Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 Ž2000.

85–106
www.elsevier.nlrlocaterjpetscieng

Mixing of injected, connate and aquifer brines in waterflooding

and its relevance to oilfield scaling
K.S. Sorbie ) , E.J. Mackay
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt UniÕersity, Research Park, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
Received 22 July 1999; accepted 14 March 2000

Abstract

Waterflooding is one of the most common methods of oil recovery although it does lead to certain production problems
after water breakthrough, e.g. corrosion, scaling, etc. The issue of concern in this paper is mineral scale formation by brine
mixing as occurs in barium sulphate Žbarite, BaSO4 . scaling. Barite formation in the production well and tubulars occurs in
many oilfields when sulphate-rich injection water ŽIW. Žoften seawater ŽSW.. mixes with barium-rich formation water ŽFW.
close to or in the wellbore. However, when a brine is injected into the reservoir, it may mix to some extent with the
formation Žor connate. brine deep within the system. Such in situ mixing of barium-rich and sulphate-rich brines would
certainly result in barite deposition deep within the reservoir due to the low solubility and rapid kinetics of this precipitation
process. Conversely, in order to estimate how much of this type of in situ precipitation might occur in reservoirs, we must be
able to model the appropriate displacement processes incorporating the correct level of dispersive brine mixing in the
reservoir formation. In this paper, all of the principal mechanisms of brine mixing in waterflood displacements are
considered and modelled. Mixing between the IW, the oil leg connate water ŽCW. and the aquifer water ŽAQW. is analysed
starting from a one-dimensional Ž1D. frontal displacement, extended Buckley–Leverett ŽBL. analysis. This particular
mechanism occurs in all other types of displacement and reservoir mixing process including those in both heterogeneous
layered systems and in areal flooding situations. Of vital importance to brine mixing is the level of reservoir sandbody
dispersivity, and field values of this quantity are estimated. Results from the numerical modelling of oil displacement and
IWrFW mixing are presented to illustrate various points which arise in the discussion. These calculations show that quite
complex patterns of mixing of connate, aquifer and injection brines can occur in relatively simple two-dimensional Ž2D.
systems. The significance of in situ brine mixing to barite scaling is discussed in some detail. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: brine mixing; reservoir dispersivity; barite scale; barium sulphate; reservoir mixing; dispersive mixing

1. Introduction

Waterflooding is one of the main oil recovery

processes being applied in many reservoirs around
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q44-131-451-3139; fax: q44-
the world. In the North Sea, and in many other
131-451-3127. offshore developments, seawater ŽSW. is the main
E-mail address: ken.sorbie@pet.hw.ac.uk ŽK.S. Sorbie.. injection water ŽIW.. As well as displacing oil, this

0920-4105r00r$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 0 - 4 1 0 5 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 0 - 4
86 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
IW will also displace and mix with either the con-
nate water ŽCW. in the mobile oil zone of the
reservoir or with the aquifer water ŽAQW., depend-
ing on where the injection well is completed. The
CW, often referred to as the ‘‘irreducible water’’,
occurs at a saturation denoted by S wc Žor S wir .; the
CW and AQW may be referred to collectively as the
formation waters ŽFW.. All of these waters Žbrines.
will generally have different ionic compositions and
there may be several chemical consequences of their
mixing both directly in the reservoir and aquifer and
also as they are co-produced at the producer after
water breakthrough. For example, the composition of
the IW — which will be out of equilibrium with the
reservoir rock substrates — may cause mineral dis-
solution, ion exchange or other clayrfluid interac-
tions to occur. Also, the mixing of incompatible
waters — for example, SW containing SO42y with
FW rich in Ba2q — may cause mineral scale precipi-
tation Žof BaSO4 , in this case. both within the forma-
tion and also on co-production at the wellbore.
A combined reservoir simulation and chemical
precipitation model for in situ brine mixing in the
context of oilfield scale Žbarite. formation was pro-
posed some time ago by Bertero et al. Ž1988.. This
Fig. 1. Barium development for all wells in the Alba Field Žfrom White et al., 1999..
paper focused principally on the development of the
model and few results were presented on examples
of brine mixing. More recently, there has been a
revival of interest in the issue of IW and CW mixing
stimulated in the UK by the following two different
— but related — activities.
Ži. Firstly, field observations have been made by
several companies that barium sulphate scale may be
dropping out deep in the reservoir, implying ‘‘in-
timate’’ IWrCW mixing. For example, in the
Chevron operated Alba field, the barium levels at the
producers consistently fall below those expected ei-
ther of the SWrFW mixing line or of the aquiferrFW
mixing line as shown in Fig. 1 ŽWhite et al., 1999..
The apparent barium loss implies dropout either deep
in the reservoir or in the near-well region. However,
if the latter explanation were correct, then significant
production loss would be expected and this is not the
case in the field, possibly due to the very high
permeability of the Alba reservoir sands, k ; 1–4
Darcy.
Žii. Secondly, Coleman Ž1999. has established
that the composition of produced brines may initially
be connate Žformation. or aquifer brines rather than
being IW as shown in Fig. 2. Coleman has made
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
Fig. 2. Results from Coleman Ž1999. showing the early breakthrough of in situ brines ŽCW and AQW. in an oil reservoir Žfrom Coleman,
1999..
observations which are ‘‘expected’’; e.g. early CW
production. Other more intriguing observations on
the compositional trajectories of produced brines
point to the fact that oil leg FW and AQW composi-
tions are usually different and, indeed, that composi-
tional variation may occur in different parts of a
field. It is expected that the produced brine composi-
tion should vary depending on whether injection was
into the oil leg or aquifer.
To address the above field observations, we must
consider all of the possible displacement and mixing
mechanisms which may occur between an IW, the
oil leg CW Žif regional compositional variation is
observed, then CW1 , CW2 , etc.. and the AQW Žin
principle, there may also be more than one —
AQW1 , AQW2 , etc... This paper discusses all of
these mixing mechanisms starting from a one-dimen-
sional Ž1D . frontal displacement, extended
Buckley–Leverett ŽBL. analysis. This mechanism is
important in all other types of displacement and
reservoir mixing process including those in both
heterogeneous layered systems and in areal flooding
situations. The issues of IWrCW brine mixing and
reservoir dispersivity within a given sandbody are
considered and field values of this quantity are esti-
mated. Finally, we consider the numerical modelling
of oil displacement and IWrCW mixing and recom-
mendations are made on this in the light of the
developments in this paper. Some examples of nu-
87
merical modelling of IWrCW mixing are presented
to illustrate a number of points in the discussion.
2. Reservoir displacement processes and water
mixing mechanisms
IW can displace in-situ brines — either CW or
AQW — in a number of different situations. How-
ever, underlying all of these is the basic frontal
displacement mechanism, which is fully described
below.
We consider injectedrin-situ brine mixing in a
variety of situations which closely parallel how
reservoir engineers often think of the oil recovery
mechanisma, as follows:
Ži. Linear frontal displacement and brine mixing in
‘‘1D’’ waterflooding Ž a microscopic displacement
efficiency.;
Žii. Displacement and mixing in heterogeneous
Žlayered. cross-sections Ž a vertical sweep.;
Žiii. Areal displacement and mixing in the water-
flooding of a horizontal sandbody or single layer
Ž a areal sweep.;
Živ. Combinations of all of the above — as would
occur in a real heterogeneous three-dimensional
Ž3D. reservoir.
Despite the complexities of the above cases, they
can all be understood in terms of combinations of
88 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
simple frontal displacement theory. This will be
discussed below, although the mathematical details
are relegated to Appendix A. The gradually more
complex cases will then be built up using schematic
figures which develop the various scenarios. It will
be seen that intimate Ži.e. 100% IWrCW. mixing
cannot occur due to the nature of the frontal dis-
placement mechanism. However, at the IWrCW Žor
IWrAQW. interface, significant levels of mixing
can occur due to local rock permeability Ž k . —
heterogeneity. Thus, in a precipitating system Žsuch
as Ba2qrSO42y ., some reservoir deposition Žof
BaSO4 . may occur. This is consistent with the earlier
results of Bertero et al. Ž1988. who showed that very
small amounts of in situ barite deposition Žonly
; 0.16% PV maximum. were expected in a 100%
brine homogeneous aquifer displacement calculation.
In this work, we will assume that the transported
species do not interact with the matrix either chemi-
cally, by adsorption or by ion exchange. Such pro-
cesses may occur for certain species, such as Ca2q,
Ba2q and this may change the relative velocities of
theses species relative to local Žinert. brine velocity
which may enhance Žor indeed retard. mixing. Fresh
brinerclay interactions may also occur to change the
ionic composition of the IW and biological activity,
involving SO42y ion for example, may also lead to
compositional changes in the reservoir. For example,
significant changes in the chemistry of produced
water associated with the interaction of injected CO 2
with reservoir mineralogy have been reported
ŽBowker and Shuler, 1991.. These various phenom-
ena will not be considered here since, in large scale
mixed IWrCWrAQW waterflood displacements,
they are probably second order effects superimposed
on the principal reservoir displacementrmixing
mechanisms. No temperature effects Že.g. reservoir
cooling, barite solubility etc.. are modelled in this
work.
3. Linear displacements and IW r CW brine mix-
ing in waterflooding
3.1. Oil r water displacement and CW banking
Since this process is of central importance to all
the other displacementrmixing processes in reser-
voirs, we will consider this in some detail. First
consider a simple 1D waterflood in a linear homoge-
neous Žconstant k and f . sandbody, e.g. a linear
channel between injector and producer as shown in
Fig. 3, where all terms are defined. The viscous
dominated displacement of oil by IW is well under-
stood for this system and is described by BL theory
ŽBuckley and Leverett, 1942; Dake, 1978.. However,
we wish to investigate what happens to the IW and
CW; particularly, we want to establish whether these
mix intimately Ži.e. 100% IWrCW mixing. or
whether frontal displacement occurs. BL theory
shows that there are various regions of single and
two-phase flow as shown in Fig. 4, where the issue
of IWrCW mixing is also indicated. In fact, an
extension of BL theory to deal with the fate of the
IW and CW is presented in Appendix A where
mathematical details are given Žfollowing Pope, 1980;
Lake, 1989.. The essential result is summarised in
Fig. 5 which shows that, at time t, CW ‘‘banking’’
occurs behind the BL waterroil shock-front. There
is, in this ideal case, a sharp front between the IW at
CW at x s x b Žat time t .. Hence, when water is
produced Ži.e. when x f s L., then the first water will
be 100% CW which will continue until all the CW
is produced and the rear of the CW bank reaches the
outlet well Ž x b s L.. At this point, the produced
water will change immediately to 100% IW as shown
in Fig. 6 where the watercut development and the
nature of the produced water are shown. At break-
through time, t 1 , the waterfront reaches the outlet
Fig. 3. Idealised linear 1D channel of homogeneous sand or rock
in which an IW displaced oil and CW from initial conditions;
S0 s Ž1y S wc .; S w s S wc . Volume of CWs Ž D xD yD z f S wc ..
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 89

