Waterflooding Surveillance and

Monitoring: Putting Principles Into Practice

Martin Terrado, Suryo Yudono, and Ganesh Thakur, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Summary
This paper illustrates how practical application of surveillance and
monitoring principles is a key to understanding reservoir performance and identifying opportunities that will improve ultimate oil
recovery. Implementation of various principles recommended by
industry experts is presented using examples from fields currently
in production.
Practices in processing valuable information and analyzing data
from different perspectives are presented in a methodical way on
the following bases: field, block, pattern, and wells. A novel diagnostic plot is presented to assess well performance and identify
problem wells for the field.
Results from the application of these practices in a pilot area
are shared, indicating that the nominal decline rate improved from
33 to 18% per year without any infill drilling. The change in the
decline rate is attributed primarily to effective waterflood management with a methodical approach, employing an integrated multifunctional team.
Although the suggested techniques can be applied to any oil
field undergoing a waterflood, they are of great value to mature
waterfloods that involve significant production history. In these
cases, prioritization is a key aspect to maintain focus on the opportunities that will add the most value during the final period of
the depletion cycle. Case studies illustrating the best surveillance
practices are discussed.
Introduction
Surveillance and monitoring techniques were first discussed in
SPE literature in the early 1960s (Kunkel and Bagley 1965). Since
then, several highly recognized authors have published related
materials (Thakur 1991; Thakur and Satter 1998; Talash 1988;
Gulick and McCain 1998; Baker 1997, 1998; SPE Reprint 2003).
Industry experts recommend the following valuable principles:
The key ingredients of any surveillance program are planning
and accurate data collection.
To understand reservoir flows and reduce nonuniqueness
in interpretations, it is crucial to implement a multilevel surveillance effort.
A single technique in isolation is not generally indicative
because different parameters can cause similar plot signatures.
Controlled waterflooding through the use of pattern balancing requires time and technical effortsengineering and geologicalduring the life of the project.
Valuable insights into the performance of the waterflood can
be gained from individual-well plots such as Hall plots.
Surveillance techniques should always be a precursor to indepth studies, including numerical simulation.
A process to consistently evaluate the performance of a reservoirfrom field to block to pattern to well levelis discussed
with the help of real-life examples. Type plots and maps are used
to identify opportunities and promote team discussions to effectively manage a reservoir undergoing waterflood. Production history and basic reservoir characterization serve as primary input
variables for the recommended analysis.

Copyright 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 102200) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 2427 September, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 6 July 2006. Revised manuscript received 20
May 2007. Paper peer approved 16 June 2007.

552

Table 1 describes the main characteristics of the fields presented as examples.

