.

, --A

67
,

. ....

-..

WATER FLOODING
4

Waterflood Prediction Methods Compared to

Pilot Performance in Carbonate Reservoirs
BOBBY F. ABERNATHY
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME

Abstract

The waterflood performance of three cbbonate reservoirs was predicted by a calculation procedure employing
rhe Craig, et ai, concept, as developed from laboratory
model fiow tests, modified to include a layering technfque
similar to that proposed by Stiles. The predicted performance was compared with actual performance and with
predictions made utilizing the Stiles method, by the Craig,
et al, method treating the reservoir as a single Iajer, and
an additional comparison was made in one reservoir with
the Band method proposed by Hendrickson (after Habertnann).
The Craig-Stiles method was found to closely approxitnate the water-cut vs recovery performance of these three
carbonate (dolomite) reservoirs, and is generally superior
to the. Stilt% method. It also appears to be somewhat better than the Band method in the instance considered
herein,

Introditctlon
Prediction of the,perf~rmance of water floods is subject to many qualifications. Anumbeiof
prediction methods ranging from strictly empirical estimates to complex mathematical calculations and electrical model simulators
have been proposed. Data comparing actualperforrnance
witb calculated results for carbonate reservoirs have been
submitted on only one or two calcuhtfion techniqu~; consequently~ thepracticing reservoir engineer hasairiinimum
of actual case histories to ~ssist his selection of the proper
\
technique.
As a great nhmberof watdr fioods are being placedin. _
operation in West Texas carbonatereservoirs, this paper
should assist the enginyers responsible for predicting their
performance. It is also hoped that this paper will-stimulate
interest in presenting additional comparative dataort other
calculation techniques.
In this paper, actual performar.tce of #lot water floods
Orkimd mramearlt receivedinSocietvofPeWleomsk~lneemoffice
Aug.5, 1968.Revisez manumrIrJtreeeivedFeb.11,1964.Pasxwrwesented
-> at the AnnualSPE FalI Meetingheld{nNewOrleans,Oct. S-9.196S.

PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.

FORT WORTH, TEX.

in three carbonate reservoks is compared to performance

calculated by ~o or morq prediction methods.
Calculation Methods
Craig-Stiles Metlsod
The basis of this calculation

method was first, offered by

Qaig, et al. These calculations incorporate the concept
that. areal sweep after breakthrough (defined as pattern
sweep by some authors) increases with water throughput.
Laboratory studies have shown that it is possible for areal
sweep to reach 100 per cent in some cases, The calculation method also incorporates the frontal advance concept as advanced by Welge~ and the concept of stratification as advanced by Stiles:
In simple terms} the basis of the Craig calculation can
be expressed as follows
N,=

,.

p, (S., S.,) i?%,- S., -+,

,
/

o
[
In order to incorporate the effect of stratification, the
excellent layering concept offered. by Stiles was utilized. .
This method assumes that permeability values taken
from core analysis represent discrete layers within the res~
ervoirs. The net effect of-the layering concept is to apply
a form of vertical sweep efficiency. In this adaptation of
the Stiles method, the layers. can have diiferent thicknesses,
permeabilities, relative permeabilities, oil, water and gas
:
saturations, arid poiosities,
The layering technique offered by Miller and Lents
. ~
constitutes a useful refinement over the Stiles technique if
sufficient core analysis data are available, Irr this method
the. perrneaMlity associated with each layer is obts@ed
by averaging the p~rmeabilities -of cores>taken .at all wells
in the same field, at the same relsitiva. poshioii E the
:-
:
formation. This method probably gives a better value of

vertical coverage since irregularities peculiar to individual

wells or core samples may be balanced out. Once the layers have been established, the calculations would proceed
in the same manner w with the Stiles. Iaysring.
.
tReferencee
eken at endof Datser.

. . ..

IrI making the prediction, all permeability values are

placed in descending order. Thickness and permeability
are expressed as a fraction of the total thickness or pernleability (sum of all layers). From this a. cumulative capacity vs cumulative thickness curve is develo~ed, From
this curve the variation of dimensionless permeability
with cumulative thickness k determined. Recovery k then
determined as a fraction of mobile oii and water cut.
Basic assumptions in this method are shown on Table 1,

Regardless of the layering technique used, for each individual uniform layer, recovery at water breakthrough
and performance after breakthrough are computed using
Welges adaptation. of the frontal advance equation, a
principal part of which i% .

