Waterflooding Viscous Oil Reservoirs
Dennis Beliveau, Cairn India Limited
Summary
In 2004, the large Mangala, Aishwariya, and Bhagyam oil fields
were discovered in the remote Barmer basin of Rajasthan, India.
The fields contain light, paraffinic crude oils with wax appearance
temperatures only 5°C less than reservoir temperatures and in situ
viscosities that range from 8 to 250 cp. As these were the first
significant hydrocarbon discoveries in this part of India, there were
few analog performance data available. Development plans for the
fields are based on hot waterflooding to prevent problems with
in situ wax deposition, with production startup in 2009.
This article presents some waterflood results from viscous oil
fields around the world, benchmarks the expected performance of
the newly discovered Rajasthan fields to this database, and dis-
cusses several issues associated with waterflooding viscous oils.
Given that the Rajasthan oils have some properties that might be
considered “unusual” and potentially troublesome for waterflood-
ing and that there are no long-term production data or a history
match of waterflood performance in hand, these benchmarks were
considered important reality checks. In fact, fields with similar or
much higher viscosities are waterflooded routinely with excellent
recoveries in Canada, the USA, and elsewhere.
Introduction
Waterflooding is sometimes dismissed as an ineffective process
for a viscous oil field, with development plans focused on more
exotic and expensive recovery mechanisms such as chemical or
thermal processes. However, basic application of Darcy’s law and
fractional flow theory, combined with operations that focus on pro-
duction at very high water cuts, clearly shows that viscous oil fields
can yield reasonably good ultimate recoveries under waterflood.
A recent technical review (Kumar et al. 2008) stated
• There are few detailed case histories that describe viscous
oil waterfloods.
• The limited data that are available are sometimes conflicting
as they show a very wide range of oil recoveries.
• The understanding of high mobility ratio waterfloods is
inadequate.
• Some viscous oil waterflood recovery mechanisms may be
different from those acting in conventional light oil fields.
In fact, there is a large amount of publicly available “raw”
data from basins around the world that can help flesh out some
“typical” viscous oil waterflood performances. For example, there
is substantial viscous and heavy oil production in western Canada,
with well developed systems in place for recording, archiving, and
reporting oil and gas field performance data (Alberta Energy and
Utilities Board 2008). All production, injection, log, core, fluid,
pressure, land, pipeline, and facility data can be accessed for every
well, pool, and field in Canada (except for confidential “tight
holes,” which may be restricted for a period of time); essentially,
if you measure something, you must report it. The 500,000 wells
drilled in western Canada provide a fairly comprehensive technical
data set; these and similar data from other countries can provide
benchmarks and templates for the performance of viscous oil fields
under waterflood.
The data show that most viscous oil fields can yield good water-
flood recoveries if a few basic tenets are followed: development
on reasonably close well spacing, appropriate facility design, suf-
Copyright © 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 113132) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Indian Oil and Gas
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, 4–6 March 2008, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 30 January 2008. Revised manuscript
received for review 12 May 2009. Paper peer approved 1 June 2009.
October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ficient throughput of injected water, production to very high water
cuts, a voidage replacement ratio (VRR) close to unity, proper
reservoir surveillance, and flexibility in adjusting the waterflood
patterns employed are all keys to successful and economic projects.
All of these factors are within the control of the operator, and the
analogs show that recovery is maximized by injecting as much as
possible on close well spacing, regardless of the crude viscosity. For
many viscous oil fields, simple and cheap waterflood operations
are the base recovery mechanism to which other more expensive
and difficult to operate processes should be compared.
Waterflooding a viscous oil field does require a different opera-
tional mindset than does a conventional oil field. Obviously, water
is much more mobile than viscous oil, so it will break through
earlier and dominate fluid production more so than if the same
reservoir contained a light oil. But while a high water cut in a light
oil field normally means that the end of waterflooding is near, most
of the expected ultimate recovery (EUR) from a viscous oil water-
flood will come at very high water cuts. This obvious outcome
from fractional flow theory means that one must have a long term
operational focus on oil production at very high water cuts.
Areal Stability and Mobility Ratios
Although there are others, one of the simplest indicators of the
areal “efficiency” of a flood is the mobility ratio. The definition
used most often is the endpoint mobility ratio M; the displacing
phase mobility divided by the displaced phase mobility, with each
measured at their respective endpoint saturations:
krw / w krwo
M= = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
kro /o kro w
It is a common belief that floods are “stable” for values of M < 1,
and that higher values of M result in an unstable flood with “vis-
cous fingering” that causes early and sustained breakthrough of
the injected fluid. However, immiscible displacements proceed by
means of development of a “shock front” (Buckley and Leverett
1942), not with piston-like displacement of oil by water at their
respective endpoint relative permeabilities. Oil downstream of
the shock front is displaced by the combined oil/water satura-
tions behind the shock front, with the difference from piston-like
behavior dictated by the shape of the relative permeability curves.
Hagoort (1974) showed that an immiscible flood is stable if the
shock front mobility ratio Ms is less than 1, a less restrictive con-
dition for stability. The shock front mobility ratio is the ratio of
the total fluid mobility (oil and water) at the shock front divided
by the endpoint mobility of the fluid (oil) in front of the shock,
where Swf is the shock front saturation obtained from fractional-
flow analysis:
krw (Swf ) / w + kro (Swf ) /o
MS = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
kro /o
For a viscous oil waterflood, Ms may or may not be greater than
one, depending on fluid viscosities and relative permeability
shapes. This does not imply a piston-like and extremely efficient
waterflood displacement because there will still be relatively early
breakthrough and a long tail in which two phases are flowing.
However, this two-phase flow region is a different mechanism than
viscous fingering. Table 1 is reproduced from Dake (1978) and
shows the difference between the shock front and endpoint mobil-
ity ratios for three viscosity ratios and typical water-wet relative
689
 60
TABLE 1—SHOCK FRONT VS.
ENDPOINT MOBILITY RATIOS

