Waterflood Surveillance in
the Kuparuk River Unit With
Computerized Pattern Analysis
L.R. Chapman, SPE, and R.R. Thompson, SPE. Area Alaska Inc.
Summary. This paper describes the computer-aided waterflood surveillance method used in the Kuparuk River field. !he flood is
monitored pattern by pattern, with production and injection allocations verified by comparison of measured ~eld pressures with pressures
calculated by material balance. The resulting detailed knowledge about watert100d progress has led to operatIOnal changes and workovers
to optimize watert100d performance.
Introduction
The Kuparuk River Unit lies on the North Slope of Alaska about
40 miles [64 km] west of the Prudhoe Bay Unit. The Kuparuk
reservoir contains some 4.4 billion bbl [700 x 106 m 3] of original
oil in place (OOIp).l A combination of relatively low API gravity
(24 API [0.91 g/cm 3]) and an initial undersaturated condition
0
makes watert100ding this reservoir a necessity. To complicate
matters, the Kuparuk is highly faulted in some areas and is divided
into a lower body called the A Sand and an upper body called the
C Sand, with the C Sand considerably more permeable. I
Because of the large reserve stakes and the geologic complexity
of the Kuparuk, a comprehensive watert100d surveillance effort is
necessary. A pattern-by-pattern knowledge of performance is needed
for waterflood optimization through workovers, infill drilling, and
other operations. This knowledge is also important when selecting
EOR candidate areas in the watert100d.
Because of the large amount of data involved in any watert100d
project, a computer can be helpful to engineers involved. A question
arises about the actual amount of "help" the computer should give.
The program can range from a simple production data base to a
comprehensive full-field reservoir model that is used to track the
waterflood. The more automated a computerized method is, the less
work the engineers have to do. By being involved less, however,
engineers do not become as familiar with the detailed t100d per-
formance and the program may not be as flexible as a program re-
quiring more hands-on data manipulation. Also, a complex computer
program tends to be a "black box" that only one or two people
may understand fully. The computer program described here in-
tentionally requires a great deal of manual manipulation by the en-
gineers.
The cornerstone of a sound surveillance effort, computerized or
manual, is a good allocation of production and injection to every
zone within each waterflood pattern. Allocation factors can be deter-
mined or estimated in a variety of ways from field data or reservoir
parameters. Most ofthese methods have large uncertainties and do
not track t1uid allocations as they change over time with varying
reservoir conditions.
The method outlined in this paper uses a material-balance tech-
nique to backcalculate a pressure based on the production and in-
jection allocated by pattern. These pressures, calculated monthly,
are compared with actual field pressure data to check the pro-
duction/injection allocation factors, which are adjusted manually.
After the t1uids have been adequately allocated to each pattern and
zone, helpful output, such as pattern performance and conformance
plots, are plotted by the computer. This leaves the interpretation
to the engineers involved, getting them much closer to the problem.
The watert100d surveillance program is used to look for anomalies
in field performance, such as low volumetric efficiencies or poor
injection/voidage ratios. More often than not, these anomalies turn
up opportunities for waterflood improvement.
While waterfloOd performance parameters could be calculated
on the basis of a detailed history match of a simulation model, the
main thrust of a model is to explore future scenarios with the model
used as a predictive tool. Alternatively, the method described in
this paper is intended to provide an in-depth look at waterflood per-
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1989
formance to date without attempting to predict future performance.
The method presented represents a simpler, lower-cost alternative
to the use of simulation as a watert100d evaluation tool.
Allocating Fluids by Mat...lal Balanc.
Fig. 1 is a schematic of a typical Kuparuk watert100d pattern made
up of two sands with differing flow characteristics. To monitor and
optimize watert100d performance in each sand, factors are needed
to allocate production and injection vertically between these two
sands and area1ly among patterns. Separate sets of allocation factors
are used for oil, gas, and water.. .
Vertical allocation factors can be determined fairly accurately
and at a moderate cost with spinner surveys in injection wells. The
determination is much less accurate and very costly in producing
wells, particUlarly after water breakthrough occurs. An additional
problem is caused by the significant changes in well profile that
can occur between spinner surveys. Historically, little or none of
this type of data may have been taken in a mature field, hampering
efforts to evaluate pattern-by-pattern t100d performance.
Various methods can be used to determine areal allocation factors.
Injection~well tracer tests can aid in estimating areal allocations,
but tracer tests are costly and give mostly qualitative results. The
simplest method is to assume a homogeneous, constant-thickness
reservoir and to base the factors geometrically on angle open to
t1ow. 2 Although simple to calculate, geometric allocation factors
(even after adjustment for nonideal conditions) may not be an ac-
curate representation because of areal variations in reservoir prop-
erties, such as porosity and pertneability. Reservoir. discontinuities,
such as truncations and faulting, can also vary the allocation factors.
Areal allocation factors also need to be adjusted over time to match
field performance as different patterns and sands pressure up and
eventually reach breakthrough.
The methOd described here handles t1uid allocations by careful
study of each pattern and uses a material-balance method to aid
in correcting the allocation factors. Typical material-balance ap-
plications involve. the use of measured pressures and production
data to determine the original volume of oil in a reservoir. In this
waterflood surveillance method, material balance is used in reverse.
The OOIP of a pattern is determined volumetrically, then production
and injection are allocated into a pattern. Next, material-balance
equations are used to calculate what the pressure should be, given
the known reservoir volume, PVT relationships, and allocated pro-
duction and injection. The calculated pressures are then compared
with measured values to check the allocation factors.
The general form of the material-balance equation is 3
N(Bt-Bti)+FvNBti[(BgclBgi)-l]
+ [(NBtiSwio)/(1-Swio)][(Btw - BtwnlBtwil
+[FvNBtiSwigl(l-Swig)][(Bw-Btwi)/Btwil + WeB w
+GiB'g+ WiBw+[NBti/(1-Swio)+FvNBti/(1-Swig)]cjAp
=NpBo+(GpsBg-NpRsBg+GpcBgc)+ WpB w' (1)
Because Bt=Bo+(Rsi-Rs)Bg, (2)
[NBoi/(l-Swio)]=Vp , (3)
277
 • •
f ...
...
Pettern Element
!
• •
Fig. 1-Typlcal Kuparuk waterflood pattern.

