~.G. Thakur, SPE, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

introduction management practices. Case studies that il-

Billions of barrels of additional reserves lustrate the best surveillance practices are
have been generated through waterflooding, referenced.
one of the most important methods of im-
proving recovery from oil reservoirs. With Resertrolr Management
the uncertainty of the economic applicabil- Reservoir management can & defined as the
ity of EOR techniques as a result of oil-price judicious use of various techniques to max-
instability, optimimtion of waterflooding hti imize benefits or economic recovery from
become more significant than ever. a reservoir. 5$ Fig. 1 describes the interac-
The reservoir management aspects of tion required among the various functions.
watertkoding are not restricted to an initial The reservoir management approach to
engineering and geological report, economic waterflood surveillance must use a coupled
justification, and project approval by man- system consisting of wells, surface facilities,
agement. Rather, these ongoing activities and the reservoir, All, must be considered
span the time before the start of waterflood in a balanced way to mhxirnizeeconomic oil
to the time when the secondary recovery recovery. Also, a team effort involving peo-
either is uneconomic or is changed to an en- ple from various functional areas is rndnda-
hanced recovery. tory for development and implementation of
A reservoir managemerit” approach to a successful reservoir management program.
waterflood surveillance considers a system
consisting of reservoir characterization, Kmy Factors In
fluids and their behavior in the reservoir, Waterflood Survei#~ance
creation and operation of wells, and surface Trdash7 and Talash and Strangeg described
processing of the fluids, These are interrelat- the key monitoring points in the traditional
ed parts of a unified system. The fimction waterflood cycle (Fig. 2). In the past, at-
of reservoir management in waterflood sur- tention was focused mainly on reservoir pcr-
veillance is to provide facts, information, forrnance. Howeyer, with the application of
and knowledge necessary to control opera- the reservoir management approach, it has
tions and to obtain the maximum possible become industry practice to include wells,
economic recovery from a reservoir. facilities, water system, and operating con-
Initial production forecasts may not al- ditions in surveillance programs.
ways agree with actual performance. Differ- It is important to consider the following
ences may arise from fieldwide averaging items in the design and implementation of
of data in the prediction model, inadequate a comprehensive waterflood surveillance
geological description, and well-completion program (Table 1).
problems. Thus, attempts should be made . 1. Accurate and detailed reservoir de-
to resolve the differences and controlled sur- scription.
veillance shou!d be carried out to improve 2. Resewoir performance and ways to es-
field performance. timate sweep efficiency and oil recovery at
Guidelines for waterflood’ management various stages o“fdepletion.
shouId include information on (1) reservoir 3. Injection/production wells and their
characterization, (2) estimation of pay areas rates, pressures, and fluid profiles.
containing recoverable oil, (3) analysis of 4. Water quality and treating.
pattern performance, (4) data gathering, (5) 5. Maintenance and performance of fa-
well testing and reservoir pressure moni- cilities.
toring, and (6) wefl information data 6. Monthly comparison of acmal and the-
base. 1+ oretical performance to monitor waterflowf
Today, sufficient performance history is behavior and effectiveness.
available that surveillance techniques can be 7, Reservoir management information
documented in detail. ‘Ilk paper highlights system and performance control (accurate
waterflooding in light of practical reservoir per-well performance data).
8. Diagnosis of existing/potential prob-
C@yMM 19S1SocWy of Psfro!wm Engineers lems and their solutions.

