J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0368-5

ORIGINAL PAPER - PRODUCTION ENGINEERING

An approach to waterflood optimization: case study

of the reservoir X
Precious Ogbeiwi1 • Yetunde Aladeitan1,2 • Dickson Udebhulu1,3

Received: 3 November 2016 / Accepted: 17 June 2017 / Published online: 6 July 2017
 The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication

Abstract Over the years, waterflooding has been the most use of vertical injectors, higher water production was
widely used secondary oil recovery method after the observed because water is expected to flow more conve-
exhaustion of the primary depletion energy of the reservoir. niently in the upward direction due to gravity rather than
Waterflooding schemes have to be planned such that at laterally and (3) with horizontal injectors, higher cumula-
every point of the operation, net income from oil recovery tive production was achieved especially for cases where
exceeds operating expenditure of which produced water water is injected into the same zones from which oil is
disposal cost is paramount. Hence, engineers are regularly produced.
plagued with challenges such as optimal completions zones
for injectors and producers, optimal flood pattern to adopt Keywords Waterflooding  Optimization  Reservoir 
and number/type of producers and injectors to use in Simulation  Oil recovery  Performance
waterflood field development so as to improve oil recovery,
but reduce water production. The aim of this study is to
List of symbols
optimize waterflooding from a case study model using
A Area
reservoir simulation techniques. A simple optimization
h Thickness
methodology involving the analysis of the effects of zones
u Porosity
of production and injection, pattern of waterflood selected
k Permeability
and number/type of producers and injectors on cumulative
mD Millidarcy
recovery from a waterflooded reservoir was used. Results
Bo Oil formation volume factor
revealed that (1) pressure maintenance/increment is more
Sw Water saturation
effective when there is water injection into more zones of
FOPT Field cumulative/total oil production
the reservoir, (2) for waterflood operations involving the
FOPR Field oil production rate
FWCT Field water-cut
& Precious Ogbeiwi FPR Field pressure
[email protected]
Yetunde Aladeitan
[email protected]
Introduction
Dickson Udebhulu
[email protected]
It has become increasingly necessary to produce oil and gas
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, African University of fields more economically and efficiently as a result of the
Science and Technology, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria ever-increasing demand for petroleum worldwide. Since a
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Abuja, significant number of prominent oil fields are mature fields
Abuja, FCT, Nigeria and the number of new discoveries per year is decreasing,
3
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Federal it is become more imperative to use secondary oil recovery
University, Abakaliki, Nigeria processes (Nwaozo 2006).

123
272 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Over the years, waterflooding has been most widely validate the results obtained. Geostatistical techniques
used secondary oil recovery method after the exhaustion of including kriging and co-kriging were used to generate
the primary depletion energy of the reservoir (Craft and realizations of property distributions used, and perfor-
Hawkins 1991). Waterflooding basically involves pumping mance predictions were made for the placement of new
water through an injection well into the reservoir. The infill wells (vertical and horizontal), as well as for pattern
water then forces itself through the pore spaces and sweeps modification by selectively shutting in existing injectors.
the oil toward another set of wells known as producers. As Their results showed that the combination of multiple
a result, there is an increment in the total oil production realization property distribution with an efficient stream-
from the reservoir. However, the percentage of water in the lined model is a much better alternative to the traditional,
produced fluids steadily increases. On the average, this finite-difference approach. However, Bohling (2005) sug-
process can lead to the recovery of about one-third of the gest the sequential Gaussian is a better tool for generating
original oil in place (OOIP), leaving behind about two- property distributions than kriging. This is because it pro-
thirds (Meshioye et al. 2010). According to Craig (1971), vides a means for generating multiple equiprobable real-
the popularity of water injection is mainly due to its izations of the property in question, rather than simply
availability, mobility, displacement efficiency and ease of estimating the mean.
injection. At some point during waterflooding operations, it Alhuthali et al. (2006) carried out a robust optimization
becomes uneconomical to continue these operations which aimed at maximizing the sweep efficiency of the
because the cost of removing and disposing of water reservoir using multiple geological scenarios based on
exceeds the net income generated from the oil production equalizing the breakthrough time of the waterfront at all
(Lake et al. 1992). producers. They validated the approach using 2D synthetic
Due to the ever-increasing necessity of producing oil and 3D field models. Their results showed that the
reservoirs optimally by improving oil recovery, minimizing approach was computationally and practically efficient in
water production and better maintenance of reservoir optimizing the injection/production rates in a waterflooding
pressure, engineers are plagued with challenges such as project. However, their approach did not consider a
optimal completions zones for injectors and producers, stochastic approach to waterflood optimization on multiple
optimal flood pattern to adopt and number/type of pro- realizations and quantification of uncertainty associated
ducers and injectors to use in oil field waterflood devel- with the optimization results.
opment. These problems are commonly encountered in Ogali (2011) conducted a research which focused on the
waterflood operations. optimization of waterflood using streamline simulation.
Some waterflood optimization problems are undertaken The streamline-based simulation workflow used for com-
by some researchers. puting well allocation factors (WAFs) and injection effi-
Meshioye et al. (2010) presented a methodology in ciencies was proposed by Thiele and Batycky (2006).
which waterflooding is been controlled by smart injector These efficiencies were used to optimize oil recovery by
well technology to help optimize or increase the net present effectively reallocating water available for injection. The
value of the field. The optimization procedure was carried proposed methodology was validated with a case study
out on three different case studies of commingled reservoir which showed that reallocating available injection water to
having different layer characteristics. A setup optimization more efficient injection wells in a five-spot pattern water-
procedure was applied, where rate allocation method was flood leads to optimization of oil production. The results
used at each zone of the smart injector well. The major showed that kV/kH ratio, heterogeneity and zones of
drawback of their work was that the layers were not dis- injection all play a significant role in the performance of
cretized to incorporate the effect of vertical communication waterflooding. However, his study involved analysis of the
and gravity within the layers. impact of several factors on waterflooding and waterflood
Other researches such as those conducted by Spath and optimization in the five-spot pattern only and other
McCants (1997), Alhuthali et al. (2006) and Ogali (2011) waterflood patterns were not considered. Optimization
aimed at predicting and optimization of waterflood per- analysis would be more appropriate if the results from the
formance by employing a combination of geostatistical and five-spot pattern were compared with other waterflood
dynamic reservoir simulation techniques. patterns.
Spath and McCants (1997) studied waterflood opti- This paper focuses on the use of geostatistical methods
mization using a combined geostatistical 3D streamline to map reservoir properties and combining these methods
approach. They used a combination of stochastic reservoir with numerical reservoir simulation techniques to optimize
description techniques and streamline simulation to opti- oil recovery from the reservoir by carrying out comparative
mize volumetric sweep efficiency in a mature West Texas analysis on several factors that influence production and
waterflood and used an IMPES, finite-difference scheme to waterflood performance in a case study. Multiple

