AREAL SWEEP EHI?

ICIENCYINCREASES
BY SCHEDULED CHANGES OF INJECTION-PRODUCING PATTERNS

, By,

Dave T! Oakes and W. H. Bunch

Members AIME
. .

Monsanto Company
Texas City, Texas
.

ABSTRACT
Results and procedures are presented which demonstrate a novel
means of changing the injection and producing pattern (rotatio~)<
to inorease substantially the areal sweep efficiency and recovery
during pattern,water flooding. Two type$ of laboratory tests were
made. One series was made on sand-paoked areal models utilizing
oil and water solutions with an oil-water viscosity ratio of approxi-
mately 1. A second series of tests was made on Hele-Shaw (fluid
~ mapper) models ,utili-zing
glyoerol solutions to represent both oil
and water with mobility ratios of 1, 3.5 and 9.2.
Based on the sand-pauked modelstudies, itts oonoiudedthat by in-
Jeoting into the center well a volume of water equal to approximately
5@ of the volume normally required for breakthrough, then tiotati.ng
the injec!tion!intoa diagonal oppo~ite well, the areal sweep
effictqncy at.breakthroughand at a water-oil ratio of 90:1 is in-
creased 5-8@ as comparedto conventional five-spot flooding. This
oil reoovery of about 6-%.
would mean an inore,asei.n

From the.fluid mapper studies-it is ooncluded tha~: (1) at a

mobility ratiioof 1, the areal sweep efficienoyis inoreased by
approximately l~o by ascheduledro$ati.onthat does not entail
Mititting
i-ntfiedentierwell~ but maintains a given injeotlon ratio- -
(1:5,9) be$weenthe,oenter and offset,diagonalwells; (2) at a
mobility ratio of 1, the areal sweep efficiency of an inverted .nine-
spot rotated to a five-spot is also increased by approximately l~;
(3)the areal sweep efficiency at adverse mobility ratio iS reduced
 -2-

INTRODUCTION
The recovery of oil from a reservoir is dependent on the vertioal
conformance efficiency, the unit displacement efficiency, and the ,
areal sweep efficiency. ,..-..
The problem of increasin~oil recovery from a typical reservoir
has generally been attacked by devising some means for reducing
the restdual oil in that portion of the reservoir which is flooded,
However, the fraction of the reservoir contacte~ in the displace-
ment process is of comparable, major importance since it is appli-
cable to all reservoir oil displacement operations.
Data are presented which demonstrate increased areal sweep efficiency
as compared to conventional five-spot pattern flooding, by variation
In the injection scheduling during a flood.
..
EXPERIMENTAL WORK

General
The experimental work on this project is divided into two phases:
(1) displacement tests on sand-packed, five-spot models (along with
attendant displacement efficiency test~ on sand-packed,linear
models), and (2) displacement tests on Hele-Shaw models (fluid
mapper models). - -
Equipment and Materials
Triangular shaped models were used to represent aunit segment
out of eithcb a five-spot or nine-spot flood pattern as indicated ~
in Figure l?, .
The sand-packed models were prepared:by packing cleanl?ilooxBand
(170-325,mesh) from an outcrop near Sulphur, Oklahoma, into a tri-
angular shaped lucite box. The sand was compacted by mechanical
vibration. In addition, the lucite triangular model was heated to
the softening po}ntand bonded to the sand grains using external
pressure.
. .
The fluid mapper models were Constructed of triangular shaped glas$
pla$~a ground to. fit .to.oneanother. ..A polyethylene gaskelzmatn-
tained the thin space between the glass plates and served as,a {
barrier at the boundary. - The plates were supported by a metal,frameti , .
Data on these fluid mapper
., models are summari.z6din Table 1,
,
oil andwater solut~onswith an oil-water .vt,soosity
ratto of:l.02
4 .-
to .l~l.~
were.used in.the displacement %e.stson sand-packed..
mciielsi.&----

Glycerol solutionp with viscositi~8~7~7~l~c~ w~used to
..
, .
.(

,,
,,...
 -3-

represent oil and water in the fluid mappe~ di.splaoementtests.

