LECTUR_3

Waterflooding

Dr Muayad M. Hasan
 Principle of Waterflooding

The terms primary oil recovery, secondary oil recovery, and tertiary (enhanced) oil
recovery are traditionally used to describe hydrocarbons recovered according to the method
of production or the time at which they are obtained. Primary oil recovery describes the
production of hydrocarbons under the natural driving mechanisms present in the reservoir
without supplementary help from injected fluids such as gas or water. In most cases, the
natural driving mechanism is a relatively inefficient process and results in a low overall oil
recovery. The lack of sufficient natural drive in most reservoirs has led to the practice of
supplementing the natural reservoir energy by introducing some form of artificial drive,
the most basic method being the injection of gas or water.

Secondary oil recovery refers to the additional recovery resulted from the conventional
methods of water injection and immiscible gas injection. Usually, the selected secondary
recovery process follows the primary recovery but it can also be conducted concurrently
with the primary recovery. Waterflooding is perhaps the most common method of
secondary recovery. However, before undertaking a secondary recovery project, it should
be clearly proven that the natural recovery processes are insufficient; otherwise, there is a
risk that the substantial capital investment required for a secondary recovery project may
be wasted.

Tertiary (enhanced) oil recovery is that additional recovery over and above what could be
recovered by primary and secondary recovery methods. Various methods of enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) are essentially designed to recover oil, commonly described as residual
oil, left in the reservoir after both primary and secondary recovery methods have been
exploited to their respective economic limits. Figure 3-1 illustrates the concept of the three
oil recovery categories.

1
 Figure 3-1. Oil recovery categories.

Factors to Consider in Waterflooding

Thomas, Mahoney, and Winter (1989) pointed out that in determining the suitability of a
candidate reservoir for waterflooding, the following reservoir characteristics must be
considered:

• Reservoir geometry

• Fluid properties

• Reservoir depth

2
• Lithology and rock properties

• Fluid saturations

• Reservoir uniformity and pay continuity

• Primary reservoir driving mechanisms

Reservoir Geometry

The areal geometry of the reservoir will influence the location of wells and, if offshore,
will influence the location and number of platforms required. The reservoir’s geometry will
essentially dictate the methods by which a reservoir can be produced through water-
injection practices. An analysis of reservoir geometry and past reservoir performance is
often important when defining the presence and strength of a natural water drive and, thus,
when defining the need to supplement the natural injection. If a water-drive reservoir is
classified as an active water drive, injection may be unnecessary.

Fluid Properties

The physical properties of the reservoir fluids have pronounced effects on the suitability of
a given reservoir for further development by waterflooding. The viscosity of the crude oil
is considered the most important fluid property that affects the degree of success of a
waterflooding project. The oil viscosity has the important effect of determining the
mobility ratio that, in turn, controls the sweep efficiency.

Reservoir Depth

Reservoir depth has an important influence on both the technical and economic aspects of
a secondary or tertiary recovery project. Maximum injection pressure will increase with
depth. The costs of lifting oil from very deep wells will limit the maximum economic
water–oil ratios that can be tolerated, thereby reducing the ultimate recovery factor and
increasing the total project operating costs. On the other hand, a shallow reservoir imposes
a restraint on the injection pressure that can be used, because this must be less than fracture
3
pressure. In waterflood operations, there is a critical pressure (approximately 1 psi/ft of
depth) that, if exceeded, permits the injecting water to expand openings along fractures or
to create fractures. This results in the channeling of the injected water or the bypassing of
large portions of the reservoir matrix. Consequently, an operational pressure gradient of
0.75 psi/ft of depth normally is allowed to provide a sufficient margin of safety to prevent
pressure parting.

Lithology and Rock Properties

Lithology has a profound influence on the efficiency of water injection in a particular

reservoir. Reservoir lithology and rock properties that affect flood ability and success are:

• Porosity

• Permeability

• Clay content

• Net thickness

In some complex reservoir systems, only a small portion of the total porosity, such as
fracture porosity, will have sufficient permeability to be effective in water-injection
operations. In these cases, a water-injection program will have only a minor impact on the
matrix porosity, which might be crystalline, granular, or vugular in nature. Although
evidence suggests that the clay minerals present in some sands may clog the pores by
swelling and deflocculating when waterflooding is used, no exact data are available as to
the extent to which this may occur. Tight (low-permeability) reservoirs or reservoirs with
thin net thickness possess water-injection problems in terms of the desired water injection
rate or pressure. Note that the water-injection rate and pressure are roughly related by the
following expression:

iw
pinj = ∝
hk

where
4
 pinj = water-injection pressure

iw = water-injection rate

h = net thickness

k = absolute permeability

The above relationship suggests that to deliver a desired daily injection rate of iw in a tight
or thin reservoir, the required injection pressure might exceed the formation fracture
pressure.