Recovery Factor, %OOIP

50
Case µo/µw Swf krw(Swf) kro(Swf) Ms M R2= 0.55
1 100 0.28 0.01 0.52 1.40 37.50 40
2 10 0.45 0.05 0.22 0.91 3.75
30
3 4 0.80 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.15
20

permeabilities. For this example, a system with o/w = 10 and 10

M = 3.75 is actually stable, as shown by the shock front mobility Viscous flood analogs
Log. (viscous flood analogs)
ratio that is less than unity. 0
The recent large discoveries in Rajasthan, India, contain paraf- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
finic oils of 8–250 cp, and the base development plan is waterflood- (a) Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Water Injected, HCPVI
ing (Rathore et al. 2006). An extensive amount of rock and fluid
data was gathered from these fields during their appraisal phase 60
(Beliveau 2007). On the basis of these measured (intermediate to

Recovery Factor, %OOIP

slightly oil-wet) relative permeability curves and an average oil 50
viscosity of 13 cp, the Mangala waterflood shows M ≈ 14 with
Ms = 0.94, indicating a displacement that is still favorable but close 40 R2= 0.03
to the borderline of instability. Note that these comments apply to
stability in an areal sense, without consideration of the impact of 30
gravity forces.
20
Vertical Stability and Gravity Number
Once the initial capillary/gravity equilibrium in a reservoir has 10
Viscous flood analogs
been disturbed by production, fluids begin to flow under viscous Linear (viscous flood analogs)
and gravity forces. Even though the oil is being displaced (mostly) 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
horizontally toward the producing wells, there remains a local
competition between viscous and gravity forces to see if the flow
(b) Well Spacing, m
will be viscous-dominated, or if it shows gravity segregation with
60
oil being either overrun by gas or underrun by water. Dietz (1953)
defined a dimensionless gravity number G and a critical rate qc
Recovery Factor, %OOIP

below which gravity would stabilize a displacement. Equations 50

to calculate G and qc for a waterflood are given here (variables in
classic field units): 40
2
R = 0.33
30
4.9 × 10 −4 ( kkrw A sin  ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
G=
qt  w 20

4.9 × 10 −4 ( kkrw A sin  ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
qc =
 w ( M − 1)
Dietz showed that a displacement is “gravity stable” if G > M − 1;
while if G < M − 1, injected water underruns the oil. In Rajasthan,
average water injection rates into the Mangala FM3 member will
be 10,000 BWPD/well, which results in values of G ≈ 3 and M ≈ 15,
indicating gravity instability. The gravity-stable critical injection
rate to prevent a “Dietz tongue” from underrunning the oil column
is approximately 1,500 BWPD/well, too small to employ for an
“economic” operation.
Waterflood Results in Analog Viscous Oil Fields
Table 2 contains some performance data and reservoir properties
for more than 40 viscous oilfields undergoing waterflood, primarily
from western Canada. The oil viscosities range from 5 to more than
1,000 cp, with a median viscosity of 50 cp. These data have come
from analyses of publicly available oilfield histories, from the tech-
nical literature, and from the Saskatchewan Research Council. Most
of the viscosity measurements are on dead oil (no gas) samples at
reservoir temperature. However, some viscosity data from outside
Canada may represent live oil measurements, in which case those
values should be increased by a factor of 30–50% to make them
comparable to the Canadian data.
Fig. 1a shows oil recovery plotted against the hydrocarbon pore
volumes of water injected (HCPVI) for the analog data set. The
best-fit (logarithmic) line through the data points has a fair degree
10
Viscous flood analogs
Log. (viscous flood analogs)
0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
(c) Viscosity, cP
Fig. 1— Oil recovery vs. injection volume (a), well spacing (b),
and oil viscosity (c).
of scatter but a reasonable correlation coefficient of r2 = 0.55. The
plot shows the expected increase in recovery as the amount of
water injection increases, with an average recovery of 20, 30, and
40% of stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP), respectively, at
injected water volumes of 1, 2, and 6 HCPVI.
Fig. 1b essentially shows no trend when recovery is plotted
against well spacing. This probably indicates that operators tend
to infill their viscous oil fields down to a spacing that yields what
they consider to be an appropriate “economic” level of recovery.
Clearly, one will see an increase in recovery efficiency as well
spacing decreases in a given field, but when data regarding the
current well spacing vs. current recovery are plotted for a number
of fields, the result is the noncorrelation shown in Fig. 1b.
Fig. 1c shows recovery plotted vs. the logarithm of oil viscos-
ity. The plot shows the expected decrease in recovery as viscosity
increases, with average oil recovery of 40, 30, and 20% STOIIP,
respectively, for 20, 200, and 2,000 cp oils. The best-fit trend line
has a correlation coefficient of r2 = 0.33. The impact of oil viscosity
is obviously an important factor when it comes to oil recovery by