By addingglyoerol to distilled water to increase the fluid
viscosity it was possible to obtain the desired mobility ratios
of1.0, 3.5 and 9.2. Methyl violet was added to the glycerol
solution that represented the water so that the displacement could
be observed,
Figure 2 is a schematic view of the experimental set up for the
displacement tests on sand-packed models. The experimental set
up for the fluid mapper experiments was similar except the model
was plaoed on a light box and a camera was mounted above the
model.
Procedure (Sand-Packed Models)

The model was saturated with brine by evacuating the model and
flushing wfth C02 twice. Then degassed brine was flowed into the
model under pressure. The model was weighed both dry and saturated
to obtain the pore volume. Connate water saturation was obtained
by flooding with approximately 2-3 pore volumes ofthe oil mixture.
The amountof water produced was recorded. Fluid saturations were
calculated from.weight determinations and checked by volumetric.
data. The model was next flooded with the degassed.brine. The
oiland water produced were recorded as a function Of time to a
high wateI?-Oil ratio (approximately 100:1); In the rotated tests
the injection into the center or primary well was Stopped at some
fraction of estimated breakthrough and the injection was Irotatedtt
or switchedinto one of the wellsthat had been a producing,well.
Iv a fully developed pattern flood this wouldbe two diagonally
wells. The center well that had been the primary injection
oppo,tiite ,
well was left shut-in. ;
1
Prooedure (Fluid Mapper .Models~ ;,
.
The model was first flooded with a clear glycerol solution to re-
present the oil, ,Next the model was flooded with dyed glycerol
solution to represent the water. Photographs of the flood advance
were taken at various time inurements. Breakthrough was selected
.as that point when the fluid reaohed the produoing well,or wel18
as determined visually. f
.-
The breakthrough Sw-eepefficiimoycalcul~tion= were mad;from a
at breakthrough. A plani-
enlargement of the photo made exac,tly,
meter was used to measure the area of the triangular-segment
swept (invaded or covered by dyed glycerol solution).
Model Scalin~. ~ , .
!_=. : ..... .-_._.- .-G .... ---
f
i,,: Laboratory-mpdelsare used to study tlie.
,behavior Of a reservoir.
; One--difficultyof such experimbntsis that great oaremta&tbe
i-
J . exera,isedin selecting the conditions and.interpreting the rdSults
\ of suoh te~ts as they may be misleading when applied to the field.
 -4-

The scaling laws of Rapoporti(13, 15) were applied in the tests

on the sand-packed models. None of the published work available
on fluid-mapper models present any data on scaling coefficients.
An attempt was made to scale based on equations given in Muskat (9)
for the classical hydrodynamic fluid carrying capacity oinarrow
rectangular channels. However, this type calculation gave im-
practical values for fluid viscosities and/or thickness of the space
between plates.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A series of displacement tests was made on sand-packed five-spot
models to determine if the areal sweep efficiency could be in-
creased by changing the injection pattern during the flood. The
models used in these displacement tests simulate a uniform, hori-
zontal formation of conptant t.hicknes.s
with fullY Penetrating wells.
The system ise.ntirelyliquid.saturated and gravity effects are
assumed to be negligible.
Originally it was hoped that the areal sweep efficiencycould be
calculated from.visual ob~ervations using a dye in one of the
phases. However, due to adsorption of the dye it was impossible
to $O11OW the water advance accurately. Accordingly, it was
necessary to make displacement tests on linear models to determine
the displacement efficiency so that the areal sweep efficiency of
the five.-spotfloodscould be calculated. t
On the linear displacement tests is was assumed that the vertical
o,onformanceefficiency (Eve) and the a~eal sweep efficiency (Eas)
were unity. Therefore> the recovery; % oil in place (% Ozp) was a
measure of the unit.displacement effici.ency4(Eud).

,,
Total Recovery = OIP x Ev~ x Eas X Eud .,, (1) .

