Injection-Well Testing To Optimize

Waterflood Performance
D. C. Robertson, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production CO.
C. H. Kelm, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.

Introduction
During the late 1950's and early 1960's, West Texas transient data, and profile data throughout the remaining
waterflood experiences, such as premature water life of the injector.
breakthrough and poor sweep efficiency caused by
improper injection-well operation, indicated the need Objectives and Basis for
for a systematic procedure for optimizing injection-
Injection-Well Testing
well operation.
Many waterflood projects were initiated with The first objective of the systematic injection-well test-
peripheral or other dispersed patterns having a low ratio ing approach is to allow maximum pressure differential
of injection wells to producing wells. During the between the injector and the producer within formation
1960's, when allowables in prorated states started in- fracture pressure restraints. A simple application of
creasing, individual per-well injection rates often were Darcy's law to injection wells shows injection rate to be
increased to keep abreast of increased withdrawals. proportional to pressure differential. Consequently,
These increases sometimes resulted in performance higher injection rates should result in quicker response
problems that indicated the need for a better understand- and higher production rates.
ing of the reservoir and the factors that affect it during For several reasons it is imperative that this max-
waterflood operations. Thus, there evolved a need for a imum pressure differential be attained below formation
systematic procedure for maximizing injection and pro- fracture pressure. First, the fracture caused by injecting
ducing rates, while allowing for adequate surveillance above the formation fracture pressure is not necessarily
of reservoir and operating conditions to preclude any re- limited to the oil pay. Fracturing can be to an aquifer or
servoir damage that might jeopardize waterflood to a nonproductive interval. Thus, injecting above the
recovery. formation fracture pressure can result in significant inef-
This paper presents a philosophy and method for fective injection that, if carried to extremes, could result
injection-well testing for optimizing injection-well op- in less water effectively sweeping the oil pay. Second,
eration, thus maximizing recovery from a given water- when injecting above the formation fracture
flood pattern. Injectivity is optimized by instituting a pressure, the direction of fracturing is not predictable.
planned series of step-rate tests, pressure falloff tests, In many reservoirs there is a preferential direction
profile surveys, and temperature surveys during an ini- of natural permeability or fractures, and although
tial start-up period of about I year, and by continuously the water movement normally is experienced in this
collecting and analyzing rate and pressure data, pressure direction, fracturing in other directions is not pre-

A method for injection-well testing is presented that is designed to optimize injection-well

operating conditions and to maximize oil recovery from a waterflood without causing
unnecessary damage to the reservoir. This is accomplished by instituting a systematic
program for data collection and testing on injection wells.