The first example is from El Trapial field in Argentina. This
sandstone reservoir is located onshore, with a primary-drive
mechanism of solution-gas drive. The average permeability and
porosity are 75 md and 17%, respectively. The field was discovered in 1991, and water injection started in 1993.
The second example corresponds to the Bangko field located in
Indonesia. This sandstone reservoir is located onshore, with aquifer support. The average permeability and porosity are 530 md and
25%, respectively. The field was discovered in 1970, and water
injection started in 1992.
The third example corresponds to the Meren field located in
Nigeria. This sandstone reservoir is located offshore, with a
mixed-primary-drive mechanism, including aquifer support and
gas-cap expansion. The average permeability and porosity are
1,000 md and 27%, respectively. The field was discovered in 1965,
and water injection started in 1984.
A Multilevel Approach
After reviewing many waterflood case studies, one of the key
lessons learned is to use a methodical approach to understand
where the opportunities exist, thus preventing the implementation
of biased action plans or hastily-made judgments. This is especially important in the current environment, where optimization of
human and capital resources is a critical issue.
The proposed procedure goes from a large scale to the detailed,
as follows.
Field Level. When looking at a field under waterflood, the first
intent should be to determine the overall health of the asset. The
following are the key aspects to investigate:
1. What is the primary-drive mechanism or mix of mechanisms?
2. What is the current recovery factor, and how many pore
volumes of water have been injected?
3. How is the static reservoir pressure behaving through time?
4. What are the monthly and cumulative voidage-replacement
ratios (VRRs)?
5. How is the total fluid production behaving (i.e., is it increasing, flat, or decreasing)?
6. How is the gas/oil ratio (GOR) performing?
7. What are the water-production and water/oil-ratio trends?
8. What is the water-injection rate, and how does it compare
to the total reservoir voidage in reservoir barrels?
9. How much excess capacity is available for production and
injection? Will field improvement be restricted by limitations of
current facilities?
10. How do the productivity and injectivity per well compare?
11. Is injection greater than or less than the fracturing pressure?
Does the fracturing pressure change from one part of the field to
another? Does it change as a function of the reservoir pressure in
a given part of the field?
VRR. VRR through time will give an idea of whether enough
water is being injected and is available in the field. Both monthly
and cumulative values should be monitored. When monthly VRR
is greater than 1.0 unity and reservoir pressure is not increasing,
out-of-zone injection loss from the target zone or severe thieving
is suspected. When monthly VRR is less than 1.0 unity and reservoir pressure is not decreasing, influx of fluids is suspected (e.g.,
aquifer influx into the control area). Plotting the oil rate (log scale)
vs. time along with the VRR vs. time helps one understand the
relationship between these two variables.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 1 shows El Trapial field, where a direct relationship between VRR and oil-production rate is observed. Oil rate declines
when VRR drops below 100%, and it improves when VRR is close
to or greater than 100%. It is important to mention that no aquifer
support exists in this field.
The second example, shown in Fig. 2, corresponds to Bangko
field, where aquifer support does exist. It shows that oil rate is not
as dependent on VRR as in the first example.
The last example, shown in Fig. 3, corresponds to Meren field,
where some aquifer support exists.
Mapping. Time-lapse maps of GOR, water cut (Wcut), and
dynamic and static pressures are easy to obtain and are ex-

tremely useful. Once these maps are prepared, it is important to

spend a reasonable amount of time looking for the following characteristics:
Areas with low Wcut (<70%), producing GOR above dissolved-gas/oil ratio (Rs), and low static pressures should be assigned a high priority. Solutions to these cases include incrementally increasing the injection rates, drilling new injectors, or converting producers to injectors.
Areas with high Wcut (>95%), GOR similar to Rs, and high
well fluid dynamic levels should be reviewed for pumping off and,
if necessary, reducing the water injection, especially if water is a
scarce resource.

Fig. 1El Trapial field VRR plot showing a direct relationship between VRR and oil rate.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

553

Fig. 2Bangko field VRR plot. Oil rate is not as dependant on VRR as in El Trapial field.

Examination of a dynamic bottomhole-flowing-pressure map

will indicate if producers are being pumped off efficiently. It is
important to keep the levels down to allow maximum pressure
gradient and, therefore, maximum flow between injectors and producers. Additionally, a lower dynamic pressure minimizes crossflow effects between layers.
In calculating theoretical water injection, flood-front maps will
aid in visualizing which areas are mature and which are in need of
more water-injection points. Because there are many assumptions
regarding fluid flow when calculating the flood front (e.g., the
existence of good cement behind pipe), this map should be taken
into consideration on a qualitative basis only.
Figs. 4 through 7 illustrate maps of El Trapial field for a given
date. After a detailed evaluation of these, one concludes that the
waterflood has different levels of maturity. The south is more
mature, with high Wcut, GOR values close to Rs, and static pressure
near original values. At the same time, the north area shows low
Wcut, GOR greater than Rs, and lower static pressures, suggesting
an area with improvement opportunities. Infill drilling and con-

versions could be recommended after looking at the next levels

of evaluation.
Plotting the Total Liquid Production. Examination of the
total-liquid-production trend through time can give insights to
the following:
1. Is the total liquid production flat? Is this because of facilities constraints?
2. Is the total liquid production increasing? If so, how much of
this is owing to new drills and how much is resulting from base
production optimization?
3. Is there a direct relationship between VRR and liquid production?
Fig. 8 shows Bangko field data where maximum facility capacity has been reached at a total liquid rate of 550,000 B/D.
Waterflood optimization under this condition is limited; thus, upgrading the facilities is currently under study.
Fig. 9 shows Meren field data. Notice that VRR has been
above 100% for the last 15 years with an increasing total
liquid production. This has resulted in stable oil rates as seen
in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3Meren field VRR plot.

