/

:,

l.-

..

fi%%No. SPE 340

*T
THIS IS A PREPRINT --

6 p..y

SUBJECT TO C4)RRECTION

Factors Influencing the Optimum Time

to Start Water Injection
fly
Charles M~ Tarr
Ceorge J. Heuer
..4/+
ContinentalOil Company +w We recently attended a spacing hearing
in a relativelynew oil state. The hearing
was one of the longest ever held before a
state conservationcommission. It covered,
smong other things, many of the aspects of
petroleum engineering. Many of those attending the hearings as witnesses, attorneys and
commissionrepresentativesappeared to have
the idea that water injectionwas almost always successful in increasingoil recovery.
They also had the impressionthat the proper
time to start water injectionwas ~?immedi.atelyll. A review of many industrymagazines,
technicalpublicationsand petroleum engineering textbooks shows that, while there
are many articles and papers on water injection, waterfloodingand pressuremaintenance
through water injection, few of the publicationsdiscuss projects which were failures,
It is easy to see how non-technical,intelligent people can get the erroneous impression
that water injection is almost always successful. If one reviews the mass of articles
in trade publicationson pressuremaintenance
and notes that they are almost always justified by large increases in recovery,one can
also get the impressionthat water injection
should start as soon as possible,
The experience and knowledgewe gained
while planning, operatin~ and analyzing the
results of over a hundred water injection
projects proves that the above two impressions are not always correct,
Predictingthe optimum time to start
water injectionis a very complex problem
because it depends on many factors. To
simplify this paper, we assume the operator
wishes to recover the maximum ultimate oil
regardless of time, Also, in this paper, we
are ignoring other methods ofincreasingrecovery such as gas injection,+situ combustion, etc.

The total ultimate recovery can be divided into recovery before water injectionplus
recovery after water injection. Often we can
do little as engineers to affect total primary recovery other than to use the reservoir
energy.whichis available as efficientlyas
possible. However we can, as engineers,detide when and in what manner water injection
should be started to gain the optimum ultimate recovery. In practice,with,a good
reservoirwhere such factors as permeability
distribution,oil viscosity,water saturation,
etc. are favorable,a good rule of thumb is
ltwaterinjection should be started at the time
the reservoir reaches the bubble point~?.
When studying the problem of when water
injection should be started in a specific
reservoir,we find that many factors are involved so the optimum time for water injection
into a particular reservoirmay range from
immediatelyto never.
Some of the factors affecting optimum
time for water injection are discussedbelow.
They are all inter-related,however, for simplicitywe will attempt to discuss the factors
as though they are independentvariablesnot
in any way related. Each factor can to some
degree be evaluated to determine the optimum
time to start water injection.
Recovery Mechanism:
The forces which enable us to recover
hydrocarbonsfrom reservoirsto a very large
extent govern the adaptabilityof the reservoir to water injection,
One would usually expect a reservoir
with a strong natural water drive not to be
subjectedto water injectionunless there ~rt
some very unusual circumstancessuch as tremendous reservoir size or *- increase the
rate of production,

-..

,
. .

FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE OPTIMUM TIME TO START WATER INJECTION

A reservoirwith good gravity drainage,

such as the Lakevi.ewPool in Kero County,
California, is another example of reservoirs
which probably should not.be waterfloodedif
we are attemptingto obtain maximum recovery.
h the case of good to fair gravity drainage
reservoirs,water injectionprobably should
be used only to increase producing rates
because we would be substitutingan inferior
recovery mechanism for a more efficient recovery mechanism.
Another recovery mechanism where water
injectionwould not normallybe attempted
is in reservoirswith large gas caps. Here,
there is usually sufficientreservoir energy
so an external source of energy is not required for efficient oil recovery.
Reservoirs with gas caps and thin oil
rings are often not amiable to water injection. In these reservoirs,down-dip water
injection forces oil up-structureand a
large percentage of the oil invading the
gas cap area is lost as residual oil saturation. Water injected into the oil ring
soon follows the pathway of least resistance,
breaks into the gas saturated area and )ecomes ineffectiveas a medium for increasing
oil recovery.
types
of
reservoirs
normally
The above
are not amiable to water injectionso the
optimum time for water injectionmay be
~~ne~er~t,