690 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 TABLE 2—ANALOG FIELD PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
Well
Average Average Spacing RF
Field Location Formation/Pool °API µo (cp) (m) HCPVI (%OOIP) Comments

Viking Alberta Wainwright B 21 186 275 3.8 31 EUR 36%

Kinsella
Viking Alberta Sparky E 17 669 200 1.8 23 EUR 29%
Kinsella
Viking Alberta Sparky F 21 55 265 2.3 42 EUR 54%
Kinsella
Wainright Alberta Sparky 22 148 300 2.3 33 EUR 40%
Provost Alberta Dina L 23 39 285 16.9 51 EUR 52%
Provost Alberta Dina N 20 200 135 11.8 39 EUR 45%
Provost Alberta Dina G4G 29 21 235 7.5 37 EUR 42%
Provost Alberta Cummings I 24 80 160 8.4 43 EUR 51%
Provost Alberta Glauconitic A 24 24 150 17.0 50 EUR 52%
Taber Alberta Glauconitic K 19 229 250 2.9 30 EUR 31%
Taber North Alberta Taber O 20 55 250 3.7 25 EUR 27%
Jenner Alberta Upper 17 1,690 253 6.2 28 EUR 31%
Mannville O
Jenner Alberta Upper 18 525 274 1.8 28 EUR 30%
Mannville JJJ
Little Bow Alberta Upper 21 1,073 257 2.4 36 EUR 42%
Mannville I
Little Bow Alberta Upper 20 129 248 2.8 27 EUR 30%
Mannville S
Retlaw Alberta Mannville LL 27 27 371 3.0 31 EUR 33%

Grand Forks Alberta Upper 28 13 320 3.9 46 EUR 48%

Mannville B
Grand Forks Alberta Lower 20 195 285 4.4 32 EUR 40%
Mannville H
Hayter Alberta Dina A 22 124 135 15.5 42 EUR 43%
Hayter Alberta Dina B 15 1,257 195 3.3 18 EUR >25%
Senlac Saskatchewan Cummings- 13 1,370 250 0.9 10 EUR 15%
Dina
Senlac Saskatchewan Lloydminster 15 1,000 375 1.6 22
Cactus Lake Saskatchewan Bakken 15 963 350 0.7 14 EUR 26%
Buffalo Saskatchewan Bakken 14 1,935 275 1.1 15 EUR 18%
Coulee
Court Bakken Saskatchewan Bakken 17 352 400 1.2 18 EUR 22%
Marsden South Saskatchewan Sparky 18 353 285 1.8 15 EUR 20%
Battrum Saskatchewan Roseray 19 160 350 1.5 31 EUR 41%
Battrum North Saskatchewan Roseray 19 140 250 1.8 31
Battrum East Saskatchewan Roseray 19 120 285 5.5 47
Success Main Saskatchewan Roseray 23 30 400 4.0 44
Success South Saskatchewan Roseray 20 50 400 3.9 44
Fosterton Main Saskatchewan Roseray 21 32 350 4.2 46
Midale Saskatchewan Midale 29 5 350 0.9 23 EUR 28%
Wilmington USA FO (average) 21 30 175 1.9 27
Wilmington USA FX (average) 18 50 175 1.3 28
Wilmington USA X-HX1 15 70 200 0.9 21
(average)
Schoonebeek The Zechstein 25 160 200 5.0 35
Netherlands
North Kadi India Kalol 17 30 200 33
Daqing China Saertu 25 15 250 2.5 35
Daqing NIZ China Saertu 25 10 350 3.6 41
Daqing NIZ China Saertu 25 10 250 2.8 42
Gudong China Guantao 17 60 50 5.1 54

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 691

 60

50 Viscous flood analogs

Log. (viscous flood analogs)

Recovery Factor, %OOIP

40

30

R2= 0.63
20

10

0
1.E−06 1.E−05 1.E−04 1.E−03 1.E−02
HCPVInj / (Viscosity × Spacing), cp-1m-1

Fig. 2 —Recovery vs. a function incorporating the volume of water injected, oil viscosity, and well spacing.

means of waterflooding, but its effect can be mitigated partially by
maximizing water injection volumes and minimizing well spacing,
both of which are under the control of the operator. The scatter in
performance data in Fig. 1 is no surprise when one considers the
interrelated and synergistic impacts of water injection, well spacing,
and oil viscosity for each field. A high viscosity oil field developed
with close well spacing and large injection volumes could show
excellent recovery, but the same field developed by a different opera-
tor with lower injection volumes and larger well spacing would show
lower recovery. For example, the 54% of STOIIP recovery efficiency
for the 60 cp oil at Gudong may not be unexpected owing to the very
close well spacing (50 m) used and the high injection throughput
(5.1 HCPVI) in this particular case.
Logically, one might expect that it should be possible to develop
a better performance correlation for viscous oil waterfloods; for
example, one that relates better recovery to a combination of higher
water throughput, closer well spacing, and lower oil viscosity. Fig.
2 shows a plot of oil recovery vs. the simple function of water
throughput (HCPVI) divided by the product of well spacing (m)
and oil viscosity (cp). However, the correlation (r2 = 0.63) is only
marginally better than that from simply plotting water injection
vs. oil recovery.
Fig. 3 shows an “efficiency plot,” with recovery plotted vs.
HCPVI for a few analog Canadian waterfloods where oil viscosi-
ties range from 13 to 650 cp (median 50 cp). As expected, these
viscous oil waterfloods do not perform identically because they
have been operated differently and the effects of heterogeneities
may be exacerbated for unstable floods. However, the plot shows
that very reasonable waterflood recoveries can be achieved if suf-
ficient volumes of water are injected and if production continues
to high water cuts. In a perfect world, Fig. 3 would show smooth
curves with ever-decreasing slopes; but in the real world, operators
try to increase recovery as operations mature (i.e., surveillance,
infill drilling, or pattern modifications), causing some of the
“irregularities” in the plot. There are similarities between Fig. 1a
and Fig. 3, even though Fig. 1a is a performance snapshot at one
point in time for many fields while Fig. 3 is a more detailed moving
picture of performance vs. time for individual fields.