patterns were divided into injector-eentered elements, as shown in

'00,---....,...----------- ---,
Fig. I. Each pattern was then named after its center injection well.

Initialization. Development of the Kuparuk River field has been

80 spaced over several years, resulting in migration of fluids from un-

13----------__ developed areas to the active producing wells. To avoid having to

track the primary migration from pattern to pattern, the program
'0 -----~-
-\ is "initialized" at the start of waterflood and primary production
values are calculated on the basis of input pressure and saturation
data. Each pattern has a unique initialization time based on when
.0
\ water injection began in that pattern. The initialization process yields
~
calculated primary recoveries that reflect the conditions in each
pattern at waterflood startup, assuming that startup pressure and
Legend
20 saturations can be reasonably estimated. For this surveillance effort,
Adjusted A %

o -h....,.....,....,...,.........,.......,.....,.....,....,...,.........,.......,.....,.....,....,....,.........,.......,....,.....:;o0::..s;:!:p:;:.inn::;.'...::c..::..-l7.
SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F M A M J J A SON 0 J F
1984 1985
TIME
Fig. 2-Vertlcal water-Injection split adjusted by program
shown with spinner data.
and for Kuparuk Bti=Boi ' Fv=O, We=O, Gpc=O, Swio=Swi' and
Gps=Gp , and assuming that Brw=B w and B'g=Bg , then
N[B o +(Rsi-Rs)Bg-Boil
+ [(NBoiSwi)/(l-Swi)][(Bw - Bwi)IBwil
+ GjBg +WiBw + VpcfAp
=NpBo + (GpB g -NpRsBg ) + WpB w'
Next, the equation is rearranged in the following form:
NBoi=(N-Np)Bo+[Gi+NRsi
-(N-Np)Rs-Gp]Bg+(Wi-Wp)Bw
+ VpSwi(B w - Bwi)IB wi + Vpcft:.p. .
In this form, a constant term is on the left side of the equation,
while the right side contains pressure-dependent terms. Within the
computer, the pressure is varied until the right side of Eq. 5 matches
the left. This is analogous to pressuring up on a given amount of
fluid until it fits within a high-pressure tank of known volume.
Application of Method
Several enhancements were made to the basic material-balance
waterflood-monitoring program described above to handle specific
circumstances at the Kuparuk River field. These enhancements,
along with other basic elements of the application of this water-
flood surveillance method, are described in the following sections.
Pattern Elements. The Kuparuk is currently being waterflooded
on a 320-acre [130-ha] linedrive pattern. For this analysis, the
278
~~u
pressure is estimated on the basis of measured field pressure data
• Spinner A % and gas saturations are estimated with correlations of saturation with
pressure developed fro~ pattern simulation work.
1986 1987 The following equations are used to calculate effective primary
production of oil, gas, and water:
N px =N- Vpx(SoxIBox) , (6)
G px =G- VpA(SoxIBox)Rsx +SgxIBgx] +Gix , (7)
and Wpx = VpS wi - Vpx(SwxIBwx) + W ix' (8)
Areal Fluid Allocation. The areal fluid allocations are adjusted
manually on the basis of comparisons of calculated pressures to
field data. Field pressure data are often cheap to obtain, particu-
larly when surface falloff tests can be performed on the injectors.
The initial estimates of areal allocation factors were based on ad-
justed angle open to flow. When the calculated pressures deviate
from field data, the areal allocation factors are changed to obtain
(4) a better match, resulting in more accurate areal fluid allocations.
Vertical Fluid Allocation. The C Sand in the Kuparuk River field
dominates well performance because of its higher permeability and
natural fractures. C Sand dominance was even more pronounced
in injection wells at waterflood startup, when the C Sand was more
(5) depleted than the A Sand. However, as the C Sand approaches fill-
up in a pattern and its reservoir pressure increases, a gradual
diversion of injected fluid from C Sand to A Sand is observed,
changing the actual vertical injection allocations (splits) with time.
Assuming constant vertical splits between measured spinner surveys
results in premature calculated C Sand fill-up and slow A Sand
waterflood progress. A vertical-split-adjustment method ha~ been
developed to adjust the injection allocations into each sand, de-