554

October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 4El Trapial field Wcut map showing contrasting Wcut. High
cuts in the south of the field and low cuts in the north.

Pore Volumes Injected (PVI). Recovery-factor (RF) vs. PVI

plots and Wcut vs. PVI plots are useful in understanding the drive
mechanism and the maturity of an asset. This is a simple exercise
and a useful benchmarking metric.
Figs. 10 and 11, respectively, show these plots for the three
fields presented. Fig. 10 suggests that Bangko field has some aquifer support as implied by the RF value of 22% before water injection. The field office has confirmed this point, based on the
history of pressure support. Fig. 10 also shows an RF for Meren
field of approximately 20% before the initiation of water injection.
This estimate of RF is the result of the gas cap expansion and some
aquifer support in the flanks of the field.
Fig. 11 shows that the Wcut for Bangko field has been approximately 80% from the beginning, a typical characteristic of aquifer
supported fields. By contrast, El Trapial field, which does not have
aquifer support, required approximately 0.4 PVI to reach the same
Wcut level.
Validating the Pattern Configuration. A good exercise to perform at this level is to calculate the average total fluid production
and injection rate per well at reservoir conditions. After doing so,
the I/P ratio is calculated. This value should be close to the one
given by the pattern injection selected for the field. As a reminder,
a five-spot pattern gives a 1:1 I/P ratio, making it necessary to have
one injector for each producer. If the I/P ratio is close to 2:1,
an inverted seven-spot pattern will be optimal, and a 3:1 I/P ratio
will be suitable for an inverted nine-spot pattern (Thakur and Satter 1998).
Table 1 shows the I/P ratios for the three given examples. The
I/P ratio is approximately 2:1 for El Trapial; therefore, an inverted
seven-spot pattern was chosen for the field. Had the decision been
made to develop using a five-spot pattern, the number of injector
wells would have been much higher and unnecessary capital expenditures would have occurred.

Fig. 6El Trapial field static-reservoir-pressure map showing

low values in the north of the field and higher values in the
south of the field.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 5El Trapial field GOR map showing low GORs in the
southeast of the field and higher than Rs values in the northwest
of the field.

In the cases of Bangko and Meren fields, the ratios were

between 4 and 7, indicating a much higher value of injection
relative to production rates. These two cases had peripheral waterfloods with average permeabilities in the range of 0.5 to 10
darcies, higher reservoir continuity and conductivity, and some
aquifer support.
The ABC Plot. When looking at a field with hundreds of
wells, identifying the performance of all wells can be overwhelming. Additionally, well review meetings are usually time consuming and difficult to keep focused. A different approach has been
taken by using a plot called the After-Before-Compare (ABC)
plot. This plot uses well-test production data from two distinct
dates and compares oil and water rate between those dates. The
same dates are used for all the wells.
In the x-axis, the ratio of current water rate to previous water
rate is plotted. In the y-axis, the ratio of current oil rate to previous
oil rate is plotted. Each point in the chart represents a single well
in which several behaviors can be quickly identified:
Wells without change. These are wells that fall within the (1,
1) coordinate point area. It is not necessary to spend time on these
wells as long as they have been tested properly and frequently
throughout the selected period.

Fig. 7El Trapial field flood-front bubble map showing good

injection in the south and opportunities to inject more water in
the north, as depicted by the size of the 2D bubbles.
555

Fig. 8Bangko field total liquid production.

Total-liquid-rate increase. These are the wells that responded

to the water injection. They fall on the 45-slope line and above the
(1, 1) coordinate point.
Total-liquid-rate decrease. These are problem wells. They
fall on the 45 slope line and below the (1, 1) coordinate point.
Team discussions should focus on root causes. The first intent
should be to differentiate if the cause is a result of artificial-lift
efficiency or reservoir conditions.
Wcut increase. These are the wells that fall on the lower right
part of the 45-slope line. This is the expected behavior of wells in
a waterflood asset; however, special attention should be given to
wells falling outside the overall trend. Channeling may be causing
a higher than usual Wcut behavior.
Wcut decrease. These are the wells that fall on the upper left
part of the 45 slope line. This area of the chart will be unpopulated
most of the time. We have learned that new wells may fall in this
area when the initial well test shows high Wcut because of completion fluids that are still being produced.
Fig. 12 shows the El Trapial field ABC plot between April
2003 and July 2003.