NOVEMBER, 1975 1337

 cluded.' Thus, premature breakthrough to a producer jection well. The accompanying radioactive tracer pro-
can occur, resulting in poor sweep efficiency. file shows that the water is being injected according to
Formation fracture pressure is exceeded during step- the permeability distribution. This information and this
rate tests and well stimulations. However, since the type of analysis thus can be used to design a workover
time while formation fracture pressure is exceeded is if redistribution of the water is desired.
short, the fractures should heal when the injection pres- The j(mrth objective 4 the systematic injection-well
sure is returned to below formation fracture pressure testing approach is to monitor the extent of vertical
and no permanent harm would be done to the reservoir. fracturing. Pressure falloff tests are used to determine
Step-rate tests with 24-hour or greater steps should be the extent of vertical fracturing. Slopes from plots of
carried out no more than three points beyond the indi- pressure vs the log of shut-in time and plots of pressure
cated formation fracture pressure. Three points beyond vs the square root of shut-in time are used to calculate
the break will define a straight line and will verify that the vertical fracture extent. 6
the fracture pressure has been found. Carrying the test Successive pressure falloff tests are useful to de-
further only extends the fracture unnecessarily and gives termine whether the fracture length is growing with
no more conclusive information. Close coordination be- time. If water injection is supposedly below formation
tween operating personnel and engineers should insure fracture pressure and if successive pressure falloff
that the time above fracture pressure is minimal. tests show the fracture l.ength to be growing, then it is
The second objective of the systematic approach is to advisable to rerun the step-rate test and redetermine
provide early and continuous detection of near-wellbore fracture pressure.
formation damage. Near-wellbore "skin" results in re-
duced injectivity because of the large pressure drop Start-Up Procedure
necessary to overcome formation damage. Thus, time to Initial Conditions
response is increased and oil response rates are reduced.
Formation damage generally is detected by an abnormal The first step in the start-up procedure is to establish an
decline in injection rate at constant injection pressure initial limiting pressure that is below the formation part-
and can be confirmed by running a pressure falloff test. ing pressure. If the well being converted to injection is
The third objective of the systematic injection-well in an area already under waterflood and from which
testing approach is to provide continuous monitoring to there is already some formation fracture pressure data as
insure the proper vertical distribution of water into the a result of step-rate tests, then a limiting pressure can be
pay. Obviously, water injected into nonpay intervals re- selected that is in line with the lowest known fracture
sults in wasted injection fluid and potential reservoir pressure in the immediate area. It is desirable to allow a
energy. Distribution of injected water can be deter- safety margin between the newly set limiting pressure
mined by temperature surveys and radioactive tracer and the lowest offsetting fracture pressure for the fol-
profiles. Temperature surveys give a qualitative dis- lowing reasons: (1) the inability to measure fracture
tribution of water, while the radioactive' tracer surveys pressures from step-rate tests with pinpoint accuracy;
give a quantitative water distribution. 2-5 (2) the inability to control operating pressures precisely,
Vertical distribution of injected water conforming to particularly during the early life of the injector when the
the vertical distribution of the hydrocarbon porosity- relationship between injection rate and pressure are
thickness product in the reservoir should result in max- changing fairly rapidly; and (3) fracture pressures often
imum oil recovery to water breakthrough. However, vary significantly from well to well.
water normally is expected to enter the reservoir accord- In general, a safety margin of about 200 psi, a
ing to the permeability distribution. This is illustrated in number obtained through experience and observation,
Fig. 1, which is a plot of the permeability-thickness and has been found to be satisfactory in West Texas water-
porosity-thickness distributions vs depth in an actual in- flood operations. The safety margin can be varied,
however, depending on the confidence level in past
step-rate testing and on the estimated fracturing pressure
GAMMA NEUTRON
of the new well.
RAY If there are no nearby injection wells, then the frac-
ture pressure of a formation can be estimated from the
instantaneous shut-in pressure noted from stimulation
treatments. Since this method is even less accurate than
ZONE "8" analogy to offsets, a somewhat larger safety margin
!Ph should be used. A safety margin of about 300 psi usu-
RADIOACTIVE TRACER ally is satisfactory.
% OF TOTAL ,. OF TOTAL
20.n. SURVEY
There are correlations in the literature 7 ,H that express
82'.
20.3%
VELOCITY INTERPRETATION normal fracture gradients in pounds per square inch
227% % OF TOTAL
per foot as a function of formation depth. Fracture pres-
029% ZONE "tJ.' WATER INJ sure from offsetting or similar reservoirs also can be
I
used to calculate a fracture gradient for a specific geo-

~
44%

~
graphic area.
51.2"1.
324'. 2039'.
Stabilization
Fig. 1 - Porosity-thickness product and permeability- The second step in the start-up procedure is to achieve
thickness product distribution compared injection rate and pressure conditions that are suffi-
with actual profile survey. ciently stabilized to allow the running of a pressure

1338 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

falloff test, a step-rate test, and a temperature survey. for fracture length, reservoir flow capacity (kwh), and
A degree of stabilization is desired that results in an es- skin effect. Special attention, however, should be given
sentially constant rate or pressure for about 1 month to the existence of wellbore skin. If skin does exist and
with the other (rate or pressure) held constant. If a well there is a need for increased injectivity, then a workover
takes water at a positive surface pressure, then the de- should be performed. Before performing this workover,
gree of stabilization can be measured easily by hold- a temperature survey should be run to detect any gross
ing either rate or pressure constant and measuring the deviations from the desired vertical distribution of in-
other. If rate is held constant, care must be taken that jected water. This will allow design of a workover that
pressure does not exceed the limiting pressure set in the is best suited to correct all problems that might exist. If
previous section. a workover is performed, a pressure falloff test should
In some cases, positive surface pressure may not be be rerun after the workover, before proceeding further
reached by the time stabilization has occurred. Thus, a with the first test series, since more pay may now be
method is needed for estimating when injection stabili- taking water.
zation is expected to occur. Fig. 2 is a plot of dimen- The step-rate test should be run to a sufficiently high
sionless flow rate vs water-bank radius. This plot was pressure to obtain two or three points above the break
developed by making initial flow calculations while point if injection-system capacity permits. The forma-
holding constant all variables except water-bank radius. tion fracture pressure thus obtained, or the highest point
A dimensionless flow rate of I was assumed for a obtained without a break in the step-rate test, should be
water-bank radius of 10 ft. Shown below are the equa- used as a basis for establishing an operating limit for
tions involved in developing the plot. Taking Darcy's each well. Again, some safety margin should be used
equation, between operating pressure and formation fracture to
account for the inability to measure precisely fracture
Q = 7.07 X 1?-3 kwh (Pi -p) , pressure, even with step-rate tests, and the inability to
ILwP,J) In re/ r U' exercise exact rate and pressure control in most field
and rewriting to hold constant all variables except situations. Confidence in operating personnel and the
water-bank radius gives field equipment will dictate the safe limiting pressure
below formation fracture pressure for operating injec-
Q = constant tion wells. A safety margin of 50 psi has been found to
In re/ru. be sufficient for this situation.
The well should now be stabilized for several days
Points along the curve then were calculated as follows: at the new operating limit and a shut-in temperature
survey should be run. Actual reservoir conditions
Q2 = QI In rl/rw . will dictate the optimum shut-in time for running the
In r2/rW temperature survey and achieving maximum defini-
tion; however, 24 to 48 hours is generally a suitable
Thus, a well with a dimensioniess flow rate of 0.3
would have an injection rate 0.3 times the rate it had at shut-in time.
the time the water-bank radius was 10 ft. The calcula- The temperature survey is delayed until after stabili-
tion is of a general nature rather than for a specific field zation at the new limiting pressure so that it will be in-
or project. dicative of the injection-water distribution at actual
Fig. 2 illustrates that, while maintaining a constant operating conditions. A temperature profile obtained at
injection pressure, most of the decrease in injection rate higher or lower pressure conditions might appear
will occur by the time a water-bank radius of ISO ft is somewhat different since the well has a relatively low
formed. Thus, when cumulative injection is sufficient to cumulative injection at this point and since various
result in a 150-ft water-bank radius, "stabilization" zones within the gross pay section still might be at dif-
should have occurred. This stability will only occur at ferent pressures because of different primary depletion
a 150-ft water-bank radius if the water front is advanc- histories. Thus, at this point, injection profiles are fairly
ing evenly throughout the entire pay interval. In actual sensitive to operating pressure with respect to individual
field situations, this even advancement does not occur zonal pressures in the pay section.
because of pemeability variation within the vertical pay If the temperature survey shows a totally unaccept-
section. Thus, a water-bank radius (calculated on the
basis of total net pay) greater than ISO ft is usually re-
quired to achieve an adequate degree of stabilization.
Field experience from West Texas Grayburg and San ~ 1.0
Andres waterfloods indicates 300 ft to be a more real- .9
istic stability point. Of course, it is preferable to actu-
ally measure the degree of stability, using a subsurface
~
u.
fI)
bomb, if necessary. fI)
!oJ
...J
First Test Series Z
o
When stabilization of rate and pressure has occurred, a enz
!oJ
pressure falloff test and a step-rate test should be run. ~ .4~~----~----------------------~
This generally occurs at least 3 months after initial in- o o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
jection since this much time is required to confirm WATER BANK RADIUS, FT.
stability. The pressure falloff test should be analyzed Fig. 2 - Dimensionless flow rate vs water-bank radius.

NOVEMBER, 1975 1339

able profile, such as all of the water going into a thin Although a good deal of testing has been done on
zone or below total depth, remedial work should each well during the start-up period, significant prog-
be performed. ress has been made toward defining several important
reservoir and well characteristics (kh, fracture length,
Second Test Series and formation fracture pressure) and maintaining each
The next step in the start-up procedure is taken when injector at very near its optimum operating condition
the well's cumulative is about twice the stabilized during its first year of operation. This approach has the
value. From a practical standpoint of cost and sched- benefit of maximizing injection and, thus, of hastening
uling, this series of tests should not be started be- response time while not causing damage to the reservoir
fore at least 7 months of injection occurs. At this point, a around the injector that might later jeopardize ultimate
radioactive tracer survey is run, followed by a pres- waterflood recovery or cause severe premature water
sure falloff test and a temperature survey. The radio- breakthrou gh .
active tracer survey is run to obtain a quantitative distri- The reservoir data thus obtained is useful in monitor-
bution of injected water. A temperature survey also is ing and analyzing performance of the waterflood and
obtained during the same series of tests. This allows provides a basis for determining transmissibility data for
comparison of the temperature survey and the radio- use in reservoir modeling and predictions.
active tracer survey so that, in subsequent test series,
only a temperature survey needs to be run. If this sub- Continuous Monitoring
sequent temperature survey is the same as a temperature Economics and manpower often will not allow a com-
survey run in conjunction with the radioactive profile, pany to perform pressure falloff tests on each of its in-
then it can be assumed that approximately the same jection wells monthly, bimonthly, or even annually to
quantitative distribution exists. The pressure falloff test determine wellbore damage and extent of fracturing.
is again analyzed for reservoir flow capacity (kwh), Thus, a method of monitoring is needed. First, for
fracture length, and skin and is compared with the every injection well, it is necessary to maintain a plot,
previous pressure falloff test results. If the latest pres- at least monthly, of the representative injection rate and
sure falloff test indicates a significant fracture length in- pressure during the month. If possible, the representa-
crease, then a new step-rate test should be run to check tive data should be derived from daily readings obtained
the one obtained originally. by field personnel. Diligent observation of rate and
As before, remedial work should be performed to
correct skin problems or significant problems in wa-
ter distribution. If skin continues to be a problem, 4400
injection-water quality and compatibility with the forma-
BEFORE WORKOVER
tion water should be considered as a potential problem.
A significant reduction in the reservoir flow capacity
also might indicate a clay swelling problem in reser-
voirs exhibiting these tendencies. These possibilities
should have been investigated before initiating the wa-
terflood. However, conditions can change and further
laboratory tests would be in order.

Completion of Start-Up
This phase of the start-up occurs at three times the
well's stabilized cumulative injection and at least I year
IS 0 2 3 4 5 S 7 8 9 10
after initial start-up. At this point, a third pressure fall- SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME. VHRS.
off test is run on all injectors and is compared with
the first two tests. As before, remedial action may
be required.
During these tests, one-half the newly converted
4400
wells are again step-rate tested to determine fracture
pressure. If there is a significant change from the previ-
.~ 4000 AFTER WORKOVER
ous step-rate test, then all wells should be step-rate
tested again. It is during the early life of an injector that ui
a:: 3S00
fracture pressure is expected to increase with cumu-
lative injection. 8 ,9 Thus, it is possible that a signifi-
~ = +30 psi
II:! 3200
Il.
cant increase in fracture pressure may be noted and
that all wells will need to be step-rate tested again and
that their operating pressures will need to be adjusted.
~
~
2E 2400
2800
",
"'-
",<>-
~,

This, of course, will allow maximization of rates and , ...... "'0... ......... __ 0...
~
will contribute to quick, early response. If a new
operating pressure is set that is significantly different
I-
a! 2 ---"'---0... __ -0..._-0

from the old one, then another radioactive profile sur- ISOOO!---,----2,-----:3,---4::-----:5:-----:S,-----:::7,------,.8----,--9--10
vey and temperature survey should be run at the new SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT -IN TIME. VHRS.
rate and pressure, since the old profile no longer may be Fig. 3 - Pressure falloff tests before and after workover to
representative. remove skin.

1340 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

pressure curves provides early detection of abnormal falloff tests should be run before and after any remedial
injection-well performance. work to evaluate the results of that work.
If reliable, periodic measurements of bottom-hole in- This last point is illustrated by Fig. 3, which shows
jection pressure and static reservoir pressure can be ob- pressure falloff tests taken before and after an injec-
tained, the routine surveillance can be improved by tion-well workover to correct skin damage. The pres-
regularly calculating the injectivity index. The injectiv- sure falloff data, when plotted on a pressure vs square
ity index is the injection rate divided by the pressure root of time plot, show a pressure drop near the well-
differential to flow in the reservoir. A change in this bore of 584 psi when the early time portion of the
index indicates a change in flow capacity and can be curve is extrapolated back to zero. The amount of skin
useful in detecting formation damage and improvement warranted a small acid stimulation of 3,000 gal in an
(fracturing). It should be noted that changes in flow attempt to remove the damage. Also shown is a plot
capacity do not necessarily indicate a problem but are of the pressure falloff test data after the acid stimula-
often the normal consequence of changing saturation tion. It shows that the near-wellbore pressure drop was
conditions in the reservoir. reduced to about 30 psi. The removal of the skin also is
confirmed by comparing the before and after injection
Periodic Testing rates and pressures.
Injection-well performance curves, along with pressure
falloff tests, step-rate tests, radioactive tracer profile Injection
surveys, and temperature surveys, should be used to Injection Bottom-Hole
monitor injection-well performance. To monitor reservoir Rate Pressure Skin
flow capacity (kwh), skin damage, and fracture lengths, (BWPD) (psi) (psi)
pressure falloff tests should be obtained on wells every Before workover 575 4,084 584
third year. This is not to say that these are the only After workover 830 3,350 30
pressure falloff tests that should be conducted. If there
are indications of wellbore damage at any time, pres- Step-rate tests should be run periodically on injection
sure falloff tests should be run. Of course, pressure wells since it has been found that the formation fracture

