Reservoir Characterization and Performance Prediction in Waterflooded

Reservoir using Capacitance-Resistance Model

BACHELOR THESIS

Made Ray Yuda Suyatna

12215073

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in Petroleum Engineering study program

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2019
 Reservoir Characterization and Performance Prediction in Waterflooded Reservoir using
Capacitance-Resistance Model
Made Ray Yuda Suyatna* and Amega Yasutra**

Copyright 2019, Institut Teknologi Bandung

Abstract

Characterizing and predicting reservoir performance need to be done in order to improve reservoir management
decision. Time consuming and data uncertainty make the numerical simulators less preferable for a quick reservoir
evaluation. Capacitance-resistance model (CRM) proved to be a quick and reliable tool to evaluate waterflood
performance using just production and injection historical data to perform history matching. The CRM
characterize reservoir by quantifying the interwell connectivity and response delay that constitute the CRM
unknown parameters. In this study, the CRM was used to characterize and predict waterflooded reservoir
performance. The CRM was applied to four synthetic reservoir models with different complexities to investigate
the CRM responses toward the reservoir heterogeneity. The result showed that the CRM was able to infer the
reservoir heterogeneity and match the synthetic historical data within more than 0.9 R-squared. The calibrated
CRM model then coupled with fractional flow models to match the oil production performance. Once the oil
production matched, the model then used to predict the production performance and maximize the amount of oil
produced by reallocating water injection rates. To validate the CRM prediction, the results were tested against
numerical simulation results. The result showed that the CRM was able to perform performance prediction and
maximize the amount of oil produced by reallocating the injection rates.

Keywords: Capacitance-resistance model, Reservoir characterization, Optimization, Reservoir management

Sari

Karakterisasi dan prediksi performa reservoir perlu dilakukan untuk meningkatkan keputusan dalam manajemen
reservoir. Lamanya waktu dan ketidakpastian data lapangan membuat simulasi reservoir kurang menarik
dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi kinerja reservoir secara cepat. Capacitance-resistance model terbukti menjadi
model yang cepat dan terpercaya untuk memprediksi karakteristik dan performa reservoir hanya dengan
menggunakan data historis injeki dan produksi untuk melakukan history matching. CRM mengkarakterisasi
reservoir dengan menghitung konektivitas dan respon delay antara pasangan sumur injeksi yang menjadi
parameter yang tidak diketahui. Pada studi kali ini CRM digunakan untuk mengkarakterisasi dan melakukan
prediksi performa reservoir injeksi air. Model CRM diterapkan pada empat model reservoir buatan dengan
kompleksitas yang berbeda untuk melihat respon dari CRM terhadap heterogenitas reservoir. Hasilnya
memperlihatkan bahwa CRM mampu memprediksi karakeristik dan mencocokkan data historis dengan lebih dari
0.9 R-squared. Model CRM yang telah terkalibrasi kemudian dikombinasikan dengan model fractional flow untuk
mencocokkan performa laju alir minyak. Setelah laju alir minyak cocok, model digunakan untuk memprediksi
performa dan memaksimalkan produksi minyak dengan melakukan realokasi laju sumur injeksi. Untuk
memvalidasi prediksi model CRM, hasilnya dicocokkan dengan simulator reservoir. Hasilnya menunjukkan
bahwa CRM mampu melakukan prediksi dan memaksimalkan produksi minyak dengan melakukan realokasi pada
laju alir sumur injeksi.

Kata kunci: Capacitance-resistance model, Karakterisasi reservoir, Optimisasi, Manajemen reservoir