50%
120
13 40
80
50
24
40%

21
50
Oil Recovery, %OOIP

160 108 200

30% 229

55
650

20% Grand Forks Upper Mannville B (13cp)

Provost Dina G4G (21cp)
Provost Glauconitic A (24cp)
Provost Dina L (40cp)
Wainwright Sparky (50cp)
South Success Roseray (50)
Taber North Taber O (55cp)
10% Provost Cummings I (80cp)
Viking Kinsella Wainwright B (108cp)
Battrum East (120cp)
Battrum (160cp)
Provost Dina N (200cp)
Taber Glauconitic K (229cp)
Viking Kinsella Sparky E (650cp)
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HCPVInj

Fig. 3 —Recovery vs. water injected for a set of Canadian analog reservoirs (labeled with viscosity).

692 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering


Fig. 4 —Wainwright-Sparky field outline.
North American Viscous Oil Waterflood
Examples
Some more-detailed production histories from eight North Ameri-
can viscous oil fields are presented in this section. Seven of these
fields have extensive conventional waterflood operations, while
the eighth has a strong natural waterdrive with produced water
reinjection. A common theme in the following discussion will be
sufficient water injection and extended periods of oil production at
high water cuts and production rates, prerequisites to the relatively
high recovery factors achieved in these pools.
1. Wainwright-Sparky: In 1962, the Wainwright-Sparky field
became the first heavy oil waterflood in Alberta (Pawelek and
Chorney 1966). This Lower Cretaceous marine sand reservoir
contains 20–22°API oil with 150 cp viscosity. The pool has 13 ft
of net pay with permeability of 300 md and was developed with
20-acre well spacing. When Pawelek and Chorney (1966) was
published, EUR after waterflood was 31 million bbl (27% of 117
million bbl of STOIIP).
Over time, the development area expanded as the field was
fully delineated (Fig. 4), and the STOIIP estimate increased to
305 million bbl (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 2008). Note
that the large squares on the map measure 1 sq mile (≈2.5 km2) in

Well Count: 829/882 To: 2007-08

9000 10000

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8000
6000 7000
5000
4000
3000
1000 2000

50
10
0
0
0

1960 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
Time, years 2008

Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 102.2MM/Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 620.0MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 5 —Wainwright production vs. time.

Well Count: 829/882 To: 2007-08

9000 10000

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8000
6000 7000
5000
4000
3000
1000 2000

50
10
0
0
0

0 12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 75 87.5 100 112.5 125

Cumulative OIL, MM/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 102.2MM/Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 620.0MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 6 —Wainwright production vs. cumulative oil.

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 693

 area. The waterflood operation shifted from the initial peripheral
injection scheme focusing on pressure maintenance to a fieldwide
line-drive pattern flood focusing on oil displacement and sweep.
Performance of the field under waterflood is shown in Figs. 5 and
6. Current oil recovery is 102 million bbl (33% STOIIP) with injec-
tion of 753 million bbl of water (2.30 HCPVI); cumulative VRR is
1.04. Some 50% of the oil produced to date has come at a water
cut greater than 80%. EUR after waterflood is 125 million bbl
(40% STOIIP), a substantial increase over the initial estimates.
2. Viking-Kinsella Wainwright “B”: The Viking-Kinsella “B”
Pool is another Lower Cretaceous marine sand reservoir in Alberta
that is under waterflood with average oil viscosity of 185 cp and
permeability of 150 md. The gently dipping reservoir has 15 ft of
net pay and contains 137 million bbl STOIIP. Fieldwide water-
flooding began in 1976 (Edgson and Czyzewski 1985) with an
inverted nine-spot pattern and 20-acre well spacing. The water-
flood has since evolved into a line drive. An outline of the field
is shown in Fig. 7; again, the large squares on the map represent
1 sq mile (≈2.5 km2).
Field performance under waterflood is shown on Figs. 8 and 9. The
Fig. 7—Viking-Kinsella Wainwright “B.”
current oil recovery of 43 mmbo (31% STOIIP) has been achieved with
the injection of 532 million bbl of water (3.75 HCPVI) at a VRR ≈ 1.03.
Well Count: 299/375 To: 2007-08
9000 10000

120 150 180 210 240 270 300

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8000
6000 7000
5000
4000

90
3000

30
60
1000 2000

20
30
10
0
0
0

1973 77 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 2008
Time, years
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 42,804,486.8 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 474.0MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 8 —Viking-Kinsella production vs. time.

