-,

SPE
Socia~of Petroleum
Engineers

SPE 15020

Extension of the Dykstra-Parsons Method to

Layered-Composite Reservoirs
by D. Tiab, U. of Oklahoma, and M.E, Osman, United Arab Emirates U,
SPE Members

Copyrighl 19S6, Society of Pe\roieum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Permian Basin CM & Gas Recove~ Conference of Ihe Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Midland,
TX, March 13-14, 1986.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submilfed by fhe
author(s). Contents of the paper, aa presenled, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does fiot necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, ila of ficere, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meefinga are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission 10 copy is
restricted 10 an abatract of not more than 300 worde. Illustration may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box B33636, Richardson, TX 75083-3S36. Telex, 730989, SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

The Dykstra-Parsonsmethod is oftm used to study oil by waterfloodingstratifiedreservoirs. Their

the displacementof oil by water or gas in stratified correlationsreflect the effect of initial fluid
reservoirs. These strata of differentpermeability saturations,mobility ratios, and permeability
are assumed to exhibit lateral continuitythroughout variations on t e recovery of oil by water injection.
!l
the reservoir. In the proposed model, these strata Kufua and Lynch developed an approach by combining
are assumed to consist of several blocks with different the Dykstra-Parsonsmetho$ and the Buckley-Leverett
transmissibility,khlp, and storage, ~c h. According theory. Snyder and Ramey extended the Buckley-
to Dykstra and Parsons, the displacing kluid sweeps Leverett theory to stratifiedreservoirs.
faster through the more permeable zonea so that much
of the oil tn theless permeable layers must be pro- The effect of cross-flowon oil recovery due to
duced over a long period of time at high WOR. In waterflooding from stratifiedreser oirs has been
3
this study, it is found that this is not necessarily in estigated by Warren and Cosgrove axd Coddin, et
x
true. It simply depends on the rock characteristics al . Warren and Cosgrove model consi~ers the viscous
from layer-to-layerand from block-to-block. It is forces and neglects both capillaryand gravity forces.
also found that waterfloodingperformancein layered- Goddin, et al, used a two-phase,two-dimensionalmodel
composite reservoirs is essentiallycontrolledby the and concluded that waterfloodingperformancewith
mobility ratio. crossflow is intermediatebetween the performanceof
a stratified reservoirw th no cross-flowand that of
Equations giving the pressure drop, time of +
a uniform system. Coats studied the effect of
breakthrough,water-front location,coverage,WOR gravitationaland capillary forces in the waterflood-
and cumulativeoil recovery in a layered-composite ing of a heterogeneouslinear reservoirof mixed
reservoir are presented. Applicationof these equa- permeabilityordering.
tions to the case of constant injectionpressure,
which was not treated by the original Dykstra-Parsons All these studies are based on the assumption
method, is discussed. that the rock and fluid propertiesremain constant
in the lateral direction. In this study a modification
INTRODUCTION to the Dykstra-Parsonsmethod to predict waterflooding
performance of multi-layere6compositereservoirsis
The prediction of waterfloodingperformance for presented. The modificationis extended to the case
a stratified reservoir as been the subject of many of constant injection pressure.
?
investigations. Stiles presented an approach for
predictingoil recovery and water cut from such stra- RESERVOIR MODEL
tified systems. The approach assumes: the mobility
ratio is unity, piston-likedisplacement,all beds Figure 1 is a schematic representationof a
have the same porosity and the same relative permea- Iayered-compositereservoir. The details of the jth
bilities to water behind the flood2and to oil ahead layer are shown in Figure lb. The propertiesof that
of the flood. Dykstra and Parsons intrciduced a semi- layer are $ , K , t , and h , for the region that is
empirical treatment for calculatingthe recovery of close toth~pr~duc~r. Thejwidth (W)isthe same for
both regions In all layers. Since the distance be-
Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper. tween the injector and producer is the same for all

014
 EXTENSION OF THE DYKSTRA-PARSONSME OD TO LAYERED COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS SPE 1502Q

layers, the lengths of all layers are the same and AP = 4Poj + AP (1)
equal to L. When the production from the above des- j Wj
cribed system is underway, the water advances in the
system at a speed which varies from layer to layer where APO is the pressure drop in the unswept portion
and from time to time. Also, the proportionof ~flayerj and Pw isthepressure drop inthe swept
flowtngwater in each layer varies from layer to layer zone. For the cas~ where the water front inlayer j
and from time to time. The followingassumptionswere lies in region one of that layer, i.e. x
considered: pressuredrop AP is j~ % ‘he
Oj
1. Although the dimensionsand propertiesvary from
layer to layer and from region to region, a specific AP .*&l+~) (2)
region in a particular layer is assume to be homogene- oj
ro ‘j ‘j ‘j ‘j
ous and isotropicand saturatedwith incompressible
fluids. and the pressure drop in the swept portion is

