq. A-18 into Eq. A-5 for the oil fractional
1 4
flow leads to a quadratic equation e b = lim (ln( ) + ln( 1 − 1 − e − x ) + e x ) (A-29)
1
x→ ∞ 2 B
2
qoD − qoD + =0 (A-19)
Bt DS Applying L'Hopital's rule leads to
Eq. A-19 has two roots, the physical solution (oil 1 1
fractional flow decreases with time) is eb = ⇒ b = ln( ) (A-30)
B B
1 4 Substituting the slope (Eq. A-25) and intercept (Eq. A-28)
qoD = (1 − 1 − ) (A-20)
2 Bt DS in Eq. A-23 gives the asymptote of the exact solution as
Moreover, the nonphysical solution (oil fractional flow 1 E
qoD = = V (A-31)
increases with time) is B t DS B t D
1 4 (A-20A) Eq. A-31 is a straight line with the slope -1 on the log-log
qoD = (1 + 1 − )
2 Bt DS scale.
The physical solution (A-20) can be transformed as
Table 1. Properties of the Model Study Example
1 μo μw Bo Bw Swc Sorw
qoD (1 − qoD ) = (A-21)
Bt DS 2 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.15
Redefine the displacement time tD based on the total no nw Krowc Krwro A B
reservoir volume (include swept and unswept), we have 2 2 1.2 1.0 1424.01 12.77
EV = t D / t DS (A-22)
where EV is the volumetric sweep efficiency. Then we Table 2. Breakthrough Data of Model Study Example
have at the field conditions: tDS=tD qoD Y EV
EV 0.46043 0.21724 0.17004 1
qoD (1 − qoD ) = (A-23)
Bt D
In the mean time, substituting Eq. A-20 in Eq. A-10 and
 Figure 1. Effect of Initial Water Saturation on Breakthrough
Figure 4. Log-Log Plot for the Model Study Case.
Condition.

Field Average 1-D B-L Solution

0.3

0.25

0.2
Y =q oD (1-q oD )

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f w =1-q oD

Figure 2. Effect of Water Fractional Flow on Y Function. Figure 5. Reciprocal Time Plot for the Model Study Case.

0.25

0.20

0.15

Y = 0.03722/tD
Y

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
1/tD (1/PV)

Figure 3. Semi-log Oil-to-Water Relative Permeability Ratio for

the Model Study. Figure 6. Calculate Volumetric Sweep Efficiency of the Field
Case 1.
10 SPE 113856

1 1.00

Infill Drilling of Full

Well A: Normal Water Breakthrough Scale Waterflood

Y
Conversion of
Producers to Injectors
Y 0.1 0.10

Waterflood
Pilot Maturity Forecast

Well B: Premature Water Breakthrough via Fracture

1970 75 80 1985 1990 95 2000 2005 Year 2018
0.01 0.01
100000 1000000 0.1 t D (PV) 1.0
Q L (bbl)

Figure 7. Normal Water Breakthrough and Premature Water Figure 10. Log-log Plot for Field Case 2.
Breakthrough.

2.0 0.25
Infill Drilling of Full
Scale Waterflood
0.20
1.5

0.15 Waterflood
I/P Ratio

1.0
Pilot Maturity
Y
`
0.10

0.5
0.05

Conversion of
0.0 Producers to Injectors
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cumulative Liquid Production t D (PV)
1/tD (1/PV)
Figure 8. I/P (Injection/Production) Ratio for Upper Main
Figure 11. Reciprocal Time Plot for Field Case 2.
Reservoir in Hungtington Beach Field.

1.00
Upper Main Waterflood Prediction by Decline Analysis
qoD
Waterflood
Pilot Maturity 10000
Y, q oD

0.10
qo (bbl/day)

Y Waterflood 1000
Pilot New Model
Full Scale
Waterflood
Harmonic
Year 1950 1955 1960 65 70 80 85 90 95 00 2005
0.01 Exponential
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 100
t D (PV) 1945 1965 1985 2005 2025 2045 2065 2085
Time (Year)

Figure 9. Plot from Primary to Waterflood in Field Case 2. Figure 12. Forecast by Production Decline Analysis for Field
Case 2.