Well Count: 299/375 To: 2007-08

9000 10000

120 150 180 210 240 270 300

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8000
6000 7000
5000
4000
3000

90
30
2000

60
20
1000

30
10
0
0
0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Cumulative OIL, M/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum OIL 42,804,486.8 Bbl Well Count count
Cum WTR 474.0MM/Bbl

Fig. 9 —Viking-Kinsella production vs. cumulative oil.

694 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Note that a successful pattern realignment and infill drilling program
was undertaken at a watercut of 92% [water/oil ratio (WOR) ≈12], and
that 50% of the oil produced to date has come at a water cut greater than
90%. EUR after waterflooding is 50 million bbl (36% STOIIP).
3. Provost Glauconitic “A”: This Lower Cretaceous sand reser-
voir contains 47 million bbl of 24°API oil with average viscosity of
24 cp and was developed with very close (5 acre) well spacing. An
outline of the pool is shown in Fig. 10; the large numerals shown
are at the center of a “section” (1 sq mile or ≈2.5 km2), so each of
the small squares shown is 0.25 sq mile (≈0.60 km2). The pool has
very strong bottom waterdrive, and almost all of the produced water
has been reinjected into the perimeter of the oil field.
Performance of this natural waterflood is shown on Figs. 11
and 12; clearly the field is essentially depleted. The current oil
recovery of 23 million bbl (50% STOIIP) has been accompanied
by 860 million bbl of water; complete pressure maintenance (VRR
≈ 1.00) over life means effective water throughput is 17.5 HCPVI.
Some 65% of the oil recovered to date has been at a water cut
Fig. 10 — Provost Glauconitic “A” field outline. greater than 90%, with 50% of the recovery achieved at a water
18000 20000

Well Count: 227/237 To: 2007-08

200 225 250

80 90 100
16000

150 175
10000 12000 14000

60 70
100 125
40 50
8000

75
30
6000
4000

50
20
2000

25
10
0
0
0

1991 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07
Time, years 2008
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum OIL 23,393,456.6 Bbl Well Count count
Cum WTR 860.3MM/Bbl

Fig. 11— Provost Glauconitic “A” production vs. time.

200 225 250
80 90 100
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Well Count: 227/237 To: 2007-08

150 175
60 70
100 125
40 50
8000

75
30
6000
4000

50
20
2000

25
10
0
0
0

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000
Cumulative OIL, M/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum OIL 23,393,456.6 Bbl Well Count count
Cum WTR 860.3MM/Bbl

Fig. 12 — Provost Glauconitic “A” production vs. cumulative oil.

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 695

 cut greater than 95%. Although this is an excellent example of very
high recovery for a “viscous” oil reservoir under waterdrive, it has
come at close well spacing with large throughput of water.
It is interesting to look at the impact of the injection realignment
and infill-drilling program that began in 1999 when the field was
at 99% water cut. A cursory examination of the oil rate/time plot
in Fig. 11 might suggest the infill program added little or no value.
However, a closer examination of the oil rate/cumulative-recovery
plot in Fig. 12 clearly shows that the increased well density added
1–2 million bbl of oil, or 2–4% STOIIP, even though the infill-
drilling program was undertaken at an oilcut of 1%.
4. Battrum Roseray: This large Jurassic sand reservoir con-
tains 323 million bbl of 19°API oil with an average 160 cp viscos-
ity, and it was developed initially with fairly wide 40-acre spacing
(Kasralie et al. 1993). Fig. 13 shows that there have been some
370 wells drilled in the field (the numerals on the map are at the
center of a 1 sq mile section).
The field is broken up into four different “units” that have been
operated over time by different companies. As a result, some parts of
the field have been more densely drilled than others: the eastern region
is on 40-acre spacing, while the western part has been infilled more
densely, including the drilling of a number of horizontal producers.
Fig. 13 —Battrum Roseray field outline. Average well spacing in the field today is on the order of 30 acres.
8000 9000 10000

Well Count: 333/373 To: 2007-07

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
7000
4000 5000 6000
3000

60
30
2000

40
20
1000

20
10
0

0
0

1954 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04 2006
Time, years
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 101.5MM/Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 488.4MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 14 —Battrum Roseray production vs. time.

8000 9000 10000

80 100 120 140 160 180 200

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Well Count: 333/373 To: 2007-07

7000
4000 5000 6000
3000

60
30
2000

40
20
1000

20
10
0

0
0

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

Cumulative OIL, MM/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 101.5MM/Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 488.4MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 15 —Battrum Roseray production vs. cumulative oil.

696 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering


Fig. 16 —Battrum East Roseray field outline.
Waterflood performance is shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Current oil
recovery of 102 million bbl (31% STOIIP) has come by means of
injection of 500 million bbl of water (1.51 HCPVI), at a cumulative
VRR ≈ 0.85. The jagged, irregular nature of the curves in Figs. 14
and 15 is largely caused by the different development phasing by
the operators of the four different units. Note the good correlation
between number of wells (spacing) and oil production. In this case,
50% of the oil produced to date has come at a water cut greater than
80%. EUR after waterflooding is 135 mmb (41% STOIIP).
5. Battrum East Roseray: This small Jurassic pool is an exten-
sion of the large Battrum field described earlier. It contains 2.3 million
bbl of 19°API oil with average viscosity estimated at 120 cp, and it
was developed with a total of 10 wells on 20-acre spacing, as shown
in Fig. 16 (note this entire map covers 1 sq mile). Waterflood perfor-
mance is shown in Figs. 17 and 18. Current oil recovery of 1 million
bbl (47% STOIIP) has come by means of injection of 13 million bbl of
water (5.45 HCPVI), at a cumulative VRR ≈ 0.92. The positive impact
of infill drilling beginning in late 1995 is clear. Again, 50% of the oil
produced has come at a water cut greater than 90%.