A 3-month period has been used for this field. We have learned
that using a shorter period did not show any significant changes for
several wells (i.e., if there is a lack of new well-test data). On the
other hand, choosing longer periods could create difficulties when
trying to identify root causes for changes, especially if the field is
under a large amount of development activity such as workovers,
infill drilling, and injection-rate changes. Therefore, each field will
have an optimum period for analysis depending on well-test frequency and field activity.
Note that the same plot can be used to assess injector-well
performance if wellhead pressure and injection rate are plotted.
This will allow the users to monitor injectivity trends at a field level.
Block Level. The objective of this next level is to evaluate how
efficient the waterflood is performing, thus giving insights into the
existence of future opportunities.
When the field comprises hundreds of wells, it is helpful to
subdivide the field into groups defined by area. The geological
limits of these blocks should be honored, such as faults or hydraulically-known barriers. However, in many instances, it will be

Fig. 9Meren field total liquid production.

556

October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 10Benchmark between fields of recovery factor vs. pore volumes injected.

necessary to use wells as boundaries based on pressure boundaries

or streamline simulation. Each block will include both producer
and injector wells. Although one can decide the number of blocks
depending upon geological features of the reservoir and location of
the wells, it can be as few as five and as many as 100. However,
our experience for these three cases led us to choose the number of
blocks in the range of 5 to 30.
An areal allocation method will be required at this level when
using wells as block boundaries. Geometrical, pore volumeweighted, OOIP-weighted, and angle-based methods are some alternatives. We recommend the motto Keep it simple. Remember
that this level of analysis will give qualitative evaluations to help
identify opportunities.
For fields with a low number of wells (fewer than 50), two or
three blocks may be enough.
In addition to the previously discussed field-level practices, it is
important to think about efficiencies at this point.
Volumetric-Sweep Efficiencies (Evol). Calculating Evol at this
level is recommended. A calculation method proposed by William
Cobb (Cobb and Marek 1997) can be used to obtain Evol from
production data. The proposed formula to calculate Evol is:

Bo*Np
+ 1 So Swc
Vp
Evol =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Swavg Swc
With the calculated values, both for the current stage and for
the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), team discussions should
focus on the following questions:
Is there a wide range of calculated values between blocks?
On those blocks with low Evol at the EUR, is the low value
because of the areal or the vertical efficiency?
Because volumetric-sweep efficiency is the product of areal
(Ea) and vertical (Evert) efficiencies, evaluate the use of tracers to
investigate Ea. Concerning Evert, the use of vertical production and
injection profiles, and fingerprints is recommended.
Focus on extreme performers, high- and low- Evol blocks.
Those blocks with low Evol, steep oil decline, and high GOR
should have the highest potential. Therefore, the evaluation should
focus on putting more water into the reservoir in these areas. The
next level, pattern analysis, will help identify actions such as
changing injection rates, infill drilling, and conversions candidates.

Fig. 11Benchmark between fields of Wcut vs. pore volumes injected.

October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

557

Fig. 12An ABC plot for El Trapial field from before (April 2003) and after (July 2003).

For the other extreme population, when Evol is high, and Wcut
and oil rate are close to the economic limit, proceed to the patternlevel thinking about the benefits of shutting off water, changing
flow paths, and reducing injection.
Fig. 13 shows volumetric-efficiency values calculated from
Cobbs methodology for different blocks in El Trapial field. The
values range from as low as 0.1 to higher than 0.9. Note that the
calculated Evol values are only estimates, as these blocks use allocated pattern rates.
Pattern Level. Pattern-level evaluations will confirm the existence
of the opportunities identified at a block level and will facilitate in
developing an action plan.
Hundreds of patterns may constitute a field. At this point, the
focus should be on the patterns that constitute blocks with potential
improvement opportunities. This is especially important if human
resources are limited in looking at all patterns of the field.
In addition to the higher-level analysis already discussed, it is
important to look at the following factors.
PVI Per Year. It is an industry practice to assume that a waterflooded field will reach its economic limit when 1.5 to 2 pore
volumes are injected (Thakur 1998). Assuming a value of 2 PVI
and an average waterflood field life of 20 years, an average injection of 0.10 PVI/year is obtained. Therefore, it is recommended to
use a range between 0.05 and 0.20 PVI/year and investigate those
patterns that fall out of the range. Patterns with low PVI/year