*) Student of Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2015 batch
**) Thesis Adviser in Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung
 Some of the main assumptions in derivation of the
1. Introduction basic CRM differential equation and solutions are
(Sayarpour, 2008): 1) constant temperature, 2) slightly
Characterizing reservoir and predicting reservoir
compressible fluids, 3) negligible capillary pressure
performance have always been the most challenging
effects, 4) constant volume with instantaneous
tasks for petroleum engineers. The engineer must be
pressure equilibrium, 5) constant productivity index.
able to choose the right method, while considering the
In this work, CRM based on the producer (CRMP)
time, resources, and the availability of the data.
is used as the predictive model.
Numerical simulation is the standard approach for
modelling fluid flow in reservoir, providing insight 2.1 CRMP: One time constant for each producer
about reservoir behavior and characteristics, therefore
use to forecast the reservoir performance. But For a control volume around a producer. Liang et
numerical simulations are complex and time al. (2007) presented the governing differential
consuming. Therefore, there was a trigger for equation for this capacitance model by
petroleum engineers to develop a simple predictive
𝑑𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) 1 1 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗
model, which usually use material balance on a + 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡) = ∑𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡) −
𝑑𝑡 𝜏𝑗 𝜏𝑗
reservoir to evaluate its performance. These simple 𝑑𝑃𝑤𝑓,𝑗 (1)
models could be a preliminary estimation of reservoir 𝐽𝑗
𝑑𝑡
characteristics and performance with just a minimum
Where 𝜏𝑗 , is producer j’s time constant,
amount of data.
𝑐𝑡 𝑉𝑝
Capacitance resistance model (CRM) is a quick tool to 𝜏𝑗 = ( ) (2)
evaluate reservoir performance without complex and 𝐽 𝑗
time-consuming reservoir simulations and requires
only historical rate data that is collected during water And pore volume, 𝑉𝑝 , total compressibility, 𝑐𝑡 , and
flooding. productivity index, 𝐽, are producer 𝑗 parameters in its
effective area; the 𝑓𝑖𝑗 term, connectivity, represent the
steady-state fraction of the rate of injector 𝑖 flowing
2. Capacitance-Resistance Model
toward producer 𝑗.
Yousef et al. (2006) introduced capacitance-
resistance model (CRM), a nonlinear data-driven 𝑞𝑖𝑗 (𝑡)
𝑓𝑖𝑗 = (3)
model that measures the communication between well 𝑖𝑖 (𝑡)
in waterflooded reservoir. This essential reservoir For a case of series of step variations of injection rate
information is obtained from the analysis of the well (𝑘)
(SVIR) during time interval 𝛥𝑡𝑘 , 𝑖𝑖 (𝛥𝑡𝑘 ) = 𝐼𝑖 , for
production and injection history without the need for all the injectors, and a constant productivity index, and
the detailed geological information. CRM considers series of linear variations of bottom hole pressure
the effect of capacitance (compressibility) and
(LVBHP) for producer 𝑗. One-time interval solution
resistance (transmissibility), which correspond to two
for a step change in injection rate
parameters, respectively: The degree of fluid storage
(time constant, 𝜏 ) and the degree of connectivity ∆𝑡
(− 𝑘 )
𝜏𝑗
(interwell connectivity, 𝑓 ) between wells. Interwell 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑘 ) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑘−1 )𝑒 + (1 −
connectivity ( 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ) also known as gain or allocation (4)
∆𝑡 (𝑘)
factor, is defined by the fraction of injected fluid from −( 𝑘 ) 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 (𝑘) ∆𝑝𝑤𝑓,𝑗
𝜏𝑗
𝑒 ) [∑𝑖=1 [𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖 ] − 𝐽𝑗 𝜏𝑗 ]
injector 𝑖 to the production 𝑗. On the other hand, time ∆𝑡𝑘

constant (𝜏) is a measure of the time necessary for the

injection signal to propagate in the porous media and Assuming 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ’𝑠 and 𝜏𝑗 are constant in all time intervals
influence the production signal. of 𝛥𝑡𝑘 , and replacing 𝑞(𝑡𝑘 − 1) from previous the
Morteza Sayarpour (2008), develop the analytical previous time step solution and replacing this process
solutions for the CRM for three different control for all time intervals from 𝑡0 to 𝑡𝑛 we obtain the series
volumes: 1. Drainage volume of the entire field, or a of step variation of injection rate (SVIR) solution:
tank representation, CRMT; 2. Drainage volume of
each producer, or representation of each producer,
CRMP; 3. Drainage volume between each
injector/producer pair, or representation of the volume
between each injector and producer pair, CRMIP.
 (𝑡 −𝑡 )
(− 𝑛 𝑜 ) The model in eq. 6 can be transformed to a linear form
𝜏𝑗
𝑞𝑗 (𝑡𝑛 ) = 𝑞𝑗 (𝑡0 )𝑒 + given by:
𝑡𝑛 −𝑡𝑘
−( )
𝑞𝑗𝑘
∑𝑛𝑘=1 {𝑒 𝜏𝑗
(1 − (5) log ( − 1) = log(𝑊𝑂𝑅𝑗𝑘 ) = log(𝛼𝑗 ) +
𝑞𝑜𝑗𝑘
(8)
∆𝑡 (𝑘)
∆𝑝𝑤𝑓,𝑗 𝛽𝑗 log(𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 )
−( 𝑘 ) 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑗 (𝑘)
𝑒 𝜏 ) [∑𝑖=1 [𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖 ] − 𝐽𝑗 𝜏𝑗 ]}
∆𝑡𝑘
Where 𝑞𝑤𝑗𝑘 is the water production rate of producer 𝑗
in period 𝑘.

