Fluid Injection - Recent Laboratory Investigations of Water Flooding in California

Laboratory flood pot testing of California sands has progressed to a considerable extent in the past 18 months. Flood evaluations have been carried out on over 200 large core samples. Many of these were heavy oil sands of high permeability and completely unconsolidated in nature. The oil frequently formed a bank, though some of the oil was recovered in the subordinate phase of the flood, by viscous drag. Flood pot recoveries as high as 1400 bbl/acre ft have been recorded. Reservoir analysis suggests a conformance factor of 0.4 to reduce laboratory recovery to probable field practice. Oils with viscosities up to 1800 cp have been successfully handled in flood pot evaluations. The shallow, loose sands are not well adapted to the application of- high pressures to offset the high viscosities. INTRODUCTION Secondary recovery may be said to have started 60 years ago when accidental floods occurred in the Bradford sand in Pennsylvania. About 1921 artificially conducted water drives came into extensive use and since that time the great Bradford field has been almost completely subjected to water flooding. During the last 30 years, most of the known medium and deeper production in California has been discovered and is being exploited by primary recovery methods supplemented in some instances by high pressure gas injection. The California area is just beginning to feel the need for secondary recovery in view of an unprecedented market demand and the rapidly rising cost of new pool discoveries. With the presently recognized desirability of secondary recovery in California, there must also be appreciated a number of serious differences between the water flooding problems here as compared to the territory east of the Rockies. California sands are generally thicker, and are frequently soft and argillaceous. The oils are often heavier and asphaltic. Much of the oil is below 15°API, occurs at shallow depth, is cool and free from appreciable dissolved gas, which results in relatively high reservoir oil viscosity. Secondary recovery is particularly beneficial where primary recovery has been poor and where no natural water drive exists. These conditions apply particularly to the heavy, shallow, clean production from soft, often argillaceous California sands so abundantly found at depths less than 1500 feet. Often, too, there is a totally insufficient supply of water of satisfactory quality to inject at a reasonable cost. Also, the crude oils are priced far below the premium Bradford crude. Although these and a number of minor problems beset the operator desirous of starting secondary recovery, great progress has been made in the past few years in finding how to adapt previous Mid-Continent and Eastern experience to water flooding in California. There are about nine projects for subsurface injection of water which can be said to classify as secondary recovery operations. Subsurface water disposal would so classify when the sand receiving the water is a nearby oil producer, as is often the case. When water is injected subsurface into a barren sand, the operation does not classify as secondary recovery. Several of the most active operators avail themselves extensively of preliminary engineering and laboratory work to guide their decisions, while others enter small scale flooding operations directly in the field. It is the laboratory work pertinent to several of the California secondary recovery projects that this paper discusses. PURPOSES OF LABORATORY FLOODING TESTS Experience in areas where water flood operations have been carried out has indicated that careful engineering planning is an important requisite for subsequent economically successful field operation. Floods that fail are more frequently those where operations were instigated without a prior engineering investigation to determine the effectiveness of the injection fluid as an oil displacing medium. Laboratory data are essential in the evaluation of an oil property for secondary recovery possibilities. Success or failure of secondary operations can under certain special circumstances be determined directly by cores and their subsequent routine analysis. This is particularly the case where flushing of the cores in the course of coring is negligible and where the results of the analysis can be compared with existing secondary recovery operations. Where these conditions cannot be' fulfilled, the application of core analysis is more limited. In such event, the results obtained by water flooding core samples in the laboratory have been found to be of prime importance. Cores may be flooded "raw" as taken from the well or in the event flushing and depletion of the cores in the process of drilling are major factors the fluid content may be artificially restored prior to the flooding. Laboratory studies should also be made to determine the suitability of the water selected for injection. Thus interaction between injected and formation water may cause precipitates to be formed which may plug the sand. Even more important, especially to California operations, is the possibility of the hydration of formation clays by the injection water. The aims of flood pot and associated tests are basically to determine the residual oil saturation after flood, the water-oil throughput ratio and to establish whether an oil bank is formed. Additional information which can be obtained from flood pot tests pertains to the pressure differential required to effect displacement, the relative permeability to oil in the oil bank and the relative permeability to water in the watered out region behind the bank.