An Empirical Approach to
Waterflood Predictions
A. M. Khan, SPE-AIME, Standard Oil Co. of California
Introduction
The actual performance of a waterflood seldom
matches the theoretically predicted behavior. The
main reason for the deviation is that it is virtually
..,+;~nl ?0 incorporate all the
impossible a~ld i~tp.ae..-..,
variables affecting the performance of a waterflood
into a theoretical prediction technique. Some of the
factors contributing to the deviation are: (1) the va-
lidity of the basic geologic, reservoir and production
data, and allowance for the type of reservoir drive
mechanism; and (2) operating problems such as well
failures, poor injection profiles, thief sands, early
water breakthroughs, degree of water-oil ratio (WOR)
control and failure to keep wells pumped off.
Empirical waterflood prediction techniques, on the
other hand, inherently take all the parameters into
account. However, these techniques may be geo-
graphically or geologically limited.
A number of empirical prediction ,methods have
appeared in the literature. Guthrie and Greenbergerl
have published a method based on a correlation be-
tween oil recovery by watertlooding and fluid and rock
properties using the data published by Craze and
Buckley’ on 73 sandstone reservoirs.
Guerrero and Earlougher3 have developed a con-
venient method for predicting the performance of
walerfl~ods. using data on Mid-Continent projects.
Their method is strictly based on an average perform-
ance of the flood.
Bush and He!rmder4 have published an empirical
This prediction approach is based on an analysis oj the actual performance of eight
waterflood projects in Southern California. With the charts resulting from this analysis,
such waterflood parameters as time to initial response and peak production rate
can be related to the jluid and rock properties. The method permits the prediction O!
maximum, average, and minimum recovery.
MA%’
‘.. . . ------1971 JP?-
method based on a statistical analysis of 86 successful
Oklahoma floods. Very useful generalized rules of
thumb for predicting waterflood performance were
developed. Also, the authors have published qualita-
.n.
tlve comments on tne enect of r~s~I -.-:.VW ll&w”&.._ty,
h +a+nfrenpi
fillup pore volume, and well spacing on the various
flood parameters. However, they do not specifically
relate the fluid and rock properties to the values of
these parameters.
The approach used for the development of the
Empirical Correlation Method (ECM) relies on divid-
ing the flood performance into time periods similar
to the ones used by Bush and Helander (Fig. 1). How-
ever, the previous work is extended to include a
quantitative measure of the effect of fluid and rock
properties on the performance of a flood. The follow-
ing reservoir and rock properties were found to have
statistically significant influence on flood behavion
(1) permeability variations; (2) oil and gas saturation
at the start of the flood; (3) oil-water viscosity ratio;
(4) injection rate; and (5) an average distance from
first-line producers.
Development of ECM
The ECM is based on a statistical analysis of actual
waterflood performance of eight Southern California
~oo+~ En},~renw.en~a!,reservoir, and production data
for these floods are summarized in Tables 1 through
3. As done by Bush and Helander, an assumption was
!
565
 made that the flood liie can be dhided into three time
periods (Fig. 1): (1) initial response penod; (2) period
to the peak production rate or production incline
period; and (3) production decline period. The per-
formance curve of a flood was then defined by the oil
recovery within each of the time periods. Peak pro-
duction rate was defined in terms of percent of aver-
age effective injection rate (averaged over the period
from the start of injection to the time of peak pro-
duction rate).
As is to be expected, the basic data exhibited a great
deal of scatter due to the dissimilarity of floods.
Multiple regression, 5 the technique of least-squares
curve-fitting through empirical data, was used to
analyze the effect of fluid and rock properties on the
flood performance. The correlations resulting from
this work was summarized in Table 4.
Results
A set of charts has been prepared (Figs. 2 through 7)
that breaks down the correlations in an easy-to-use
form. Use of the charts is illustrated in Appendix A
with a numerical example. Following is an itemized
discussion of the correlations and their physical sig-
nificance pertaining to the floods analyzed. It should
be pointed out that, since the correlations are based
on data from eight floods only, the results may not be
universally applicable. Other limitations of the cor-
relations are discussed elsewhere.
Time to Initial Response
This correlation exhibits a strong dependence on gas
*abuL-u”A.-.
-.tm..tinm at the st@
--- -. of flood, permeabtity variation,
oil-water viscosity ratio and “a~erage effective injec-
tion rate. Physically, for the fioods studied the cm
relation shows that: (1) for gas saturation less than
15 percent, the time to initial response will increase
with increasing gas saturation, and then decrease with
increasing gas saturation; (2) the time will decrease if
the injection rate is increased or if the formation
becomes increasingly heterogeneous; and (3) the more
viscous the oil, the greater the time to response.
Tme To Reach the Peak Production Rate
Time to reach the peak production rate is affected by
the gas saturation at the start of the flood, oil-water
viscosity ratio, and the average effective injection rate.
The effect of the permeabfity variation appears to

