-ety of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 39755

Modeling Simultaneous Oil and Water Flow in Reservoirs with Water Influx or Water
Injection Using Single-Phase Semi-Analytical Solutions
AK. Permadi, SPE, Institut Teknologi Bandung, D.D. Mamora, SPE, and W.J. Lee, SPE, Texas A&M U.

volumetricaIIy, and this technique does not require knowledge

of saturation distribution in the reservoir. Pre- and post-
breakthrough oil and water rates are based on fictional flow
This ~ wss sOMOd forpms.snfstti
by m SPE PwOm COmmMOs followii review d
theory. Although we considered only the case of constant-rate
IrlfOrmsltbrl *iMd in m *sfmd Submmed by ti -s). Corlfeflts
d fissm, as production, our method can be extended readily to the case of
~~,tititi~ byti~d PohhEw-d-@dto
~ by ttss author(s), Ths mate4fsl, as prss.entd, dOOs d rsaossmv fefhxl my constant-pressure production.
- of fbs S~-H Pafrobum Eng-, Ns *, or mamlmr8. Pp prassntd at
WE m-s srs ~ to @tire * by Etltorisl Cussmitfeas d W Society of
Psbdsum Ersolrswrs. ~io -km, ~h, w St-d w @ of fhil PSPN
W wmmerctal ~s - W wTSIm corsd d h Socbty of Petro~ Enginasrs is
Introduction
@bM. PmWmto~h *btidto~d*d@mm WW Analytical solutions to the diffisivity equation for single-
~ iIlusfrstiOru m~ M h wp~. ~ *tract must tiah conspiwws
~erst ofwhsIM d by m the ~ WSJ PMstied Write L~, SPE, PO phase flow for various inner and outer boundary conditions
SOx Ss3sss, Kim, TX ~, USA, fw 01-972-952-94S5.
are well documented in the literature4 and reviews of
multiphase flow problems, particularly in analyzing weIl test
Abstrsct da@ have been presented? However, previous work on
This paper presents the development fid application of serni- using single-phase solutions to model multiphase flow
anrdytical solutions to model multiphase flow of oil and water. problems have been limited to oil and gas flow.%z Our work
Our solutiom are modifications of single-phase solutions, with focuses on the application of single-phase solutions to model
multiphase flow introduced using the Perrine-Martin total oil and water flow. Specifically, we have developed a single-
mobiIity to replace single-phase mobility in the standard phase semi-analytical model to determine the production of oil
diffisivity equation. This modification led to very satisfactory and water from a well in a single-layered cylindrical reservoir
am~~ between calculated and simulated results. Our subjected to natural water influx or water injection.
results include new solutions for an outer boundq condition A new transformation based on Perrine and Martin314was
of specified fh,ix. With water influx, this specified flux developed. That is, the diffisivity equation was linearized
wiII vary with time and is calculated using an aquifer model such that the solutions for single-phase flow case may be used
coupIed witli tie reservoir model. for multiphase flow. This required evaluation of the total
The importance of WIS work is in its possible mobility and the total compressibility as defined by Perrine
-.-
implementation m sofiare designed for production data and and Martin, and led to appropriate dimensionless variables.
well test data &alysis. Most commercial software is limited To calculate water influx, the Fetkovich method was used
to single-phase flow, with muItiphase water-oil flow modeled instead of using an analytical solution restricted by a specified
(if at alI]by highly simplified models. condition at the outer reservoir boundary.s
Our model assumes a producing well centered in its A common technique in applying single-phase solutions to
me area surrwnded by a cylincbical aquifer or injected multiphase flow problems is to use so-called integral
water bank. Cumulative water influx is related to the well transformations or pseudo functions. This technique has been
production and reservoir flow properties by material balance. used for multiphase flow problems in solution gas drive
Any tidard water influx model can be used to relate reservoirs6-* and gas condensate reservoirs. 19 One of the
cumulative water influx and the reservoir-aquifer interface objectives of this study is to examine the necessity of using
pressure. such transformations in oil-water flow systems.
We relate the average reservoir pressure to welI
performance Uti-g solutions fiit derived to model single- Development of the Method
phase, slightly compressible liquid flow. Oil and water Composite Reservoir System. The system modeled consists
production rates are obtained from the total rate using Darcys of two regions, the reservoir and the aquifer (Fig. 1). The
law. Fluid saturations at a given time are computed producing well is located at the center of a cylindrical

263
 2 -... A. K. PERMADI, D. D. MAMORA, W, J. LEE SPE 39755
,.

-age area of radius re and is assumed to produce at a Verification of Model

con= total liquid rate. The reservoir contains oil (assumed A production case example with water influx is described in
to be aIways above the bubble-point) and interstitial water. the foIIowing to illustrate the validity of the semi-analytical
The reservoir is surrounded by a finite radiaI aquifer of radius model. The results are compared with those based on
Ea. The tsvo regions are homogeneous and isotropic, with the numerical simulation. A 92x I x 1 1-D radial simulation model
was used to represent the composite reservoir system. Details
same thickness, porosity and permeability. Gravity and
of the simulation model are given in Ref. 24.
capillary pressure effects are assumed to be negligible.
PVT data was generated using black oil correlations
avaiIable in the commercial simulator used.zs Oil and water
Method of Solution. Two fluid flow regimes exist: single-
viscosities were set at 3.0 cp and 1.0 cp, respectively. The
phase water flow in the aquifer region, and We-phase flow of
fluid contacts, datum data, and bubble point pressure were
oil and water in the reservoir. Both @es of fluid flow are
chosen so that oil and water are the only fluids flowing. The
dependent on the reservoir pressure and the reservoir-aquifer
oil-water relative permeability curves (Fig. 3) were based on
boundary pressure (RABP). As these pressures are
Standing.zh Other reservoir and production parameters, and
interdependent, they can not be solved explicitly.
rock and fluid properties used in both the semi-analytical and
Consequently, the flow probIem has been solved in a time-
simulation models are shown in Table 1.
step manner, using an iterative procedure in each time step to
Results based on the semi-analytical and simulation
solve for the reservoir pressure and RABP. The iterative
models are compared in Figs. 4-15. Oil and water production
procedure is shown schematically in Fig. 2 and described as
rates for both models are in excellent agreement (Figs. 4 and
follows.
5). The oil production rate is constant at about 90 STB/D
At each time step, a set of reservoir pressure and RABP is
until water breakthrough, when it drops sharply to about 10
inhirdly assumed. Based on the assumed RABP, water influx
S~/D then continues at a gentler decline rate at high water
is calculated using the Fetkovich pseudo-steady state water
production rates of about 90 STB/D. Water breakthrough
MUX model.mz For the assumed reservoir pressure, the well
times differ somewhat: 5840 days (semi-analytical model)
flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) and RABP are
compared to about 5510 days (simulation) - a 6/0 difference.
calculated using the single-phase solution of the diffisivity
Reducing tie grid block size in the simulation model has been
equation formuItiphase flow (Appendix).
shown to yield breakthrough times closer to those obtained
The calctiated and assumed values of RABP are
usrng the semi-analytical model. This difference is reflected
compared. If the difference in values is greater than a preset
in the cumulative oil and water plots (Figs. 6 and 7). The
tolerance, auother value of R4BP is assumed and water
water influx rate increases rapidly over the fnt few days,
influx, FBHP, and RABP are recalculated. Otherwise, the
thereafter exhibiting an asymptotic rate of just under 100
next step Is executed, which is the calculation of reservoir
STB/D (Fig. 8). The slightly sharper increase in water influx
pressure based on materiaI balance on water influx into and
rate based on simulation is negligible in the context of the
production from the reservoir (Appendix). The calculated
cumulative water influx (Fig. 9). Fig. 10 shows the average
and assunied reservoir pressures are compared. If the match is
water saturation in the reservoir increases sharply after water
unsatisfactory, a new value of reservoir pressure is assumed,
breakthrough, ahnost reaching the residual oil saturation value
and the whole iterative process is repeated. Otherwise, the
at the end of the production period of 30 years (1 1,000 days).
values obtained for RABP, FBHP, water influx, and
The average aquifer pressure, reservoir-aquifer boundary
production are accepted, and the calculation proceeds to the
pressure, average reservoir pressure, and FBHP all decline
next time step. Determination of other parameters at each
after water breakthrough from around 2500 psia to about 1100
time ~p are summarized as follows.
psia at the end of the production period (Figs. 11-14). After
Dry oiI production occurs until water breakthrough which
break-through, the producing WOR increases ahnost linearly
is determined from Buckley-Leverett fractional flow theory
with time (Fig. 15), reaching a value of 33 (semi-analytical
fir radial fIow.23After breakthrough, oil and water production
model) compared to 26 (simulation). The foregoing
rates are determined using the radial flow equation and
comparison of results fiom the semi-analytical model and
relative permeabilities for oil and water. Thus, liquid
simulation illustrates the validity of the semi-analytical model.
sa~rations and producing water-oil ratio maybe determined.
me Fetkovich water influx model has been used because it
Summary and Conclusions
is simpIer than the method of van Everdingen-Hurst, requiring
1. A new semi-analytical method has been developed to
no calction of pressure-superposition effects. However, the
model multiphase flow of oil and water in a cylindrical
Fetkovich method requires a variable rate or pressure at the
composite reservoir system.
reservoir-aquifer boundary, the latter being used in our model.
2. Based on comparison of results from the semi-analytical
The pressure at the reservoir-aquifer boundaxy is determined
model and simulation, the semi-analytical model has been
assuming a specified water flux across this boundary.
tested to be accurate.

