Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 4

Click Here To Continue
Chapter 34
Wellbore Hydraulics
A.F. Bertuzzi, Phillips Petroleum Co.*
M.J. Fetkovich, Phillips Petroleum Co.
Fred H. Poettmann, Colorado School of Mines*
L.K. Thomas, Philhps Petroleum Co.
Introduction
Wellbore hydraulics is defined here as the branch of
production engineering that deals with the motion of fluids
(oil, gas, and water) in tubing, casing, or the annulus be-
tween tubing and casing. Consideration is given to the
relationship among fluid properties, fluid motion, and the
well system. More specifically, the material presented is
intended to describe methods for solving problems as-
sociated with the determination of the relationship among
pressure drop, fluid rates, and pipe diameters and length.
To maintain the scope of this section within prescribed
limits, some material and data that are pertinent to the
solving of wellbore problems. but which can be found con-
veniently elsewhere, are not presented. The material not
covered includes (1) methods of measurement and
(2) complete data on fluid properties (See Chaps. 13,
16-19, 24).
The theoretical discussion that follows provides a ba-
sis for the development of correlations and calculation
procedures in subsequent parts of the section.
Theoretical Basis
Fluids in Motion
Energy Relationships. The energy relationships for a
fluid flowing through tubing, casing, or annulus may be
obtained by an energy balance. Energy is carried with the
flowing fluid and also is transferred from the fluid to the
surroundings or from the surroundings to the fluid. Energy
carried with the fluid includes (1) internal energy. U, (2)
energy of motion or kinetic energy (mv/2g,.), (3) ener-
gy of position (potential energy m,gZ/g,.), and (4) pres-
sure energy, pV. Energy transferred between a fluid and
Authors of the orlgmal chapter on !hls fop~c I the 1962 edmon Included these
authors and J K Welchon (deceased)
its surroundings includes (1) heat absorbed or given up,
Q, and (2) work done by the flowing fluid or on the flow-
ing fluid, W.
The conservation of mass, or the first law of thermo-
dynamics, states that the change in internal energy plus
kinetic energy plus potential energy plus pressure ener-
gy is equal to zero. The following energy balance between
points 1 and 2 in Fig. 34.1 and the surroundings illus-
trates the relationship for the previously listed energy
terms for unit mass of fluid.
2 2
U,+~t~z2+P2Vz=U,+11+~z,
%c g, Q,. g,
+p,V,+Q-W, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where
U = internal energy,
v = velocity,
g,. = conversion factor of 32.174,
g = acceleration of gravity,
Z = difference in elevation,
p = pressure,
V = specific volume,
Q = heat absorbed by system from
surroundings, and
W = work done by the fluid while in flow.
This energy-balance equation is based on a unit mass
of fluid flowing and assumes no net accumulation of
material or energy between points 1 and 2 in the system.
34-2 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Point 2
Point 1
Fig. 34.1-Illustration of energy-balance relationship.
Eq. 1 also can be put in the form
au+~+Lz+a(pv)=Q-w. . . . . .
c gc
since
Sl
VI
and
s
s2
TdS=Q+Ef
Sl
where
T = temperature,
S = entropy, and
EP = irreversible energy losses, and
VI Pl
Eq. 2 can be put in the more familiar form
s
P2
2
v@+K+&=-W-E~. _. .
Pl
%c gc
(3)
Since, in the system shown in Fig. 34.1, there is no work
done by or on the flowing fluid, W is equal to zero and
the following equation results.
-Et. . . . . . . . . .
If flow is isothermal and the fluid is incompressible, Eq.
4 may be simplified to
2 ; Nv2) ; &&7=-E
%c gc
p , .
P
(5)
where p =density .
The dimensions of the energy terms in Eq. -5 are ener-
gy per unit mass of fluid, such as foot-pounds per pound.
Quite often the force term is canceled (incorrectly) with
that of the mass term resulting in the dimensions of length
as of a column of fluid. For this reason, these terms fre-
quently are referred to as head, such as feet of the fluid.
For most practical cases, the ratio g/g, is essentially
unity. Although the terms in Eq. 5 are sometimes ex-
pressed as feet of fluid, no serious error is involved. In
fact, one can derive a very similar expression where the
terms are expressed in feet of head.
Eqs. 4 and 5 are the energy relationships that provide
the basis for the computational methods of the sections
to follow.
Irreversibility Losses. The use of Eqs. 4 and 5 requires
a knowledge of Et, the term that accounts for irreversi-
bilities (such as friction) in the system. The term E, can
be expressed as follows :
fiftv2
Et=- 2g,d, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6)
where f commonly is referred to as a friction factor, L
is length, and d is pipe diameter. The friction factor, f,
usually is expressed in terms of the physical variables of
the system by correlations of experimental data.
For single-phase flow, the dimensionless friction fac-
tor, f, has been correlated in terms of the dimensionless
Reynolds number dvp/p with p being viscosity. A rela-
tionship is also suggested by application of dimensional
analysis to the variables involved. In either case the result
is
f=FIE, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)
CL
where F1 is a function of Reynolds number.
Eq. 7 has been the basis for correlation of considera-
ble experimental data for single-phase flow over the past
years. Eqs. 5, 6, and 7 have been adapted to multiphase
flow. Consideration of the character of pipe surfaces as
absolute roughness, E (that is, the distance from peaks to
valleys in pipe-wall irregularities), which may be ex-
pressed as a dimensionless relative roughness factor, t/d,
has led to improvements in correlations of single-phase
flow experimental data
f=F2[(3 (3,
(8)
where F2 is a function of Reynolds number and relative
roughness.
WE lLLBORE HYDRAULICS
0.1
009
aQ8
007 0.05
0.04
3 , N JO.06 0.03
8 005
0015 J ;;;
004 0.01 E s
G 0.03
$382 g
?
___-
F ^^^_l/llI I llllli
0.004 i
r-r
34-3
u- UUL3
6 0.002 i
5 002 %%s E
E o.aX% 5
0.015
cl0004 ;
oooo2
0.ooo1
001 &j&r
fTMnAK
=0.000,005 j-ti
0009
0.008 QooO,Ol
lb3 2 3456Bl14 2 3456B15 2 345681s 2 345681, 2 345681
IO IO
A,,
IO lo8
REYNOLDS NUMBER Re = =
P
Fig. 34.2-Friction factor as a function of Reynolds number with relative roughness as a parameter.
Fig. 34.2 shows the correlation for single-phase flow
according to Eq. 8. * Similar plots are found in the liter-
ature in which other friction factors are plotted as a func-
tion of Reynolds number. Care must be taken to avoid
confusion, as the same name and symbol are used for var-
ious multiples off as plotted in Fig. 34.2
The laminar-flow region, which extends up to a Rey-
nolds number of 2,000, is represented by a straight-line
relationship f=44/NR, on Fig. 34.2. Between 2,000 and
4,000, flow isunstable. Above 4,000, turbulence prevails
and the influence bf the physical properties decreases as
the Reynolds number increases. In fact, it is shown that
at very high Reynolds numbers the friction factor depends
solely on the relative roughness factor c/d.
since v2/2g, and El are equal to zero. Since g/g, is as-
sumed to be unity,
s
p2 dp
-+Az=o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(n)
PI
P
For the case of a static-liquid column, it is usually satis-
factory to use an average density for the column of li-
quid. Eq. 11 then can be expressed in the more convenient
and familiar form as
Ap=pAz. . . . . . . . I.. . . . . . . . . . (12)
The preceding theoretical discussion concerning irrever-
sibility losses is based on considerations involving single-
phase flow. Nevertheless, the material presented will pro-
vide a basis for considerations involving both single- and
multiphase flow that appear in the following seCtions.
The preceding equations will provide a basis for the cal-
culation procedures of the following sections for static-
fluid columns.
Static Fluids
Many wellbore problems are associated with static-fluid
columns, either oil, water, or gas, or combinations there-
of. In the case of static-fluid columns, Eq. 4 is applicable
in general and reduces to
s
P2
vdp+Qz=o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PI
gc
or
p2 dp
s
-+542=0, . . . . . . . . . .
PI
P gc
Producing Wells
Gas Wells
Calculation of Static Bottomhole Pressures (BHPs).
Static BHPs are used to determine the deliverability of
gas wells (backpressure curve) and to develop reservoir
information for predicting reservoir performance and
deliverability. Several methods for calculating static
BHPs have appeared in the literature.3-6 The methods
differ primarily as a result of the assumptions made. All
start with Eq. 9 assuming g/g, is unity for a static
column:
GAS GRAVITY (AIR=0
Fig. 34.3-Pseudocritical properties of condensate well fluids
and miscellaneous natural gases.
If the column is vertical, aZ=L, where L is the length
of the pipe string, and Eq. 9 can be put in the form
s
PI
ldp=L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(13)
P2
If the column is not vertical, but inclined with the verti-
cal by an angle 8,
U=L c0se
and again usiq L, Eq. 9 becomes
s
PI
Vdp=L sins. . . . . . . . .(14)
P2
Subsequently, only the vertical column will be considered
and Eq. 13 will be used. Since
v=E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1%
MP
where
z = compressibility factor,
R = gas constant, and
M = molecular weight,
Eq. 13, upon pbstitution, becomes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(16)
For a particular gas, RIM, which is equal to 53.2411~~
where 7X is the gas gravity (air= 1 .O), is a constant.
Therefore, Eq. 16 can be simplified to
53.241 PI
s
zT*=L. . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
YR pz
P
It is at this point where certain assumptions are made and
calculation procedures differ. Assumptions are made in
regard to z and T.
For any calculation procedure, four surface proper-
ties must be known: well-effluent composition, well depth,
wellhead presske, and well temperature. The gas com-
position is used to calculate the pseudocritical properties
ppC and TPC of the gas, from which is estimated the value
of the compressibility factor z used in the calculations.
Quite often, gas composition is not available and gas
gravity must be used to estimate the pseudocritical prop-
erties (Fig. 34.3).4
A recommended method assumes constant and average
temperature T and allows z to vary with pressure. With
temperature being constant, Eq. 17 becomes
53.241?
s
PI z
-dp=L. . . . . (18)
YR P2 p
The method using Eq. 18 was suggested by Fowler.
Poettmann4 made the solution of Eq. 18 practical by
presenting tables of the function
s
PPr z
0.2
in terms of ppr and Tpr. The tables are presented here
as Table 34.1.
It can be shown that
spfdl=s
(p,r), z
--dp,, = fppr kdppr
Pi 7 ( P, , ) ? Ppr
0.2 PPr
(PPJ > z
-
s
-dppr. . . . . . . . . . .
0.2 PPr
(19)
An advantage of this method is that it is a direct method
of calculating >BHP. No trial and error is involved. In
terms of ppr and T,, Eq. 18 becomes
53.241?
L=-
YR
[s
(P,,), z
0.2
p,,dp,r - I( &dppr]
0.2
(20)
By rearranging,
I
(p,,) , 2 L-y, + (PP)> z
-dppr = F
PPr
s
53.241T o,2
_ dppr.
0.2 PPT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(21)
Eq. 21 permits a direct solution for the static BHP.
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS 34-5
Pseud+
reduced
PWSSUrE
PO,
i:
i:
i!
08
Yo
1:
I 3
I:
I 6
I 7
I!
20
::
::
2s
:;
5:
::
::
35
TABLE 34.1-VALUES OF SPPLdq,,
0.2
PPI
Pseudoreduced Temperature. lpr Pseudo Pseudoreduced Temperature, Tpr
reduced
Plf%SUR
I 05 I I IO I I5 I 20 I 25 I 30 I 35
pm
I 40 I 45 I 50 I 60 I 70 I 80 I 90
0 IO 0 0 0 n 0
0 350 0 350 0 35C 0 350 0 350 0 3jU 0 3X)
0 615 0 619 0 623 0 626 0 625 0 63U 0 632
0 805 0 816 0 826 0 834 0 83'1 0 844 0 848
i: 0 0 350 00 350 00 350 IO0 350 [O0 350 00 350 100 3%
:: ,fl 0 033 851 00 634 0 63j 0 636 0
854,O 856,O 860,O
637 862 00 638 864 00 86b 639
0 955; 0 971 0 985 0 YQl3 I 01 I I 022 I 032 0 6
I 078 I IO0 I I24 I 145 I I62 I 178 0 7
I I75 1 207 I 23Y I 264 I 285 I 300
I 190,
I 3131 0 8
I 256, I 3W I 335 I 365 I 3Rb I 403 I 417, 0 9
I32711 3751 420 I455 I47Y I 500 I415 IO
1: I 682 I 6% I 710 I 737,l 75) I 761 I 770
I 3 I 746 I 758 I 77) I 810 I 828 I 836l I 845
1: II 810 867 ! II 825 884 II 847 9-36 II 882, II Y3U, 903 962 ~II 911 973 1II 920 984
3801 I 438 I 435 I 528 I 552 I 573 I 591
433 I 500, I 550 I hO0 I 625 I 645 I 666
4b3: I 545 I 602 I 657 I 684 I 709 I 731
492 I 590 I 654 I 713 I 742 I 772 I 7Y5
510 I 620, I 6W i I 757 I 7YI I ~24 I 848
527 I 649, I 7Zh I 800 I 819 I RI5 I 9Cl
544: I 670 I 754 I 834 I 876 I 117 I 443 ~
560, I hW/ I 782 I 867 I VI> I 9>H I It35
575 I I 708, I 808 I KY6 I Y44 I 991 2 ULZ
590 1I 725 I 833, I 924 I 975 2 027 2 05Y
, b I 923 I 943 I 964 I 913 2 021 2 035l 2 047
I 7 I 96Y I WI 2 012 2
I a 2 014 2 038 2 060 2
0432 072 2 089~ 2 IO2
093 2 I23 2 142 2 157
:; 2OY3 2 054 22 079 2 IW 2
I 1 i
604 I 743, I 854~ I 947 2 00) 2 057 2 UC12
6171 I 761 I 876 I 971 2 031 2 086 2 I25
631 i 17791 RY7; IVY4 2 059 2 II6 2 I57
644 I 7971 I 919 2 018 2 087 2 I45 2 IW,
658: ,815, I 9M 2 041 2 II5 2 I75 2 223
6721 I 830 I 95R 2 061 2 137 2 I98 2 2491
685 1 845 I 976 2 081 2 159 1221 2 275 ~
699, I MO I 994 2 IO1 2 180 2 245 2 1021
712ll8752012,2i2I 2202 12bH 23281
726 I 690, 2 030 2 140 2 224 1 LYI 2 354
,22 12b12 I60 2
II912 140~2
136 17822072 1652 223Il225U 187, 2 204
:: 1RL2 I53 2 212 176 22 2152 252 2 2R8 248 22 272lL 5132 192 334
2 3 2 IY3 2 222 2 249 2 288 2 329 2 354 2 375
2 4 2 22712 2562 285 2 325 2 3b9 2 395 2 417
2 5 2 260 2 2% 2 521 2 362, 2 410 :2 436 2 459
2 6 2 206 2 318 2 350 2 392 2 442 ~2 069 ~2 492
2 7 , 2 316, 2 347 2 379 2 423 / 2 474 2 502, 2 525
2 8 2 344, 2 375 (2 407 2 413 2 506 2 534 ~2 ii7
2 9 I 2 372 j 2 404 i 2 436 2 484 : 2 538 2 567 2 5W
3 0 12 Q33 I 2 432 ,2 465 2 514 2 570 ,2 600, 2 623
740 I XI4 2 046 2 157 2 243 2 >II 2 376
754 I 918 2062 2 175 2 261 2 >?I 2 397;
767 ,Y3212O78 2 l92;2 280 2 350 2 419
781!1946i2094 2210 2298 1370 2440:
795 I 9tQ 2 I10 2 227 2 317 2 310 2 462
!IBo8 19742121 22432333 24fl7 248Oi 3 6
2 4Y8
: 2 535 2 568 2 603, 2 664 2 726 1 7hb 2 7Y2
I 622 I 988 2 14U 1 ii9 2 34) 1 424 3 7
2 2752 365
,2 556 2 5138 2 624 2 686 2 748 1791 2 RI7
I 835 2 GO2 2 I55 2 4411 2 5171 38 ;2576:2 bOY 2644'2708 2771 181j 2843
:i II 049 R62 22 Olh 030 22 166 170 1211 2 306 22 381 397 22 457 474 22 5351 533
:: II 875 889 22 044 058 22 201 216 1 2 111 3362 2 413 429 2 1 4Y0 506 2 2 569 586
4 3 I I 902 2 073 2 2311 2 351 2 444 2 523 2 602
44
45
, I 916 2 OR7 2 245 2 )06 1 460 2 ij9 2 619
I 919 2 101 2 260 2 381 2 476 2 555 1 635
46 1942 2115 2274 2195 24YI 2570 2651 4 6 ~2 719 2 754 2 7932 863 2 933 2 9W 3 022
47 I 955 2 I28 2 238 2 009, 2 507 2 506 2 6b6 4 7 ~2 735 2 770 2 810 2 881 , 2 952 3 DO9 3 041
48 I Y6V 2 142 2 301 2 423 2 522 2 601 2 682 4 8 2 752, 2 786 ~1 I326 I2 899 2 970 3 027 3 061
4 9 / I982 2 I55 2 315 2 437 2 5% 2 617 2 697 4 Y 3 046 3 080
50 I 995 2 169 2 329 2 451 2 553, 2 632 ~2 713 5 0
2 768 2 802 2 043 2 917, 2 989
2 784 2 RI8 ~2 WI, 2 935 3 007 3 065 3 IM)
: : I22 009 024 22 I83 197 22 342 355 22 465 479l 22 567 581 22 046 hbl
2 4Y2 2 5%
22 728 743 552I ~22814799 228502892 834 ~2 876 / 229683042 952 3 024 33OY9 082 33 136 I I8
5 3 2 038 2 210 2 369 2 675 2 758
5 4
~
2 053 2 224 2 382 2 506 2 609 2 bW 2 773
5 5 2 067 2 238 2 395 2 520 2 623 2 704 2 78A
F; ~22 07) OJI 22 251 LO4 22 408 421 22 533 547 1636 1 hiU 2 2 718 731 22 MI RI5
:; 22 102 II4 22 277 210 22 435 440 22 560 574 22 663 677 2L 74i 75H 22 R42 RZR
60 2 I2h 1303 2 461 2 587 2 OK) 2 772 2 855
96
i i
2585.2755I29083034 3 I31 3216 3302 i! 3 376 3 424 3 475 3 585 3 644 3 713 3 7M)
12 622 12 702 2 942 3 068 ~3 164 133 251 3 33A 9 9 3 41I 3 458 3 510 3 599 3 679
\2 / 2 610 5972 2 767 780 ~2 2 919a 931 133 045,3 057 3 14283 I53 228 239 33 314 326 9 8 33 39Y 1HR 33 435, 447, 33 467 495 33 576, 508, 33 6% bb7 ) i 1 33 724 736 33 772 783
9 9 , 3 747 3 795
IO 0 2 634 2 804 2 954, 3 080 3 175 13 263 3 350, IO0 3423,3470,3521~3610 3691
~
3758 3806
IO I 2 646 2 8162 9663 092 3 I87 I 3 274 3 361 IO1 13434 3482:3532 3622 3702
IO 2 2 658 2 828 2 97R 3 103 3 199 3 286 3 372, IO 2 1 446 3 494 3 544 3 633 3 714
3769 3817
3 7803 628
I03 3 790 3 840
IO 4
i2671 2840 2989 3115 3211;3297,3382~ I03 3 457 3 506 3 555 3 h45 3 725
105
; 2 683 2 852, 3 001 3 I26 3 223 3 309 3 393 I; ; 3 464 3 518, 3 5b7 3 656 3 737
2 695 2 864 3 013, 3 I38 3 235 13 320 13 404 3480 3530 3578 3669 3748
3 801 [3 851
3812 3862
IO b 2 707 2 876 ~3 025 3 I50 3 246 3 332 13 416 IO 6 3 492 i 3 541 3 588 i 3 679 3 758
!2 719 2 888 !3 037, 3 I61 3 258 I 3 343, 3 428 IO 7 3 504 3 552, 3 598 3 689 3 769
3 823 3 073
IO 7
2 732 2 9003 0483 l73l 3 269;3 355 3 440 IO 8 3 51513 56213 60913 700 3 779
3 834 3 883
IO 8
II 0
(2744 2912 3060~31R4~3281t3366 3452 IO 9 3 527 3 573 3 619 ; 3 710 3 790
3 844 3 894
109
/
I I I
2 756 2 924 13 072, 3 1% 3 292 3 378, 3 464 II 0 3 539 3 584 I 3 629 3 721 13 BOO
3 855 3 904
3 866 3 915
II I
II 2
II 3
II 4
II 5
II 6
II 7
II 8
II 9
I2 0
2 768 2 936 I3 084 3 208 3 304 3 389 / 3 475 3 551 3 595 3 639 3 732 ~3 81 I 3 877 3 926
2780 294R:3096 3220,3315 34UIl3486 35623605365037433822 3888 3937
2 793 2 960 3 I08 3 231 / 3 327 3 412 3 497 3 574 3 616 3 660. 3 753 3 832 3 899 3 947
2 805 2 972, 3 129 3 243 3 338 3 424 3 508, 3 585 3 626 3 671 3 764 3 843 3 910 3 958
2 817 2 984l3 132 3 255 3 350 3 435 3 519 II 5 3 5Y7 / 3 637 13.631 3 775 3 854 3 Y2I / 3 969
2 829 2 996 3 144 3 267 3 361 3 446 3 529 II 6 3 607 3 648, 3 692 3 756 3 865 3 932 3 980
2 841 3 008 3 156 3 279 3 373 3 456 3 543 II 7 3 617 3 65A 3 702 3 797 3 R7h 3 943 3 991
2 854 3 020 3 I68 3 290 3 384 3 467 3 550 II R 3 h!9 3 660 3 713 3 808 3 886 3 95514 W3
2 866 3 032 3 It33 3 302 3 396 3 477 3 561 II 9 3 h14 3 b79 3 723 3 819 3 R97
2878 3044,3I92 3314,3407,3488 3571 I2 0 3 h48 3 bW 3 734 3 830 3 908
3 966, 4 014
3,977, 4 025
TABLE 34.1 -VALUES OF s
p, 2
-dpp, (continued)
0.2 PPI
PSWd3
reduced
Pseudoreduced Temperalure, Tpr Pseudo-,
reduced
Pseudoreduced Temperature, T,,
PlfJSSUre
P~0SSE PO, I 05 I IO I I5 I 20 I 25 I 30 I 35 p!x I I 40 I 45 I 50 I 60 I 70 I I 80 I 90
~~ _~ ---I
,
-/-
61 2 139 2316 2 474 2600 27032 785 2 869 6 I 2 943 2 984 3 029 3 II I 3 I87 3 250 3 292
62 2l52~2328 2486 2bl2 2716 2799 2882 bl 2 956 2 997 3 043 3 I25 3 LO2
2 16512 341 2 499 2 025 2 729 2 Ml1 2 896 6 3 1IWO 3 OII 3 056 3 I40 3 218
3 266 3 308
3 281 3 323
2 YHl 3 024 3 070 3 I54 3 233 3 297 3 339
TABLE 34.1-VALUES OF ippLdp,, (continued)
0.2
PPI
Pseudo-
I reduced
Pressure
PP
::
6J
64
65
66
67
68
4:
7 I
72
::
75
z:
83
84
RI
86
~ 07
88
:z ~
9 I
;:
2:
/
96
97 I
98
99
Pseudoreduced Temperature. T, Pseudo PSBudOreduCed
reduced
Pressure
PP I 2ccl 220 ,240
__~.
02 0 0 0
0 3 0 350 0 150 0 J50
ii: 00867 639 00868 640 00 640 869
i; II 050 216 lI 051 2lR II llil 219
it II 489 360 II 492 %J II 494 5114
1.0 , 602 1 I 607 I 608
I:; i II 691 780 / II 699 790 II 702 795
13 I 851 1 I 868 I 875
I? / I, 915 997 ~2I 945 010 I 2I 954 019
260 z&300
rempmure. rp
260 280
---I ~~~
: 150 ; J i
0 640 0 CT40
0 8b9 0 869
2 074 , 2 083
2 III I 2 141
; y; I
2;5 I
: ;4;
2 2 29%
2 326 / 2 J37
2 366 2 JR0
2 407 / 2 422
2 447 2 465
2 488 2 507
2 523 / 2 544
2 559 2 MI
2 594 2 617
2 630 2 654
2 665 / 2 691
I
2 670 ~2 694 2 722
2 700 2 723
1
753
2 729
2
2 J 52 2 783
J4 2 759 2 78) 2 814
35 2 788 2 810 2 845
:;
2 813 12 836 2 a72
; .s% ; g; 2 899
:.G!
2 925
2 890 2 914 2 952
4.0 2 915 ~2 940 2 979 !
I 052 I 052
I 220 I 220
I Jf 4 ~I J64
I 4Oj 1I 495
I WI9 I 611)
I 706 ~I JUY
I 802 I hU8
I 1)MJ I 2490
I 964
1
I
I )7?
2 027 2 UJ6
2 090 2 100
2 I48 i 2 1%
2 205 2 217
2 256 2 267
2 347 ~2 317
2 350 2 ibl
2 394 2 404
2 4JJ 2 448
2 481 2 491
2 524 2 5Ji
2 562 2 574
2 599 2 012
2 bJ7 2 051
2 674 2 6k9
2 712 2 728
2 744 2 7%
2 775 2 JW
2807 2821
2 BJM 2 H52
2 a70 2 883
2 910 2 911
2 950 2 YJB
2 990 2 966
J OJO 2 99J
J 070 i 3 021
loo 2 20 2 40 Jo0
: J50
0 640
0 at9
3 321 3 362
3 JJJ J 379
3 154 J 395
3370 3412
3 387 3 429
3 402 3 444
3 417 3 459
3 432 3 475
J 447 3 490
1 462 3 505
3 477 3 520
3 491 I 3 534
3 506 13 549
3 520 J 563
3 535 3 578
3 548 J 591
3 562 3 605
3 575 3 618
3 5R9 3 bJ2
J 602 3 645
3 615 J 658
3627 3671
1 640 3 684
3 652 3 fJQ7
3 665 3 710
3 677 3 722
3 690 3 714
J 702 J 746
J 715 3 758
3 727 1 770
3 719 3 782
3 7% / 3 794
3 762 3 X06
3 77J J RIB
3 785 I 3 830
3 797 J 042
J R(r) J 854
3 820 J 865
7 RJZ J R77
3 4U9
J 426
3 44J
3 460
J 477
3 493
J 508
J 524
3 539
3 555
3 570
3 584
3 599
3 613
3 628
3 642
1 656
3 670
J 684
3 690
J 442 J 466 J 4i7
1 4j9 J 483 J 494
3 4?6 J 501 J 511
J 49J , 518 3 526
3 510 3 536 J 54;
3 526 3 551 J 561
3 542 3 507 J 577
3 557 3 582 J 592
3 573 3 598 3 608
3 5139 3 613 3 624
I ii:
I Jh4
I 49)
I 6,
I 711
I RI2
I 89b
I YHU
2 045
3 628 3 6J9
3 643 3 654
6659 3670
3 674 3 685
3 689 3 700
3 703 3 714
3 718 1728
3 JJ2 3 742
3 747 3 756
3 761 3 770
3 774 J JRJ
3 788 J 796
3 801 J 810
3 815 J 82J
3 R18 J 836
3 840 3 a49
3 853 3 862
3 865 J 875
3 878 : J 888
3 890 , J 901
3 902 / 3 91)
3 915
3 927
3 940
/
3 925
3 9J8
3 950
3 952 J 962
3 964 J 974
3 976 J 980
3 987 J 999
3 999 4 01 I
4 OII 4 U2J
4 02J 4 OJS
4 035 4 046
4 046 4 058
4 ow 4 069
4070 40.31
4 081 4 092
4 093 4 IO4
4 104 4 II5
4 116 4 127
4 127 4 1%
5 604
3 618
3 633
3 647
3 662
3 676
133 690
(
704
3 718
/ 3 732
~3 745
3 758
3 771
3 784
3 797
3 810
3 a23
3 835
3 848
3 Ml
~3 873
13 885
3 897
~3 999
3 921
3 93J
3 94;
3 957
3 969
3 981
3 992
4 004
4 015
4 027
4 038
4 049
4 060
4 071
4 082
4 093
1.6 2 059
1.7 2 116
I.8 2 172
1.9 2 219
2.0 2 265
2.1
::
2.4
25
2.307
2 349
2 391
2 433
2 475
:;
:;
30
3.1
::
2 508
2 541
2 575
2 608
2 641
2 11
2 lb9
2 227
2 279
2 3M
2 375
2 42U
2 4b5
2 itu
2 555
2 593
2 CiO
2 hbtl
2 JU5
2 743
2 775
2 806
2 8%
:tE
2 929
2 957
2 984
3 012
3 040
3 711
3 723
3 736
J 748
3 761
J 773
3 786
3 798
3 RII
3 823
: 8:s
3 859
3 871
3 481
3 R95
3 907
3 918
3 930
i 942
3 953
3 965
3 976
3 988
3 999
4.1
42
4.3
4.4
4.5
3 002
3 025
3 049
3 072
3 095
:;
48
49
5.0
; ;; ~
2 983 ~
: ;;
3 008
3.aJ5 3 010
3 028 3 053 ,
3 048 3.074
306a
JO881
3095
3 108 i
3 II5
3 136
3 128, 3 157
3 II? 3 147
3 119 J I68
3 161 3 190
3 18J 3 211
3 205 3 23)
3 081
JO92
1 IOJ
3 I14
J I25
IO 0 i 844
3 1145 3 064
3 iUb9 3 OR8 IO I 3 855
J lN4 3 112 IO 2 3 867
J118 1136 IO J 3 RJR
J 142 3 160 In 4 J A90
In.5 J 901
3164 3182
3 IPI, 1 zn3 ICI 6 3 912
3 2W 3 22i 10 7 J 92J
3 231 3 246 In a 3 9J3
3 253 3 268 10 9 3 944
II 0 3 955
3 274 3 2HX
3 295 3 JUH II I 3 ,f,6
:::I , 3J2x J J4H II II 2J 31 977 9H
3 ii? 3 JbB II 4 3 9)9
II 5 4 0,
3 175 3 JR6
3 39, I 4115 II b 4 1022
J 412 J 42J II 7 4 OJ4
1411, 1442 II a 4 04;
3 448 3 440 II 9 4 057
12.0 I 4 069
3 689
1 900
3 911
3 923
3 934
3 945
J 956 4 010
J 9hJ 4 021
3 978 4 UJI
3 989 4 042
4 000 4 053
3 146 13 I??
1 lh4 3 IOil
5. I
52
::
55
56 3 235
i ili
3 2J5
3 255
3 273 321 3 352
3 291 319 3 JJO
3 309 356 J 389
3 127 374 3 407
3 345 392 3 425
3 225 3 253
3 244 J 27)
J 264 3 294
3 283 I J JI4
3 303 13 3J4
4 011
4 022
4 033
4 044
4 055
4 0117
4 IO4 4118 4149
4 I!6 4150 4IMI
4 127 4 101 4 172
4 I39 4 17) 4 IRJ
4 I50 4 184 4 114
4 I61 4 I95 14 20,
4 172 4 206 4 2lh
4 IRJ * 217 4 227
4 194 4228 42Jir
4 205 4 2J9 4 249
4 Ob4
4 075
4 1187
4 098
4 109
4 121
4 132
-
34-a PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Example Problem 1.4 Calculate the static BHP of a gas
well having a depth of 5,790 ft; the gas gravity is 0.60,
and the pressure at the wellhead is 2,300 psia. The aver-
age temperature of the flow string is 117F.
From Fig. 34.3,
T,,< =358R.
pQc =672 psia,
Tp,=i zz
117+460
Tp,
= 1.612, and
358
(Ppr) : =
2,300
___ =3.423
672
From Table 34.1.
s
(Ppr) _ 2
-dpP, =2.629
0. 2
PV
and
LY, (5,790)(0.60) =o.l l3
53.241T = (53.241)(577)
Therefore, from Eq. 21
(p,J, 2
--dp,r
=2.629+0.113=2.742.
From Table 34.1, 2.742 at a T,,r of 1.612 corresponds
to a ppr of 3.918. Then
p=3.918(672)=2,633 psia.
If temperature is linear with depth,
T=aL+b . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
and
dT=a dL., . . .(23)
where a and b are constants. By substituting Eq. 23 in
Eq. 17 and putting in the differential form, the following
is obtained:
dT 53.2412 dp
-=--
. . . ..~.................
UT
(24)
YR p
Integrating,
53.241
I,n5=-
PI dp
Q T2
s
z- . . .
78 D, p
(25)
$) O1877yuLi ( T : I = p[ ~0. 01877~~0. 744~~7. 500) 1/ [ ~612 5) ( 0. 820) ]
- 0. 20x2
= 1.2239.
pi =(2,600)(1.2239)=3,182 calculated.
Since a=(T, -T7-)lL,
LI(T, -T2) L 53.241
=-=
In T,lT,
TLM
s
PI dp
z--, . . (26)
- f g pz p
then
53.241Tm PI z
L=
s
. . . . .
78
P2
where
TLM=
TI - T2
In TIITz
(27)
T, and T2 are, respectively, bottomhole and wellhead
temperatures. It can be seen that Eq. 27 differs from Eq.
18 only in that here a log mean temperature TLM is used,
whereas Eq. 18 uses the arithmetic average temperature,
T.
Referring to the example as an illustration of the cal-
culation procedure using the log-mean-temperature con-
cept, TLM merely is substituted for 7.
Another method of calculating static BHP in gas wells
is based on the following equation.
p, ~p*e0. 01877r , Ll ~r z~
. . . .
(28)
Eq. 28 can be derived from Eq. 17 if an arithmetic aver-
age temperature ? and an arithmetic average compressi-
bility factor Z are used. 7he method using Eq. 28 is a
trial-and-error procedure. Values of p i are assumed to
obtain a value of Z. p t then is calculated. The procedure
is repeated until the values of p, are in agreement.
Example Problem 2. (Data used are from Ref. 5.) Given:
Well A
p2 = 2,600 psia,
78
= 0.744,
L = 7,500 ft,
T = 152.511~=612.51112,
PPC
= 663.8 psia (from Fig. 34.3), and
Tpc = 385.6R (from Fig. 34.3).
First Trial. Assume:
p1 = 3,100 psia,
3 = 2,850 psia,
PPr
= 2,850/663.8=4.30,
T,, = 612.51385.6=1.59, and
Z = 0.820.
Therefore,
Second Trial. Assume:
and
pt = 3,182 psia,
p = 2,891 psia,
PP-
= 2,891/663.8=4.36,
T,, = 1.59, and
t = 0.821.
Therefore,
p l = (2,600)(e0 2082),
= (2,600)( 1.2239)
= 3,182 psia calculated check.
Measured pressure at 7,500 ft equals 3,193 psia.
Calculation of Flowing BHPs: Flow in Tubing. Flow-
ing BHP (BHFP) of a gas well when used with the known
static formation pressure provides the basis for evaluat-
ing the wells deliverability. In wells that produce through
tubing and have no packer, the static column of gas in
the tubing-casing annulus is exposed to the producing for-
mation. In this case, BHFP. or sandface pressure, can be
determined by the relatively simple procedure of calculat-
ing the pressure at the bottom of the static column of gas
in the annular space. The preceding section describes this
calculation procedure. Where a gas well is equipped with
a tubing-casing packer. it becomes necessary to use the
flowing-gas column in calculating the BHFP.
Use of the flowing-gas column means that energy
changes resulting from frictional effects, as well as the
energy differences caused by the compressional effects
and potential-energy changes. enter into the calculations.
Several methods have been developed for calculating
the pressure drop in flowing-gas columns..6.7 Sukkar
and Cornells method6 is described in detail. Raghaven
and Ramcy8 extended Sukkar and Cornells method to
cover reduced temperatures to 3.0 and reduced pressures
to 30. In a subsequent section that deals with gas flow
in injection wells, Poettmanns method is described.
Poettmanns method can be used for upward flow also.
The basic energy equation, Eq. 3, for any flowing fluid
in differential form is
vdr
ld[>+-+%lZ-dEl-dW=O. .(29)
A,< SC,
Assuming that the kinetic-energy term is small and can
be taken as zero, and recognizing that dW, work done
by or on the fluid. is zero, Eq. 29 reduces to
Vdp+ %lZ+dEr=O. . . . (30)
g,
For vertical gas flow, dz=dL. Since
V=F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WJ
(15)
K=l.O
g,
and
&y =fi2&
I 2g,d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._........
Eq. 30, upon substitution, becomes
(31)
dL=O. . . . (32)
Velocity can be expressed in terms of volumetric flow
rate and pipe diameter. Pressure can be expressed in terms
of reduced pressure. Substituting these terms in Eq. 32,
integrating the equation, and converting to common units
results in
s
(PP~ : (zlp,,)dp,,
-O.O1877y, jF . (33)
(Ppr) ,
1+B(z/p,,)2 =
Li
where
B=
667fq 2T2
R
4ppc2
Y,q =
gas gravity (air = 1 .O),
L= length of flow string, ft,
T= temperature, R,
T=
average temperature, R,
f =
friction factor, dimensionless,
48 =
flow rate, lo6 cu ft/D referred to 14.65
psia and 60F,
di = inside diameter of pipe, in.,
Ppc =
pseudocritical pressure, psia, and
Ppr =
pseudoreduced pressure pip,,.
At this point, it is further assumed that temperature is
constant at some average value. This permits direct in-
tegration of the right side of Eq. 33, as
s
(PP), (zbpr)dppr
0.01877
1+ B(zlp,,) 2
=-ygL,
T
. . .
(p,r) I
(34)
where the limits of the integral are inverted to change the
sign. If the temperature is linear with depth, the use of
log mean temperature as the average temperature provides
a rigorous solution to the right side of Eq. 34. This use
of log mean temperature confines the effect of the assump-
tion of constant temperature to the left side of the equa-
tion, where, for practical purposes, it is extremely small.
Thus, errors introduced by the assumption of constant
temperature are negligible.
(continued on Page 34-23)
34- 10 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 34.2-EXTENDED SUKKAR-CORNELL INTEGRAL FOR BHP CALCULATION
Pg., W,,)dp,,
I
02
1 +WP, , ?
Pseudoreduced temperature f or B=O 0
Pp, 1. 1 12 13 1. 4 15 16 17 18 1. 9 2. 0 2. 2 2. 4 26 2. 8 3. 0
020 00000 00000 0. 0000 0. 0000 00000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0 0. 0000 o. oooo
0 50 08387 08582 0. 8719 0. 8824 0 8897 0. 8966 0. 9017 0. 9079 0. 9082 0. 9108 0. 9147 0. 9177 09194 0. 9206 09218
1. 00 13774 14440 14836 15129 15334 1. 5514 15654 15781 15623 15889 1. 5986 1. 6059 16111 1. 6148 1. 6184
1. 50 1. 6048 1 7373 1. 8078 1. 8565 1. 8911 1. 9192 1 9422 1 9609 1. 9693 1. 9798 19951 2. 0063 2. 0151 2. 0211 2. 0274
2. 00 17149
2. 50 17995
3. 00 1. 8750
3 50 1. 9473
400 2. 0178
4 50 20889
500 21547
550 22214
6. 00 22872
19116 20157
2. 0298 2. 1631
21255 22778
20842 21331 2. 1709 2. 2023 2 2273 22397
2. 2507 23138 23607 2. 3996 24307 2. 4469
2. 3813 24570 2. 5125 2. 5583 2. 5947 26148
2. 4898 2 5762 2 6390 2. 6909 2. 7325 2. 7561
2. 5845 2 6793 2 7480 2. 8052 2. 8515 2. 8784
2. 6698 27715 2 8449 2. 9065 2. 9569 2. 9867
2. 7484 2 8558 29330 2. 9982 3. 0523 3. 0645
2. 8222 29341 30146 3. 0828 31400 3. 1742
28926 30079 30911 31616 32215 3. 2575
22536
2. 4641
26354
27798
2. 9050
3. 0158
3. 1158
2. 2744 2. 2893 2. 3013 2. 3100 2. 3184
2. 4900 2. 5081 2. 5234 2. 5347 2 5452
2. 6654 2. 6863 2. 7050 2. 7189 2. 7314
2. 8138 28382 2. 6589 2. 8752 28896 22101 2 3746
2. 2822 24603 2. 9426 2. 9699 2. 9928 3. 0114 3. 0274
3. 0571 30871 31119 3. 1322 31496
3. 1605 3. 1930 3. 2195 3. 2413 32597
3. 2552 3. 2899 33178 3. 3408 33600
3. 3428 33795 34085 34325 34524
2. 3622 2 5390
2. 4330 26128
25013 26833
2 5577 27512
3. 2074
3. 2924
6. 50 23522 2. 6329 28171 29603 30781 31635 32360 32980 33355 3. 3720 3. 4245 34629 34931 35176 35381
7. 00 24165 26971 28814 30258 31452 32324 33065 33704 3. 4092 3. 4470 3. 5012 35411 35722 35973 36181
750 2. 4802 27602 2. 9442 30893 32100 32985 3 3740 34393 3. 4792 3. 5180 3. 5738 36148 35467 36723 3f i 934
8. 00 25432 28223 30058 31512 32727 33623 34387 35052 35460 35857 3. 6486 36847 3. 7173 37432 3. 7646
850 2. 6057 28836 30664 32118 3. 3338 34239 35012 35685 36101 36504 3. 7144 37512 37844 38108 3. 8323
29441 31260 3 2713 3. 3934 3 4838 35617 36297 36718 3 7126 3. 7775 3. 8148 38484 3. 8750 3.8969
30039 3. 1847 33296 3. 4516 3 5422 36204 36889 37315 3 7727 3. 6382 3. 8760 39099 3. 9357 3.9588
30630 32427 33870 3. 5087 3 5993 3 6776 3 7465 3 7894 3 8308 3. 8969 3 9350 3. 9690 3. 9961 40182
31215 3.2999 34436 3 5647 3. 6552 3 7336 3 8026 38456 36672 39538 39921 40262 4. 0533 4 0755
31794 3. 3565 34993 3 6198 3. 7100 3 7883 3 8573 3. 9004 3 9421 4 0090 4 0473 40814 4. 1086 41309
32369 34126 35543 36741 3 7640 3. 8420 39108 3. 9540 39958 40627 4. 1010 4. 1351 4 1622 41845
32940 3. 4681 36086 3 7277 3. 8171 3 8948 3 9634 40065 40432 41150 41532 41872 42143 4 2366
33506 35231 36623 37806 38694 39467 40150 4. 0579 4. 0994 41660 42041 4 2380 4 2650 4 2872
34068 3 5777 3. 7154 3 8328 3 9211 3 9977 4 0557 4. 1084 4. 1495 4 2158 42537 42875 43144 4. 3365
34627 36319 3. 7680 3 8644 39721 40480 4 1155 4 1580 4. 1989 4 2845 43021 43357 43625 4. 3846
35183 36857 88200 39354 40224 40977 4 1547 4 2067 4 2472 4 3122 4 3494 4. 3829 4 4095 4. 4316
35735 3 7391 38716 39859 40722 4 1400 4 2131 4 2546 4 2947 4 3589 43957 4 4289 44555 4. 4775
36285 37922 39228 4. 0349 41215 4 1950 42609 43018 43414 4. 4047 4 4410 4 4741 4 5005 4 5224
1550 34335 36832 38450 39736 4. 0855 4 1702 42428 43080 43483 4 3874 4. 4497 4 4855 4 5183 4. 5446 4 5663
16. 00 34906 37376 38974 40240 41346 42185 42900 43546 43942 44327 4. 4939 4. 5291 45617 45878 46094
16. 50 35474 37919 39497 40740 41833 42663 43388 44007 44395 44773 4. 5374 4. 5720 46042 46302 46518
1700 36041 38459 40016 41237 42316 43138 43830 44462 44843 45213 4. 5802 4. 6141 46461 46719 46933
1750 3. 6606 38996 40533 41731 42795 43608 44289 44913 45285 45648 46223 4. 6555 4. 5872 47129 47341
1800 3 7170 39532 41048 42221 43271 4. 4075 44743 45359 45722 46077 4 6638 4. 6963 4. 7276 4. 7532 4 7743
1850 37732 40066 41560 42709 43744 44538 45193 45801 46154 46501 4. 7048 4. 7365 4. 7675 4. 7928 48138
1900 38293 40599 42071 43195 44214 44998 4. 5640 46239 46582 46921 47451 4. 7761 4. 6067 46319 48527
900 26676
9. 50 27289
1000 27896
10. 50 2 8499
11. 00 2 9096
1150 29690
1200 30280
1250 30867
1300 31452
1350 32033
1400 32612
1450 33189
1500 33763
1950 3. 8853
2000 3. 9411
20 50 3. 9969
2100 40525
21 50 4. 1080
2200 41634
22 50 4. 2187
2300 4 2739
2350 4. 3291
24. 00 4. 3841
24. 50 4. 4391
25. 00 4. 4940
2550 4. 5488
2600 4. 6036
41129 42579 43678
41658 43086 44158
42186 43590 44636
42712 4. 4094 45112
43237 44595 45586
43760 45095 46058
44282 4 5594 4. 6528
44803 4 6091 46996
45323 46587 4. 7463
45842 47081 4. 7928
4 6360 47575 48391
4. 6877 48067 48853
4. 7392 48558 49314
4. 7907 49048 49772
4. 8421 49536 50230
4. 8934 5. 0024 50686
4. 9447 5. 0511 51142
49958 5. 0997 51595
50469 5. 1462 52048
50979 5. 1966 52500
51488 5. 2450 52950
51997 5. 2932 5. 3400
4 4681 45455 4 6053 46574 47006 47335 4 7850
45145 4. 5909 46522 47104 47425 4 7746 4. 8244
45606 46360 4. 6959 4. 7531 4. 7841 48152 48633
46065 4. 6808 4. 7392 4 7955 4. 8253 4 8554 49017
46522 47254 4. 7822 48376 4. 8662 4 8953 4. 9397
46976 4 7697 4. 8250 48794 4. 9068 4 9348 4. 9774
4. 7428 48138 4. 8675 4. 9209 4. 9470 4. 9739 5. 0146
47879 48577 4. 9098 49621 49869 50128 50514
48327 4. 9014 4. 9518 50031 5. 0265 5. 0513 50879
48773 49449 4. 9935 5. 0438 5. 0659 5. 0895 5 1241
49217 49882 5. 0351 50843 5. 1050 5. 1275 5 1599
49660 50312 5. 0764 51245 5. 1438 5. 1651 5. 1955
5. 0101 50741 51176 51646 5. 1824 5. 2025 5. 2307
5. 0541 51169 51585 5. 2044 5. 2208 2. 2397 5. 2656
5.0979 5 1594 51993 52440 5. 2589 5 2766 5. 3003
5. 1415 5 2019 52398 52834 5. 2968 5. 3132 5. 3347
5. 1850 5. 2441 5. 2802 53227 5. 3345 53497 5. 3588
5. 2284 5. 2862 5. 3204 53817 5. 3720 53859 5. 4027
5. 2716 5. 3282 5. 3605 54006 5. 4094 5. 4219 5. 4363
53147 5. 3700 54004 54393 54465 5. 4577 5. 4697
5. 3577 5. 4117 5. 4401 5. 4779 5. 4834 5. 4933 5. 5029
54005 5. 4532 5. 4797 5. 5163 5. 5202 5. 5287 5. 5359
4. 8151 4. 8454
4. 8536 4 8835
4 8916 4 9211
4. 9291 49582
49662 49949
5 0029 5 0311
50391 50670
50750 5 1024
5 1104 5 1374
5 1455 5. 1720
5 1803 52063
5 2147 5 2403
5 2488 5 2739
5. 2826 5. 3073
5. 3162 5. 3403
5. 3494 5. 3730
5. 3823 5. 4054
5. 4150 5. 4376
5. 4475 5. 4695
5. 4796 5. 5012
5. 5116 5. 5326
5. 5433 5. 5638
4. 8704 48911
49083 49288
4 9457 49661
4 9827 5 0029
50192 50392
50552 50751
50908 5. 1105
5 1260 5 1455
5 1608 5. 1802
5 1953 5. 2144
5 2294 5. 2483
5. 2631 5. 2819
5. 2965 5. 3151
5 3296 5 3480
2650 46583
2700 47129
2750 47675
2800 48220
2850 4. 8764
2900 49306
29 50 4. 9851
3000 5. 0394
5. 3624 5. 3806
5. 3950 54129
5. 4272 5. 4450
5. 4591 54767
5. 4908 55082
5. 5223 5 5394
5. 5535 5. 5704
5 5844 5. 6011
WELLBORE HYDRAULI CS
34- 11
TABLE 34.2-EXTENDED SUKKAR-CORNELL INTEGRAL FOR BHP CALCULATION (continued)
Prv Wp,r)dp,,
I
; 2 1 +wP,,)
Pseudoreduced temperature f or 6= 5 0
Pp, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
0. 20 0. 0000 00000 0. 0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
0. 50 0. 0226 00220 00216 00214 00212 00210 00209 00207 00207 00206 00205 00205 00204 00204 00204
1. 00 0. 1036 00983 00954 00934 00921 00909 00901 00894 00890 00886 00881 00877 00874 00871 00869
1. 50 0. 2121 02052 01995 01954 01924 01901 01882 01668 01859 01850 01838 01829 01822 01816 0 1811
2. 00 0. 3002 03125 0. 3102 0. 3066 03034 03007 02983 02965 02954 02943 0 2926 02914 02904 02896 0 2889
250 0. 3741 04046 04126 04133 04124 04107 04090 04076 04066 04056 04041 04030 04020 04012 04005
3. 00 0. 4419 04854 0. 5032 0. 5105 05137 05144 05143 05140 05138 05134 05125 05118 05112 05108 05103
3. 50 0. 5074 05594 05847 05983 06065 06101 06123 06138 06147 06152 06154 06155 06155 06157 06156
4. 00 0. 5715 06291 06594 06785 06915 06982 07029 07064 07087 07104 07121 07133 07140 07149 07154
4. 50 0. 6346 06957 0. 7294 0. 7530 07702 07797 07868 07927 07964 0 7994 08027 0 8051 0 8068 08084 08094
5. 00 0. 6966 0. 7601 07960 0. 8229 08440 08560 08653 08734 08785 08827 08879 08916 08941 08965 08980
5. 50 0. 7579 08225 08601 0. 8895 09138 09280 09393 09493 09558 09611 09682 09732 09765 09795 09815
600 0. 6185 08836 09222 0. 9536 09803 09965 10095 10213 10289 10354 10441 10504 10544 10580 10604
6. 50 0. 8784 09437 09829 1. 0156 10442 10620 10764 10896 10984 1 1060 1 1162 1 1236 1 1284 1 1324 1 1351
700 09378 10030 10423 10758 11058 1 1249 1 1406 1 1552 1 1649 1 1734 1 1848 1 1932 1 1987 17031 17060
750 0. 9967 10614 11005 11346 1. 1656 11857 12024 12182 12286 12379 12504 12597 12657 12704 12737
BOO 10551 1 1191 1 1578 11921 12237 12447 12621 12788 1 2900 1 2999 13i 67 13234 1 3299 1 3349 1 3383
850 11131 11761 12142 12486 12805 13020 13201 13374 13492 13596 13773 13845 13914 13967 1 4003
900 11706 12325 1 2698 13041 13361 13579 13764 13943 14066 14173 14357 14434 14506 14561 14599
950 12275 1. 2083 13240 I 3587 13907 14125 14313 14497 14623 14733 14927 15008 15077 15135 15174
1000 12841 13435 13791 14126 14443 14661 14851 15037 15165 15278 15472 15555 1 5630 1 5689 1 5729
1050 13403 13983 14328 14658 14970 15187 15377 15564 15694 15808 16006 1 6090 16167 16226 16267
1100 13961 14526 14860 15162 1 5490 15705 15894 16081 16211 16326 16526 16611 16687 16747 16789
1150 14515 15065 15387 15701 16002 16214 16401 16587 16718 16833 17034 17118 1 7195 1 7254 1 7296
1200 15067 15601 15910 16214 16509 16717 16901 17085 17215 17330 17530 17613 1 7689 17749 1 7790
1250 15616 16133 1. 6429 16721 17010 17213 17393 17575 17704 17817 18015 18097 18172 18231 18271
13. 00 1. 6163 16662 16944 1 7224 17505 1 7704 17879 18057 18184 18295 18489 18569 18644 18701 18742
1350 16708 17168 17456 17722 17995 18188 18358 18532 18656 18765 18954 19032 19105 19161 19201
14. 00 1 7250 17711 17965 18216 18480 18667 18830 19001 19121 19227 19410 19485 19556 19612 19651
1450 17791 18232 18470 18706 18960 19142 19298 19463 19580 19681 19858 19920 19998 2 0053 2 0091
1500 18330 18750 18973 19192 19436 19612 19760 19920 20032 20128 2 0298 2 0364 2 0432 2 0485 2 0523
1550 18867 19266 19472 19675 19909 20077 20217 20372 20478 20570 2 0730 2 0792 20857 20910 2 0946
1600 19402 19780 19970 2 0154 2 0377 20538 20669 20818 20918 2 1005 2 1155 2 1212 2 1275 2 1326 2 1362
1650 19936 20292 20465 2 0631 2 0842 20996 21117 21260 2 1353 2 1434 2 1574 2 1626 2 1686 2 1736 2 1770
1700 2. 0469 20802 20958 2 1104 2 1303 21450 21561 21697 21783 2 1858 2 1987 22032 2 2090 2 2138 2 2172
1750 21000 21311 21449 2 1575 2 1762 21900 2 2000 2 2131 2 2209 22276 22394 22433 2 2488 2 2535 2 2567
1800 21530 21817 21937 2 2043 22217 22347 22437 2 2560 22630 22690 22795 22828 2 2880 2 2925 2 2956
1850 22059 22323 22424 22509 22670 22791 22869 22985 23046 23100 23191 23217 23266 23309 23339
1900 22587 22826 22909 22973 23120 23233 23299 23407 23459 23505 23582 23600 23646 23688 23717
1950 23113 23329 23393 23434 23567 23671 23725 23825 23868 23906 23969 23979 24022 24062 24089
20. 00 23639 23830 23875 23893 24012 24107 24148 24241 24273 24303 24350 24353 24392 24431 24J 56
2050 24164 2. 4329 24355 24350 24455 24541 24568 24653 24675 24696 24728 24723 24758 24795 24819
2100 24688 2. 4828 24834 24306 24895 24972 24986 25062 25074 25086 25101 25088 25119 25155 25177
2150 25210 2. 5325 25311 25259 25333 25400 25401 25468 25470 25472 25471 25449 25477 25510 25531
22. 00 25733 2. 5822 25788 25711 2 5770 25827 2 5814 25872 25862 25855 25837 25806 25830 25861 2 5881
2250 26254 26317 26263 26161 26204 26252 26224 26273 26252 26235 26199 26159 26179 26209 26226
2300 26774 26811 26736 26610 26637 26674 26632 26672 26639 26612 26558 26508 26524 26552 76566
2350 27294 27304 27209 27057 27068 2 7095 2 7038 ' 27068 2 7023 26986 26913 26854 25866 26892 26906
2400 2. 7813 27796 27680 27503 2 7497 2 7514 2 7441 2 7462 2 7405 2 7357 2 7266 2 7197 2 7204 2 7229 2 7241
24. 50 28332 2. 8288 2. 6151 27947 2 7924 2 7981 2 7043 2 7854 2 7784 2 7726 2 7615 2 7536 2 7540 2 7562 2 7573
25. 00 28849 28778 28620 28390 28351 28346 28243 28244 28161 28092 27961 2 7872 27872 2 7892 2 7901
25. 50 29367 29268 2. 9088 28832 28775 28760 28640 28532 28536 28456 28305 28205 28200 28219 28226
26. 00 29883 29757 29556 29272 29196 29172 29037 29018 28908 28818 28646 28536 28526 28543 28548
26. 50 30399 30245 30022 29711 29620 29583 29431 29402 29279 29177 28985 28864 28850 28864 28867
2700 30915 30733 30488 30149 30040 29993 29824 29785 29648 29534 29320 29189 29170 29182 29184
27. 50 31429 3. 1220 30953 3. 0586 3. 0459 30400 30215 30165 30014 29889 29654 29512 29488 29498 29497
2800 31944 3. 1706 31417 3. 1022 30877 30807 20604 30544 30379 30242 29985 29832 29803 29811 29809
28. 50 32458 3. 2191 31880 31457 31294 31212 30992 30922 30742 30593 30314 30149 30116 30122 30117
29. 00 32971 32676 32343 3. 1891 3. 1710 31616 31379 31297 31103 30942 30641 30465 30426 30430 30424
29. 50 33484 33160 32804 32324 32124 32019 31764 31672 31463 31289 30966 30778 30735 30736 30728
30. 00 3. 3997 33644 3. 3265 3. 2756 3. 2537 3. 2421 32148 32045 3. 1821 31635 31268 3 1089 31040 31040 31029
34- 12 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
Pseudoreduced temperature f or B= 10 0
A?-
1. 1 1. 2 1. 3
0. 20 0. 0000 o. oooaooooo
0. 50 0. 0115 0. 0112 0. 0110
1. 00 00561 00525 00507
1. 50 0. 1292 01187 0. 1132
200 02028 0. 1968 0 1891
2. 50 0. 2684 0. 2723 02677
3. 00 0. 3300 0. 3422 03427
3. 50 0. 3897 0. 4080 0. 4130
4. 00 0. 4485 0. 4708 04793
1. 4
0.0000
0. 0108
0. 0494
0. 1098
0. 1837
0. 2624
0. 3399
0. 4135
0. 4832
15 16
0. 0000 0 0000
00107 00107
0. 0486 0 0479
0. 1074 01056
0. 1797 01767
0 2578 02543
0 3364 0 3332
04123 04102
0 4846 0 4841
17 18
0 0000 0 0000
00106 00105
00474 00470
0 1041 0 1031
01743 01725
02513 02490
03302 03278
0 4080 0 4061
04830 04820
19 20
0000000000
00105 00105
00468 00465
01024 01018
01713 01703
02475 0 2461
03263 0 3248
04047 04035
04812 04803
2. 2 24 26 28 30
0 0000
00104
0. 0462
01009
0. 1687
02440
03225
04014
04787
0 0000
00103
0 0000 0 0000
00104 00104
00460 0 0458
01003 00997
0 1676 0 1667
0 0000
00103
02426 02413
03210 03195
0 0456 00455
0 0994 0 0990
0 1660 0 1653
0 2403 0 2394
03184 03174
0 3974 0 3964
04755 0 4746
03999 0 3985
04776 04764
4. 50 0. 5065 0. 5315 05423 0. 5492 05533 05545 05547 05549 05549 0 5546 0 5538 0. 5532 05523 05517 05511
500 05638 05904 06029 06122 06189 06217 06233 06248 06256 06260 06262 06263 06258 06256 06252
550 0. 6204 0. 6480 0. 6617 0. 6729 0. 6818 06861 06891 06919 06934 06946 06959 06967 06967 06966 06967
600 06765 07045 07190 0. 7316 0 7424 0 7481 0 7522 0 7563 0 7586 07605
6. 50 0. 7321 07602 07752 0 7888 08010 08079 0 8131 0 8182 0 8214 08240
7. 00 0. 7873 08153 08304 0. 8447 08580 08659 0 8720 0 8781 0 8619 08852
7 50 08421 0. 8697 08846 0 8994 09134 09221 0 9290 0 9360 0 9404 0 9443
8. 00 0. 8965 09236 09381 09531 0. 9676 0. 9770 0 9845 0. 9921 09971 10015
8. 50 0. 9506 0 9769 0 9909 10059 10207 1. 0305 10385 1. 0467 10522 10569
9. 00 1. 0043 1. 0296 10431 10580 10729 1. 0829 10912 10999 11057 11108
950 10575 10819 1. 0947 1 1094 1 1242 11342 11428 11518 1 1579 11633
1000 1 1104 11338 1 1458 1 1601 11747 11847 1 1935 12027 12090 12145
1050 1 1630 11852 1. 1964 12102 12245 12344 12432 12525 12589 12645
11. 00 12153 12363 12466 12598 12736 12834 12920 13013 13078 13135
11. 50 12674 12871 12964 1. 3089 13222 13317 13402 13494 13559 13616
0 7629 0 7645
08273 0 8297
08895 0 8925
0 9494 09531
10092 10115
10653 10681
11197 1 1228
11726 1 1760
12242 12278
12746 12783
13238 13275
13719 13756
0 7650 0 7654 07655
08307 08314 0 8317
08940 08950 0 8955
0 9550 0 9562 0 9568
10138 10152 10160
10706 10723 10732
1 1256 1 1275 11286
11790 11810 1 1822
12309 12331 12343
12814 12836 12850
13307 13329 13343
13788 13810 13824
12. 00 13192 1. 3376 13458 1. 3574 13702 13794 13876 13967 14032 14088 14190 14227 14258 14280 14294
12. 50 13708 13877 13949 14056 1. 4178 14266 14345 14433 14497 14552 14653 14688 14719 14740 14753
13. 00 14222 1. 4377 14437 14533 1. 4649 14733 14807 14893 14955 15008 15106 15140 15169 15139 15202
13. 50 14734 14873 14921 15006 1. 5115 15194 15264 15346 15406 15457 15551 15582 15611 15630 15642
14. 00 15244 15368 15403 1. 5476 1. 5577 15652 15716 15794 15851 15899 15988 16016 16043 16062 16074
1450 15753 15860 15883 15942 1. 6035 16104 16163 16237 16290 16335 16417 16443 16468 16486 16497
1500 16261 16351 16360 16405 1. 6490 16553 16605 16575 16723 16764 16840 16862 16885 16902 16912
15. 50 16767 16839 1. 6835 16865 16941 16999 17043 17108 17151 17811 1 7256 1 7274 1 7296 17311 17320
16. 00 17271 17326 1 7308 17323 17389 17440 17477 17537 17575 17607 17666 17679 1 7699 17713 17722
16. 50 17775 17811 17778 17778 17834 1 7878 1 7906 17961 17993 18020 18070 18078 18096 18109 18116
17. 00 18277 18294 1. 8247 18230 18275 18314 18333 18382 18407 18429 18469 18472 18487 18499 18505
17. 50 18778 18777 18714 18680 18714 18746 18756 18799 18818 18833 18862 18859 18872 18883 18888
18. 00 19278 19257 1. 9179 19127 19151 19175 1. 9175 19212 19224 19232 19251 19242 19252 19261 19265
18. 50 19777 19737 1. 9643 19573 19585 19602 1. 9592 19622 19626 19628 19634 19619 19626 19634 19637
19. 00 20276 20215 20105 20017 20016 20026 2. 0005 20029 20025 20020 20013 19992 19996 2 0002 20004
1950 20773 20692 20566 20458 20446 20447 2. 0416 20433 20420 20408 20388 20359 2 0360 2 0365 20366
20. 00 2. 1269 2 1167 21026 20898 20873 20867 20824 20833 20812 20792 20759 20723 20721 20724 20723
2050 21765 21642 21484 21336 21298 2 1284 2 1229 21232 21201 21173 21126 21082 21077 2 1079 21077
21. 00 22260 22116 21941 21773 21722 21699 21632 21627 21587 21551 21489 21438 21429 21429 21425
21. 50 22754 22588 2. 2396 2. 2207 22143 22112 22033 22020 21970 21926 21848 21789 21777 21775 2 1770
22. 00 23248 23060 22851 22641 22563 22523 22432 22411 22350 22298 22204 22137 22121 22118 22111
2250 23741 23531 23304 23073 2. 2981 22932 22828 22799 22728 22667 22557 22481 22462 22457 22449
2300 2. 4233 24001 23757 23503 2. 3397 23340 23222 23185 23103 23033 22906 22822 22799 22792 22783
23. 50 24725 24470 24208 2. 3932 23812 23745 23615 23569 23476 23397 23253 23160 23133 23124 23113
24. 00 2. 5216 24938 24659 24360 2. 4226 24149 24005 2 3951 2 3847 23758 23597 23494 23463 23453 2 3440
24. 50 2. 5706 25406 25108 24787 2. 4637 2 4552 24394 2 4331 24215 24117 23937 23826 2 3791 23779 2 3765
25. 00 2. 6196 2. 5873 25557 25212 2. 5048 2. 4953 2. 4761 2. 4709 2. 4581 24473 24275 24155 24115 24102 2 4086
25. 50 2. 6685 2. 6339 26005 25637 2. 5457 2. 5353 25166 2. 5085 2. 4946 2. 4827 24611 24481 24437 24422 24404
2600 2. 7174 26805 26452 26060 2. 5865 2. 5751 2. 5550 2. 5459 2. 5308 2. 5179 24944 24804 24756 24739 24719
2650 2. 7663 2. 7269 2. 6898 26482 26272 2. 6148 2. 5932 2. 5832 2. 5668 25529 2. 5275 25124 25073 25053 25032
27 00 2. 8151 2. 7734 2. 7343 26904 2. 6677 2. 6543 2. 6312 2. 6203 2. 6027 2. 5877 2. 5603 2 5443 25386 25365 25342
2750 2. 6638 2. 8197 2. 7788 2. 7324 2 7082 2. 6938 2. 6691 26573 26384 2. 6223 2. 5929 25758 25698 25675 2 5650
2800 2. 9125 2. 8660 2. 8232 2. 7743 2. 7485 2. 7331 2. 7069 26941 26739 26567 26253 2. 6072 2. 6007 2 5982 25955
28. 50 2.9612 2. 9123 2. 8675 2. 8162 27887 27723 27446 27307 27092 26909 26575 2. 6383 26314 26286 26258
29. 00 3. 0098 2. 9585 2. 9118 2. 8579 28288 20114 27821 27673 27444 27250 2 6895 2. 6692 2. 6618 26589 26558
2950 3. 0584 3. 0046 2. 9560 2. 8996 28689 28504 28194 28036 27794 27589 2 7212 26999 26920 26889 26857
30. 00 3. 1069 3. 0507 3. 0001 2. 9412 29088 28892 28567 28399 28143 27926 27528 27304 2 7221 27187 27153
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-13
Pv
I
(z/p,,, Wp,,
0 * 1 + W/P,,)
Pseudoreduced temperature f or B= 15 0
pp 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 17 18 19 20 22 2. 4 26 2. 8 30
~__~~
0. 20 00000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 000( 3 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0. 0000 o. oooo
0. 50 00077 0. 0075 0. 0074 0 0073 0. 0072 0. 0071 0. 0071 0. 0071 0. 0070 0. 0070 0. 0070 0. 0070 0. 0069 0. 0069 00069
1. 00 00385 0. 0359 0. 0345 0. 0336 0. 0330 0. 0325 0. 0322 0. 0319 0. 0317 0. 0316 0. 0313 0. 0311 0. 0310 0. 0309 00308
150 00939 0. 0838 0. 0793 0. 0765 0. 0746 0. 0732 0. 0721 0. 0713 0. 0708 0. 0703 0. 0696 0. 0692 0. 0687 0. 0685 0 0682
2. 00 0. 1571 0. 1453 0. 1371 0. 1319 0. 1282 0. 1257 0. 1236 0 1220 0. 1211 0. 1202 0. 1189 0. 1180 0 1172 01167 0. 1161
250 02162 0. 2093 0. 2008 01943 0. 1892 0. 1857 01827 01804 01790 0. 1777 0. 1758 0. 1745 01733 0. 1724 01716
300 02725 0. 2710 0. 2648 0. 2587 0. 2533 0. 2493 0. 2458 0. 2431 0. 2413 0. 2397 0. 2374 0. 2357 02342 02331 02320
350 0. 3275 0. 3302 0. 3267 03222 0. 3176 0. 3138 0. 3102 03074 0. 3055 0. 3038 0. 3012 0. 2994 02978 02964 02952
400 03818 0. 3874 0. 3862 0. 3837 03805 0. 3774 0. 3743 0. 3717 0. 3699 0. 3683 03657 03639 03622 03608 0. 3596
450 04355 04430 0. 4435 0. 4431 04415 0. 4393 0. 4369 0. 4349 0. 4335 0. 4320 04298 04281 04265 04252 0. 4240
500 04887 0. 4975 0. 4992 0. 5004 0. 5006 0. 4994 0. 4978 0. 4966 0. 4956 0. 4945 04928 04914 04900 0488% 04877
550 0. 5413 0. 5508 0. 5535 0. 5561 05579 0. 5577 0 5570 0. 5566 0. 5561 0. 5554 0 5543 05534 05522 0 5512 0 5503
600 0. 5936 0. 6034 06066 0. 6103 0. 6135 0. 6143 06144 06149 0. 6149 0. 6147 0. 6143 06138 06129 06121 06113
650 06454 0. 6553 06590 0. 6634 06676 06694 0. 6703 06715 0. 6720 0. 6724 0. 6726 06727 0. 6721 0. 6715 06708
7. 00
750
8. 00
8 50
9. 00
950
10. 00
1050
11. 00
11 50
12. 00
1250
13. 00
13. 50
14. 00
14. 50
1500
15. 50
16. 00
1650
1700
0. 6969 0. 7068
0. 7482 0. 7577
0. 7991 0. 8082
0. 8497 08582
0. 9000 0 9078
0 9500 0 9570
0. 9998 10059
1. 0492 10544
10985 1 1026
1 1475 11506
1 1963 1 1983
1. 2449 12458
12934 12931
1. 3417 13402
1. 3899 1 3870
14380 14337
1. 4860 14803
1. 5338 1 5266
1. 5815 15728
1. 6291 16189
1. 6766 1. 6649
0. 7105
0. 7613
08114
0. 8611
09102
0. 9588
1. 0071
1. 0549
1. 1024
1. 1496
1. 1964
1. 2430
1. 2893
1. 3354
1. 3812
14268
14722
1. 5174
15625
16073
16520
0. 7155 0 7205
12903 12939
0. 7666 0. 7722
0. 8170 0. 8230
13354 13384
08666 08729
09157 0. 9220
09641 09704
10121 1. 0181
10595 1. 0653
11065 1. 1119
1 1530 1. 1580
1 1992 1. 2037
12449 12490
13862 13825
14247 14263
14689 14698
1. 5129 15130
1. 5566 15559
16001 15985
1. 6434 16409
0 7230 0 7246
07754 0 7776
1. 2967 12993
08266 08293
0 8768 0 8799
1. 3408 13430
09261 0 9295
0 9746 0 9782
1. 0223 1 0260
1. 0694 10731
1. 1159 1. 1195
1. 1618 1 1653
1. 2072 1 2105
1. 2522 1. 2551
1. 3845 13862
1. 4278 14290
14708 14714
15135 15134
15558 15551
1 5979 15964
16397 16374
0 7265 0 7276
0 7802 0 7817
0 8324 0 8344
0 8835 0. 885%
0 9334 0 9360
0 9824 0. 9852
10304 10334
10776 10806
1 1239 11271
1 1696 1 1728
12147 12178
1. 2592 1. 2622
1. 3031 1. 3060
1. 3465 1. 3492
1. 3894 1. 3918
14319 14339
14739 14756
15155 15168
15567 15575
15976 15978
16381 16378
0. 7284
0 7829
0 8360
0. 8878
0. 9382
0. 9876
10359
10833
1 1298
1 1755
12205
12648
1. 3084
1. 3514
1. 3938
1. 4356
14769
15177
15580
15979
16373
0.7293 0.7299
0 7844 0. 7854
0 8391 0. 8395
0 8914 0. 8920
09423 0 9432
09920 0 9932
10407 10420
10883 10897
1 1349 11364
1 1807 1 1822
12256 12270
12698 12711
1. 3131 13143
1355% 13567
1. 3977 13984
14390 14395
1. 4797 14798
15198 15196
15594 15587
15984 15973
16370 16354
0 7296 0. 7291 0 7286
0. 7855 0 7852 07848
0. 8398 0 8397 0 8394
08926 08927 08925
09440 09442 09441
09941 09944 09944
10430 10434 10435
10908 10913 10914
1 1375 1 1380 1 1381
11832 11837 11839
12281 12285 12287
12720 12724 12725
13152 13155 13156
13575 13578 1. 3578
13991 13993 13992
14400 14401 14400
14802 14802 14800
15197 15197 15194
15587 15585 15582
15971 15968 15964
16350 16346 16341
1750 17241 17107 16966 16865 16830 16812 16781 16783 16773 16764 16750 16730 16723 16718 16712
1800 1. 7714 1. 7564 17410 1. 7293 17249 17225 17186 17181 17166 17150 17127 17100 17091 17085 17078
18. 50 1. 8187 18020 17853 17720 17666 17635 17587 17577 17554 17533 17499 17466 17455 17447 17439
1900 1. 8659 18475 18294 1. 8146 18081 18043 17986 17970 17940 17912 17866 17828 17814 17805 17796
1950 19130 18929 18734 18569 18493 18449 18382 18360 18322 1828% 18280 18186 18169 18158 18148
2000 19600 19382 19173 18991 1. 8904 18853 18776 1 a747 18702 18661 18590 18540 18519 18508 18496
2050 20070 19834 19611 19412 1. 9314 1. 9255 19168 19132 19079 1. 9031 18947 18889 18866 18853 18840
21 00 2. 0539 20285 2004% 19831 1. 9721 19655 1. 9557 19515 19453 19397 19300 19235 19209 19195 19180
21. 50 21007 20736 20484 20248 20127 2. 0054 1. 9944 19895 19824 19761 19650 19578 19549 19532 19517
22. 00 2 1475 2 1185 20918 20665 2. 0531 2. 0450 2. 0330 2. 0273 20193 2. 0122 19997 19917 19884 19867 19850
22. 50 2. 1943 2. 1634 21352 21080 2. 0934 20845 20713 20649 20560 2. 0481 20341 20253 20217 20198 20179
23. 00 2. 2410 2. 2082 2 1785 21494 21335 2 1239 21095 2. 1024 2. 0924 2. 0837 2. 0681 20586 20546 20525 20506
23. 50 22876 2. 2529 22217 21906 21735 21631 2 1475 21396 21286 21191 2. 1019 20916 20872 20850 20829
2400 2. 3342 2. 2976 2 2648 22318 22134 22021 2 1853 21766 2. 1646 2. 1542 2. 1355 2 1242 21196 21171 2 1149
24 50 2. 3807 2. 3422 2 3079 22728 22531 22410 22229 22135 22005 21891 2. 1687 2 1567 2 1516 21490 2 1466
2500 2. 4272 2. 3867 23509 2. 3138 22927 22798 22604 22502 22361 2 2238 22017 21888 2 1834 21806 2 1780
25 50 2. 4736 2. 4312 23937 23546 2 3322 23184 22978 22867 22715 22583 2. 2345 22207 22149 22119 2 2092
26 00 2 5200 24756 24366 23953 2 3716 23569 23350 23230 23067 22927 22671 22523 22461 22430 22401
26 50 2. 5664 25200 24793 24360 24109 23953 23720 23592 23418 23268 22994 22837 22771 22738 22707
27. 00 2 6127 25643 25220 24766 2. 4501 2 4336 2 4089 23953 23767 23607 2. 3315 2 3149 23078 23044 23011
2750 26590 2. 6086 2. 5646 25170 24891 24718 24457 24312 24115 23944 23634 23458 23384 23347 23313
28. 00 2 7053 2. 6528 2. 6072 25574 25281 2. 5098 24824 24670 24460 24280 23951 23765 23687 23648 23612
28. 50 27515 26969 26497 25977 25669 25478 25189 25026 24805 24614 24266 24070 23987 23947 2 3909
29. 00 27977 27410 2. 6921 26380 2. 6057 2. 5856 25553 25382 25148 24947 24579 24373 24286 24244 24205
29. 50 2. 8438 2. 7851 2. 7345 2. 6781 26444 2. 6234 25916 2. 5736 25489 2 5278 24890 24674 24583 24538 24497
30. 00 2. 8899 2. 8291 2 7769 2. 7182 26830 2. 6610 26278 26088 25829 25607 25200 24974 24878 24831 24788
TABLE 34. 2- EXTENDED SUKKAR- CORNELL I NTEGRAL FOR BHP CALCULATI ON ( conti nued)
Pseudoreduced temperature f or 8 = 20. 0
Pp, (zb,,)dp,r
\
02
1 + WP,,)
P, 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 8 1. 9 2. 0 22 24 26 28 30
0. 20 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 D. 0000 6. 0000 0. 0000 0 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 ooooo 0 0000
0. 50 00058 0. 0056 0. 0055 0. 0055 0. 0054 0. 0054 0. 0053 0. 0053 0. 0053 0. 0053 0. 0052 00052 00052 00052 00052
1. 00 0. 0294 0. 0272 0. 0262 0. 0255 0. 0250 0. 0246 0. 0243 0. 0241 0. 0240 0. 0239 0 0237 0 0236 0 0235 0 0234 0. 0233
1. 50 00740 0. 0649 0. 0610 0. 0587 0. 0572 0. 0561 0. 0551 00545 0. 0541 0. 0537 0. 0532 00528 00525 0. 0522 00520
2. 00 ' 0. 1295 0. 1156 0. 1077 01030 0. 0998 0. 0976 00958 0. 0945 00937 0. 0930 00918 00911 00905 00900 00895
2. 50 01832 0. 1712 0. 1614 0. 1547 0. 1498 0. 1465 0. 1438 0. 1417 0. 1404 0. 1393 01376 01364 01354 01346 01339
3. 00 0. 2350 0. 2264 0. 2172 0. 2099 0. 2040 0. 1999 01964 0. 1937 0. 1920 01904 0. 1882 01867 01853 01842 0. 1832
3. 50 02860 02801 0. 2725 02657 0. 2597 0. 2553 0. 2514 0. 2484 0. 2463 0. 2445 02419 02401 0. 2384 02371 02359
4. 00 03365 0. 3326 0. 3264 0. 3208 0. 3154 03111 03073 03041 0. 3020 0. 3000 0. 2972 02952 02934 02919 02906
4. 50 0. 3865 0. 3841 0. 3790 03747 0. 3703 0. 3664 0 3629 0 3599 0. 3578 0 355s 0. 3531 03510 03492 0 3476 03462
5. 00 0. 4360 0 4346 0. 4305 04273 0. 4240 0. 4208 04177 0. 4151 0. 4132 0. 4114 04088 04068 04050 0 4034 0. 4021
5. 50 04852 04843 0. 4809 0. 4787 0. 4765 0. 4740 0. 4714 0. 4594 0. 4678 0 4662 0 4639 0 4622 0 4604 0 4589 0. 4577
6. 00 0. 5341 0 5335 0. 5305 0. 5291 0. 5279 0 5261 0. 5241 0. 5226 0. 5213 0. 5201 0. 5182 05167 05151 05137 0. 5125
6. 50 05827 05821 0. 5794 05786 0. 5783 0. 5771 0. 5756 0. 5747 0. 5738 0. 5729 05714 0. 5703 0 5689 05676 0. 5665
7. 00 0. 6310 0. 6304 0. 6277 0. 6274 0. 6276 0. 6270 0 6261 0. 6257 0. 6252 0. 6246 0. 6236 06228 06216 06205 0. 6194
750 06791 06782 0. 6755 0. 6754 0. 6761 0. 6760 0. 6755 0. 6756 0. 6754 0. 6752 0. 6746 06741 06732 06722 06712
8. 00 0 7269 0. 7257 0. 7227 0. 7228 0. 7238 0. 7241 0. 7240 0. 7245 0. 7247 0. 7247 0. 7251 0 7244 0. 7237 0 7227 0 7219
8. 50 0 7745 0. 7728 0. 7695 07696 0. 7708 0. 7714 0. 7716 0. 7725 0. 7729 0 7732 0. 7740 0. 7735 0 7730 0 7227 07714
9. 00 08219 0. 8196 0. 8159 08160 0. 8172 0. 8179 0. 8184 0. 8195 0. 8202 0. 8207 0. 8218 0. 8216 0. 8212 08205 08198
9. 50 0 8690 0. 8661 0. 8620 08618 0. 8631 0. 6638 0. 8644 0. 8658 0. 8666 0. 8673 0. 8687 0. 8687 0. 6684 08678 08672
1000 09159 09123 0. 9077 09073 09083 09091 09098 09113 09123 0. 9131 0. 9147 0. 9148 0 9146 0 9141 09135
10. 50 09626 09582 0. 9530 09523 09531 09538 09545 0. 9561 09571 0 9580 0. 9599 0. 9601 0 9599 09595 09589
11. 00 10091 10039 0. 9981 0. 9969 0. 9975 0. 9980 0 9987 10002 10014 1. 0023 1. 0043 10045 1. 0043 10039 10034
11. 50 10554 10494 1. 0429 1. 0412 10414 10418 10423 10438 10450 10459 10479 10461 10479 10475 10470
12. 00 1 1016 10946 10874 0. 0851 10849 10851 1. 0855 10868 10879 10886 10908 10909 10908 10903 10896
12. 50 1. 1476 1 1397 11317 11288 11282 1 1280 1 1282 1 1294 1 1304 1 1312 11331 1 1331 1 1328 11323 1 1318
13. 00 1. 1935 1 1846 1 1758 11721 1 1710 1. 1706 1 1704 1 1714 1 1723 1 1730 1 1746 11745 11742 11736 1 1731
13. 50 1. 2392 12293 12197 1. 2151 12136 12128 12122 12130 12137 12142 12156 12153 12149 12143 12136
1400 1. 2849 1273s 12633 1. 2579 1. 2558 12547 12537 12542 12547 12549 12559 12554 12549 12542 12535
1450 1. 3304 13183 13066 13005 1. 2977 1 2962 12948 12949 12952 12952 12957 12949 12943 12935 12926
1500 13759 13625 1 3501 13428 13394 13375 13355 13353 13352 1 3349 13349 13339 13331 13322 13315
1550 1. 4212 14067 13933 13849 13808 13784 13759 13754 13749 13743 13736 13723 13713 13704 13695
1600 1. 4665 14507 14363 14267 1. 4220 14191 1. 4150 14151 1. 4142 14132 14118 14101 14090 14080 14071
1650 1. 5116 1. 4945 14792 14684 1. 4629 14595 14558 14544 14531 14517 14496 14475 14462 14451 I 4441
1700 15567 15383 15219 15099 1. 5036 1. 4997 14953 14935 14916 14898 14869 14844 14829 14617 14806
1750 1. 6017 1. 5820 15645 15512 15441 1. 5397 1. 5345 1. 5323 1. 5298 1. 5275 15238 15208 15191 15178 15166
1800 1. 6467 16256
18. 50 1 6916 16691
1900 1 7364 17125
19 50 1. 7611 17558
2000 1. 8258 17990
2050 1. 8705 18421
21 00 1. 9150 i 8852
21 50 1. 9596 19282
2200 20041 19711
2250 2. 0485 20140
2300 2. 0929 20568
16069 15924
16493 16334
16915 16742
1 7336 17149
1. 7757 17555
1 a176 17959
18594 18362
19012 18763
1942s 19164
19844 19563
20259 19962
15844
16245
16644
17042
17438
17832
18225
18616
19006
19395
19782
1. 5794 15735
1. 6190 16123
1. 6583 1 6508
1. 6975 16891
17364 1. 7271
17752 1. 7650
18139 1. 8027
18523 1. 8401
18906 1. 8774
19288 19146
19668 19516
15708
16090
16470
1. 6847
17222
1. 7595
1. 7965
1. 6334
1. 8700
19065
19426
1. 5678
1. 6054
16427
1. 6797
17165
17530
17893
1. 8254
18612
18968
19322
1. 5649
1. 6020
16388
16752
17114
17473
1. 7829
1. 8183
1. 8534
18882
19229
15603
1 5964
1 6321
16675
17025
1 7372
17716
18056
16394
18730
1. 9062
15568
15924
16275
16623
16967
1 7308
17645
17979
18310
18638
18963
15549
15902
16252
16597
1 6938
17276
17611
1 7942
18270
16595
18916
15534 15522
15887 I 5873
1 6235 16220
16579 16563
16919 1 6902
17256 17238
17589 17570
17918 1 7898
16245 18223
18568 I 8545
18889 18864
2350 2. 1372 20995 20674 20359 20168 20047 19684 19789 19674 19573 19392 19286 19235 19206 19180
2400 2. 1815 21422 21087 20756 20553 20425 20250 20149 20025 19916 1. 9719 19605 19551 19521 19493
2450 2. 2258 2 1849 2. 1500
2500 2. 2700 22274 2. 1912
2550 2. 3142 22700 22324
2600 2. 3564 2. 3124 22735
26. 50 2. 4025 2. 3549 23145
27. 00 2. 4466 2. 3973 23565
27. 50 2. 4907 2. 4396 23964
26. 00 2. 5347 2. 4819 2. 4373
28. 50 2. 5707 2. 5243 2. 4781
2900 2. 6226 2. 5664 2. 5189
29. 50 2. 6666 2. 6085 2. 5596
30. 00 2. 7106 2. 6507 2. 6003
2 1151
21546
2 1939
22332
22724
23115
23505
2. 3895
2. 4204
2. 4672
2. 5060
2. 5447
20937 20801 20615 2. 0507 20373 20256 2 0044 1 9922 1 9865 1 9832 19804
21319 21176 20979 20863 20719 20594 2. 0367 20237 20176 20142 20112
21701 21550 21341 21218 21064 20930 2. 0687 20549 20484 20449 20417
22082 2 1923 21702 21571 21408 21265 21005 20858 20790 20753 20720
22461 22295 22062 21923 21749 21598 21321 21166 21094 21055 21020
22640 22665 22420 22274 22089 21929 21636 21471 21395 2 1355 21318
2 3218 23035 22778 22623 22428 22258 21946 21774 2 1695 21652 21614
23595 23404 23134 22971 22765 22586 22258 22075 21992 21948 21908
23971 2 3772 23409 23110 23100 22912 22566 22375 22287 22241 22200
24146 24119 23848 23664 23435 23217 22873 22675 22560 22552 22600
24720 24504 2 4195 2 4008 23768 23560 23178 22967 2 2871 22822 22777
2. 5094 2. 4870 24547 24352 2. 4100 23882 23481 23261 23161 23109 2 3063
WELLBORE HYDRAULI CS 34- 15
.PP, (z~p,,Wp,r
\
6 * 1 + w4Jpr)2
Pseudoreduced temperature f or 8=25. 0
P,
1. 1 12 1. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19
0. 0000
0. 0044
0. 0211
0. 0496
0. 0888
0. 1352
0. 1846
0. 2346
0 2840
24 26
0 0000
00042
28 30
00000 0 0000
00042 00042
00188 00187
00422 00420
0 0733 00729
01104 0 1098
0 1524 01515
0 1978 01967
02455 02442
2. 0 2 2
0. 0000 0 0000
00042 00042
0.00000.0000 0.00000.0000 0 0000
00042
00000 00000
050 0. 0047 00045
1. 00 0. 0237 0 0219
150 0. 0611 00529
0. 0044 0. 0043 0. 0043 0. 0043
0. 0205 0. 0201 0. 0198 00196
00477 00464 00454 00446
00846 00818 0. 0798 00783
0. 1287 0. 1241 01211 01186
0. 1769 0. 1711 01670 01637
0. 2267 0. 2202 0. 2156 02117
0. 2766 02702 02654 02613
00042 0. 0042
00194 0. 0193
00441 00438
00771 00764
01168 01156
01612 01596
00192 00191 00187 00189
00435 00430 00427 00424
200 0. 1106 0. 0961
2. 50 0. 1598 0. 1453
0. 0758 00749 00742 00737
01146 01131 01121 01111
01581 01561 0 1547 0 1534
02049 02024 02007 0 1991
02537 02508 02488 02470