pending on their respective pressures and saturations. Fig. 2 shows
an example of water-injection split adjusted with this method for
one pattern in the Kuparuk River field with good agreement with
field spinner measurements.
The basic principle behind the adjustment routine is the following
form of Darcy's law 3 :
q=[0.OO7082kkr h(p-PMf)]1 {BJ.'[ln(relrw) -0.75]}. . ..... (9)
Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1989
Rearranging this equation to put constant (or nearly constant) terms
on the left side and variable terms on the right yields
0.007082kh/[ln(relrw) -0.75] =qBI-'/[kr(p-Pwf)]' (10)
When spinner-survey data are available, each zone's measured
fluid rates and material-balance pressure, along with the other known
variables, can be specified in the right side of Eq. 10. Thus, the
left side of Eq. 10 can be solved for without any knowledge of ab-
solute permeability or drainage radius. The constant terms on the
left are referred to in this paper as a flow index, If. For every
month until the next survey, the flow rate into each zone is calcu-
lated by substituting the flow index back into Darcy's law:
qo = [/fokro(p -Pwf)]/Bol-'o, (11)
qw=[Ifwkrw(p-Pwf)]IBwl-'w, (12)
and qg =qoR s + [/fokrg(jJ-Pwf)]/Bgl-'g (13)
The new calculated flow rates are not used directly but are ratioed
to get new vertical splits that are then applied to the patterns' actual
total monthly production and injection. Flow indices are calculated
for each pattern and sand for both production and injection.
Flow indices for produced water and produced oil should theo-
retically be equal and constant unless a well becomes fractured or
damaged. However, work with pattern model output showed that,
as calculated by this adjustment routine, the flow indices are neither
equal nor constant. Oil flow indices calculated from pattern simu-
lations varied with time, decreasing during early waterflood and
then leveling off when steady-state conditions were reached. The
water flow indices started off much higher than the oil, then ap-
proached the oil as the rate of change in produced water cut slowed
down. Several factors contribute to cause these differences and
changes. Among them are the methods used to estimate fluid satu-
rations near the wells, which will be discussed below, and the fact
that the surveillance program's pressures and saturations used to
calculate flow indices lag behind by 1 month. To compensate for
these effects, separate flow indices for produced water and oil are
used and recalculated every month.
Saturations used to calculate relative permeabilities governing flow
from or into a well should not be average pattern saturations, but
saturations in the immediate area of that well. For this adjustment
routine, the effective water saturation governing injection is assumed
to be the average water saturation behind the front, as determined
from techniques developed by Welge. 4 A tangent to the fractional-
flow curve, going through the point where Sw equals initial water
saturation, is extrapolated to anfw value of 1.0. The water satu-
ration at that point is the average Sw behind the front. The water
saturation near the wellbore will be somewhat higher than the
average saturation behind the flood front because of the higher water
throughput around the well. This assumption has given good re-
sults, however, when compared with field data.
The effective water saturation for production calculations is also
taken from Welge's work:
Swe=Sw-VpJo' (14)
Note that when measured splits are entered, fo is known for that
month, but when splits are not entered, the previous month's fo
is assumed to apply.
An iterative solution is used for the producers' effective gas satu-
ration. Gas saturation is incremented until the following equation
holds true, within tolerances: .
R=R s + (krg/kro)(Bo/Bg)(l-'o/l-'g)· (15)
The GOR here is known when measured splits are entered and is
assumed equal to the previous month's GOR when no new splits
are entered.
This vertical-split-adjustment routine does not attempt to predict
which zone is experiencing breakthrough, but depends on the en-
gineer to enter that information, based on field data and/or engi~
neeringjudgment. Water flow indices can be calculated after water