Total Recovery
Recovery, % OIP = - Oil in Place x 100. (2)

since Evc and Eas= 10@o

..
Total RecoverY ~ 100 = Recovery, * OIp
oil in Place (3)

.Then. for the five-smot rnod@lit was assumed that vertical con-
`--~urmanY6--ef>-ic-ien6y-was-~s-ttl1l-'-3O@-and-t-hGun.it-tiSplaaQmut ~ . ...
efficiency woqld be equal -to that cal:cula,ted -from linear runs
Thu,s,the arealsweep efficiency i.sequal,tO ., , ,

------- >-.. . . . ..... . -----
.::.-&.-.--, ,.-:.-~ :.- --- .-r~.=
,_:-~ ,,----
~-
-1. . . . .
. . . .
.
..--
.
.e
. .
--
. .
..
. ..

-.- --=
-.
. . ..

......:......-.
:.
=..._. ... . . -.:

. . . ... . ..-
. . . . .

.. . . . . . .. .
. . .-..,

: :-. ..------
+ .. .

..-. T:_,.
. . . . . . . .

.. .
. . .

-.--_-G._;_
. .<i . . _...

>=_
. ..-

., . .
..:-- .........
. . .. .
..L_=
.. A. --- .. -- .-<.
-.+
; .- :.:._-.<.
,

::.:.
+
.: -=..
;

I &@: ..... ..+...+ -..-.>...

. ..-

--- - ,- .. . . . ---- .. . . . . . . .
.
. .
...>. ,.~>., ,.
-7s . # .<
.=-,.-, --7,..... .. ..- :.: & -.2. ..,,,-+
..
..5-J -..
. . ., .-.. :.-?. -.,,-.
. , ?- .--L ... -. T .-. ., .-.:-.. ~ :.._ >.. +< . ..7..-
>.
-,:..-
{.
.-> ......+...-.,-
. .. .. ... :.!. ~
:-
-. =-.-z:--- 2 .-s=:+:L:,&;
.,

- ~ >:: i
___ . .: J-.: .+.:.:. =. -a .. ..__
... . .--=:.,- >.; -.
--- .?. v.
:.>:T: ,,=. .
.:& ,- _ ~... . . .=, .,..........___...,
>r____ ..... . . ... s.-: .:..< -_.-s _-~. ,2.:.:. & .- : . ...=.. ...
.. . .;_
: J .. . -
 ..
~ -5-

Recwery, $ OTP (4)

Eas = Eud .

In the sand-packed displacement tests a water-oil ratio of5 was

water breakthrough than first water
selected as a better value of.
,productio,n.
.,
Figure 3 is a plot ofcumulative oil recovery, % OIP, versus
lrotationll
for the displacement tests on sand-packed models.
Figure 4 is a plot Or areal sweep efficiency versus rotation
for the displacement tests on sand-packed models. These data show
that both the recovery and the areal sweep efficiency are increased
approximately 5% over that for a conventional five-spot flood when
the injection was rotated at 5C@ of estimated breakthrough.
, Originally, it was intended that some displacement tests be in-
cluded in which the injection was llrotatedfl
without stopping the
injection into the central injection well. Also, because most oil
reservoirs do not contain an oil that will give a 1:1 oil-water
viscosity ratio, we planned to make ~everal runs at adverse vis-
cosity ratios. However, the time required to clean, dry, saturate
with water, saturate with oil, and then.flood
the sand-packed
models was excessive and a simplen or.shorter method of solution
seemed necessary.
Other investigators (3, 8) have indicated that a fl!~ldmapper
model could be used to determine areal,sweep etficienciesfor
different patterns or well spacing and\or mobility ratios. There-
fore, this type of model was selected.
.
Table II i-s a summary of the fluid mapper displacement tests.
Figure 5 compares Our breakthrough areal sweeP efficiencies for a.
five-spot flood with those reported in the literature. .These
sweep efficiencies are plotted versus mobility ratioj M, which is
defined as the ratio of the mobility of thq displacing
-., to that of
the displaced fluid. ;,. .,
I?OPmiscible ?iIsplacementtherelative ~ermeability of both phases
is the same and M is reduced 10flo~w Or oil-water visaositY ratio.

Figure.g.contalqs draw+ng pgf=photographss

hewing breakthrough
for conventional five-spot flotidsat rnobil-ity
ratios of l;O;3.5 ~
and 9.2. Figure 7 contains drawings~of photographs showing.bre~- -.
tihroughf~rrotated floods at mobility ratios Of1.0.

The fluid mapper model.hae the advantages that.a number of diff~tien~ ~

L.. d.isplacementt
est.s oan.be.run in a fairly
... short time and that the,
d$sp~aoem~~ts may be tam~isuazry~woma-v-ep~f-t-:hatitne- -
.disadvantage@fnot prbviding q_uanti$atively watOr-o$lratio data ,.
.-,:
, on a testithat iscarried past breakthrough. . .
r
 -6-

For example, the areal sweep efficiency of a conventional,five-

spot flood continues to increase after breakthrough and as a
reSUlt Ofthis, additional oil is recovered after breakthrough.
The oaloulated areal sweep efficiency of the fluid mapperdis-
placement tests rotated at 5@0 or 75% of breakthrough compares
favorably with the displacement tests which were rotated at 11*
of breakthrough followed by a 1:5.9 injection ratio (based on
volume)and the inverted nine-spot rotated to a five-spot. How.
ever, from visual observations of these floods, the latter two
would be much more practical because the water-oil ratio will not
be &s biga problem.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Sand-packed model studies, it is concluded that by
injecting into the center well of a five-spot a volume of water
equal to approximately 5@ of the volume normally required for
breakthrough, then lrotatingf
the injection into diagonally opposite
wells, the areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough and at a water-
oil ratio of 90:lis increased 5-WO as compared to conventional
five-spot flooding. This corresponds to,an increase in oil recovery
of about 6-~,
From the fluid mapper studies it is concluded that: (1) at a
mobility ratio of1.0, the areal sweep efficiency is increased-by
approximately lC@ by a scheduled rotation that does not entail
shutting in the center w611, but maintains a given injection ratio
(1:5,9: between the center and offset diagonalwalls; (2) at a
mobility ratio of 1.0, the areal sweep efficiency of an inverted
nine-spot rotated to a five-spot is also,~ncreasedby approximately
l~~; (3) the areal sweep,effi~ien~y at adverse mobilitv ratio is
reduc~d due to viscous fingering. However, an increase in sweep ,
efficiency over conventional five-spot flooding continues to be
bbserved on the l[rotatedl
tests. ,.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Monsant~.Company for permission to
, publish this paper.

,.

..... &
 -7-

REFERENCES
1. Aronofsky,J.: *lMobilityRatio-Its Influence on Flood
AIME(1952),
Trans.
Patterns During Water Encroachment,i -

. 2. Arcmoisky,J.: ltMobllity Ratio-Its Influence on Injection

and Production History of 5-Spot Water Floods,tITrans. AIME
(1956), 207,p. 205.

3. Cheek, R. E. and Menzie, D. E.: iFluidMapper Studies of

Mobility Ratio,tlTrans.
. AI~ (1955), ~, P. 278.
4. Craigj Geffenj and Morse: tOilRecovery Performance on
Pattern Gas or Water ln~ection Operations from Model Tests,
!?ransAIME (1955), ~, P. 7,.

5* Crawford: IFactorsAffecting Waterflood Pattern Performance

and.Selection,fJourna1Petroleum Technology (December, 1960),
12, p. 11.
6. Dyes, Caudle, and Erickson: Oil ProductionAfter Break-
through as Influenced by MobilityRati-o,[
Trafis.AIME (1954),
~: p. 81.

7. Habermann: lTheEfficiency of Miscible Displacement as a

Function of Mobility Ratio,iJournal.Petroleum Technology
(November; 19$0),.Q, pi264.
f
8. Hauber and Menzie: ~Predicting,Water Flood Behavior,~lPetroleum
Engineer (Aptii.1,
1956),,P; B-105.

9* MUskat: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill

. Book-Co., N. Y, (~949), P*24~m

10. Mu skat: *TheTheory of Nine-SpotFlooding Networks,tProducers

Monthly (March, 1948), ~, p. 14.
11. Oakes: U, S. Paye:t No. 3,113,617 -Second~ry Recovery Technique
(December 10, 1963). ~
. -12. Recovery.Technique......
Oakes: U* S, P~tent-No, 3~li-3~618.--.Secondary.
.(December10, 1963)..
. . . .
.-
13. Rapoport: fScalingLaws fol?
Use in Designand Operationof
Trans. AIME (1955),.204,
Wat&@3il Flow Models,ll- . p. 143.
G-. _
---147 R-apC3pur%-,-W~f3n B+r Laba~at.6~yQ.t.uQt*-tiaSPo~ -. -
t6-~,--a.ndL6a
Trans..kZME
W@tey ?lood PeuformaneeS1t (1958), ~, P. 113..,. .
.. .. ,-
.
11
.15.- Propertiti~of LihearWater FloodS~
Rapoport and L,e{as: . :
. .. . .
.. Transc AI~ (1953),= .. P;.139. <
.. 1 i ..
 -. -- .....-..... . .. . .. - <-.. .. . . ---. .-

16. Slobod and Caudle: lX-RayShadowgraph Studies of Areal

Trans. AIME-(1952),
Sweep-out Efficiency,tt
Smith and Nobles: [TwoStage Modified Nine-S ot Flooding
Procedure,l[Producers Monthly (December, 1958Y , p. 33.

,Q@

-. .

,.
.. . .. .. . .

.. ; -
-.,
-, ,
,.
 -9-

TABLE I

SUMMAilYOl?MODEL PROPERTIES

Sand-Packed Pattern Models (Triangular)

Nettability Length,cm Thickness cm Pore Vol. cc

* r,
water wet 15.2 on each 1.1 50.7
side of 90 angle

Sand-Packed Linear Models

Wettabllity Length cm Diameter cm Pore Vol. cc

water wet 17.78 4.44 97.8

water wet 15,24 3.49 49:05

water wet 88.5 2.54 ~ 163.2

Fluid-Mapper Model (Triangular)

Len~th, Inches Thickness, Inches.

,
6 on each side .003 to-,010
...
of 90 angle ,

. . . .

. .
,, .,
-.
 -1o-

TABLE II

. i
SUMMARY OF FLUID MAPPER DISPLACEME~ TESTS i\
..!
Areal Sweep Efficiency vs.
Type Test MobilityRatio . ..

1 3*5 9.2

Conventional Five-Spot Flood 72.8 52.9 45.1

Rotated @ .25 Breakthrough 80

.40 86

50 85 5f.8

75 88

Rotated @ .05 of Breakthrough

1:8 (time) Injection Ratio 90

Rotated @ .05 of Breakthrough

1:20 (time) Znjection Ratio 85
,. Rotated@ .10-.12 of Breakthrough
1:5.9 (Vol..)Injeotion Ratio 85 64.8
,,
Inverted 9-Spot Rotated to 5-Spot 88

. . .

.,.
4
. . . .,

- -A . - .-.=--- . .+..L - .---+

.. .- .. . . .

(s
2

CL ,. aJ
m ,
I d
g-.
z
w-- ~ ~~
z.

s
-2&-.
.
. ,
2/
) I+d

,.. -
= A-
f&~
I
--!)-J
.\@Ji

~~?. -, .-.:
-.

-,
-.

.
-

.
:---

.
.

.....
_ ,;+

--

. .

v
,,
. .,
 1
. .- . _. . . .-

--l

bJ
i-
1-
LLl
K
x =
l-.- m
-3 I

d!.. :.
.~.
%!
sf
I

& .,..~
.C#l
I
J- ..._ -.
. . ..~ ~~ ... :

.-
.,
 ..._.
. .------ -. .- -. . . .. ....,- .. . . . -. . ..

w
-J )-
o 1-
U
a
3
m

..

a -A-
ldr I
I 1-

1
&&
cg2E
w=
u @m
-T-
..4 -..:.aj....
1-.
-
- ~. _ --.*. -..

5
u
K
- LL
.
3
I.
-.---.-- . -
a..

. . . . -.-:- -.
 .- .,- .... .... .. . --
h

.
,.

-.

1/:
I

.-

.-

/
I J
,,

,..