Fluid Saturations

In determining the suitability of a reservoir for waterflooding, a high oil saturation that
provides a sufficient supply of recoverable oil is the primary criterion for successful
flooding operations. Note that higher oil saturation at the beginning of flood operations
increases the oil mobility that, in turn, gives higher recovery efficiency.

Reservoir Uniformity and Pay Continuity

Substantial reservoir uniformity is one of the major physical criterions for successful
waterflooding. For example, if the formation contains a stratum of limited thickness with
a very high permeability (i.e., thief zone), rapid channeling and bypassing will develop.
Unless this zone can be located and shut off, the producing water–oil ratios will soon
become too high for the flooding operation to be considered profitable. The lower depletion
pressure that may exist in the highly permeable zones will also aggravate the water-
channeling tendency due to the high permeability variations. Moreover, these thief zones
will contain less residual oil than the other layers, and their flooding will lead to relatively
lower oil recoveries than other layers. Areal continuity of the pay zone is also a prerequisite
for a successful waterflooding project. Isolated lenses may be effectively depleted by a
single well completion, but a flood mechanism requires that both the injector and producer
be present in the lens. Breaks in pay continuity and reservoir anisotropy caused by

5
depositional conditions, fractures, or faulting need to be identified and described before
determining the proper well spanning and the suitable flood pattern orientation.

Injection well locations

One of the first steps in designing a waterflooding project is flood pattern selection. The
objective is to select the proper pattern that will provide the injection fluid with the
maximum possible contact with the crude oil system. The relative location of injection and
production wells depends on the geology of the reservoir, its type, and of the volume of
hydrocarbon-bearing rock required to be swept in a time limited by economics.
It is advantages, where possible, to make use of any favorable influence of gravity, for
example in inclined reservoirs, reservoirs with a gas-cap or with an underlying aquifer.
Types of injection well location
1. Central and peripheral flooding, in which the injectors are grouped together.
2. Pattern flooding, in which the injectors are distributed amongst the production wells.
Central and peripheral flooding

This type of injection occurs in the following cases:

a. Reservoir with a gas-cap in which gas injection is taking place. If the reservoir is a
fairly regular anticlinal structure, the injection wells are normally grouped in a
cluster around the top of the anticline as shown in Figure 3.2.
b. Anticlinal reservoir with an underlying aquifer in which water injection is taking
place. In this case, the injectors will form a ring around the reservoir as illustrated in
Figure 3.3.
c. Monoclinal reservoir with gas-cap or aquifer undergoing gas or water injection.
The injectors are grouped in one or more lines located towards the base of the
reservoir in the case of water injection, towards the top in the case of gas injection
as displaced in Figure 3.4.

6
 Figure 3.2. Section and plan view for an anticline reservoir with a gas-cap.

Figure 3.3. Section and plan view for an anticline reservoir with an underlying aquifer.

Figure 3.4. Section and plan view for an anticline reservoir with gas-cap or aquifer.

7
 Pattern flooding
Pattern flooding in principally employed in reservoirs having a small dip and a large
surface area. In order to ensure a uniform sweep, the injection wells are distributed amongst
the production wells. This is done either by converting existing production wells into
injectors or by drilling infill injection wells. In both cases, the aim is to obtain as uniform
a distribution of wells as was used for the natural recovery phase.

Historically, due to the fact that the oil lenses were divided into square miles and quarter
square miles, US fields were developed in a very regular fashion. The various regular well
patterns have been much documented and studied.