3. 00 0. 2079 0. 1952
3. 50 0. 2554 0. 2444
4. 00 0. 3025 02930
4. 50 0 3492 0. 3408
5. 00 0 3957 0. 3879
550 04418 0. 4345
6. 00 0. 4878 0. 4806
6. 50 0. 5335 0. 5263
7. 00 0. 5790 0 5718
750 0. 6243 06169
800 0. 6694 06618
02087 02067
02579 02557
0 3325 0. 3260 03200 03154
0 3803 0. 3745 0. 3693 0. 3650
04274 04223 0. 4178 04139
04739 04694 0. 4656 0. 4622
05198 05158 0. 5126 0. 5097
05653 05616 0 5589 0. 5564
0 6104 0 6069 06045 0. 6024
06550 06516 0 6495 0. 6477
03112
03610
0 4103
0 4589
0 5068
0 5539
0 6003
0 6459
0 6908
0 7351
03078 03055
03578 03555
04073 04052
04563 04543
0 5045 0 5028
0. 5520 0 5506
05987 05975
06447 06437
03034
03534
04031
03004
03503
04002
0 4498
0 4988
05471
0 5946
0. 6415
06874
0 7325
02982 0 2962
03481 03461
03980 03961
0 2946
0 3444
0 3963
04441
0 4935
05422
0 5902
0 6374
06837
0 7292
0 2932
0 3429
0 3929
0 4428
0 4922
0 5409
0 5890
04525
05012
04477 04458
04969 04951
0 5492
0 5964
06428
05454 05437
05932 05917
06401 06388
0 6862 0 6850
07315 07304
0 6362
0 6826
0 7282
850 07143 07063 0 6993 0 6960 0 6940 0 6924
900 0. 7591 0 7506 0. 7433 ' 0 7399 0 7380 0 7365
0 6899 06892 06884
0 7344 0 7338 0 7333
9. 50 08036 07946 0. 7870 07834 07814 07800 07788 07783 07778 07774 07769 07760 07750 07739 07730
10. 00 0. 8480 08384 0. 8303 0. 8266 08245 08231 08219 08215 08212 08208 08205 08183 08189 08178 08169
10. 50 0. 8922 08820 08735 0. 8695 08671 08657 08645 08641 08639 08636 08635 08628 08619 08609 08600
11. 00 09362 09254 09163 09120 09094 09078 09056 09063 09061 09058 09058 09052 09043 09033 09024
11. 50 0. 9801 09686 0. 9590 0. 9542 0. 9514 09496 09483 09479 09477 09475 09475 09468 09459 09449 09440
12. 00 1. 0239 1. 0117 10014 0. 9961 0. 9930 09910 09896 09891 09889 09886 09885 09879 09869 09859 09850
12 50 10676 1. 0545 10437 10378 10343 1. 0321 10304 10298 10295 10292 10290 1 0283 10273 10262 10753
1300 1 1111 1. 0973 10857 10792 10753 1. 0729 10709 10701 10698 10693 10689 10681 10670 10659 10650
1350 11547 1. 1398 11276 11204 11161 11134 11111 11101 11095 11089 11083 11073 11062 11050 11040
1400 11979 1. 1823 11693 11614 11566 11535 11509 11496 11489 11481 11472 11459 11447 11435 11425
1450 12412 1. 2246 12109 12021 11968 11934 11904 11889 11879 1 1868 1 1855 1 1840 1 1827 1 1815 1 1804
1500 1. 2844 1. 2668 12523 12427 12368 12331 12296 12278 12265 12252 12234 12217 12202 12189 12177
15 50 13275 13089 12936 12830 12766 12725 12685 12663 12647 12631 12608 12588 12572 12558 12546
16. 00 1. 3705 13509 1. 3347 13232 13161 2 3116 13071 13046 13026 13007 12978 12954 12937 12922 12909
16. 50 14135 13928 1. 3757 13632 13555 13505 13455 13426 13402 13379 13343 13316 13298 13291 13268
1700 1. 4564 14346 1. 4166 14031 13947 13892 13836 13803 13775 13748 13705 13674 13653 13637 13623
17. 50 1. 4992 14763 1. 4574 14428 14336 14278 14215 14178 14145 14114 14062 14028 14005 13987 13973
18. 00 1. 5420 15180 14981 1. 4823 14724 14661 14591 14550 14512 14476 14417 14377 14353 14334 14318
18. 50 1. 5847 15595 15387 1. 5217 15111 15042 14965 14920 14876 14835 14767 14723 14697 14677 14660
19. 00 1. 6274 1 6010 15792 1. 5610 15496 15422 15338 15287 15238 15192 15114 15065 15036 15015 14998
19. 50 1. 6700 1. 6424 16196 1. 6002 15879 15800 15708 15653 15597 15546 15458 15404 15373 15351 15332
20. 00 17126 1. 6837 16599 16392 16261 1. 6176 16076 16016 15954 1 5897 15799 1 5739 1 5706 15692 1 5663
20. 50 1. 7551 1. 7250 17001 16781 16641 1. 6551 16443 16377 16308 16246 16137 16071 16035 16011 15990
21. 00 17975 1. 7662 17403 17169 17020 1. 6924 16808 1. 6736 16660 16592 16472 16400 15362 16336 16314
2150 18400 1. 8073 1. 7803 17556 17398 17296 17171 1. 7094 17011 1. 6936 1 6804 16726 15685 16658 16635
22. 00 1. 8824 1. 8484 1. 8203 17942 17775 17667 17532 1. 7450 1. 7359 1. 7278 17134 17049 1 7005 16977 16953
2250 19247 1. 8895 1. 8603 18327 18150 1. 8036 17892 1 7804 17705 17617 1 7460 17370 17322 17293 1 7267
23. 00 1 9670 1. 9304 1. 9001 18711 18524 18404 18251 18156 18049 1. 7955 i 7785 17687 17637 17606 1 7579
23. 50 20093 1. 9714 1. 9399 19094 18898 18771 18608 1. 8507 18392 18290 18107 18002 17949 17916 17889
24. 00 20516 20122 1. 9797 19477 19270 19136 18964 18856 18733 18623 18427 18315 1 8258 18224 18195
24. 50 20938 20531 20193 19858 19641 19501 19318 19204 19072 18955 16744 1. 8625 18565 18530 18499
25. 00 2. 1360 2 0938 2. 0590 2. 0239 2. 0011 1. 9864 19671 19550 19409 19285 19060 18933 1. 8870 18833 18801
25. 50 21761 21346 2. 0985 2. 0618 2. 0380 2. 0226 2. 0023 19895 19745 19613 19373 19238 19172 19133 19100
26. 00 22202 21753 21380 2. 0998 2. 0749 20588 20373 20239 2. 0079 19939 19684 19542 19472 19431 19397
26. 50 22623 2. 2159 21775 21376 2. 1116 2. 0948 2. 0723 20581 20412 20264 19994 19843 19769 19728 19692
27. 00 2. 3044 2. 2566 22169 21754 2. 1483 2. 1307 21071 2. 0923 2. 0744 20587 20301 20142 20065 20022 19984
27. 50 2. 3464 22971 2. . 2562 2. 2131 2. 1848 2. 1666 2. 1418 2. 1263 2. 1074 2. 0909 2. 0607 2 0440 2 0359 2 0314 2 0275
28. 00 2. 3885 23377 2. 2955 2. 2507 2. 2213 2. 2024 2. 1764 2. 1601 21403 2. 1229 2. 0911 2. 0735 20650 20603 20563
28. 50 2. 4305 2. 3782 2. 3348 2. 2883 2. 2578 2. 2380 2. 2110 2. 1939 2. 1730 2. 1548 2. 1213 2 1028 2 0940 2 0891 2 0849
29. 00 2. 4724 2. 4186 2. 3740 2. 3258 2. 2941 2. 2736 2. 2454 22276 2. 2056 2. 1865 2. 1513 21320 21228 21178 21134
29. 50 2. 5144 2. 4591 24132 2. 3632 23304 23091 22797 22611 22381 2. 2181 2. 1812 2. 1610 21514 21462 21417
30. 00 2. 5563 2. 4995 2. 4523 2. 4006 2. 3666 2. 3446 2. 3139 22946 22705 22496 2. 2110 2. 1898 21798 21744 2 1698
HANDBOOK 34- 16 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG
' Pm ( z~p, rWp, r
I
;1 2 1 +WP,J~
Pseudoreduced temperature f or 8=30 0
pP,-
1. 1
020 0. 0000
0. 50 0. 0039
100 0. 0199
1. 50 0. 0521
2. 00 0. 0967
250 0. 1422
3. 00 0. 1670
3. 50 0. 2314
4. 00 0. 2756
1. 2 1. 3
0. 00000. 0000
0. 0038 0. 0037
0. 0184 0. 0176
0. 0447 0. 0418
1. 4 1. 5
0. 00000. 0000
0. 0037 0. 0036
0. 0172 00168
0. 0401 0. 0390
0. 0718 0. 0692
0 1103 01060
0. 1531 0. 1474
0. 1980 0. 1914
0. 2436 0. 2367
1. 6 17 1. 6
0 0000 0 0000 0 0000
00036 00036 00035
00166 0. 0164 00162
00382 00375 00371
00676 00662 00652
01033 01010 0 0993
01436 01404 01381
01869 0 1831 0 1601
02318 0. 2275 02242
2. 2 2. 4
~__
30 1. 9 2. 0
0 0000 0. 0000
0. 0035 0. 0035
00162 0. 0161
00368 0. 0365
00646 0. 0640
0 0963 0. 0974
01366 0. 1353
01782 0. 1765
02219 0. 2199
2. 6 28
0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000
0. 0035 0. 0035 0. 0035 0. 0035
0. 0159 0. 0158 0. 0158 0. 0157
0. 0361 0. 0358 0. 0356 0. 0355
0. 0632 0. 0626 0. 0621 0. 0618
0. 0960 0. 0951 0. 0943 0 0937
0. 1334 0. 1321 0. 1309 0. 1300
0. 1741 0. 1725 0. 1710 0. 1697
02172 0. 2152 0. 2135 0. 2120
0 0000
0. 0035
0. 0157
0. 0353
0. 0823 0. 0755
01264 01164
0. 0615
0. 0931
0. 1292
0. 1687
0. 2108
0. 1719 0. 1608
0. 2174 0. 2063
0. 2625 0. 2519
4. 50 0. 3195 0. 3071 0. 2970 0. 2891 0. 2823 02778 02729 02693 02669 0. 2647 02617 0. 2594 0. 2575 0. 2559 0. 2545
500 0. 3632 0. 3513 0. 3416 0. 3343 0. 3278 03229 03186 03149 03124 03101 0. 3069 0. 3046 0. 3025 0. 3008 0. 2993
550 0. 4067 0. 3951 0. 3858 0. 3789 0. 3729 03683 03641 03605 03580 03558 03525 0. 3501 0. 3480 0. 3462 03448
6. 00 0. 4500 0. 4386 0. 4295 0. 4230 0. 4175 04132 04092 04059 04035 04013 03981 03957 0. 3937 0. 3919 0. 3904
6. 50 0. 4931 04817 0. 4728 0. 4667 0. 4616 0. 4576 04539 04508 0. 4486 04465 04435 04412 0. 4392 0. 4374 0. 4359
7. 00 0. 5361 0. 5247 0. 5158 0. 5099 0. 5052 0. 5015 0 4981 0 4952 0 4932 04913 0. 4884 0. 4863 0. 4843 0. 4826 0. 4812
7. 50 0. 5789 0. 5674 0. 5584 0. 5527 0. 5483 05449 05417 05391 0. 5372 05355 05329 05309 0. 5291 0. 5274 0. 5260
8. 00 0. 6216 0. 6098 0. 6007 0. 5951 0. 5909 0. 5877 05848 05824 0. 5808 05792 05767 05749 05732 0. 5716 0. 5703
8 50 0. 6642 0. 6521 0. 6428 0. 6372 0. 6331 0. 6301 0. 6273 0 6252 06237 0. 6223 0 6200 0. 6184 0. 6168 0. 6152 0. 6139
9. 00 0. 7066 0. 6941 0. 6846 0. 6789 0. 6749 0. 6719 0. 6693 0 6674 0. 6660 0. 6647 0 6627 0 6612 0. 6597 0. 6582 0. 6570
9. 50 0. 7488 0. 7360 0. 7261 0. 7204 07163 07134 07109 0. 7091 0. 7078 0. 7066 07048 07034 07020 07006 0. 6994
10. 00 0. 7909 0. 7776 0. 7674 07615 0. 7573 07544 0. 7520 07503 0. 7491 07480 07463 07451 07436 07423 0. 7411
10. 50 0. 6329 0. 8191 0. 8085 0. 8024 07980 07951 07926 07910 0. 7899 07888 0. 7873 07861 07847 07833 07822
11. 00 0. 8747 08604 0. 8494 08430 08384 08354 08329 08313 0. 8302 06292 0. 8277 08265 0. 8251 06238 08227
11. 50 0. 9165 0. 9016 0. 8901 08833 06785 08754 08728 08711 0. 8700 06690 08676 08664 08650 08637 06626
12. 00 0. 9581 0. 9426 0. 9306 0. 9234 09183 09150 09123 09106 0. 9095 09084 09070 09057 09043 09030 09019
12. 50 0. 9996 0. 9835 0. 9710 0. 9633 0. 9579 09544 09515 09497 0. 9485 0. 9474 09459 09446 0. 9431 09417 09406
13. 00 1. 0411 1. 0242 10112 1. 0030 0. 9973 09936 0. 9904 09884 0. 9872 0. 9860 09842 09828 09813 09799 09787
1350 1. 0824 10649 10513 10425 10364 10324 10290 10268 10254 10241 10222 10206 10191 10176 10164
14. 00 1. 1237 1. 1054 1. 0912 10318 1. 0753 1. 0710 10673 10649 10634 10618 10596 10579 10563 10547 10535
14. 50 1 1649 11459 11310 1. 1209 1. 1139 1. 1094 1. 1054 1 1027 1 1009 10992 10966 10947 10930 10914 10901
1500 1. 2060 1 1862 1. 1707 1. 1598 1 1524 1 1475 1. 1431 1 1402 1. 1382 1. 1362 1 1332 11311 11293 1 1276 1 1263
15. 50 1. 2471 12264 1. 2102 11986 1 1907 1. 1855 1 1806 11774 1. 1751 1. 1729 1. 1694 1 1670 1 1651 1 1633 1. 1620
16. 00 1. 2681 1. 2666 1. 2497 1. 2372 12287 12232 1. 2179 1. 2144 1. 2117 12092 1. 2052 12026 12005 11987 1 1972
16. 50 13291' 13067 1. 2890 12757 12666 1. 2607 1. 2549 1. 2511 1. 2481 1. 2453 12407 12377 12354 12335 1. 2320
17. 00 1. 3700 13467 1. 3282 13140 13044 12981 1. 2917 I . 2876 1. 2842 1. 2610 1. 2757 1. 2724 12700 12680 1 2665
17. 50 1. 4109 1. 3866 13674 1. 3522 13419 13352 13283 13238 1. 3200 1. 3164 1. 3105 1. 3067 13042 13021 13005
16. 00 1. 4517 1. 4264 1. 4064 1. 3903 1. 3794 1. 3722 1. 3647 1. 3596 1. 3555 1. 3515 1. 3449 1. 3407 13380 13358 1. 3341
18. 50 1. 4924 1. 4662 1. 4454 1. 4282 1. 4167 1. 4091 14009 1. 3956 1. 3908 1. 3864 1. 3789 1. 3744 13714 13692 1. 3674
19. 00 1. 5332 1. 5059 1. 4843 1. 4661 14538 14457 1. 4370 1. 4312 1. 4529 1. 4211 1. 4127 1. 4077 14045 14022 1. 4003
19. 50 1. 5738 15456 15231 1. 5038 1. 4908 1. 4823 1. 4728 1. 4666 1. 4608 1. 4554 1. 4462 1. 4407 14373 14349 1. 4329
20. 00 1. 6145 1. 5852 15618 1. 5414 1. 5277 1. 5187 1. 5085 15019 1. 4954 1. 4896 1. 4794 1. 4734 1. 4696 14672 1. 4652
20. 50 1. 6551 1. 6247 1. 6005 1. 5789 1. 5644 15549 1. 5440 15369 15296 1. 5235 1. 5123 1. 5058 1. 5019 1. 4993 1. 4971
21. 00 1. 6956 1. 6642 1. 6391 1. 6163 1. 6011 15910 1. 5794 15718 1. 5641 1. 5572 1. 5449 1. 5379 1. 5338 1. 5310 1. 5288
21. 50 1. 7361 1. 7037 1. 6776 1. 6537 16376 16270 1. 6146 16065 1. 5981 1. 5906 1. 5773 1. 5697 1. 5654 1. 5625 1. 5601
22. 00 1. 7766 17431 17160 1. 6909 1. 6740 16629 1. 6497 16410 1. 6320 1. 6239 1. 6095 1. 6013 15967 1. 5937 1. 5912
22. 50 1. 8171 1. 7824 1. 7544 1. 7281 1. 7103 16967 1 6846 16754 1. 6657 1. 6570 1. 6414 1. 6326 1. 6277 1. 6246 1. 6220
23. 00 1. 8575
23. 50 1. 8979
24. 00 1. 9383
24. 50 1. 9786
1. 8217
18610
1. 9002
1. 9393
1. 9785
2. 0176
2. 0566
2. 0957
2. 1346
2. 1736
2. 2125
2. 2514
1. 7928 1. 7651 1. 7465 1. 7343
1. 8311 1. 8021 1. 7826 17698
1. 7194
17541
1. 7806
18230
1. 8573
1. 8915
1. 9256
19596
1. 9934
2. 0272
2. 0609
2. 0945
1. 7096 1. 6992
17437 17325
17777 1. 7657
18115 1. 7987
1. 8452 1. 8316
18788 1. 8644
1. 9123 1. 8970
1. 6899 1. 6731 1. 6636 1. 6565 1. 6552 1. 6525
1. 7226 1. 7046 1. 6945 1. 6890 1. 6856 1. 6828
1. 7551 1. 7358 1. 7250 1. 7193 1. 7158 I . 7128
1. 7874 1. 7669 1. 7554 17494 1 7457 17426
1. 8196 1. 7977 1. 7855 1. 7792 1. 7754 1. 7722
1. 8516 1. 8284 1. 8155 1. 8088 1. 8048 1. 8015
1. 8835 1. 8589 1. 8452 1. 8382 1. 8341 1. 8306
1. 9152 1. 8891 1. 8747 1. 8674 1. 8631 1. 8595
1. 9468 1. 9192 19040 1. 8964 1. 8920 1. 8882
1. 9782 1. 9492 1. 9332 1. 9252 1. 9206 1. 9167
2. 0095 1. 9790 1. 9622 1. 9538 1. 9491 1. 9451
2. 0407 2. 0086 1. 9910 1. 9823 1. 9774 1. 9732
1. 8693 18390 1. 6186 1. 8053
1. 9075 1. 8759 1. 9546 18406
25. 00 2. 0189
25. 50 2. 0592
1. 9456 19127 1. 6904 1. 8756
1. 9637 1. 9493 1. 9262 1. 9110
2. 0217 1. 9860 1. 9618 1. 9460
2. 0597 2. 0226 1. 9974 1. 9610
2. 0976 2. 0591 2. 0330 2. 0159
2. 1355 2. 0955 2. 0684 2. 0507
2. 1734 2. 1319 2. 1038 2. 0854
2. 2112 2. 1682 2. 1391 2. 1200
26. 00 2. 0995
26. 50 2. 1397 1. 9456 1. 9294
1. 9788 1. 9618 27. 00 2. 1799
27. 50 2. 2201
26. 00 2. 2603
28. 50 2. 3005
2. 0119 1. 9940
2. 0449 2. 0261
2. 0779 2. 0580
29. 00 2. 3406 2. 2903 2. 2490 2. 2045 2. 1743 2. 1546 2. 1280 2. 1107 2. 0899 2. 0717 2. 0380 2. 0196 2. 0105 2. 0055 2. 0012
29. 50 2. 3807 2. 3291 2. 2868 2. 2407 2. 2095 2. 1891 2. 1614 2. 1434 2. 1216 2. 1026 2. 0673 2 0481 2. 0386 2. 0334 2. 0289
30. 00 2. 4208 2. 3679 2. 3245 2. 2769 2. 2446 2. 2235 2. 1947 2. 1760 2. 1533 2. 1334 2. 0965 2. 0764 2. 0666 2 0612 2. 0566
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS 34- 17
TABLE34. 2- EXTENDEDSUKKAR- CORNELL I NTEGRAL FORBHPCALCULATl ON( conti nued)
Pseudoreduced temperature f or B=35 0
Pp, 1. 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. 0 22 24 26 28 30
020 00000 0. 0000 00000 00000 0. 0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0. 0000 00000 00000 00000 00000
0. 50 0. 0033 0. 0032 00032 00031 00031 00031 00031 00030 00030 00030 0. 0030 00030 00030 00030 000~
1. 00 0. 0171 0. 0158 0. 0152 0. 0148 00145 00143 00141 0. 0139 00139 00138 0. 0137 00136 00136 00135 00135
150 0. 0454 0. 0387 00361 0. 0346 00336 00329 00323 00320 00317 00315 0. 0311 00309 00307 00305 00304
2. 00 0. 0861 0. 0720 00657 0. 0623 00601 00585 00573 00564 00559 00554 0. 0546 00542 00537 00534 0. 0531
2. 50 0. 1283 0. 1119 0. 1022 00965 00925 00900 00879 00864 00855 00847 00834 00826 00819 00813 C08tl R
3. 00 0. 1703 0. 1538 01425 0. 1350 01295 0 1259 01230 01208 01194 01182 01165 01153 01142 01134 01127
3. 50 0. 2120 0. 1960 01644 01759 01694 01650 01613 01585 0. 1567 01550 01526 0 1513 0 1499 0 1487 0 1478
4. 00 02536 0. 2382 02266 0. 2179 02108 02059 02017 01984 01962 01942 01916 01897 01860 01866 01855
4. 50 02950 0. 2800 0. 2688 0. 2601 02529 02477 02433 02396 02372 02350 02320 02296 02279 02263 02250
5. 00 0. 3362 0. 3216 03106 0. 3023 0. 2951 02899 02854 02816 02790 02766 02734 02710 02690 02672 C2658
550 0. 3773 0. 3630 03522 0. 3442 0. 3373 03321 03276 03238 03211 03187 03153 03126 03107 03089 03074
600 04183 0. 4040 03934 03857 0. 3791 03742 03698 03660 03634 03610 03576 03550 03529 03510 03495
6. 50 04591 0. 4449 04344 04270 04207 04159 04117 04080
7. 00 0. 4999 04656 04752 04679 04616 04573 04532 0 4498
7. 50 0. 5405 0 5261 0. 5156 05085 0. 5026 0. 4983 0 4944 04912
6. 00 0. 5810 05665 05558 05487 05431 0 5390 05352 05322
8. 50 0. 6214 0. 6066 0 5959 05686 05832 0 5792 05756 05727
9. 00 0. 6617 06466 06357 06285 06230 06191 06156 0 6129
9. 50 0. 7018 06865 06753 06681 06625 06566 06552 06526
10. 00 0. 7419 07262 0 7147 07073 0. 7017 0 6978 0 6945 06919
10. 50 0. 7818 07657 0. 7539 07464 0 7406 07367 0 7334 0 7306
11. 00 0. 8217 08051 0 7930 07852 07793 07753 07719 0 7694
11 50 0. 8614 0. 8444 0. 8319 08239 08177 08136 08102 08076
1200 09011 0. 6636 08707 06623 06559 06517 08461 08455
1250 09407 09227 09094 09006 08939 0 8895 0 8858 08831
13. 00 09803 09617 09479 09386 0. 9317 09271 0 9232 0 9204
13. 50 10197 1. 0006 09863 0. 9765 0 9693 0 9645 0 9604 0 9574
1400 10591 10394 10246 1. 0143 10067 10017 0 9973 09941
04055
04473
0 4889
05300
05707
06109
06507
06901
0 7291
0 7677
0 8059
06436
08813
09165
0 9554
0 9920
04032 03996 03972 0 3951 03932 cl 3918
04451 04416 04394 04373 04354 0 4339
04867 04836 04812 04792 04774 04759
0 5280 05247 05227 05206 05190 05175
0 5688 D5657 05638 05619 05602 0 5588
06091 0 6062 06044 06026 06009 0 5996
0 6490 06462 06445 0 6428 06412 0 6398
06885 06856 06842 06825 06809 0 6796
0 7275 0 7250 07234 07217 07201 0 7189
0 7661 07637 07621 07604 07589 0 7576
08043 08019 08004 07987 07971 0 7958
06422 06396 06381 08364 06349 0 6336
0 8797 08771 08755 08737 08721 08708
09168 09141 09124 09106 09069 0 9076
0 9535 09507 09483 09470 09453 0 9439
0 9900 09869 09848 09829 09812 0 9798
14. 50 10985 1. 0781 10627 1. 0519 1. 0439 10386 10340 10305 10282 10261 10226 10205 10164 10167 10153
15. 00 1 1377 1. 1167 11008 10893 1. 0609 10754 10704 10667 10642 10618 10580 10557 10536 10517 10503
1550 11770 1. 1552 i 1388 1 1266 i 1178 1 1120 1 1066 1 1027 10999 10973 10931 1 0905 10663 10664 1 0849
16. 00 1. 2162 1. 1937 1 1767 1. 1638 1. 1545 1. 1484 1 1426 i 1384 1 1354 1 1325 1 1278 11249 1 1226 1 1206 1 1191
16. 50 1. 2553 1. 2321 12144 I 2008 1 1911 1. 1846 1 1784 1 1739 1 1705 1 1674 1 1622 1 1590 1 1566 1 1545 1 1529
17. 00 1. 2944 1. 2705 12521 1. 2378 1. 2275 12207 12140 1 2092 12055 12020 1 1962 1 1928 1 1901 1 1860 1 1864
1750 13334 1. 3087 12898 12746 12638 12566 12494 12443 12402 1 2364 12300 12262 12234 12212 12195
18. 00 1. 3725 1. 3470 13273 13113 1. 2999 1. 2923 12646 1. 2792 12747 12705 1 2634 12592 12563 12540 12522
1850 14114 1. 3851 13648 13479 13359 13280 13197 1. 3139 i 3089 1 3044 12966 12920 12889 12865 12847
19. 00 1. 4504 1. 4232 14022 1. 3844 i 3718 13634 13546 1. 3484 13430 t 3380 1 3294 13245 13212 13187 13168
19. 50 14893 1. 4613 14395 14206 14075 13968 i 3893 13826 13769 13714 1 3620 1 3566 13531 13506 13485
20. 00 1. 5281 1. 4993 14768 14571 14432 14340 14239 14170 1. 4! 05 14046 13944 13885 1 3848 13822 13800
2050 15670 15373 1. 5140 14933 14766 14691 14564 14510 14440 14376 14265 14201 14162 14135 14112
21. 00 16058 1. 5752 1. 5511 1. 5294 15142 15041 14927 14849 14773 14704 14583 14515 14473 14445 14422
21. 50 16446 16130 1. 5862 15655 15495 15390 15269 1. 5186 15104 15030 14900 14826 14782 14752 14728
22. 00 1. 6833 1. 6509 16252 1. 6014 15848 15738 15609 15522 15434 15355 15214 15134 15088 15057 15032
22. 50 1. 7220 1. 6887 16622 1. 6373 1. 6199 16084 15948 15856 15762 15677 15525 15440 15391 15360 15333
23. 00 1. 7607 1. 7264 16991 1. 6732 16550 16430 16286 16189 16066 15996 15635 15744 15693 15660 15632
23. 50 17994 17641 17360 17069 16900 16755 16623 16521 16413 16317 16143 16046 15992 15957 15929
24. 00 1. 8381 1. 8018 1. 7729 1. 7446 1. 7249 17118 16959 16851 16736 16634 16448 16345 16288 16253 16223
24. 50 1. 8767 18394 1. 8097 1. 7802 17597 17461 17294 17180 17058 16950 16752 16642 16583 16546 16515
25. 00 1. 9153 1. 8771 18464 18158 1. 7944 17803 17627 17508 17379 17264 17054 16937 16875 16837 16805
25. 50 1. 9539 1. 9146 18831 18513 1. 6291 18144 17960 17835 17696 17577 17354 17231 17165 17126 17093
26. 00 1. 9924 1. 9522 19198 1. 8867 1. 8637 1. 8484 18291 18161 18016 17888 17652 17522 17454 17413 17378
26. 50 2. 0310 1. 9897 1. 9564 1. 9221 1. 6962 1. 6624 18622 16486 18333 16198 17949 17612 17740 17696 17662
27. 00 2. 0695 2. 0272 1. 9930 1. 9574 1. 9326 1. 9163 18951 1. 8810 18649 18506 18244 18100 18025 17981 17944
27. 50 2. 1080 2. 0647 2. 0295 1. 9927 1. 9670 1. 9501 1. 9280 1. 9133 1. 8963 1. 8814 18537 18386 18308 18262 18224
28. 00 2. 1465 2. 1021 2. 0661 2. 0279 2. 0014 1. 9838 1. 9606 19454 1. 9277 1. 9119 16629 16670 16569 16542 16502
28. 50 2. 1850 2. 1395 2. 1025 2. 0631 20356 20175 1. 9935 1. 9775 1. 9589 1. 9424 19119 18953 18868 18820 18779
29. 00 2. 2234 2. 1769 2. 1390 20963 20698 20511 2. 0261 2. 0094 1. 9900 1. 9726 19408 19234 19146 19096 19053
29. 50 2. 2619 2. 2142 21754 2. 1333 21040 2. 0846 20587 20414 2. 0210 2. 0030 1. 9696 19513 19422 19370 19327
30. 00 2. 3003 2. 2516 2. 2118 2. 1684 21381 21180 20912 20732 2. 0519 20331 1. 9962 19791 1. 9696 1. 9643 19598
TABLE34. 2- EXTENOEDSUKKAR- CORNELLl NTEGRALFORBHPCALCULATl ON( conti nued)
Pseudoreduced temperature f or 8=40. 0 -
L 1. 1 1. 2 13 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 8 1. 9 2. 0 2. 2 24 26 28 30
0. 20 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000
0. 50 0. 0029 0. 0028 0 0026 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0026 0. 0026 0. 0026 0. 0026 0. 0026 0. 0026
1. 00 0. 0150 0. 0139 00133 0. 0129 00127 0. 0125 0. 0123 0. 0122 0. 0122 0. 0121 0. 0120 0. 0119 0. 0119 0. 0118 0. 0118
1. 50 0. 0403 0. 0341 0. 0318 0. 0305 0. 0296 0. 0290 0. 0284 0. 0281 0. 0279 0. 0276 0. 0273 0. 0271 0. 0270 0. 0268 0. 0267
2. 00 0. 0776 0. 0640 0. 0582 0. 0551 0 0530 0. 0517 0. 0505 0. 0497 0. 0493 0. 0488 0. 0482 0. 0477 0. 0473 0. 0471 0. 0468
2. 50 0. 1170 0. 1005 0. 0912 0. 0858 0. 0821 0. 0798 0. 0779 0. 0765 0. 0756 0. 0749 0. 0738 0. 0730 0. 0724 0. 0718 0. 0714
300 0. 1565 01393 01281 01208 01156 0. 1122 0. 1095 0. 1074 0. 1061 0. 1050 0. 1034 01023 0. 1013 0. 1005 00999
350 01958 0. 1787 0. 1666 0. 1584 01520 0. 1477 0. 1442 0. 1416 0. 1398 01383 0. 1362 0. 1346 01335 0. 1324 01315
4. 00 0. 2351 0. 2182 02062
450 0. 2743 0. 2576 0. 2457
5 00 0. 3133 0. 2969 0. 2851
550 0. 3523 0. 3360 03244
01973
02367
0. 2762
03156
0 3549
0 3939
04328
04714
0. 5097
0 5479
0. 5859
06237
06612
0 6987
0. 1758 0. 1740 0. 1714
0. 2135 0. 2113 0. 2084
0. 2521 0. 2498 0. 2465
6. 00 03912 0. 3750 0. 3634
6. 50 0 4300 0. 4138 0. 4032
700 0. 4687 0. 4525 04410
0. 2913 0. 2889 0. 2854
0. 3308 0. 3283 0 3247
0. 1681 0. 1667
02045 0. 2029
0. 2422 0. 2405
0. 2808 0 2790
0. 3199 0. 3181
750 05073 0. 4910 0. 4795
800 0. 5458 0. 5294 0. 5179
8. 50 0. 5843 0. 5677 05560
9. 00 0. 6227 0. 6059 0 5940
9 50 06609
10. 00 0. 6991
0. 6439 06319
0. 6818 0. 6696
0. 7196 0. 7071
0. 1901 0. 1853 0. 1812 0. 1780
0. 2292 0. 2240 0. 2195 0. 2159
0. 2686 0. 2633 0. 2586 0. 2548
03081 03028 02980 02941
0. 3476 0. 3423 0. 3376 0. 3336
03866 03816 0. 3770 03731
04258 0. 4208 0. 4163 0. 4124
04646 04597 04553 04516
0. 5031 04983 04941 04905
0. 5413 05367 05325 05290
0. 5793 05747 05707 05673
06171 06125 06085 06052
03703 0. 3678 0. 3642
04097 0. 4073 0. 4037
0. 4490 0. 4466 0. 4431
04879 04856 0. 4819
0 5266 0. 5244 0. 5208
0. 5650 0. 5628 0. 5593
0. 6030 06009 0. 5975
0. 1696
0. 2063
0. 2442
0 2829
0 3221
0. 3616
04011
0. 4405
0 4797
0. 5187
0 5573
0. 5955
03594 0. 3575
0 3989 0 3970
0 4383 0 4365
04776 04758
0. 5166 0. 5148
0. 5553 0. 5535
0 5936 0. 5918
0. 1656
02017
0 2391
0 2775
0 3166
0. 3560
0. 3955
0. 4350
0. 4743
0. 5133
0. 5521
0. 5904
06546 06500 0. 6461 0. 6429 06407 0. 6386 0. 6353 0. 6334 0. 6315 0. 6298 06264
1050 07372 06919 06873 0 6833 0. 6802 0. 6780 06760 0. 6728 0. 6710 0. 6690 0. 6673 06660
11 00 07753 0. 7573 07446 07359 07290 07243 07203 07172 0. 7150 0. 7130 0. 7099 0. 7081 0. 7062 0. 7045 07031
11 50 08132 07949 0. 7819 07729 07659 07611 0. 7571 07539 07517 07496 07466 0. 7448 0. 7429 0. 7412 07398
12. 00 0. 8511 0. 8324 0. 8190 08098 08026 07977 0. 7936 07903 0. 7822 07862 07830 0. 7812 0. 7792 0. 7775 07762
12. 50 0. 8890 0. 8696 08561 0. 8466 08391 08341 08299 08265 0. 8243 08223 08190 0. 8171 0. 8152 0. 8134 08121
13. 00 0. 9268
13. 50 0. 9645
1400 10022
14. 50 1. 0396
15. 00 1. 0774
15. 50 11149
0 9072 0. 8931 0. 8832
0.9445 0 9229 0. 9196
08755
09117
0 9477
0 9835
1. 0193
1 0548
09816 0 9667 0.9559
10188 10034 0. 9921
1. 0558 1. 0400 10282
1. 0928 1. 0765 1. 0641
16. 00 1. 1525 1. 1297 1 1129 1 1000 10903
16. 50 1 1899 1. 1666 1 1492 1. 1357 11255
17. 00 1. 2274 1. 2034 1 1855 1. 1713
17. 50 1. 2648 1. 2402 12217 1. 2068
18. 00 1. 3021 1. 2769 12579 1. 2422
18. 50 1. 3395 1. 3136 12940 1. 2776
19. 00 1. 3768 1. 3502 1. 3300 1. 3128
08703
09063
09421
0 9778
10133
10486
10837
1 1187
1 1536
1 1684
12230
12574
12918
1 1607
1 1958
1 2307
12655
13002
06659 0. 8624 0. 8602 0. 8580 0. 8547 0. 8527 0. 8507 0. 8490 08476
09017 0. 8981 0. 8957 0. 8935 0 8900 0. 8879 0. 8859 08841 08827
09373 0. 9335 0. 9310 0. 9287 0. 9250 0. 9228 09207 0. 9188 09174
09727 0 9588 0. 9661 0. 9636 0. 9596 0. 9572 0. 9551 0. 9532 09517
10079 10037 1. 0009 0. 9982 0. 9939 09914 0. 9891 0. 9872 0. 9856
10429 1. 0385 1. 0355 1. 0326 1. 0279 1. 0251 10228 10208 1. 0192
10777 10731 1. 0698 1. 0667 1. 0616 1. 0586 10561 10541 10525
1 1123 11075 1 1039 1 1005 10949 10917 10891 10870 10653
1 1468 1. 1417 1. 1378 1 1341 1. 1260 1. 1245 1. 1218 11196 1 1179
11811 11757 1. 1714 1. 1675 1. 1608 1. 1570 1. 1541 1 1519 1. 1501
12152 12095 1. 2049 1. 2006 1. 1934 1. 1892 1 1662 1 1839 1. 1820
12492 12432 1. 2382 1. 2336 1. 2256 1. 2211 1. 2180 12155 1. 2136
12831 12767 1. 2713 1. 2663 1. 2577 1. 2526 1. 2494 12469 12450
19. 50 1. 4140 1. 3868 1. 3659 1. 3480 1. 3349 13261 13168 13101 1. 3042 1. 2988 1. 2894 1. 2842 12806 1. 2780 1. 2760
2000 1. 4513 1. 4233 1. 4019 1. 3831 1. 3694 13602 13504 13433 1. 3369 1. 3311 1. 3210 1. 3153 1. 3116 1. 3089 1. 3068
20. 50 1. 4685 1. 4598 14377 1. 4181 1. 4038 1. 3942 13838 13763 1. 3695 1. 3633 1. 3523 1. 3462 1. 3422 1. 3395 1. 3373
21. 00 1. 5257 1. 4963 1. 4735 1. 4530 1. 4381 14281 14171 14093 1. 4019 1. 3952 1. 3834 1. 3768 1. 3727 13698 1. 3675
21. 50 1. 5629 1. 5327 1. 5093 1. 4879 1. 4723 1 4620 1 4503 14421 1. 4341 1. 4270 1. 4143 1. 4072 1. 4028 1. 3999 1. 3975
22. 00 16001 15691 15450 1. 5227 1. 5065 1. 4957 14834 14747 1. 4662 1. 4586 1. 4449 1. 4373 1. 4328 1. 4297 1. 4272
22. 50 1. 6372 1. 6054 1. 5807 15574 15406 15293 15164 15072 14982 1. 4900 1. 4754 1. 4673 14625 1. 4593 1. 4567
23. 00 1. 6743 1. 6417 1. 6163 1. 5920 1. 5746 1. 5629 15492 1. 5396 1. 5300 1. 5213 1. 5057 1. 4970 14920 14887 1. 4860
23. 50 1. 7114 1. 6780 1. 6519 1. 6266 1. 6085 1. 5963 1. 5820 15719
24. 00 1. 7485 1. 7143 1. 6874 1. 6612 1. 6423 1. 6297 16146 1. 6041
1. 5617 1. 5525
1. 5932 1. 5834
1. 6246 1. 6143
16559 16450
1. 6871 16755
1. 7181 1. 7059
17491 17362
1. 5358
1. 5657
1. 5954
1. 6249
1. 6543
1. 6836
1. 7126
1. 7415
1. 7703
1. 7989
1. 8274
1. 8557
1. 8840
1. 9120
1. 5265 1. 5213 1. 5178 1. 5151
1. 5559 1. 5503 1. 5468 1. 5439
1. 5850 1. 5792 15755 1. 5725
1. 6139 1. 6078 16041 1. 6010
1. 6427 1. 6363 1. 6324 1. 6292
1. 6713 1. 6646 1. 6606 1. 6572
1. 6997 1. 6927 1. 6886 1. 6851
1. 7279 1. 7207 1. 7164 1. 7128
1. 7560 1. 7484 1. 7440 1. 7403
1. 7839 1. 7760 1. 7715 1. 7676
1. 8116 1. 8035 1. 7988 1. 7948
1. 8393 1. 8308 1. 8259 1. 8218
1. 8667 1. 8579 1. 8529 1. 8487
1. 8940 1. 8849 1. 8797 1. 8754
24. 50 1. 7855 1. 7505 1. 7229 1. 6947 1. 6761 1. 6630 16472 16362
25. 00 1. 8226 1. 7867 1. 7584 17301 1. 7098 1. 6962 1. 6797 16682
25. 50 1. 8596 1. 8229 1. 7938 1. 7645 1. 7434
26. 00 1. 8966 1. 8591 1. 8292 1. 7988 1. 7770
26. 50 1. 9336 1. 8952 1. 8645 1. 8331 1. 8105
27. 00 1. 9705 1. 9313 1. 8999 1. 8673 1. 8439
27. 50 2. 0075 1. 9674 1. 9352 1. 9015 1. 8773
28. 00 2. 0444 2. 0034 1. 9704 1. 9356 1. 9107
28. 50 2. 0813 2. 0394 2. 0057 1. 9697 1. 9439
29. 00 2. 1182 2. 0755 2. 0409 2. 0038 1. 9771
29. 50 2. 1551 2. 1114 2. 0761 2. 0378 2. 0103
30. 00 2. 1920 2. 1474 2. 1112 2. 0717 2. 0434
1. 7293
1. 7624
1. 7954
1. 8283
1. 8612
1. 8940
1. 9267
1. 9594
1. 9920
2. 0246
1. 7120
1. 7443
1. 7765
1. 8086
1. 8406
1. 8726
1. 9044
1. 9362
1. 9680
1. 9996
1. 7000
1. 7318
1. 7634
1. 7950 1. 7799 1. 7664
1. 8265 1. 8106 1. 7965
1. 8579
1. 8692
1. 9204
1. 9516
1. 9826
1. 8412
1. 8717
0. 9021
1. 8264
1. 8562
1. 8859
1. 9155
1. 9460
1. 9325
1. 9627
P,,
1. 1 12 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 17 1. 8 1. 9 2. 0 22 24 26 28 30
0. 20 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0 0 0 ooooo ooooo
050 0. 0026 0. 0025 0. 0025 0. 0024 0. 0024 0. 0024 0. 0024 0. 0024 0. 0024 0. 0024 00023 00023 00023 00023 00023
1. 00 0. 0134 0. 0124 0. 0119 0. 0115 0. 0113 0. 0111 0. 0110 0. 0109 0. 0108 0. 0108 00107 00106 00106 00105 00105
1. 50 0. 0362 0. 0305 0. 0284 0. 0272 0. 0264 0. 0258 0. 0254 0. 0250 0. 0248 00247 00244 00242 00240 00239 00238
2. 00 00707 0. 0576 00522 0. 0494 0. 0475 0. 0462 0. 0452 0. 0445 0. 0440 00436 00430 00426 00423 00420 00418
2. 50 01076 00912 00823 00772 00738 00716 00699 00586 00678 00671 00661 00654 00648 00644 00640
3. 00 0. 1449 0. 1273 0. 1163 0. 1093 0. 1043 0. 1012 00986 0. 0967 0. 0955 0. 0944 0. 0930 00919 00910 00903 00897
3. 50 0. 1821 0. 1643 01523 0. 1441 0. 1378 01338 01304 0. 1279 0. 1263 0. 1248 0. 1229 01215 01203 01193 01185
4. 00 0. 2193 0. 2015 0. 1892 0. 1803 01732 01685 01645 01614 01594 0. 1576 01552 01534 01520 01507 01496
4. 50 0. 2565 0. 2388 02264 0. 2172 0. 2096 0. 2045 0. 2001 0. 1966 0. 1942 0. 1921 0. 1893 01672 01855 01840 01828
5. 00 0. 2936 0. 2760 0. 2637 0. 2544 0. 2466 0. 2412 02366 02327 0. 2301 0. 2278 0. 2246 02223 02204 02187 02174
5. 50 0. 3306 0. 3131 0. 3009 0. 2917 0. 2838 0. 2783 02735 02695 02667 0. 2643 0. 2608 0. 2583 02562 02544 02530
6. 00 03676 0. 3501 0. 3380 0. 3289 0. 3211 0. 3156 03107 0. 3066 0. 3038 03012 0. 2976 0. 2949 02928 02909 02895
6. 50 0. 4045 0. 3871 0. 3750 0. 3660 0. 3583 0. 3528 03480 03439 03410 0. 3384 0. 3347 0. 3319 03297 03278 03264
700 0. 4414 04239 04118 0. 4029 0. 3954 0. 3900 03852 03811 03782 03757 0. 3719 0. 3692 03669 03650 03635
750 0. 4782 0. 4607 0. 4486 0. 4397 0. 4323 04270 04223 04182 04154 04129 04092 0. 4064 04042 04023 04008
8. 00 0. 5150 0. 4973 0. 4852 04763 0. 4690 0. 4638 04592 04552 04525 04500 04459 04436 04414 04395 04380
8 50 0. 5517 05339 0 5216 0. 5128 0. 5055 0. 5004 04959 0 4920 0 4893 04869 0. 4828 0. 4806 04785 04766 04751
9 00 05883 0 5704 0 5580 0 5492 0. 5419 0. 5368 05323 05286 05259 05235 0. 5196 0. 5174 05153 05135 05120
9. 50 06248 0. 6067 0 5942 0 5853 0. 5780 0. 5730 05686 0. 5649 05623 05599 05561 0. 5540 05519 05501 05486
10. 00 0. 6613 0. 6430 0. 6304 0. 6214 0. 6140 0. 6090 06046 06009 0 5984 05961 0 5923 05903 05882 0 5864 05650
10. 50 0. 6978 0. 6792 06664 06573 0. 6498 0. 6447 06404 06367 06342 06320 06283 06262 06242 06224 06210
11 00 0. 7342 0. 7153 0. 7023 0 6930 0 6854 0. 6803 0. 6759 06723 0. 6698 06676 06639 06619 06598 06580 06566
11. 50 0. 7705 07514 0. 7381 07286 0 7209 0. 7157 07113 0 7076 0. 7051 07029 06993 06972 06952 0 6934 0 6920
1200 08068 0 7874 0. 7738 0. 7641 0 7562 0. 7509 07464 0 7427 0 7402 07380 07343 0 7323 0 7302 0 7284 0 7270
12 50 0. 8430 0. 8233 0. 8094 0. 7994 0 7914 0. 7860 0. 7814 0. 7776 0. 7751 0 7728 07690 0 7670 0 7649 0 7680 0 7616
13. 00 0. 8792 0. 8591 08449 0. 8347 08264 08209 08161 08122 0. 8097 08073 08035 08013 07992 0 7974 0 7959
13. 50 0. 9153 0 8949 0 8804 0. 8698 0 8613 0. 8556 0. 8507 0. 8467 0. 8440 0 8416 08376 08354 08332 08313 08299
14. 00 0. 9514 0 9306 09157 09048 08961 0. 8902 0. 8851 0 8809 0. 8782 08756 08715 08691 08669 08650 0 8635
14. 50 0. 9875 09663 09510 09396 09307 09246 0. 9193 0. 9150 0. 9121 09094 09050 09025 09002 08983 0 8968
15. 00 1. 0235 1. 0019 0 9863 0. 9744 09652 09589 09533 09489 09458 09429 09382 09356 09332 09312 09297
1550 10595 10374 10214 1. 0091 09995 09931 09872 0. 9825 0 9793 09762 09712 0 9684 0 9660 0 9639 09623
1600 1. 0955 10729 10565 1. 0437 10338 10271 10209 10160 10125 10093 10039 1 0009 09984 0 9963 09946
16. 50 1. 1315 1 1084 10915 1. 0782 10679 10609 10544 10494 10456 1. 0422 10364 1 0331 1 0305 10283 10266
17. 00 1. 1674 1 1438 1. 1265 1 1126 11019 1. 0947 10878 1. 0825 10785 10748 10685 1 0650 1 0623 10600 10583
17. 50 1. 2032 1 1791 11614 1. 1469 1. 1358 11283 11211 1 1155 11112 1 1072 1 1005 10967 10938 10915 10897
18. 00 1. 2391 12145 11962 1. 1811 11696 11619 11542 1 1484 11437 1 1394 1 1321 1 1281 1 1250 1 1227 1 1208
18. 50 1. 2749 12497 12310 12153 12033 11953 11872 1 1811 11761 1. 1715 1 1636 1 1592 1 1560 1 1536 11517
19. 00 1. 3107 12850 12658 12494 12370 12286 12200 12136 12082 1. 2033 1. 1948 1 1901 1 1867 1 1842 1 1823
19. 50 1. 3465 1. 3202 1. 3005 1. 2834 12705 12618 12528 12460 12403 1. 2350 1. 2258 12207 12172 12146 12126
20. 00 1. 3823 1. 3554 13351 1. 3173 13039 12949 12854 12783 12721 12665 1. 2566 12511 12474 12447 12426
20. 50 1. 4180 13905 13697 1. 3512 13373 13279 13179 13105 13038 12978 12871 12812 1 2774 1 2746 12724
21. 00 1. 4538 1. 4256 14043 1. 3850 13706 1. 3608 13503 13425 13354 13290 1. 3175 13112 13071 1 3043 13020
21. 50 1. 4895 14607 1. 4388 1. 4187 14038 13937 13825 13744 13668 1. 3599 13477 13409 1 3367 1 3337 13314
22. 00 1. 5251 1. 4958 14733 1. 4524 14369 1. 4264 14147 14062 13981 13908 1. 3776 13704 1 3660 1 3629 13605
22. 50 1. 5608 1 5308 15077 1. 4860 1. 4699 1. 4591 14468 14379 14292 14215 14074 1. 3997 1. 3951 13919 13894
23. 00 1. 5965 1. 5658 1. 5421 1. 5196 1. 5029 1. 4916 14788 14694 14603 14520 1. 4371 1. 4288 14239 14207 14181
23. 50 1. 6321 16008 15765 15531 15358 1. 5242 15106 15009 1. 4912 14824 1. 4665 1. 4577 1. 4526 14493 14466
2400 16677 1. 6357 1. 6108 1. 5866 1. 5687 1. 5566 15424 15323 15219 15127 14958 1. 4865 1. 4811 14776 14748
24. 50 1. 7033 1. 6706 16451 16200 1. 6015 15890 15741 15635 15526 15428 15249 15150 15094 1 5058 15029
25. 00 1. 7389 1. 7055 16794 16534 1. 6342 1. 6212 16057 15947 15831 15728 15538 1 5434 1. 5375 15338 15308
25. 50 1. 7745 1. 7404 17136 16867 1. 6668 16535 16373 16247 16136 16027 15826 15716 15655 15617 15585
26. 00 1. 8100 1. 7752 1. 7478 17200 1. 6995 1. 6856 1. 6687 1 6567 1 6439 16324 16112 15996 15933 15893 15861
26. 50 1. 8456 1. 8101 1. 7820 17532 1. 7320 1. 7177 1. 7001 16876 16741 16621 16397 1. 6275 16209 16168 16134
27. 00 1. 8811 1. 8449 1. 8162 1. 7864 1. 7645 1. 7498 17314 1. 7184 1. 7042 16916 1. 6681 16552 1. 6483 16441 16406
27. 50 1. 9166 1. 8797 1. 8503 1. 8195 1. 7969 1. 7817 1. 7626 1. 7491 1. 7343 1. 7210 16963 16828 1. 6756 16712 16677
28. 00 1. 9521 19144 1. 8844 1. 8526 1. 8293 1. 8136 1. 7937 1. 7798 1. 7642 17503 17244 17102 17027 16982 16945
28. 50 1. 9876 1. 9492 1. 9184 1. 8857 1. 8617 1. 8455 1. 8248 1. 8103 1. 7940 1. 7795 17523 17375 17297 17251 17212
29. 00 20231 1. 9839 1. 9525 1. 9187 1. 8940 1. 8773 1. 8558 1. 8408 1. 8238 1. 5086 17801 1. 7646 17565 17518 17478
29. 50 2. 0586 2. 0186 19865 1. 9517 1. 9262 1. 9091 1. 8868 1. 8712 1. 8534 1. 8376 18078 1. 7916 17832 17783 17742
30. 00 2. 0941 2. 0533 2. 0205 1. 9847 1. 9584 1. 9408 1. 9176 1. 9016 1. 8830 1. 8664 18354 18184 18097 18047 18005
34- 20
PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
PO,
I
Wp,, Wp p,
;, 2 1 + W/P,,) *
& 11 12 1. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. 0 2. 2 2. 4 2. 6 28 3. 0
02000000000000. 0000000000. 00000000000000O. OODD0. 00000. 0000000000. 00000. 00000. 00000. 0000
050 00023 00023 0. 0022 00022 0. 0022 0. 0022 00021 0. 0021 0. 0021 0. 0021 0. 0021 00021 00021 0. 0021 0. 0021
100 00121 00111 0. 0107 00104 0. 0102 00100 00099 00098 00098 0. 0097 00096 00096 00095 0. 0095 00095
1. 50 0. 0328 00276 0. 0257 00246 0. 0238 00233 00229 00226 0. 0224 0. 0222 0. 0220 0. 0218 0. 0217 0. 0216 0. 0215
2. 00 00649 00524 0. 0474 00447 0. 0430 0. 0418 0 0409 0 0402 0.0398 0.0395 0.0389 0. 0385 0. 0382 00380 0. 0378
250 00997 00835 ox) 750 0. 0702 0. 0670 0. 0650 0 0634 0 0622 0. 0615 0. 0608 0.0599 0. 0593 0. 0587 0. 0583 0. 0579
300 0. 1350 01173 0. 1066 00998 0. 0951 00921 00897 00879 0 0868 0. 0858 0. 0844 00835 00827 00820 0. 0814
3. 50 0 1703 01521 01402 01322 0. 1261 01222 01191 01167 0 1151 0. 1138 0. 1119 01106 01095 01085 01078
4. 00 0. 2057 01873 0. 1749 01660 0. 1591 0. 1545 01507 01477 01457 0. 1440 01417 01401 01387 0. 1375 0 1365
4. 50 02410 02226 0. 2101 02008 0. 1933 01882 01839 01804 0. 1781 0. 1761 0. 1734 01714 01697 01633 01671
5. 00 02763 0 2579 0. 2454 0. 2359 0. 2281 0. 2227 0 2181 0 2143 02117 0. 2094 0. 2063 0 2040 02022 02006 01993
5. 50 03116 0 2933 02807 0. 2712 0. 2632 0. 2577 0 2529 0 2488 0 2461 0. 2436 0. 2402 02377 02357 02339 02326
6. 00 03469 03285 0. 3161 03066 0. 2985 0 2929 0 2880 0 2838 0 2809 0 2784 0. 2747 02721 02700 02681 0 2667
6. 50 0. 3821 03638 0. 3513 03419 03339 0. 3282 0 3233 03190 0 3161 0. 3135 0. 3097 0 3069 0 3048 03029 03014
7. 00 04173 0 3990 0. 3865 03772 0. 3692 03636 0 3587 03544 03514 0 3488 0. 3450 0 3421 0 3399 03380 03365
7. 50 04525 04341 04216 04123 04044 0. 3989 0. 3940 0. 3897 0 3868 0. 3841 03803 0. 3774 0 3752 03733 0. 3718
8. 00 0. 4876 04692 0. 4567 04474 04395 0. 4340 0. 4292 0. 4250 0. 4221 04194 04151 0. 4128 0. 4105 0. 4086 0. 4071
8. 50 05227 05042 0. 4916 04823 04745 04690 0. 4643 0. 4601 04573 04547 04504 0. 4481 0. 4458 0. 4439 0. 4424
9. 00 05577 05391 0. 5264 05171 05093 0 5039 0. 4992 04951 04923 04897 04855 0. 4832 0. 4810 0. 4791 0. 4777
950 05927 05739 05612 05518 05440 05386 0. 5340 0 5299 0 5271 05246 0 5204 0. 5182 0. 5160 0. 5142 0. 5127
10. 00 06277 06087 05959 0. 5864 05786 05732 0. 5685 0. 5645 0. 5618 05593 05552 0. 5530 05508 0. 5490 05475
1050 06626 06435 06304 0. 6209 06130 06076 06029 0 5990 0. 5962 0 5938 05897 0 5875 05854 0. 5835 05821
1100 06974 06781 06649 06553 06473 06418 06372 0. 6332 0. 6305 06280 06240 0. 6219 06197 0. 6179 06164
1150 07323 07127
1200 07670 07473
1250 08018 07818
1300 08365 08163
0 6994
07337
07680
08022
08363
08704
0 9044
0 9384
0 9722
10061
10399
10736
1 1073
1 1409
1 1745
1 2081
12416
12751
13085
13419
13753
14086
14419
06896 0 6815
07237 07155
0. 7578 07494
0. 7917 0 7832
08256 08169
0. 8594 08504
0 8930 0 8839
09266 0. 9172
09601 09504
09935 09836
10269 10166
10601 10495
10933 10824
1 1264 11151
1 1595 11478
1 1925 1 1804
12254 12129
12583 12453
12911 12777
13238 13100
13565 13422
13892 13743
14218 14064
06759 06712
0 7099 0 7051
07437 0 7388
07774 0 7724
08109 08058
08443 08391
08776 08722
09108 09051
09438 09379
0 9768 0 9706
10096 10031
10423 10355
10749 10678
1 1074 10999
1 1398 1 1320
11721 1 1639
12044 1 1957
12365 12274
1. 2686 1 2590
13005 1 2905
13324 13219
13643 1 3532
1 3960 1. 3844
1. 4277 1. 4155
14593 1. 4466
14908 14775
15223 15084
15537 1. 5392
15851 1. 5700
16164 1. 6006
16476 1. 6312
16788 1. 6617
17100 16922
17410 17226
16794 1. 6656 1. 6531 16299 16172 16103 1. 6061 16027
1. 7094 1. 6948 1. 6818 1. 6574 16441 16369 16326 16291
2850 19024 18672 18333 18096 1. 7872 17721 17529 17392 17240 1. 7104 16849 16709 1. 6634 1. 6590 16553
2900 19366 19008 18722 18416 1. 8187 18030 17831 17690 1. 7531 1. 7309 1. 7122 16976 16898 16853 16815
2950 19707 1. 9341 19052 18737 18500 18340 18133 1. 7987 1. 7821 1. 7673 1. 7394 17241 17160 1. 7114 17076
3000 20049 1. 9678 1. 9381 19057 1. 8814 18649 18435 18284 1. 8111 1. 7956 1. 7664 17505 17421 17373 17333
06672 0. 6645
0 7011 0. 6984
0 7347 0 7320
0 7682 0 7654
0 8015 0 7987
0 8347 08317
08576 08645
09004 08972
09331 09297
09656 09620
09979 09941
10301 10260
10621 10578
10940 10894
1 1258 11209
1 1575 11522
1 1890 11834
12204 12144
12517 12453
12829 1. 2761
13140 13067
13449 13372
13758 13676
1. 4066 1 3979
14372 14280
14678 14581
14983 1 4880
15287 1. 5178
1. 5590 1. 5476
1. 5892 1. 5772
1. 6194 1. 6068
1. 6494 1. 6362
0. 6621 0 6581 0. 6559 06537 0. 6519 0 6505
0 6959 06919 0 6897 06875 0. 6857 0 6842
0. 7295 07254 0 7232 07210 07192 07177
0 7629 07587 0 7565 07542 07523 0 7509
0 7960 0 7917 0 7894 07872 07852 0 7838
0. 8290 0 8245 0 8221 06198 08178 08163
0. 8617 08570 08545 0 8521 0 8502 0 8486
0. 8942 0 8893 08866 08842 08822 0 8806
0. 9265 09213 09185 09160 09139 09123
0. 9586 0 9531 0 9501 0 9475 0 9454 0 9438
0 9906 0. 9847 0 9814 0 9788 0 9766 0 9749
1. 0223 10160 10125 10097 10075 10058
10538 10471 10434 10405 10362 10364
10852 1. 0779 10740 10709 10686 10668
11164 1. 1086 1 1043 1 1012 10988 10969
1 1474 1. 1390 1 1345 11312 11287 11268
1. 1783 1. 1693 1 1644 11609 11584 11564
1350 08712 08507
1400 09059 08850
1450 09405 09193
1500 09751 09536
1550 10097 09878
1600 10442 10220
16. 50 10788 10561
1700 1 1133 10902
1750 1 1477 1 1243
1800 1 1822 1 1583
1850 12167 11923
1900 12511 12263
1950 12855 12602
2000 13199 12942
2050 13542 13280
2100 13886 13619
21 50 14229 13957
2200 14573 14295
2250 14916 14633
12090
12395
1. 2699
13001
13302
13602
13900
14197
14493
14788
1 5081
15373
1 5664
1 5954
1 6243
1 1993 1 1941
1. 2292 12236
12589 12528
1. 2884 1. 2810
1 1905 11878 1 1858
1 2198 1 2171 12149
12489 12461 12439
12778 12749 1. 2726
1 3065 1 3035 13011
1. 3350 13319 1. 3295
1. 3633 1 3601 13576
1. 3914 1 3881 1. 3855
1. 4193 1 4160 1. 4133
14471 14436 14408
1. 4747 1. 4711 14682
1. 5021 14984 14954
1. 5294 1. 5256 15225
1. 5565 1. 5526 15494
1. 5835 1. 5794 15761
13177 13108
13468 1. 3395
13758 1. 3680
14046 1. 3964
14333 1. 4245
14618 1. 4525
14902 1. 4803
15184 15080
15465 15355
15744 1. 5629
1. 6022 15901
2400 15944 15646
24. 50 16287 15983
25. 00 16629 16319
25. 50 16972 16656
2600 1 7314 16992
2650 17656 17329
2300 15259 14971 14752 14543 14385
2350 15602 15308 15084 14868 14704
15193 15024
15517 15342
15841 15660
16164 15978
16487 16295
16809 16611
17131 16927
17453 17243
17775 17558
15416
15748
16079
16410
16741
17072
17403
17733
18063
2700 1. 7998 17665
2750 18340 18001
2800 18682 18337
P". 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 14 1. 5 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
______~________
0. 20 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 0000
0. 50 00019 0. 0019 0. 0019 0. 0018 0. 0018 0. 0018 0. 0018 00018 00018 0. 0018 0. 0018 00018 00017 00017 00017
1. 00 00101 0. 0093 0. 0089 0. 0087 00085 0. 0084 0. 0083 00082 00081 0. 0081 0. 0080 00080 00080 00079 00079
150 0. 0277 00232 0. 0215 0. 0206 0. 0200 0. 0195 0. 0192 00189 0. 0188 0. 0186 0. 0184 00183 0. 0181 00181 00180
2. 00 00559 0. 0443 0. 0399 0. 0376 00361 00351 0. 0343 0. 0338 0. 0334 0. 0331 0. 0326 00323 00321 00319 0. 0317
2. 50 00870 0. 0715 00637 0. 0594 0. 0566 0. 0549 00535 00524 0. 0518 0. 0512 0. 0504 0. 0499 00494 00490 0. 0487
300 0. 1189 01014 0. 0913 0. 0851 0. 0808 0. 0781 0. 0760 00745 0. 0734 0. 0726 0. 0714 00705 00698 00692 0. 0687
3. 50 01509 0. 1325 01211 0. 1135 01079 0. 1043 01014 0. 0993 0. 0979 0. 0966 0. 0950 00939 00928 00920 00913
4. 00 01831 01642 01521 0. 1435 01369 01326 01291 01263 0. 1245 0. 1229 0. 1209 01194 01181 01170 01161
4. 50 02153 0. 1962 01837 0. 1745 01672 01624 01583 01551 01529 0. 1510 0. 1485 0. 1466 01451 01438 01428
5. 00 0. 2475 02283 0. 2157 0. 2062 0. 1984 01931 01887 01850 01826 01804 0. 1775 0. 1753 0. 1736 0. 1721 0 1709
5. 50 02798 02606 02479 0. 2382 0. 2301 02245 02198 02158 02132 02108 0. 2075 0. 2051 0. 2032 0. 2016 02003
6. 00 03120 02928 02801 0. 2703 02620 02563 02515 02472 02444 02419 02383 02357 02337 02320 02306
650 03443 03251 03124 0. 3026 02942 02884 02834 02791 02761 02735 02697 0. 2670 0. 2648 02630 02616
700 03766 03574 0. 3446 0. 3348 03264 03206 03156 03111 03081 03054 03015 0. 2986 0. 2964 0. 2946 02932
7. 50 0. 4088 03896 0. 3769 0. 3671 0. 3587 0. 3529 03478 03433 03403 03375 0 3336 03306 03284 03265 03251
8. 00 0. 4411 04219 04091 0. 3994 0. 3910 0. 3851 0. 3801 03756 03725 03697 03651 0 3628 0 3605 0 3586 03572
8. 50 04734 04541 04413 04316 04232 0. 4174 0. 4123 04079 04048 04020 03974 0 3951 0 3928 0 3909 03894
900 0. 5056 04863 04735 04637 0. 4554 04496 04445 04401 04370 04343 04297 04273 04251 04231 04217
9. 50 0. 5378 05185 05056 04958 0. 4875 0. 4817 04767 04722 04692 04665 04619 04596 04573 04554 04539
10. 00 0. 5701 05507 05377 05279 05195 0. 5137 0. 5087 0. 5043 0. 5013 04985 04940 04917 04894 04875 04861
10. 50 0. 6023 05828 05698 05599 05515 0. 5457 0. 5407 0. 5363 0. 5333 05305 05260 05237 05215 05196 05181
1100 06344 06149 06018 05918 05833 05775 0. 5725 0. 5681 0. 5651 0 5624 05579 05556 05534 05515 0 5500
11 50 0. 6666 06469 0. 6337 0. 6237 0. 6151 06093 0. 6042 0. 5998 0. 5968 0. 5941 0 5896 05873 05851 05832 0 5818
1200 0. 6987 06790 06656 06555 06469 06409 06359 0. 6314 0. 6284 06257 06212 06189 06166 06148 06133
1250 07309 07110 06975 06872 06785 0. 6725 06674 06629 06599 0. 6571 0. 6526 0 6503 0 6480 0 6461 0 6446
1300 0. 7630 07429 07293 07189 07101 07040 06986 06943 06912 0. 6884 0. 6838 06815 0 6792 0 6773 06756
1350 07951 07749 07611 07505 07415 07354 07301 07255 07224 07196 07149 07125 07101 07032 07067
1400 08272 08068 07929 07820 07730 07667 07613 07566 07534 07505 0. 7457 07432 07409 07389 07374
1450 08592 08387 08246 0. 8135 08043 07979 07924 07876 07843 07813 07764 07738 07714 07694 07679
1500 08913 08705 08562 08449 08355 08291 08233 08184 08151 08120 08069 08042 08017 07997 07962
1550 09233 09024 08879 08763 08667 08601 08542 08492 08457 08425 08371 0. 8343 0. 8318 08298 08282
1600 09554 09342 09195 0. 9076 08978 08911 08850 08798 08762 08728 08672 08643 08617 08596 08580
1650 09874 09660 09510 0. 9389 09288 09219 09156 09103 09065 09030 08971 08940 08914 08892 08876
1700 10194 09977 09826 0. 9701 09598 09527 09462 09408 09368 09331 09269 09236 09208 09186 09170
1750 1. 0514 1. 0295 10141 10012 0. 9907 09835 09767 09711 09668 09630 09564 09529 09501 09478 09461
1800 10834 1. 0612 10455 10323 1. 0215 10141 10070 10013 09968 09928 09858 09820 09791 09766 09751
1850 1 1153 1. 0929 10769 10634 1. 0523 10447 10373 10313 10267 10224 10150 10110 10080 10056 10038
1900 11473 1 1246 11083 10944 1. 0830 10752 10675 10613 10564 10519 10440 10398 10366 10342 10324
1950 1 1792 1 1562 11397 11253 11137 1 1056 10976 10912 10860 10812 10728 10683 10651 10626 10607
2000 12112 1. 1879 1 1711 1 1562 1. 1443 1 1360 1 1277 1 1210 11155 11104 1 1015 10967 10933 1 0908 10689
20 50 1 2431 1. 2195 1 2024 1 1871 1. 1748 1 1663 1 1576 1 1507 1 1449 1 1395 1 1301 1 1250 1 1214 1 1188 1 1168
21. 00 12750 1. 2511 12337 12179 12053 1 1965 1 1875 1 1803 11741 1 1685 1 1584 1 1530 1 1493 1 1466 1 1446
2150 13069 1. 2827 12650 12487 1. 2357 12267 12173 12099 12033 1 1974 1 1867 1 1809 1 1770 11743 1 1721
2200 13388 13143 12962 12795 12661 1. 2568 12470 12393 12324 12261 12147 12086 12046 12018 1 1995
2250 1. 3707 13458 1. 3274 13102 12964 12869 12766 12687 1. 2614 12547 12427 12361 12319 12291 1 2266
2300 1 4026 13774 1. 3586 1 3409 13267 13169 13062 12979 1. 2902 12832 12705 12635 12592 12562 12538
23. 50 14344 14089 1. 3898 13715 13569 13469 13357 1. 3271 1. 3190 13116 1 2981 12908 12862 12832 12807
2400 1. 4663 14404 14210 1 4021 13871 13768 13652 13563 13477 13399 1 3256 13179 13131 13100 13074
24 50 1. 4982 14719 14521 1. 4327 14173 14066 13945 13853 1. 3763 13681 1 3530 13448 1 3399 1 3366 1 3340
2500 1. 5300 1 5034 14832 1. 4632 14474 14364 14238 14143 14048 13962 13803 13716 1 3664 13631 13604
25 50 1. 5619 15349 15143 1. 4937 14774 14662 14531 14432 14332 14242 14074 13983 1 3929 1 3895 13867
2600 1. 5937 1 5664 15454 1. 5242 15075 14959 14823 14721 14616 14521 14344 14248 14192 14157 14126
2650 16255 1 5978 15765 15547 1 5374 15255 15114 15008 14898 14799 14613 14512 14454 14417 14388
2700 16574 1. 6292 16075 1. 5851 15674 15552 15405 15295 15180 15076 14881 1. 4775 14714 14677 14646
2750 1. 6892 1. 6607 1. 6385 16155 15973 15847 1 5695 15582 15461 15353 15148 15036 14973 1. 4935 14903
2800 17210 1. 6921 1 6695 16459 16272 16143 15985 1 5868 15742 15626 15413 15296 15231 i 5191 15159
28. 50 17528 17235 1. 7005 16762 16570 1 6438 16274 16153 16021 15903 15678 15555 15487 15447 15413
2900 1 7846 1 7549 1 7315 1. 7065 16868 1 6732 1 6563 1 6436 16300 16176 15941 15813 15742 15701 15666
29. 50 1. 8164 17863 1. 7625 17368 1 7166 17076 16851 16722 16579 16449 16204 16070 15997 1 5954 15918
30. 00 1. 8462 18177 1. 7934 17671 1. 7463 1 7320 17139 17005 16856 16722 16465 16325 16249 16205 16168
34- 22 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NGHANDBOOK
PO, Wp,)dppr
I
02
1 +wP,,)*
2%?!- - - 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 8 1. 9 2. 0 2. 2 2. 4 26 2. 6 3. 0
- __- - - ~-
0. 20 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000 0. 0000
0. 50 0. 0017 00016 0. 0016 0. 0016 0. 0016 0. 0015 0. 0015 0. 0015 0. 0015 0.0015 0.0015 0. 0015 0. 0015 0.0015 0.0015
1. 00 0. 0087 0. 0080 0. 0077 0. 0074 0. 0073 0. 0072 0. 0071 0. 0070 0. 0070 0. 0070 0. 0069 0. 0069 0. 0068 0. 0068 0. 00613
1. 50 0. 0240 0. 0199 0. 0185 0. 0177 0. 0172 0. 0168 0. 0165 0. 0163 0. 0161 0. 0160 0. 0158 0. 0157 0. 0156 0. 0155 0. 0154
200 0. 0491
2. 50 0. 0772
300 0.1063
350 0. 1356
4. 00 0. 1651
450 0. 1947
5. 00 0. 2243
550 0. 2540
600 0. 2838
650 0. 3135
700 0. 3433
750 0. 3732
800 0. 4030 0. 3836 03710 03611 03525 0. 3465 03414 03368 03337 03309 03262
850 0. 4328 0. 4135 04009 03909 0 3824 0. 3764 0. 3713 0 3667 03635 0. 3607 03560
0. 0385
0. 0625
0. 0894
0. 1175
0. 1464
1. 1756
1. 2050
0. 2347
0. 2644
0. 2941
0. 3239
0. 3536
00345 0. 0325 0. 0312 0. 0303 0. 0296 0. 0291
00554 0. 0515 0. 0490 0. 0475 0. 0462 0. 0453
00799 0. 0742 0. 0703 0. 0679 0. 0660 0. 0646
0 1066 0. 0994 0. 0943 0. 0910 0. 0884 0. 0864
0 1346 0. 1264 01202 0. 1162 01129 01104
01634 0. 1545 01475 0. 1429 01391 01360
01926 0. 1833 0. 1756 0. 1706 01664 01629
02221 0. 2125 0. 2045 0. 1991 0. 1946 0. 1907
02517 0. 2420 0. 2337 0. 2281 02233 02192
0. 2815 0. 2716 02632 0. 2574 02525 02482
03113 0. 3014 0. 2929 0. 2870 0. 2820 02775
03411 0. 3312 0. 3226 0. 3167 0. 3116 03071
0. 0288 0. 0285
0. 0448 0. 0443
0. 0637 0. 0629
0. 0851 0. 0840
0. 1087 0. 1073
0. 1340 0. 1322
0. 1606 0. 1585
0. 1881 0. 1859
02164 0. 2140
02453 0. 2427
0. 2745 0. 2718
0. 3040 0. 3013
0. 0281
0. 0435
0. 0618
0. 0825
0. 1054
0. 1299
0. 1558
0. 1827
0. 2106
0. 2390
0. 2680
0. 2973
0. 0278 0 0276 0 0274
0. 0431 0. 0426 0. 0423
0. 0611 0. 0604 0 0599
0. 0815 0. 0806 0 0798
01040 0. 1029
0 1282 0. 1268
0. 1538 0. 1522
0. 1805 0. 1787
0. 2081 0. 2061
0. 2363 0. 2343
0. 2652 0. 2630
0. 2944 0. 2922
03239 03217
03536 0. 3514
01018
0. 1256
0 1508
0. 1772
0 2045
0. 2326
0. 2613
0. 2904
0 3198
0. 3495
0. 0273
0. 0420
0 0595
0. 0792
0. 1010
0. 1246
01497
01760
02032
02313
0 2599
0 2890
03184
03481
900 0. 4627 0. 4434 04307 04208 04122 0. 4063 0. 4011 0. 3965 0. 3934 03905 03858 03834 0. 3812 03793 03779
950 0. 4926 0. 4733 04606 04507 04421 0. 4362 0. 4310 04264 04233 04204 04157 04133 0. 4110 04092 04077
1000 0. 5225 0. 5031 04905 04805 04720 0. 4660 0. 4609 0. 4563 0. 4531 04503 0. 4456 0. 4432 0. 4409 0. 4390 04376
1050 05523 0. 5330 05203 05104 05018 0. 4958 0. 4907 0. 4861 0. 4830 04801 04754 04730 04708 04689 04675
1100 0. 5822 0. 5629 05502 05402 05316 05256 0. 5204 0. 5159 0. 5127 0. 5099 05052 05028 05005 04987 04972
1150 0. 6121 0. 5927 05800 05700 05613 05553 0. 5502 0. 5456 0. 5424 05396 0. 5349 05325 05303 05284 05270
1200 0. 6420 0. 6226 06098 05997 05910 05850 0. 5798 0. 5752 0. 5721 05692 05645 05621 05599 05580 05566
1250 06718 06524 0. 6396 06294 06207 06146 06094 0. 6047 0. 6016 0. 5987 0. 5940 0. 5916 05893 05875 05860
1300 07017 06822 06693 06591 06503 06442 06389 0. 6342 0. 6311 06282 06234 06210 06187 06168 06154
1350 07316 0. 7121 0. 6991 06687 06798 0. 6737 06683 06636 0. 6604 0. 6575 0. 6527 06502 06479 06460 0. 6445
1400 07615 0 7419 0. 7288 0. 7183 0. 7093 07031 0.6977 0.6929 0. 6897 0. 6867 0. 6818 06793 06770 06750 0. 6736
1450 0. 7913 0 7717 0. 7585 0. 7479 0 7388 07325 0 7270 0. 7222 0. 7189 0. 7158 0. 7108 0 7062 07059 07039 0. 7024
1500 0. 8212 0. 8014 0. 7881 0. 7774 0. 7662 07619 07562 07513 0 7479 0. 7448 0. 7397 07370 0 7346 07326 07311
1550 08510 08312 08178 0. 8069 0. 7976 07911 07854 07804 0 7769 07737 0. 7684 0. 7656 0. 7632 07612 0 7597
1600 08809 08609 08474 0. 8363 0. 8269 06203 0. 8145 08094 0. 8058 08025 0. 7969 0. 7941 07916 07896 0 7660
16. 50 0. 9107 08907 0. 8770 0. 8658 0. 8562 0. 8495 08435 08363 08345 08311 0. 8254 0. 8224 0. 8198 08178 08162
1700 09406 09204 09066 0. 8951 0. 8854 08786 0. 8724 0. 8671 0. 8632 0. 8597 0. 8537 0. 8505 0. 8479 0. 8458 0. 8442
1750 0. 9704 09501 09362 0. 9245 0. 9146 0 9076 09013 0 8958 08918 08881 08818 0. 8765 0. 8758 0. 8737 08721
1800 10002 0. 9798 0. 9657 0. 9538 0. 9437 0. 9366 09300 09245 0 9203 09164 09098 0. 9064 0. 9036 0. 9014 0 8997
16. 50 10300 1. 0095 0 9953 0. 9831 0. 9728 0 9656 0 9568 0 9530 0 9486 0 9446 0. 9377 0. 9340 0. 9311 0. 9289 0 9272
19. 00 1. 0599 1. 0392 1. 0248 1. 0123 1. 0018 0 9945 0 9874 09815 0 9769 0 9727 09654 0. 9615 0. 9586 0. 9563 0 9545
19. 50 10897 10669 1. 0543 1. 0415 1. 0308 1. 0233 10160 10099 10051 10007 0 9930 0. 9889 0. 9858 0. 9835 09817
20. 00 1. 1195 10985 10837 10707 1. 0597 1. 0521 1 0445 10383 10332 10286 10204 10161 1. 0129 10105 10087
20. 50 1. 1493 1 1282 11132 1. 0999 1. 0886 1. 0808 1 0730 10665 10612 10564 10478 10432 10398 10374 10355
21. 00 1. 1791 1 1578 1 1426 11290 1. 1175 1. 1095 1 1014 10947 10692 10841 10749 10701 10666 10641 10622
2150 12089 1 1874 11721 1. 1581 1. 1463 1. 1381 1 1297 1 1229 11170 1 1116 1 1020 10968 10933 10907 10887
22. 00 12387 1. 2170 1. 2015 11871 1. 1751 1. 1667 11560 11509 11448 11391 11289 11235 11198 11171 11151
22. 50 1. 2685 1. 2466 1 2309 1. 2162 1. 2039 1. 1953 1 1862 1 1789 11724 1 1665 1 1558 1 1500 11461 1 1434 1 1413
23. 00 1. 2982 1. 2762 1. 2602 12452 12326 1. 2236 12144 1. 2069 1. 2000 1 1938 1 1825 1 1763 1 1723 11695 1 1674
23. 50 1. 3280 13058 1. 2896 12742 1. 2613 1. 2522 12425 12347 12276 12210 12090 1. 2026 1 1984 11955 1 1933
24. 00 1. 3578 1. 3354 1. 3190 1. 3031 12899 1. 2807 12706 12625 12550 12482 1 2355 12287 12243 12214 1 2191
24. 50 1. 3876 13650 1. 3483 13321 1. 3185 1. 3090 12986 12903 1. 2824 12752 12619 1. 2546 12501 12471 1 2447
25. 00 1. 4173 1. 3946 1. 3776 1. 3610 1. 3471 1. 3374 1. 3265 13180 13097 13022 12881 12805 1. 2758 1. 2727 12702
25. 50 1. 4471 1. 4241 1. 4069 1. 3899 1. 3757 1. 3657 13544 13456 1. 3369 13290 13142 13062 13013 12981 12956
26. 00 1. 4769 1. 4537 1. 4362 1. 4107 14042 1. 3940 13823 1. 3732 1. 3641 1. 3658 1. 3403 13318 13267 13235 13209
26. 50 1. 5066 14832 1. 4655 1. 4476 14327 1. 4222 14101 14007 13912 13825 13662 1 3573 1 3520 13487 13460
27. 00 1. 5364 1. 5127 1. 4948 1. 4764 1. 4611 1. 4504 1. 4379 14202 14162 14092 13920 13627 1 3772 13738 13710
27. 50 1. 5661 1. 5423 1. 5240 1. 5052 14895 14786 1. 4656 14556 1. 4452 1. 4357 14178 1. 4079 14023 13987 13959
28. 00 1. 5959 1. 5718 1. 5533 1. 5340 1. 5179 1. 5067 14933 14829 1. 4721 1. 4622 1. 4434 1. 4331 1. 4272 1 4235 14206
28. 50 1. 6526 1. 6013 1. 5825 1. 5627 1. 5463 1. 5348 15209 1. 510' 2 14989 1. 4886 1. 4690 1. 4581 14520 14483 14452
29. 00 1. 6554 1. 6308 1. 6117 1. 5915 1. 5747 1. 5629 15485 1. 5375 1. 5257 1. 5150 1. 4944 1. 4831 14768 14729 14698
29. 50 1. 6851 16603 1. 6410 1. 6202 1. 6030 1. 5909 15761 15647 1. 5524 1. 5412 15196 1. 5079 1. 5014 1. 4974 14942
30. 00 1. 7148 16898 1. 6702 1. 6489 1. 6313 1. 6189 16036 15919 1. 5791 1. 5675 1. 5450 15327 15259 15218 15165
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
The integral function on the left side of Eq. 34 can be
evaluated by use of Table 34.2 from Ref. 8. These tables
were prepared by using an arbitrary reference point of
ppr of 0.2. Evaluation of the integral is based on the fol-
lowing relationships:
5
(pw) I (Z/P,,)dp,,
[i
(pv) I WP,,)dp,,
(P,,) ~
1 +&/P,,)* = 0.2 1 +wP,,)*
1
(pd 2 (Z~Pprm,,
-
11
0.01877ysL
=
0.2
1 +~(z/p,r)*
1 T ..
. . (35)
Since the tables and charts provide numerical values for
the bracketed terms in Eq. 35, a calculation ojflowing
BHP can be obtained directly, with only simple rnathemat-
its being involved.
In the previous and subsequent calculation procedures,
the diameter of the flow string enters into the calculations
as the fifth power. It is important, therefore, that the exact
dimensions of the flow string be used rather than nomi-
nal flow-string sizes. Table 34.3 lists the pertinent infor-
mation on various flow-string sizes.
The effect of assuming a constant average temperature
over the entire gas column in Eqs. 17, 21, and 35 can
be mitigated by taking only small increments of depth
from top to bottom and using a constant temperature for
each increment of depth. Assuming a linear temperature
gradient, the average temperature for each depth incre-
ment can be calculated. The larger the number of depth
increments taken in calculating the pressure traverse, the
closer one approximates the rigorous integration of the
equations.
Example Problem 3. 6 Calculate the BHP of a flowing-
gas well. Given:
length of vertical pipe, L = 10,ooO ft,
tubing ID, dti = 2.00 in.,
gas-flow rate, qg = 4.91X106 cu
MD,
flowing wellhead pressure, p2 = 1,980 psia,
average flowing temperature, !? = 636R,
gas gravity (air=l.O), yg = 0.750,
PPC
= 660 psia,
TpC = 4OOR, and
f= 0.016.
Solution.
1. Calculate B.
B=66V3,2~2
=
dri 5Pp~*
(667)(0.016)(4.91)2(636)2 =7.48,
(2.00)5(660)2
2. Calculate
O.O1877y,L
T .
O.O1877y,L (0.01877)(0.750)(10,000)
=
T
=0.2213.
636
34-23
TABLE 34.3-FLOW STRING WEIGHTS AND SIZES
API
Ratl n(
m 1
Nel ght per Fool
OD ID
( I bml tt)
( I n ) On I
2 3~2. 4 I 660 I 380
2 9 or 2 748 I 900 I 610
4 00 2 375 1 041
4. 5or4 7 1 375 1 995
5. 897 2 875 2 469
6 25~ 6 5 2 a75 1 441
7.694 3 500 3 068
a 50 3 500 3 oia
9 30 3 500 2 992
to 2 3 500 2 922
9. 26 or 9 50 4 000 3 548
I I 00 4 000 3 476
I O 98 4 500 4 026
I I 75 4 500 3 990
12. 75 4 500 3 958
16. 00 4 750 4 062
16 50 4 750 4 070
12 85 5 000 4 500
13 00 5 000 4 494
15 00 5 000 4 408
I 8 00 5 000 4 27b
21 00 5 000 4 I 54
I 6 00 5 250 4 648
17 00 5 500 4 892
20. 00 5 500 4 778
14 00 5 750 5 190
17. 00 5 750 5 190
19 50 5 750 5 090
22 50 5 750 4 990
20 00 6 000 5 350
10 00 6 625 6 049
14 00 6 625 5 921
26 00 6 625 5 855
28 00 6 625 5 791
29. 00 6 625 5 761
20. 00 7 000 6.456
22 00 7 000 6 398
24 00 7 000 6 336
26 00 7. 000 6.276
28. 00 7 000 6. 214
30 00 7 000 6 I 54
34 00 7 615 6 765
26 00 8 000 7 306
28 00 8 115 7 485
32 00 8 125 7 385
35 50 8 125 7. 281
39. 5 <nr 40 00 8 125 7. I 85
41 00 8 I 25 7 I 25
24 00 0 625 8. 097
28 00 8 625 8 017
32 00
31 00
36 00
38. 00
43 00
44 85
34 00
38. 00
40 00
45. 00
8 625 7 921
8 625 7 907
8. 625 7 a25
8 625 7 775
8 625 7 651
6. 625 7. 625
9 000 8. 290
9 000 0. 196
9 000 a. 150
9 000 8 032
54 00 9 000 7 al 2
43 a0 9 625 a 755
47 20 9 625 8 681
53 60 9 625 I 3 535
57 40 9 625 . 3 451
36. 00 9. 625 8 921
33. 00 I O 000 9 384
60. 00 I O 000 a 780
32 75 I O 750 I O 192
35. 75 I O. 750 I O I 36
40. 00
40. 50
45 00
45 50
48 00
51 00
54 00
I O 750
I O 750
I O 750
I O 750
I O 750
I O 750
to 750
I O 054
I O 050
9 960
9 950
9 902
9 850
9 704
34-24
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
3. Calculate pseudoreduced wellhead pressure and
pseudoreduced average temperature,
1,980
(Pp,): =x=3.0
and
4. For T,, = 1.59, read from Table 34.2
s
(PP,) 2 (zJp,,)dp,,
=0.4246.
0.2
1 +&z&A2
5. Add
O.O1877y,L
to
(P/j,) 1 Wp,,)Q,,
T
02
1 +fqz&J2
0.4246+0.2213=0.6459.
6. From Table 34.2 find the pseudoreduced pressure
corresponding to
s
(p,r), (zb,r)dp,r
=0.6459.
0.2
1-tB(z21ppr2)
(p,,, =4.358.
7. Multiply (p,,) by ppc to obtain BHP.
pl =4.358x660=2,876 psia.
Another procedure for calculating the BHP of flowing
gas wells that has found widespread use since its adop-
tion by various state regulatory agencies is that of Cul-
lender and Smith.7 The method avoids the assumption
of a constant average temperature by including the tem-
perature within the integral.
where
F2 =(2.6665ffq, *)ldi5, . . (37)
ff is the Fanning friction factor and is equal to ff=f/4,
and f is the Moody friction factor from Fig. 34.2
Eq. 37 can be simplified by using the Nikuradse fric-
tion factor equation for fully turbulent flow and for an
absolute roughness of 0.0006 in.:
F= F,q, =
O.l0797q,
d 2,6,2 , . . . . .
1
where d; ~4.277 in. and
F=F,q, =
0.103379,$,
d 2,s82 ,
I
(39)
where di >4.277 in. Values of F, are presented in Ta-
ble 34.4 for various tubing and casing sizes.
The right side of Eq. 36 may be integrated numerically
by employing a two-step trapezoidal integration:
18.75y,L=
(Pm-P2)Um -cJ2) + (PI -P,n)U, +I,,)
2 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(40)
where
I =
PUZ)
F* +O.O01[pl(T~)]~
and
Eq. 40 may be separated into two expressions, one for
each half of the flow string.
18.7Sy,L=(p,, -p2)(lm +fz) (41)
for the upper half, and
1875y,L=(p, -p,)(/, +I,) . . (42)
for the lower half.
By trial and error, pm is calculated from Eq. 41, p r
then is calculated in a similar manner by using the value
of I, from Eq. 41 and substituting in Eq. 42.
Simpsons rule then is employed to obtain a more ac-
curate value of the BHP.
(I 2 +41, +I,). . . (43)
Rather than using the two-step trapezoidal integration
to make the first estimate of the BHP, Simpsons rule may
be used directly and the BHP calculated by trial and error.
As this indicates, the Cullender and Smith method in-
volves tedious trial and error solution if hand calculated.
The method is best solved by computer. Quoting Ref. 8.
Because the Cullender and Smith method considers both temper-
ature and Z to be functions of pressure, it might appear that this
method is somewhat more accurate than the Sukkar-Cornell ap-
proach. This is only an apparent advantage. If temperature IS known
in the gas column, it is possible to break the depth into several
increments, each with one appropriate mean temperature.
This was alluded to previously. The Sukkar-Cornell
method is an accurate, fast hand calculation procedure that
avoids trial and error calculations. It is also amenable to
computer solution.
Example Problem 4. Calculate the flowing BHP by the
method of Cullender and Smith from the following well
data:
gas gravity, yfi = 0.75.
length of vertical pipe, L = 10,000 ft,
wellhead temperature, T2 = 570R,
formation temperature, T, = 705R,
wellhead pressure, pz = 2,000 psig.
flowrate, qr = 4.915x 106 cu
ft/D,
tubing ID, d,, = 2.441 in.,
pseudocritical temperature, Tpc = 408R, and
pseudocritical pressure, ppr = 667 psi.
~ TI+Tz
570+705
TX-----C
=638R,
2 2
wellhead T,,, = $ = z = 1,397,
PC
T 638
midpoint Tpr
=-z-=1.564,
T,,,. 408
bottom Tpr =$ =g =1.728,
P
wellhead ppr =E =
2,000
__ =2.999,
P&l<
667
F= (0.10797)(4.915)
(2.441)2.62
=0.05158,
and F2 =0.00266.
Left side of Eq. 36,
18.75 y,L=(l8.75)(0.75)(10,000)
= 140.625.
Calculate 12. From the compressibility factor chart (see
Chap. 20) ~2 =0.705. Therefore,
P2
zoo0
-=
=4.977
T2z2 (570)(0.705)
and
4.977
12 =
0.00266+0.001(4.977)2
~181.44.
Assume 11 =I,. Solving Eq. 41 for pm,
l40,625=(p,-2,000)(181.44+181.44),
pm =2,388 psia.
TABLE 34.4-VALUES OF I= r FOR VARIOUS
TUBING AND CASING SIZES
OD I D
( I n I l bmi l t
ti n 1
1315 I 80 1 043 0 095288
1660 240 1380 0046552
1990 2 75 1610 0031122
2 375 4 70 1 995 0017777
2 875 6 50 2441 0010495
3 500 9 30 2 992 0 006167
4 000 11 00 3 476 0 004169
4 500 12 70 3 358 0 002970
4 750 16 25 4082 0002740
4 750 18 00 4 000 0 002889
5000 1800 4276 0002427
5000 21 00 4 154 0002617
5000 1300 4494 00021345
5000 1500 4406 00022437
5 500 14 00 5 012 00016105
5 500 1. 5 00 4976 00016408
5500 1700 4892 00017145
5 500 20 00 4778 00018221
5 500 23 00 4670 0 0013329
5 500 25 00 4 580 00020325
6000 1500 5524 0 0012528
6000 1700 5450 00012972
6000 20 00 5352
6000 23 00 5240
6000 26 00 5 140
6625 20 00 6049
6625 22 00 5 989
6625 24 00 5 921
6625 26 00 5855
6625 28 00 5 791
6625 31 80 5675
6625 34 00 5595
7000 2000 6456
7000 2200 6398
7000 2400 6 336
7000 26 00 6276
7 000 28 00 6 214
7000 30 00 6 154
7000 4000 5836
7625 26 40 6969
7625 29 70 6875
7625 33 70 6765
7625 38 70 6625
7625 4500 6445
8000 2600 7386
8125 2800 7485
8125 3200 7385
8125 3550 7285
8125 3950 7 185
8625 1750 8 249
8625 2000 8 191
8625 24 00 8 097
8625 2600 8003
8625 3200 7907
8625 3600 7825
8625 3800 7775
' 3625 43 00 7 651
9000 3400 8 290
9000 3800 8 196
9000 4000 8 150
9000 4500 8032
9625 3600 8 921
9625 4000 8835
9625 43 50 8755
9625 4700 8 681
9625 53 50 8535
9625 5800 8435
10000 33 00 3 384
10000 55 50 8 908
10000 , 61 20 8 790
10 750 32 75 10 192
10 750 35 75 10 136
10750 4000 10050
10 750 45 50 9 950
10 750 4800 9 902
10 750 5400 9784
00013595
00014358
0 0015090
0 0009910
00010169
0 0010473
0 0010781
0 0011091
00011686
00012122
0 0008876
00008574
0 0008792
0 0009011
0 0009245
0 0009479
00010871
00006875
00007121
00007424
00007836
00008413
00005917
00005717
0 0005919
00006132
00006354
00004448
00004530
00004667
00004610
0 0004962
0 0005098
00005183
00005403
0 0004392
00004523
0 0004589
00004765
00003634
00003726
00003814
0 0003899
00004074
00004200
0000416!
00003648
00003775
00002576
00002613
00002671
00002741
00002776
00002863
34-26
Second trial:
and
Pm
2,388
ppr=-=
~ =3.580,
PPC
667
zm =0.800 at ~,,=1.564, p,,=3.580,
Pt?!