TABLE l—WATERFLOOD ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

Avg. Y:? Initial Pmssum Not Total
Vss p-Ll: at pS of Formation Send Rooourgr
pm: D:e#h first Tcm(p+turs Thi#ss :y~d
Number Injution (wi) (psi) (acre.ft)
-
1 7i- –3,200 1965 1,350 400 140 220 25,660 Pattern
2 B – 3,300 1963 1,400 400 145 118 43,400 Pattern
3 c –2,750 1963 1,280 250 145 120 32,100 Pattern
4 D –1,200 1962 550 50 120 378 156,000 Pattern
5 E – 1,300 1954 570 50 100 428 73340 Pattern
6 F –3,500 1952 1,400 100 150 435 140,980 Peripheral
7 G –3,500 1961 1,600 100 150 393 176,000 Peripheral
8 H –5,300 1959 2,650 1,150 185 250 66,200 Pattern

TABLE 2—RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES

oil
-..
nil aes In$yl Fonnnns
S:lgssion SaW#
Wstsr Original Fwwnr:n F8h8tir:t oi3Aw;;r
Flood Permeability Porosity ~pwg~; Oil(g&:;ion of Flood of Flood
Number fhm8 k(Ar) Voristion (rwo.nt) (pwmnt) (perwnt) Futar flood Ratio
——
1 A 893 474 0.642 30.0 25.0 75.0 65.0 10.0 1.10 1.05 145.0
2 B 700 444 0.512 32.2 32.6 67.4 59.4 8.0 1.10 1.07 53.2
~ c 1,590 659 0.430 37.0 22.0 78.0 73.5 4.5 108 1.04 146.0
4 D 895 534 0.754 3i.4 2i.O la n
, =.” 53.0 iz.o 1.05 1.00 42.2
5 E 895 534 0.754 35.0 20.0 80.0 63.0 17.0 1.05 1.00 90.3
6 F 672 360 0.590 25.8 24.6 75.4 50.0 25.4 1.16 1.04 16.0
7 G 672 360 0.590 25.8 24.6 75.4 48.0 27.4 1.16 104 16.0
8 H 154 132 0.597 23.2 37.0 63.0 39.5 33.5 1.30 1.110 3.89