The most common patterns are the following:

1. Direct line drive (Figure 3.5)
The lines of injection and production wells are directly opposed. The system is
characterized by the two parameters:
a = spacing between wells of the same type,
d = spacing between lines of injection and production wells.
2. Staggered line drive
The wells are in lines as before, the injectors and producers being no longer directly
opposed but laterally displaced, normally by a distance of a/2.
3. Five-spot (Figure 3.6)
This is a particular case of staggered line drive in which d/a = ½, and is the most
well- known pattern. Each injection well is located at the centre of a square defined
by four production wells.
4. Seven-spot (Figure 3.7)
The injection wells are located at the corners of a hexagon with a production well
at its centre.

8
 Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

5. Nine-spot (Figure 3.8)

The pattern is similar to that of a five-spot, but with an extra injection well drilled at the
middle of each side of the square.
Notes
It is usual to name a regular pattern by the number of injection wells surrounding
each producer plus one.
There are also inverted patterns in which the injection and production well locations
are reversed with respect to the classical patterns.

Figure 3.8

In practice, the choice of pattern is normally limited to either a line drive or a five-spot,
since other patterns may require the drilling of additional wells. The choice is directed in
part by technical factors, but is principally constrained by economics. Indeed, the cost of
drilling new injection wells represents the major part of the investment in an enhanced
9
 recovery project. On the other hand, the conversion of producers into injectors reduces the
production capacity of a field. Recovery will therefore be prolonged and profitability
reduced. The choice between drilling new wells and converting old ones can be decided by
economic analysis, provided that there are no technical constraints, in particular in respect
of the conversion of old wells. It must first be ascertained that the old wells are suitable for
conversion (that the tubing is in a good condition, that there is no skin damage etc.).

Linear displacement
A linear displacement is one in which the fluid velocities have a constant direction at every
point and for all time. It is the limiting case of a number of displacements (gas-cap
expansion, bottom water-drive, gas injection into a gas-cap, water injection into an aquifer,
etc.). The study of linear displacements can be divided into two parts:

1- The theory of frontal displacement.

2- The theory of piston-like displacement.
1- Frontal displacement
The theory of frontal displacement was proposed by Buckley and Leverett and expanded
by Welge. According to the theory, injection of a fluid 1 in a porous medium initially
containing fluid 1 at a uniform saturation S1i and fluid 2 at a uniform saturati on 1˗ S1i,
leads to the formation of a front which advances at a velocity:

qt df1
V= ( )
Aφ dS1 S = S
1 1F

were
SiF is the saturation in fluid 1 immediately behind the front,
qt is the injection rate (assumed constant),
A is the cross-sectional area.
This classic theory consists of two equations:
• Fractional flow equation
• Frontal advance equation

10
Fractional Flow Equation
The development of the fractional flow equation is attributed to Leverett (1941). For two
immiscible fluids, oil and water, the fractional flow of water, fw (or any immiscible
displacing fluid), is defined as the water flow rate divided by the total flow rate, or:

where
fw = fraction of water in the flowing stream, i.e., water cut, bbl/bbl
qt = total flow rate, bbl/day
qw = water flow rate, bbl/day
qo = oil flow rate, bbl/day

Consider the steady-state flow of two immiscible fluids (oil and water) through a
tilted-linear porous media as shown in Figure (3.9). Assuming a homogeneous system,
Darcy’s equation can be applied for each of the fluids:

where
subscripts o, w = oil and water
ko, kw = effective permeability
µo, µw = viscosity
po, pw = pressure
ρo, ρw = density

11
 A = cross-sectional area
x = distance
α = dip angle
sin (α) = positive for updip flow and negative for downdip flow

Figure 3.9. Linear displacement in a tilted system.

Rearranging Equations 3-2 and 3-3 gives:

Subtracting the above two equations yields:

From the definition of the capillary pressure pc:

Pc = po ˗ pw
Differentiating the above expression with respect to the distance x gives:
12
Combining Equation 3-4 with 3-5 gives:

where Δρ = ρw – ρo. From the water cut equation, i.e., Equation 3-1:
qw = fw qt and qo = (1− fw )qt ……………………………………. (3-7)

Replacing qo and qw in Equation 3-6 with those of Equation 3-7 gives:

In field units, the above equation can be expressed as:

where
fw = fraction of water (water cut), bbl/bbl
ko = effective permeability of oil, md
kw = effective permeability of water, md
Δρ = water–oil density differences, g/cm3
kw = effective permeability of water, md
qt = total flow rate, bbl/day
µo = oil viscosity, cp
µw = water viscosity, cp

