8/10/2019 Determination of Waterflood Residual Oil Saturation From Routine Core Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/determination-of-waterflood-residual-oil-saturation-from-routine-core-analysis 1/2

8/10/2019 Determination of Waterflood Residual Oil Saturation From Routine Core Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/determination-of-waterflood-residual-oil-saturation-from-routine-core-analysis 2/2

(&g = (io)comllo.1 4MV2

, . . . . . . ,., .,. .

 2

where

M = mobilityratio, the ratio ofthemobilityof water at

the average water saturation in the reservoir at

breakthrough to the mobility of oil in the cil bank

ahead of the displacing front.

V= permeability variation calculated from reservoir

core samples as described inRef. 2.

 xample

This example applies to the 119-RProject of the Henry

reservoir,which hasbeen reportedelsewhere.s-sThe data

are obtained fromMarathonOilCo. files or fromRef. 3.

The average core oil saturation was obtained from cores

taken at the end of waterflooding and before the applica-

tion of the Maraflo@ process. The pertinent data are

(~o)c{)re

0.248

s,r[.=

0.25

M=l.3

V= 0.325.

Ongmalmanus~lpl reeewedm Soaelyof Peltoleum EngmeeraoftceAug. 27.1976.

Paper (SPE 5997) eccspled forputkatlon Nov. 3,1976. @ Copyrlghl 1977 American

Ineotute

Of

Mmng. Metalturg eal,and Petroleum Engineers. Inc

Using Eq. 2 weget

(~O)wa= (0,248)( 1.01)(1.1 1) ] .3

1- (0.325)2

=0.404. ,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3

The post-waterflood residual oil of 0.404 compares

favorably with the results of other methods reported in

Ref. 3. In fact, the “best” estimate of post-waterflood

residual oil for the 119-RProject, as reported in Refs. 4

and 5, is0.40.

References

 .

2.

3.

4,

5.

Rathmell, J. J., Bnsun, P, H., and Perkins, T, K.: “Reservoir

Wa[erflocd Residual Oil Saturations From Laboratory Tests.”

J. Per. Tech.  eb. 1973) 175-185; Trons., AIME, 25S.

Craig, F. F., Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water -

/70cding, Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers of

AIME, Dallas 1971) 3,92.

Cordiner, F. S.. Gordon. D. T.. andJargon, J. R.: “Determination

of Residual M Saturation After Watertlooding,” paper SPE 3791

presentedat the SPE-AIME Second Symposium on Improved Oil

Recovery, Tulsa, April 16.19, 1972.

Gogarty, W. B. and Davis, J. A. . Jr.: “Field Experience With the

Maruftood Process,”

puper

SPE 3806 presented at SPE.AIME

SecondSymposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19.

1972.

Earlougher, R. C., Jr. , O. Neal, J. E, . and Surkalo, H,: “Micellar

Solution Flooding — Field Test Results turd Process Ireprove.

marts,”’ J. C“dn. Per. Tech. Jan..March 1976) 52-59.

H. Kazemi, SPE-AIME

Marathon 011Co.

Littletrm, Colo.