264
SPE 39755 MODELING SIMULTANEOUS OIL AND WATER FLOW IN RESERVOIRS WITH WATER INFLUX OR 3
WATER INJECTION USING SINGLE-PHASE SEMI-ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

3. The simple semi-analytical method provides a quick and t= time, days

easy means of estimating the future performance of a well tD = dimensionless time
producing oil and water simultaneously from a cylintilcal At. time step size, days
drainage volume. we = cumulative water influx, bbl.
4. The Perrine-Martin definitions for total system AWewater influx incremen~ bbl.
=
compressibility m-d total mobility are strictly valid for
AW=D dimensionless water influx increment
=
small pressure and saturation gradients. However, in the
W~i = initial encroachable water in place at initial
study these definitions were found to be valid even
pressure, bbl.
though a saturation discontinuity existed in the drainage
Wp cumulative water production, STB
area of the producing well.
WOR = water-oil ratio, ST13/STB
Nomenclature a= unit conversion constant
B= formation volume factor, RBISTB P= fluid density
c= compressibility, psi-l a= mobiIity
cf = formtion compressibility, psi- P= viscosity, cp
+= porosity, fraction
f. = water fraction ofvohunetric flow, fraction n= circumference to diameter ratio =3.1415926 ...
formation thickriess, fi
h
~:
productivity rndex of the aquifer, SfBldaylpsi Subscripts
k= permeabili~, md a . aquifer
k, = reIative permeability me average value between two consecutive time steps
BT = condition at breakthrough
km = oil relative permeability
ch = characteristic value
km = water relative permeability o . oil
N. original oil in place, STB =
r reservoir condition
NP = cumulative oil production, STB s . surface condition
p. pressure, psia t= total of all phases or total system
Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia r-a = reservoir-aquifer boundary
pip = initial aquifer pressure, psia w . water
*I1 = condition at well
Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
F= average pressure, psia Indices
n . time step number
PD = dimensionless pressure finction
PDext = dimensionless boundary pressure References
~= pressure drop in the reservoir, psia 1. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst W.: The Application of the
q= production rate, STB/day Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirsfl
Tram., AIME (1949) 186,305-24.
qDext = dimensionless boundary influx
2. Matthews, C.S. and Russell,D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
qexl = boundary flux rate (aquifer system), STB/day Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE of AIME, Richardson,
qwp = water flux rate, SfBlday TX(1967)1.
r= radial distance, r-direction 3. Blssingame, T.A.: Semi-analytical Solutions for a Bounded
Circular Reservoir - No Flow and Constant Pressure Outer
a = aquifer radius, ~ Boundary Conditions: Utiactured Well Csse~ paper SPE
rD = dimensionless radius 25479 presented at the 1993 SPE Production Operations
reservoir drainage radius, ft Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, Mar. 21-23.
re =
4. Le% W.J., Rollins, J.B., and Spivey, J.P.: Pressure Transient
reD = diiensionIess reservoir drainage radius Testing, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M
r. = weIlbore radius, R University, (1995), to be published.
5. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Ana@sis, Prentice Hall , EngIewood
s= saturation, fiafion
Cliffs, NJ (1993).
54 vohunetic average saturation, fraction 6. Agarwrd, R.G., A1-Hussainy, R., and Rarney, H.J., Jr.: An
Sw connate water saturation, fraction Investigation of WeIlbore Storage and Skin Effects in Unsteady
S.f = iuitia~water saturation, &action Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatrnen4 SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 278-
Swf = water saturation *the water front, fraction 90.
7. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Arudysis for Multiphase Flowfl paper