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 273

equiprobable realizations of reservoir properties models are generally characterized as sheet sands and channelized
were generated using co-sequential Gaussian simulation deposits, but massive fine- and very fine-grained sands are
(COSGSIM). They were ranked so as to reduce disparities also observed. The sheets have excellent lateral pressure
between the simulated and actual reservoir properties. communication, and shales at the internal zones do not
These models were then employed in reservoir simulation necessarily divide the reservoir into compartments as seen
and waterflood performance analysis. The effects of some from production and pressure history.
important parameters on waterflood performance were also Seawater injection commenced in 1999 when reservoir
analyzed. These parameters include zones of injection and pressure was about 6800 psia, approximately 4500 psi
production (ZoIP), waterflood pattern (PoWF) and num- below the original 11,305 psia. Some of the waterflood
ber/types of injectors and producers (NToW). objectives are to maintain/stabilize pressure to prevent the
sands from producing below their bubble points and to
minimize well completion failures. Its original oil in place
Methodology is estimated at 5.6 MMSTB. Table 1 shows the average
properties of the reservoir X.
This research involved the evaluation of several waterflood
optimization scenarios for a case study with data obtained
from a field in the Gulf of Mexico, USA, arbitrarily named
Reservoir X. The scope of this research does not include
Data acquisition and
creating an actual development and production strategy validation
that can be implemented in this field of interest. Rather, it
involves using reservoir simulation techniques to optimize
oil recovery from the reservoir by carrying out comparative
Estimation of
analysis on several factors that influence production and Petrophysical
waterflood performance in any given reservoir, such as parameters of interest
zones of injection and production (ZoIP), waterflood pat-
tern (PoWF) and number/types of injectors and producers
(NToW). Hence, a test dataset provided by the simulator
Statistical Analysis
was adjusted to the various scenarios that were studied.
The optimization procedure involved analyzing the
effect of zones of injection and production, pattern of
waterflood as well as the number/type of producers and Reservoir
injectors on cumulative oil recovery. This was carried out Characterization and
using reservoir simulation techniques. Tools used in this building of multiple No
research included: Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Soft- realizations of static
ware (SGEMS) and Coates Engineering Sensor 6K (Coates models
2013). SGEMS was used to populate the reservoir model
with petrophysical properties, such as net-to-gross ratio, Do static models
Ranking of the represent reservoir
shale volume, porosity and permeability. Sensor 6K was realizations of the petrophysical
used in carrying out simulations for the different scenarios models properties?
analyzed. Figure 1 presents a flow chart for the
methodology.
Preparation of data sets
for reservoir simulation Yes
Reservoir description

This research was conducted using data obtained from

Reservoir model
Lach (2010). The reservoir X is located in the Gulf of initialization and
Mexico. The reservoir is made up of a series of turbidite waterflood
sands of the Miocene to Pliocene age which is deposited performance analysis
within a mini-basin. It was a good candidate for secondary
recovery because the reservoirs have limited aquifer influx,
was very over-pressured and compacting and was under- End
saturated. The reservoirs also have good structure relief,
good connectivity and directional permeabilities. Its sands Fig. 1 Flowchart for methodology

123
274 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Table 1 Average properties of the reservoir X the gamma ray index IGR is calculated from the gamma ray
Property Value
log using the formula presented below:
 