TABLE S-ACTUAL WATERFLOOD PERFORMANCE

plull$tlti
C~mu#atjv9
Mid ThM
. .....
h
- lima from Me to Peek Oil Average
Dil in Plats Initial Time to Pmdwxion Peek )%:e :0 w! c! KM! Pr@:ing Injytion
~u
flood (nJlpJs R9gohje Pea~:o~t:tiOn (;il;ri ErKllf&68 (nyri~
Name (S/D) (BID)
-
1 -i-- 63.6 4 13 0.633 27 1.235 1,750 8,650 1.50
2 B 56.0 10 39 0.848 62 1.059 1?800 7.425 6,240 0.40
3 c 66.0 8 65 4.269 85 5.410 3,700 12.628 6,370 2.30
4 D 300.0 1 43 6.531 40 6.068 5,300 35.732 27.200 5.30
5 E 151.6 17 117 8.789 57 4.216 3,900 75.176 21,070 1.90
6 F 190.2 9 89 4.723 106 8.827 3?250 45.364 16,700 2.40
7 G 338.0 4 66 7.520 7 0.720 3,700 87.540 32,700 3.00
~8 H 50.0 10 49 1.136 68 1.662 1,050 9.808 6360 0.8

566 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 INITIAL It should be noted that in caicuia’dng peak rate as
RESPONSE
START
PERIOO
percent of injection rate, the effective injection rate
INJECTION
PRODUCTION
is averaged over the time penod from start of injec-
t PRoDuCTION
/ DECLINE tion to peak production rate.
I l+J’x:gE ~ PERIOD—
~ qP---- .-l–-----——
, ‘ I Total ~OOd Off
. I
m
I
Total flood oil is defined as the total amount of oil
(primary and secondary) from start of injection to
the abandonment of the flood. For the development
of this correlation, total flood oil was converted to
~
percent of original oil in place. The correlation is
0 dependent on the oil saturation at the start of flood
I I I I [ 1 and the permeability variation. It is obvious that the
?=0 tr
No=O
~P
’50 ’75 If higher the oil saturation at the start of the flood, the
TIME (MONTHS) greater the flood recovery; and the more heterogene-
Fig. l—Typical successful waterflood performance. ous the formation, the lower the recovery.
Cumulative Oil Production to Peak Production Rate
be relatively small, at least during this penod of pro- Cumulative oil production to peak production rate
duction, Generally, if the reservoir oil is more viscous has been defined as percent of total flood oil. The
and the formation has a large fillup volume, the time correlation shows that the peak production rate is
to peak production will tend to be longer. However, sensitive to permeability variation, oil-water viscosity
.. -:1 >~
--*.. “+; m -.~+ th- s?art of flood. The
if the injection rate is increased or if the formation ratio, and 011 LUh&h .. ..

becomes increasingly heterogeneous, the drne ‘willtend h@he~ fie oil saturation at the start of flood and the
to decrease. higher the permeability variation, the higher the
cumulative oil recovery (as percent of total flood oil).
Peak Production Rate On the other hand, recovery will decrease with in-
For the development of this correlation, peak produc- creasing viscosity of oil.
tion rate has been defined in terms of percent of aver-
age injection rate. The peak rate, as defined, is very Tme Required To Produce 50 Percent of Plood Oil
highly dependent on permeability variation and dis- This correlation indicates that the time is dependent
tance to first-line producers. Peak production rate will on permeability variation, injection rate, and oil-water
decrease as the formation becomes increasingly heter- viscosity ratio. Generally, the time increases with in-
ogeneous or as the distance increases. creasing permeability variation and with oil-water

TABLE 4-EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS

P~eba)ilJw
Index of F Ratio
Description Correlation Determination (statistic) Significance

e,.$? (in ~) 2
[e-8*”’4(SJ1’a’ e_’= “o 8U)~
Time to initial response V,r = [(v)’”-] [(iw)’”’”1 ~ “w
()P. 0.996 50.19 85
Time to peak t, = [e-’””(#./#m)l”~~i~~,S:~’””l [e’* “no)’]
producing rate
0.969 23.56 97.5
Peak producing rate F, (%) = 192.54 – 207.75v – O.osd 0.98 116.69 99

Total flood oil

ER, = ~
[1 [(So)””]
0.581 3.47 85
N [e-o (V) S.lT][[SO)
W-J
Cumulative oil producing
to peak producing rate %= [(#./PW)’””l 0.772 4.50 90
Time required to recover e,.13(V)o.u
&= (#./# w)”’”
50 percent of flood oil em {In&o/#w)s 11.67 95
[ (LJ’-’ H 1 0.939