should go into an opportunity list of patterns that require additional

injection. On the other hand, if the PVI is greater than 0.20 per
year, the opportunity could be to reduce injection.
Recommended Water-Injection Rates. It is recommended to
use injectors as the center of the patterns. Once the pattern is
defined, one can calculate the water injection that is necessary to
achieve the target VRR for each patterna value of injection rate
for optimum waterflood performance at this point in time. The
absolute difference between target and actual injection rates for
each pattern should be minimal or actions will need to be taken to
reduce it further.
If the injection rate is lower than the recommended rate
and pressure is at maximum condition, one should look for
locations within the patterns to drill infill wells and/or convert wells.
Put together an action list that includes
Infill-drilling candidates.
Workover candidates.
Conversion proposals.
Additional water requirements resulting from these proposals
must be identified and discussed with facilities and operations
engineers. This will allow the team to recommend realistic and
timely action plans.
Fig. 14 shows an example from El Trapial field. In the early
stages of injection, the water injection rate was higher than the
VRR recommended to account for the cumulative voidage that was

Fig. 13Volumetric-efficiency calculation by block at economic limit for El Trapial field. Blocks with square or circle legends are
the ones with identified opportunities to improve performance of the field.
558

October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 14Injection-centered pattern-type plot showing target injection rate and oil production.

not replaced. The last several years of injection show injection

rates close to the monthly VRR targets.
Well Level. The well level will be the last level of the proposed
methodical approach. Specific and detailed actions should arise at
the end of it.
Within the key patterns selected, check that producers are
pumped off. If they are not, then this should be the first opportunity to investigate before any additional drilling or workover
is performed.
It is recommended to follow injector-well performance to assess plugging or fracturing of wells with rate and wellhead pressure vs. time. Additionally, use of the Hall (1963) plot to evaluate
injectivity changes is recommended, especially if changes in the
water-injection quality occur.
Well-test frequency should be reviewed and prioritized according to the knowledge gained from this multiphased process, such
as patterns where workovers took place or where water-injection
rates were modified. The team must have confidence in these
measurements because capital expenditures will result from them.

Fig. 15 shows a producer type plot. Waterflood response is

observed when GOR decreases followed through time by total
liquid increase and then a gradually increasing Wcut.
Fig. 16 shows Hall-plot behavior of two wells, one with no
change in injectivity and one with a drastic change that helped the
team identify a problem well with corroded casing and out-ofzone injection.
Optimizing a Waterflood by Use of the
Recommended Practices
The following example from a portion of El Trapial field shows
the results that can be achieved by implementing a good surveillance and monitoring program as described in this paper.
The large drilling activity that took place in the field from 2000
to 2003 triggered inefficiencies in availability of the watertreatment capacity, water-injection distribution system, and electrical power supply. As a result, some parts of the field observed
steep oil declines from the base production. Yearly nominal decline rates as high as 33% were measured.

Fig. 15Production-well type plot showing oil rate, Wcut , and GOR.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

559

Fig. 16Hall-plot examples. Dashed-line case well shows no change in injectivity. Solid-line case well suffered corrosion problems
that caused injection out of zone.