. .
.. .- ..,..
>. . ,

o
m
-( .
. . a
o------~
). ..:
. -
) ,;..--- 1.

.
..

.~. l
: !~ ;. .[). ----, p ..,..
: E ,..
~-,.
.

..

. .
.-
.$

,1
-.-
.
.,

.
--
-. ...,
-3~Vlti N.1.
,.
..1!0 /o ,- - ., -- -
~., __
>. >
AWAO03M.
..
..
.,
,, . .
-., ..,- ,--,.-.. . .. . ---- .,. . j. . .
- ...,--,-. . . . . . . . . .-,
, ,. . -.. , ,. . .,- .,-. .
,, .,.... . ..-. .. . ... --- --------- ... .. --- .
-. .. ---- .--, . --------- : --:-c,. -,---
..-. . . . ... . .-+?. ---- - &
..-.-_.
~z .r..: =. ..---k .-.-%- . ...-. .- .= ..:. .. . ;. .. -. ... .-: .: J,-. -. --- . .=. -.. . .- ,-.~ : A+_ .+. ....... . J-: ....-.
...-.
.- :--. .. .. :.=.- : ----- ..-..s: -.. .-2-. . ----- ~. ~ ,. >___ ,-. ,-. -..J.-. .: : .- ., - :.- Q .0 .- .-=
..:.--=-
-.; ..-.-_ ..+: .>- ._ _. ___ :,.==
,$... . ,, , -.. ~y-::,
. ... .- ..:.
.,-
a--i..
, ,+
_= .>.
, .1., .
- ~z ,.
.. -7. . ,,
,,.,..
~:--- :
,.
- .~ . +:.-..,.. , .,.-..,:. ::,, ~~ 7-==
,,=. -,+ ..-..+.
/ .- .,
 , ,_J
.

,)

- .1,..
0 9
9

!-.

I
z
(9
3
u) 0
k, a
s
1-
x
:
-.

.,

(
.,
-0

.,
)
J-
\
.1-

,----- .. . .-
--
t-
.
.. ___
. . . ., t. -
,Om - .T..T=:5: -?-..
.
. ...
-.-q- 0 -----
-.i
11.
,-. ,

. . -
,. ,.
)--:
~. .:.,.
1, ~.
..,, .
 . ..
---
,, ,.

. .
0 .:
I
0
II
P ,,
/
u)
LLl

J 0
>
n

1
I
I
. *[ /

,-

i
./
/_ n
---+---

:/
~,1
//, q

i >
I
*.L.
{ 1
4/
t
.
.
1,
k--=-
i, . . .. . . ..

-.
=-=

j!..i ( i
-
1.
.,..

-,
,.
, .4
(
-

.
,>

I
(
Q.
.
.- - ..

l..
I
I
-

,-
.
~ -Q
. . -- 1+
.
tn
i

. .. ...

.
,, .
 . ..,
,.. . . . . . ..
r 8. ., , -
. . .
.,

., I

.,

,).,

,.

* .,
_-. .
. .

$!
1,

,,
,.
y -- g .,
..
\ ii, ..

.. .. ... ,. ..-. . . .. ...

..-
,

,
, $?j#$= ~~ -: _ +

6 --
2------ *. -.-.. .:
. . . . .,

.- . ....-
/ $*.- .i [ ...
cl
.
.
,. ,. .-.

.E
>

.,-.
.
p.
. ,>
 +- . . . .. . .. . ... ._ ..-. . . .. . . ....-.. .. 1 . . .. --- .

,, ,>.
, 1

,,

..

L
:
a
0
1-
a
IJJ
~
0 I
a i
\

0
r
(9
1 3
cl
a
jr; ! .

z m
m .

.-
,
$
-+. .
,.L
r ,
.
,,.
;- a-) ~.~ ,,,
.d2!L_Q._.~..,. ,. .- +: L: . ----

!.,
=., .>. :... ., . ,4 ~ -.
,}

.-
r . U w ,. ,.

y
-
{:
--=-=? -
.-
.. ~, ~ .. . - ,,,,. ~ ,,.

.-.
.,
.. .-
. . -u)
,

\ . . .. . . . .