Average Water Saturation

Related terms:

Water Injection, Relative Permeability, Areal Sweep Efficiency, Breakthrough,

Injected Water, Injection Rate, Mobility Ratio, Oil Ratio, Porosity

View all Topics

Wettability and Production

Erle C. Donaldson, Waqi Alam, in Wettability, 2008

3.10 Mobility Ratio

The mobility ratio is defined as the mobility of the displacing fluid at the average
water saturation behind the advancing front of displaced oil (Sw ), divided by the
mobility of the oil at the average saturation in the advancing oil bank (Sw ),Fig. 3-7:

Figure 3-7. Displacement of oil by water in a water-wet system. A bank of mobile oil
develops ahead of the advancing water with an average water saturation,SWB, and an oil
saturation quotient develops behind the front from 1-SWCto SORat the point of injection;
the average water saturation behind the front is Sw .

(3.6)
The mobility ratio is a single term that describes the rate and efficiency of oil
displacement by other immiscible fluids. Diminishing values of M(less than one) are
generally considered as favorable values, and increasing values (greater than one) are
considered as unfavorable values. For a waterflood to be economically successful, M
should have a value equal to or less than 10. Enhanced oil recovery processes are
designed to decrease the value of this single parameter.

The relative permeabilities are intrinsic functions of wettability; therefore, chemical

solutions of surfactants and caustics are used to change reservoir wettability in EOR
processes and decrease the mobility ratio. Polymer solutions are used to increase the
water viscosity and decrease M, while thermal processes decrease M by decreasing
the oil viscosity.

Miscible displacement EOR processes that use solvents such as light petroleum
fractions, condensed gases, carbon dioxide, and alcohol to dissolve oil at the ad-
vancing front eliminate capillary forces by reducing the interfacial tension to zero.
As the miscible front expands away from the injecting well, more and more oil is
dissolved into the solvent until the solvent is no longer effective and thus making
the displacement less efficient than theoretical predictions from linear laboratory
core floods.

The displacement of oil by water initiated by a pressure difference between points of

water injection and oil production will result in displacement of oil from its connate
(or initial) saturation (Swc)to an economical (or practical) residual oil saturation. If the
mobility ratio is small enough, a definite front of mobile oil develops in front of the
advancing water. The displacement is not an exact, piston-like process; instead, an
oil saturation gradient exists from So= 1 – Swcin the mobile oil to Sorat the zone of
injection where a large volume of water has contacted the porous medium, shown
in Fig. 3-7. If the system is water-wet, water will imbibe ahead of the front as a
function of the imbibition capillaries’ pressure relationship with respect to distance
(dPc/dx). This produces an initial rapid production of oil that was calculated as oil
relative permeability greater than 1.0 and interpreted at the time as an effect caused
by capillary end effects (Donaldson et al., 1966). In an oil-wet reservoir, there will
be an opposite effect as some oil trails behind the front because of the threshold
capillary pressure required for entry of water into the pores.

> Read full chapter

Well Testing Methods in Multilayered

Oil Reservoir Systems
Amanat U. Chaudhry, in Oil Well Testing Handbook, 2004
15.9 Factors Affecting Multilayered Reservoir Performance
The following factors can affect the performance of multilayered reservoir systems:

• Relative permeability: If both layers have the same relative permeability charac-
teristics, average water saturation will be higher in the tighter layer than in the
more permeable layer, because the average pressure is always higher in the
less permeable layer.
• Pore size: If pore size in the tight layer is smaller than that in the more perme-
able layer, then it will tend to reduce crossflow. This effect can be estimated
from capillary pressure curves.
• Reservoir geometry: Geometrical nature and extent of interlayer communica-
tion have some effect on observed field performance.
• Permeability anisotropy: In most petroleum reservoirs, vertical permeability is
significantly less than horizontal permeability.
• Reservoir n-layer system: Analysis of performance can be handled to acceptable
accuracy merely by the previously presented formulae and for (kh)t and ( h)t,
respectively.

> Read full chapter

Principles of Waterflooding
Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition), 2019

Stage 2: Recovery Performance to Breakthrough (Sgi = 0, EA, EV

= 100%)
Step Draw a tangent to the fractional flow curve as originated from Swi and deter-
1. mine:○Point of tangency with the coordinate (Swf, fwf)○Average water satura-
tion at breakthrough by extending the tangent line to fw = 1.0○Slope of the
tangent straight-line
Step Calculate pore volumes of water injected at breakthrough by using Equation
2. 14-41:

Step Assuming EA and EV are 100%, calculate cumulative water injected at break-
3. through by applying Equation 14-42:or equivalently:

Step Calculate the displacement efficiency at breakthrough by applying Equation

4. 14-50:

Calculate cumulative oil production at breakthrough from Equation 14-52:

Step
5.