A pilot was set up with the objective of evaluating the benefits

of performing a more focused integrated water-injection management. An area was selected taking into account the following
criteria: low VRR, representative area of the field, confined area,
existence of spare facility capacity, availability to increase water
injection, and feasibility to improve electrical supply conditions.
Fig. 17 shows the location and pattern configuration of the pilot area.
The location of the pilot is in the central part of the main block,
where GOR, Wcut, and pressure maps, along with Evol calculations
at a field level, indicated room for improvement.
Block and pattern analyses were first performed in the area,
resulting in several action items. The work that was performed in
the four inverted seven-spot patterns consisted of remedial workovers in the injectors to ensure that water was going into all layers,
increasing wellhead pressure in the injection wells, and ensuring
that pumped-off conditions were achieved in producers. Additionally, a dedicated crew was assigned to the area, and the highest
priority concerning energy supply was given to the area to ensure
minimum power shortages.
Well-test frequency was critical to assess the results of the
pilot; thus, one test per week was performed in all wells. Both
producers and injectors were included in the plan.
As a result of the described work (see Fig. 18), the VRR ratio
was increased to the desired value, total liquid production rate

Fig. 17Location of El Trapial field waterflood-optimization pilot. Pattern configuration consisted of a confined area with four
inverted seven-spot patterns.
560

increased, and the nominal oil decline rate changed from 33 to

18% per year in a matter of approximately 6 months.
Asking the Right Questions at the Right Level
Table 2 summarizes the different practices that can be helpful to
the reader when diagnosing a fields performance and trying to
identify opportunities.
Appendix A contains a list of questions recommended as guidelines to identify areas of improvement for each level.
Challenges
Some of the challenges that the authors have often faced when
performing surveillance and monitoring evaluations include
Differentiating oil response because of base production or
infill actions when significant activity is taking place in the field.
Allocating fluid production and injection vertically when
commingled production occurs.
Tracking the fluid flood front and improving areal and vertical sweeps.
Conclusions
Following a methodical surveillance and monitoring process from
field to block to pattern to well levels, these conclusions are drawn:
1. Practical applications of surveillance and monitoring principles
have led to arresting base decline rates in many fields operated
by Chevron. For example, following this approach, the base
decline rate decreased from 33 to 18% per year in the pilot area
of El Trapial field.
2. The paper outlines guidelines for asking the right questions at
the right level (field, block, pattern, and well). By following
these guidelines, we can improve the performance of a waterflood significantly.
3. Multidisciplinary teamwork in collecting and analyzing surveillance and monitoring data and implementation of the joint recommendations are keys to managing waterfloods successfully.
Nomenclature
Bo oil formation volume factor at start of waterflood,
RB/STB
Ea areal-sweep efficiency, fraction
Evert vertical-sweep efficiency, fraction
Evol volumetric-sweep efficiency, fraction
Np oil production since start of waterflooding, bbl
Rs dissolved gas/oil ratio, scf/bbl
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 18El Trapial field reliability pilot-project results.

So oil saturation, fraction

Swavg average water saturation in the water swept zone,
fraction
Swc connate-water saturation at start of waterflood, fraction
Vp floodable pore volume, bbl
Wcut water cut, percent
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chevron and the business units that shared
their examples: Latin America, Indonesia, and Africa. In addition,
we would like to express our sincere appreciation to many colleagues at Chevron, especially H.J. Payne, J.D. Dolan, N. Vrubel,
T. Perinot, P. Berri, R. Cobeas, N. Marot, A. Pitts, Donny and
W.T. Lackey.
References
Baker, R. 1997. Reservoir Management for WaterfloodsPart I. J. Can.
Pet. Tech. 36 (4): 2024.
Baker, R. 1998. Reservoir Management for WaterfloodsPart II. J. Can.
Pet. Tech. 37 (1): 1217.

Cobb, W.M. and Marek, F.J. 1997. Determination of Volumetric Sweep

Efficiency in Mature Waterfloods Using Production Data. Paper SPE
38902 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
58 October, San Antonio, Texas. DOI: 10.2118/38902-MS.
Gulick, K.E. and McCain, W.D. Jr. 1998. Waterflooding Heterogeneous
Reservoirs: An Overview of Industry Experiences and Practices. Paper
SPE 40044 presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition of Mexico, 35 March, Villahermosa, Mexico. DOI:
10.2118/40044-MS.
Hall, H.N. 1963. How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well Performance.
World Oil October: 128130.
Kunkel, G.C. and Bagley, J.W. Jr 1965. Controlled Waterflooding, Means
Queen Reservoir. JPT 17 (12): 13851390. SPE:1211-PA. DOI:
10.2118/1211-PA.
SPE Reprint Series No. 56. 2003. Waterflooding. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Talash, A.W. 1988. An Overview of Waterflood Surveillance and Monitoring. JPT 40 (12): 15391543. SPE: 18740-PA. DOI: 10.2118/18740PA.
Thakur, G.C. 1991. Waterflood Surveillance TechniquesA Reservoir
Management Approach. JPT 43 (10): 11801188. SPE: 23471-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/23471-PA.
Thakur, G.C. and Satter, A. 1998. Integrated Waterflood Asset Management. Houston: PennWell Publishing Co.

Appendix AQuestions for Each Level of

Analysis
Field: Overall Health of the Asset.
What is the oil-rate (log scale) vs. time plot showing? It is
recommended to make a plot of oil rate vs. cumulative oil and to
note the observed behavior in the oil-rate vs. time plot.
What level of VRR is needed to maintain reservoir pressure?
If no aquifer support exists, a target value of 110% is recommended as a starting point. In some cases, such as highly depleted
reservoirs, this value could be significantly higher.
Is the water-injection-rate target being achieved?
Is there a clear relationship between the VRR and the totalliquid- and oil-production rates?
Is the pattern configuration appropriate? Is this consistent
with the drive mechanism and the I/P ratio? Has the decision of
inverted nine-spot, inverted seven-spot, five-spot, line-drive, or
peripheral pattern been made on the basis of appropriate pattern
selection analysis?
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

561

 What does the ABC plot show? Are there indications of

water channeling? How about wells with total liquid decrease
or increase?
Which areas of the field show opportunities when looking at
the GOR, Wcut, and pressure maps?
Block: Evaluating the Waterflooding Efficiency and Looking
for Opportunities.
When comparing PVI plots for different blocks, are the
trends similar?
What is the VRR for different blocks?
Is there a wide range of volumetric-sweep efficiencies? Is
this consistent with the field-level maps?
Do some blocks show opportunities to improve waterflood performance?
Pattern: Refining and Prioritizing the Opportunities.
Are there any patterns in need of incremental water injection
or by contrast, is excess water being injected in any patterns?
Is the PVI/year within a reasonable range?
Should more wells be drilled (both producers and injectors)?
Should more conversions (from production to injection) be performed?
Can actions be drafted to address the opportunities? For example, new drills, workovers, or injection-rate changes?
Has a discussion between team members taken place on actions prioritization? What is the availability of water, rigs, electrical power, personnel, and facilities?
Well: Detailed Action Planning.
Are the producers being properly pumped off?
Are the injectors showing abnormal injectivities because of
plugging or fracturing?

562

Is there a clear action plan to monetize the opportunities?

Have operations, facilities, and management discussed and
agreed with this plan to ensure alignment?
Martin Terrado works as technical team leader for Chevrons
North America Exploration and Production Company. He
works specifically with the Sundown/Mabee/Andrews Technical Team in the Permian Basin and he has 11 years of experience in light oil and gas fields. Terrado holds a BS degree in
petroleum engineering from Buenos Aires Technical Institute
and an MBA degree from Universidad Austral in Argentina.
Ganesh Thakur works as reservoir management global adviser
and fellow for Chevron Energy Technology Company in Houston. He is currently responsible for championing reservoir management technologies and practices throughout Chevron.
Additionally, Thakur is responsible for mentoring professionals,
developing relationships with national oil companies, and serving as a technology ambassador worldwide. He served as first
technical Director, Reservoir Description and Dynamics, for the
SPE Board of Directors. Thakur received the SPE Reservoir Engineer of the Year Award in 2005. He holds a BS (with honors)
degree in petroleum engineering from the Indian School of
Mines; an MS degree and PhD degrees in petroleum and natural gas engineering; an MA degree in mathematics from Pennsylvania State University; and an MBA degree from Houston
Baptist University. Suryo Yudono has worked as a reservoir engineer at Chevron Energy Technology Company in Houston
since 2006. His specialty is in waterflood management. He has
10 years experience in the oil industry that includes data management, reserves and planning engineering, and reservoir
engineering. Yudono has been involved in waterflood development for several fields. He earned his BS degree in petroleum engineering from Pembangunan National University in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering