Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The objectives pursued in this work include: place and recoverable oil volumes are required for evaluation
1. Derivation and validation of a pseudosteady-state mo-
and reservoir management purposes. A number of essentially
del for the simultaneous flow of oil and water. This empirical methods have been proposed over time for the
model is validated against 28 different field cases — evaluation of waterflood performance, and these methods are
and in all cases, the new model gives an excellent typically assumed to give acceptable results.
representation of the data. A plot of the logarithm of the water-oil ratio (WOR) (or water
2. Development and validation of the "reciprocal rate
cut function (fw)) versus cumulative production (Np) is the
plot" for the estimation of original oil-in-place (N) and most widely used technique for the evaluation and prediction
estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). This method is of waterflood performance.1 This simple (and, we will note,
validated against field data and yields an appropriate empirical) method is applicable for the analysis of "late time"
trend in virtually all cases production behavior and the technique allows us to estimate
the recoverable oil volumes by extrapolating the straight-line
3. Development and application of a series of log-log trend of the fw function to an arbitrary value of water cut (often
diagnostic plots for waterflood evaluation — these in- fw=1, or some other "high" value, such as fw=0.95).
clude:
This approach is only used when a straight line can
—WOR functions versus production time, approximate the function of interest (WOR or fw). Unfortu-
— WOR functions versus Np/qo, and nately, in most cases, this method is not applicable for the
— WOR functions versus (Np+Wp)/(qo+qw). early stages of a waterflood (e.g., a rule of thumb is that the
The WOR functions include: WOR-derivative, WOR- log(WOR or fw) versus Np plots can not be used for values of
integral, and WOR-integral-derivative functions. water cut function (fw) less then 0.5). Misuse of these em-
pirical techniques can yield substantial errors in the extrapola-
4. Application/interpretation of several different extrapo-
tion of recoverable reserves.
lation approaches for the water-oil-ratio (WOR) and the
water cut (fw) functions. The new pseudosteady-state We recognize that the use of a model based on the assumption
WOR model is given in terms of both Np and Wp, and, of steady-state flow behavior is an approximation at best —
as such, is not amenable to extrapolation. our motivation for this work is the development of a model
that can be used to represent the pseudosteady-state behavior
As this issue could not be resolved (i.e., the use of the of a water-oil reservoir flow system. We also recognize that
pseudosteady-state model as an extrapolation method), the pseudosteady-state model is an approximation as well —
we chose to focus on several extrapolation techniques and that mobility components can (and do) change substan-
— all of which use the cumulative oil production (Np) tially with time (which is a condition that we do not explicitly
as the x-axis plotting function. These extrapolation consider). However, our primary goal remains the develop-
plots include: ment of a WOR (or fw) relation for pseudosteady-state flow
—qo versus Np (constant pressure (liquid) case) conditions.
— log(fw) versus Np (steady-state approach) Aside from the estimation of reservoir volumetric properties
— 1/fw versus Np (new approach) (N, Np,max, etc), WOR data can be plotted versus time (or the
— fo versus Np (field approach — not documented) "material balance time" functions) on a log-log plot and used
— log(WOR) versus Np (steady-state approach) as a diagnostic tool to identify the dominant reservoir perfor-
As noted above, the formulation of the two-phase (oil-water), mance mechanism (uniform displacement, water coning, or
pseudosteady-state flow relation does not provide for a simple water channeling).2
extrapolation formula for the estimation of recoverable fluids Our intention is to develop a methodology that combines the
— we believe that this is an area for further investigation. classic techniques for well test and production data analysis
Introduction (pressure derivative, pressure integral, and pressure integral-
Historically, it has been difficult to analyze and predict oil derivative functions) with our proposed model for the analysis
production behavior in water-drive or waterflood reservoir of oil and water production data (in this case the WOR, WOR-
systems (here we distinguish "waterdrive" as a natural condi- derivative, WOR-integral, and WOR-integral-derivative func-
tion of water influx — and waterflood as a manufactured con- tions). We believe that the qualitative analysis of water-oil
dition of water injection). Difficulty arises in how to charac- ratio (WOR) performance data will significantly improve our
terize two-phase (oil-water) flow performance using analytical evaluation and assessment of well problems, assist in injec-
solutions based on single-phase flow theory, or by using tion/production balancing, and aid in the identification of the
simplified, steady-state solutions to represent two-phase (oil- dominant reservoir drive mechanism.