13
 A = cross-sectional area, ft2
Noting that the relative permeability ratios kro/krw = ko/kw and, for two-phase flow, the total
flow rate qt are essentially equal to the water injection rate, i.e., iw = qt, Equation 3-8 can
be expressed more conveniently in terms of kro/krw and iw as:

where
iw = water injection rate, bbl/day
fw = water cut, bbl/bbl
kro = relative permeability to oil
krw = relative permeability to water
k = absolute permeability, md
The fractional flow equation as expressed by the above relationship suggests that for a
given rock–fluid system, all the terms in the equation are defined by the characteristics of
the reservoir, except:

• water injection rate, iw

• water viscosity, µw
• direction of the flow, i.e., updip or downdip injection
Equation 3-9 can be expressed in a more generalized form to describe the fractional flow
of any displacement fluid as:

where the subscript D refers to the displacement fluid and Δρ is defined

14
as:
Δρ = ρD − ρo
For example, when the displacing fluid is immiscible gas, then:

The effect of capillary pressure is usually neglected because the capillary pressure gradient
is generally small and, thus, Equations 3-9 and 3-11 are reduced to:

and

where
ig = gas injection rate, bbl/day
µg = gas viscosity, cp
ρg = gas density, g/cm3

From the definition of water cut, i.e., fw = qw/(qw + qo), we can see that the limits of the
water cut are 0 and 100%. At the irreducible (connate) water saturation, the water flow rate
qw is zero and, therefore, the water cut is 0%. At the residual oil saturation point, S or, the
oil flow rate is zero and the water cut reaches its upper limit of 100%. The shape of the

15
water cut versus water saturation curve is characteristically S-shaped, as shown in Figure
(3.10). The limits of the fw curve (0 and 1) are defined by the end points of the relative
permeability curves.
The implications of the above discussion are also applied to defining the relationship that
exists between fg and gas saturation, as shown in Figure (3.10). Note that, in general, any
influences that cause the fractional flow curve to shift upward (i.e., increase in fw or fg) will
result in a less efficient displacement process. It is essential, therefore, to determine the
effect of various component parts of the fractional flow equation on the displacement
efficiency. Note that for any two immiscible fluids, e.g., water and oil, the fraction of the
oil (oil cut) fo flowing at any point in the reservoir is given by:
fo + fw = 1 or fo = 1 ˗ fw

Figure 3.10. Fractional flow curves a function of saturations.

The above expression indicates that during the displacement of oil by waterflood, an
increase in fw at any point in the reservoir will cause a proportional decrease in fo and oil
16
mobility. Therefore, the objective is to select the proper injection scheme that could
possibly reduce the water fractional flow. This can be achieved by investigating the effect
of the injected water viscosity, formation dip angle, and water-injection rate on the water
cut. The overall effects of these parameters on the water fractional flow curve are discussed
next.
Effect of Water and Oil Viscosities
Figure (3.11) shows the general effect of oil viscosity on the fractional flow curve for both
water-wet and oil-wet rock systems. This illustration reveals that regardless of the system
wettability, a higher oil viscosity results in an upward shift (an increase) in the fractional
flow curve.

Figure 3.11. Effect of oil viscosity on fw.

The apparent effect of the water viscosity on the water fractional flow is clearly indicated
by examining Equation (3.12). Higher injected water viscosities will result in an increase

17
in the value of the denominator of Equation (3.12) with an overall reduction in fw (i.e., a
downward shift).
Effect of Dip Angle and Injection Rate
To study the effect of the formation dip angle α and the injection rate on the displacement
efficiency, consider the water fractional flow equation as represented by Equation (3.12).
Assuming a constant injection rate and realizing that (ρw – ρo) is always positive and in
order to isolate the effect of the dip angle and injection rate on fw, Equation (3.12) is
expressed in the following simplified form:

……………………..………………………. (3.13)

where the variables X and Y are a collection of different terms that are all considered
positives and given by:

• Updip flow, i.e., sin (α) is positive. Figure (3.12) shows that when the water displaces oil
updip (i.e., injection well is located downdip), a more efficient performance is obtained.
This improvement is due to the fact that the term X sin (α)/iw will always remain positive,
which leads to a decrease (downward shift) in the fw curve. Equation (3.13) also reveals
that a lower water- injection rate iw is desirable since the nominator 1 – [X sin (α)/iw] of
Equation (3.13) will decrease with a lower injection rate iw, resulting in an overall
downward shift in the fw curve.
• Downdip flow, i.e., sin (α) is negative. When the oil is displaced downdip (i.e., injection
well is located updip), the term X sin(α)/iw will always remain negative and, therefore, the
numerator of Equation (3.13) will be 1+[X sin(α)/iw], i.e.:
18
which causes an increase (upward shift) in the fw curve. It is beneficial, therefore, when
injection wells are located at the top of the structure to inject the water at a higher injection
rate to improve the displacement efficiency.