breakthrough, and the adjustment routine can take over. The routine
is not able to track the water breakthrough in the second sand very
accurately, however, because it is tied to the previous month's frac-
tional flow of oil. When that fractional flow is changing rapidly,
as at initial breakthrough, misallocations are likely. Specifying
Joumal of Petroleum Technology, March 1989
another split after water breakthrough is established in the second
sand alleviates the problem.
If no production-profile data are available to indicate when water
breakthrough occurs in the second sand, it should be possible to
deduce such a breakthrough by observing anomalies in the pressures
calculated by the surveillance program. After a breakthrough in
the second sand, if the surveillance program is still attributing all
produced water to the sand with initial water breakthrough, that
sand will have too Iowa calculated pressure because of overesti-
mated voidage and high pressures will be calculated for the sand
with the later water breakthrough because of underestimated
voidage. The compensating response of changing injection splits
is not quick enough to mask the anomalous pressures caused by
misallocated water breakthrough.
Gas Cycling Calculations. One complication of waterflood sur-
veillance at the Kuparuk River field is the presence of injected gas
in the reservoir. Because a very limited market is available for North
Slope gas, the produced gas at Kuparuk has been reinjected into
the reservoir. Early in field life, this gas was injected only into Sand
C on the peripheries of the field, the objective being storage of the
gas until such time as it was needed. Because the Kuparuk River
field has relatively little structural relief, the highly mobile gas
readily migrated into many producing areas, causing problems with
high produced GOR' s and limited gas-handling capacity. Many of
these gas-affected areas are now being waterflooded. More recently,
gas has been injected in other areas of the field in an immiscible
water-alternating-gas (WAG) process designed to control the mo-
bility of the gas and to improve recovery. 5
To determine volumetric efficiencies of the WAG and gas-affected
patterns properly, injected gas saturations and evolved formation
gas saturations are tracked separately in the surveillance program.
Appropriate portions of produced gas are treated as cycled injected
gas, on the basis of gas saturations, pressures, bubblepoints, and
a user-entered gas-breakthrough date. The need to separate pro-
duced gas into formation gas and cycled gas results from the as-
sumption that essentially no injected gas will be able to go back
into solution in the oil because of compositional effects and limited
contact area. This affects pressure and bubblepoint pressure calcu-
lations. (Bubblepoint pressure is calculated from the amounts for
formation gas and oil in place at any given time. Free injected gas
may be present when a pattern is actually above its calculated bub-
blepoint pressure.) The separation also enables a meaningful fill-
up calculation for WAG patterns that is based on filling up the in-
itial formation gas saturation.
The method of calculating cycled-gas volumes requires the user
to enter a cycled-gas-breakthrough date, based on engineering
judgment and GOR behavior, if gas breakthrough occurs below bub-
blepoint pressure. The surveillance program will assume that all
produced gas is formation gas before that date. Afterward, formation
gas is calculated as solution gas plus a portion of the free produced
gas. The formation gas production is assumed to be proportional
to the formation gas saturation divided by the total gas saturation
in that pattern. Cycled gas is simply the difference between total
produced gas and formation gas produced. When pressure is above
the bubblepoint in a gas-affected or WAG pattern, cycled gas is
assumed to be all gas produced in excess of solution gas. Equations
are shown below.
Formation gas saturation:
Sgf=Sg,-(GiipBglVp), (16)
Formation GOR:
Rt=Rs+(R,-Rs)(SgfISg,) (17)
Formation gas:
D.Gpt=MVpRf · (18)
Cycled gas:
D.Gpcyc=D.Gp-D.Gpf' (19)
279
 5 ..........,----".--"",--/'7'""----.,.---T'OO
I / ''-J/ "--..

OJi
4
,
I

I
,/
'/
/ "
"", .0 so

, r'
8
toe
0.8

0.7
o :
,/
/ \
\
40

~ 20

g 0.6
:;>
o
3

I
/
\
,, 0
"-
3Ii:
~
l<

~ ,
·0.5 -20
;;s:;
2 '
,

I \
0.4 r,
"
-40

~
\
I
0.3 1
,
I
\
,, I
\\/ ..... _'\
,
-'0

~ 0.2 I
,
I , _ - -80
, \
I " I •
0.1 '00
1986 1987
0
0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ MUM ~
• ~LV9IQ _ x % FlLWP_
VOLUMETRIC EmCIENCY, NET VpHdi
Fig. I5-Example of program output, InJectlon/voldage ratio
Fig. 3-Example of program output, Staggs2 plot. and flll-up plot.

100 5-r-----------------,I-....... 'OO

II
80

4-1···························· ..·······················................. .........

"
",.1 +.0
I
, I
10
..
....... .. .. ,
.~ 40
~-~~

I '
.. ' ........
'
o I I
................ ~3
~
,,/20

ll'
...............................
§ I-==---_-_-------·~·---·--'-;I/l·. o
I.L ~
i
Ii:
-l ............
------=... ',,,
~~
/~
1
2 -20 l<

/It I '; I -4.0

I I
I I
-60
0.1 I
I
, I
I
-80
I ; I
Lagend
,/ -- /',
I

;"
O._--,----"'-......:...-..,----'-"--r----'-·'OO
•
II .~OIL __ 1986 1987 1988
0.01 i,l
Ii' !.l9_0J\!._~Y.!'Y~
• ~LV9IQ _ x % FlLWP_
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CUM WATER VpHdi
Fig. 7-Example of poor waterflood performance as shown
FIg. 4-Example of program output, WOR va. VpHdI plot. by In)ectlonlvoldage ratio and fill-Up plot.,

Volumetric efficiency:
35
Ev=[(Wj - Wp)Bw+(Gj-Gpcyc)BgJlVpHd' (20)
30 Percent fill-up:
M=(Sgfx-Sgf)/Sgfx' ; (21)

,
25

Variations on this procedure could be used when analyzing other

~ 20
WAG processes.

~toe 15
I
Interpretation
/
/ The first step in this computerized,surveillance method is for engi-
10
/
) neers to run the program iteratively, evaluating calculated pattern
pressures against measured pressure data and adjusting allocation
5 Legend factors as appropriate. The number of iterations required for satis-
D~~ factory convergence depends on the complexity of the reservoir and
D WOD£t.RtC
0 other complicating factors, such as the existence of a gas-affected
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I
CUll VpHdI area in the Kuparuk. Often, difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory
. match indicates a problem in a pattern, which may lead to an 0p-
FIg. I5-Example of program output, recovery va. VpHdI plot. portunity Ito improve performance. Once a set of production and
injection allocation factors has been determined that results in a
pressure history match for each pattern, results are presented in
several forms that are useful in interpreting pattem-by-pattern per-
formance.
The first of these descriptive tools is a graph of cumulative
recovery vs. volumetric sweep efficiency (conformance plot) from
Staggs,2 as ~ inFig. 3. Cumulative recovery (or recovery ef-
280 Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1989
ficiency) is in fractions ofOOIP. while volumetric sweep efficiency
is defined in Eq. 20. A waterflood performance envelope is de-
fined by drawing an obtuse triangle bounded by recovery at the
start of waterflooding. the maximum oil r~overy at E v=100%.
and one additional point. This third point. A. the net injection re-
quired to displace the existing gas saturation at start of water-
flooding. is defined as
A =Sgx/(l-Swi -Sorw)' (22)
Because actual performance cannot fall outside the performance
envelope. this plot is useful as another check on fluid allocations
for a pattern. It can also indicate when tltere are fluid-control
problems. such as thief zones outside of the producing horizon.
If changes are noted in the slope of this plot. the cause should be
investigated.
Plots of WOR vs. VpHdi (Fig. 4) or recovery vs. VpHdi (Fig. 5)
shown with ideal curves from a generalized pattern simulation are
useful for higWightinganomalies in performance. such as early or
late water breakthrough or poor recovery. Examination of these
plots can help identify areas for selective inml drilling.
Other parameters-sueh as percent fill-up and injection/voidage
ratios (Fig. 6). pressure. and production and iqjection hfstories-
are plotted vs. time to give clues to pattern performance. Maps of
field pressures over time help to keep the flood balanced and to
monitor the pressures of potential miscible-gas EOR areas.
Patterns that are indicated by this analysis process to be per-
forming poorly can be compared with the better-performing patterns
to identify the cause of the poor performance. Used along with ge-
ological information and well histories. the information gained
allows the engineers involved to analyze the performance of the
Kuparuk reservoir systematically.
Results
Program results and the engineering understanding of the water-
flood have aided in many operating decisions. leading to the op-
timization offield performance. For example. many wells have been
worked over to provide mechanical isolation between the A and
C Sands. This enables profile control by performing stimulations
in the less prolific A Sand and/or using restrictive orifices across
the C Sand to ensure that the A Sand is being flooded adequately.
One specific example is the A Sand pattern performance shown
in Fig. 7. The injection well in this pattern was injecting through
a single completion into the A and C Sands. Minimal iqjection was
entering the A Sand. as reflected by the poor injection/voidage ratio
exhibited in Fig. 7 and in spinner surveys. If A Sand injection had
continued at such low rates. waterflood reserves would have been
lost because of shrinkage of the residual oil and reduced sweep ef-
ficiency caused by increased oil viscosity at lower reservoir
pressures. The injection well in this pattern was recompleted in early
1988 to a selective single completion of the type described by W 00-
dling. 6 C Sand injection has been hydraulically limited by small
orifice valves. allowing higher A Sand bottomhole injection
pressures. A Sand injection is now replacing voidage and proceeding
toward fill-up. as Fig. 7 shows. and the A Sand reservoir pressure
is estimated to have increased by 70 psi [480 kPa] in the first 5
months after the workover.
The need for this workover could have been identified solely from
injection-well spinner data. However. the surveillance program
enables us to identify and prioritize such workover candidates on
a fieldwide basis. Quantification of estimated rate of decline of
reservoir pressure is made possible by the program. aiding in es-
timating potential reserves loss. Note that program results without
field data to back them up would not be used to justify a major
expenditure. such as a workover. because the solution provided by
the surveillance program is not necessarily unique. The value of
the program for evaluating workovers is in higWighting potential
areas for additional data gathering and in quantifying potential
benefits and ranking projects after workover results have been
verified by field data.
Day-to-day operational recommendations. such as allocation of
limited water injection among injection wells. are aided by evalu-
ation of program results. When injection-water supply problems
arise. water is allocated to patterns most in need of injection water.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. March 1989
These patterns may be patterns close to the bubblepoint or patterns
within a proposed EOR area. By allociu:ing water on the basis of
a pattern-by-pattern knowledge of the flood status. reserve .losses
resulting from. injection supply problems can be avoided. .
Results of the surveillance program have also been used as the
s~rting point for other studies. For example. predictions of pro-
duced water rates and water-injection needs used to justify water-
supply upgrades were initialized from program results. Evaluation
of potential sites for EOR also made use of the surveillance program
and led to interim operational recommendations in the chosen areas
to help ensure that minimum miscibility pressure will be achieved
by the time EOR is scheduled to start up.
The Kuparuk waterflood surveillance program is also being used
to help select patterns for· selective infill drilling by locating poorer-
performing patterns. once these patterns have been identified. cross-
sectional studies and other geological and engineering data are used
to determine whether inml drilling would improve recovery.
Conclusions
The waterflood surveillance computer program used at the Kuparuk
River field is a useful tool that has enabled detailed analysis of large
amounts of data. The program enables engineers to gain a more
thorough understanding of waterflood progress. Problel;ll areas are
pointed out so that corrective action can be taken. such as performing
workovers and installing downhole orifices. The general theory of
the surveillance program used at the Kuparuk River field is readily
transferrable and applicable to many other fields and/or processes.
This procedure is especially useful in mature waterfloods that
do not have a good production and injection log history. ?yfost fields
have an established history of reservoir pressure data. so this
procedure would be most useful in determining pattern performance.
If numerous pressure tests have not been run. correlations of
reservoir pressure to wellhead injection pressure can be used.
Before an EOR process is initiated in a waterfloolied field. a de-
tailed knowledge of pattern performance is mandatory. All other
things being equal. the EOR process should begin in an area where
waterflood performance was the best to reduce risk from factors
such as poor reservoir continuity and low overall conformance. If
a miscible process is to be used. this procedure can be helpful in
managing waterflood pressure to ensure miscibility. The methods
used to handle gas injection discussed in this paper can be used
to continue surveillance after solvent injection startup to track the
miscible flood's performance.