water) flow. Neither approach is correct — and yet both are Development of the Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
used regularly for the analysis of data acquired from water- In this section we provide the derivation of the pseudosteady-
drive/waterflood reservoir systems. state WOR equation. We begin with the rigorous, single-phase
As a matter of practice, we must be able to evaluate and pre- pseudosteady-state flow equation used to describe the beha-
dict waterflood performance in petroleum reservoirs — in- vior of oil and water production. This derivation makes
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 3
several (potentially) limiting assumptions — but the pseudo- Using the general form of the pseudosteady-state flow equa-
steady-state relation does not require the same assumptions as tion (Eq. 2), we can write the following relations for single-
the steady-state case (which is much more restrictive). Speci- phase oil and water flow:
fically, he primary assumptions used in the conventional WOR
∆p
(steady-state) analysis are: qo = (oil form)............................. (6)
m o t o + b psso
The pressure and the flowrate throughout the system
remain constant. ∆p
The mobility ratio is assumed to be equal to unity. qw = (water form) ........................ (7)
mwtw + b pssw
The logarithm of relative permeability ratio versus water
saturation relationship is linear. where the "oil" and "water" variables are defined as:
The rule of thumb for the existing WOR models is that these
t o = N p qo (oil material balance time) .. (8)
models can be applied only after the WOR (or fw) function
develops a straight-line trend — in most of the cases this oc- Bo
curs when the value of the fw function approaches 0.5-0.7 (or mo = 0.2339 (oil pss slope term).............. (9)
higher). Our goal is to extend the conventional WOR analyses φhct A
to include the case of pseudosteady-state flow behavior — and B µ 4A
to develop a relation that can represent the entire spectrum of b psso = 70.6 o o ln (oil pss intercept term) (10)
oil and water production performance. We do not expect such ko h e γ C A rw2
a relation to represent the entire production history for a
particular well — but we do anticipate significantly improved tw = W p qw (water material balance time)... (11)
behavior when we incorporate pseudosteady-state flow char-
Bw
acteristics into the WOR model. m w = 0.2339 (water pss slope term) ............. (12)
φhc t A
We begin by using the relation presented by Blasingame and
Lee3 for single-phase variable-rate, pseudosteady-state flow in B µ 4A
a bounded reservoir. This result is given as: b pssw = 70.6 w w ln
k wh γ
e C A rw2
Äp Bµ 4A B
= 70.6 ln + 0.2339 t mb ............ (1) (water pss intercept term)......... (13)
q kh γ
e C r 2 φ hc tA
A w
Recalling the definition of the water-oil ratio function, WOR,
Eq. 1 is subject to the following assumptions: we have:
Pseudosteady-state (i.e., boundary-dominated) flow con-
q
ditions must exist in the entire reservoir system. WOR = w (water-oil ratio)................. (14)
Homogeneous and isotropic reservoir. qo
Constant porosity and permeability. Substituting Eqs.6 and 7 into Eq. 13, we obtain an expression
Small and constant fluid compressibility. for the WOR function:
Constant fluid viscosity.
Small pressure gradients. mo t o + b psso
Negligible gravity forces. WOR = .................................................. (15)
m w t w + b pssw
For simplicity, Eq. 1 can be written in the following, more
compact form: Eq. 15 is specifically valid for pseudosteady-state flow beha-
vior — and we implicitly assume that the entire reservoir is at
∆p pseudosteady-state flow conditions (i.e., both the oil and water
q= (general form) ..................... (2)
mt mb + b pss phases). To extend this concept, we can re-write Eq. 15 in
terms of the fractional flow of oil and water functions (fo, fw
where: (respectively). Re-writing Eq. 15, we obtain:
t
∫0
1 1
t mb = q dt (material balance time)........ (3) fw = ............................................... (16)
q m w t w + b pssw
1+
mo t o + b psso
B
m = 0.2339 (pss slope term) ................... (4)
φhct A 1
fo = ................................................ (17)
mo t o + b psso
Bµ 4A 1+
b pss = 70.6 ln (pss intercept term).............. (5) m w t w + b pssw
γ
kh e C r 2
A w
It is important to note that we have made no assumptions
regarding a relationship between the relative permeability
functions and water saturation — although we do note that in
4 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569
Eqs. 15-17 we presume that the mobility ratio is constant (but Example 2: WWL Well B41
is not necessarily unity). In this case we consider the production data from Well B41 in
dominant reservoir drive mechanism. the West White Lake Field (WWL Well B41) in South Louis-
iana. It is relevant to note that West White Lake Field is a
Application of the Pseudosteady-State WOR Model Miocene sandstone reservoir sequence with good porosity and
In this section we use the new pseudosteady-state WOR model permeability characteristics. This is relevant because it may
to analyze and interpret two field case examples. The first help us to understand the water and oil production perfor-
example is the case of a vertical well in a thick, low perme- mance more clearly — and this case is in significant contrast
ability dolomite sequence in West Texas, and the second to the case from the North Robertson Unit (NRU Well 3106)
example is the case of a vertical well in a high permeability, where the reservoir in that case is a low permeability dolstone
moderately consolidated reservoir in South Louisiana. In both with very heterogeneous reservoir properties.
cases the fields are undergoing waterfloods, but in the case of
the wells from South Louisiana, water influx is also suspected. WWL Well B41 was completed on 2 July 1987. The total
depth of the well is 7,300 ft and is perforated from 7,038 to
In these examples we use a standard suite of plots to evaluate 7,064 ft.
our regression-based analysis of the WOR function using the
proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model. The following The analysis plots for this case are presented in Figs. 6-9, and
suite of plots is used: we immediately note good agreement between the pseudo-
steady-state WOR model and the measured production data.
Late-Time Extrapolation for Recoverable Oil We also note good agreement for the conventional straight-
log(fw) versus Np line (i.e., steady-state) extrapolation models. In this case, we
1/fw versus Np do observe that the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model
fo versus Np best represents the "late time" performance.
log(WOR) versus Np Our emphasis on the late-time data is warranted — this region
Regression Analysis — Global Summary Plot is where both the steady-state and pseudosteady-state models
log(WORcal) versus log(WORmeas) would be best expected to work. While we do not expect the
pseudosteady state WOR relation to work at early times, it is
Example 1: NRU Well 3106 worth noting that the early time data are dominated by oil flow
Well 3106 from the North Robertson Unit (NRU Well 3106) (see Fig. 8). The pseudosteady-state relation presumes a con-
in Gaines County Texas is the first case we consider, and the stant mobility ratio, and this may not be the case where such a
analysis/interpretation plots for this case are provided in Figs. dramatic change in WOR performance occurs. Regardless, we
1-5. NRU Well 3106 was completed on July 9 1989. The are satisfied that the proposed pseudosteady-state relation does
total depth of the well is 7,350 ft with two perforated intervals accurately represent the data for this case.
— 6,667-7,185 ft and 5,964-6,538 ft. The well was acidized As in the previous case (NRU Well 3106), we provide a direct
and hydraulically fractured in two stages on 15 July 1989 and comparison of the calculated and measured WOR functions for
again on 17 July 1989. WWL Well B41 in Fig. 10, and we note also note in this case
In Figs. 1-4 we find that the pseudosteady-state WOR model that the correlation of the calculated and measured WOR func-
represents the production data functions extremely well — tions is excellent. For reference, the early time WOR data are
especially in the late-time region, but surprisingly, the WOR not shown on Fig. 10, we have only plotted the WOR data that
model also matches all but the very earliest production data. were actually used in the regression process.
For comparison we have plotted the "conventional" (i.e.,
steady-state) straight-line extrapolation models on each analy- Summary
sis plot — and we note very good correlation of these straight- Our goal in this section was to present and validate the pro-
line models with the late-time production data. posed pseudosteady-state WOR relation. Recalling this result,
we have:
Based on our observations in Figs. 1-4, we can conclude that
the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model best represents mo t o + b psso
WOR = .................................................. (15)
the performance of the WOR functions for NRU Well 3106. m w t w + b pssw
We can also conclude that the conventional straight-line extra-
polation models also work well for this case. Substituting the definitions for material balance time for each
phase, Eq. 15 becomes:
As a consistency check, we also provide a direct comparison
of the calculated and measured WOR functions for NRU Well Np
3106 in Fig. 5. We note that with the exception of the very mo + b psso
q qo
early time data (i.e., low WOR), the correlation of the calcu- WOR = w = ..................................... (18)
lated and measured WOR functions is excellent. qo Wp
mw + b pssw
qw
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 5
In reviewing Eq.18, we immediately recognize that the rate recovery (EUR)) using the simple exponential rate decline
and cumulative production functions can not be uncoupled, we relation. In particular, we utilize the following plotting
can rearrange the variables to perhaps yield a more useful techniques that are derived from the exponential rate decline
form, but the rate and cumulative functions remain. relation:
Multiplying through Eq. 18 by the (qo/qw) ratio gives: log(qo) versus t
qo versus Np
m o N p + b psso q o
1= The log(qo) versus t plot is the most common production
m wW p + b pssw q w
analysis mechanism — unfortunately this plot is only rigor-
or, ously valid for the case of liquid flow at a constant bottomhole
flowing pressure. The qo versus Np plot is derived from the
m wW p + b pssw q w = mo N p + b psso q o ........................ (19) exponential rate decline relation, and also requires the assump-
tion of a constant bottomhole pressure.
We note that although Eq. 19 could be considered a "more
simple" form of Eq. 15, we can not reduce Eq. 19 further into The governing relation for the exponential production decline
a direct "analysis" relation. case is given by: (flowrate identity)
− Dit
The point of this discussion is that the proposed pseudosteady- qo = qoi e ..............................................................(20)
state WOR model (Eq. 15) is valid (at least for pseudosteady-
state flow, presuming a constant mobility ratio). However, we Integrating Eq. 20 to yield the cumulative production, then
can not reduce this approach into a direct analysis methodo- rearranging, we obtain the following relation:
logy — we must use Eq. 15 as an analysis model, and fit that qo = qoi − Di Np .........................................................(21)
model to the field performance data.
We are quite pleased with the performance of the pseudo- Conventional WOR Extrapolation Methods
steady-state WOR model (and its auxiliary models), and we We will again discuss the various straight-line models pro-
believe that this approach is both robust and appropriate. posed for the water-oil ratio (WOR) functions: WOR, the
While we did not obtain a direct solution or even an extrapo- fractional flow of oil (fo), and the fractional flow of water (fw).
lation formula from Eq. 15, we strongly recommend its These functions are plotted in various formats versus the
application. At this point our recommendation is to use re- cumulative oil production (Np) as indicated in the list of
gression analysis — it is our hope that future efforts yield a plotting functions given below.
direct analysis method, in the form of a single-variable log(WOR) versus Np
relation, or (perhaps) in the form of a "type curve" or some log(fw) versus Np
other type of comparative solution technique. fo versus Np
ANALYSIS OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION DATA The application of these functions was discussed previously
In this chapter we focus our efforts on a discussion of the — however, our present goal is to apply and compare these
"conventional" analysis methods for water and oil production functions with other analysis techniques.
data. In particular, we present methods that are commonly
used in petroleum industry to estimate the recoverable oil In order to utilize the fractional flow relations (fo and fw) we
volume (Np,max). The primary advantage of the methods we require these definitions. As such, the definitions of fo and fw
discuss is that these methods are straightforward — we only are:
require production data in order to estimate the recoverable oil qo
volume and to make a production forecast. No tedious calcu- fo = ...............................................................(22)
qo + qw
lations are required, and most of the methods discussed are
well accepted in the industry. qw
fw = ..............................................................(23)
The disadvantage is that most of these methods are not rigor- qo + qw
ous, and can fail (sometimes in a spectacular fashion) — how-
ever, we believe that the practical value of these simple ap- For the case of extrapolation using WOR versus Np and fw
proaches makes an important contribution to the area of pro- versus Np, we have the following implicit models for these
duction data analysis. presumed behaviors:
bN p
Analysis Methods WOR = ae .............................................................(24)
This subsection addresses the inventory of analysis techniques
bN p
that are used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess oil and f w = ae ................................................................(25)
water production data.
Another extrapolation technique that has been used exten-
Exponential Decline Curve Methods sively (but not investigated) is the case of a plot of fo versus
We begin our discussion with a focus on the estimation of the Np, which should extrapolate to the recoverable reserves at fo
recoverable oil volume, Np,max, (or the estimated ultimate =0. The presumed relationship for this case is
6 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569
Exponential Decline Curve Methods comment for the log(WOR) versus (Np+Wp) trend is that an
In Figs. 11 and 12 we confirm the log(qo) versus time tech- apparent semilog straight-line evolves — however, the inter-
nique for these data cases — note that both cases have well- pretation (and use) of this trend is unclear. It could be argued
established semilog trends. Similarly, the rate-cumulative that the log-log plot of fo versus (Np+Wp)/(qo+qw) is simply an
plots (Figs. 13 and 14) confirm the validity of the exponential analog for a "rate-material balance time" plot since the trends
de-cline model for these cases. are very similar to what we find when attempting to match
production data to decline type curves. There may be an even-
Conventional WOR Extrapolation Methods tual application in that regard.
The WOR versus Np plots for these cases are shown in Figs. 15
and 16 — we note that both cases (NRU Well 3106 and WWL Ershaghi X-Plot Technique
Well B41) illustrate a strong semilog trend. Similarly, the As we note in both Figs. 45 and 46 the X-plot trends are very
log(fw) versus Np plots (Figs. 17 and 18) also show very strong well established. The issue of analysis is relevant, at what
"late time" semilog straight line trends. Finally we consider value of fw do we extrapolate the plot? To demonstrate a fail-
the fo versus Np (Cartesian) plots (Figs. 19 and 20). Here we ure of the X-plot method we provide the production history for
again find strong linear trends that yield consistent estimates WWL Well A17 in Fig. 47 — note that not only is there no
of recoverable reserves (Np,max). linear trend, the data appear to trending in the opposite direc-
tion of the proposed methodology suggests. This is hardly an
New Methods for the Analysis of Production Data indictment of the X-plot method, but we do believe that this
In this effort we "test" our proposed extrapolation/interpreta- case is "typical."
tion methods that can be used to estimate the recoverable re-
serves (Np,max). The first technique involves a plot of 1/fw ver- Summary and Conclusions
sus Np (see Figs. 21 and 22) — in both cases we again find In this work we present empirical and semi-analytical models
strong linear trends in the data. for the analysis and interpretation of oil and water production
In the second approach we use 1/qo versus Np/qo as the plotting data. In particular, we provide the development, verification,
function (Figs. 23 and 24). We find that this technique pro- and application of a new water-oil performance relation for
vides a remarkable "straightening" of the data for all cases pseudosteady-state flow conditions. This model was found to
considered in this work. The recoverable reserves are esti- be superior to all other models considered for the represen-
mated using the slope of this trend, which can be problematic tation of field production data (WOR, fw, and the water and oil
with erratic data (though this has generally not been the case flowrate functions).
in our experience). We provide a broad spectrum of demonstrative analyses for oil
and water production data — from "conventional" extrapola-
Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data tion plots to a several new analysis and diagnosis plots, in-
In this effort we plotted the data functions for each case, then cluding the new pseudosteady-state flow relation for the
compared the variety of plots for each case (this is a "quali- simultaneous flow of oil and water. The oil and water produc-
tative" comparison so our only effort is "interpretation," not tion data used in this study were obtained from the North
analysis). In the first suite we consider Well NRU 3106 (Figs. Robertson Unit (NRU) located in Gaines County (West Texas)
25-30) in terms of the "qualitative" log-log plots. This case is and the West White Lake Field located in Southwest Louisi-
generally well behaved — the "time" format plots are slightly ana.
erratic, though consistent (and changing) trends do evolve for
the WORi and WORid functions. The WOR functions behave Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
somewhat better for the "oil" and "total" material balance time We presented the development and validation of a pseudo-
functions, but the "shift" from one unit-slope trend to another steady-state water-oil ratio model. This model does not re-
is prevalent in each case. quire the limiting assumptions of the conventional (steady
state) WOR model (the mobility ratio is not required to be
In Figs. 31-36 we consider the qualitative performance of unity, nor are any assumptions made regarding the relative
WWL Well B41 — where we immediately note that these data permeability functions).
are not as well-behaved as the data for NRU Well 3106. Per-
haps the most relevant observation is that a single unit-slope We utilized the new pseudosteady-state oil-water flow model
trend evolved for all of the WOR functions in the case of the in the following analysis/interpretation plots:
"oil" material balance time function. This is the strongest Fractional flow of oil (fo) versus cumulative oil produc-
trend observed for this case. tion (Np)
Interestingly, the "cumulative" WOR and fw functions (WORc Logarithm of fractional flow of water (fw) versus cumula-
and fwc) provide apparent straight-line trends for both cases — tive oil production (Np)
but other than this linearity, there is no clear interpretation of Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/fw) versus cumu-
this behavior. This behavior is shown in Figs. 37-40. lative oil production, (Np)
Water-oil ratio (WOR) versus cumulative oil production
Our effort now shifts to comparisons of WOR and total pro- (Np)
duction (Np+Wp) (see Figs. 41 and 43), as well as fo versus
(Np+Wp)/(qo+qw) (see Figs. 42 and 44). The most relevant
8 V.V. Bondar and T.A. Blasingame SPE 77569
In each of these plots the pseudosteady-state flow model is Logarithm of cumulative water-oil ratio (WORc) versus
plotted as a comparison to the given data function. We note in the cumulative oil produc-tion (Np)
summary that the new pseudosteady-state model is an Reciprocal of the water rate (1/qw) versus water material
excellent interpolation model — but we (regrettably) must balance time (tw)
also note that our new pseudosteady-state model does not Logarithm of the water-oil ratio (WOR) versus total
provide a practical approach for the estimation of reserves by production (Np+Wp)
extrapolation. This is an area for future research considera- Logarithm of the fractional flow of oil (fo) versus
tion. logarithm of total material ba-lance time (t)
Estimation of Recoverable Oil Logarithm of the oil production rate (qo) versus logarithm
Though often considered an empirical (and sometimes suspect of oil material balance time (to)
approach), the estimation of recoverable oil reserves (Np,max) Cumulative oil production versus X-function (refs. 5-6)
by extrapolation of a function versus cumulative production Conclusions
(or some other production-related function) is a very popular The following conclusions are derived from this study:
(and effective) method for estimating such reserves. It is our Pseudosteady-State WOR Model
belief that, because of the uncertainty in the accuracy of the
"conventional" extrapolation methods, as well as the lack of a 1. The proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model is a
completely rigorous mathematical foundation, the best ap- combination of the analytical solutions for single-phase
proach is to apply as many of these extrapolation techniques oil and water flow at pseudosteady-state conditions, and
as possible. Such an approach will provide duplication (hence the only significant assumption that arises in this
validation), and though there is no single "perfect" extrapo- relation is that of a constant (non-unity) mobility ratio.
lation technique, the comparison of results obtained from While this may seem a limiting assumption, we
different approaches does provide consistency as well as an successfully matched all of the production data cases
element of validation. considered in this work using this new model.
Our process of estimating the ultimate recovery using straight- 2. The proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model clearly
line extrapolations of production data function incorporates a provides the best representation for the oil and water
sequence of simultaneous analysis for all data functions (e.g., production data cases that we investigated.
qo, fo, fw, WOR, 1/fw, 1/qo, and other functions versus 3. The major limitation to our new model is that it does
cumulative production). The goal for such an analysis is to not provide a mechanism for the prediction of future
develop estimates of recoverable oil that best represent most, production — this new model is expressed in terms of
if not all, of the extrapolation methods. oil and water production rates and cumulative pro-
Specifically, we use the following extrapolation techniques for duction, and it is not possible to write a predictive
the simultaneous estimation of recoverable oil (or EUR) at formula (or even an extrapolation formula) using this
current producing conditions: relation.
Oil rate (qo) versus production time (t) Estimation of Recoverable Oil
Oil rate (qo) versus cumulative oil production (Np) 1. In this work we provide a compilation of the "conven-
Fractional flow of oil (fo) versus cumulative oil produc- tional" straight-line extrapolation methods used in the
tion (Np) industry for the estimation of recoverable oil. The
Logarithm of fractional flow of water (fw) versus cumu- techniques considered are:
lative oil production (Np)
—log(qo) versus t
Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/fw) versus cumu-
— qo versus Np
lative oil production (Np)
— log(fw) versus Np
Reciprocal of oil production rate (1/qo) versus oil material
—log(fo) versus Np
balance time (to)
Qualitative Analysis of Oil and Water Production Data These techniques should be applied simultaneously in
In addition to the estimation of recoverable oil, we also can order to obtain consistent estimates of the recoverable
also perform a "qualitative" analysis of the water and oil pro- oil. Application of only one or two techniques will
duction data. These techniques provide a visual analysis of likely lead to substantial misinterpretations of the cor-
the data and may provide a qualitative assessment of the per- rect model behavior, which, in turn, will lead to over-
formance. While our focus is on the qualitative analysis of or underestimation of recoverable reserves.
data, some of these techniques may also provide a quantitative 2. We proposed two new methods for estimating recover-
estimate of recoverable oil. able oil reserves. These techniques are:
In particular, we considered the following analysis techniques: —1/fw versus Np
— 1/qo versus Np/qo
Logarithm of cumulative fractional flow of water (fwc)
versus the cumulative oil production (Np) A plot of 1/fw versus Np should yield a straight-line
trend that can be extrapolated to 1/fw=1, which yields
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 9
d
WORd = x (WOR) ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction
dx
1 x
WORi =
x 0 ∫WOR dx ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction
d
WORid = x (WORi ) ( x = t , to , tt , etc.) , fraction
dx
Wp = cumulative water production, STB [std m3]
1 1
X = ln − 1 − , Ershaghi4,5 X-function
w
f f w
Greek:
γ = 0.577216, Euler’s constant
φ = reservoir porosity, fraction
µ = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa*s] Figure 1 – Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, NRU Well 3106.
Subscripts:
i = initial
o = oil
w = water
t = total
References
1. Robert S. Thompson, John D. Wright: Oil Property Eval-
uation, Thomson-Wright Associates, Golden, CO, 1985.
2. Chan, K.S.: "Water Control Diagnostic Plots," paper SPE
30775 presented at the 1995 Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 22-25 October..
3. Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J.: "Variable-Rate Reser-
voir Limits Testing," paper SPE 15028 presented at the
SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Figure 2 – Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus
Midland, TX, 13-14 March 1986. Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106.
4. Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: "A Method for Extrapola-
tion of Cut vs. Recovery curves," JPT (February 1978)
203-204.
5. Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.: "A Prediction Technique
for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data,"
JPT (April 1984) 664-670.
6. Startzman, R.A and Wu, C.H: "Discussion of Empirical
Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes," JPT
(December 1984) 2192-2194.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the in-kind contibu-
tions of Fina Oil and Chemical Co. (now TotalFinaElf) and
Unocal (now Spirit Energy) for the field data used in this
work. Figure 3 – Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil
Production, NRU Well 3106.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 11
Figure 11– Oil and Water Production Rate History, NRU Well
3106.
Figure 12– Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well
B41.
Figure 10– Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance Figure 13– Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Produc-
(Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured tion, NRU Well 3106.
WOR Performance, WWL Well B41.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 13
Figure 14– Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Produc- Figure 17– Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil
tion, WWL Well B41. Production, NRU Well 3106.
Figure 20– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Pro- Figure 23– Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance
duction, WWL Well B41. Time, NRU Well 3106.
Figure 26– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver- Figure 28– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-
sus Production Time, NRU Well 3106. sus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106.
Figure 31– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver- Figure 33– Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Ver-
sus Production Time, WWL Well B41. sus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41.
SPE 77569 Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance 17
Figure 34– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver- Figure 36– Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Ver-
sus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41. sus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41.
Figure 39– Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Figure 42– Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance
Production, WWL Well B41. Time, NRU Well 3106.