[e’”” (v)””] [(p./p~)O”]

t,, =
[(-iW)’”@l 0.896 11.55 90
702 ~ 2+ OMEB{
Cumulative recovery” ER=3.52+15.80~– . v .
w cumulative water ()
_(:T) p
injection (PV)
o 0.972 334.5 99
Cumulative recovery* ~~””+o’zs
En) ~ ‘“m ~Fwo OO.O1
F.. = e
and producing WOR () P. 0.947 237.24 99
w,
Total flood life tJ =
f’b
()~

30.4 x 7.
● Percent d Q!!originally In placa.

MAY, 197:
 CALCULATED TIME TO INITIAL RESPONSE -MONTHS

-+---++4E

--
.
M

!’
-1
-.
3
m

cALCIJLATED TIME TO
PEAK PROD RATE - MONTHS
‘b

\
3> c)
\\’\\ o
z
\o
‘\
\\% \
‘.,

“.., ‘;
/m*
\
\
o\
\
.! :
\
\o \

\\ ‘;\ ‘
\ \

\
\

\\ \
\\ \\
I
z ‘\
oft
Zc
-iC
x
u)
 Geologic dillerences among the various zones being Fp = peak production rate as percent of average
flooded were not considered for this study. As a result, effective injection rate
the correlations would tend to average these differ-
ences. Errors resulting from this approach m ex- F(x) = function of x
pected to be small, however. F too = producing WOR
Another limitation of the method is that, unfor-
tunately, not all of the variables affecting the perform- iW = average effective injection rate (B/D/acre-ft)
-, hm~re nn~-
ance of a waternooo can be rnt%siirec! — . .. . . . .
lyzed — directly. An example of these types of k= permeability
variables is the operating practice. However, since NV = cumulative oil produced
the method is based on the actual performance d
the floods, these factors are inherently included in q = production rate
the ECM in an averaging sense. The magnitude of
S = saturation
difference from the average of these variables may
cause a small error in the evaluation of flood per- t= time
formance.
v = permeability variation; obtained by assuming
Conclusions that if a percentage of permeability greater
An empirical prediction approach for waterflood per- than a given value is plotted against that
formance has been developed and is usable despite its permeability on log-probability paper, a
restricted applicability. It is felt that by including data straight line would result. This line charac-
from more floods in different regions, the correlations terizesthe permeabilitvvariationdefined by:
presented here can be refined further, permitting a = k at 50 percentile: k at 84.1 percentile
v
wider application of the method. The characteristics k at 50 percentile
of the correlations developed are logical, bearing out
v, = pore volume
the observations made in the past and supporting the
assumptions made in the various theoretical methods. w, = cumulative water injected
The predominant variables determining the per-
formance of a waterflood, and hence to be taken into P = viscosity
account in the use of this approach, are: (1) oil and
gas saturation at the start of flood; (2) permeability Subscripts
variation; (3) oil-water viscosity ratio; and (4) injec- f = final, or at abandonment of flood
tion rate of water.
g = gas
Nomenclature
o = oil
d = average distance from injectors to first-line
producers, ft P = at peak production rate
e = logarithmic constant (2.7183) r = at response to injection
i?. = reservoir recovery eflicierq w = water

100 I I I i
- 100 1- I 1
/
:
a /
// \

/),/’ /

70%
CONFIDENCE
\
//y
//.. W 60
# 60 >

‘1
<
L&l *
1-
U
a

n
o
a
a 20
x
it!
&
I 1 I I
G Ov 1 I 1 I o
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ( 3
o 20 40 60 80
ACTUAL PEAK RATE (% AVG INJECT RATE I PERMEABILITY VARIATION

Fig. 4A—Peak produtilon rata. Fig. 4iS-Paak prrxkrtihn role:

MAY, 1971 569

 50 = at 50 percent of flood oil recovery 2. Time to Initial Response
75 = at 75 percent of flood oil recovery Trial 1: Assume time to initial response is
9 months
Acknowledgments Average injection rate = 0.226 B/D/acre-ft
I wish to thank the management of Standard Oil Co.
From Fig. 2-B:
of California, Western Operations, Inc., for permis- F(fr, V) = 4.69
sion to publish this paper. Special thanks are due L. G.
Eginton for reviewing the manuscript. F(r,, S,) = –4.70
F(f,, ?J = 2.40
References
1. Guthrie, R. K. and Greenberger, M. H.: “The Use of F(t,, p./PJ = ‘2.00
Multiple Correlation Analysis for Interpreting Petroleum
Engineering Data”, Drill. and Prod, Prac., API ( 1955) in t, = F(r,, v) -1-F(t,, Sg) +
130.
F(t,, t,) + F(L, rdpw)
2. Craze, R. C. and Buckley, S. E,: “A Factual Analysis
of the Effect of Well Spacing on Oil Recovery”, Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API. ( 1945) 146.
3. Guerrero, E. T. and Earlougher, R. C.: “Analysis and
Comparison of Five Methods Used to Predict Waterflood
Reserves and Performance”, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1961) 78.
25 -
/’
4. Bush, J. L. and He lander, D. P.: “Empirical Prediction of a
Recovery Rate in Waterflooding Depleted Sands”, J. Pet. / /’”
Tech. (Sept., 1968 ) 933-943. z 95?&
o /
CONFIDENCE /
5 Exkiei fif.; pvfe:k~d~ ~j Correlation Analysis, 2nd cd., : 20 -
John W’iley and Sons, inc., New York (1941). ‘\ / ,/ I
& v
u
APPENDIX A ~ / /
. : 15 J
Application Gf ECI?4 U
a
t ,/ /’ 0 ,,/’
It should be noted that calculation of time parameters n
(i.e., time to initial response, etc.) involves a knowl- u
//.. :
/ /
edge of average effective injection rate. Since the z 10 -
//”//
average effective injection rate cannot be calculated ;
v
without knowing time, a trial-and-error solution is A ,’ / /’
necessary. However, the simplicity of the procedure s
5 - /“ ///’
allows this calculation to be made with relative ease.
/ / ,,~
1. Basic Data /
I I
Permeability variation = 0.59 o
5 10 [5 20 25
Oil-water viscosity ratio = 146
ACTUAL RECOVERY (% OOIP)
Original reservoir volume = 23,790 acre-ft
Fig. 5A—Flood oil.
Original oil in place = 48,770,000 bbl
Distance to first-line producers = 450 ft
At the start of flood:
Oil saturation = 66 percent
Gas saturation = 7 percent l\
1.0

l\
Effective Water Injection Schedule:

Time Injection Rate

(months) (B/D) o.91-

p--x\
\—------’(

- nnn
1 L,UWV :
2 4,000
3 6,200
4 7,000
5 6,500
6 6,500
7 6,200
\
I 1 1 ! I
8 5,000 0.60i4
0.5 06 07 08 0.9

~~ 4,000 PERMEABILITY VARIATION

20 8,000 I 1 t i
45 50 55 60 65 70
32 10,500 OIL SATURATIONAT START OF FLOOO (“AI
(constant thereafter ng. !?J3=+!ocd r!!!.

570 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 Average injection rate = 0.216 B/D/acre-ft
= 4.69 – 4.70 + 2.40 – 2.00
New F(tr ,~J = 2.45
= 0.39 ~ t, = 0.44
n.-–.
e-.a 1 C c -nnthc
1nerclul~$ ir = ~..JJ ,L.” -------
t, = 1.48 months.
Trial 4: Assume t, = 1 month.
Trial 2: Assume tr = 2 months. Average injection rate = 0.084 B/D/acre-ft
00126 B/D/acre-ft
Average injection rate = New F(t,, ;W) = 3.97
New F(L, b = 3“25 in t, = 2.16
In ~, = 1.24 = 8.7 months.
t,= 3.46 months.
An exact solution is obtained by plotting the cal-
,
Trial 3: Assun~e t,= 5 months.

/’
1 I /’
I00 I

u :01+ / /
1- /’ / 95%
U
K CON FID:NcE /
/’
0 80 - 70% // :/
o CONFIDENCE \
a
a -. /
-J / /’
X2
a- ./’O /’
::6 0- /[/’ /
.( ,/
Og
+-l / /,/’ /
JL /
,’/// ‘/
Zs 40-
2 ,//,/ Q
o~ P/ /

“:Loo
/ /
/
//” i

/
//
1 I
I50
1
200
I I
250
00 50 100
ACTUAL CUMUL TO PEAK PROD RATE ACTUAL TIME TO RECOVER 75% OF FLOOD OIL - MONTHS
(% OF FLOOD OIL)
Fig. 7A-Time to recover 75 percent of flood oil.
Fig. 6A—Cumulative to peak production rate.

0.6 25 38
,
;;; ~~~ -,2 F(Npf,fJo;~l
[ = <(i75,~0\~W)

/“ 0.5
y 6- //’
.5 I
-9 62 /
II “ /F{ Npf,So)
-8 39 F(t75,w)
I ‘* 04L 05
/ ii /’
: .7L 60r -50- .
/ $11~~ /
L
.
0 .6 ~~;
L z- 0.3 =*IO : 3.2 I
-i- / ULL
;= 58 ;a -49
3-5 / F(tn,?#)
z z
/ F(Npf,vl
E
-4 I
0.2 0.5 3.0

-3 56 .48
!\ ~ ~

“Ii .2 -~ ‘ o,,~ ~ 2.6)4 ;5 :6 d7 ‘B ‘g

, )
, I
0.8 0.9 PERMEA81UTY
V~RI&TlON
07 1
.L ,41 -44
0.4
1
0“5 PERM:A:IUTY VARlA710N 1 m 0.6
J 01
65 70 f&2AGE INJ&?lON RAlE0”;99L10-ACF7 ~
60 , t
45 * I 250
o&lJFIATl:: AT STARTOF FLOOOt“{.> J I50 200
t 0 50
250 0, L.w&: VISCOSITYRATlo
1 150 200
0 50
OIL. w&’R VISCOSITYRATlo
Fig. 7B-~me to recover 75 percent of flood oil.
Fig. 6B—Cumulative to peak produtilon rate. 571

MAY, 1971
 TABLE 5-SUMMARY
EXAMPLE
OF FLOOD
FLOOD PARAMETERS,
culated t,values vs the assumed t, values. A smooth Ma;~~; M
MinimuM
curve is drawn through the plotted points. The solu- Case
Pa ra meter
tion is given by the point of intersection of a 450 line 2.5 2.5
t,, months 1.9
andthe curve. —.- 47g 470 470
q., B/v 469
Final t,= 2.5 months. qo,, B/D 469 469
79
24 43
t,, months 2700
From Ilg. 2-A: 2165 2422
q.., bbl 2,520,000
1,007,000
t,min= 1.9months N,,, bbl 445,000
113 160
t,,, months
72
4,740,000 6,700,000
t,,naX= 3.1 months N,,, bbl 2,450,000
298 294
t,, months 237
5,650,000 8,940,000
3. Tme to Peak Production Rate Npf, bbl 3,270,000
Again, by a trial-and-error solution as illustrated
above,
5. Total Flood Oil
-. ”---- = 43 months
i -wer~oe
.P
From Fig. 5-B:
From Fig. 3-A:
= ~~ ~,~~?~~ F(ERf, v) = 0.788
tpmin
F(ER~, so) = 1 “663
tp ~ax = 79 months
in ~Rf = 0.788 + 1.663 = 2.451
4. Peak Production Rate
Therefore,
From Fig. 4-B:
ERf = 11.6 percent of oil originally in
Fp = 33 percent of average effective place
injection rate, ~W
flpj = ().1 16 X 48,770,000
iW = 7,340 B/D.
= 5,650,000 bbl
Therefore,
From Fig. 5-A.
90, = 2,422 B/D.
ERjmin = 6.7 percent
From Fig. 4-A:
ERf III*X = 18.3 percent
Fv,,,,n = 29.5 percent
Npfmin = 3,270,000 bbl
F p max = 36.8 percent
NVf.= = 8,940,()()0 bbl
Therefore,
qO,n,i. = 2,165 B/D 6. Cnmtitive Recovery to Peak Production Rate
From Fig. 6-B:
2,700 B/D
qop nmx =