Figure 3.12. Effect of dip angle on fw.

It is interesting to reexamine Equation (3.13) when displacing the oil downdip. Combining
the product X sin (α) as C, Equation (3.13) can be written:

The above expression shows that the possibility exists that the water cut fw could reach a
value greater than unity (fw > 1) if:

19
This could only occur when displacing the oil downdip at a low water injection rate iw. The
resulting effect of this possibility is called a counterflow, where the oil phase is moving in
a direction opposite to that of the water (i.e., oil is moving upward and the water
downward). When the water injection wells are located at the top of a tilted formation, the
injection rate must be high to avoid oil migration to the top of the formation.
Note that for a horizontal reservoir, i.e., sin(α) = 0, the injection rate has no effect on the
fractional flow curve. When the dip angle α is zero, Equation (3.12) is reduced to the
following simplified form:

………………….………………….(3.14)

In waterflooding calculations, the reservoir water cut fw and the water–oil ratio WOR are
both traditionally expressed in two different units: bb/bbl and STB/STB. The
interrelationships that exist between these two parameters are conveniently presented
below, where
Qo = oil flow rate, STB/day
qo = oil flow rate, bbl/day
Qw = water flow rate, STB/day
qw = water flow rate, bbl/day
WORs = surface water–oil ratio, STB/STB
WORr = reservoir water–oil ratio, bbl/bbl
fws = surface water cut, STB/STB
fw = reservoir water cut, bbl/bbl

20
i) Reservoir fw – Reservoir WORr Relationship

Substituting for WOR gives:

……………….…………………….(3.15)

Solving for WORr gives:

..…………………………………..(3.16)

ii) Reservoir fw – Surface WORs Relationship

By definition:

Introducing the surface WORs into the above expression gives:

…………………………………..(3.17)

Solving for WORs yields:

………………………………(3.18)

21
iii) Reservoir WORr – Surface WORs Relationship
From the definition of WOR:

Introducing the surface WORs into the above expression gives:

…………………………………….(3.19)

Or

iv) Surface fws – Surface WORs Relationship

Or

………………………………………..(3.20)

v) Surface fws – Reservoir fw Relationship

……………………………………….(3.21)

22
Example 3-1
Use the relative permeability as shown in Figure (3.13) to plot the fractional flow curve for
a linear reservoir system with the following properties:
Dip angle = 0 Absolute permeability = 50 md
Bo = 1.20 bbl/STB Bw = 1.05 bbl/STB
3
ρo = 45 lb/ft ρw = 64.0 lb/ft3
µw = 0.5 cp Cross-sectional area A = 25,000 ft2

Perform the calculations for the following values of oil viscosity: µo = 0.5, 1.0, 5, and 10
cp.

Solution
For a horizontal system, Equation (3.14) can be used to calculate fw as a function of
saturation.

Figure 3.13. Relative permeability curves.

23
Results of the above example are documented graphically in Figure (3.14), which shows
the apparent effect of oil viscosity on the fractional flow curve.

Figure 3.14. Effect of µo on fw.

24
Example 3-2
The linear system in Example 3-1 is under consideration for a waterflooding project with
a water injection rate of 1000 bbl/day. The oil viscosity is considered constant at 1.0 cp.
Calculate the fractional flow curve for the reservoir dip angles of 10, 20, and 30°, assuming
(a) updip displacement and (b) downdip displacement.

Solution
Step 1. Calculate the density difference (ρw – ρo) in g/cm3:

Step 2. Simplify Equation (12) by using the given fixed data:

For updip displacement, sin (α) is positive, therefore:

For downdip displacement, sin (α) is negative, therefore:

Step 3. Perform the fractional flow calculations in the following tabulated form:

25
26