Step Assuming a constant water-injection rate, calculate time to breakthrough from

6. Equation 14-40:

Step Select several values of injection time less than the breakthrough time, i.e., t
7. < tBT, and set:

Step Calculate the surface water-oil ratio WORs exactly at breakthrough by using
8. Equation 14-28:where fwBT is the wellbore water-cut at breakthrough (notice
that fwBT = fwf).

It should be pointed out that the surface water-oil ratio WORs as calculated by
applying the above expression is only correct when the areal sweep efficiency
EA and vertical sweep efficiency Ev are both 100%. The modification approach of
calculating WORs when EA and EV are 100% are discussed later in the chapter.

> Read full chapter

Fluid Displacement
John R. Fanchi, in Integrated Reservoir Asset Management, 2010

Exercises
12-1.Find the following values for the example shown in Figure 12.2: fractional
flow of water at the flood front fwf, water saturation at the flood front Swf, and
average water saturation behind the flood front Swbt.
12-2.Consider the following oil–water relative permeability
table.Swkrwkrow0.300.0001.0000.350.0100.5900.400.0200.3200.450.0340.1800.500.046-
0.0800.550.0680.0300.600.1280.0100.650.1660.0010.700.2000.00010.800.2400.0000At
3014.7 psia, oil viscosity = 0.594 cp and water viscosity = 0.503. Calculate and
plot the fractional flow of water.
12-3.Find the following values for the data in Exercise 12-2: fractional flow of water
at the flood front fwf, water saturation at the flood front Swf, and average water
saturation behind the flood front Swbt.
12-4.Find the mobility ratio of water to oil for the data in Exercise 12-2. Is the
mobility ratio favorable or unfavorable?
12-5.The slope of the main tangent line for the data in Exercise 12-2 is 3.145.
Suppose the water injection rate is 400 STB/D, the separation between injector
and producer is 300 feet, the cross-sectional area is 40,000 ft2, and the porosity
is 15 percent. Estimate the time to water breakthrough at the producer using 12-6.
Eq. (12.3.1). Assume the water formation volume factor is 1.01 RB/STB.
Show that Eq. (12.4.8) is a solution of Eq. (12.4.2). 12-7.

Determine the rate of finger growth of a unit mobility flood in a horizontal 12-8.
medium using Eq. (12.4.14). Hint: Set M = 1 in Eq. (12.4.14) and simplify.
Explain why the mobility ratio condition M < 1 is considered “favorable” for a 12-9.
displacement flood using Eq. (12.5.45).
Copy the file VFILL1_HM.DAT to ITEMP.DAT and run IFLO by double click- 12-10.
ing on the IFLO.EXE file on your hard drive. Select option “Y” to write
the run output to files. When the program ends, it will print “STOP”.
Close the IFLO window. You do not need to save changes. Copy the file
ITEMP.ROF to VFILL1_HM.ROF, and copy ITEMP.ARR to VFILL1_HM.ARR.
Open VFILL1_HM.ROF using a text editor. Search the file for INITIAL FLUID
VOLUMES.(a)How much oil is initially in place?(b)How much water is initially
in place?(c)How much gas is initially in place?(d)How much of the gas exists
in a free gas phase?
Run the visualization program 3DVIEW and load the file VFILL1_HM.ARR cre-
ated in Exercise 12-9. To load the file after 3DVIEW is open, click on the “File”
button and select “Open Array File.” Select the file called “VFILL1_HM.ARR”
and click on the “OK” button. Select the oil saturation attribute at the begin-
ning of the run. To select this attribute, click on the “Model” button and select
“Select Active Attribute.” From the list of options select “SO” for oil saturation.
You are looking at the side of the reservoir. To see the top of the reservoir, place
the cursor in the black field near the reservoir display, hold the left mouse
button down, and pull the mouse toward you. You should see the reservoir
image rotate. Continue rotating until you see the top of the reservoir. Sketch
the image and indicate which part of the image represents the reservoir.

> Read full chapter

Analytical Methods for Prediction of

Reservoir Performance
Richard Wheaton, in Fundamentals of Applied Reservoir Engineering, 2016

4.4.1.3 Nonsharpening Systems

High values of occur at lower water saturations (in particular for high oil viscosity
systems—see Fig. 4.17) and we get a nonsharpening behavior.
Figure 4.17. Nonsharpening system.

In general, therefore, where higher water saturations (following water injection) have
higher water advance rates (Fig. 4.18) we have a self-sharpening system, and where
higher water saturations (following water injection) have lower water advance rates
we have a nonsharpening system (Fig. 4.18).

Figure 4.18. Buckley–Leverett shock front calculation.

The applicable part of the curve is therefore that between Sw = Swf and 1 − Sor, where
Swf is the shock front advance water saturation.

To ensure mass balance we need to remove equal areas A and B in the Buckley–Lev-
erett plot to determine Swf—see Fig. 4.18.

A better way is that proposed by Welge. Integrating the saturation distribution from
x = 0 to the shock front, it can be shown that a tangent to the water fractional flow
curve will give both Swbt (the water saturation at the shock front) and the average Sw
behind the shock front (Fig. 4.19).
Figure 4.19. Welge tangent curve.

Sw(average) can be used to determine oil recovery at a given time.

4.4.1.3.1 Steps
1. Draw the fractional flow curve as shown above.

2. Draw tangent as shown.

3. The point of tangency gives Swbt.

4. Extrapolation to fw = 1 gives average water saturation Sw(average) =  behind the

shock front at breakthrough time tbt.

4.4.1.3.2 Position of Any Given Water Saturation Front Sw

[4.39]

or if flow rate q is a constant with time Q(t) = q·t:

[4.40]

or in field units:

[4.41]

where q = a constant water injection rate, and q is in bbl/day, t is in days and A is in
ft2.

> Read full chapter

Fluid Movement in Waterflooded
Reservoirs
William C. Lyons, in Working Guide to Reservoir Engineering, 2010

4.1.2 Welge Graphical Technique

A more simplified graphical technique was proposed by Welge [47] which involves
integrating the saturation distribution from the injection point to the front. The
graphical interpretation of this equation is that a line drawn tangent to the fractional
flow curve from the initial water saturation (Swi) will have a point of tangency equal
to water saturation at the front (Swf). Additionally, if the tangent line is extrapolated
to fw = 1, the water saturation will correspond to the average water saturation in the
water bank, . Construction of a Welge plot is shown in Figure 4.3. The tangent line
should be drawn from the initial water saturation even if that saturation is greater
than the irreducible water saturation.
FIGURE 4.3. Welge graphical plot [47].

Welge derived an equation that relates the average displacing fluid saturation to the
saturation at the producing end of the system:

(4.8)

where

Equation 4.8 is important because it relates to three factors of prime importance in

waterflooding [44]: (1) the average water saturation and thus the total oil recovery,
(2) the cumulative injected water volume, and (3) the water cut and hence the oil cut.

Welge also related the cumulative water injected and the water saturation at the
producing end:

(4.9)
Thus, the reciprocal of the slope of the tangent line gives the cumulative water influx
at the time of water breakthrough. When a value of Qi and the injection rate are
known, the time to reach that stage of the flood can be computed.

For a liquid-filled, linear system, the average water saturation at breakthrough, , is:

(4.10)

where Siw is the irreducible or connate water saturation. If Equation 4.6 is substituted

into Equation 4.10:

(4.11)

where Swf is the water saturation at the flood front and fwf is the water cut at the
flood front. After breakthrough, water saturation is obtained from Equations 4.8 and
4.9 where, as mentioned earlier: (1) the tangent point, Sw2, represents the water
saturation at the producing end of the system, (2) the value of fw at the point of
tangency is the producing water cut, (3) the saturation at which the tangent intersects
fw = 1.0 is the average water saturation, and (4) the inverse of the slope of the tangent
line is equal to the cumulative injected fluid in pore volumes (Qi). If connate water
is mobile, appropriate corrections need to be made [44].

Oil production at breakthrough can be computed from [3]:

(4.12)

After water breakthrough, a number of saturation greater than Swf are selected; the
slope of the tangent line and average water saturation are determined for each value
of Sw chosen. Oil production after breakthrough is then determined by observing the
change in water saturation [3]:

(4.13)

The incremental oil production from Equation 4.13 can be added to the break-
through production from Equation 4.12, and the resulting total production for the
linear system can be listed as a function of Sw, time, or other parameters. If the pore
volumes in these equations are in ft3, divide by 5.615 to get barrels.

> Read full chapter

Polymer Flooding—Fundamentals and

Field Cases
James J. Sheng, in Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies, 2013
3.4 Mechanisms of Polymer Flooding
The main mechanism of polymer flooding is the increased viscosity of polymer
solution so that the mobility ratio of the displacing polymer solution to the displaced
fluids ahead is reduced and the viscous fingering is reduced. When the viscous
fingering is reduced, the sweep efficiency is improved.

The mechanism of increased displacing fluid viscosity can be quantified using the
Buckley-Leverett (1942) theory. Figure 3.5 shows two fractional flow curves. One is
for a waterflooding case with the viscosity ratio of water to oil 0.1, the other one is
for a polymer flooding case with the viscosity ratio of polymer to oil 1. From the
fractional flow curve, we can estimate the average water saturation at breakthrough
by drawing a tangent from the connate water saturation Swc (0.2 in this case) and
intersecting the horizontal line of fw=1, and the corresponding water saturation is
the average water saturation. Here, fw is the water cut in the producing fluid. From
Figure 3.5, the average water saturation in the waterflooding case is 0.58, whereas
the average water saturation in the polymer flooding case is 0.76. The difference is
0.18. In other words, by simply increasing the viscosity of displacing fluid, the oil
recovery factor can be increased by 18% at breakthrough.

Figure 3.5. Effect of viscosity ratio on the fractional flow curve.

When polymer is injected in vertical heterogeneous layers, crossflow between layers

improves polymer allocation in the vertical layers so that the vertical sweep efficiency-
is improved. This mechanism is detailed in Sorbie (1991).

Another mechanism is related to polymer viscoelastic behavior. The interfacial vis-

cosity between polymer and oil is higher than that between oil and water. The
shear stress is proportional to the interfacial viscosity. Due to polymer viscoelastic
properties, there is normal stress between oil and polymer solution, in addition to
shear stress. Thus, polymer exerts a larger pull force on oil droplets or oil films.
Therefore, oil can be “pushed and pulled” out of dead-end pores. Thus, residual oil
saturation is decreased. This mechanism was rarely discussed until recently (Sheng,
2011; Wang et al., 2001).

One economic impact of polymer flooding which has been less discussed is the
reduced amount of water injected and produced, compared with waterflooding.
Because polymer improves the mobility ratio and sweep efficiency, less water is
injected and less water is produced. In some situations like an offshore environment
and desert area, water and the treatment of water could be costly (Sheng, 2011).

> Read full chapter

Spontaneous imbibition
James J. Sheng, in Enhanced Oil Recovery in Shale and Tight Reservoirs, 2020

10.2.2 Handy (1960) method

Assuming a pistonlike spontaneous imbibition, Handy (1960) derived an equation
to predict that water imbibition volume (Vw) increases with the square root of
imbibition time (t):

(10.2)

In the above equation, pc is the water-air capillary pressure at the front water
saturation Swf; Sw is the average water saturation behind the front according to the
Handy derivation; kw is the effective water permeability at Sw; is the porosity; A
is the flow cross-section area; and μw is the water viscosity. It is assumed that water
displaces air in a pistonlike manner. No gravity is assumed to play the role in the
process. Only the capillary force overcomes the viscous force within the imbibition
zone. As more water is imbibed, water saturation Sw is increased and kw is increased,
but pc is declined exponentially with Sw. Handy's experimental data through cores
confirmed the above linear relationship. Makhanov's (2013) experimental data also
demonstrated the above relationship, but some imbibition data showed that the
imbibition rate slowed at later time.

> Read full chapter

Waterflooding
 Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, in Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery from
Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs, 2018

7.5 Application of Buckley–Leverett Theory and Fractional Flow

Concept
The performance analysis of waterflooding is often based on reservoir flow systems.
The two geometries of a system widely used are the linear displacement system and
the radial displacement system [6]. The oil recovery factor for both systems would be
estimated using the average saturation of both systems. At water breakthrough, the
average water saturation would be determined and used to estimate the recovery
factor for comparison of both systems. The Buckley–Leverett theory estimates the
rate at which an injected water moves through a porous medium [6]. The approach
applies fractional flow theory and assumes that

• Flow is linear and horizontal

• Water is injected into an oil reservoir

• Oil and water are both incompressible

• Oil and water are immiscible

• Gravity and capillary-pressure effects are negligible

Also, the following assumptions have been made for developing Buckley–Leverett
approach:

• A circular reservoir with constant height

• Reservoir is homogeneous in all rock properties

• The dip angle of formation is zero

• Oil and water two-phase flow in reservoir, no gas present in the reservoir

• Compressibilities of oil and water are negligible

• Constant reservoir temperature is applied

• All rock properties do not change as pressure changes

• Constant oil and water viscosities during displacement

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.