\ 1
I

::w--——-”~
3000 / —. \ -.
NOTE: EARLIER THAN PREDICTEO
RESPONSE
EFFECT
IS DUE TO THE

WATER FLOGO
OF AN ADJACENT

‘-=.< =.
\
~ 2000 /’- ,/ \ ._
AcTUAL
n ~ . -.= = -. -MAXIMUM
\ “ k’ ‘.-”
m /’ ,/’’” , ~,
: 1000 / ‘\
/’ /
m MOST
// /
/,’ ,“ -\ \ LIKELy “
o \
0 500 r J- “\ .MiNIMUM
=..5
‘-.>
lY
CL 400 +
-1 sTARTED .
E 300 WATER
INJECTION
200
‘1 .’
I I
1
, ! L

I
I I \ )
I I 76 77 78 79 80
100 71 72 73 74 75
66 67 68 69 70
YEAR

Fig. 8-Example fiooa.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOL~Y

572
 .. F(Npf, V) = –49.06 8. Total Flood L&e
F(NP1, S.) = 62.72 Average case = 5,650,000 X 16 = 298 months
10,000 x 30.4
F(NP, , ~o,jpw) = – 10.78
lvhimum case = 3,270,000 X 22 = 237 months
h (Npp/Npf) = –49.06 + 62.72 – 10.78 10,000 x 30.4
= 2.88 Maximum case = 8,940,000 X 10 = 294 months
or NPP/NPJ = 17.8 percent 10,000 x 30.4

Therefore, Because of the basic assumption that it will take

less water to produce more oil, total flood life in the
Npp = 0.178 X 5,650,000 maximum case is lower than in the average case.
= 1,007,000 bbl 9. Flood Performance Curves

From Fig. 6-A: A summary of calculated parameters for this particu-

lar flood is given in Table 5. A trial-and-error method
(NpP/Np~),,,in = 13.6 percent is used to calculate three performance curves (shown
in Fig. 8). It should be noted that the flood selected
(NrJN,~)rn.x = 21.5 percent for this example had been affected a little by an
adjacent waterflood even before water injection in the
N pp~i. = 445,000 bbl
area was begun. As a result, the response to the flood
N PPmnx = 1,932,100 bbl. was much more rapid than that predicted by ECM.
However, the predicted average peak rate and the
7. Time To Recover 75 Percent of Flood Od time to peak Ate closely match those of the actual
Again, by a t.fial-ancl-error solution, t,,, average = flood. J_PT
113 months.
From Fig. 7-A: Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Aug. 7, 1970. Revised manuscript received Feb. 2, 1971.
paper (SPE 2931) waa presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
t7~~i. = 72 months held in Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970; and at SPE 41st Annual California
FJegionalFall Meeting, held in Santa Barbara, Oct. 28-30,1970.
@ ~P;fi@~ IG71 Amefican lnafit@eof Mining, Metallurgical, and
= 160 months
t,smax FWrolaurn Engkers, 1nc.

573