See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329784648

Simulation of Horizontal and Vertical Waterflooding in a Homogeneous

Reservoir using ECLIPSE

Conference Paper · December 2018

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735

CITATION READS

1 1,347

2 authors:

Ambrose Ugwu Britt M. E. Moldestad

ZEG Power University of South-Eastern Norway
13 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 91 PUBLICATIONS 523 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ambrose Ugwu on 28 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

Simulation of Horizontal and Vertical Waterflooding

in a Homogeneous Reservoir using ECLIPSE

Ambrose A. Ugwu Britt M.E Moldestad

Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University College of Southeast Norway,
britt.moldestad@usn.no

Abstract
Among the recent deents to improve oil and gas
recovery, water injection called waterflooding could be
promising. The objective of this work is to ascertain the
optimal water injection arrangement between vertical
and horizontal waterflooding using ECLIPSE Reservoir
simulation software. Within this work, analyses of oil
production rate, water cut, reservoir pressure drop,
accumulated oil production and recovery factor were Figure 1. Typical Horizontal and Vertical flooding
made between horizontal and vertical waterflooding in arrangements (Van Essen et al, 2006): Left (Horizontal
a homogeneous reservoir. Result shows that horizontal waterflooding), Right (Vertical waterflooding).
waterflooding could be effective if water breakthrough
is delayed. The increase in oil recovery achieved oil recovery could be achieved economically through
through this method varied between 6% and 36% while waterflooding (Van Essen et al, 2006). Figure1 depicts
the delay in breakthrough varied between 459 days and a typical horizontal and vertical waterflooding
1362 days. This work also predicts production arrangement respectively.
performance for ten years which would be useful for Water can be injected through a vertical or a
dynamic optimization of waterflooding. However, horizontal well. Determining the optimal position and
reservoir heterogeneity would introduce geological orientation of the wells has a potential high economic
uncertainty, which could bring mismatch between the impact (Bangerth et al, 2006). One major difference
simulated case and a real case. between the horizontal and vertical water injection is the
Keywords: ECLIPSE, IOR, waterflooding, reservoir water breakthrough behavior. Asheim studied the
optimization of vertical well waterflooding processes
with fixed well locations (Zandvliet et al, 2008) while
1 Introduction Brouwer and Jansen studied the optimization of
Waterflooding is a secondary method of oil recovery waterflooding using a horizontal injection (Brouwer et
where water is injected into the reservoir with the aim to al, 2001). In both cases, delay in water breakthrough
increase the pressure and thereby increasing oil improves production rate. Also from literature, it has
production (Binder et al., 1956). Waterflooding was first been shown that water breakthrough can be delayed by
practiced for pressure maintenance after primary changing the position of the injection well profiles
depletion and has since become the most widely adopted (Brouwer et al, 2001). Studies also revealed that the use
IOR technique (Morrow and Buckley, 2011). It is now of horizontal well, delays the water breakthrough and
commonly applied at the beginning of reservoir improves the vertical sweep efficiency (Baker, 1998).
development(Morrow and Buckley, 2011). In this paper, computational study of waterflooding
With water injection, the reservoir pressure is in a homogenous reservoir was treated under 6 sections.
sustained and oil is pushed towards the production well. Sections 1 and 2 deal with the introduction and the
The oil-water front progresses toward the production theory of waterflooding. Section 3 describes the
well until water breaks through into the production ECLIPSE mathematical model used in the simulations
stream. With the increasing water production, the oil while Section 4 presents the reservoir model used for the
production rate diminishes, until the time when the simulations. The simulated results were compared
recovery is no longer profitable and the production is between horizontal and vertical waterflooding in
brought to an end (Van Essen et al, 2006). Up to 35% Section 5 with distinct conclusions are in Section 6.