BandMethod (Hendrickson, Ref. 6)

ThJs method employs some of the same concepts as the

Craig-modified Stiles method. The concept of increasing
areal sweep after breakthrough is employed. Areal sweep
values are taken from the work of Habermarm~ Frontal
advance is used to determine performance, with pattern
sweepout after breakthrough being a function of mobility
ratio. This method is hampered by the necessity to divide
the reservoir into 10 bands of equal pore volume. The
bands can have different capacities. Perforinance of each
band is determined and the bands summed to obtain total
resemoir performance. Basic assumptions necessary to the
method are shown on Table 1.

Actual calculations are made for each layer. in a stepwise manner using the above ,fractional flow concept. Areal
sweep is increased after breakthrough as a function of the
ratio of the voksme of-water injected at a given time to
the volume of water injected at breakthrough, Q/Qw.
These values were based on the model flow tests discussed
by Craig, et aL The calculation assumes no cross-flow
between layers; thus performance of each layer can be
computed independently,
In order to determine the position of the front at any
given time in each layer, the volume of fluid going into
any layer at a given time, etc., it is necessary to have a
measure of the relative injection rate.
A five-spot conductivity ratio has been developed by
Caudle and Witte,4 This ratio compares the water injection
rate to a base injection rate which would be obtained
during injection of resepoir oil at the same pressure differential, i.e.,
i base =

3.541 hkK.. Ap
pO(lnd/rW0.619)

,.

The Craig-Stiles prediction method has been applied to

three pilot water floods of carbonate reservoirs, Panhandle
field, Foster field and Welch field. General location of
these fields is shown by Fig. 1. Predictions from the Stilea2
method are. shown for the Foster and Welch fldds. The
prediction of Hendrickson (Band method) is shown for
the Weich field. These pilots constitute three of the earlier
attempts to water flood West Texas area carbonate res- ,
ervoirs. Ail have been expandi?d to full-scale floods,

the Panhandle field under tlood produces

predominately from the Brown dolomite at approximately
3,000 ft. In Aug., 1955, a double five-spot pilot flood, as
shown by Fig, 2, was initiated with the center control
Wells 17 and 18 having j~st been drilled. Basic reservoir
data are shown on Table 2.
Performance of Ware A Lease Well 18 is shown by
Fig, 3, The performance of Well 17 is not believed to be

Stiles Method

The calculation procedure offered by Stiles was one of

the earlier methods of incorporating the layering concept
tu adcount for vertical sweep efficiency, The procedure is
limited by the fact that a#de from specific permeability
the layers are assumed to be of essentiality equal characteristics and till-up occurs in all layers before an increase in
oil production from the flood is noted in any layer, of the
several factors controlling flow, only the specific permeability may be vrmed between layers.
.,

SASIC TO CALCULATIONS

---..
K

1.

The Farmotlon can be considered to be cemposed of a number of strata,

continuous from well to well and insulated from cross-flow between well!.
2.
There is no segregation of tlulds due to gravity wlthln any layer.
3.
No z6np af Msh wetnr saturation exl$fs which could permit by-passing of
the Irtlected water.
S. Croie-Stile; Method
+
1.

c.

2.
3.

The lnformailon availuble from Iaboratow model studiesY,4 on five.snot

woter flooding applies.
Frontal advance theory applies.
~:ch Ioyer can hove ~ifferent permeabliltyr relatlve permeablllty, peroslty,

4.
5.

Areas ghead of the flood front are resaturated,

After breakthrough, woter In[ectlon Is equal to total fluld production.

stiles
1,

1.

-1 ~

@Mfdlond
FOSTER

--

..

-.,.

!.-,

--

.Thedispla&m6nt
occurs In o plst&.ilke manner.
2.
Fill.up occurs in all layers before 611production -from the flaod-bi~lns In
any Ioyer,
3. Sweep eftlclency is constant after breakthrough.
Permepbllify,
all
Ioyershave the same choracterl@s.
4. Other than. specific
13.. Band Method

2.
3.

Panhandle Fieid
The portiori of

The time required to inject a given volumeof water

can then be determined for each Iayerhtdepeadently.
Results at specified time intervals can then br wmmed for
all layers to obtain performance of the resel ~r. Assumptions basic to this method are, shown on TW1e 1.

TA81E IASSUMPTIONS
A; Common 10 All Methods

Case Histories

..

----

.-.

The Information avollable from laboratory modal flaw studle# on five-sfmt

,,
woter flooding applies.
frontal flow theory opplie%
diffirent capacltle$ are applicable.
Ten bands 6f e@Jal pore Volume

-_

e-

7-

y<

but

Fig, liitdex map.

.,
. .

,..
.

..-.

. .

..

. . .. .

... -..

.. . .

.
.-

377
.

,,

.,
. .

.. .

.. .

representative because of wellbore damage early in the

life of the pilot. Well 17 was fractured during the pilot test
and from performance following this stimulation, it was
evident that a substantial amount of recoverable oil was
lost by migration from this five-spot, For this reason; only
Well 18 is considered representative of actual performance.
Well 17 was cored using oil as the drilling fluid, and
laboratory tests were made to determine relative permeability data, as shown by Fig. 4. These data were used to
calculate performance. Actual injection rates were approximately three times the value calculated from reservoir
data. Initial injection rates equal to the actual rates were
used in the calculations,
Fig. 5 compares actual performance with results determined by the Craig-Stiles method, and the Craig meth-

PAN

AMERICAN

1,0
0

WAREi
9

Water

~ls~$~ction

Injection

Fig. 3--Panhandle

,5

Well
Well

field pilot water flood.

VATER

INJECTION

(1/4 OF TOTAL INTO

EAST 5 SPOT)

,%
1

%
-.

ft
,/

--

--<
1956 -

1965

.
,

---

PRoOUCTION:

FLUI?

19w

19s7

1960

ls5d

Fig. 4-Relative

Fig. 3Performm3ce of Panhandle field pilot flood.

$?6

27

28

= ok
25

m
PERGENT

32
31
----so
. .. .
OF ORIaINM..
OIL-IN -PLACE
ACTUAL
CALCULATED

-.-.

27s

..

~~

--

,..

-,
.:,

.,

.. .

-..
.. . .

:-.
.
<-

. .

36

BY CRAIQ - STILES ( MULTILAYER)

.,
...

...

.WIRk~&

of PanhandIe ~eld.

va actual performance

57

3e

35

34
33
RECOVERED

C14LCULATE0 8Y .CRAIG [SINOLE LAYER1

krig.
5-&leula&d
--.

permeability of Panhandle field.

.
,

.
O.F

. . . ..

.WW3?WW
. . ..

Z.WW?L$W
.. . . .

. ..
,,

. . .. .

.,. .
..

od assuming the reseryoir is one uniform layer. Reaaoriable agreement was obtained between the actual performance and the Craig-Stiles predictions. The 55 ft of net
pay were divided into three layers as logically determined
from core and log analyses for this calculation. The.
authors experience has shown that the number of layers
should be kept, as low as can logically be assigned. The
use of too many layersseems to yield erratic results. This
is possibly due to the assumption of no cross-flow. The
single layer prediction is extremely optimistic showing that
layering must be considered.
Actual ultimate recovery was slightly less than predicted. This could be explained by migration from an unbounded ,pilot. Laboratory tests show that due to fluid migration, actual recovery from an unbounded five-spot pilot
may be less than if the flood had been bounded by other
ihjection wells, In extreme cases, the piIot may produce
only 50 per cent of the recoverable oil in the pilot area
with the remainder migrating outside the pilot area, However, as a general rule, the pilot will recover between 7S
per cent and 100 per cent of the recoverable oil in the
pilot area, Of course, other explanations are also possible.

3000
65
11,7
;$

4950
75

I .044

0~1 Vlsceslty, cp

2,33

?.%88
@ 325 ml
2,32
g*:25
PSI

Waler Vkadty,
CR.
Stock lank 011 Gravity. API
BHP at Start of Flwd, PSI

0..3

w --- i..,
2.91
. .
.

3i,4
326

244

Primary RecevaIv at Start OF

Flood, % 011-in.place

12
25,6
(Includes sss inl. ]

2.9

Current Actual Recovery, Ye O.I.P

34.2

21

21.7

28

3s

WeIeh Field

The performance and history of this fieldhave previously been discussed by ,Hendrickson} Water injection into a
single five-spot, as shown by F~g. 10, was commenced in
1955, with the center producing well having been drilled
for the flood, Water was injected at a rate of 400 to~600
B/D with a surface pressure of 1,500 psig, Prior to obtaining rLcor$ on the new well (Well 1S) injectivities of only
40 B/D/well were .calculated; however, cores from Well
15 indicated injectivities of 300 to 600 B/D/weU at a sur-

52

1000,

13

*native state relative permeability data were obtained.

These data were plotted on Fig. 8. It will be noted that
two sets of K,. data are plotted. The laboratory tests revealed a marked difference in he oil permeability for
samples of different specific permeability, A separation
line of 1,8 md was utilized in determirdng which K,. data
to apply to a specific layer. No significant difference was
noted in the water permeability.
Fig. 9 compares actual performance to results obtained
by the CraigStiles, Stiles and Craig single-layer methods.
The Craig-Stiles resuIts are in close agreement with actual
performance. For the CraigStiles calculations, the 129 ft
of net pay were divided into three layers selected from
core and log analyses. The Stiles method, in this irr8tance,
does not agree favorably with performance. An areal
sweep efficiency of 87 per cent at breakthrough was used
for the Stiles calculation. This value was taken from the
previously referenced model flow tests. The optimistic results obtained by the Craig calculations, considering the
reservoir as .a single uniform layer, again show that some
form of layering should be assumed.
Tie early water breakthrough which otherwise might
have been a cause for ahwm was accurately predicted by
the Craig-Stiles calculations.

The Foster field produces from the Grayburg-Brown

dolomite at approximately 4,200 ft. In etily 1956, a double
five-spot pilot, as shown by Fig. 6, was initiated, Injection
was at the rate of 300 BWPD/well initially, but was later
increased to 700 BWPD/well at the peak rate. Basic reservoir data are shown on Table 2.
Performance of the two control wells is shown by Fig.
7, The injectio~ volumes shown are one-third of the volume injected into the six injection wells. Actual injectivity
was found to be approximately three times the value calculated from formation data. Initial injectiori rates comparable to the actual rates were used in the calculations.
Excessive fluid migration from the ,pilot area to the
outlying akea not under flood necessitated a reduction in
injection rates in 1958. With the expansion of the flood in
1961, injection was returned to normal.
The two center control wells, S1 and 52, were drilled
for the pilot. WelI 51 was cored with an oil-base mud and

AMERICAN
,,
.

Average Depfh, ft
Not Pay. ft
Average Poroslfy, 0*
Average Permeabll (W, md
Connate Water Soturatlon,
Retorvelr Vel ume Factor

Calculated Ultlmate RecovBIY Under

Flood, ~ O. I-P (Craig.Stllos)
35

Foster Field

PAN

TAQLE 2PERTINENi
S6SESVOIS DATA
Foster
Ponhondle
Welch
6rown
Grayoure.
Son Andre%.
WhlN
$rewn !Jz4emlte Dolomlte

Hold
Fermntl.an

..
I

v
A

51
..

~g WI

.
-.

rl

\ ,

COWOEN

- :

011 Well
Water Injection

Well

ERFORMANCE

Fig. &Foster

field piIot &od.

,,,

i!

.
,

trom core and log data. The thickness of the layers ranges
from 1,5 to 13.5 ft.
Both the Stiles and Band method results are pessimistic
in predicting breakthrough recovery while the Craig-Stiles
results agree with actual breakthrough. Subsequent performance seems, at tlrst glance, to be approximated equally
well by either the Band or Craig-Stiles methods. It iSIbeIieved that later actual performance would have been
more favorable and thus nearer the Craig-Stiles results
bad a gyp problem not existed in the producing wells,
Hendrickson reports that the formation of gyp restricted ,
the producing rate from the center control well. Recent
workovers have resulted in the actual performance tending
to approach the Craig-Stiles results. Areal sweep at breakthrough for the Stiles method was estimated to be 73 per
cent from the previously discussed model flow tests. As
discussed under the Panhandle field, it would be suspected
that some migration from the pilot area would occur par-

face pressure of 1,500 psig. Average cumulative oil Production from the four injection wells which were producing 8 BOPD/ well was 54,300 bbl at the time of conversion. Basic reservoir data are shown on Table 2.
Performance of the pilot is shown by Fig, 11. It may
be noted that injection was curtailed in late 1955 and
was not returned to normal until late 1958, and was
again curtailed in early 1959, being returned to normal
in early 1960.
Predictions obtained by the Craig-Stiles, Stiles and
Band methods using relative permeability data, as shown
by Fig. 12, are compared to actual performance on Fig,
13. The Craig-Stiles calculations were made by dividing
the 75 ft of net pay into 12 layers as logically established
,,

..

..

la

,s

K>

.s .0.

CITIES
w

.1

z
2
g

SERVICE
w

.05

E
;
E
?
z
;
g

.0 ,

;
z
:.00
m

.9 01

r
.0 001
10

50

40

30

20

WDTER

Fig. O-Relative

5ATURaT10N

60

70

EIg.

Z
3

---:..

9-caIcu!ated

in~ection

Water

WeJ(l

field pilot water flood~

permeability of Foster field.

CAIWLATEO
CAUllLNEO
- CAWJLWED

OHwell

Fig. 10-Weleh

WO

-,

1
0 lea,

S1 CRIIO- STILES
iIAuL?ILMER)
M GRUG- {SW!6LE LhYCR

~,

STILES

stiw~o::rfo~ance

I
19,,

Imr

1
I*SW

1*6O

1
I*SS

Ml

198[

4
I*1S

*mFonumts
of Foster field

Mg.

11Performance Of Welch fi~d floodo

~:

ticularly since a very low gas saturation existed in the pilot

area, The tight pay would, however, prevent extensive migration. It is believed that performance from a bounded
pilot would have more closely approximated the CraigStiles. predictions.
Although not shown on Fig. 13, u Craig calculation,
considering the reservoir as a single layer, was made, Results from thk method gave recoveries much higher than
actual, again confirming the conchtsicm that some form
of stratification should be assumed,
ConclrrAions
As a result of comparing the actual and predicted performance of these three reservoirs, the following conclusions can be reached on the basis of the limited data
available.
1. Predictions made with the Craig-Stiles method give
reasonable agreement with the actual performance of
floods in carbonate reservoirs.
2. Layering is a requisite to obtaining reasonable predictions from the Craig method. This is especially true

OIL

of performance prior to the breakthrough time calculw,ed

by the single-layer method,
3. For calculating the performance of floods in ca;bonate reservoirs, the Craig-Stiles calculation technique
seems to represent a distinct improvement over the ba~ic
Stiles method.
4. In determining injection rates there is considerable
likelihood of error in selection of the specific permeability
value to be used, In the Welch field, the original data
Provided a very comervat ive injection rate; however, the
core analysis of the new pilot well revised the permeability
upward such that calculated and actual jnjectivities were
in reasonable agreement. In the, Foster and Panhandle
fields, actual injectivity was found to be three to four
time: the injectivity calculated from core data. If available, actual injectivity data should be used and the specific
permeability adju$ted to match.
several expatiations are possible to account for the
actual injectivity being greater than calculated from core
data. All are believed to apply, the particular reservoir
determining which is the more important.
(a) The effective wellbore could be greater than the actual borehole. In carbonates, thk is quite often the case, due
to natural fractures, shooting of the well, acidizing, or artificial fracturing of the formation.
(b) Increase in permeability resulting from high injectionwell bottom-hole pressure compared to formation pressure
(rock compressibility). Also volubility of limestone in injection water.
(c) Oil saturation near the wellboreii reduced to:nearly
zero. In the calculation procedure, the oil saturation is
assumed to be equal to a minimum value determined by
the water-oil relative permeability characteristics.

Nomenclature

B. = Volume of 1 STB of oil at reservoir conditions

at start of flood, tlmensionless,
d = Distance between injection and producing well
of a five-spot pattern, ft.
.
, E., = Areal sweep efficiency, fraction,
,
f. = Oil fraction of the fl~ld flowing,.
f. = Water fraction of the fluid flowing,

k = Formation thickness, ft,

base = Injec~ion rate calculated by Muskats single fluid
five-spot equation, using permeability to oil and
oil viscosity, B/D,
k = Speditlc permeability, md,

.,
..
[

.1

.,!

>

30
WATER

SATURATION

,C,w.1,

E
3
4

C6LCUL41VJ
?eKFOnwNcE

----

CALCULATED
CALCUMTED

OY
W

CRU@-$lt,[$
(mom

[MuLTIMWR1
Imlow-wl)

SIILCS

F}g. 13+lcttIated

Fig. 12Relati:er perme@ility ~fWelch field.

vs mtual performance of Welch-field

pilot tloodi

.-

.>.

. . .

. ..

K,. = Relative permeability to oil, fraction,

to water, fraction,
N.= Volume of oil produced from pilot area after

initiating floodt bblj

Ap = Pressure differential between injection weil
sandface and producing weU sandface,
v,= Pore volume of five-spot pattern, bbl,
r. = Wellbore radius, ft,
s w? = Final average water saturation in swept area,
fraction,
Swi= Average water saturation in pilot area at start
of flood, fraction,
SO,= Average gas saturation in pilot area at start of
flood,
p. = Oil viscosity, cp,

P. = Water viscosity, cp.

References

K,w = Relative perfieability

1, Craig, F. J?.,Jr., Geifpn,T. M. and Morse, IL A.: Oil I@cavery

Perf&manceBof Pattern Gas, or Water InectionOperationsfrom

20 4 , 7.
Dktribution in Waterflood
we
Calcuiatiorm,Trans.,AIME ((1949) 106,9.
3. Welgel,H. J,: DR Iacement(of
Oil From
.-A
.-- Porons Media by Water
or Gas , Trans., AfME (1949). A-JY,IaiL
4, Caudle, B, H. and Whte M, D.: Production Potential<hanges
~,~in~a%eepout irr a Five-SpotSystem, Trans., AIME (1959)

Model Teats, Trans., AIME (1955j)

Z. Stiles, W. E,:
of Perrneabiliiv

5. ~&&-~nn.
B.: The Efficiency of Miscible Dbmlacement as a
Functimr of Mobility Ratio, T;ans,, AIME (1960) 219, 2&~
6. Hendrickson, G. E.: History of the Welch Field San Andres
Pilot Water Flood, four. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1961) 745.
7. Miller, M. G. and Lents, M, R.: Performance of Bodcaw Rcser.
voir, Cotton Valley Field Cycling Project; New Methods of
Producing Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance Under Cycling Operations Compared to Fieid Data, Drill. & Prod. Prac,,
API (1946) 128,
*+*

BOBBY
F. ABERNATHY
is a senior engineer engaged in property evaluation
for Pan American Petroleum Corp. in
Fort Worth. He has been, with the
company since. receiving a BS in petroleum engineering from The U, of Texas
in 19S5.

Acknowledgments
Special recognition and thanks are due F. F. Craig, Jr.
for development of calculation procedure and for his kind
assistance and encouragement. Special thaxika are also due
Cletis G. Harper, who is responsible for the physical programming of the Craig-Stil~ calculation procedure on the
electronic computer and who assisted in making the necessary computer calculations.
,.

,,

-,

,.

.. . ..
.:

.. .

..
.

!
.
.;

. .. .
. ..

).

.,

- -

,.
s:->,
-....-: ..

.,,s

3.;

...,

,:..:

. . . .. . . .-.
.

,.:.:...-,

,? :::, ----

... ,

... . .

... . ... .. . . .... .... ... .

. . . .. .
.

,.

>L.:,

. .

..

. ..~-, ...,..

..

. . ..

. . .

. .. .

..;

..::;

,-----

.... . .

..

+ ,

. .

-_:

..: .

., :,......

,.--.. ._-..:...

.._~.

..

.. .

..-;

,>
.

.+:.

,-:F-

.. ..

,.

/./

..,,

. . .

. ..

..~.,

!,

~w..
.. . . .

, .-~.:

.-