GRlog  GRmin
Area (Acre) 3.59 IGR ¼ ð2Þ
Average porosity, ø (%) 28
ðGRmax  GRmin Þ
Average water saturation, Sw (%) 0.22 where IGR is the gamma ray index, GRlog is the gamma ray
Net/gross sand 0.9 log reading of the formation, GRmin is the gamma ray for a
Average permeability, (mD) 125 complete sand matrix zone (clay free zone) and GRmax is
Reservoir thickness, (ft) 99 the gamma ray for a complete shale zone (100% clay
Datum depth (ft) 16,726 zone).
Initial reservoir pressure at datum, PR (psia) 11,305 The shale volume is then determined using the gamma
Bubble point pressure (psia) 6306 ray index obtained above, and below using the Larionov
Oil viscosity, l (cP) 0.782 equation for calculating volume of shale for unconsolidated
Oil initial FVF (rb/stb) 1.39 tertiary sandstones (Tiab and Donaldson 2004).
Anisotropy (kV/kH) 0.6
h i
Vsh ¼ 0:083  2ð3:7IGR Þ  1 ð3Þ

Estimation of petrophysical parameters of interest Shale volume Vsh is used in the calculation of effective
porosity, ;e.
The petrophysical parameters of interest were estimated from
well logs using well-established methods which have been Permeability
known to work perfectly in the Gulf of Mexico area. A typical
log for a well in the reservoir X used in this estimation is In this study, the Timur equation which is an experimental
shown in Fig. 2. The procedure used for the estimation of relation between permeability, effective porosity and water
these properties is described in the following sections. saturation was adopted to estimate the permeability. The
equation is given as:
Porosity ;4:4
e
K ¼ 8581 ð4Þ
S2wi
In this study, the porosity of the reservoir in this report is
estimated by using the density log. The porosity of the where K = permeability, ;e = effective porosity and
reservoir was calculated using the equation shown below: Swi = irreducible water saturation.
ðqma  qb Þ The effective porosity ;e is estimated as: ;e ¼ ;TD 
;TD ¼ ð1Þ ð;TD  Vsh Þ.
ðqma  qf Þ
where ;TD = ;T = total porosity estimated from density Reservoir characterization and static reservoir
log; qma = matrix (or grain) density; qb = bulk density; modeling
and qf = density of the fluid.
The Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software (SGEMS)
Net pay thickness (net/gross) is an open-source computer package for solving problems
involving spatially related variables (Remy et al. 2009). In
This is the ratio of the sum of the thicknesses of the net pay this research, it was used to spatially distribute petro-
zone to the total thickness or depth of the well (Awejori physical properties across the reservoir model. The prop-
2010). This is usually obtained by measuring from the top erties evaluated include: total porosity, permeability and
of the sand to the bottom of the sand. The net thickness is net-to-gross ratio. For each property, anisotropic vari-
composed of the aggregation of delineated net pay zones ograms were used to adequately capture the spatial corre-
established using some petrophysical logs. From this point, lation between data points.
the ratio of the net to gross reservoir thickness can then be
estimated for each well. Statistical analysis

Shale volume (Vsh) Porosity

The volume of shale (Vsh) in these sand bodies can be From the histogram for porosity shown in Fig. 3, a uni-
estimated by means of the equations given below. Firstly, modal porosity distribution is observed with the minimum

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 275

and maximum porosity values of 0.07 (6.96%) and 0.385 10–100 md (logperm values of 1–2) as the most likely. The
(38.5%), respectively. The most occurring porosity values average permeability is 1.92 (83.1 md), and the standard
are between 0.25 and 0.26. The mean porosity value is 0.24 deviation is 1.87 (73.79 md). The range of log perm values
(24.3%), and the standard deviation is 0.06 (6.5%). was between -4.05 (0.0001md) and 3.43 (2700 md).
To aid in the generation of equiprobable realizations of Variograms were then built to capture the spatial variation
porosity across the model, variogram analysis was con- in permeability between data points which was then used in
ducted on the dataset in which the Gaussian model was the building of equiprobable realizations of the perme-
used to fit the dataset by visual inspection. The variogram ability distribution across the model using sequential
direction captured the spatial variation in the porosity data Gaussian simulation (SGSIM).
points.
Net to gross
Permeability
Figure 5 shows the histogram of the net-to-gross ratio
Figure 4 shows a histogram of the permeability data. A across the model. It is observed that the NTG values
unimodal distribution was observed with the data range of peaked at 97.4% with the lowest value occurring at 55.4%.

Fig. 2 Typical logs for a well in the reservoir X (Awejori 2010)

123
276 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Fig. 3 Histogram and variogram for porosity across the model

From the histogram plot, a unimodal distribution was To model the spatial correlation between the data points,
observed. It was also observed that the most occurring or an anisotropic variogram was built. This was used in
likely NTG value is around 55%. The mean value is generation of realizations of net-to-gross distributions
76.03% while a standard deviation of 19.6% was observed. across the reservoir model.

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 277

Fig. 4 Permeability histogram and variogram for the reservoir X

Geostatistical modeling of reservoir properties model, geostatistical simulation was used. Stochastic
simulation was used instead of kriging so as to make it
To statistically estimate the reservoir petrophysical possible for the generation of multiple equiprobable
properties over the entire volume of the reservoir X realizations of the reservoir which allows for assessment

123
278 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Fig. 5 Histogram and variogram for net to gross across the model

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 279

Table 2 Summary of grid data used in static modeling we can represent the variable at each grid node as a random
Cell dimensions (in feet)
variable following a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Rather
than choosing the mean as the estimate at each node,
Length 400 SGSIM chooses a random deviation from this normal
Width 400 distribution, selected according to a uniform random
Thickness 20 number representing the probability level. The parameters
Number of cells in the X-direction 20 obtained from the variogram analysis were used in this
Number of cells in the Y-direction 20 exercise. For each property, maximum conditioning data of
Number of cells in the Z-direction 5 12 were used with a seed value of 14,071,789. These
Total number of cells 2000 properties are porosity and shale volume, permeability and
porosity, and finally net to gross and porosity. Figures 6, 7
and 8 show the simulation maps for permeability, porosity
of uncertainty. Table 2 shows a summary of the grid and net-to-gross ratio, respectively.
data used.
Ranking of static reservoir models built
Petrophysical modeling
Five static equiprobable descriptions of each reservoir
Co-sequential Gaussian simulation (COSGSIM) was used property were generated using SGEMS. Table 3 shows the
to generate five realizations of each reservoir properties results of the statistical means of reservoir petrophysical
accessed. Sequential Gaussian simulation (SGSIM) is a properties obtained from the realizations maps generated
more efficient tool than kriging (Bohling 2005) while for porosity, absolute permeability and net to gross while
kriging gives an estimate of both the mean and standard comparing them with the statistical means before static
deviation of the variable at each grid node, meaning that simulation, i.e., those from the raw data.

Fig. 6 Simulation map

showing permeability
distribution across the reservoir
X model

Fig. 7 View of porosity

distribution

123
280 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Fig. 8 Map of net-to-gross

distribution across the model

Table 3 Summary of the statistical means before and after building realizations
Property Before COSGSIM After COSGSIM Real. no.

Porosity Mean 0.24 Minimum mean 0.15 2

Mean (for all realizations) 0.19
Maximum mean 0.24 3
Permeability Mean 1.92 (83.1mD) Minimum mean 1.86 (65.3 mD) 5
Mean (for all realizations) 1.82 (66.5mD)
Maximum mean 1.889 (76.9mD) 3
Net to gross Mean 76.03% Minimum mean 68.06% 4
Mean (for all realizations) 69.11%
Maximum mean 71.05% 3

Generally, the mean values after simulation of the compressibilities were included in the simulation runs of
petrophysical properties are slightly smaller than those of the model. The start time for the simulation is June 1, 1996.
the raw data. This observation may be as a result of the
variogram parameters employed for each property. Also, Waterflooding of the reservoir X
the variations in the maximum and minimum average
values (as shown in Table 3) suggest the extremely high Reservoir development plan
and low cases of what the reservoir static model could be
are well represented. As a result, the third realizations of The production scheme used for this reservoir model involved
the models of porosity, permeability and net to gross were two stages. Firstly, the development of the field began in June
used in used in the waterflood simulation studies. 1996, with just one producer with an oil flowrate of
This shows that building of multiple equiprobable 1000 STB/day for the five-spot pattern scenario and two
realizations of reservoir properties and ranking them are an producers at oil rates of 500S TB/day each for the scenarios of
efficient approach to reservoir characterization. This direct line and staggered line scenarios. Upon production, it
approach reduces uncertainties associated with reservoir was decided that waterflooding should be commenced after
properties estimation. three years of production and it was carried out for ten years.
Waterflooding was carried out to increase and/or maintain
Reservoir simulation model initialization reservoir pressure above bubble point (6306 psia) and to
increase the oil-producing rate of the field. Waterflooding
The reservoir X model is an undersaturated reservoir with started in June 1999 with four injectors for each of the sce-
an initial average reservoir pressure of 11,305 psia. The oil narios, all injecting at a rate of 700 STB of water/day. The
initially in place (OIIP) after initialization is put at 5.6 injectors were positioned such the waterflood pattern
MMSTB. The properties of the reservoir used in the model approximated the regular five-spot, direct line drive and
initialization are given in Table 1. The reservoir model is a staggered line patterns corresponding to their respective
five-layered model with 1410 active grid cells. The effects scenarios. Figure 9 shows the reservoir model and location of
of gravity segregation as well as fluid and rock a producer at the end of primary production.

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 281

Fig. 9 Case study map surface

map showing the location of a
producer

These rates were used throughout the period of simulation. reservoir performance was analyzed. The cases chosen are
The economic limit for producers consists of 50STB/day for explained below:
production rate and a maximum water-cut of 0.95. This pro-
• Case 1 (ZONES 4–5): This case involved waterflooding
duction strategy was used for analysis of the effects of zones of
after three years of primary production. Production was
injection/production (ZoIP), the pattern of waterflood (PoWF)
carried out from two zones—layers 3 to 4, and water
and the number and type of injectors/producers (NToW) on
was injected into the fourth and fifth zones of the
waterflooding. As earlier stated, comparisons of waterflood
reservoir—layers 4 to 5.
performance were based on field average reservoir pressure
• Case 2 (ZONE 4): For this scenario, production was
(FPR), cumulative oil production (FOPT) and field water-cut
carried out from two zones—layers 3 to 4, and water
(FWCT) for a period of thirteen years (3 years of primary
was injected the zone close to the water-bearing zone—
depletion and 10 years of waterflooding).
layer 4.
• Case 3 (AQUIFER): Here, two zones of the reservoir
Waterflood optimization
were completed—layers 3 to 4, and water was injected
in the water-bearing zone—zone 5.
In defining a reservoir optimization problem, an objective
function, optimization variables and their constraints An important reason for carrying out a study on the
should be specified (Asadollahi 2012). Objective functions effect of the zones of production and injection was to
for waterflood optimization include net pressure value ascertain the best zones for completing of the injectors and
(NPV), cumulative production or delay in water break- production so as to get optimal oil production and water
through/reduction in water-cut while controlling variables injection. This was required for further analyses in this
such as injection rate, oil production rate and/or bottom research. These scenarios were carried out adopting a
hole pressure of injectors and producers. regular five-spot pattern.
For this research, waterflood optimization aimed at
increasing cumulative oil production while taking into Methodology for analyzing the effects of waterflood
consideration the zones of water injection and oil produc- pattern (PoWF) on waterflood performance
tion, the pattern of waterflood and the number and type of
injectors/producers, i.e., To select the optimal waterflood pattern for producing the
Cumulative oil production ¼ f ðZones of water injection= reservoir X, it was necessary to analyze the performance of
several waterflood patterns. The reservoir development
oil production; waterflood pattern;
involved two stages—primary production and waterflood.
Number and type of injectors=producersÞ The first stage involved primary depletion of the reservoir
using the reservoir’s energy. After three years of produc-
Methodology for analyzing the effects of zones tion, oil production declined rapidly and it was decided to
of injection and production (ZoIP) on waterflood commence waterflooding. This marked the second stage of
performance reservoir development, and it was carried out for 10 years.
All producers were completed in two zones—layers 3 to
The simulation was carried out for 13–3 years of primary 4, and water was injected in two zones only—layers 4 to 5.
depletion and 10 years of waterflooding. In so doing, the This conclusion was reached based on results obtained
effect of zones of injection as well as production on the from the ZoIP cases. The scenarios analyzed included the

123
282 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Fig. 10 Case study surface map

showing the location of the
producer and the injectors for
the five-spot waterflood pattern

Fig. 11 Map showing the

location of wells in the direct
line drive waterflood pattern

Fig. 12 Map showing the

location of wells in the
staggered line drive waterflood
pattern

five-spot pattern (5_SPOT), the direct line drive pattern square with the production well in the center. For the direct
(LD) and the staggered line drive pattern (SLD). Fig- line drive pattern, the lines of injection and production
ures 10 and 11 show schematics of the location of pro- were directly opposite each other. For the staggered line
ducer(s) and injectors in the five-spot, direct line drive and drive pattern, the wells are in line similar to those in the
staggered line drive waterflood patterns, respectively direct line drive pattern with the same injection and pro-
(Fig. 12). duction rate. However, the injectors and producers are no
For the five-spot pattern scenario, the distance between longer directly opposed to each other, but laterally
all the injectors was constant. The four injectors formed a displaced.

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 283

Also, the injectors and producers for all the patterns of performance was analyzed. This was carried out in order to
waterflood considered were constrained so that total ascertain the best zones for completing of the injectors and
injection rate for all the injectors was 2800stb/day of water, production so as to get optimal oil production and water
and the total production rate from the producers was injection. Results from this study were used for further
1000stb/day. This was carried out so as to provide a basis analyses in this research. From results obtained, it was seen
for comparison. that injecting and producing from some zones were optimal
compared to other zones. Hence, the zones of completion
Methodology for analyzing the effect of number of injectors and producers play a vital role in waterflood
and type of injectors/producers (NToW) performance. The pattern discussed is the regular five-spot
pattern.
To effectively produce the reservoir X, sensitization on the
number and type of producers and injectors that will Effects of ZoIP on field cumulative oil production (FOPT)
optimally drain the reservoir was carried out.
Based on results obtained from the study on the effect of Figure 13 shows a plot of cumulative oil production versus
pattern of waterflood, the direct line drive pattern was time of all the ZoIP cases analyzed (cases ZONES 4–5,
adopted and waterflooding commenced after three years of ZONE 4 and AQUIFER) for the five-spot waterflood for a
primary production and total simulation period was thirteen simulation period of thirteen years—three years of primary
years. The use of vertical and horizontal wells was ana- production and ten years of waterflood. It is observed that
lyzed. For scenarios involving vertical wells, the producers cumulative oil production for all cases increases with time
were completed in two zones—layers 3 to 4 and water was within the case of production from zones 3–4 and injection
injected in two zones only—layers 4 to 5. While for sce- into zones 4–5 showing the highest increase.
narios involving horizontal wells, the producers were Case AQUIFER gives the lowest cumulative production
drilled in layer 4 while injectors were drilled in layer 4. for all cases of waterflooding considered.
Scenarios analyzed include:
Effects of ZoIP on the field oil production rate
• Case 1 (VI_VP): This case involved the use of a total of
(FOPR)
six vertical wells—two producers and four injectors.
• Case 2 (HI_VP): For this scenario, all wells were
Figure 14 shows a plot of the oil-producing rate of the field
horizontal wells. A total of four wells were employed—
versus time for a five-spot waterflood considering the three
two horizontal injectors and two vertical producers.
cases of ZoIP.
• Case 3 (VI_HP): Here, combinations of vertical and
The plots show that the reservoir production is more
horizontal wells were employed. A total of five wells—
effective when more zones of the reservoir can produce
four vertical injectors and one horizontal producer—
oil and inject water, with case ZONES 4–5 having the
were drilled.
highest cumulative oil production for all periods after
• Case 4 (HI_HP): In this scenario, all wells are
waterflooding. This is because production is largely a
horizontal wells. Three wells—two injectors and one
function of voidage. The more the zones injecting water,
producer—were drilled.
the higher the voidage replacement of reservoir fluids, and

Results and discussion

The results obtained from the waterflooding of the reser-

voir X are presented in this chapter. The analysis of these
results is discussed, and observations derived from the
results are also included in this chapter.

Waterflood optimization

Effects of zones of production and injection on waterflood

performance

In this section, the effect of zones of injection and pro- Fig. 13 Plot of field cumulative production versus time for the ZoIP
duction on the reservoir’s primary depletion and waterflood scenarios for the five-spot waterflood

123
284 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Fig. 14 Plot of field oil production rate versus time for different ZoIP Fig. 16 Plot of field water-cut versus time for different ZoIP
scenarios for the five-spot waterflood scenarios for the five-spot waterflood

It is observed that for all waterflood scenarios analyzed,

none of the ZoIP cases considered had a significant amount
of water production prior to waterflooding.
Also observed is that injecting water into fewer zones
leads to a reduction in water production. Injection of water
into more zones of the reservoir will lead to an increase in
water production. It is seen that injection of water into
zones other than the aquifer would result in high water-cut.
This is because injection into such zones can cause a higher
production of water with displaced oil.
Finally, water injection into the aquifer (case AQUI-
FER) is seen to have the least water production for all cases
considered.

Effects of ZoIP on field pressure (FPR)

Fig. 15 2D Map showing the distribution of oil saturation across
zone 3 of the reservoir X and the location of producers (PROD 1 and Figure 17 shows plots of field pressure versus time for the
PROD 2) at the end of simulation (blank cells represent non-reservoir five-spot waterflood pattern. Observed from the figure is
grid cells)
that pressure maintenance/increment is more effective
when more zones of the reservoir can inject water with the
thus, a decline in production rate is curtailed. However, scenario in which water was injected into two reservoir
this is not good practice as it can also lead to very high zones (ZONES 4–5) having the best pressure profile for all
water production. scenarios studied. This is because pressure decline is lar-
Also, injection into zone 4 (ZONE 4) is seen to give gely a function of voidage. If more zones in the reservoir
higher production rates than the case of water injection into are injecting water, there is voidage replacement, and thus,
the aquifer (AQUIFER). This is because injection into oil- pressure decline is arrested.
bearing zones in the reservoir tends to displace more oil Also, injection of water into zones 4 (case ZONE 4) is
toward the producers than injection into the aquifer. seen to give higher pressure increment than the case
Figure 15 shows the distribution of oil saturation and the which involved injection into the aquifer. The injection
location of producers (PROD 1 and PROD 2) in the layer 3 into the aquifer (case AQUIFER) had no significant
of the reservoir after simulation. pressure maintenance effect as reservoir pressure is still
observed to decline and injection into the aquifer only
Effects of ZoIP on field water-cut (FWCT) serves to maintain pressure and not necessarily boost it.
This may be due to the presence of a small aquifer or an
Figure 16 shows a plot of field water-cut versus time of all aquifer which is not in good communication with the
the ZoIP cases. reservoir.

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 285

Fig. 18 Plot of the production rate of the field with time for different
PoWF scenarios
Fig. 17 Plot of field pressure versus time for different ZoIP scenarios
for the five-spot waterflood
staggered line drive patterns) have an advantage over one
producer (for the 5-SPOT) as this implies that more zones
Effects of waterflood patterns on the performance of the reservoir are available for drainage by the producers.
of the waterflood
Effects of selected waterflood pattern on field water-
In this section, the impact of the selected waterflood pat- cut (FWCT)
terns on waterflood performance is evaluated. This is car-
ried out by analyzing trends in the field oil production rate, Figure 19 shows a plot of water-cut of the field versus time
field water-cut, cumulative production and field reservoir for the three patterns of waterflood considered—the five-
pressure. The optimal pattern would be that pattern which spot, direct line drive and the staggered line drive water-
would give the highest cumulative production with appre- floods, respectively.
ciable low water-cut. It is observed that case LD (the direct –line drive pat-
tern) and case SLD (the staggered line drive pattern) have
Field oil production rate (FOPR) similar water-cut trends which are higher than that of the
five-spot waterflood pattern. This is due to the placement of
Figure 18 shows a plot of oil production rate of the field the injectors in line with the producers in distance closer
versus time for the three patterns of waterflood consid- than those obtainable for the five-spot waterflood pattern
ered—the five-spot, direct line drive and the staggered line and allows for the faster movement of the advancing water
drive waterfloods, respectively. front toward the producers and hence higher water pro-
It is clearly observed from the figure that for all flood/ duction and earlier water breakthrough.
injection patterns evaluated, there were corresponding
effects in the field oil production rate.
Also, cases LD (direct- line drive scenario) and SLD
(staggered line drive) are observed to have higher oil
production rates for periods after waterflooding. This is
because the field was adequately furnished with producers
which helped drain the reservoir and injectors which
ensured that oil was sufficiently displaced toward these
producers, hence maintaining the high oil rate observed.
Also, the placement of the injectors in line with the pro-
ducers allows for efficient displacement of oil by the
advancing water front.
Finally, it is observed that the case 5_SPOT (a regular
five-spot waterflood scenario) has the lowest oil rate of all
the scenarios. This is due to the lack of sufficient producers
which would adequately drain the reservoir. This is Fig. 19 Plot of field water-cut versus time for different PoWF
because the two producers (for the direct line drive and scenarios

123
286 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Also, the five-spot waterflood scenario has the least

water-cut throughout the period of simulation. This is
because of the distance between the injectors and the
producer in this case as compared with the other cases.
This causes late water breakthrough and lower water
production.

Effects of selected waterflood patterns on the field

cumulative production (FOPT)

Figure 20 shows a plot showing the effect of the selected

flood pattern on the cumulative oil production from the
field.
It is observed that case LD (direct line drive pattern) Fig. 21 Plot of average field pressure versus time for different PoWF
gives the highest cumulative production for all scenarios scenarios
analyzed. This is due to the efficient displacement of oil
toward the producers by the injectors. In contrast, the case effective displacement of injected water and hence better
5_SPOT (regular five-spot pattern) has a low cumulative pressure maintenance.
production largely due to the absence of sufficient pro-
ducers to produce displaced oil. Effect of number and type of wells on reservoir
performance
Effects of selected waterflood pattern on field
pressure (FPR) Under this section, the results of the optimum number of
producers and injector required to adequately drain the
Figure 21 shows a plot of field pressure versus time for the reservoir will be discussed. Different scenarios involving
scenarios of waterflood patterns considered—the five-spot, the use of vertical and/or horizontal wells were simulated.
direct line drive and the staggered line drive waterfloods. The results are discussed in the following section using
From the figure, it is observed that the plots for the line analysis of trends in field oil production rate, field water-
drive patterns have higher pressure profiles than the five- cut, cumulative production and field reservoir pressure.
spot patterns after waterflooding. This is largely due to the The optimum number of wells and type of well to be
shorter distances between the injectors and the producers selected would be the scenario that gives the highest
for these patterns as compared to the five-spot patterns. cumulative production and/or oil rate over time with a
Also, case SLD (the staggered line drive waterflood) corresponding low water-cut.
shows the highest pressure increment after waterflooding
for all patterns analyzed. This is because the lateral ori- Effect of the number and type of wells on field oil
entation of the injectors to the producers allows for production rate (FOPR)

Figure 22 shows the plot for field oil rate versus time for all
scenarios examined. Prior to waterflooding, it is observed
that scenarios in which the producers are vertical (cases
VI_VP and HI_VP) had rapidly declining flowrates as a
result of the rapid depletion of oil-producing zones. Cases
VI_HP and HI_HP (scenarios with horizontal producers)
are also observed to have higher production rates compared
to cases VI_VP and HI_VP. This is because for any given
reservoir with good permeability anisotropy, horizontal
wells have the ability to communicate with more zones in
the reservoir than vertical wells and hence better oil
recovery. However, a reversal of this trend is observed just
month before waterflooding (between years 2.5 and 3)
because of rapid reduction in oil production rates of the
horizontal producers due to decline in initial reservoir
Fig. 20 Plot of field cumulative production versus time for different
PoWF scenarios energy.

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 287

Fig. 22 Plot of the production rate of the field with time for different Fig. 23 Plot of the field water-cut with time for different NToW
NToW scenarios scenarios

will flow more conveniently in the upward vertical direc-

Upon waterflooding, it is observed that the scenarios tion due to gravity rather than laterally and leads to higher
with horizontal producers (HI_HP and VI_HP) have water production at the producers.
high field oil production rate compared to the other two Finally, case VI_VP gives the earliest water break-
scenarios in which production wells are vertical wells. through time as water production is observed to begin upon
The scenario in which both injectors and producers are waterflooding. This is because the completion of the pro-
horizontal (case HI_HP) is seen to have the highest oil ducers close to the water-bearing zone of the reservoir
production rate for all simulation periods after water- creates higher tendency of early water coning.
flooding. This is because water injection by the hori-
zontal injector into the same zone for which oil is Effect of number and type of wells on field
produced (zone 4) displaces oil more efficiently toward cumulative production (FOPT)
the producers than cases with vertical injectors which
involved injection of water into zones 4 and 5. Cases Figure 24 shows a plot showing the effect of the selected
with vertical producers, cases HI_VP and VI_VP are number and type of producers and injectors on the cumu-
observed have the lowest production rate for all periods lative oil production from the field. It is observed that
after waterflooding as these producers communicate scenario HI_HP has the highest cumulative production.
with lesser zones of the reservoir. This is because of horizontal producers which have the
Finally, case HI_VP is observed to give the lowest oil advantage of producing from more reservoir zones. This
production rate. This is due to the inefficient displacement led to the steadily increasing oil recovery experienced.
of oil by the advancing injected water as water is not
injected into the same zones from with oil production is
carried out. Also, recall that the production wells are in
communication with lesser zones of the reservoir when
compared to scenarios involving the use of horizontal
wells.

Effect of number and types of wells on field water-

cut (FWCT)

Figure 23 shows a plot of water-cut of the field versus time

for the scenarios of number and type of producers/injectors
considered. It is observed that for all scenarios, the reser-
voir had little or no water production before waterflooding.
Upon waterflooding, water-cut for scenarios with vertical
injectors, cases VI_VP and VI_HP are discovered to have
the highest increase in water-cut. This is because in Fig. 24 Plot of the field cumulative oil production versus time for
reservoirs with good vertical-to-lateral anisotropy, water different NToW scenarios

123
288 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289

Conclusions

From the results obtained, it can be concluded that:

1. The geostatistical tool of co-simulation is a reliable
and efficient tool for modeling and distributing reser-
voir petrophysical properties in a model.
2. Building of multiple equiprobable realizations of
reservoir properties and ranking them are an efficient
approach to reservoir characterization. This approach
reduces uncertainties associated with reservoir prop-
erties estimation.
3. The combination of generating numerous equiprobable
Fig. 25 Plot of the field pressure versus time for different NToW distributions of reservoir property and using numerical
scenarios simulation to evaluate fluids distribution is an
extremely useful approach for reservoir performance
analysis.
Also since this scenario involves the use of horizontal 4. Waterflood was optimized using an approach that
injectors which are completed in the same zone as the considered the zones of injection and production, the
producer, water flows to displace oil toward the producer pattern of waterflood and the number and type of
more efficiently, and hence, more oil is drained at the producers/injectors.
producers.
Finally, cases with vertical producers, cases HI_VP and
Acknowledgements The authors would like to appreciate Mr. Brian
VI_VP are observed to have the lowest cumulative oil Coates of Coat Engineering, Inc., USA, for donating the SENSOR 6K
production throughout simulation as these producers simulator software used for this research. Also acknowledged are Mr.
communicate with lesser zones of the reservoir, and hence, Evans Boah Annah and Mr. Borsah Kofi Aidoo of African University
of Science and Technology, Abuja, for the assistance they rendered.
oil production is lesser in these scenarios. Case HI_VP in
which injectors are horizontal well and producers are ver- Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
tical wells is observed to give the lowest cumulative oil Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
production. The use of horizontal injectors and vertical creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
producers is not good practice as there is inefficient dis-
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
placement of oil by the advancing injected water because link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
of well orientations. Also, the production wells in this made.
scenario are in communication with lesser zones of the
reservoir when compared to scenarios involving the use of
horizontal producers. References

Alhuthali AH, Oyerinde D, Datta-Gupta A (2006) Optimal waterflood

Effect of number and types of wells on average field
management using rate control. Paper SPE 102478-PA-P
pressure (FPR) presented at the 2006 SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition, San Antonio, Texas
Figure 25 shows a plot of the field pressure versus time for Asadollahi M (2012) Waterflooding optimization for improved
reservoir management, Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University
different scenarios of number and type of injectors and
of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
producers used. From the figure, it is observed that HI_HP Awejori GA (2010) Integrated petrophysical evaluation of turbiditic
had the highest pressure increment for the waterflood sands in Niger Delta Basin, M.Sc. Thesis, Unpublished, AUST,
operation. This is because of the large number of zones into December
Bohling G (2005) Stochastics simulation and reservoir modeling
which water were injected. Pressure decline is largely a
workflow. C&PE 940
function of voidage, and when more reservoir zones can Craft BC, Hawkins MF (1991) Applied petroleum reservoir engi-
inject water, there is voidage replacement and pressure neering. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs
decline is arrested. Craig FF (1971) The reservoir engineering aspects of waterflooding.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, New York
Also observed is that the average field pressure for the
Lach J (2010) IOR for deepwater Gulf of Mexico: phase 1, knowledge
scenarios which involved the use of vertical injectors reservoir, Houston, Texas
(VI_VP and VI_HP) showed the lowest pressure increment Lake LW, Schmidt RL, Venuto PB (1992) A niche for enhanced oil
for all scenarios studied. recovery in the 1990s. Petroleum Engineer International

123
J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2018) 8:271–289 289

Meshioye O, Mackay E, Chukuwezi M (2010) Optimization of Spath J, McCants S (1997) Waterflood optimization using a combined
waterflooding using smart well technology. Paper SPE 136996 geostatistical—3D streamline simulation approach: a field
presented at the 34th annual SPE international conference and example. Paper 38355-MS presented at the SPE Rocky Moun-
exhibition held in Tinapa—Calabar, Nigeria tain Regional Meeting, Wyoming
Nwaozo J (2006) Dynamic optimization of a water flood reservoir, M. Thiele MR, Batycky RP (2006) Using streamline-derived injection
Sc. Thesis, University of Oklahoma Graduate College, Norman, efficiencies for improved waterflood management. Paper SPE
Oklahoma, USA 84080 presented at the 2006 SPE annual technical conference
Ogali OI (2011) Waterflood optimization using streamline simulation. and exhibition, San Antonio, Texas
M.Sc., Thesis, Unpublished, AUST, Abuja Tiab D, Donaldson EC (2004) Theory and Practice of measuring
Remy N, Boucher A, Wu J (2009) Applied geostatistics with SGeMS. reservoir rock and fluid transport properties, 2nd edn. Gulf
Cambrigde University Press, Cambridge Professional Publishing, Burlington

123