Fig. 4. Schematic of a displacement along a simple 1D sandbody

or channel. IWs injection water; CWs connate water Žformation
brine.. The regions of oil and water flow are well established from
BL theory but the questions arise concerning the nature of the
mixing zone between the IW and the CW as shown.

Fig. 6. Watercut development in a 1D BL type displacement as

shown in Fig. 5, indicating regions of CW and IW production Žno
end of the 1D system Ž x f s L. and the watercut
in situ brine mixing..
jumps immediately to the fractional flow of water at
S w s S wf , i.e. to watercuts f w Ž S wf .. This is entirely
CW as shown and the watercut rises until all the CW through contain no IW which breaks through very
is produced at time s t b Žsee Fig. 6. and, from then sharply in a single sample which is ; 96% IW.
onwards, IW is produced. All of these quantities can The total volume of CW that is present in a very
be calculated analytically from a quite simple exten- simple 1D system as shown in Fig. 3 is given by;
sion of BL theory ŽPope, 1980.; see Appendix A. In volume CW s D xD yD z f S wc . This indicates that,
fact, this has been observed experimentally in water- with direct injection into the oil leg, there will be a
floods in cores where the IW and CW have been
labelled as shown in the effluents of Fig. 7 Žafter
Sorbie and Walker, 1988.. In this figure, the injected
brine was labelled with radioactive chlorine-36 Ži.e.
Na36 Cl. which is a b-emitter and can be assayed
very accurately using a scintillation counter. Note
that, in Fig. 7, the first five samples after break-

Fig. 7. Comparison of the watercut and the traced ŽChlorine-36

labelled. IW where the CW is not labelled. Note that the first
Fig. 5. Snapshot of the water saturation profile, S w Ž x,t ., at time t water produced is quite clearly the CW Žreplotted from Sorbie and
showing: CW banking; the sharp front between the IW and CW at Walker, 1988.. ) Note: ‘‘Pore volumes’’ refers to the total PV of a
x s x b ; the single- and two-phase flow regions which develop. layered pack used in this flood Žsee reference for details..
90 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
relatively small and complete production of the CW
and a fairly rapid changeover from CW IW and
hence a very short period of co-production of CW
™ sionless measure of mixing or dispersion where a
and IW. If this were a scaling system, then we would
expect very little Žor a short-lived. problem. Broadly,
this conclusion has some truth in it although the
situation is rather more complex if other mecha-
nisms are present Žwhich they often are..
3.2. DispersiÕe mixing at the IW r CW front
The first level of complexity that may occur is
that the sharp front between the IW and CW, as
shown in Fig. 8, may be spread due to some level of
permeability heterogeneity within the ‘‘linear’’ sand-
body. This is shown in Fig. 8 where the IWrCW
front at x s x b is somewhat spread or dispersed and
a mixing zone of length, Lm Ž t ., develops with time.
The level of dispersion is related to level of perme-
ability heterogeneity with greater spreadingrmixing
occurring in more heterogeneous sandbodies.
An estimate of the mixing zone length can be
made from the dimensionless 1D Convection–Dis-
persion ŽCD. equation for single phase tracer dis-
placement, as follows:
EC 1 E2 C EC
s y Ž 1.
ET NPe E X 2 EX
where C Ž X,T . s cŽ x,t .rC0 where cŽ x,t . is the
tracer concentration and C0 s injected concentration;
X s xrL where L s system length; T s tVrL is the
dimensionless time and NPe s Ž VLrD ., is the Peclet
number where D is the dispersion coefficient and V
is the fluid velocity, V s QrŽ A f .. NPe is a dimen-
Fig. 8. Linear waterflood as shown in Fig. 5 showing the develop-
ment of an IWrCW mixing zone of length, Lm .
‘‘high’’ NPe gives a very sharp displacement front
and a ‘‘low’’ NPe gives a more spread out front. The
dimensionless concentration, C, is normalised in the
range 0 F C F 1, where C s 1 may represent 100%
IW and C s 0 is100% CW. Eq. Ž1. has a simple
analytical solution from which a dimensionless mix-
ing zone length, D X, can be calculated as the differ-
ence between the IW normalised concentrations of
0.9 and 0.1, as follows ŽLake, 1989.:
D X s XCs 0.9 y XCs0.1 Ž 2.
giving:
T
D X s 3.625 ( NPe
. Ž 3.
Since Eq. Ž3. is dimensionless and T s 1 is the
time for the injected front Žof IW. to go from the
inlet Žat X s 0. to the outlet Žat X s 1., then:
3.625
D X bt s Ž 4.
(N Pe
where D X bt is the fractional length of the 1D system
taken up by the mixing zone; e.g. for NPe s 200,
then D X bt f 0.26 of the length of the system. If we
only had a CW saturation of 0.2 PV initially, then
this would all be quite well mixed with the IW by
the time the IW front reached the producer along the
ID sandbody. Note that if NPe s 1000 for the same
system, D X bt s 0.1 and about half of the CW would
have mixed with the IW.
Hence, the critical issue is: what is a realistic
value of NPe in a single sandbody or layer? It is not
straightforward to estimate NPe as we will show
below. The dispersion, D, in a porous media ŽPer-
kins and Johnston, 1963. is given by:
D s a LV Ž 5.
where a L , the dispersivity Ždimensionss length., is
a measure of the amount of mixing which occurs.
Substituting for this quantity in the equation for
Peclet number gives:
ÕL ÕL L
NPe s s s . Ž 6.
D aLÕ aL
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 91

Thus from an estimate of L and a L , we can calcu-
late NPe and hence the likely mixing zone length,
D X bt . For example, in a tracer flood in a 1-m
Clashach sandstone core, a L f 0.004 m ŽSorbie,
1991, p. 218.. Thus, if our 1D reservoir layer was as
homogeneous as a Clashach core, but was say 100 m
long, then NPe f 25,000 and D X bt f 0.02 Žfrom Eq.
Ž4.. and the mixing zone would be very small.
Observations taking dispersivities measured Ždi-
rectly. in the laboratory and estimated in the field,
indicate that a L increases with system length as
shown in Fig. 9 Žsee Arya et al., 1988; Lake, 1989..
However, this is a little misleading since some of the
results in Arya et al. Ž1988. are for Õery heteroge-
neous systems including layering — which are not
in the dispersive flow regime appropriate for a single
sandbody. Indeed, if Arya et al.’s results are taken at
face value, then for a system of L s 1000 m, a
reasonable range for a L would be: 10 m F a L F 100
m Žsee Fig. 9.. Even the lower value for a L would
give NPe s 100 which would give, D X bt f 0.32 and
hence, full IWrCW mixing in virtually all cases. If
this were true, then mobile barium ions ŽBa2q .
would virtually neÕer be seen at producer wells and
they very frequently are if this species is present in
the CW. Therefore, a more reasonable estimate of
a L may be found from Arya et al.’s shorter length-
scale data Ž10 m F L F 100 m. which are far more

Fig. 9. Laboratory and field levels of dispersivity, a L Žafter Arya et al., 1988..
92 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106

likely values of this quantity within a single sand-
body. At these length scales, the range of a L values
is ŽFig. 9.:
10y2 m Ž Lf10 m, NPe ; 10 5 . F a L
F 2 m Ž at the lower end . Ž L f 100 m, NPe ; 500 .
In a system of L s 1000 m, these would lead to a
range of mixing zones with D X bt f 0.01 to f 0.15
which would lead to anything from virtually no
IWrCW mixing to quite significant Žbut not quite
complete. mixing Žat S wc f 0.2.. This range agrees
with the value quoted by Stalkup Ž1998. in the
context of gasroil mixing in enriched gas injection;
at the reservoir scale Ž; 300 m. a dispersivity of
a L f 0.3 m Ž; 1 ft. is quoted.
The issue of what effective dispersivity should be
taken in the field is still open and some estimate of
the range of values which this quantity can have may
be obtainable by analysis of field produced brine
data. However, in a given reservoir, it is vitally
important to establish the magnitude of a L if we are
to accurately determine the degree of in situ brine
mixing Žand hence level of in-reservoir scale
dropout.. It will be shown below that this also has
important consequences for the numerical modelling
of displacement and IWrCW brine mixing in the
reservoir. In particular, the level of physical mixing
in the reservoir has a strong influence on the number
of grid blocks required to model such processes
accurately.
3.3. Consequences of brine mixing within the reser-
Õoir
We now consider the consequences for a scaling
system where in situ mixing occurs, e.g. Ba2qrSO42y.
Clearly, if complete mixing occurred, then all the
Ba2q would usually precipitate Žsince real systems
usually have a large excess of SO42y .. This would
give a non-scaling zone between the IW and CW
that would grow gradually — depending on the

Fig. 10. Schematic profiles of scaling ion concentrations ŽwSO42y x and wBa2q x. along a simple 1D system where a mixing zone between the
IW and CW develops. This results in a zone depleted of barium ions but not of sulphate ions.
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
dispersivity, a L . Generally, the local quantity of
BaSO4 that would deposit would be insignificant and
it would not accumulate locally. For example, if all
the Ba2q in a 2000-ppm solution Ž Õery severe.
deposited locally in the pore space it would cause a
porosity change of - 1r2000 with virtually no per-
meability change. That is, scale deposition deep in
the reservoir should not lead to any significant levels
of formation damage or productivity decline Žcf.
Bertero et al., 1988.. Thus, the reservoir mixing
mechanism in Fig. 10 — which probably occurs to
some extent in most reservoirs — helps to alleviate
the situation as far as scaling problems at producers
are concerned by:
Ži. leading to ‘‘harmless’’ scale deposition deep
within the reservoir; and
Žii. causing a non-scaling ‘‘spacer slug’’ to de-
velop Žand grow with time, L m ; 't . further sepa-
rating CW and IW as they arrive at the producer.
However, if the IWrCW mixing levels are low
Žas in low-heterogeneity sandbodies. then most of
the Ba2q in the CW will reach the producer. In a
simple 1D linear sandbody, this would be of no
significance since we would firstly see the Ba2q in
the CW and then the SO42y at a later time in the IW.
There would be no near-well or in-wellbore scaling
in such a case. Although real reservoirs are not 1D,
this frontal 1D displacement mechanism is Õery im-
portant since it is this mechanism that delivers the
Ba2q in a banked form to the producer where IW Žor
AQW. from other mechanisms Žsee below. can mix
with it and hence cause scaling problems. The subtle
but important role of the frontal displacement and
banking mechanism is essential to understanding in
situ brine mixing in reservoirs.
This point is central to explaining why we eÕer
see BaSO4 problems at producers; if 100% reservoir
mixing of IWrCW occurred, then we would neÕer
see such problems. Unfortunately, we do because the
Ba2q is banked in the CW and ‘‘delivered’’ to the
producer. How depleted the Ba2q becomes before it
reaches the wellbore depends on how much actually
dropped out in the reservoir. An important corollary
to this is as follows: if any unprecipitated barium
occurs at the producer in a given layer, then it is
almost certainly at the original barium concentration,
93
wBa2q x, as in the CW. If it appears to be lower than
this level, then it is almost certainly because of
dilution in another brine stream from another layer
Žpossibly IW. or from the aquifer. This is the case
because of the banking and the level of mixing at the
rear of the CW slug, as shown in Fig. 10. It is clear
from this figure that the Ba2q is precipitated gradu-
ally from behind. If the SO42y reached the front of
the Ba2q slug, then all the Ba2q would be missing
rather than just some of it. Hence, if some mobile
Ba2q appears at the well, then one Žor more. layerŽs.
must be producing at the full wBa2q x of the CW.
4. Two-dimensional (2D) vertical and areal dis-
placements and water mixing
4.1. Displacements in heterogeneous Õertical cross-
sections
The linear displacement mechanism described
above will again play a key role in vertical heteroge-
neous cross-sections Žand in all other scenarios.. This
is illustrated when we apply these earlier ideas to the
schematic five-layer cross-section in Fig. 11 from
which we note the following points:
Ø layers 1, 3 and 5 are producing only oil;
Ø layer 4 has broken through early and is producing
IW Žthe CW ‘‘bank’’ went through some time
previously.;
Ø layer 2 is currently producing its CW bank.
Fig. 11. Schematic of the displacement processes that may occur
in a heterogeneous vertical cross-section of a reservoir. See text
for discussion.
94 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106

4.2. Displacements in areal horizontal sand layers

The situation in a 2D areal sand is very similar to

that in the vertical 2D cross-sectional case. The areal
case is a sequence of 1D displacements Žwhich again
bank CW. which are ‘‘staggered’’ in their arrival
times by the different length streamlines as shown in
Fig. 13. Note that the ‘‘fastest’’ streamline between
injector and producer Žstreamline 1; Fig. 13. causes
earliest water breakthrough — first of CW and later
of IW. As IW is produced by streamline 1, the CW
along streamlines 2 and 3 ŽFig. 13. break through.
This will cause a scaling problem by IWrCW mix-
Fig. 12. Schematic of the displacement processes in a heteroge- ing which is again stretched out in time by the
neous vertical cross-section of a reservoir with an aquifer. Note
arrival of later streamlines.
that simultaneous production of oil, AQW, CW and IW is possi-
ble. In the most general case, the 1D banking of CW
probably always occurs but the arrival times of IW
and CW at the producer can be staggered by both
The problem here comes from the mixing of IW vertical heterogeneity and areal spreading of the
Žlayer 4. and CW Žlayer 2. which occurs at and streamlines. Areal heterogeneity may also have a
above the layer 2 perforations. No scaling problems role and indeed may result in some degree of
are yet present below layer 2. Also, no deep reser- IWrCW mixing which may also cause scale dropout
voir scaling occurs due to the IW and CW flowing in in the reservoir.
adjacent vertical layers 1, 3 and 5 ŽFig. 11. since
these layers are flowing in parallel and there is no
direct displacement Ž V s 0 in the displacement direc-
tion., and hence no significant mixing. If there were
a little diffusive mixing this would give a small —
but insignificant — depleted zone of Ba2q between
layers.
Following the current problem shown in Fig. 11
Žlayer 2 CWrlayer 4 IW mixing., a layer 1 CW
bank will also appear later giving similar problems.
The heterogeneity between layers staggers the arrival
times of the CW banks hence spreading the problem
out in time. The problem with vertical heterogeneity
may be complicated further by the presence of an
aquifer which may Žindeed frequently does . have a
different composition from either the CW or the IW
ŽColeman, 1999.. This is shown schematically in
Fig. 12 where the co-mingling of the AQW makes it
quite possible for a well to be producing IW, CW
and AQW with the resulting scaling problems.
Thus, the vertically heterogeneous case is just a
combination of different 1D displacement processes Fig. 13. Schematic of an areal Ž2D. waterflood showing the
flooding pattern ŽA. and the displacements along the associated
which cause CW banking and delivery of CW and streamlines ŽB. where the banking of the CW is shown. It is the
IW Žand possible AQW. to the producer at different variation of areal velocities along the streamlines that causes the
times. spreading of arrival times of the CW and IW at the producer.
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 95

5. Numerical modelling of displacement and brine

mixing in reservoirs

5.1. Numerical simulation and the use of numerical

dispersion to simulate physical mixing in the trans-
port equations

Numerical simulation is used to model oil dis-

placement by IW and the associated brine mixing in
reservoirs. The equations governing the transport of
different components in the aqueous phase Ždifferent
IW, CW and AQW compositions. as well as the
normal multi-phase flow equations must be solved
numerically. A number of commercially available
reservoir simulators can carry out this task, e.g.
ECLIPSE 100 98A and ECLIPSE 200 Ž1998.,
STARS version 98 Ž1998., VIP Reservoir Simulator
version 3.3 Ž1996., SCORPIO ŽScott et al., 1987.,
UTCHEM Ž1999., etc. However, all of these codes
are based on finite difference discretisation of the
pressure and transport equations and this introduces
an artificial diffusion Žor mixing. at any transported
fronts Žsuch as the oilrwater front or at the IWrCW
interface. due to numerical dispersion, Dnum ŽPeace-
man, 1978.. The quantity Dnum is essentially a mix-
ing term very similar to the actual physical disper-
sion term D in NPe , but it arises as a numerical error
in the finite difference approximation of the flow
equations. However, since this numerical error is
dispersive in nature, it may be possible to actually
use numerical dispersion to represent the actual lev-
els of mixing seen in the reservoir. Indeed, this has
been done in many previous studies Že.g. Sorbie et
al., 1992; Stalkup, 1998.. To do this requires that we
estimate the level of numerical dispersivity, a Lnum ,
that a given finite difference scheme gives and then
match this — by appropriate choice of numbers of
grid blocks, Ngrid — to the physical levels of disper-
sivity, a L , that we think is correct for the reservoir.
It is well known that the level of numerical disper-
sion for a one-point upstream discretisation of the
single phase convection equation with grid block
size, d x, and time step, dt, is ŽLantz, 1970.:

dx V dt Fig. 14. Water saturation ŽA. and IW ŽB. profiles, CWrIW split
Dnum s y V Ž 7. at 300 days ŽC. and water mix in production watercut ŽD. for
2 2 1000=0.3048 m cells.
96 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106

which implies that the numerical dispersivity, a Lnum

is given by:
dx V dt
a Lnum s y . Ž 8.
2 2
For a sufficiently small time step where the level of
numerical dispersion is due entirely to the spatial
term then:
dx
a Lnum s . Ž 9.
2
Hence, the level of dispersivity inherent in the
numerical scheme is approximately half of the grid
block size. Considering the values which we dis-
cussed in Section 3.2 Ži.e. a L f 0.3 m. implies that
the grid block size must be d x f 0.6 m in order to
obtain the correct levels of reservoir mixing Žcf.
Stalkup, 1998.. If the injector and producer are
; 300 m apart, then Ngrid f 500 in order to obtain
the correct reservoir mixing levels by using numeri-
cal dispersion. This is easy in a 1D model but it may
be impossible computationally in a full 3D reservoir
model where up to Ž500. 3 grid blocks Ži.e. 125
million. may be required. However, in a layered 3D
model, we may only require a finer areal grid Ž500 =
500. and possibly fewer vertical grid blocks Ž; 10.
if there is little crossflow — a calculation with 2.5
million blocks is difficult but possible. It may also be
possible to perform some numerical scoping studies
on a coarse grid to find out where the IWrCW main
mixing paths are and then to carry out a local grid
refinement ŽLGR. in these regions of the model to
capture the local brine mixing with the appropriate
levels of dispersion.

5.2. Examples of 1D and 2D oil displacement and

brine mixing calculations

In order to demonstrate the effects discussed in

this paper, we present some illustrative examples of
1D and 2D oil displacements and brine mixing calcu-
lations. Figs. 14 and 15 show the results from 1D

Fig. 15. Water saturation ŽA. and IW ŽB. profiles, CWrIW split
at 300 days ŽC. and water mix in production watercut ŽD. for
50=6.096 m cells.
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
displacement calculations in a 1000-ft-long ‘‘linear’’
reservoir where the grid block sizes are, d x s 0.3048
m Ž1 ft. and 6.096 m Ž20 ft., respectively Ži.e.
a Lnum f 0.15 and 3 m.. The water saturation profiles
at various times are shown in Figs. 14A and 15A.
The clear development of the BL shock front ŽAp-
pendix A. can be seen in Fig. 14A but this is more
dispersed in Fig. 15A due to the larger grid block
size. The corresponding IW concentrations within
the water phase are shown in Figs. 14B and 15B
where they clearly lag behind the water saturation
fronts leading to banking of CW as predicted ŽAp-
pendix A.. Again, a much sharper IW front is seen
for the fine grid calculation in Fig. 14B. This is
shown more clearly in Figs. 14C and 15C where the
proportions of IW and CW are shaded within the
water phase at a single time Ž t s 300 days. and the
lengths of the mixing zones in these two figures
should be noted. The 0.3-m grid block calculations
in Fig. 14C leads to a sharp front with a short mixing
zone. The 3-m grid blocks used in the calculation in
Fig. 15C lead to the development of a Žnumerically
induced. mixing zone of ) 60 m. This is approxi-
mately 0.2 of the well to well reservoir distance but
is rather less than the D X ; 0.36 estimated by Eq.
Ž4.. However, Eq. Ž4. is for fully miscible single
phase tracer mixing and the effect of the two-phase
flow is to somewhat shorten this numerical mixing
zone. The main point to note in Fig. 15C is that there
is predicted to be very extensive IWrCW mixing in
the reservoir if we use a grid block size, d x s 3 m.
Figs. 14D and 15D show the numerically predicted
watercut development with time at the producer and
the shaded fractions of this which are CW and IW
Žcf. Fig. 6 for the ideal — no mixing — case.. A
relatively short transition time is seen from CW,
which is produced first, to IW in the fine grid case
ŽFig. 14D., whereas a lengthy period of co-produc-
tion of CW and IW is seen in the coarser grid model
ŽFig. 15D..
The consequences of the level of mixing in the
coarser Ž d x s 3 m. model for a sulphate-rich IW
displacing a barium containing CW would be exten-
sive in situ precipitation of barium sulphate. If the
true level of sandbody dispersivity in this 1D dis-
placement is of order ; 0.15–0.3 m, then clearly the
level of mixing is vastly overestimated. In fact, a
3-m grid block in a reservoir simulation model would
97
be considered to be ‘‘ very fine’’. Therefore, it may
be very difficult or practically impossible to perform
suitably fine grid calculations in full 3D reservoir
models and we will return to this point at the end of
this section.
2D cross-sectional displacement calculations have
been performed for the model detailed in Table 1.
Cross-sectional models of this type are quite typical
of those used in standard reservoir engineering calcu-
lation for layered heterogeneous formations. In these
systems, early water breakthrough frequently occurs
and then subsequent water fronts breakthrough in
various layers. The calculations presented here differ
in two important respects from those which are
routinely performed, as follows: Ža. a very fine grid
of 1000 blocks is taken in the x-direction to give a
sharp mixing zone Žwith a Lnum s 0.15 m.; within
each layer; Žb. the tracer transport option Žin
ECLIPSE, 200. is used to label the IW, the CW and
the AQW. A fairly fine vertical grid Ž d z s 0.3 m. is
used to resolve vertical flows in the layered model
but this is less important in the mixing calculations
than taking a fine x-grid. In these cross-sectional
calculations, the injector and producer wells are only
completed aboÕe the aquifer. Results are shown at
times 100, 400 and 700 days in Figs. 16A–L, which
show the time evolution within the system of:
Ø water saturation, S w ŽFigs. 16A–C.;
Ø injected water, IW ŽFigs. 16D–F.;
Ø connate water, CW ŽFigs. 16G–I.;
Ø aquifer water, AQW ŽFigs. 16J–L..
The main points to note from these results are as
follows: Ža. AQW is produced very early by coning,
see Fig. 16J; Žb. within the oil bearing layers, the
CW banking by IW can be seen and, in the aquifer,
IW displaces AQW Žalthough the injector is com-
pleted only above the aquifer, injection readily enters
the aquifer mainly due to the higher mobility of the
aqueous phase.; Žc. IW breakthrough is seen in layer
4 at ; 400 days — see Fig. 16B — where some
banked CW can also be seen; Žd. later in the flood at
700 days, layer 2 is about to break through, firstly
with CW and then with IW.
The results in Fig. 16 show that, at different
times, the produced water may contain varying mix-
tures of IW, CW and AQW. This is shown more
98 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106

Table 1
Geometric, rock and fluid properties of 2D simulation of a waterflood in a multi-layer reservoir

clearly in Fig. 17 which shows the watercut develop-
ment at the producer over time indicating the propor-
tions of IW, CW and AQW in the produced water.
Essentially, these results confirm the qualitative de-
scriptions discussed in Section 4.
5.3. Consequences of reserÕoir mixing on barite
scaling
To demonstrate the impact of CW and IW mixing
in the wellbore, a calculation was performed of the
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 99

Fig. 16. Water saturation, and distribution of IW, CW and AQW at 100, 400 and 700 days for 1000= 20 Ž0.3048 = 0.3048 = 0.3048 m.
grid cells in six-layer system. Average frontal advance rate is 0.3048 mrday.

scaling potential along the production well in this 2D
model. An in-house scaling tendency prediction code
ŽSCALEUP, 1993; Yuan et al., 1994., was used to
calculate precipitation and supersaturation tendencies
as a function of IWrFW mix. An example showing
the mass of barite and the corresponding supersatura-
Fig. 17. Mix of waters in produced watercut in six-layer 2D
model.
tion vs. SW fraction is shown in Fig. 18, where the
IW is SW and the FW is a typical Forties type brine.
Water production history along the 4-m completed
interval of the well in the 2D model described above
is shown in Fig. 19. It is seen that the majority of the
produced water cones up from the aquifer and enters
the well over the bottom 0.6 m. IW breaks through
in the bottom of the well after 400 days, and pro-
gresses up the well, so that by 900 days, the whole
well is producing IW as shown in Fig. 20. However,
the IW fraction decreases in the middle section of
the well Ž1.5–2.5 m. after 900 days, so that although
the top and bottom sections are producing 100% IW
after 1300 days, the middle section is producing only
20% IW. This does not necessarily mean that the
middle section is the most prone to scaling, as Fig.
21 demonstrates; this figure shows the barite dropout
profile along the well in kgrmrday. The IWrFW
fraction at every point in Fig. 20 is used, together
100 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
Fig. 18. BaSO4 scaling tendency prediction showing the mass of
precipitate and the supersaturation for Forties type water at 1.744
=10 7 Pa and 403.15 K Ž1308C..
with the precipitation tendency predicted by
SCALEUP ŽFig. 18., to calculate the maximum pos-
Fig. 19. Combined water production profile along well in 2D
model as a function of time. Note that most water is produced
from the bottom of the well.
Fig. 20. SW fraction of total produced water along the well vs.
time. Note that the complex behaviour as SW breakthrough at the
bottom of the well leads to production along the entire well
length, but subsequently reduces in the middle section Ž5–8 ft..
sible dropout. This is then multiplied by the water
flow rates ŽFig. 19. to give the possible mass dropout
per unit length of well per day. Because the majority
of water production comes from the bottom of the
well, the highest dropout will occur when the bottom
of the well is producing 5–40% IW. However, it
should be noted that the values calculated represent a
maximum possible dropout, and the actual precipita-
tion will also be determined by the local supersatura-
tion, which is shown along the well as a function of
time in Fig. 22.
It is clear from these results that a relatively
simple 2D layered system, such as the one modelled
Fig. 21. Maximum possible BaSO4 dropout based on calculation
of precipitation as a function of SW production. Note that the
period of greatest scale dropout is immediately after SW break-
through at the bottom of the well.
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 101

may be very difficult to predict scale dropout in real

Fig. 22. Supersaturation profile along the well vs. time calculated
from SW fraction in produced water.
here, can produce complex flow patterns that will
lead to scale formation. It therefore follows that it
3D reservoir systems. This is especially true when
the luxury of very fine scale models, such as the one
used for these sample calculations, is not an option.
Thus, the main frontal displacement mechanism
and the water mixing mechanisms in a vertical
cross-sectional model have been confirmed numeri-
cally, and the impact on potential scale dropout has
been clearly demonstrated. No areal calculations are
presented here since they would simply confirm the
qualitative description given in Section 5. It is clear
from these calculations and from our analysis of
dispersion and reservoir mixing that very fine simu-
lation grids are required to avoid spurious numerical
mixing of IW, CW and AQW. These grids are much
finer than those usually employed in numerical reser-
voir simulation. This is clearly illustrated by the
results in Fig. 23 which shows the level of the IW

Fig. 23. 3D reservoir model showing distribution of oil Žgrey — around middle and toe sections of horizontal producer Y1. and water
Žblack., with contours showing IW fractions from 10% to 90%. Note the unrealistic spread in the IWrFW mixing zone Ž) 165 m..
102 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
and CW mixing zone in the down dip aquifer of a
crestally placed reservoir Žred is oil saturation.. The
grid blocks are of areal size, d x s d y s 30 m Ž a Lnum
f 60 m.. This leads to mixing zones in the size
range 150–300 m Ždepending on flow directions.
between the injector and producer, which is a crestal
horizontal well in this case. If the true levels of
dispersivity within the reservoir layers are of order,
a L f 0.3m, then this grid is completely inappropriate
for brine mixing calculations in reservoir displace-
ments.
6. Discussion and conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a survey of the
mixing mechanisms between IW and in situ waters
ŽCW and AQW.. The consequences of this for scal-
ing systems which arise by in situ brine mixing Žsuch
as barium sulphate. has been considered. Frontal
displacements with CW Žor AQW. banking occur in
all cases and the degree to which there is mixing at
the IWrCW front depends on the level of dispersiv-
ity within the sandbody Žor layer.. Some estimates of
sandbody dispersivity in reservoirs have been dis-
cussed and the importance of this parameter has been
demonstrated in numerical calculations. The further
effect of vertical heterogeneity and areal flow paths
is to spread the arrival times of the various brine
fronts — banked CW, IW and AQW — at the
producer wells. Hence, co-production of brine mix-
tures is the expected case and is not unusual and
this, in turn, may lead to mineral scale deposition
depending on the precise brine compositions in-
volved. Again, numerical calculations have been pre-
sented in a 2D heterogeneous layered cross-sectional
model illustrating these conclusions. Indeed, these
calculations show that quite complex patterns of
CW, AQW and IW production can occur in rela-
tively simple 2D systems.
The main conclusions from this work are as fol-
lows.
Ži. The simple 1D frontal displacement of CW by
IW leads to the banking of the CW. Thus, in such a
displacement the first produced water is CW fol-
lowed later by IW.
Žii. A ‘‘mixing zone’’ at the IWrCW front may
develop during linear displacement as a result of the
sandbody heterogeneity. This can lead to some scal-
ing ion dropout thus forming a spacer zone depleted
in one of the ions, usually Ba2q. This mixing process
will never produce enough scale deep in the reser-
voir to significantly affect the local porosity or per-
meability and will hence not adversely affect reser-
voir productivity. Only this 1D frontal displacement
mixing mechanism offers the potential for scaling
ion dropout in the reservoir.
Žiii. Within a given 1D sandbody, the mixing
zone is characterised by a dispersivity, a L , which
leads to a 't . growth of the length, L m , of this zone
Ži.e. L m ; 't .. The more heterogeneous the sand-
body, the larger is a L and hence the more mixing
that occurs Žand vice versa.. To accurately determine
the degree of in situ brine mixing Žand hence scale
dropout, if appropriate. in a displacement process in
a given reservoir, it is very important to establish the
magnitude of a L .
Živ. Despite the mixing at the rear of the CW
bank, it will often not catch up with the front of the
CW zone. Thus, a zone that is producing any scaling
ion Žsuch as Ba2q . will probably be producing it at
full CW concentration. If the scaling ion concentra-
tion is found in the wellhead brine to be below this
level, then either mineral scale dropout is occurring
downhole or other zones are producing brines that
are diluting the barium producing FW ŽCW or AQW..
Žv. The role of this 1D CW banking mechanism is
very important in all reservoir mixing mechanisms
since it works in conjunction with them in both
vertically heterogeneous Žlayered. and areally exten-
sive systems.
Žvi. In vertically heterogeneous systems, the bank-
ing mechanism ensures that CW reaches the pro-
ducer. However, the layer to layer permeability het-
erogeneity ensures that the CW and IW can arrive
from different layers at the same time. Thus, simulta-
neous arrival may be considerably staggered in time
giving a scaling problem at the producer for an
extended period. AQW may also play a role in this
process and, in the most general case, a producer
may produce IW, CW and AQW at the same time.
Žvii. The situation of staggered arrival of IW and
banked CW in a 2D areal system is very similar to
the vertically layered case. However, the mechanism
of delay in a 2D areal system is due to the different
lengths of areal streamlines. This causes the spread-
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106 103

ing of the IW and CW Žand oil. arrival times at the IW Injected water Žbrine.
producer. k Permeability
Žviii. In a complex 3D heterogeneous reservoir, k rw , k ro Water and oil relative permeabilities; these
all of these mechanisms may operate together where are functions of S w
again: L System length
LGR Local grid refinement
Ža. the 1D banking ensures that CW arrives at the LmŽ t . Length of the mixing zone as a function of
producer; and time; Lm ; 't for dispersive flow
Žb. the vertical and areal ‘‘delay mechanisms’’ NPe Peclet number Ždimensionless.; where NPe
spread out the IW and CW Žand possible AQW. s Ž VL.rD
arrival times at the producer. Ngrid Number of grid block used in the 1D
finite difference model
PV System pore volume
Žix. Both 1D and 2D numerical simulations have
Q, Q w Volumetric injection rate — specifically
been performed which confirm the linear and hetero- for water
geneous Žcross-sectional. IWrCW water mixing S w Ž x,t . Water saturation profile along the system
mechanism discussed in this paper. Ž0 F x F L. at time t
Žx. If within sandbody heterogeneity leads to
S wc , S wir CW saturation; Irreducible water satura -
levels of physical dispersivity of order ; 0.3 m, this tion
may be modelled using numerical dispersion. How- Sor Residual oil saturation
ever, the grid sizes Ž d x and d y in particular. must S wf Water saturation at BL shock front
also be of this order Ž a Lnum f d xr2.. This implies S wb Water saturation at the IWrCW interface
that very fine grids are required to model in situ in 1D linear displacement Žno mixing.
IWrCW mixing processes accurately. The fineness tb Breakthrough time of the BL shock front
of the required grid may mean that it is impractical Žproducing only CW in the no mixing
to carry out such simulations for many field cases. case.
tb Breakthrough time of the IWrCW front
Nomenclature T Dimensionless time; T s tVrL — time to
A System Ž1D. cross-sectional area inject 1 PV
AQW Aquifer water Žbrine. VT Total Darcy velocity VT s QrA
BL Buckley–Leverett analysis for 1D dis- V Miscible fluid Žbrine. total velocity V s
placements QrŽ A f .
CW Connate water Žbrine. Vw Ž S w . Velocity of water at saturation level, S w ,
cŽ x,t . Concentration of ‘‘tracer’’ as function of where, Vw s VT Žd f w rd S w .
x and t x, t Space, time
C Ž X,T . Dimensionless concentration of tracer; X Dimensionless length variable; X s xrL
C Ž X,T . s cŽ x,t .rc0 xb Distance to the IWrCW front in the no
c0 Injected tracer concentration mixing case Žat a given time, t .
D Dispersion coefficient Žunits m2rs.; where xf Distance to the BL shock front Žat a given
D s a LV time, t .
Dnum Numerical dispersion arising for the finite aL Dispersivity Žunits, m.
difference scheme used; where Dnum s a Lnum Dispersivity due to the numerical finite
a Lnum V difference scheme Žunits, m.
f w Ž S w . Fractional flow curve; f w s 1rŽw1 q D x, D y, D z System size in each direction
Ž k ro rk rw .Ž m w rmo .x — all quantities de- d x, dt Grid block size in x-direction and time
fined below step size in finite difference scheme
FW Formation water Žbrine.; may refer to CW DX Dimensionless mixing front length; D X s
or AQW 3.6256ŽTrNPe .
104 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106

D X bt Dimensionless mixing front length at break

through; D X s 3.6256Ž1rNPe .
f Porosity Žfraction.
m w , mo Water and oil viscosities

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank a number of

Fig. A2. The instantaneous water saturation profile S w Ž x,t . along
colleagues for very helpful discussions over the years system on length, L, at times t Žbefore water breakthrough..
on the issue of mixing of injected and in-situ reser-
voir brines, including: Richard White, Jess Brookley,
Alden Carpenter, Bill Milliken and Pat Shuler of
Chevron; Max Coleman of Reading U.; Gordon Gra- of the 1D conservation equation ŽBuckley and Lev-
ham of Heriot-Watt U.; Gerald Hamon of Elf; Myles erett, 1942.:
Jordan of Nalco-Exxon; Rex Wat of Statoil; Ming ES w E
Dong Yuan of Baker-Petrolite. Schlumberger Geo-
Quest are thanked for providing free access to their
f ž /
Et
sy
Ex
Vw Ž A1.
Žall terms explained in the Nomenclature.. Using the
ECLIPSE suite of reservoir simulation tools.
fact that Vw s VT f w gives:
ES w E
Appendix A. Extended BL theory for connate
brine displacement
f ž /
Et
s yVT
Ex
fw . Ž A2.
Since the fractional flow, f w Ž S w ., is a function of S w
This explanation of IW and CW displacement is a only then the chain rule may be applied to obtain:
simple case of the more general treatment of Pope ES w d fw ES w
Ž1980.. Conventional BL theory for 1D linear water-
flooding is based on the fractional flow formulation
f ž /
Et
s yVT
ž /ž /
d Sw Ex
. Ž A3.

Thus, the velocity of water saturation level, S w , or

Vw Ž S w . is identified as:
d fw
Vw Ž S w . s VT
ž /
d Sw
Ž A4.

and hence Eq. ŽA3. above may be viewed as a

normal convection equation for the saturation as
follows:
ES w ES w
f ž /
Et
s yVw Ž S w . ž / Ex
. Ž A5.
Thus, we may use the usual BL-Welge construction,
as shown in Fig. A1, to find the shock front height,
S wf , and position, x f , at a given time, t. The instan-
taneous saturation profile at time t, S w Ž x,t . is shown
in Fig. A2.
The area under the S w Ž x,t . profile Ž A q B q C in
Fig. A1. The fractional flow curve, f w Ž s w ., showing the BL-Welge
Fig. A2. represents the sum of both the volume of
construction at the shock front saturation, S wf . See S w Ž x,t . at injected brine Ž A q B . and the volume of CW up to
time t in Fig. A2. the shock front Ž C .. However, although Fig. A2
 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
Fig. A3. Water saturation profile, S w Ž x,t ., at times t showing
clearly the ‘‘banking’’ of the CW by the IW. The rear of the CW
water bank has travelled distance, x b , and the corresponding
saturation is, S wb .
shows the total injected plus CW Ž A q B q C ., it
gives no indication of whether this is a complete
mixture of IW and CW or whether there is some
other distribution. Since the IW and CW may be
very different, it is very important to determine this
‘‘fluid configuration’’. For example, the IW and CW
may have radically different salinities, they may
contain separate scaling ions Že.g. Ba2q and SO42y .,
etc.
In fact, since the IW miscibly displaces the CW, it
must simply ‘‘bank’’ this CW as shown in Fig. A3.
By simple material balance arguments, Area Ž D2 q
D3. in Fig. A3 must be equal to Area E1, since the
CW in Area E1 has been swept into the CW bank.
Note that the total IW area at time t in Fig. A3 is
given by Area Ž E1 q E2 q E3.. However, simple
BL theory tells us that:
E1 q E2 q E3 s VT t. Ž A6.
From Fig. A3, it is evident that these areas can be
calculated as follows:
x b S wc q x b Ž S wb y S wc .
Ž E1 . Ž E 2.
Ž1yS or . d fw
q VT t Ž 1 y Sor . HS
wb
Ž E3 .
ž /
d Sw
d S w s VT t.
Ž A7.
The integral in Eq. ŽA7. Ž E3. is simply w f w Ž1 y Sor .
y f w Ž S wb .x and since f w Ž1 y Sor . s 1, Eq. ŽA7. be-
comes:
x b S wc q x b S wb y x b S wc q V T t y V T t f w Ž S wb . s V T t.
Ž A8.
105
Fig. A4. Fractional flow curve, f w Ž S w ., showing the Welge-type
construct for the rear of the CW bank Žline b ..
Cancelling terms in Eq. ŽA8. and simplifying leads
to:
x b S wb s V T t f w Ž S wb . Ž A9.
and expressing this in Welge tangent form leads to:
f w Ž S wb . y 0
x b s VT t . Ž A10.
S wb y 0
The term in square brackets in Eq. ŽA10. above is
clearly identified as being the appropriate Welge
construct for the quantity Žd f w rdS w .S w sS wb which is
shown in Fig. A4 Žline b .. Thus, from the appropri-
ate fractional flow curve, we can find values of S wf
and S wb either by graphical construct Žas in Fig. A4.
or, more commonly, by numerical solution by com-
puter.
References
Arya, A., Hewett, T.A., Larson, R.G., Lake, L.W., 1988. Disper-
sion and reservoir heterogeneity. SPE Reservoir Eng., 139–
148, February.
Bertero, L., Chierici, G.L., Gottardi, G., Mesini, E., Mormino, G.,
1988. Chemical equilibrium models: their use in simulating
the injection of incompatible waters. SPE Reservoir Eng.,
288–294, February.
Bowker, K.A., Shuler, P.J., 1991. Carbon dioxide injection and
resultant alteration of the Weber sandstone, Rangely field,
Colorado. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 75 Ž9., 1489–1499.
Buckley, S.E., Leverett, M.C., 1942. Mechanisms of fluid dis-
placement in sands. Trans. AIME 14, 107–111.
Coleman, M., 1999. Novel methods for determining chemical
compositions of oil-zone waters and relevance to scale predic-
106 K.S. Sorbie, E.J. Mackayr Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 27 (2000) 85–106
tion. In: SPE Symposium Oilfield Scale: Field Applications
and Novel Solutions, Aberdeen, Scotland. January.
Dake, L.P., 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Else-
vier, New York.
ECLIPSE 100 98A and ECLIPSE 200, 1998. Reference Manual;
Technical Description, Schlumberger GeoQuest Reservoir
Technologies.
Lake, L.W., 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ.
Lantz, R.B., 1970. Rigorous calculation of miscible displacement
using immiscible reservoir simulations. SPE J., 192–202, June.
Peaceman, D.W., 1978. Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir
Simulation. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Perkins, T.K., Johnston, O.C., 1963. A review of diffusion and
dispersion in porous media. SPE J. 3, 70–80, March.
Pope, G.A., 1980. The application of fractional flow theory to
enhanced oil recovery. SPE J., 191–205, June.
SCALEUP, 1993. User’s Manual, Department of Petroleum Engi-
neering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Scott, T., Sharpe, S.R., Sorbie, K.S., Clifford, P.J., Roberts, L.J.,
Foulser, R.W.S., Oakes, J., 1987. A general purpose chemical
flood simulator. In: SPE16029, Proceedings of the Ninth SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas. pp.
1–4, February.
Sorbie, K.S., 1991. Polymer Improved Oil Recovery. Blackie and
Son, p. 218, Žand CRC Press..
Sorbie, K.S., Walker, D.J., 1988. A study of the mechanism of oil
displacement using water and polymer in stratified laboratory
core systems. In: SPE17397, Proceedings of the SPErDOE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK. pp. 17–20,
April.
Sorbie, K.S., Feghi, F., Pickup, G.E., Ringrose, P.S., Jensen, J.L.,
1992. Flow regimes in miscible displacements in heteroge-
neous correlated random fields. In: SPErDOE24140, Proceed-
ings of the SPErDOE 8th Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, OK. pp. 22–24, April.
Stalkup, F., 1998. Predicting the effect of continued gas enrich-
ment above MME on oil recovery on enriched hydrocarbon
gas floods. In: SPE48949, Proceedings of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA. pp. 27–30, Septem-
ber.
STARS version 98, 1998. User’s Guide, Computer Modelling
Group, Calgary, Canada.
UTCHEM, 1999. User’s Manual, Department of Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, TX.
VIP Reservoir Simulator version 3.3, 1996. A User’s Guide to
DESKTOP-VIP and the VIP Reservoir Simulation Models,
Landmark Graphics.
White, R., Brookley, J., Menzies, N., 1999. Practical experiences
of gel diversion technique and an overview of scale manage-
ment for the Alba field. In: SPE Symposium Oilfield Scale:
Field Applications and Novel Solutions, Aberdeen, Scotland.
January.
Yuan, M.D., Todd, A.C., Sorbie, K.S., 1994. Sulphate scale
precipitation arising from seawater injection: a prediction
study. Mar. Pet. Geol. 11 Ž1., 24–30.