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 735
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

2 Theory 2.4 Relative Permeability

The principal reason for waterflooding is to increase The Relative permeability is the ratio of the effective
the oil production rate and improve oil recovery. This is permeability to the absolute permeability of each phase.
achieved through voidage replacement to support the It is expressed for a specific saturation of the phases as
reservoir pressure and sweep or displace oil from the
ki
reservoir towards the production well (SPE, 2014). The k r,i = k
(3)
efficiency of such displacement depends on many
factors like oil viscosity, density and rock where is the phase relative permeability, k is the total
characteristics. Reservoir screening is necessary for the effective permeability and is the phase effective
technical and economic success of waterflooding. permeability.
Relative permeability affects the unit displacement
2.1 Residual Oil Saturation efficiency and how much of the OOIP will be recovered
Residual oil saturation and connate water saturation are before the waterflooding economic limit is reached.
very important numbers in waterflooding. The connate When the interfacial tension between oil and gas phases
water saturation is saturation is the lowest water decreases, the relative permeability values change (Al-
saturation found in situ and determines how much oil is Wahaibi et al., 2006), which influences the oil and gas
available initially, while the residual oil saturation recovery as well as the reservoir pressure. Figure 2
indicates how much of the original oil in place (OOIP) shows the plot of relative permeability curve used for
will remain in the pores after sweeping the reservoir the simulation.
with injected water (SPE, 2014). Equation (1) represents
the unit-displacement efficiency with the condition that 2.5 Mobility
the oil formation volume factor is the same at the start Mobility, λ is described as the ratio between the
and the end of the waterflooding (SPE, 2014): endpoint effective permeability and the fluid viscosity,
μ. It shows how easy the fluid is flowing through a
Sorw
 ED = 1 - (1) porous medium (Ydstebø, 2013). Mobility ratio, M,
Soi
plays an important role during waterflooding. It can be
Sorw = 1 - Swc (2) defined as the ratio between the mobility of the
displacing fluid (water) and the displaced fluid (oil)
where ED is the unit displacement efficiency Soi is the (Ydstebø, 2013):
initial oil saturation, Sorw is the residual oil saturation Kr (displacing) .µ(displaced)
λ(displacing)
and Swc is the connate water saturation. M= = (4)
λ(displaced) Kr (displaced).µ
(displacing)
2.2 Wettability
where M is the mobility ratio, λ is the mobility, kr is the
The wettability of a reservoir rock can be defined as the
relative permeability, µ is the viscosity. The subscripts
tendency of a fluid to spread on, or to adhere to a solid
displacing and displaced represent the displacing phase
surface in the presence of another immiscible fluid
and the displaced phases respectively.
(Owens and Archer, 1971). In an oil- water system it is
Mobility ratio is considered to be either favorable if
a measure of the preference the rock has for either oil or
the value of (4) is less than or equal to unity or
water (Anderson, 1987). Changes in wettability
unfavorable if the value is greater than unity (SPE,
influence the capillary pressure, irreducible water
2014). Favorable mobility ratio means that the displaced
saturation, relative permeability and water flood
phase (oil) can move more quickly than the displacing
behavior (Anderson, 1987). Maximum oil production
phase (water) through the reservoir rock.
rate by waterflooding is normally achieved at water-wet
conditions shortly after water breakthrough
(Jadhunandan and Morrow, 1995). 3 Computational Model
ECLIPSE Reservoir simulation is a form of numerical
2.3 Capillary Pressure modeling used to quantify and interpret physical
Capillary pressure is the pressure difference existing phenomena with the ability to predict future
across the interface separating two immiscible fluids in performance. The process involves dividing the
porous media. Capillary pressure determines the amount reservoir into several discrete units in three dimensions,
of recoverable oil for waterflooding applications and modeling the progression of reservoir and fluid
through imbibition process for water wet reservoir properties through space and time in a series of discrete
(SPE, 2014). steps (Schlumberger, 2013). Equations (5-11) are solved
for each cell and each time step which are a combination
of the material balance equation and Darcy’s law
(Schlumberger, 2008).

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 736
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

i. Darcy’s law (without gravity term) is expressed as ∂ ∅ Q

∇.[λ(∇P - γ∇Z)] = ∂t β
( )+ ρ
(7)
K
q = - ∇P (5) K
μ λ = - (8)
μβ

where q is the flux, k is the permeability; µ is the

viscosity and is the pressure gradient. where M is mobility, t is time, β is momentum
transfer coefficient, γ is relative gravity and Z
ii. Material Balance is expressed as is vertical position.