3. Fractional Flow Models 3.2 Koval Fractional Flow Model

The CRM only calculates the liquid production
rate of each producer (𝑞𝑗 ). However, for optimization
purposes, the variable of interest is oil production rate
rather than liquid production rate. Therefore, it is
necessary to separate the liquid production rate into oil
and water production rates (𝑞𝑜𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑞𝑤𝑗 ) in order to
improve the reservoir management. Fractional flow
models are used for this purpose.
In this worked two type of fractional flow model,
the empirical model, and the Koval model are used to
predict the oil production performance.
3.1 Semi-Empirical Power-Law Fractional Flow
Model
Gentil (2005) introduced an empirical power-law
fractional-flow model to estimate the oil fractional-
flow as a function of cumulative water injection. Liang
et al. (2007) used this approach to predict the oil
production rate which considers a power-law
relationship between the instantaneous water-oil ratio,
𝐹𝑤𝑜 , and cumulative water injected, 𝐶𝑊𝐼; therefore,
the fractional flow model can be written as:
1 4
𝑞𝑜𝑗𝑘 = 𝛽𝑗
𝑞𝑗𝑘 for all 𝑗 and 𝑘
1 + 𝛼𝑗 𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘
where 𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 is the cumulative water injected from all
injection wells in the reservoir until time periods 𝑘 and
reaching producer well 𝑗, given by:
𝑘 𝑛𝑡
𝐶𝑊𝐼𝑗𝑘 = ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑖𝜅 for all 𝑗 and 𝑘
𝜅=1 𝑖=1
Koval (1963) developed a model to predict the
performance of unstable miscible displacements
caused by fingering of a miscible solvent into oil. In
contrast to the semi-empirical power-law model that is
applicable for mature fields only (higher values of
water cut, e.g., 𝑓𝑤 ≥ 0.5), the formulation that couples
CRM and the Koval fractional flow model is more
suitable to span the whole life of a waterflooding
project, i.e., 0 ≤ 𝑓𝑤 ≤ 1 . The Koval model is
analogous to the Buckley-Leverett theory (1941) by
applying straight line permeability into fractional flow
equation. The Koval equation for the fractional flow
of water is:
1
𝑓𝑤 =
1 1−𝑆 (9)
1+ ( )
𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑆
where S is the normalized average water saturation
and 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 is the Koval factor.
𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝐻𝐸 (10)
where 𝐻 is a heterogeneity factor ( 𝐻 = 1 for
homogeneous and 𝐻 > 1 for heterogeneous porous
media) and 𝐸 is the effective oil-solvent viscosity ratio:
𝜇𝑜 0.25
(6) 𝐸 = (0.78 + 0.22 ( ) ) (11)
𝜇𝑠
Equation 9 set the basis of the Koval model. However,
they are expressed in terms of saturation, which is not
directly measured in the field, and 𝜇𝑜 , 𝜇𝑠 and 𝐻 may
be unavailable. Cao (2014) developed the following
formulation that is more straightforward for the field
(7) application when combined with the CRM:

and 𝛼𝑗 and 𝛽𝑗 are fractional flow model parameters for 𝑓𝑤 |𝑥 𝐷=1

0 ; 𝑡𝐷 < 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙
each producer 𝑗 that is being solved by performing
𝐾
history matching. 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 − √ 𝑣𝑎𝑙 1
= 𝑡𝐷 (12)
; < 𝑡𝐷 < 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙
This model is valid for the section of data exhibiting a 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 − 1 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙
linear relationship when 𝑊𝑂𝑅 is plotted against { 1 ; 𝑡𝐷 > 𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙
cumulative-water injection on log-log graph. This
condition is normally satisfied for mature waterfloods By definition, the dimensionless time 𝑡𝐷 is the
producing at high water-cuts. cumulative water injection in pore volumes.
 ∑𝑘 𝐼 𝑘 where 𝑞𝑜𝑏𝑠 and 𝑞𝑒𝑠𝑡 represent the observed and
𝑡𝐷 = (13) estimated flow rates and 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 is the number of rate
𝑉𝑝
data points.
Where 𝑉𝑝 is the pore volume of a producer, and 𝐼 𝑘 is
the injection contribution to the producer at time step The CRM production responses have an exponential
k. form; therefore, we used the nonlinear gradient base
solvers in Microsoft Excel (GRG solver) to minimize
these errors during history-matching.
4. Application method
The objective function for optimizing future reservoir
performances is maximizing cumulative field oil
production for a fixed time interval by reallocating
field injection while maintaining the same total
injection rate in the field.

5. Synthetic case studies

CRMP coupled with fractional flow model was

applied to four synthetic reservoir models: 1) streak
case 2) complete sealing barrier 3) partially sealing
barrier and 4) heterogeneous case.

5.1 Synfield-2: Streak Case

5.1.1 Model description

Figure 1. Workflow for the CRM application in history matching
and prediction The model consists of five injectors and four
producers. Fig. 2. shows the well locations and the two
The production historical data from different type high-permeability streaks. The model is square
of reservoir model was generated by using numerical reservoir with dimension 2480𝑥2480 ft, vertical
simulations. We provided different type of reservoir permeability is 5 md, horizontal permeability is 50 md
model with different complexities to investigate the everywhere except for the two high permeability
CRM responses toward the reservoir heterogeneity. channels, and porosity of 0.18 is assigned globally.
We described the reservoir characteristics and
performance by estimating the unknown parameters,
the interwell connectivity and time constant by
performing history matching. The calibrated CRM
model then coupled with fractional flow models to
match the oil production performance. Once the oil
production matched, the model then used to predict the
production performance and maximize the amount of
oil produced by reallocating water injection rates.