- - - - - - - - - - 1 CONTINUOUS MONITORING
I. RATE a PRESS. VS. TIME
2.1NJECTIVITY INDEX DATA

1. POSSIBLESTEP
RATE TEST ON
REMAINING WELLS
2.POSSIBLE PRO-
FILE SURVEY a
TEMF' SURVEY

1.
l'
SET OPER- PRESSURE I RADIOACTIVE H:1. PRESSURE FALL-I
PERIODIC TESTING J
ATING
PRESSURE
1. ANALOGY
FALLOFF TRACER
2 STEP RATE 2 PRESSURE
TEST FALLOFF
OFF TEST
2 STEP RATE TEST
1/2 OF WELLS
I 1. PRESSURE FALLOFF TEST
f
(EVERY 3 YRSJ
2.CORRELA- 3 TEMP 3.TEMP

1I
2. STEP RATE TEST (AS
TIONS SURVEY SURVEY NECESSARY)

~ ~
3. TEMP SURVEYS (ANNUALLY)
4. RADIOACTIVE PROFILES (AS
IPOSSIBLE
WORK OVER
I
POSSIBLE
WORKOVER
II IPOSSIBLE :
WORKOVER
NECESSARY)

~
IPOSSIBLE :
WORKOVER
I

a.
,
::::J
f-
<J) a::
<J)
w
a:w ~
w <J)

a:w <J) lJ..

o
<J) f-
<J) Z
f- W o
<J)
W f- i=
f- a w
f-
z ..J
a.
<J) o
u ~
a:: w o
~ <J) u
~START-UP------~>I
~I__________________~I------------------~I----------~JrJ----~1
o I 2 Ir END OF
APPROX. TIME SCALE (YRS.) PROJECT
Fig. 4 - Schematic diagram of systematic injection-well testing approach.

NOVEMBER, 1975 1341

pressure increases with cumulative injection. This has
not ony been supported theoretically in the literature 8 ,9 Nomenclature
but has been observed in the field. Hence, step-rate h = reservoir thickness, ft
tests should be conducted at various stages of cumula- kw = effective permeability to water, md
tive injection. P = reservoir pressure, psi
Additional step-rate tests should be conducted after Pi = formation-face injection pressure, psi
remedial work. This is especially true if new pay is ex- Q, QIo Q2 = injection rate, BWPD
posed in an injection well since it is possible that not all re , rIo r2 = water-bank radius, ft
zones have the same fracture pressure. If an interval in ru' = wellbore radius, ft
a well is squeezed, a step-rate test probably should be {3u' = water formation volume factor
run only up to the formation fracture pressure indicated /Lw = water viscosity, cp
by previous tests, but not above the previously indicated
break-point pressure. If the break-point pressure is ex- Acknowledgments
ceeded, then the repaired zone might again cause The authors are grateful to Amoco Production Co. for
trouble. Naturally, if a formation fracture pressure is permission to publish this paper. Special recognition is
found at a lower pressure, this point should be honored. extended to G. W. Tracy, E. E. Morris, W. R. Gran-
Radioactive profiling and temperature surveying is berry, V. J. Driscoll, and K. K. Clark for their con-
necessary to monitor continuously the distribution of tributions in developing the procedures and techniques
water in the well bore and, thus, to determine whether described in this paper.
redistribution of water by a workover is necessary.
Hence, the injection profile should be checked annually References
with a temperature survey. A radioactive tracer profile 1. Alpay, O. A.: "Application of Aerial Photographic Interpretation
to the Study of Reservoir Natural Fracture Systems," J. Pet.
then should be run if a significant change in distribution
Tech. (Jan. 1973) 37-45.
is revealed by the temperature survey. A radioactive 2. Smith, R. C. and Steffensen, R. J.: "Computer Study of Factors
profile survey also should be run after a significant Affecting Temperature Profiles in Water Injection Wells," J. Pet.
workover. The temperature survey also will indicate fill Tech. (Nov. 1970) 1447-1458; Trans., A[ME, 249.
in the wellbore. Temperature surveys naturally become 3. Nowak, T. J.: "The Estimation of Water Injection Profiles From
Temperature Surveys," 1. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1953) 203-212;
less definitive with time because of vertical heat con- Trans., A[ME, 198.
ductivity effects. 4. Smith, R. C. and Steffenson, R. J.: "[nterpretation of Tempera-
Fig. 4 shows the systematic approach to injection- ture Profiles in Water-Injection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1975)
well testing that has been described. Although specific 777-784; Trans., A[ME, 259.
5. Bearden, W. G., Cocanower, R. D., Currens, D., and Dilling-
times have been discussed for testing, the authors
ham, M.: "[nterpretation of [njectivity Profiles in [rregular
realize that actual field testing cannot follow such a Boreholes," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1970) 1089-1097.
rigorous schedule. This is because of equipment down- 6. Clark, K. K.: "Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water [n-
times and work scheduling in the field. jection Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1968) 639-643; Trans.,
A[ME,243.
Summary 7. Eaton, B. A.: "Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application
in Oilfield Applications," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1969) 1353-1360;
This paper has presented one approach to injection-well Trans., A[ME, 246.
test scheduling. Although not the only viable approach, 8. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H. H.: "Factors That Can Be Op-
it provides a means of defining various important well timized in Waterfloods of the Low-Permeability Reservoir,"
paper SPE 2854 presented at the SPE-A[ME Symposium on Prac-
and reservoir properties in minimum time and further
tical Aspects of Improved Recovery Techniques, Fort Worth,
provides periodic reassessment of these properties to Tex., March 8-10, 1970.
take maximum advantage of changing reservoir condi- 9. Felsenthal, M. and Ferrell, H. H.: "Fracturing Gradients in
tions. This optimization pays off in maximum produc- Waterlloods of Low-Permeability, Partially Depleted Zones," J.
tion rates and minimum time expenditure without causing P'(. Tech. (June 1971) 727-730.
10. Donohue, D.A.T., Hansford, J. T., and Burton R. A.: "The Ef-
unnecessary damage to the reservoir. Although sound fect of Induced Vertically Oriented Fractures on Five-Spot Sweep
in concept, the success of this approach is completely Efficiency," Soc. Pet. EnK. J. (Sept. 1968) 260-268; Trans.,
dependent on full understanding and cooperation be- A[ME,243.
tween the engineers designing and interpreting the II. Hubbert, M. K. and Willis, D. G.: "Mechanics of Hydraulic
Fracturing," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1957) 153-168; Trans., A[ME,
tests and the operational personnel performing the tests
210.
and collecting the data. 12. Hazebroek, P., Rainbow, H., and Matthews, C. S.: "Pressure
Falloff in Water Injection Wells," Trans., A[ME (1958) 213,
Conclusions 250-260.
Existing analytical techniques, when applied ina 13. Simmons, J., Landrum, B. L., Pierson, J. M., and Crawford,
systematic manner, will provide a basis for optimiz- P. B.: "Swept Areas After Breakthrough in Vertically Fractured
Five-Spot Patterns," Trans., A[ME (1955) 216,73-77.
ing waterflood operations in minimum time by 14. Crawford, P. B. and Collins, R. E.: "Estimated Effect of Verti-
(I) maximizing pressure differential, (2) minimizing cal Fractures on Secondary Recovery," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1954)
skin damage, (3) insuring proper distribution of water, 41-45; Trans., AIME, 201. JPT
and (4) monitoring the extent of fracturing.
This, in turn, should provide maximum oil-producing
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 19,
rate and maximum waterflood recovery while avoiding 1974. Revised manuscript received Aug. 28. 1975. Paper (SPE 5130) was first
presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting. held in Houston. Oct. 6-9,
any reservoir damage that could serve as a detriment to 1974 Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Pe-
effective sweep. troleum Engineers, Inc.

1342 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY