PDF

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol
DOI 10.1007/s13202-016-0294-y
ORIGINAL PAPER - PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
Advancement of sweep zones in waterflooding: conceptual insight

based on flow visualizations of oil-withdrawal contours
and waterflood time-of-flight contours using complex potentials
Ruud Weijermars1 • Arnaud van Harmelen1,2
Received: 28 June 2016 / Accepted: 24 October 2016

The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Sweep zones are traced in synthetic reservoir Keywords Reservoir simulations Complex potentials
models of waterflood advancement based on potential Improved oil recovery Flood management Well
functions. Time-of-flight contours, oil-withdrawal contours surveillance
and streamlines corresponding to fluid withdrawal paths are
visualized. The effects of differential well rates on water-
Abbreviations
flood sweep regions for a range of well architectures are
AEM Analytical element method
systematically investigated using reservoirs that are con-
b Fault orientation angle
tinuous isotropic with and without impervious fault barri-
d Distance of well pair in doublet
ers. Complex potentials are capable of solving the drainage
Dt Time step
path for any constellation of producer and injection wells,
EOR Enhanced oil recovery
accounting for any discontinuities that affect the flow path
FD Finite difference
and productivity of the wells. Flood patterns are visualized
K Permeability
for a series of doublets and 7-spot well patterns. Loss of
K Number of injectors
planned drainage symmetry occurs when an undiscovered
l Fault half-length
fault barrier obstructs and diverts the waterflood. Our
ds Conformal mapping angle
method is assumed effective in illustrating the value of
MLA Multivariate lower algorithms
analytical streamline simulations for first-order assessment
h Reservoir thickness
of sweep patterns in hydrocarbon field produced with
ms Well strength
waterflooding. The critical impact of injection rates and
n Number of producers
fault barriers on the shape of the waterflooding patterns is
Qp Flux of producer
visualized in detail. The analytical streamline simulator
Qi Flux of injector
allows tracing of the respective flow paths of displacing oil
RF Recovery factor
and water in the reservoir and visualizes both oil-with-
t Runtime
drawal contours and waterflood time-of-flight contours.
V(z) Velocity field
Generic rules are formulated to aid sweep maximization
WAF Well allocation factor
both prior to drilling and during the surveillance of pro-
z Complex variable
ducing wells.
* Non-dimensional form of asterisked parameter
& Ruud Weijermars
[email protected]
1 Introduction
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas
A&M University, 3116 TAMU College Station,
College Station, TX 77843-3116, USA Although streamline simulations based on analytical
2
Department of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of methods face certain limitations, one of the strengths is
Technology, Mekelweg 4, 2628, CD, Delft, The Netherlands fast tracing of fluid particle paths. Analytical streamline
123
simulations have improved our insight of reservoir geometry of the well patterns, injection and production
behavior since the early work of Muskat (1949a, b) of profiles, and spatial variations in reservoir properties (e.g.,
Gulf Oil Corporation, based on previous efforts (a.o., heterogeneities, discontinuities) are only limited by com-
Wyckoff et al. 1933; Muskat and Wyckoff 1934). The puting power. The simulator can visualize waterflooding
basic merit of streamline simulations is that well pro- patterns using any conceivable drilling pattern and variable
ductivity can be explained as the flux of fluid carried injection rates. There is no practical constraint for the finite
through the streamtubes outlined by discrete bundles of number of wells. Possible flow barriers such as an impervi-
streamlines into the well (Hauber 1964; Morel-Seytoux ous fault (for example, rendered impermeable due to clay
1965; Higgins et al. 1964; LeBlanc and Caudle 1971; smear and fault gauge) can also be included. We have
Martin and Wegner 1979; Abou-Kassem and Aziz 1985; modeled elsewhere the impact on waterflood sweep of dis-
Cox 1987; Datta-Gupta 2000; Datta-Gupta and King crete discontinuities like abrupt jumps in reservoir perme-
2007). Excellent review of streamtube reservoir models is ability and due to impervious fault barriers in unbounded
given in Thiele (1994, 1996). Field experiments have reservoirs (Weijermars et al. 2016) and in bounded reservoirs
demonstrated that the relationship between injected fluid (Nelson et al., submitted).
and production is not always simple (Heidt and Follens- When streamline visualizations based on complex
bee 1971; Martin et al. 1973). When particle paths that potentials were combined with emerging computer power in
transport water reach and oil well after some time, the the 1970s (Doyle and Wurl 1971), microprocessor capacity
well will start to produce a proportionate admixture of was a limiting factor for flow visualizations. Although
water and oil. When many water injectors interact with reservoir simulation technology has since advanced to
producer wells, there is a high risk of over-flooding the include PVT properties and multiphase flow effects, some
producer wells. This occurs when injected water pushes simple reservoirs with unit mobility ratios may still benefit
oil away from the producers rather than into it, hence from insights based on flow simulations incorporating ana-
killing a producer prematurely rather than achieving the lytical methods. Continuous development and merging of
intended enhanced production. Examples of such effects analytical with semi-analytical boundary element solution
are included in our below flood simulations. methods have advanced the solution range.
An analytical streamline simulator used in our present Algorithms used here are partly similar to those used in
study has been previously applied to investigate reservoirs earlier studies using potential flow, and our emphasis is on
with a natural far-field flow and its effect on the integrity of flow visualization. At the same time, while acknowledging
doublets and direct line drives (Weijermars and Van limitations exist, we highlight below that some limitations
Harmelen 2016). The occurrence of any far-field flow is presumed in the past in fact do no longer apply thanks to
excluded in the doublet flow visualization developed in the advances of both pristine analytical methods and expansion
present study. The flood simulations reported below reveal into semi-analytical methods (see below). For example,
that even when a far-field flow is absent, the fluid flow reservoir simulations based on potential functions were
paths of doublets appear quite complex. We realized it is previously considered limited due to requirement of
prudent to distinguish three fundamental types of sweep homogeneous properties throughout the reservoir (Datta-
zones, for which we make use of two types of time con- Gupta 2000). Advances have been made with the analytical
tours: one set of contours showing advancement of the element method (AEM) and discontinuities like impervious
flood front emanating from the injection well, spaced for barriers, leaky faults and heterogeneities can be incorpo-
regular time intervals (blue contours in this study), and rated in such models (Strack 1989; Haitjema 1995).
another set of oil drainage contours around the production The present study intends to showcase the versatility of
wells detailing expansion of the drainage area over time streamline visualizations based on closed-form solutions
(red contours in our study). When the two sets start to for a number of instructive, synthetic cases. We start out
overlap, the dynamic evolution of each type of sweep zone with a comparison of regular well patterns (2-, 7-spot) to
can be described in certain detail (see below). highlight the dynamic development of three fundamental
Our analytical streamline simulator is based on a series of types of sweep zones, first distinguished in our study. In
complex potentials which are closed-form solutions for the addition, the distortional effect of impermeable faults on
respective flow elements. The simulator has been validated drainage regions, using regular, systematic well patterns
by comparison with an independent streamline tracing for clarity, is visualized. Scaling of flight times and drai-
method based on nonlinear differential equations (Weijer- nage volumes for a specific field application is possible
mars et al. 2016). The analytical simulator can account for a applying scaling rules to the non-dimensional quantities
wide range of initial states, boundary conditions, and tran- used in our model.
sient processes that affect the parameters controlling the fluid This research paper proceeds as follows. ‘‘Basic
flow path during waterflooding. The number of wells and/or assumptions and key algorithms’’ section details the basic
123
assumptions and key algorithms used in our simulator. streamline method is an advance over previous insight in
‘‘Model results for doublets (direct line drives)’’ section that substantial flow may occur between wells outside the
presents the results of the systematic flow visualizations for predefined well pattern due to reservoir heterogeneity,
doublets (faulted and unfaulted, balanced, underbalanced anisotropy, and discontinuities such as faults (King et al.
and overbalanced injection) all illustrated with scaled oil 1993; Moreno et al. 2004; Shin and Sharma 2014). Well-
drainage and flood-front advancement contours. ‘‘Model rate allocation factors (WAFs) can be based on streamline
results for 7-spot well patterns’’ section proceeds with a models that quantify the relative fluid volumes moving
range of 7-spots (singles and multiples); arbitrary well along streamlines from injector to producer wells. Another
patterns and infill drilling are given in ‘‘Arbitrary producer basic assumption is that streamlines are initially not
well patterns, infill drilling and peripheral flooding’’ sec- affected by the mobility ratio (Higgins and Leighton
tion. A final discussion of the principal results and limi- 1962a, b). To gain a better overview of injector effective-
tations (‘‘Discussion’’ section) is followed by brief ness, injector-centered flow patterns were proposed
conclusions (‘‘Conclusions’’ section). (Batycky et al. 2005). The so-called offset oil then is
produced by other wells connected to the injector, con-
sidered to account for all oil volume produced. A com-
Basic assumptions and key algorithms plementary method to WAFs is the scaling of well
interconnectivity using coefficients based on multivariate
Model assumptions lower algorithms (MLA) analysis of the waterflood
advance rates (Albertoni and Lake 2003). Directional peaks
We confine our study to a relatively thin homogeneous in the interconnectivity coefficients highlight high-perme-
reservoir within a sub-domain of a much larger reservoir, ability channels in the reservoir and vice versa. An
with an areal extent far beyond the immediate area of advantage of flow-based allocation (Batycky et al. 2005)
initial production. In keeping with the Dykstra-Parsons over allocation factors based on fixed streamtubes are so-
model, the reservoir is assumed to occur in discrete layers called time-of-flight models (Samier et al. 2001), which
separated by intercalations of impervious beds which pre- account in the sum of well capacitance for transient flow
clude the communication of any vertical pressure gradients. effects such as well shut-ins, infill drilling, changes in
Vertical pressure gradients do not occur in our 2D sweep injection rate and/or field pressure decline (e.g. Tiab and
study. The displacement of oil by water is not a simple Dinh 2013). Our analytical models use an Eulerian particle
drainage process, because oil imbibition (non-wetting in tracing algorithm that can account for such transient flow
the pore space) affects the volumetric sweep of the reser- effects (see ‘‘Key algorithms’’ section).
voir. Wettability effects and true residual oil left in the pore We use valid solutions of linear differential equations
space after sweep passage are neglected by simplifying that describe reservoir flow for a wide range of well pat-
Darcy flow. Relative permeability effects included in a terns, initial conditions and physical properties of the
Buckley-Leverett model are not considered in our paper. reservoir. Our method can track an unlimited number of
A Buckley-Leverett model uses a transport equation for particles along the oil–water front, so that its displacement
immiscible displacement of the two phases which is justi- can be mapped with high resolution. In our visualizations,
fiable when assuming a single layer reservoir (homoge- only few streamlines are highlighted for clarity of presen-
neous reservoir properties, capillary pressure effects are tation, but migration of the oil–water front contour is based
negligible, linear displacement and no free-gas). The Dietz on dense cluster-tracking of particles. The frontal water-
model conditions are assumed fulfilled for piston-like oil– flood contour is assumed to maintain an oil–water interface
water interface displacement that outpaces any gravity without the occurrence of diffusion effects or viscous fin-
forces that would distort the interface during flooding. The gering. In two fluid systems with movable interfaces, such
capillary pressures of any connate water and oil are dif- as water–oil and oil–gas, hydrodynamic coupling at the
ferent, which would affect the displacement of the oil by interface occurs for the kinematic and dynamic conditions
injection waterdrive at the pore-space scale, but are (Dougherty 1963; Dougherty and Sheldon 1964; Sheldon
neglected in our model. The permeability of porous media and Dougherty 1964; Abbaszadeh-Dehghani 1982; Masu-
can be characterized on a certain modeling scale in kawa and Horne 1988; Peddibhotla et al. 1997).
numerous mathematical ways (e.g., Rubinstein and Tor-
quato 1989), the most concise still being the description of Key algorithms
fluid permeability based on Darcy’s law (e.g., Bear 1972;
Bar-Meir 2013). Drilling patterns comprising wells acting as sources (in-
In most waterflood models, a critical assumption is that jectors) and/or sinks (producers), located at zs, can be
all offset oil balances with the injected water volume. The described in any location z of the complex plane
123
representation of a reservoir. The reservoir is assumed to withdrawal to the producer wells. The discretization time
have relatively narrow thickness as compared to its lateral step Dt* can be very small and follows a first-order Eule-
dimensions; the z plane of complex coordinates is oriented rian scheme (Zandvliet 2008):
parallel to the direction of the reservoir’s lateral extent. The zkþ1 zk
reservoir fulfills our black oil assumption and complies z_ ðt Þ ð4aÞ
Dt
with the requirement of incompressible fluid and irrota-
tional flow. A valid solution of the source/sink flow field The state vector z* after k time steps is given by
due to the injector and producer wells, with strengths ms zk :¼ z ðkDtÞ. Individual streamlines are traced by first
(m2 s-1; using SI units), can be concisely represented by choosing an initial position, z0 , from which the tracing starts
the following vector field (Weijermars et al. 2016): at the non-dimensional time t0 = 0. The position of the tracer
Xn at non-dimensional time t1 , i.e. after one non-dimensional time
ms
V1 ðzÞ ¼ ð1Þ step Dt*, is denoted by z1 ðt1 Þ and can now be calculated as:
s¼1
z zs
z1 t1 ¼ z0 t0 þ v z0 t0 Dt ð4bÞ
The volumetric flow rate Q (m3 s-1) of each well can be
obtained by multiplying well strength ms with the reservoir In the above notation v z0 t0 is the velocity of the
thickness h (m) according to Q = 2pmh (see appendix B1 particle located at position z0 at non-dimensional time t0 .
in Weijermars 2014). The velocity is calculated using velocity potential functions
We adopt a vector field description of a source/sink flow as described in Eqs. (1) and (2). Smooth streamlines are
field including a fault with orientation b (measured coun- obtained for small values of Dt* (e.g. Dt* = 0.01), but a
ter-clockwise from the real axis) and half-length l (m). The stronger source, sink or far-field flow requires a smaller
fault barrier is modeled using a complex potential based on Dt*. Generalizing this concept, the position of a tracer at
the circle theorem and the Joukowski transformation non-dimensional time t*j is given by:
(Weijermars and van Harmelen 2016). The conformal
mapping operations used to model source and sink flows zj tj ¼ zj1 tj1

þ v zj1 tj1
Dt ð4cÞ
affected by a fault requires the introduction of a mapping
Steady-state well rates are used in what follows to be
angle ds (expressing the rotation angle of the well position
able to focus on the effects of variations in volume balance
relative to the fault center (zf) during one of the mapping
of the waterflood program. However, time-dependent rates
operations), which differs for each well location.
can be readily handled by our code. Such transient flight
V2 ðzÞ ¼
path adjustments are useful for many practical applications
cosðds Þisinðds Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
X
n
2ib 2
1 e l
ðzzf Þ2 (e.g., Pizarro and Branco 2012). For example, variable
ms qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s¼1 cosðds Þisinðds Þ 1 ðzz e2ib l2 2ib 2
ðzzf Þ cosðds Þisinðds Þ 1 ðzezl Þ2 ðzs zf Þ source rates were already used in another application of our
f Þ2 s f
flow visualization method, which explains the variety in the

ð2Þ shapes of terrestrial gravity flows (Weijermars et al. 2014).
Stagnation points occurring in the flow field V1(z) can be
found by solving V1(z) = 0. For example, in the case of a Three zones in waterflood system
doublet with wells located at z1 and z2, the location of the
stagnation point is: Figure 1 highlights common well patterns traditionally
m 1 z2 þ m 2 z1 m1 m2 used for onshore water-injection-assisted oil production
zsp ¼ ¼ z2 þ z1 ð3Þ such as direct line drives, staggered line drives, 5-spot
ðm1 þ m2 Þ ðm1 þ m2 Þ ðm1 þ m2 Þ
networks and 7-spot networks. Field development by dril-
Expression (3) is valid only if m1 = m2, because the ling such fixed well patterns is often practical for opera-
stagnation point vanishes when the doublet is balanced. For tional diligence. An additional advantage is that in
actual modeling purposes, we use non-dimensional units surveillance and evaluations of reservoir performance, it
(denoted by asterisked quantities). All simulations becomes quickly apparent which sub-domains deviate from
presented in this study are universally scaled by the anticipated well productivity and any adverse impact on
normalization using the rules of dimensional analysis the recovery factor must be remediated. Some wells may
(e.g., Weijermars and Schmeling 1986; Hewett and have been allocated too high injection rates in proportion to
Behrens 1991; Bar-Meir 2013) and can be translated to the local anomalies in reservoir conductivity. All drainage
dimensional units for specific applications. volumes and water saturation factors can be quantified by
Figures in this study have been generated using our method, but these aspects are excluded for brevity.
MATLAB. The time-of-flight contours (TOFCs) are Some fundamental aspects of oil drainage contours,
tracked for water advance front and corresponding oil- streamlines symmetry patterns and flood patterns are
123
Fig. 1 Sketch of well patterns

commonly used in field
development with injection
wells for waterflooding (adapted
from http://www.petrowiki.org/
waterflooding)
briefly explained here. When no flood is applied, the oil- production well and may currently be occupied by oil
withdrawal contours in a continuous (non-faulted), homo- brought in along streamlines from the outer region. Oil-
geneous and isotropic reservoir remain unperturbed and are withdrawal patterns are scaled with red contours, demar-
shaped as concentric circles centered around the production cating progressive drainage timelines. Zone 2 contains
well with decreasing spacing going outward for contours of floodwater and represents a reservoir section (previously
equal time lapse (Fig. 2a). However, when an injector well part of Zone 1 before the arrival of the flooding front)
is activated in the reservoir space drained by the production where the original oil already moved into the production
well, oil-withdrawal contours will loose their concentric- well ahead of the water front. Remember that the outermost
circle symmetry and become distorted near the injector red contour around the producer wells outlines the
well (Fig. 2b). boundary of the drainage region containing oil that was last
The progressive advance of the waterflood front toward swept into the producer for the total runtime shown. Zone 3
the producer well of any doublet of an otherwise contains advancing floodwater from the injector well (blue
homogenous reservoir is controlled by the well spacing and contours), which is assumed to sweep some residual oil
their relative rates. The case of Fig. 2b assumes a doublet into the producer well. The three distinct sweep regions
with equal strength for the pair of injection and production (Zones 1–3) co-exist and grow at expense of each other.
wells. The complexity of fluid movement becomes appar- Figure 2c shows a more advanced stage of flooding using a
ent even for this simple flooding program using a single stronger injection rate.
spaced doublet. Three distinct zones can be distinguished The brief example of Fig. 2 highlights that the flow path
in any 2-spot waterflood system (annotated in Fig. 2b). and fluid displacement of the 2-spot direct line drive
Zone 1 (dark-gray shaded) outlines a reservoir section (spaced doublet) is far from simple. Because the doublet is
where the original oil has already been drained by the both commonly applied in numerous field projects as well
123
b Fig. 2 Top view of horizontal oil reservoir (light gray space) initially
produced with one vertical well. Red contours oil-withdrawal
contours showing expanding outline of region that already contributed
oil to the production well. Streamlines for oil in yellow. The decrease
in spacing of the oil-withdrawal contours is here scaled for constant
production rate; a declining well rate would result in faster narrowing
of the contour spacing going outward. b, c Widely spaced doublets
(d* = 20) with water flood advance in blue. Streamlines for
advancing waterflood are portrayed by white curves. b Balanced
injection (m*injector = ?1; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 40,
and contour spacing t* = 4). c Unbalanced injection (m*injec-
tor = ?2; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 40, and contour spacing
t* = 4)
as used in the conceptualization of well behavior and fluid

migration paths for both oil wells and geothermal energy
projects, we systematically studied the development of the
sweep region for both equal and different rates of injector
and producer wells. However, volume balance between the
well pairs may not be necessarily assured in real field sit-
uations, and the balance between the fluid volume pro-
duced and injected by the well pair of the doublet may
differ. These so-called unbalanced doublets may occur in
the real world due to a variety of conditions: different
wellbore diameters for injector and producer wells or when
their respective tubular lengths differ, when the black oil
assumption is a poor approximation for the real reservoir
(which occurs when pore space is partly void, only partially
filled with oil) or when different pressures between injector
and producer well occur due to storage of injection fluid.
Transient Darcy flow may delay communication of injector
well with the producer well. Over- and underbalanced
injection/production rates may occur when voidage
replacement ratios are different from one, which means
some of the fluid is either lost or gained from the far-field.
There may be associated re-pressurization if the system is
compressible, if incompressible net loss or gain of injection
fluid is the corresponding response.
In a bounded system, overbalancing or underbalancing
may result in, respectively, re-pressurization or depletion
of the reservoir as a measure of material balance. Such
effects are stronger and may alter the flow pattern visual-
ized in the present study for unbounded reservoir systems.
In a 3 well case (IPP or IIP), the allocation of fluids will
stay closer to proportional allocation only when reservoir
boundaries are nearby to approach a closed system. Non-
trivial allocations occur when at least two injectors (or
more) and two producers (or more) are located in either a
larger finite or infinite domain. WAF = 1 is an unlikely
case when equal volume production is intended as some
fluids may come from the far-field.
123
All flow visualizations in our paper include time con- the actual fraction of water in the producer, which will be
tours for both the flood advancement and the oil-with- time-dependent. One would need to distinguish between
drawal. Such time contours capture the full time-series as arrival times of oil fluxes and water fluxes to enable
each contour inward from the final contour shows a pre- allocation of water-cut ratio to the producer based on
ceding stage. For users less familiar with reading such WAFs (e.g., Nilsen and Lie 2009).
time-of-flight contours, separate time-series are merited. Overbalanced injection occurs when the sum of all
Although time-series are encoded in the flood front and oil injector fluxes exceeds the sum of all producer fluxes.
drainage contours used in each image, separate images are Consequently, overbalanced WAFs have to fulfill:
produced for several key cases in this study to aid the X
k X
n k X
X n X
k X
n
Qp i
interpretation. WAFp i
¼ ¼ k and Qp \ Qi
p¼1 i¼1 p¼1 i¼1
Qp p¼1 i¼1
Definitions of well balance ð7Þ
The fraction of fluid flux in a producer due to the sur- The WAF expression (7) of the overbalanced case is
rounding injectors is commonly expressed by well alloca- equal to the WAF expression (6d) of the balanced case,
tion factors (WAFs). Traditionally, the WAFp i is taken as but does not account for all fluid displaced by the
injectors. A fraction of the injection water bypasses the
the ratio of the flux due to a particular injector Qp i and the
producer wells (see later simulations), because the sum of
total flux of the producer Qp (Batycky et al. 2005):
all individual injector fluxes is larger then the sum of all
Qp i individual producer fluxes. Arrival times of oil fluxes and
WAFp i
¼ ð5Þ
Qp water fluxes need to be distinguished (as visualized in our
We define balanced injection as a water flooding study) to enable allocation of water-cut ratio to the
program where the sum of all individual producer fluxes producer based on WAFs. In the case of overbalanced
(Qp) equals the sum of all individual injector fluxes (Qi). injection, water will eventually completely flood the
This implies for a two-spot pattern with one producer and producer well, and excess water will be stored elsewhere
one injector that the WAF satisfies: in the reservoir.
Underbalanced injection is defined as a water flooding
Qp i program where the sum of all injector fluxes is less then the
WAFp i
¼ ¼ 1 and Qp ¼ Qi ð6aÞ
Qp sum of all producer fluxes. Consequently, underbalanced
Balancing an inverted three-spot pattern (with one WAFs require:
producer and two injectors) requires X
k X
n k X
X n X
k X
n
Qp i
X
2 X
2 p i X
2 WAFp i
¼ \k and Qp [ Qi
p i Q Qp
WAF ¼ ¼ 1 and Qp ¼ Q i
ð6bÞ p¼1 i¼1 p¼1 i¼1 p¼1 i¼1
Qp
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 ð8aÞ
One producer with n peripheral injectors will be The WAF expression (8a) of the underbalanced case
balanced when: shows that injectors supply only a fraction of the fluid flux
Xn Xn
Qp i Xn in the producers. For example, in the case of an
WAFp i ¼ p
¼ 1 and Q p
¼ Qi ð6cÞ underbalanced two-spot:
i¼1 i¼1
Q i¼1
Qp i
When drilling patterns with n injectors and k producers, WAFp i
¼ \1 and Qp [ Qi ð8bÞ
a balanced flooding must satisfy the following conditions: Qp
X
k X
n k X
X n
Qp i In the case of underbalanced injection, all floodwater
WAFp i
¼ ¼ k and will eventually become part of the production flux, but one
p¼1 i¼1 p¼1 i¼1
Qp
ð6dÞ or more producers will never reach 100% water cut,
X
k X
n because far-field oil can still be drained (unless channeling
Qp ¼ Qi of floodwater occurs). We use synthetic reservoir scenarios
p¼1 i¼1
of 2-spot (‘‘Model results for doublets (direct line drives)’’
The latter condition in expression (6d) states that the section), 7-spot drilling patterns (‘‘Model results for 7-spot
sum of fluxes of all individual producers equals the sum of well patterns’’ section) and random infill wells (‘‘Arbitrary
all individual injector fluxes. Furthermore, it should be producer well patterns, infill drilling and peripheral
noted that the WAF expression balances fluid fluxes, but flooding’’ section) to illustrate the effect of various
does neither specify the arrival time of the waterfront nor injection balances.
123
Model results for doublets (direct line drives) portion of the reservoir where water sweep has passed
through the pore space and directly displaced oil via
Doublets in continuous reservoirs streamtubes connected to the producer well. Zone 3 is the
reservoir portion flooded (light blue), but that flood region
Figure 3a–c provides a time-series for a spaced doublet has not yet contributed to sweep oil into the producer well
with equal injection and producer well rates. The outlines for the time step visualized. Note that floodwater also
of the advancing flood front at different times are given by pushes some oil farther away from the producer rather than
the time contours, which in Fig. 3d are spaced for equal toward it.
time lapses. Zone 1 outlines the reservoir portion where Figure 4a–c highlight the late stage continuation of the
original oil has already been evacuated (dark gray) and flooding program with the doublets of Fig. 3a–c. The
produced by the well. Zone 1 would have been depleted by producer receives progressively larger quantities of injec-
the well were it not replenished with far-field oil (light ted water due to which the well’s water-cut increases for
gray) as far as such oil is mobile without flooding. Zone 2 longer runtimes.
outlines the reservoir part previously occupied by Zone 1 The early stages of the flood sweep development for
but now already swept by the advancing flood (dark blue), underbalanced flooding are visualized in Fig. 5a–c. This
which has started to mix water in the production well. shows a relatively thin snout develops first before the
Crucially, the region occupied by Zone 2 is the only broader flood front engulfs the producer. Again, the
Fig. 3 a–c Doublet made up of distinct injector and producer wells contours showing expanding outline of region that already contributed
spaced by d* = 4. Time-series of waterflood-advance and oil- oil to the production well. Blue contours flood-advancement contours
withdrawal contours in balanced doublet. Runtimes are indicated in (m*injector = ?1; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 20, and contour
the lower left corner of each plot. d Red contours oil-withdrawal spacing t* = 4)
123
contours in Fig. 5 track the advancing flood front in time effects caused by overbalanced waterflooding are precisely
(blue contours) as well as the simultaneous growth of the counter to what is aimed for in improved oil recovery
oil-withdrawal and water drainage front (red contours). projects by water injection. We conclude that the over-
Waterflood advancement in a widely spaced doublet balanced flooding illustrated in Fig. 6 should be avoided in
shows that the appearance of water-cut in the production any case and at all cost. Oil sweep of Zone 1 occupies a
well occurs later when the distance between the injector very small area and is depleted in an early stage of the
and producer increases. A practical recommendation, based flooding. The producer has 100% water cut after Zone 2
on our analytical flow visualizations above, is that water- has overtaken Zone 1. As long as doublet continues, Zone 3
drive in doublets should never use an injection rate that is will expand and continue pushing water past the producer
higher than the producer rate. The adverse effects of well, effectively moving more far-field oil further away
overbalanced water injection are: (1) cusping of the flood from the production well.
early in the field life, (2) water cut increases rapidly due to The potentially adverse effects of overbalanced flooding
streamline jetting, (3) only a relatively small area of the oil in doublet development must be mitigated either by bal-
in the reservoir is moved into the production well, and (4) anced or underbalanced injection. To evaluate the best
most oil will be swept away from the producer by the injection strategy, the effect of a relatively slow, under-
waterflooding (an effect termed ‘flood bypass’ in our balanced injection rate was systematically investigated
study). (Fig. 7). A slower rate of injection relative to the producer
The doublets of Figs. 3 and 4 were volume-balanced, will increase the area drained by oil-withdrawal contours.
while Fig. 5 was slightly underbalanced. Figure 6a–d At the same time, only a very small area is swept by the
visualizes the effect of overbalanced flooding in a doublet underbalanced flood (Fig. 7a, b). However, flood bypass of
with a relatively narrowly spaced well pair. The injector is the producer well cannot occur, as is highlighted by far-
four times as strong as the producer, which retards oil field oil replenishment of Zone 1 (Fig. 7a, b). The effect of
production because the overbalanced water sweep quickly underbalanced flooding is that Zone 1 remains relatively
surrounds the production well. Many streamlines guiding large and the area effectively flooded (Zones 2, 3) cannot
the flood water as it moves away from the injector well expand further due to a finite bulb-shaped flood area, the
fully bypass the production well. Clearly, such a sweep will outer limit of which is indicated by the far-field oil flight
not benefit the producer well. Zone 1 remains small and is path (Fig. 7a, b; black contours).
quickly overtaken by Zone 2 and encapsulated by Zone 3 The size of the flood area is determined by both the
flood, which effectively blocks the well from draining any relative rate of the well pair and the distance between the
further oil from the reservoir (Fig. 6c). The occurrence of a injector well and the flow stagnation point. The distance
flow stagnation point (annotated in Fig. 6d) prevents any between the flood flow stagnation point and the injector
far-field oil from reaching the producer well, ensuring well (which can be determined using Eq. 3) provides a
complete blockage. The producer wells will have a very good measure for the maximum width of the waterflood
high water cut already early in the production history. The (measured normal to the connector of the well pair, this is
Fig. 4 Continuation of flooding in Fig. 3b, c for doublet made up of only portion of the reservoir where sweep has passed and brought oil
distinct injector and producer wells spaced by d* = 4. Runtimes are to the producer well. Zone 3 is the reservoir portion flooded (light
indicated in the lower left corner of each plot (m*injector = ?1; blue) but water pushed oil further way from the producer rather than
m*producer = -1). Crucially, the region occupied by Zone 2 is the toward it
123
section of the reservoir. Floodwater cannot cross the far-

field flow lines and remains confined to an oval region
between the stagnation point and the producer well; the
width of the water sweep is limited by, and related to, the
stagnation point distance to the injector [see Eq. (3)]. The
areal width effectively swept by the floodwater grows when
the rate of the injector becomes closer to that of the pro-
ducer. Eventually, well rates may be become balanced
again, which is analyzed in Figs. 3 and 4.
Doublets in discontinuous reservoir
The doublet arrangements studied in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

assumed homogeneous reservoirs devoid of any discontinuities
(no faults). Faults—even major ones—are easily overlooked in
the early phases of reservoir exploration and development. The
effect of an unrecognized, impermeable fault blocking doublet
flow was also systematically investigated in our study. Obvi-
ously, the critical parameters [cf., Eq. (2)] are fault mid-point
(zf), orientation (angle b) and total length (2l).
Figure 8a–d shows a time-series for a balanced dou-
blet—but with flow space obstructed by an impermeable
fault. The presence of the fault results in the development
of two separate sections in the reservoir occupied by Zone
2 (Fig. 8c). Once the flood has fully engulfed the fault
surface, the obstruction no longer plays any significant role
for the oil sweep efficiency (Fig. 8d). At an advanced stage
of flooding, the doublet in the faulted reservoir develops as
a regular balanced doublet. However, the time-of-flight for
the water flood sector in the left-hand side of the image of
Fig. 8 is much faster than for the right-hand-side sector.
Figure 9a–c shows how a ‘sweep shadow’ (term coined
here) occurs when the flood is deflected by an impermeable
fault zone. The fault was placed half-way the connector of
the doublet’s well pair with its mid-point crossing the origin,
so that the flow discontinuity affects the entire flow space of
the doublet. The presence of the fault delays the arrival of the
floodwater in the producer well (compare Figs. 9a, 5a).
In the next set of simulations, the fault plane was located
in one half of the doublet flow space (Fig. 10). The result is
that the sweep shadow affects only one half of the doublet.
A fault barrier that predominantly occupies only one half of
the doublet space barely affects the waterflood path of the
other half of the flow space (compare Figs. 2c, 10b).
However, cusping in the doublet space not shielded from
Fig. 5 Underbalanced flooding for widely spaced doublet. Distance
the flood by the fault’s sweep shadow (Fig. 10a) occurs
between well pair is (d* = 20). Well rates are: a m*injector =?0.25;
m*producer = -1; b m*injector =?0.5; m*producer = -1; c m*in- faster than when the fault would be absent (situation of
jector =?0.75; m*producer = -1. Runtime for all cases is t* = 125, Fig. 2b). Reducing the rate of the producer well by tight-
and contour spacing t* = 25 ening the wellhead diameter in an attempt to reduce the
water cut and mitigate cusping is not an effective remedy
about twice the stagnation point separation with the (Fig. 10b). The water front still cusps, and water break-
injector). Zone 1 drains a large reservoir area, but the flood through still occurs fast due to streamline jetting around the
advancement of Zones 2 and 3 is confined to a very limited fault tip.
123
Fig. 6 Time-series of
waterflood advance and oil
withdrawal in an overbalanced
doublet (wells separated by
d* = 4). Injection well rate
(m*injector = ?4) is four times
as strong as the production rate
(m*producer = -1). a–
d Runtime t* = 1, 2, 4 and 20,
respectively. Spacing of time
contours in (d) is t* = 4
Fig. 7 Limited flood region due to flow stagnation points close to spacing t* = 8). Black contours are flow lines for far-field oil
injector as a result of doublet’s injection well rate being relatively replenishment of Zone 1. Travel time was extended for these far-field
small. Stagnation point distance to injector varies with the relative flight paths and for water flood of Zones 2 and 3. Waterflood cannot
strength of the well pair. a Stagnation point located at 0 ? 31/ expand beyond the stagnation point occurring above it. The stagnation
3i (m*injector =?0.25; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 40, and point moves away from the injector well when the ratio of the
contour spacing t* = 8); b Stagnation point located at 0 ? 6i (m*in- absolute rates for injector and producer well rates becomes larger
jector =?0.5; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 40, and contour
123
Fig. 8 Time-series of
waterflood advance and oil
withdrawal in a balanced
doublet (wells separated by
d* = 20) affected by an
impermeable fault. a–c Runtime
t* = 25, 75, and 125,
respectively. Case (d) is
identical to (c) but now includes
contours of all previous time
steps (m*injector = ?1;
m*producer = -1, and contour
spacing t* = 25)
Excessive water cut in a doublet flow cell intersected by radial symmetry within the common suite of regular
a fault can be delayed by a reduction of the injection rate drilling patterns (line drive, 9-, 7- or 5-spot). We preferred
(Fig. 10c). The flood front then advances slower and with the 7-spot well pattern because it allows a comparison
narrower streamtubes; only a narrow region is effectively with the classical blotting-paper electrolytic models of
swept by the flood. None of the floodwater sweeps past the Wyckoff et al. (1933). Several flooding scenarios are
producer well (Fig. 10c). The presence of the fault results possible for the 7-spot pattern. A systematic series of runs
in the development of two separate sections of the reservoir for a single 7-spot cell (one injector, six producers;
occupied by Zone 2. Fig. 11a) reveals that the shape of the flood front is crit-
The principal sub-conclusions of this section are that ically dependent on the relative rates of the injector and
usage of slow flooding rates in faulted reservoirs is an producer wells.
effective mitigation (1) against growth of flood shadows Scenario I assumes no water injection occurs; the cor-
and (2) against flood bypass of the producer well. responding oil-withdrawal contours are shown in Fig. 11b
(Row I). Oil already drained is outlined (dark-gray shaded,
red contours). Oil-withdrawal contours look like a nested
Model results for 7-spot well patterns set of fans broadening outward. Streamlines are highlighted
in yellow. New far-field oil has moved into the contoured
Single 7-spot well pattern (continuous) space and will be produced when the runtime is extended,
unless blocked by the flood. A first observation of Fig. 11b
The next set of flood simulations focuses on more com- (Row I) is that producing wells do not withdraw oil as
plex well patterns. The 7-spot has the largest degree of concentric bubbles. Instead, the streamlines of each well
123
b Fig. 9 Waterflood deflection in doublet flow of balanced well pair

obstructed by an impermeable fault. Well spacing d* = 20 in all
cases. Fault length in a 2l* = 10 and b 2l* = 20, both perfectly
horizontal; and (c) 2l* = 20, with fault inclined at 60 to the
connector of the injection and producer wells. Region of sweep
shadow is largest when the fault length is larger and angle with
doublet well connector is maximum (i.e., 90). Further parameter
settings are m*injector = ?1; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 20,
and contour spacing t* = 4
are affected by the presence of all other wells. A second

observation is that a central area of stranded oil develops
between the producer wells; this oil will not be recovered
as long as all wells are flowing (equal rates are used in this
run).
Scenario II assumes production and injection wells
have similar, underbalanced flow rates; the classical flood
pattern develops (resembling a spider-web pattern;
Fig. 11a, Row II). The sweep space is contoured with
isochrons (dark blue) of successive water advancement.
Flood is light blue and sweep isochrons have time spacing
t* = 1. Figure 12 shows the corresponding images of the
analog laboratory visualization by Wyckoff et al. (1933).
We can immediately conclude that Fig. 12 is not a uni-
versal solution for a 7-spot flooding, but represents only
one specific case of underbalanced well rates. The
required conditions are specified in the caption of our
Fig. 11 (Row II).
Scenario III uses an increased rate for the central
injection well toward a better balance (but still underbal-
anced) with the six producer wells. Now the central region
is fully swept by the flood and less or no stranded oil occurs
(Fig. 11a, Row III). Scenario IV is for perfect balancing;
the flooding pattern changes from a spider-web pattern
(Fig. 11a, Row II) via the intermediate case (Row III) to a
flower pattern (Row IV). When water injection occurs, the
oil-withdrawal patterns resemble chestnut-tree leaves
(Fig. 11b, Rows II–IV).
Balanced well rates (Fig. 11, Row IV) are most suit-
able for serial well pattern roll-out (see Appendix).
However, underbalanced producers (Fig. 11, Rows II,
III) withdraw oil from larger areas of the reservoir quite
effectively. Also, the balanced well pattern (Fig. 11,
Row IV) quickly over-floods the region beyond the
producing wells, which is why the effective oil-with-
drawal area is much smaller than in the underbalanced
flooding scenarios of Fig. 9a (Rows II, III). We conclude
that slow, underbalanced flooding can be more effective
than balanced and overbalanced flooding-schedules. The
higher recovery factors are realized by balanced and
underbalanced flooding, depending on the properties of
the oil.
123
Fig. 10 Waterfloods affected by impermeable fault located in one spacing t* = 25; d* = 20), and c Underbalanced rates (m*injec-
half of the doublet flow space. Progressive oil-withdrawal of faulted tor = ?0.5; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 125, contour spacing
oil reservoir with: a mathematically balanced well rates for injector t* = 25; d* = 20) Fault has non-dimensional length 2l* = 13 for all
and producer (m*injector = ?1; m*producer = -1, runtime cases, and left-tip of fault starts in the origin; fault orientations are
t* = 125, contour spacing t* = 25; d* = 20), b Overbalanced rates I 90, II 60 and III 30
(m*injector = ?1; m*producer = -0.25, runtime t* = 125, contour
Fractured single 7-spot well pattern (discontinuous breakthrough for the four producer wells receiving all the
reservoirs) injection water; these wells are effectively overbalanced by
the flood. Consequently, only a fraction of the oil will be
We next examine the effect of impermeable faults on the produced by these wells (Fig. 13b). In contrast, wells that
sweep efficiency of a single 7-spot (Fig. 13a). A fault are shielded from the waterflood by the fault are flooded in
blocking the flooding front will result in premature water underbalanced fashion. Each of the two shielded wells will
123
Fig. 11 Single 7-spot well

pattern with central injector.
a Advancing flood (yellow
stream lines; dark blue contours
for flood advance). b Oil-
withdrawal contours (red) and
stream lines (yellow). Rows I–
IV show flood-advance patterns
(column a) and oil-withdrawal
contours (column b) critically
depend on the relative rates of
the injector and producer wells.
Runtime for all cases is t* = 10
and spacing of isochrons is
t* = 1. Row I: no water
injection (m*injector = 0;
m*producer = -1); Row II
Underbalanced injection
(m*injector = ?1;
m*producer = -1); Row III
Underbalanced injection
(m*injector = ?3;
m*producer = -1); Row IV
Balanced injection
(m*injector = ?6;
m*producer = -1)
123
The effects of different fault lengths and orientations on

the oil-withdrawal pattern were modeled for intermediate
fault lengths. The results are separately visualized in
Fig. 14a–d.
Arbitrary producer well patterns, infill drilling

and peripheral flooding
Reservoir geology may require deviation from field

development with a regular drilling pattern. Alternatively,
Fig. 12 Simulation of advancing flood in single 7-spot well patterns
surface access may be too limited to allow a regular dril-
by Wyckoff et al. (1933). a Central injector and peripheral producers
shows advancing flood as dark blotting in electrolytic experiment. ling pattern. This section presents oil-withdrawal patterns
b Reversal of injectors and producers shows pattern corresponding to for field development with arbitrary well patterns. Floods
oil-withdrawal contours imaged more completely in our Fig. 11b, applied in newer offshore, deep water fields are rarely
Row II
drilled in any sort of regular pattern, and there is no steady
state. Flood models developed with high-fidelity FD sim-
produce three or four times as much oil as the prematurely
ulations are the industry norm. However, because of the
flooded wells across from the fault. Scenarios I and II in
high/risk reward characteristics of nearly all principal types
Fig. 13 differ in fault lengths and orientation. In spite of the
of fields (legacy field, new field, green fields), bench-
much longer fault in Scenario II, oil-withdrawal contours
marking of streamlines with closed-form solutions may
of Scenarios I and II are quite similar (compare Rows I and
provide fast and useful support to such efforts.
II in Fig. 13b).
Fig. 13 Waterflooding (a) and

oil-withdrawal contours (b) for
single 7-spot well pattern with
central injector obstructed by a
fault. Row I Horizontal fault of
limited length (2l* = 6). Row II
Oblique fault of much lengthier
dimension than field of view
(2l* = 200). Simulation is for
mathematically balanced 7-spot
(m*injector = ?6;
m*producer = -1, runtime
t* = 10, contour spacing
t* = 1)
123
Fig. 14 Effect of variable fault

lengths and orientation on oil-
withdrawal pattern. Images
show oil-withdrawal contours
(red) for single 7-spot well
pattern with central injector rate
(m*injector = ?6)
mathematically balanced by
producer rates
(m*producer = -1). The faults
partially obstruct the waterflood
from the central injector,
physically upsetting the
mathematical mass-balance.
Fault dimensions are
a 2l* = 10, b 2l* = 13,
c 2l* = 13, and d 2l* = 20.
Stream lines are highlighted in
yellow. Black oil reservoir is
light gray. Oil-withdrawal
contours spacing t* = 1 and
total run time t* = 10
Figure 15 shows the progressive evacuation of oil from Consequently, the final oil-withdrawal pattern of Fig. 16
a reservoir developed with a random pattern of 14 producer differs in details from that shown in Fig. 15f.
wells; no injection wells occur. Given enough time, the A final set of experiments shows the same cluster of
wells will deplete a circular region occupied by the well producer wells used in Figs. 15 and 16, but now with
cluster (Fig. 15f). No stranded oil occurs in the center, peripheral water injection wells (Fig. 17a–c). The effect is
unlike that of a case illustrated in Appendix, where a 7-spot that the areal expansion of the mullion-shaped oil-with-
cell typically shows stranded oil if no central flood is drawal pattern outlined by the red contours (which all are
applied (Fig. 19b, Row I). The reason for no stranded oil in in oil-producing Zone 1) is halted by the advancing front of
the well pattern of Fig. 15 is that a producer is located in the flood (Fig. 17c). Far-field oil can no longer reach the
the very core of the well cluster, which thus drains the producer wells due to the flooding by peripheral wells.
central reservoir section. Moreover, any far-field oil will be pushed outward and
The effect of infill drilling is separately visualized in the moves further away from the producer wells.
synthetic model of Fig. 16. Al-Najem et al. (2012) alleged
that analytical solutions could not account for changing
well conditions such as infill wells. Such assertions are Discussion
incorrect, as illustrated by our example of infill drilling
(Fig. 16). Wells are drilled in four distinct episodes and Common uses and challenges in waterflooding
immediately begin to produce at, respectively t* = 0, 1, 2
and 3. Streamlines will only remain fixed over time indeed Waterflooding has been used as a secondary oil recovery
when well architecture, number and rates remain constant. method for over a century to produce numerous oil fields
123
Fig. 15 Time-series showing

snapshots of expanding oil-
withdrawal for random producer
wells, without any support from
injection wells for flooding.
Particle paths are traced by the
yellow curves. Red curves show
the expanding drainage regions
as non-dimensional time
contours with spacing t* = 0.5.
The speed of fluid particles is
determined by the initial flux
strength of each producer (all
fixed at non-dimensional
strength m* = -1 over the total
runtime t* = 3) and the relative
position of the sources.
Runtimes shown are:
a t* = 0.5, b t* = 1,
c t* = 1.5, d t* = 2, e t* = 2.5
and f t* = 3
ranging from small to giant fields (e.g., Craig 1970; Will- effectively toward the producing wells. Water injection
hite 1986; Lake 1989; Towler 2002; Lake and Holstein also mitigates pressure decline in the reservoir and thus
2007). To inject water into the reservoir, separate wells are contributes to prolong the fluid flux into the producing
drilled in addition to the wells used to produce oil. The well. Some of the world’s largest oil fields are produced
objective of water injection is to enhance oil recovery by using waterflooding: Ekofisk (North Sea), Wilmington Oil
sweeping the pore space with water so oil is displaced more Field (California), Kuparuk River field (Alaska North
123
Fig. 16 Infill drilling in reservoir with 14 wells drilled in four clusters: five wells were realized at t* = 0 (light gray), 4 more at t* = 1 (light
blue), 4 more at t* = 2 (dark gray), and a final central well at t* = 3 (dark blue). Total runtime t* = 6; and contour spacing t* = 0.5
Slope), West Texas Carbonate waterfloods, Ghawar Field We track both the waterflood-advancement contours and
(Saudi Arabia) and Kirkuk (Iraq); (see Lolomari et al. flow lines issued from the injector(s), as well as the suc-
2000; Xueli et al. 2006; Ghori et al. 2006, 2007). The goal cessive drainage contours for oil around the pro-
of waterflooding in such fields is enhancing oil recovery, ducer(s) and streamlines moving toward such wells. When
but waterflooding itself is not considered an enhanced oil a detailed study is made of the spatial and temporal dis-
recovery (EOR) technique; the method is traditionally placements of an advancing waterflood front and the
classified as an improved oil recovery mechanism. simultaneous pattern of oil-withdrawal timelines, it appears
Developing an oil field with water sweep requires an that the flood may sweep the oil in the reservoir either more
appropriate well architecture and adequate injection rates or less effectively toward the production well depending
to ensure optimum sweep area is achieved. To avoid pre- on, a.o., the specific initial conditions, well pattern and well
mature water-breakthrough and optimize the sweep of the rates (see ‘‘Model results for doublets (direct line drives)’’,
oil reservoir, the flood pattern must be skillfully managed, ‘‘Model results for 7-spot well patterns’’, ‘‘Arbitrary pro-
which includes: ducer well patterns, infill drilling and peripheral flooding’’
sections).
• Appropriate initial design of the well architecture.
• Appropriate flood and hydrocarbon drainage
Interpretation of model results
management.
• Delaying water breakthrough.
Our systematic modeling of 2-spot (doublets) and 7-spot
• Suppressing water cut after breakthrough.
wells using balanced, underbalanced and overbalanced
• Arresting decline of productivity of producer wells.
injection rates revealed new and major insights about
• Increasing the ultimate recovery.
effects on sweep efficiency, with and without the presence
• Avoidance of cusping.
of an impermeable fault barrier. When a fault is absent, the
• Avoiding the occurrence of stranded oil volumes.
123
Fig. 17 a Fourteen producer

wells with TOFCs for oil-
withdrawal as non-dimensional
time contours with spacing
t* = 0.5. The speed of fluid
particles is determined by the
initial flux strength of each
producer (all fixed at non-
dimensional strength m* = -1
over the total runtime t* = 3)
and the relative position of the
sources. b Effect of water
flooding on oil-withdrawal
pattern using 14 peripheral
injectors. c Further expansion of
the TOFCs for oil-withdrawal is
halted by the water injection
size of the flood area is determined by both the relative rate development must be mitigated either by balanced or
of the well pair and the distance between the injector well underbalanced injection.
and the flow stagnation point. The distance between the The areal width effectively swept by the floodwater
flood flow stagnation point and the injector well [which can grows when the rate of the injector becomes closer to that
be determined using Eq. (3)] provides a good measure for of the producer. Figure 18 illustrates an example of bal-
the maximum width of the waterflood (measured normal to anced flooding for a case where a single wellbore hosts
the connector of the well pair, this is about twice the both the producing and injection tubes, effectively acting
stagnation point separation with the injector). Floodwater as a point doublet. Around the producer well may occur
cannot cross the far-field flow lines and remains confined to streamtube regions saturated by the waterflood (Zone 2)
an oval region between the stagnation point and the pro- and a section that has already produced oil but receives
ducer well (Fig. 7); the width of the water sweep is limited replenishments of far-field oil and therefore will continue
and related to the stagnation point distance to the injector. to supply more oil to the producer well (Zone 1). From the
When a fault is present, the largest drainage areas will injector tube, an upper region (Zone 3, away from the
occur around the producer wells that are shielded by the producer) is swept by the flood, but this water will only
fault from the waterflood (e.g. Figs. 13b, 14b, d). reach the producer long after the water cut has already
To evaluate the best injection strategy, the effect of a neared 100%.
relatively slow, underbalanced injection rate was system-
atically investigated. A slower rate of injection relative to Modeling method limitations
the producer will increase the area drained by oil-with-
drawal contours. At the same time, only a very small area is Unlike reservoir simulators based on nonlinear differential
swept by the underbalanced flood (Fig. 7a, b). The poten- equations (finite element, finite difference, and boundary
tially adverse effects of overbalanced flooding in doublet element methods), our method is based on linear
123
streamline solvers (Sato and Abbaszadeh 1996), com-

monly referred to as the complex variable boundary
element method (CVBEM; Johnson et al. 2014; Sato
2015) but also as perturbation boundary element
method (Sato 1992; Sato and Horne 1993a, b). The
CVBEM is an alternative to real variable boundary
element method (RVBEM) when stream functions and
velocity potentials are of interest (Hromadka and
Guymon 1984; Hromadka and Lai 1987; Sato and
Watanabe 2004).
We believe analytical and semi-analytical streamline-
based reservoir models can support (but not replace)
high-fidelity physics models that in some cases take too
long run times for a full field model. Computational
artifacts can still occur when time steps in particle-path
Fig. 18 Single well doublet hosting producer (-) and injector (?) tracking are too coarse, but if the numerical code is
tubes with spacing (d) placed as indicated. The micro-flood imme- cautiously implemented, the analytical solution does not
diately mixes water into the producer by doublet flow (d* = 0.02; suffer from numerical dispersion. Sector models are
m*injector =?1; m*producer = -1, runtime t* = 0.01, and contour
spacing t* = 0.002). The three types of sweep zones still co-exist
possible to estimate sweep patterns between injector and
producer paths; well allocation factors, recovery factors
and well productivity rates can be quantified for a par-
differential equations; all gradients occur in the 2D plane
ticular field situation and studied in detail. Our simulator
and quasi-steady state is assumed for each velocity field
can account for variable injection/production profiles as
node computed at a certain time step. We assumed infinite
a function of certain inputs as well as for a range of
lateral flow space, whereas in many real reservoirs complex
spatially varying initial conditions (heterogeneities,
geological boundaries constrain the flow space. No-flow
discontinuities).
boundary conditions which may affect the flow field (Sato
and Horne 1993a, b) can be accounted for by combining
Model simplifications
analytical solutions for the basic flows with numerical
methods (Sato 2015). Purely analytical descriptions of
The complex potential closed-form description of flow is a
reservoir flow based on the complex potential can be
model approach which like any other model tool requires
greatly enhanced by linkage to numerical solutions of
certain simplifications of the real-world reservoir’s physi-
imposed boundary conditions that are nonlinear. At least
cal-parameters-that-matter and boundary conditions (in-
two closely related approaches can be distinguished:
cluding geometries) to develop an analog system that can
1. A piecewise analytical method using complex poten- predict behavior and responses to variations in input
tials each valid for unstructured grid domains that parameters.
cover internally homogenous sub-regions. Boundary We treat a two-phase oil/water system and simplify
element methods (BEM) are applied to the grid seams the phases to have identical physical properties (in-
to ensure material balance, pressure and flux continuity compressible, equal viscosities and densities at reservoir
across the interconnected regions (Hazlett and Babu conditions). The oil/water interface is assumed to
2005; Hazlett et al. 2007). The method has capacity to displace piston-like, and there is no spatial/temporal
solve 3D streamline paths for multiple wells. mobility difference.
2. Any arbitrary shape of internal and/or external Dirich- The analytical simulator has no implicit space con-
let boundaries are defined by selecting a discrete straints and can model cases of both balanced and unbal-
number of critical nodes on such boundaries using an anced well rates, which we exploit in the present study. We
integral equation in what is essentially a collocation model doublet flow with one injector and one producer for
technique to generate a sufficient number of equations a range of distances and relative well rates (underbalanced,
to solve the number of unknowns (Rokhlin 1983; balanced and overbalanced wells-pairs). We show that
Kikani and Horne 1992). Internal anisotropy has been 2-spot well patterns may result in very different flood
solved as a purely analytical expansion (Chirlin 1985) sweep regions, depending on the relative rates of the
and can be incorporated in such semi-analytical injector and producer wells. Oil-withdrawal and
123
Fig. 19 Two ring 7-spot well

pattern layout as sketched in
Row Ia. Row I Flooding is
absent (m*injector = 0;
m*producer = -1), Row II
Under-balanced flooding
(m*injector = ?1;
m*producer = -1) and Row III
Over-balanced flooding
(m*injector = ?6;
m*producer = -1). Runtime
for all cases is t* = 10 and
spacing of isochrons is t* = 1
waterflood-advancement contours are visualized for 2-spot Streamline-based reservoir simulations using analytical
(doublets) and 7-spot well patterns, with and without faults. methods are not compromised by computational up-scaling
We constrain our approach to vertical wells. Horizontal errors that may complicate numerical methods (Samier
wells are part of the code options in our reservoir simula- et al. 2001). The assumption is that two different fluids
tor. So-called mixed pattern flood designs (Charles and (e.g. immiscible oil and water in waterflooding or miscible
Startzman 1991; Bedrikovetsky et al. 1995; Ferreira et al. oil and gas in gas drive) will displace with mobilities that
1996) when either vertical injectors or producers are pat- can be modeled by line integrals generated by complex
terned with horizontal counterparts can also be modeled, potential descriptions of source and sink flows. The prop-
but were excluded from the present study for brevity. erties of complex potentials and the implied stream
123
Fig. 20 Balanced 2-ring 7-spot

well pattern. All injectors have
m*injector = ?6. For volume-
balancing, production wells in
central ring have
m*producer = -3, middle ring
m*producer = -2, and outer
ring m*producer = -1. For
these rates the flower-shaped
flood pattern develops (a), and
oil-withdrawal is 100% in the
reservoir core-region (b). The
shortest distance between
injectors and producers is
highlighted in (c); any cross-
flow across these connectors is
not possible. Bright spots within
each production cell are flow
stagnation points. Flood wave
and oil-withdrawal contours are
superposed in (d); Stream lines
in yellow. Runtime for all cases
is t* = 10 and spacing of
isochrons is t* = 1
function are that these (1) describe the flow path of fluid cases and both can be accurately accounted for in our
particles, (2) determine the instantaneous velocity orien- model. We can track shifting particle paths for any tran-
tation and magnitude of particles in any location of the sient flow in the reservoir with our analytical simulator.
flow, and (3) quantify the fluid flux between any selected High-fidelity FD reservoir simulators are more appro-
pair of streamlines (Nelson 1978). priate for solving flows including spatial distribution of
Applications to real field examples require frequent saturations and pressures over time as a function of PVT
updates for the streamlines, using the sweep geometry fluid properties, permeability and porosity distributions and
resulting from the earlier streamlines as input for the structural topology of the reservoir. Such models can
shifted streamlines due to transient flow to account for any handle a black oil assumption which implies 3 components
wells added and compliant with any actual changes in the (oil, gas, water) and phases (oleic, gas, water) with pressure
flood management schedule (Thiele et al. 2002). Although dependency on phase appearance/disappearance and mis-
we use steady well rates in our present analysis, well rates cibility between oil and gas.
can be time-dependent and prescribed by any decline
function to study transient flow. Wells can be switched on
at different times with any patterns of decline rate as Conclusions
showcased in a different application of source flows to
explain the shapes of terrestrial gravity flows (Weijermars The following conclusions can be drawn based on our
et al. 2014). The resulting particle paths can all be tracked models. Analytical reservoir streamline simulators can pro-
by our method, with the realization that particle paths and vide useful support for detailed numerical models. Geolog-
instantaneous streamlines will differ in such transient flow ical discontinuities such as faults and heterogeneities
123
Fig. 21 Sketch of 3-ring 7-spot

well pattern (a). All injectors
have m*injector = ?6. For
volume-balancing, production
wells the three inner-most rings
have m*producer = -3,
producers in the outer-most ring
have m*producer = -1, and the
fore-last ring has
m*producer = -2. The flower-
shaped flood pattern develops
(b), and oil-withdrawal is 100%
in the field’s core-region (c).
Streamlines are yellow. Runtime
for all cases is t* = 10 and
spacing of isochrons is t* = 1
(including gradients in reservoir permeability) can be ideally suited for exploring an unlimited range of well
accounted for in flow solutions. Comparison of well drainage architectures to help find plausible field development
patterns (with and without waterflooding) reveals that the solution. A major advantage of such models is that only
rate of water injection has a profound impact on the areal few input data are required, which is particularly useful at
extent and movement of not only the waterflooding front but the early stages of reservoir characterization; the acqui-
also on the oil-withdrawal pattern. The area swept by the sition of detailed reservoir data is time-consuming and
flood may bring secondary oil to the well. However, when the expensive and takes time to acquire. We acknowledge that
injection rate is overbalanced, the producer wells—instead industry workflow for developed reservoirs is firmly
of receiving enhanced recovery of oil—are bypassed by anchored in numerical reservoir simulators that can
much of both the flood and its oil sweep. When injection rates emulate complex 3D geological heterogeneity, time-de-
are underbalanced, producer wells neither receive much pendency of reservoir properties and fluid phase behavior
effect of any oil sweep as the flooded area shrinks to a small (Datta-Gupta and King 2007). Direct coupling or incor-
region (independent of the total flood-time). Careful mod- poration of analytical and/or semi-analytical reservoir
eling of the flood-induced changes in reservoir Zones 1–3 simulations into such industry simulators is not a practical
can help to improve the effects of waterflooding schedules on option. However, analytical simulators are suitable for
enhanced oil recovery. rapid studies of flow diagnostics such as advocated in
Analytically based methods can rapidly evaluate a independent reservoir simulator approaches (Møyner
range of possible development scenarios and hence are et al. 2015; Natvig and Lie 2008).
123
Fig. 22 Oil-withdrawal
patterns in faulted reservoir
developed with 2-ring 7-spot
well pattern; well rates are
mathematically balanced (see
caption of Fig. 20 for well
rates). Oil-withdrawal contours
in red, stream lines in yellow.
Fault length and orientation
differs for simulations:
a 2l* = 6, b, c 2l* = 20.
Runtime for all cases is t* = 10
and spacing of isochrons is
t* = 1
Acknowledgements Our flow visualizations are rendered using discontinuities. Rather than simulating existing fields, we
MATLAB code which development took approximately 1500 man think synthetic cases provide a sound basis for developing
hours (as to the date of this study’s completion). This study was
sponsored by Alboran Energy Strategy Consultants, which retains the systematic conceptual insight. For that purpose, additional
intellectual rights of the modeling code. simulations of repetitive well patterns were performed to
highlight the considerable differences in drainage patterns
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the between peripheral and central wells, with and without
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted waterfloods.
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a Multiple rings of 7-spot wells
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
Developing a particular oil field with a regular 7-spot well
pattern takes drilling time. The critical rates for balancing
only a single 7-spot are highlighted in Fig. 11. This section
Appendix: Serial well pattern roll-out investigates the efficiency of the flooding sweep and oil-
withdrawal patterns for two or more rings of 7-spot well
Although early onshore fields in North America and Russia patterns (e.g., Fig. 19a, Row I).
were developed with regular well patterns, fewer options First consider a 2-ring 7-spot well pattern (seven
remain due to surface access limitations and/or subsurface injectors, 24 producers; Fig. 19). There are three distinct
development scenarios. Scenario I (Fig. 19, Row I) is
123
field development without central injection. The central Fractured multiple rings of 7-spot wells
area will preserve a pocket of stranded oil. This pocket
persists even if the run time is doubled. However, the Insertion of an impermeable fault in the 2-ring 7-spot of
peripheral pockets of oil will eventually be produced and Fig. 20 revealed that the presence of any overlooked faults
disappear. (Fig. 22) may barely alter the oil-withdrawal pattern. The
Scenario II (Fig. 19, Row II) shows a waterflood which explanation is that the repetitive well pattern forces the
is underbalanced. All injectors and producers have equal stream lines in certain flow paths and discrete faults cannot
rates, but their well numbers are unequal, which explains significantly affect these flow paths (Fig. 22). All produc-
the underbalanced flooding. Oil from the central area is ers receive a significant volume of floodwater. This result is
effectively recovered, but other pockets of stranded oil unlike faults in single 7-spots, where any faults may shield
remain (Fig. 19b, Row II). certain producers, which has a profound effect on the
Scenario III (Fig. 19, Row III) shows field development productivity of such wells (Figs. 13, 14).
with overbalanced injection. Overbalanced injection leads
to vast over-flooding (Fig. 19a, Row III), where the third,
outer ring of producers will produce only minor oil frac-
tions (Fig. 19b, Row III) due to the high water-cut. The References
flood front sweeps past the outer ring of producers and
Abbaszadeh-Dehghani M (1982) Analysis of unit mobility ratio well-
prematurely terminates effective productivity of the outer to-well tracer flow to determine reservoir heterogeneity. Ph.D.
wells. dissertation, Stanford University, California
The flooding pattern and corresponding oil-withdrawal Abou-Kassem JH, Aziz K (1985) Analytical well models for reservoir
contours for a fully balanced 2-ring 7-spot well pattern are simulation. SPE J 25(04):573–579. doi:10.2118/11719-PA
Albertoni A, Lake LW (2003) Inferring interwell connectivity only
given in Fig. 20. Balancing is achieved by setting producer form well-rate fluctuations in waterfloods. SPE Res Eval Eng
rates such that each producer always receives 1/6th of the 6(2):6–16. doi:10.2118/83381-PA
fluid from the connected injectors. Balancing of any regular Al-Najem AA, Siddiqui S, Soliman M, Yuen B (2012) Streamline
set of drilling patterns is only possible when rates of pro- simulation technology: evolution and recent trends. Paper SPE
160894 presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia section technical
ducers in the inner and outer rings of the well array are symposium and exhibition, Al-Khobar, 8–11 April. doi:10.2118/
engineered with different well rates (for actual rates, see 160894-MS
caption of Fig. 20). Bar-Meir G (2013) Basics of fluid mechanics (version 0.3.4.0).
The conclusion from the models in Figs. 19 and 20 is Chicago, p 664. http://www.potto.org/downloads.php
Batycky RP, Thiele MR, Baker RO, Chugh SH (2005) Revisiting
that the highest recovery factor from the reservoir will be reservoir flood-surveillance methods using streamlines. SPE Res
realized when the well pattern is drilled first and wells Eval Eng 11(2):387–394. doi:10.2118/95402-PA
remain capped until all wells are drilled to ensure the Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Elsevier, New
sweep and oil-withdrawal patterns are balanced when the York (repr. Dover, 1988)
Bedrikovetsky PG, Magarshak TO, Shapiro AA (1995) Waterflooding
production starts. This approach will result in the highest in a system of horizontal wells (Analytical reservoir model.
recovery factor. If wells are switched on before the drilling Offshore case). Paper SPE 29876 presented at the Middle East
pattern is completed (e.g., Fig. 19), these will require dif- Oil Show, Bahrain, 11–14 March. doi:10.2118/29876-MS
ferent rates for optimum production when the drilling Charles DD, Startzman BA (1991) Streamtube modeling of horizontal
wells in mixed pattern waterfloods. Paper SPE 23451 presented
pattern is expanded and repeated over a larger area (e.g., at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky,
Fig. 20). 22–25 October. doi:10.2118/23451-MS
A further expansion of the 7-spot well pattern was Chirlin GR (1985) Flow through a porous medium with periodic barriers
simulated using our analytical reservoir simulator for a or fractures. SPE J 25(03):358–362. doi:10.2118/11595-PA
Cox DO (1987) Waterflood performance estimation with a layered
3-ring 7 spot (19 injectors, 54 producers; Fig. 21). The streamtube model. Paper SPE 16489 presented at the petroleum
pattern was balanced by setting producer flow rates as industry application of microcomputers, Lake Conroe, Texas,
mandated by the injectors and their location in the field 23–26 June. doi:10.2118/16489-MS
(see caption Fig. 21). Note that producers that were bal- Craig FG (1970) The reservoir engineering aspects of waterflooding,
vol 3. Henry L. Doherty Series, SPE
anced in the two outermost rings of Fig. 20 (for sketch of Datta-Gupta A (2000) Streamline simulation: a technology update.
well pattern see Fig. 19a, Row I) must be assigned dif- Distinguished author series. J Pet Technol 52(12):68–84. doi:10.
ferent rates when an additional ring of 7-spots is added 2118/65604-JPT
(Fig. 21). The actual well rates required to maintain bal- Datta-Gupta A, King MK (2007) Streamline simulation: theory and
practice. Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson
anced flooding are detailed in the caption of Fig. 21 (for Dougherty EL (1963) Mathematical model of an unstable miscible
comparison with Fig. 20). displacement. SPE J 3(02):155–163. doi:10.2118/509-PA
123
Dougherty EL, Sheldon JW (1964) The use of fluid-fluid interfaces to injection. Paper SPE 26079 presented at the Western Regional
predict the behavior of oil recovery processes. SPE J Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 26–28 May. doi:10.2118/26079-
4(02):171–182. doi:10.2118/781-PA MS
Doyle RE, Wurl TM (1971) Stream channel concept applied to Lake LW (1989) Enhanced oil recovery, 1st edn. Prentice Hall,
waterflood performance calculations for multiwell, multizone, Englewood Cliffs
three-component cases. J Pet Technol 23(03):373–380. doi:10. Lake JR, Holstein ED (2007) Petroleum engineering handbook, vol 5.
2118/2653-PA Reservoir engineering and petrophysics. SPE
Ferreira H, Mamora DD, Startzman RA (1996) Simulation studies of LeBlanc JL, Caudle BH (1971) A streamline model for secondary
waterflood performance with horizontal wells. Paper SPE 35208 recovery. SPE J 11(01):7–12. doi:10.2118/2865-PA
presented at the Permian basin oil and gas recovery conference, Lolomari T, Bratvedt K, Crane M, Milliken WJ, Tyrie JJ (2000) The
Midland, 27–29 March. doi:10.2118/35208-MS use of streamline simulation in reservoir management: method-
Ghori SG, Syed ZJ, Vohra IR, Lin C (2006) Improving injector ology and case studies. Paper SPE 63157 presented at the annual
efficiency using streamline simulation: a case study of water- technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 Ocotber. doi:10.
flooding in Saudi Arabia. Paper SPE 93031 presented at the SPE/ 2118/63157-MS
DOE symposium on improved oil recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Martin JC, Wegner RE (1979) Numerical solution of multiphase, two-
22–26 April. doi:10.2118/93031-MS dimensional incompressible flow using streamtube relationships.
Ghori SG, Jilani SZ, Alhuthali A, Krinis D, Kumar ATA (2007) SPE J 19(05):313–323. doi:10.2118/7140-PA
Improving injector efficiencies using streamline simulation: a Martin JC, Woo PT, Wagner RE (1973) Failure of stream tube
case study in a giant middle east field. Paper SPE 105393 methods to predict waterflood performance of an isolated
presented at the middle east oil and gas show and conference, inverted five-spot at favorable mobility ratios. J Pet Technol
Kingdom of Bahrain, 11–14 March. doi:10.2118/105393-MS 25(02):151–153. doi:10.2118/4346-PA
Haitjema HM (1995) Analytic element modeling of groundwater Masukawa J, Horne RN (1988) Application of the boundary integral
flow. Academic Press, San Diego method to immiscible displacement problems. SPE Res Eng
Hauber WC (1964) Prediction of waterflood performance for arbitrary 3(03):1069–1077. doi:10.2118/15136-PA
well patterns and mobility ratios. J Pet Technol 16(1):95–103. Morel-Seytoux HJ (1965) Analytical-numerical method in water-
doi:10.2118/756-PA flooding predictions. SPE J 5(03):247–258. doi:10.2118/985-PA
Hazlett RD, Babu DK (2005) Optimal well placement in heteroge- Moreno J, Kazemi H, Gilman JR (2004) Streamline simulation of
neous reservoirs through semi-analytical modeling. SPE J countercurrent water-oil and gas-oil flow in naturally fractured
10(3):286–296. doi:10.2118/84281-PA dual-porosity reservoirs. Paper SPE 89880 presented at the SPE
Hazlett RD, Babu DK, Lake L (2007) Semi-analytical stream- annual technical conference and exhibition, Houston, 26–29
function solutions on unstructured grids for flow in heteroge- September. doi:10.2118/89880-MS
neous media. SPE J 12(02):179–187. doi:10.2118/95913-PA Møyner O, Krogstad S, Lie K-A (2015) The application of flow
Heidt JM, Follensbee GJ (1971) Application of the Higgins-Leighton diagnostics for reservoir management. SPE J 20(02):306–323.
waterflood prediction technique to halfway reservoirs in North- doi:10.2118/171557-PA
eastern British Columbia. J Can Pet Technol 10(01):23–28. Muskat M (1949a) Physical principles of oil production. McGraw-
doi:10.2118/71-01-02 Hill, New York
Hewett T, Behrens R (1991) Scaling laws in reservoir simulation and Muskat M (1949b) The theory of potentiometric models. In:
their use in a hybrid finite difference/streamtube approach to Transactions of the AIME, vol 179, part, 216–221. Society of
simulating the effects of permeability heterogeneity. In: Lake L, Petroleum Engineers, Richardson. doi:10.2118/949216-G
Carroll Jr. HB, Wesson TC (eds) (1991) Reservoir characteri- Muskat M, Wyckoff RD (1934) A Theoretical analysis of water-
zation II. Academic Press, Inc, London flooding networks. In: Transactions of the AIME, vol 107, part I,
Higgins RV, Leighton AJ (1962a) A computer method to calculate 62–76. Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson.
two-phase flow in any irregularly bounded porous medium. J Pet doi:10.2118/934062-G
Technol 14(06):679–683. doi:10.2118/243-PA Natvig JR, Lie K-A (2008) Fast computation of multiphase flow in
Higgins RV, Leighton AJ (1962b) Computer prediction of water drive porous media by implicit discontinuous Galerkin schemes with
of oil and gas mixtures through irregularly bounded porous optimal ordering of elements. J Comput Phys
media three-phase flow. J Pet Technol 14(09):1048–1054. 227(24):10108–10124. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.08.024
doi:10.2118/283-PA Nelson R (1978) Evaluating the environmental consequences of
Higgins RV, Boley DW, Leighton AJ (1964) Aids to forecasting the groundwater contamination: 2. Obtaining location/arrival time
performance of water floods. J Pet Technol 16(09):1076–1082. and location/outflow quantity distributions for steady flow
doi:10.2118/851-PA systems. Water Resour Res 14(3):416–428. doi:10.1029/
Hromadka TV, Guymon GL (1984) The complex variable boundary WR014i003p00416
element method: development. Int J Numer Meth Eng Nilsen HM, Lie K-A (2009) Front-tracking methods for use in
20(01)25–37. doi:10.1002/nme.1620200104 streamline simulation of compressible flow. Paper SPE 119099
Hromadka TV, Lai C (1987) The complex variable boundary element presented at the SPE reservoir simulation symposium, The
method in engineering analysis. Springer, New York Woodlands, 2–4 February. doi:10.2118/119099-MS
Johnson AN, Hromadka TV, Caroll M, Hughes M, Jones L, Pappas N, Peddibhotla S, Spath J, Batycky RP (1997) An efficient PC based
Thomasy C, Horton S, Whitely R, Johnson M (2014) A streamline simulator for immiscible and miscible displacements.
computational approach to determining CVBEM approximate Paper SPE 38129 presented at the SPE petroleum computer
boundaries. Eng Anal Bound Elem 41:83–89. doi:10.1016/j. conference, Dallas, 8–11 June. doi:10.2118/38129-MS
enganabound.2013.12.011 Pizarro JODS, Branco CCM (2012) Challenges in implementing an
Kikani J, Horne RN (1992) Pressure-transient analysis of arbitrarily EOR project in the pre-salt province in deep offshore Brasil. Paper
shaped reservoirs with the boundary-element method. SPE Form SPE 155665 presented at the SPE EOR conference at oil and gas
Eval 7(01):53–60. doi:10.2118/18159-PA West Asia, Muscat, 16–18 April. doi:10.2118/155665-MS
King MJ, Blunt MJ, Mansfield MM, Christie MA (1993) Rapid Rokhlin V (1983) Rapid solution of integral equations of classical
evaluation of the impact of heterogeneity on miscible gas potential theory. J Comput Phys 60:187–207
123
Rubinstein J, Torquato S (1989) Flow in random porous media: Tiab D, Dinh AV (2013) Analytical determination of interwell
mathematical formulation, variational principles, and rigorous connecivity based on flow rate fluctuations in waterflood
bounds. J Fluid Mech 206:25–46. doi:10.1017/S0022112089002211 reservoirs. Paper SPE 164481 presented at the SPE production
Samier P, Quettier L, Thiele M (2001) Applications of streamline and operations symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 23–26
simulations to reservoir studies. Paper SPE 66362 presented at March. doi:10.2118/164481-MS
the SPE reservoir simulation symposium, Houston, 11–14 Towler BF (2002) Fundamental principles of reservoir engineering,
February. doi:10.2118/66362-MS vol 8. SPE Textbook Series, SPE
Sato K (1992) Accelerated perturbation boundary element model for Weijermars R (2014) Visualization of space competition and plume
flow problems in heterogeneous reservoirs. Ph.D. Thesis, formation with complex potentials for multiple source flows:
Stanford University, p 199 some examples and novel application to Chao lava flow (Chile).
Sato K (2015) Continuum analysis for practical engineering. Springer, J Geophys Res 119(3):2397–2414. doi:10.1002/2013JB010608
London, p 300 Weijermars R, Schmeling H (1986) Scaling of Newtonian and non-
Sato K, Abbaszadeh M (1996) Tracer flow and pressure performance Newtonian fluid dynamics without inertia for quantitative
of reservoirs containing distributed thin bodies. SPE Form Eval modelling of rock flow due to gravity (including the concept
11(03):185–193. doi:10.2118/28444-PA of rheological similarity). Phys Earth Planet Int 43(4):316–330.
Sato K, Horne RN (1993a) Perturbation boundary element method for doi:10.1016/0031-9201(86)90021-X
heterogeneous reservoirs: part 1. Steady-state flow problems. Weijermars R, van Harmelen A (2016) Breakdown of doublet re-
SPE Form Eval 8(04):306–314. doi:10.2118/25299-PA circulation and direct line drives by far-field flow: implications
Sato K, Horne RN (1993b) Perturbation boundary element method for for geothermal and hydrocarbon well placement. Geophys J I
heterogeneous reservoirs: part 2. Transient flow problems. SPE (GJIRAS) 206(01):19–47. doi:10.1093/gji/ggw135
Form Eval 8(04):315–322. doi:10.2118/25300-PA Weijermars R, Dooley TP, Jackson MPA, Hudec MR (2014) Rankine
Sato K, Watanabe Y (2004) Treatment of Neumann boundaries in models for time-dependent gravity spreading of terrestrial source
complex variable boundary element method. Commun Numer flows over subplanar slopes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth
Method Eng 20:119–132. doi:10.1002/cnm.654 119(9):7353–7388. doi:10.1002/2014JB011315
Sheldon J, Dougherty E (1964) A numerical method for computing Weijermars R, Van Harmelen A, Zuo LH (2016) Controlling flood
the dynamical behavior of fluid-fluid interfaces in permeable displacement fronts using a parallel analytical streamline sim-
media. SPE J 4(02):158–170. doi:10.2118/780-PA ulator. J Petrol Sci Eng 139:23–42. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2015.12.
Shin DH, Sharma MM (2014) Factors controlling the simultaneous 002
propagation of multiple competing fractures in a horizontal well. Willhite GP (1986) Waterflooding, vol 3. SPE Textbook Series
Paper SPE 168599 presented at the SPE hydraulic fracturing Wyckoff RD, Botset HG, Muskat M (1933) Mechanics of porous
technology conference, The Woodlands, 4–6 February. doi:10. flow-applied to water-flooding problems. Trans AIME
2118/168599-MS 103:219–249. doi:10.2118/933219-G (Society of Petroleum
Strack ODL (1989) Groundwater mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Engle- Engineers)
wood Cliffs Xueli L, Yang J, Li Z, Wang Y (2006) A new methodology on
Thiele MR (1994) Modeling multiphase flow in heterogeneous media reservoir modelling in the fracture-cavity carbonate rock of tahe
using streamtubes. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University oilfield. Paper SPE 104429 presented at the international oil and
Thiele MR, Batycky RP, Blunt MJ, Orr FM Jr (1996) Simulating flow gas conference and exhibition in China, Beijing, 5–7 December.
in heterogeneous systems using streamtubes and streamlines. doi:10.2118/104429-MS
SPE Res Eng 11(01):5–12. doi:10.2118/27834-PA Zandvliet MJ (2008) Model-based lifecycle optimization of well
Thiele MR, Batycky RP, Thomas LK (2002) Miscible WAG locations and production settings in petroleum reservoirs. Ph.D.
simulations using streamlines. Paper presented at the 8th dissertation, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft
European conference on the mathematics of oil recovery
(ECMOR), Freiberg, 3–6 September 2002
123

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol

ORIGINAL PAPER - PRODUCTION ENGINEERING

Advancement of sweep zones in waterflooding: conceptual insight

Received: 28 June 2016 / Accepted: 24 October 2016

flow visualization method, which explains the variety in the

Fig. 1 Sketch of well patterns

as used in the conceptualization of well behavior and fluid

section of the reservoir. Floodwater cannot cross the far-

Doublets in discontinuous reservoir

The doublet arrangements studied in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

b Fig. 9 Waterflood deflection in doublet flow of balanced well pair

are affected by the presence of all other wells. A second

Fig. 11 Single 7-spot well

The effects of different fault lengths and orientations on

Arbitrary producer well patterns, infill drilling

Reservoir geology may require deviation from field

Fig. 13 Waterflooding (a) and

Fig. 14 Effect of variable fault

Fig. 15 Time-series showing

Fig. 17 a Fourteen producer

streamline solvers (Sato and Abbaszadeh 1996), com-

Fig. 19 Two ring 7-spot well

Fig. 20 Balanced 2-ring 7-spot

Fig. 21 Sketch of 3-ring 7-spot

You might also like