Well Count: 9/10 To: 2007-07

600

100
10
540

90
9
480

80
8
420

70
7
360

60
6
300

50
5
240

40
4
180

30
3
120

20
2
60

10
1
0

0
0
1987 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07
2008
Time, years
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 1,076,255.7 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 12,675,063.6 Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 17—Battrum East Roseray production vs. time.

Well Count: 9/10 To: 2007-07

600

100
10
540

90
9
480

80
8
420

70
7
360

60
6
50
300

5
40
4
240
180

30
3
20
120

2
10
60

01
0
0

0 125 250 375 500 625 750 875 1000 1125 1250
Cumulative OIL, MM/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 1,076,255.7 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 12,672,063.6 Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 18 —Battrum East Roseray production vs. cumulative oil.

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 697


Fig. 19 — South Success Roseray field outline.
The difference in oil recovery between the large Battrum field
(current recovery of 31% STOIIP, EUR 41% STOIIP) and this
smaller Battrum East pool (EUR after waterflood of 51% STOIIP)
may appear surprising at first glance. However, Fig. 3 shows that
production from the two fields essentially tracks each other, and
the increased recovery at Battrum East is clearly caused by the
higher volumes of water injected.
6. South Success Roseray: This Jurassic sand reservoir con-
tains 70 million bbl of 20°API oil with average viscosity of 50 cp,
and it was developed with fairly wide 40-acre spacing. An outline
of the pool is shown in Fig. 19; once again, the large numerals
shown are at the center of a section (1 sq mile or ≈2.5 km2).
Performance of the field under waterflood is shown in Figs. 20 and
21. The current oil recovery of 31 million bbl (44% STOIIP) has been
achieved with the injection of 290 million bbl of water (3.85 HCPVI)
at a VRR ≈ 0.80. The increase in oil production seen in the early 1980s
is not the result of an infill drilling program, but a stepout program in
which many of the wells in Sections 22 and 27 were completed. The
increased oil production observed in 1992 is largely because of the

Well Count: 60/60 To: 2007-07

5000

100
50
4500

45
90
4000

40
80
3500

35
70
3000

30
60
2500

25
50
2000

20
40
1500

15
30
1000

10
20
500

10
5
0

0
0
1954 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04
2008
Time, years
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 30,890,360.2 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 336.7MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 20 — South Success Roseray production vs. time.

Well Count: 9/10 To: 2007-07

5000

100
50
4500

90
45
4000

80
40
3500

70
35
3000

60
30
2500

50
25
40
20
2000
1500

30
15
1000

20
10
10
500

5
0
0
0

0 3500 7000 10500 14000 17500 21000 24500 28000 31500 35000
Cumulative OIL, MM/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 30,890,360.2 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 336.7MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 21— South Success Roseray production vs. cumulative oil.

698 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 recompletion of several production wells as injectors, resulting in a
change in waterflood flow streamlines. As before, note that 50% of the
oil produced to date has come at a water cut greater than 90%. EUR
after waterflooding is 32 million bbl of oil (46% STOIIP).
7. Fosterton Roseray Main Unit: This waterflood unit con-
tains 141 million bbl of 24°API oil with average viscosity of 32
cp. A pool outline is shown in Fig. 22 [the numerals shown are at
the center of a section (1 sq mile or ≈2.5 km2)].
Field performance under waterflood is shown in Figs. 23 and
24. The current oil recovery of 65 million bbl (46% STOIIP) has
been achieved with the injection of 618 million bbl of water (4.17
HCPVI) at a VRR ≈ 0.96. The field was developed initially with
40-acre spacing, but a partial infill program undertaken around
1999 at a water cut of 96% (WOR ≈ 24) reduced this to 30 acres.
Some 50% of the oil produced to date has come at a water cut
Fig. 22 — Fosterton Roseray main-unit outline. greater than 75%. EUR after waterflood is 49% STOIIP.

Well Count: 71/71 To: 2007-07

9000 10500 12000 14500 15000

100
50
45
90
40
80
35
70
30
60
25
50
7500

20
40
6000

15
30
4500

10
20
3000

10
5
1500

0
0
0

1952 58 64 70 76 82 88 94 00 06
Time, years 2008
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 64,994,974.5 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 579.2MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 23 — Fosterton Roseray main-unit production vs. time.

7500 9000 10500 12000 14500 15000

Well Count: 71/71 To: 2007-07

100
50
90
45
80
40
70
35
60
30
50
25
6000

40
20
4500

30
15
3000

20
10
1500

10
5
0

0
0

0 7500 15000 22500 30000 37500 45000 52500 60000 67500 75000
Cumulative OIL, MM/Bbl
Cal-Day Avg OIL Bbl/day Cum OIL 64,994,974.5 Bbl Percent: WTR Cut %
Cum WTR 579.2MM/Bbl Well Count count

Fig. 24 — Fosterton Roseray main-unit production vs. cumulative oil.