4.1 History-matching and Optimization

Minimizing the difference between the CRM

response and the simulated production rate is the
objective function during history-matching. History-
matching for both total and oil production rates are
performed by minimizing the mean square errors
(MSE) between historical numerical simulation data
and the CRM estimations. The MSE is defined by: Figure 2. Streak case model consist of two high permeability streaks
of 500 md and 1000 md.
𝑁
𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎
∑𝑛=1 (𝑞𝑜𝑏𝑠 − 𝑞𝑒𝑠𝑡 )2
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (14) This reservoir was produced for 4000 days. The
𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎
bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant
at 2500 psia. Fig. 3. shows the injection rates for the
five injectors. Large fluctuations in the injection rates
are created by changing the injection rates every
month in order to mimic the field condition.

Figure 3. Individual well injection rate for streak case

Figure 5. Schematic representation of well connectivity obtained
from CRM model

Values of 𝑓𝑖𝑗′ 𝑠 are powerful parameters that quantify

Figure 4. Individual well production rates for streak case
The average total production rates for 𝑃1 and 𝑃4 are
dominating the total production due to associated with
the high permeability streaks as shown in Fig. 4.
5.1.2 History-matching and validation
CRMP was used to match the total production for
3500 days and the remaining 500 days are used for
validation. Table 1. shows the results of history
matching which yields the fitting parameters.
Table 1. Streak case CRMP parameters
the connectivity between injector-producer pair,
while time constants, represent the delay response of
production that associated with the injection. Fig.5.
illustrate the connectivity map between each injector-
producer pair. As expected, the values of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 for well
pair 𝐼1 − 𝑃1 and 𝐼3 − 𝑃4 has the highest value due to
associated with the permeability streak. In contrast,
small time constant associated with producers P1 and
P4 represent the quick response of production rates of
these produces to injectors I1 and I3. The water
injected in injector I1 (or I3) dominantly flows along
the streak and instantly increases the production rate
of producer P1 (or P4).
Fig. 6. shows the total production match and
validation of CRMP compared with the simulations
production data. The results shown a good match
either during history matching or validation with R-
squared values of 0.994 and 0.995, respectively.

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒
𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.946 0.031 0.017 0.005
𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.565 0.051 0.210 0.173
𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.185 0.061 0.046 0.708
𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.206 0.120 0.000 0.674
𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.184 0.043 0.147 0.626
𝝉𝒋 , days 0.836 3.495 4.588 3.086

Figure 6. Streak case CRMP match of the total production rate

After the CRM model validated, the model then
coupled with oil fractional flow model to separate
between oil production and water production. Semi-
empirical fractional flow model and Koval fractional
flow model are used for this purpose. For semi-
empirical fractional flow model, we used the oil
production model to find parameters 𝛼𝑗 and 𝛽𝑗 for
each producer. These values are associated with the
linear relationship between WOR against cumulative
water injection on a log-log plot for each producer. For
instances, Fig. 7. shows the log-log plot of WOR and
cumulative-water injected toward producer P4. The
linear section of this graph usually achieved when the
𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝑊𝑂𝑅) value is greater than 0, indicating the
value of more than 50% watercut. Table 2. shows the
results of the semi-empirical fractional flow fitting
parameters.
Table 2. Streak case semi-empirical fractional flow parameters
𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒
𝜶𝒋 5.56E-03 1.25E-12 3.02E-12 4.32E-10
𝜷𝒋 0.435 2.018 1.910 1.482
Figure 7. WOR and cumulative water injected toward producer P4
Fig. 8. shows the oil-rate match for the entire field
using semi-empirical fractional flow model. The result
shown a good matching result either in history match
or validation with R-squares value of 0.967 and 0.973,
respectively.
Figure 8. Streak case empirical fractional flow match of the oil
production rate
Using the injection contribution estimated from the
CRM model for each producer at each time step, we
also can history match the watercut data using Koval
method and obtain the Koval factor (𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 ) and pore
volume (𝑉𝑝 ) as the model parameters. As an example,
Fig. 9. shows the results of watercut matching for
producer P4 using Koval method. Unlike semi-
empirical fractional flow model, Koval model
parameters represent the physical quantity of the
reservoir. A large Koval factor usually implies with
high reservoir local heterogeneity, and therefore
smaller volumetric sweep efficiency. In this case, as
expected the value of Koval factor for producer P1 and
P4 yields the highest value due to associated with
permeability streak which implies higher local
heterogeneity. Table 3. shows the results of the Koval
fractional flow fitting parameters.
Table 3. Streak case Koval fractional flow parameters
𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒
𝑲𝒗𝒂𝒍 43.845 2.543 2.561 6.899
𝑽𝒑 (𝑹𝑩) 1.04E+ 9.88E+ 1.37E+ 4.02E+
07 05 06 06
Figure 9. Watercut match using Koval method for producer P4
Fig. 10. shows the oil-rate match for the entire
field using Koval fractional flow model. The result
shown a good matching result either in history
matching or validation with R-squares value of 0.977
and 0.950, respectively.
Figure 10. Oil production match using Koval model
The different between the applicability of the semi-
empirical fractional flow model and the Koval model
lies in the maturity of the waterflooding. Comparing
between Fig. 8 and Fig. 10. results, we can see that the
fitness of the Koval to predict oil production rate in the
early time of waterflood is better than semi-empirical
model, since the validity of the semi-empirical model
is in the linear relationship between WOR against
cumulative water injection on a log-log plot, and it
achieved when the watercut is higher than 50%.
Overall, both method in this case accurately predict the
oil production rate.