2. The reservoir has a horizontal and linear geometry

APWj .*(-L) (3)
3. All layers are Jeparatedby impermeablezones; rw ‘j ‘j
consequently,vertical or cross-flow ia not allowed
between the permeable layers. CombiningEquations 1, 2, and 3, and assuming that
both oil and water are Lmcompressiblefluids and the
4. The oil is produced by a piston-likedisplacement; displacementis piston-likedisplacement,i.e. q
consequently,the production from any layer, at break- = qw. = q , the total pressure drop in layer j be$&e
through of that layer, changes abruptly from oil to brea~throA gh is
water.

5. At any time of water injection,thepressuredrop APj = M“

~ j{(l-M)&
in a particular layer ia equal to those in the other 9
layers.

6. The capillary and gravity forces are negligible.

(4)
7. The position of the layers are inanascending
order with respect to their times of breakthrough.

8. Initial water saturationequals its irreducible ~e%~At~~s~’A~~~4~,j and M~,jare definedin

saturation. (b) water front in region 2
Similarly for the case where the water front lies in
9. The water front leaves behind it oil at its region 2 of layer j, i.e. x. ~ L , the total preesure
drop is J–j
irreduciblesaturation.

10. Relative permeabilityto water behind its front

is the same for all swept portions of the reservoir.
Also, relative permeabilityto oil is the same for all
unswept portions of the system.

GOVERNING EQUATIONS

Each layer of the reservoir under study consists 2. Water Front Location
of two regions of different characteristics. After
a certain period of water injection, the water front The followingequationswere derived on the
location in layer j lines either in the first region assumption that thepositions of the layers are in
or in the eecond region of that layer. Before break- ascending order with respect to their times of break-
through, the water front in layer j ia at a distance through, i.e. layer 1 breaks through first and layer
x from the injector. The distance x. increases from iIbreaks through last.
zero at the start of water injectionJto k, when the (a) constant injection rate
water front crosses the interfaceof the two regions In this case the water is injected at a constant rate
and the pressure drop AP is changingwith time.
in that particular layer j, then increases to L at
breakthroughtime. However,at any time t, API = AP2 = ... = Al’ .
The water front locatton in the layer j, when t~e
1. Pressure Drop in Any Layer layer i has just broken through (j = i + 1, i -t2,
....n)
It is common practice either to inject water at
0.5
a constant rate and allow the pressure drop to vary
=~{-bj+ (b~-4aj(~Cj)} (6)
with time or to keep the pressure drop constant and ‘j j
allow the injection rate to vary with time. j
(a) water front in region 1
The pressure drop in any layer j before breakthrough (b) constant injectionpressure
in that layer is (j = 1,2,3...,n) The bottom hole pressures in the injector and producer
are kept constant,while the water injection rate
varies with time. The front location in layer j
{j =1, 2,...,n
...?
I
 .

SPE 15020 DJEBBAR TIAB AND MOlb

0.5
=&-{ -bj+[b~+ 4a(m) (t- Tj)+ dj)] ) The parameter Yi in Equation 10and F in Equation 11
‘j j j LEj
are defined in Appendix A (Eqs. A. 15-16.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* (7) 6. CumulativeOil Recovery

Assuming that the water front in any layer leaves

where aj, bj, c%? cj, dj and E, are defined in Appendti oil at the same residual oil saturation.the oil re-
A. (Eqs. A.5-14). covery when the layer j has broken through is

3. BreakthroughTime

The time of water front arrival to the interface

of the two regions of layer j, which is equivalent to
breakthrough time into region 2, where x. = kj, ie
J
where E is the sweep efficiencywhich is a function
of wate~ floodingpattern, mobility ratio and re-
servoir heterogeneities.8The graphicalcorr~lation
proposed by Dyes, et. al and Kimbler, et al should
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) be used in conjunctionwith the proposed method.