In general, the good reservoirsfor

water injectionare those where the natural
energy is less efficient than that provided
by water inject-ion.These include solution
gas drive reservoirs,liquid expansion reservoirs and reservoirswith inefficientwater
drives, reservoirswith small gas caps and
combinationsof these types of reservoirs.
Formation Volume Factor:
Gas in solution swells the reservoir oil
and, therefore, reduces the amount of stock
tank oil in.every barrel of residual oil remaining in the reservoirbehind the displacing fluid.
The effect of the FormationVolume Factor on recovery by water injectioncan be
evaluated by assuming the residual oil saturation behind the flood front, expressed as
a fraction of total pore space, is the same
regardless of when injectionstarts. We can
then calculatethe total stock tank barrels
of oil in the swept portion of the reservoir
which will remain asWesidual oil saturation~~at different pressures for the project.

Figure 1 is an example of a number of

formationvolume factors determined from a
number of samples at different structural
locations from a reservoirwith over 1,200
feet of oil column. The reservoir oil has
little gas in solution. Figure 2 is an
example of a reservoirwhere we had over
600 cubic feet of gas in solution per barrel
of stock tank oil. By.inspectionof Figures
1 and 2 and consideringonly F.V.F., one can
see that the timing of water injection in
tiL&?
first IWit31TOircould have only about a
4% effect on recovery through water injection
while on the second reservoir the effect of
this factor could vaiy water injection recoveries by as much as 35%. These percentages,
of course, apply only to the pore space
swept by water.
When consideringthe effec: .I
F.V.F., one can say the optimum time to
start water injectionpressure-wiseis when
the reservoir is at the bubble point, as
less stock tank oil will be left as residual
oil by the injectedwater..
Viscosity of Crude Oil:
The viscosity of crude oil is often
plotted as viscosity vs. pressure on P.T.V.
analysis reports. In these reports, we all
realize that less gas is in solution as
pressures are decreased,therefore, the
major change in viscosity is not caused by
a reduction in pressure but by changes in
compositionof the liquid hydrocarbonmixture. Here again W.Shave included as
Figures 3 and 4, viscosity data for the
same field for which F.V.F. data was illustrated. The data indicatesthat the period
in the pressure history of a reservoirwhen
oil viscosity
will be lowest is at the bubble
point pressure.
The effect of oil viscosity is handled
in manv water in.iection
calculationsthrough
the mobility ratio where

or in the fractional flow equation where

If injected water is not heated or..

treated in some way to change its vi~cositY
at reservoir condition,the only variables
w which .dependsupon fl@d saturations
are ~
and uo which is controllableto some extent
by the composition of.the hydrocarbonmixturt
.,

----

..

. .,
.

CHARLES M. T.@ AND GEORGE J. HEUER

in the reservoir
ahead of the flood front.
We assume here that the most efficient oil
displacementwill take place when the mobility ratio of the driving fluid to driven
fluid is small. The smaller the mobility
ratio, the better our displacementof oil
should be by water injection. Therefore,
optimum time for water injection as a function of reservoir crude oil viscosity is
when the mobility ratio is as small as
possible, or again, at the bubble point
pressure,
AS an example from data, we determine
that &

= 100, and the viscosity of

~=g

1
Uo
=mxm=
Uw

U.
.018 U.

If we us6-the viscosity values on Figure 4,

the lowest value of U. is 0.75 cp at bubble
point pressure so if the water injection
starts at that pressure, M = 0.018x0.75
= 0.0135. If the waterflood were conducted
at 100 psig when U. = i.45 cp, Mwould now
equal 0.0261.
Relative Permeability:
In this paper, we have considered the
relative permeabilityof oil to be the oil
permeabilityin the presence of the connate
water saturationahead of the displacing
fluid. Our relative water permeabilityis
water permeabilityin the presence of residual oil saturationbehind the advancing
front.
A sample kwjko curve is shown in Figure
K This factor has little bearing on when
..
a water injectionprogram is started but
has a great deal to do with the results of
the project. The field for vhich Figure 5
applies is a fairly large sandstone stratographic trap partially surroundedby an
aquifer with the reservoirrock grading
from clean sand to shaley sand and sandy ,
shales. We had fair to good reservoir data,
production information,etc. for the field
which was developed by a number of organizations wd then unitized. It looked like
a good water injectionproject. A pattern
waterflood was installed. The results were
somewhat erratic even though injection rates
per foot of net pay were very carefully
balanced, After a good deal of study, unsuccessfulremedial work, etc., we determined the results were probably CaUSed by
varying water saturationsin different ~arts
ofthe reservoir. We may have started our
.

waterflood on different spots on the ko/kw

curve as shown by points ~!Al!
-d ?~B~l
on
Figure 5. Toward the center of the reservoir
our oil saturationswere at point l~A~l
and had
normal recoveries. At certain edge wells,
we were at point ltB~!
and vecovered almost no
oil as a result of water injection. Perhaps,
on projects with seemingly minor edgewater
encroachment,we can explain poor secondary
oil recoveriesby kw/ko curves and not spend
money needlessly on remedial work trying to
recover oil which is non-recoverable. With
excellent data cn fluid saturations,we might
even decide water injection is not economitally feasible.
PermeabilityDistribution:

water at 1310 F. equals 0.554 CP,

k

In ourdiscussionof permeabilitydistri.butionand our use of it in calculation,

we have made the assumption of no cross-flow.
The total recovery of primary oil can
be fairly well estimatctdby various calculations i.fwe have sufficient information
on certain fluid properties,saturations
and pressures. During primary depletion as
a result of solution gas drive, all porous
reservoir rock which has any permeability
to hydrocarbonswill contributeto the production of our various wells. During water
injectionin a water wet reservoir,rocks
which were.initially oil productiveusually
have a lower permeabilityto water than to
oil. Because of this, some rock may in
effect be nearly impermeableto water; and,
hence, will not be affected by water injection. Oil not displaced from this rock is
bypassed by the injectedwater and is thereby unrecoverable. The optimum time to start
water injectionwill not be.affected by
permeabilityper se, if there is sufficient
permeabilityto allow adequate injection
ratesi However, the variation and distribution of permeabilitycan effect the problem, especially if a large percentageof
the re$ervoirrock has low permeability
values.
To illustiate
this point, suppose we
consider all rock having an air permeability
of 0.1 md or higher (and adequate porosity
and oil saturation)as being net pay in our
material balance calculations. In the same
reservoir,we may find that only rocks having a permeabilityof 2 md or higher will
be affected by water injection and be considered ~~floodable
net payft. This last
permeabilityvalue can bi determinedby
several methods.

FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE OPTXMllMTIME TOSTART WATER INJECTION

4
.-.

Fractures:

Calculationsmay show that while almost

100% of the reservoirrocks contribute toward primary production,a much smaller
volume issubject to oil displacementby
water, In this type of reservoir,we can
calculate the effect of.permeabilitydist.riv
bution on the problem of the optimum time
for water injection,

Hasically, fractures in the reservoir

rock can be considered as part of the permeability distributionproblem,indetermining the optimum time to start water
injection.
In primary recovery, ener~y is supplied
by the gas dissolved in the oil in the reservoir, Thus, fractures are pathways of high
permeabilityby which the oil can flow from
the matrix reservoir rock to the well bore,
Any-thingwhich makes it possible for oil to
travel more easily through the reservoir
will aid in primary recovery,

An example of the effect might be about

as follows. If we produce all of the primary oil (18Z of oil saturation in this case)
then waterflood 40% of the section and recover 40% of the ~emaitiingoil in this section, our total recoverywould be 0.18 +
0.40X0.40X
(1 - 0.1.S)= 31.12!?of initial
oi.1-iri-place.

Energy is supplied to the reservoir on

water injectionprojects by means of water
under pressure at the injectionwells. on
these projects. fractures act as p~,thw,ays
of
high permeabilitythrough which Water travels
from the injectionwell to the produci.rlg
tendency for the
well. There is a very re:ll;
injectedwater to bypass lar,~evolumes nf
reservoir rock as it moves t.hrouchthe fractures. This water does not displace oil
from the matrix rock and, hence, milchof
the oil in the reservoir rock nmy be unreThus, we say the effect of
coverable.
fractllresin reservoir rock cannot be beneficial to water injectionprojects (assuming there was enoush matrix permeabilityfor
a water injection project).

lf we had started water injectio~ at

the bubble point pressure, one would expect
to recuver somethinu lilie;oZof the stock
tank oil f-mm S5;Jof the reservoir rock for
a total recovcry of;2i,Vj! of rhe STO-i.nplace.
In one reservoirwe tabulated aur permeability informationand found that 337;cf
the rock had permeabilitiesbelow 0.1 md,
the tilt-offfLTr primary net pay (this included less than 2X of the porosity), 64%
of the r.>ckhad permeabilitiesbelow 1 md
and 64< of the IXWk had permeabilities
Lle]owlo ~J, TIIthis case if we had used
2 mrias a cut-off point to determine the
rock which would l,einfluencedby water
injection. 747:o+ the formationwouid have
i.tanother way,
been el.im~,nated
OT, to pint.
secondarynet.pay was only 40.6;~of primary net pay,

At the present state of our Art and/or

Science,of PetroleumEngineering,the most
satisfactorymethod of determiningpermeiibi,lity
variation is by core analysis. I%e
presence or absence of fractures can usually
be suspectedby examination of fresh cores
on the rig floors. lrac%lwes,if suspected
by core examinations,coring difficulties,
cementingdifficultiesand acidizing results, can be evaluated early in the life
of the reservcjr. ln one field, two companics ran a number of pressure build-up
surveys to check on the effectivenessof
fractures. Figure 7 is a plot of cored
permeabilityvs. pressure build-up permeability for 21 wells. It was calculated
that the matrix permeabilityaccounted for
only 19X of the effective permeabilityin
this example. Figure 8 is i.nancther part
of the sainefield showing pressure build,updata and core data plotted for 24 wells.
l~nthis example, we find that fractures
accounted for a much smaller share of the
effective permeability. Here, the matrix
rock-contained61Z qf the effective permeability. ln this case, fracturingis much
more pronounced in certain parts of the

The actual calculationsto determine the

optimum time fc,rwater ili,jection
considering
permeabilitydistributionand many other
factors i}lvolvemaking material.bal,ancecalculations ar a nirmkr of pressures to determine primary production and waterflood calculations at the smilepressures to determine
recovery through water injection, These
two recoveries can he plotted as recovery
vs. pressure, the two curves added and the
optimum pressure will be where the combined
recovery curve shaws the e;reatestrecovery.
An example of these curves is shown as
Figure 6.
Fimre 6 is ,anillustrationof extkemelypoor permeabilitydistributionwhere
we mipht best start water injection at near
abandonmentcondit.irins
for maximum re-covery.

-.

.
p

.
.

. .

..

CHARLES M. TARR AND GEORGE J. REUER

;arne
reservoir. The straight line in both
!igureswas drawn for ease of evaluating
lata. Points above the line show evidence
jf fractures, The points below the line
indicateto us that thecompletion techni~uesused may not have cleaned up the well
>ore or sampling and/or core analysis methods
tay.have been faulty.
Fractures are generallymoieprevalent
~n hardt brittle types of rocks, especially
:hosewith low porosity and permeability.
rhe two things which, of course, concern
111 of us are (a) are the fracturespart
~f a random system, or ape they predomilantlyorj.entedin a certain direction and
:b) do they extend for long distances through
:he reservoir? Our experience is not too
;reat,but we would generally assume the
>pen fractures are usually relativelyshort
lnd oftenpri?dominantly
oriented in some
iirection. Partial answers to these pro)lemsmight be found through examination
~f all reservoir production figures, well.
interferencetests, pressure surveys, build1P surveys, injection fall-off curves, and
naterialbalance calculations. Often we
:an minimize the detrimentaleffects of
fractureson water injection projects by
injectionwell location and control of rate.
In one series of Calculations,We
included fractures in our permeability&lstrihutionand then made the same calculations,
sxcludingfracture permea-bility.In the
first case, we calculated that the rocks
with permeabilitiesabove 11.5 md would be
&ffectedby water injectionwhile, in the
second case, we calculated that the net
floodable rock would have a permeability
cut-off of 2.2 md.

water injection projects unfeasible.

The clay content of our formations
vary from area to area. The clays can
have a marked,effecton producing rates,
project life aridthe over-all economics
of a project. If pilot projects are installed, we favor running frequent pressure
fall-off surveys to determine as nearly as
possible the stabilizedwater permeability
values.
..
We do not know of snywell engineered
water injection projects which were failures because of swelling clays. The clays
have a marked effect on he performanceof
projects but they have 1 ttle bearing on
when a project should be started. If
swelling clays are suspected,we favor very
early pilot projects to gather as much engineering data as possible.
Free Gas Space:
On this subject, it is hard to tie
laboratory tests to field information.The
major effect of maintaining a free gas
phase in the reservoir behind the displacing fluid should be to reduce the volume of
residual oil remaining in the reservoir
It should aLvo affect the kro/kw
rocks.
values, etc., and result in more efficient
oil displacementby water.
One methci of evaluatingthe minimum
effect of a itieegas saturationaf various
pressures would be to determine the following parameters:
1.

2. Reservoir pressurewhen the

project starts.

The presence of fractures should make

one cautious about early water injection
projects and even tend toward late water
injectionprojects on the theory that we
are certain of our primary productionwhile
secondary recovery may be speculative. We
always favor pilot waterflood in fractured
reservoirsjust to evaluate the effect of
fractures.

3. Reservoir pressure during

injection project.
4.

Clay Content of Reservoir Rock:

In the Rocky Mountain Region, there
are several formationscontaining clays
which swell.or deflocculatewhen contacted
by_fresh water. These clays reduce the
permeabilityto water, This reduces injecti.onrates, requires higher injection pressures and extensive remedialwork. In
shallcw reservoirs,where injectionpressuias
must be kept low to prevent rupture of res
ervoir rocks, swelling clays may make fresh

. .

. ..

..

Compositionof the produced

gas at start of project.

..

Gas saturation in the reservoir at start of project.

Knowing these items, we could calcu-

late which components of the produced
natural gas actually exist as gas in the
reservoir at thestart of the project and
during the project. The componentswhich
are miscible with the oil in the reservoir
at the reservoir pressures, obviously,
cannot occupy free gas space. Thus, we
could determine the compositionof the gas
phase at the start of injectionand during
$he project. Also, we could determine the
pore space it might occupy if it were all
trapped by the displacing fluid.
. .

....

-..

----

. . .. ..---

FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE OPTIMUM TIti IOSTART WATER INJECTION

6.

?$

have less than Xl effect on the water inection program if all gas is trapped at 1,d00
psi.aby the displacing fluid.

As an example, assume the reservoir

is a depleted (100 psia) solution gas
drive reservoirwhere oil production has
equaled 1.5%of pore space. The reservoir
temperatureis 120 F,, the average pres-sure behind the displacingwater will be
1,000 psia and the gas composition from
a separator sample taken at 16 psia and
600 F, is as follows:
Component

When reservoir pressures are increased,.

the free gas not liquefied is compressed
~
so it occupies a smaller portion of the
:
pore space. The lowerthe pressure at
which gas is trapped, the greater the benefits on oil recovery. Actually, gas under
most conditionsmoves through our reservoir
rock with more ease than either oil or water because of its viscosity and the effect
of relative permeability, Therefore, we
may assume only a fraction of the free gas
is trapped by the displacingwater.

C1

59.5
14.5
16.6

C2
Cj
i C4

1.5

n C4
i C5

5.0

Reservoir Rock Influencedby Water Injection:

O.g
1..0
m

From the equation 1 = Sw + So + Sg and

IinowinginitiallySg = o, SW has not
changed, we know Sg now.equals 15%.
The components of the separator gas
are almost identicalto the above when the
pressure is increased to 100 psia and the
temperature increased to 120 F. When che
pressure is incretikedto 1,000 psia, .13%
of the gaseous componentsbecome liquids
and 87? remain as pas. The 87% remaining
as gas has the following composition:
Component

c1

C2
C3

64.962
14,635
14.558

i C4

1.134

n C4
i C5

3.448
0.489

n C5
C6+

0.560

Resaturation is ,~onsideredan areal or

horizontal effect whereby injected water
forces mobile oil into the free gas space
so the unswept portions of the reservoir
are resaturatedwith oil. A paper at this
meeting by Messrs. Cobb, Felsenthaland
Heuer and others discus~es this effect
from laboratory and field information.1~2

0,214
100.000

?n water injectionprojects, the areal

coverage by injected water depends upon the
mobility ratio. The coverage is generally
very good. It is generally over !30%at
limitingWOR. The inclmsionof this factor
in reserve calculationsis consideredthe
most conservativeapproach. If resaturation is con~idered in evaluatingthe optimum time for water injection,it should
tend to show early water injectionis
desirable.

space. In this example, we have taken a

depleted reservoir at 100 psia, conducted
a waterflood and using an actual gas sample
find that at most free gas saturationscan
.

..

..

. . .. . .

<

Resaturation:

The pseudocriticalpressure of the

above gas is 661.54 psia and the pseudocritical temperature is 451.97 R. so the
z factor equals 0.74. When the reservoir
gas is compressed isothermallyfrom 100
psia to 1,000 psia, its volume changes to
15%x 0.87 x 0.74 x&
= 0.96% of pore

--------

....... ~

In large reservoirs
and in reservoirs
with close well spacing, usually most of
the reservoir will be influencedby water
injection. In small reservoirsand in
reservoirswhere the injecticmwell.configurationdoes not provide good areal
coverage,we may find that a large part of
the total volume of productive reservoir
rock will not be influencedby wate~ injection. If we assume that we will have primary recovery from the entire reservoir
and recovery by water injection from only
the portion swept by water, we may calculate the optimum time for water injection
to determine maximum ultimate oil recovery,
The effect of unswept area can be calculated
similarly to the method outlined under
permeabilitydistributionwhere optimum
injection time is when the total recovery
of primary and secondary oil is greatest.

1,1

n C5
C6+

,.

..

-.

CHARLES M. TARR AND GEORGE J, HEUER

Examules:
We wish to thank the ContinentalOil
Company for permission to present this
paper. We also wish to thank the employees
of various sections of our Research Department for gathering basic data and developing the computer programs which were used
by the authors in this paper,

The.following examples are ca2culations made on different portions of one

large carbonate reservoirwhere the effect
of fractures and unswept areas were not
considered. We assumed no cross-flow, In
each case over 2,500 core analysis samples
were available,numerous PVT analyses were
run by various organizationsshowing graduations in fluid compositionthroughoutthe
reservoir, The permeabilitydistribution
varied for the two cases as shown by curves
A and B on Figure 9. Note curve B has a
larger portion of reservoir rock with
permeabilitiesbelow 0.1 md than on curve
A. The distributionof the matrti permeability is much poorer on curve A than on
curve B.

lEarlougher,R. C., Robinson; J. M. and

Lynn, A. B,, W3tudy of Core Analyses
Data From Flooded Out Oil Sands??,
SPE-121 (1961).
2Callaway,F. H., ttEvaluationof hraterflood Prospects!?,
Journal of Petroleum
Tecbnology, 1. llNo. 10:11 (1959).

Figti~e10 shows the total recovery

of oil-in-place(both primary and secondary) plotted against the average reservoir
pressure at which the water injectionproject would be started. The curve marked
A isfor the permeabilitydistribution
marked A on Figure 9, while curve B in
Figure 10 correspondsto the permeability
distributionmarked B on Figu:.e
9. The
curves show that in one portion of the
reservoir the optimum time to start water
injectionwas at or near 950 psi while for
another portion of the same large reservoir
the optimum time is anytime after 550 psi.
Conclusions:
We have not discussed all factors
which affect water injectionprojects.
We have tried to very briefly touch on
some of the more important,factorsaffecting the optimum time to start waterinjection.
The factors which are dependent upon
pressure will indicatewater injection
should start at near ~?bubblepoint~vpressures for maximum recovery. Other factors
such as permeabilitydistribution,recovery
mechanisms, fractures,reservoir geometry,
etc. which are not dependent upon pressure,
and which are often difficult to evaluate,
may indicate water injectionshould start
at near abandonmentconditions.
Industry is able through use of high
speed computers to evaluatemany of the
factors affectingwater injectionprojects,
By making primary and secondary-recovery
calculationsat varj.ouspressures and sta~es
of depletion, industry can optimi~e ulti-
mate recovery by conductingwater irijection
projects at the most favorablereservoir
pressures,

.
REStOUA1.
1.050

lows

TEST

lll=F=E

TEMPERATURE

OIL AT SO*F

131 F

BUBBLE
Iwz

SAMPLE

POINT
PRE;

NO S-490-LII

SURE

Pslo

,.

;-

&
/

I.WO
f
/
[

e I.om
5

I
~

EST ORIGINAL RESERVOIR PRESS

a

2160

Ps{o

1.030

:
;

r
Mlo - fORIAATIOM
PRESSU Rt
2806 PSIG

1,025
I
SAMP LING DEPTH PPlfSSU RE
2086 PslLi

1.020

1.015
z

~E$SURE

FORMATION VOLUME
COMPOSITE

- PSIO

FACTOR

OF RESERVOIR
PIOURC

VB.

400

1200

800

PRESSURE

PREssuRE.

FLIND ANALYSES

DIFFERENTIAL

16W
PS19

LIBERATION-SHRINKAGE

z OO

200-0

FIGuRE

OATA

I
.

TEST

TEMPERATuRE

ISI

SARtPLE

EST. OR! Gl~&RESEVOIR

WCLL

k
~

2106

-.. -
-

WELL
NO 7b
/

/
*CQ

cOMPOSITE

I
I
OEPrH PREsSURE
2086 PSIG

E PoINT.=RESS

VRE-16Z2

PSIG

600

800

PRESSURE

VISCOSITY

SAMPLING

-k--

.
two

RGEOF 3
ERCURV s

/. . . ..

H
...

PSIG

.-

-.

PREZS

,jFoR--J+

Ml

NO.2

NO. B-4 S0-DHN

&
~

VS.

-Pslo

1000

PRESSURE AT92

I zoo

1400

400

I zoo

800

PRESSURE.

Isoo

2000

t? 00

PSIG

.,VISCOSITY

OF FLUID ANA..5ES

!=IQUPIE4

FIOURE 3

-.
.

. ..-

... ---., _

-----

.. . .

. ------

. ..

, -,
-..
..
. .

..

,..

_...e

___

===:-

,,

j----:

_. . ..
_ .
. . .. -.
.. -_ .. . .- .. . ..

10

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

.! _._..

.- -

.---
.- .-

.-.

------

--

. -.

..-.

-.

.-

. ..

.-.
. .

.
.-

.---

10

. .

. .

..-

..-.

tOtAL

WATER-OIL

-.
CUMULATIV$

30

20

} + SECAND4RY

eo
.. . . .

.-

.01

:oovEnY,

.- ..-.

. ----

50

40

WATER SATURATION

RELATIVE
FIGURE

60

70

RATIO

% OF IXWJINAL

RELATIONSHIP
PRESSURE

- X PORE SPACE

PERMEABILITY

80

OIL RECOVESY

S1 IXK

TANK OIL

BETWEEN

ANO OIL RECOVERY

FIGuRE

FLOW C4PAC1TV

FROM COREAIAALY91S-IM

GOMP~RISO& OF FLOW Capacity

PRESSURE f?UdlUPAND
CORE

FROM

ANALYSIS 0N24

APPROXIMATEZKfahBUiL0UPlS164,0%OF
F:WSRC

(Ko~)

MO. Ft

WELLS

ZP(OhOOREANALYSIS

..

,
--

1s00

I .s.

.,

PER:::UJ:JVW:I:::%%:LM

.
I 2W

\
\

2,

I
low

:
3
c
f

9W
\

i
g

/
604

/
/
400
/
/
200

K
OALOULATIOMS BASEO ON
~RMEAEJILITY
OISTRIWTION
,

o
*4

04

es

27

TOTAL OIL RECOVERY

- % ORIOINAL

TOTAL OIL RECOVERY

CLW. %OF

PERMEABILITY

SAMPLES

DISTRIBUTION

RESERVOIR

ASA

FUNCTION

PREBSURE WliEN WATERFLOOD

flounc

C9

OIL IN PLAGC

OF

INITIATEO

10

F10uflC9

.
1

.-