Figure 12. Total injection rate for Complete sealing barrier case
5.2 Synfield-3: Complete Sealing Barrier

5.2.1 Model description

The model consists of four production wells and five
injection wells. Fig. 11. shows the well locations and
the presence of sealing barrier. The model is a squared
reservoir with dimension of 1240𝑥1240 ft,
homogeneous isotropic reservoir with permeability of
5 md, porosity of 0.2, and consists of three
compartments that do not communicate to each other
because of the presence of sealing barrier.

Figure 13. Individual well production rate for Complete sealing

barrier case

5.2.2 History-matching and validation

CRMP was used to match the 7 years of
production, after matching, the model was validated
by 1 years afterwards. Table 5. shows the results of the
fitting parameters after performing history matching.
Table 4. CRMP parameters for Synfield-3

𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒
𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.987 0.011 0.000 0.001
𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.000 0.002 0.814 0.184
𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.001 0.985 0.014 0.000
𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.000 0.999 0.000 0.001
Figure 11. Complete sealing barrier model 𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.014 0.000 0.444 0.542
This reservoir was produced for 8 years. The 𝝉𝒋 , days 7.308 29.384 10.019 13.239
bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant
at 2500 psia. Fig. 12. shows the individual well
injection rate, large perturbation in injection rate was
created in order to mimic the field conditions.
 connectivity to both of producer 𝑃3 and 𝑃4 . From
these results we can draw conclusion that the reservoir
was compartmentalize by three regions and these
conclusions is corresponding to the actual reservoir
model.

5.3 Synfield-4: Partially Sealing Barrier

5.3.1 Model description

The model consists of five injection wells and
four production wells. Fig. 16. shows the well
locations and the presence of the partially sealing
Figure 14. Complete sealing case CRMP match of the total barrier. The model is a squared reservoir with
production rate
dimension of 1240𝑥1240 ft, isotropic and
Fig. 14. shows the total production match and homogeneous reservoir with permeability of 5 md, and
validation of the entire filed using CRMP compared porosity of 0.2, with partially sealing barrier.
with the simulations production data. The results
shown a good match either during history matching or
validation with R-squares values of 0.994 and 0.991,
respectively.

Figure 16. Partially sealing barrier model

This reservoir was produced for 8 years. The

bottomhole pressure at the producers is kept constant
at 2500 psia. Fig. 17. shows the individual well
Figure 15. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from
CRM model
injection rate, fluctuation of injection rates was created
in order to mimic the field conditions.
Fig. 15. illustrate the connectivity between injector
producer well pair, the arrow represents the
communication between well, the longer and thicker
the arrow represent the bigger value of the interwell
connectivity. The presence of no-flow boundaries
could be inferred by the zero value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ’s calculated
from the CRM model. From the results of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 we can
see that the injector 𝐼1 only have the value of
connectivity to producer 𝑃1. It can be considered that
the injector 𝐼1 is isolated from the rest of the producer.
It also happens for injector 𝐼3 and 𝐼4 , where both
injectors only communicate to the producer 𝑃2, it is a
strongly indications that the injector 𝐼3 and 𝐼4 are
isolated from the rest of the producer. While on the Figure 17. Individual well injection rate for partially sealing barrier
other hand, the injector 𝐼5 and 𝐼2 has a value of case
Figure 18. Individual well production rate for partially sealing
barrier case