7. Special Case: M=l

The breakthrough time into the producer is expressed
as If the mobility ratio M is unity, Equation 6
through 10 can be modifted by simply substituting
!?, M=l. For example Equations 7, 9 and 10 become
t respectively,
L. ‘;% (M~,j~((1-~2(~ (Mj-1))
J
~11 M’ APt
++2#.)+&(l- + LH (13)
$-) ((l-M) ‘j= j
j .l ((M; - 1)>+ 1) Ej

(1+$ +2(M’ - 1) $+2M)) (9)

j

4. Water Oil Ratio

Before breakthrough,water production is zero an

consequently the water-oil-ratio(WOR) is zero. After (14)
breakthrough the water production and consequentlythe
WOR increaseswith time. The water oil ratio is pro-
bably the most important factor that determineswhen
the water injectionprocess should be terminated,
especially in composite reservoirs. For this system,
when layer j has broken through the water oil ratio is

‘ihi
WOR = ! (-. )/; (.Kihi/Yf
) (10)
~=1 Li/L+ l/M;(l-k.i/L) i=j-t-l n Kihi
z (15)
i=j+l i++ (1-y)
‘i
5. Coverage L
Mi
Coverage is defined here as the cross-sectional
area contacted by the injected fluid divided by the ANALYTICALPROCEDURE
cross-sectionalarea enclosed in all layers behind
the fnjectedwaterfront. For n-layer composite Systen Unlike Dykstra and Parsons method, the propertie!
with the layer j broken through, coverage can be and dimensionsof the individuallayers are not
calculated from sufficient to predict their order of breakthroughin I
n layered composite reservoir. A layered composite re-
j ~i “i servoir requires a trial-and-errormethod to determin<
z (pi+ (1 -~)h~)+ Z. (F;)
= i=l I=j+l the order of breakthroughof individuallayers.
(11)
Cj n !i.i
‘i The followingis a step-by-stepprocedure for
~ (~hi + (1 -~) hi)
i=l predicting the waterfloodingperformanceof a layered
compositeoil reservoir for the constant injection
rate case.
 .

SPE 15020 DJEBBAR TIAB AND MOHA ED EL-SAYED OSMAN 5

of the reservoir. For mobility ratio greater (less) flooding life. However, for mobility ratfo greater
than 1, thfspressuregradient in the swept portions is (less) than 1, thepressuredrop and consequentlythe
less (greater)than that in the unswept portions of the injectionpressure decreases (increases)during the
reservoir. This explains why the pressure drop de- aaterfloodinglife,
zreasesas the cumulativeoil production increases. 4. Except for a very high mobility ratio, oil
productionrate i.alinearly related to the cumulative
Figure 4 shows oil productionrate versus cumu- Dil production;as the cumulativeoil production in-
lative oil production for differentvalues of mobility creases, the oil production rate decreases. At high
ratios. The figure shows that after breakthrough,ex- mobility ratio, oil production rate fluctuatesduring
cept for the case of M = 10, the oil production rate the waterfloodinglife.
is linearly related to the cumulativeoil production; 5. After breakthrough,except for very high
as the cumulativeoil production increases, the oil mobility ratio, the WOR increases asymptoticallyas
productionrate decreases. For the case of M = 10, the cumulativeoil production increases. However, at high
pressure gradient in the swept portions is lower than mobility ratio, WOR may fluctuateduring waterflooding
that in the unswept portions, i.e. as the swept por- life.
tions increase, the ayatempressuredrop decreases and 6. For the same flow rate and mobility ratio
consequently,the flow rate through the broken-through proper selectionof the Injector and producer
layersdecreases. Since the injection rate is constant, locationsmay result in higher oil recovery and pro-
flow rates in the unbroken through layers increase re- duction rate and lower WOR and cumulativewater in-
sulting in a higher oil productionrate. On the other jection.
hand, as the number of broken through layera increase,
oil production rate decreaaes. This explains why the NOMENCLATURE
oil production rate fluctuatesduring the waterflood-
. layer j constant defined by equation A.5 and
ing life. This also explains why the WOR for M= 10
fluctuatesas shown by Figure 5. This phenomena does aj A.9
not exist for the case of M = 2 because the decrease . layer j constantdefined by equationsA.6 and
in oil productiondue to the increase of broken-througk bj A.1O.
layers is higher than the increase due to the decrease
in pressuredrop. For mobility ratio less than unity, B. = oil formationvolume factor, res vollstd vol
the two factors act in the direction of decreasingoil . water formationvolume factor, res vol/std vol
Bw
productionrate. Thus, the oil production rate de-
creaaes and WOR increasesas the cumulative oil . layer i (that has just broken through)
Ci
productionincreaaes as shown by Figure 4 and 5, constant defined by equation A.13
respectively. . layer j constant defined by equationaA.i’and
c1 All
Water performancecalculationswere repeated for
the same system presented by Tables 1 and 2 with the . coverage when layer j haa broken through
exception that the injector (producer)ia inverted to Cj
. constant defined by Eq. A.19 and A.20
the producer (injector)before startingwaterflooding. ‘1
The results indicated that the breakthroughorders of . layer j constant defined by equationsA.8 and
the reservoir layers for both cases (normal and invert- ‘~ A.12
ed) are different. By comparing the two curves of . areal sweep efficiency
Es
M = 2 (normal and inverted) of Figure 2, it can be
noticed that for a certain cumulativewater injection, . parameter of layer i defined by equationaAl;
‘i
the cumulativeoil production is higher for the in- and A.18
verted case, This can be related to WOR behavior . thicknessof region 1 of layer j from the
h.
presented in Figure 5 which shows that for a particular J
injector of linear system
WOR, the cumulative oil production is higher for the
inverted case. Figure 3 ahowa that the injection h! . thicknessof region 2 of layer j from the
pressure drop ia the same for :he two caaes. However, J injector of linear system -.
Figure 4 shows that oil production rate fs slightly = water injection rate.
i
higher for the invertedcasethan for the normal
caae. K; = permeabilityof region 1 of layer j of the
linear system
CONCLUSIONS Kt 5 permeabilityof region 2 of layer j of the
I linear system
1. For a particularmobility ratio, water-oil
ratio, coverage, cumulativewater injection, and K E relative permeabilityto oil
ro
cumulativeoil production are not functions of in-
Kw . relative permeabilityto water
jection flow rate or pressure drop. This ia probably
due to the assumption that the oil is displaced by a L = distance between the injector and the produce
piston-likedisplacement. How@ver, oil production of the linear system
rate increasesas the injectionrate and/or pressure M .
mobility ratio
drop increases.
2. For a particular stratifiedcomposite re- M’ . layer j constant defined by equation A.2
servoir, the breakthroughorder of its layer depends +,3
on the mobility ratio. Also, as the mobility ratio
. constant for region 1 of layer j defined by
equation A.3
increases,the reservoirbreaka through earlfer,
3. For mobility ratio equal to 1 and constant . constant for region 2 of layer j defined by
%,j
injection rate, the pressure differentialbetween the equation A.4
injector and the producer is constant during water-
 EXTENSION OF THE DYKSTki-PARSONSMET D TO LAYERED COMBOSITE RESERVOIRS SPE 15(l~Q

n . number of layers 7. Coats, K.H.: “An Analysis for SimulatingReservoir

N . cumulative oil recovery when layer j has
PerformanceUnder Pressure Maintenanceby Gas and~
Pj broken through or Water Injection,IISot, pet. Eng. J.(Decentber~
1968), 331-340.
AP pressure drop in the linear system
s . residual oil saturation 8. Dyes, A.B., Caudle, B.H. Erikson, R.A.: “Oil
or ProductionAfter Breakthrough- As Influenced
s“ . initial water saturation by Mobility Ratio,” Trans. AIME, (1954), 201,
t . time 81-86.
. time of water front arrival to layer j inter- 9. Kimbler, O.K., Caudle, B.H. and Coo~er. Jr.. H.E.:
‘k
j face “Areal Sweepout Behavior in a Nine-bpot Injection
t . breakthroughtime of layer j Pattern,” Trans. AIME, (1964), 231, 199-202.
L.
J APPENDIX A - MATHEMATICALTERMS
= layer j parameter defined by equation 8 and 9
‘j 1) Pressure Drop and BreakthroughTime (Eqs. 4, 5, 8
w = width of the linear system and 9)

WOR . water-oil-ratio
. water front location (from the injector) in M= KwPofKroVw (Al)
‘j layer J (linear system)
. parameter defined by equation A.15 and A.16
‘i
llo . oil viacoaity, cp (A.2)
‘i = ‘;h;’Kjhd
llw . water viscoafty, cp

P . density
~11 (A.3)
P. . density at referencepressure P l,j= Pw@j/Kwhj
o . porosity
. porosity of region 1 of layer j of the linear Ml, = Pw$;h~/KmKjhj
$j (A.4)
system 2,j
4; . porosity of region 2 of layer j of the linear
system
j = 1, 2, 3,...,n
= length of region 1 of layer j of the linear
$ system 2) Water Front Locations: Constant InjectionRate
(Eq. 6)

(a) For O~xj ~~j

1. Stiles, W.E.: “Use of PermeabilityDistributionin (A.5)

Waterflood Calculations,”Trans. AIME (1949), 186, aj=l-M
9-13.

2. Dykstra, H. and Paraons, R.L.: “The Prediction of (A.6)

Oil Recovery by Waterflooding,”Secondary Recovery
of Oil in the United States, 2nd cd., API, New
York, (1950), 160-174.

3. Kufus, H.B., and Lynch, E.J.: “Linear Frontal Dis- (A.7)

placement in Multi-Layer SAnds,” Prod. Monthly Cj=o
(December,1959), Vol. 24, No. 12, 32-35.
(A.8)
4. Synder, R.W. and Ramey, Jr. H.J.: “Applicationof Ej -W
Buckley-LeverettDisplacementTheory to Non-
communicatingLayered Systems,” J. Pet. Tech.
(November,1967), 1500-1506.
(b) For kj ~xj ~L
5. Warren, J.E., and Cosgrove,J.J.: “Predictionof
Waterflood Behavior in a Stratified System,’r
Sot. Pet. Eng. J.,(June, 1964), 149-157. = (.1- M)/M~ (A.9)
aj
6. Goddin, Jr. C.S., Craig, Jr., F.F., Wilkes, J.O.
and Tek, M.R.: “A Numerical Study of Waterflood
Performancein a Stratified System with Crossflow, (A.10)
Trans. AIME, (1966),237, 765-771.
 .

U.J
n
LB-
. . . . A- n..
. .
LJ.nn ..,n
Wxu ianu A-n
1.hww.uu”UT -C AVUll
..--n.“. fXMA?J
...... 7
E’E15020

.# (:)(0 - M+#(M’-
~ j 1)) (b) For ki ~ Xi 5 L
‘j ~,j
k
‘i (A.16)
Yi=+++ ((y -~)+M(l - ~))
~+q)+#~((l+M.ZMj) ~-2M) i
‘j j
5) Coverage (Eq. 11)
. . . . . . . .. *..”* ‘*””””” ““ . (All)
(a) For O ~ xi ~ ki
(A.12)
‘1 = %j
F~=— ‘ihi (A.17)
L
(c) For both cases

(b) For Li ~ xi < L

+ ((1 - M+2+ (M; -l))
Ci = - M’i,
j 1 ki Y.
‘i (A.18)
EC Fi = (~)hi + (~ - -#)hi
~+ 2*)- %(1
*, - +)
jj
6) Pressure Drop (Eq. 16)
((1 - M)(l -1-
~) + 2(M; -l)~+2M)
(e) For O ~ Xj ~ Lj
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .~.~.” ““”” (A.13)
=fi((l+M)~+ #((M@+ 1))
‘j .i
)) Water Front Location: Constant Injection ‘j ‘$
Pressure (Eq. 7). The parameters a.~ b s cj,
Ej, and ci are the same as above. llowe$er,for . . . . . . . ...*..”””””” ““”””@*19

o<xj~Zj: dj=O, ~j=O and Ej=~,j. FOr

(b) For ~j SXj SL
Rj~xj~L: Ej=M~j, Tj=tg and
j
;.
.$((2M; -M. 1) -#+ 2M) (A.14) ej=a((.l- M)~+(M~-l)$+M)
‘j jjj

. . . . . . .* **.. .. ”*’” ‘“”” . .(A.20)

4) Water Oil Ratio (Eq. 10)

(a) For O$xi~li(j =i+l, i+2>. ””>n)

1, ~i
‘i :)+ +(1 - #) (A.15)
=~+M((~-
‘i 1

317

,..
 . ,,

TABLE 1. Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties

of Naterflooding Performance Example

L = 10f10feet K = 0.1244
rw

y = 1 foot =lcp
VW

‘w = 0.8 PO (M = 0.1) = 0.6029 Cp

sor = 0.15 PO (M = 0.2) = 1.2058cP

B. = 1 res bbl/STB B. (M = 1) = 6.029 Cp

Bw = 1 res bbl/STB PO (M=2) = 12.058 Cp

K = 0.75 PO (M = 10) = 60.29 Cp

ro

TABLE 2

Rock Properties and Dimensions of the Layered Composite Reservoir

0.500 0.230 185.0 5.00 0.245 125.0 6,00

0.420 0.220 157.0 6.00 0.225 600.0 4.50
0.580 0.217 134.0 5.50 0.205 200.0 5.00
0.600 0,207 120.0 6.20 0.185 78,0 6.00
0.330 0.205 109.0 6,80 0.165 26.0 7.30
0.700 0.195 100.0 4.50 0.235 120.0 6,00
0.280 0.192 91.0 4.20 0.215 339,0 5.00
0.800 0.183 82.5 7.30 0.195 125,0 5.80
0.750 0.180 74.0 7.50 0.175 47.0 8,00
0.450 0,160 63.0 7.00 0.155 11,6 8.20
11 0.600 0.150 61.0 7.10 0.150 10.8 5.00
0.550 0.180 58.0 7.30 0.145 30.0 6.00
i: 0.390 0.170 53.0 7.50 0.140 40.0 5.50
14 0.450 0.175 49.0 6.00 0.130 50.0 7.00
15 0.900 0.200 42.0 7.20 0.125 60.0 7.50
16 0.870 0.120 41.0 6.80 0.140 55.0 4.20
17 0.820 0.150 38.0 5.40 0.142 45.0 6.20
18 0.760 00160 35.0 6.00 0.190 65.0 5.40
0.670 0.130 34.0 4.50 0.185 70.0 6.10
H 0.890 0.190 15.0 6.80 0.172 15.0 6,90

.—
.

SW 15 f120

7ABLL3: Water Flood{ng Performance for Twenty Layered Compostte Model

Ulth Variable Pressure Drop. Constant Injection Rate (f W=lOO,O)
And Wobility Ratio = 1,00.

●☛☛☛☛☛✌☛ ✌☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛
☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛✎☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛

B.T. Pressure oil Prod. Water Prod. Hater Oil Coverage CumulativeWater Cumu14tlve Oil
Layer OroP, PSI Rate, 7JPil Rate, BPO Ratio Fraction Injection, W3L Product{on 6BL
● .**.*** .**** ***** **. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***********.********************"***************

2 239.22 83,08 16.92 0.20 0.217 1232,23 1207,47

7 239.22 73.52 26.48 0.36 0.363 2321.18 2093.40

3 239.22 64.25 35.75 0.S6 0,423 294:.17 2536.58

1 239.22 54.99 45.01 0.82 0.4B7 37:.,3!3 303’2

.61

4 239.22 48.26 51.74 1.07 O.59B 5243.14 3B16.75

6 239,22 42.59 57.41 1,35 0.634 5514,48 3932.33

8 239.22 35,63 64.37 1.81 0.610 5936.19 4082.57

9 239.22 30.08 69.92 2.32 0.731 8684.6I3 S016.56

16 239.22 27.05 72.9S 2.70 0.753 92?1.87 5248.59

14 239.?2 23.44 76.56 3.27 0.769 10401.94 5459.59

i? 239.22 20.46 79.54 3.8’3 0.83B 12924.59 6034.06

17 239.22 lB.06 81.94 4.54 0.B56 1403B.57 6235.19

19 239.22 15.39 84.11 5.30 0.866 14894.83 6371.21

18 239.22 13.29 B6.71 6.53 n.8J36 16421.67 6594.40

12 239.22 10.34 89,66 8.67 0.889 17417.66 6697.51

15 239.22 6.85 93.15 13.60 0.900 19267.76 6a44.47

5 239.22 4.04 95.96 23,77 0.919 224B5.67 7023.513

11 239.22 2.79 97.21 34.9n 0.981 3“441.75 7497.67

Ill 239.22 1.14 98.06 86,53 n.9Rl 34525.8B 7498.63

. . . . . . . . . . ..**. ***** **.. *.*** ****.. *.*** *.*. *.*.. ****. ****. *... ***..****...*.*****.***.*.*********.******.***

TABLE 4: Water Floodtng Perfonrdnce for Twenty Layered CoqIosite $’mdel

14fthVariable Pressure Orop, Constant InjectionRate (iH=lOO.O)
A“d Nobility Ratio = 2.00 (InvertedCase).