∂ iv. Well Model is expressed as:

-∇.M = (∅ρ) + Q (6)
∂t
q p,j = Twj Mp,j (Pj - Pw - Hwj ) (9)
where M is the mobility ratio, ∅ is the porosity, ρ
is density and Q is volume flow rate. Here, mass K o,j K g,j
Mo,j = + Rv B (10)
flux is considered as the sum of the accumulation Bo,j . μo,j g,j . μg,j
and Injection/Production.
K g,j K o,j
Mg,j = + Rs (11)
Bg,j . μg,j Bo,j . μo,j
iii. Simulator Flow Equation (with gravity term) is
given in (7).
1
Water
where T is the transmissibility, P is the pressure,
0.9 H is the pressure head, B is the formation
0.8
volume factor, Rs is the gas-oil ratio and Rv is
Relative Permeability

0.7
0.6
the oil-gas ratio. The subscripts p is phase, j is
0.5 connection, w is well, o is oil and g is gas.
0.4
0.3
0.2
4 ECLIPSE Simulation
0.1
Oil
Simulations were carried out for 10 years by injecting
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 water at a constant rate through a horizontal and a
Saturation vertical well respectively. In both cases, water was
Figure 2. Relative Permeability curve (water-wetted).
injected at the same depth as the production well. Also
INJW the same lateral distance was maintained between the
P1
injection well and the production for both cases.
Different simulations were performed by varying
injection rate from 200m3/day to 2,500 m3/day for each
case. A base case without water injection was
considered for reference.

4.1 Geometry
Rectangular reservoir geometry was considered with the
dimension 900m x 900m x 70m. Figure 3 shows the
reservoir geometry for the horizontal and the vertical
water injection used in the simulation. The horizontal
production (P1) and injection (INJW) wells are 800m
INJW
P1 long respectively while the length of the vertical
injection well (INJW) is 40m.

4.2 Reservoir Conditions

The reservoir is homogeneous and consists of water-
wetted rock. Although the reservoir fluid consists of live
black oil, gas production was not considered for
simplicity. The composition of oil components is
assumed to be constant relative to pressure and time. It
is also assumed that the reservoir fluid is Newtonian and
that Darcy’s law applies. Also, the production of light
oil in a moderate permeability zone is of interest. The
Figure 3. Reservoir Geometry (3D): up(horizontal reservoir conditions are summarized in Table 1.
injection), down(vertical injection).

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 737
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

4.3 Initial Conditions 6.1 Production Rate Trend

Initially, the reservoir is assumed to be in hydrostatic Figure 4 shows the oil production rate for horizontal and
equilibrium consisting of only oil. It is also desired to vertical water injection respectively. The plot shows that
have the reservoir pressure above the bubble point to horizontal waterflooding maintains higher oil
avoid gas production. Initial drawdown pressure of production rate for a longer period until water breaks
10bar is also desired. Table 2 shows the initial through. After water breakthrough, the production rate
conditions considered for the simulation. drops more for horizontal waterflooding than the
vertical case. This may be attributed to rapid water
5 Results and Discussion production in all zones in the horizontal waterflooding
case, whereas for the vertical case water breakthrough
In this simulation, analysis of the oil production rate, occurs first in a few zones. The production rate for the
water cut, reservoir pressure, accumulated oil base case is very low compared to the cases with
production and recovery factor were made for the waterflooding. This is in agreement that waterflooding
horizontal and vertical waterflooding. A base case improve the oil production rate (Morrow and Buckley,
without water injection was also considered as 2011).
reference.
6.2 Reservoir Pressure Trend
6 Results and Discussion Figure 5 shows the simulated reservoir pressure trend.
In this simulation, analysis of the oil production rate, For injection rates less than 1500m3/day, the pressure
water cut, reservoir pressure, accumulated oil drop with horizontal injection is between 4% and 6%
production and recovery factor were made for the less than for the vertical case. For injection rates
horizontal and vertical waterflooding. A base case between 1500m3/day and 2500m3/day, the pressure drop
is between 9% and 14% less with horizontal flooding
Table 1. Reservoir Conditions. compared to vertical flooding.
Parameter Value Unit
Components Oil, water, gas -
Wettability Water-wetted -
Porosity 0.25 -
X Permeability 1 Darcy
Y Permeability 1 Darcy
Z Permeability 0.1 Darcy
Rock compressibility 5.0E-5@ 10Bar /Bar
Oil gravity 35 °Api
Residual oil saturation 0.3 -
Oil viscosity 3 @ 320Bar cP
Water Density 1000 kg/m3
Water viscosity 0.5 cP
Connate water saturation 0.2 -
Gas density 1 kg/m3
Total simulation time 3653 days
No of Grids 567 (9x9x7) -
Table 2. Initial Conditions
Initial condition Value Unit
Reservoir pressure 320 Bar
Bottomhole pressure 310 Bar
Bubble point pressure 182 Bar
Oil saturation 1 -
Water saturation 0 - Figure 4. Plot of oil production rate against time: upper
Gas saturation 0 - plot(horizontal), lower plot(vertical).

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 738
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

6.3 Watercut Trend 6.4 Accumulated Oil Production

The water cut trend is shown in Figure 6. It is observed Figure 7 shows the accumulated oil production trend.
that water breakthrough is delayed between 459 days The plot shows that the accumulated oil production with
and 1362 days with horizontal case compared with the horizontal flooding is higher for injection rates less than
vertical case. Despite of the late water breakthrough, the 1500m3/day due to lower pressure drop in the reservoir.
water cut after 3653 days is higher using horizontal For injection rates greater than 1500m3/day,
flooding in all the cases. accumulated oil production using horizontal flooding is
less than for vertical flooding. This may be attributed to
the rapid water production in horizontal flooding as
opposed to vertical flooding.
The plot of the recovery factor against injection rate
shown in Figure 8 indicates that the recovery factor with
horizontal flooding is less than for vertical flooding for
injection rates greater than 1500m3/day. This may be
due to rapid water breakthrough.

Figure 5. Plot of reservoir pressure against time: upper

plot(horizontal), lower plot(vertical ).

Figure 7. Accumulated oil production against time:

upper plot(horizontal), lower plot(vertical).

0.45 Horizontal Vertical

0.4

0.35

0.3
Recovery Factor [-]

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Injection Rate [M3/Day]

Figure 6. Plot of watercut against time: upper

plot(horizontal injection), lower plot(vertical injection). Figure 8. Plot of recovery factor against injection rate.

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 739
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

6.5 Oil Saturation Distribution 1 Jan 2026

The case for water injection at 1500m3/day is chosen to SOIL, 567 Cells
illustrate how oil saturation is distributed in the reservoir Min, Max = 0.350013, 1.00006
Mean = 0.674902, Std Dev = 0.208501
over time for horizontal and vertical water injection
INJW P1
respectively. Initially, the oil saturation is 1 for both
cases as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 9 shows the oil saturation distribution for

COUNT
horizontal injection after ten years. It can be seen that
about 32% oil recovery was achieved through
waterflooding. Figure 10 shows the oil saturation
distribution for vertical injection after ten years. About
33% oil recovery was achieved through waterflooding.

6.6 Oil-Water Front Progression Producer

Water Injector SOIL
Open Node

The case for water injection at 1500m3/day

is used to Oil Saturation
illustrate how water displaces oil and sweeps oil towards
the production well in the reservoir. Figure 11 shows the Figure 10. Oil saturation distribution for vertical
plan view of the oil-water front progression for the injection after 10 years.
horizontal and vertical water injection after two years.
Oil Saturation
Figure 10 shows the oil saturation distribution for
vertical injection after ten years. About 33% oil
recovery was achieved through waterflooding.

6.7 Oil-Water Front Progression

The case for water injection at 1500m3/day is used to
illustrate how water displaces oil and sweeps oil towards
the production well in the reservoir. Figure 11 shows the
plan view of the oil-water front progression for the
horizontal and vertical water injection after two years.
Figure 11. Oil-water front progression after 2 years:
The oil-water front progression after ten years is left(horizontal injection), right(vertical injection).
shown in Figure 12. From the plot, it can be seen that
the oil saturation reduced due to more sweep by water Oil Saturation
injection. In general, result shows that oil-water front
progresses laterally for horizontal flooding and radially
for vertical flooding. INJW INJW

1 Jan 2026

SOIL, 567 Cells P1 P1

Min, Max = 0.409351, 1.00003
Mean = 0.679488, Std Dev = 0.191534

INJW

P1
Figure 12. Water front progression after 10 years: left
(horizontal injection) right (vertical injection).
COUNT

7 Conclusions
This paper compares oil production rate, water cut,
reservoir pressure drop, accumulated oil production and
Producer
recovery factor between horizontal and vertical
Water Injector
Open Node
SOIL waterflooding in a homogeneous reservoir. The
simulation was performed over ten years (3653 days)
Oil Saturation
using ECLIPSE Reservoir simulator.
Figure 9. Oil saturation distribution for horizontal In all cases, result shows that oil production with
injection after 10 years. water injection is higher compared with the base case.
With this, it would be preferred to apply waterflooding
for oil recovery in depleted reservoirs to the use of
primary methods. Result also shows that horizontal

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 740
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland
EUROSIM 2016 & SIMS 2016

waterflooding maintains higher oil production rate for a N. Morrow and J. Buckley. Improved Oil Recovery by Low-
longer period until water breakthrough. It is also Salinity Waterflooding. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
observed that water breakthrough is earlier and water 63(5): 106-112, 2011.
production increases gently with vertical flooding W. Owens and D. Archer. The effect of rock wettability on
unlike the horizontal case where the water breakthrough oil-water relative permeability relationships. Journal of
comes late but water production increases rapidly with Petroleum Technology, 23(7): 873-878, 1971.
time. Schlumberger Limited. ECLIPSE Blackoil Reservoir
Simulation, 2008.
With this, it would be preferred to apply
waterflooding for oil recovery in depleted reservoirs to Schlumberger Limited. ECLIPSE Reservoir Simulation
the use of primary methods. Result also shows that Software - Technical Description, 2013.
horizontal waterflooding maintains higher oil SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers). Microscopic
production rate for a longer period until water Efficiency of Waterflooding. Available via
http://petrowiki.org/Waterflooding [Accessed March 5,
breakthrough. It is also observed that water
2016].
breakthrough is earlier and water production increases
gently with vertical flooding unlike the horizontal case G. Van Essen, M. Zandvliet, P. Van Den Hof, O. Bosgra and
J. Jansen. Robust optimization of oil reservoir flooding. In
where the water breakthrough comes late but water
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
production increases rapidly with time. Control Applications, 699-704, 2006.
The pressure drop is higher with vertical flooding in T. YDSTEBØ. Enhanced Oil Recovery by CO2 and CO2-
all cases compared with the horizontal flooding. This Foam in Fractured Carbonates. The University of Bergen,
may be due to higher frictional pressure drop and the 2013.
effect of gravity. More difference in pressure drop is M. Zandvliet, M. Handels, G. Van Essen, R. Brouwer and J.
noticed between horizontal and vertical flooding with D. Jansen. Adjoint-based well-placement optimization
increase in injection rate. under production constraints. SPE Journal, 13(4): 392-399,
Despite higher reservoir pressure and delay in water 2008.
breakthrough, horizontal flooding accounts for less oil
recovery due to rapid water production. With the
implementation of inflow control device to reduce water
production, oil recovery through horizontal
waterflooding would be optimal and more effective than
vertical waterflooding.

References
Y. AL-Wahaibi, C. Grattoni and A. Muggeridge, A. Drainage
and imbibition relative permeabilities at near miscible
conditions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
53: 239-253, 2006.
W. G. Anderson. Wettability literature survey part 5: the
effects of wettability on relative permeability. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 39(11): 1,453-451,468, 1987.
R. Baker. Reservoir management for waterfloods-Part II.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 37(1): 300-
325, 1998.
W. Bangerth, H. Klie, M. Wheeler, P. Stoffa and M. Sen.
Optimization Algorithms for The Reservoir Oil Well
Placement Problem. Computational Geosciences, 10(3):
303-319, 2006.
J. G. G. Binder, R. C. West and K. H. Andresen. Water
flooding secondary recovery method. Google Patents, 1956.
D. Brouwer, J. Jansen, S. Van Der Starre, C. Van Kruijsdijk
and C. Berentsen. Recovery Increase through Water
Flooding with Smart Well Technology. In Proceedings of
the SPE European Formation Damage Conference. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, 2001.
P. Jadhunandan and N. R. Morrow. Effect of Wettability on
Waterflood Recovery for Crude-Oil/Brine/Rock Systems.
SPE Journal Reservoir Engineering, 10(1): 40-46, 1995.

View publication stats

DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142735 Proceedings of the 9th EUROSIM & the 57th SIMS 741
September 12th-16th, 2016, Oulu, Finland