5.3.2 History-matching and validation

CRMP was used to match the total production rate
based on 6 years production, the model then validated Figure 20. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from
by the next 2 years of production. Table 6. shows the CRM model
results of the fitting parameters after performing
history matching. Fig. 20. illustrate the connectivity between injector
producer pair based on the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 from history
Table 5. CRMP parameters for partially sealing barrier case
matching. From Table 6 it can be seen that the well
pair 𝐼1 − 𝑃1, 𝐼1 − 𝑃3, 𝐼2 − 𝑃2, 𝐼2 − 𝑃4, 𝐼3 −
𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝟑 𝑷𝟒
𝑃1, 𝐼4 − 𝑃1 has the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 close to zero, it can
𝒇𝟏𝒋 0.028 0.667 0.088 0.217
be an indication of the presence of transmissibility
𝒇𝟐𝒋 0.506 0.057 0.347 0.089
barrier along the injector producer pair. Since there is
𝒇𝟑𝒋 0.067 0.358 0.204 0.371
a connectivity between injector 𝐼5 and 𝑃4, we can
𝒇𝟒𝒋 0.018 0.400 0.162 0.420
conclude that the permeability barrier did not goes
𝒇𝟓𝒋 0.126 0.176 0.322 0.376 along the 𝐼5 − 𝑃4 well pair. From the results of 𝑓𝑖𝑗
𝝉𝒋 , days 14.708 13.548 14.873 17.840
we can strongly believe that there was a barrier that
restrict the flow between well pairs but did not
compartmentalize the reservoir. This conclusion is
Fig. 20. shows the total production match and
corresponding to the actual reservoir model.
validation of CRMP compared with the simulations
production data. The results shown a good match
either during history matching or validation with R- 5.4 Synfield-4: Heterogenous case
squared values of 0.991 and 0.994, respectively.

Figure 21. Heterogeneous case model

5.4.1 Model description

Figure 19. Total production rate match and validation for partially
sealing barrier case
The model has nine production wells and four
injection wells with inverted five spot patterns with the
total of four patterns. Fig. 21. shows the well locations
and the distribution of the horizontal permeability. The
reservoir heterogeneity is very high, the horizontal
permeability varies from 0.03 to 7720 md, the vertical
permeability varies from 0.0016 to 1083 md, and the
porosity varies from 0.0215 to 0.3265.
5.4.2 History matching and validation
respectively as shown in Fig. 24. The results of the
fitting parameters after history match displayed in
Table 7.
Table 6. CRMP parameters for heterogeneous case

𝝉, 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒇𝟏𝒋 𝒇𝟐𝒋 𝒇𝟑𝒋 𝒇𝟒𝒋

𝑷𝟏 7.619 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.003
𝑷𝟐 0.000 0.197 0.164 0.280 0.101
𝑷𝟑 5.124 0.000 0.061 0.040 0.021
𝑷𝟒 3.506 0.010 0.043 0.072 0.080
𝑷𝟓 0.647 0.462 0.474 0.271 0.405
𝑷𝟔 0.593 0.091 0.114 0.071 0.102
𝑷𝟕 2.551 0.044 0.028 0.064 0.059
𝑷𝟖 0.649 0.099 0.041 0.084 0.110
Figure 22. Individual well injection rate for heterogeneous case 𝑷𝟗 0.000 0.097 0.022 0.117 0.119

Figure 23. Individual well production rate for heterogeneous case

Figure 25. Schematic representation of connectivity obtained from
Fig. 22. Shows the injection rate history within 8 years CRM model
of injection for the four injectors. Fig. 23. shows the
Fig. 25. illustrates the well pair connectivity, thicker
production rate within 8 years of production for the
line representing a higher value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 .
nine producers. CRMP was used to match the total
production based on 6 years production and 2
afterwards are used to validate the model.

Figure 24. Total production match and validation of CRMP for
heterogeneous case
The results shown a good fit both in history matching
and validation with R-squared is 0.999 and 0.998
Figure 26. Schematic of connectivity map which has the value of fij
greater or equal than 0.1
Eliminating the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 which is lower than 0.1
resulting the connectivity map shown in Fig. 26. We
can say that the region inside the pattern representing
a strong connectivity between well pairs, it is also
quite relatable with the high value of the horizontal
permeability (red color).
Using Koval model, the fitting period shown a good fit
with R-squares of 0.991, but on the validation period
the Koval model did not accurately predict the oil
production rate as shown in Fig. 28, this is quite
relatable since the accuracy of the Koval model to
predict the oil production rates lies in the early stage
of the waterflood. Table 8. shows the results of the
Koval fractional flow fitting parameters.
Table 8. Koval model parameters for heterogeneous case

𝑲𝒗𝒂𝒍 𝑽𝑷 (𝑹𝑩)
𝑷𝟏 3.532 1.87E+05
𝑷𝟐 6.067 5.88E+05
𝑷𝟑 4.211 1.84E+05
𝑷𝟒 4.043 2.47E+05
𝑷𝟓 6.423 1.64E+06
Figure 27. Oil production match and validation using semi- 𝑷𝟔 5.039 4.74E+05
empirical fractional flow model
𝑷𝟕 4.460 2.37E+05
After matching the total production, the calibrated 𝑷𝟖 4.738 3.10E+05
CRM model then coupled with fractional flow model 𝑷𝟗 4.531 2.69E+05
to predict the oil production rate. Fig. 27. shows the
results of matching and validation using semi- Both the semi-empirical model and the Koval model
empirical fractional flow model. The result shown a complete each other, the semi-empirical model can
good fit between the predicted value and the simulated accurately predict the mature waterflood, on the other
value with R-squares value of 0.966 for the history hand the Koval model can accurately predict the early
matching and 0.982 for the validation. Table 7. shows stage of waterflooding.
the results of the semi-empirical fractional flow fitting
parameters. 5.4.3 Optimization
Table 7. Semi-empirical fractional flow model parameters for After obtaining the oil production performance from
heterogeneous case
the CRM and fractional flow model. We used the
calibrated model to perform an optimization by
𝜶𝒋 𝜷𝒋
reallocating the injection rates between injector. The
𝑷𝟏 3.6E-07 1.277 objective function for this optimization is to maximize
𝑷𝟐 2.0E-06 1.071
the amount of oil produced by constraining the same
𝑷𝟑 1.5E-05 0.995
amount of total field injection rates. The optimization
𝑷𝟒 2.6E-07 1.285
is based on 1 years of production from days 2904 until
𝑷𝟓 3.4E-06 0.958
𝑷𝟔 6.7E-07 1.157 3287. Table 9. Shows the injection rate for the five
𝑷𝟕 5.0E-07 1.238 injectors before the optimization, the total injection
𝑷𝟖 4.6E-06 1.054 rate was at 8000 STB/D.
𝑷𝟗 1.3E-06 1.165 Table 9. Well injection rate before optimization

Time, Injection rate, STB/D

Days I1 I2 I3 I4
2904 1923.9 3529.5 669.7 1716.1
2931 1923.9 3529.3 669.9 1716.1
2991 1924.0 3528.7 670.5 1716.1
3091 1924.1 3527.4 671.7 1716.0
3101 1924.4 3525.3 673.6 1715.8
3114 1924.4 3525.1 673.8 1715.8
3133 1924.5 3524.9 674.0 1715.8
3162 1924.5 3524.5 674.4 1715.8
3191 1924.6 3523.9 674.9 1715.7
Figure 28. Oil production match and validation using Koval method
 3239 1924.7 3523.4 675.4 1715.7
3287 1924.8 3522.5 676.2 1715.6

Optimization results suggested that the maximum oil

production would occur if injectors 𝐼1 is shut-in and
injector 𝐼2, 𝐼3, and 𝐼4 remain open by injecting 3000,
2000, and 3000 STB/D, respectively.
Table 10. Well injection rate after optimization

Injection rate, STB/D Figure 30. Oil saturation map after 8 years of production
Time, Days
I1 I2 I3 I4 Fig. 30 shows the simulator results regarding to the
2904 0 3000 2000 3000 remaining oil saturation after 8 years of production.
2931 0 3000 2000 3000 Some areas (Red) still shows very high remaining oil
saturation meaning that there are still many unsweep
2991 0 3000 2000 3000
oil. Counterintuitive activation of injector 𝐼3 ,
3091 0 3000 2000 3000 associated with low value of connectivity, is explained
3101 0 3000 2000 3000 by existence of remaining oil around 𝐼3 after 8 years
3114 0 3000 2000 3000 of production.
3133 0 3000 2000 3000
3162 0 3000 2000 3000
3191 0 3000 2000 3000
3239 0 3000 2000 3000
3287 0 3000 2000 3000

Figure 31. Oil saturation map after 9 years of production without

optimization

Figure 29. 27.5% oil production rate increase by reallocating

injection rates

We provided the optimized injection rates into

simulator and compared the optimized oil production
with the base case. Fig. 29 shows a 27.5% increase of
oil production during the optimized period compared
to the base case.
Figure 32. Oil saturation map after 9 years of production with
optimization
Comparing between Fig. 31 and Fig. 32. The
remaining oil around injector 𝐼3 have been swept and
reaching producer 𝑃5. The result gives an increase of
27.5% of oil rate.
6. Discussion 10. Nomenclature

In this study we have seen the CRM results regarding 𝑓 = Interwell connectivity
the four synthetic case studies. CRM was able to 𝑞(𝑡) = Total liquid production, STB/D
qualitatively characterizes reservoir from the 𝑞𝑜 (𝑡) = Oil production rate, STB/D
parameter of interwell connectivity and response delay. 𝐼(𝑡) = Total injection production, STB/D
From the streak case we have seen that CRM 𝑐𝑡 = Total reservoir compressibility, psi-1
accurately predict the presence of permeability streak 𝑉𝑝 = Pore volume, RB
in the reservoir given by the high value of connectivity 𝐽 = Productivity index, STB/psi
between I1 (or I3) and P1 (or P4) and a relatively 𝜏 = Time constant, days
small value of time constant indicating a quick 𝜇 = viscosity, cp
response between the injector signal to the producer 𝐸 = Effective oil-solvent viscosity ratio
𝐻 = Heterogeneity factor
production. For the complete sealing barrier case, the
𝐾𝑣𝑎𝑙 = Koval factor
reservoir compartment was inferred from the zero
𝑆 = Normalized average water saturation
value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 indicating no communication between the 𝑓𝑤 = Fractional flow of water
well pairs. Same results for the partially sealing barrier 𝑡𝐷 = Dimensionless water
case, the low transmissibility of the well pairs because 𝑥𝐷 = Dimensionless distance
of the presence of the partially sealing barrier could be obs = Observed data
inferred from the value of 𝑓𝑖𝑗 . Combining CRM with est = Estiated data
the fractional flow model gives us the oil production 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 = Number of data points
performance which is later can be used to perform MSE = Mean square error
prediction and optimization. The optimization 𝛼 = power-law coefficient for semi-
resulting in a better swept efficiency and increase in empirical fractional flow model
𝛽 = power-law coefficient for semi-
oil production by reallocating the injection rate.
empirical fractional flow model
CWI = Effective cumulative water injected in
7. Conclusion the control volume, bbl/D
WOR = Water-oil ratio
1. Different case studies showed that CRM are
capable of inferring reservoir heterogeneity.
2. CRM are capable to perform history
11. References
matching and predict reservoir performance.
3. CRM are capable to maximize the amount of
oil produced by reallocating the injection Cao, F., Luo, H., & Lake, L. W. (2015). Oil Rate
rates. Forecast by Inferring Fractional Flow Models
from Field Data, (February), 23–25.
https://doi.org/10.2118/173315-ms
8. Recommendation
Sayarpour, M., Zuluaga, E., Kabir, C. S., & Lake, L.
1. The applicability of CRM in this work is W. (2009). The use of capacitance-resistance
limited by synthetic case study, furthermore models for rapid estimation of waterflood
it can be tested on the real field data. performance and optimization. Journal of
2. Different optimization techniques may be Petroleum Science and Engineering, 69(3–4),
applied to improve the current solutions. 227–238.
3. Mapping the connectivity map using more https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.09.006
sophisticated method rather than manually
creating line and arrow as representative. De Holanda, R. W., Gildin, E., Jensen, J. L., Lake, L.
W., & Shah Kabir, C. (2018). A state-of-the-art
literature review on capacitance resistance
9. Acknowledgement models for reservoir characterization and
The author is extremely indebted to Dr. Amega performance forecasting. Energies, 11(12).
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123368
Yasutra, one of the distinguished lecturers in the
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Bandung
Institute of Technology, for his patience and guidance Eshraghi, S. E., Rasaei, M. R., Pourafshary, P., &
Salar, A. (2016). Characterization of Reservoir
throughout the work of this project. Without his
Heterogeneity by Capacitance-resistance Model
valuable assistance, this work would not have been
in Water-flooding Projects, 5(2), 1–13.
completed.
Sayarpour, M. (2008). Development and Application
of Capacitance-Resistive Models to Water / CO
2 Floods. Dissertation, 237.

Cao, F. (2014). Development of a two-phase flow

coupled, 242.

Christie, M. A., & Blunt, M. J. (2007). Tenth SPE

Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison
of Upscaling Techniques. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 4(04), 308–317.
https://doi.org/10.2118/72469-pa

Naudomsup, N., & Lake, L. W. (2018). Extension of

Capacitance/Resistance Model to Tracer Flow
for Determining Reservoir Properties. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 22(01),
266–281. https://doi.org/10.2118/187410-pa

Salehian, M., & Soleimani, R. (2018). Development

of Integrated Capacitance Resistive Model for
predicting waterflood performance: a study on
formation damage. Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization and Environmental
Effects, 40(15), 1814–1825.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.148692
2

Sayarpour, M., Kabir, C. S., & Lake, L. W. (2009).

Field Applications of Capacitance-Resistance
Models in Waterfloods. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 12(06), 853–864.
https://doi.org/10.2118/114983-pa
List of Figures

Figure 33. Log (CWI) and Log (WOR) plot for streak case

Figure 34. Individual oil production match for streak case using semi-empirical fractional flow model
 Figure 35. Watercut match for streak case using Koval model

Figure 36. Individual oil production match for streak case using Koval model
 Figure 37. Log (CWI) and Log (WOR) plot for heterogeneous case

Figure 38. Oil production match for heterogeneous case using semi-empirical fractional flow model
 Figure 39. Watercut match for heterogeneous case using Koval model

Figure 40. Oil production match for heterogeneous case using Koval model