265
 4 A. K. PERMADI, D. D. MAMORA, W. J. LEE SPE 39755

WE ~at the 1986 International Meetine on S1 Metric Conversion Factora

PetroIeum Engineering, Beijing, Chin% Mar. 17-20; SP-EFE Cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pas
(Dec. 1989) 585-94. ft X 3.048* E-Ol=m
8. AI-Khalifah, A.J., Home, R.N., and Aziz, K.: Multiphase Well
md X9,869233 E-04 = pm2
Test Analysis: Pressure and Pressure-Squared Methods: paper
SPE 18803 presented at the 1989 SPE California Regional
psi x 6.894757 E+OO=IcPa
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, Apr. 5-7, bblfd x 1,589873 E-01= m3/d
%~ion faw k m
9. Evinger, H.H. and Muska4 M.: Calculation of Theoretical u.
Productivity Factor, Trans., AIME (1942) 142, 126-39.
10. BOe, A., Skjaeveland, S.M., and Whitson, C.H.: Two-Phme
Pressure Test Analysisfl paper SPE 10224 presented at the 1981 Appendix - Semi-analytical Model
Annual Tecfiical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
Oct. 5-7; SPEFE (Dec. 1989) 604-610. Mathematical Model. For simultaneous radial flow of oil
11. Aanonsen, S.1.: Nonlinear ~ects During Transient Fluid Flow and water, the multiphase difisivity equation is as follows.
tn Reservoirs as Encountered in Well-Test Analysis, Dr. Scient.
Repo~ University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway (1985).
12. Djatrniko, W.: Well Testing in Multi-Phase Flow Reservoirs,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Imperial College of Science, Technology,
and Medicine- Universityof London,London,UK (1996).
a] d
.
r& [(
k
ao ~+aw
P.
k

Pw
w
r$=$$(~oPo
)1 +SWPW)O

..................................... ...(A-l)
13. Perrine,R.L.: Analysisof PressureBuildupCurves: Drill. and
Prod Prac., API, Dallas (1956) 482-509.
14. Martin, J.C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive where constant al = 0.006327 in field units (time in days).
Reservoirs and the Theoreticrd Foundation of Multiphase For the composite reservoir system, the following initial and
Pressure Buildup Andysr.s~ JPT (Oct. 1959) 309-11; Trans., reservoir boundary conditions apply:
AIME (1959) 216.
15. Double4 L.E. and Blasingame,T.A.: Decline Curve Analysis initial condition,
Using Type Curves: Water influx/Waterflood Cases: paper
SPE 30774 presentedat tie I995 Annurd Technical Conference
md Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25. p(r,t)=pj, rw<r<re, *=0. Y ...............................(A-2)
16. Levine, J.S. and Prats, M.: The Calculated Performance of
Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs, SP.W (Sept. 1961) 142-52. inner boundary condition,
17. Raghav~ R.: Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by
SolutionGas Drive; SPU (Aug. 1976) 196-208.
kro
18. F- M.L. and Wattenbarger,R.A.: Decline Curve Analysis
for MuItiphaseFlow: paper SPE 18274 presented at the 1988
Annual Technicrd Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,
2tia4
(qB), [(o~+pw~ )]r: =], r=rw, t>o,

............................................... (A-3)
Oct. 2-5.
19. Vo, D.T.: WeII Test Analysis for Gas Condensate Reservoirs,
Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tuls~ TUISAOK (1989). where the constant total liquid rate (qB), is defined as
20. Fetkovich, M.J.: A Simplified Approach to Water Influx
Calculations - Finite Aquifer Systems, JPT (Jul. 1971)814-28.
21. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier (q~)tq.B. +qwBw =constant; .....................(A-4)
Scientific Publishing Co,, New York, NY (1978).
22. C- B.C., Hawkins, M.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir outer boundary condition,
figineering, Revised by Terry, R.E,, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliff% NJ (1991).
23.

24.
tiIlins, RE.: Flow of Flui& through Porous Materials, The
PetroleumPublishing Company, TuIs4 OK (1976).
Perniadi, A,K.: Modeling Simultaneous Oil and Water Flow
2&a4
9ext [( kro
Po +pw
Po
km r~

Pw )] ~
=1

,=r

t>.

.......................... . . . . . ..(A-5)
titz SingIe-Phase Analytical Solutions, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Tmas A&M University, College Station, TX (1997).
25. SABRE Users Manual, S.A, Holditch & Associates, College where qti = specified flux of aquifer influx, and constant
~titiO~ TX (1989). a4 = 0.001127 in field units.
26. Standing, M.B.: Notes on Relative Permeability Relationships,
Div; of Pet. Eng. and AppI. Geoph., University of Trondheim,
Trondheim, Norway (1975), Method of Transformation. l13e mult~hase diffisivity
27. Muska~ M.: *The Production Histories of Oil Producing Gas equation @q. A-5) may be solved by fwst transforming it into
Drive Ke~-fioirs, ~ ofAppIied Physics (1945) 16, 147-59. a form of the single-phase diffisivity equation, Following
Perrine-Martin, the following dimensionless variables are used
to express Eq. A-5 in dimensionless form.

266
SPE 39755 MODELING SIMULTANEOUS OIL AND WATER FLOW IN RESERVOIRS WITH WATER INFLUX OR 5
WAIER INJEC710N USING SINGLE-PHASE SEMI-ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

ajAtt The dimensionless aquifer influx rate is defined as

tD= ......................................................... (A-6)
~ctrwz

9kt =
(qextB),
..........................................................(A-16)
(qB)*

,nd
Water Influx Model. In most practical cases, the Fetkovich
rD. L, .........................................................(A-8) water influx model is stilciently accurate compared to the
rw
van Everdingen-Hurst method.zzz The aquifer influx rate
equation based on the Fetkovich method is as follows.
where a2 = 141.2in field units, and total mobility 2t is
defined as
dwe
w = =dt J(p-~-)ap(-::at) (A-17)
At= Ao+Aw=&+k Y .$$.,,$.,,.,...,..... ...................... (A-9)
Po Pw
me incremental water influx A W& at time step n may be
and total compressibility c1 is defined as follows: dervied from Eq. A-17 and is as follows.

Ct=soco+swcw+cf .,.,.......................................(A-lO)
Wej
Aw:= -(F;-1-P;.a,me~-aP[-J;::tn)](A18)
Pj,a
Using dimensionless variab~es defined in Eqs. A-6 to A-8,
Eqs. A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-5 may transformed into the
following dimensionless forms. where pa
*1 is determined from material balance, and
p~_=,we is the average value between time steps n and (n-l).
8PD 2PD........................................(A-n)
Id
.
rD arD (-)
D

8?.D =
dtD
Cumulative water influx at time step n is obtained by
summing up AW: from time step n=l until n.
initial conditio~ For a finite aquifer model, the pseudo steady state
productivity index is defined as
PD(rD,tD) = O, I S rD < reD, tD = O ;................(A-12)
M
J= / _\ , ............................................(A-19)
inner boundary condition,
41n:-:J
where the drawdown is expressed as ~a - pr_a instead of
()
D=
dpD
=
_l

rD=l, tD > O;,........................(A-13)
Pip Pr-a .
ne dimensionless pressure ptit and dimensionless
outer boundary condition,
aquifer influx rate q~t are related to parameters in the
Fetkovich model as follows. Defining the dimensionless
PD
(D) drD
= q~~(tD) > rD = reD > tD ~ o ............(A-14)
water influx as

AW:D=
A w:
>.................... ......................................(A-20)
We
The dimensionless pressure at the reservoir-aquifer boundary
ptit is defined as Eq. A- 18 may be arranged to yield

n-l AW~DPi,a
P!-a,ove = Pa ............................(A-21)
c

267
 6 A. K. PERMADI, D. D. MAMORA, W. J. LEE SPE 39755

Where Water Saturation at the Well. Neglecting gravity and

capillary pressure effects, the water tictional flow curve as a
function of water saturation may be generated using oil-water

[)
Jpi,a Atn
Cn=l.ap . ......................................(A-22) relative permeability data and the following equation.
Wei

.fw= 1 ...................................................T...(A.29)
Using p~.a~ from Eq. (A-21), we compute P;.= which is ~+
P. kro
then used in Eq. A-15 to calculate p~t. Furthermore, krw P.

q~t and A w~ are related as follows.

Using the Welge method, tangent construction to the
----
fictional curve from the point (Sw= SW, f w= O), the water
n-l n-l
AW~D = ~chq~xt t ~ht~ tch tD )
, ...............(A-23)
saturation at the shock front, Swf, and the average water

where satiation behind the front at breakthrough, SW= ~W,a, may

be determined. The latter maybe expressed as:
qch= 91, ....................................................................(A.24)

and 2fJs.f,BT
Sw,BT=s~+ dfw
................................T.(A-30)
*ch_
- +ctrw2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-25) ds w
al~t S~,BT
Knowing the average water saturation in the reservoir, water
Material Balance For a reservoir with no original
Model. saturation at the well after breakthrough may be determined in
gascap and where the reservoir pressure is always above the the following manner. Compute: (1) fw using k, vs. Sw
bubble point, the material balance equation may be expressed
df w
as follows. da@ (2) ,the slope with respect to &w= Sw - SWC
-idsw s%

(or with respect to &w= Sw -SWi if Swi #SwC), and

~B.i-(~-~P)B.-w.wPB.-
df w

[1
Swicw+cf
~ Boi ....................(A-26) the slope with respect to &w= SW,i_Sw,i_l
l-s.j 4=0 3) +dsw sw
where i is the index for ( Sw, kr ) data point.
FoIlowing Muska<27the instantmeous water-oil ratio WOR
3W is computed at each time step in the model. If
isgiven by:
~w < ~w,BT, the weIl is not allowed to produce water.
dwr 1
_ dso _ (l S.)
dBw Conversely, if ~w 2 ~W,BT,the well is allowed to produce
WOR = ~ = w p W2 p ,.............(A-2iI] water. For example, water saturation at the well at
dr?r 1 dso
---
so dBo
breakthrough would be given as. S .,Well= S.f = Swf,BT. Afier
B. dp B02 dp breakthrough, water saturation at the well may be calculated
USill~ Eq.A-3 1.
where the change in oil saturation with respect to pressure is
given by:
~-f~sw,wll
SW,WII = 5. df
....................(A-31)
S. kr. PQ dBQ
(~-so) dBw w

dso
= Bo kro Pw dp Bw dp = Sw,wll
..................(A-28)
dp ~~ krw P.

~ow~g SW,WII ~d thUS krw at We well, Water ~d oil

production rates may be determined.
Using cumulative water influx from the Fetkovich method,
and for a particular reservoir pressure, cumulative oil and
water production may be calculated using Eqs. A-26-A-28.

268
SPE 39755 MODELING SIMULTANEOUS OIL AND WATER FLOW IN RESERVOIRS WITH WATER INFLUX OR 7
. .. .. WA_~R INJECTION USING SINGLE-PHASE SEMI-ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

TABLE IRESERVOIR, ROCK, AND FLUID PROPERTIES

initial Conditions
Depth of gas-oil contaot = 4000 ft
Capillary pressure at gas-oil oontact = O psia
Depth of oil-water contaot = 5000 fi
Capillaty pressure at oil-water contact = O psia

Resetvoir Propeties
Net sand thickness = 30 R.
Porosity, fraction = 0.15
lm3d@le water saturation = 0.22
Nominal well spacing = 31.4 acres
Horizontal absolute permeability = 500 md
Vertical absolute permeability = 500 md
Original Oil-in-Place = 855 MSTB
Constant oil viscosity = 3.0 Cp
Constant water vismsity = I.ocp

Production Parameters
Location of Producing Well (1)
Constant total production rate = 100 STB/D
Initial reservoir pressure = 2500 psia
Initial saturation pressure = 1000 psia

f---- ~\.,
TQDViW. . FiniteAquifer

Stie View:

Fig. l-schematic diagram of composite resewoir system

269
8 A. K. PERMADI, D. D. ~MORA, W. J. LEE SPE 39755
. -.

I reservok prassurs 14

I
+ +
Using Fetkovti model unnpule wrnulatiie
Using s~le singl~se sOlutiix
weter infius Fcf the cumuhtiie period ci time
end a wssure dq at h mservoir+fer -@e Well preseure aml pressure at the
reaerwir aqufer interfsce
Wary
1
I
&

T Y
Yes

Fig. 2-Computational aigorithm for semi-analytical modei

Lul

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 U.4 0.6 0.8 1

Wster stirstion, frectlm

Fig. 3-Oii-water reiative permeability curves

SPE 39755 MODELING SIMULTANEOUS OIL AND WATER FLOW IN RESERVOIRS WITH WATER INFLUX OR 9
-. WATER INJECTION USING SINGLE-PHASE SEMI-ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

tm

* S-8 lhkwork
0 5,Em5
o Shubtbn
80 0

0 4.E+05

m 0
3,eo5
0 0
0
40
2,E+05

20 1.E+05
t
, oo~o
n Q . . 0 O.E+OO
o
1.2M 0,[ too 2,0-03 4.oEto3 8.0E+03 a.ow3 t ,0EM4 1,ZBW
0.0500 20- 4.0E+02 6.om now 1.OW
Froducini th., days
~dUCh# tic, da~

Fig. 4-Oil production rate versus time Fig. 7-Cumulative water production versus time

120 120

100
0

m
~ 80 0

do

40
,
0
i 0
j 40
0
mkwti
It ~ whtbn

20 0 20

0
t

&~oM 8.0E+03 1.Ow 1.2Etc4

o ~...
I.E-m 1 ,E04 1 ,s02 t ,Emo 1 .Wz i .W 1,*

M@n tknb, dv Producing the, daya

Fig. 5-Water production rate versus time Fig. S-Water influx rate versus time

Fig. 6-Cumulative oil production versus time

271
2.E+05

o.~
t

1.506 t ,&M

Fig. 9--Cumulative
i ,s02 1,*

Producing tkna, daya

water influx versus time

L
1 ,Wz 1 ,E404 1.-
 10 A. K. PERMADI, D. D. MAMORA, W. J. LEE SPE 39755

1
2700

O,a 2400
mbwti
o~

210U
0.6

4800

04

1500

02 Thkwoti
1200 o Shhtbn
I !

o~
<Ecu IEM i.Ero2 1.E+OO 1.EM2 lH 1.E+od
ml
1.EW l.&M i.koz 1.2+00 1 .E+02 ! .E+04 l.E+m
Produzing thug, day,
7koducing tim , days

Fig. 10-Average reservoir water saturation versus time Fig. 13-Average resewoir pressure versus time

2700 2700
I
2400 2400

Z*M 2100

1am 1800
\
1SW 15W

_miiwork

~ tiktbn
12M
i 200

\
2UOI J 200 J
1.s06 i .6M l&02 1,- 1 ,Wz 1,- 1 ,m 1.E-04 l&02 1 .W 1 .E+02 1- lE4m
~OdUCiIIS Ykll , dvs
Produchg tlmc, days

Fig. 1lAverage aquifer pressure versus time Fig. 14-Bottomhole pressure versus time

2?C4
51

\ x

10

Soo
0
l.~m 1.E04 l.Ea? 1.E4M I.m l,sun 1.-
O.om 2.0E403 4.osto3 6.0- hom 1.H 1=
Wddudngtlm., W
Producing tima, dap

Fw. I>Reservoir-aqui fer boundary pressure versus time Fig. 1S-Water-oil ratio versus time

272