2,388
=4.679,
Tmzm
(638)(0.800)
and
4.679
I, =
(0.00266)+0.001(4.679)*
= 190.57
Solving Eq. 41 for pm,
l40,625=(p,-2,000)(190.57+181.44)
and
pm =2,378 psia.
Third trial:
Pm
2,378
ppr=-=
- =3.565,
PPC
667
z,=O.800 at T,,=1.564, p,,=3,565,
Pm
2,378
-=
=4.659,
Td,
(638)(0.800)
and
4.659
I, =
0.00266+0.001(4.659)*
=191.21.
Solving Eq. 41 for pm,
l40,625=(p,-2,000)(191.21+181.44),
therefore
pm =2,377 psia.
For the lower half of the flow string assume It =f,,, =
191.21. Solving Eq. 42 forpt,
l40,625=(p, -2,377)(191.21+191.21),
p, =2,745 psia.
Second trial:
PI
2,745
-=4.115,
ppr=-&= 667
z, =0.869 at T,,=1.728, p,,=4.115,
PI
2,745
=4.481
T, z, (705)(0.869)
4.481
I, =
0.00266+0.001(4.481)*
= 197.06.
Solving Eq. 42 for p I 1
l40,625=(p, -2,377)(197.06+191.21),
p t =2,739 psia.
Third trial:
PI
2,739
ppr=-=
~ =4.106,
PPC
667
z 1 =0.869 at TPr =1.728, ppr =4.106,
PI
2,739
=4.47 1)
T, z, (705)(0.869)
and
4.471
I, =
0.00266+0.001(4.471)2
= 197.40.
Solve Eq. 42 for p 1
l40,625=(p, -2,377)(197.40+191.21),
p I =2,739 psia
Using Simpsons rule from Eq. 43,
lLj.0625 = (I -I
6
x[181.44+4(191.21)+197.40],
p I -p2 =738,
and
pI =738+2,000=2,738 psia.
A simplified method for calculating flowing BHP of gas
wells results if an effective average temperature and an
effective average compressibility are used over the length
of the flow string. Low-pressure wells at shallow depths
or wells where pressure drop is small are especially well
suited for this method. With the usual assumptions that
kinetic energy is negligible, g/g, equals unity, etc., the
following equation for vertical gas flow has been deve-
loped by Smith:
Phh2--esPth2=
25fq, 2 T2T2(e - 1)
0,0375d;5
. (44)
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS 34.27
where
Pbh =
Prh =
.f=
BHP, psia,
tophole pressure, psia,
friction factor, dimensionless, from Fig.
34.2,
9g =
gas flow rate, IO6 cu ft/D referred to
14.65 psia and 60F,
s= exponent of e=
O.O375y,L
~
TZ
Yg =
gas gravity (air = 1 .O),
L= length of vertical flow string, ft,
TX
average temperature, R,
z=
average compressibility of gas,
dimensionless,
di = internal diameter of flow string, in., and
e= natural logarithm base=2.71828.
The method using Eq. 44 is also a trial and error
procedure.
In evaluating the friction factor for commercial pipe,
Smith lo and Cullender and Binckley have shown from
an analysis of flow data that average absolute values of
roughness, 0.00065 and 0.0006 in., respectively, are the
correct values to use for clean commercial pipe. For an
absolute roughness of 0.0006 in., Cullender and
Binckley derived an expression for the friction factor
as defined in Fig. 34.2, as a power function of the Rey-
nolds number and pipe diameter. In terms of field units,
f=30.9208x 10-j qK
-0.065d; -0.058
YK
-0.065
PK
-0.065
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(45)
where
q.8
= gas flow rate, lo6 cu ft/D,
d; = internal diameter of flow string, ft,
YK
= gas gravity (air= 1 .O), and
pv
= gas viscosity, lbm/ft-sec.
Flow Through a Tubing-Casing Annulus. The flow
equations that relate to flow through a circular pipe, when
properly modified, can be used for conditions where flow
is through an annular space. This modification involves
determining the hydraulic radius of the annular cross sec-
tion and using the friction factor obtained for an equiva-
lent (i.e., having the same hydraulic radius) circular
pipe. The hydraulic radius is defined as the area of flow
cross section divided by the wetted perimeter. For a cir-
cular pipe,
*d,2f4 di
rH=-= .
ad;
T.
(46)
For a tubing-casing annulus,
(ai4)(d,.; * -d,, 2 1 d,.; -d,,
rH=
s(d,., +d,,, 1
4 ..
(47)
where
dci = inside diameter of casing, ft,
d,, = outside diameter of tubing, ft, and
rH = hydraulic radius, ft.
The diameter of an equivalent circular pipe, thus, would
be
d,, =dci -d,,. . . . . . . . . . . . (48)
Modification of Eq. 32 for annular flow involves only
substituting d,, for di. Likewise d,, replaces dj when
determining friction factor (from the Reynolds-number
plot, Fig. 34.2). However, the simplification of Eq. 32
includes velocity expressed as a function of diameter and
volumetric flow rate, and so di 5 in B of Eq. 33 and in
Eq. 44 becomes
di5 =(d,;+d,,)2(dci-d,,)3. (49)
Gas/Water Flow
The effect of water production on calculated pressure drop
for gas wells operating in mist flow can be included by
using an average density assuming zero slip velocity and
by using total rate in the friction loss term. The volumet-
ric average density can be calculated as
where p is the average density at flowing conditions and
q is the volumetric flow rate at flowing conditions. To
include the effect of water in the Cullender and Smith cal-
culation, modify the integrand, I, as follows (see Page 24):
[PQTz)I(PIP~)
+0.001[pi(Tz)12(Pl~ I2
K
Gas-Condensate Wells
Calculation of BHP. Calculations of BHP on gas-
condensate wells are based on equations previously
presented for gas wells. The application of these equa-
tions may be limited somewhat by the amount of liquid
present in the flow string.
Upon shutting in a gas-condensate well, part of the
liquids that were being carried in the flow stream may
fall back and accumulate in the bottom of the wellbore.
For this reason, it is advisable to determine whether or
not such a static liquid level exists in a gas-condensate
well before relying on a BHP calculated from surface
measurements. When the location of the static liquid lev-
el is known, the gas calculations can be used to deter-
mine the pressure at the gas-liquid interface and the length
of the liquid column. An estimated liquid density will pro-
vide the additional pressure needed to determine pressure
at formation level.
GRAVITY STOCK TANK CIOUID
Liquid Injection
Calculation of Injection BHP. For isothermal flow of
incompressible fluid, assuming gig, = 1, and integrating
between limits of the top and bottom of the hole, Eq. 30
may be written as follows:
f!f -tAz-cE,=O. . . . . . . .
(51)
P
0 20 40 60 80 lIXl20 140 160 180200220240260280xx)
BARRELS OF CONDENSATE PER MMSCF OF GAS
(Since the datum plane is at the surface, AZ will be a nega-
tive number.) Then
p* =p, -Azp--Et/I, . . . . . . . . . . . (52)
Fi g. 34.4-Gas/gravity ratio vs. condensate/gas ratio as a func-
tlon of condensate gravity.
since -AZ=D, the depth. Therefore,
In the flow equations for gas, the gas gravity is the flow-
p* =p, l eDp-E,p. . . . . (53)
stream gravity. This is calculated for condensates from
the following I2 :
Since Et=fi2D/2g,di (Fig. 34.2),
y = (Yg)sp +(4,59lyfIR,L)
R
, . . . . . .
1 +(1.123,R,L)
(50)
p2 =p, +Dp-2 2g,di. . . . .
(54)
where
(Y~).~~ = separator gas gravity (air= l),
yL = specific gravity of condensate, and
R
KL
= gas-liquid ratio, cu ftibbl.
Converting pressure units to pounds per square inch,
p2=p, +Dp-fvDp
. 144 288g,di,
(55)
Nisle and Poettmann I3 published a simple correlation
based on field data (Fig. 34.4) that can be used to calcu-
late the flow-stream gravity of the entrained mixture such
as occurs in the case of a flowing gas-condensate well.
Accuracy of the flow equations for gas, as modified for
gas-condensate wells, is influenced by the amount of liquid
in the flow stream. The higher the gas-liquid ratio, the
more accurate the calculated results will be.
Injection Wells
Petroleum-production operations often involve the injec-
tion of fluids into the subsurface formation, as is the case
in waterflooding, pressure maintenance, gas cycling, and
designing gas lift installations. Therefore, it becomes
desirable to have a means of predicting the variation of
pressure with depth for the vertical downward flow of
fluids. Eqs. 29 and 30, previously discussed, form the
basis of any specific fluid-flow relationship. They con-
tain no limiting assumptions other than those arrived at
in deriving Eq. 30 from Eq. 29. The only difference in
applying Eq. 30 to vertical downward flow when com-
pared with upward flow is that the integration limits are
changed; that is, the sign of the absolure values of poten-
tial energy then changes and, depending on the rate of
injection in the case of gas injection, the absolute value
of the compressional energy change may vary from posi-
tive to negative. In other words, at low flow rates. the
BHP is greater than the surface pressure; whereas. at high
flow rates, the BHP is less than the surface pressure.
where
p2 = bottomhole pressure, psia, at depth D,
p, = surface pressure, psia,
D = depth of well, ft,
p = density of injected fluid, lbm/cu ft,
f = friction factor (Fig. 34.2),
v = fluid velocity, ft/sec,
d; = internal diameter of pipe, ft, and
g, = 32.2 conversion factor.
Eq. 55 reveals that the BHP for the case of incompres-
sible flow as assumed for liquid injection into a wellbore
is simply the surface pressure plus the pressure from the
weight of the liquid column minus the pressure drop
caused by frictional effects. For no flow, it reduces to
the well-known expression for a static-fluid column
,,=,,+z. . ..____................,,..
Gas Injection
Calculation of Injection BHP. Starting with the general
differential equation, Eq. 30, Poettmann derived an ex-
pression for calculating the sandface pressure of flowing-
gas wells in which the variation of the compressibility fac-
tor of the gas with pressure is taken into consideration.
The same integral factor as given in Table 34.1 is em-
ployed for the calculation of static BHP in Table 34.5.
WELLBOAE HYDRAULICS
34-29
By following the same reasoning as in the previous sec-
tion, the equation can be rearranged so that the pressure
traverse for vertical flow downward can be calculated as
follows:
D=
D.,
{0.9521x10-61fq,y,~D,~21d,,5(A~)]}-l
,,..................~
(57)
where
D = depth of well, ft,
Ap = p2-PI, psia,
d,; = ID of tubing, ft,
qx
= gas flow, lo6 cu ft/D at 14.65 psia and
60F.
f = friction factor (Fig. 34.2), and
D,, = D under static conditions (static equivalent
depth for pressures encountered at
flowing conditions)
53.2417
Using the expression for the friction factor as derived
by Cullender and Binckley (Eq. 45) and substituting
in Eq. 57 gives
D=
,,,..,....,..................
(58)
Cullender and Smiths Eq. 36 also can be rearranged
to calculate the BHP for the case of gas injection as
follows:
. . (59)
-F
The solution of this equation is identical to that previous-
ly described for flowing gas wells. D, depth of well, can
be used interchangeably with L, length of flow string,
when the well is vertical.
Similarly, by considering the downward flow of gas,
the simplified equation developed by Smith lo for upward
flow (Eq. 44) can be rearranged so that the pressure
traverse for vertical flow downward can be calculated.
eSPth
2-pbh2=
25fq, * T2z(eS - 1)
(),fJ375di5 .....
(60)
The nomenclature is the same as used in the corresponding
Eq. 44.
In the case of gas injection down the annulus of a well,
d, i 5 of Eq. 57 (or d; 5 of Eq. 60) is replaced as defined
in Eq. 49; that is,
di 5 =(dci +dt , ) 2( d, . ; - d, J 3
In the case of annulus injection using Eq. 58. d,, 5.058 is
replaced as follows:
d,s05X=(d~.,+d,o)035(d~;-d,,,)3 *j. .(61)
Eqs. 57 through 60 provide a basis for calculating the
BHP in a gas-injection well. In solving Eqs. 57 and 58,
the calculating procedure is to assume a pressure pl and
solve for the corresponding depth, D. The depth, D. so
found will be the depth at which pressure p2 occurs. By
calculating several such points, a pressure-depth traverse
can be plotted from which the pressure at the desired depth
can be determined.
It is apparent that BHP during gas in,jection can be either
greater or less than tophole presaurc dcpcnding on the
energy losses encountered. At low rates of flow. the pres-
sure gradient is positive, whereas at high flow rates. the
pressure gradient is negative. This is because. as flow rate
increases, energy or frictional losses incrcasc and they
can be overcome only by a dmm~. s~~in the (./IMI,~P o/M?I-
pr cxsi or ~ ener gy or pV energy of the system. The decrease
in potential energy resulting from elevation is constant
and the change in kinetic energy is negligible. This can
be illustrated by examining and rearranging Eq. 4 and con-
sidering the kinetic energy negligible.
Cdp+E,=-KilZ. (62)
I I
CS,,
For low flow rates,
[Vdp
is positive and Eta is always positive; thus, the sum of the
compression energy and energy losses must equal the
change in potential energy, which for a given depth is con-
stant (the absolute value of -AZ is positive for gas injec-
tion since the absolute value of AZ is negative).
As E,, increases with flow rate. the
must decrease for the sum to remain constant. When E,,
is equal to (g/g(.) AZ, the pressure at the top and bottom
of the hole is the same. This means that the decrease in
potential energy is equal to the frictional losses. As E,,
further increases, the added energy to overcome friction
losses must come from the compressional energy since
-(g/g:,.) AZ is constant. This then means that the pres-
sure gradient is negative.
TABLE 34.5-SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
L L a-
680 1.015 1.586
20 700 1045 1611 0.025
20 720 1.074 1636 0.025
20 740 1.104 1662 0.026
(6) (7) (8)
0
1,276 - 1.460 1,460
1.278 - 1,460 2.920
1.329 - 1,532 4,452
Example Problem 5. Calculate the pressure at 4.000 ft
in a gas injection well. Given:
tubing ID, d,, = 0.1663 ft.
gas flow rate, qs = 0.783~10" cu
average temperature, T = 60!,:
, r
0
wellhead injection pressure, p, = 680 psia,
gas gravity, yY = 0.625. and
gas viscosity, pc = 8.74~10~~
Ibmift-sec.
Solution.
1. Substitute given values in Eq. 58.
D=
D,
2.944x10~R(0.783)'9.7s(0.625)'93sD,2
(0.1663)5058(8.75x10-h)-"ohs(~p)~ -'
D,
(3.00x10-')D,,' -1
(4)'
-
D,=
+b,,,
Pw
2. Determme p,,< and T,,, (Fig. 34.3)
p,,<. = 670 psia
and
therefore,
r 600
r,,.=-=-=I.64
T
I
365
3. Assume values for Ap and solve for D (Table 34.5).
4. From plot of Cal. 2 vs. Col. 8 read pressure at 4.000
ft to be 734 psia.
Oil Wells
Inflow Performance
The simplest and most widely used inflow performance
or backpressure equation used to determine stabilized or
pseudosteady-state flow at any backpressure pl,f is given
by the productivity index (PI) equation as
y. =J(pR -P,,.~). (63)
In terms of measured data the PI is represented as
J =_--, . (64)
P R -P wf
where
J=
Yo =
P l1.f =
PR =
stabilized productivity index. STBID-psi.
measured stabilized surface oil flow rate,
STB/D.
wellbore stabilized flowing pressure, psia,
and
average reservoir pressure, psia.
J is defined specifically as a PI determined from flow rate
and pressure drawdown measurements. It normally var-
ies with increasing drawdown (i.e., is not a constant
value). In terms of reservoir variables, the stabilized or
pseudosteady-state PI J* at zero drawdown or asp ,s-f-+pR
can be written as
7.08kh
J *= [q) 3+s] (p:;;,,),,x* ...,.,. CM)
where
J* = stabilized PI at zero drawdown,
STB/D-psi,
k = effective permeability, darcy.
k,, = relative permeability to oil, fraction,
h = formation thickness, ft,
fJ 0
= oil viscosity, cp (evaluated at pR),
B,, = oil formation volume factor, RBiSTB
(evaluated at pR),
y,,
= external boundary radius, ft.
r,,, = wellbore radius, ft, and
s = skin effect, dimensionless.
J* is the special definition of PI J at a vanishing pressure
drawdown (i.e., as p,!f approaches PR). PI for a well is
defined uniquely only at a zero drawdown.
Although this discussion will be limited to the pseudo-
steady state, a transient form of the flow coefficient J&
also is given for completeness.
7.08kh
J;,=
pK
(66)
where t is time, days, $I is porosity, fraction, and c, is
total compressibility. psi -
The above equations are perfectly valid for single-phase
flow (i.e., PR andp,,f. are always greater than the reser-
voir bubblepoint pressure, P,,). However, it has long been
recognized that in reservoirs existing at or below the bub-
blepoint pressure, producing wells do not follow the sim-
ple PI Eqs. 63 and 64. Actual field tests indicate that oil
flow rates obtained at increasing drawdowns decline much
faster than would be predicted by Eq. 63.
Evinger and Muskat first derived a theoretical PI for
steady-state radial flow in an attempt to account for the
observed nonlinear flow behavior of oil wells. They ar-
rived at the following equation:
(67)
where pea is the reservoir pressure at the external bound-
ary, psia. and
Calculations using Eq. 67 with typical reservoir and tluid
properties indicated that PI at a fixed reservoir pressure
l>,, decreases with increasir,g drawdown. This apparently
complex form of an inflow-performance-relationship
(IPR) equation found littlc use in the field.
In a computer study by Vogel. results based on two-
phase flow theory were presented to indicate that a sin-
gle empirical IPR equation might be valid for most
solution-gas-drive reservoirs. He found that a single
dimensionless IPR equation approximately held for several
hypothetical solution-gas drive reservoirs even when using
a wide range of oil PVT properties and reservoir relative
permeability curves. The fact that his study covered a wide
range of fluid properties and relative permeability curves
to obtain a single reference curve cannot bc ovcrempha-
siLcd. Vogel proposed that his simple equation bc used
in place of the linear PI relationship for solution-gas-drive
rehcrvoirs when the reservoir pressure is at or below the
bubblcpoint pressure.
The proposed equation (IPR) in dimensionless form was
given as
where q,,cmax) is the maximum producing rate at p,,f=O
psia.
Fetkovich, I6 in an attempt to verify the Vogel IPR
relationship, obtained isochronal and flow-after-flow mul-
tipoint backpressure test field data on some 40 different
oil wells. The reservoirs in which oilwell multipoint back-
pressure tests were obtained ranged from highly under-
saturated, to saturated at initial reservoir pressure, to a
partially depleted field with a gas saturation existing above
the critical (equilibrium) gas saturation. A form of an IPR
equation similar to that used for gas wells was found to
be valid for tests conducted in all three reservoir fluid
states, even for the conditions where flowing pressures
were well above the bubblepoint pressures. Permeabili-
ties of the reservoirs ranged from 6 to > 1,000 md.
In all cases, oilwell backpressure curves were found
to follow the same general form as that used to express
the rate-pressure relationship of a gas well:
Y~,=J'(F~~-~,,~~~)~I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(69)
For the 40 oilwell backpressure tests examined, the ex-
ponent n was found to lie between 0.568 and 1 .OOO-that
is, within the limits commonly accepted for gas well back-
pressure curves.
In terms of measured data, J' is defined by
(70)
where J is the stabilized PI, STBiD (psi )I. The expo-
nent n usually is determined from a multipoint or
isochronal backpressure test and is an indicator of the ex-
istence of non-Darcy flow. If n = I, non-Darcy flow is
assumed not to exist.
With PI expressed in terms of pressures squared. jR 2
and P$,
J=J.
%R
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(71)
Expressing the pseudosteady state J in terms of reser-
voir variables.
7.08kh
J=
2FR[,n(ry+s] w,,n. ,,..(72)
or
7.08kh
qiJ = [ln(r?) +s] w,>R
(73)
34-32
Expressed in a form with reservoir variables and a non- Example Problem 6 (IPR). The following example il-
Darcy flow term. Fn,,, where the resulting n would be lustrates the various possible methods of computing inflow
less than 1.0 and a function of FD,,, rates.
7.08kh
1
. (Pi?? -P,/)
. . . . . . . . . . . . (74) 2pR
When pR is equal to or less than the bubblepoint pres-
sure ph and n is less than I, a non-Darcy flow factor,
F m, is indicated. When FDc, =O, n= 1. The term FL,,,
normally is developed from multipoint test data. As shown
in a later example, it is possible to have For, =0 and tz
less than I .O for undersaturated wells producing at llow-
ing pressures below the bubblepoint pressure. (See Fig.8
of Ref. 16.) This is strictly a result of the shape of the
k,,,i(l,,B,,) pressure function.
Expressing the backpressure form of the IPR equation
in terms similar to that of Vogels equation (instead of
Vogels equation in terms of the backpressure curve), we
have. from Eq. 69,
y,, =J (pR 2 -p,,t2 I
and
40,111,,x,
=J (p,?)
or
40,111;,\ ,
J=-
(,)K21,, (75)
Substituting and rearranging yields
An oil well is producing at a stabilir.ed rate of 70 STBiD
at a flowing BHP paf = 1,147 psia. The average reser-
voir shut-in static pressure, PR = 1,200 psia. Calculate the
maximum possible flow rate, y(,, at 0 psig, and the
producing rate if artificial lift were installed to lower the
flowing BHP to 550 psia. Make the calculations using the
PI Eq. 63. Vogels method, and the backpressure curve
method with n= I .O and n=0.650. (The data are from an
actual IPR test reported in Ref. 16.)
Productivity Index (PI)
70
J=
1,200-I.147
= 1.32 STBiD-psi:
q,, (15 psi)=J (FR-pLL~~)
=I.32 (1,200-15)=1,564 STBID;
q,, (550 psi)= 1.32(1,200-550)=858 STBID.
Vogel IPR
q
0
=70 B(,pD. pd= 147
PR
~ =0.9558;
I.200
PI,j
(4
1
=0.9136;
PR
= l-0.191 16-0.73088=0.07796:
For tI = I , we have the simplest possible form of a multi-
phase IPR equation based on results obtained front actu-
al field data:
( >
7
---=I- I .,,.,.,,,...........
YII
Yocmax) IR
(77)
Comparing Eq. 77 to Vogels Eq. 68. which was derived
only from computer sitnulation data. we see that the co-
efficient for ~,,,/j~ is 0. and the coefficient for (P,,~/
pK)? is equal to 1. This results in an IPR Eq. 77 that
yields a slightly more conservative answer than given by
Vogels original equation. (Actually, Vogels Fig. 7 show\
computer model calculated IPR results less than obtained
from his reference equation. ) Not included in any of
Vogels simulation runs were cffccts of non-Darcy 110~
in the reservoir or perforation restrictions. which in the
field result in II values less than I .O and an even more
jevcrc IPR rate reduction relationship.
and y,, at p,,~=15 psia.
4,,(15 psi)
15
=I-0.20 __
4 id Imax )
( > 1,200
=0.99738;
4,,(15 psi)=y,,,,,,,,(O.99738)
=898(0.99738) = 896 BOPD:
yi) at pl,,=550 psia.
y,,(550 psi) 550
=I -0.20 ~
4,,l,,l~~X,
( > I .200
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-33
550 ?
-0.80 ~
( i
=0.740277;
I .200
y,,(SSO psi)=q,,,,,,,,(O.740277)
=X98(0.740277)=665 BOPD.
Backpressure Curve (n= 1 .O) IPR
q,, =70 BOPD; FR =( 1,200) = I ,440,OOO:
p,,f.2=(l,147)~=l.315,609:
70
J:
(1.200) -(1.147)
70
=~=0.00056274 STB/D-psi:
124.391
(/,,(I5 psi)=J(pR 2 -I?$)
=0.00056274 (1.440,000-225)=810 BOPD;
4,,(550 psi)=0.00056274~1.440.000-302,500)
=640 BOPD.
Using the dimensionless backpressure curve form in terms
of 4,~~4,~ml;lr,
and l>,?,f~,~ with tl= 1 .O.
y,, = 70 BOPD; (z)= (~)=0.9136:
40
= I -0.9136=0.0864;
Y,,~,,,,,]
70
~ =8lO BOPD;
4~~lnu~, = o,0864
y,, at p,,f=s50 psia.
y. (550 psi)
4i,(ln;,rl
= 1-O. 168056=0.78993:
[/,,(550 psi)=81 O(0.78993) =640 BoPD
Backpressure Equation ( t 1=0. 650) IPR
L/,, =70 BOPD; pK =(I ZOO) = 1.440.000;
/~,,,=(1,147)=1,315.609:
70
J=
70
=-
(l,440.000-l,315.609)0~h50 2.049.3
=0.0341580 STBiD-psi*;
q(, (15 psi)=J(jjRz -pb!fZ)c.hsO
=0.0341580(1,440,000-225) 6s0;
q,, (15 psi)=0.0341580(10,066.8)=344 BOPD;
q. (5.50 psi)=0.0341580(l.440,000-302.500)~6so
=295 BOPD
Using the dimensionless backpressure curve form in terms
Of 4o/q,,(,,,,,, >P&J R, and n=0.650,
y<, =70 BOPD. , (?)I= (~)=0.9136;
=(1 -0.9136))~650=0.203S79;
70
YdIllaXl = o,203579
=344 BOPD:
q,, at pI,f =550 psia.
4,,(550 psi)
q,,,,,,,,,) = [t - ( j=) 1 h.50=0.857892:
y,, =344(0.857892)=295 BOPD.
Again. this example is based on field data where several
rates were measured to establish the real IPR relationship
of the well. The real absolute open flow of the well was
340 BOPD. This is 38% of the rate predicted by Vogels
IPR equation and 42% of the rate predicted by the back-
pressure equation with n = 1. A value of tz =0.650 as il-
lustrated in this example is required to match the field
data. A non-Darcy flow factor FD,, is indicated for this
test.
Single-Phase and Two-Phase IPR Equation. Fetko-
vicht6 gives a general equation that treats flow both
above and below the bubblepoint pressure for an under-
saturated oil well.
4,~ =l*(PR -Ph)+J (/J />-/J ,,,.).
(78)
where
J =J *(~,,BI ,),,R,,,,, 1
( )
Assuming (p(,B,,) is a constant value above the bub- 9() at p1,f=550 psia
blepoint pressure equal to (pLoBo)h (the basis of the con-
stant PI assumption for flow above the bubblepoint
pressure, oh), then a1 = l/[Ph(~~,B,~)h] (see Appendix of
Ref. 16).
9J550 Ps9=J*(PR-pb)+&(pb2 -p,J)
Then
=0.045454(3,200- 1,800)
J=
J(c(n~o)h J*
2Phh43,~)h
=2p,T, .., .
0.045454
+ (1,800* -5502),
(80)
2( 1,800)
=64+0.000012626(3,240,000-302,500),
Substituting Eq. 80 into 78 we obtain the final form of
the single-phase and two-phase IPR equation:
=64+37= 101 BOPD.
J *
y,, =J*(I-R-P,,)+-(P/,* -p&.
2Ph
(81)
Example Problem 7. The following example illustrates
the method of computing inflow rates for flows both above
and below the bubblepoint pressure of an undersaturated
oil well.
An oil well is producing at a rate of 50 STB/D at a flow-
ing BHP of 2,100 psia. The reservoir average shut-in pres-
sure is 3,200 psia with a bubblepoint pressure of 1.800
psia.
Calculate the maximum possible flow rate, 9,. at
p,!f=O psig and the producing rate at 5.50 psia flowing
BHP. (For flows above I>/,, J =J *.)
J=J*=
90
GR -PM/)
therefore,
50 50
J*=
(3.200-2.100) 1,100
The additional 535-psi pressure drop from 550 psia to 15
psia results in only 4 BOPD increase. It is significant to
point out that if several flows, all with flowing pressure
p ,f below the bubblepoint pressure pb, were calculated
usmg the above equation and example and then plotted
as a backpressure curve but with pR -~,,f, it would
indicate a value of n =O. 820. We would have an indicat-
ed n less than 1 .O without a non-Darcy Bow term Fo,
With the uncertainty involved in really knowing the t r ue
bubblepoint pressure of a particular well, we could ob-
tain test n values less than 1 .O without non-Darcy flow
existing.
To illustrate more clearly a case of drawdown data ob-
tained at flowing pressures below the bubblepoint pres-
sure to obtain J *, we will use the 550 psia rate obtained
above and the previously specified data. Actual unrounded
calculated rate is 100.73 BOPD.
J*=
90
(pR-Ph)+ (Ph27hf2)
@h
1
=0.045454 STBiD-psi
100.73
and
(3,200-1,800)+
(3,240,000-302,500)
2( 1,800) 1
I *
9(,(15 psi)=J *(PR-ph)+~(pb-p,,.i2),
%J h
=0.045454(3,200- 1,800)
0.045454
+
2( 1,800)
(1,800-15)
100.73 100.73
= (l,400+816)
zz-
2,216
=64+0.000012626(3,240,000-225).
=0.045450 STBiD-psi (good check)
Future Inflow Performance. Standing presented a
method for adjusting IPR by using Vogels equation from
a measured condition to a future reservoir pressure pR,
=64+41= 105.
It is based on the fact that PI can be defined uniquely only
at a zero drawdown, pl$-pR.
This compares to 145 BOPD if the regular PI equation
J *= lim J. . . (82)
is assumed valid to 15 psia. Ap+O
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-35
Applying the limit condition using Vogels equation
yielded
J *=
1 . 89, >cmaxi
. pR
(83)
Using the same approach with the backpressure equation
and II= I.
which yields
J *=- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 84)
PR
If we define 90*(max, as that absolute open flow poten-
tial we would obtain. assuming conventional Ap PI were
used.
qo~max) =J *(PR -0)
and
qo*(maxl =J*jTR =2qorm3rr. . (85)
Note that the real qocrnaXj is % that assuming a Ap
productivity index relationship. This is more clearly seen
from Fig. 34.5 and Eq. 86. In terms of the Evinger-
Muskat equation,
where A,.=area under curve.
For the n = 1 .O IPR relationship, the area under the curve
(A, C, D) is exactly 1/2 that area (A, B, C. D) assuming
Ap PI relationship when p,,l=O.
Example Problem 8. Using Standings example data we
will (1) calculate present J*,, from present flow data, (2)
adiust J *, to a future J *f, and (3) calculate a future rate
at p ,,f =i:200 psig
The following was given in Standings example. I7 The
present PI, J, was determined to be 0.92 at a flow rate
of 400 BOPD with pIIf= 1,815 psig. Average reservoir
pressure. pR, at this time is 2,250 psig. Future reservoir
pressure jR will be 1,800 psig. k,,/(pr,B,,)=0.2234
present and 0.1659 future.
qdmax= []- ($2,
kro
-
40
PI =f ( Ap) assumpmn
-
P
40
-=
%(max)
Fig. 342%Simple pressure function for Ap2 relationship and
n=l.
400
= [ 1+830) *] =l J ~~BoPD~
240,max) 2(1,152)
J*=-m--=
-=1.017.
PR
2, 265
J *.f=J *P
~P,,B,,~~=1,0170.1659
- =0. 755.
0. 2234
J*&jR) 0.755( 1,800+ 15)
9oml ax) ~= L = =685 BOPD,
2 2
and
90f(1,200 Psk)=q,~,,,,~~
[l+L)2]
=685[1-(%)I =378 BOPD.
Multiphase Flow
Introduction
Much has been published in the literature on the vertical
simultaneous flow of two or more fluids through a pipe.
The general problem of predicting the pressure drop for
the simultaneous flow of gas and liquid is complex. The
problem consists of being able to predict the variation of
pressure with elevation along the length of the flow string
for known conditions of flow. The ability to do this in
the case of flowing oil wells provides a means of evalu-
ating the effects of tubing size, flow rate, BHP, and a host
of other variables on one another. In the case of gas lift
installations in oil wells, it would be particularly useful
in designing the installation and providing such informa-
tion as the optimum depth, pressure, and the rate at which
to inject the gas, the horsepower requirements to lift the
oil, and the effect of production rate and tubing size on
these quantities. In other words, a means of systemati-
cally studying the effects of the different variables upon
one another.
34-36
Fi g. 34X-Flow regime classifications for vertical two-phase
flow.
Multiphase flow may be categorized into four differ-
ent flow configurations or flow regimes, consisting of bub-
ble flow. slug flow, slug-mist transition tlow. and mist
flow. In bubble flow, the liquid is continuous with the
gas phase existing as bubbles randomly distributed (Fig.
34.6). The gas phase in bubble flow is small and contrib-
utes little to the pressure gradient except by its effect on
the density. A typical example ofbubble flow is the liber-
ation of solution gas from an undersaturated oil at and
above the point in the flow string where its bubblepoint
pressure is reached.
In slug flow, both the gas and liquid phases significantly
contribute to the pressure gradient. The gas phase in slug
flow exists as large bubbles almost filling the pipe and
separated by slugs of liquid. The gas bubbles arc rounded
on their leading edge, fairly flat on their trailing edge.
and are surrounded on their sides by a thin liquid film.
Liquid entrainment in the gas phase occurs at high flow
velocities and small gas bubbles occur in the liquid slug.
The velocity of the gas bubbles is greater than that of the
liquid slugs. thereby resulting in a liquid holdup that not
only affects well friction losses but also flowing density.
Liquid holdup is defined as the insitu flowing volume
fraction of liquid. Slug flow accounts for a large percent-
age of two-phase production wells and, as a result, a good
deal of research has been concentrated on this flow
regime.
In transition flow, the liquid slugs between the gas bub-
bles essentially disappear, and at some point the liquid
phase becomes discontinuous and the gas phase becomes
continuous. The pressure losses in transition flow are
partly a result of the liquid phase, but are more the result
of the gas phase.
Mist flow is characterized by a continuous gas phase
with liquid occurring as entrained droplets in the gas
stream and as a liquid film wetting the pipe wall. A typi-
cal example of mist flow is the flow of gas and conden-
sate in a gas condensate well.
Complete sets of pressure traverses for specific flow
conditions and oil and gas properties have been published
by service companies and others. These pressure gradient
curves can be used for quick hand calculations.
Theoretical Considerations
As discussed in the Theoretical Basis section. the basis
of any fluid-flow calculation consists of an energy bol-
ancc on the fluid flowing between any two points in the
system under consideration. The energy entering the sys-
tem by virtue of the flowing fluid tnust equal the energy
leaving the system plus the energy interchanged between
the fluid and its surroundings.
The pressure drop in a vertical pipe associated with
either single- or tnultiphase flow is given by
7,dD
-dp- ~
+ KP dD+ X
p-1,.
144 144g,. 144g,
(87)
where
p =
Tf =
D=
h=
SC =
P=
\ =
pressure. psia.
friction loss gradient. Ibfisq ft-ft.
depth, ft.
acceleration of gravity. ftisec.
gravitational constant, (ft-Ibm)/(lbf SW),
fluid density. Ibm/cu ft. and
fluid velocity, ftiscc.
Eq. 87 states that the fluid pressure drop in a pipe is the
combined result of friction. potential energy. and kinetic
energy losses.
The friction loss gradient and average density term for
multiphase flow are evaluated using specific relationships
for each flow regime. The kinetic energy term is usually
small except for large flow rates. Duns and Roa Ix have
shown that for two-phase flow the kinetic energy term
is significant only in the mist flow regime. Under this flow
condition. 1*$ B 11.. and the kinetic energy term can be
expressed as
pdlr= -5%. (88)
Kc, I
where
A = pipe area. sq ft,
M, = total mass flow rate, lbmisec, and
4x
= gas volumetric flow rate. cu ftisec.
Eq. 87 now can be written in difference form for any depth
increment, i, by assuming an average temperature and
pressure exists over the increment. Making this assump-
tion we have
AP,=&(,-:;~,~
4637Aj
)AD;s
where
p = average fluid density, lbmicu ft.
Ap; = pressure drop for increment i, psi.
p = average pressure, psia. and
ADi = the ith depth increment. ft.
(89)
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-37
Eq. 89 can bc solved incrementally either by settrng -$,
and solving for AL), or by setting ;1D, and solving for
Al>, Since pressure usually has more effect on average
fluid properties than temperature and since rempcraturc
can be expressed as a function of depth. &I, should be
set and AD, calculated. The calculation procedure de-
scribed here is an iterative process for each section and
generally is programmed for solution on a computer.
Correlations
Since the original work in this area, which was present-
ed by Poettmann and Carpenter.3 several studies have
been undertaken to collect additional experimental mul-
tiphase Bow data and to develop new multiphase pressure
drop correlations. I~) Also. various statistical studies
have been performed comparing recent multiphasc flow
correlations3~iZ for large sets of flowing and gas lift
cases.
Espanol et cl/. ( selected the Hagedorn and Brown.
Duns and Ros. Ix and Orkiszewski methods as three of
the beat correlations for calculating multiphase pressure
drops. An analysis of results calculated on 44 wells was
used to determine the best overall correlation. This work
concluded that the Orkiszewski correlation was the most
accurate method over a large range of well conditions and
it was the only correlation of the three considered suita-
ble for evaluating three-phase flow for wells producing
significant quantities of water.
Lawson and Brill point out that the Poettmann and
Carpenter method is still a base line for comparing new
multiphase flow correlations. Their original work is based
on flow conditions similar to those found in many gas lift
conditions and, therefore, is briefly discussed
Poettmann and Carpenter.> Poettmann and Carpenter
used data on flowing and gas lift wells to correlate the
combined energy losses resulting from liquid holdup. fric-
tional effects caused by the surface of the tubing, and other
energy losses as a function of flow variables.
No attempt was made to evaluate the various compo-
nents making up the total energy loss. The flowing tluid
was treated as a single homogeneous mass. and the ener-
gy loss was correlated on this basis. A total flowing den-
sity or specific volume was used rather than an in-situ
density or specific volume. That is, the energy of the fluid
entering and leaving the tubing is a function of the
pressure-volume properties of the total fluid entering and
leaving the tubing, and not of the pressure-volume prop-
erties of the fluid in place, which would be different be-
cause of slippage or liquid-holdup effects. Lastly. in
calculating flowing density or flowing specific volume,
mass transfer between phases as the tluid flows up the
tubing was taken into consideration, as well as the entire
mass of the gas and liquid phases.
Viscosity as a correlating function was neglected. The
degree of turbulence is of such a magnitude, in general.
for a two-phase flowing oil well that the portion of the
total energy loss resulting from viscous shear is negligi-
ble. This is not surprising since it is also true for single-
phase turbulent flow. There the energy loss is indepen-
dent of the physical properties of the flowing fluid. A
number of others* working on the same problem of multi-
phase flow have made the same observation.
Baxendell extended Poettmann and Carpenters corre-
lation by using large-volume Bow data from wells on
casing flow,. A detailed discussion of the Poettmann and
Carpenter development can be found in the original 1962
edition of this handbook and in Ref. 33. The Poettmann
and Carpenter correlation has served as the take-off point
for many of the newer multiphase flow correlations.
Orkiszewski. To obtain a set of calculation procedures
covering all flow regime:; in two-phase flow.
OrkiszcwskiZs made a thorough review of the literature.
tested various methods against a few sets of experimen-
tal data by hand calculations. and then selected the two
methods, Griffith and Wallis and Duns and Ros. Ix for
his final evaluation. Orkiszewski programmed both
methods and tested them against data from I48 wells.
Neither method was accurate over the entire set of flow
conditions, Griffith and Walliss method. however. ap-
peared to provide the better foundation for a general so-
lution in slug flow, and, thus. Orkiszewski clccted to
modify their work.
Orkiszewski called his calculation procedures the Modi-
fied Griffith and Wallis method since their work was in-
volved strictly with fully developed slug flow and since
95% of the 148 wells used by Orkiszewski in developing
his method were in slug flow. Duns and Ros method was
used for mist flow and partly for transition flow since it
appeared to be more fundamental than the Lockhart and
Martinell?j method recommended by Griffith.
Orkiszewskis method essentially establishes which tlow
regime is present and then applies (1) Griffiths procc-
dure for bubble flow, (2) Griffiths procedure modified
by a liquid distribution coefficient parameter based on field
data for slug flow. (3) a combination of the modified
Griffith method and the Duns and Ros method for transi-
tion flow. or (4) Duns and Ros method for mist flow.
Accuracy claimed for this correlation is about k 10% for
a wide range of flow conditions.
The determination of which flow regime applies for a
given pipe segment is accomplished by checkmg the var-
ious dimensionless groups that define the boundaries of
each flow regime (Fig. 34.7). Griffith and Wallis are
responsible for defining the boundary between the bub-
ble and slug flow regimes. Duns and Ros have defined
the boundaries between the slug and transition tlow re-
gimes and between the transition and mist flow regimes.
These boundaries are given by the inequalities listed
below.
I. For the bubble flow regime, the boundary limits are
Y&I<~B.
2. For the slug flow regime, the boundary limits arc
Y&r >LB. l,D<LS.
3. For the transition flow regime. the boundary limits
are L~>tx,~~>Ls.
4. For the mist flow regime, the boundary limits are
,yr,>LM.
In these equations the subscripts 5, M, and S indicate
bubble. mist, and slug flow. respectively.
Earl y i nvesl l gatorsof l hts probl emwere T. V Moore and H D Wi l de J r, Experl men-
f al Measurement of Sl tppage I Fl owThrough Verti cal Popes, Tram, AI ME ( 1931 j
92, 296- 313; and TV Moore and R. J Schl l thul s. Cal cul ati on of Pressure Drops
\ n Fl owi ng Wel l s. Trans AI ME ( 1933) 103, 170- 86.
34-38
Bubble Flow. The average flowing density in bubblej~w
is calculated from the following equation, which
volumetrically weights the gas and liquid densities.
P=PgfK+f(l-fg)PL. ..(..........(....,... (94)
The flowing gas fraction, fg, in bubble flow is given by
0
/
3 I
2
:
4
&=~[l++p$jg, . . ..(95)
z 5
:,a1*e :,
0
* #A:: :
ci
I I
.*;/ ,-,
I 5 >
;A:
::**l::
where the slip velocity, v, , is the difference between the
z PLG FLOW
0.1
^. average gas and liquid velocities. Griffith suggests the use
10
,ol 2 5 , 2 5 1. 2 5 ,$ 2 I ,$
of an approximate value of v,=O.8 ft/sec for bubble
DI MENSI ONLESS GAS VELOCI TY. V, , b, l ga) ozs
f l ow.
The friction loss gradient for bubble flow is based on
Fig. 34.7-Flow regime map.
single-phase liquid flow,
7f= fp
LL
2
These dimensionless groups are given by the following
. . . . .
(94)
set of equations.
2g,.d cos*)
where
v
8
( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(90) A
4L
YL=A(l-fg). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
at the bubble-slug boundary
. (97)
0.2218v,*
The friction factor, f, in Eq. 96 is the standard Moody *
Lg=1.071-
friction factor, which is a function of Reynolds number
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(91)
dH
and relative roughness factor. The Reynolds number that
but
is used for bubble flow is the liquid Reynolds number.
L,rO.13,
NR~=
1488PLdHvL
) . . . . . . . . .
(98)
ccL
at the slug-transition boundary
where dH is the hydraulic pipe diameter (4Alwetted
Ls =50+
36VgD 4r.
. . . . . ..I..............
4a
(92)
perimeter), ft, and hL is the-liquid viscosity, cp.
Slug Flow. The average density term for sIugflow is ex-
pressed as
and at the transition-mist boundary
LM=75+84(VgD4L)., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
where
\ 9g
vgD = dimensionless gas velocity,
V
t=
total fluid velocity (9,/A), ft/sec,
pi = liquid density, lbm/cu ft,
u = liquid surface tension, lbm/sec*,
L = flow regime boundary, dimensionless,
dH = hydraulic pipe diameter, ft,
(93)
p
I +PLVd
+6pL. . . . . . . . . . .
9t +vbA
(99)
Eq. 99, with the exception of its last term, is equivalent
to the average density term derived by Griffith and Wal-
lis. The last term of Eq. 99 was added by Orkiszewski
and contains a parameter, 6, that was correlated from oil-
field data. The slip or bubble rise velocity, vb, for slug
flow was correlated by Griffith and Wallis and is given by
vb=c,c&&. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (I@,)
qg
= gas flow rate, cu ftisec,
g = acceleration of gravity, ftisec2, and
A = flow area of pipe, sq ft.
The coefficient Ct is the bubble-rise coefficient for bub-
bles rising in a static column of liquid. Values of Ct have
been determined theoreticallv bv Dumitrescu 36 and
The average density and friction loss gradient is defined
experimentally by Griffith and Wajlis l9 as a function of
later for each of the four possible flow regimes. These
bubble Reynolds number, Fig. 34.8, where
terms are evaluated for each pipe segment and are then
substituted into Eq. 89 to calculate the pressure drop over
the segment.
NR~, =
1488pLdHvb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(101)
CLL
WELLEORE HYDRAULICS 34-39
The coefficient C2 is a function of liquid velocity and,
when multiplied by Ct , represents the bubble-rise co-
efficient for bubbles rising in a flowing liquid. The coeffi-
cient C2 has been determined experimentally by Griffith
and Wallis I9 and is correlated as a function of both bub-
ble Reynolds number, NReh , and liquid Reynolds num-
ber (Fig. 34.9), where
NR~ =
1488pLdHv,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(102)
When Reynolds numbers larger than 6,ooO are encoun-
tered, vh can be evaluated from the following equations,
which were developed by Orkiszewski and based on the
work of Nicklin et al. For bubble Reynolds numbers,
NRC,, .
less than 3,000,
,,i,=10.546+8.74(10-6)NR,jJgdH. .(tO3)
When bubble Reynolds number is between 3,000 and
8,000,
where
r~,,,=[0.251+8.74(10-6)N,,]v&. _. . (105)
For bubble Reynolds numbers greater than 8,000.
,,,,=[0.35+8.74(10~6)NR~]~. .(106)
The friction loss gradient term for slug flow is the result
of Orkiszewskis work and is given by
T.f= fpLi2 (+A). ,..,.... (107)
2g,dH cos0 q,+\ /,A
BUBBLE REYNOLDS NUMBER N, , =~
PL
Fig. 34.8-Bubble-rise coefficient for bubbles rising in a static
liquid column vs. bubble Reynolds number.
The friction factor in Eq. 107 is a function of relative
roughness and the Reynolds number given by Eq. 102.
Orkiszewski defined the parameter 6, which appears in
Eqs. 99 and 107 as a liquid distribution coefficient. This
coefficient implicitly accounts for the following physical
phenomena.
1. Liquid is distributed not only in the slug and as a
film around the gas bubble but also as entrained droplets
inside the gas bubble.
2. The friction loss has essentially two contributions,
one from the liquid slug and the other from the liquid film.
3. The bubble rise velocity approaches zero as mist flow
is approached.
Liquid distribution coefficient, 6, was correlated as a
function of liquid viscosity, hydraulic radius, and total
velocity and may be evaluated by one of the following
empirical equations.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
REYNOLDS NUMBER #Re = 1488Aq:PHp
Fig. 34.9-Bubble-rise coefficient accounting for bubbles rising in a flowing liquid vs. Reynolds number.
Continuous Oil Phase. When 1, < 10,
0.0127
6= ,,log(/.q+l)-0.284+0.167 log V,
dH
+O.l13 log dH, . . . . . . . ..(108)
When v, > 10,
0.0274
6=-
dH
,,37, log(fiL + l)+o. 161+0.569 log d,c/
0.01
-log l,
~WPL + 1)
dti
+0.397+0.63 log dH
I
. .(109)
Continuous Water Phase. When vy < 10.
0.013
6= -log PL -0.681
dH
+0.232 log vI -0.428 log dH. (110)
When V, > 10,
0.045
6=-
dH
o,799 log pLL -0,709-O. 162 log v,
-0.888 hf i/H. . ..(lll)
Eqs. 108 through II 1 are constrained by the following
limits. which eliminate pressure discontinuitics between
tlow regimes. When \*,< IO. 62 -0.065\*,, and when
\, > 10.
6r-
v,,A(l --P/p,)
q, +I d
Transition Flow. The Duns and Ros method for calculat-
ing average flowing density and friction loss gradlent in
r,nrz.sition,fk,,c, is used. They evaluated p and 7/ by linear-
ly weighting the values obtained from slug and mist flow
wsith dlmensionless gas velocity, v,~, , and the dimension-
less boundaries defining transition flow, L,v and Ls. The
average density term is defined as
j=(yps+(~)&,, . . . ..(112)
where subscripts M and S are mist and slug flow condi-
tions, respectively. Similarly, the friction loss gradient
is defined as
Mist Flow. In mi st j bwthe slip between the gas and liquid
phases is essentially zero. The fraction of gas flowing can
be expressed, therefore, as
fg2L
qg+qL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (114)
Average flowing density is given by
P=(l -fg)pL+fgpg. . . . .
(115)
The friction loss gradient for mist flow is primarily a result
of the gas phase and is given by
(I 16)
where vKs is the superficial gas velocity and f is a func-
tion of the gas Reynolds number,
NRC = 1488
PXdHVRs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(117)
px
and a modified relative roughness factor, cldH, which
was developed by Duns and Ros. The roughness factor
for mist flow is a function of the liquid film wetting the
pipe walls and is given by the following set of equations
and constraints. Let
~=~.~~(~~~)(v~~~~/u)~(P~IP~), _. (118)
where N is a dimensionless number. Then for N<0.005,
t 34u
-=
P8g., 2dH
. . . .
d,
(119)
and for N>0.005,
-5 174.8~(N)-~*
-=
2dH . .
dti
(120)
PKVRT
Eqs. I 19 and 120 are limited by upper and lower bounds
for E/dH of 0.001 and 0.05.
Camacho3 studied 111 wells with high gas/liquid ra-
tios and concluded that Orkiszewskis method performed
better when mist flow calculations were used for gas/liq-
uid ratios greater than 10,000. Obviously, if this approach
is taken, an appropriate transition zone between slug and
mist flow should be used to avoid abrupt pressure gra-
dient changes. In another study, Gould er a1. 27 also in-
dicate that the onset of mist flow should occur at lower
dimensionless gas velocities, especially for dimensionless
liquid velocities less than 0.1.
Continuous-Flow Gas Lift Design Procedures
Gas liftZ8,33.37 is a method of artificial lift that uses the
compressional energy of a gas to lift the reservoir fluid
(see Chap. 5). The prime requisite is an adequate source
of gas at a desired pressure and volume.
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
Wells having high water/oil ratios (WOR) and high
productivity indices (that is, producing large volumes of
fluid with high sustaining reservoir pressures) can be ef-
ficiently gas lifted through the tubing or the well annu-
lus. Quite often it is necessary to produce very large
volumes of water to obtain economic rates of oil produc-
tion. Situations are known where it is possible to gas lift
economically as much as 5,000 to 10.000 B/D total fluid,
with the oil present being I % of the total fluid produced
and the rest being water. In applying the correlations to
gas lift design calculations, the following procedure is rec-
ommended.
1. Establish the flow characteristics of the well-i.e.,
productivity index, WOR, gas/oil ratio (GOR), fluid prop
erties, tubing size, etc.
2. Calculate the pressure traverses below the injection
point for the range of flow rates.
3. Calculate the pressure traverses above the point of
injection for different injection GORs, holding the sur-
face tubing or casing pressure constant.
From these three steps, as illustrated in Fig. 34.10, the
horsepower requirements, pressure at injection point,
depth of injection, and injection GORs for a given rate
of production, tubing size, and tubing or casing pressure
can be calculated.
For a given set of well conditions and fluid production,
there is an optimum depth and injection pressure that result
in minimum horsepower requirements. In some cases, the
optimal injection depth will be at the total depth of the
well. There are two ranges of operation in gas lifting a
reservoir fluid. One is an inefficient range characterized
by high GOR and high horsepower requirements, and the
other is an efficient range characterized by low GOR and
low horsepower requirements. A plot of GOR vs. mjec-
tion pressure is shown in Fig. 34.11.
In the inefficient range of operation, gas literally is
blown through the flow string. The efficient range is
to the left of the minimum injection pressure, and the in-
efficient range to the right. Inefficient and efficient ranges
of operation have been observed in the laboratory on ex-
perimental gas lift involving short lengths of tubing. 3840
One investigator used a large amount of field data from
a California field to develop empirically curves similar
to those shown in Fig. 34.11 but had no way of predict-
ing these curves for other fields where the physical proper-
ties of the fluids and the production data were different. 4
In a plot of horsepower requirement vs. injection pres-
sure (Fig. 34.12) the horsepower generally passes through
a minimum value, which represents the maximum effi-
ciency of the operation. Another interesting result of these
gas lift calculations has been to show that the lower the
surface pressure of the flow string that can be maintained
consistent with efficient surface operations, the less will
be the horsepower required to lift the reservoir fluid.
The use of the calculation procedure can best be ex-
pressed by use of a typical example problem.42
Example Problem 9. It is desired to gas lift a well by
flowing through the annulus. The well has a productivity
index of 10.0 bbl total liquid per day per psi pressure drop.
The static reservoir pressure is 3.800 psia at a well depth
of 10,000 ft. The WOR is 18.33. Other pertinent infor-
34-41
I,
(
DEPTH
Fig. 34.10-Pressure traverse in gas-lift well.
f
PRESSUR_E_
ki!
CONSTANT :
2
OIL RATE
TUBING PRESSURE
2
TUBING SIZE
E
WATER-OIL RATIO
is
- INJECTION GAS-OIL RATIO -
Fig. 34.1 l-Effect of injection pressure on injection GOR.
Tubing ID (2% in. nominal, 6.5 lbmift)=2.441 in.; tub-
ing OD (2% in. nominal, 6.5 lbm/ft)=2.875 in.; casing
ID (7 in. nominal, 26 lbm/ft)=6.276 in.; casing
pressure= 100 psia; average flowing temperature in an-
nulus above injection depth= 155F; average flowing tem-
perature in annulus below injection depth= 185F;
average flowing temperature in tubing= 140F; gravity
of stock-tank oil at 60F=0.8390; gravity of separator
gas (air= 1.0)=0.625; gravity of produced water= 1.15;
8=0.0000723p+ 1.114; R, =O. 1875p+ 17; and R=600
mation is as follows. cu ft/bbl oil.
34-42
I
CONSTANT:
OIL RATE
TUBING PRESSURE
TUBING SIZE
WATER-OIL RATIO
I t
INEFFICIENT RANGE
5 --
-----
25
%
EFFICIENT RANGE
kc!
P
- INJECTION PRESSURE
Fig. 34.12-Effect of injection pressure on horsepower re-
quirements.
Calculate the variation of injection GOR with injection
pressure and injection depth for a total liquid production
rate of 4,000 B/D. Calculate the horsepower requirements
to lift the oil as a function of injection pressure.
The solution of the problem involves the following
steps.
1. Calculate the pressure traverse belowthe point of
gas injection.
2. Calculate the pressure traverses above the point of
gas injection for various GORs.
3. Solve 1 and 2 simultaneously to determine the depth
of injection for various injection GORs and a casing pres-
sure of 100 psia.
4. Calculate the theoretical adiabatic horsepower re-
quired to compress the gas from 100 psia to the injection-
point pressure.
The first step in the solution of this problem is the cal-
culation of the flowing density of the three-phase fluid
produced into the well as a function of the pressure. Using
Fig. 34.13, the differential pressure gradients were deter-
mined as a function of fluid der$ty and, therefore, pres-
sure. These calculations are illustrated in Table 34.6.
These results then were placed on a plot of dDldp vs. p.
The depth traveled by the fluid flowing from the BHP to
any lower pressure was determined by integrating this
curve. In this way, Curve A in Fig. 34.14 was determined.
The second step of the solution was carried out mechan-
ically the same as the first step, with the exceptions that
the fluid densities were calculated for injection GORs of
3,000, 3,500, 4,000, 5,000, and 7,500 scfibbl, and that
the integrations were carried out from the wellhead casing
pressure of 100 psia to the pressures farther down the
casing. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig.
20
dpldD, psilft
Fig. 34.13-Calculation of pressure traverses for flow in annulus Tubing size is 2% in. nominal (6.5
Ibmlft, 2.441-In. ID, 2.675in. OD). Casing size IS 7.0 in. nominal (26 Ibmlft, 6.276-in. ID).
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-43
TABLE 34.6-CALCULATION OF THE PRESSURE
TRAVERSE BELOW THE POINT OF GAS INJECTION
4.000
40=
~ =206.9 BID
19.33
q,m=l.594x106 lbm/D
p=m, 7701.5
lbmlcu
V,
5.618+
18.2WO- R,) + 1o2,8
P/2
Flowing BHP = 3,400 psia
Establishing p vs. l/dp/dD
P B R, P/Z P
dPldD 1 ldP/dD
3,4001.339 - 3,800 69.80.487 2.053
3,000 1.331 588 3,440 69.8 0.487 2.053
2,000 1.259 392 2,270 69.0 0.481 2.079
1,000 1.286 205 1,078 66.3 0.460 2 174
500 1.150 110.8 520.8 60.9 0.425 2.353
P
DP, -DP, AD
--
3,400 - 0 10,000
3.000 - 821.2 - 821.2 9,179
2,500 - 1,028.5 - 1,849.7 6,150
2,000 - 1,035.o - 2,884.7 7,115
1,500 - 1,048.5 - 3.933.2 6,066
1,000 - 1,071.5 - 5,004.7 4,995
500 -1,121.0 -6,125.7 3,874
2500
I ! ! ! ! ! 1 I
a
0
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO
f!
I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I
01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 xxx) 3500
INJECTION PRESSURE,PSIA
Fig. 34.15-Injection GOR vs. injection pressure.
34.14 as curves B, C. D, E, and F. The intersections of
these curves with Curve A represent the injection points
for these flow rates and injection GORs.
The injection GOR is plotted as a function of the injec-
tion pressure at injection depth in Fig. 34.15. For the con-
ditions of this example problem, it will be noted that the
injection pressure continually decreases as the GOR is in-
creased from 3,000 to 7,500 scfibbl. Fig. 34.16 shows
the relationship between injection depth and injection
GOR. This plot shows that. as the injection GOR is de-
creased, the point of injection is moved down the hole.
m7000
m
\
DEPTH,THWSANDS OF FEET INJECTION DEPTH,THOUSANDS OF FEET
Fig. 34.14-Pressure vs. depth. Fig. 34.16-Injection depth vs. injection GOR.
El24
&22
$20
$118
=I16
kg;
IpO
JlO8
4106
El04
El02
$00
+ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3ooo
INJECTION PRESSURE
Fig. 34.17-Horsepower vs. injection pressure
Fig. 34.17 shows the theoretical adiabatic horsepower
required to compress the injected gas from the surface
pressure to the injection pressure. For the conditions of
this problem. the minimum horsepower is required when
the injection point is at the bottom of the well, although.
as pointed out in the earlier discussion, it is theoretically
possible to obtain minimum horsepower requirements at
points other than at the bottom of the hole.
The literature reports an interesting series of well tests
in which curves calculated by the procedure described
above completely characterize the gas lift performance
2800!
c
2600 -
2400 -
2200 -
2000 -
1800 -
o CALCULATED
l OBSERVED
1600 -
5 1400 -
2
w 1200 -
5
u-j IOOO-
w
g 800-
600 -
DEPTH- 500 FEET PER DWISION
Fig. 34.19-Calculated and field-measured pressure traverses-
injection depth is 4,502 ft.
Fig. 34.18-Equipment arrangement.
of the well tested. Fig. 34. I8 shows the physical in-
stallation of the well tested. Tests were conducted at two
points of gas injection, 3.800 and 4.502 ft. Detailed
descriptions of the tests are available from Ref. 43.
Figs. 34. I9 and 34.20 show a comparison of the ob-
served and calculated pressure traverses above the point
of gas injection. The comparison indicates good
agreement,
Fig. 34.21 shows a comparison of observed data with
curves calculated for average well conditions of total liquid
flow vs. rate of gas injection.
2600 -
2400 -
2200 -
2000 -
1800 -
a 1600 -
z
n 1400 -
W
3 1200-
2
IJJ IOOO-
8i
800 -
600 -
o CALCULATED
l OBSERVED
n
0 I I c ( I
DEPTH-500FEET PER DIVISION
Fig. 34.20-Calculated and field-measured pressure traverses-
injection depth is 3,810 ft.
THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET OF GAS
INJECTED PER DAY
0.030
0
TOTAL BARRELSOF LIOUID PRODUCED PER
Fig: 34.21-Total liquid flow vs. rate of gas injection. Fig. 34.22-Horsepower requirements vs. total fluid produced.
Fig. 34.22 is an example of a very useful type of plot
that can be calculated for the optimum conditions of lift.
It is a plot of ideal adiabatic horsepower per barrel per
day of total fluid produced vs. total barrels of fluid pro-
duced per day under the conditions as indicated. Horse-
power as used here is the horsepower required to
compress the injected gas between the tubing pressure and
injection pressure.
Flow Through Chokes
A wellhead choke or bean is used to control the pro-
duction rate from a well. In the design of tubing and well
completions (perforations, etc.), one must ensure that
neither the tubing nor perforations control the production
from the well. The flow capacity of the tubing and perfo-
rations always should be greater than the inflow pertorm-
ante behavior of the reservoir. It is the choke that is
designed to controi the production rate from a well Well-
head chokes usually are selected so that fluctuations in
the line pressure downstream of the choke have no effect
on the well flow rate. To ensure this condition, flow
through the choke must be at critical flow conditions; that
is. flow through the coke is at the acoustic velocity. For
this condition to exist, downstream line pressure must be
approximately 0.55 or less of the tubing or upstream pres-
sure. Under these conditions the flow rate is a function
of the upstream or tubing pressure only.
For single-phase gas flow through a choke. the follow-
ing equation is used:
CP
Ye Jr,r, ,.....___. .._ (121)
where
p = upstream pressure. psia.
7,s
= gas gravity.
T = upstream or wellhead temperature. R.
C = coefficient, and
4,s
= flow rate measured at either 14.4 or 14.7
WATER-OIL RATIO 41.5
FORMATN)FJ GAS-TOTAL LIOUID RATIO 85.0 CU FT/E!ARREL
TUBING PRESSURE IOOPSIA
GRADIENT BELOW POINTOF INJECTION 0453 PSI PER FOOT
TUBING SIZE ZINCH (4.7LB/FT-I 9951NCHES ID)
The coefficient, C, will vary depending on the base
pressure.
Table 34.7 presents values of C taken from Rawlins and
Schellhardt. 44 These values are for a standard pressure
of 14.4 psia. Rawlins and Schellhardt did not make cor-
rections for deviation from ideal gas. Correction can be
made to Eq. 121 by multiplying the right side of the equa-
tion by ,&, where I is the compressibility factor of the
gas at the upstream pressure p and temperature T.
In the case of multiphase flow, Gilbert developed the
following empirical equation based on data from flowing
wells in the Ten Section field of California relating oil
flow, GOR, tubing pressure, and choke size.4
Ptf=
435R,, o.546q,
sl,89 , . . . . . . .(122)
where
ptf = tubing flowing pressure, psig.
R
.SL
= gas/liquid ratio, IO1 scfibbl.
y, = gross liquid rate (oil and water), BID, and
S = choke size in 1164 in.
Gilberts equation may be written in the form:
p,f=Aq,, . . (123)
TABLE 34.7-
COEFFICIENTS FOR
CHOKE NIPPLE
Orifice size (in.) C
118 0.125 6.25
3116 0.188 14.44
l/4 0.250 26.51
5116 0.313 43.64
318 0.375 61.21
7116 0.438 85.13
112 0.500 112.72
5/8 0.625 179.74
psia and 60F. lo3 cu ft/D. 3/4 0.750 260.99
where A =435R,~,~0.56/Si.Xy and where the tubing pres- duced with the oil, and Gilberts equation can be used
sure is proportional to the production rate. This is true when water is present.
only under conditions of acoustic flow through the choke.
At low flow rates. the rate is also a function of the down-
Liquid Loading in Wells
stream pressure and Eq. 123 no longer holds. Liquid loading in wells occurs when the gas phase does
Ros presented a theoretical analysis on the mechanism
of simultaneous flow of gas and liquid through a restric-
tion at acoustic velocity. . The result was a complex
equation relating mass flow of gas and liquid, restriction
size. and upstream pressure. Ros equation was checked
against oilfield data under critical flow conditions with
good results. However. the equation is expressed in a form
not really amenable to use by oilfield personnel.
Using Ros analysis. Poettmann and Beck converted
Ros e
1
uation to oilfield units and reduced it to graphical
form. The result was Figs. 34.23 through 34.25 for oil
gravities of 20. 30. and 40API. The 20 gravity chart
should be used for gravities ranging from I5 to 24APl:
similarly. the 30 chart should be used for gravities rang-
ing from 25 to 34. and the 40 chart for gravities ranging
from 35 on up. The charts are not valid if there is ap-
preciable water production with the oil.
The charts can be entered from either the top or bot-
tom scale. When entering from the GOR scale, go first
to the tubing pressure curve and then horizontally to the
choke size curve and then read the oil Bow rate from the
top scale. Conversely, when entering the chart at the oil
tlow rate scale. the reverse order is followed. Reliable
estitnates of gas rates, oil rates. tubing pressures. and
choke sizes can be made by using these charts.
Chokes are sub.ject to sand and gas cutting as well as
asphalt and wax deposition. which changes the shape and
size of the choke. This. then. could result in considcra-
ble error when compared to calculated values of flow for
a standard choke size. A small error in choke size caused
by a worn choke can effect a considerable error in the
predicted oil rate. Thus. a cut choke could result in estii
mated oil rates considerably lower than measured.
the wellhead pressures and flow rates for any choke size.
as illustrated in Fig. 34.26.
From the inflow performance relationship of a well and
by knowing the tubing size in the well, the tubing pres-
sure curve for various flow rates can be calculated. The
intersection of the choke performance curve for different
choke sizes with the tubing pressure curve then gives one
not provide sufficient transport energy to lift the liquids
out of the well. This type of well does not produce at a
flow rate large enough to keep the liquids moving at the
same velocity as the gas. The accumulation of liquid will
impose an additional backpressure on the formation that
can affect the production capacity of the well significantly.
Initially, the occurrence of liquid holdup may be reflect-
ed in the backpressure data obtained on a well wherein
at the lower flow rates its performance, expressed as a
backpressure curve, is worse than expected. Eventually,
the well is likely to experience heading (fluctuating
flow rates) followed by load up and cease to produce.
Methods sometimes used to continue production from
loading wells are pumping units, plunger lifts. smaller-
diameter tubing, soap injection. and flow controllers.
This section is directed mainly toward relating loading
to flow conditions within the well. In the simplest con-
text, loading. as reflected on a deterioration of flow per-
formance at lower Bow rates on a backpressurc curve.
is related to the superficial velocity of the gas in the con-
duit at wellhead conditions. Duggan found that a ve-
locity of 5 ft/sec would keep wells unloaded whereas
Lisbon and Henry found that I .OOO ftimin (16.7 ftisec)
could be required.
R.V. Smith reported that experience with low-
pressure wells in the West Panhandle and Hugoton fields
showed that a velocity of 5 to IO ftisec is necessary to
remove hydrocarbon liquids consistently and a velocity
of 10 to 20 ft/sec is required for water.
be expressed by the-following equation.
Turner er al. 5 analyzed the problem of liquid holdup
on the basis of two proposed physical models: (I) liquid
film movement along the walls of the pipe and (2) liquid
droplets entrained in the high-velocity core. They con-
cluded, on the basis of comparisons with field data, that
the entrained drop movement was the controlling mech-
anism for removal of liquids. Their results indicated that
in most instances wellhead conditions were controlling
and the fluid velocity required to remove liquids could
Example Problem 10. a
I. Determine the flow rate from a well flowing through
a %,-in. choke at a flowing tubing pressure of 1,264 psia
and a producing GOR of 2,2SO cu tiibbl. Stock-tank gravi-
ty is 44.4. From Fig. 34.25, the solution is 60 B/D oil.
2. For this example. estimate the free gas present in
the tubing. The solution gas at a tubing pressure of I .264
psia frotn Fig. 34.25 is R, =310 cu ftibbl. Then, the free
gas present is R-R, =2.250-3 IO or I.940 cu ft/bbl of
oil at the wellhead.
3. It is desired to produce a well at 100 BID oil. The
producing GOR is 4,000 cu ftibbl. At this rate the tubing
pressure is 1.800 psia. Estimate choke size.
All three charts show estimated choke size to be %, in.
Gilberts charts also give Xj m.J
A number of other choke design correlations have been
suggested. However. Poettmann and Becks adaption of
l, =
20.4&(pL -p,q).2
0.5
,
(124)
px
where
\I
= terminal velocity of free-falling particle.
ftisec.
u = interfacial tension. dynes/cm.
P,Y
= gas phase density, Ibm/cu ft. and
0~ = liquid phase density. lbmicu ft.
Using simplifying assumptions with respect to gas. con-
densate, and water properties as given in Table 34.8, Eq.
124 can be expressed for water as
5.62(67-0.003Ip)~
I$,, =
..,
(0.003 ljI qCJ 5
(125)
the Ros equation is recommended when no water is pro- (continued on Page 34-50)
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34.47
FLOW RATE - BARRELS PER DAY
RS
- GAS OI L RATI O - CUBI C FEET PER BARREL
Fi g. 34.25-Simultaneous gas/oil flow through chokes.
Tubing Performance
Curve
Production Rate
Fig. 34.26-Tubing and choke performance curves
and for condensate as
4.02(45-0.0031P).25
vgc =
(o,oo31p)*~5 , . . . . . (126)
where
Vgn = gas velocity for water, ftisec,
vKc = gas velocity for condensate, ftisec, and
p = pressure, psi.
Further, a minimum flow rate for a particular set of con-
ditions (pressure and conduit geometry) can be calculat-
ed using Eqs. 125 through 127.
qg=
3.06pvgA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.......
Tz
(127)
where
q8
= gas flow rate, lo6 scf/D,
A = flow area of conduit, sq ft,
T = temperature, R, and
z = gas deviation factor.
Tek et ~1.~~ introduced a concept called the lifting
potential to explain loading, unloading, heading, and
dying of wells. Further, the concept relates the inflow be-
havior of the well with the multiphase flow in the well.
Accordingly, it appears possible to address engineering
considerations directed toward performance analysis or
design of well equipment. Calculation procedures de-
scribed earlier in this chapter with respect to well inflow
performance and multiphase flow in the well should be
adaptable to use the lifting potential concept.
TABLE 34.8-GAS, CONDENSATE, AND
WATER PROPERTIES
Gas Condensate Water
interfacial tension, dynes/cm 20 60
Liquid phase density, lbmlcu ft - 45 67
Gas gravity 0.6
Gas temperature, OF 120
Nomenclature
a,b = constants
A= flow area of conduit
A, = area under curve
B=
667s 2T2
g
di 5Ppc 2
(see Eq. 33)
c, =
c2 =
d,i =
4, =
dH =
d,; =
dto =
pi =
D, =
El =
f=
ff =
bubble-rise coefficient
coefficient, function of liquid velocity
inside diameter of casing
diameter of an equivalent circular pipe
hydraulic pipe diameter
ID of tubing
OD of tubing
the ith depth increment
D under static conditions (static
equivalent depth for pressures
encountered at flowing conditions)
irreversible energy losses
friction factor (Fig. 34.2)
Fanning friction factor
F=
F,q, =
O.l0797q,
d 2.612
(see Eq. 38)
I
FD, =
non-Darcy flow term
F, = &e Eq. 38)
q8
F, =
F2 =
function of Reynolds number
function of Reynolds number and relative
roughness
&i-c =
conversion factor of 32.174
I =
P/( Tz)
F2 +O.OOl[pl( Tz)12
(see Eqs. 40-43)
J * =
-1 =
J *j =
J*p =
J *, =
L=
;tabilized PI at zero drawdown
;tabilized PI
;tabilized PI at zero drawdown, from
future flow data
1
stabilized PI at zero drawdown, from
present flow data
I transient form of the flow coefficient
ength of the pipe string (subscripts B,
M, and S indicate bubble, mist, and
slug flow)
L=
n=
1
NR~, =
Pb =
Bow regime boundary, dimensionless
:xponent, usually determined from
multipoint or isochronal backpressure
test
rubble Reynolds number
,ubblepoint pressure
WELLBORE HYDRAULICS
34-51
Phh =
Pe =
BHP
reservoir pressure at the external
boundary
Ap; =
Pm =
pressure drop for increment i
Pi +P2
PI+-
P2
Pf =
tubing flowing pressure
Pth =
tophole pressure
Pl =
surface pressure
P? =
bottomhole pressure at depth D
9of =
future oil rate
4oCmax) =
maximum producing rate at p,,f=O
Q=
heat absorbed by system from
rH =
R
RL =
s =
S=
surroundings
hydraulic radius
gas-liquid ratio
skin effect, dimensionless
exponent of
e=
O.O375y,L
TY
(see Eq. 44)
S=
T
LM =
T,,T2 =
U=
bh =
l.,&,c =
L#D =
1$,, =
1,p,. =
\ L., =
$3, =
I, =
w, =
z=
choke size in & in.
log mean temperature
respectively, bottomhole and wellhead
temperatures
internal energy
slip or bubble rise velocity
gas velocity for condensate
dimensionless gas velocity
superficial gas velocity
gas velocity for water
superficial liquid velocity
terminal velocity of free-falling particle
total fluid velocity (q,/A)
total mass flow rate
compressibility factor or gas deviation
Z=
(-(s).sp =
YL =
6=
t=
lJ=
?f =
factor
difference in elevation
separator gas gravity (air= 1)
specific gravity of condensate
liquid distribution coefficient
absolute roughness
liquid surface tension
friction loss gradient
Metric Conversion for Key
Eq. 21
Customary.
Equations
.(P,,I, ;
I
Ly,q
-dp,,r =- +
(PP,, z
-dp,,r .
6.2 PV
s
53.241T o,
Pp,
Sl.
s
(P
IN, z
Ly,
-dp,, = w +
s
(P/M? z
--dp,m
0.2 PFr
29.27T o,2
PPr
where
p = kPa,
L = m, and
T = K.
Eq. 28
Customary.
OOI877y,LI(?zi~
PI=P2e
SI.
P I =P2e
O.O342y,L/(TT)
where
p = kPa,
L = m, and
T = K.
Eq. 35
Customary.
!
(P
VI ,
0.2
s
(P/Jr):
0.2
zz
O.O1877y,L
T
Sl.
!
(p
P) 1
0.2
=
O.O342y,L
T
1 354fq *T2
B= K
d5ppc2
where
9x
= lo6 m3/d,
T = K,
d = m, and
ppr = kPa.
34-52
Eq. 36*
Customary.
18.75~,~L= \I
bUz)ldP
,;: F2 +O.OOl[pI(Tz)]
Eq. 56
Customary.
DP
P2=PI +t.
SI.
SI.
p2 =p I +9.8x 10-3Dp,
34.4704y,yL= \
WV:)ldp
;,, F+O.OOl[p/(T:)]
Eq. 37*
Customary.
F =(2.6665ffq;)ld,
SI.
where
J, = Fanning friction factor, dimensionless,**
4s
= lo6 mid,
T = K,
p = kPa.
d, = m, and
L = m.
Eq. 44
Customary.
p /,I!
2
-(Jp;, =
25&T+~-1)
0. 0375d; "
SI.
I),,,, 2 -ep,,, ? =
1.354fq,T$(r-1)
d,
where
p = kPa.
4:
= lo6 mid,
f = from Fig. 34.2,
T = K,
d = m,
O. O683y, L
S= . and
7-Z
L = m.
I n usmg SI I I S Tabl e 34 4 and Eqs 38 and 39 ate not appkabl e
f , I S the Fanni ng f rl cl i on f actor equal lo f, =f/4. where I I S the Moody f rl ctl on f actor
f romFi g 34 2
where
p = kPa,
D = m, and
p = kg/m3.
Eq. 65
Customary.
7. 08kh
km
J *= [ l n( ; ) - i +q. ( PPJ pn
SI.
0.0005427kh
J*=
where
J* = mid-kPa,
h = m, and
PC1
= I?a.s.
Eq. 66
Customary.
SI.
J** =
(I)
0. 000. 5427kh
ChbJz +s j[
where
h = m.
t = d.
p = Pa-s,
CI = l/kPa, and
r , , . = m.
Eq. 87
Customary.
-dp=
r+dD
---+
L!!!LdDf X&>.
144
14483,
144g,
SI.
1 ooogp IOOOpv
-dp=T,dD+ -dD+ -----dv,
s c cs,
where
p = kPa,
T., = kPa/m,
D = m,
p = g/cm3.
g = 9.80 m/s,
,y(. = 1000 kglm.kPa.s, and
I = m/s.
Eq. 89
Customary.
SI.
Ap, =
9.806p-t7,
AD,,
,fl,q
I --
l OOOA p
where
11) = hgis.
f/
= d/s. and
A = Ill2
Eq. 90
Customary.
SI.
Eq. 91
Customary.
Lfj=1.071-
0.2218v,*
du
SI.
Lg=1.071-
0.7277v,
du
where
V, = m/s and
dH = ITl.
Eq. 98
Customary.
NR~=
1,488PLduvL
PL
SI.
NRe=
lO~P&uVL
PL
where
PL = g/m3,
dH = m,
vL = m/s, and
,uL = Pa.s.
Eq. 101
Customary.
NRC=
1>488PLduvb
PL
SI.
NRC=
1000/)LdHVb
PL
Eq. 102
Customary.
Nue =
1 &%Lduv,
PL .
SI.
NR~ =
lOOOp,d,v,
PL
34-54
Eq. 117
Customary.
NR~ =
17488PgdHVgs
PR
SI.
NR~ =
loo0 PgdHVgs
p"R
Eq. 118
Customary.
SI.
N= lo6
(~)p) (
where
vgr = m/s,
pi = Pa*s, and
u = g/s*.
Eq. 119
Customary.
t 34u
-=
IH P,q #I
d//
SI.
t 1.115(10-~)a
-zz
l/H P,yp., (1
where
a = gls.
1 q.r
= m/s. and
P (8
= g/cm>.
Eq. 120
Customary.
6 174.8~(N).~~*
du P g vg.\
*dH
SI.
E 5.735( 10 -4)c?(Npo2
-=
dn
PRVR-
2dH
where
a = g/s*,
VRS
= m/s, and
PR
= g/cm3.
Eq. 121
Customary.
CP
s= m
SI.
3.0169Cp
% = JP 1
where
qx = m/d,
T = K. and
p = kPa.
Eq. 122
Customary.
PI/ =
435R,yL0.546q,
~I.89
SI.
Ptt =
2.50R,vLo.56q,
si.89
where
p+ = kPa,
R
.qL =
m/m3.
qr = m/d, and
S = cm.
Eq. 125
Customary.
5.62(67-0.0031p)~5
1
,&,,I =
(0.003 1pp5 .
SI.
l.713(67-0.00045p)o~~
1
C,, =
(o.ooO45p)o~
Eq. 126
Customary.
4.07(45-0.003 1 i
P
)).2s
l,q(. =
(0.003 lp).
SI.
16. Fetkovich, M.J.: The lsochronal Testing of 011 Wells, Prmsure
Iiunsirnr Tesfing Metho&, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson (1980).
I .225(45 -0.00045p)-25
17. Standing, M.B.: Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance
of Wells Producing From Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs, J. Pet.
VKC =
(o.ooo45p)~
Tech. (Sept. 1971) 1141-50.
18. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid
Mixtures from Boreholes, Proc., Sixth World Pet. Congress.
where
p = kPa and
Vg
= m/s.
Eq. 127
Customary.
9,sj =
3.06pv,A
Tz
SI.
9g=
0.24628*pv,A
Tz
where
p = kPa,
K
= m/s,
A = m*,
T = K, and
qR
= lo6 m3/d.
Based cm standard conditvms of 520R and 14.7 psia.
References
I. Brown, G.G. ef al.: (init Operarions, John Wtley & Sons Inc., New
York City (1950).
2. Moody, L.F.: Friction Factors for Ptpe Flow, Trans., ASME
(1944) 66. 671.
3. Fowler, F.C.: *Calculations of Bottom Hole Pressures. Per. Eng.
(1947) 19. No. 3, 88.
4. Poettmann, F.H.: The Calculation of Pressure Drop in the Flow
of Natural Gas Through Pipe, Trans., AIME (1951) 192.317-24.
5. Rzasa, M.J. and Katz, D.L.: Calculation of Static Pressure Gra-
dients in Gas Wells, Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 100-06.
6. Sukkar, Y.K. and Cornell, D.: Direct Calculation of Bottom Hole
Pressures in Natural Gas Wells, Trans., AIME (1955) 204,43-48.
7. Cullender, M.A. and Smith, R.V.: Practical Solution of Gas-Flow
Equations for Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gra-
d&s, J. Par. Tech. (Dec.. 1956) 281-87;~Trans. ,. AIME, 207.
8. Messer, P.H., Raghaven, R., and Ramey, H. Jr.: Calculation of
Bottom-Hole Pressures for Deep, Hot, Sour Gas Wells, J. Per.
Tech. (Jan. 1974) 85-94.
9. 77znteory and Practice ofthe Testing r$Gos Wells, third edition, Energy
Resources and Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
(1978).
IO. Smith. R.V.: Determining Friction Factors for Measuring Prcxluc-
tivity of Gas Wells, Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 73.
1 I. Cullender. M.H. and Binckley, C.W.: Phillips Petroleum Co. Report
presented to the Railroad Commission of Texas Hearing, Amarillo
(Nov. 9, 1950).
12. Back Pressure Test for Natural Gas Wells, Railroad Commission
of Texas, State of Texas.
13. Nisle, R.G. and Poettmann, R.H.: Calculation of the Flow and
Storage of Natural Gas in Pipe, Pet. Eng. (1955) 27, No. I, D-14;
No. 2, C-36; No. 3, D-31.
14. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: Calculation of Theoretical Produc-
tivity Factor, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126.
15. Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas
Drive Wells, .I. Per. Tech. (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
Frankfurt (June 19-26, 1963) Section II, Paper 22.106.
19. Griffith, P. and Wallis. G.B.: Two-Phase Slug Flow. J. Hear
Transfer (Aug. 1961) 307-20, Trans., ASME.
20. Nicklin, D.J., Wilkes, J.O., and Davidson, I.F.: Two-Phase Flow
in Vertical Tubes, Trans., AlChE (1962) 40. 61-68.
2 I. Baxendell, P.B. and Thomas, R.: The Calculation of Pressure Gra-
dients in High-Rate Flowing Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1961)
1023-28.
22. Fancher, G.H. Jr. and Brown, K.E.: Prediction of Pressure Gra-
dients for Multiphase Flow in Tubing, So<,. Per. En,e. J. (March
1963) 59-69.
23. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: The Effect of Liquid Viscosity
on Two-Phase Flow, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1964) 203-10.
24. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: Experimental Study of Pres-
sure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow tn
Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Per. Tech. (April 1965)
475-84.
25. Orkiszewski, J.: Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical
Pipe, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-38: Trans.. AIME, 240.
26. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow in In-
clined Pipes, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607- 17; Trans., AIME.
255.
27. Gould, T.L., Tek, M.R., and Katz. D.L.: Two-Phase Flow
Through Vertical, Inclined, or Curved Pipe. J. Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1974) 915-26; Trans., AIME, 257.
28. Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Am&/ Lift Methods, Petrole-
um Publishing Co., Tulsa (1977).
29. Chierici, G.L., Ciucci, G.M., and Sclocchi, G.: Two-Phase Ver-
tical Flow in oil Fields-Prediction of Pressure Drop, J. Per. Tech.
(Aug. 1974) 927-38; Trans., AIME. 257.
30. Espanol, J.H.. Holmes, C.S.. and Brown, K.E.: A Comparison
of Existing Multiphase Flow Methods for the Calculation of Pres-
sure Drop in Vertical Wells, Arfificial Lifi, Reprint Series. SPE.
Richardson (1975)
31, Camacho, C.A.: A Comparison of Correlations for Predicting Pres-
sure Losses in High Gas-Liquid Ratio Vertical Wells. M.S. the-
sis, U. of Tulsa (1970).
32. Lawson, J.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Statistical Evaluation of Methods
Used to Predict Pressure Losses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical
Oil Well Tubing, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1974) 903-13: Trans..
AIME, 257.
33. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: Multiphase Flow of Gas,
Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow Strings with Application to
the Design of Gas-Lift Installations, Drif/. and Prod. Prac., API,
Dallas (1952) 257-317.
34. Baxendell, P.B.: Producing Wells on Casing Flow-An Analysis
of Flowing Pressure Gradients, Tran.v., AIME (1958) 213,202~06.
35. Lockhart, R.W. and Martinelli, R.C.: Proposed Correlation of
Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow m Pipes.
Chem. Eng. Progress (Jan. 1949) 39-48.
36. Dumitrescu, D.T.: Stromung an einer L&blase in senkrechtem
Rohr, Zamm (1943) 23, No. 3, 139-49.
37. Pittman, R.W.: Gas Lift Design and Performance, paper SPE
9981 presented at the 1982 SPE Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Beijing, China, March 18-26.
38. Davis, G.J. and Weidner, C.R.: lnvesttgation of the Air Lift
Pump, Bull., Eng. Series, U. Wisconsin (1911) 6, No. 7.
39. Gosline, I.E.: Experiments on the Vertical Flow of Gas-Ltquid
Mixtures in Glass Pipe,
Trans., AIME (1936) 118. 56-70.
40. Shaw, SF.: Flow Characteristics of Gas Lift in Oil Production.
Bull., Texas A&M U. (1947) 113.
41. Babson, E.C.: Range of Application of Gas Lift Methods, Drill.
and Prod. Prac. , API, Dallas (1939) 266.
42. Benham, A.L. and Poettmann, F.H.: Gas Lifting Through the An-
nuhis of a Well, Pet. Eng. (July 1959) B25-B30.
43. Bertuzzi, A.F., Welchon, J.K., and Poettmann. F.H.: Descrip-
tion and Analysis of an Efficient Continuous-Flow Gas-Lift lnstal-
lation, J. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1953) 271-78; Trans., AIME, 198.
44. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Back-Pressure Data on Nuhtr-
al Gas WeIls and Their Application 10 Production Pm-fires, Mono-
graph Series, U.S. Bureau of Mines (1936) 7.
45. Gilbert, W.E.: Flowmg and Gas Lift Well Performance, Dri/l.
and Prod. Pram., API. Dallas (1954).
46. Ros. N.C.J.: An Analysis of Critical Simultaneous Gas-Llquld
Flow Through a Restriction and Its Application to Flow Metering.
Appl. Sci. Res. (1960) 9, 374.
47. Ros, N.C.J.: Letter to Editor Flow Meter Formula for Critical
Gas-Liquid Flow Through a Restrictmn, A[$. Sci. Re.s. (1961)
A-IO, 295.
48. Poettmann, F.H. and Beck, R.L.: New Charts Developed to Predict
Gas-Ltqutd Flow Through Chokes, Wor(c/ Oil (March 1963)
95-101.
49. Duggan, J.O.: Estimating Flow Rates Requtred to Keep Gas Wells
Unloaded, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1961) 1173-76.
50. Libson. T.N. and Henry. J.R.: Cast Hlstorie\. Identification oi
and Remedial Actton for Liquid Loading in Gab Wells-Intermediate
Shelf Gas Play, J. f~f. Tech. (April 1980) 6X.5-93.
51. Smith, R.V.: Prcrc~iwl Nurural Gus Engirtwrir~g. PennWell Pub-
lishing Co., Tulsa (1983) 205.
52. Turner, R.G.. Hubbard, M.G.. and Dukler. A.E.: Analysis and
Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of
Liquids from Gas Wells, J. Pd. Tech. (Nov. 1969) 1475-80:
Trans., AIME. 246
53. Tek, M.R., Gould, T.L., and Katz. D.L.: Steady and Unsteady-
State Lifting Performance of Gas Wells Unloading Produced or
Accumulated Liquids, paper SPE 2552 presented at the 1969 SPE
Annual Fall Meeting, Denver. Sept. 28-Oct. I.
Chapter 35
Well Performance Equations
R.A. Wattenbarger, Texas A&M U.*
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the equations that apply to the
performance of a well in a reservoir. The equations are
used to calculate the relationship between rate and pres-
sure of a well and the properties of the fluids and forma-
tion. These equations apply only in the drainage area
of the well and do not describe the entire reservoir per-
formance, except for the case of a single-well depletion
reservoir. For more complete treatment of the entire reser-
voir performance, refer to Chap. 37-Solution-Gas-Drive
Oil Reservoirs, Chap. 38-Waterdrive Oil Reservoirs, or
Chap. 39-Gas Condensate Reservoirs.
There have been several excellent references developed
over the past few years on well pressure behavior. I-
These are much more detailed than this chapter and the
reader should be aware of them. This chapter is a brief
summary of this technology.
Diffusivity Equation
The equations that relate pressure and rates for a well are
solutions of the diffusivity equation. This equation can
be written as
v2p=
1
~PC, ap
o.ooo264 k at ) . . . . . .
where
p = pressure, psi,
4 = porosity of reservoir rock, fraction,
p = fluid viscosity, cp,
C
I=
total compressibility of system (see Eq. 5),
psi-,
k = permeability of reservoir rock, md, and
f = time, hours.
Aulhor of Ihe onginal chapter on ths topic in the 1462 edltmn was Ralph F.
Neilsen
The vector notation used on the left side of the equation
has the following meaning. In one dimension (lD),
6
1
her ap
-=
ax2
o.ooo264 k at ) . . . . .
. (24
where x is the distance coordinate in a one-dimensional
flow system, ft. In two dimensions (2D),
a2p a2p 1
a,:+2=
4wt aP
--
ay
0.000264 k at ..
. (2b)
where x and y are distance coordinates in a 2D flow sys-
tem, ft. In radial coordinates,
3% 1 ap
1
ar2+--=
hc, ap
--
r ar 0.000264 k ar ..
@cl
where r is the radius in radial flow system, ft.
Eq. 2c gives the most useful solution of the diffusivity
equation for reservoir and well performance.
The geometry of the reservoir is in cylindrical coor-
dinates with an inner radius, rw, into which the fluid
flows at a constant rate and an outer boundary, rc , which
is closed and represents the outer boundary of the reser-
voir. The solutions of this cylindrical coordinate prob-
lem have been presented by van Everdingen and Hurst
and are presented again in Chap. 38.
Eq. 1 is a linear partial differential equation that models
how pressure changes with location and time. Theoreti-
cally, solutions of Eq. 1 are valid only for reservoirs
where the fluid and rock properties are constant. The ap-
plication of the solutions of Eq. 1, then, are literally ap-
plicable for fluids with constant compressibility and
Fig. 35.1-Pressure behavior for constant rate in a closed
reservoir.
viscosity and for formations with constant permeability.
These conditions are very nearly met in the case of aquifer
flow or for oil reservoir flow at pressures above the bub-
blepoint. The solutions of Eqs. 1 and 2 can be extended
to multiphase reservoir flow for most practical cases.
Multiphase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6)
When more than one phase exists in the reservoir, it is
still possible to write the differential equation in a form
similar to Eq. 1. This equation was presented by Martin
as
where
-
;; I
total reservoir flow rate, STB/D,
total formation volume factor, RB/STB,
40 =
oil flow rate, STBID,
B, = oil formation volume factor, RBISTB,
qg =
gas flow rate, Mscf/D,
R, = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB,
B, = gas formation volume factor, res cu
v 5 vp=
(>
P t
o.;2H cpc,;. . . . , . .
(3)
This equation shows that the conditions of homogeneity
are not necessarily met. The concepts of total mobility,
(k/p), , and total compressibility, ct, are introduced.
The total mobility is the sum of the individual phase
mobility as follows.
k ko kg kw
0
-
=-+-+-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
P f PO Pg Pw
TABLE 3&l-ANALOGIES OF SINGLE-PHASE VALUE TO
MULTIPHASE EQUIVALENT
Single-Phase
Value
w
C
98
Multiphase
Equivalent
WI4 t
Ct
9&3,
where
k, = effective permeability to oil, md,
k, = effective permeability to gas, md,
k, = effective permeability to water, md,
PO
= oil viscosity, cp,
PLp
= gas viscosity, cp, and
CL,
= water viscosity, cp.
The total compressibility is the volumetrically weighted
average of the compressibilities of the fluids and pore
space as follows.
ct =cf+s,c, +s,c, fSwC,, . . (5)
where
cf = formation compressibility, psi - ,
S, = oil saturation, fraction of pore volume
(W,
CO
= oil compressibility, psi- ,
S, = gas saturation, fraction of PV,
Cg
= gas compressibility, psi - t ,
S, = water saturation, fraction of PV, and
CW
= water compressibility, psi - .
The flow rate also must be expressed in terms of the
equivalent total flow rate for multiphase flow. The ex-
pression for total reservoir flow rate is
q,B,=q,B,+(1,000q,-R,q,)B,/5.615+q,B,,
ftlscf
water flow rate, STBID, and
water formation volume factor, RB/STB.
Martins equation is a nonlinear partial differential equa-
tion. Therefore the general case does not have analytical
solutions. However, for practical purposes, Eqs. 3
through 6 can be used for most well performance equa-
tions if the meaning of the mobility, compressibility, and
flow rate are taken in this general three-phase sense. The
single-phase solutions of Eq. 1 can be applied to the mul-
tiphase case by using the analogies given in Table 35.1.
Oil Well Performance
Well Pressure Performance-Closed Reservoir
The performance of a constant-rate well in a closed reser-
voir (of any geometry or heterogeneity) has the general
form shown in Fig. 35.1.
The lower curve of Fig. 35.1 shows that the wellbore
flowing pressure, p 4, goes through a rapid pressure drop
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-3
at early (transient) times and then flattens out until it
reaches a constant slope. On this coordinate plot, the
closed-reservoir, constant-rate case has the properties
aP,
--co
at
and
a*Pwf >O
at* - .
log t
When p of reaches a straight line on the coordinate plot,
the period of pseudosteady state has been reached. Ev-
ery pressure point in the reservoir declines at the same
constant rate of depletion after that time. Of particular
importance is the decline of the average reservoir pres-
sure, j?~, which assumes the pseudosteady-state deple-
tion rate from the very beginning of production.
Fig. 35.2-Typical constant-rate drawdown test graph.
plicable for the multiphase flow case by using the analo-
gies in Table 35.1. The value of pR, however, must be
calculated by the material balance method that applies for
this case.
The constant elope of Fig. 35.1 is valid only for
constant-compressibility single-phase fluid. However, the
general concept of the transient period and the pseudo-
steady-state period is the same for a multiphase flow with
changing compressibilities. The PR slope would be
changing according to the changes in compressibility, and
the pR curve after a pseudosteady-state would not be ex-
actly parallel to the p,,,f curve. This nonideal behavior
would be typical of a solution gas drive reservoir or a
dry gas reservoir where the compressibility and mobili-
ties are continually changing. The infinite-acting solutions
and the pseudosteady-state solutions to follow are still ap-
Infinite-Acting Solution (MTR)
The pressure behavior of constant-rate flow in a closed
reservoir goes through several periods: the early-time
region (ETR), middle-time region (MTR), and late-time
region (LTR). These periods are illustrated on a semilog
plot ofp$ vs. log t in Fig. 35.2. The MTR solution is
discussed first.
Eq. 1 can be solved for the infinite-reservoir case, which
is useful for application at early times. The solution ap-
plies to a well producing at constant rate, beginning at
t=O, and a homogeneous reservoir of constant thickness.
PO=
10 I IO 102 IOJ IO
tDr = tD/rD
2
Fig. X.3-Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite system, no wellbore storage, no skin. Exponential-integral solution.
35-4
There are two important solutions for the intinite-
reservoir case. One solution8 assumes that the wellbore
has a finite radius, r,. This solution is used mostly for
aquifer behavior with the oil field being the inner radius
rather than a wellbore. This solution is given in Chap.
38 for the infinite-aquifer case.
A simpler solution applies for well behavior. This so-
lution, called the line-source or exponential-integral
solution, assumes that the wellbore radius, rw, ap-
proaches zero. This solution has the form
where
po = kh(pi-p)l(141.2 q&)=dimensionless
pressure,
rD = r/r,,, =dimensionless radius,
tD = (O.O00264kt)l$+c,r,. =dimensionless time,
h = formation thickness, ft,
pi = initial pressure, psi, and
rw = wellbore radius, ft.
The exponential-integral function, Ei, is a special func-
tion that results from the solution of the line-source prob-
lem. A more practical solution to the problem is the plot
of the dimensionless pD vs. t&rD2, which is shown in
Fig. 35.3. The tDr term is the dimensionless time based
on external radius, re. Fig. 35.3 can be used to deter-
mine the pressure at any time and radius from the produc-
ing well. This solution is valid as long as the radius at
which the pressure is calculated is greater than 20 r,+or
at the wellbore of the producing well (at r,v) at a value
of fo/rD * > 10.
Fig. 35.3 is used mostly to determine the pressure at
distances away from the well such as at a nearby well lo-
cation during an interference test.
The more common solution of the exponential integral
solution is the semilog straight line solution, which ap-
plies after to is greater than 100. After this time, Eq. 8
applies at the wellbore:
Skin Effect
The solutions to Eq. 1 are modified to account for for-
mation damage near the wellbore. The damage near the
wellbore can be considered concentrated into a very thin
radius around the wellbore such that the thickness of the
damage is insignificant but a finite pressure drop results
from this damage.
Fig. 35.4 shows a sketch of the physical concept of the
damaged region and Fig. 35.5 shows the pressure pro-
file resulting from this damage.
The magnitude of the pressure drop caused by the skin
effect Ap, is
Ap,=O.87ms, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where s is the skin effect, defined in terms of dimension-
less pressure such that it would have the following effect
on Eq. 8.
pD=% ln tD+o.@ts+s. . . . . . . . . . . .(ll)
The value of the skin effect is calculated from transient
well test data such as a buildup test or a drawdown test.
The exact nature of the cause of the skin effect might not
bc known but might be caused by a combination of several
factors. Some of these factors are (1) mud filtrate or mud
damage near the wellbore, (2) the cement bond,
(3) limited perforations through the casing and cement
bond, and (4) partial penetration (completion). On the
other hand, the value of the skin effect, s, might be nega-
tive. This would indicate an improved wellbore condi-
tion, which might be caused by (1) improved permeability
in the vicinity of the wellbore because of acidizing or other
well treatments, (2) a vertical or horizontal hydraulic frac-
ture at the wellbore, or (3) a wellbore at an angle rather
than normal to the bedding plane.
The determination of the skin effect is important in de-
termining the need for a workover or the benefits of a
workover. The effect of the skin can be stated as a modifi-
cation to the wellbore radius by calculating an effective
wellbore radius, r,,,, calculated by
pD=% hl t,+0.406. (8) rw=r,e
- s
..................... .............................
.(12)
In customary oilfield units, this equation has the form This effective wellbore radius, rlw, can be considered the
equivalent wellbore radius in an undamaged or un-
kt
improved formation, which would have the same flow
pKf=pj -In log
+crrw2
-3.23
>
, . . (9) characteristics as the actual well with the skin effect.
where m equals (162.6qBp)lkh and p,+f is the flowing
bottomhole pressure, psi. This equation results in a semi-
log plot of p,,f vs. log t with a slope of -m psi/cycle (the
MTR of Fig. 35.2.)
Eqs. 7 through 9 are used for infinite-acting solutions
before the effects of boundaries affect the pressure tran-
sient behavior. When the closest boundary begins affect-
ing the behavior at the wellbore, this time is the end of
the semilog straight line, t,,d . The last column in Table
35.2 shows tend for various drainage shapes (shape
factors).
Wellbore Storage Effect (ETR)
At very early times the fluid production tends to come
from the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore rather than
the formation. This tends to delay the production rate from
the formation. The relationship between the surface pro-
duction rate, the expansion of the wellbore fluids, and the
formation production rate are shown in Eq. 13:
24C. Lb
q$=q+L+
B at
. . . (13)
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS
TABLE 35.2-SHAPE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS CLOSED SINGLE-WELL DRAINAGE AREAS
35-5
In Bounded Reservoirs
0
0
A
n
q3
c&ID
In Vertically-Fractured Reservoirs*
IO xxe
,m
,&
,@
,&
>@
In Waterdrive Reservoirs
0
In Reservoirs of Unknown
Production Character
@DA)pss
Exact
cA
In CA For tDA >
31.62 3.4538 - 1.3224 0.1 0.06 0.10
31.6 3.4532 - 1.3220 0.1 0.06 0.10
27.6 3.3178 - 1.2544 0.2 0.07 0.09
27.1 3.2995 - 1.2452 0.2 0.07 0.09
21.9 3.0865 - 1.1387 0.4 0.12 0.08
0.098 - 2.3227 f 1.5659 0.9 0.60 0.015
30.8828 3.4302 - 1.3106 0.1 0.05 0.09
12.9851 2.5638 - 0.8774 0.7 0.25 0.03
4.5132 1.5070 - 0.3490 0.6 0.30 0.025
3.3351 1.2045 -0.1977 0.7 0.25 0.01
21.8369 3.0836 -1.1373 0.3 0.15 0.025
10.8374 2.3830 - 0.7870 0.4 0.15 0.025
4.5141 1.5072 - 0.3491 1.5 0.50 0.06
2.0769 0.7390 + 0.0391 1.7 0.50 0.02
3.1573 1.1497 -0.1703 0.4 0.15 0.005
0.5813 - 0.5425 + 0.6758 2.0 0.60 0.02
0.1109 -2.1991 + 1.5041 3.0 0.60 0.005
5.3790 1.6825 - 0.4367 0.8 0.30 0.01
2.6896 0.9894 - 0.0902 0.8 0.30 0.01
0.2318 - 1.4619 +I.1355 4.0 2:oo 0.03
0.1155 -2.1585 + 1.4838 4.0 2.00 0.01
2.3806 0.8589 - 0.0249 1 .o 0.40 0.025
2.6541 0.9761 - 0.0835
2.0348 0.7104 + 0.0493
1.9988 0.6924 + 0.0583
1.6620 0.5080 +0.1505
1.3127 0.2721 + 0.2685
0.7887 - 0.2374 + 0.5232
0.08 Cannot use
0.09 Cannot use
0.09 Cannot use
0.09 Cannot use
0.09 Cannot use
0.09 Cannot use
19.1 2.95
25.0 3.22
- 1.07
- 1.20
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
-
-
-
-
-
-
ftDA)end
Use Infinite System
Less Than Solution With Less
1% Error Than 1% Error
For t, > For t, <
Use (xJx,) in place of A#: for fractured systems.
EC
1
REGION OF DAMAGED
PERMEARILITY
SEALED
/
CIRCULAR
,UND+RIES
/
WELL BORE
Fig. 35.4-Radial flow model showing damaged zone.
where C, equals V,,,cd and qsj is the flow rate at the
sandface, STB/D and C, is the wellbore storage con-
stant, equal to the volume of the wellbore, V, , times the
wellbore fluid compressibility, c wf.
The effect of the wellbore storage is to make the very
early transient pressure behave as though it were reflect-
ing production only from the wellbore fluid expansion.
This pressure drop can be calculated from
qB
Pi-Pwf-
24C,t. . . . . . . . ..~..............
Note that this shows a linear relationship between & and
time. Consequently, a p vs. t plot will be linear during
the wellbore storage period. Also, a plot of log Ap vs.
log I is a straight line with a slope of unity. This wellbore
storage effect may last for just a few seconds or it may
last for many hours-i.e., for a deep, low-permeability
gas well that has a large storage volume in the wellbore,
a high-compressibility gas, and great resistance to flow
from the formation.
After a period of time, this wellbore storage solution
gives way to the semilog straight line (for the radial flow
case). The period between the linear relationship and the
semilog straight line is from one to one and one-half cy-
cles of log t. Fig. 35.6 shows that Eq. 12 applies during
ETR, then gives way to Eq. 11 during MTR. lo This log-
log dimensionless plot has the same shape as a plot of log
(pi-p,,+) vs. log r. This is sometimes called a type
curve.
Pseudosteady-State Behavior (LTR)
After a well produces at constant rate for a period of time,
the boundary effects interrupt the infinite-acting pressure
behavior. If the well is in an irregularly shaped drainage
area, the closest boundary to the well causes the earliest
departure from the infinite-acting pressure solution. Af-
ter a transition period, the well begins pseudosteady-state
behavior. The pseudosteady-state behavior begins after
the effects of the farthest boundary have been felt at the
wellbore.
When pseudosteady-state behavior begins (see Fig.
35.2) the rate of pressure decline, (a~/&)~~~, is constant
log r
Fig. 35.5--Schematic of pressure distribution near wellbore.
at every point throughout the reservoir. This is a deple-
tion period at which every point of the reservoir drops
at a rate according to the pore volume, VP, and compres-
sibility of the drainage area, ct,
ap
( >
-0.234qB
--$ pss= . . . . . ~pCt
(15)
During pseudosteady-state behavior, wellbore pressure
is related to the average reservoir pressure, PR, by a
productivity index (PI), J, as follows.
q=J(pR -p,j). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
This PI equation relates the pressure drawdown to the pro-
duction rate. For a circular drainage area we can write
out the complete expression for the PI equation as
7.08x 10 -3khl(B/t) _
4=
In r,/r, -0.75s~ 1
(Pi?-Pwj), . . . . . . (17)
where re is the exterior boundary radius, ft. Note that
the quantity in brackets is equivalent to J in Eq. 16 for
the circular drainage area. J is a constant if the viscosity
and formation volume factor of the producing fluid are
constant. If these fluid properties are not constant, Eqs.
16 and 17 still apply but the PI value changes with the
changing fluid properties. For multiphase flow these equa-
tions still can be used by substituting the definition in Ta-
ble 35.1 into Eqs. 16 and 17.
Eq. 17 has to be modified if the drainage area is not
circular with the well in the center. A general form of
the pseudosteady-state equation has been worked out by
Dietz l1 and has been cited by other authors. I-5 The gen-
eralized pseudosteady-state equation has the form
7.08x 10-3khl(Bp)
4=
2.2458 A
1
(PR -pwf), . . . (18)
15 ln--
CA rw
2 +s
Fig. 35.6-Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite reservoir including wellbore storage
and a finite skin-composite reservoir.
where A is the drainage area, sq ft. and CA is the shape
factor (Table 35.2). This equation can be applied by using
the values for CA in Table 35.2 or by moving the terms
in the denominator to the form
7.08 x 10 -3khl(&)
9=
2.2458 A
I
@R -Pwfh
% hl-
CA
+% lnT+S
rw
. . . . . . . . . . .
(19)
This form is easier to use because the first term of the
denominator also is tabulated in Table 35.2.
In Table 35.2, x, is the distance from the well to the
side of the square drainage area, and xf is the distance
from the well to either end of the vertical fracture. Table
35.2 also shows the dimensionless time, tom, at which
the infinite-acting solution ends, and also the time at which
pseudosteady state begins, (t~~)~~,r.
Example Problem 1 (Transient and Pseudosteady
State). A well is centered in an approximately square
drainage area. The following data are given.
A = 1.74~ lo6 sq ft (40 acres),
h = 21 ft,
s = 1.6,
rw
= 0.25 ft,
k, = 45 md,
PO
= 1.5 cp,
$fJ = 0.18,
cc7
= 8.5~10~~ psi-,
CW
= 3.2~10~~ psi-,
cf = 3.0X10p6 psi-,
S, = 0.25,
B, = 1.12, and
pi = 5,100 psi.
Calculate the bottomhole pressure (BHP), pwf, after 12
hours and after 120 days for a constant oil production rate
of 80 STB/D.
Solution. From Eq. 5,
Cr=CffS,C, +s,c,
=[3.0+(0.75)(8.5)+(0.25)(3.2)] x 1O-6
=10.2X 10e6 psi-.
Calculate the time required to reach pseudosteady state.
From Table 35.2,
(tDA)pss=O.l=
O.O00264(45)t,,,
(O.18)(1.5)(1O.2x1O-6)(1.74x1O6)
where tpss is 40.3 hours. So the well is infinite acting af-
ter 12 hours. By using Eq. 11,
p~=h h tD+o.do&i+s.
By using the definitions of pD and tD in Eq. 8, we have
WKWW~-p,vf)
141.2(80)(1.12)(1.5)
=% In
0.000264(45)( 12)
(O.18)(1.5)(1O.2x1O-6)(O.25)2
+0.4045+1.6;
0.0498(5,100-p,,&=% In (8.28~10~)+0.4045+1.6;
5,100-p,,=(8.82)/(0.0498)= 177; and
p,f=4,923 psi at 12 hours.
35-8
0
tl 12 t3 t4 t N-2 t N-I
FLOW TIME, t, HOURS
Fig. 35.7-Schematic representation of a variable production-
rate schedule.
At 120 days, the well is in pseudosteady state (greater
than 40.3 hours). First, calculate PR. Using Eq. 15, the
rate of pressure decline can be calculated.
aP
(-> -
-0.234qB
at
P==
pc,
-0.234(80)( 1.12)
= (21)(O.18)(1.74x1O6)(1O.2x1O-6)
= -0.313 psi/hr.
p,=5,100-0.313(120)(24)
=4,199 psi.
Now, using Eq. 19,
7.08x 1O-3 khl(&)
90 =
2.2458 A
% In- +% In-+s 1
CA rM
(80) =
7.08x10-3(45)(21)!(1.12x1.5)
1.74x 10-6
- 1.3224+ % In
(0.25)*
1 +1.6
*(4,199-p++&
3.982
(80) =
-1.3224+8.571+1.6 1
(4,199-p!&
4,199-p,,f= 178; and
p,,=4,021 psi at 120 days.
Production Rate Variation (Superposition)
These solutions have included only the constant-rate case.
Of general interest, of course, are the cases where rate
changes with time. These cases are best handled by using
the principle of superposition.
The principle of superposition amounts to dividing the
production history into a sequence of rate changes such
as that shown in Fig. 35.7. The total effect of the pro-
duction on the pressure response, Ap, is the additive ef-
fects of each of the rate changes. In Fig. 35.7, rate q1
applies from t=O to the current time. At t, the rate in-
creases to q2. The effect of this rate change can be
viewed as an incremental rate, q2 -91, which has been
in effect for a period of time t-t l . Then q3 would also
be seen as a rate change, q3 -92, which has been in ef-
fect for a period of time t- 12. The effect of all these rate
changes is computed by superposing the solutions that ap-
plied to each rate change and its corresponding time that
it has been in effect. The equation for computing the to-
tal pressure drop, Ap,, is
N
p; -p,#= c (qj -qj-,)f((t-tr-,) , . . (20)
i=l
when qieI =0 when i=l.
The functionf(t) can be called the unit responsefinc-
tion. The unit response function is the pressure drop,
pi -pKf, which occurs at time f for a unit production rate
(q= 1). The unit response functions may be quantified by
the cases described such as the wellbore storage equation
at early times (ETR), the semilog straight line solution
at MTR, and finally the pseudosteady-state solution at later
times (LTR). For example, if q 1 had been in effect for
a time longer than tpss, its contribution to the pressure
drop at time t would be calculated from the pseudosteady-
state equations, which would comprise the calculation of
the reduction in p from Eq. 15 and the pressure drop from
p R to pwf in Eq. 16. The effect of the second rate might
be still in the transient period, which would call for Eq.
11 to be applied.
Note that the calculation of the pressure decline of
p R can be calculated with Eq. 15 only for the constant-
compressibility case. For the general case, such as a so-
lution gas drive reservoir, the appropriate material bal-
ance equations would be applicable to calculate PR. If the
last rate change has been in effect for a time greater than
tP,rS and the system has constant compressibility, the fol-
lowing simplification can be made for Eq. 15.
PRPi-
5.615 NpB,
. . . . . VpCr
(21)
The following example problem shows how superposi-
tion can be applied for a case where both pseudosteady-
state and transient pressure drops are added.
WELL PERFORMANCE EOUATIONS 35-9
Exynple Problem 2 (Superposition). The well in Ex-
ample Problem 1 produces according to the following
schedule.
time
(hours) (SI%D)
Oto2 300
2 to 8 120
thereafter 80
Calculate p,,,, at 12 hours and at 120 days.
So&ion. As we observed in Example Problem 1, the
well was infinite acting after 12 hours, so we use Eq. 20.
N
pi-Pwf= C (4i-qi-Of(f-ti-1)
i= I
We first needf(t), the unit response function. We can use
Eq. 11 to find Ap in terms oft for q=l:
pD=% In tD +0.4@5+3,
so the values off(l2), f(lO), andf(4) are used, giving
5,100-p,,=(300)[0.1256 ln(6.9x lo4 x 12)+0.504]
-(180)[0.1256 ln(6.9x104 x 10)+0.504]
-(40)[0.1256 ln(6.9~10~~4)+0.504]
=(300)(2.22)
-(180)(2.19)
-(40)(2.08)
= 189;
p,,=4,911 psi at 12 hours.
At 120 days, the well has a cumulative production of
141.2(1)(1.12)(1.5)
N, =300 STB/D x (2/24 days)
=% In
0.000264(45)?
(0.18)( 1 .S)( 10.2 x 10 -6)(0.25)2
+0.4045+1.6,
3.98Ap= 1/2 In 6.90x 104t+2.004, and
Ap=O.1256 ln(6.90x lOt)+0.504,
so
f(t)=Ap=O.1256 ln(6.90x104t)+0.504.
Substituting into Eq. 20,
+@I3 -921f(t--12);
+(120-3OO)f(12-2)
+(80-12O)f(12-8),
+ 120 STBlD x (6/24 days)
t80 STBiDx(l19.5 days)
=9.615 STB.
Using Eq. 21,
pREpi-
5.615NpB,
vpct
=(5,100)-
5.615(9,615)(1.12)
(21)(0.18)(1.74x106)(10.2x10-)
=5,100-901=4,199.
Using Eq. 19 (the same as Example Problem l), we cal-
culate
and again,
pwf=4,199-178=4,021 psi at 120 days.
The effect of the early rate variation is forgotten af-
ter the rate is constant for tpss =40.3 hours, except for
the slight increase in cumulative barrels ( 15 STB), which
is negligible in this case.
Gas Well Performance
The performance of gas wells is similar to oil wells (liq-
uid reservoirs) except for two major differences: (1) the
fluid properties of gas change dramatically with pressure
and (2) flow can become partially turbulent near the well-
bore, resulting in a rate-dependent skin factor. These two
factors are discussed and alternative forms of gas perform-
ance equations are presented.
The application of these principles to gas flow is only
slightly more complicated than to liquid flow, but there
is often much confusion about gas wells. There are several
reasons for this. One reason is that there are many ver-
sions of gas flow equations in the literature. Some are in
terms of p, some in terms of p2, and some in terms of
a real gas pseudopressure, m(p). All these equations can
be used and are valid forms. Another reason for confu-
sion is the different coefficients in the equations, which
sometimes arise from the assumed temperature and pres-
sure base of a standard cubic foot of gas. The following
equations use only the symbols T,, and psC, since the
pressure base in different areas does vary significantly.
Still another reason for confusion is that deliverability
testing has been customary with gas wells because of
government requirements. Deliverability testing, based
onalog(pR2 -pwf2) vs. log qg plot, is largely an em-
pirical approach. The deliverability plot approach was de-
veloped mainly for low-pressure gas wells and does not
work well with the deeper, higher-temperature, and
higher-pressure wells that are more common today.
The Effect of Gas Properties
In the derivation of the diffusivity equation, the form of
Eq. 1 is not achieved because the values of z and p vary
with pressure. Consequently the following form occurs
in the derivation.
&vp=
1
4 ap
--
w
o.ooo264 k at , . . . . . . . .
(22)
where L is the dimensionless gas-law deviation factor. This
equation is a nonlinear partial differential equation and
cannot be solved analytically by the methods applied to
Eq. 1.
A method for linearizing the partial differential equa-
tion was developed by Al-Hussainy er al. l2 They intro-
duced a real gaspseudopressure, which may be defined as
m(p)=2;p$p. . . . . . . . .(23)
This pressure-dependent function integrates the variations
ofp, Z, and ,U with pressure. When this function is intro-
duced into the derivation of the diffusivity equation, the
diffusivity equation for a real gas takes the form
Vm(p)=
1
4cLcg WP)
o.ooo264 k ar . . . .
This equation still is not quite a linear differential equa-
tion because p and cR vary significantly with pressure.
The gas compressibility, cg , can be expressed in terms
of 2 as
1 Id.2
cg=----.
P zQ
. . . . . . . . . ____ __ (25)
For practical purposes, however, Eq. 23 can be taken
as a linear differential equation in terms of m(p). This
was confirmed by the result of computer simulations per-
formed by Wattenbarger and Ramey. l3 They showed that
the pressure transient equations can be used, with very
good approximation, in terms of m(p). After pseudo-
steady-state, PI equations similar to Eqs. 16 through 19
can be used.
The application of the m(p) solutions is not difficult.
the values of m( p) vs. p can be determined by graphical
integration or can be calculated with computer programs
that use built-in correlations to estimate the variation of
z and p with pressure.
Since our equations and graphical techniques depend
on equations of a straight line of p either on a linear plot
or a semilog plot, it is worth analyzing how the slopes
of m(p) are related to the slopes of p plots, or p2 plots;
we can show that the derivative of m(p) with respect to,
for example, log t is as follows.
am(p)
--=c$&=<t,&. .C2@
wag 4
These relationships indicate that an m(p) plot, or a p plot,
or ap* plot can be used and then the relationships in Eq.
26 applied. The m(p) plot is preferable because it is most
likely to have the proper semilog straight line. Thep and
p* plots can be used as shortcuts if the proper MTR slope
is identified. For example, the slope of a p vs. log r plot
can be determined from a plot and then the value of the
slope of m(p) vs. log t can be calculated by using Eq.
26 without ever actually plotting values of m(p).
Non-Darcy Flow
Darcys law applies to gases at lower rates (laminar flow),
which are found throughout the reservoir. However, near
the wellbore the rates can become extremely high because
of the converging flow as the gas approaches the well-
bore. At these rates inertial e&ts can become impor-
tant and Darcys law no longer applies. The inertial effects
take the form of distorted flow paths and also turbulence
in different locations in the pore structure. Although the
exact nature of this microscopic flow is not known in the
reservoir, the net effect is a higher pressure gradient when
these inertial effects become important.
For laminar flow we can rearrange Darcys law to the
following form.
ap P
--.-z--v
ax k , ~,............................
. (30)
where apldx is the pressure gradient and v is the macro-
scopic (Darcy) fluid velocity. At the higher rates, when
inertial effects become important, the Forchheimer equa-
tion is used:
(31)
where p is the fluid density and F, is the turbulence fac-
tor. The right side of Eq. 3 1 contains a term for viscous
forces and a term for inertial forces, both of which con-
tribute to the pressure loss.
Although a number of workers have correlated the value
of F, with rock properties, for practial purposes the ve-
locity varies too much in the vertical direction near a well-
bore to predict the effect of non-Darcy flow in a particular
well. One practical approach is to consider the nonDarcy
effect near the wellbore as a rate-dependent part of the
skin effect:
s=s+FDa 1 qg 1 , . . . . . . . . . . .(32)
where FD, is the non-Darcy (turbulence) factor, (lo3 cu
ft/D) - , 1 qg / is the absolute value of gas rate, lo3 cu
ft/D, and s is the effective skin effect of a well flowing
at a rate qg. Fig. 35.8 shows how s varies with rate. The
value of FD, varies with pressure but for simplicity can
be considered constant. The value of FD, must be evalu-
ated by transient testing of the well at several rates and
determining corresponding values of s
The transient equations (MTR) and pseudosteady-state
equations (LTR) are modified for gas wells as shown in
the following.
Infinite-Acting Gas Reservoir (MTR)
The transient solution for the infinite-acting gas reservoir
is analogous to the liquid case shown in Eq. 11. Eq. 11
then must be modified for the effect of non-Darcy flow
and fluid property variation with pressure. This results
in the following equation.
mD=% In t,+0.4045+s+F, 1 qg ) , . . .(33)
where
and
mD
= dimensionless m(p),
tD = dimensionless time,
T,, = standard condition temperature, R,
PSC
= standard condition pressure, psia,
TR = reservoir temperature, R,
m(pi) = m(p) at initial pressure pi, psia2icp, and
m(pWf) = m(p) at wellhore flowing pressure pWf,
psia2/cp.
The value of TV is evaluated with &LC evaluated at the
initial pressure.
/
/
/
*< s=s
Production rate, q,
Fig. 35.8-Skin factor determination.
Before putting Eq. 33 into a more practical form, con-
sider that the pressure drop term, m( p i) - m( p ,+,f), can
be stated as Am(p) and can be related to Ap and Ap2 by
the relationships
Am(p)= (z&Q= (;):2. . . (34)
The average values shown in parentheses are the integrat-
ed average values over the pressure range. For practical
purposes it is accurate to evaluate these average quanti-
ties at the midpoint pressure. In other words, 2plzpp is
evaluated at j, where ji is equal to (jYR +p,f)/2 and
(1l~l.r)~ is evaluated at j?, where jY is equal to
(jY~+p,,,f)I2, or ,/(p~+pK,/)/2 for the p* equation.
For the infinite-acting reservoir, the average reservoir
pressure, PR, is the same as pi.
These relationships are important because they allow
us to account for the variation of fluid properties, within
engineering accurac
Y>
and still express equations simply
in terms of p and p . Eq. 33, when put in more practi-
cal form, can be expressed in terms of m(p), p, or p2, as
m(pi)-m(pwf)
1
2.303 0.000264kc
=-log
2
(4P41~W2
+0.4045+~+F~, ( qn / , . . . . . . . (35a)
1.987x 10 -5
(p >
t (Pi-P&$)
P
2.303 0.000264kt
=-log
2
(4W) i r w
2
+0.4&t5+S+F, ( qe 1 , . . . . . . . . (35b)
0.08
GAS GRAVITY = 0.7
REDUCED
TEMPERATURE= 17(195F)
0.06
Pseudosteady-State Solutions (LTR)
The pseudosteady-state solutions are analogous to the liq-
uid solutions and can be put in essentially the same form.
The only changes are to allow for the changes of fluid
properties with pressure and non-Darcy flow. The inclu-
sion of these effects is the same as discussed above. The
result is the following form of the pseudosteady-state equa-
tions, in terms of m(p), p, and p*.
kh
2.2458A
% ln----
CAT,'
+~+FD, kg I
*
[
m(p)-m(p,f)
1
, _. _. _. _.
(364
where m@)=m(p) at p R, psia/cp, and CA =shape fac-
tor from Table 35.2.
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
P, psla
Flg. 35.9-Typical variation of m(p) and zp with pressure.
1.987x 1O-5
2.303 O.ooo264kt
=-log
2
(4Pc)irw 2
+0.4045+s+FDa I qg I , . . . . . . (35~)
where (@PC); =&LC evaluated at pi. Eq. 35 can be used
to predict p,,f for the infinite-acting period (MTR) be-
tween the wellbore storage period and the beginning of
pseudosteady state.
Fig. 35.9 shows a typical relationship of zp with pres-
sure. The value of Z,U is almost constant when p is below
2,000 psia. This makes the p2 type of equation fairly ac-
curate below 2,000 psi because Z,U can be taken out of
the integral in Eq. 23 if zp is constant. p2 plots and equa-
tions tend to work well in reservoir pressures less than
2,000 psia.
Fig. 35.9 also shows that m(p) tends to be linear with
pat higher pressures (above 3,000 psia). This means that
p plots and equations tend to work well for higher-pressure
reservoirs. If there is a doubt about whether these p* or
p simplifications apply to a particular reservoir, then m(p)
plots and equations should be used.
kh
2.2458A
Vi In-
C,4rw2
+s+FDa I qg I
(PR-p,,,,), . . . . . . . . . . . (36b)
P
and
kh
2.24584
l/z In-
c*rw2
+~+FDcI I qs I
Eqs. 36 have general application for pseudosteady-state
gas flow. Note that these forms of the pseudosteady-state
equations are considerably different from the gas deliver-
ability approach that is used extensively. The gas deliver-
abili
9
approach is empirical and based on a log-log plot
ofp -p,,,, vs. qg. The comparison between Eqs. 36
and the deliverability plot approach is discussed by Lee. 5
35-13
Long-Term Forecast
Long-term forecasting can be accomplished in a fairly
straightforward manner using Eqs. 36 along with a p R/z
plot. The CR/z plot, of course, is simply a material bal-
ance for a closed gas reservoir. Through this plot the value
of P.Q can be determined for any value of cumulative pro-
duction, G,. Given this value of p R, one of the forms
of Eqs. 36 then can be used to determine qx.
Note that in deep, high-pressure reservoirs, the influ-
ence of formation and water compressibility can become
important compared with gas compressibility. At these
high pressures, greater than about 6,000 psig, the p R/Z
plot should be modified to account for the formation and
water compressibilities. A technique for this modified
p,& plot is presented by Ramagost and Farshad. tJ
A complete forecast of production rate vs. time can be
generated by converting the cumulative production to a
time scale. The value ofp%f might be fixed as a condi-
tion of the production forecast, or it may be solved si-
multaneously with wellbore hydraulic relationships, such
as given in Chap. 34.
Example Problem 3. A gas well produces from a
drainage area that approximates a 4: 1 rectangle with the
well in the center. The following data apply.
A = 6.96x lo6 sq ft (160 acres),
h = 34 ft,
s = 2.3,
FD,
= 0.0052 (lo3 cu MD)-,
rw
= 0.23 ft,
k, = 0.52 md,
ZPR
= see Fig. 35.9,
4 = 0.11,
TR = 210F+460=670R,
T,, = 6WF+460=520R,
pSc = 14.7 psia, and
j?~ = 4,150 psia.
Calculate the pseudosteady-state rate, qg , if pWf= 1,500
psia.
Solution. Use Eq. 36b-the simplest form of the
pseudosteady-state equation.
=(4,150 + 1,500)/2
=2,825 psia.
From Fig. 35.9, we estimate ~~~ at 2,825 psia as
zpR =0.0165
2(2,825)
=-=3.42x lo5
0.0165
From Table 35.2,
CA z5.3790.
Eq. 36b is
kh
2.24584
l/2 In
T+S+FDO hi: 1
CArw
2P
(->
(PR-Pwf);
z/J p
q,=1.987x10-5
(520)
(14.7)(670)
(0.52)(34)
% In
2.2458(6.96x 106)
(5.379)(0.23)*
+2.3+0.0052 1 qK 1
*(3.42x105)(4,150-1,500)
= 1.987x 10 -5(0.0528)
17.68
8.91+2.3+0.0052 1 qR 1
.(3.42x 105)(2,650)
1.68~10~
11.21+0.0052 ( qg 1
(11.21+0.0052 1 qg I)q,=1.68x104.
This equation can be solved as a quadratic equation, or
simply by trial and error, by using estimates of I qx I
starting with I qg 1 =0:
(11.21+O)q,=1.68x104
4,: =1,499.
Next, try
(11.21+0.0052x1,499)q,=1.68x104;
qg =884.
Next, try
(11.21+0.0052x884)q,=1.68x 104;
qR = 1,063.
35-14
970
.(I, 960
8
; 950
0.
E
2
940
2
E
930
P 920
?I
ii
910
FLOW TIME, t, hours
Fig. B&10-Semilog data plot for drawdown test.
Next, try
(11.21+0.0052x1,063)q,=1.68x104;
qg=1m4
until the solution converges at
qg =1,018 x lo3 cu ft/D.
Transient Well Test Analysis
The subject of transient well test analysis can be very com-
plicated and has been covered very thoroughly in the liter-
ature. I-5 These references show not only the
straightforward cases of transient well test analysis but
also go into many exceptions, alternative techniques for
analysis, and other complications. It is the intent here to
cover only the most straightforward and routine methods
for analysis of oil and gas wells.
The most common values to calculate from a transient
well test analysis are kh, s, and PR. With these three
values plus a knowledge of the drainage area and shape
of the drainage area (values of CA and A), the flow rate
can be calculated or forecast for a particular BHP, p,,,f,
by using the pseudosteady-state equations. The method
of analyzing kh and s for a drawdown test and a buildup
test are summarized now.
Drawdown Test
The drawdown test is accomplished simply by putting a
well on a constant production rate after the well has been
shut in. Variations of the drawdown test involve analysis
of variable rates, but only the constant-rate case is cov-
ered here. The analysis is based on the infinite-acting so-
lution (MTR). The data are plotted on a pressure vs. log
time semilog plot and the slope of the plot, m, is deter-
mined graphically in units of psi/cycle (see Fig. 35.10).
The equations for determining w1 for an oil well or a gas
well are as follows.
For oil wells,
k,h= -
lf=%oBo~o
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(374
m
and for gas wells,
k,h=
-5.792 x 104q,(p,,TR/Ts,)
. . . . . . . .
m*
Wb)
where m* is the slope of m(p) plot,
k,h=
-5.W!X ~04q,(p,,TR/Ts,)
m
wb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(37c)
where m is the slope of p plot, or
k,h=
-5.792x 104q,(p,,TR/T,,)
nP
(z~~)wb. Wd)
where m is the slope ofp* plot and subscript wb refers
to wellbore. The values of zpl2p in Eq. 37c and zp in
Eq. 37d are evaluated at pW, rather than(pR+p,,)/2,
which is used in the pseudosteady-state equations.
The value of the skin effect, s, is determined from one
of the following equations for oil and gas wells.
For oil wells,
Pi-P1
I
k
x=1.151 -log-
112
~wtr,2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(384
where p 1 is the pressure at AZ = 1 hour; and for gas wells,
m(pi)-m(pl)
k
s=1.151
m*
-log-
+crr,2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(38b)
I
k
-log---
hc,r,2
or
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(38~)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3W
The disadvantage of this equation (compared to buildup
testing) is that pi must be known to calculate S.
35-15
It is important to evaluate the proper semilog straight
line. In many cases it is difficult to tell whether an appar-
ent semilog straight line is in the MTR solution or is still
being affected by wellbore effects (ETR) . It is often help-
ful to make a log-log plot of Pi -pwf vs. flowing time,
t, to analyze when the wellbore effects are finished. A
straight line with a slope of unity on this log-log plot in-
dicates that the pressure behavior is being totally domi-
nated by wellbore storage. The semilog straight line then
can be expected to begin at about 1.5 log cycles after the
data points leave the log-log straight line of unity slope.
Buildup Testing
Buildup testing is more common than drawdown testing.
The main reason for this is that the well rate is known
when the well is shut in (q=O). The analysis of a buildup
test is based on the assumption that a constant flow rate
is maintained for a producing time, tp , and then the well
is shut in. Variations of the buildup test include analysis
of variation in production rate before shut-in, but only
the constant-rate production period is covered here. The
pressure, p$ (At=O), is measured just before shut-in and
then at different shut-in times, A?, after the time of shut-in.
A plot is made of the shut-in pressures, PDF, vs. a time
scale based on the shut-in time, At. The time scale is either
log At or log (I,, +At)iAt. The first of these plots (Fig.
35.11) is called an MDH plot (Miller, Dyes, and
Hutchinson 15). The second type of plot (Fig. 35.12) is
called a Homer ~10~~~ Both plots give the same semi-
log straight line slope, which is also the same as meas-
ured in the drawdown test.
The kh for an oil or gas well can be determined from
the slope of this semilog straight line by the following
equations (identical to Eqs. 37, except for the sign).
For oil wells,
k
0
h= 162.6qoBofio
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
094
m
and for gas wells,
k
g
h= 5.792x 104q,hJ/dL)
. .
(39b)
m*
k,h=
5.792x 104q,(p,,WW
(39c)
m
wb
or
k
g
h=5.792 x 104q,hJ-dW
m"
hg)wb. WW
3350
=3317
!i 30000 ,454 6
10-I I IO
SHUT-IN TIME, At, hours
Fig. 35.11 -MDH plot for buildup test.
SHUT-IN -TIME, At, hours
01
E3300
i
PI, * 3266 P
P -40 PS/o/CYCL
-3250
2 OF STORAGE
3
2
u3200
h
43 2 8 654 3 2 86543 2 a
IO
(tp +At),A:
2
IO
Fig. 35.1 P-Horner plot of pressure buildup data from Fig. 35.11.
and for gas wells,
s=1.151
(I
m(pl)-m(p,f)
m*
I
Note that the signs are reversed for the Homer plot.
The skin factor, s, can be determined from one of the
following equations.
For oil wells,
kg
-log-
+3.23
4ClgCt
>
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40b)
-log
ko
s=l.151
Pl -Pwf
4ihctr?
mr
I
-log
kg
hsctrw2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(404
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4Oc)
35-16
Asymptotically, the data approach the correct value of
2
PR as At approaches infinity. Since our shut-in time nor-
2
,300
mally is limited, the MBH method is based on extrapolat-
z
ing the semilog straight line to At= 03, or
Kcr
a,
(fp +At)lAt= 1 .O. This value is called p*. The method
w QIZOO
d ;
then provides a correction to calculate the correct value
IQ
of j?~ from the extrapolated value of p*.
8
The MBH method assumes that the well flowed at a
I=
II00 constant rate for tp and that the drainage area A is known
8
for the well. The dimensionless producing time, tpDA , is
calculated. If tpDA is greater than (tp~A)psJ, the later
IO00
343 2 86543 2 82.3.1 2
value can be used as tpDA . In other words, it is not im-
I 02 I O
portant what the rate history was before pseudosteady state
(to + Af)/U
was achieved.
Now that p* has been extrapolated from the data and
Fig. 35.13-Horner plot of typical pressure buildup data from a
tpDA has been calculated, then the correction between p*
well in a finite reservoir.
and jYR is made by using the MBH correction curve that
best represents the drainage shape. The MBH correction
curves are presented in Figs. 35.14 through 35.17. A step-
wise procedure to determine p.8 can be summarized as
or follows.
1. Make a Horner plot.
(I
P2 I -P2 wf
kg
>
2. Extrapolate the semilog straight line to the value of
s=l.l51 -log
CbgCd
+3.23 .
m
p* at (tP +At)lAt= 1.0.
3. Evaluate m, the slope of the semilog straight line.
4. calculate tpDA =(o.ooo264kt,)/~pcr~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(404
The slope refers to the corresponding semilog straight line.
prr,f is the last pI(,f at At=O. These equations are based
5. Find the closest approximation to the drainage shape
in Figs. 35 _ 14 through 35.17. Choose a correction curve.
6. Read the value of 2.303(p*-jY~)lrn from the cor-
rection curve at t,~~.
on the equation of the semilog straight line. Therefore,
if p ws does not fall on the extrapolated semilog straight
line at At= 1 hour, then p I is read on the semilog straight
line rather than at the actual data.
7. Calculate the value of 5 R.
Again, be reminded that transient well test analysis can
be very complicated and can depart in many ways from
the simple analysis presented here. These equations are
presented only for quick reference and to show the prop-
er interpretation of the real gas formulas for the normal
cases. The reader should refer to Refs. 1 through 5 for
more details and explanation of departures from these sim-
ple cases.
Determination of p 8
This procedure gives the value of p R in the drainage
area of one well. If a number of wells are producing from
the reservoir, each well can be analyzed separately to give
a j?~ for its own drainage area. This is done, assuming
that all wells are producing in pseudosteady state, by
dividing the reservoir up into drainage areas for each well
by constructing no-flow boundaries between the wells.
Fig. 35.18 shows an illustration of such a segmentation
of a reservoir. These no-flow boundaries represent the
watersheds of the different drainage areas. The
drainage areas are calculated so that each drainage area
has the same reservoir flow rate compared to its PV. Thus,
The value of PR represents the average reservoir pres-
sure in the drainage area of the well. It is important to
determine PR from a buildup test so that PR can be used
for material balance calculations, history matching in
reservoir simulation, or in pseudosteady-state perform-
ance equations.
There are several methods for determining Jo from a
buildup test but the most general is the MBH (Matthews,
Brons, and Hazebioek I). This method is generally ap-
plicable because a number of different reservoir drainage
area shapes are available for analysis. These reservoir
shapes are the same as those used for evaluating shape
factors in Table 35.2.
Fig. 35.13 shows how the method is applied. The build-
up test has a semilog straight line, which begins bending
at the later shut-in times because of the effect of the bound-
aries. The data normally will bend down and become flat
(qr/Vp) 1 =(qr/Vp)2 =(q,lvp)3=(qtlvp)i.
. . . C41)
This relationship divides the drainage area (or PV) ac-
cording to the producing rate of the well. As the wells
rates change, then the drainage area changes for the well.
If q=O, for example, then no area would be allocated to
that well. This procedure of calculating the drainage area
and approximating drainage shape is repeated at the time
of each pressure survey. The drainage areas and shapes
keep changing as rates change.
There is often confusion about the meaning of p* in the
Horner plot. The value of p* has no physical meaning
except in the special case of an infinite-acting well
(T?=w). This is the case that Horner16 originally ad-
from this curve, but for unusual cases the data actually dressed in determining the initial pressure, pi ,-in a newly
can bend up from the semilog straight line before it even- discovered well. In this special infinite-acting case, p*=
tually becomes horizontal. p R =pi. Otherwise, p* has no physical meaning.
PansH =2.303( p-fn)lm
P meH =2.303(p*-pR)/m
N Y h u
I!

0
o-
js,
E
P
r
,-
I-
I -
DIMENSIONLESS PRODUCTION TIME. tCD.
Fig. 35.16-MBH dimensionless pressure for different welt locations in a 2: 1 rectangular drainage area.
,o- I
DIMENSIONLESS PRODUCTION TIME. tpo4
Fig. 35.17-MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in 4: 1 and 5: 1 rectangular drainage area
Fig. 35.18--Reservoir map showing approximate no-flow
boundaries.
Example Problem 4 (Pressure Buildup Analysis) (af-
ter Earlougher 2 ). Pressure Buildup Test Analysis-
Homer Method. Table 35.3 shows pressure buildup data
from an oil well with an estimated drainage radius of 2,640
ft. Before shut-in the well had produced at a stabilized
rate of 4,900 STBiD for 310 hours. Known reservoir data
are
D = 10,476 ft,
rw
= (4.25112) ft,
C - 22.6~10~~ psi-,
4; i 4,900 STB/D,
h = 482 ft,
pdAt=O) = 2,761 psig,
PO
= 0.20 cp,
c#l = 0.09,
B, = 1.55 RBISTB,
casing di = (6.276/12) ft, and
rp = 310 hours.
Solution. The Horner plot is shown as Fig. 35.12.
Residual wellbore storage or skin effects at shut-in times
of less than 0.75 hour are apparent. The straight line,
drawn after At=0.75 hour, has a slope of -40 psigicycle,
so m=40 psiglcycle.
Eq. 37a is used to estimate permeability:
k,=
162.6(4,900)(1.55)(0.20)
=12.8 md.
WWW
Skin factor is estimated from Eq. 40a using p ,hr =
3.266 psig from Fig. 35.12:
s=1.1513
3,266-2,761
40
-log
(12.8)(12)2
(0.09)(0.20)(22.6x 10 -6)(4.25)2 1
+3.2275 =8.6.
I
TABLE 35.3-PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA
FOR EXAMPLE 4,i, =310 HOURS
At t, +At
(hours) (hours)
0.0:
0.10 310.10
0.21 310.21
0.31 310.31
0.52 310.52
0.63 310.63
0.73 370.73
0.84 370.84
0.94 37 0.94
1.05 311.05
1.75 371.15
t .36 37 1.36
1.68 311.68
1 .ss 311.99
2.51 312.51
3.04 313.04
3.46 313.46
4.08 314.08
5.03 315.03
5.97 315.97
6.07 316.07
7.01 317.01
8.06 318.06
9.00 319.00
10.05 320.05
13.09 323.09
16.02 326.02
20.00 330.00
26.07 336.07
31.03 341.03
34.98 344.98
37.54 347.54
(At, + At)
PW
At
(Psk3)
Pwn-Pwt
(PW
-
2,761
-
3,101 3,057 296
1,477 3,153 392
1,001 3,234 473
597 3,249 480
493 3,256 495
426 3,260 499
370 3,263 502
331 3,266 505
296 3,267 506
271 3,268 507
229 3,271 510
186 3,274 513
157 3,276 515
125 3,200 519
103 3,283 522
SO.6 3,286 525
77.0 3,269 528
62.6 3,293 532
52.9 3,297 536
52.1 3,297 536
45.2 3,300 539
39.5 3,303 542
35.4 3,305 544
31.8 3,306 545
24.7 3,310 549
20.4 3,313 552
16.5 3,317 556
12.9 3,320 559
11.0 3,322 561
9.9 3,323 562
9.3 3,323 562
We can estimate Ap across the skin from Eq. 10:
Ap, =0.87(40)(8.6)=299.
Average Drainage-Region Pressure-MBH. We use
the pressure-buildup test data of Table 35.3. Pressure
buildup data are plotted in Figs. 35.12. Other data are
A= ?rre2
=a(2,640)2 sq ft.
To see if we should use tp = 310 hours, we estimate tpss
using @DA lpss
=O.l from Table 35.2.
(0.09)(0.2)(22.6x 10 -6)(7r)(2,640)2(0. 1)
tpss =
(0.0002637)(12.8)
=264 hours.
Thus, we could replace tp by 264 hours in the analysis.
However, since tp is only about l.l7t,,,, we expect no
difference in j?~ from the two methods, so we use
t,=310 hours. As a result, Fig. 35.12 applies.
Fig. 35.12 does not show p* since (t,, +At)lAt does not
go to 1.0. However, we may compute p* from pws at
(tp +At)lAt= 10 by extrapolating one cycle:
p* = 3,325 + (1 cycle)(40 psi/cycle)
=3,365 psig.
35-20
Using the definition of tpDA:
(0.0002637)(12.8)(310)
rpDA = (0.09)(0.20)(22.6x 10 -6)(a)(2,640)2
=0.117.
From the curve for the circle in Fig. 35.14, poMnn(~~D,+,
=O. 117)= 1.34. Then, from our step-wise procedure,
pR=3,365- 4o p(1.34)
2.303
=3.342 psig.
This is 19 psi higher than the maximum pressure recorded.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area of well
cfi = total compressibility evaluated at p;
cWf = wellbore fluid compressibility
CA = shape factor from Table 35.2
C, = wellbore storage constant
f(t) = unit response function
F
Da=
non-Darcy (turbulence) factor
F, = turbulence factor
m = (162.6qBp)lkh
mD = dimensionless m(p)
m(p) = 2jPtdp=
real gas pseudopressure
0
m(p) = m(P) atpR
m( pi) = m(p) at initial pressure pi
m(p,,,f) = m(p) at wellbore flowing pressure p,,,f
m* = slope of m(p) plot
m = slope of p plot
m = slope of p* plot
p* = MTR pressure trend extrapolated to
infinite shut-in time
po = kh(pi -p)/( 141.2qBp) =dimensionless
pressure
PDMBH = 2.303(p*-pR)lm, dimensionless
pressure, MBH method
Aps = additional pressure drop across
altered zone
(qg 1 = absolute value of gas rate
qsf = flow rate at the sandface
rD
= r/rw =dimensionless radius
re
= external drainage radius
rw
= effective wellbore radius
s = effective skin effect
tD = dimensionless time
tDA = dimensionless time based on drainage
area, A
bDA)Pss
= time required to reach pseudosteady
state, dimensionless
t end = end of MTR in drawdown test
tpDA
= dimensionless producing time
tpss = time required to achieve pseudosteady
state
u = macroscopic (Darcy) fluid velocity
V, = volume of the wellbore
xe
= distance from well to side of square
drainage area
xf = distance from well to either end of a
vertical fracture
Subscript
wb = wellbore
Key Equations in SI Metric Units
v2p=
1
46 ap
--
3,557x10-9 k at .......,,...... (1)
where
p is in kPa,
4 is a fraction,
p is in Paas,
c, is in kPa-t,
k is in md, and
t is in hours.
4t4 =qoB, +(s, -R,q,)B, +q,B,, (6)
where
qo,qr,qw are in std m3/d,
B,,BI,B, are in res m3/std m3,
qg is in std m3/d, and
B, is in res m3/std m3,
, . . . . . . . . . (7)
where
PD = [kh(pi -~YW-W%41,
r
rD = -,
rw
3.557 x 10 -9kt
tD =
4wrrw 2
h,r,rw are in m,
k is in md,
p,pi are in Pa,
q is in m3/d,
I3 is in res m3/std m3,
p is in Pa*s,
t is in hours,
4 is a fraction, and
c,is in kPa-*.
kt
pwf =pi -m log choir, 2
-8.10
>
, . . . . . . . . . (9)
where m=2.149~lOqB~/(kh). See Eq. 7. for other
units.
ap
(-> -
-4.168~1O-~qB
at
) . . . . . . . . . . . VpC,
. (15)
PSS
where VP is in m3, See Eq. 7 for other units.
5.356x10p1E
4=
BP
In T -0.75+s
>
(PR -Pw& . .
rw
where
re =m,
s is dimensionless, and
p~,p~f are in kPa.
See Eq. 7 for other units.
pR=pi--
vpc, ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
where
Np isinm3,
VP is in m3,
B, is in res m3/std m3,
c, is in Wa-, and
p~,p; are in kPa.
V2m(p)=
1
4Wg am(p)
~-
3.557x10-9 k at ....I
. .
. .
. (17)
. (21)
. (24)
where m(p) is in kPa2 and cg is in kPa- . See Eq. 7
for other units.
,,lj,=% h, t,+o.4@,5+S+FD,IqgI, . . . . . . . (33)
where
mD = 2.708x10-
3.557x 10-9kt
tD =
dw, r,,
2
s is dimensionless,
FD, is dimensionless,
qg is in m3/d,
T,,.,TR are in K,
prc is in kPa,
k is in md,
h is in m, and
m(p;),m(p,j) are in kPa2/Pa.s.
See Eq. 7 for other units.
k
0
h= _ 2.149x 106qoB,~o
. .
(374
.._
16. Homer. D.R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc.. Third World
Pet. Gong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-23.
17. Matthews. C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,
m Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 182-91
See Eqs. 7 and 9 for units.
k,h=
m*
. . . . . . . . . .
WW
where m* is in kPa2/Pa* s-cycle. See Eq. 33 for other
units.
s=1.151 (I? ) -log4pc;rw,2 .,.lO),
,.........................
(384
where m is in kPa/cycle. See Eq. 7 for other units.
References
I. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Fknv Tests
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) I.
2. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
3. Dake, L.P.: Fundmmntals ofReservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scien-
tific Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1978).
4. Gas Well Testing-Theory and Practice, fourth ed., Energy
Resources and Conservation Board, Calgary, AIL, Canada (1979).
5. Lee, John: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1982).
6. Pressure Analysis Methods, Reprint Series No. 9, SPE, Richard-
son. TX (1967).
7. Pressure Transient Testing Methods, Reprint Series No. 14, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1980).
8. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the
Laplace Transformation of Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans.
AIME (1949) 186, 305-24.
9. Martin, J.C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reser-
voirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Analyses, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309-l 1.
10. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: An Investigation of Well-
bore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Fimte
Difference Treatment, Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970) 291-97;
Trans., AIME, 249.
11. Die& D.N.: Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From
Buildup Surveys, .f. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965) 955-59; Trans.,
AIME. 234.
12. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966)
624-36; Trans., AIME, 237.
13. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Gas Well Testing With
Turbulence, Damage and Wellbore Storage, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1968) 877-87; Trans., AIME, 243.
14. Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F.: p/z Abnormally Pressured Gas
Reservoirs, paper SPE 10125 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and ExhibItion, San Antonio. Oct. 4-7.
15. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr: The Esti-
mation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole
Pressure Build-Up Characteristics, Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
91-104
Chapter 36
Development Plan for Oil and Gas Reservoirs
Steven W. Poston, Texas A&M u.*
Introduction
The following discussion on the determination of the
proper development plan for oil reservoirs or gas reser-
voirs is a summation of the current thinking in the oil in-
dustry. Conditions have changed dramatically since
R.C. Craze wrote this chapter for the original book in
1962. At that time, the price of crude oil and gas was so
low that the industry was concerned mainly with
recovering the grass reserves fmm a field.
Todays economics have changed our outlook to such
a degree that the need for a logical and efficient plan for
the orderly development of an oil or gas field is of utmost
importance. The bidding competition for reserves often
has caused successful field development to be at least
partially dependent on getting the most out of the ground
with the minimum number of wells.
The oil business was originally an endeavor that al-
lowed one to explore for hydrocarbons in relatively
unexplored areas. The probability of finding large fields
was quite high, and an excellent return on investment
resulted when a new field was found. A majority of the
large oil and gas fields have been found after 25 years of
intensive exploration. The number of companies search-
ing for hydrocarbons has increased while at the same
time the fields are harder to locate. Now we are a very
competitive industry in which there is little room for er-
mr. In other words, the rules of the game have changed.
New technology and thinking about logical field
development has evolved during the last 20 years. Con-
tinuity of producing intervals between wells is now
known to be much more important than previously
thought. Advances in well test analysis have allowed the
engineer and geologist to estimate reservoir size and in-
trawell continuity. Improved seismic techniques have
allowed geophysics to play an increasingly important
role in allocating well locations for efficient reservoir
drainage.
Author of the ongmal chapter on this topic I the 1962 edition was &pert C Craze.
A person interested in developing an oil or a gas field
must use a basic understanding of geology, engineering,
and economics. Other, more sophisticated techniques
may have to be used at times to arrive at a realistic
development plan. However, when one begins to
develop a field, a number of questions need to be mulled
over and should be discussed with colleagues. The think-
ing process occurs as follows.
Is the Well Being Drilled to Develop Proved, Proba-
ble, or Possible Reserves? The drilling of a develop-
ment well in the middle of a field for proved reserves is
considerably different than drilling an outpost well to
help define the field limits. Greater reserves must be
assigned to well questing for probable or possible
reserves than for an infield development well. The drill-
ing for known reserves often allows for a low return on
investment. However, the reward must be greater if the
risk of drilling and not finding the hydrocarbon ac-
cumulation increases. The benchmark for the go/no-go
decision for the drilling of a well is a function of not only
the return on investment but also the degree of risk to be
incurred.
Answering these questions requires a combination of
all disciplines in the petroleum industry. The greater the
certainty of the reserves, the less the need for geological
and engineering opinions.
What Are the Reservoir Rock and Fluid
Characteristics? Field development is conducted far
differently in a clean, well-developed sand than it is in a
place such as the low-porosity and low-permeability
Austin chalk region of Texas. High porosities and
permeabilities and low oil viscosities permit high offtake
rates and wide well spacing. These large per well
recoveries often preclude the need for the serious study
of the minimum economic reserves requirements.
Development drilling will continue at a different pace
for a continuous and homogeneous sand than for a field
composed of a series of productive intervals sandwiched
between shale layers of unknown lateral extent. A well
completed in a series of sand stringers of uncertain area1
extent should be placed on production for a time to see
how much it actually will produce. Extensive drilling in
such a field should wait until the economic worth of the
total effort is determined from field production figures.
Any knowledge concerning the geology of the pros-
pect attained before the well is drilled would furnish in-
sight into the probable number of completion zones and
where the completion intervals should be. The proper
well spacing would be predicated on this knowledge.
The type of drive mechanism often will predicate the
placement of the development wells. If a water drive is
expected, the wells should be placed in the most updip
locations possible. However, the updip placement of the
wells would be a disaster if there is an expanding gas cap
drive. The information is derived from reservoir
engineering evaluations.
What Is the Surface Environment? Development con-
siderations are completely different when drilling in a
shallow well in west Texas or a Jurassic well in the
North Sea. Platform rigs often are used to drill offshore
wells. The number of drilling slots is limited, and, once
the rig is moved off, it is often prohibitively expensive to
move back on if new ideas arise.
What Surface Production Facilities Are Required?
There is no sense in drilling an offshore development
well if there are no facilities available for production
hookup. The production facilities could cost much more
than the value of the reserves. Drilling on land in an area
where costs may be reduced considerably could allow
the production facility costs to be only a fraction of the
reserves worth.
By What Method is the Product to be Sold? Gas must
be transmitted by pipeline, whereas oil must be trucked
or lightered to a receiving facility. For an oil well,
revenue usually begins upon completion, while a gas
well must wait for the installation of a pipeline. The cash
flow situation for development of either an oil or a gas
field is usually different because of the type of product.
What Is the Relationship Between the Costs and the
Profit Margin? The margin of profit for an operator will
vary considerably according to geographical location and
the type of lease. Also, overhead costs may be greater
for a large company than for a smaller company. The
cost of money may be less for a large company because
of a significant and established cash flow. Foreign profit
margins are generally much less than margins from U.S.
oil and gas sales.
Readers will see other areas of uncertainty in addition
to those discussed here. However, the following discus-
sion will shed light on some of the more important points
that one should remember concerning the formulation of
a development plan for either an oil reservoir or a gas
reservoir. There are no handy formulas to use nor are
there any tried-and-true rules to follow. Proper field
development for a particular set of conditions requires a
combination of a variety of oil field disciplines.
Oil and Gas Differences
Method of Sales
Development plans for oil or gas reservoirs generally
follow different paths not only because of the optimal
depletion characteristics but because of the method of
sales.
Crude oil is a reasonably stable substance and, being
liquid, may be loaded easily into some type of container
for transportation to a sales point. The container is often
at or very near atmospheric pressure. The container may
be a truck, barge, or pipeline. On most land locations.
sales may begin from a well as soon as the production
equipment is installed. Also, since oil is contained and
moved easily, the buyer of the crude oil may not always
be constant.
Natural gas must be kept in some type of container so
it will not dissipate into the atmosphere. The high com-
pressibility of the gas permits a smaller container to be
used with increased confining pressures. Economics dic-
tates that gas is to be transported through pipelines. The
pipeline company must be assured that sufficient
reserves are present to justify the expense of installing
the pipeline. These capital expenditures often require
long-term commitments from all the interested parties.
Sufficient reserves must be proved to justify the ex-
pense of laying a pipeline. A number of wells may have
to be drilled before any income is derived from the initial
discovery. The operator must drill sufficient wells to en-
sure the quantities of gas required to be delivered over
the contract period.
The oil may be transported out by barge or tank truck
if the reserves do not justify the expense of installing a
pipeline in the case of oil production. Operating ex-
penses are greater when oil is moved by tank truck or
barge, but the capital investment is negligible when com-
pared to pipeline installation.
Development drilling in an oil field often may be con-
ducted in a more growth-oriented manner than that in a
gas field. Generally speaking, the capital investment re-
quired to develop a gas field is greater than for develop-
ing the same reserves in an oil field because a pipeline
always is required to transport the gas. Non-capital-
intensive barges or trucks may be used to transport oil.
The Best Depletion Technique
There are fundamental differences between developing
and depleting an oil reservoir and a gas reservoir. These
differences are discussed next.
Oil Reservoirs. Every effort should be made to maintain
reservoir pressure as high as possible during the deple-
tion of an oil reservoir. A high reservoir pressure helps to
preclude the installation of some type of artificial lift
system or some method to aid in recovery. High reser-
voir pressures usually result from an active water drive
or gas cap encroachment, both of which displace oil and
help to push it toward the wellbore. These displacement
mechanisms result in a reduced oil saturation at a
relatively high abandonment pressure.
Gas Reservoirs. The compressibility of gas may be up
to 1,000 times greater than relatively incompressible
oils. These high compressibilities can allow the majority
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OIL & GAS RESERVOIRS 36-3
of the reserves in a gas reservoir to be depleted by simple
gas expansion. In fact, ultimate recoveries of 80% of the
original gas in place (OGIP) may be achieved by
pressure depleting a gas reservoir, even though the re-
maining gas saturation may be quite high. Conversely, if
a gas is trapped behind an advancing water front with a
correspondingly lower residual saturation, the remaining
gas left behind will be greater because the high com-
pressibility of the gas allows a much greater quantity of
gas to be trapped at these higher reservoir pressures.
Example Problem l-Dry Gus Reservoir. The exam-
ple given in Table 36.1 indicates the effect of the type of
drive mechanism on ultimate recovery from a theoretical
dry gas reservoir. Water is assumed to invade the reser-
voir uniformly in the water influx case. The assumption
is not necessarily true in the operational context, but the
illustration is made to show the necessity of abandoning
gas reservoirs at low pressures.
The effect of the gas FVF in the lower-pressure
reaches of the reservoir allow the pressure depletion case
to recover more gas.
The previous discussion shows how the development
of an oil reservoir may be conducted in a piecemeal and
leisurely manner while development of a gas reservoir
should be carried out with an eye toward maximizing the
reservoir offtake rate to aid in the occurrence of pressure
depletion conditions. To arrive at a development plan
two basic steps need to be accomplished. These are (1)
the characterization of the reservoir and (2) the predic-
tion of the performance of the reservoir under various ex-
ploitation schemes and operating conditions.
Characterization of the Reservoir
Geology
Interpretation of Paleo-Environments. The limits of a
reservoir and the possible variation of the porosity and
permeability within the reservoir may be inferred by
studying the well logs and cores taken from wildcat and
appraisal wells. The knowledge gained from these
studies would be of great help in setting wellsite loca-
tions early in the life of a development drilling project.
Usually the reservoir productive characteristics are
known only after the field or reservoir is maturely
developed.
The nature of the reservoir rock often is reflected in the
sedimentary record. The sedimentary section is
penetrated during the drilling for oil and gas. The
character of the sediments may be inferred by logs or by
core analyses. For a number of years, geologists have
been studying and relating currently occurring sedimen-
tary processes to reservoir rock paleo-environments.
Each sedimentary process has been shown to have a par-
ticular porosity and permeability distribution and to have
a reasonably predictable area1 extent.
The interpretation of the probable paleo-environment
by log and core analysis of a sedimentary section could
be of inestimable value early in the life of field develop-
ment. The following discussion gives a brief overview of
geological interpretive work.
The literature contains an overabundance of work on
the evolution of elastic sediments. The reservoir
characteristics of a elastic sediment (mainly sandstones)
often is related largely to its depositional history.
TABLE 36.1 -EXAMPLE OF EFFECTS
OF DRIVE MECHANISM ON RECOVERY
V, = 6,400 acre-ft
Q = 22%
s, = 23%
s, = 34%
G = 8.878 x log scf
Cumulative Production
(109 scf)
Pressure Volumetric Waterdrive
(PW
(set% ft) Reservoir Reservoir
3,150 188 - -
2,500 150 1 .a 5.8
2,000 120 3.2 6.4
500 28 7.6 -
LOW res?rvOlr pressres Will not be ObtaIned because Of me
additlonal energy supplied by the encroaching water, therefore,
Bg will be at a higher value at abandonment.
Therefore, a predictive interpretation may be done with
some degree of certainty.
Less is known of carbonates. The chemical nature of
the depositional processes to form carbonate reservoirs
and the usually extensive diagenetic history cloud the
true nature of the reservoir character. A large amount of
data-i.e., a considerable number of wells-is required
before the nature of a carbonate reservoir may be
discerned.
Clastic Reservoirs. The depositional environment may
be estimated by studying electric log sections that pass
through the zone of interest and by analyzing core
samples taken from the zone. l-3 The interpretation of
these paleo-environments is derived from the study of
modem depositional environments. The character of
modem streams, deltas, and beaches has been well
documented. 4-6
Bernard and LeBlanc divided the major depositional
environments into continental, transitional, and deep
marine classifications. Continental and deep marine
deposits do not contain widespread oil or gas accumula-
tions and are not discussed further. Transitional
sediments may be divided into coastal interdeltaic and
deltaic environments. The coastal interdeltaic area usual-
ly consists of linear, relatively narrow sand beaches,
which extend seaward into a normal and then a deep-
water environment. The sands composing the normal
marine environment are usually very fine grained and are
deposited in conjunction with a high percentage of clay.
The generally low permeabilities displayed by normal
marine sediments preclude a high incidence of commer-
cial oil and gas deposits. 8 Deepwater marine sediments
are composed mostly of shales and are on the whole
nonproductive.
The most common and important hydrocarbon-bearing
sandstone reservoirs are of deltaic origin. These
sediments usually are deposited in a high-energy, often
fluctuating atmosphere. In deltaic environments en-
countered most often during oil and gas drilling opera-
tions, delta-bar and distributary channel sediments are
the two most prevalent sedimentary environments found,
while offshore bars may be found in the delta front areas.
36-4
DELTAI C CHANNEL DEPOSI TS
GAMMA RN PERML4Bltll-Y (MD1
a
01
r
b
DELTAI C BAR DEPOSI TS
GAMMA R&Y PERMEABILITY IMDI
a1 10 low
-3
Grain Size
Fig. 1&l-idealized porosity and permeability profiles-bar and channel deposits.
The delta-bar sequence is typified by an upward grada-
tion from shallow, marine clays at the base through a
section that shows an increasing grain size. The pro-
gressive upward coarsening of the sand-grain size is the
result of the delta advancing over the marine clays. A
high-energy regime is seen to increase in the vertical
direction. A typical electric log section grades upward
from a shale section (deeper water) to gradually increas-
ing amounts of sand9 (see Fig. 36.1). The section con-
tains crossbeds, ripple laminations, and modest amounts
of quartz. Delta-bar sands grade downdip into pro-delta
silts and clays and grade updip into the organic-rich,
fresh- and brackish-water clays. Delta sands often are
limited in areal extent, even though encompassing a
thick sedimentary sequence. Vertical reservoir continui-
ty may be restricted because of the large number of shale
stringers present in the delta front sequence.
Distributary (river) channels transport sediments to the
delta front. Distributary channels cut through deltas in a
variety of meandering ways. Even though they comprise
only a small portion of sedimentary record, these
sediments often transect deltaic or offshore bar sand
reservoirs and incur reservoir discontinuities in an other-
wise homogeneous system. Fig. 36.2 is an example of
such a discontinuity in the South Pass 27 field located in
the offshore waters of south Louisiana. lo The field is in-
cluded in the sand/shale sequence generated by prior
deposition of the Mississippi River. Notice how the
channel cut through the previously deposited sediments
and formed a reservoir separate from the original.
Distributary channel sediments initially are deposited
in a higher-energy atmosphere, and, hence, display a
coarser grain size toward the bottom of the section. The
effect of grain size gradation may be seen in Fig. 36.1.
These deposits are characterized by boxy log shapes with
a very high sand content. The gradation of the sands is
typified by an abrupt change from a shale to a very clean
sand and then to a gradual increase in shale/sand ratio in
the upward direction. Deposition is parallel to the source
of the sediments.
Shoreline or barrier-island sandstones are represented
by a sequence of normal marine muds grading upward
into laminated sandstones. The section may be overlain
by aeolian dune sandstones, which are the emergent por-
tion of the shoreline. Sand gradation is generally
coarsening upward. The sand grains are well sorted, and
the quartz content of the sand is quite high. Wave action
has reduced the less resistant feldspars to clay-sized par-
ticles, which have been transported to lower-energy
regimes. Deposition is normal to the source of the
sediments. I1 The sand bodies contain very few shale
laminations and they are characterized by excellent
lateral continuity. I2 The lowermost layer of a barrier bar
sand comprises interbedded sand, silts, and shales. The
second layer is made up of a bioturbated thick sand se-
quence. The penultimate layer consists of laminated
sands laid down on the beach or the upper shore face of
the barrier bar. The uppermost layer usually consists of
oxidized aeolian deposits. l3
Barrier bar reservoirs offer an excellent opportunity for
hydrocarbon exploration. The reservoirs usually are
overlain by lagoonal clays, which form an excellent trap.
Barrier sands usually exhibit a high degree of internal
continuity and are deposited parallel to the coastline.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OIL & GAS RESERVOIRS
36-5
NORTH
S.L. 1007 1
SOUTH
S.L. 1012
I
NO. 5.30 no. 54 llo.1n MD.lM NO. 115 NO. 203
r -rit a 9 0 l
oRlttLo lM2 DRILLED 12/H ORILLEDli74 ORILLEO 1Ull DRILLED 5hS ORILLED3,74
rA lOrr2
Fig. 36.2--Reservoir discontinuity-channel and fringe sands.
Carbonate Reservoirs. Carbonate reservoirs are com-
pletely different in nature from sandstone reservoirs. The
composition of sandstone reservoirs is largely a product
of the depositional environment; carbonate reservoirs are
a product of not only the depositional environment but
also mechanical processes that occur after deposition. l4
The heterogeneities caused by the variety of formative
processes may form extremely complex fields such as
the Means field shown in Fig. 36.3. Is Note the field
heterogeneity. Carbonates may be deposited in both
shallow- and deepwater marine environments. The fields
may range from a few acres (pinnacle reefs) to regional
in size (carbonate banks). Jardine16 has discussed how
carbonate fields may be formed in a variety of settings.
Biohenn Reefs. Bioherm or pinnacle reefs usually are
characterized by their relatively small size with a high
degree of relief. The reefs contain a high percentage of
skeletal material at the outermost portions of the ac-
cumulation. The interior of the reef is composed of finer-
grained material and has less porosity and permeability
than the outer limits.
Biostrome Reefs. Biostrome reefs were formed in less
rapidly subsiding basins and may extend for hundreds of
square miles. Like the biohenn reefs, the biostrome reefs
contain a high percentage of skeletal material. Horizon-
tal stratification is present.
Fig. 36.3-Means field schematic.
IF
PRIMARY POROSITY SECONDARY POROSITY
CONFIGURATION
BI0HEP.M REEF
INCREASE K R 0
BANK (SHELF)
DOLOMIlIZAllON
DECREASE d R K
DECREASE 0 & K
PORE SIZE AND K
CEMENTATION
Fig. 36.4-Distribution of porosity within various types of carbonate reservoirs.
Shelf Carbonates. Shelf carbonates are usually sheet-
like or tabular bodies composed of a high percentage of
skeletal material, enclosed by surrounding fine-grained
material.
Nearshore Deposits. Nearshore deposits are usually of
a thin and restricted nature and are generally fine grain-
ed. This type of deposit is of minor significance in oil
and gas production.
Fig. 36.4 I6 summarizes the characteristics of the
variety of carbonate deposits. Note the different types of
porosity and the processes that affect the reservoir
quality.
The development of oil and gas fields in carbonate
sediments requires the study of the fossil content, any
postdepositional alterations, and characterization of the
pore space. This type of reservoir often displays two
dissimilar porosity-permeability systems.
Extent of Shale Stringers. The knowledge of the proba-
ble lateral composition of a sandstone body soon after
Fig. 36.5-Continuity of shale intercalations.
discovery would be of considerable aid for planning of
the future development drilling program. Weber com-
bined studies done principally by Zeito, I8 Verrien et
al., I9 and Sneider et al. * to arrive at Fig. 36.5. The
figure summarizes a number of efforts to estimate the ef-
fect of depositional environment on the extent of shale
stringers on sandstone reservoirs. Note how the marine
sands possess the most extensive shale barriers, while
the more poorly sorted point bars and distributary chan-
nels possess the shale members of least extent. Of
course, the more widely correlative a producing interval
is, the easier it is to predict future productive patterns.
Many channels and point bars have been laid down in
such a widely fluctuating atmosphere that correlation
between wells is often difficult if not impossible. The
recognition of the possible extent of the shale intercala-
tions early in the life of development in the field would
be of tremendous aid in the spotting of well locations.
Engineering
In&awe11 continuity of the producing zone is one of the
main ingredients for successfully depleting an oil or gas
reservoir of the majority of the potential reserves. Addi-
tional development drilling often is required in a field
when sand stringers are found to be discontinuous be-
tween producing wells.
The differential movement of fluids within a reservoir
caused by rock heterogeneities was noted first in the
engineering sense by Stiles.2 Poor response to the in-
stallation of many of the waterflood projects installed in
some of the west Texas carbonate reservoirs in the
1950s and 1960s produced a spate of studies in-
vestigating the often discontinuous nature of the reser-
voirs. Refs. 15 and 22 through 25 are good reviews of
some of these investigations. The determination of the
degree of noncommunication between adjacent wells
may be quantified to a certain degree by geological and
reservoir engineering studies. The better-known tech-
niques for estimating the degree of reservoir continuity
are discussed next.
Net Pay/Net Connected Pay Ratio. Irregularities
within sedimentary rocks often cause discontinuous pro-
ductive horizons between wells. The degree of these
discontinuities may be discerned by correlating the in-
dividual pay zones between adjacent wells. If a par-
ticular sand stringer is seen in one well but not in the
other then it is called discontinuous. Sands are known to
become more discontinuous with distance. A method to
estimate the degree of producing-sand-interval intrawell
communication is discussed in a paper by Stiles. 23 The
continuity between wells is defined as the fraction of the
total pay sand volume that is connected to another well.
A productive stringer is defined as continuous when
correlatable between two wells. The stringer is classed as
discontinuous if it is not correlative. Well pairs are com-
pared, and eventually a figure may be drawn that sum-
marizes the decline in reservoir continuity with distance.
Fig. 36.6 is the result of one of these studies.26 Notice
the decline of continuity with distance between wells.
The figure shows that the number of producing zone
discontinuities was found to be much greater than ex-
pected when additional infill drilling was carried out in
the Means field. A similar type of investigation by
Stiles23 in the Fullerton-Cleat-fork Unit had indicated a
degree of reservoir continuity of 0.72. The estimate
compares quite favorably with a material balance of the
field.
\
A more recently published paper indicated that the
material balance and the volumetric in-place estimate for
a number of reservoirs in the Meren field compared very
favorably. * A sand-by-sand correlation of these same
reservoirs in the Met-en field indicated a degree of con-
tinuity approaching that of unity. One could gather from
these studies that communication was uniform
throughout the reservoirs and additional infield drilling
in all likelihood would not discover many discontinuous
sand members. However, infield drilling in the
Fullerton-Clearfork Unit could prove fruitful because of
the good probability of penetrating previously undrained
sand members.
Material Balance Studies. The results of volumetric
reserves estimates may be compared to the material
balance estimate. The material balance estimate is a
function of production, which is derived from the move-
ment of fluid through connected producing zones.
Volumetric calculations are determined from net sand
maps, which often do not take into account the effect of
sand discontinuities on production. The difference be-
tween the results of the calculations gives an idea of the
degree of discontinuity of a particular reservoir. Stiles23
used the idea when studying the Fullerton-Clearfork
Unit. The material balance method indicated 738 million
bbl OIP. A volumetric estimate showed 1.03 billion bbl
OIP. The ratio of the material balance estimate to
volumetric estimate is 0.72. The low degree of com-
munication would be an indicator of the successful out-
come of an infield drilling project.
Computer Simulation Methods. Reservoir simulation
studies are simply an extension of the material balance
technique. However, the reservoir simulator allows one
to take into account the producing and rock
characteristics of individual areas within the reservoir.
36-7
Fig. 36.6-Continuous pay-Means field.
Details of reservoir simulation are given in Chap. 48.
A study by Weber 28 is an excellent example of the use
of core and log interpretation principles to aid in deter-
mining the paleo-environment. These interpretations
then were used in a computer simulation program, which
was able to typify the D 1.30 reservoir in the Obigbo
field with a high degree of accuracy. Fig. 36.7 is the
type log of the reservoir. Note the differentiation of the
producing interval into four discrete depositional en-
vironments. Each of the environments is represented by
an interval of differing productive characteristics. The
variations of these environments were noted in the sec-
tion of each well penetrating the D 1.30 sand interval.
Core analyses indicated the range of permeabilities that
each of the units would exhibit. A permeability distribu-
tion map was drawn for the reservoir as a whole from
these machinations. Subsequent modeling of the
drainage patterns within the reservoir could be carried
out with a high degree of certainty since the pattern of
deposition had been replicated.
Interference Testing. The analysis of reservoir
pressures has been an age-old reservoir evaluation tool in
the petroleum industry. The similarity of pressures
within a group of wells usually helps prove or disprove
the interwell communication. An abnormally different
pressure from a particular well is often the first indica-
tion of reservoir separation. Further analysis may
disclose a previously undetected fault separating the
wells in question. Sometimes wells are seen to display
similar static bottomhole pressures even though there is a
known fault separation. The similarity of pressures is
caused by the production from each well being sufficient
to draw the reservoir pressure down to the same degree.
A transient pressure test must be run between the well
pairs to estimate the degree of interwell communication.
The alteration in the producing or injection rate of a
well will have an effect on the pressure in a connected
observation well. The study of these effects is called
transient-pressure or interference testing. In-
terference testing may be done by either a long-term pro-
duction or injection change in a well (interference
testing) or by very short-term rate alterations (pulse
testing). Ref. 29 presents a detailed description of the
two methods.
Fig. 36.7-Type log-D 1.30 sand, Obigbo field.
29
D I.30 RESERVOIR
LITHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Interference tests comprise a relatively long-term rate
alteration. The effect of the rate alteration will be noted
in the observation well when there is interwell continui-
ty. Of course, one would assume the presence of a
discontinuity if the pressure fluctuation is not seen in the
observation well.
The field application of an interference test is well
documented in Ref. 30. A fieldwide spacing rule of 40
acres per well had been instituted in the North Anderson
Ranch field in Lea County, NM. The engineering effort
0
32 WELL A
28
WELL C
0
V&ELL B
l l
l
l l +
2
R 32 W
T
15
s
T
16
S
was designed to estimate the true drainage area with the
field. Four wells were produced and the resulting
pressure decline was noted in a central observation well.
(See Fig. 36.8 for the plan of the well layout.) The pro-
duction from the four offsetting wells declined 11 psi
after 165 hours production. The diffusivity equation
was used to calculate the expected pressure drop for
similar conditions. The theoretically predicted pressure
drop was 12 psi. The use of interference tests indicated a
well drainage area greatly in excess of the initial 40-acre
estimate. An go-acre drilling pattern would effect a
similar recovery with a greatly reduced number of wells.
Pulse testing is often more convenient than in-
terference testing. 3* The use of very precise pressure
gauges coupled with individual design characteristics
often allows pulse tests to be carried out within 1 or 2
days. Minor variations in production or injection
volumes are able to send a pulse to observation wells.
The variation of rates provides a footprint, which
may be noted by precision gauges placed in the observa-
tion wells. A pulse test is able to discern reservoir
heterogeneities in a manner similar to the previously
discussed interference test. However, the test may be
carried out in a much shorter time because of the preci-
sion of the equipment. Ramey 32 discusses the use of the
pulse testing technique to determine reservoir
anisotropy.
Geophysics
3D Seismic Techniques. The three-dimensional (3D)
seismic technique is a system of seismic data collection
and processing that permits the proper vertical images to
be developed and displayed by solving three orthogonal-
wave equation migrations. The 3D method is a useful
technique to map subsurface structures and to define the
field configuration better previous to development. The
detailed results allow the fault boundaries and
Fig. 36.8~Interference test plan.
36-9
Fig. 36.9-Comparison of 2- and 3D seismic surveys.
stratigraphic limits of a reservoir to be mapped accurate-
ly soon after discovery. The number of appraisal wells
would be reduced, and a more reliable estimate of the
reserves could be obtained early in the life of the pros-
pect. The knowledge of these two important facts would
materially affect the overall drilling program.
The method is considerably more expensive than the
more mundane seismic techniques, but it has been
estimated that 100 sq miles of seismic covera e may be
obtained for the cost of one appraisal well.
35
The 3D
method provides greater structural definition than the
better-known two-dimensional (2D) techniques for the
following reasons. 34-38
1. The placement of the vertical and horizontal reflec-
tion images is more accurate. Additionally, both vertical
and horizontal sections may be presented for any depth
and for any direction.
2. Defraction events are eliminated.
3 The signal strength normally lost because of scatter-
ing problems is restored.
4. The increased control point density permits more
accurate mapping.
5. The greater amount of data improves the statistical
base for estimating near-surface corrections and
velocities.
A particularly interesting example of using the 3D
seismic method to evaluate a prospect and to help plan
the drilling program may be seen in a study conducted in
the Gulf of Thailand. 39 Three wildcat wells had dis-
closed the presence of probably commercial quantities of
gas. However, the prospect appeared to be faulted and a
number of appraisal wells would be required to evaluate
the potential in this relatively unexplored region. A
region of 120 km2 was subjected to a 3D seismic recon-
naissance shot at 100-m intervals. The program afforded
a greater definition of the megastructure, indicated
faulting was much more prevalent than previously in-
dicated, and also helped prove the viability of the
prospect.
Figs. 36.9a and 36.9b compare the structural inter-
pretations obtained by conventional 2D results with
those obtained by 3D vertical migration. Note the in-
crease in the complexity of the structure. The clarity of
the 3D subsurface structural interpretation results from
the more sharply focused nature of the process. The 2D
interpretations give a more blurred or distorted picture
because of the coarser sampling, which results in a
statistically poorer presentation.
A survey conducted in offshore Trinidad4 resulted in
a change in the platform location and drilling plan of one
prospect and the deletion of another prospect from
development until additional exploration in other
faultblocks was conducted.
Prediction of Reservoir Performance
After the reservoir has been characterized adequately, as
described previously, a development plan must be
selected. Performance of the reservoir under various ex-
ploitation schemes needs to be determined before select-
ing the final development plan. The modem tools used
by the reservoir engineer to predict the performance of
the reservoir are reservoir simulators or mathematical
models (see Chap. 48). A general description of the
simulation steps and the results from simulation follows.
9. Sneider. R.M.. Tinker. C.N.. and Meckel. L.D.: Deltaic En-
vironmental Reservoir Types and Their Characteristics, .I. Per.
Tech. (Nov. 1978) 1538-46.
IO
II
S!mulation Steps
Data Preparation.
1. Select the appropriate simulator to use in the
study-i.e., black oil. compositional, 2D, 3D, etc.
Hartman. J.A. and Paynter, D.D.: Drainage Anomalies m Gull
Coast Tertiary Sandstones, J. Per. Tech. (Oct. 1979) 1313-22.
Pryor. W.A. and F&on, K.: Geometry of Reservoir-Type Sand-
bodies in the Holocene Rio Cirande Delta and Comparison With
Ancient River Analogs. paper SPE 7045 prcsentcd at the 1978
SPEiDOE Enhanced Oil-Recovety Symposium. Tulsa. April
16-19.
12
2. Divide the reservoir into a number of cells-i.e..
establish a grid system for the reservoir.
3. Assign rock properties, geometry, initial fluid
distribution, and fluid properties for each cell. The rock
properties include permeability, porosity. relative
permeability, capillary pressure, etc. The cell geometry
includes depth, thickness, and location of wells. Fluid
properties are specified by the usual PVT data and phase
behavior if required.
13
14
Poston, S.W., Berry, P., and Molokowu. F.W.: Meren
Field-The Geology and Resewou Characteristics of a Nigenan
Offshore Field, /. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1983) 2095-2 104.
LeBlanc. R.J.: Distnbutlon and Continuity of Sandstone Reher-
vain-Parts I and 2, J. Per. Twh. (July j977) 776-804.
Harris, D.G. and Hewitt, C.H.: Synergism in Reservoir
Management-The Geologtc Perspectwe. j. Per. Tech. (July
1977) 76 I-70.
15
16.
17.
4. Assign the production and/or injection schedule for
wells and the well constraints that need to be maintained.
Kunkel. G.C. and Bagley, J.W. Jr.: Controlled Waterflooding.
Means Queen Reservoir, J. Pe/. Tech. (Dec. 1965) 1385-90.
lardine, D., er (I/.: Distribution and Contmu~ty of Carbonate
Reservoirs, J. Per. Tech. (July 1977) 873-85.
Weber. K.J.: Influence of Common Sedimentar): Structure\ on
Fluid Flow in Reservoir Models, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1982)
665-72.
18.
Performance Prediction. If no historical data are
available, the next step is to make the necessary com-
puter runs to obtain the performance of the wells and the
reservoir as a function of time and various plans of
development.
Zeito, G.A.: Interbedding of Shale Breaks and Reservoir
Heterogeneities, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1965) 1223-28: Trcrns..
AIME, 234.
19.
20.
If historical data are available, the first step is to match
the historical performance. The reservoir performance is
calculated and the results are compared with the field-
recorded histories of the wells. If the agreement is not
satisfactory, adjustments in the data (such as the relative
permeability, the specific permeability. the porosity, the
aquifer, etc.) are made until a satisfactory match is
achieved. The model then is used to predict the perfor-
mance for alternative plans of operating the reservoir.
21.
22.
Verrien, J.P., Courand. G., and Montadert. L.: Applications of
Production Geology Methods to Reservoir Characteristics
-Analysis From Outcrops Observations. Proc . Seventh World
Pet. Gong.. Mexlco City (1967) 425.
Sneider. R. M., er al. : Predicting Reservoir Rock Geometry and
Continuity in Pennsylvanian Reserwr. Elk City Field,
Oklahoma, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1977) X5 l-66.
Stiles. W.E.: Use of Permeability Distributmn in Wateflood
Calculations, Trans., AIME (1949) 189. 9-14.
Driscoll, V.J. and Howell, R.G.: Recovery Optimization
Through Intill Drilling-Concepts, Analysis, and Field Results.
paper SPE 4977 presented at the 1974 SPE Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oct. 6-9.
23.
In summary, the reservoir engineer obtains from the
simulators the reservoir performance for different
development plans, including various displacement
mechanisms (such as water or gas injection, miscible
displacement, etc.), different number and location of
wells, and effect of flow rates. The reservoir perfor-
mance then is used in the appropriate economic analysis
to decide on the optimal development plan.
Stiles, L.H.: Optimizing Waterflood Recover), in a Mature
Waterflood, The Fullerton Clearfork Unit, paper SPE 6198
presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct.
3-6.
24.
25.
George, C.J and Stiles, L.H.: Improved Techniques for
Evaluating C; bonate Waterfloods in West Texac, J. Pet. Tech.
(Nov. 1978) 1547-54.
Application for Waterflood Response Allowable for Wasson
Denver Unit, Shell Oil Co., testimony presented before Texas
Railroad Commission, Austin (March 21. 1972) Docket
8-A-61677.
26.
27.
References
Barber, A.H. Jr. et al.: Intill Drilling to Increase Reserves-AC-
tual Experience in Nine Fields in Texas, Oklahoma and Illinois.
J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1983) 1530-38.
Poston, S.W., Lubojacky. R.W. and Aruna. M.: Meren
Field-An Engineering Review. J. Pet. Tech. (NW 1983)
2105-12.
I.
6.
I.
8.
Krueger, W.C. Jr.: Depositional Environments of Sandstones as
Interpreted from Electrical Measurements-An Introduction.
Trans.. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Sot. (1968) XVIII, 226-41.
Selly, R.C.: Subsurface Environmental Analysis of North Sea
Sediments, AAPG (Feb. 1976) 60, No. 2. 184-95.
Berg, R.R.: Point Bar Origin of Fall River Sandstone Reser-
voirs, Northeastern uiyormng. AAPG (1968) 2116-22.
Sedimenza~ Environmenrs and Fucies. H.G. Reading (ed.),
Elsevier Press, New York City (1978).
Remeck, H.E. and Singh, 1.B.: DeposittonaL Seduncniur$ En-
vironments, second edition, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York City
(1975).
Scholle, P.A. and Spearing, D.: Sandstone Depositional En-
vironments, AAPG (1982) Memoir 3 1.
Bernard, H.A. and LeBlanc, R.J.: Resume of Quatemaq Geology
ofrhe Northwestern GulfofMexico Province, Princeton U. Press,
Pnnceton, N.J. (1965) 137-85.
Berg, R.A. : Studies of Reservoir Sun&ones. Prentice Hall,
En&wood Cliffs, N.J. (1985).
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Weber, K.J. er al.: Simulation of Water InJection in a Banier-
Bar-Type, Oil-Rim Reservoir in Nigeria. J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1978) 1555-65.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Adwnce.s in Well Tat Analysis. Monograph
Series. SPE, Richardson (1977) 5. 264
Matthies, E.P.: Practical Application of Interference Tests, J.
Per. Tech. (March 1964) 249-52.
Johnson, C.R., Greenkom, R.A., and Woods, E.G.: Pulsc-
Testing: A New Method for Describing Reselvou Flow Properties
Between Well, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1966) 1599-1602; Trans..
AIME, 237.
Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Forma-
tlons-A Case History, J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1975) 1290-98.
Brown, A.R.: Three-D Seismic Surveying for Field Develop-
ment Comes of Age. Oil & Gas J. (Nov. 17, 1980) 63-65.
Johnson, J.P. and Bone. M.P.: Understanding Field Develop-
ment History Utilizing 3D Seismic, paper OTC 3849 presented
at the 1980 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Mav 5-8.
Graebner. R.J., Steel. G., and Wuwn. C.B.: Evolutwn ot
Scivnic Technology I the XOr. APkA J (19801 20. I 10-X)
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OIL & GAS RESERVOIRS 36-l 1
36. French. W.S.: Two Dimenknal and Three Dimcns~onal M~era- tinuitles, Geo~hwi~~.c (Jan. 1981) 46. No I. 2-16.
tion of Model-Experiment Reflection Profiles, Gwphrticx 39. Dahm. C.G. and Graebner. R.J.: Field Development with Three
(April 1974) 39. No. 4. 265-77. Dimensional Seismic Methods-Gulf of Thailand-A Case
37. Hikerman. F.J.: interpretation Lessons From Three- History, Geophysits (Feb. 1982) 47. No. 2. 149-76.
Dimensional Modeling. Gmphwics (May 1982) 47, No. 5. 40. Galbraith, M. and Brown, R.B.: Field Appraisal with Three-
784-808. Dimensional Seismic Surveys-Offshore Trinidad. Grophwicx
38. McDonald. J.A., Gardner, G.H.F., and Kotcher. J.S : Areal (Feb. 1982) 47, No. 2, 177-95.
Seismic Methods For Determining the Extent of Acoustic Discon-
Chapter 37
Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs
Roger J. Steffensen, Amoco Production Co.*
Introduction
An oil reservoir is a solution-gas-drive reservoir if it un-
dergoes primary depletion with the main reservoir energy
supplied by the release of gas from the oil and the expan-
sion of the in-place fluids as reservoir pressure drops. This
excludes reservoirs affected significantly by fluid injec-
tion or water influx. Also, reservoirs that have vertical
segregation of the gas and oil by gravity drainage merit
special analysis. (In combination with appropriate pro-
duction practices, gravity drainage can increase oil recov-
ery significantly.) Reservoirs with an initial free-gas cap
are sometimes included in the category of solution-gas-
drive reservoirs; the gas-cap drive (gas expansion) sup-
plements the solution-gas drive.
Solution-gas drive also is called dispersed-gas drive or
internal- (as opposed to injected) gas drive because the
gas comes out of solution throughout the portion of the
oil zone that has a pressure below the bubblepoint. Ini-
tially, pore space in a solution-gas-drive reservoir con-
tains interstitial water plus oil that contains gas in solution
because of pressure. No free gas is assumed to be pres-
ent in the oil zone. As reservoir pressure drops below the
bubblepoint because of production, the oil shrinks. Part
of the pore space is filled by gas that comes out of solu-
tion. The water expansion, a much smaller effect, is often
neglected. The drive mechanism (gas evolution and ex-
pansion) is dispersed or scattered throughout the oil zone.
The evolved gas (less any produced gas) fills the pore
space vacated by produced oil and by shrinkage of the
remaining oil. The amount of oil recovered depends on
the amount of pore space occupied by gas (the gas satu-
ration .Sq) and the oil shrinkage (5, vs. pressure). Gas/oil
relative-permeability characteristics and viscosities of oil
and gas are important because they determine the flow-
ing GOR at a given S, (and thus the amount of free gas
produced along with the oil).
Abundant literature is available on solution-gas-drive
reservoir performance and prediction methods i--2 and on
production-rate computations for wells in those reser-
voirs. 23-3o Special methods have been developed for pre-
dicting the behavior of volatile oil reservoirs. 3-3x
Definitions
Bubblepoint pressure is the saturation pressure of the oil;
as pressure drops below bubblepoint, gas starts coming
out of solution from the oil. Critical gas saturation is the
minimum saturation at which gas starts to flow. Gravity
drainage refers to vertical segregation of gas and oil by
countercurrent flow because of gravity (i.e., density
difference); gas moves up and oil moves down. In differ-
ential gas separation, the evolved gas is continuously re-
moved as pressure is lowered, so that the gas does not
remain in contact with the liquid. Flash gas separation
occurs when the evolved gas remains in contact with the
liquid as pressure is lowered.
Typical Performance
Fig. 37.1 shows typical performance for a solution-gas-
drive reservoir with an initial pressure above the bub-
blepoint. During the early production, pressure is above
bubblepoint but is dropping rapidly. Gas saturation is zero.
and the only gas produced was in solution in the produced
oil at reservoir conditions (producing GOR, R=R,;). The
rapid pressure decline is caused by the relatively low com-
pressibility of the system. The only sources of pressure
support are fluid and rock expansion.
Once the reservoir pressure reaches bubblepoint,
solution-gas drive begins, and pressure declines less rapid-
ly. The additional pressure support is a result of the liber-
ation of gas as pressure declines and the expansion of this
gas as it undergoes further pressure reduction.
As pressure drops below bubblepoint, the evolved gas
is immobile until the gas saturation exceeds the critical
pi
Pb
Rsi
Gas Saturation
Cumulative Oil Production, N p
Fig. 37.1-Typical solution-gas-drive reservoir performance.
value, S,, . For this period, there is no free-gas produc-
tion. and the produced GOR declines because the pro-
duced oil now contains less gas in solution (lower R,).
Once S,s, is exceeded. free-gas production begins, and
the total (free plus solution) produced GOR increases. This
ratio rises to a peak much higher than the solution GOR
(most of the gas produced at that time is free gas), then
drops at low pressures. This drop is caused by insuffi-
cient additional gas evolution to sustain the high gas pro-
duction. Solution-gas-drive reservoir performance is
characterized by (I) relatively rapid pressure decline
(faster than with fluid injection); (2) low initial produc-
ing GOR (equal to solution GOR) rising to a much higher
GOR; (3) oil production rates declining because of both
I and 2; (4) little or no water production; and
(5) relatively low oil recovery-typically I5 to 20% of
original oil in place (OOIP), but occasionally as low as
5% or as high as 30% OOIP.
A notable exception is that reservoirs benefiting from
gravity drainage may have sustained production at a lower
GOR and, consequently, a higher oil recovery. This is
particularly true if the oil production is taken from the
lowler part of the oil column where the gas saturation and
GOR are lower.
Types of Models Used
Performance prediction methods can be divided into two
categories: tank-type models and gridded reservoir
models. Tank-type models are simpler; gridded models
can consider more details. Each is useful when used ap-
propriately. Tank-type models for solution-gas-drive
reservoirs are described in this chapter, and gridded
models are discussed in Chap. 48.
Before gridded models were made practical by the in-
troduction of modern computers. the main methods avail-
able for reservoir performance calculations were the
tank-type models. These treat the reservoir as a single tank
or region that is described by the average pressure and
average saturations at a given time. This is equivalent to
assuming that the reservoir is at equilibrium (i.e.. has uni-
form prcssurc and saturation). Variations with timc are
considered, but variations with position arc not. The field
production rate vb. time for tank-type models is predicted
by calculating the rate for an average or representative
well and then multiplying by the number of active wells.
Gridded reservoir models subdivide the reservoir into
a number of gridblocks, each having its own PV, pres-
sure, and saturations. Some blocks contain wells. Grid-
ded models enable consideration of such details as
reservoir heterogeneity, individual well locations and
characteristics, and fluid migration between regions.
Tank-type models are adequate-in certain cases even
preferable-for answering some questions. while being
simpler and quicker to use than the gridded models.
Understanding tank-type models aids the understanding
of gridded simulators because both use basic continuity
(material balance) principles. Even for reservoirs that ul-
timately may be studied with a gridded model. the calcu-
lated tank-type primary performance can provide useful.
quick information and can serve as a reference point for
comparison.
Also, a very important use of tank-type models is in
interpretation of a reservoirs pressure/production histo-
ry to determine the OIP and whether the reservoir is volu-
metric or has water influx. Havlena and Odeh I5
presented particularly useful techniques for doing this with
the material-balance equation rearranged as the equation
of a straight line. They noted that OIP calculated by this
equation is the oil that contributes to the preasureipro-
duction history (i.e., is communicating with wells). This
may or may not agree with the volumetrically calculated
OIP because of uncertainties in volumes and/or incom-
plete communication.
This chapter focuses on tank-type material balances and
their application to solution-gas-drive reservoirs. Grid-
ded simulator studies that are used to evaluate the range
of applicability of tank-type models are also discussed.
Calculation methods for ordinary (nonvolatile) oils are
given first. These are normally adequate for oils having
B,, less than roughly 2.0 RBISTB. The last part of the
chapter discusses performance prediction methods for
volatile oil reservoirs.
Basic Assumptions of
Tank-Type Material Balance
1. The reservoir PV is constant (except in some cases
where nonzero rock compressibility is considered).
2. The reservoir temperature is constant.
3. The reservoir has uniform porosity and uniform
relative-permeability characteristics.
4. Equilibrium conditions exist throughout the reser-
voir at all times. Pressure is assumed to be uniform
throughout the reservoir; consequently. fluid properties
at any time (i.e., any pressure) do not vary with position
in the reservoir. The effects of pressure drawdown around
wells are neglected. The liquid saturation is assumed to
be uniform throughout the oil zone. Thus, at a particular
time. the value of the gas/oil relative-permeability ratio
(k,,/k,,,) is regarded as constant throughout the oil zone.
This includes the assumption of no gravity segregation.
For reservoirs having an mltial gas cap. this mcludes the
assumption of no gas coning at wells. Gas cap and oil zone
volumes are assumed not to change with time. Any gas
leaving the cap because of gas expansion is assumed to
be distributed uniformly throughout the oil zone.
SOLUTION-GAS-DRIVE RESERVOIRS 37-3
5. The PVT properties arc representative of rcscrvoir
conditions. The fluid sample from which the PVT data
are determined is assumed to be representative ofthe fluid
in the reservoir, and the gas liberation mechanism in the
reservoir is assumed the same as that used to determine
the PVT data. Usually. differential vaporization is
assumed to be most representative of conditions in the
reservoir. With the possible exception of volatile oils. the
fluid properties are assumed to be functions of only
pressure-i.e., any effects of composition change are ne-
glected.
6. The recovery is independent of rate.
7. Production is assumedsto result entirely from liber-
ation of solution gas and the expansion of the liberated
gas of any initial gas cap and of oil as reservoir pressure
decreases. This includes assumptions that there is no fluid
injection; that water is immobile and there is no water
production and no water influx; and that reservoir water
and rock compressibility can be neglected (note that this
assumption is used only below bubblepoint and that these
effects should be considered above the bubblepoint).
8. A relationship is assumed for specifying oil produc-
tion rate as a function of reservoir pressure and saturation.
9. Reservoir performance data, if used. are assumed
to be reliable. This refers. for example, to average pres-
sure vs. cumulative oil production used to determine OIP.
and producing GOR vs. pressure used to determine or
check the curve of k,.g/k,,, vs. saturation.
Basic Data Required
OIP
Two sources of OIP data are volumetric calculations and
values determined from the reservoirs pressureiproduc-
tion history. Often, only the volumetric estimate is avail-
able. When there is enough solution-gas-drive history
(reservoir average pressure vs. oil produced), this volu-
metric value can be checked by a comparison with the
history-derived OIP. A convenient method for determin-
ing the OIP from pressure/production history is given by
Havlena and Odeh and will be described in a later
section.
A frequently given rule of thumb is that 5 to 10% of
the fluid in place must be produced before the perform-
ance history is sufficient for calculation of OIP. For a
solution-drive reservoir, this would be a large fraction of
the ultimate recovery, which is typically 1.5 to 20%. While
the amount of production is important, good values for
average reservoir pressure at a sequence of times (based
on well pressure tests) are equally important. If you have
a sequence of pressure points that were determined from
field measurements, try Havlena and Odehs method: if
several points form an essentially straight line, you prob-
ably have enough data to confirm the OIP (even at less
than 5% recovery).
PVT
As reservoir pressure drops below the bubblepoint, the
first gas liberation is by the flash vaporization process (the
gas is not yet mobile and therefore stays in contact with
the oil). Once the critical gas saturation is exceeded, some
of the gas flows. Thereafter. the gas liberation process
is somewhere between differential vaporization (gas is
continuously removed from the oil) and flash vaporization.
As the gas saturation increases above critical. the gas
mobility increases rapidly. the gas becomes more mobile
than the oil, and the gas moves faster than the oil. Be-
cause the evolved gas moves ahead of the oil, the proc-
ess is closer to differential. Overall. the process in the
reservoir is approximated more closely by the laboratory
differential PVT data than by the laboratory flash data.
This is particularly true for high-solubility crudcs. Use
of the differential PVT data is recommended. Even for
the pressure range just below bubblepoint. where tlash
PVT data are more appropriate. the differential data do
not cause significant errors because flash and differential
data are almost identical in this pressure range.
If laboratory data are not available. reasonable estimates
sometimes may be obtained from published correlations
(see Chap. 22).
Gas liberation in the separators is closer to a flash
vaporization process and frequently is at a temperature
much lower than the reservoir temperature. Because dif-
ferential PVT data are used in the material-balance com-
putations, the computed recoveries could be adjusted to
account for the different process (and particularly the
different temperature of gas separation) from bottomhole
to stock-tank conditions (see Chap. 22 and Page 64 of
Dakej). For typical crudes. however. this adjustment
is often within the range of other data and model limita-
tions and consequently not warranted.
Initial Fluid Saturations
Because saturations are assumed to be uniform, a single
value is used for initial water saturation, S,,;. The initial
oil saturation is then Soi = I .O-S,,i. The preferred data
are initial fluid saturations obtained from a laboratory
analysis of representative cores or from a combination
of core analysis and well log analysis. Alternatively, these
values can be based on logs or on other reservoirs in the
same or similar formations.
Relative-Permeability Data
Generally, laboratory-determined k,s/k,, and k,, data are
averaged to obtain a single representative set for the reser-
voir that is consistent with the interstitial water satura-
tion. If laboratory data are not available. estimates may
be based on other reservoirs in the same or similar
formations.
For reservoirs having sufficient solution-gas-drive his-
tory, the calculated kg/k, values vs. saturation can be
compared with the averaged laboratory or estimated
k,y/k,, data. These values may be calculated with Eqs.
I and 2, and the laboratory data can be adjusted slightly
to match more closely the observed history of producing
GOR (R) vs. reservoir pressure if necessary.
s =(N-Np)BoSoi
0
~ . . NB,,i
67
- NO- SEGREGATION
---COMPLETE-SEGREGATION
] ; / 15,: i --- j i j iL i-10
GAS LAYER
(AT RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION)
------------I--------
OIL LAYER
(AT CRITICAL GAS SATURATION)
Fig. 37.2-Vertical saturation distribution for complete segre-
gation.
where
k, =
ko =
R=
R, =
cl8 =
; I
B: =
B,i =
s, =
s,; =
N, =
N=
effective permeability to gas, md,
effective permeability to oil, md,
producing GOR, scf/STB,
solution GOR, scf/STB,
gas viscosity, cp,
oil viscosity, cp,
gas formation volume factor, RB/scf,
oil formation volume factor, RBLSTB,
value of B, at initial pressure, RBISTB,
oil saturation, fraction PV,
initial oil saturation, fraction PV,
cumulative oil production, STB, and
initial OIP, STB.
To use the above equations, you need estimates of the
initial OIP (N) and of the current reservoir pressure. The
fluid properties (pL,, pLg, B,, and BR) are evaluated at
this pressure.
Pseudo-Relative-Permeability Data
for Complete Segregation
This refers to reservoirs that have enough vertical com-
munication for gravity segregation to occur, with evolved
gas moving upward and oil draining downward. The liter-
ature on tank-type-model predictions includes description
of relative-permeability modifications to obtain pseudo-
relative-permeability curves to account for complete gravi-
ty segregation within the reservoir. Consequently, the
suitability of such pseudocurves in the tank-type material-
balance computations should be discussed. For reasons
given below, this approach is potentially misleading and
should be avoided.
The laboratory-measured relative-permeability data ap-
ply to an unsegregated situation (no change in saturation
with height). This case is most consistent with the basic
, I I I I I I I 1 ,lL
0 0.2 04 06 08 IO
OIL SATURATION-FRACTION OF PORE SPACE
Fig. 37.3-Comparison of no-segregation and complete-
segregation relative-permeability data.
assumptions of the tank-type model, and the tank-type
model is most suitable for it. It is also possible to
calculate I3 pseudo or effective kg/k, and k, data for the
case of a reservoir that has complete gravity segregation,
as shown in Fig. 37.2, and flow from the total net pay
thickness (i.e., assuming wells are completed in the total
net pay).
The entire reservoir shown in Fig. 37.2 contains inter-
stitial water saturation. Complete segregation means that
the upper part of the reservoir contains gas and immo-
bile oil at residual oil saturation, S,, , while the lower part
contains oil and immobile gas at the critical gas satura-
tion, S,,. Vertical communication is assumed to be high
enough that, as gas evolves in the lower region, any gas
saturation above S moves upward rapidly and leaves
that region, while 6 the upper region any oil above S,,
drains downward and moves into the lower region. The
flow to wells is assumed to be horizontal and to consist
of only gas in the upper region and of only oil in the low-
er region. On the basis of these assumptions, the effec-
tive kg/k, and k,, are given by Eqs. 3 and 4.
kg _
(SR -S,,.)(k,),r
ko
- (s, -S,,)(k,, )xc . . .
(3)
where
(k,Lr
= relative permeability to gas at residual
oil saturation,
(b),,
= relative permeability to oil at critical gas
saturation,
S, = gas saturation, fraction PV,
S,, = critical gas saturation, fraction PV.
S,, = residual oil saturation, fraction PV, and
S, = water saturation, fraction PV.
SOLUTION-GAS-DRIVE RESERVOIRS
37-5
Fig. 37.3 compares ordinary X-,/k, and kro curves for N(B, -Boi) (expansion of initial oil)
an unsegregated reservoir with the adjusted curves for the
completely segregated assumption.
Pseudo-relative-permeability data calculated with Eqs.
+N(R,yi -R,,)B, (volume occupied by
3 and 4 are consistent with the above assumptions. And
liberated solution gas)
one might be tempted to assume that results computed for
no segregation (unmodified relative-permeability data) and
for complete segregation (the above pseudo-relative-
+mNB,j (~) (gas-cap gas expansion)
permeability data) bracket the results to be expected for
cases with partial segregation. What is wrong with this
approach? The problem is that perforating the entire pay +
NB,i(l +m)
S,c,(pj~ -PR) (water expansion)
thickness is not the best way to operate such a reservoir.
1 -s,
Producing gas at high GOR from the upper part of the
pay thickness reduces reservoir energy (pressure support).
It is much better to produce such a reservoir only from +
NB,,;(l +m)
1 -s,,.
cs (p ;R -pR) (rock expansion)
the lower part of the oil column, thereby reducing the
producing GOR and maintaining reservoir energy. Con-
sequently, the assumption of production from the entire =N,,B,, (oil production)
pay thickness is inappropriate for this case. The tank-type
model with pseudorelative permeabilities seriously under- +(G,,, -N,R,v)B, (liberated solution gas production)
estimates the oil recovery compared to a good gravity-
drainage project. Results of this model will lead to incor- + G,,.B, (gas-cap gas production)
rect conclusions about the benefits of gravity drainage and
about how to operate the field. ~ Gi B, (gas injection)
If a reservoir has enough vertical communication to
benefit from gravity drainage, consider use of a gridded + Wf,B,, (water production)
model (Chap. 48) for primary performance predictions.
With the gridded model, you can study the benefits of - Wj B !,, (water injection)
selective perforation low in the pay, possible benefits of
producing mainly from downdip wells if the reservoir has - W,B,,. (water influx), . . (5)
dip. and possible sensitivity of oil recovery to produc-
tion rate and to the amount of vertical permeability.
where
R,s = solution GOR, scf/STB,
Material-Balance Equation
R,Yi = value of R,, at initial pressure,
The material-balance equation keeps inventory on all ma-
scf/STB, and
terial entering, leaving, and accumulating within a region.
m = PV of gas capiPV of oil zone,
Sometimes called the Schilthuis equation when applied
dimensionless.
to a reservoir. it states that because reservoir volume is
constant, the algebraic sum of volume changes (includ-
ing production and injection) of the oil, free gas, and water
Solving Eq. 5 for N yields the general material-balance
must equal zero. In other words, expansion equals void-
equation for initial OIP:
age; the net voidage (production minus injection minus
N=
influx) must be made up by expansion of the in-place ma-
terials. Van Everdingen et al. stated the material bal-
ance in reservoir volumes as follows:
N,,B,,+(G,,-N,R,)8,+fW,-W,-W,.)B,.-G,B,
~R,,-A,.,)t~R.,-R,)B.+mS.,,(~)+~Il+~~~tS,.i..+l-l~~:,~-Fr~
(Cumulative oil produced and its original dissolved
gas) + (Cumulative free gas produced) + (Cumula-
. . .
(61
tive water produced) - (Cumulative expansion of oil
and dissolved gas originally in reservoir) - (Cumula-
tive expansion of free gas originally in reservoir) =
(Cumulative water entering original oil and water
reservoir),
where G, =G,,, +G,,. =cumulative gas production, in
standard cubic feet.
By considering a case only above bubblepoint or only
below bubblepoint, some terms are zero or negligible, and
the general equation can be simplified. These cases are
Water and tras iniection could also be considered in the
discussed in the following sections.
material balince Gy replacing cumulative production with
cumulative production minus cumulative iniection.
Material Balance Above Bubblepoint
For an oii reservoir having an initial gas cap. with m For an undersaturated reservoir (i.e., above bubblepoint),
denoting the ratio of gas-cap-volume/oil-zone-volume, the no gas will be released from solution, the produced GOR
material balance expressed in reservoir volumes is given will remain constant at R,,;, and there would not be any
by Eq. 5. gas cap. Thus (R,s, -R,)=O, m=O, and (G,-N,,R,)=O.
37-6
With these simplifications and the assumption of no gas
injection, Eq. 6 reduces to
N=
N,~B,,+(W,~-W;-W,,)B,,
Bo,
Bo -Bc,i +p
1 -SW,
(SL,.(.,,~+cf)(P;R -PR)
. . . . . . . . . . . ..~...
(7)
Because for the single-phase oil B,, -II,,, =B,,, co ( p iR
-pR), the material-balance equation above bubblepoint
becomes
N=
N,,B,, +CW,, - W, - W,.)B,,.

(8)
B,ic,( prR ppR)
where the effective compressibility (cLi) is
(9)
Although water and rock compressibility are often ne-
glected below bubblepoint because their effect is small
compared with gas evolution and expansion. they should
be included above bubblepoint. For example, consider a
case with the following data:
rr, = 15 X 10 + vol/(vol-psi)
c,,. =3X IO ph vol/(vol-psi)
cf=4 x 10 -6 vol/(PV-psi)
and
s,, =0.20
By use of Eq. 9,
r,=15x10-6+
(0.20)(3x10--6) +4xW6
l-O.2 l-O.2
=20.75x IO p6 vol/(vol-psi)
For this example, the water and rock compressibility
contribute more than one-fourth of the total compressi-
bility. Their omission would cause the OIP calculated by
Eq. 8 to be too high by a factor of 20.75/15= I.383 (i.e.,
38 % too high). The error would be even greater for larg-
er S,,
Calculation of Oil Production Above Bubblepoint. For
an initially undersaturated reservoir with negligible water
production, injection, or influx. rearrangement of Eq. 8
yields the following expression for cumulative oil pro-
duction:
N,, =
NB,,~~,,(P,R -PR)
. . . . . . . . . .(lO) B,,
Calculation of oil recovery to bubblepoint is straight-
forward, with bubblepoint pressure as the value of PR in
Eq. 10. The remaining OIP is then N-N,,. This value
is often used in computations of the additional recovery
below bubblepoint.
Material Balance Below Bubblepoint
Below bubblepoint, the net expansion of hydrocarbons
(gas evolution plus gas expansion minus oil shrinkage)
is much greater than the expansion of rock and water.
Consequently, the rock and water expansion terms can
be omitted without serious error. By neglecting these
terms and by assuming no water influx. no gas injection,
and no net water production, we simplify Eq. 6 to Eq. I1
N=
N,J,, +(G, -NI,R,)B,s
(Bo -Bo;) +(R.>i pR.5 )B,y +mB,,,
>
. . . . . .
(11)
Even if the initial pressure was above bubblepoint, Eq.
I1 can be used to compute the performance below bub-
blepoint. In this case, the value used for N is the OIP at
bubblepoint; N, and G, are the incremented oil and gas
production below bubblepoint; and the initial fluid
properties B,; and B,; are values at bubblcpoint.
Another expression for N, often found in the literature
and equivalent to Eq. 11, is given by Eq. 12.
N=
N,,[B, +B,#,> -R.,;)l
(12)
where
R,, = cumulative produced GOR, scf/STB.
R& ..,...............,..........,.(13)
P
B, is the two-phase (i.e., total hydrocarbon) FVF-
reservoir barrels occupied by one barrel of stock-tank oil
plus the gas that was initially dissolved in that oil at
reservoir conditions.
B, =B,, +B,,,(R,, -R,). (14)
Material Balance as Equation of
Straight Line for Determination of
OIP and of Gas-Cap Size
Havlena and Odeh I5 show how to use the material-
balance equation along with a reservoirs pressure/pro-
duction history to get information about whether the reser-
voir is volumetric or has water influx, plus the initial OIP
(N) and the ratio of gas-cap-volume/oil-zone-volume (m)
for a volumetric reservoir. Water influx is discussed in
Chap. 38; only the volumetric case will be considered
here.
Fig. 37.4A-Straight-line material balance for reservoir withoul Fig. 37.4B-Straight-line material balance for reservoir with gas
gas cap. Q, from Eq. 15 vs. A/3, =B, -B,,. cap.
Havlena and Odeh rearranged Eq. 12 as the equation ing, and (4) gravity drainage that is affecting reservoir
of a straight line, grouping terms as follows: performance (Rp lower than for solution-gas drive alone).
Q,,=N,[B,+B,(R,-R,;)], .(15)
AB,=B,-B,;, . .(16)
For a reservoir with an initial gas cap but no water in-
flux, values of both N and m can be determined from the
field performance data, as illustrated in Fig. 37.4B. By
trial and error, the value of m yielding a straight line can
be determined; N is the slope of this line.
and
AB, =B,Y -B,;, . . (17)
where
Qp = net fluid production, RB,
AB, = oil expansion per STB of initial OIP.
RBISTB, and
AB, = expansion of initial free gas (the gas cap)
per scf of initial free gas in place,
RBiscf.
Eq. 12 can be rearranged as
B,;
Q, =NAB,+Ntn-ABR. . .
B,;
(18)
A plot of Q,, vs. AB, +tr~(B,~lB,,) AB,s should result
in a straight line going through the origin. The slope of
this line represents N, the initial OIP. Similarly, in the
absence of a gas cap, Qp =NAB,; a plot of Q, vs. AB,
should be a straight line of slope N. going through the
origin. This is illustrated by Fig. 37.4A.
When field performance (Qp vs. AB,) is plotted, if it
yields an approximately straight line, the slope indicates
the value of the initial OIP (N). The data needed are fluid
properties vs. pressure and the reservoir performance data
at several times or pressures. The performance data are
N,, , G, , a,nd average reservoir pressure (for determina-
tion ot fluld properties). If the plot of Q,, vs. AB, is not
a straight line, possible reasons include (1) erroneous
average pressures and/or fluid properties, (2) water in-
flux (see Chap. 38), (3) gas cap is present and expand-
For cases with a gas cap, Havlena and Odeh recom-
mended that a second method also be used as a check,
even though the first method (given above) is a more
powerful method because it specifies that the line must
go through the origin. The second method plots values
of Q,/AB, on the vertical ( y) axis vs. values of AB,/AB,
on the horizontal (x) axis. If both sides of Eq. 18 are divid-
ed by AB,, we can see that the plotted points should ap-
proximate a straight line with slope equal to NnzB,,/B,,
Also, if this line is extrapolated so that it intercepts the
y axis, the y value at that intercept is equal to N. Conse-
quently, the slope and the 4 intercept of this plot enable
calculation of both N and m. Comparison of these values
with those determined by the first method is a desirable
check, and also may aid selection of the best value of m
for use in the first method.
Having values of N and m that are based on reservoir
performance and/or on other information or estimates,
we are now ready to consider predictions of future per-
formance by solution-gas drive. Techniques for this have
been published by Muskat, Tamer. and Tracy. All
three methods yield essentially the same results when
small enough intervals of pressure or time are used. Be-
cause Tracys method is the most convenient to use, it
will be described first.
Material-Balance Calculations
Using Tracys Method
Prediction of solution-gas-drive performance involves the
use of a material-balance equation such as Eq. 11, plus
enough additional relationships (equation for producing
GOR, and for relating saturations to N,,) to enable com-
putation of N,, and G, vs. pressure. The computations
are performed for a sequence of pressure decrements. The
60-
22 30 30
aa
z z 90 90
r r 25 25
20 20
I5 I5
IO IO
55
cl-- o--
-50 -50 400 400 6Oo 6Oo Go0 Go0 ;600 ;600
Fig. 37.5A-Oil pressure function G0 vs. reservoir pressure.
incremental oil production AN, and the incremental gas
production AC, for the pressure decrement from pn- 1
to pn are determined by an iterative method, and the
cumulative production values are then given by Eqs. 19
and 20.
(N,),, =(Np),r-, +AN, . . . . . . . . .(19)
and
(G,), =(G,),,-, +AG,. . . . . .(20)
Tracy simplified the use of Eq. 11 by introducing pres-
sure functions 9, and aO:
. . . . . . .
(21)
and
a(?=
( >
$-R,$ 9,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R
(22)
Actually, Eq. 21 is a slight modification of Tracys
,
/
,
JO
RESERVOIR PRESSURE, p.i(l
J
10 0
Fig. 37.5B-Gas and water pressure functions @9 and aW vs.
reservoir pressure.
started at bubblepoint and used B, at bubblepoint pres-
sure instead of the B,i used in Eq. 21. As discussed in
the next section, use of B,i in Eq. 21 makes Tracys
method also applicable above bubblepoint (in which case
m is zero). Tracy also used R, at bubblepoint instead of
R,,i, but these are equivalent because R, is constant above
bubblepoint.
Examples of 9, and Q, vs. pressure are shown in
Figs. 37SA and 37.5B. At the initial pressure, the
denominator in Eq. 21 is zero; consequently, 9, and a0
are infinite. This, however, does not cause any difficulty
because the only 9 values used are the finite values at
lower pressures.
With Tracys 9 functions, Eq. 11 becomes
N=N,,+,+G,9,. . . . . . . . (23)
This form of the material-balance equation is particu-
larly convenient because the + values are functions only
of gas-cap size and of pressure. For each pressure level,
the Cp values need to be calculated only once.
Material-Balance Equation 23 is applied to the pressure
decrement from pn- 1 to p,, :
original equation. Tracy gave an example problem that
. . . . . .
(24)
where the average producing GOR is given by
Solving Eq. 24 for ANp,
ah, = N-O,),,- I (@o)r, -(G/J,,-, (+<y),
P
@o), +R(@,y),, .
(26)
The producing GOR, R,, at pressurep, is the sum of
up to three terms: the solution GOR (R,V),,, the flowing
(i.e., free) GOR, and the ratio (R,,.), of gas production
directly from gas-cap/oil production:
The term (~,B,,/P~B~)~ is a function only of pressure
and is computed using values at pressure p,, The value
of (k,/k,), is a function of the total liquid saturation,
S,+S,,., in the oil zone. The current oil saturation,
(So), 1
is given by Eq. 28:
(S,), =(1.0-S,,)
W-W,),l(Bo),
NB . . (28)
01
If the liquid saturation is known, the value of (k,/k,)
can be read from a curve or calculated by interpolation
in a table of values. The incremental material balance for
each pressure step involves iterations to satisfy Eqs. 23
through 28. This determines AN,, , AC,, S,, , and R,
For this iterative solution, either of two approaches
could be used: (1) estimate the incremental oil produc-
tion, AN,, and solve for the corresponding GOR, R,, ,
or (2) estimate R, and solve for AN,. With either ap-
proach, the iterations are continued until the calculated
results converge to the material-balance solution (i.e., un-
til the value of N calculated using Eq. 23 agrees with the
initially specified value of N). Tracy6 indicated that the
more effective approach is to estimate R, and to solve
for AN*.
Thus, Tracys method for iterative solution of Material-
Balance Equation 24 at each pressure level consists of the
following steps.
1. Estimate the average GOR, i, for the pressure
decrement from pn- 1 to pn.
2. Compute estimated AN,, from Eq. 26.
3. Compute estimated (N,), by using (N,), =
@,A,- I -+-AN,,
4. Compute oil saturation (S,), from Eq. 28.
5. Determine (k,/k,>) corresponding to the liquid
saturation.
6. Compute R, from Eq. 27.
7. Compute new estimate of R from Eq. 25.
8. Compute new estimate of AN, as in Step 2 and of
(N,,), as in Step 3.
9. Compute (G,), from (G,), =(G,),-1 +&N,.
37-9
10. Compute the estimated OIP (N ) from Eq. 23 or 24.
11. To test GOR, check whether the new value of R
computed at Step 7 is arbitrarily close to the previous es-
timate of R for this same pressure decrement, denoted
Rold. An adequate test is
0.9991L51.001.
R
old
If this criterion is satisfied, go on to Step 12. Otherwise,
go back to Step 4 and continue the iterative solution for
this pressure level by using the most recently calculated
estimate of (N,),, . Usually, a few iterations suffice.
12. To test material balance, the computed value of N
should agree with the initially specified value of N. An
adequate test is
0.99925s 1.001,
N,
where N,. is the computed initial OIP and N,, is the spec-
ified initial OIP.
If this is satisfied, an adequate material balance is con-
sidered to have been obtained for that pressure. The pro-
duction for the pressure decrement has been computed
with sufficient accuracy. If the above criterion is not satis-
fied, go back to Step 4 and continue the iterations until
a material balance is obtained for this pressure decrement.
This material-balance test will almost always be satisfied
once the GOR test of Step 11 has been satisfied.
This completes the material-balance computation at the
selected pressure p,, The values computed are the in-
cremental oil and gas production, the oil and gas satura-
tions, and the producing GOR. Rates and time have not
been considered because the tank-type material-balance
performance was assumed to be independent of rate and
time. Computations of rates and time are covered in a later
section.
After results for one pressure decrement are obtained,
the next pressure decrement is selected and the iterative
computations are done for that pressure step. Because of
a strong nonlinearity in the k,/k, vs. S, relationship, re-
sults are sensitive to the size of the pressure step used
(which influences the change in S, and thus in k,Jk,, and
GOR). Typically, until the pressure has dropped to 1,000
psi below bubblepoint, the pressure steps should not ex-
ceed 200 psi, and 100 psi is sometimes better. At lower
pressures, larger pressure steps can be used, A good prac-
tice is to use pressure steps small enough that the GOR
does not increase by more than a factor of two in a single
step.
Applicability of Tracys Method
Above Bubblepoint
Historically, two reasons were given for not using Tra-
cys method above bubblepoint pressure: (1) use of Eq.
10 is simpler, and (2) according to the literature, Tracys
method is not applicable above bubblepoint. The purpose
of this section is to show how Tracys method can be used
both above and below bubblepoint. Heretofore, the ap-
proach for calculating the total oil production N, for in-
itially undersaturated reservoirs has been to calculate N,
to the bubblepoint wjith Eq. IO, to calculate incremental
oil production below bubblepoint by Tracys method or
another method, and to add these two produced volumes
together to obtain the total oil recovery. The new alter-
native is to use Tracys method for the entire pressure
range. Existing computer programs that use Tracys
method only below bubblepoint can be applied for the en-
tire pressure range if data are modified as described
below.
The literature contends that Tracys method cannot be
used above bubblepoint pressure because the @ functions
are infinite at bubblepoint. This is true for Tracys equa-
tions in Ref. 6 that used B,, at the bubblepoint (Tracys
initial condition) instead of B,,, as in Eq. 21. However,
if B,,, is used in Eq. 2 1, Tracys method becomes more
general. It can be used for all pressure intervals because
the @ functions (Eqs. 21 and 22) are infinite only at the
irtiriul pressure, which does not have to be the bubblepoint.
Values of the @ functions at the initial pressure are not
used in Tracys formulation; only the finite values at lower
pressures are used. Consequently, if B,,, is used in Eq.
2 I, Tracys method can predict performance for the en-
tire pressure range from any initial pressure down to aban-
donment When used above bubblepoint, Tracys method
does not require iteration because an accurate initial esti-
mate can be made for R tR=R, ). When Tracys method
is used for the full pressure range of an initially under-
saturated oil, however, three considerations are pertinent:
(1) the computed recovery will be a fraction of the initial
OIP. not of the OIP at bubblepoint: (2) bubblepoint pres-
sure should be one of the pressure levels for proper con-
sideration of gas evolution that starts at bubblepoint; and
(3) the effects of rock and water compressibility,must be
considered for realistic computation of pressure decline
above bubblepoint. A technique for considering the third
point by ad.justing the B,, data is given below.
Because rock and water compressibilities are relative-
ly unimportant below bubblepoint, they were not included
in the Tracy material-balance formulation. They can be
included indirectly, however, by use of pseudovalues of
the oil formation volume factor at pressures below the
initial pressure. These pseudovalues, Bz, are given by
Eq. 29.
(Eq. 28) and determine k,Y/k,,. Second. calculate the
GOR, R,, (Eq. 27). Third. calculate the incremental pas
production AC, (Eq. 25). Then the cumulative gas pro-
duction is calculated by G,, =(G,, at previous pres-
sure) +AG,,
The correct value of N,, is the value at which both
methods above yield identrcal values of G,, Tarner sug-
gested plotting both sets of calculated G,, values vs. N,,
The intersection of the two curves then yields the correct
G,, and N,.
Tamers method works if the plotting is done accurate-
ly. It should yield the same results as Tracys method be-
cause the same relationships are used. Tamers method
is time-consuming because you have to calculate and plot
the two curves of G,, vs. N,, and then determine their in-
tersection. While this graphical interpolation approach can
be implemented on digital computers. Tracys iterative
approach is more straightforward to implement and usual-
ly converges within a few iterations.
Material-Balance Calculations
Using Muskat and Taylors Method
Muskat and Taylors method4 is applicable to the tank-
type depletion performance of a volumetric reservoir with
no initial gas cap. It is intended mainly for below-bubble-
point pressure. For a sequence of pressure steps. Ap. the
change in oil saturation, AS,,, during each step is calcu-
lated by use of the following depletion equation in differ-
ential form.
4
B dR
S(,A---l+S,sB,s- _______
d(lB,s) + Sox.,-,q~,, dB,,
B, d17R kR
=
B,,A-,-,,P,~ dpR
1 I kyqvo
k
m P s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(30)
The stepwise solution of this depletion equation yields
the reservoir oil saturation, S,,, vs. reservoir pressure.
PR. For each pressure at which S,, has been calculated.
the cumulative recovery as a fraction of the original OIP
can be calculated by use of Eq. 3 1.
These pseudovalues include the additional pressure sup-
port of water and rock compressibilities in the material-
balance computations.
Comparison of Tarners
and Tracys Methods
Having the value of S,, , k&k,.,, can be determined from
Tarner and Tracy6 solved the same material-balance
the plot of krh,/k,.(, vs. S,or vs. S,, +S,, , which is re-
equation for a sequence of pressure decrements. Although
quired data. The producing GOR is then
Tracys method is more convenient, Tarners method is
often referenced and consequently will be described.
For each pressure in the Tarner method. several esti- R=R,+%
( >
* _. _. (32)
mates are made of the cumulative oil production, N,, For
k
10
hBs
each N,, . the corresponding cumulative gas production,
G ,,, is calculated two ways: from Material Balance Equa- Because this method assumes uniform oil saturation
tion I I, or on the basis of relative permeability. To cal- throughout the reservoir, it is not applicable when there
culate G, from relative permeability, first calculate S,, is appreciable segregation of gas and oil.
37-11
Eq. 30 can be solved tither explicitly or implicitly. Ex-
plicit means each term on the right side of Eq. 30 is evalu-
ated on the basis of the pressure and saturation at the start
of the pressure step. Each pressure step must be small
so that these values are representative of conditions dur-
ing the step. While this approach has the advantage of
not requiring iteration, it is not self-checking. Significant
cumulative errors may occur unless the pressure inter-
vals are sufficiently small. In the implicit (iterative) so-
lution, the terms on the right side of Eq. 30 are evaluated
on the basis of estimated conditions (PR and S,,) at tither
the middle or the end of the pressure step. This requires
making an initial estimate of these conditions, comput-
ing the pressure step. checking agreement between estt-
mated and computed values. and, if necessary,
recomputing the step with the most recently computed
values as the new estimates. This iterative solution in-
volves more work but can handle larger pressure steps
suitably.
Comparison With Gridded Simulator Equations
Because Eq. 30 looks rather formidable and mysterious.
it may be helpful to show where the terms come from.
This will also show the relationship of Eq. 30 to the equa-
tions used in gridded multiphase reservoir simulators;
tank-type models and gridded models use similar continui-
ty (material-balance) principles. For a two-phase (gas/oil)
gridded model omitting gravity and capillary forces. the
oil phase partial differential equation that combines Darcy-
law flow and continuity is Eq. 33. This equation is in Dar-
cy units.
0. (%vp) =d$($) -4(>,,,
where V denotes the gradient,
(33)
and d(S,/B,)l& is the partial derivative of the quantity
S,,/B, with respect to time.
The left side of Eq. 33 represents Darcy-law flow of
oil in the reservoir (between blocks in a gridded model)
and would be zero for a tank-type (one-block) model. The
right-side terms represent oil accumulation and produc-
tion. The corresponding equation for total (free+solution)
gas is Eq. 34.
V.
kk,, kk i-o
A+R,-
C14B.c
cl/ ,B,,
> 1
VP
(34)
The corresponding equations for a tank-type model are
obtained by noting that the left sides of Eqs. 33 and 34
Ratio of Original Gas Cap
Volume to Reservoir
Oil Produced, Percent of Oil In Place
Fig. 37.6~-Reservoir pressure vs. percent oil recovery for several
values of m.
Oil Produced, Percent of Oil In Place
Fig. 37.7-Producing GOR vs. percent oil recovery for several
values of m.
of each equation, multiplying by the bulk volume, and
changing to oilfield units yields
v,,;
( >
2 =y,,
,I
and
v,,g(?+R,J$ =ys.
,..
(35)
(36)
This total gas rate q,q is the sum of the free-gas pro-
arc zero for the tank-type model. Deleting the left side duction rate and the solution-gas production rate
37-I 2 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Cumulative Recovery in Per Cent of Pore Space
\I
12 13 14 15 I6 17 18
Fig. 37.8-Pressure and GOR histories of solution-gas-drive reservoirs producing oil of different vis-
cosities.
16
Cufrubtii Recovery in Fw Cent of Pore Space
Fig. 37.9-Pressure and GOR histories of solution-gas-drive reservoirs producing oil of different gas
solubilities and oil viscosities.
SOLUTION-GAS-DRIVE RESERVOIRS 37- l 3
Roti os
5 6 7
Cumulative Recavery in Per Cent of Pare Space
Fig. 37.10-Reservoir pressure and GOR histories of gas-drive reservoirs with various ratios of gas-
cap volume to oil-zone volume (H = thickness of gas cap/thickness of oil zone).
The producing GOR (R), scf/STB, is given by
The producing GOR can also be expressed by use of q.
from Eq. 35 and qg from Eq. 36:
(38)
From the chain rule for derivatives,
dx dxdp
-=--
dt dp dt
Eq. 38 becomes
R=
d(l/f&)
s,-
dPR B, @R B,, dPR B,, dl)R dPR
d(llB,,) I dS
s.. ~
+--
~ dp,q
Bo dPR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(39)
By equating the two expressions for R given by Eqs.
37 and 39, using dS, = -dS,, and rearranging we ob-
tain Eq. 30. Thus, the Muskat material balance for a tank-
type reservoir (Eq. 30) can be derived as a special case
of the equations for a gridded multiphase simulator. Be-
cause we use compatible equations, the results from a grid-
ded simulator using special data to match the Muskat
method (e.g., no flow between gridblocks) should match
those obtained by Muskats method. Even for a gridded
simulator with flow between blocks, Ridings et al. I4
showed results agreeing with Muskats method. More in-
formation is given in the section entitled Insights from
Simulator Studies.
Sensitivity of Material-Balance Results
Several authors have discussed the sensitivity of material-
balance results to data variations. Tarner2 showed the ef-
fect of gas-cap size on performance for values of m (gas-
cap-volume/oil-reservoir-volume) of 0 (no cap), 0.1, 0.5,
and 1.0. Oil recovery vs. pressure is shown in Fig. 37.6;
Fig. 37.7 shows GOR vs. oil recovery. Tarner discussed
applicability of assumptions about the gas initially in the
gas cap: (1) the gas cap and the oil zone are each assumed
to remain constant in size, and (2) all gas leaving the gas
cap is assumed to pass through the oil zone (i.e., no
bypassing-such as by gas coning at wells). Tarner stated
that such assumptions are obviously in error but they in
part will compensate each other. The assumption of no
bypassing tends to overestimate oil recovery, while the
assumption of a constant oil-zone size (corresponding to
low gravity drainage) tends to underestimate oil recovery.
Muskat and Taylor3 provided informative results about
the sensitivity of oil recovery to oil property variations
37-14 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
TOTAL LIQUID SATURATION IN PERCENT (S, +S,)
Fig. 37.1 l-Relative-permeability ratio for sands and sandstones
vs. liquid saturation.
and to gas-cap size. Fig. 37.8 shows the reduction in oil
recovery as oil viscosity is increased. It also shows the
higher producing GORs for cases with higher oil viscosi-
ty, Note the large variations in oil recovery, from less
than 8% to more than 17%. Fig. 37.9 shows the com-
bined effects of varying oil viscosity and solution GOR.
Fig. 37. IO shows performance for several values of the
gas-cap-volume/oil-zone-volume ratio, which Muskat and
Taylor denoted by H. It can be seen that calculated oil
recovery and peak GOR both increase with increasing gas-
cap size. Muskat and Taylor emphasized the assumptions
that gas-cap size remains constant throughout the produc-
tion history and that depletion of the cap takes place by
gas moving from the cap into the oil zone where it is
assumed to be mixed or dispersed throughout the oil zone
and produced along with the oil and gas originally in the
oil zone.
Arps and Roberts plotted several sets of sandstone
permeability ratio vs. liquid-saturation data and deter-
mined the three curves designated maximum, average, and
minimum in Fig. 37.11. Maximum means highest oil
recovery (lowest k,/k, at a given liquid saturation), while
minimum means lowest oil recovery (highest kg/k,,). For
each k,/k,, curve, they computed oil recovery [STBi
(acre-ft)(percent porosity)] vs. pressure for several sets
of oil fluid properties. Fig. 37.12 is for the minimum
recovery (maximum k,Jk,,) case. Do not be confused by
RECOVERY, STS/ ( acre- f t) ( % porosi ty)
Fig. 37.12--Reservoir pressure vs. recovery factor, STElacre-
ft/percent porosity for sandstone with k,/k, giving
minimum oil recovery.
the label of minimum kg/k, in this figure. Fig. 37.13 is
the average case, and Fig. 37.14 shows results for the
maximum recovery (minimum k,/k,) case. Again the
label (maximum kg/k,) is misleadmg. Note the large var-
iation in oil recovery, STB/acre-ft/percent porosity: 2 to
12 for the minimum case, 6 to 18 for the average case,
and 9 to 26 for the maximum case. Arps and Roberts
also presented results with limestone k,/k, curves. Com-
puted recovery ranges were I to 7 for the minimum case,
3 to 16 for the average case, and 13 to 32 for the maxi-
mum recovery case.
Fig. 37.15 is the comparison by Sikora s of reservoir
performance for no segregation vs. complete segregation.
The complete segregation case has a lower calculated oil
recovery and a faster rise in producing GOR. This illus-
trates the adverse effects of assumed segregation on per-
formance calculations in a tank-type model that, among
other things, assumes production from the entire pay
thickness. For a reservoir with high vertical communica-
tion, oil recovery could be increased by selective produc-
tion from perforations in the lower part of the oil zone.The
tank-type prediction with production from the entire pay
thickness would be inapplicable and misleading. The limit-
ed applicability of the tank-type model to cases with segre-
gation was discussed previously. Performance predictions
that consider the selective production would require a
more detailed model, such as a gridded simulator.
SANDSTONE , HAXI YUM P/ b
RECOVERY, STB/ ( acre- f t) ( % porosi ty) RECOVERY, STB/ ( acre- f t) ( % porosi ty)
Fig. 37.13--Reservoir pressure vs. recovery factor, STWacre-
ft/percent porosity for sandstone with average
kg/k,.
Singh and Guerrero I8 showed sensitivity of recovery
to variations in gas-cap size (in), interstitial (connate)
water saturation, permeability ratio (kg/k,), oil reservoir
volume factor (B,), solution GOR (R,Y), and initial pres-
sure (P;R). Fluid properties are shown in Table 37.1 and
Figs. 37.16 through 37.18. Singh and Guerrero used
permeability-ratio data that approximated the sandstone
average permeability ratio characteristics given by Arps
and Roberts. 8 Interstitial water saturation was 22%. They
calculated performance from bubblepoint pressure of
2,500 psi down to a loo-psi abandonment pressure using
200-psi pressure decrements.
Fig. 37.19 shows oil recovery (below bubblepoint) vs.
pressure for three base cases with m values of 0,0.5, and
0.75. For each of the base cases, performance was com-
puted for f30% changes in each of the following: B,,
R,s or B,, PiR, interstitial water saturation, and k,qlk,, or
pC,/pn. The percentage change or error in oil recovery
resulting from the 530% change in these data items is
shown in Table 37.2. Figs. 37.20 through 37.24 show
the sensitivity of calculated performance to these k3OW
changes in data values. These figures and Table 37.2 show
that oil recovery percentage increased with reductions in
B,,, pIR, or k,/k, and with increases in R, and Si,. Ta-
ble 37.2 shows that the changes in oil recovery were larg-
est for cases with m=O (no gas cap). The presence of a
Fig. 37.14--Reservoir pressure vs. recovery factor, STBlacre-
ftjpercent porosity for sandstone wi th kg/k, gi vi ng
maximum oil recovery.
400
I II Ii I Y I \
I
I\
\ 4
:
0 0
0 2 4 12 14
OI L
PR&CEDB( %
OF
kAL)
Fig. 37.15-Comparison of no-segregation and complete-
segregation reservoir performance.
37- 16 PETROLEUMENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
TABLE 37.1-FLUID PROPERTY DATA FOR MATERIAL BALANCE
PERFORMANCE SENSITIVITY STUDIES
Pressure
(psi4
3, 000
Oil Volume Gas Volume
Factor Factor
(RBISTB) (RBkcf)
1. 315 0. 000726
2, 500 1. 325 0.000796
2, 300 1. 311 0. 000843
2, 100 1. 296 0. 000907
1, 900 1. 281 0. 001001
1, 700 1. 266 0. 001136
1, 500 1. 250 0. 001335
1, 300 1. 233 0. 001616
1, 100 1. 215 0. 001998
900 1. 195 0. 002626
700 1. 172 0. 003481
500 1. 143 0. 005141
300 1. 108 0. 009027
100 1. 057 0. 028520
Pressure, 100 psia Pressure, 100 psia
Fig. 37.16-FVFs vs. pressure used in performance sensitivity Fig. 37.17--Solution GOR vs. pressure used In performance sen-
computations. sitivity computations
II 3, n
Pressure, 100 psia
Fig. 37.18-Gas and oil viscosities vs. pressure used in perform-
ance sensitivity computations.
Solution
GOR
(scf/STB)
650
650
618
586
553
520
486
450
412
369
320
264
194
94
Viscosity Viscosity
of Oil of Gas
(CP) (CP)
1. 200 0. 02121
1.260 0.02046
1. 320 0. 01960
1. 386 0. 01869
1. 455 0. 01770
1. 530 0. 01670
1. 615 0. 01570
1. 714 0. 01472
1. 626 0. 01380
1. 954 0. 01298
2. 103 0. 01221
2. 281 0. 01165
2. 539 0. 01125
I
Pool pcrformmcc for different gal topr
a
I l----l
21
A I =0. 7s
I m=Ol O
Cumulative oil recovery, % OIP
Fig. 37.19-Depletion-drive performance for three base cases
with different gas-cap sizes
TABLE 37.2-COMPUTED CHANGE OR ERROR IN OIL RECOVERY CAUSED BY
+ 30% CHANGE IN DATA
Percentaoe Factor Varied
m=O m=0.50 m= 0.75
Factor - 30.00 + 30.00 - 30.00 + 30.00 - 30.00 + 30.00
BO + 11.0553 -8.0781 +3.6011 -2.1059 +2.5361 - 1.5338
B, and R, - 10.9920 +8.1900 -2.7845 + 2.5720 - 2.0157 + 1.0008
P, +9.1756 - 7.8326 + 3.6844 -5.3114 +2.6490 - 4.7911
SW - 9.8654 + 11.6368 -8.6772 + 10.3622 - 8.5560 + 10.0768
kg/k, and I&, + 10.3020 - 7.2521 + 8.3833 - 5.9272 + 7.9464 - 5.6907
Factor denotes the type of data changed
gas cap moderated performance sensitivity. This does not
mean that the presence of a gas cap always reduces the
overall uncertainty about future performance. For actual
reservoirs, there will be additional uncertainties. such as
gas-cap size and applicability of the tank-type model (e.g.,
no gravity drainage and no gas coning at wells).
Production Rate and Time Calculations
Rate and time were not considered in the material-balance
computations described in the previous sections because
performance (recovery vs. pressure) would be indepen-
dent of rate and time for the assumed tank-type behavior
with pressure equilibrium. Once the material-balance
computations are completed, the incremental oil produc-
tion for each pressure decrement has been calculated. The
time required for this production can be calculated if the
oil production rate can be determined.
Fig.
37.20-Sensitivity of depletion-drive performance to 2 30%
change in interstitial water saturation.
All wells are assumed to have the same oil production
rate at a given reservoir pressure (or equivalently an aver-
age well is considered). The production rate for the en-
tire reservoir is calculated as the rate per well times the
number of wells.
Two different approaches have been used for calculat-
ing the oil production rate, 4,)) as a function of average
reservoir pressure, p R, and well flowing BHP ( pIVf). The
simpler approach assumes a straight-line relationship
shown in Fig. 37.25 and given by Eq. 40.
qO=J (PR-pnf). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(40)
The other approach does not assume a straight-line rela-
tionship. Curves that are called the wells inflow perform-
ance relationship (IPR) aid in calculation of q,, Each
approach is discussed below.
34.
I I
9
Pool pcrformcmtc for
various initial prcrrurcr
-8
Cumulative oil recovery, 0% OIP
Fig. 37.21-Sensitivity of depletion-drive performance to f 30%
change in initial pressure.
change in 6,.
21
c
A m=O 0. R, decreased 30%
6 ",=O 0. R, increased 30%
Fig. 37.23-Sensitivity of depletion-dnve performance to + 30%
change in R,.
\
DR&wD~wN : i g pw,
I
OIL PRODUCING RATE, qO, BID
change in permeability ratio k,/k,.
Fig. 37.25-Straight-line inflow performance (q,, vs. pwf) rela-
tionship.
37-19
Rates Based on Productivity Index
Well production rates are often assumed to be directly
proportional to the pressure drawdown (difference be-
tween reservoir and wellbore pressures), as shown by Eq.
40. The proportionality term is the productivity index,
J, which is often based on the equation for pseudosteady-
state flow in a bounded system. The generalized form of
this equation presented by Odeh has a shape factor or
constant CA to enable characterization of both noncircular
and circular drainage areas:
0.00708k ,,kh( p R -p ,,,f)
4, =
. 3 .(41)
P,,B,, MC,4 - 4 +d
For a radial system, the shape factor is CA =relr,, ,
where rcl is the external radius and r,r is the wellbore
radius. The productivity index for a single well is then
determined by combining Eqs. 40 and 41:
J=L=
O.O0708k,,kh
P R -P wf
~L(,B,, ln(C,-z+r) .-.(42)
A wells productivity index is sometimes treated as a
constant-at least for some limited time or pressure
interval-because variations in pLo, B,,, and k,,, are small.
For performance predictions over larger pressure ranges,
however. it is important to consider these variations.
The initial productivity index, Jj, can be determined
two ways: (1) from well pressure and flow-rate tests (see
Chap. 32). or (2) by Eq. 42 with k,.,,= 1.0 at initial
conditions.
The expression for J, based on Eq. 42 is
J, =
0.00708kh
/
, \ . (43)
No matter how J, is determined, at a later time (i.e.,
a lower pressure), J is
( ..,
where k,,, is evaluated at the current liquid saturation and
p(, and B,, arc evaluated at the current reservoir pressure.
Eq. 44 assumes pseudosteady-state flow conditions as the
average reservoir pressure declines [i.e., ai& (S,,/B,,) is
the same at all points]. J from Eq. 44 is used in Eq. 40
to calculate y(,. Consequently, the wells production rate
is directly proportional to pressure drawdown (17~ -p ,,:,),
but the proportionality term (J ) varies wjith pressure and
saturation.
Rates Based on Inflow Performance Ratio (IPR)
The uniform saturation assumption of tank-type material
balances is avoided in rate calculations using the IPR ap-
proach. The basic idea is that with increasing drawdown
(lower BHP), gas saturation will not be uniform. More
gas will be evolved in the near-well region, causing higher
gas saturations and more resistance to oil flow (lower
k,,,). This increased flow resistance reduces the oil pro-
duction rate at a given BHP.
The reader may be wondering why we would combine
a tank-type material-balance computation that assumes
uniform saturation with rate calculations based on a differ-
ent assumption. Isnt it more consistent to stay with the
uniform saturation assumption by using rates based on
productivity index values? Although such questions are
logical. note that the nonuniformity in near-well satura-
tions tends to affect mainly rates. The overall material-
balance results (oil recovery vs. average reservoir pres-
sure) are more a function of average reservoir conditions
than of near-well conditions. The IPR approach is also
of interest for predicting oilwell productivity in other types
of calculations for solution-gas-drive reservoirs.
Vogel 24 used a computer program to determine oil pro-
duction rate (qo) vs. BHP, J.J,,~% for each of a sequence
of declining reservoir pressures. This was done for a cir-
cular reservoir with a completely penetrating well at its
center using Wellers I6 approximation described in the
section entitled Insights from Simulator Studies.
Vogel simulated several circular reservoirs with differ-
ent oil properties, relative-permeability characteristics,
well spacings (i.e., sizes of the circular reservoir), and
well skin conditions. His results for one case are shown
in Fig. 37.26. Each line shows q. vs. p,!./ for a given
cumulative oil recovery (or for a given reservoir pres-
sure that is the pressure corresponding to zero qn). Note
that, in contrast to the straight line of Fig. 37.25, the lines
in Fig. 37.26 have a downward curvature. This is a rem
suit of the greater resistance to oil flow with increasing
gas saturation. Vogel pointed out the compatibility of his
results with those of Evinger and Muskat, J who present-
ed theoretical calculations to show that plots of q. vs.
pI,,f for two-phase flow result in curved lines rather than
straight lines.
Vogel found that in plotting dimensionless IPR curves,
as shown in Fig. 37.27, the curves group closely. He ap-
proximated this group of curves by a single average or
reference curve shown in Fig. 37.28. This curve can be
an approximation for all wells. An equation for this curve
is
-=
(45)
where (y,,),,,, =maximum oil production rate, STBID.
Vogel did not provide a way to compute y,, given p,,~
and PR. His approach required knowledge of y. at some
p,,f from a well test. Eq. 45 could then be used to cal-
culate the y(, at any other value of put. In 1971,
Standing6 provided the additional insights necessary to
use Vogels results in performance prediction models.
Standing noted that Eq. 45 can be rearranged to
&=(I-$ (,+o.*~).
CUM,,, ATIYE RECOVER.
PERCENT OF ORllNIL
OIL IN PLACE
40 80 I20 160 200 210
OIL PRODUCING RATE, q,, BID
Fig. 37.26-Computed inflow performance relationships for a
well in a solution-gas-drive reservoir
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
SAME AS FIG. 37.26
1 I / I
0 0. 2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0
PRODUCING RATE (qo /(so)mod, FRACTION OF MAXIMUM
Fig. 37.27-Dimensionless Inflow performance relationships for
a well in a solution-gas-drive reservoir.
and that the productivity index of a well is defined by
90
J =-
PR-P,,l.. (47)
REFERENCE CURVE
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
SAME AS FIG. 37.26
02 0.4 06 0.8 1.0
PRODUCING RATE (~o/(qoh,), FRACTION OF MAXIMUM
Fig. 37.28-Comparison of reference curve with computed IPR
curves.
Standing noted that the physical conditions inherent in
Eq. 48 are that reservoir gas and oil saturations, as well
as reservoir pressure, vary with distance from the well-
bore and that the wells skin factor is zero.
Standing also considered the situation in which fluid
saturations are uniform within the reservoir. This would
be the case for production with minimal drawdown. The
wells productivity under these conditions of essentially
uniform saturations and pressure was denoted by J*. Note
that J* is based on the same conditions assumed for the
productivity index, J, in Eq. 42; J* is identical to the J
of Eq. 42 and can be evaluated the same way:
J *=
0.00708 k,kh
/
? \ , . . . (49)
where k, is evaluated at the average fluid saturations in
the reservoir, and p0 and B, are evaluated at the aver-
age reservoir pressure pR. Recall that for a radial sys-
tem the shape factor CA is simply t-h,,..
Standing used J to denote the true (or at least more ac-
curate) value of the wells productivity index. The differ-
ence between J and J* is an indication of the inaccuracy
that occurs because J* is based on uniform conditions.
Standing noted that J* is the limiting value of J for very
small drawdown (i.e., as p,,f approaches p R):
J*= lim J=
1W1o)max
. .
(50)
P,,/ P R
PR
Combining Eqs. 48 and 50 enables elimination of
( qdmaxbR, yi el di ng
Substituting Eq. 47 into Eq. 46 yields
(48)
37-2 1
Eqs. 49 and 5 I enable calculation of the wells J once
the average fluid saturations. p \,., . and p R are known.
By combining Eqs. 45 and 50, Standing eliminated
(qo)mlx
and obtained Eq. 52, which is a general relation-
ship for IPR curves at various average reservoir pressures.
.
(52)
Thus, Standing has shown how production rate in a
solution-gas-drive performance model can be calculated
by use of Vogels IPR information. Because a value of
J* can be calculated with Eq. 49. all terms in Eq. 52 can
be evaluated.
Later. Al-Saadoon suggested that a different expres-
sion should be used for J. However, Rosbaco clarified
the situation by noting that although Standing?6 and Al-
Saadoon used different formulas for J and for J/J*.
both yield the same results for q,, vs. ~,~f. Consequenly,
it is workable and acceptable to use Standings equations.
Standing discussed application of the IPR approach
to damaged wells and Dias-Couto and Golan developed
a general IPR for wells in solution-gas-drive reservoirs
that is applicable to wells with any drainage area shape,
any completion flow efficiency, and at any stage of reser-
voir depletion.
Time Required for Oil Production
At this point, oil recovery vs. reservoir pressure is known
from the material-balance calculations. The oil produc-
tion rate per well, q,, 1 corresponding to a specified mini-
mum P,,? can be calculated by use of either the
productivity index approach (Eq. 42) or the IPR approach
(Eqs. 49 and 52). This y. is the calculated rate that the
well is capable of producing. The well also may be sub-
ject to a scheduling constraint, such as an allowable pro-
duction rate. Consequently, the wells oil production rate
q,, at pressure P,~ is the smaller of these two rates:
4,~=(40)min, . . (53)
where (qo)min =minimum value of calculated and sched-
uled oil rate, STBID.
The average oil production rate q,, during the pressure
decrement from p,i- t to P,~ is given by Eq. 54.
ij, =OS(q,, +qn-,). . (54)
This average rate is used in Eq. 55 to calculate the time
&,, required for the incremental oil production (AN,,),,
from P,,- I to P,~.
& = (UP),,
II
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- (5%
4,T II
The cumulative time, t,, , to reach pressure p,i is given
by Eq. 56. with initial time t,,=O.
t,,=t,,-, +At,,. (56)
Insights from Simulator Studies
Because reservoir simulation is the topic of Chap. 48, we
will not discuss it in detail here. For solution-gas-drive
reservoirs, several comparisons have been made of grid-
ded simulator results vs. simpler approaches, such as tank-
type material balances. These comparisons help to con-
firm the range of applicability of the simpler approaches.
The key questions addressed by these studies are the same
questions Vogel 24 considered in getting the computed re-
sults on which he based the IPR method for well rate cal-
culations. These questions are (I) to what extent is the
saturation distribution nonuniform, and (2) how much
does this influence performance.
The most informative study was by Ridings rt ul.,
who compared laboratory vs. computed solution-gas-drive
results for linear systems and obtained close agrcement.
Also. they used a gridded radial simulator to study the
effect of rate and spacing on performance of solution-gas-
drive reservoirs. Their conclusions concerning thin.
homogeneous, horizontal solution-gas-drive reservoirs in-
cluded the following.
I. Ultimate recovery essentially is independent of rate
and spacing, and agrees closely with recovery predicted
by the conventional Muskat method.
2. GOR depends somewhat on rate and spacing. For
high rates or close spacings, GORs initially are higher,
but later become lower than a Muskat prediction would
indicate. At low rates or wide spacings. GOR behavior
approaches the Muskat prediction.
3. Computed depletion time agreed closely with con-
ventional analysis (productivity index method) at low prcs-
sure drawdowns, but differed more for high drawdowns.
This is in qualitative agreement with the results obtained
by Vogel.
4. Intermittent operation greatly affects instantaneous
GOR behavior, but the cumulative GOR is not affected
significantly. Also, oil recovery apparently is not affect-
ed. This refers to the cumulative oil recovery, not the
amount of oil recovered in a given time period.
Note that Conclusions 1 and 2 support the use of tank-
type models for predictions of recovery and of GOR (at
least for low rates) for solution-gas-drive reservoirs.
Although Muskats method is mentioned, other tank-type
approaches, such as Tracys method, would be equally
suitable.
Stone and Carder compared one-dimensional (1 D)
gridded simulator results vs. pressure and production data
measured on a laboratory model produced by solution-
gas drive. Computed and measured pressures vs. percent
oil recovery were in close agreement.
In 196 1, Levine and Prats presented a comparison
of solution-gas-drive results for an exact method (a 1D
radial gridded simulator) vs. an approximate method.
The approximate method was based on assumptions of
semisteady state-often called pseudosteady state (i.e.. the
stock-tank-oil desaturation rate is the same at all locations
at any instant)-and constant GOR, which actually
meant uniform GOR (i.e., the total GOR is the same at
all points at any instant). Levine and Prats showed close
agreement between results of the simulator and the ap-
proximate method. These results, for various stages of
depletion, were pressure and saturation vs. radius and the
corresponding values of producing GOR and of percent
I-
Liquid
----
Black oil
Volatile
---?!
I GOR(scf/slb) 10 100 1,000 10,000 lOo,OoO
I 100,000 10,000 1.000 100 10 CGR(stb/MMscl
----------------
Gas condensate
Dry gas
Gas
---
Fig. 37. 29- - Sol uti on GOR range f rombl ack oi l to gases. Vol ati l e oi l s typi cal l y are i n the range of
1, 500 to 3, 500 scf / STB.
oil recovery. Only limited information was given about
the approximate method. This method would require deri-
vation of additional equations and development of a com-
puter program. Levine and Prats also discussed the
extension of results to other sets of fluid and rock prop-
erties by use of dimensionless groups.
Later, Weller I6 presented a different approach that re-
tained the semisteady-state assumption but eliminated need
for the constant GOR assumption. Weller showed that
his method matched simulator results more closely than
Levine and Prats constant-GOR method. Weller devel-
oped equations for the radial distribution of saturation and
pressure based on the combination of a transient period
before the effects of a change in producing rate are felt
at the drainage boundary with semisteady state ( same rate
of tank-oil desaturation everywhere) thereafter. Because
these equations serve mainly as an alternative to a grid-
ded simulator, details will not be given here (see Ref. 16).
Volatile Oil Reservoir
Performance Predictions
Volatile oils are characterized by significant hydrocarbon
liquid recovery from their produced reservoir gas. Also,
volatile oils evolve gas and develop free-gas saturation
in the reservoir more rapidly than normal black oils as
pressure declines below the bubblepoint. This causes rela-
tively high GORs at the wellhead. Thus, performance
predictions differ from those discussed for black oils main-
ly because of the need to account for liquid recovery from
the produced gas. Conventional material balances with
standard laboratory PVT (black-oil) data underestimate
oil recovery. The error increases for increasing oil
volatility.
A volatile oil can be defined as hydrocarbon that is
liquid-phase oil at initial reservoir conditions but at pres-
sures bel ow bubblepoint evolves gas containing enough
heavy components to yield appreciable condensate dropout
at the separators. This is in contrast to black oils for which
little error is introduced by the assumption that there is
negligible hydrocarbon liquid recovery from produced
gas.
Cronquist 38 used Fig. 37.29 to show the position of
volatile oils in the GOR range between black oils and
gases. Compared to black oils, volatile oils have higher
solution GOR (1,500 to 3,500 scf/STB), generally higher
oil gravities (greater than 40 or 45API), and higher B,
(above about 2.0 RB/STB). Volatile oils tend to shrink
rapidly with pressure decline below bubblepoint. Cron-
quist used Fig. 37.30 to illustrate this behavior. The
curves are made dimensionless (i.e., normalized to max-
imum values of unity) to facilitate comparisons. The or-
dinate bcjD is the dimensionless shrinkage:
b,D =@ob -~oWo/, -B,,,).
The abscissa PRD is a special form of dimensionless
reservoir pressure:
where
PRD = reservoir pressure, dimensionless,
PR = reservoir pressure, psi, and
pb = bubblepoint pressure, psi.
The curve labeled BO in Fig. 37.30 represents the typi-
cal behavior of a black oil. Shrinkage is almost propor-
tional to pressure reduction below bubblepoint. In
contrast, Curves E, F, and G are for progressively more
volatile oils and show much greater shrinkage as pres-
sure drops below bubblepoint.
This large shrinkage corresponds to substantial gas evo-
lution (i.e., a large reduction in the solution GOR as pres-
sure drops bel ow bubblepoint). This is illustrated by Fig.
37.3 1, which shows dimensionless cumulative gas
evolved, R @ =R,IR,J,, vs. dimensionless pressure. Rsb
is the solution GOR at bubblepoint, and R, is the reduc-
tion in solution GOR below bubblepoint: R,, =R,h -R, .
The trend line in Fig. 37.31 shows typical behavior for
a black oil. Gas evolution is almost proportional to pres-
sure reduction below the bubblepoint. Curves E, F, and
G, which are for volatile oils, show much more gas evo-
lution as pressure declines below bubblepoint.
Consequently, depletion performance of volatile oil
reservoirs below bubblepoint is strongly influenced by the
rapid shrinkage of oil and by the large amounts of gas
evolved. This results in relatively high gas saturations,
high producing GORs, and low to moderate production
of reservoir oil. The produced gas can yield a substantial
SOLUTI ON- GAS- DRI VE RESERVOI RS
37- 23
Di mensi onl ess pressure, p AD=p R I p b
Fi g. 37. 30- Di mensi onl ess shri nkage vs. di mensi onl ess pres-
sure. Curves E, F, and G are f or progressi vel y more
vol ati l e oi l s. Curve 60 i s f or a bl ack oi l . Curve VO
i s f or a vol ati l e oi l .
volume of hydrocarbon liquids in the processing equip-
ment. This liquid recovery at the surface can equal or ex-
ceed the volume of stock-tank oil produced from the
reservoir liquid phase. 31.33.34.38 Depletion-drive recov-
eries are often between 15 and 25% of initial OIP. Im-
proved recoverv through injection of gas or water is
sometimes con;dered but is beyond the scope of this
chapter.
For volatile oil reservoir primary-performance predic-
tion methods, the key requirements are correct handling
of the oil shrinkage, gas evolution, gas and oil flow in
the reservoir, and liquids recovery at the surface. For oil
with a low volatility but a higher shrinkage than a typical
black oil, simple corrections to differential shrinkage data
are sometimes made. 33,3s.39 For volatile oils, however,
it is essential to account for their special behavior more
thoroughly. This includes determination of the composi-
tion of the gas evolved in the reservoir for a sequence
of pressure steps below bubblepoint.
Methods for predicting volatile-oil reservoir-depletion
performance that assume tank-type behavior (i.e., ignore
pressure gradients) have been published by Cook et al.,
Reudelhuber and Hinds, j3 and Jacoby and Berry. In
Refs. 31 and 33, laboratory data determined fluid com-
positions, while in Ref. 34, fluid compositions were com-
puted from data for equilibrium constants. Cronquists
stated that there was no significant advantage of one
method over the other two methods because each method
appears to yield acceptable results.
The multicomponent-flash method of Jacoby and
Berry34 is particularly appealing because a comparison
of predicted vs. actual reservoir performance is availa-
ble. Sections to follow describe the prediction methodj
and discuss a comparison of predicted vs. field perform-
ance. 36 The description of the multicomponent-flash
method is from Sikora. I3
Di mensi onl ess pressure, PRD =Pn/ Pb
Fi g. 37. 31- Di mensi onl ess evol ved gas vs. di mensl onl ess pres-
sure. Curves E, F, and G are f or progreswel y more
vol ati l e oi l s. The trend l i ne typi f i es bl ack- oi l behavi or
Multicomponent-Flash Method
of Jacoby and Berry
Data required to predict volatile-oil reservoir perform-
ance by the multicomponent-flash method include (1) the
state and composition of the reservoir fluid at initial pres-
sure; (2) appropriate sets of equilibrium vaporization ra-
tios (K values) for the reservoir pressure range at the
reservoir temperature and covering the temperature and
pressure of surface separation; (3) some experimental
liquid-phase densities at reservoir conditions to check
correlations for calculating the required liquid densities
during the depletion process; (4) experimental oil-phase
viscosity data at reservoir temperature; and (5) relative-
permeability-ratio data.
Calculation Procedure. Prediction of reservoir perform-
ance by the Multicomponent-Flash Method consists of the
following steps, starting at pressure p 1. For convenience,
the calculation is made for a unit of hydrocarbon PV.
1. Select a pressure p2 that is lower than p 1 .
2. Flash the number of moles of the reservoir compo-
site fluid in the unit pore space at p 1 to the next lower
pressure p2.
3. Assume a gas saturation at p2 and calculate the aver-
age flowing bottomhole GOR with Eq. 57.
l&F. . . (57)
0 ,q
4. Calculate the number of moles in each phase of the
unit volume, the overall composition. and the number of
moles of reservoir composite remaining in the unit volume
at pl.
5. Determine the difference between the reservoir com-
posite at p I and p2, which is the total amount and com-
37- 24
TABLE 37.3-CALCULATED COMPOSITION (MOLE FRACTIONS)
OF THE WELLSTREAM
Reservoi r Pressure
( psi a)
Component
Ni trogen
Methane
Carbon di oxi de
Ethane
Propane
Butanes
Pentanes
Hexanes
Heptanes pl us
4. 836
0. 0167*
0. 6051'
0. 0218*
0. 0752*
0. 0474'
0. 0412'
0. 0297'
0. 0138'
0. 1491'
4, 768 4, 556
0. 0147 0. 0170
0. 5718 0. 6109
0. 0215 0. 0218
0. 0764 0. 0751
0. 0496 0. 0470
0. 0442 0. 0407
0. 0325 0. 0292
0. 0154 0. 0135
0. 1739 0. 1448
4. 300 3. 750
0. 0205 0. 0235
0. 6711 0. 7298
0. 0224 0. 0236
0. 0737 0. 0736
0. 0437 0. 0411
0. 0359 0. 0315
0. 0246 0. 0200
0. 0108 0. 0082
0. 0973 0. 0487
2, 750
0. 0235
0. 7582
0. 0250
0. 0775
0. 0412
0. 0296
0. 0171
0. 0064
0. 0215
1, 750
0. 0215 0. 0165
0. 7570 0. 7001
0. 0267 0. 0274
0. 0838 0. 1004
0. 0451 0. 0616
0. 0308 0. 0466
0. 0161 0. 0246
0. 0057 0. 0076
0. 0133 0. 0152
750
TABLE 37.4-CALCULATED RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITIONS (MOLE FRACTIONS)
Reservoi r Pressure
(psia)
Component 4, 836 4, 700 4, 600 4, 500 4, 400 4, 000 3, 500 3, 000 2, 000 1, 000
- - - - - - __ ~ ~
Composi te or Overal l Mi xture i n the Reservoi r
Ni trogen 0. 0167* 0. 0168 0. 0168 0. 0168 0. 0167 0. 0164 0. 0160 0. 0152 0. 0128 0. 0085
Methane 0. 6051* 0. 6060 0. 6062 0. 6062 0. 6057 0. 6001 0. 5926 0. 5766 0. 5194 0. 3937
Carbon di oxi de 0. 0218' 0. 0218 0. 0218 0. 0218 0. 0218 0. 0217 0. 0216 0. 0214 0. 0201 0. 0163
Ethane 0. 0752' 0. 0752 0. 0752 0. 0752 0. 0752 0. 0753 0. 0754 0. 0754 0. 0743 0. 0674
Propane 0. 0474' 0. 0473 0. 0473 0. 0473 0. 0474 0. 0477 0. 0480 0. 0488 0. 0510 0. 0527
Butanes 0. 0412' 0. 0411 0. 0411 0. 0411 0. 0412 0. 0416 0. 0422 0. 0434 0. 0476 0. 0559
Pentanes 0. 0297' 0. 0296 0. 0296 0. 0296 0. 0296 0. 0301 0. 0307 0. 0319 0. 0367 0. 0475
Hexanes 0. 0138' 0. 0138 0. 0137 0. 0137 0. 0138 0. 0140 0. 0144 0. 0151 0. 0179 0. 0244
Heptanes pl us 0. 1491' 0. 1484 0. 1483 0. 1483 0. 1486 0. 1531 0. 1592 0. 1722 0. 2203 0. 3336
Reservoi r Oi l Phase
Ni trogen 0. 0142 0. 0131 0. 0123 0. 0115 0. 0087 0. 0066 0. 0047 0. 0025 0. 0010
Methane 0. 5632 05447 0. 5297 0. 5146 0. 4667 0. 4205 0. 3682 0. 2662 0. 1561
Carbon di oxi de 0. 0214 0. 0213 0. 0212 0. 0210 0. 0202 0.0192 0. 0177 0. 0141 0. 0090
Ethane 0. 0767 0. 0772 0. 0775 0. 0776 0. 0777 0. 0776 0. 0754 0. 0681 0. 0521
Propane 0. 0502 0. 0512 0. 0520 0. 0528 0. 0549 0. 0568 0. 0587 0. 0600 0. 0542
Butanes 0. 0449 0. 0464 0. 0476 0. 0487 0. 0520 0. 0555 0. 0592 0. 0663 0. 0706
Pentanes 0. 0332 0. 0346 0. 0358 0. 0368 0. 0404 0. 0440 0. 0485 0. 0580 0. 0679
Hexanes 0. 0159 0. 0166 0. 0174 0. 0180 0. 0199 0. 0221 0. 0246 0. 0303 0. 0371
Heptanes pl us 0. 1803 0. 1948 0. 2065 0. 2189 0. 2595 0. 2978 0. 3430 0. 4345 0. 5520
Reservoi r Gas Phase
Ni trogen 0. 0256 0. 0256 0. 0256 0. 0257 0. 0262 0. 0262 0. 0253 0. 0230 0. 0198
Methane 0. 7546 0. 7571 0. 7575 0. 7617 0. 7700 0. 7780 0. 7770 0. 7720 0. 7492
Carbon di oxi de 0. 0231 0. 0230 0. 0231 0. 0231 0. 0237 0. 0243 0. 0248 0. 0261 0. 0274
Ethane 0. 0698 0. 0702 0. 0705 0. 0710 0. 0722 0. 0730 0. 0754 0. 0804 0. 0902
Propane 0. 0376 0. 0379 0. 0380 0. 0380 0. 0384 0. 0386 0. 0393 0. 0420 0. 0504
Butanes 0. 0279 0. 0281 0. 0283 0. 0282 0. 0283 0. 0278 0. 0282 0. 0290 0. 0339
Pentanes 0. 0171 0. 0173 0. 0174 0. 0173 0. 0170 0. 0163 0.0160 0.0155 0.0170
Hexanes 0. 0065 0. 0067 0. 0066 0. 0065 0. 0065 0. 0061 0. 0059 0. 0055 0. 0056
Heptanes pl us 0. 0379 0. 0341 0. 0330 0. 0285 0. 0177 0. 0098 0. 0081 0. 0066 0. 0066
position of the produced wellstream for this pressure
decrement.
6. Calculate the bottomhole GOR by flashing the well-
stream composition from p 1 to the average pressure
(p 1 +p2)/2, for this pressure decrement.
7. If the difference between the GOR from Step 6 and
the average GOR from Step 3 exceeds the desired toler-
ance. select a new gas saturation and repeat Steps 3
through 7 to continue iterations for the current pressure
decrement. If this difference is within the tolerance, the
final answer has been obtained for this pressure decre-
ment. For the next decrement, set p , =p2 and select a
p2 that is lower than the previous p2. Repeat Steps 1
through 7.
Example From Jacoby and Berry.34
Reservoir temperature, 246F
Initial pressure, 5,070 psia
Bubblepoint pressure, 4,836 psia
Initial GOR, 2 Mscf/STB
Oil gravity, 5OAPI
Conventional B,, 4.7 RB/STB
Original reservoir fluid composition, Table 37.3
(column 1)
SOLUTI ON- GAS- DRI VE RESERVOI RS 37-25
Z6000- Z6000- IOOOm IOOOm
3 3
-VOLATILE OIL -VOLATILE OIL LA LA
---- ---- CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL $ $
-100 -100 2 2
0 0
3 3
-IO -IO
$ $
0.1; 0.1; 3 3
CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION
BBL/BBL HC PORE SPACE BBL/BBL HC PORE SPACE
Fi g. 37. 32- Compari son of oil and gas production for volatk-
011 materi al bal ance ( mul ti component f l ash method)
vs. conventi onal materi al bal ance.
CUMULATIVE
Fi g. 37. 33- Mam Reservoi r perf ormance hi story
Solution. Results calculated by Jacoby and Berry
with the above method are given in Tables 37.3 and 37.4
and in Fig. 37.32. Table 37.3 shows the calculated well-
stream compositions, and Table 37.4 shows the fluid com-
positions in the reservoir. The oil and gas production in
Fig. 37.32 was obtained by separating the wellstream data
in Table 37.3 at separator conditions of500 psia and 65F
and stock-tank conditions of 14.7 psia and 70F. Fig.
37.32 also shows the comparison of oil and gas produc-
tion with conventional performance predictions.
Comparison of Predicted vs.
Actual Reservoir Performance
Jacoby and Berrys example was a performance predic-
tion published in 1957 for a volatile-oil reservoir in north
Louisiana that was discovered in 1953 and produced from
MATERI AL BALANCE
MATERI AL-
0
CUhWL ATIrE STOCK TANK O/L PROD. -THOUSAND BBl
Fi g. 37. 34- Mai n Reservoi r cumul ati ve oi l producti on vs. reser-
voir pressure.
160,OOC
4
8
k
2 120,000
I
E!
2
4
Q
80,000
2
QT
i?
40,000
z
F
$ 0
CONVENTIONAL
MATERIAL BALANCE
L9
VOLATILE OIL
MATERIAL BALANCE
Fig. 37. 35- Mai n Reservoi r cumul ati ve oi l producti on vs. GOR.
the Smackover lime. 34 The reservoir was believed to be
volumetric. The comparison vs. actual performance was
published in 1965 by Cordell and Ebert. 36 They called
this field the Main Reservoir. The field was completely
developed with 11 wells on 160-acre spacing by 1956 and
was 90% depleted by the time of their publication.
Fig. 37.33 shows performance history for the Main
Reservoir. j6 Figs. 37.34 and 37.35 compare actual per-
formance (cumulative stock-tank-oil production vs. reser-
voir pressure) vs.
P,
erformance predicted by the volatile-oil
material balance- and by conventional material bal-
ance.6 Cordell and Ebert stated that actual ultimate
recovery would be 10% greater than predicted by the
volatile-oil material balance and 175% greater than indi-
cated by the conventional (black-oil) material-balance cal-
culation.
Fig. 37.35 illustrates the large errors in applying a con-
ventional black-oil material balance to volatile oils: oil
recovery is underestimated, and producing GOR is over-
estimated. This emphasizes the importance of considcr-
ing the varying reservoir and wellstream compositions in
volatile-oil reservoir-performance predictions by use of
a volatileotl material-balance method.
Nomenclature
h,, = oil shrinkage factor
~~dl
= oil shrinkage factor, dimensionless
B,Y = gas formation volume factor (gas FVF),
RBiscf
B,qj = initial gas formation volume factor,
RBiscf
B,, = oil formation volume factor, RBiSTB
B
0
* = pseudovalues for formation volume
factor, RBLSTB
B
01, =
B,, at atmospheric pressure and reservoir
temperature. RBLSTB
B
oh
= B,, at bubblepoint pressure. RBiSTB
B,,, = initial oil formation volume factor.
RBiSTB
B, = two-phase FVF, RBISTB
Bti = initial two-phase FVF, RBiSTB
B,,. = water formation v,olume factor, RBiSTB
AB, = expansion of initial free gas in place,
RBlscf
As, = expansion of initial OIP. RB/STB
c (, = effective compressibility, voli(vo-psi)
cf. = formation compressibility. vol/(vol-psi)
CO
= oil compressibility. vol/(vol-psi)
c,,. = water compressibility. vol/(vol-psi)
CA = shape factor or constant. dimensionless
G, = cumulative gas injection. scf
G,, = cumulative gas production. scf
G,,,
= cumulative production of gas that was
initially in the gas cap, scf
G,,, = cumulative production of gas that was
initially solution gas, scf
(G,,),, = cumulative gas production to pressure n,
scf
CC,,),, t = cumulative gas production to pressure
II- I. scf
AC,) = incremental gas production. scf
H = thickness of gas cap/thickness of oil-zone
(Fig. 37. IO)
J = productivity index. STBIDipsi
.I* = productivity index under conditions of
uniform saturation and pressure,
STB/D/psi
J, = initial productivity index, STBlDipsi
X = permeability, md
k, = effective permeability to gas. md
kh = formation flow capacity, md-ft
k,, = effective pcrmcability to oil, md
X,., = relative permeability to gas
(k,., ) ,,,
= relative permeability to gas at residual oil
saturation
k
r<,
= relative permeability to oil
(k,.,,),er- = relative permeability to oil at critical gas
saturation
K = reservoir vaporization ratio
m = PV of gas cap/PV of oil zone,
dimensionless ratio
n,,. = number of wells
N = initial OIP, STB
N,. = computed initial OIP, STB
N,, = cumulative oil production, STB
(N,)), = cumulative oil production to pressure n,
STB
(N,),,-t = cumulative oil production to pressure
n-l, STB
AN,, = incremental oil production. STB
N,, = specified initial OIP, STB
p,, = bubblepoint pressure, psi
p;~ = initial reservoir pressure, psi
P n
= certain chosen pressure value. psi
P,~- t = pressure value one step below p,!, psi
pfi = reservoir pressure, psi
pi = average reservoir pressure. psi
PRD = reservoir pressure, dimensionless
p,,f = well flowing BHP, psi
p, ,p2 = intermediate pressure values in iterative
equations, psi
q,
= total gas production, scf/D
4x1
= gas production rate/unit bulk volume,
cm3/(s.cm3)
90
= oil production rate, STBiD
4,
= average production rate, STBiD
(qO)max = maximum oil production rate, STBiD
(4 0 1 Ill,
= minimum oil production rate, STBiD
qol. = oil production rate/unit bulk volume,
cm3/(s.cm3)
Q, = net fluid produced, RB
r<,
= external radius, ft
r,,
= wellbore radius, ft
R = producing GOR, scf/STB
R = average producing GOR. scf/STB
R,s,. = ratio of gas production directly from gas
cap/oil production. scf/STB
R,, = producing GOR at pressure p,,, scf/STB
Rc,td = previous average producing GOR,
scf/STB
R,, = cumulative produced GOR, scf/STB
R
ID
= cumulative produced GOR, I?,, /R,,,.
dimensionless
R,, = reduction in solution GOR below
bubblepoint. R,,,, -R, . scf/STB
R, = solution GOR, scCSTB
R,,, = solution GOR at bubblepoint. scf/STB
R,, = initial solution GOR. scf/STB
s = skin factor, dimensionless
S, = gas saturation, fraction PV
S,, = critical gas saturation, fraction PV
S,,, = interstitial water saturation. fraction PV
S,, = oil saturation, fraction PV
Soi = initial oil saturation, fraction PV
so,. =
s,,. =
SW, =
t=
1, =
t
II =
At,, =
VP =
w, =
w, =
w,, =
h -
PO =
Pot =
4=
+g =
+o =
residual oil saturation, fraction PV
water saturation, fraction PV
initial water saturtaion. fraction PV
time, days
initial time, days
cumulative time to reach pressure n,
days
incremental time for reservoir pressure to
decline from p,[- 1 to p,, , days
pore volume, RB
cumulative water influx, STB
cumulative water injected, STB
cumulative water produced, STB
gas viscosity, cp
oil viscosity, cp
initial oil viscosity, cp
porosity, fraction
Tracys pressure function for gas defined
by Eq. 21, dimensionless
Tracys pressure function for oil defined
by Eq. 22, dimensionless
References
Schilthuis. R.J.: A&e Oil and Rexrvwr Energ, Trcvr.! , AIME
(1936, 148. 33-52
Tamer. J.. Ho& Different Sire Gab Cap> and Pressure Mau-
tmmm Program\ Aflcct Amount ol. Rccwcrable Oil , Oil Ww-
I\ lJUC 12. IY14, 32-44
MU&I. M. and Taylor. M.O.: Eftect of Reaervo~r Fluid and Rwh
Characteri\tlc\ cm ProductIon Hihtorie\ of&h-Drwe Reservoir\.
Booh Co. Inc.. Nclr Ltrrh City twIY49).
Dwlwn. C .R. vl rri. : Appllcntum of Laboratory PVT D&t to
Rcwrvotr Enftneermg Prohlcmh. 7.rtr,i\. AIME (1953, 198.
ZK?-98.
Trac), G.W.: Stmplilied Form ol the Material B&mce Equatton.
7ru,r., 41Mt (1955) 204. 243-46.
Hau hm\. M.F.: Material Balance\ in Undersaturatcd Rewvotrs
Ahovc Bubble Pmnt. T/wr.> AIME (1955, 204. 767-70.
Arp\. J.J. and Robert\. T.G.: The Eltcct ol the Relative Permc-
ublllty Ratlo. the Oil Cra~lty. and the Solutwn Gas-Oil Ratio on
the Prmwy Recowry From a Dcpletwn Type Rewwr. /wt.\.
AlME (19.55, 204. 120~27.
W;rhl. W.L.. MulInt\. L P.. and Eltrtnk. E.B.: E\timation ofUI-
timate Recovery Irom Solution Ga+-Drlvc. r/wfr , AIME (1958,
213. 132-38
H:md>. L.L.: A Lahoratorq Study 01 Oil Rccovq hy Sulutwn
Gas DrI\c. Twc\., AIMt t 195X) 213. 310-1.5.
Crali. B.C. and H,I\\ kins. M F : ,4/~/>/w/ P~~rrdrwr~r R~~~~~II. GI-
~,wo,-~)~q. Prcntlcc~H;~ll Inc.. En$cHood Chf\. NJ ( IYSY)
Lwinu. 5.5. and Przat\. M.: The Calculated Pcr(i)rmdncc\ ot
Slrlutlon~Ga~~Drl\c Rcxrboirs. S&. Per. Ejrq. J. iScpt 1961 )
142~52: %.i/w.. AIME. 222
Slhor,l. V.J.: Solution-Ga\~Drl\,e Oil Rexrvoir\. f~~rrr~/cfw~ /,?I~
</w/irw Hw&rx~~. T.C. Frich (ed ). SPE. Rlchnrdson. TX ( 1962).
R~dmgh. R.L cl (I/.. Expcrimcntal and Calculated Behavior ot
Dli,l,l~ud-Gah~Dri~~ Sy\tcm\. Sm. Prt Eq J. (March 19631.
-11-4X. I-wr\. AIME. 228.
Huvlcnu. D. and O&h. A S : The Mnteria Balance Equatwn 3,
;u, Equ,mon 01. it Strqht Lnx. J. t+/. kh. IA+!. 1963, X96-900:
Tl.U,l.\ AIME. 22x.
16. Weller. W.T.: Reservoir Performance Durtng Two-Phase Flow.
J. PCI. Tdr. (Feb. 1966) 240 -46; Tr<rnr., AIME, 237.
17. Stow. H.L. and Garder. A.O. Jr.: Analysis ot Gas-Cap or Dis-
solved Gab Drive Reservoirs. Sot. Prf. 61,q. J. (June 1961,
92-304; Trum., AIME, 222.
IX. Singh. D. and Guerrero, E.T.: Matcrlal Balance Equetlon Sensi-
tivtty. OrI cintl Gus J. [Oct. 0. 1969) 95-102.
19. Platt, C.R. and Lewis. W.M.: Analysis of Unusual Performance
Indicates High Solution-Gas-Drive Recovery-Statelme Ellenburger
Field. J. PC/. Tedi. (Dec. 1969) 1507-09.
20. Dumore. J.M. : Development of Gas Saturation Durmg Solution-
Gas Drive in an Oil Layer Below a Gas Cap. Sw PC,. Drcq. J.
(Sept. 1970) 21 l-18: Trtrm.. AIME, 249.
2 I El-Khatib. N.A.F.: A Modified Method Ibr Performance Predic-
tion of DepIctton Drove Oil Rehervoira. preprint number 82-33-04
presented at the 1982 Annual CIM Petroleum Socwty Technology
Meeting.
22. El-Khatib. N.A.F.: The Effect ofDrainage Area and ProductIon
Rate on the Performance of Depletion Drive Oil Reservoirs. paper
SPE I IO19 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, New Orleans. Sept. 26-29
23. Ebmger, H.H. and Muakat. M.: Calculatttrn of Theoretical Prodw
tivity Factor. Trim., AIME (1942) 146. 126-39.
24. Vogel. J.V.: lnilow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas
D&e Wells, J. PH. Tech. (Jan. 1968) X3-92; ?rw.\. , AIME, 243.
25. Standing. M.B.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged
Wells Prttiucmg by Solution-Gab Drive. J. PH. T&I. (Nov. 1970)
I399- l-100.
26. Standing, M.B.: Concernmg the Calculation of lnllow Pertorm-
once of Wells Producing tram Solutmn-C;a\-Driw Rcvxvoir\, J.
Per. T~~~/i. (Sept. 1971) 1141-42.
27. Odeh. A.S.: Paeudoateady-state Flow Equation and Pruductlvity
Index lilr a Well with Noncircular Drainage Area. J. /cr. Tdz.
(Nov. 1978, 1630-32.
28. Al-Saedoon. F.T.: Predicting Present and Future Well Produc-
tivitles for Solution-Gas-Drive Rcservotra. J. Per. T~I. (May
1980) X6X-70.
29. Rosbaco. J.A.: Di ~cusamn of Predtcting Prcxnt and Future Well
Productivities for Solution-Gas-Drive Rewwxr\. J. Per. T~I.
(Dec. 1980) 2265-66.
30. Dish-Couto. L.E. and Golan. M.: Gcncrul lnllow Performance
Relattonship for Solutwn-Ga\ Reservoir Wells, J. Per. Tw/I. (Feb.
19X2) 2X5-88.
31. Cook, A.B.. Spencer. G.B.. and Bobrowskl. F.P.: Spectal Con-
sideration\ in Predtctmg Reservoir Performance (>f Htghly Vola-
tk Type 011 Reservotra. Trcirtx , AIME (195 I, 192. 37-36.
32. Won&. R.W.: Case History of Reservoir Pcrlbrmance of a Highly
Volatile Type 011 Reaervolr. Trmw., AIME (1955) 204. 156-59.
33. Reudelhuber. F.O. and Hinds. R.F.: A Compo~itmncll Material
Balance Method Ibr Predtctton ot Rccovcry from Volahle 011 Deplc-
tion Drive Rssxvwrs. Trw?\. , AIME t lYS7) 210. IY-26.
31. Jacoby, R.H. and Berry. V.J. Jr : A Method Ior Predlctmg Deplc-
tion Perfommancc of a Reservoir Produclnz Volatile Crude 011.
Trtruc., AlME (1957) 210. 27-33.
35. Brmhley. T.W.. A Volumctrl~-Balance Applicable tcr the Spec-
trum 01Rexrvoir Oils trom Black Oils through High Volatile 011s.
J. Prf. Tdr. (June 1963) 5X9--94
36. Cordcll. J.C. and Ebert, C.K.: A Case Hl~tor!~Compartson 01
Predicted and Actual Performance of a Rehervotr Producing Vola-
tile Crude Oil. J. Prr. T~I. (Nov. 1965) l?Yl&Y3.
37. Cmnquiit. C.: Dimensionless PVT Behavmr ulGulr C(,a\t Rcwr-
VOIT 011\. J. PC/. Tech. (Ma! 1973, 43X-42.
3X. Cronqulst. C.: Evaluating 2nd Producing Vnlutilc Oil Rcwvo~rr,
tiiic Publishing Co.. Am&rdam (197x1
40. van Everdineen. A.F.. Timmerman. E.H.. and McMahon. J.J.:
Applxwon of the Material Balance Equatmn to ;1 Partial Water-
Drlvc Rewrvwr. Trum.. AIME (1953) 19X. 51-60
Chapter 38
Water Drive Oil Reservoirs
Daylon L. Walton, Roebuck- Wal ton I nc. *
Introduction
Water drive reservoirs are those reservoirs in which a sig-
nificant portion of volumetric withdrawals is replaced by
water influx during the producing life of the reservoir.
The total influx, and influx rates, will be governed by the
aquifer characteristics together with the pressure-time be-
havior along the original reservoir/aquifer contact. Or-
dinarily, few wells are drilled into the aquifer and little
or no information concerning the aquifer size, geometry,
or rock properties is available. However, if sufficient
reservoir pressure and production history is available, the
aquifer properties may be inferred from solutions of Eq.
1, the radial form of the diffusivity equation.
a%
1 ap 5h.b~ ap
p+; ar=k -$ ..I.........., .
(1)
where
p = pressure,
r = radius,
4 = porosity,
p = viscosity,
c = compressibility,
t = time, and
k = permeability.
These inferred aquifer properties then can be used to
calculate the future effect of the aquifer on the reservoir
performance.
Definitions
Aquifer Geometry
Radial-boundaries are formed by two concentric cyl-
inders or sectors of cylinders.
Linear-boundaries are formed by two sets of parallel
planes.
Nonsymmetrical-neither radial nor linear.
Author of the ori gi nal chapter on this topi c mthe 1962 edltm was Vment J Skora
Exterior Boundary Conditions
Infinite-pressure disturbances do not affect the exterior
boundary of the system, during the time of inrerest.
Finite closed-no flow occurs across the exterior bound-
ary. Pressure disturbances reach the exterior boundary,
during the time of interest.
Finite outcropping-aquifer is finite with pressure con-
stant at exterior boundary (i.e., aquifer outcrops into lake,
gulf, or other surface water source).
Basic Conditions and Assumptions
1. The reservoir is at the equilibrium average pressure
at all times.
2. The water/oil (WOC) or water/gas contact (WCC)
is an equipotential line.
3. The hydrocarbons behind the front are immobile.
4. The effects of gravity are negligible.
5. The difference between the average reservoir pres-
sure and the pressure at the original WOC or WGC will
be assumed to be zero if unknown.
Mathematical Analysis
Basic Equations
Van Everdingen and Hurst obtained a general solution
to Eq. 1 for two cases: (1) a constant water-influx rate
(constant-terminal-rate case) and (2) a constant pressure
drop (constant-terminal-pressure case). By using the prin-
ciple of superposition, van Everdingen and Hurst extended
these solutions to include variable water-influx rates and
pressure drops. Mortada further extended the solutions
to include interference effects in homogeneous infinite
radial aquifers.
Constant-Terminal-Rate Case. If time is divided into
a finite number of intervals (Fig. 38. l), the average water
influx in each interval can be used in Eq. 2 to calculate
the pressure drop at the interior aquifer boundary. Eq.
2 shows that the relationship between the pressures and
-------- --
ew
e
wI
e
w3
k
e
w2
I
I
I 2-
INTERVAL
aewa
I
i
I
NUMBER
Fi g. 38. 1 - Water i nf l ux rates- constant termi nal rate case.
water- i nf l ux rates is a function of a constant m,. and a
variable po. The constant m, is a function of the aqui-
fer properties, whereas pD is a function of aquifer prop-
erties and time.
n
AP,,.,~ =mr c [c,,,~,,+,+~, -el,.,,r ,, IPD, 3 .(2)
j =l
where
P w,,
= cumulative pressure drop to the end of
interval n,
e ,,,
- water-influx rate at interval n-t 1 -j,
,r,+,-,I -
PI 1
m, = . 0.00,,27kha
for radial aquifers,
PM
m, = . . o.ool *27kh
for infinite linear aquifers,
P WL
m, =
0~00,127khb . .._................
(3)
(4)
(5)
for finite linear aquifers,
pi = dimensionless pressure term,
e,. = water influx rate, RB/D,
pI(, = pressure at the original WOC, psi,
k = permeability, md,
h = aquifer thickness, ft,
b = aquifer width, ft,
L = aquifer length, ft,
FL,, = water viscosity, cp, and
cx = angle subtended by reservoir, radians
PO
P
P %
p3
4-I
P_
.OI 2 3 n- l n
INTERVAL NUMBER
Fi g. 38. 2- Pressure drops- constant termi nal pressure case.
For calculation convenience it is recommended that time
be divided into equal intervals and Eq. 6 be used.
AP..,~ =mr i e,, ,,,, +,-,,ApD, . . .
j+l
=mrIelv,, 40, fe,,,,, ,, APL)-
e,, ? MD,,, ,, +e,,., APD,~ 1, (7)
where 40, PO, -PO,-,
Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case. If time is divided
into a finite number of intervals (Fig. 38.2), Eq. 8 can
be used to calculate the cumulative water influx for a given
pressure history, using average pressure drops in each
time interval.
,I
WC>,) =mp c Apcrr+,-,) w,D, , . . (8)
j=l
where
w,!,
= cumulative water influx to end of
interval,
P
= 0.17811 +c,,,har,,. ____._. ._. .(9)
for radial aquifers,
MI]
= 0.17811 $r ,,., hb
2
.(lO)
for infinite linear aquifers,
AP(~~+I-~,
= average pressure drop in interval
n+l-j,
W
PD
= dimensionless water-influx term,
rw = field radius, ft, and
c.,i
= total aquifer compressibility, psi - .
The solution of Eq. 8 requires the use of superposition,
in a manner similar to that shown by the expansion of
Eq. 6. A modification presented by Carter and Tracy3
permits calculations of W, that approximate the values
WATER DRI VE OI L RESERVOI RS
38-3
obtained from Eq. 8 but does not require the use of su-
perposition. This method is advantageous when the cal-
culations are to be made manually. since fewer terms are
required.
Using Carter and Tracys method, Eq. I I, the cumula-
tive water influx at time t,, is calculated directly from the
previous value obtained at t,,-,
+ bpA~,,r~,, - W,,,, ,,PD,, IVo,, -[I+,, ,, 1
PD,, -tDdD,,
where
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(11)
p,D =pD,, -pD,,, I,
. . . . . . . . ..I.....
,>
(12)
ID,, -rD,,,-,,
and
Ap,,=p,-pn, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Reservoir Interference. Where two or more reservoirs2
are in a common aquifer, it is possible to calculate the
change in pressure at Reservoir A, for example, caused
by water influx into another reservoir, B, using Eq. 14
or 15. These are Eqs. 2 and 3 with modified subscripts.
For unequal time intervals,
A~Pnwo,, =tnr
Ii [~doi,-,) -enB,,,JPD(A.R),~
J=I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(14)
and for equal time intervals,
*P~(A,B),, =m, e MB
j=l
,,,+,mj ,APD(A,B), > . .(I3
where
PD(A,B)
= dimensionless pressure term for
Reservoir B with respect to
Reservoir A,
AP,~(~,J) = pressure drop at Reservoir A caused
by Reservoir B, and
e,,,B = Water inflUX rate at Reservoir B.
The total pressure drop at Reservoir A at any given time
is the sum of the pressure drops caused by all reservoirs
in the common aquifer, or
APIA,, =AP~(A,A I,, +AP~(A.B),, +AP~(A,cJ ,, +. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(16)
Since dimensionless pressure differences are available
only for homogeneous infinite radial aquifers, pressure-
interference calculations are limited at the present time
to aquifers that can be approximated by a uniform, in-
finite, radial system.
4\ FAULT
0
A
Fi g. 38. 3~I nf i ni te aqui f er bounded on one si de by a f aul t.
Hicks et al. 4 used the past pressure and production his-
tory in an analog computer to obtain influence-function
curves for each pool in a multipool aquifer. The influ-
ence function F(r) can be defined as the product of m,
and PO,
F(r)=m,pD, . . . . . .(l7)
and can be substituted in Eqs. 59 and 60 to calculate the
future performance.
Nonsymmetrical Aquifers. By use of the images
method,2 the procedure for calculating reservoir inter-
ference can be extended to the case where one boundary
of an infinite aquifer is a fault. For example, Fig. 38.3
shows Reservoir A located in this type of aquifer. To cal-
culate the pressure performance at Reservoir A, first lo-
cate the mirror-image Reservoir A across the fault. The
water-influx history for the mirror-image Reservoir A
will be taken to be the same as Reservoir A. Next, as-
sume that the fault does not exist so that there are two
identical reservoirs in a single infinite aquifer, with Rexr-
voir A causing interference at Reservoir A. The pres-
sure drop at Reservoir A now can be cal cul ated by use
of Eq. I9 (for equal time intervals).
APIA,, =mr 2 [~NzA~,,+,~, , APO, 1
J =t
Because e ,,,A =e Lr,A, ,
n
APoA,, =m, c e)+,A
j=l
,,!+,-, j [APO, -APD(A.AY, 1.
.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1%
If other reservoirs in the aquifer also are causing reser-
voir interference at Reservoir A, each mirror image will
cause reservoir interference at Reservoir A. The total
pressure drop at Reservoir A, therefore, will be the sum
of the pressure drops caused by each reservoir and each
mirror image (see Fig. 38.4).
Nonsymmetrical aquifers will be discussed further un-
der Methods of Analysis, Method 2.
Fi g. 38. 4- Di mensi onl ess pressure drop f or i nf i ni te aqui f er sys-
temf or constant f l owrate. , 8
pn and W,~Values. Values ofpn, PD(A,B), and W,D are
functions of dimensionless time rg (Eq. ZO), aquifer ge-
ometry, and aquifer size (to for radial aquifers).
Table 38.1 gives the substitution for d in Eq. 20 to cal -
culate tD and the table, graph, or equation to obtain po,
P&A-B), or W,D for various types of aquifers. The fol-
lowing equations are used in conjunction with Table 38.1.
0.006328kr
tD = ~C~,~?ftL,d2 , . . . (20)
po=l.l284JtD, ........................ .(21)
pD=o.5(h tD+0.80!?07), ................. .(22)
pD=h ,-D, ............................. .(23)
WeD=0.5(rD-I), . . . . . _.. . . ..(24)
Personal communication from Allant~c Refining Co
Ap~=-$Aro. . . . .
. (25)
ID
and
pD=tD+o.33333, . . . . . . . . . . . .(26)
where
to = dtmensionless time,
rD = dimensionless radius =T,/T,,
ru
= aquifer radius, ft,
rw = field radius, f t, and
d = a geometry term obtained from Table 38.1.
Methods of Analysis
Reservoir Volume Known. Rigorous Methods. There
are two methods for obtaining the coefficient m, and
APO in Eq. 6 from the past pressures and the water-
influx rates from a material balance on the reservoir.
Method l* is used whenever the aquifer can be approxi-
mated by a uniform linear or radial system; therefore,
published values of pD are used. If the aquifer can be ap-
proximated by a homogeneous, infinite, radial system,
the method can be extended to handle reservoir interfer-
ence. In Method 2,5 the product of m, and pD is re-
placed by Z (the resistance function).
Apwj,, = 2 e,
fn+, , ,AZj, (27)
j=l
where AZ, =Zi -Zj- r .
Method 2 is not limited to homogeneous linear or radi-
al aquifers because the final Z is obtained by adjusting
previous approximations to Z. Techniques for applying
Method 2 to the case where reservoir interference exists
are not available at this time, except for unusual circum-
stances.
TABLE 3&l - - REFERENCE TABLE FOR OBTAI NI NG WeD AND p.
Aqui f er Type
I nf i ni te radi al
Smal l er t,
Larger t,
Fi ni te outcroppi ng radi al
Smal l er t,
Larger t,
Fi ni te cl osed radi al
Smal l er l o
Larger t,
I nf i ni te l i near
Fi ni te cl osed l i near
Larger to
I nterf erence ( i nf i ni te radi al )
Larger to
Val ue of d
i n Eq. 20
PD WC?0
*
rw
Tabl e 38. 3 Tabl e 38. 3
rw
Eq. 21 Eq. 21
rw
Eq. 22
r,
Tabl e 38. 7
rw
rw
Eq. 23
rw
r,
rw
Eq. 25 Eq. 24
b
Lf
Eq. 21 Eq. 21+
Tabl e 38. 8
L Eq. 26
r( A. B15
Fig. 38.4 pDcA,E)
W)
Tabl e 38. 3, Eq. 22
*r*
= radus of pwl bang analyzed, f,
b = width Of aquifer. ft
+P
*D =We,
r
1 = length of aqwfei, ft
,A,Bj =distance between centers of Reservoirs A and 8. ft
WATER DRIVE OIL RESERVOIRS
36- 5
TABLE 38. 2- COMPARI SON OF RESULTS OF METHODS 1 AND 2 FOR SAMPLE CALCULATI ON
QuaXer or
Interval No
MZtLal
Balance
(B/D)
500
1. 100
663
616
599
2. 476
2. 550
2. 615
2. 449
2. 646
2. 828
663 672
616 630
599 614 8
9 3, 100 652 2. 672 3. 000 652 664
I O 3, 600 733 2. 723 3. 162 733 739
APf
Field
(Psi)
55
136
318
478
581
PO
AI , 210
rD =m
1. 651
1. 960
2. 147
2. 282
2. 389
Z
fi
(psi/B/D)
1. 000
1. 414
2. 732
2. 000
2. 236
Method 1 Mzi%d 2
4PW
(Psi) (psi)
55 55
136 135
318 317
478 477
581 584
11 3, 500 761 2. 770 3. 317 761 761
12 3, 600 803 2. 812 3. 464 803 607
13 3, 800 858 2. 851 3. 606 858 860
14 4, 100 928 2. 887 3. 742 928 934
15 3, 900 949 2. 921 3. 873 949 946
The procedure for both methods can be illustrated best If the AZD selected is the correct value, m, as a func-
by an application to a single-pool aquifer. Assume that tion of n will be constant. Variations from a constant can
a reservoir has produced for 15 quarters and that Cols. result from (1) incorrect AtD, (2) production and pres-
2 and 3 in Table 38.2 are, respectively, the pressures at sure errors, (3) incorrect aquifer size or shape, or (4) aqui-
the end of each quarter and the average water-influx rates fer inhomogeneities. An examination of the m, plot will
obtained by material balance for each quarter. aid in the analysis of the cause.
Example Problem 1. Method 1. From the following
assumed best set of aquifer properties, check Table 38.1
for the substitution of d in Eq. 20.
c,,, = 5.5X10- psi-,
/.i,,, = 0.6 cp,
h = 50 ft ,
01 = 27~ radians,
k = 76 md,
q5 = 0.16,
r,,
= 3,270 ft,
and the aquifer geometry is infinite radial.
r~=3(Ai,Af~).30 . . . .(30)
Calculate a convenient value (to minimize interpolation)
of dimensionless time interval (AZ,) for the quarterly in-
terval (Ar=91.25 days) by varying the permeability (if
necessary) in Eq. 20. In this case, AID = 10, correspond-
ing to k=91 md, was selected. A check of Table 38.1
shows that pi is to be obtained from Table 38.3 (also
tabulated in Table 38.2, Col. 4).
for NirAtD 63.4, where N;, is the time interval number
where m, vs. n increases from a constant value.
In this example, m,. increased with n (Fig. 38.5.
AtD = 10). Therefore, AtD was decreased from 10 to 1
(large changes are recommended) and m, for At, = 1 was
calculated (Curve 2). Now m, is constant until about In-
terval 9 and then increases, indicating the possibility of
a finite-closed aquifer. Using Ni, =9 and AtD = I in Eq.
29 gives a first approximation of 7 (rounded from 7.2)
for rD. The m,. calculated for AtD = 1 and rD =7 is rem
duced after Interval 9 (Curve 3) but is still too high and
therefore indicates that the aquifer is still too large. An
rg of 6 is taken for the next approximation, and this re-
sults in a constant value of m, (Curve 4). This shows that
the past field behavior (Col. 3, Table 38.2) can be dupli-
cated by assuming a finite-closed aquifer where AtD = 1
and rD=6 (Col. 6, Table 38.2). Because these aquifer
properties gave the best match to the past field perform-
ance, they should be taken as the best set for predicting
the future performance.
m
APS,,
?I= ),
.
(28)
where Ape is the known field pressure drop at original
woe.
Calculate ApD as a function of interval number. Then
calculate m, as a function of interval number using Eq.
28 and plot m, as a function of n (Curve 1, Fig. 38.5).
Fig. 38.6 shows an example of the calculation procedure
for n=5 using equal time intervals.
Value of m, Possible Remedy
increase with II decrease with At,
decrease with n increase AtD
constant, then increasing finite-closed aquifer
constant, then decreasing finite-outcropping aquifer
For a finite-closed aquifer or finite-outcropping aqui-
fer, Eq. 29 or 30 is used to find rD.
rD=2.3(NilAtD)0.518 . . . . . .
(29)
for N;,At, ~3.4, and
38- 6 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NGHANDBOOK
TABLE 38. 3- DI MENSI ONLESS WATER I NFLUX AND DI MENSI ONLESS PRESSURES FOR I NFI NI TE RADI AL AQUI FERS
w
eD
0. 112
0. 278
0. 404
0. 520
0. 606
2. 5x 10 - '
3. 0x10- '
4. 0x10- '
50x10-
6. 0x 10 - '
7. 0x10- '
8. 0x10- '
9. 0x10- '
1. 0
1. 5
0. 689
0. 758
0. 898
1. 020
1. 140
1. 251
1. 359
1. 469
1. 570
2. 032
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
4. 0
5. 0
2. 442
2. 838
3. 209
3. 897
4. 541
6. 0 5. 148
7. 0 5. 749
8. 0 6314
9. 0 6. 661
1. 0x10' 7417
1. 5x10'
2. 0x10'
2. 5x10'
3. 0x I O'
4. 0x10'
9. 965
1. 229x10' 1. 960 40~10~
1. 455x10' 2. 067 5. 0~10~
1. 681~10' 2. 147 6. 0~10~ 9. 113x104 60x10' 5. 368~10'
2. 088~10' 2. 282 7. 0~10" 10. 51 x105 7. 0~10~ 6. 220~10'
5. 0x10'
6. 0x I O'
7. 0x10'
8. 0x10'
9. 0x10'
1. 0x10*
1. 5x10*
2. 0x 102
2. 5x102
3. 0x10'
4. 0x10*
5. 0x10*
6. 0x 10'
7. 0x 102
80x102
9. 0x10'
2. 482~10' 2. 388 8. 0~10~ 11. 89 x105 8. 0~10'
2. 860x10' 2. 476 9. 0x10" 13. 26 x105 9. 0x10"
3. 228~10' 2. 550 1. 0~10" 14. 62 x105 1. 0~10' ~
3599x10' 2. 615 1. 5~10" 2. 126~10~ 1. 5~10' ~
3. 942x 10' 2. 672 2. 0 x l o6 2. 781x l o5 2. 0~10' ~
4. 301x10' 2. 723 2. 5 x I O6 3. 427x l o5 2. 5x 10"
5. 980x10' 2. 921 3. 0 x106 4. 064x l o5 3. 0x I O"
7. 586~10' 3. 064 4. 0 x l o6 5. 313x105 4. 0x10' "
9. 120x10' 3. 173 5. 0x l o6 6. 544~10~ 5. 0~10' "
10. 58 x10' 3. 263 6. 0 x I O" 7. 761 x I O5 6. 0~10' "
13. 48 x10' 3. 406 7. 0 x106 8. 965x10' 7. 0~10"
16. 24 x10' 3. 516 8. 0~10" 10. 16 x106 8. 0~10' "
18. 97 x10' 3. 608 9. 0x106 11. 34 x106 9. Ox1O' o
21. 60 x. 10' 3. 684 1. 0x10' 12. 52 x106 1. 0~10"
24. 23 x10' 3. 750
26. 77 x10' 3. 809
PO t,
~___
0. 112 1. 5x103
0. 229 2. 0 x 103
0. 315 2. 5x I O3
0. 376 3. 0 x 103
0. 424 4. 0 x I O3
0. 469 5. 0 x103
0. 503 6. 0 x I O3
0. 564 7. 0 x l o3
0. 616 8. 0 x103
0. 659 9. 0 x l o3
0. 702 1. 0 x l o4
0. 735 1. 5 x l o4
0. 772 2. 0 x l o4
0. 802 2. 5 x l o4
0. 927 3. 0 x I O4
1. 020 4. 0x10"
1. 101 5. 0x104
1. 169 6. 0 x l o4
1. 275 7. 0~10~
1. 362 8. 0x l o4
1. 436 9. 0 x I O4
1. 500 l . Oxl O~
1. 556 1. 5~10~
1. 604 2. 0~10~
1. 651 25~10~
1. 829 3. 0x105
W
c?D t D
4. 136x10' 1. 5~10~
5. 315x10" 2. 0x107
6. 466x I O2 2. 5x10'
7. 590x10' 3. 0x107
9. 757x10' 4. 0x107
W
eD
1. 828~10~
2. 398x106
2. 961~10~
3. 517x106
4. 610~10"
to
1. 5x 10"
2. 0x I O"
2. 5x 10"
3. 0x 10"
4. 0x 10"
W
1. 17xs100' "
1. 55x 1o' O
1. 92x10' "
229x1o' o
3. 02~10"
11. 88 x103 5. 0x107 5689x10' 5. 0x10" 3. 75xl O' O
13. 95 x103 6. 0~10~ 6. 758~10~ 6. 0x I O" 4. 47x 10"
15. 99 x103 7. 0x107 7. 816~10~ 7. 0x I O" 5. 19x I O' O
18. 00 x103 8. 0~10~ 8. 866x10e 8. 0x I O" 5. 89x 10' 0
19. 99 x 103 9. 0x107 9. 911xl O~ 9. 0x I O" 6. 58~10' ~
21. 96 x102 1. 0~10~
3. 146~10~ 1. 5~10'
4. 679x103 2. 0~10~
4. 991 x103 2. 5~10'
5. 891 x I O3 3. 0x 10'
10. 95 x 106 1. 0~10' ~ 7. 28x I O"
1. 604x 10' 1. 5x10" 1. 08x10"
2. 108x 10' 2. 0~10' ~ 1. 42~10"
2. 607~10'
3. 100x10'
7. 634~10~ 4. 0x10* 4. 071x10'
9. 342x103 50x108 5. 032~10~
11. 03 x104 6. 0~10" 5. 984x10'
12. 69 x104 7. 0~10' 6. 928x10'
14. 33 x104 8. 0~10' 7. 865~10'
15. 95 x104 9. 0x10*
17. 56 x104 1. 0~10~
2. 538~10~ 1. 5~10'
3. 308x104 2. 0x10"
4. 066x I O4 2. 5~10"
8. 797x10'
9. 725x10'
1. 429x10n
4. 817~10~ 3. 0~10" 2. 771~10'
6. 267~10~ 40x10' 3. 645~10'
7. 699x I O4 5. 0~10~ 4. 510x108
l . Oxl OJ 29. 31 x10' 3. 860
If an infinite aquifer had been indicated, it may be de-
sirable in some cases to predict the future performance
assuming first an infinite aquifer and then a finite-closed
aquifer having a calculated rg based on the best estimate
of AtD and setting N;, equal to the last interval number
in Eq. 20 or 30.
Note that, in general. the plot of m,. will not be a
smooth plot because of errors in basic data. The first few
values are particularly sensitive to errors and generally
may be ignored.
If it is possible to obtain a relatively constant value of
v?,., check the production and pressure data for errors.
If the production and pressure data are correct, try Method
7. 066~10'
7. 909x 108
8. 747x10B
1. 288~10"
1. 697x10"
2. 103~10~
2. 505~10~
3. 299x10"
4. 087~10"
4. 868~10~
5. 643~10"
6. 414~10~
7. 183~10~
7. 948x10'
2. If it appears that the production and/or pressure data
may be in error, refer to the following discussion of Errors
in Basic Data.
Example Problem 2. Method 2. This method is based
on the following principles: (I) the slope of Z (m, times
J>I)) as a function of time is always positive and never
increases; (2) a constant slope of Z vs. time indicates a
finite aquifer (see Eqs. 25 and 26) and therefore the ex-
trapolated slope is constant; and (3) a constant slope of
Z vs. log time indicates an infinite radial aquifer (Eq. 22).
Extrapolation of this constant slope continues to simulate
an infinite aquifer.
WATER DRI VE OI L RESERVOI RS 38-7
l-l
e
15
0.18
0.1 6
0.14
E 3.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
3 5 7 9 II 13 I5
TIME INTERVAL YUMBER
Fi g. 38. 5- Esti mati on of m, , N, , and roP f or data i n Tabl e 38. 2
( Method 1) .
As in the first procedure, time is divided into equal in-
tervals. The first approximation to 2 can be obtained as
in Method 1 or by arbitrarily using the square root of the
interval number (Col. 5, Table 38.2, and Trial 1, Fig.
38.7). A fitting factor m is calculated as a function of time
for Trial 1 in exactly the same manner used to calculate
M r in Method 1.
APf,,
mn= n
...
(31)
c e,,,,+,m,,AZ,
j=l
However, instead of m being plotted, m is used to cal-
culate the next approximation of Z by use of Eq. 32.
New Z, =m,(old Z,,). . . .(32)
The new values of Z are plotted as a function of n (Tri-
al 2, Fig. 38.7), and a smooth curve is drawn through
the points, making certain the slope is positive and never
increases (Principle 1). This procedure is repeated with
values of 2 from this smoothed curve until the fitting fac-
tors are relatively constant and equal to 1 (Trial 3, Fig.
38.7).
The final 2 curve then is extrapolated to calculate the
future performance as follows.
1. If the final slope of Z as a function of time is con-
stant, extrapolate Z at a constant slope (Principle 2).
2. If the final slope is not constant as a function of time
but is constant as a function of log time, first assume that
the aquifer is an infinite radial system and will continue
to behave as such (Principle 3) and extrapolate Z as a
straight line as a function of log time; then assume that
the aquifer is immediately bounded and extrapolate Z as
a straight line on a linear plot of time using the last known
slope (Principle 2).
3. If the final slope is not constant for either time or
log time, extrapolate Z as a straight line using half the
last known slope.
e
t
%+I-,
e, *p,
5
ew AP
4
D2
i
e
-3 ApD
e
*2
AP
D4
e
I I
*P
%I
1
Apo
I
=6 108. 7
=1050. 6
= 467. 5
= 148. 5
= 53. 5
n=5
581
m =- - 0074
r5 7828.8 .
u
.087 I= 7828.8
Fi g. 38. 6- Sampl e pressure- drop cal cul ati on
Fig. 38.7 shows that three trials were needed to obtain
a constant val ue of 1 for m. Col. 7, Table 38.2, shows
that the final Zs will duplicate the past pressure perform-
ance and therefore may be used to predict the future per-
formance. Because Z becomes a straight line as a function
of n, a finite-closed aquifer is indicated (Principle 2).
Therefore, Z can be extrapolated as a straight line to cal-
culate the future performance.
Errors in Basic Data. Good results were obtained for
both methods, since accurate water influx and pressure
data were used. In many cases a solution for m, and Ape
in Method 1 or Z in Method 2 is impossible because of
errors in basic data. In these cases the errors may be elim-
inated by smoothing the basic data or may be adjusted
somewhat by using Eqs. 33 and 34.5
m, -m
6Apf,, = -0. l-
Apf,, . (33)
m,
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14
n
Fi g. 38. 7- Esti mati on of Z f or data i n Tabl e 38. 2 ( Method 2) .
38- 0
0.1
0.06
0.04
TABLE 38. 4- WATER DRI VE BEHAVI OR EQUATI ONS
EL 0.02
0.0 I
0.006
TIME ( QUARTERS 1
Fi g. 38. 8- Esti mati on of mF and F f uncti on f or approxi mate
water dri ve anal ysi s of data i n Tabl e 38. 2.
and
--!---&e
AZ
I j =2
n,i,i+,-, , AZ,, . . . .(34)
where
@f
= correction to Apf,, ,
6e%
= correction to eM? , and
n
ti = average value of m.
In applying Eqs. 33 and 34 to Method 1, replace m by
m, and AZ by ApD. Note that, since Eqs. 33 and 34 im-
ply that the last values of Z (or APO) are reasonably cor-
rect, some judgment must be exercised when making these
adjustments.
Approximate Methods. If the water influx rate is con-
stant for a sufficiently long period of time, the following
equations can be used to estimate water drive behavior
roughly.
A P w, ,,
=mFervr,,F . . . (35)
and
W
1
e,,,m,l,=-
s
2 4M.r
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mF, I
F
(36)
where F is an approximation to pD and a function of the
type of aquifer and m,G is a proportionality factor. See
Table 38.4 for function and aquifer type.
Type Aqui f er Basi s
I nf i ni te radi al l o t
;
Eq. 22
I nf i ni te hear Li
Eq. 21
Fi ni te outcroppi ng L Eq. 23
Fi ni te cl osed t Eq. 25 or 26
The equations for the infinite-radial and finite-
outcropping aquifers are commonly referred to in the liter-
ature as the simplified Hurst and Schilthuis6 water
drive equations.
The procedure consists of calculating mF for the past
history using Eq. 35 or 36, plotting mF as a function of
time, and extrapolating m,V to predict the future water
drive performance. Since the method assumes a constant
water influx rate, the use of these equations should be
limited to short-term rough approximations of future water
drive behavior. Large errors may be obtained if the
method is used to predict the behavior for large changes
in reservoir withdrawal rates.
Fig. 38.8 shows a comparison of mF as a function of
time for various values of F and the data in Table 38.2.
These curves seem indicative of either an infinite linear
or radial aquifer (the curves for these assumptions more
nearly approach a constant value), whereas the more
rigorous analyses indicated a finite aquifer. The selection
of the best curve to use in predicting the future perform-
ance is difficult because of the fluctuations in the curves
caused by variations in water influx rates. Note that this
difficulty would be compounded if there were errors in
the production and pressure data.
Fetkovitch presented a simplified approach that is
based on the concept of a stabilized or pseudosteady-
state aquifer productivity index and an aquifer material
balance relating average aquifer pressure to cumulative
water influx. This method is best suited for smaller aqui-
fers, which may approach a pseudosteady condition quick-
ly and in which the aquifer geometry and physical
properties are known.
In a manner similar to single-well performance, the rate
of water influx is expressed by Eq. 37.
ew,=Ja(Pa -p,), . . . . . . . . . . (37)
where
e wp
= water influx rate, B/D,
J, = aquifer productivity index, B/D-psi,
p, = average aquifer pressure, psi, and
P W
= pressure at the original WOC, psi.
Combining Eq. 37 with a material-balance equation for
the aquifer, the increment of influx over a time interval
t,, -t,- 1 is given by Eq. 38.
Aw = wet[Pa(n-j) -p wn [l -,(-J,*,)((,,V,,)]
e
Pd
. . . . . . . . ..~......_...._.___
(38)
WATER DRIVE OIL RESERVOIRS 38-9
where
WC,, = ~C..,P,,,
total aquifer expansion capacity,
bbl,
IJ,~,; = initial water volume in the aquifer, bbl,
PO1
= initial aquifer pressure, psi, and
c ,I,
= total aquifer compressibility, psi -1 .
~~~~,~,,=p~j[l-~], .t..., . (39)
7.08x 10 - kh
RESERVES IN)
Jo =
. . ~,,,(ln rD-0,75)
(40)
Fig. 38.9-Estimation of reservoir volume and water drive
(Brownscombe-Collins method).
for a closed radial system, and
Jo =
3(1.127x IO-)kbh
(41)
P J
for a closed linear system.
Original Oil in Place (OOIP)
Occasionally. it may be necessary to estimate the OOIP
and to make a water drive analysis simultaneously. In
general. the methods available are very sensitive to errors
in basic data so that it is necessary to have a large amount
of accurate data. Also, since the expansion of the reser-
voir above the bubblepoint is relatively small, generally
only the data obtained after the reservoir has passed
through the bubblepoint will be significant in defining the
OOIP. In the three methods to be discussed, the aquifer
will be assumed to be infinite and radial.
Brownscombe-Collins Method. This method assumes
that the OOIP and the aquifer permeability are unknown
and that the reservoir and aquifer properties other than
permeability are known.
The pressure performance and the variance are calcu-
lated using Eqs. 7 and 42 for a given assumed aquifer
permeability and various estimates. The minimum vari-
ance from a plot of variance vs. OOIP (Fig. 38.9) will
be the best estimate of OOIP for the selected permeability.
tiplied by the factor X calculated by Eq. 43 gives the best
estimate of OOIP for the selected permeability. Eq. 44
gives the minimum variance for this permeability.
-*of, WPE,
x=- n
. .
(43)
c (APE,)~
j=l
and
.d
i W~+P~,-XA~~,)~,
. . . .
n j=1
where
A~,z = total pressure drop at original WOC (field
data), psi,
Ap, = total pressure drop at WOC (calculated
using reservoir voidage rates), psi, and
ApE = total pressure drop at WOC (calculated
using reservoir expansion rates). psi.
van Everdingen, Timmerman, and McMahon Method.
This method9 assumes that the OOIP, aquifer conduc-
tivity k/m/p, and diffusivity kI(@pc) are unknown. Com-
bination of the material-balance equation and Eq. 8 and
solving for the OOIP yields Eq. 4.5.
c2=i -$ (AP.~, -a~,,.). (42)
N=A +m/,F(t), . . . . . (45)
/
where
1
A=
U,JvB, +N,,(R,, -R,)& + w,,l.
VV- 1P,;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...
(46)
This procedure is repeated for various estimates of per-
meability until it is possible to obtain a minimum of the
minimums. The permeability and the OOIP associated
with this minimum should be the best estimates for the
assumptions made.
It is possible to calculate the best estimate of OOIP for
each selected permeability by the following procedure.
1
II
Using the best available estimate of OOIP. calculate the
F(t) =
[
C *PC,,+ 1-j) Wa/, , (47)
reservoir voidage and expansion rates as a function of
CFVmllBoi j=I 1
time. Select an aquifer permeability and use these rates
in place of the water influx rates in Eq. 6 to calculate pres-
F=Ph-P
-+I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(48)
sure drops Ap, ,, and APE,, The estimated OOIP mul-
PY
38-l 0 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG HANDBOOK
TABLE 36. 5- DI MENSI ONLESS WATER I NFLUX FOR FI NI TE OUTCROPPI NG RADI AL AQUI FERS
To =I . 5 70 =2. 0 rD=2. 5 f D=3. 0 rD=3. 5 rD=4. 0 rD=4. 5
t, weD to
W
eD t,
W
eD t, weD tD weD tD weD tD w,D
--~~
5. 0x 10 - ? 0. 276 5. 0~10~' 0. 278 1. 0x10- ' 0. 408 3. 0x10m
6. 0x10- * 0. 304 7. 5x10- " 0. 345 1. 5x10- ' 0. 509 4. 0x10-
7. 0x10- 2 0. 330 1. 0x10- ' 0. 404 2. 0x10- ' 0. 599 5. 0x10 -
8. 0x10- ' 0. 354 1. 25x10- ' 0. 458 2. 5x10- ' 0. 681 6. 0x10 -
9. 0x10m2 0. 375 1. 50x10- ' 0507 3. 0x10- ' 0. 758 7. 0x10 -
1. 0x10- ' 0. 395 1. 75x10- ' 0. 553 3. 5x10- ' 0. 829 8. 0~10~
0. 755 1. 00 1. 571 2. 00 2. 442 2. 5
0. 895 1. 20 1. 761 2. 20 2. 598 3. 0
1. 023 1. 40 1. 940 2. 40 2. 748 3. 5
1. 143 1. 60 2. 111 2. 60 2. 893 4. 0
1. 256 1. 60 2. 273 2. 80 3. 034 4. 5
1. 363 2. 00 2. 427 3. 00 3. 170 5. 0
0- l 0. 897 9. 0x10 - ' 1. 465 2. 20 2. 574 3. 25 3. 334 5. 5 11x10~' 0. 414 2. 00x10- ' 0597 4. 0x
1. 2x10- ' 0. 431 2. 25x10- l 0. 638 4. 5x
1. 3x10- ' 0. 446 2. 50~10 - ' 0. 678 5. 0x
1. 4x10- ' 0. 461 2. 75x10- l 0. 715 5. 5x
2. 835
3. 196
3. 537
3. 859
4. 165
1. 563 2. 40 2. 715 3. 50 3. 493 6. 0
1. 791 2. 60 2 649 3. 75 3. 645 6. 5
1. 997 2. 80 2. 976 4. 00 3. 792 7. 0
4. 454
4. 727
4. 986
5. 231
5. 464
3. 00 3. 098
3. 25 3. 242
3. 50 3. 379
3. 75 3. 507
4. 00 3. 628
4. 25 3. 932 7. 5
4. 50 4. 068 8. 0
4. 75 4. 198 8. 5
5. 00 4. 323 9. 0
5. 50 4. 560 9.5
5. 684
5. 892
6. 089
6. 276
6. 453
4. 25 3. 742 6. 00 4. 779 10 6. 621
4. 50 3. 850 6. 50 4. 982 11 6. 930
4. 75 3. 951 7. 00 5. 169 12 7. 200
5. 00 4. 047 7. 50 5. 343 13 7. 457
5. 50 4. 222 8. 00 5. 504 14 7. 680
3. 317 6. 00 4. 378 8. 50 5. 653 15
3. 381 6. 50 4. 516 9. 00 5. 790 16
3. 439 7. 00 4. 639 9. 50 5. 917 18
3. 491 7. 50 4. 749 10
3. 581 8. 00 4. 846 11
3. 656 8. 50 4. 932 12
3. 717 9. 00 5. 009 13
3. 767 9. 50 5. 078 14
3. 809 10. 00 5. 138 15
3. 843 11 5. 241 16
6. 035 20
6. 246 22
7. 880
8. 060
8. 365
8. 611
8. 809
12 5. 321 17
13 5. 385 18
14 5. 435 20
15 5. 476 22
16 5. 506 24
17 5531 26
18 5. 551 30
20 5579 34
25 5. 611 38
30 5621 42
35 5. 624 46
40 5. 625 50
6. 425 24
6. 580 26
6. 712 28
6. 825 30
6. 922 34
7. 004 38
7. 076 42
7. 189 46
7. 272 50
7. 332 60
7. 377 70
7. 434 80
7. 464 90
7. 481 100
7. 490
7. 494
7. 497
8. 968
9. 097
9. 200
9. 283
9. 404
9. 481
9. 532
9. 565
9. 586
9. 612
9. 621
9. 623
9. 624
9. 625
10-l 0.962 1.00
0-l 1. 024 1. 25
0- l 1. 083 1. 50
0- l 1. 140 1. 75
0- l 1. 195 2. 00
0- l 1. 248 2. 25
0- l 1. 229 2. 50
1. 5x10m' 0. 474 3. 00x 10 - ' 0. 751 6. 0x
1. 6x10- ' 0. 486 3. 25x10- l 0. 785 6. 5x
2. 184
2. 353
2. 507
2. 646
1. 7x10m1 0. 497 3. 50x10- ' 0. 817 7. 0x
1. 8~10~' 0. 507 3. 75x10- 1 0. 848 7. 5x
2. 772 1. 9x10- ' 0. 517 4. 00x10 - '
2. 0x 10 - ' 0. 525 4. 25 x 10 - '
2. 1x10- ' 0. 533 4. 50 x I O- '
2. 2x10- l 0. 541 4. 75 x I O- '
2. 3~10~' 0. 548 5. 00 x 10 - '
2. 4x10- l 0. 554 5. 50x10- '
2. 5~10. ' 0. 559 6. 00x10 - '
2. 6x10 - ' 0. 565 6. 50x I O- '
2. 8x 10 - ' 0. 574 7. 00x10m'
3. 0x 10 - ' 0. 582 7. 50x10- '
3. 2x 10 - ' 0. 588 8. 00x10 - '
3. 4x10- ' 0. 594 9. 00x 10- l
3. 6~10~' 0. 599 1. 00
3. 8x10- ' 0. 603 1. 1
4. 0x10m' 0. 606 1. 2
4. 5x10- ' 0. 613 1. 3
5. 0x10m' 0. 617 1. 4
6. 0x10- ' 0. 621 1. 6
7. 0x10 - ' 0. 623 1. 7
8. 0x10- ' 0. 624 1. 8
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
4. 0
5. 0
0. 677 8. 0x10 - ' 1. 348 2. 75
1. 395 3. 00
1. 440 3. 25
0.905
0.932
0.958
0.982
8. 5x10- '
9. 0x10 - '
2. 886
2. 990
3. 084
3. 170
1. 484 3. 50
1. 526 3. 75
1. 028
9. 5x10m'
1. 0
1. 1 1. 605 4. 00 3. 247
1. 070 1. 2 1. 679 4. 25
1. 108 1. 3 1. 747 4. 50
1. 143 1. 4 1. 811 4. 75
1. 174 1. 5 1. 870 5. 00
1. 203 1. 6 1. 924 5. 50
1. 253 1. 7 1. 975 6. 00
1. 295 1. 8 2. 022 6. 50
1. 330 2. 0 2. 106 7. 00
1. 358 2. 2 2. 178 7. 50
1. 382 2. 4 2. 241 8. 00
1. 402 2. 6 2. 294 9. 00
1. 432 2. 8 2. 340 10. 00
1. 444 3. 0 2. 380 11. 00
1. 453 3. 4 2. 444 12. 00
1. 468 3. 8 2. 491 14. 00
1. 487 4. 2 2. 525 16. 00
1. 495 4. 6 2. 551 18. 00
3.894
3.928
3. 951
3. 967
3. 985
3. 993
3. 997
3. 999
3. 999
4. 000
1499 5. 0
1. 500 6. 0
7. 0
8. 0
9. 0
10. 0
2. 570 20. 00
2. 599 22. 00
2. 613 24. 00
2. 619
2. 622
2. 624
and Generally, Y is calculated with laboratory-determined
values of FV - 1. Because Y vs. p is generally a straight
line, smoothed values of Ycan be calculated with Eq. 50: y= ph-p
P(FV-,). ~.~..............,._.._,,,,
Y=b+m, . . . (50) FV = ratio of volume of oil and its dissolved
original gas at a given pressure to its
volume at initial pressure,
N = OOIP. STB,
N,, = cumulative oil produced, STB,
W,] = cumulative water produced. bbl,
R,, = cumulative produced GOR, scf/STB.
B,, = oil FVF, bbl/STB,
B,q = gas FVF. bbhscf, and
p/1 = bubblepoint pressure. psia.
where h= intercept and m =slope.
The equations for obtaining the least-squares tit to Eqs.
46 and 47 for a given dimensionless time interval, At,.
and n data points are
II
nN= c A,-m, i F(t), .(51)
j=l J =I
WATER DRI VE OI L RESERVOI RS 38- 11
TABLE 38.5-DIMENSIONLESS WATER INFLUX FOR FINITE OUTCROPPING RADIAL AQUIFERS (continued)
r, =5.0 rD =6.0 rD =7.0 rD =8.0 rD =9.0 r, =l O. O
to
W
ell tD
W
eD tD weD tD weD rD weD rD weD
___~ _-_
3.0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
5. 0
5. 5
6. 0
6. 5
7. 0
7. 5
8. 0
a. 5
9. 0
9. 5
10
3. 195 6. 0
3. 542 6. 5
3. 875 7. 0
4. 193 7. 5
4. 499 8. 0
4. 792 8. 5
5. 074 9. 0
5. 345 9. 5
5. 605 10. 0
5. 854 10. 5
6. 094 11
6. 325 12
6. 547 13
6. 760 14
6. 965 15
5. 148 9. 00 6. 861 9 6. 861 10 7. 417 15 9. 965
5. 440 9. 50 7. 127 10 7. 398 15 9. 945 20 12. 32
5. 724 I O 7.389 11 7.920 20 12. 26 22 13. 22
6. 002 11 7.902 12 a. 431 22 13. 13 24 14. 09
6. 273 12 6.397 13 8. 930 24 13.98 26 14. 95
6. 537 13 a. 876 14 9. 418 26 14. 79 28 15. 78
6. 795 14 9. 341 15 9. 895 28 15. 59 30 16. 59
7. 047 15 9. 791 16 10. 361 30 16. 35 32 17. 38
7. 293 16 10. 23 17 10. 82 32 17. 10 34 18. 16
7. 533 17 10. 65 18 11. 26 34 17. 82 36 18. 91
7. 767 18 11. 06 19 11. 70 36 18. 52 38 19. 65
8. 220 19 11. 46 20 12. 13 38 19. 19 40 20. 37
8. 651 20 11. 85 22 12.95 40 19. 85 42 21. 07
9. 063 22 12. 58 24 13. 74 42 20. 48 44 21. 76
9. 456 24 13. 27 26 14. 50 44 21. 09 46 22. 42
11 7. 350 16 9. 829 26 13. 92 28 15. 23 46 21. 69 48 23. 07
12 7. 706 17 10. 19 28 14. 53 30 15. 92 48 22. 26 50 23. 71
13 8. 035 18 10. 53 30 15. 11 34 17. 22 50 22. 82 52 24. 33
14 8. 339 19 10. 85 35 16. 39 38 18. 41 52 23. 36 54 24. 94
15 8. 620 20 11. 16 40 1749 40 18. 97 54 23. 89 56 25. 53
16 8. 879 22 i l . 74 45 18. 43 45 20. 26 56 24. 39 58 26. 11
18 9. 338 24 12. 16 50 19. 24 50 21. 42 58 24. 88 60 26. 67
20 9. 731 25 12. 50 60 20. 51 55 22. 46 60 25. 36 65 28. 02
22 10. 07 31 13. 74 70 21 45 60 23. 40 65 26. 48 70 29. 29
24 10. 35 35 14. 40 80 22. 13 70 24. 98 70 27. 52 75 30. 49
26 10. 59 39
28 10. 80 51
30 10. 89 60
34 11. 26 70
38 i l . 46 80
11. 61 90
11. 71 100
11. 79 110
11. 91 120
11. 96 130
i l . 98 140
11. 99 150
12. 00 160
12. 0 180
200
14. 93 90
16. 05 100
16. 56 120
16. 91 140
17. 14 160
17. 27 180
17. 36 200
17. 41 500
17. 45
17. 46
22. 63 80 26. 26 75 28. 48 80 31. 61
23. 00 90 27. 28 80 29. 36 85 32. 67
2347 100 28. 11 a5 30. 18 90 33. 66
23. 71 120 29. 31 90 30. 93 95 34. 60
23. 85 140 30. 08 95 31. 63 100 35. 48
42
46
50
60
70
23. 92
23. 96
24. 00
160 30. 58 100 32. 27 120 38. 51
180 30. 91 120 34. 39 140 40. 89
200 31. 12 140 35. 92 160 42. 75
240 31. 34 160 37. 04 l a0 44. 21
280 31. 43 180 37. 85 200 45. 36
80
90
100
120
17. 48
17. 49
17. 49
17. 50
17. 50
320 31. 47
360 31. 49
400 31. 50
500 31. 50
200 38. 44 240 46. 95
240 39. 17 280 47. 94
280 39. 56 320 48. 54
320 39. 77 360 48. 91
360 39. 88 400 49. 14
and
220 17. 50
J =i j =l J =f
The variance of this fit from field data can be calculat-
ed by Eq. 53.
02=1 i {A,,-N+m,[F(r)],}?
n /=I
I
400 39. 94
440 39. 97
480 39. 98
440 49. 28
480 49. 36
u
I
Id
BEST ESTIMATE
I
OF At,
(53) Ato
Fig. 38. 10- Esti mati on of reservoi rvol ume and waterdri ve( van
The minimum in a plot of variance vs. various assumed
Everdi ngen- Ti mmerman- McMahon method) .
values of At, will be the best estimate of At, and can
be used in Eqs. 51 and 52 to solve for the best estimate
of N and m,, (see Fig. 38. IO).
36- 12
TABLE 38.6-DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR FINITE CLOSED RADIAL AQUIFERS
ID = 1.5 rD =2.0 r, =25 rD = 3.0 rD = 3.5
to PO tLl PO tD PO tD PO tD PO
__- -~-
6. 0x10- ' 0. 251 2. 2x10- ' 0. 443 4. 0x 10- l 0. 565 5. 2x10 0. 627 1. 0 0. 802
8. 0x10- ' 0. 288 2. 4x10- l 0. 459 4. 2x10- l 0. 576 5. 4x 10 0. 636 1. 1 0. 830
1. 0x10- ' 0. 322 2. 6x10- l 0. 476 4. 4x 10- l 0. 587 5. 6x10 0. 645 1. 2 0. 857
1. 2x10- ' 0. 355 2. 8x10- l 0. 492 4. 6x 10- l 0. 598 6. 0x10 0. 662 1. 3 0. 882
1. 4x10- l 0. 387 3. 0x10- ' 0. 507 4. 8%l o- ' 0. 608 6. 5x10 0. 683 1. 4 0. 906
1. 6x10- ' 0. 420 3. 2x10- l 0. 522 5. 0x l o- ' 0. 618 7. 0x10 0. 703 1. 5 0. 929
1. 8x10- ' 0. 452 3. 4x10- l 0. 536 5. 2x 10- l 0. 682 75x10 0. 721 1. 6 0. 951
2. 0x10- ' 0. 484 3. 6x10- l 0. 551 5. 4x 10 - ' 0. 638 8. 0x 10 0. 740 1. 7 0. 973
2. 2x10- l 0. 516 3. 8x10- l 0. 565 56x10- ' 0. 647 8. 5x10 0. 758 1. 8 0. 994
2. 4x10 - ' 0. 548 4. 0x10 - ' 0. 579 5. 9x10- ' 0. 657 9. 0x I O 0. 776 1. 9 1. 014
2. 6x10- l 0. 580 4. 2x10- l 0. 593 6. 0x 10- l 0. 666 9. 5x10 0. 791 2. 0 1. 034
2. 8x10 - ' 0. 612 4. 4x10- ' 0. 607 6. 5x 10- l 0. 688 1. 0 0. 806 2. 25 1. 083
3. 0x10 - ' 0. 644 4. 6x10- l 0. 621 7. 0x 10- l 0. 710 1. 2 0. 865 2. 50 1. 130
3. 5x10 - ' 0. 724 4. 8x I O- ' 0. 634 7. 5x10- ' 0. 731 1. 4 0. 920 2. 75 1. 176
4. 0x 10 - ' 0. 804 5. 0x10- ' 0. 648 8. 0x I O- ' 0. 752 1. 6 0. 973 3. 0 1. 221
4. 5x10m' 0. 884 6. 0x I O- ' 0. 715 8. 5x10- ' 0. 772 2. 0 1. 076 4. 0 1. 401
5. 0x 10 - ' 0. 964 7. 0x 10- l 0. 782 9. 0x10- ' 0. 792 3. 0 1. 328 5. 0 1. 579
5. 5x10m' 1. 044 8. 0x10- ' 0. 849 9. 5x 10- l 0. 812 4. 0 1. 578 6. 0 1. 757
6. 0x10- ' 1. 124 9. 0x10- ' 0. 915 1. 0 0. 832 5. 0 1. 828
r. =4.0 rn =4. 5
tD PO
--
1. 5 0. 927
1. 6 0. 948
1. 7 0. 968
1. 8 0. 988
1. 9 1. 007
t, PD
2. 0 1. 023
2. 1 1. 040
2. 2 1. 056
2. 3 1. 072
2. 4 1. 087
2. 0 1. 025 2. 5 1. 102
2. 2 1. 059 2. 6 1. 116
2. 4 1. 092 2. 7 1. 130
2. 6 1. 123 2. 8 1. 144
2. 8 1. 154 2. 9 1. 158
3. 0 1. 184 3. 0 1. 171
3. 5 1. 255 3. 2 1. 197
4. 0 1. 324 3. 1 1. 222
4. 5 1. 392 3. 6 1. 246
5. 0 1. 460 3. 8 1. 269
5. 5 1. 527 4. 0 1. 292
6. 0 1. 594 4. 5 1. 349
6. 5 1. 660 5. 0 1. 403
7. 0 1. 727 5. 5 1. 457
1 .o 0. 982 2. 0 1. 215
2. 0 1. 649 3. 0 1. 596
3. 0 2. 316 4. 0 1. 977
5. 0 3. 649 5. 0 2. 358
Havlena-Odeh Method. In this method, lo the material-
balance equation is written as tire equation of a straight
line containing two unknown constants, N and m,, Com-
bination of the material-balance equation and Eq. 8 yields
Eq. 54. (See Fig. 38.10.)
vR,,
Nfm, c *PW I -;) WA,
j =i
. . . .
(54)
EN,,
EN,,
where
E,tr
Bf,
I/
=B,-B, +p
I-S,,.
(cf+Sw~w)(P; -P,,)
VR,,
= cumulative voidage at the end of interval
II, RB.
EN = cumulative expansion per stock-tank barrel
OOIP. RB,
B, = two-phase FVF, bbl/STB.
W,, = cumulative water produced, STB,
Wi = cumulative water injected. STB.
G, = cumulative gas injected. scf.
B,, = water FVF, bbl/STB,
8. 0 1. 861 6. 0 1. 510
9. 0 1. 994 7. 0 1. 615
10. 0 2. 127 8. 0 1. 719
9. 0 1. 823
10. 0 1. 927
11. 0 2. 031
12. 0 2. 135
13. 0 2. 239
14. 0 2. 343
15. 0 2. 447
cf = formation compressibility, psi t ,
Cl,
= formation water compressibility, psi t ,
s,,. = formation water saturation, fraction, and
m = fitting factor.
Eq. 54 is the equation of a straight line with a slope
of mP and a y intercept of N.
Estimates of TD and Are are made and the appropri-
ate values of W,D are obtained from Table 38.3 or 38.5,
according to system geometry. The summation terms in
Eq. 54 then may be calculated and a graph plotted, as
shown in Fig. 38.11. If a straight line results, the values
of mp and N are obtained from the slope and intercept
of the resulting graph. An increasing slope indicates that
the summation terms are too small, while a decreasing
slope indicates that the summation terms are too large.
The procedure is repeated, using different estimates of
TD and/or Ato until a straight-line plot is obtained. It
should be noted that more than one combination of i-o
and AND may yield a reasonable straight line-i.e., a
straight-line result does not necessarily determine a unique
solution for N and mp.
Future Performance
The future field performance must be obtained from a si-
multaneous solution of the material-balance and water
drive equations. If the reservoir is above saturation pres-
sure, a direct solution is possible; however, if the reser-
voir is below saturation pressure, a trial-and-error
procedure is necessary.
38- 13
TABLE 3&G-DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR FI NI TE CLOSED RADIAL AQUIFERS (continued)
rD = 5.0 rD=6. 0 rD=7. 0 rD=8. 0 rD=9. 0 rD=10. 0
t, PO 0 PO t, PO t, PO tD PD t, PO
__~
3. 0 1. 167 4. 0 1. 275 6. 0 1. 436 8. 0 1. 556 10. 0 1. 651 12. 0 1. 732
3. 1 1. 180 4. 5 1. 322 6. 5 1. 470 8. 5 1. 582 10. 5 1. 673 12. 5 1. 750
3. 2 1. 192 5. 0 1. 364 7. 0 1. 501 9. 0 1. 607 11. 0 1. 693 13. 0 1. 768
3. 3 1. 204 5. 5 1. 404 7. 5 1. 531 9. 5 1. 631 11. 5 1. 713 13. 5 1. 784
3. 4 1. 215 6. 0 1. 441 8. 0 1. 559 10. 0 1. 653 12. 0 1. 732 14. 0 1. 801
3. 5 1. 227 6. 5 1. 477 8. 5 1. 586 10. 5 1. 675 12. 5 1. 750 14. 5 1. 817
3. 6 1. 238 7. 0 1. 511 9. 0 1. 613 11. 0 1. 697 13. 0 1. 768 15. 0 1. 832
3. 7 1. 249 7. 5 1. 544 9. 5 1. 638 11. 5 1. 717 13. 5 1. 786 15. 5 1. 847
3. 8 1. 259 8. 0 1. 576 10. 0 1. 663 12. 0 1. 737 14. 0 1. 803 16. 0 1. 862
3. 9 1. 270 8. 5 1. 607 11. 0 1. 711 12. 5 1. 757 14. 5 1. 819 17. 0 1. 890
4. 0 1. 281 9. 0 1. 638 12. 0 1. 757 13. 0 1. 776 15. 0 1. 835 18. 0 1. 917
4. 2 1. 301 9. 5 1. 668 13. 0 1. 801 13. 5 1. 795 15. 5 1. 851 19. 0 1. 943
4. 4 1. 321 10. 0 1. 698 14. 0 1. 845 14. 0 1. 813 16. 0 1. 867 20. 0 1. 968
4. 6 1. 340 11. 0 1. 757 15. 0 1. 888 14. 5 1. 831 17. 0 1. 897 22. 0 2. 017
4. 8 1. 380 12. 0 1. 815 16. 0 1. 931 15. 0 1. 849 18. 0 1. 926 24. 0 2. 063
5. 0 1. 378 13. 0 1. 873 170 1. 974 17. 0 1. 919 19. 0 1. 955 26. 0 2. 108
5. 5 1. 424 14. 0 1. 931 18. 0 2. 016 19. 0 1. 986 20. 0 1. 983 28. 0 2. 151
6. 0 1. 469 15. 0 1. 988 19 0 2. 058 21. 0 2051 22. 0 2. 037 30. 0 2. 194
6. 5 1. 513 16. 0 2. 045 20. 0 2. 100 23. 0 2. 116 24. 0 2. 090 32. 0 2. 236
7. 0 1. 556 17. 0 2. 103 22. 0 2. 184 25. 0 2. 180 26. 0 2. 142 34. 0 2. 278
7. 5 1. 598 18. 0 2. 160 24. 0 2. 267 30. 0 2. 340 28. 0 2. 193 36. 0 2. 319
8. 0 1. 641 19. 0 2. 217 26. 0 2. 351 35. 0 2. 499 30. 0 2. 244 38. 0 2. 360
9. 0 1. 725 20. 0 2. 274 28. 0 2. 434 40. 0 2. 658 34. 0 2. 345 40. 0 2. 401
10. 0 1. 808 25. 0 2. 560 30. 0 2. 517 45. 0 2. 817 38. 0 2. 446 50. 0 2. 604
11. 0 1. 892 30. 0 2. 846 40. 0 2. 496 60. 0 2. 806
12. 0 1. 975
13. 0 2. 059
14. 0 2. 142
15. 0 2. 225
There are several methods of solution because there are
several possible combinations of the various material-
balance and water drive equations. However, only one
combination will be used to illustrate the general appli-
cation to (1) a reservoir above the bubblepoint pressure,
and (2) a reservoir below the bubblepoint pressure. In
either case, it will be necessary to know (1) the satura-
tions behind the front from laboratory core data or other
sources, (2) the water production as a function of frontal
advance, and (3) the pressure gradient in the flooded por-
tion of the reservoir.
Pressure Gradient Between New and Original Front
Positions. Eq. 55 shows that the difference between the
average reservoir pressure and the pressure at the origi-
nal WOC is a function of water-influx rate, aquifer fluid
and formation properties, and aquifer geometry.
where FG is the reservoir geometry factor. The linear
frontal advance is given by
FG=
L.f
0.001127hb
and the radial frontal
FG=
27r In@, irf)
0.00708ha :
.,_...,.....,..........I
(56)
advance is given by
.____.____............
(-57)
45. 0 2. 621 70. 0 3. 008
50. 0 2. 746
,
00
0
1 AP%,
e
EN
Fig. 38. 11- Esti mati on of OOI P and mp.
38- 14
TABLE 38. 7- DI MENSI ONLESS PRESSURES FOR FI NI TE OUTCROPPI NG RADI AL AQUI FERS
r, =1. 5 rD=2. 0 r. =2. 5 rD=3. 0 rD =3.5 rD = 4.0
to PD to PD t, PD D PO tD PO tD PO
5. 0x10- ' 0. 230 2. 0~10~' 0. 424 3. 0x10- ' 0. 502 5. 0~10~' 0. 617 5. 0x 10 - ' 0. 620 1. 0 0. 802
5. 5x10- 2 0. 240 2. 2x10- l 0. 441 3. 5x10- ' 0. 535 5. 5~10~' 0. 640 6. 0x10- ' 0. 665 1. 2 0. 857
6. 0x10- ' 0. 249 2. 4~10~' 0. 457 4. 0~10~' 0. 564 6. 0~10~' 0. 662 7. 0x10- ' 0. 705 1. 4 0. 905
7. 0x10 - 2 0. 266 2. 6x10- l 0. 472 4. 5~10~' 0. 591 7. 0x10m' 0. 702 8. 0x10 - ' 0. 741 1. 6 0. 947
8. 0x10- ' 0. 282 2. 8x10- ' 0. 485 5. 0x10- ' 0. 616 8. 0x10- ' 0. 738 9. 0x10- ' 0. 774 1. 8 0. 986
9. 0x10- ' 0. 292 3. 0~10~' 0. 498 5. 5x10- l 0. 638 9. 0x10m' 0. 770 1. 0 0. 804 2. 0 1. 020
1. 0x 10- l 0307 3. 5~10~' 0. 527 6. 0~10~' 0. 659 1. 0 0. 799 1. 2 0. 858 2. 2 1. 052
1. 2x10- '
1. 4x10- '
1. 6x10- '
1. 8x10- '
2. 0x10m'
2. 2x10- l
2. 4x10- '
2. 6~10~'
2. 8~10~'
3. 0x10- '
3. 5x10m'
4. 0x10- '
4. 5x10- '
5. 0x10 - '
6. 0x I O- '
7. 0x l o-
8. 0x10- '
0. 328 4. 0x I O- ' 0. 552 7. 0x 10- l
0. 344 4. 5x10- l 0. 573 8. 0x10- '
0. 356 5. 0~10~' 0. 591 9. 0x10- '
0367 5. 5x10- l 0. 606 1. 0
0. 375 6. 0x10- ' 0. 619 1. 2
0381 6. 5~10~' 0. 630 1. 4
0. 386 7. 0~10~' 0. 639 1. 6
0390 7. 5x10- ' 0. 647 1. 8
0. 393 8. 0x10- ' 0. 654 2. 0
0. 396 8. 5x 10- l 0. 660 2. 2
0. 400 9. 0x I O- ' 0. 665 2. 4
0. 402 9. 5x10- ' 0. 669 2. 6
0. 404 1. 0 0. 673 2. 6
0. 405 1. 2 0. 682 3. 0
0. 405 1. 4 0. 688 3. 5
0. 405 1. 6 0. 690 4. 0
0. 405 1. 8 0. 692 4. 5
2. 0 0. 692 5. 0
2. 5 0. 693 5. 5
3. 0 0. 693 6. 0
0. 696 1. 2 0. 850 1. 4 0. 904 2. 4 1. 080 7. 5 1. 516
0. 728 1. 4 0. 892 1. 6 0. 945 2. 6 1. 106 8. 0 1. 539
0. 755 1. 6 0. 927 1. 8 0. 981 2. 8 1. 130 8. 5 1. 561
0778 1. 8 0. 955 2. 0 1. 013 3. 0 1. 152 9. 0 1580
0. 815 2. 0 0. 980 2. 2 1. 041 3. 4 1. 190 10. 0 1. 615
0. 842 2. 2 1. 000 2. 4 1. 065 3. 8 1. 222 12. 0 1. 667
0. 861 2. 4 1. 016 2. 6 1. 087 4. 5 1. 266 14. 0 1. 704
0. 876 2. 6 1. 030 2. 8 1. 106 5. 0 1. 290 16. 0 1730
0. 887 2. 6 1. 042 3. 0 1. 123 5. 5 1. 309 18. 0 1. 749
0. 895 3. 0 1. 051 3. 5 1. 158 6. 0 1. 325 20. 0 1. 762
0. 900 3. 5 1. 069 4. 0 1. 183 7. 0 1. 347 22. 0 1. 771
0. 905 4. 0 1. 080 5. 0 1. 215 8. 0 1. 361 24. 0 1. 777
0. 908 4. 5 1. 087 6. 0 1. 232 9. 0 1. 370 26. 0 1. 781
0. 910 5. 0 1. 091 7. 0 1. 242 10. 0 1. 376 28. 0 1. 784
0. 913 5. 5 1. 094 8. 0 1. 247 12. 0 1. 382 30. 0 1. 787
0. 915 6. 0 1. 096 9. 0 1. 240 14. 0 1. 385 35. 0 1. 789
0. 916 6. 5 1. 097 10. 0 1. 251 16. 0 1. 386 40. 0 1. 791
0. 916 7. 0 1. 097 12. 0 1. 252 18. 0 1. 386 50. 0 1. 792
0. 916 8. 0 1. 098 14. 0 1. 253
0. 916 10. 0 1. 099 16. 0 1. 253
where
Lf = linear penetration of water front into
reservoir, ft,
rf = radius to water front after penetration. ft,
and
(Y = angle subtended by reservoir, radians.
rD=6. 0
tD PO
~___
4. 0 1. 275
4. 5 1. 320
5. 0 1. 361
5. 5 1. 398
6. 0 1. 432
6. 5 1. 462
7. 0 1. 490
can be combined with Eqs. 6 and 5.5 and solved for the
water-influx rate:
e w,, =
*P (,,,, ,) +(*tqr,r/V,+-,,,)-mr 2 oil ,,,,, ,,*PD,
., = 2
Note that FG is a function of distance traveled by the
front so that, if the pressure gradients between the reser-
voir and the original reservoir boundary are known for
the past history, F, may be evaluated as a function of
frontal advance. Future values of FG then can be obtained
by extrapolating FG as a function of frontal advance on
some convenient plot (linear, semilog, etc.)
Reservoir Above Bubblepoint Pressure. Above the bub-
blepoint pressure the total compressibility can be assumed
to be constant; so the material-balance equation
APO,, =
(qr,, -e,,,8 W
+Apo,,,- ,/, . .
vl7co,
(58)
where
*P,,,,
= total reservoir pressure drop from initial
pressure at end of interval n,
q,,,
= total production rate, RB/D,
V,, = total reservoir PV, bbl, and
c 0,
= total reservoir compressibility, psi - ,
%*PD, +(*tlv,,~,,,)+(ll.,,.F,B/~I, 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(59)
The calculated water-influx rate now can be used in Eq.
58 to calculate Ap(,,,
and the whole procedure is repeat-
ed for the next time interval. If Eq. 27 is used instead
of Eq. 6, mr= 1 and ApD is replaced by AZ in Eq. 59.
Reservoir Below Bubblepoint Pressure. To simplify the
calculation procedure, it was assumed that (1) uniform
saturations exist ahead of and behind the front, (2) the
saturations do not change as any portion of the reservoir
is bypassed, and (3) the changes in pressure are selected
small enough that the changes in oil FVFs are very small.
Fig. 38.12 shows the saturation changes as the front ad-
vances into the unflooded reservoir volume I/,- 1 during
time interval n.
The following equations will be used in this method.
Water influx rate:
II
.I -

(60)
m,ApD, -(p,,,.FGlk,,.)
38- 15
TABLE 38. 7- DI MENSI ONLESS PRESSURES FOR FI NI TE OUTCROPPI NG RADI AL AQUI FERS ( conti nued)
I D=8. 0 r, =l O , , =I 5
to PO tD PO tD PO
7. 0 1. 499 10. 0 1. 651 20. 0 1. 960
7. 5 1. 527 12. 0 1. 730 22. 0 2. 003
8. 0 1. 554 14. 0 1. 798 24. 0 2. 043
8. 5 1. 580 16. 0 1. 856 26. 0 2. 080
9. 0 1. 604 16. 0 1. 907 28. 0 2. 114
9. 5 1. 627 20. 0 1. 952 30. 0 2. 146
10. 0 1. 648 25. 0 2. 043 35. 0 2. 218
12. 0 1. 724 30. 0 2. 1 I 1 40. 0 2. 279
14. 0 1. 786 35. 0 2. 160 45. 0 2. 332
16. 0 1. 837 40. 0 2. 197 50. 0 2. 379
18. 0 1. 879 45. 0 2. 224 60. 0 2. 455
20. 0 1. 914 50. 0 2. 245 700 2. 513
22. 0 1. 943 55. 0 2. 260 800 2. 558
24. 0 1. 967 60. 0 2. 271 90. 0 2. 592
26. 0 1. 986 65. 0 2. 279 10. 0x10 2. 619
28. 0 2. 002 70. 0 2. 285 12. 0~10 2. 655
30. 0 2. 016 75. 0 2. 290 14. 0x10 2. 677
35. 0 2. 040 80. 0 2. 293 160x10 2. 689
40. 0 2. 055 90. 0 2. 297 18. 0~10 2. 697
45. 0 2. 064 10. 0~10 2. 300 200x10 2. 701
50. 0 2. 070 11. 0x10 2. 301 22. 0x10 2. 704
60. 0 2 076 12. 0x 10 2. 302 24. 0x10 2. 706
70. 0 2. 078 13. 0x10 2. 302 26. 0~10 2. 707
80. 0 2 079 14. 0x10 2. 302 28. 0x10 2. 707
16. 0x 10 2. 303 30. 0x10 2. 708
Flooded and unflooded volumes:
Al,, =
(e I\.,, - 4 it ,, W,,
f~(I-sj,,.-sor-s~,) ,,-, ...
r, =20 r, =25 r, =30 r, =40
tD PO tD PO to PO to PO
300 2. 148 50. 0 2. 389 70. 0 2. 551 12. 0x I O 2. 813
35. 0 2. 219 55. 0 2. 434 80. 0 2. 615 14. 0~10 2. 888
40. 0 2. 282 60. 0 3. 476 90. 0 2. 672 16. 0~10 2. 953
45. 0 2. 338 65. 0 2. 514 10. 0x10 2. 723 18. 0~10 3. 011
50. 0 2. 388 70. 0 2. 550 12. 0x 10 2. 812 20. 0x10 3. 063
60. 0 2. 475 75. 0 2. 583 14. 0x10 2. 886 22. 0x 10 3. 109
70. 0 2. 547 80. 0 2. 614 16. 0x 10 2. 950 24. 0x 10 3. 152
80. 0 2. 609 85. 0 2. 643 16. 5x 10 2. 965 26. 0x 10 3. 191
90. 0 2. 658 90. 0 2. 671 17. 0x 10 2. 979 28. 0x 10 3. 226
10. 0x10 2. 707 95. 0 2. 697 17. 5x10 2. 992 30. 0x 10 3. 259
10. 5x10 2. 728 10. 0x10 2. 721 18. 0x10 3. 006 35. 0x 10 3. 331
11. 0x10 2. 747 12. 0x10 2. 807 20. 0x10 3. 054 40. 0x 10 3. 391
11. 5x10 2. 764 14. 0~10 2. 878 25. 0~10 3. 150 45. 0x10 3. 440
12. 0~10 2. 781 16. 0x10 2. 936 30. 0x10 3. 219 50. 0x10 3. 482
12. 5x10 2. 796 18. 0~10 2. 984 35. 0x10 3. 269 55. 0x10 3. 516
13. 0x10 2. 810 20. 0x10 3. 024 40. 0x10 3. 306 60. 0x 10 3. 545
13. 5x10 2. 823 22. 0x10 3. 057 45. 0~10 3. 332 65. 0x 10 3. 568
14. 0~10 2. 835 24. 0~10 3. 085 50. 0x10 3. 351 70. 0x10 3. 588
14. 5x10 2. 846 26. 0x10 3. 107 60. 0x10 3. 375 80. 0x 10 3. 619
15. 0~10 2. 857 28. 0~10 3. 126 70. 0x10 3. 387 90. 0x10 3. 640
16. 0~10 2. 876 30. 0x10 3. 142 80. 0~10 3. 394 10. 0x10' 3. 655
180x10 2. 906 35. 0~10 3. 171 90. 0x10 3. 397 12. 0x10' 3. 672
200x10 2. 929 40. 0x10 3. 189 10. 0x10* 3. 399 14. 0x10~ 3. 681
240x10 2. 958 45. 0~10 3. 200 12. 0~10' 3. 401 16. 0x10* 3. 685
28. 0x10 2. 975 50. 0x10 3. 207 14. 0~10' 3. 401 18. 0x10* 3. 687
30 0x10 2. 980 60. 0x 10 3. 214 20. 0 x 10' 3. 688
40. 0~10 2. 992 70. 0x10 3. 217 25. 0x 10' 3. 689
50. 0x10 2. 995 80. 0x 10 3. 218
90. 0 x10 3. 219
and
V,,=V,,-, -AL,. . .
Oil saturation in V,:
+
~RAV, [So,,vm,, -S,,,, I
B
-q,,,At, . .
C,,
Gas production:
aGPft =
vrz[s,,,t ,, -s,,? 1
B
hw,,
+
fRAv&,,, I, -<v,> 1 +q At jj
B
II ,, !I
. 8,
K I,
(61)
S
On- l
%
n- l
Si w
(63)
s
On- l Si w
S
gn- I
T'
S
S
On
Orn
r s4' "
%
L:
S
wn
Si i
( b)
Fi g. 38. 12- Saturati on change wi th f rontal advance.
(64)
38- 16
TABLE 38. 7- DI MENSI ONLESS PRESSURES FOR FI NI TE OUTCROPPI NG RADI AL AQUI FERS (continued)
r,=50 rD =60 r, =70
t D PD t, PO to
PO
20. 0x 10 3. 064 3. 0 x 10' 3. 257 5. 0x10" 3. 512
22. 0x 10 3. 111 4. 0x10' 3. 401 6. 0 x 10 3.603
24. 0 x10 3. 154 5. 0x I O2 3. 512 7. 0x10' 3. 680
26. 0x10 3. 193 6. 0 x I O* 3. 602 8. 0~10' 3. 746
28. 0 x10 3. 229 7. 0 x10* 3. 676 9. 0x 10' 3. 803
30. 0 x10 3. 263 8. 0 x l o* 3. 739 10. 0~10' 3. 854
35. 0x10 3. 339 9. 0 x 102 3. 792 12. 0x 102 3. 937
40. 0x10 3. 405 10. 0xl o2 3. 832 14. 0x 10' 4. 003
45. 0 xl 0 3. 461 12. 0~10~ 3. 908 16. 0x 10' 4. 054
50. 0x 10 3. 512 14. 0~10~ 3. 959 18. 0~10~ 4. 095
55. 0 x10 3. 556 16. 0x I O2 3. 996 20. 0~10~ 4. 127
r,=80 r,=90 r, =l OO
tD
PO
6. 0x I O* 3. 603
7. 0x 10" 3. 680
8. 0x10' 3. 747
9. 0x10' 3. 805
10. 0x10' 3. 857
12. 0x I O" 3. 946
14. 0x 102 4. 019
15. 0x l o2 4. 051
16. 0x 10' 4. 080
18. 0x I O' 4. 130
20. 0x 10' 4. 171
60. 0x 10 3. 595 18. 0~10~ 4. 023 25. 0~10' 4. 181 25. 0x 10' 4. 248
65. 0x 10 3. 630 20. 0x10* 4, 043 30. 0~10~ 4. 211 30. 0~10~ 4. 297
700x10 3. 661 25. 0x I O2 4. 071 35. 0~10' 4. 228 35. 0x 10' 4. 328
75. 0 x 10 3. 668 30. 0 x I O2 4. 084 40. 0~10' 4. 237 40. 0~10~ 4. 347
t,
PO
8. 0 x10* 3. 747
9. 0x10' 3. 806
1. 0~10~ 3. 858
1. 2x 103 3. 949
1. 3 x I O3 3. 988
1. 4~10~ 4. 025
1. 5 x I O3 4. 058
18~10~ 4. 144
2. 0 x103 4. 192
2. 5 x103 4. 285
3. 0 x 103 4. 349
3. 5 x102 4. 394
4. 0 x l o3 4. 426
4. 5 x103 4. 446
5. 0 x103 4. 464
t,
PD
1. 0x 10" 3. 859
1. 2x 103 3. 949
1. 4x l o3 4. 026
1. 6x I O* 4. 092
1. 8x I O3 4. 150
2. 0x I O3 4. 200
2. 5x I O3 4. 303
3. 0x I O3 4. 379
3. 5x 103 4. 434
4. 0x l o3 4. 478
4. 5x 103 4. 510
5. 0x I O3 4. 534
5. 5x I O3 4. 552
6. 0x I O3 4. 565
6. 5x l o3 4. 579
80. 0x10 3. 713 35. 0x 102 4. 090 45. 0~10' 4. 242 45. 0x 10' 4. 360 6. 0 x l o3 4. 482 7. 0x l o3 4. 583
85. 0 x10 3. 735 40. 0x 10" 4. 092 50. 0~10~ 4. 245 50. 0x I O2 4. 368 7. 0 x103 4. 491 7. 5x I O3 4. 588
90. 0x10 3. 754 450x10 4. 093 55. 0~10' 4. 247 60. 0~10~ 4. 376 8. 0~10~ 4. 496 8. 0x I O3 4. 593
95. 0x10 3. 771 50. 0x102 4. 094 60. 0~10' 4. 247 70. 0~10" 4. 380 9. 0 x l o3 4. 498 9. 0x I O3 4. 598
10. 0x 102 3. 787 55. 0~10' 4. 094 65. 0~10~ 4. 248 80. 0~10~ 4. 381 10. 0~10~ 4. 499 10. 0~10~ 4. 601
12. 0x10'
14. 0x 102
16. 0~10~
18. 0~10~
20. 0 x102
22. 0x 10'
24. 0~10'
26. 0~10~
28. 0~10'
3. 833 70. 0x102 4. 248 90. 0x102 4. 382 11. 0x103 4. 499 12. 5~10~ 4. 604
3. 662 75. 0x102 4. 248 10. 0~10~ 4. 382 12. 0~10~ 4. 500 15. 0x I O3 4. 605
3. 881 80. 0~10' 4. 248 11. 0~10~ 4. 382 14. 0~10~ 4. 500
3. 892
3. 900
3. 904
3. 907
3. 909
3. 910
GOR (relative permeability):
(65)
GOR (production):
AGn
R,=---- qo,, At, . . . .
(66)
For these equations,
fR = fraction of reservoir swept,
S, = oil saturation, fraction,
S, = gas saturation, fraction,
S,,. = water saturation, fraction, and
Sj,,. = interstitial water saturation, fraction.
One method for solutions using equal time intervals is
as follows.
1. Estimate the pressure drop during the next time in-
terval.
2. Calculate the water-influx rate with Eq. 60.
3. Calculate AL, and V, with Eqs. 61 and 62.
4. Calculate the oil saturation in V, for the predicted
oil production during Interval n with Eq. 63.
5. Calculate gas production with Eq. 64.
6. Calculate the GOR with Eq. 65.
7. Calculate the GOR with Eq. 66 for average values
of pressure and saturation.
8. Compare the GORs obtained in Steps 6 and 7 and,
if they agree, proceed to the next interval. If they do not
agree, estimate a new pressure drop and repeat Steps 2
through 8.
If the water drive equation for unequal time intervals
is used, the need for re-evaluating the pressure functions
for each trial in a given interval can be eliminated. This
procedure calls for selecting a given pressure drop and
estimating the length of the next time interval in Steps
1 and 8 and this program. The remaining steps are un-
changed.
Reservoir Simulation Models. The capability of mathe-
matical simulation models to calculate pressure and fluid
flow in nonhomogeneous and nonsymmetrical reservoir/
aquifer systems has been thoroughly described in the liter-
ature since the early 1960s. Widespread availability of
computers and models throughout the industry has helped
to remove many of the idealizations and restrictions re-
garding geometry and/or homogeneity that are a practi-
cal requirement for analysis by traditional methods. These
models have the capability to analyze performance for vir-
tually any desired description of the physical system, in-
cluding multipool aquifers. See Chap. 48 for more
information.
WATER DRIVE OIL RESERVOIRS 38- 17
TABLE 38.7-DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR FI NI TE OUTCROPPI NG RADI AL AQUl FERS( contl nued)
rD=200 f D=300 rD=400
to PO t, PO t, PO
1. 5~10~ 4. 061 6. 0 x l o3 4. 754 1. 5x104 5. 212
2. 0x103 4. 205 8. 0~10~ 4. 896 2. 0~10~ 5. 356
2. 5x l o3 4. 317 10. 0~10~ 5. 010 3. 0~10~ 5. 556
3. 0x 103 4. 408 12. 0~10~ 5. 101 4. 0x104 5. 689
3. 5x 103 4. 485 14. 0~10~ 5. 177 5. 0~10~ 5. 781
4. 0x 103 4. 552 16. 0~10~ 5. 242 6. 0~10" 5. 845
5. 0x10" 4. 663 18. 0~10~ 5. 299 7. 0~10~ 5. 889
6. 0~10~ 4. 754 20. 0~10~ 5. 348 8. 0~10~ 5. 920
7. 0x103 4. 829 24. 0~10" 5. 429 9. 0x104 5. 942
8. 0~10~ 4. 894 28. 0~10" 5. 491 10. 0~10~ 5. 957
f D=500 r, =600 rD =700
to PO t, PO t, PO
2. 0x104 5. 356 4. 0~10~ 5. 703 5. 0~10~ 5. 814
2. 5~10~ 5. 468 4. 5~10~ 5. 762 6. 0~10~ 5. 905
3. 0 x l o4 5. 559 5. 0~10~ 5. 814 7. 0~10~ 5. 982
3. 5x104 5. 636 6. 0~10~ 5. 904 8. 0~10~ 6. 048
4. 0 x l o4 5. 702 7. 0~10~ 5. 979 9. 0~10~ 6. 105
4. 5x I O4 5. 759 8. 0x10" 6. 041 10. 0~10~ 6. 156
5.0x104 5. 810 9. 0x104 6. 094 12. 0~10~ 6. 239
6. 0~10~ 5. 894 10. 0~10~ 6. 139 14. 0~10~ 6. 305
7. 0x104 5. 960 12. 0~10~ 6. 210 16. 0~10~ 6. 357
8. 0x10" 6. 013 14. 0~10~ 6. 262 18. 0~10~ 6. 398
25. 0~10~
9. 0~10~ 4. 949
5. 264
30. 0~10~
10. 0~10~
5. 517
5. 702 200x10"
11. 0~10~ 5. 967
5. 991
30. 0x103 5. 282 12. 0~10~ 5. 703 24. 0~10~ 5. 991
35. 0x 103
10. 0x103
5. 290
4. 996 40. 0~10"
140~10~
5. 606
5. 704 26. 0~10~
12. 0~10~ 5. 975
5. 991
40. 0x 103 5. 294 15. 0x10" 5. 704
12. 0x103 5. 072 50. 0~10~ 5. 652 12. 5~10~ 5. 977
14. 0x103 5. 129 60. 0~10~ 5. 676 13. 0~10~ 5. 980
16. 0~10" 5. 171 70. 0~10" 5. 690 14. 0~10~ 5. 983
18. 0~10~ 5. 203 80. 0~10~ 5. 696 16. 0~10~ 5. 988
20. 0x 103 5. 227 90. 0x103 5. 700 18. 0~10~ 5. 990
25. 0~10~ 6. 211 50. 0~10~ 6. 397 60. 0~10~ 6. 550
30. 0x104
9. 0x104 6. 055
6. 213 60. 0~10~
16. 0~10~ 6. 299
6. 397
20. 0~10~
70. 0~10~
6. 430
6. 551
35. 0~10~ 6. 214 80. 0~10~ 6. 551
40. 0~10" 6. 214
10. 0x10' 6. 088 18. 0~10~ 6. 326 25. 0~10~ 6. 484
12. 0~10" 6. 135 20. 0~10~ 6. 345 30. 0~10~ 6. 514
14. 0~10~ 6. 164 25. 0~10~ 6. 374 35. 0~10~ 6. 530
16. 0x10" 6. 183 30. 0~10~ 6. 387 40. 0~10~ 6. 540
18. 0~10~ 6. 195 35. 0~10~ 6. 392 45. 0~10~ 6. 545
20. 0~10~ 6. 202 40. 0~10~ 6. 395 50. 0~10~ 6. 548
Nomenclature
A = constant described by Eq. 46
b = intercept
B, = gas FVF, bbl/STB
B, = oil FVF, bbl/STB
B, = two-phase FVF, bbl/STB
B,,. = water FVF, bbl/STB
cf = formation compressibility, psi -I
C (,, = total reservoir compressibility, psi-
c,~ = formation water compressibility, psi -I
cwt
= total aquifer compressibility, psi -
d = geometry term obtained from Table
38.1
e,,. = water influx rate, B/D
e WB
= water influx rate at Reservoir B, B/D
e I,
,111, ,I
= water-influx rate at interval n+ 1 -j,
BID
c 1v1 ,,
= total water influx rate at interval
n, B/D
E,li = cumulative expansion per stock-tank
barrel OOIP, bbl
f~ = fraction of reservoir swept
F = approximation to po and a function of
type of aquifer
FG = reservoir geometry factor
F(r) = influence function
FV = ratio of volume of oil and its dissolved
original gas at a given pressure to
its volume at initial pressure
G, = cumulative gas injected, scf
!I = aquifer thickness, ft
j = summation of time period 1 fo,,
J, = aquifer productivity index, B/D-psi
k = permeability, md
L = aquifer length, ft
Lf = linear penetration of water front into
reservoir, ft
m = fitting factor (see Page 38-7); ratio of
initial reservoir free-gas volume to
initial reservoir oil volume; slope
mF = proportionality factor
mrJ
= influx constant, bbl/psi (see Eqs. 9
and IO)
m,. = rate constant, psiibbl-D (see Eqs. 3
through 5)
n = interval
N = OOIP, STB
N,, = time interval number
y,, = cumulative oil produced, STB
P I
= average aquifer pressure, psi
PN,
= initial aquifer pressure, psi
ph = bubblepoint pressure, psi
pi = dimensionless pressure term
PD(A,B) = dimensionless pressure term for
Reservoir B with respect to
Reservoir A
P II
= pressure at original WOC, psi
P II,,
= cumulative pressure drop at the end of
interval n, psi
Ape = known dimensionless field pressure
drop at original WOC
APO,
= dimensionless pressure drop to time
period i
TABLE 38.7- DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR FINITE OUTCROPPING RADIAL AQUIFERS (continued)
rD = 800 rD = 900 rD=I , 000 rD=I , 200
f D=1. 400 rD=1, 600
to
PO
tLJ
PO
tL7
PO
t,
PO
t, PO t D PO
7. 0x10"
8. 0~10~
9. 0x l o4
100x10~
12. 0x104
140x104
16. 0~10~
180x104
20. 0x104
250x10"
30. 0x104
35. 0x104
40. 0x l o4
45. 0 x l o4
50. 0x10"
550x104
60. 0x l o4
70. 0x10"
80. 0 x l o4
100. 0x10"
APO, =
APL =
Apy =
*PO, +I - . ; ) =
AP, , , A, B) =
APIA,, =
A,-.],. =
Yo,, =
r,,, =
J/, =
R =
. 3,
St, =
fD =
AIn =
VP =
VR =
5.983 8. 0x 10' 6. 049 1. 0x I O5 6. 161 2. 0 x105 6. 507
6. 049 9. 0 x104 6. 106 1. 2~10~ 6. 252 3. 0x 105 6. 704
6. 108 10. 0x l o4 6. 161 1. 4~10~ 6. 329 4. 0 x l o5 6. 833
6160 120~10~ 6251 1. 6~10" 6. 395 5. 0 x 105 6. 918
6. 249 14. 0x l o4 6. 327 1. 8~10~ 6. 452 6. 0~10~ 6. 975
6322
6. 382
6432
6. 474
6551
6. 599
6. 630
6. 650
6. 663
6. 671
6. 676
6. 679
6. 682
6. 684
6. 684
160~10~
18. 0x l o4
20. 0 x l o4
25. 0 x l o4
300x10"
6.392
6. 447
6. 494
6. 587
6652 4. 0~10" 6. 781
40. 0 x104 6. 729 4. 5x l o5 6. 813
45. 0x10" 6. 751 5. 0~10~ 6. 837
50. 0x10" 6. 766 5. 5~10~ 6. 854
55. 0x10" 6. 777 6. 0~10~ 6. 868
60. 0~10" 6. 785 7. 0~10~ 6. 885
70. 0 x104 5. 794
80. 0x I O4 6. 798
90. 0 x I O4 6. 800
10. 0 x I O5 6. 801
8. 0~10~ 6. 895
9. 0x l o5 6. 901
10. 0~10~ 6. 904
12. 0~10~ 6. 907
14. 0~10~ 6. 907
16. 0~10~ 6. 908
2. 0~10~ 6. 503
2. 5~10~ 6. 605
3. 0x105 6. 681
3. 5~10~ 6. 738
dimensionless pressure drop to time
period j
total pressure drop at WOC (calculated
using reservoir expansion rates). psi
total pressure drop at original WOC
(field data), psi
average pressure drop in interval, psi
pressure drop at Reservoir A caused
by Reservoir B, psi
total pressure drop at Reservoir A at
end of interval H. psi
total pressure drop at WOC (calculated
using reservoir voidage rates), psi
total oil production rate at end of
interval n. BID
total production rate. B/D
aquifer radius, ft
dimensionless radius=r,,/r,,.
radius to water front after
penetration, ft
field radius, ft
cumulative produced GOR, scf/STB
average solution GOR at end of
interval n, scf/STB
gas saturation, fraction
interstitial water saturation, fraction
oil saturation, fraction
residual oil saturation at end of interval
n. fraction
formation water saturation, fraction
dimensionless time
dimensionless time interval
total reservoir PV. bbl
cumulative voidage, bbl
2. 0x l o5 6. 507 2. 5~10~ 6. 619
2. 5~10~ 6.619 3. 0x 105 6. 710
3. 0x I O5 6.709 3. 5x105 6. 787
3. 5x 105 6. 785 4. 0x105 6. 853
4. 0x105 6. 849 5. 0x l o5 6. 962
7. 0x10" 7. 013 5. 0x105 6. 950 6. 0~10~ 7. 046
8. 0x10" 7. 038 6. 0~10~ 7. 026 7. 0x 105 7. 114
9ox105 7. 056 7. 0x I O5 7. 082 8. 0~10~ 7. 167
10. 0x10~ 7. 067 8. 0x l o5 7. 123 9. 0 x 105 7. 210
120x105 7. 080 9. 0x105 7. 154 10. 0x l o5 7. 244
14. 0x105 7. 085 10. 0x 105 7. 177 15. Oxl O~ 7. 334
16. 0 x l o5 7. 088 15. 0x I O5 7. 229 20. 0x I O5 7. 364
18. 0~10" 7. 089 20. 0~10~ 7. 241 25. 0~10~ 7. 373
19. 0x105 7. 089 25. 0~10~ 7. 243 30. 0~10~ 7. 376
20. 0 x 105 7. 090 30. 0~10~ 7. 244 35. 0~10~ 7. 377
21. 0x105 7. 090 31. 0~10~ 7. 244 40. 0~10~ 7. 378
22. 0x105 7. 090 32. 0~10~ 7. 244 42. 0~10~ 7. 378
23. 0 x10' 7. 090 33. 0x 10' 7. 24 44. 0x I O5 7. 378
24. 0 x l o5 7. 090
v =
M,
w =
W
rD =
we,, =
w,, =
w; =
w,, =
Y=
z=
z,, =
CY=
6e ,,,,, =
@?f,, =
Pl!, =
02 =
dJ =
initial water volume in the aquifer, bbl
aquifer width, ft
dimensionless water-influx term
cumulative water influx at end of
interval n, bbl
W,.,,,p,i, total aquifer expansion
capacity, bbl
cumulative water injected, bbl
cumulative water produced, bbl
constant described by Eqs. 49 and 50
resistance function
new values of Z
angle subtended by reservoir, radians
correction to e,,.,,
correction to A pi,,
water viscosity, cp
variance
porosity, fraction
TABLE 38.8-DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR
FINITE-CLOSED LINEAR AQUIFERS
to PO
- ! k-
PO
o. 005 0. 07979 0. 18 0. 47900
0. 01 0. 11296 0. 20 0. 50516
0. 02 0. 15958 0. 22 0. 53021
0. 03 0. 19544 0. 24 0. 55436
0. 04 0. 22567 0. 26 0. 57776
0. 05 0. 25231 0. 28 0. 60055
0. 06 0. 27639 0. 30 0. 62284
0. 07 0. 29854 0. 4 0. 72942
0. 08 0. 31915 0. 5 0. 83187
0. 09 0. 33851 0. 6 0. 93279
0. 10 0. 35682 0. 7 1. 03313
0. 12 0. 39088 0. 8 1. 13326
0. 14 0. 42224 0. 9 1. 23330
0. 16 0. 45147 1. 0 1. 33332
38- 19
TABLE 38.7-DIMENSIONLESS PRESSURES FOR FINITE OUTCROPPING RADIAL AQUIFERS (continued)
r, =1, 800
tD PO
3. 0~10~ 6. 710
4. 0~10~ 6. 854
5. 0x I O5 6. 965
6. 0~10~ 7. 054
7. 0x 105 7. 120
8. 0~10~ 7. 188
9. 0x I O5 7. 238
10. 0x l o5 7. 280
15. 0x 105 7. 407
20. 0x 105 7. 459
30. 0 x l o5 7. 489
40. 0x105 7. 495
50. 0x l o5 7. 495
51. 0x105 7. 495
52. 0x i 05 7. 495
53. 0x 105 7. 495
54. 0x l o5 7. 495
56. 0x I O5 7. 495
rD=2, 000 rD=2, 200 rD=2, 400 rD =2,600
to PO t, PO tD PO tD PO
4. 0x105 6. 854 5. 0~10~ 6. 966 6. 0~10~ 7. 057 7. 0~10~ 7. 134
5. 0x105 6. 966 5. 5~10~ 7. 013 7. 0~10" 7. 134 8. 0~10~ 7. 201
6. 0x105 7. 056 6. 0~10~ 7. 057 8. 0~10~ 7. 200 9. 0x105 7. 259
7. 0x 105 7. 132 6. 5~10~ 7. 097 9. 0x105 7. 259 10. 0~10~ 7. 312
8. 0~10~ 7. 196 7. 0~10~ 7. 133 10. 0~10~ 7. 310 12. 0~10~ 7. 401
9. 0 x l o5 7. 251 7. 5x105 7. 167 12. 0x l o5 7. 398 14. 0~10~ 7. 475
l O. Ox10~ 7. 298 8. 0~10" 7. 199 16. 0~10~ 7. 526 16. 0~10~ 7. 536
12. 0x105 7. 374 8. 5~10~ 7. 229 20. 0~10~ 7. 611 18. 0~10~ 7. 588
14. 0x105 7. 431 9. 0x105 7. 256 24. 0x I O5 7. 668 20. 0x l o5 7. 631
16. 0~10" 7. 474 10. 0~10~ 7. 307 28. 0~10~ 7. 706 24. 0~10~ 7. 699
18. 0~10~ 7. 506 12. 0~10~ 7. 390 30. 0~10" 7. 720 28. 0~10~ 7. 746
20. 0 x l o5 7. 530 16. 0~10~ 7. 507 35. 0~10' 7. 745 30. 0~10~ 7. 765
25. 0~10" 7. 566 20. 0~10~ 7. 579 40. 0~10" 7. 760 35. 0~10~ 7. 799
30. 0x10" 7. 584 25. 0~10~ 7. 631 50. 0~10" 7. 775 40. 0~10~ 7. 621
35. 0x105 7. 593 30. 0~10~ 7. 661 60. 0~10" 7. 780 50. 0~10~ 7. 845
40. 0x10" 7. 597 35. 0~10" 7. 677 70. 0~10~ 7. 782 60. 0~10~ 8. 656
50. 0x10" 7. 600 40. 0~10" 7. 686 80. 0~10" 7. 783 70. 0~10~ 7. 860
60. 0~10" 7. 601 50. 0x I O5 7. 693 90. 0x10" 7. 783 80. 0~10~ 7. 862
64. 0x I O5 7. 601 60. 0~10" 7. 695 95. 0x10" 7. 783 90. 0x105 7. 863
70. 0 x105 7. 696 1O. OXl O~ 7. 863
80. 0~10" 7. 696
Key Equations With SI Units
The equations in this chapter may be used directly with
practical SI units without conversion factors, except for
certain equations containing numerical constants. These
equations are repeated here with appropriate constants for
SI units.
P I I
112 r =
8.527~10-~ kha .
P ,I
mr=
8,527x10- kh ....
!J ,J
t?lr=
8.527x10- khb ....
m,,=(l)& ,,, bar,,?,
m,,=(1)r#x,,.,hb2, .
8.527 x 10 -s kt
tD =
(#)(b,,,p ,,p .
5.36x 1O-1 kh
Jo =
p,,,,(ln rD -0.75) -
.
(3)
.
(4)
(5)
(9)
(10)
(20)
(40)
rD=2, 800
t, PD
8. 0x l o5 7. 201
9. 0x l o5 7. 260
10. 0x I O5 7. 312
12. 0x105 7. 403
16. 0~10~ 7. 542
20. 0x l o5 7. 644
24. 0~10~ 7. 719
28. 0x105 7. 775
30. 0x 105 7. 797
35. 0x l o5 7. 840
40. 0x l o5 7. 870
50. 0x 105 7. 905
60. 0x l o5 7. 922
70. 0x I O5 7. 930
80. 0x i 05 7. 934
90. 0x l o5 7. 936
10. 0x 10" 7. 937
12. 0x 10" 7. 937
13. 0x I O6 7. 937
rD =3,000
tD PO
1. 0~10~ 7. 312
1. 2x106 7. 403
1. 4~10~ 7. 480
1. 6~10" 7. 545
1. 8~10~ 7. 602
2. 0 x 10" 7. 651
2. 4 x I O6 7. 732
2. 8 x 106 7. 794
3. 0 x106 7. 820
3. 5~10~ 7. 871
4. 0 x I O6 7. 908
4. 5x106 7. 935
5. 0x106 7. 955
6. 0x l o6 7. 979
7. 0x106 7. 992
S. OXl O~ 7. 999
9. 0x106 8. 002
10. 0~10~ 8. 004
12. 0 x 106 8. 006
150x10~ 8. 006
J,=
3(8.527 x 10 -5)kbh
, . tLM.L
.(41)
FG=
Lf
8,527x,o-5 hb, . . . . .
and
FG=
2a In(r,/rf)
5,36x1o-4 ha, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
where
k is in md,
h is in m,
b is in m,
L i s in m,
rD is dimensionless,
r,,. is in m.
p,,. is in mPa*s,
c,,., is in kPa - ,
J, is in mj/d*kPa,
~1,. is in kPa/m3 *d,
tnp is in m3/kPa,
FG is in m-, and
01 is in radians.
38-20
References
1. Van Everdmgen. A.F. and Hut-Q. W.: The Appltcatton of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. Twns.,
AIME (1949) 186. 305-24.
2. Mottada, M.: A Practical Method for Treating Oillield Interference
in Water-Drive Reservoirs, J . Per. Twh. (Dec. 1955) 217-26;
Trurts.. AIME. 204.
Closman. P.J.: An Aquifer Model for Fissured Reservoirs, Sue. Pet.
Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 385-98.
Henaon. W.L., Beardon, P.L., and Rtce, J.D.: A Numertcal Solutton
to the Unsteady~State PartiallWater-Drive Reservoir Performance Prob-
lem, .Soc. Per. Eng. J . (Sept. 1961) 184-94; Trans., AIME. 222.
3. Carter, R.D. and Tracy, F.W.: An Improved Method for
Calculatmg Water Influx, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1960) 58-60; Trms.,
AIME. 219.
Howard, D.S. Jr. andRachford, H.H. Jr.: Comparison of Pressure Dis-
tributions During Depletion of Tilted and Horizontal Aquifers, J. Per.
Tech. (April 1956) 92-98; Trans., AIME. 207.
4. Hicks. A.L. ( Weber, A.G., and Ledbetter, R.L.: Computing Tech-
mques for Water-Drive Reservoirs, J . PH. Twh. (J une 1959)
65-67; Trum.. AIME. 216.
5. Hutchwon. T.S. and Sikora. V.J.: A Generaltzed Water-Drive
Analysis.J. Prt. T&r. (July 1959) 169-78; Trclns.. AIME, 216.
6. Schilthuis. R.J.: Active Oil and Reservoir Energy. 7rctn.s.. AIME
11036) 118. 33-52.
7. Fetkovich. M.J.: A Simplified Approach to Water lntlux
Calculations-Finite Aquifer Systems. J . Pc~t. T&I. (July 1971)
814m28.
Hurst, W.: Water Influx Into a Reservoir and Its Application to the
Equation of Volumetric Balance. Trans., AIME (1943) 151, 57-72.
Hutchinson. T.S. and Kemp, C.E.: An Extended Analysis of Bottom-
Water-Drive Reservoir Performance, J . Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1956)
256-61; Trum., AIME, 207.
8. Brownscombc. E.R. and Collins. F.A.: Estimation of Reserves
and Water Drive from Pressure and Production Hratory, Trtrnv.,
AIME (194Y) 186, 92-99.
Lowe. R.M.: Performance Predictions of the Marg Tex Oil Reservoir
Using Unsteady-State Calculations, J . Per. Tech. (May 1967) 595-600.
Mortada, M.: Oiltield Interference in Aquifers of Non-Uniform Prop-
c&s. J. Pej. Tech. (Dec. 1960) 55-57: Trms AIME, 219.
9. Van Everdingen. A.F.. Timmerman. E.H., and McMahon, J.J.:
Application of the Material Balance Equation to a Partial Water-
Drive Reservoir. J . Prr. Tech. (Feb. 1953) 51-60; Trm\., AIME.
198.
Mueller, T.D. and Witherspoon, P.A : Pressure Interference Effects
Within Reservoirs and Aquifers. J. Per. Tech. (April 1956)471-74;
Trum., AIME, 234.
IO. Havlena. D. and Odrh. A.S.. The Material Balance as an Equation
of a Straight Line. J . &f. Twh. (Aug. 1963) 896-900: Trwrc..
AIME. 228.
Nabor. G.W. and Barham, R.H.: Linear Aquifer Behawor. J . Per.
Tdr. (May 1964) 561-63: Truns., AIME. 231.
General References
Odeh. A.S.: Reservoir Simulation-What Is It? J . Prr. Twh. (Nov.
1969) 13X3-88.
Chatas, A.T.: A Practical Treatment of Nonstcady-State Flow Prob-
lems in Rew-voir System-I. Per. Enx. (May 1953) B42-
Chatas, A.T.: A Practical Treatment of Nonsteady-State Flow Prob
lems in Reservoir System-II, PH. Enq. (June 1953) B3X-
Chatas. A.T.: A Practical Treatment of Nonsteady-State Flow Prob-
Stewart, F.M.. Callaway. F.H., and Gladfelter. R.E.: Comparisons ot
Methods for Analyzing a Water Drive Field. Torchlight Tensleep
Reservoir. Wyommg. J . Per. Tech. (Sept. 1954) 105-10; Trms..
AIME, 201.
Wooddy, L.D. Jr. and Moore, W.D.: Performance Calculations for
Reservoirs with Natural or Artificial Water Drtves. J . PH. Twh. (Aug.
1957) 245-5 I; Trans., AIME, 210
lems in Reservoir Systems-III. Per. Eng. (Aug. 1953) B46-
Chapter 39
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Phillip L. Moses, Core Laboratories ~nc.*
Charles W. Donohoe. Core Laboratories I~C
Introduction
The importance of gas-condensate reservoirs has grown
continuously since the late 1930s. Development and op-
eration of these reservoirs for maximum recovery require
engineering and operating methods significantly differ-
ent from crude-oil or dry-gas reservoirs. The single most
striking factor about gas-condensate systems (fluids) is
that they exist either wholly or preponderantly as vapor
phase in the reservoir at the time of discovery (the criti-
cal temperature of the system is lower than the reservoir
temperature). This key fact nearly always governs the de-
velopment and operating programs for recovery of
hydrocarbons from such reservoirs; the properties of the
fluids determine the best program in each case. A
thorough understanding of fluid properties together with
a good understanding of the special economics involved
is therefore required for optimum engineering of gas-
condensate reservoirs. Other important aspects include
geologic conditions. rock properties, well deliverability,
well costs and spacing, well-pattern geometry, and plant
costs.
Engineers have a wealth of literature on gas-condensate
reservoirs available for reference. From this mass of ma-
terial, Refs. 1 through 5 are especially recommended for
fundamental background, and Refs. 6 through 8 are rec-
ommended for information on properties of pure com-
pounds and their simple mixtures related to gas-condensate
systems. For information regarding reservoir engineer-
ing processes and data, Refs. 5 and 9 through 16 are rec-
ommended.
The best single bibliography on gas-condensate reser-
voirs is that of Katz and Rzasa ; however, later perti-
nent literature listings will be found in Refs. 6 through
14. The collection of references in Refs. 11 and 12 is par-
ticularly recommended for case histories of various gas-
condensate operations. Petroleum production papers pub-
lished by SPE (AIME) s and API have been indexed
separately through the years 1985 and 19.53, respectively.
The practicing field engineers should have the follow-
ing minimum library on gas-condensate systems availa-
ble for their use: either Ref. 1, 2, or 3; Refs. 5, 9, 13,
and 15; and selected volumes of Refs. 11 and 12.
Properties and Behavior of
Gas-Condensate Fluids
Sloan* described the general occurrence of petroleum
in the earth: . think of all the hydrocarbons, begin-
ning with the lightest, methane, to the heaviest asphaltic
substances as a series of compounds of the same family,
consisting of carbon and hydrogen in a limitless number
of proportions. A hydrocarbon reservoir then. is a porous
section of the sedimentary crust of the earth containing
a group of hydrocarbons, which is probably unique and
whose overall properties such as reservoir phase, gas/oil
ratio, gasoline content, viscosity. etc., is the direct result
of this composition, together with the temperature and
pressure that happen to exist in this particular spot in the
porous sediment.
It is now easy to conceive of any possible combina-
tion of these hydrocarbons in a given reservoir, and it is
also easy to visualize a reservoir fluid whose physical state
may range from a completely dry gas in the reservoir,
shading gradually through the wet gas, the condensate,
the critical mixture, the highly compressible volatile liq-
uid, the more stable light crude oil whose color is begin-
ning to darken, the heavier crudes with decreasing solution
gas, and ending with the semisolid asphalts and waxes
with no measurable solution gas.
The condensate reservoir that is the topic under dis-
cussion is therefore first a hydrocarbon reservoir. Due
to the composition and proportion of the individual
hydrocarbons in the mixtures, the content is gas phase
at the temperature and pressure of the reservoir.
ANALYSES AND PROPERTIES OF EXAMPLE CRUDE OILS AND GAS CONDENSATES
Mole Fraction
Crude Oil Crude Oil Condensate Condensate Condensate
A 8 843 944 1143
39-2
TABLE 39.1~-HYDROCARBON
Component
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butanes
Pentanes
Hexanes
Heptanes and heavier
Molecular weight C, plus
Specific gravity C, plus, 60/6OF
Viscosity C, plus, Saybolt universal
seconds at lOOoF
Tank-oil gravity, OAPI at 60/600F
Producing gas/oil ratio, cu ft/bbl
-see Ref 12, D 327
-
-
0.4404
0 0432
0.0405
0.0284
0.0174
0.0290
0.4011
287 247
0.9071 0.8811
loo+ 42
27.4 34.5
525 1,078
0.5345
0.0636
0.0466
0.0379
0.0274
0.0341
0.2559
0.00794
0.01375 0.00075
0.76432 0.89498
0.07923 0.04555
0.04301 0.01909
0.03060 0.00958
0.01718 0.00475
0.01405 0.00365
0.02992 0.02015
120 144
0.7397 0.7884
73 53.2 61.1
18,000+ 43,000 f 69,000 a
0.00130 0.00695
0.01480
0.89045
0.04691
0.01393
0.00795
0.00424
0.00379
0.01098
143
0.7593
See Ref. 2, Vbl I, Table 8 8, pp. 402-W
Viscosity 01 residual 011 left in apparatus, approwmal~ng Ihe hexanes-plus material
Composition Ranges of Gas-Condensate Systems
Approximate composition indices for gas-condensate sys-
tems are the gas/liquid ratio of produced fluids (some-
times called the GOR) or its reciprocal, the liquid/gas
ratio, and the gravity of the tank liquid separated out un-
der various surface conditions. These two indices vary
widely; they do not necessarily prove whether a hydrocar-
bon system is in the vapor phase in the reservoir.
Eilerts et al. (Vol. 1, Chaps. 1 and 8) show in a sur-
vey that the liquid/gas ratios of gas-condensate systems
can vary from more than 500 (very rich) to less than
10 bbl/MMscf; tank condensate produced from the wells
varied from less than 30 to more than 80API, and more
than 85% was within the range of 45 to 65API. Eilerts
et al. (Vol. 1) also quote a rule of thumb that a gas-
condensate system exists when the gas/liquid ratio exceeds
5,000 cu ftibbl (200 bbl/MMscf and less) and the liquid
is lighter than 5OAPI. This appears to be on the conser-
vative side because there is evidence that systems exist
as single-phase vapor in the reservoir when the surface
gas/liquid ratio is less than 4,000 cu ft/bbl (more than 250
bbl/MMscf) and the API gravity of the liquid in the stock
tanks is lower than 40API.
A more accurate representation of the composition of
gas-condensate fluids is provided by fractional analyses
of the well streams coming from the reservoirs. The con-
trast of the fluid composition with the total stream com-
ing from crude-oil reservoirs is fairly large for the relative
amounts of the lighter vs. heavier ends of the paraffin-
hydrocarbon series. For example. Eilerts et ul. (Vol.
1, Table 8.8) report a methane content from about 75 to
90 mol% for several gas-condensate systems, whereas
Dodson and Standing report 44 and 53 mol%, respec-
tively, for two crude-oil systems (see Table 39.1). The
table, however, shows much lower heptanes-and-heavier
content for the gas-condensate systems than for the crude
oil. These are the two outstanding composition features
of gas-condensate systems.
Pressure and Temperature Ranges of
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Gas-condensate reservoirs may occur at pressures below
2.000 psi and temperatures below l00F20 and proba-
bly can occur at any higher fluid pressures and tempera-
tures within reach of the drill. Most known retrograde
gas-condensate reservoirs are in the range of 3,000 to
8,000 psi and 200 to 400F. These pressure and temper-
ature ranges, together with wide composition ranges, pro-
vide a great variety of conditions for the physical behavior
of gas-condensate deposits. This emphasizes the need for
very meticulous engineering studies of each gas-
condensate reservoir to arrive at the best mode of devel-
opment and operation.
Phase and Equilibrium Behavior
An understanding of the behavior of pure paraffin
hydrocarbons and simple two-component or three-
component systems (involving such compounds as
methane, pentane, and decane) is of considerable benefit
to the engineer working with gas-condensate reservoir
problems. Excellent coverage is given this subject by Sage
and Lacey and a more condensed discussion by Bur-
cik. Occasional review of such material will assist the
engineer concerned with more complex hydrocarbon
mixtures.
Chap. 23 describes the phase and equilibrium behavior
of complex (multicomponent) hydrocarbon mixtures (see
Fig. 23.14 and the accompanying discussion). Note that
the critical state (critical point) is that state or condition
at which the composition and all other intensive proper-
ties of the gas phase and the liquid phase become
identical-i.e., the phases are indistinguishable. In gas-
condensate reservoirs, the portion of the phase diagram
to the left of and above the critical point will not be in-
volved.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-3
i
O50
1T
I00 150 200 250 300
TEMPERATURE.F
Fig. 39.1-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 843.
The term retrograde condensation (discussed in
Chap. 23) is used more loosely than implied by its
rigorous definition, In field practice, the term may im-
ply any process where the amount of condensing liquid
phase passes through a maximum, whether the process
is isothermal or not.
While Fig. 23.14 provides a simplified picture of the
phase diagram, reservoir engineers will find that very few
quantitative phase diagrams on naturally occurring gas-
condensate mixtures have been published. Figs. 39.1
through 39.3 come from extensive work and represent
quantitative measurements on the flow streams from wells
in the Chapel Hill, Carthage, and Seeligson fields in
Texas. The critical points are not shown because they are
at temperatures below those of interest to field operations.
This emphasizes that the compositions of gas-condensate
systems vary widely and strongly affect the form of the
phase diagrams encountered in actual gas-condensate
reservoirs. These three phase diagrams represent a
reasonable spread in the properties of gas-condensate sys-
tems. from a gas/liquid ratio of about 18,000 to 69,000
cu ftibbl (56 to 14.5 bbl/MMscf). This does not mean,
however, that all other gas-condensate systems would fall
inside the limits of the properties suggested by these three
phase diagrams.
The three cases in Figs. 39.1 through 39.3 imply that
the dewpoint boundary approaches zero pressure at a rela-
tively high temperature. Other condensate systems are be-
lieved to approximate the qualitative picture shown in Fig.
23.14 more closely. Note that all three systems exhibit
both cricondentherm and cricondenbar points (maximum
temperature and pressure, respectively, beyond which
there is no liquid present in the vapor); the critical tem-
peratures all fall to the left of each diagram at lower tem-
peratures and pressures than the maxima for the dewpoint
boundaries.
Liquid-content lines on phase diagrams can be repre-
sented by a number of different units. Figs. 39.1 through
39.3 use gallons per thousand cubic feet of separator gas.
Fig. 39.2-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 1143.
The approximate behavior of condensate fluids while
being produced from the reservoir into surface vessels can
be represented advantageously on phase diagrams. In Fig.
39.2, for example, Line FT shows a flow path for fluids
that starts at formation conditions (outside the dewpoint
boundary, indicating that the formation fluids were all in
vapor phase); proceeds to sandface pressure, Point S i ,
at the well; declines as the fluid rises from the bottom
of the hole to the wellhead, Point WH; passes through
the choke to separator conditions, Point S2 ; and reaches
Point T, representing tank conditions. The phase diagram
is thus helpful to the engineer in visualizing what hap-
pens to gas-condensate fluids as they flow from the for-
mation to the wellbore and from there to surface
equipment.
4,5OOf7777777
TEMPERATURE, *F
Fig. 39.3-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 944
39-4
Methods have been proposed by Organick and Eilerts
et al. * for predicting the critical temperatures and pres-
sures of hydrocarbon mixtures and for computing the
phase diagrams (including dewpoint curves) of gas-
condensate fluids. The dependability of these methods for
a wide range of gas-condensate compositions has not yet
been established. For reservoir engineering work, direct
laboratory measurements of phase diagrams or of
pressure-depletion behavior are necessary because of the
large recoveries at stake. Laboratory work may not be
required for other problems.
Gas/Liquid Ratios and Liquid
Gas-Condensate Systems
Contents of
As discussed earlier, it is difficult to specify whether a
hydrocarbon system is in the vapor phase in the reser-
voir from measurements of field gas/liquid ratio and tank-
oil gravity. Fluid production with tank-oil gravities as low
as 30API and gas/liquid ratios as low as 3,000 cu ft/bbl
may be from true gas-condensate systems; this possibili-
ty should always be checked by laboratory measurements
of phase behavior for these and intermediate values.
Liquid content and gas/liquid ratio can be direct
reciprocals, depending on the type of problem considered.
The terms must be carefully defined in each case because
gas-condensate systems in the field frequently undergo
different types of separating procedures that involve sever-
al stages before the final liquid phase (liquid means
hydrocarbon liquid unless otherwise specified) reaches the
tanks at atmospheric pressure. To study the properties of
gas-condensate fluids at reservoir conditions, it is con-
venient to define gas/liquid ratios and liquid contents on
the basis of the gas and liquid outputs of the first-stage
separator through which the fluids pass. These two out-
put streams then represent the total composition of the
gas-condensate fluid in the reservoir if sampling, produc-
ing, and measuring conditions have been properly set and
maintained. Other gas/liquid ratios may be reported, how-
ever, including the total gas output of all stages of sepa-
ration divided by the tank-liquid volumes corresponding
to the gas output: note that the total gas output would in-
clude a measurement of tank vapors as well as separator
gas to represent the full composition of the wellstream.
The gas/liquid ratio at stock-tank conditions may be
roughly approximated when field facilities are not avail-
able for measurements. The gas and liquid flow rates from
the high-stage separator are observed and a liquid sam-
ple collected from the separator in a stainless-steel cylin-
der of known volume. If all the cylinder contents are bled
into a calibrated graduate at atmospheric pressure and the
volume of the resultant liquid phase is compared with the
original liquid volume, an approximate value of the liquid-
phase shrinkage may be determined. From this, the high-
stage gas/liquid ratio may be converted to stock-tank con-
ditions. This procedure ignores the volume of gas liber-
ated between high-stage separator and stock-tank
conditions. This volume can be approximated by using
a calibrated glass separator with gas meter attached in
place of the graduate. Ignoring this gas volume adds fur-
ther errors to those resulting from not simulating the ex-
isting field stage separation conditions. The higher the
first-stage separation pressure, the greater the error in total
gas volume of the gas/liquid ratio. This is only an approx-
imate method that may be used when there are no inter-
mediate separator stages and stock tanks for individual
well measurements and when the atmospheric tempera-
ture and pressure do not vary appreciably from stock-tank
conditions.
Gas/liquid ratios usually are reported in cubic feet per
barrel of liquid (or thousands of cubic feet per barrel) and
liquid contents or liquid/gas ratios in barrels of liquid per
million standard cubic feet of gas. The separator streams
used in the ratio must be specified.
Properties of Separated Phases
The properties of both liquid and gas phases separated
from gas-condensate streams can vary considerably. One
of the dominant properties of the gas is high methane con-
tent. Eilerts et al. 2 (Vol. I, Chap. 8) list the composi-
tions of the gas and liquid phases of eight gas-condensate
systems. Methane contents of the gas phases (simulated
from field separators) varied from about 0.83 to 0.92 mole
fraction; the hexanes and heavier (hexanes plus) var-
ied from 0.004 to about 0.008 mole fraction. The liquid
phases varied from about 0.1 to nearly 0.3 mole fraction
methane; hexanes plus varied from about 0.4 to 0.7 mole
fraction.
,
In the absence of measured data, properties of the sepa-
rated phases of gas-condensate systems (including volu-
metric and density behavior) can be approximated by
methods described in Chaps. 20 through 23, especially
Chaps. 20 and 22 (see also Refs. 9 and 14).
Viscosities of Gas-Condensate Systems
The viscosity of a gas-condensate system is of interest in
various reservoir calculations, particularly with respect
to cycling operations and the representation of such reser-
voirs in computer models. Whenever possible, viscosity
of the vapor phase at reservoir conditions should be meas-
ured directly. Carr et al. 23 presented a method to esti-
mate the viscosities of gas systems from a knowledge of
compositions or specific gravities (see also Chap. 20 and
Ref. 14).
Viscosities of separate gas and liquid phases at the sur-
face conditions usually encountered can be obtained by
direct measurement or by the use of the correlations for
gas previously mentioned and the correlation of Chew and
Connally24 for liquid (see also Chap. 22). Viscosity in-
formation on separated materials is needed mainly for
separator or plant residue gases to be injected during cy-
cling and for some types of reservoir calculations.
Gas-Condensate Well Tests and Sampling
Proper testing of gas-condensate wells is essential to as-
certain the state of the hydrocarbon system at reservoir
conditions and to plan the best production and recovery
program for the reservoir. Without proper well tests and
samples, it would be impossible to determine the phase
conditions of the reservoir contents at reservoir tempera-
ture and pressure accurately and to estimate the amount
of hydrocarbon materials in place accurately.
Tests are made on gas-condensate wells for a number
of specific purposes: to obtain representative samples for
laboratory analysis to identify the composition and prop-
erties of the reservoir fluids; to make field determinations
on gas and liquid properties; and to determine formation
39-5
and well characteristics, including productivity. produ-
cibility, and injectivity. The first consideration for selcct-
ing wells for gas-condensate fluid samples is that they be
far enough from the black-oil ring (if present) to
minimize any chance that the liquid oil phase will enter
the well during the test period. A second and highly im-
portant consideration is the selection of wells with as high
productivities as possible so that minimum pressure draw-
down will be suffered when the reservoir fluid samples
are acquired.
Well Conditioning
Proper well conditioning is essential to obtain represen-
tative samples from the reservoir. The best production
rates before and during the sampling procedure have to
be considered individually for each reservoir and for each
well. Usually the best procedure is to use the lowest rate
that results in smooth well operation and the most depend-
able measurements of surface products. Minimum draw-
down of bottomhole pressure during the conditioning
period is desirable and the produced gas/liquid ratio should
remain constant (within about 2%) for several days; the
less-permeable reservoirs require longer periods. The far-
ther the well deviates from constant produced gas/liquid
ratio. the greater the likelihood that the samples will not
be representative.
Recombined separator samples from gas-condensate
wells are considered more representative of the original
reservoir fluid than subsurface samples.
Accurate measurements of hydrocarbon gas and liquid
production rates during the well-conditioning and well-
sampling tests are necessary because the laboratory tests
will later be based on fluid compositions recombined in
the same ratios as the hydrocarbon streams measured in
the field. The original reservoir fluid cannot be simulat-
ed in the laboratory unless accurate field measurements
of all the separator streams are taken. (Gas/liquid ratios
may be reported and used in several different forms, as
discussed previously.) If the produced gas/condensate
(gas/liquid) ratio from field measurements is in error by
as little as 5 %, the dewpoint pressure determined in the
laboratory may be in error by as much as 100 psi. Water
production rates should be measured separately and pro-
duced water excluded as much as possible from hydrocar-
bon samples sent to the laboratory.
Separator pressure and temperatures should remain as
constant as possible during the well-conditioning period;
this will help maintain constancy of the stream rates and
thus of the observed hydrocarbon gas/liquid ratio. If the
well is being prepared during a period when atmospheric
temperatures vary considerably from night to day.
reasonably consistent average temperatures and pressures
on the several vessels during the conditioning period
should be adequate.
Field Sampling and Test Procedures
After the conditioning period has proceeded long enough
to show that producing conditions are steady. exacting
measurement methods must be used to obtain represen-
tative samples. The mechanics of well sampling is par-
tially covered in Chaps. 12 through 14, 16, and 17. The
help of experienced laboratory personnel is advisable in
acquiring gas and condensate-liquid samples. Certain
minimum items of information in addition to all stream
rates are essential, including regular readings of the pres-
sures and temperatures of all vessels sampled, and of tub-
ing heads and casing heads where available, and a
recorded history of the well conditions before and dur-
ing sampling. along with the actual mechanics of the sam-
pling steps. Other information acquired during the
sampling period that would help to explain reservoir and
well conditions should also be recorded because it is use-
ful in interpreting the results of the tests.
Care must be taken that the compositions of gas and
liquid samples obtained are representative and are prop-
erly preserved for laboratory analyses. API RP 44? out-
lines appropriate sampling methods.
For cases when the liquid-phase sample is obtained at
a low temperature (from low-temperature separation
equipment), triethylene-glycol/water mixtures are con-
venient for collecting the samples. Ten percent or more
of the cylinder volume for liquid-phase samples should
be gas to prevent excessive pressure that could result from
temperature rise during subsequent shipment. This 10%
gas cap can be effected by closing the cylinder sample-
inlet valve when 90% of the glycoliwater mixture has been
displaced and then carefully withdrawing nearly all the
remaining mixture from the bottom of the cylinder without
losing the oil phase.
The volumes of fluids requested for laboratory testing
should be acquired during the sampling period. plus a
reasonable amount (25 % or more) of extra sample mate-
rials in separate containers for emergency use should some
of the main samples be lost by leakage or other adversity
between the field site and the laboratory.
At the end of actual sampling mechanics in the field,
the well should remain on stream for a reasonable period
of time, and its producing rate, gas/liquid ratio, and var-
ious pressures and temperatures should be observed to
confirm that they are consistent with the information de-
veloped before and during the sampling period. Any rad-
ical changes should be analyzed carefully to decide
whether resampling may be necessary to ensure accura-
cy of the samples and well statistics obtained during the
sampling period.
Equipment is available for making some determinations
of gas-condensate properties in the field. Among these
properties are the gas/liquid ratios of several vessels
simulating various separation conditions (numbers of
stages, pressures and temperatures of the stages, and other
conditions) and the gasoline content of the overhead
gas at each stage. If hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
are present in the production streams, special sampling
procedures should be used and the samples should be taken
in stainless-steel cylinders. These corrosive gases could
react with the sample cylinders during shipment.
Field determinations of the hydrocarbon compositions
of streams from gas-condensate wells can be made with
appropriate fractionation equipment in mobile labora-
tories. Eilerts rt al. described such equipment and the
test procedures for determining the effect of individual
hydrocarbons on liquid/gas ratios at different separation
pressures and temperatures. These tests can assist in de-
termining optimum field separation conditions for given
production objectives. They require special equipment and
experienced personnel.
Measurements of gas-condensate well productivity,
producibility, and injectivity are of considerable impor-
tance for planning overall field operations and size of
plants for either gasoline recovery or condensate-liquids
recovery and cycling, as bases for contracts for delivera-
bility from a reservoir for pipeline purposes, and for var-
ious other needs. This topic is discussed more fully later;
test procedures are described in Chap. 33 and in several
published standards and regulations. 26-29
where
K, = the equilibrium ratio for methane,
y1 = methane in the vapor phase, mol%, and
Xl
= methane in the liquid phase, mol%.
The experimental equilibrium ratio for methane is 7.71
for the temperature and pressure existing in the field sepa-
rator at the time of sampling.
Sample Collection and Evaluation
In taking samples for recombination to evaluate a gas-
condensate reservoir, the samples of gas and samples of
liquid usually are taken from the first stage of separation.
A representative portion of all the hydrocarbons produced
from the well will be contained in these two samples. The
first step in the laboratory study is to evaluate the sam-
ples taken. The first test is to measure the bubblepoint
of the separator liquid. The bubblepoint should correspond
to the separator pressure at separator temperature at the
time the samples were taken.
The equilibrium ratios for each of the hydrocarbons
methane through hexane are calculated in a similar man-
ner. These data can then be compared with equilibrium
ratios, such as those published in Ref. 16. If the equilib-
rium ratios compare favorably, then the samples are in
equilibrium and the study should continue. If they do not
compare well, then new samples should be obtained be-
fore proceeding.
The hydrocarbon composition of the separator samples
should then be determined by chromatography or low-
temperature fractional distillation or a combination of
both. An example of the composition of typical separator
products are shown in Table 39.2. These compositions
may be evaluated by calculation of the equilibrium ratio
for each component (see Chap. 23). The equilibrium ra-
tio for a component is the mole percent of that compo-
nent in the vapor phase divided by the mole percent of
the same component in the liquid phase. As an example,
the equilibrium ratio for methane in Table 39.2 is calcu-
lated by the equation
K, =yl/x, =83.01/10.76=7.71,
Recombination of Separator Samples
The samples are now ready to be recombined in the same
ratio that they were produced. Because we have samples
of first-stage separator gas and first-stage separator liq-
uid, we must have the produced gas/liquid ratio in the
same form. If the producing gas/liquid ratio was meas-
ured in the field in this form, then we can proceed direct-
ly with the recombination. If the ratio was measured in
the field in the form of primary-separator gas per barrel
of second-stage separator liquid or per barrel of stock-
tank liquid, then a laboratory shrinkage test must be run
to simulate field separation conditions. The shrinkage ob-
tained can then be used to convert the field-measured ra-
tio to the form necessary for the recombination. Once the
separator products have been recombined, the composi-
tion can be measured and compared with the calculated
composition. This will check the accuracy of the physi-
cal recombination.
TABLE 39.2-HYDROCARBON ANALYSES OF SEPARATOR PRODUCTS AND CALCULATED WELL STREAM
SeDarator Liauid
Separator Gas
Component (mol %)
Hydrogen sulfide 0.00
C&bon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
iso-Butane
n-Butane
iso-Pentane
n-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Total
0.00
0.01
10.76
6.17
8.81
2.85
7.02
3.47
3.31
8.03
49.57
100.00
mol %
0.00
0.01
0.13
83.01
9.23
4.50
0.74
1.20
0.31
0.25
0.21
0.41
100.00
Properties of heptanes plus
API gravity at 6OF 39.0
Density, g/cm3 at 60aR).8293
Molecular weight 160 103
gal/l ,000 cf gas
2.454
1.231
0.241
0.376
0.113
0.090
0.085
0.185
4.775
-
Well Stream
mol % gal/l,000 cf gas
0.00
0.01
0.11
68.93
8.63 2.295
5.34 1.461
1.15 0.374
2.33 0.730
0.93 0.338
0.85 0.306
1.73 0.702
9.99 6.006
100.00 12.212
0.827
158
Calculated separator gas gravity (air = 1.000)
Calculated gross heating value for separator gas per cubic foot of dry gas at
0.699
14.65 psia and 60F, Btu
Primary-separator-gas/separator-liquid ratio at 60F, scf/bbl*
Primary-separator-liquid/stock-tank-liquid ratio at 60F, bbl
Primary-separator-gas/well-stream ratio, MscWMMscf
Stock-tank-liquid/well-stream ratio, bbl/MMscf
*Primary separator gas and primary separator liquid collected at 440 psig and 87F.
1,230
3,944
1.191
805.19
171.4
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-7
Dewpoint and Pressure/Volume Relations
The laboratory personnel will next measure the pres-
sure/volume relations of the reservoir fluid at reservoir
temperature with a visual cell. This is a constant-compo-
sition expansion and furnishes the dewpoint of the reser-
voir fluid at reservoir temperature and the total volume
of the reservoir fluid as a function of pressure. The volume
of liquid at pressures below the dewpoint as a percent of
TABLE 39.3-PRESSURE/VOLUME RELATIONS
OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 256OF
the total volume may also be measured. Phase diagrams
(Constant-Composition Expansion)
can be developed dy measuring the liquid volumes at
several other temperatures. Table 39.3 is an example of
the dewpoint determination and pressure/volume relations
of a gas-condensate reservoir fluid.
Simulated Pressure Depletion
Pressure depletion of gas-condensate reservoirs may be
simulated in the laboratory by use of high-pressure visual
cells. In these depletion studies made in the laboratory,
the assumption is that the retrograde liquid that condenses
in the reservoir rock will not achieve a sufficiently high
saturation to become mobile. This assumption appears to
be valid except for very rich gas-condensate reservoirs.
For very rich gas-condensate reservoirs where the retro-
grade liquid may achieve a high enough saturation to mi-
grate to producing wells, the gas/liquid relative
permeability data should be measured for the reservoir
rock system. These data can then be used to ad,just the
predicted recovery from the reservoir.
Table 39.4 is an example of a depletion study on a gas-
condensate reservoir fluid. Note from Table 39.4 that the
dewpoint pressure of this reservoir fluid is 6,010 psig.
The composition listed in the 6,010-psig-pressure column
in Table 39.4 is the composition of the reservoir fluid at
the dewpoint and exists in the reservoir in the gaseous
state
Pressure
(PSW
7,500
7,000 *
6,500
6,300
6,200
6,100
6,010+
5.950
5,900
5,800
5,600
5,300
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,100
1,860
1,683
1,460
1,290
1,160
1,050
Relative Deviation Factor,
Volume z
0.9341 1.328
0.9523 1.264 *
0.9727 1.19s
0.9834 1.175
0.9891 1.163
0.9942 1 150
1 .oooo 1.140f
1.0034
1.0076
1.0138
1.0267
1.0481
1.0749
1.1268
1.2024
1.3096
1.4689
1.7169
2.0191
2.2747
2.5150
2.9087
3.3173
3.7153
4.1342
Reservoir preSSre
;Gas ev~ans~on factor = 1 545 Mscllbbl
oewpolnl pressure
Gas expansion factor = 1 47, Mscfibb,
TABLE 39.4--DEPLETION STUDY AT 256F
6,010 5,000
Reservoir Pressure, psig
4,000 3,000 2,100 1,200 700 700*
Hydrocarbon Analysis of Produced Well Stream, mol %
Component
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
iso-Butane
n-Butane
iso-Pentane
n-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Molecular weight of heptanes plus 158 146 134 123 115
Density of heptanes plus 0.827 0.817 0.805 0.794 0.784
Deviation factor, z
Equilibrium gas
Two-phase
Well stream produced, cumulative
% of initial
1.140 1.015 0.897 0.853 0.865 0.902 0.938
1.140 1.016 0.921 0.851 0.799 0.722 0.612
0.000 6.624 17.478 32.927 49.901 68.146 77.902
0.01
0.11
68.93
8.63
5.34
1 .I5
2.33
0.93
0.85
1.73
9.99
100.00
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.12 0.12 0.13
70.69 73.60 76.60
8.67 8.72 8.82
5.26 5.20 5.16
1.10 1.05 1.01
2.21 2.09 1.99
0.86 0.78 0.73
0.76 0.70 0.65
1.48 1.25 1.08
8.84 6.48 3.82
100.00 100.00 100.00
0.01
0.13
77.77
8.96
5.16
1 .Ol
1.98
0.72
0.63
1 .Ol
2.62
100.00
0.01
0.12
77.04
9.37
5.44
1.10
2.15
0.77
0.68
1.07
2.25
100.00
110
0.779
0.01
0.11
75.13
9.82
5.90
1.26
2.45
0.87
0.78
1.25
2.42
Trace
0.01
11.95
4.10
4.80
1.57
3.75
100.00
2.15
2.15
6.50
63.02
100.00
109 174
0.778 0.837
39-8 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
1.6
15
1.4
I 3
12
i I
10
09
08
07
0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure. osi
Fig. 39.4-Deviation factor, z, of well stream during depletion
at 256OF.
The depletion study is performed by expanding the
reservoir fluid in the cell by withdrawing mercury from
the cell until the first depletion pressure is reached; this
is 5,000 psig in the example. The fluid in the cell is
brought to equilibrium and the volume of retrograde liq-
uid is measured. The mercury is then reinjected into the
cell and, at the same time, gas is removed from the top
of the cell so that a constant pressure is maintained. Mer-
cury is injected into the cell until the hydrocarbon or reser-
voir volume of the cell is the same as the volume when
the test was begun at the dewpoint pressure. The gas
volume removed from the cell is measured at the deple-
tion pressure and reservoir temperature. The gas removed
is charged to analytical equipment where its composition
is determined and its volume is measured at atmospheric
pressure and temperature. The composition determined
is that listed in Table 39.4 under the heading 5,000 psig.
The volume of gas produced in this manner is then divid-
ed by the standard volume of gas in the cell at the dew-
point pressure. The produced volume is presented in Table
39.4 as cumulative well stream produced.
As mentioned earlier, as the gas is removed from the
top of the cell, its volume is measured at the depletion
pressure and reservoir temperature. From this volume,
the ideal volume of this displaced volume may be cal-
culated with the ideal-gas law. When the ideal volume
is divided by the actual volume of the gas produced at
standard conditions, we get the deviation factor, z, for
the produced gas. This is listed in Table 39.4 under
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000 6000 7000 7000 8000 8000
Pressure. psi Pressure. psi
Fig. 39.5--Retrograde condensation during depletion. Fig. 39.5--Retrograde condensation during depletion.
Deviation Factor z, equilibrium gas and plotted in Fig.
39.4. The actual volume of gas remaining in the cell at
this point is the gas originally in the cell at the dewpoint
pressure minus the gas produced at the first depletion lev-
el. If we divide the actual volume remaining in the cell
into the calculated ideal volume remaining in the cell at
this first depletion pressure, we obtain the two-phase devi-
ation factor shown in Table 39.4. We call this value a
two-phase deviation factor because the material remain-
ing in the cell after the first depletion level is actually gas
and retrograde liquid and the actual gas volume we cal-
culated above is the gas volume plus the vapor equiva-
lent of the retrograde liquid. The two-phase z factor is
significant in that it is the z factor of all the hydrocarbon
material remaining in the reservoir. It is the two-phase
z factor that should be used when a plz-vs.-cumulative-
production plot is made in evaluating gas-condensate pro-
duction.
This series of expansions and constant-pressure dis-
placements is repeated at each depletion pressure until an
arbitrary abandonment pressure is reached. The abandon-
ment pressure is considered arbitrary because no engi-
neering or economic calculations have been made to
determine this pressure for the purpose of the reservoir-
fluid study.
In addition to the composition of the produced well
stream at the final depletion pressure, the composition of
the retrograde liquid was also measured. These data are
included as a control composition in the event the study
is used for compositional material-balance purposes.
The volume of retrograde liquid measured during the
course of the depletion study is shown in Fig. 39.5 and
Table 39.5. The data are shown as a percent of hydrocar-
bon pore space. These are the data that should be used
in conjunction with relative permeability data and water
saturation data to determine the extent of retrograde liq-
uid mobility. As mentioned earlier, this is a significant
factor only with extremely rich gas-condensate reservoirs.
Also obtained from the reservoir fluid study is Table
39.6. This table was calculated with the results of the lab-
oratory depletion study described previously applied to
a unit-volume reservoir. The unit volume chosen was
1,000 Mscf in place at the dewpoint pressure (note the
1,000 Mscf in Table 39.6 in the first column of numbers).
Equilibrium ratios were then used to calculate the amount
of stock-tank liquid, primary-separator gas, second-stage
gas, and stock-tank gas contained in the unit-volume reser-
voir. The equilibrium ratios used were for the separator
conditions listed at the bottom of Table 39.6. The sepa-
rator conditions used for these calculations should be the
conditions in use in the field or those conditions antici-
pated for the field. The relative amounts of gas and liq-
uid produced will be a function of the surface separation
conditions, among other things. These calculations may
be made at a variety of conditions to determine optimum
separator pressures and temperatures. For the purpose of
this table, production was begun at the dewpoint pressure.
The amount of total well effluent (well stream) produced
from this unit-volume reservoir as a function of pressure
is listed in the table. The amount of stock-tank liquid pro-
duced as a function of pressure is also listed. The primary-
separator gas, second-stage gas, and stock-tank gas are
presented in a similar manner. Various other factors as-
sociated with the production of the gas and condensate
from this reservoir are also presented in the table.
TABLE 39.5--RETROGRADE CONDENSATION
DURING GAS DEPLETION AT 256F
Retrograde Liquid Volume
Pressure (% hydrocarbon
W9)
pore space)
6,010 0.0
5,950 Trace
5,900 0.1
5,800 0.2
5,600 0.5
5,300 2.0
5,000 * 7.8
4,000 21.3
3,000 25.0
2,100 24.4
1,200 22.5
700 21.0
0 17.6
Dewpmt pressure
First depletion level.
Table 39.6 shows the initial stock-tank liquid in place
to be 181.74 bbl for this unit-volume reservoir. After pro-
duction to 700 psig, 51.91 bbl had been produced. The
difference between these two numbers (18 1.74 - 5 1.9 1),
129.83 bbl, is the amount of retrograde loss or liquid still
unproduced at 700 psig expressed in terms of stock-tank
barrels. The value of 181.74 bbl may be considered the
recovery by pressure maintenance, assuming 100% con-
formance and 100% displacement efficiency.
Table 39.7 furnishes the gravity of the stock-tank liq-
uid that may be expected to be produced as a function
of reservoir pressure. Also reported are the instantane-
ous gas/liquid ratios as a function of reservoir pressure.
TABLE 39.6-CALCULATED CUMULATIVE RECOVERY DURING DEPLETION PER MMscf OF ORIGINAL FLUID
Well stream, Mscf
Normal temperature separation
Stock-tank liquid, bbl
Primary separator gas, Mscf
Second-stage gas, Mscf
Stock-tank gas, Mscf
Total plant products in primary separator gas, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Total plant products in second-stage gas, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Total plant products in well stream, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Initial
in Place
1 .OOo 0 66.24
181.74
777.15
38.52
38.45
1,841
835
368
179
204
121
53
23
2,295
1,461
1,104
7,352
Reservoir Pressure
(wig)
6.010 5.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.08 21.83 31 .a9 39.76 47.36 51.91
53.18 145.16 283.78 440.02 608.25 696.75
2.26 5.17 8.03 10.51 13.21 14.99
2.29 5.38 8.73 11.85 15.51 18.05
126 344 674 1,050 1,474 1,709
58 163 331 526 749 873
26 73 155 256 374 441
12 35 73 122 177 206
12 27 42
17 27
8 13
3 5
55
36
17
70 80
47 54
23 27
10 11
3
153 404 767 1,171 1,626 1,880
95 250 468 707 979 1,137
70 178 325 486 674 789
408 890 1,322 1,680 2,037 2,249
4,000 3,000 2,100 1,200 700
174.78 329.27 499.01 681.46 779.02
Primary separator at 450 psig and ,!YF, second-stage separator a, 100 ps,g and 75OF, stock tank a, 75DF
These data may be calculated without the benefit of rock
propertles or interstitial water values. The assumption is
that the retrograde liquid does not achieve significant mo-
bility. Because only one phase is flowing, water and
hydrocarbon liquid saturations do not enter into the cal-
culations. The assumption that the retrograde liquid does
not flow in the reservoir except in the drawdown area im-
mediately around the wellbore appears to be good. Only
with very rich reservoirs does movement of retrograde
liquid add significantly to well production.
It was mentioned earlier that the most popular form of
material balance on a gas-condensate reservoir is the p/z-
vs.-cumulative-production curve. It was stated that the z
factor to be used must be the two-phase : factor. The cu-
mulative production must be the total production from the
well. This includes. in most instances, the first-stage sepa-
rator gas, second-stage separator gas, tank vapors. and
the vapor equivalent of the stock-tank liquid. The most
accurate production figures from a gas-condensate field
are usually the sales-gas volumes. This usually includes
the first- and second-stage separator gas. To make the p/z-
vs.-cumulative plot, the tank vapors and the vapor equiva-
lent of the stock liquid must be accounted for. Without
the benefit of laboratory data, the tank vapors must be
estimated and the vapor equivalent of the stock-tank liq-
uid calculated with an average or estimated number.
Table 39.7 furnishes the data to make these calculations.
If sales gas is the primary- and second-stage gas, and the
average reservoir pressure is 5.000 psig, then the total
well-stream volume can be calculated by dividing the sales
volume by 0.83704. This factor accounts for the tank
vapors and the vapor equivalent of the tank liquid. If the
sales gas is only the first-stage gas, then the appropriate
factor would be 0.80285.
Operation by Pressure Depletion
Pressure-depletion gas-condensate reservoir behavior can
be predicted from the laboratory data described previous-
ly, or if necessary, by various correlation and computation
procedures that provide similar information (with less ac-
curacy) on the basis of the composition of the gas-conden-
sate system. Whenever possible, the predictions should
be made with actual laboratory data because the better
accuracy obtained at the reservoir conditions is justified
by the large gas and liquid reserves involved in reservoir
calculations.
Predictions With Laboratory-Derived Data
and Hydrocarbon Analysis
With the assumption that the liquid condensate in the reser-
voir during a pressure-depletion operation stays in place
(does not build up sufficiently to provide liquid-phase per-
meability for flow), reservoir behavior can be predicted
from the laboratory constant-composition depletion study
discussed previously. Pertinent information is shown in
Tables 39.3 through 39.6 and Figs. 39.4 and 39.5.
Liquid-phase change in the reservoir is shown in Fig.
39.5 derived from Table 39.5. Note that the amount of
liquid remaining in the reservoir passes through a maxi-
mum but does not return to zero, indicating that pressure-
depletion operations leave some liquid hydrocarbons be-
hind at abandonment pressure. Economic analyses of
pressure-depletion operations are necessary for estimating
the magnitude of this loss and its effect on development
and operating policy for the reservoir.
The ultimate recoveries by pressure depletion of wet
gas. condensate, and plant products can be calculated for
the reservoir described in Table 39.8 by use of the data
given in Table 39.6.
Gas in place ut original pressure:
(500x 106)(1.545)(178. l)= 137,582 MMscf.
Gas in place at dewpoint pressure:
(500x106)(1.471)(178.1)=130,992 MMscf.
Wet gas produced to dewpoint pressure:
137,582- 130,992=6,590 MMscf.
TABLE 39.7-CALCULATED INSTANTANEOUS RECOVERY DURING DEPLETION
Reservoir Pressure
(asiai
Normal temperature separation
Stock-tank liquid gravity at 6OOF. OAPl
Separator-qaslwell-stream ratio, Mscf/MMscf
6,010 5,000
49.3 51.7
primary-separator gas only
primary and second-stage separator gases
Separator-gas/stock-tank-liquid ratio, scf/STB
primary-separator gas only
pnmary and second-stage separator gases
Recovery from smooth well stream compositions,
Ethane plus
Propane plus
Butanes plus
Pentanes plus
777.15
815.67
802.85
837.04
847.45
874.26
897.28
915.77
920.44
935.04
922.04
936.84
907.14
925.38
gal/min
4,276
4,488
12.212
9.917
8.456
7.352
5,277 7,828 13,774 19,863 22,121 19,475
5.502 8.076 14,058 20.178 22.476 19.867
10.953 9.175 7.509 6.851 6.970 7.574
8.648 6.856 5.164 4.469 4.479 4.963
7.209 5.434 3.752 3.057 2.990 3.349
6.158 4.437 2.800 2.108 1.959 2.171
4.000
55.4
3,000
60.4 64 6 67.5 68.6
2,100 1,200 700
Primary separator at 450 ps~g and 75T second-stage separator at 100 pslg and 75OF. stock tank at 75OF
39-11
Wet gas produced Sfom dewpoint pressure to aban- TABLE 39.8-FORMATION AND FLUID DATA FOR A
donment:
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
(130,992)(0.77902)= 102,045 MMscf.
Total wet gas produced:
6,590+ 102,045 = 108,635 MMscf.
Condensate produced to dewpoint pressure:
Original reservoir pressure, psig
Dewpoint pressure, psig
Assumed abandonment pressure, psig
Average reservoir temperature, OF
Hydrocarbon pore space (by volumelrics), cu ft
Gas expansion factor (8,) of produced fluid
at original pressure, Mscflbbl
Gas expansion factor (B,) of produced fluid
at dewpoint, Mscf/bbl
7,000
6,010
700
256
500x 10
1.545
1.471
(6,590)(181.74)=1,197,667 bbl.
Condensate producedfiom dewpoint pressure to aban-
donment:
(130,992)(51.91)=6,799,795
Total condensate produced:
1,197,667+6,799,795=7,997,462
Percent recoveries by pressure depletion from dewpoint
pressure to abandonment:
Wet gas=
102,045
~ x 100=77.9%;
130,992
Condensate =
6,799,795
x 100=28.6%.
181.74x 130,992
The total plant products can be calculated in a similar man-
ner, depending on the flow streams to be processed and
the recovery efficiencies anticipated.
Predictions With Vapor/Liquid Equilibrium
Calculation and Correlations
In the absence of direct laboratory data on a specific gas-
condensate system, pressure-depletion behavior can be es-
timated with vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios (i.e., equi-
librium constants, equilibrium factors or K values) to
compute the phase behavior when the composition of the
total gas-condensate system is known. Correlations for
estimating phase volumes must also be available.
When multicomponent hydrocarbon gases and liquids
exist together under pressure, part of the lighter hydrocar-
bons (light ends) are dissolved in the liquid phase, and
part of the heavier hydrocarbons (heavy ends) are vapo-
rized in the gas phase. A convenient concept to describe
the behavior of specific components quantitatively is the
equilibrium ratio. The ratios vary considerably with the
pressure, temperature, and composition of the system in-
volved
The equilibrium ratio is defined as the mole fraction
of a given constituent in the vapor phase divided by the
mole fraction of the same constituent in the liquid phase,
the two phases existing in equilibrium with each other.
The equilibrium ratio is designated as K. The basis for
this definition is discussed in Chap. 23 and by Standing. 9
Fig. 23.21 illustrates the behavior of equilibrium ratios
for a particular system and shows the rather wide variation
possible for a given constituent at different pressures. The
figure shows a tendency of the equilibrium ratios to con-
verge isothermally to a value of K= 1 at a specific pres-
sure. The pressure is roperly called the apparent
convergence pressure.
g
The selection of equilibrium-
ratio values for calculations usually is based on the sys-
tems apparent convergence pressure, which can change
in a pressure-depletion process because of changing sys-
tem composition with pressure decline.
Large inaccuracies can occur in pressure-depletion cal-
culations with equilibrium ratios when the heavier
hydrocarbons (e.g., heptanes and heavier) are not ade-
quately described. To obtain satisfactory results in cal-
culating pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate
system, an extended analysis of the CT+ fraction should
be made. A determination of the the molar distribution
of CT+ through at least C!z=, is recommended. As can be
observed in Table 39.4, the CT+ component of the sub-
ject gas-condensate fluid exhibited a change in molecu-
lar weight from 158 at a pressure of 6,010 psig to 109
at a pressure of 700 psig. The change in density of the
C 7 + component was from 0.827 to 0.778 over the same
pressure range. Table 39.4 also shows that at 700 psig,
the molecular weight of the CT+ in the liquid phase is
174, compared to 109 in the gas phase, and the density
is 0.837 in the liquid phase, compared to 0.778 in the gas
phase. This change in composition of the C7+ fraction
with pressure reduction leads to large errors in the vapor/
liquid split of the CT+ fraction when equilibrium ratios
are used and in the resultant molecular weight and density
of the calculated gas and liquid volumes.
Should such an extended analysis of the CT+ compo-
nent not be available, then a statistical split should be made
that maintains the integrity of the average molecular
weight and density of the CT+ component. Once the CT+
component has been divided into multiple pseudocompo-
nents, the physical properties required to make reservoir
flash calculations must be developed.
Wbitson30 presents a method for determining the molar
distribution of single-carbon-number (SCN) groups that
are defined by their boiling points as a function of each
groups molecular weight. To make the distribution, a
three-parameter gamma probability function is used.
Whitson also presents equations for calculating the re-
quired physical properties with the Watson3 characteri-
zation factor. This method can be easily programmed for
a personal computer and permits rapid development of
molar distribution and physical properties. A statistical
expansion of the C7+ component of the gas-condensate
fluid presented in Table 39.2 has been made with the teeh-
nique Whitson described. The results of this expansion
39-12
are presented in Table 39.9. The ability to calculate ac-
curately the pressure-depletion performance of a gas-
condensate reservoir depends on proper characterization
of the vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios (K values) of the
hydrocarbon system.
Equilibrium ratios for nonhydrocarbon components and
hydrocarbons C, throu h C 10 can be found in the En-
gineering Data Book.
15
Hoffman et al. 32 and Cook et
al. 33 have presented methods for developing K values for
the pseudocomponents. Hoffman et al. s procedure can
be programmed easily for a personal computer for rapid
development of equilibrium ratios. An alternative method
is to plot the methane and normal pentane K values as
a function of their boiling points on a semilog graph for
each depletion pressure to be calculated. An equation can
be determined for a straight line connecting these two
points. The K value for each of the other components and
pseudocomponents can then be calculated for each pres-
sure point with their individual boiling points. This method
of obtaining K values was used in the earlier example cal-
culation. There are some limitations on the accuracy of
the data derived by these methods unless some measured
data on similar hydrocarbon systems are available. How-
ever, the data should be usable for the quick, rough ap-
proximations often needed in the preliminary reservoir
evaluation stage. The C t through Cc composition of the
gas-condensate fluid presented in Table 39.2 was used to
develop a K-value relationship for the extended C7+
compositions. The resultant relationship is presented in
Fig. 39.6.
Chap. 23 describes the general techniques of the use
of vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios to compute the phase
compositions and magnitudes of hydrocarbon gas/liquid
mixtures. Standing also has an excellent presentation of
this usage, including a discussion of the serious errors
that can result in calculating the phase behavior of gas-
condensate systems. When these methods are used to es-
timate the pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate
reservoir, the following procedure is used.
1. Assume that the original (known) composition flashes
from original pressure (and volume) to a lower pressure,
at which the compositions and amounts (in moles) of the
liquid and gas phases are computed with the best K values
available.
2. Estimate the volume of each phase with the methods
discussed below.
3. Assume that enough vapor-phase volume is removed
(produced) at constant pressure to cause the remaining
gas plus all the liquid to conform to the reservoirs original
constant volume.
COUPONENT BOI LI NGPOI NT OR
CO2
275
N HO
w MO
E:
217
I%
, "d,
462
NC4 482
BOI LI NG POI NT
CONDENSATE NO7 FLUI D
CT. 869
000,
0 200 400 Kc 803 1000 12M) 1403
BOI LI NG POI NT, ' RANKl NE
Fig. 39.6-K-value correlation for Condensate 7 depletion.
4. Subtract the number of moles of each component in
the vapor represented by this gas removal from the origi-
nal system composition.
5. With the new total composition from Step 4, consider
the system flashed to the next lower pressure step and
repeat the procedure. Removal of vapor phase alone is
required by the assumption that fluid flowing into the wells
will not be accompanied by any liquid phase at any step
of the process.
As indicated previously, the calculations require knowl-
edge of the volume occupied by each phase at each pres-
sure step. Methods to estimate these volumes are described
in Chaps. 20 and 22 and also by Standing. 9 To estimate
phase volumes, smoothed values should be used from
curves drawn through the points computed from properties
of the phase at each known composition.
TABLE 39.9-STATISTICAL EXPANSION OF C,, COMPONENT, CONDENSATE 7
C 7+ Mole fraction 0.0999
Molecular weight 158.0
Density, g/cm 0.827
Density Boiling Point
Component Mole Fraction Mole Weight (g/cm3)
(W
C7 0.01685 100.9 0.7486 658
2 0.01535 0.01235 113.6 126.9 0.7648 0.7813 702
40 0.00941 139.5 0.7960 748 791
C 0.04594 ,I+ 205.1 0.8641 1,020
39-13
These calculations are intended to approximate the
experimental procedure used in the PVT cell during a
laboratory pressure-depletion study. The number of pres-
sure steps used in making such calculations is arbitrary
but probably should conform to about SOO-psi intervals,
with points usually closer together at the start and at the
end of the calculations. The calculated depletion perform-
ance of Condensate 7 is presented in Table 39.10. The
dewpoint pressure of 5,277 psig was calculated with an
empirical relationship Nemeth and Kennedy j4 present-
ed. The best method to determine the dewpoint pressure
is by direct measurement, as in the laboratory PVT anal-
ysis. If these data are not available, then one must resort
to estimation by empirical methods. such as that used in
this example, or by gas/liquid production performance.
In the latter choice, one must deplete the reservoir to a
pressure below the dewpoint. In Table 39.10 a compari-
son of wet gas and condensate recoveries is made between
the laboratory-measured and calculated depletion perform-
ance. As can be seen from the comparison, large errors
are possible in the calculated data resulting from estima-
tion of the dewpoint pressure and the physical properties
of the reservoir fluid.
Hydrocarbon/Liquid Condensation; Effect on
Gas-Condensate Behavior
For some gas-condensate systems, large amounts of liq-
uid can be condensed during pressure depletion, resulting
in high liquid saturations in the formation pores. When
this probability is indicated by either laboratory tests or
calculations, the possibility of hydrocarbon/liquid flow
through and out of the reservoir must be examined. Rela-
tive permeability information (usually curves showing
k,/k, vs. liquid saturation in the formation) should be
combined with viscosity data (pO/pR) to estimate the
volumetric proportion of liquid in the flowing stream (thus
removed from the reservoir), thereby affecting the remain-
ing reservoir phase compositions at each of the depletion
steps. The best k,gpu,/k,p., data to use are those deter-
mined in the laboratory with actual samples of the reser-
voir rock and hydrocarbon system in question. In the
absence of such information, k,/k, can be estimated by
the methods explained in Chap. 28; viscosity approxima-
tions may be made by the methods described by Carr et
al. 23 After the amount of gas and liquid removed at each
step has been estimated, the calculation procedures can
be adjusted to obtain the desired behavior predictions.
Pressure Drawdown at Wells; Effect on Well
Productivity and Recovery
The previous discussion has taken liquid condensation in
the formation into account as though it occurred uniformly
throughout the reservoir (uniform pressure at any instant
of time). In low-permeability formations, however, there
can be appreciable pressure drawdown at the producing
wells because the pressures near the wellbores are much
lower than in the main part of the reservoir. This tends
to increase the early condensation of liquids around the
wells considerably, thus decreasing the gas permeability
and affecting the phase behavior of the system near the
wells. This is important from at least two standpoints:
(1) composition history of fluids produced from the reser-
voir may diverge from that predicted by assuming uni-
form pressure in the reservoir at any instant of time and
(2) adverse effects on the ability of the wells to produce
may occur, potentially affecting the optimum well spacing
and the rate of gas-condensate recovery from the zone
as pressures decline.
The effects of well-pressure drawdown on the compo-
sition history (and ultimate liquid recoveries) of gas-
condensate reservoir production have had little discussion
in the literature. The general expectation would be that
in lower-pressure areas around the wells, liquid hydrocar-
bons are precipitated earlier and in greater amounts than
in the main volume of the reservoir. The main factors in-
volved in this phenomenon are the richness of the gas
condensate, the retrograde characteristics of the reservoir
fluid, and the permeability of the reservoir rock. Normal-
ly, the area around the wellbore that is affected will be
small and the condition will stabilize. Normal operating
practices to restrict the pressure drawdown to reasonable
values will alleviate the problem. In those reservoirs that
exhibit extremely low permeability and contain fluids ex-
hibiting condensable liquids of more than 200 bbl/MMscf,
the problem can be severe. When separator samples are
taken for the laboratory, the analysis procedure discussed
previously should be followed to minimize the drawdown
effect on the gas and liquid compositions.
The effects on well productivity of precipitated liquid
in the vicinity of the wellbore theoretically can be ap-
preciable. Normally, estimates of future well productivity
ignore the drawdown effects of production on liquid-
phase distribution in the reservoir. The greater liquid ac-
cumulations and lower gas permeabilities near the wells
thus are ignored in theoretical predictions of well produc-
tivity (or extrapolations from early tests); these predic-
tions then tend to show minimum decline rates. The
operating engineer should be alert to this possibility
whenever calculated well or reservoir rates approach un-
desirably close to the minimum necessary for the operating
objectives of the project. Well productivity is discussed
later.
Relative Merits of Measured vs. Calculated
Pressure-Depletion Behavior
This chapter has emphasized that for purposes of reservoir
analysis and prediction, measured properties and observed
behavior of gas-condensate systems are much superior to
the use of correlations or approximations. This applies
in particular to the use of equilibrium ratios for simulat-
ing or predicting the pressure-depletion behavior of a
reservoir. The problem is discussed and illustrated by
Standing 9 in his Vapor Liquid Equilibria and Gas-
Condensate Systems chapters. In particular, Standings
Fig. 36 shows that serious errors (in excess of 40%) can
be incurred in the computation of the liquid volume of
a gas-condensate system from errors of less than 10% in
the equilibrium ratios for heptanes-plus and methane.
The literature contains reports on the use of equilibri-
um ratios for calculating the reservoir behavior of gas-
condensate systems. Allen and Roe3 computed the
pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate reservoir
and observed certain discrepancies with the actual be-
havior. These authors did not report laboratory-measured
equilibrium ratios for the specific fluids involved, how-
ever; consequently, there were no means to compare com-
puted fluid behavior with actual fluid behavior. All the
observed discrepancies were assigned arbitrarily by Allen
TABLE 39.10-CALCULATED COMPOSITION OF PRODUCED STREAM, mol%
Reservoir pressure (psig)
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
n-butane
Iso-pentane
n-pentane
Hexanes
Fraction C,
Fraction C,
Fraction C,
Fraction C ,0
Fraction C , , +
Heptanes-plus
mol%
molecular weight
density
Deviation factor, z
equilibrium gas
two-phase
Gas FVF, Mscf/scf
Retrograde liquid volume,
% hydrocarbon pore space
Well stream, Mscf
Normal temperature
separation *
Stock-tank liquid, bbl
Primary separator gas, Mscf
Second-stage gas, Mscf
Stock-tank gas, Mscf
Total separator gas, Mscf
5,277 5,000
0.01 0.01
Cl.11 0.11
68.93 70.74
8.63 8.67
5.34 5.28
1.15 1.12
2.33 2.26
0.93 0.89
0.85 0.81
1.73 1.62
1.685 1.55
1.535 1.38
1.235 1.09
0.941 0.81
4.594 3.66
100.000 100.00
9.990 8.49
156 155
0.825 0.822
1.021 0.987 0.901 0.861 0.863 0.899 0.930
1.021 1.009 0.922 0.845 0.782 0.695 0.595
0.2561 0.2511 0.2201 0.1730 0.1211 0.0668 0.0380
0.000 15.3 26.96 27.89 26.43 23.85 21.95
4,000
0.01
0.13
74.77
a.77
5.13
1.06
2.10
0.79
0.71
1.35
1.21
1 .Ol
0.73
0.49
1.74
100.00
5.18
146
0.812
3.000
0.01 0.01
0.13 0.13
77.09 78.05
8.88 9.04
5.05 5.10
1 .Ol 1.01
1.99 1.96
0.73 0.69
0.64 0.61
1.15 1.03
0.97 0.82
0.75 0.59
0.49 0.35
0.30 0.19
0.81 0.42
100.00 100.00
3.32 2.37
137 129
0.802 0.793
2,100 1,200
0.01 0.01 Trace
0.12 0.12 0.01
77.55 75.53 12.29
9.37 9.76 4.22
5.41 5.95 5.02
1.08 1.22 1.62
2.09 2.41 3.80
0.73 0.86 2.14
0.64 0.75 2.16
1.04 1.23 5.97
0.78 0.90 7.33
0.52 0.59 7.92
0.28 0.31 7.34
0.14 0.15 6.14
0.24 0.21 34.04
100.00 100.00 100.00
1.96 2.16 62.77
124 121 166
0.784 0.780 0.832
700
Cumulative recovery per MMScf of original flurd
Initial
in place
1 .ooo
5.277 5,000
0.00 40.73
Reservoir pressure (psig)
4,000 3,000 2,100
160.03 311.34 478.33
1,200 700
662.91 768.03
183.13 0.00 6.91 21.98 34.00 42.98 50.71 55.05
776.98 0.00 32.46 138.96 280.26 437.60 610.03 707.57
37.01 0.00 1.42 4.76 7.74 10.21 12.58 14.08
38.31 0.00 1.50 5.26 8.92 12.19 15.60 17.93
852.30 0.00 35.38 148.98 296.92 460.00 638.21 739.58
Comparison of Recovery Calculations
Laboratory
Depletion
Gas in place at original pressure, MMscf 137,582
Gas in place at dewpoint pressure, MMscf 130,992
Wet gas produced to dewpornt pressure, MMscf 6,590
Wet gas produced from dewpoint to abandonment, MMscf 102,045
Total wet gas produced, MMscf 108,635
Condensate produced to dewpoint pressure, bbl 1,197,667
Condensate produced from dewpoint to abandonment, bbl 5,297,156
Total condensate produced, bbl 6,494,823
Calculated
Depletion
137,582
128,050
9,532
98,346
107,878
1,745,595
5,413,947
7,159,542
39-15
and Roe to factors other than the possible inaccuracies
of equilibrium ratios from correlations compared with ac-
tual measured ratios for the particular system composition
and reservoir conditions involved. Some of these dis-
crepancies were probably attributable to the equilibrium
ratios used.
Berrymanj6 compared calculated gas-condensate fluid
performance with that actually obtained in the laboratory;
however, he made observations on actual vapor/liquid
equrlibrium in the laboratory cell and adjusted the litera-
ture equilibrium ratios to conform to this actual behavior.
With the adjusted vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios, the cal-
culated performance was found to match actual reservoir
performance during early life satisfactorily.
Rodgers ef ul. j7 provided detailed laboratory data,
vapor/liquid equilibrium calculations, and actual reservoir
performance for a small gas-condensate reservoir in Utah.
The pressure range involved was moderate compared with
most cases. Even at these moderate pressures, however,
the literature-derived equilibrium ratios for heptanes-plus
did not agree favorably with measured values for the sys-
tem. The authors commented that the appearance of the
data. clearly shows the need for improved techniques
in establishing proper equilibrium data.
On the basis of this experience and for the reasons
Standing stated, it would appear desirable to use measured
values of phase and volumetric behavior for a gas-conden-
sate system in predicting the pressure-depletion behavior
of a gas-condensate reservoir. As more data are obtained
and better correlating methods developed, it is possible
that equilibrium ratios may achieve suitable accuracy for
reservoir-type calculations in the future. Numerous
equation-of-state (EOS) calculation techniques have been
developed that produce phase equilibrium data that can
be used to perform depletion calculations for gas-
condensate reservoirs. Many are discussed in Refs. 38
through 40. The use of EOS methods, while more flexible
and in many cases more accurate, requires sophisticated
computer programs that may or may not be available or
warranted. Continued improvement in techniques using
EOSs may enhance the accuracy of calculated pressure-
depletion performance.
Operation by Pressure Maintenance
or Cycling
Pressure maintenance of a gas-condensate reservoir can
exist by virtue of (1) an active water drive after moderate
reduction of pressure from early production, (2) pressure
maintenance through water injection operations, (3) in-
jection of gas, or (4) combinations of all of these. From
time to time, certain reservoirs may be encountered that
have fluids near their critical points and that thereby may
be candidates for special recovery methods, such as the
injection of specially tailored gas compositions to provide
miscibility and phase-change processes that could improve
recovery efficiency. These usually are not regarded as gas-
condensate cases.
Water Drive and Water Injection
Pressure Maintenance
Very few cases of gas-condensate reservoirs operated un-
der natural water drive have been reported in the litera-
ture. To be attractive economically. a water drive would
have to be sufficiently strong to maintain pressure high
enough to minimize condensed hydrocarbon losses in the
formation. Under these conditions, expenditures for cy-
cling or other pressure-maintenance operations might not
be justified: a careful engineering and economic analysis
should be made if this possibility seems imminent. The
analysis should include a geologic review of conditions
surrounding the reservoir to estimate whether any indi-
cated early water drive is apt to last for the life of the
operation. There are also other considerations to be
studied carefully. including the expenses of dewatering
or working over invaded producing wells, the displace-
ment efficiency of water moving gas. and the potential
bypassing and loss of condensate fluids when wells be-
come watered-out prematurely through permeable
stringers [invasion efficiency (see Pages 39- 17 and 39- 18)
of the natural flood]. Should this last possibility exist, use
of a natural water drive would be of doubtful value if the
amount of hydrocarbons in place is large. In any case,
predictions of recovery by natural water drive should take
into account the factors for water injection discussed
below.
The injection of water into a gas-condensate reservoir
to maintain pressure is sometimes considered. A number
of factors must be weighed carefully before a decision
is reached. The mobility ratio (mobility of driving fluid
over mobility of the driven fluid, water/gas) in this case
is favorably low because of the very high mobility of the
gas, thus tending to provide high areal sweep and pattern
(@S-weighted) efficiencies. There is strong evidence,
however. that displacement efficiency by the water is not
high. While Buckley et al. 4 indicated that the displace-
ment efficiency of water driving out gas can be as high
as 80 to 85%, experiments and field observations by
Geffen et al. indicate that it may be as low as 50%.
This is offset to some extent by the improved area1 sweep
efficiency enjoyed at a low mobility ratio. All things con-
sidered, the recovery of gas condensate in the vapor phase
by water injection is likely to be appreciably lower than
by cycling, and any consideration of water injection for
gas-condensate recovery should be accompanied by de-
tailed experimental work on cores from the specific reser-
voir involved. This will help to determine whether the
water can, in fact, accomplish a high enough displace-
ment efficiency to justify its use.
Should water injection be decided on, gas and liquid
recovery predictions for the reservoir can be made by
combining the pattern (h&Gweighted). invasion, and dis-
placement efficiencies with a knowledge of the conden-
sable-liquids content of the gas-condensate system at the
pressure chosen for pressure maintenance. As an example,
an area1 sweep efficiency of 90% (based on an extremely
low mobility ratio for water displacing gas) might be ap-
plied to the case cited on Page 39-24. Taking into account
the thickness variations of the reservoir, this might pro-
vide a pattern (h&S-weighted) efficiency of about 95 %
With an assumed invasion efficiency of 65 % within the
invaded volume, water injection for this case would have
swept out about 55% (product of the above three efhcien-
ties) of the vapor phase in place at the start of injection.
This compares with the actual recovery of more than 86%
of the wet vapor by cycling operations. as discussed on
Page 39-22.
39-I 6
These estimates of possible gas recoveries by either a
natural water drive or water injection can be affected
materially by the permeability distribution in the reservoir.
The presence of large differences in permeability will re-
sult in premature water breakthrough. Flowing gas wells
tend to load up when producing water and, depending
on the vertical flow velocity and bottomhole flowing pres-
sure, may cease to flow. This inability to flow results from
sufficient water dropping out in the tubing to form a
hydrostatic water column that exerts a pressure equal to
the bottomhole pressure. It is difficult to obtain econom-
ical flow rates by artificial lift. This loss of productivity
may result in premature abandonment of the project. The
problems would be particularly serious for deeper reser-
voirs where the cost of removing water would be a signifi-
cant factor. Yuster4 discusses possible remedial methods
for drowned gas wells. Bennett and AuvenshineM discuss
dewatering gas wells. Dunning and Eakin4 describe an
inexpensive method to remove water from drowned gas
wells with foaming agents.
Generally, the use of water injection for maintaining
pressure in a gas-condensate reservoir is unlikely to be
attractive where a wide range of permeabilities exists in
a layered reservoir and selective breakthrough of water
into producing wells might be expected before an ap-
preciable fraction of the gas condensate in place could be
recovered.
Reservoir Cycling, Gas Injection
Dry-Gas Injection. Comparative economics determines
whether a gas-condensate reservoir should be produced
by pressure depletion or by pressure maintenance.
The objective of using dry-gas injection in gas-
condensate reservoirs is to maintain the reservoir pressure
high enough (usually above or near the dewpoint) to
minimize the amount of retrograde liquid condensation.
Dry field gases are miscible with nearly all reservoir gas-
condensate systems: methane normally is the primary con-
stituent of dry field gas. Dry-gas cycling of gas-condensate
reservoirs is a special case of miscible-phase displacement
of hydrocarbon fluids for improving recovery. Experi-
mentation has shown that the displacement of one fluid
by another that is miscible with it is highly efficient on
a microscopic scale; usually the efficiency is considered
100% or very nearly so. This is one of the factors that
explain the effectiveness and attractiveness of cycling.
Another advantage of cycling is that it provides a means
to obtain liquid recoveries from reservoirs at economical
rates while at the same time avoiding waste of the pro-
duced gas when a market for that gas is not available;
the operation provides at its termination a reservoir of dry
gas with a potentially greater economic value.
Inert-Gas Injection. The demand for dry gas as a market-
able commodity varies, and the economic aspects of re-
taining dry cycled gas in reservoirs for future use have
a changing significance. Most conservation laws in the
U.S. still provide for minimizing waste of condensable
liquids that would result if gas-condensate reservoirs were
depleted through the retrograde range in a manner that
left large liquid volumes unrecoverable.
The use of inert gas to replace voidage during cycling
of gas-condensate reservoirs can be an economical altema-
tive to dry natural gas. One of the first successful inert-
gas injection projects was in 1949 at Elk Basin, WY,46
where stack gas from steam boilers was used for injection.
In 1959, the first successful use of internal combustion
engine exhaust was seen in a Louisiana oil field.47 The
first use of pure cryogenic produced nitrogen to prevent
the retrograde loss of liquids from a gas-condensate fluid
was in the Wilcox 5 sand in the Fordoche field located
in Pointe Coupee Parish, LA.48 In the Fordoche field,
the nitrogen was used as makeup gas. The nitrogen
amounted to about 30% of the natural-gas/nitrogen mix-
ture injected.
Moses and Wilsons49 studies confirmed that the mix-
ing of nitrogen with a gas-condensate fluid elevated the
dewpoint pressure. Moses and Wilson also presented data
to show that the mixing of a lean gas with a rich-gas con-
densate would also result in a fluid with a higher dew-
point pressure. The increase in dewpoint pressure was
greater with nitrogen than with the lean gas. In the same
study, results are presented from slim-tube displacement
tests of the same gas-condensate fluid both by pure nitro-
gen and by a lean gas. In both displacements, more than
98% recovery of reservoir liquid was achieved. These test
results were also observed by Peterson, 5o who used gas-
cap gas material from the Painter field located in southwest
Wyoming. The authors concluded that the observed results
were obtained because of multiple-contact miscibility.
Cryogenic-produced nitrogen possesses many desirable
physical properties. 5 Those that make nitrogen most
useful for a cycling fluid are that it is totally inert (non-
corrosive) and that it has a higher compressibility factor
than lean gas (requires less volume). The latter advan-
tage is partially offset by increased compression require-
ments when compared with lean gas.
Until the mid 1970s, most inert-gas injection consisted
of injection of combustion or boiler gas into oil zones.
The need for an alternative source of gas for gas-con-
densate-cycling projects emerged because of the high cost
of hydrocarbon gas needed to replace reservoir voidage.
The combustion and boiler gas that had been used to dis-
place oil miscibly contains byproducts (CO. 02, HzO,
and NO, +) that are highly corrosive5* and decrease cost
effectiveness.
Economic parameters used to evaluate any process are
by their nature representative only under the general ec-
onomic conditions during which they are prepared. There-
fore, there will be no attempt here to present representa-
tive economic data. However, one should be cognizant
of and take into account those variables peculiar to a par-
ticular process when applying current economic parame-
ters to compare different processes.
Many factors affect the economics of a gas-cycling proj-
ect. The major factors are product prices, makeup gas
costs, liquid content of reservoir gas, and degree of reser-
voir heterogeneity. When inert-gas injection is considered,
some important additional factors should also be consid-
ered. Donohoe and Buchanan and Wilson have dis-
cussed these factors.