October 1991. JPT

.. .. .
 SPE 23471
●

siwDistinguikhed
Author-=

9. Economic surveillance. waterflood, and Fig. 6 illustrates various ex-

10. Teamwork. amples of waterf160ds. Lo et al. 19discuss X=hr~l-l\ -l-. . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
Sometimes a waterflood surveillance pro- results supporting the application of a plot \fw ~ fw’
gram is unsuccessful if teamwork does not of log (WOR) VS,cumulative oil for water- where f,,, = fractional water cut.
exist among the engineers, geologists, and flood analysis, This method is more general than the con-
field operations personnel. Effective water- 4, GOR. Decreasing GOR’S indicate that ventional pIot of water cut vs. cumulative
flmd management requires a multidiscipli- fluid fill-up is being achieved. Increasing oil and yields better results when the water
nary team approach. It is important that all GOR’s indicate that voidage is not replaced cut exceeds 0.75.
disciplines (Fig. 1) be involved, and each by injection. 7. Hal124 plot, This technique, used to
must understand the requirements, needs, 5. Floodfront map. This pictorial display .!
analyze injection-well data, is based on a
and rationale of other functional groups. shows the location of various flood fronts. plot of cumulative pressure vs. cumulative
TabIe 2 gives a process to improve success The maps, often called bubble maps, allow injection, It can provide a wealth of infor-
in implementing a reservoir management visual differentiation between areas of the mation regarding the characteristics of an
program. reservoirs that have and have not beerrswept injection well, as shown in Fig. 7.
by injected water. Z“ Before fill-up, 13qs. 1 Early in the life of an injection well, the
Reservoir Characterization and Perform- and 2 can be applied to estimate the outer water-zone radius will increase with time,
ance Monftorhrg.9-12 radius of the banked oil and the water-bank causing the slope to concave upward, as
1. Physical characteristics of the reser- radius. shown by Segment ab in Fig. 7, After fill-
voir, Reservoir characteristics must be de- UP, Line bA indicates stable or normal in-
fined: permeability, porosity, thickness, jection. An increasing slow that is concave
areal and vertical variations, areal and ver- upward generally indicates a positive skin
tical distributions of oil saturation, gas/oil or poor water quality (Line D). Similar
and oil/water contacts, anisotropy (orient- where rob =outer radius of the banked oil, slopes may occur if a well treatment is “de-
ed fracture system or directional permeabil- ti; ic.,=cumulative water injected, bbl; signed to improve effective volumetric
ity), 13in-situ stress, 14reservoir continuity, Sg=gas saturation at start of injection, frac- sweep, In this case, however, the slope will
vertical fi~w conductivity, and portion of tion; E=layer injection efficiency (fraction first increase and then stay constant. Line
pay containing the bulk of recoverable of water volume that enters the layer where B indicates a decreasing slope, indicating
oil, 15,lfI To manage a waterflood accurate- effective waterflood is taking place); and negative skin or injectionabove parting pres-
ly, detailed knowledge of the reservoir ar- h =thickness, ft. sure, The injection under the latter condi-
chitecture also is necessary. 17Fjgs. 3 and tion can be verified by running step-rate
4 show some examples of geological charac-
terization, involving changing geological
concepts and zmration. Bradley et al. lx dis-
r~b=r~b(sw,,::si,v)fi
(2)
tests. A very low slope value, as shown by
Line bC, is an indication of possible chan-
neling or out-of-zone injection.
cussed similar ideas in their integrated ap- where rW,b= water bank radius, ft; ~.b, = 8. Corurolled waterjload.25-27Maximum
proach to refining reservoir description average water saturation behind front, frac- profit and recovery would be realized if all
through monitoring flui3 movements in the tion; and SW=connate water saturation, wells reached the flood-out point simulta-
Prudhoe Bay reservoir. fraction, neously. This means producing the largest
2. Primary per$onrratrce.Wells indicating If zones are correlative from well to well oil volumes from the wells draining the larg-
relatively high cumulative production may and if limited vertical communications ex- est PV’S, This scenario wilj result in mini-
indicate high permeability and porosity, ist, then the bubble map can be drawn for mum life with minimum operating expense
higher pay-zone thickness, or another pay each zone. The bubble map can be used to while realizing maximum oil recovery. Note
zone. On the other hand, wells indicating identify areas that are not flooded and areas that, if there is a large variation in PV’s, this
relatively low cumulative production may with infill drilling opportunities. -- task is difticult because each well is allocated
indicate poor mechanical condition, well- Cone2] used a simple numerical model- a production/injection rate on the basis of
bore skin damage, or isolated pay intervals, ing approach to prepare isobaric and water PV fractions.
3. Production cuwes. Percent oil cut in front maps that identified areas of high gas 9. Pattern balancing. 28s29 Minimizing
produced stream (log scale) vs. cumulative and water saturation, oil migratiori across pattern boundaries im-
recovery during secondary performance 6. X plot, 22,23Because extrapolation of proves the capture of the mobilized oil and
may result in an estimate of future recovery past performance on the graph of water cut reduces the volume of recycled water. Pat-
or may indicate improvement in the water- vs. cumulative oil is often complicated, a tern bahmcing generally increases sweep ef-
flood pmformance as a result of more uni- method was devised to plot recovery factor ficiency. In addition, realignment of flood
form injection profile. Fig! 5 illustrates the vs. Xthat yielded a straight line. X was de- patterns in conjunction with pattern balanc-
performance curve of a typical successful fined as ing provides more opportunity to increase
1181
 .
13. Flow regulation (surface and down-
hole regulation, single/durd-stringinjection),
14. Profi/e contro~(polymer, cementing,
chemical, microbial).

Facilities/Operations. The literature on

waterflood surveillance is generally aimed
at reservoir performance. Overall project
success, however, is often critically affected
by daily field operations. While reservoir
engineers and geologists play a very impor-
tant role in reservoir performance and water-
flood optimization, facilities/operations staff
are concerned with daily management of
ENVIRONMENTAL field operations, information collection, and
diagnosis of potential or existing problems
(mechanical, electrical, or chemical).qz
Surface equipment considerations should
include surface gathering and storage sys-
tem. injection pumps, water distribution sys-
tems, metering, water treatment and tiltcring
system, oil/water separation, corwrsion and
scale, plant and equipment sizing, handling
of separated waste products.

Water-Quality Malntenance4%44
If water quality is not maintained, higher in-
jection pressures are required to sustain
desired injection rates. Also, corrosion prob-
lems increase with time when lower-quality
water is used. It is important to protect the
injection system against corrosion to.
Flg:l-fleservolr management approach,
preserweits physical integrity and to prevent
the generation of corrosion products.
oil recovery. Simple reservoir modeling volume treatments are not generally desi r-
Ideally, the water quality should be such
work can be of great help. For example. able. The Iattcr condition may sometimes
that the reservoir dots not plug and injec-
Thomas and Driscoll so concluded that in have a significant negative effect on sweep
tivity is not lost during the life of the flood,
the Slaughter field significant amounts of oil efficiency. Note that these conditions do not
However, cost considerations often prohibit
would be trapped in a poorly swept area if preclude a successti,ilwaterflood but require
the use of such high-quality water, The ex-
no changes were made in the producer/injec- more concentrated efforts in surveillance.
pense of obtaining and preserving good-
tor configuration. 3. Injection well tes!ing. These tests are
quality water must be balanced against the
~10. Produced-water analysis. 31-33Injec- conducted to optimize waterflood perform- ioss of income incurred as a result of de-
ted-water breakthrough can be detected by ance by maximizing pressure differential,
minimizing skin damage, ensuring proper creased oil rccovcry and increased workover
monitoring the chloride content of the pro- and remedial operations requirements, JS
duced water if there is a significant differ- distribution of water, and monitoring the ex-
tent of fracturing. 36 Questions are often asked about the de-
ence in the salinities. termination of acceptable wa!er quality:
11. Injectionprojile surveys. Periodic sur- 4. Qaalir? of producers. Poor producers
make poor rejectors. Tighter formations require better-quality
veys of injection-well fluid-entry profiles water. Sometimes poor-quality water can be
can detect formation phrgging, injection out 5. Convening producers. Producers are
converted and high gas producers are shut injected above parting pressures. but injec-
of the target zone, thief zones, and under- tion through fractures could reduce sweep
in to accelerate fill-up time.
injected zones. Allocation of injection
6. Backpressure. If the producing wells efficiency,
volumes with data obtained from the pro- Although it is impossible to predict quan-
are not pumped off. a backpressure is ap-
file surveys allows tracking of waterflood
plied to cause crossflow. As a result, the titatively the minimum water quality re-
histories of each zone. quired for injection water into a given
low-pressure zones may not produce.
7. Changing injection projiles. 37 This formation, some authors~c have attempted
Welts.34J5 can be done with selective injection equip- to define injection water-quality requirc-
1. Problem ureas. Formation plugging, ment, selective perforating, low pressure merrtsfrom on-site testing. Table 3 and Fig.
injection out of the target zone, and non- squeeze cementing, acidizing, and thief zone 8 describe other considerations regarding
uniform injection profile caused by stratifi- blockage through polymer treatments. 38-$1 water systems.
cation are all problem areas, They cause 8. Regular well cleanouts. It is interesting to note that incompatible
major problems in waterflood operations and 9. Completion and workover techniques barium and sulfate waters were injected into
low vertical sweep efficiency. Thin, high- (wellbore “cleanout, completion and work- the Baylor County Waterflood Unit No.
permeability layers serve as highIy conduc- over fluids, perforating and perforation 1.JT Produced and makeup waters were not
tive streaks for the injected water. , , cleaning, packers40). mixed; instead, they”were injectqi through
2. Well completion. Condition of the 10. Tubing selection and corrosion two separate systems and into separate
casing and/or cement bond plays an impor- coatings. wells. Roebuck and Crairr47 reported that
tant role in waterflood surveillance. Because 11. Scale removal and inhibition. no problems were encountered through mix-
of poor cement, water flow can occur be- 12. Specific recommendations for injec- ing and precipitation in the reservoir, nor
hind the casing. Also, openhole injectors and tion/production well, water-source well, and were any problems in the producing system
producers, and fractured wells with large wellheads. experienced.
1182 October 1991 ● JPT
 ,,

Hydrocarbon Transport ]

I !T ‘“’O’”O”s
I
Production Facilities (~[ Disposal “eil.s !
II I!@zE=J

I
I -1

Fig. 2—Waterflood cycle,

Monitoring Facilities. j~ction), but they also apply to waterflood

Reservoir. @Product ion/irrjection. surveillance.
● Monitoring eq~ipment and maintenance. ● Areal flood balancing (optimizing the
● Pressure (parta~le test equipment, fluid-

Ievel testing; repeat formation, buildup/fall- arrival of flood fronts at producers) per-
off, andstep-rate tests; fieldwide pressure Water System. formed by annual pressure-falloff tests in
● Presence of corrosive dissolved gases each injector and computer balancing
surveys to determine pressure gradient for
use on ba!ancing injectiordprochrctionrates), (C02, H2S, 02); minerals; bacterial grOWih; programs.
dissolved solids; suspended solids, concen- ● Production/injection monitoring.
● Rate (oil, water, gas, water-cut, GOR,
tration and composition; ion analysis; pi+. ● Data acquisition and monitoring.
welt testing-prcductiorthjection rdlccation).
● Pattern balancing (voidage control, . Corrosivity (corrosion coups and cor- ● Pattern performance monitoring to max-

areaUverticd sweep efficiency using stream- rosion rate monitoring), oil content (dis- imize oil recovery and flood efficiency by
tuhe models). persed or emulsified oil ip water), and iron evaluating and optimizing the performance
● Waterflood pattern realignment.
sulfide, of each pattern.
● On-site or laboratory analysis, ● Optimization (it must be dynamic and
● Observation/monitoring wells.
● Data gathering at the water-source well, sensitive to changes in performance, tech-
● Reservoir sweep and bypassed oil.

● Friicture communications.
water-injection wells, and several points in nology, and txonomics).
● Thief zones and channels.
the injection system. ● Vertical conformance monitoring to op-

● PV injected. timize vertical sweep efficiency while

● Gravityunderridingand tingering/coning.
Case Hlstorlos minimizing out-of-zone injection, Several
— cross sections wew Constructedfor each pat-
MeansSan Andres Unit. Stilesd$ docu-
Wells. mented a comprehensive surveillance pro- tern to ensure completions in all the flood-
● Production/injection logging (openhole/ gram used at the Means San Andres Unit, able pay. Annual profiles were run on all
cased hole, temperature/spinner/tracer), A detailed surveillance program was devel- injection wells. For each profile, casing or
● Injected water in target zone. oped and implemented in 1975. It included packer ]eaks”wereidentified, out-of-zone in-
● HSW4 plots (welt pluggingktimulation). monitoring production (oil, gas, and water) jection was identified, and zonal injection
● Tracer (single well/interwell). and water injection, controlling injection from profile was comparwi with porosity-
● Tagging fill. pressures with step-rate tests, pattern bafanc- feet profiles.
● Cement integrity. ing with computer bakmce program, running The main objective of an injection survey
● Downhole equipment. injection profiles to ensure optimum distri- is to provide a means of monitoring the in-
● Surface equipment._a bution, selecting specific production pro- jection water so that efforts can be made to
● Wellbore fractures: files, and choosing fluid levels to ensure ensure that injection rates conform with
● Formation damage/perforationplugging. pumpoff of producing wells. zonat porosity-thickness. These efforts have
● Pumped-off condition. The following were implemented during Paid substantial dividends in increased ver-
● Corrosion/scale-inhibition residuats, tertiary recovery (water-alternating-gas in- ~ical sweep and ultimate recovery.

Reeerv@r well” Facllitbs .

— water system
—.
Preewre Perforatbne Production/injaotion Water quality
Ratea Prmtuctionfinjeotionlogging Monitoringequipment Presence of eorroeivedissotvedgases,
Voiumee Injected water In target zone minerals, baeteriai growth,dbeotvad
eoiida, and Wepandad aouds
cuts Tracer
ton anatysis
Ftuid eampiea Tagging fiil
pH
Haii24 ptota cement int@ty
oorroaivtty
Ffuid drift Downhoie equipment
Oil oontent
Patte& balancing Weitbore frsuurss
iron sulfide
Pattern raetiinmant FormatIon damage
0nj3ite or laboratoryanalyeis
Perforation plugging
M 9SttIarln9 on scwrceand Injaetbrt
Pumped-off oonditiorr web and Injeetbt system
 monitored to determine the dependence of cations in flood design, infill drilling, and
injectivity and productivity on geologic fac- careful surveillance. llre water%cd surveil-
tors. The continuing geologic surveillance lance incorporated such common techrdques
proved to be quite useful in determining the as computer-generated analyses of produc-
cause of injection anomalies and predicting tiorrhjcction data, water-bank radii or bub-
l, Aplanof@on, irwoMngallfimetbs
their effect on waterflood response. ble maps, pressure contour maps, artificial-
2. Flexlbbpian
3. Management support lift monitoring, and spxific items like care-
4. Commitmentof field personnel Jay/Little Escambia Creek Field. The ap- ful monitoring of the relationship between
& Porbdk rovbw meethga, Invohdn!il plication of reservoir management tech- reservoir withdrawals and the water-injec-
all team mombera(Interdlselpllnary niques was key to the success of this tion rate. The latter was monitored on both
_* In teaching eaoh other’s waterflood. 5z-54 Surveillance information a unit and individual battery basis.
funetbnai objeetiVe8) and reservoir description data provided new Based upon an energy balance of injec-
insights into water movement and zonsd timl and withdrawals,
South Hobbs Unit. Production at the South depletion. Operating decisions based on
BWiW=BOqO+Bg(R-R,)qO+BWqW*
Hobbs Unit increased almost 100% within these data proved to be highly profitable.
a year, 49 The reason for boosted perform- Surveillance was used for both the verti- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
ance was an aggressive program of well sur- cal and horizontal conforrnances. Cased-
where Bw=water FVF, RB/STB; ~= water
veillance, general record k~ping, and hole logging, pressure-buildup and produc-
injection rate, STB/D; BO=oil FVF, RB/
remedial action. Five operational efforts had tion tests, and permeability data from core
$TB; q. =tiil production rate, STB/D;
positive effects on production. analysis were used for the vertical conforma-
Bg =gas FVF, RBIscC Reproducing
1. LMtcapacity of a number of wells was nce surveillance; radioactive tracers, reser-
GOR, scf/STB; R, =solution GOR,
increased so that a pumped-off condition voir pressure data, and interference tests
scf/STB; and qW= water production rate,
could be maintained. were used for the areal surveillance.
STBID.
2, Operating pressures in the satellite bat- To achieve vertical conformance, injec-
Or,
tery separators were reduced, thereby reduc- tion wells were acid-fracture-treated in
multiple stages to create connecting vertical BW(iW–qW)
ing backpressure through the flowhrsesback q.= . ............(5)
to the well. fracture systems. TemWrature surveys, BO+Bg (R-R,)
3. Adverse effects of scale accumulation noise logs, and flowmeter were used for
were dtxreasixl by remedial and preventive the vertical conformance surveillance. The With 800-psi PVT data and injection and
measures. endre section in the produciug wells was production rates of 416,000 and 70,000
4. Injeztion pressures just under the opened without acid fracturing to maintain STB/D water, the oil rate for producing
parting pressure were maintained. the flexibility of future water .productiom GOR’s of 700 and 750 scf/STB are 148,000
5. Tracer surveys were run to ensure that Flowmeter/gradiomanometer surveys, and 138,000 STB/D, respectively (B. =
fluid is entering into the proper zones in the pressure buildups along with core analysis 1.213 RB/STB, Bg=0.003125 RB/scf, and
right amounts. data, noise logs, and gamma ray logs were l?. =339 scf/STB). The above rate model
used for monitoring. In addition, pulsed- was history matched with actual Wrform-
Wed Yellow Creek Field. Gordon and neutron-capture logs tracked edgewater en- ance in individual battery areas and then
0wen50 described the importance of a croachment. used to investigate the effects of changes in
thorough, well-organized reservoir surveil- Radioactive tracer data provided a means operating policy,
lance for the West Yellow Creek field. This of determining the source of water break- A significant effort was also made to im-
effort involved many activities, including through, which was later confirmed by the prove the vertical sweep efficiency in both
pressure-falloff tests, a computerized flood interference test performed between the existing and new water-injection wells.
balancing program, and a produced-water producer and the suspect injection well. On Cemented liners were installed in openhole
sampling program. the basis of these results, injection rates were producers that were converted to injection,
adjusted to minimize trapped oil behind the and the zones to be flooded were selectively
Ventura Field. Schneid@l described the water fronts. perforated. All new producers and injectors
.. were cased through the zones of interest and
role of geological factors on the design and
surveillance of waterflood in the structur- Wasson Denver “Unit. Ghauri55,ss and selectively perforated rather than completed
ally complex reservoirs in the Ventura field, Ghauri et al. 57 described several innova- openhole, which had been practiced before.
CA, Gcdogic factors strongly influencedthe tive techniques to increase this unit’s pro- Treating pressures du~ng acid stimulation
profiles of injection wells and the responses duction rates and reserves, including novel jobs were kept under formation fracturing
of producing wells. The waterflood was geological concepts (Fig. 3), major modifi- pressures to maintain zonal iWlation, and in-

,.
Flg. 3-Geologic coneept8.

11s4 October1991 ● JPT

 .
jection rates below fracturing pressure were
maintained, GR RHO-B
G.W.O. # 1087 TAN$ILL
Survolii8nco--A Look Ahoatti I 1 2400
In the years ahead, more attention will be TOP/YATES la
given to surveillance, Three areas will play
an increasing role. ~ 8AND

Starting a Surveillance Program Early in

BC SAND
the Life of A Reservoir. S]oatsg discussed
the profound effect of the proper timing of -
the implementation of monitoring/vohrmet- D SAND 5
ric sweep technology on recovery eftlciency. E SANO
An increase from 20 to 45% was noted.
With this in mind, our goal should be to
maximize volumetric sweep early in the
project’s life,, Trying to squeeze more oil
from marginal projects will, at best, yield
I
!-
STRAY

J DOLOMITE
SANDS
4%
x
- I

marginal to average results, Designing J 1 SAND

waterflood with dedicated observation/
monitoring wells will allow the reservoir
team to understand how the waterflood is TOP/SEVEN RIVERS J 2 ‘AND
operating in the reservoir and to take cor- ?=
rective actions if necessary.

Field Automation and Information

Management System.S9 As Bohamron@
pointed out, field automation will continue
to play an increasingly important role in 3“0 2-o “ -
Io%jd 0
waterflood surveillance. Automat ion,
together with an information management
system, will enhance technical analysis and Fig. 4-Type log for North Ward Estea fieid,
control. Our skills in controlling future per-
formance will depend on-how well we docu-
ment and utilize the past and the present.
PHASE
Because the industry has lost expertise in
the last few years through reductions in the i B I c
work force, it is impmlant to build an in- IA; i
kITliIL
formation management system that incor- lF&L UP
i
pxates heuristic knowledge into waterflood I
# 1
surveillance operations. Development and I
~~[ I pROWmN ;
application of integrated computer software PRODUCTION DECLINE PERtOO
>
using artificial intelligence (an expert sys- q-q- INCUNEFERIOD “,’
tem) will be of great importance in the fu-
ture. In addition, it is easier to transfer
I .. .. ..
TOTAL FLWO
..- -------- .. .. ..

expertise to new professionals if a well-

organized information management system I
is available.
I
Reservoir Management-A Team Ap-
proach. The reservoir management
approachs,b to waterflood surveillance con- --- -Ww --9
siders a systems approach that includes ---
I --- ---
reservoir characterization, fluids and their ----- ----
behavior in the reservoir, creation and op- 1I ..
eration of wells, and surface processing of PRIMARY OIL
fluids. Economic recovery from a water- I
flood can be maximized by an integrated
group effort. All decisions pertaining to the
% WATERFLOOD LIFE_
waterflood should be made by the team con- t- 11s OSCLINE (~lLL+IP)
sidering the entire system, rather than only 2(8)4
one aspect, The team approach to reservoir
I
management should always be emphasized. s% 30%
~(ls)— INCLINE PERIOD

AcknowIodgnmnt8 I
1s%
I express my appreciation to Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. for permission to publish this
paper. I thank my colleagues within
I *
(71)
OECLtNEPERIOD
-.

( ) ARtTHNETIO AVERAQE RECOVERY/PERIOD

Chevron Corp. and the industry who provid-
@ valuable information for this paper. In
~“rticular, I appreciate constructive criti-
JpT . ~o&r I$)gl
 sPE2~471
15. I..a@on, E. P.: “ Field Applicationo/Pres-
&OFE OF TOTALFLUIDCURVE sure Buildup Tests, Jay-Ltttle Esearnbia
Creek Fields,” paper SPE 6199 presented at
the 1976 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Get. 3-6.
16. Love, C.J. and Cox, J,T,: “Lovington (San
Andres)Waterflomi-ACaseHistory,”paper
presentedat the Southwestern Petroleum
Shori Course, Lubbock, TX, 1970.
17. Chierici, G.L.: “ARM (AdvanwdReservoir
Management) vs.EOR,” paper presented at
the 1989European Symposiumon Improved
Oil Recovery, Budapest, April 25-27.
18. Bradley, M. E., Mayson, H.J., and Wilkins,
a.ww K.L.: “An Integrated Approach to Refining
Reservoir Description Through Monitoring
.. Fluid Movements in the Prudhoe Bay Reser-
DEVMTIONOFOILANDTOTALFLUIOCURVE
voir,” paper SPE 15567presentedat the 1986

I I
tllDEVIA_ ATLOW~~ tNOtCA= SPE Annual Teehnicrd Conference and Ex-
4 / At. * EARLY WATER~. hibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
d
19. Lo, K.K., Warner, H.R. Jr:, and Johnson,
Mre4rr aE WtTM munNufD Mcnowwrws
J. B.: “A Study of the Post-Breakthrough
FReaxm tumllw FnmumoN Characteristics of Waterfloods,” paper SPE
20064 presented at the 1990 SPE California

>“”--””
0WF19WATIOML
Regional Meeting, Ventura, April 4-6.
20. Sraggs, H.M.: “An Objective Approach to
1 Analyzing Waterflood Perfornrarree,” paper
presented at the Southwestern Petroleum
Short Course, Lubbock, TX (1980).
21. Cone, C.: ‘The Case History of the Univer-
sity Block9 (Wolfcamp)Field—AGas-Water
Injection$ezonrfaryRecovery Project,” JPT
tXAML8 MOMA MOWTMW WA7ERF-
(Dec. 1970) 1485-91.
l~7Ea*LV WA78R arrEartTMRouOH 22. Ershaghi, L and Omoregie, 0.: “A Method
MO m RECOVERY. for Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery
Curves.” JPT (Feb. 1978) 203-04.
23. Ershaghi, I. and Abdasssb: D.: “A Predic-
tion Technique for Immiscible Processes
.- Using Field Performance Data,” JPT(April
1984) 664-70.
24. Hall, H.N.: “How to AnalyzeWaterfloodIn-
jection Well Performance,” WorldOil(Oct.
1%3) 128-30.
25. Kunkel, G.C, and Bagley, J.W.: “Controlled
Waterflooding, Means Queen Reservoir,”
JPT (Dec. 1%5) 1385-90.
26. Riley, E.A. andNabbefeld, R.L.: “Water-
ffocding Conglomerate Reservoirs,” World
Oil (Feb. 1963) 37-43.
27. Swan, C.R. and Riley, E.A.: “Contained In-
jeetion Patternand High PornpingRatesSolve
Ffg; 6-Cumulative injection vs. cumulathre total fluid and cumulative oil. PerrneabflityProblemsin a North Texas Cad-
do Conglomerate Water Flood,” ./PT (Oct.
cisms provided by J.L. Goolsby and R.A. and Giis Recovery Conference, Midland, 1%2) 1104-08.
March 8-9. 28. Lacik, H.A. and Black, J.L. Jr.: “Pressure
Norris of Chevron and L.H. Stiles of Exxon
7. Talasfr, A.W.: “An Overviewof Waterfhd MaintenanceOperations in OreSharon Ridge
Co. U.S.A. Canyon Unit, $curry County, Tex. ,“ JP7’
Surveillance and Monitoring,” JPi” (Dec.
1988) 1539-43. (July 1%1) 645-48.
Roforonces 8. Tafash, A.W. andSrrarrge, L.K.: “fhmrnary 29, Chapman, L.R. and Thompson, R.R.:
of Perfornuuree and Evaluation in the West “Waterflood Surveillance in the Kupanrk
1.Ghauri, W.K.: ‘W’atertkrnd Surveillance,”
Burkburnett Chemical Waterflood Projeet,” River Unit With ComputerizedPattern Anal-
paper presented at the 23rd Annual South-
JPT (Nov. 1982) 2495-2502. ysis,” .fPT (March 1989) 277-82.
western Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock,
9. Gray, R, qnd Kenwortfty, J-D.: “Early Re- 30. ThOtIKtS, J.f3. and DriwoU, V.J.: “A Mo&l-
1976. irv+
2. Ge&by, J. L.: “The Relation of Geology to suftsShowWkJeRangeof Recoveriesin Two -..Atmroaehfor 0rr6mMnr?WaterilcwdPer-
Texas Panhandle Water%ods,” JF’T (Dec. formance, Slaughter Fi~d Chickenwire
Fluid Injection in Permian Carbonate Reser- Pattern,” JPT [MY 1973) 757-63.
i%2) 1323-26.
!. voirs in West Texas,” pa~r pre~srted a! the 10. Riley, E.A.: ‘The SuecesslirlCaprockQueen 31. Hasan, >.M.: “C&y Unit A Succesafid
$orrtbwestemPetroleum Short Course: Lub- Water Flood-New Mexico’s First,” JPT Waterflood in a Depleted Carbonate Reser-
bock, 1%5. (Dec. 1%1) 1195-99. voir WWfrHigh Gas Saturation,” JPT(Dec.
3. Craig, F.F. Jr.: i’le ReservoirE@neenng 11. Wagner, O.R.: “The Use of Trams in Diag- 1974) 1359-64.
Aspeclsof W@erjbrnfirrg,Monograph$eties, nosing Interwell Reservoir Heterogeneities— 32. Byrd, J. F.: “A Performance Study of the
SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3. Field Results,” .fPT (NoV. 1977) 1410-16. South PampaWaterflcad,” JPT(AptiJ 1970)
4. Cailaway, F. H.: “Evaluation of Waterflood 12. Jordan, J. K.: “Reliable Interpretation of 393-%.
kqsects,” JPT (Oct. 1959) 1I-16. Waterflood Production Data,” JPT (Aug. 33. Roy, M.B., Tucker, C.W., rmdLakey, C.J.:
5, Thakrrr, G.C.: “ Irnplemerttationof a Reser- 1958) 18-24. “Waterflood RedevelopmentPrior to Future
yoir Management Program,” pap SPE 13. Guidroz, G.M.: “E.T. O’Daniel Project— Tertiary Attempts-A Case History,” paper
20748 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual A SUece.ssfolSpraberry Ffood,” JPT(Sept. SPE 6460 presented at the 1977 SPE Olda-
Tedttricsd Confererree and Exldbkion, New 1%7) 1137-40. homa City Regional Meeting, Oktafroma
&kOS, Sept. 23-26. 14. Morales, R.H. et uI.: “Detedion of Forma- City, Feb. 21-22.
6. Thakur, G.C.: “Reservoir Management: A tion Fracture in a Waterthding Experi- 34. Gipson, F.: “Praetieal Tips Gut SolveMany
$yrrergistic Approach,”paper SPE 20138 ment,” JPT (Oct. 1986) 1113-21; Trans., Water-flood Problems,” Wor&Joil ,~ov.
presented at tfre 1990SPE Permian Basht Od AIME, 281. 19g8) 49-52.

s lls6 October1991. JPT

 SPE234?I
35: “brres,P.F. &d Ti~er, G.E.: “Production
Technology Experience in Michigan Water-
fbOdS,” JPT (Aug. 1985) 1446-58.
36. Robertson, D.C. and Kelm, C. H.: A - STASLE OR NORMALINJECTOR
“Injection-Well Testing To Opdmize Water- AFTER FILL-UP D
flood Performance,” JPT .(Nov. 1975) 11
E - NEGATIVESKtN/fflJECTINQ
1337-42.
AEOVEPARTINGPRESSURE 11 /A
37. Oefelein, F.H. and Wafker, J.W,: “Califor-
nia Flood YieIds Profitable Recovery of C - WATER Channeling/OUT OF /’
Heavy Od from Multilayered Reservoir,” ZONE lNJECTiON B
If
JPT (May 1964) 509-14. D - POSITfVESKIN/POOR // @@”
38. Butler, P.J.: “Means of ImprovingWater In- WATER QUALtTY Ii //@
jection Prbtiles irrthe Water Fiood Program, ,/’ ,/’
Rangely Field, Colorado,” Prod. Monthly /’”
(May 1966) 18-22.
39. Felsenthal. M. and Ganele. F.J.: “A Case
Study of fiief Zones in ~ California Water-
flood,” JP’f (Nov. 1975) 1385-91; Trans.,
AIME, 259.
40. Ouzts, J. M.: “A Field Comparison of
Methods of Evaluating RemerXalWork on
Water Injection WelIs,” JPT (Oct. 1964)
1121-25.
41. Smith, L.R., Fast, C.R., and Wagner, O.R,:
“Development and Field Testing of Large
Volume Remedial Treatments for Gross
Water Channeling,” JPT (Aug. 1969) GAS FILL-UP
1015-25,
42. Rose, S.C.: TheDesignEngineeringAspects
of iVate@ding, Monograph Series, SPE, CUMULATIVE WATER INJECTION- BBL
Richardson, TX (1989) 11,
43. CUsak,F,, Lappbr-Scott,H. M., and Coster-
ton, J.W.: “~~~efia cm plug Waternd FifI. 7—Typical Hall24 plot for various conditions,
Injection Wells,” Oil & Gas J. (Nov. 9,
1987) 59-64.
44. Chang, C.K.: “Water QualityConsiderations
in Mataysia’s First Waterffood,” JPT(Scpt, SOURCE
1985) 1689-98.
WATER
45. Patton, C.C!,: “Water QusdityControl and Its
Irnporlance in Watertlooding Operations,” IMPROVE IT BY
.JPT(Sept. 1988) 1123-26. MECHANICAL
46. McCune, C.C.: “On-Site Testing To Define ACCEPT IT
A
12rjection-Water Quafity Requirements,” JPT AND/OR
(Jan, 1977j 17-24. CHEMiCAL
47. Roebuck, LF. Jr. and Crain, L.L.: “Water I .
Fioodhw a Hidr Water-Cut Strawn Sand \1 PROCESSING
Reservo~r,” JP-T(Aug. 1964) 845-50.

Water source
(produoed,
aourc4 well, ----
mm PRESERVE QUALilY BY ~D;P;N;S UPON I

Waterquality requirements. Source CONTROLLING CONTAMINANT THE LENGTH AND ~

x~w m~tibii~ im COMPLEXTY Of THE i
jectionwater-reiaanmirkook Interaction GENERATiON OR ADDITION
(clay swailing~dkpemed oil; Oorroaion; ----
INJECTION SYSTEM
-----
\
W baobria (eulfatdreduoing,oxidize
soluble Iron In water, produoa organ!c
Iwkb}marineorgdeme,pf ioontmhrxlr- HIGH POOR
roeIwdboIYed 9aaea(ooz, H&, Oz} r
totaidiaaobdand sUepdsds@da(iron
content, barium euffatei omoalon hthi. +
bltors@otWffkW#yeokble]eoatelrl- CAUSES RESERVOIR PLUGGING
r=---
hlbltion; dosed VS. open inpotlon
fadlit.ksqand Watment programteen- REQUIRES WORK@JERS
+
aureaooapWewatW fcwformatlonand 11 ANO Sr’STEM REDUCTION OF SWEEP EFFICENf.7Y
tominiw~
REPAIRS
t
otherknptant~ DECREASEO OIL RECOVERY
~ ~ (mm*,
~@WW=of*,~ .,.
filters and StrStnare}Waata tr~, 1 i +
watar*waas(*oorrdon pnx+ PROCEED INCREASE OPEX LESS iNCOME
uots, baote@s~and aurfaoewater(oxy-
gen, bacteria, marine organisms,
Suapendsdinorgank solids),
-. 8-Water system.
Jp’p*@~rlggl 7’ 1187
 ,.. . SPE 23471
46. Stiles, L.H.: “Reservoir Managementin the 56. Ghauri, W.K.: “ ProductionTechnology”~x-
MeansSanArrdresUnit,” papt-rSPF!20751 perience in a Large Carbonate Waterflood,
presentedat the 1990SPE Annual Technical Denver Unit, Wasson San Andres Field,”
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, JPT (Sept. 1980) 1493-1502.
Sept. 23-26. 57. Ghauri, W.K., Osborne, A.F., and Magnu-
49, Gill, D. end Hart, D.: “Production Jumps son, W. L.: “Changing Concepts in Car-
Almost 100% in One Year at South Hobbs bonate Watetiooding-West Texas Denver
Unit,” Drill Bit (Aug. 1977) 27-30. Unit Project-An IllustrativeExample,” JPT
501 Gordon, S.P. and Owen, O.K.: “Surveillance (June 1974) 595-606.
and Performance of an Existing Polymer 58. Sloat, B.F.: “Measuring Engineered Oil
Flood: A Case History of West Yellow Recovery,” JPT (Jan, 1991) 8-13.
Creek,” paper SPE 8202 presented at the 59. Hunter, J.D. et al.: “Denver Unit Well Sur-
1979SPE Annual Technical Conference and veillance and Fum@Mf ControI System,”
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
JPT (Sept. 1978) 1319-26.
51 ScImek3er,J.].: “Geologic Factors in the De-
sign and Surveillance o? Wateriloods in the 60. Bohannon, J.M.: “Automation in Oilfield
Thick StructurallyComplexReservoirsirrthe Production Operations,” JPT (Aug. 1984)
Venture Field, Cahforoia,” paper SPE 4049 1239-42.
presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Meeting,
San Antonio, Oct. 8-11. $1 Motrtc Conversion Factors
52. Larrgston,E.P. and Shirer, J. A.: “Perform-
bbl X 1.589873 E+OI = m)
ante of Jay/LEC Fields Unit Under Mature fr] x 2,831685 E–U? = m’
-b-* --dmP——f=f— Waterflood and Early Tertiary operations,” psi X 6.894757 E+OO = kFa
Iftpstduun Qfm-fm@~u*~ JPT (Feb. 1985) 261-68.
Hou9wlsndthou. otraasotthowr- 53. Langston, E.P., Shirer, J.At, and Nelson,
mlsnlbt15, anrJlnthouBAprogrsmst D.E,: “hmovative Reservoir Management-- This paper Is SPE 23471.Dlsttngulshad Author Sarlea ar.
titles are general, deacriptlve praeentationathatsummar-
HoUstmBapumtu. ThslturwaD@1960- Key to Highly Successful Jay/LEC Water- ize the etste of the art in an araa of tachnolegy by deecrib-
e2nmnbudutDEdlbfw mvlswc9m flood,” JPT (May 1981) 783-91. ina recantdavefoornenfefof readarawho are not aoedaliata
n#s;@#nbu’_dtin 19B8, 1987,md 54. Shirer, J. A.: “Jay-LEC Waterflood Pattern ln_thetopics diwiased. written by Individuals re&gnized
Gemmbss,sndls Performs Successfully,” paper SPE 5534 es esparfs In the area, thar4 srtiilea provkfekeyreferences
10more definitive work and present specific de!alls only to
● 1~1- ~ -** * presented at the 1975SPE Annual Technical Mmlrate the taohnolegy. Purpww To inform the genaral
Iloklsassdsll rsslnptmkumonai- Conferenceand Exhibition,Dallas, Sept. 28- rasdamhipof meantsdvmc8aIn variousarea9of fWroleum
----d-w Ott. 1. engineering. A softbound anthology, SPE M$flngukhad
StMlphodsglu,ln pdrdoumondm 55. Ghaun, W.K.: “Irmovative Engineering AuthcfS&ies: L%o. lS81-Dee. 19S3, is availablefromSPES

~9—mm-w-~~- Boosts Wasson Denver Unit Reserves,’”Pet. Book Order Dept.

inmsmmMs9, *—w—w—@ Eng. (Dec. 1974) 26-34. JFT
ststou., sndsn MBAdsgs’ssfmm
HoWbn B@stlL

...

. .

11s8