Nomenclature
A = net injection required to displace existing gas saturation
at start of waterflooding. fraction VpHd
Bg = gas FVF. RB/scf [res m 3 /std m 3]
B' g = injected gas FVF. RB/scf [res m 3 /std m 3]
Bge = gas-cap gas FVF. RB/sef [res m 3 /st4 m 3]
Bo = oil FVF. RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
Bt = total oil FVF. RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
B tw = total water FVF. RB/STB [res m3 /stoek-tank m 3]
Bw = water FVF. RB/STB [res m 3/stock-tank m 3]
Cf = formation compressibility, psi -1 [kPa -1 ]
E r = recovery efficiency. fraction of OOIP
E v = volumetric sweep efficiency. fraction
10 = fractional flow of oil. fraction
F v = ratio of initial gas-cap reservoir volume· to initial
reservoir oil volume. fraction
G =initial gas in place, scf [std m 3]
G i = cumulative gas injection. sef [std m 3]
Giip = cumulative gas injection in place. sef [std m 3 ]
Gp = cumulative gas production. scf [std m 3 ] ..
Gpe = cumulative gas-cap gas produced. scf [std m 3]
3
Gpcyc = cumulative cycled injected gas produced. sef [std m ]
3
Gps = cumulative solution gas produced. sef [std m ]
i1Gp = gas produced in 1 month, sef [std m 3]
i1Gpcyc = cycled injected gas produced in 1 month. sef [std m 3 ]
i1Gpf = formation gas produced in 1 month. scf [std m 3]
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
If = flow index
281
 k - permeability,' md
kr = relative permeability, fraction
. M = fill-up, % . i
N = initial oil in place, STB [stock-tank m3]
Np = cumulative oil produced, STB [stock-tank m3]
f),Np = oil produced in I month, STB [stock-tank m3]
p - average reseJ;Voir pressure, psig [kPa]
Pw/ = flowing bOttomhole pressure, psig [kPa]
I1p = change in reservoir pressure, initial to current
conditions, psi [kPa]
qg = gas flow rate, sefID [std m3 /d]
qo = oil flow rate, STBID [stock-tank m3 /d]
qw = water flow rate, STB/D [stock-tank m3 /d]
re i::: radius of boundary, ft [m]
;Ow =' wellbore radius, ft [m]
R = produced OOR, sef/STB [std m3/stock-tank m3]
~f = produced formation OOR (excludes cycled injected
gas), sef/STB [stci m3/stock~tank m3]
R s = solution OOR [std m 3/stock-tank m3]
S = saturation, %
Sgf= formation gas saturation (excludes injected gas), %
Sorw = residual oil saturation t<1 water
Sw = average water saturation, fraction
Swe = effective water saturation at producer, fraction
Swig = initial water Saturation in gas cap, %
Swio = initial water saturation in oil zone, %
Vp = PV, RB [res m3]
VpHd = displaceable HCPV, dimensionless
VpHdi = displaceable HCPV injected, dimensionless
Vpi = PV injected, fraction .
We = eumulatiye water iilflux, STB [stock-tank m3]
WI :i= cumulative water injection, STB [stock-tank m3)
Wp = cumulative water production, STB [stock-tank m3] .
p. = viscosity, cp [mPa's]
282
Subscripts
g = gas
= initial
0= oil
t = total
w = water
x = at waterflood startup
Acknowl4tclgment
We thank Arco Alaska Inc. for permission to publish this paper.
Referenc._
1. Carman, G.I. and Hardwick, P.: "Geology and Regional Setting of
Kuparuk Oil Field, Alaska," AAPG Bull. (1982) 67, No.6, 1014-31.
2. Staggs, H.M.: "An Objective Approach to Analyzing Watertlood Per-
formance," Proc., Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, TX (1980) 133-50.
3. Amyx, I.W.; Bass, B.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir En-
gineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1960) Chaps.
2 and 8.
4. Craig, F.F. Ir.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects o/Waterflooding,
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3, Chap. 3.
5. Champion,. I.H. and Sheldon, I.B.: "An Immiscible WAG Injection
Project in the Kuparuk River Unit," paper SPE 16719 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept.
27-30.
6. Woodling, G.S.: "Recompletion Workover Program at the Kuparuk
River Field," paper SPE 16932 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 23, 1988. Paper accepted for publl·
cation Dec. 2, 1988. Revised manuscript received Nov. 21, 1988. Paper (SPE 17429) first
presented at the 1988 SPE California Regional Meeting held In Long Beach, March 23-25.
Iournal of Petroleum Technology, March 1989