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 699

 60 60
Recovery Factor, %OOIP
50 50

Recovery Factor, %OOIP

40 R2= 0.55 40 R2 = 0.66

30 30

20 Viscous flood analogs 20

Wilmington FO
Wilmington FX Viscous flood analogs incl. Wilmington
10 Wilmington X-HX1 10 Mangala simulations
Log. (viscous flood analogs) Bhagyam simulations
Aishwariya simulations
0 0 Log. (viscous flood analogs incl. Wilmington)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(a) Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Water Injected, HCPVI Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Water Injected, HCPVI
60
Fig. 26 — Oil recovery vs. water injected for analogs and Rajas-
than simulations.
Recovery Factor, %OOIP

50

40 R2 = 0.66
30
20
10
Viscous flood analogs incl. Wilmington
Log. (viscous flood analogs incl. Wilmington)
0 From a reservoir engineering perspective, everything that
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(b) Hydrocarbon Pore Volumes Water Injected, HCPVI
Fig. 25 — Oil recovery vs. water injected, including data points
from Wilmington.
8. Wilmington: The giant Wilmington field in California has
produced more than two billion bbl of oil since the 1930s. It
consists of deep marine turbidite sands in multiple stacked sand
sequences. It is a very good analog with similar thickness to the
Rajasthan discoveries (much thicker than most of the examples
discussed earlier). Waterflooding began in the 1950s, primarily
to mitigate subsidence occurring in the Long Beach harbor area.
A description of waterflood performance in the Ranger sand
(14–21°API oil with viscosity of 30–70 cp) is given in Wooding
et al. (1993). The reservoir was divided into segments for analysis,
with one of the key diagnostic plots being EUR vs. water injected.
Fig. 25 compares results for the Ranger FO, FX, and X-HX1 sands
with the analog data presented in this paper. The Wilmington
waterflood data overlay the analog data nicely (Fig. 25a); if the
Wilmington data are included as part of this statistical analysis of
EUR vs. water injected (Fig. 25b), the correlation coefficient from
Fig. 1 improves from to r2 = 0.55 to r2 = 0.66.
Benchmarking the Rajasthan Discoveries
The Mangala, Aishwariya, and Bhagyam fields are the largest of
more than 20 discoveries made since 2004 in Rajasthan (Rathore et
al. 2006). These fields contain light, paraffinic crude oils with wax
appearance temperatures some 5°C less than reservoir temperature
and in situ viscosities of 8 to 250 cp. Development plans are based
on waterflooding, with at least the initial volumes of injected water
heated to 80–85°C to prevent problems with in situ wax deposition
(Wheaton 2007).
Given that there are no long-term production data to history
match and that the Rajasthan oils have some properties that may be
considered potentially troublesome for waterflooding, the water-
flood benchmarks presented earlier were important reality checks
for expected ultimate recovery and optimal project design. Fig. 26
compares results from several Rajasthan waterflood simulations
with the analog data; the simulated Indian results follow the trend
line very well.
Discussion
The data in this paper can be used in a benchmarking sense, to
get a feel for what other operators have achieved in waterfloods of
their viscous oil fields. They can also be used to show what may
be “best practices” in these mature viscous oil waterfloods. Some
recoveries may appear quite high to those readers unaccustomed to
the waterflooding of viscous oils, but they can be useful in setting
best-in-class performance targets.
affects conventional waterfloods (i.e., heterogeneity, wettability,
relative permeability, and appropriate voidage replacement) also
affects viscous oil waterfloods. As expected, waterflood recoveries
in viscous oil reservoirs increase with larger volumes of injected
and produced water and with closer well spacing, both of which
are under our control. Viscous oil waterfloods may have a few
unique flow-assurance issues; however, basic reservoir engineering
principles still apply, except with a strong focus on a very different
part of the fractional flow curve.
Although it may seem obvious, waterflooding viscous oil fields
requires a definite change in operational mindset compared to
conventional light oil waterfloods. For example, 50% or more of
the EUR may be recovered at very high water cuts, perhaps 90%
or even higher. Individual wells may operate to water cuts of 99%
or even higher, depending on local economics.
Facility designs and ongoing operations need to focus on produc-
ing and reinjecting large volumes of water, as cheaply as possible.
In fact, the most appropriate way of thinking about viscous oil
waterfloods is to design and operate a large “oily-water” facility, with
the valuable “product” (oil) skimmed off the top of the water tanks,
as opposed to a classic oilfield operation that handles water as an
unfortunate byproduct. This perspective is clear from Fig. 27, which
shows another production plot from the Provost Glauconitic “A” field
discussed earlier in this paper (Example 3). Here, both total fluid and
oil volumes are plotted on the same scale, which gives a much better
idea of the “real” skimming operation that is ongoing. This mindset of
handling huge volumes of water may be foreign to many companies at
the beginning of a viscous oil waterflood, and getting operational staff
in particular to support the concept is a critical success factor.
Summary and Conclusions
1. Waterflooding viscous oil reservoirs can be an effective recovery
process, with typical EUR of 20–40% of STOIIP or even higher
if the appropriate operations are conducted. Simple waterflood
operations for viscous oil reservoirs should be the base process
for improved oil recovery, to which other more exotic recovery
processes are compared.
2. To maximize waterflood oil recovery from a viscous oil reser-
voir, it is important to inject large volumes of water and to handle
large volumes of produced water along with the oil. Normally,
50% or more of the ultimate oil recovery is produced at water
cuts of 90% or greater.

700 October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Well Count: 227/237 To: 2007-08

175 200 225 250

70 80 90 100
300
300
270
270
240
240
210
210

100 125 150

180
180

40 50 60
150
150
120
120

75
30
90
90

50
20
60
60

25
10
30
30

0
0
0
0

1991 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 2008
Time, years
Cal-Day Avg OIL MBbl/day Percent: WTR Cut %
Cal-Day Avg FLD MBbl/day Cum OIL 23,393,456.6 Bbl Well Count count
Cum WTR 860.3MM/Bbl

Fig. 27— Provost Glauconitic “A” production history showing oil and total fluid volumes.

3. To maximize waterflood recovery in a viscous oil reservoir, References

cumulative VRR should be close to unity.
4. As in most conventional oil operations, recovery of viscous
oil by means of waterflooding will increase with reduced well
spacing, but there will be an economic optimum spacing below
which infill drilling is not advisable.
5. Waterflood recovery is reduced for higher oil viscosities, but this
can be compensated for partially by means of larger volumes
of injection water and reduced well spacing, both of which are
under the control of the Operator.
6. A critical success factor in maximizing waterflood recovery from
viscous oil reservoirs is to instill the appropriate mindset in all
engineering and operations staff. A “systems approach” focusing
on moving large volumes of water to the most appropriate parts
of the oil field will lead inevitably to increased oil recovery.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area for flow
G = Dietz dimensionless gravity number
k = permeability
kro = relative permeability to oil
krw = relative permeability to water
qc = Dietz critical flow rate for gravity stability
M = endpoint mobility ratio
Ms = shock-front mobility ratio
Swf = saturation at the shock front
 = difference operator
 = specific gravity of fluid
 = dip angle
o = viscosity of oil
w = viscosity of water
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the management of Cairn India
Limited for granting permission to publish this paper. He would
also like to sincerely acknowledge the support of Directorate
General of Hydrocarbons and Joint Venture partners and thank
them for their suggestions through the course of work detailed
in this paper. In addition, the author would like to thank Vijayan
Chelat for particularly stimulating discussions about a number of
the technical issues described in the paper.
Beliveau, D. 2007. Detailed Special Core Analysis Program: A Key to
Aggressive Field Development Planning—Rajasthan India. Paper SPE
107204 presented at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition,
London, 11–14 June. doi: 10.2118/107204-MS.
Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. 1942. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement
in Sands. Trans., AIME, 249: 107–116.
Dake, L.P. 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. New York City:
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Dietz, D.N. 1953. A Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Encroaching
and By-Passing Edge Water. Proc. Akad. van Wetenschappen 56-B: 83.
Edgson, J.J. and Czyzewsi, G. 1985. Production Evaluation of the Viking
Kinsella B Pool Unit No. 1. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July–August).
GeoScout™ databases. 2007. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.
Hagoort, J. 1974. Displacement Stability of Water Drives in Water-Wet
Connate-Water-Bearing Reservoirs. SPE J. 14 (1): 63–74; Trans.,
AIME, 257. SPE-4268-PA. doi: 10.2118/4268-PA.
Kasrale, M., Sammon, P.H., and Jespersen, P.J. 1993. Field Development
Options for a Waterflooded Heavy-Oil Reservoir. J. Pet Tech 45 (9):
888–894. SPE-20049-PA. doi: 10.2118/20049-PA.
Kumar, M., Hoang, V., Satik, C., and Rojas, D.H. 2008. High-Mobility-Ratio
Water Flood Performance Prediction: Challenges and New Insights. SPE Res
Eval & Eng 11 (1): 186–196. SPE-97671-PA. doi: 10.2118/97671-PA.
Pawelek, J. and Chorney, M. 1966. Waterflood Behaviour of the Low-Grav-
ity Wainwright Pool. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (April–June).
Rathore, Y.S., Ananthakrishnan, B., Flynn, M., and Compton, P.M. 2006.
The Mangala Field, Rajasthan, India: A Story of Rapidly Advancing
Subsurface Understanding in Readiness for Development. Abstract
ID102682. AAPG Annual Convention, Houston, 9–12 April.
Wheaton, S. 2007. The Challenge of Waxy, High Pour Point Oil Produc-
tion. Presented at PetroTech 2007, New Delhi, India, 15–19 January.
Woodling, G.S., Taylor, P.J., Sun, H.H., Nguyen, Q.N., and Brix, T.R. 1993.
Layered Waterflood Surveillance in a Mature Field: The Long Beach
Unit. Paper SPE 26082 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, 26–28 May. doi: 10.2118/26082-MS.
Dennis Beliveau is a reservoir engineering consultant with 30
years of experience in many aspects of petroleum engineer-
ing. He spent his formative years working for Shell, with 11 years
as chief reservoir engineer at Shell Canada in Calgary, special-
izing in various aspects of improved and enhanced oil recov-
ery. Beliveau was elected as a Distinguished Member of SPE
in 2000, received the SPE Reservoir Engineering Award in 2001,
and traveled as an SPE-AAPG Distinguished Lecturer in 2002.

October 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 701