*****************************************.**************************.***************.************************
B.T. Pressure Oil Prod. Water Prod. Water 0{} Coverage Cumulatfve Water Cunivlattve
Oil
Layer OrOp, PSI Rate, BPo Rate. BPO Ratio Fraction Injection,BBL ProductionBBL
*******.***,,******,***,.***************.*...***********..***********,**********************,****************

2 363.68 74,27 25.73 0.35 0.255 1326.30 1282.98

7 307.5B 65.95 34.05 0.52 0.41B 2490.25 2163.74

3 303.22 54.69 45.31 0.83 0.432 2798.73 2330.80

1 290.20 45.40 54.611 1.20 0.491 3635.92 2767.62

4 276.13 40.28 59.72 1.48 0.573 48S8.65 3324.21

8 270.15 33.70 66.30 1.97 0.608 5769.19 3663.98

6 267.09 28.13 71.B7 2.56 2.629 6645,91 3923.73

9 257.94 24.61 75.39 3,06 0.716 9096.65 4612.34

16 255.40 22.11 77.B9 3.52 0.742 10220.75 4877.o7

14 253.’33 19.01 80.99 4.26 0.767 11617.16 5163.7?

13 25?.24 16.ao 83.20 4.95 0.Bf33 13365.96 54B7.54

12 246.32 15.07 84.93 5,64 0.B54 1S824.91 5904.27

17 245.59 12.85 87.15 6.7B 0.863 ~6Q52,86 6049.23

18 242.19 11.43 B8.57 7.75 0.900 19441.06 6368.24

19 241.83 9.37 90.63 9.6B 0.903 20628.10 6479.41

15 241.5B 5.93 94.97 15.87 0,907 13441.18 6646.19

5 241.35 3.18 96.82 30.44 0.913 26100.05 6730.77

11 240.32 2.34 97.66 41.78 0.966 37122.85 7108.64

l’1 ?41.19 o.7e 99.32 127.35 0.974 41077.44 7182.38

........... ...***.*.......****.........*.. **..........*......*. *.***..*...*..*.*.*.*****..****.*..****...**.*..

 . ●

W 15020

lABLE 5: mater Flood{ng Per fonmnce for Twenty Layered Con?posi

te f!adel
With variable Injection Rate. Constant Pres$ure CWOP(AP=200.0)

=
~~:
And ffobllfty Ratio = 0.10.

~
-. *****************************************.********.************..********************,***********************
B.T. Inject{on Oil Prod. h’ater Prod. Hater Oil Coverage Cumulatfve Hater CumulativeOfl
Layer Rate, FJPO Rate, BPO Rate, BPD Ratfo Fraction Injcctl.m, i3fTL Production DBL

I
***** ****. ***** ***** ****. ***** ***** ***** ***. ***** ***** ***.* ***** ***************,,******,*.*******************

2 139.63 125.49 14.15 0.11 0.513 3920,2B 391B.73

3 112.09 90.20 21.89 0.2’4 0.670 52B9.93 5117.39

7 106.90 77.01 29.89 0.39 0.708 5?53.72 5406,10

1 105.77 6P. 14 37.63 0.55 0.716 5756.31 5472.l!T

4 101.61 58.36 43.26 0.74 0.751 6175.16 5735.BO

B 95.57 46.49 49.08 1.06 0.799 6853.56 6105.77

6 92.01 38.19 53.82 1,41 0.838 7487.52 6401.22

9 90,10 31.65 58.46 1.B5 0.B61 7993.38 6578.B9

16 88.87 27,00 60.99 2.19 0.878 840B.33 6709.07

13 B8.2B 24.80 63.4B 2.56 0.B87 8662.69 6780.51

14 97.61 21.11 66,5o 3.15 0.899 9023,15 6867.37

12 87.15 18.19 68.96 3.79 0.907 9310,28 6927.30

17 85.29 14.32 70.97 4.96 0.946 10863.65 7225,25

5 B5.26 11.94 73.32 6.14 0.946 10901.72 7230.5B

15 84,7n B.46 76.24 9.01 0.962 llBOO.B5 7346.73

18 84.63 6.22 7B.42 12.61 0.963 11996.33 7361.09

11 B4.47 5.01 79,46 16.87 0.968 12574.15 7395,34

19 84.37 3.09 81.28 26.29 0.971 13252.46 7420,20

10 83.?8 1.33 82.65 62.15 0.983 1666B.58 7507.68

**. *.*. ***** **.,, **. *.**** ***** *****, ***** ***** *****, ***** ***** ************..*******.**************,*********

TABL[ 6: Break Through Order of Layers and llnR

{w = 80 D/

)rdered
@MJx
1 2 0.1; 2 0.11 2 0.14 2 0.20 2 0.34 2 1.37 2 0.35 2 0.11 2 0.11

2 3 0.21 3 0.24 7 0.28 7 0.36 1 0.58 7 2.B7 7 0.52 3 0.24 3 0.24

3 7 0.3! 7 0.39 3 0.42 3 0.56 3 0.85 3 3.51 3 0.B3 ? 0.39 7 0.39

4 1 0.5! 1 0.55 1 0.63 1 0.82 1 1.24 3 4.66 1 1.20 1 0.55 1 0.55

5 4 0.74 4 0.74 4 0.86 4 1.07 6 1.48 6 6.71 4 1.48 4 0.74 4 0.74

6 8 1.06 8 1,06 8 1,13 6 1.35 8 1.97 8 8.09 B 1,97 B 1.o6 8 1.06

7 6 1.41 6 1.41 6 1.42 8 1,81 4 2.78 4 10.64 6 2.56 6 1.41, 6 1.41

8 9 1.85 9 1.85 9 1.91 9 2.32 9 3.23 19 7.81 9 3.06 9 1.B6 9 1.85

a 16 2.19 16 2.19 16 2.24 16 z,70 16 3.75 9 11.64 16 3.52 16 2.19 ]6 2.19

In 13 2.56 13 2.56 14 2.71 14 3.27 14 4.75 14 14.65 14 4.26 ]3 2.56 13 2.56

11 14 3.15 14 3,I5 13 3.27 13 3.B9 19 5.11 16 23.80 13 4.95 14 3.15 14 3.15

12 12 3.79 12 3.79 12 4.06 17 4,54 17 5.B2 17 21.55 12 5.64 12 !4.79 12 3.79

13 17 4.96 17 4.96 17 4.78 !9 5.30 13 7.2o 18 29.98 17 6.78 17 4.96 ~7 4.96

14 5 6.14 5 6.14 18 6.07 18 6.53 lB 9.21 13 24.96 la 7.75 5 6.14 5 6.14

15 35 9.01 15 9.01 19 7.38 12 8.67 15 13.13 15 60.72 19 9.6B 15 9.01 15 9.01

16 18 12.61 lB 12,61 15 10.87 15 13.60 12 21.16 12 87.39 15 15.87 18 12.61 10 12.61

17 11 15.87 5 17.27 5 23.77 5 41.60 5198.25 5 30.44 11 15.87 1] 15.87

11 15.87
13 19 26.29 39 26.29 11 31.07 11 34.90 30 53.38 10223.91 11 41.78 19 26.29 19 26.29

Iq 10 72,50 10 1?7.35 10 62.15 10 62.15

10 62.15 10 62.15 10 86.56 31 111.46 11 211.35

--
-.
—--
.—
-.—
.,.
....----- .
.....-
 ●

.-

InJector producor W 15020

,..
LI layer n

(a)
800

700
●

.2
+t
v
0,1
0,s

2 pnvcrteri]
10

600

500

400

w
300

200

100

,~
~%1~’or-j
0123456 789

(b) Cumulative oil production, M bbl

flu.i-8chemetlc dlawzm showing wrmfflwding In a Iayered-cmpc.site reservoir, Fig. 2-Cumulative water Injectionvs. cumulmlve011production(I”. 100 Em).

22

20
o 0.6
Al
18
¤~
* 2 (inverted)
16 v 10

14

12

10
/
8

c
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cumulative oil production, M bbl

FIS. 3-Pres8ute drop vs. cumulntlveall prcductton.(1. =100 a~).

 WE 15020

100 wmbol M

A AO.1
90 ●
.0,5
01
80 9
*2
@o
~ 2 (Inverted
70 010
■

*
60 A
❑
\\
50

e
40 \

30

20

10

0
01234567 69
Cumulative oil production, M bbl
FIO.4-011 pmductlon rato W. cumulative0[1production(1-=100 BID).

nymbol M

. 0.1

0 0.6

Al

02

@2 (hvefi.d)

v 10

4 5 6 7 8 2
o 1 2 3

Cumulative oil production, M bbl

Fig. 5-WOR w. oumulativo01!pmdutilon [Iw= 100 Em)