The use of inert gas as a cycling fluid offers both ad-
vantages and disadvantages. The major advantages are that
it permits early sale of residue gas and liquids, resulting
in greater discounted net income and that a higher recov-
ery of total hydrocarbons is achieved because the reservoir
contains large volumes of nitrogen rather than hydrocar-
bon gas at abandonment.
Offsetting these advantages are some disadvantages:
production problems and increased operating costs caused
by corrosion if combustion or flue gas is used as cycling
fluid; possible additional capital investments to remove
the inert gas from the sales gas, to pretreat before com-
pression, and/or to fund reinjection facilities; and early
breakthrough of inert gas caused by high degrees of het-
erogeneity in the reservoir, resulting in excessive oper-
ating costs to obtain marketable sales gas.
All these factors should be evaluated properly when the
depletion method is selected.
Calculation of Cycling Performance. Methods of cal-
culating reservoir performance under gas-cycling opera-
tions generally fall into one of two categories: feasibility
and/or sensitivity analysis or detailed design and evalua-
tion. The calculation method selected usually is deter-
mined after consideration of the quality and quantity of
data available and the ultimate use of the engineering
study.
When the potential of a gas-condensate reservoir for
cycling is first considered, it is generally desirable to make
calculations that require the use of some reasonably sim-
plifying assumptions. In this manner, relatively rapid and
inexpensive results can be obtained that define the approx-
imate cycling rate, cycling life, ultimate recovery, and
profitability. If, at the conclusion of these studies, it ap-
pears that gas cycling is feasible, more detailed and ex-
acting studies can be made with mathematical simulators
to evaluate the earlier results and to design the most advan-
tageous distribution of injection and producing wells.
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Cycling. The principal
factors determining reservoir cycling efficiency have been
used with interchangeable labels and definitions in the
literature. It is therefore necessary to define the various
efficiencies clearly. The engineer should define and ex-
plain terms carefully when reporting estimates on gas-
condensate reservoir behavior.
Reservoir Cycling Efficiency. ER is defined as the
reservoir wet hydrocarbons recovered during cycling
divided by the reservoir wet hydrocarbons in place in the
productive volume of the reservoir at the start of cycling.
Both figures must be computed at the same pressure and
temperature; e.g., at reservoir conditions or at standard
conditions. The reservoir cycling efficiency can be visual-
ized as the product of three other efficiencies: pattern
(h@S-weighted), invasion, and displacement. A fourth ef-
ficiency factor, area1 sweep, can be evaluated for various
injection patterns using analog or mathematical models.
All efficiency terms used (except displacement efficien-
cy) must be identified as to time-i.e., time of dry-gas
breakthrough into first producing well, time of break-
through into last well, end of cycling, or other suitable
designation.
Area1 Sweep Efficiency. EA is the area enclosed by the
leading edge of the dry-gas front (outer limit of injected
gas) divided by the total area of reservoir that was produc-
tive at the start of cycling. (Black oil, if present, is usually
excluded from these areas.) Area of sweep can be esti-
mated closely from analog or mathematical model studies
(discussed later) or by observing the locations of wells
developing dry-gas content during actual operations. The
area1 sweep efficiency depends primarily on the injection
and production well patterns and rates and the lateral
homogeneity of the formations from a permeability and
porosity standpoint. Lesser factors affecting areal sweep
efficiency include variations in water content of the pores;
time of operation of the compression plant in relation to
the input capacities of the wells and their locations in the
reservoir; the activity, if any, of a natural water drive;
and the presence and handling of black-oil wells if an oil
ring exists in the reservoir. Mathematical model tech-
niques (Chap. 48) provide a useful means for predicting
the areal sweep efficiencies of gas-condensate reservoirs
and, simultaneously, the rate of frontal advance of the in-
jected dry gas. For such studies, a reasonable amount of
subsurface data is needed on sand characteristics, reservoir
fluid properties, properties of injected fluid, and geologic
description.
Pattern (hcpS- Weighted) Efficiency. E,, is the
hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the projection
(through full reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of
the dry-gas front divided by the total productive hydrocar-
bon pore space of the reservoir at start of cycling. (Black
oil, if present, is usually excluded from these volumes.)
The hydrocarbon volume contained within the dry-gas-
front projection can be determined by outlining the
farthest-advanced position of the front (from model studies
or field observations) on a hydrocarbon isovol map (isovol
maps are developed from data on sand thickness, porosi-
ty, and interstitial water content), determining the
hydrocarbon volume enclosed by this line, and comparing
the volume with total reservoir productive hydrocarbon
pore space. Note that the definition specifies projection
of the leading edge and avoids stating whether either
the entire gross or entire microscopic PVs are invaded
or displaced by the injected gas. For the special cases in
which productive thickness, porosity, interstitial water
content, and effective permeability are each uniform, the
pattern (h&S-weighted) and areal sweep efficiencies are
the same. The pattern (&S-weighted) efficiency in general
depends on the same factors discussed for areal sweep
efficiency. Expected pattern (&S-weighted) efficiencies
of nearly 95 % have been predicted under favorable con-
ditions.
Invasion Efficiency. El is the hydrocarbon pore space
invaded (contacted or affected) by the injected gas divided
by the hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the projection
(through full reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of
the dry-gas front. (Sometimes volumetric sweep efficien-
cy, E,, =E, X El, is used.) The definition says nothing
about the effectiveness of the invading fluid in forcing
original fluid out of the pores contacted. The term ver-
tical sweep efficiency has sometimes been used in the
sense of invasion efficiency. This is misleading in that
it uses a one-dimensional term (vertical) when dealing
with a three-dimensional problem. Invasion efficiencies
can be as high as 90% under favorable conditions.
However, invasion is affected significantly by large var-
iations in reservoir flow properties, These might be strictly
lateral variations in horizontal permeability (and to a lesser
extent in porosity and interstitial water content) of a single-
bed reservoir that does not have any variations vertically
at any location; strictly layering effects by which the reser-
voir may comprise several strata, each relatively uniform
in properties but differing appreciably in permeability
from all the others; or combinations of these extreme
cases. Performance of cycling operations can vary ap-
39-18
TABLE 39.11 -EFFICIENCY TERMS USED IN RESERVOIR CYCLING OPERATIONS
Areai Sweep Pattern IhoS-weIghted)
Efhoency Eil~ciency lnvas~on Elflcency Displacement Efflclency Reservar Cycling Efflcencv
Area enclosed by Hydrocarbon pore space Hydrocarbon pore space Wet hydrocarbon volume Reservmr we, hydrocarbons
leadtng edge 01 enclosed by Ihe invaded by (contacted Or swepl out of lndlvldual recovered drlg Cycling
~n,ected-gas (dryugas, pro,ectlo jrhrough full affected by) dry gas dlwded pores or Small groups 01 dwded by resewo~r we,
lronl dlwded by total resewxr Ihlckness) of by hydrocarbon pore S!XXX pores dwded bv hvdrocarbons I place at starI
area of re*erYoll leadmg edge of drygas enclosed by Itw pro,ecmn ai cycl,ng (calculated at same
r,rodctlve at 51111 01 front diwded bv total (Ihrouqh full leservolr temperature and pressure)
sweep efllciency
IReI 5 pages 657
77, and 777 Ret
51 Pages 246 and
247 and Rel 13
Pages 308-09)
sweep elficlency iReI Elf,c~ency caused by
5. Pages 755 763 and permeab!My stral!flcatlon
770 and Ret 13 IRet 13. pages 408-09)
pages 40s09).
Displacement etficlency
(Rel 56. Pages 130 and
136 and Ret 13 Pages
408-09)
Flood efiumcy (Rel 59
Pages 358 and 374)
Flood coverage IRel
59 pages 358 and
374,
Conformance laclot lRel 56 Pages 130 and 136)
Sweeping elhclency Conformance factor (Ref
(&I 57) 571
Pattern elilclency (M Flushing elf,cencv (Ref
60 pages 63 64. 98 4 1, Pages 246 and 247)
and 99 and Rel 54
Page 77)
D6placement l&f 61
Page 110)
sweep ehxncy IRet 5
pages 612 771. and 7881
preciably according to what combination of the two ex-
tremes may exist for a given reservoir. Mathematical
models can handle reservoir heterogeneities, both horizon-
tally and vertically, if the data are available. Maximum
use of core analysis data, pressure buildup and drawdown
analysis, and detailed analysis of downhole logs is re-
quired to ensure an accurate evaluation of a reservoirs
potential as a cycling project.
Displacement Efficiency. ED is the volume of wet
hydrocarbons swept out of individual pores or small
groups of pores divided by the volume of hydrocarbons
in the same pores at the start of cycling; note that both
volumes must be calculated at the same conditions of pres-
sure and temperature. This term is used here because it
has received wide acceptance in the literature (on immis-
cible as well as miscible processes) for the microscopic
displacement of fluids. Displacement efficiency is con-
trolled mainly by the miscibility of the driving and driven
fluids and their mobilities. For a cycling operation in
which the pressure is being maintained at or above the
dewpoint, the displacement efficiency resulting from ac-
tion of the dry gas against the wet-gas phase in the in-
dividual pores will be virtually 100% because of near-
complete miscibility and the near-identical mobility ratios
of the two fluids. If the pressure is well below the dew-
point, the displacement efficiency will be less than 100%
because of the immobility of the condensed liquid and in-
completeness of revaporization of the dry gas. Evaluation
of a case of this type requires trial calculations of
vapor/liquid equilibrium to estimate the extent to which
dry gas coming into contact with the condensed liquid
would revaporize some of the components and carry them
toward the producing wells.
Thus the reservoir cycling efficiency is the product of
the pattern (&S-weighted), invasion, and displacement
efficiencies, as summarized in Table 39.11, along with
the previous discussion, and usage of terms appearing in
some of the literature.
Permeability Distribution. Permeability variation, both
laterally and vertically, can have a strong influence on
recoveries by cycling. Vertical stratification of horizontal
permeability is probably the primary factor controlling
invasion efficiency. In reservoirs containing layers or
regions of contrasting permeabilities, the leading edge of
the dry-gas front (used in calculating invasion efficiency)
is at a different position for each layer. Field observations
usually establish the front on the basis of breakthrough
in the most-permeable layer, whereas mathematical model
studies may have been based on an average permeability
of layers or a discrete number of layers. thus predicting
later breakthrough. This possibility should be understood
when model predictions of breakthrough time are com-
pared with field observations. Detailed reservoir analysis
is required in developing a mathematical model to ensure
that the model used adequately reflects the properties of
the reservoir.
TABLE 39.12-CALCULATIONS ILLUSTRATING THE DILUTION CAUSED BY WEIGHTED-AVERAGE PERMEABILITY
PROFILE-BASED ON 16 WELLS (COTTON VALLEY BODCAW GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR)
1866 14 64
, 860 37 20
1855 74 20
1825 36 50
I 8 10 18100
3 14
6 16
1195
14 78
25 83
28 53
33 82
36 40
43 76
48 55
50 88
55 40
57 41
66 84
70 49
77 54
79 24
84 15
87 29
90 31
91 76
94 40
98 17
99 30
99 74
10000
1 23
1 36
1 19
77 4
78 9
80 4
84 3
86 2
76 3
77 4 15
39
19
20
78 4
80 9
81 9
83 0
84 0
88 3
90 8
91 9
88 2 22 89 30
90 4 96 95 20
1000 57 10280
105 7 35 10740
33 11090
1, 430
118 10
122 20
126 70
131 60
37
38
45
22 46
20 76
15 85
12 71
92 9
93 7
94 5
96 2 45
52
106
67
9 69
8 24
5 60
1 88
0 70
0 26
0 00
96 8
139 60
148 30
159 20
275 30
503 50
0 89
0 38
0 27
96 3
97 2
97 6 150
2173
239 0
1 52
0 62
97 8
99 4
1000
There can be several sources of comparative permea-
bility information for reservoir layers, including direct
measurements of permeabilities on cores removed from
wells, formation tests during drilling and completion,
comparative transmissibilities from carefully run injection
profiles, and flow, drawdown, and buildup tests on wells
completed in different layers. If different kinds of infor-
mation are to be used together, they should all be adjusted
to the same units for calculating the effects of permeability
variation on gas-condensate reservoir performance.
Much discussion has been published regarding the ef-
fects of permeability variation on the recoveries of
hydrocarbons from reservoirs. Discussions with particular
reference to as-condensate reservoirs have been provided
by Muskat,
B
+I Standing et al., 65 Miller and Lents, 66
and others. 67-70 Generally, the proposals to account for
the effect of permeability variations on gas-condensate
reservoir performance use two different methods of well-
to-well averaging of horizontal permeabilities. The first
method averages all high permeabilities from all wells
together (irrespective of vertical positions of the high-
permeability samples in the section) and all low permea-
bilities from all wells in another group, with intermedi-
ate permeabilities classified into one or more subgroups.
Each of the average permeabilities is regarded as a sin-
gle stratum continuous throughout the reservoir. This type
of averaging would appear to give maximum probability
of computed early breakthroughs of dry gas to producing
wells. In the second method, permeabilities are averaged
from well to well according to vertical position in the sec-
tion. For example, permeabilities in the top 10% of each
wells productive section might all be averaged together,
the next 10% together, and so on to the bottom. This
procedure maintains layers in their relative vertical posi-
tions in the reservoir, and thus, by averaging laterally,
the effects of any individual high-permeability samples
tend to be damped out unless high-permeability streaks
are actually persistent in one or more layers of the section.
Either of these methods can be used in solutions present-
ed by Muskat, 5XA who used the stratification ratio to
develop mathematical means of evaluating the effects of
vertical variation of permeability on cycling. Stratifi-
cation ratio is the ratio of the permeability of the most-
permeable recognizable layer in the section to that of the
least-permeable layer in the same section (these permea-
bilities are the layer average in each case, determined by
whatever means, rather than individual high or low per-
meabilities from single plugs or cores from the layer).
The Muskat development also assumes simple parallel su-
perposition of layers of different horizontal permeabili-
ties with no crossflow between. The resultant correlations
are presented graphically in the references.
Miller and Lents66 used the second type of lateral per-
meability averaging in their analysis of the Cotton Valley
Bodcaw reservoir. Their work should be reviewed for an
understanding of the detailed procedure used. The table
of permeabilities they developed (rearranged in descend-
ing order of magnitude) for illustrating the calculation of
dilution behavior of the subject reservoir with time is
shown here as Table 39.12. The calculation assumes no
39-20
sweep is sufficiently great in length. Few reservoirs
conform to a parallel deposition of lens, each of
different uniform permeability, unless one wishes to
subscribe to the worst possible consequences for cy-
cling, which can condemn the application of such a
program in a rich gas-condensate field.
Such unpublished information as has come to our at-
tention tends to substantiate the belief that most reservoirs
are not composed of continuous layers of contrasting pcr-
meabilities (with no crossflow) that would tend to produce
quick breakthrough during injection operations. Hursts
viewpoint should therefore be considered seriously by the
engineer predicting the behavior of cycling projects, be-
cause overemphasis on the permeability variation within
a reservoir could produce too pessimistic a view of pos-
sible recoveries and thereby condemn cycling in gas-
condensate reservoirs that might, in fact, yield profitable
cycling performance.
The second method for lateral averaging of permeabil-
ities is recommended, whether the Miller and Lents66
analysis or other techniques are applied to the handling
of permeability variation in gas-condensate reservoirs.
Proper consideration for pattern (&S-weighted) efficiency
must be given in each case.
Fig. 39.7~-Boundary of invaded area predicted by early poten-
tiometric model studies.
crossflow, and the reservoir is treated as though it were
composed of alternating layers of variable porosity and
permeability. It is also assumed that parallel flow occurs
simultaneously in the various layers with the same poten-
tial distribution throughout the layers. The injection wells
are treated as a line source, and the producing wells as
a line sink. Hence, the calculations in the table predict
the percentage of original reservoir hydrocarbon volume
at constant pressure produced at the instant each layer has
been displaced and the percentage of dry gas (and wet
gas) in the producing stream as more and more layers are
displaced (breakthrough). The recovery to any stage of
dilution in the produced gas can then be predicted; the
recovery Miller and Lents calculated (supported by later
production history, as shown by Brinkleyss5 Fig. 7) is
in good agreement with predictions from Muskats corre-
lations.
Very little has been published comparing the actual be-
havior and final recoveries of gas-condensate reservoirs
with those predicted with the different methods of account-
ing for permeability variation. Stelzer63 reports on the
performance of the Paluxy gas-condensate reservoir of
the Chapel Hill field, TX, the cycling behavior of which
had been predicted earlier by Marshall and Oliver. 58 This
analysis is discussed further later. In a discussion of Stel-
zers paper, Hurst takes the position that permeability var-
iation or stratification in a reservoir can be of minor
significance in controlling the ultimate recovery by
cycling:
The lithological nature of a reservoir is such that with
the interspersion of shale throughout, it can virtually
reproduce the configuration of a uniform sand if the
Prediction of Cycling Operations with Model Studies-
Analog Techniques. The steady-state flow of fluids
through porous media, when governed by Darcys law,
is analogous to the flow of current through an electrical
conductor governed by Ohms law. Thus steady-state
electrical-model studies have been used quite successfully
in the prediction of gas-condensate cycling operations.
The fundamental analogy between an electrical model
of a gas-condensate reservoir and the flow system of the
reservoir depends on the equivalence of electrical charge
to reservoir fluid, current flow to fluid flow, specific con-
ductivity to fluid mobility, and potential (voltage) distri-
bution in the model to a function ap, (not to pressure
distribution in the reservoir, as in an oil/water system)
defined by Muskat as
where
pg
= gas density,
px
= gas viscosity, and
p = pressure.
This analogy holds, provided the sources, sinks, and
boundary conditions are made equivalent in shape and dis-
tribution.
Steady-state models can be divided into two general
classes: electronic and electrolytic. The former depends
on the movement of electrons through resistive solids,
such as metal sheets, carbon paper, and graphite-
impregnated cloth or rubber sheeting. Electrons are in-
troduced at one boundary and move into the model to dis-
place free electrons throughout the entire body of the
model. The electrons moving out of the model at the other
boundary produce a current that causes a potential drop
in the solid resistive medium in accordance with Ohms
law. As a result, the movement of the equivalent fluid
interface can be traced. In the case of a graphite-
impregnated cloth model, the reservoir is represented by
layers of cloth, the number of layers of which are some
function of the permeability/net-thickness product (kh) of
the producing strata. The shape of each layer of cloth con-
forms to the shape of the kh range it represents. Copper
electrodes are fixed in the cloth model at positions corre-
sponding to the wells in the reservoir and direct currents
are passed through these electrodes in proportion to the
well flow rates. The electrodes are not usually scaled to
the actual well diameters.
Electrolytic models depend on the mobility of the ions
in the medium. Because the velocity of an ion in an elec-
trolyte system is proportional to the potential gradient,
just as the velocity of a liquid particle in a porous medium
is proportional to the pressure gradient, an electrolytic
model can be set up that provides a good analogy to single-
phase flow in a porous system. The ions are moved into
the model across one or more boundaries and displace
ions throughout the entire medium, causing ions to leave
through other boundaries. The flowing current and poten-
tial drop are established in exactly the same way as in
the electronic models.
Electrolytic models can be divided into three major
types: gel, blotter, and liquid. Although the first two types
can be used to determine the area1 sweep patterns in two-
dimensional uniform media, the potentiometric model that
uses a liquid electrolyte is the most flexible and accurate.
In this type, the fluid conductivity of the porous medium
is usually represented by an open container that has its
bottom shaped to produce electrolyte depths proportional
to the kh of the producing strata and its sides shaped to
conform to the productive limits of the strata. This con-
struction implies that there is no vertical variation in per-
meability and no bedding at any location in the reservoir,
as represented by the model. Copper electrodes (not scaled
to well diameter) are fixed in the model at positions cor-
responding to the locations of the wells in the reservoir,
and alternating currents of proper phase are passed
through these electrodes. The magnitudes of these currents
are made proportional to the production and injection rates
to be used in the reservoir. The direction of current flow
at every point in the model is considered analogous to the
direction taken by the flowing fluid in the reservoir.
The general assumptions applicable to steady-state an-
alog techniques are that (1) a vertical and discrete inter-
face exists between the displacing and the displaced
phases; (2) because the history of advance of only one
front can be traced at any one time, if two interfaces or
fronts are present (such as gas/gas and gas/water), one
is considered a stationary boundary; (3) average reser-
voir pressure is constant regardless of the injection or pro-
duction schedule (this avoids compressibility effects in the
model study); and (4) gravitational effects are neglected.
In addition, if the mobility ratio of the system is not (near)
unity or infinity, the necessary procedures become tedi-
ous and costly.
An example case history by Marshall and Oliver5*
reported results of a potentiometric model study of the
Paluxy sand reservoir of the Chapel Hill field. Smith
County, TX. This gas-condensate reservoir is bounded
on the north by a gas/water contact, on the west by a fault,
and on the south and east by a pinchout. It was assumed
A - I, WALTON #I (INJ)
B - I. WALTON #Z (INJ)
C - W. WALTON 8 #I
D-W WALTON #I
E - S. WALTON # I
F - H CAMPBELL #I
G - B MOSLEY #I
H- M WARREN #l-A
I -C. G FINCH #I
PHASE I
---
PHASF II
- - - - PHASE I I I
Fig. 39.8-Boundaries of invaded areas predicted by later poten-
liometric model studies.
that the gas/water contact was a fixed impermeable bound-
ary; that the permeability, porosity, and interstitial water
content were each uniform throughout the producing zone;
that the reservoir volume rate of dry-gas injection was
equal to the corresponding rate of gas-condensate produc-
tion; and that gravity effects were negligible. Fig. 39.7
shows the final dry-gas/wet-gas interface position at time
of breakthrough into Well 1 (determined after several
trials of well arrangement and production- and injection-
rate schedules) that yielded an optimum pattern (h&T-
weighted) efficiency prediction of 83 %. Injection was into
Wells 1 and A with production from Wells 2 through 4
and B as indicated in Fig. 39.7. This program provided
a sustained capacity of 35 MMscf/D for the life of the
operation.
Stelzer63 reported a comparison of model study pre-
dictions with actual performance for this reservoir. Ac-
tual gas injection was begun in accordance with the north/
south sweep indicated by the model study. During the in-
itial period (first 15 months after cycling began) the
production- and injection-rate program predicted by the
initial model study was followed quite closely. New struc-
tural data revealed in the drilling of additional wells, how-
ever, required some changes in the isopach map of the
Paluxy sand. The results from a second model study,
which incorporated these changes plus injection into only
Wells A and B, are shown in Fig. 39.8. Three interface
boundaries (dry-gas fronts) are shown for three
39-22
IO
ND OF PHASE l (ADUSTED TO
- SAME INJECTION RATES AS, .
I
PHASES II AND III1
I
0 1
0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70
ACTUAL RESERVOIR OPERATING TIME-
MONTHS AFTER START OF CYCLING
Fig. 39.9-Comparison of predicted with actual times of first dry-
gas breakthrough, Paluxy gas-condensate reservoir,
Chapel Hill field. TX.
production- and injection-rate schedules. The first sched-
ule was maintained for the first 15 months of cycling; the
second was continued until breakthrough of dry gas into
Well E; the final schedule was maintained until first break-
through at Well 1. There was close agreement between
the model rates used and actual reservoir rates.
The second model study indicated a pattern (h&G
weighted) efficiency of 88 % , a 5 % increase over that ob-
tained by the initial study. Stelzer estimated the amount
of reservoir gas in place at start of cycling to be 78.4 Bscf.
The new model study thus implies an additional 4 Bscf
of predicted recoverable gas as a result of better reservoir
definition and better operating schedules.
The data in Fig. 39.9 compare model (predicted) break-
through times with the actual times to dry-gas appearance
in corresponding field wells. (Phases 1, 2, and 3 of actual
behavior correspond to Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of the model
study.) Field data on breakthrough were taken from breaks
in content curves of isobutanes-plus; the dashed line shows
the cumulative well-by-well breakthrough behavior of the
dry-gas flood. Because predicted and actual injection and
production rates were nearly equal and constant during
the period shown (except for Phase 1, which was adjusted
to the same average rates), times on the plot are directly
proportional to cumulative reservoir volumes of gas.
Therefore, the lower light line represents a hypothetical
invasion efficiency of 100% that would prevail if actual
breakthrough times coincided with those predicted by the
model [and the area1 and pattern @@S-weighted) sweeps
were identical with model predictions]. The upper light
line represents an arbitrary invasion efficiency of 80%
[assuming that predicted and actual pattern (h&-weighted)
efficiencies are identical]. The straight heavy line from
the origin through the last well to experience breakthrough
indicates an invasion efficiency a little greater than 90%
and implies that more complete invasion of low-
permeability regions behind the dry-gas front was accom-
plished during the later stages of cycling. The agreement
of predicted breakthrough times within 10% of actual
breakthrough times illustrates the great utility of potentio-
metric models in planning cycling operations. Small fur-
ther improvement in the pattern (k&S-weighted) and
invasion efficiencies was to be expected before abandon-
ment of the reservoir in this case.
Stelzers63 figures (at the start of cycling) of 78.4 Bscf
of gas in place and 74 bbl of condensable liquids in the
vapor phase of the reservoir per 1 MMscf of gas indicate
that 5,800,OOO bbl of condensable liquids is in the reser-
voir vapor phase at the start of cycling. Using the model-
derived pattern (/#-weighted) efficiency of 88% (end
of Schedule 3), 5,100,OOO bbl of liquids was subject to
removal by dry-gas invasion. Stelzers Fig. 5 shows that
about 4,640,OOO bbl of liquid products were recovered
between the start of cycling and the breakthrough of gas
at Well 1. This provides an invasion efficiency of 91%
at that time, based on 100% displacement efficiency. Thus
the product of the pattern (k&Y-weighted) and invasion
efficiencies represents a reservoir cycling efficiency of
80% at the time of breakthrough into Well 1. In addition,
later operations increased the cumulative recovery during
cycling to more than 5 million bbl of condensable liquids,
thus bringing final reservoir cycling efficiency to more
than 86 % This is considered very good.
Prediction of Cycling Operations With Mathematical
Reservoir Simulators. The use of mathematical reservoir
simulators to calculate reservoir performance during gas-
cycling operations yields results superior to those obtained
by the more simplified calculation procedures. Use of
these simulators removes the necessity of making the as-
sumptions required in an analog model. Some assumptions
are required, however, which should be understood to per-
form a reservoir simulation study properly. The theory
of reservoir simulation is presented in Chap. 48. Coats7
presents a good discussion of reservoir simulation studies
of gas-condensate reservoirs. One must keep in mind that
the results from a mathematical reservoir simulator
depend on the quality of the data used to prepare the reser-
voir model. If good data are not available, one should
consider whether the expense and time required to per-
form a mathematical reservoir simulation are justified.
Data Requirements for Gas-Condensate Cycling Study.
To evaluate properly the potential of cycling a gas-con-
densate reservoir, the following data are required.
1. Geologic data-maps and cross sections showing net
effective sand thickness, structural contours on the top
and base of the productive formation, location of gas/
water interface originally and at the date the model study
begins, and location of dry-gas/wet-gas interface at the
start of study-and general information on lithology and
lenticularity of the productive strata, such as extent of fis-
sures, fractures, caverns, and other special conditions.
If a black-oil ring is present, its size and extent should
be shown.
2. Physical properties of the reservoir rock-isoporosity
map (or average porosity), effective or specific isoperme-
ability map (or average values), and interstitial water
content.
3. Fluid characteristics (produced, and injected where
applicable)-fluid composition. retrograde dewpoint pres-
sure of reservoir fluids, gas FVF or specific volume vs.
pressure, deviation factor, condensate content of reservoir
fluid. viscosity, and densities of liquid and gas phases,
all from original reservoir pressure through the range of
interest (usually to abandonment conditions).
4. Amount of original fluids in place (derivable from
data in Points I through 3).
5. Reservoir pressure history (volumetrically weighted)
from discovery to present. If this is not available, isobaric
contour maps at the various pressure survey dates should
be supplied.
6. Condensate. gas, and water production data, from
the date of discovery.
7. Proposed future production rates.
8. Gas- and/or water-injection data, past and future
projections.
9. Productivity, injectivity, and backpressure test data
on wells.
Ultimate Recovery of Gas and Condensate Liquids by
Cycling. The same reservoir for which pressure-depletion
calculations were made previously can be used to illustrate
the effectiveness of a cycling operation. Table 39.8 lists
the basic data for predicting the ultimate recoveries of wet
gas, condensate, and plant products during cycling at
original reservoir pressure (to avoid serious drawdown
effects) followed by pressure depletion to abandonment
pressure. Productive thickness, porosity. and interstitial
water content are each assumed uniform. Consequently,
the 79.0% areal sweep efficiency obtained by a potentio-
metric model study is also the pattern (@S-weighted) ef-
ficiency. The invasion efficiency is assumed to be 90%
because permeability variations are moderate. Because a
dry-gas/wet-gas cycling operation is a miscible flood, the
displacement efticiency is essentially 100%. Therefore,
the reservoir cycling efficiency would be 7 1.1%. To sim-
plify the example. it is assumed that after cycling, the un-
swept pore space both inside and outside the dry-gas front
will pressure deplete in the same manner as predicted
previously for the noncycling case: it will also be assumed
economical to recover the butanes-plus from the gas
produced.
Reservoir Mvt gas produced during cycling period
(original reservoir comnposition):
130.992x0.711=93.135 MMscf.
Reser\vir wet gas produced by pressure depletim uf-
ter cycling (changing cornposition, as shown in pressure-
depletion example):
102,045x(1,000-0.711)=29,491 MMscf
Resertjoir tvet gas produced at ahundomnentpressure,
700 p.sig.
93.135+29,491= 122.626 MMscf.
Total separator gas produced (see Table 39.6):
During cycling,
777.15+38.52+38.45
x93,135
l,ooO
=0.85412x93,135=79,548 MMscf.
During depletion,
696.75+ 14.99+18.05
1,000
x29,491
=0,72979x29,491 =21,522 MMscf.
Total :
79,548+21,522= 101,070 MMscf.
Total condensate produced:
During cycling,
181.74x93,135=16,926,355 bbl.
During depletion,
51.91 x29,491 = 1,530,878 bbl
Total:
16,926,355 + 1,530,878 = 18,457,233 bbl
These figures represent a significant improvement over
the recoveries previously estimated for pressure-depletion
alone.
Noninjection-Gas Requirements in Cycling Operations.
The noninjection-gas requirements for cycling can affect
the amount of gas available for injection. The amount of
gas to be cycled is determined by the optimum pressure
level to be maintained and the efficiency of reservoir fluid
recovery to be achieved; the amount of gas readily avail-
able, including sources and costs; and the design and oper-
ating programs for surface facilities. The amount of gas
that is economical to cycle through a gas-condensate reser-
voir varies with many factors, including richness of the
vapor at reservoir cycling pressure, size and cost of the
plant, and the price of the field products and of dry gas.
Miller and Lents% expected to cycle the equivalent of
about 115 % of the gas in place to recover some 85 % of
the wet-gas reserve of the Cotton Valley Bodcaw reser-
voir. While Brinkley 55 indicated cycling-gas volumes of
as much as 130% of original wet gas in place for various
reservoirs, no general correlation has been prebented on
the amount of gas that is economically sound to cycle;
this should be the subject of a detailed engineering analysis
in each case. The makeup gas needed for constant-pres-
sure cycling is mainly the volume required to replace
shrinkage by liquid recovery and the amount consumed
39-24
for various fuel needs. For some composition, tempera-
ture, and pressure ranges, the removal of high-molecular-
weight constituents from the produced wet gas may re-
sult in a higher compressibility factor for the injected dry
gas; hence, the greater volume per mole injected may re-
quire little or no makeup gas for constant-pressure cycling.
The amount of gas not available for injection because
of consumption for operating needs should be taken into
account in determining makeup gas requirements if pres-
sure is to be maintained. The amount of fuel for compres-
sion and treatment plants depends mainly on the total
amount of gas to be returned to the reservoir and the dis-
charge pressure for the plant. Discharge pressure, in turn,
depends on the total rate of injection demanded and the
number of injection wells and their intake capacities
throughout the life of the operation. Other factors affect-
ing the amount of gas required for overall operations are
type of plant, type of liquid-recovery system used, and
auxiliary field requirements (such as for drilling. com-
pletion, and well testing; camp fuel and power for main-
tenance shops, general service facilities, employee
housing; and other factors that vary from one case to
another).
Moores4 reports that gas fuel consumption for the com-
pression plant alone varies from 7 to 12 cu ft/bhp-hr; this
is probably for gases with heat values of about 1,000
Btu/cu ft. Horsepower requirements per million standard
cubic feet of gas compressed per day are correlated in
Ref. 16 (Compressor section).
An example based on Refs. 16 and 52 shows that, with
8 cu ft/bhp-hr, a compression ratio of 15.0 (compressing
from, say, 461 to 7,000 psia) requiring three stages of
compression with a ratio per stage of 2.47, and a specific-
heat ratio of 1.25, the cubic feet of compressor fuel used
per million cubic feet of gas compressed can be calculated
as follows.
For a gas of 0.65 specific gravity and a stage compres-
sion ratio of 2.5. the chart in Ref. 16 reads 22 bhp. The
allowance factor for interstage pressure drop (three com-
pression stages) is 1.1.
Fuel used per million cubic feet of gas compressed = bhp
x cu ft of fuel/bhp-hr x ratio/stage x number of stages x al-
lowance factor. Or compressor fuel consumption is
m,.=22x8x24x2.47x3x1.1=34.4 MscfiMMscf.
This compares favorably with the factor presented in
Moores54 Fig. 8. For an example reservoir originally
containing 130,992 MMscf of wet gas, which might be
cycled the equivalent of 1 l/4 times, the approximate com-
pressor fuel consumption would be
130.992x 1.25x34.4=5.633 MMscf.
This is approximately 3 % of the gas handled through the
plant.
Treatment plant fuel and other plant needs added to
compressor fuel bring the range of consumption inside
the plant fence to 3 to 7 % of the gas handled by a cycling
plant. In addition to these needs and others mentioned
earlier, possible gas losses can occur in a cycling opera-
tion: gas used in blowing down wells, should this be
necessary for cleaning or treating purposes; small gas
leaks at compressor plants and in field lines; and gas leaks
resulting from imperfect seals or corrosion in well tubings,
casings, and cement jobs. Remedial workover operations
should be planned immediately when there is evidence
of appreciable loss of gas between the compression plant
and the reservoir sandface or between the outflow-well
sandface and the plant intake.
Combination Recovery Procedures
Partial water drive-conditions of natural water influx at
rates too low to maintain pressure completely at the
desired production rates-can exist for gas-condensate
reservoirs. In such cases, operation may be by partial
water drive and depletion, supplemental water injection,
or partial water drive and cycling.
Prediction of reservoir behavior and recovery under
these conditions requires knowledge or assumptions about
the aquifer and the water drive it supplies. This informa-
tion can be deduced from a study of geologic conditions
and early producing history of the reservoir; sometimes
the deductions are accurate, sometimes not. Projections
of water drive magnitude into the future at selected reser-
voir pressure levels can be made by methods developed
in Refs. 72 and 73. If sufficient early producing history
of a reservoir is available, it can usually be matched (simu-
lated) by a mathematical reservoir simulation study. The
future behavior of the reservoir can then be predicted
under the following producing methods: (1) producing
history and ultimate recovery of gas and liquids under par-
tial water drive and pressure depletion at the selected pro-
duction rate; (2) amount of supplemental water injection
required to maintain reservoir pressure fully at the selected
pressure level and production rate; and (3) size of cycling
plant required to maintain pressure at the selected pressure
level and production rate.
General Operating Problems: Well
Characteristics and Requirements
As with any complex operation, gas-condensate recov-
ery projects have many operating problems. Those
pertaining to the plant, lines, and other surface facilities
are best left to experienced plant and maintenance per-
sonnel, except as they affect reservoir operation (e.g.,
compressor-oil or corrosion-products carry-over into
wells). Operating difficulties occurring at and below the
wellhead are often concerns of the reservoir engineer and
have an important bearing on the effectiveness of reser-
voir operation, whether by pressure depletion or by pres-
sure maintenance. Among these are the maintenance of
injection and production wells in good mechanical con-
dition, the protection of wells against excessive corrosion,
the general maintenance of well injectivity and well
productivity (which are often interrelated), and the for-
mation of hydrates that can interfere with the general in-
jection and/or production operation.
Well Productivity and Testing
It is essential to maintain the producing capacities of gas-
condensate wells above minimum levels for good econom-
ic performance. Much has been written about the produc-
tivities of gas and gas-condensate wells, their general
producing characteristics, and the optimum methods for
testing and reporting their productivities. Loss of produc-
tivity of gas-condensate wells can occur from reservoir
pressure decline (including possible effects from conden-
sation of liquids in the reservoir and consequent reduction
of effective gas permeability), from the invasion of water
into producing wells, from solid precipitates in the pore
space, from formation damage during well killing or
workover operations, and from mechanical failure of
downhole equipment. The engineer must have indices at
his disposal that show the productivity histories of wells
and whether productivity decline is excessive for prevail-
ing producing conditions.
Productivity Testing. In making productivity tests on
wells, orderly well-conditioning and overall test proce-
dures should be used. as suggested in Chap. 33 or in stan-
dards recommended by Texas, 26 New Mexico,
Kansas, 28 and the Interstate Oil Compact Commission. 2y
It is common to use wellhead pressures in determining
well productivity (or injectivity) characteristics with ar-
bitrary correction procedures for estimating BHPs from
the observed surface pressures. No fully satisfactory
methods have been devised for making accurate estimates
of gas-condensate well BHPs, either static or flowing.
Calculated static pressures can have serious uncertainties
because of unknown amounts of liquid hydrocarbons or
water in the wellbore and tubing and unknown temperature
distribution. Calculated flowing pressures can have un-
certainties because of inaccuracies in the detailed tempera-
ture distribution and the particular friction factor assumed
for each specific case. Lesem er ~1.~ provide helpful
charts for approximating the temperature distribution in
flowing gas wells. Errors and uncertainties of the above
nature become worse as well depths increase. Consequent-
ly, for best results, downhole pressure measurements with
accurate gauges should be used. Where this is not feasi-
ble, BHPs may be estimated from surface pressure read-
ings for gas-condensate wells with better accuracy than
is usually true for oil wells. Chaps. 33 and 34 discuss
methods for making such estimates. For these methods,
measured fluid properties (e.g., density) should be used
whenever available in preference to calculated or corre-
lation values.
For gas and gas-condensate wells, a plot of static and
producing BHPs vs. producing rates (in millions of stan-
dard cubic feet per day) is not a straight line. Smooth
curves with closer approximations to straight lines can
be obtained by plotting squares of the static and producing
well BHPs (absolute) vs. producing rate. A rough analogy
to oilwell behavior is then obtained by plotting the differ-
ences in squares of the static and producing pressures vs.
the corresponding producing rates (usually on log-log
paper). If several pressures are obtained on a well at
different rates, these procedures do not always yield
straight-line relationships (see Chap. 33 and Ref. 75);
however, they provide reasonable indices for limited ex-
trapolation to future well behavior and for comparison
of current with past well behavior. Estimation of future
well productivity can be made by modifying initial well
productivity to account for the changes in reservoir pres-
sure and gas permeability as pressure declines and liquid
is deposited in the pores. For no loss of gas permeabil-
ity, a new productivity line can be drawn on the plot of
pressure squared vs. rate, parallel to the original produc-
tivity line and through the square of the new static pressure
selected: this yields an estimate of flowing rate for any
flowing pressure selected. If the original curve for rate
vs. difference in squares of static and flowing pressures
is used, rates can be estimated for any future flowing pres-
sure by using the proper (future) static pressure; low-
permeability wells would require special adjustment of
earlier isochronal test data obtained (see Chap. 33 and
Ref. 7.5). These methods yield approximations of future
productivity as affected by pressure decline in the absence
of fluid-phase and viscosity changes in the reservoir. If
gas permeability, k,, is likely to be seriously affected by
condensation of liqutds in the pores (and gas viscosity by
pressure decline), then the change in gas mobility k,/p,,
must be approximated and radial-flow calculations made
(see Chap. 35) to estimate the new productivity curve cor-
responding to the static pressure selected for prediction.
Normally, the two aforementioned types of productivity
estimates ignore the drawdown effects of production on
liquid-phase distribution in the reservoir and any conse-
quent additional reduction of gas permeability near the
producing wells; minimum calculated reduction of produc-
tivity should, therefore, result from these two estimating
methods. Large deviations from such estimates, based on
a wells early characteristics, would indicate that the well
should be analyzed for productivity troubles.
Excessive Productivity Loss. If the capacity of a produc-
ing well declines abnormally compared with that predicted
from its original productivity (in the absence of excessive
water production), and if appreciable liquid condensation
around the wellbore within the formation is suspected,
efforts to improve well productivity should be made.
These could include the short-term injection of dry gas
into the well (several days to several weeks) to evaporate
part of the liquid, followed by immediate production to
remove some of the vaporized liquid block.
Loss of well productivity caused by excessive water pro-
duction has been discussed briefly. In some cases, well
workover operations would be justified to reduce or to
shut off water entry.
Other factors that can influence well productivity are
deposits on the sandface or in the pores near the well-
bore, perhaps caused by salts precipitated from reservoir
water: any mechanical damage resulting from killing the
well for pulling equipment or workover: mechanical
failure of downhole equipment; and possible hydrates (see
Chap. 33). In case of well productivity injury for mechan-
ical reasons, conventional methods of well repair should
be undertaken on the basis of the particular difficulty in-
volved.
Various means are available for stimulating low-
productivity wells; see Chaps. 54 and 55 and discussions
by Clinkenbeard et al. 76
Well Injectivity
Maintenance of well injectivity is essential for the eco-
nomic operation of cycling programs. Injectivity decline
can be caused by sandface plugging or by buildup of reser-
voir pressure.
Lnjectivity Testing. The characterization of gas-injection
wells is similar to that for gas-producing wells. In either
case, analysis is made on the basis of plots of rates vs.
the squares of BHPs or rates vs. differences of squares
39-26
of pressures. Consequently, after suitable well condition-
ing. as previously described, injectivity testing should con-
sist of a series of injection rates at different pressures to
establish the early injectivity performance of the well
when well conditions are known to be good and the sand-
face is clean. If facilities are not available for obtaining
a range of injection rates and pressures, it is sometimes
acceptable to obtain production rates and pressures for
the injection well through a reasonable range and use the
pressure-squared relationship for extrapolating across the
zero-rate axis into higher injectionpressure ranges to ap-
proximate well characteristics. Plots of production rate
vs. difference in squares of pressure can also be adapted
to estimate later well-injectivity behavior.
agents in the field gas. Sometimes the use of internally
coated or lined pipe is justified. These and other corrosion-
control procedures are best carried out with the help of
a competent corrosion engineer.
As in the case of producing wells, if injectivity declines
with time, analysis of well conditions is required to decide
whether corrective procedures should be used. If a gas-
condensate reservoir is being operated essentially at con-
stant pressure, then the obvious index of injectivity decline
is whether the rate for each injection well remains con-
stant at the injection-well pressure. Injection-rate decline
at constant well pressure or injection-pressure rise at con-
stant irrjection rate shows that injectivity is declining.
Corrosion products that plug the sandface are sometimes
removed by backflowing the injection well to blow the
material off the sand and out of the well. Where this is
feasible, such complete removal of the plugging agents
from the borehole is believed to be the best for the well.
Other remedies may include treating the well with inhibit-
ed hydrochloric acid to dissolve the corrosion products.
Sometimes the acid is pushed back into the formation and
injection is started immediately without backwashing or
backflowing of the well. If repeated periodically, this
procedure is questionable because it is possible to develop
plugging farther away from the well face that could ulti-
mately hinder injection and be difficult to correct.
Number of Wells Required
Injection-Well Plugging. Plugging of the sandface can
occur in injection wells. This may result from liquid carry-
over from the compressors (probably lubricating oil com-
ponents) or from corrosion products from surface lines
or well equipment.
Carry-over of lubricating oils from compressors can be
serious. Usually. the remedy is to install high-efficiency
aftercoolers, scrubbers, and/or mist extractors on the dis-
charge side of the compressors. A particularly elfective
combination for this is the use of drips or collectors,
followed by plate or screen impaction-type mist elitnina-
tors. followed by combination fibrous and wire-mesh filter
elements.
The number of wells used in exploiting gas-condensate
reservoirs has varied from the equivalent of less than I60
acres/well to more than 640 acres/well. Bennett dis-
cussed the general problem and pointed out that the first
wells are drilled to determine the upper and lower limits
of condensate production; to determine the extent of the
pool, the net pay, thickness, porosity. etc.; and to provide
suitable production or injection wells to fit a final pat-
tern, which will not necessarily have a regular geometri-
cal design.
When liquid-blocking of the sand around an injection
wellbore cannot be relieved by backflowing (as mentioned
later), consideration can be given to slugging the well
with suitable volatile solvents. The solvent used should
preferably be miscible with both the normal injection gas
and the liquid that is suspected to be blocking the pores.
While propane is a good solvent for many hydrocarbon
liquids, some lubricating oils have constituents not soluble
or miscible with propane. In these cases, other solvents
(possibly nonhydrocarbons) should be used. Sometimes
solvent injection is followed immediately by resumption
of dry-gas injection. If successful, this dissolves part or
all of the liquid block and spreads out the materials in
the reservoir sufficiently to relieve the problem. In other
cases, the solvent is injected into the formation for short
periods and then produced back out to provide a type of
washing intended to remove the liquid accumulation from
the formation.
The number of wells to be drilled for gas-condensate
operations must be analyzed for each specific case. Im-
portant factors to be considered are (I) contract commit-
ments to deliver gas and products, (2) capacity of plant
to be served, (3) productivities and injectivities of the
wells, (4) maximum practical pattern (&S-weighted) ef-
ficiencies, controlled by number and location of wells
(reservoir geometry is an important consideration),
(5) amount of recoverable hydrocarbons and their value,
and (6) project costs, including well-development costs.
Items 3 through 5 must be balanced against Items 1. 2,
and 6 to ensure that the economic objectives and contract
commitments of the project are met. If wells are low in
capacity, extra wells may be needed to meet production
requirements during periods of well repair or workover.
Economics of Gas-Condensate
Reservoir Operation
Corrosion products from steel lines between compressor
discharge and the sandface can also provide serious well
plugging. All well piping and casing and all surface lines
should be cleaned thoroughly before they are installed to
avert as much as possible the transportation of fine cor-
rosion products to the sandface when injection starts. For
continued protection during the life of injection equip-
ment, liquid carry-over and mist-elimination measures
should be combined with adequate control of corrosive
Arthur and Boatright and Dixon79 published discus-
sions on the economics of cycling gas-condensate reser-
voirs. Arthur concluded that the most profitable method
of operation depends on many factors. and the answer can-
not be generalized. The following factors adapted from
Arthurs list are considered important.
1. Reservoir formation and fluid characteristics, includ-
ing occurrence or absence of black oil, size of reserves
of products, properties and composition of reservoir
hydrocarbons, productivities and injectivities of wells,
permeability variation (controls the degree of bypassing
of injected gas), and degree of natural water drive existing.
2. Reservoir development and operating costs.
3. Plant installation and operating costs.
4. Market demand for gas and liquid petroleum
proaucts.
5. Future relative value of the products.
6. Existence or absence of competitive producing con-
ditions between operators in the same reservoir.
7. Severance, ad valorem, and income taxes.
8. Special hazards or risks (limited concession or lease
life, political climate, and others).
9. Overall economic analysis.
In choosing between pressure depletion and pressure
maintenance as operating methods for a gas-condensate
reservoir, detailed analyses must be made for predicting
optimum economics. Cycling and gas processing proce-
dures require sizable plant expenditures. Possible proc-
essing methods, whether reservoir fluids are cycled or not,
include stabilization. compression, absorption, and frac-
tionation. The last two recover appreciably more condens-
ables from wet gas than do the first two. If the removal
of ethane from a gas stream is desirable for economic or
other reasons, fractionation should be used.
When reservoir characteristics appear favorable for
recovery of condensable hydrocarbons, it must be con-
sidered whether cycling would be economical. The
primary comparison is between value of the estimated ad-
ditional recovery of liquid products by cycling and the
actual cycling costs, taking into account deferment of gas
income and other factors. Economic analyses of cycling
and noncycling are required and must be carried out in
detail for maximum dependability with information fac-
tors and assumptions pertinent to each particular case.
General information on valuation of oil and gas proper-
ties is given in Chap. 41.
Economic comparisons are of no value unless reasona-
bly accurate predictions of physical reservoir behavior can
be made. Consequently. in the gas-condensate reservoir
case. the information given previously would have to be
expanded to include schedules of annual production and
injection volumes derived from the physical characteristics
of the reservoir and from the external factors that would
affect production rates. Schedules of investment, antici-
pated prices of products. operating costs, and taxes would
also be required to complete the detailed information need-
ed to make comparative economic analyses.
Nomenclature
8, =
E, =
ED =
E, =
E,, =
ER =
El/ =
h=
k=
k,, =
k,, =
K=
P=
S=
gas expansion factor (gas FVF)
area1 sweep efficiency
displacement efficiency
invasion efficiency
pattern (h4.5weighted) efficiency
reservoir cycling efficiency
volumetric sweep efficiency
net pay thickness, ft
permeability. md
relative permeability to gas, fraction
relative permeability to oil, fraction
equilibrium ratio
pressure, psi
hydrocarbon fluid saturation of the pore
space, %
layer number
deviation factor (compressibility factor)
gas viscosity, cp
oil viscosity, cp
39-27
0s
= gas density. g/cm3
4 = porosity, X
+,s = flow potential, psi
References
13.
I?.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29
30.
71.
D~,qirzerrirlg Daicr Book. ninth edItion. Gas Processors Suppliers
Astn. and Natural Gas Assn. of America. Tulsa. OK (1981).
Katz. D .L. and Rzaaa. M .J. : B&liogrtrphJ .fiw Phwicd Ba/w\?or
of Hw/mcarbons Under Prr.wurr md Rrlorrrl Phr~romv~~r. J W.
Edwards Publisher Inc.. Ann Arbor (1946).
Genercrl Inde.~ to Pmolrum Puhlrcrrtiom of SPE-AIME. SPE,
RIchardson, TX (1921-85) 1-5.
fnrfe.r c~Di~~isiori ofProducrion Prqwrs. 192 7- 1953. API. New York
City (1954).
Sloan. J.P.: Phase Behavior of Natural Gas and Condenaate
Systems. Pet. Eq. (Feb. 1950) 22. No. 2. B-54-8-64.
Dodson, C.R. and Standing. M.B.: Prediction of Volumetric and
Phase Behavior of Naturally Occurrq Hydrocarbon Systems.
Drill. trnd Pmcl. Pruc~.. API (194 I) 326-40.
Organick. E.L.: Prediction of Critical Temperatures and Critical
Pressures of Complex Hydrocarbon Mixtures. Clirw. &q. Prqq.
(1953) 49, No. 6, 81-97.
Carr. N.L.. Kobayashi, R.. and Burrows. D.B.: Vlscnsity of
Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure. J. Per. Tdz. (Oct. 1954)
47-55: Tiww.. AIME. 201.
Chew, J.N. and Connally, C.A. Jr.: A Viscosity Correlatmn for
Gas-Saturated Crude Oils. Trcrn.s.. AIME (19.59) 216. 23-25.
API Recommended Practice for Sampling Petroleum Reservoir
Fluids. API RP 44. first edttion. Dallas (Jan. 1966)
Bock-Prc~ssurz Tesr for IV&~& Co.\ l+c,l/\ Texas Railroad
Commission. Austin (1985).
Mutzual for Back Pwssuw Tcsr,fi~r Nuruml Grrs We//.\, New Mexico
Oil Conservation Commission. Santa Fe (1966).
Munuul ofBud Pressurc~ Tcdna rf Gav W~,i/s. Kansas State Corp.
Commission, Topeka (1959).
A Su,qp~fed Mumud for Standurtl Buck- Pw wuc Tc.viqq Mmml.~
Interstate Oil Compact Commission. Oklahoma City (1986).
Whitson. C.H.: Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fraction\.
paper EUR I83 presented at the 1980 SPE European Offshore Pc-
troleum Conference and Exhibition. London. Oct. 2 I-24.
Watson, K.M.. Nelson. E.F.. and Murphy. G.B.: Characterization
nf Petroleum Fractions. fncl. ,%K. Chrw. 11935) 27. 1460-64.
39-28
32. Hoffman, A.E.. Grump, J.S.. and Hocott. CR.: Equilibrnnn Con-
stants for a Gas-Condensate System, Trans., AIME (1953) 198.
l-10.
33. Cook, A.B., Walker, C.J., and Spencer, G.B.: Realistic K Values
OfC,, Hydrocarbons for Calculating Oil Vaporization During Gas
34.
35
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Cycling at High Pressures, .I te;r. Tech:(July 1969) 9Oi-15;
Tram.. AIME. 246.
Nemeth. L.K. and Kennedy. H.T.: A Correlation of Dcwpoint
Pressure With Fluid Composition and Temperature. Sot. Per. Enx.
I. (June 1967) 99-104.
Allen. F.H. and Roe, R.P.: Performance Characteristics of a
Volumetric Condensate Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
83-90.
Berryman, J.E.: Predicted Performance of a Gas-Condensate
System. Washington Field, Louisiana, J. Per. Tech. (April 1957)
102-07: 7-runs.. AIME, 210.
Rodgers, J.K., Harrison. N.H.. and Regier, S.: Comparison Be-
~ween the Predicted and Actual Production History of a Condensate
Reservoir.J. Per. Tech. (June 1958) 127-31: Trans., AIME. 213.
Redlich, 0. and Kwong, J.N.S.: On the Thermodynamics of
Solutions V. an Equation of State Fuaacities of Gaseous Solutions.
Chem. Review (1949) 44. 233. -
Peng. D.Y. and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant Equation
of State. Ind. Eng. Chum Fundamentals (1976) 15. 15-59.
Martin, J.J.: Cubic Equations of State-Which? Ind. GI,~. Chrm.
Fundamentals (May 1979) 18, 81,
Petroleum Conservafion, S.E. Buckley ef al. (eds.), AIME, New
York City (1951).
Geffen. T.M. @al.: Efticiency of Gas Displacement From Porous
Media by Liquid Flooding. Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 29-38.
Yuster, S.T.: The Rehabilitation of Drowned Gas Wells, Drill.
and Prod. Prac.. API ( 1946) 209- 16.
Bennett. E.N. and Auvcnshine. W.L.: Dewatering of Gas Wells,
Drill. and Prod. Prac.. API (1956) 224-30.
Dunning, H.N. and Eakin, J.L.: Foaming Agents arc Low-Cost
Treatment for Tired Gassers. Oil and GasJ. (Feb. 2. 1959) 57.
No. 6, 108-10.
Bates, G.O., Kilmer, J.W., and Shirley, H.T.: Eight Years of
Experience with Inert Gas Equipment. paper 57-PET-34 presented
at the 1957 ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineermg Conference.
Sept.
Barstow, W.F.: Fourteen Years of Progress tn Catalytic Treating
of Exhaust Gas. paper SPE 457 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual
Meeting. Las Vegas, Sept. 30-Oct. 3.
Eckies. W.W. and Holden, W.W.: Unique Enhanced Oil and Gas
Recovery Project for Very High Pressure Wilcox Sands Uses
Cryogenic Nitrogen and Methane Mixture, paper SPE 9415
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas. Sept. 21-24.
Moses, P.L. and Wilson, K.: Phase Equilibrium Considerations
in Utilizing Nitrogen for Improved Recovery From Retrograde
Condensate Reservoirs, paper SPE 7493 presented at the 1978
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston. Oct.
l-4.
Peterson, A.V.: Optimal Recovery Experiments with Nz and
co, \. Pet. Enx. Inrl. (Nov. 1978) 40-50.
Physical Prop&es of Nitrogen for Use in Petroleum Reservoirs,
Eu[/. 1 Air Products and Chemical Inc.. Allentown. PA (1977).
Wilson, K.: Enhanced-Recovery Inert Gas Processes Compared,
011 and Gas J. (July 31, 1978) 162-72.
Donohoe. C.W. and Buchanan, R.D.: Economic Evaluation of
Cycling Gas-Condensate Reservotrs With Nitrogen. paper SPE
7494 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
75. Tek. M.R. 1 Grove, M.L., and Pocttmann. F.H.: Method for Pre-
dicting the Back-Pressure Behavior of Low Permeability Natural
Gas Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1957) 302-09: Truns.. AIME, 210.
76. Clinkenbeard. P., Bozeman, J.F., and Davidson. R.D.: Gas Well
Stimulation Increases Production and Profits, J. Per. Tech. (Nov.
1958) 21-24.
77. Bennett. E.O.: Factors Influencing Spacing in Condensate Fields.
Pet. Eq. (1944) 15, No. IO. 158-62.
78. Arthur, M.G.: Economics of Cycling, Drill. and Prod. Pram.,
API (1948) 144-59.
Proc.. Ninth Oil Recovery Conference, Symposium on Natural Gas 79. Boatright. B.B. and Dixon, P.C.: Practical Economics of Cy-
m Texas. College Station, TX (1956). clmg. Drill. and Prod. Pram., API (1941) 221-27.
s.5.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
BrinkIcy, T.W.. Calculation of Rate and Ultimate Recovery from
Gas Condensate Reservoirs. paper 1028-G presented at the 1958
SPE Petroleum Conference on Production and Reservoir Engineer-
ing. Tulsa, OK, March 20-2 I.
Patton, C.E. Jr.: Evaluation of Pressure Matntenance by Internal
Gas Injection in Volumetrically Controlled Rcscrvoirs. Trrr,r.s..
AIME (1947) 170, 112-55.
API Standing Subcommittee on Secondary Recovery Methods, Circ.
D-294. API (March 1949) Appendix B
Marshall, D.L. and Oliver, L.R.: Some Uses and Limitations 01
Model Studies in Cycling, Truns., AIME (1948) 174. 67-87.
Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fitndarnenrals r$Rrsrrwir EnKineerrnX, U. of
Oklahoma Press. Norman (1953) 358, 374.
Hock, R.L.: Determination of Cycling Efficiencies in Cotton
Valley Field Gas Reservoir, Oil alrd Gus J. (Nov. 4, 1948) 47.
No. 27, 63-99.
Calhoun. J.C. Jr.: A Resume of the Factors Governing
Interpretation of Waterflood Performance, paper presented at the
1956 SPE-AIME North Texas Section Secondary Recovery
Symposium, Wichita Falls, Nov. 19-20.
Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Emginrering, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Inc.. New York City (1958) 406.
Stelzer, R.B.: Model Study vs. Field Performance Cycling the
Paluxy Condensate Reservoir, Drill. und Prod. Prur., API (1956)
336-42.
Muskat, M.: Effect of Permeability Stratification in Cycling Op-
erations, Trans., AIME (1949) 179. 3 13-28.
Standing. M.B., Linblad. E.N.. and Parsons. R.L.: Calculated
Recoveries by Cycling from a Retrograde Reservoir of Variable
Permeability, Trans., AIME (1948) 174, 165-90.
Miller, M.G. and Lents, M.R.: Performance of Bodcaw Reservoir.
Cotton Valley Field Cycling Project, New Methods of Predicting
Gas-Condensate Reservoir Performance Under Cycling Operations
Compared to Field Data. Drill. and Prod. Prac.. API (I 946)
128-49.
Law, J.: A Statistical Approach to the Interatttial Heterogeneity
of Sand Reservoirs, Trans.. AIME (1945) 155, 202-22.
Hurst, W. and van Everdingen. A.F.: Performance of Distillate
Reservoirs in Gas Cycling, Trans., AIME (1946) 16.5, 36-51.
Cardwell. W.T. Jr. and Parsons, R.L.: Average Permcabthttes
of Heterogeneous Oil Sands, Trcr,~s., AIME (1945) 160, 34-42
Sheldon, W.C.: *Calculating Recovery by Cycltng a Retrograde
Condensate Reservoir, .I. Pel. Tech. (Jan 19.59) 29-34.
Coats, K.H.: Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Perform-
ance. paper SPE 10512 presented at the 1982 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium. New Orleans. Jan. 3 I-Feb. 3.
Hurst, W.: Water Influx into a Reservoir and Its Application to
the Equation of Volumetric Balance, Trcrris.. AIME (1943) 151.
57-72.
73. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: Application of Laplace
Transformation to Flow Patterns in Reservoirs. Tram\. . AIME
(1949) 186, 305-24.
74. Lesem, L.B. et ai. : A Method of Calculating the Distribution of
Temperature in Flowing Gas Wells, J. Per. Tech. (June 1957)
169-76; Trans., AIME, 210.
Chapter 40
Estimation of Oil and Gas Reserves
Forrest A. Garb, SPE, H.J. Grt~y & Assocs. Inc.*
Gerry L. Smith ,** H.J. Gruy 6i Asaoca. Inc.
Estimating Reserves
General Discussion
Managements decisions are dictated by the anticipated
results from an investment. In the case of oil and gas,
the petroleum engineer compares the estimated costs in
terms of dollars for some investment opportunity vs. the
cash flow resulting from production of barrels of oil or
cubic feet of gas. This analysis may be used in formulat-
ing policies for (1) exploring and developing oil and gas
properties; (2) designing and constructing plants, gather-
ing systems, and other surface facilities; (3) determining
the division of ownership in unitized projects; (4) deter-
mining the fair market value of a property to be bought
or sold: (5) determining the collateral value of producing
properties for loans; (6) establishing sales contracts, rates,
and prices; and (7) obtaining Security and Exchange Com-
mission (SEC) or other regulatory body approvals.
Reserve estimates are just what they are called-
estimates. As with any estimate, they can be no better than
the available data on which they are based and are sub-
ject to the experience of the estimator. Unfortunately,
reliable reserve figures are most needed during the early
stages of a project, when only a minimum amount of in-
formation is available. Because the information base is
cumulative during the life of a property, the reservoir en-
gineer has an increasing amount of data to work with as
a project matures, and this increase in data not only
changes the procedures for estimating reserves but, cor-
respondingly, improves the confidence in the estimates.
Reserves are frequently estimated (1) before drilling or
any subsurface development, (2) during the development
drilling of the field, (3) after some performance data are
available, and (4) after performance trends are well es-
tablished. Fig. 40.1 demonstrates (I) the various periods
in the life of an imaginary oil property, (2) the sequence
of appropriate recovery estimating methods, (3) the im-
pact on the range of recovery estimates that usually re-
sults as a property ages and more data become available,
(4) a hypothetical production profile, and (5) the relative
risk in using the recovery estimates. Time is shown on
the horizontal axis. No particular units are used in this
chart, and it is not drawn to any specific scale. Note that
while the ultimate recovery estimates may become ac-
curate at some point in the late life of a reservoir, the
reserve estimate at that time may still have significant risk.
During the last week of production. if one projects a
reserve of 1 bbl and 2 bbl are produced, the reserve esti-
mate was 100% in error.
Reserve estimating methods are usually categorized into
three families: analogy, volumetric, and performance
techniques. The performance-technique methods usually
are subdivided into simulation studies, material-balance
calculations, and decline-trend analyses. The relative peri-
ods of application for these techniques are shown in Fig.
40.1. .2 During Period AB, before any wells are drilled
on the property, any recovery estimates will be of a very
general nature based on experience from similar pools or
wells in the same area. Thus, reserve estimates during
this period are established by analogy to other produc-
tion and usually are expressed in barrels per acre.
The second period, Period BC, follows after one or
more wells are drilled and found productive. The well
logs provide subsurface information, which allows an
acreage and thickness assignment or a geologic interpre-
tation of the reservoir. The acre-foot volume considered
to hold hydrocarbons, the calculated oil or gas in place
per acre-foot, and a recovery factor allow closer limits
for the recovery estimates than were possible by analogy
alone. Data included in a volumetric analysis may include
well logs, core analysis data, bottomhole sample infor-
mation, and subsurface mapping. Interpretation of these
40-2
Fig. 4&l-Range in estimates of ultimate recovery during life
of reservoir.
data. along with observed pressure behavior during ear-
ly production periods, may also indicate the type of
producing mechanism to be expected for the reservoir.
The third period, Period CD, represents the period af-
ter delineation of the reservoir. At this time, performance
data usually are adequate to allow derivation of reserve
estimates by use of numerical simulation model studies.
Model studies can yield very useful reserve estimates for
a spectrum of operating options if sufficient information
is available to describe the geometry of the reservoir, any
spatial distribution of the rock and fluid characteristics,
and the reservoir producing mechanism. Because numer-
ical simulators depend on matching history for calibra-
tion to ensure that the model is representative of the actual
reservoir, numerical simulation models performed in the
early life of a reservoir may not be considered to have
high confidence.
During Period DE, as performance data mature, the
material-balance method may be implemented to check
the previous estimates of hydrocarbons initially in place.
The pressure behavior studied through the material-
balance calculations may also offer valuable clues regard-
ing the type of production mechanism existent in the reser-
voir. Confidence in the material-balance calculations
depends on the precision of the reservoir pressures record-
ed for the reservoir and the engineers ability to deter-
mine the true average pressure at the dates of study.
Frequent pressure surveys taken with precision instru-
ments have enabled good calculations after no more than
5 or 6 % of the hydrocarbons in place have been produced.
Reserve estimates based on extrapolation of established
performance trends, such as during Period DEF, are con-
sidered the estimates of highest confidence.
In reviewing the histories of reserve estimates over an
extended period of time in many different fields, it seems
to be a common experience that the very prolific fields
(such as East Texas, Oklahoma City, Yates, or Redwater)
have been generally underestimated during the early
barrels-per-acre-foot period compared with their later
performance, while the poorer ones (such as West Ed-
mond and Spraberry) usually are overestimated during
their early stages.
It should be emphasized that, as in all estimates, the
accuracy of the results cannot be expected to exceed the
limitations imposed by inaccuracies in the available ba-
sic data. The better and more complete the available data,
the more reliable will be the end result. In cases where
property values are involved, additional investment in ac-
quiring good basic data during the early stages pays off
later. With good basic data available, the engineer making
the estimate naturally feels more sure of his results and
will be less inclined to the cautious conservatism that often
creeps in when many of the basic parameters are based
on guesswork only. Generally, all possible approaches
should be explored in making reserve estimates and all
applicable methods used. In doing this, the experience and
judgment of the evaluator are an intangible quality, which
is of great importance.
The probable error in the total reserves estimated by
experienced engineers for a number of properties dimin-
ishes rapidly as the number of individual properties in-
creases. Whereas substantial differences between
independent estimates made by different estimators for
a single property are not uncommon, chances are that the
total of such estimates for a large group of properties or
an entire company will be surprisingly close.
Petroleum Reserves-Definitions
and Nomenclature3
Definitions for three generally recognized reserve
categories, proved, probable, and possible,
which are used to reflect degrees of uncertainty in the
reserve estimates, are listed as follows. The proved
reserve definition was developed by a joint committee of
the SPE, American Assn. of Petroleum Geologists
(AAPG), and American Petroleum Inst. (API) members
and is consistent with current DOE and SEC definitions.
The joint committees proved reserve definitions, support-
ing discussion, and glossary of terms, are quoted as fol-
lows. The probable and possible reserve definitions enjoy
no such official sanction at the present time but are be-
lieved to reflect current industry usage correctly.
Proved Reserves Definitions3
The following is reprinted from the Journal of Petrole-
UM Technology (Nov. 1981, Pages 2113-14) proved
reserve definitions, discussion, and glossary of terms.
ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES 40-3
Proved Reserves. Proved reserves of crude oil, natural
gas, or natural gas liquids are estimated quantities that
geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasona-
ble certainty to be recoverable in the future from known
reservoirs under existing economic conditions.*
Discussion. Reservoirs are considered proved if economic
producibility is supported by actual production or forma-
tion tests or if core analysis and/or log interpretation dem-
onstrates economic producibility with reasonable
certainty. The area of a reservoir considered proved in-
cludes (1) that portion delineated by drilling and defined
by fluid contacts, if any, and (2) the adjoining portions
not yet drilled that can be reasonably judged as economi-
cally productive on the basis of available geological and
engineering data. In the absence of data on fluid contacts,
the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons
controls the lower proved limit of the reservoir. Proved
reserves are estimates of hydrocarbons to be recovered
from a given date forward. They are expected to be re-
vised as hydrocarbons are produced and additional data
become available.
Proved natural gas reserves comprise nonassociated gas
and associated/dissolved gas. An appropriate reduction
in gas reserves is required for the expected removal of
natural gas liquids and the exclusion of nonhydrocarbon
Glossary of Terms
Crude Oil
Crude oil is defined technically as a mixture of hydrocar-
bons that existed in the liquid phase in natural underground
reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure af-
ter passing through surface separating facilities. For
statistical purposes, volumes reported as crude oil include:
(1) liquids technically defined as crude oil; (2) small
amounts of hydrocarbons that existed in the gaseous phase
in natural underground reservoirs but are liquid at at-
mospheric pressure after being recovered from oilwell
(casinghead) gas in lease separators*; and (3) small
amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons and varying
quantities of nonhydrocarbons that exists either in the
gaseous phase or in solution with crude oil in natural
underground reservoirs. Natural gas may be subclassi-
fied as follows.
Associated Gas. Natural gas, commonly known as gas-
cap gas, that overlies and is in contact with crude oil in
the reservoir. **
gases if they occur in significant quantities.
Reserves that can be produced economically through
Dissolved Gas. Natural gas that is in solution with crude
oil in the reservoir.
the application of established improved recovery tech-
niques-are included in the proved classification when these
qualifications are met: (1) successful testing by a pilot
Nonassociated Gas. Natural gas in reservoirs that do not
project or the operation of an installed program in that
contain significant quantities of crude oil.
reservoir or one with similar rock and fluid properties pro-
Dissolved gas and associated gas may be produced con-
vides support for the engineering analysis on which the
currently from the same wellbore. In such situations, it
project or program was based, and (2) it is reasonably
is not feasible to measure the production of dissolved gas
certain the project will proceed.
and associated gas separately; therefore, production is
Reserves to be recovered by improved recovery tech-
reported under the heading of associated/dissolved or
niques that have yet to be established through repeated
casinghead gas. Reserves and productive capacity esti-
economically successful applications will be included in
mates for associated and dissolved gas also are reported
the proved category only after successful testing by a pi-
as totals for associated/dissolved gas combined.
lot project or after-the operation of an installed-p&g&~
in the reservoir provides support for the engineering anal-
Natural Gas Liquids
ysis on which the project or program was based. Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are those portions of reser-
Estimates of proved reserves do not include crude oil, voir gas that are liquefied at the surface in lease separa-
natural gas, or natural gas liquids being held in under- tors, field facilities, or gas processing plants. NGLs
ground storage. include but are not limited to ethane, propane, butanes,
pentanes, natural gasoline, and condensate.
Proved Developed Reserves. Proved developed reserves
are a subcategory of proved reserves. They are those
reserves that can be expected to be recovered through ex-
isting wells (including reserves behind pipe) with proved
equipment and operating methods. Improved recovery
reserves can be considered developed only after an im-
proved recovery project has been installed.
Reservoir
A reservoir is a porous and permeable underground for-
mation containing an individual and separate natural ac-
cumulation of producible hydrocarbons (oil and/or gas)
that is confined by impermeable rock and/or water barri-
ers and is characterized by a single natural pressure
system.
Proved Undeveloped Reserves. Proved undeveloped
reserves are a subcategory of proved reserves. They are
those additional proved reserves that are expected to be
recovered from (I) future drilling of wells, (2) deepen-
ing of existing wells to a different reservoir, or (3) the
installation of an improved recovery project.
From a technical standpoint, these hqulds are termed condensate, however, they
are commmgled wth Ihe crude stream and it IS impractical to meawe and report
their volumes separately All other condensate IS reported as either lease
condensate or plant condensate and Included I natural gas l,q,ds
. Where resewar cond,,,ons are such lhat the production of associated gas does not
substantlallv affect the recwerv of crude 011 I the reser~oll. such aas rnav be
reclassitledas nonassoclated gis by a regulatory agency In this w&t, res&es
and producbon are reported I accordance wth the classlficatw used by the
regulatory agency Most reserve,, engmeers add the expression considering current technology.
OIL-WATER
CONTACT -7450
Probable Reserves
Probable reserves of crude oil, natural gas, or natural gas
liquids are estimated quantities that geological and engi-
neering data indicate are reasonably probable to be re-
covered in the future from known reservoirs under
existing economic conditions. Probable reserves have a
0
higher degree of uncertainty with regard to extent,
recoverability, or economic viability than do proved
reserves.
Possible Reserves
Possible reserves of crude oil, natural gas, or natural gas
liquids are estimated quantities that geological and engi-
neering data indicate are reasonably possible to be recov-
Fig. 40.2-Geological map on top (-) and base (-7) of reservoir.
ered in the future from known reservoirs under existing
economic conditions. Possible reserves have a higher
degree of uncertainty than do proved or probable reserves.
In most situations, reservoirs are classified as oil reser-
voirs or as gas reservoirs by a regulatory agency. In the
absence of a regulatory authority, the classification is
based on the natural occurrence of the hydrocarbon in the
reservoir as determined by the operator.
Computation of Reservoir Volume4
Improved Recovery
Improved recovery includes all methods for supplement-
ing natural reservoir forces and energy, or otherwise in-
creasing ultimate recovery from a reservoir. Such
recovery techniques include (1) pressure maintenance, (2)
cycling, and (3) secondary recovery in its original sense
(i.e., fluid injection applied relatively late in the produc-
tive history of a reservoir for the purpose of stimulating
production after recovery by primary methods of flow or
artificial lift has approached an economic limit). Improved
recovery also includes the enhanced recovery methods of
thermal, chemical flooding, and the use of miscible and
immiscible displacement fluids.
When sufficient subsurface control is available, the oil-
or gas-bearing net pay volume of a reservoir may be com-
puted in several different ways.
1. From the subsurface data a geological map (Fig.
40.2) is prepared, contoured on the subsea depth of the
top of the sand (solid lines), and on the subsea depth of
the base of the sand (dashed lines). The total area enclosed
by each contour is then planimetered and plotted as ab-
scissa on an acre-feet diagram (Fig. 40.3) vs. the corre-
sponding subsea depth as the ordinate. Gas/oil contacts
(GOCs) and water/oil contacts (WOCs) as determined
from core, log, or test data are shown as horizontal lines.*
After the observed points are connected, the combined
gross volume of oil- and gas-bearing sand may be deter-
mined by the following methods.
lf working I Sl umls, the depths WIII be expressed in meters and the planlmetered
areas enclosed by each contour w,ll be expressed I hectares The resultant hectare-
meter plot can be treated exactly llke the following acre-foot example to yield reserw~
~oI!mes m cubic meters. (1 ha, m = 10,000 m3 )
GROSS GAS BEARING SAND VOLUME:
[(0+8&42lt4(24)] ~2367 ACRE FEET
GAS-OIL CONTACT
GROSS OIL BEARING SAND VOLUME:
y [W-42+ 378 -242)+4(209-1061]=m ACRE FEET
OIL-WATER CONTACT
100 200 300 400 500 600
AREA ENCLOSED BY CONTOUR
Fig. 40.3-Acre-feet diagram
ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES
40-5
Fig. 40.4-lsopachous map-gas sand
a. Planimetered from the acre-feet diagram.
b. If the number of contour intervals is even, comput-
ed by Simpsons rule:
So/3[(0+136)+4(24+103)+2(46)]= 12,267 acre-ft.
(The separate calculations of the volume of gross gas-
bearing sand and gross oil-bearing sand by means of Simp-
sons rule are shown in the diagram of Fig. 40.3.)
r. With somewhat less accuracy, computed by the
trapezoidal rule:
SO[%(O+ 136)+(24+46+ 103)] = 12,050 acre-ft.
d. Computed by means of the somewhat more compli-
cated pyramidal rule:
ss[(O+136)+2(24+46+ 103)+J24x88 +m
+d5icEm-m-J]
= 11,963 acre-ft.
e. If the sand is ofuniform thickness, it will oftentimes
suffice to multiply the average gross pay thickness h I by
the area enclosed by the contour 1/2Z fi above the WOC.
J If the area within the top contour is circular (area A,
height Z), then the top volume is QrZ+ %AZ if treated
as a segment of a sphere, and %AZ if treated as a cone.
From a study of the individual well logs or core data,
it is then determined what fraction of the gross sand sec-
tion is expected to carry and to produce hydrocarbons.
Multiplication of this net-pay fraction by the gross sand
volume yields the net-pay volume. If, for example, in the
case illustrated with Figs. 40.2 and 40.3, it is found that
15% of the gross section consisted of evenly distributed
shale or dense impervious streaks, the net gas- and oil-
bearing pay volumes may be computed as, respectively,
0.85 x2,367=2,012 net acre-ft of gas pay
and
0.85x9,900=8,415 net acre-ft of oil pay.
2. From individual well-log data, separate isopachous
maps may be prepared for the net gas pay (Fig. 40.4) or
for the net pay (Fig. 40.5) and the total net acre-feet of
oil- or gas-bearing pay computed as under It&m la, b, or c.
3. If the nature of the porosity varies substantially from
well to well, and if good log and core-analysis data are
Fig. 40.5-lsopachous map-oil sand
available on many wells, it is sometimes justified to pre-
pare an isopachous map of the number of porosity feet
(porosity fraction times net pay in feet) and compute the
total available void space in the net-pay section from such
an isopachous map by the methods discussed under Item
la, b, or c.
Computation of Oil or Gas in Place
Volumetric Method
If the size of the reservoir, its lithologic characteristics,
and the properties of the reservoir fluids are known, the
amount of oil or gas initially in place may be calculated
with the following formulas:
Free Gas in Gas Reservoir or Gas Cap (no residual
oil present). For standard cubic feet of free gas,
GFj =
43,5601/,@(1 -Siw)
, .
(1)
*,
where
V, = net pay volume of the free-gas-bearing
portion of a reservoir, acre-ft,
4 = effective porosity, fraction,
S;, = interstitial water saturation, fraction,
B, = gas FVF, dimensionless, and
43,560 = number of cubic feet per acre-foot.
Values for the gas FVF or the reciprocal gas FVF,
l/B,, may be estimated for various combinations of pres-
sure, temperature, and gas gravity (see section on gas
FVF).
Oil in Reservoir (no free gas present in oil-saturated
portion). For stock-tank barrels of oil,
N= 7,758V,4(1 -S,,)
, . . . . . . . . . B,
(2)
where
N = reservoir oil initially in place, STB,
V, = net pay volume of the oil-bearing portion
of a reservoir, acre-ft,
B, = oil FVF, dimensionless, and
7,758 = number of barrels per acre-foot.
Refer ,oChaps. 20 through 25 for delaled coverage of 011. gas, condensate and watel
properties. and correlalions.
40-6
B
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
TABLE 40.1--BARRELS OF STOCK-TANK OIL IN PLACE PER ACRE-FT
S
iw
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.10
0.20
0 30
0.40
0.50
0.10
0 20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0. 05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
349 698 1,047 1,396 1,746 2,095 2,444
310 621 931 1,241 1,552 1,862 2,172
272 543 615 1,066 1.358 1,629 1,901
233 465 698 931 1.164 1,396 1,629
194 388 582 776 970 1,164 1,358
233 465 698 931 1,164 1,396 1,629
206 411 617 822 1,028 1,234 1,439
182 365 547 729 912 1,094 1,276
155 310 465 621 776 931 1,086
128 256 384 512 640 768 896
175 349 524 698 873 1,047 1,222
155 310 465 621 776 931 1,086
136 272 407 543 679 815 950
116 233 349 465 582 698 815
97 194 291 388 485 582 679
116 233 349 465 582 698 815
105 209 314 419 524 628 733
89 178 268 357 446 535 625
78 155 233 310 388 465 543
66 132 198 264 330 396 462
Table 40.1 shows the number of barrels of stock-tank oil
per acre-foot for different values of porosity, 4, intersti-
tial water saturation, S,,,., and the oil FVF, B,,
Solution Gas in Oil Reservoir (no free gas present).
For standard cubic feet of solution gas,
Gs =
7,7581/,@(1 -s,,.)R.,
. .
(3)
Bo
where G, is the solution gas in place, in standard cubic
feet, and R,T is the solution GOR, in standard cubic feet
per stock-tank barrel.
Material-Balance Method5-8
In the absence of reliable volumetric data or as an indepen-
dent check on volumetric estimates, the amount of oil or
gas in place in a reservoir may sometimes be computed
by the material-balance method.5 This method is based
on the premise that the PV of a reservoir remains con-
stant or changes in a predictable manner with the reser-
voir pressure when oil, gas, and/or water are produced.
This makes it possible to equate the expansion of the reser-
voir fluids upon pressure drop to the reservoir voidage
caused by the withdrawal of oil, gas, and water minus
the water influx. Successful application of this method re-
quires an accurate history of the average pressure of the
reservoir, as well as reliable oil-, gas-, and water-
production data and PVT data on the reservoir fluids.
Generally, from 5 to 10% of the oil or gas originally in
place must be withdrawn before significant results can be
expected. Without very accurate performance and PVT
data the results from such a computation may be quite
erratic, 6 especially when there are unknowns other than
the amount of oil in place, such as the size of a free-gas
cap, or when a water drive is present.
When the number of available equations exceeds the
number of such unknowns, the solution should prefera-
bly be by means of the method of least squares. Be-
cause of the sensitivity of the material-balance equation
Porositv. d
to small changes in the two-phase FVF, B,, an adjust-
ment procedure, called the Y method, may be used for
the pressure range immediately below the bubblepoint.
The method consists of plotting values of
y= (Ph-PRPoi
pR(B,-B,,i) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.(4)
where
ph = bubblepoint pressure, psia,
pR = reservoir pressure, psia,
B, = two-phase FVF for oil, dimensionless, and
Boi = initial oil FVF, dimensionless.
vs. reservoir pressure, PR, and bringing a straight line
through the plotted points, with particular weight given
to the more accurate values away from the bubblepoint.
This straight-line relationship is then used to correct the
previous values for Y, from which the adjusted values for
B, are computed. Values of B, computed with this
method for pressures substantially below the bubblepoint
should not be used if differential liberation is assumed to
represent reservoir producing conditions.
When an active water drive is present, the cumulative
water influx, W,, should be expressed in terms of the
known pressure/time history and a water drive constant,
thus reducing this term to one unknown. A completely
worked-out example of the use of material balance that
uses this conversion and in which the amount of oil in
place is determined for a partial water drive reservoir
where 36 pressure points and equations were available
at a time when about 9 % of the oil in place had been pro-
duced is given in Ref. 7.
The material-balance equation in its most general form
reads
N=
N,,[B,+O.l7XIB,(R,~-R,,)I-(W,,-~,,)
B,,,
B,q B,
rnB +B- -(m+ I ) I -
&RR(.,+S,,,,!)
,q, 0, 1 -s,,,
II
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~....
(5)
TABLE 40.2-CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL-BALANCE EQUATIONS
Reservoir Type
Oil reservoir with gas cap and
active water drive
Material-balance Equation Unknowns Equation
Np]B, +0.1781B,(R, -R,,)]-(W, - WP)
N= N, W,, m 6
mB, ,
Oil reservoir with gas cap;
no active water drive (W, = 0)
Initially undersaturated oil reservoir
with active water drive (m =0):
1. Above bubblepoint
2. Below bubblepoint
lnltially undersaturated oil reservoir:
no active water drive ( m=0) , (W, = 0):
1. Above bubblepoint
2. Below bubblemint
Gas reservoir with active water drive
Gas reservoir; no active water drive
we =O)
Np[B, +0.1781B,(Rp -I?,,)]+ w,
N= N. m 7
ma,,
N, U
we- WP
+APpRco) - ~
N=
B, , 1
(1 -S,,)
APl ( C, +c, - S, &, -c,)l
N= Npl~,+0.f781B,(R,-R,,)1-(W,-W,)
8, -60,
N, W, 8
9 N, W,
N,(l +W&J- F (1 -St,)
01 1
N=
N 10
QJDR[c,+c,-S,,(c,-c,)l
N=
NJ!3, + O.l781B,(R, -R,,)]+ W,
N 11
6, -go,
G= G,B, -5.615(W, - WP)
G W,
12
B, --By
G=
G,B, +5.615W,
G 13
6, -B,,
where
N,, =
R,, =
R.,, =
w,, =
w,, =
Aj?R =
B,pi =
I I I =
f =
c,, =
cumulative oil produced, STB,
cumulative GOR, scf/STB.
initial solution GOR. scf/STB,
cumulative water influx, bbl,
cumulative water produced, bbl,
change in reservoir pressure, psi,
initial gas FVF. res cu ftiscf,
ratio of initial reservoir free-gas volume
and initial reservoir-oil volume,
compressibility of reservoir rock, change in
PV per unit PV per psi, and
compressibility of interstitial water, psi -
When a free-gas cap is present, this equation may be
simplified to Eq. 6 of Table 40.2 by neglecting the reser-
voir formation compressibility cf and the interstitial water
compressibility c,,..
When such a reservoir has no active water drive
(W,,=O), Eq. 7 results.
For initially undersaturated reservoirs (m = 0) below the
bubblepoint, Eqs. 6 and 7 reduce to Eqs. 9 and I I, de-
pending on whether an active water drive is present.
For initially undersaturated reservoirs (m=O) above the
bubblepoint, no free gas is present (R,) -R,yi =O). while
B, =Bo;+A~~c, (where c, is the compressibility of
reservoir oil, volume per psi), so that general Eq. 5
reduces to Eqs. 8 and 10, depending on whether an ac-
tive water drive is present.
For gas reservoirs the material-balance equation takes
the form of Eq. 12 or 13, depending on whether an ac-
tive water drive is present. The numerator on the right
side in each case represents the net reservoir voidage by
production minus water influx, while the denominator is
the gas-expansion factor (BR -B,;) for the reservoir.
TABLE 40.3-CONDITIONS FOR UNIT-RECOVERY
EQUATION. DEPLETION-TYPE RESERVOIR
Reservoir pressure
Interstitial water, @SW, bbllacre-ft
Free gas, &S,, bbllacre-ft
Reservoir oil, bbllacre-ft
Initial Conditions
$58
0
7,758 $41 -s,,)
Ultimate Conditions
7pp58
7,758
7,758 $~(l - S,, -S,,)
Stock-tank oil, bbl/acre-ft
1-S
7,758 d2
BO,
7,758 4
1 -s&v -s,,
B
w
'SubstIMe 10 000 for the 7.758 constanf 11 c"b,c melers per hectare.mefer IS used.
Saturated Depletion-Type Oil
Reservoirs-Volumetric Methods
General Discussion
Pools without an active water drive that produce solely
as the result of expansion of natural gas liberated from
solution in the oil are said to produce under a depletion
mechanism, also called an internal- or solution-gas drive.
When a free-gas cap is present, this mechanism may be
supplemented by an external or gas-cap drive (Page
40-13). When the reservoir permeability is sufficiently
high and the oil viscosity low, and when the pay zone has
sufficient dip or a high vertical permeability, the deple-
tion mechanism may be followed or accompanied by
gravity segregation (Page 40-14).
When a depletion-type reservoir is first opened to pro-
duction, its pores contain interstitial water and oil with
gas in solution under pressure. No free gas is assumed
to be present in the oil zone. The interstitial water is usual-
ly not produced, and its shrinkage upon pressure reduc-
tion is negligible compared with some of the other factors
governing the depletion-type recovery.
When this reservoir reaches the end of its primary
producing life, and disregarding the possibility of gas-cap
drive or gravity segregation, it will contain the same in-
terstitial water as before, together with residual oil under
low pressure. The void space vacated by the oil produced
and by the shrinkage of the remaining oil is now filled
with gas liberated from the oil. During the depletion proc-
ess this gas space has increased gradually to a maximum
value at abandonment time. The amount of gas space thus
created is the key to the estimated ultimate recovery un-
der a depletion mechanism. It is reached when the pro-
duced free GOR in the reservoir, which changes according
to the relative permeability ratio relationship and the vis-
cosities of oil and gas involved, causes exhaustion of the
available supply of gas in solution.
Unit-Recovery Equation
The unit-recovery factor is the theoretically possible ul-
timate recovery in stock-tank barrels from a homogene-
ous unit volume of 1 acre-t? of pay produced by a given
mechanism under ideal conditions.
The unit-recovery equation for a saturated depletion-
type reservoir is equal to the stock-tank oil initially in place
in barrels per acre-foot at initial pressure pi minus the
residual stock-tank oil under abandonment pressure pi,,
as shown in Table 40.3.
By difference, the unit recovery by depletion or
solution-gas drive is, in stock-tank barrels per acre-foot,
1 - S,M - s,,
' .'." B
(14)
o(I
where S,, is the residual free-gas saturation under reser-
voir conditions at abandonment time, fraction, and B,,
is the oil FVF at abandonment, dimensionless. The key
to the computation of unit recovery by means of this equa-
tion is an estimate of the residual free-gas saturation S,,
at the ultimate time. If a sufficiently large number of ac-
curate determinations of the oil and water saturation on
freshly recovered core samples is available, an approxi-
mation of S,, may be obtained by deducting the average
total saturation of oil plus water from unity. This method
is based on the assumption that the depletion process
taking place within the core on reduction of pressure by
bringing it to the surface is somewhat similar to the actu-
al depletion process in the reservoir. Possible loss of liq-
uids from the core before analysis may cause such a value
for S,, to be too high. On the other hand, the smaller
amount of gas in solution in the residual oil left after flush-
ing by mud filtrate has a tendency to reduce the residual
free-gas saturation. Those using this method hope that
these two effects somewhat compensate for each other.
A typical S,, value for average consolidated sand, a
medium solution GOR of 400 to 500 cu ftibbl, and a
crude-oil gravity of 30 to 4OAPI is 0.25.
Either a high degree of cementation, a high shale con-
tent of the sand, or a 50% reduction in solution GOR may
cut this typical S,, value by about 0.05, while a complete
lack of cementation or shaliness such as in clean, loose
unconsolidated sands or a doubling of the solution GOR
may increase the S,, value by as much as 0.10.
At the same time, the crude-oil gravity generally in-
creases or decreases the S,, value by about 0.01 for ev-
ery 3API gravity.
Example Problem 1. A cemented sandstone reservoir has
a porosity $=0.13, an interstitial water content
S,,,.=O.35, a solution GOR at bubblepoint conditions,
/?,I, =300 cu ftibbl, an initial oil FVF B,,; = 1.20, an oil
FVF at abandonment B,, = I .07, and a stock-tank oil
gravity of 40API. Based on the above considerations,
the higher-than-average oil gravity would just about off-
set the effect of the somewhat lower-than-average GOR.
and the residual free-gas saturation S,, after a 0.05 reduc-
tion for the cementation can therefore be estimated at 0.20.
Solution. The unit recovery by depletion according to
Eq. 14 would be
N,, =(7.758)(0.13)
l-0.35 l-O.35 -0.20
1.07 >
= 122 STBiacre-ft [I57 m3/ha.mj.
where N,, is the unit recovery by depletion or solution-
gas drive, STB.
Muskats Method. 9 If the actual relationships between
pressure and oil-FVF B,, gas-FVF B,, gas-solubility in
oil (solution GOR) R, , oil viscosity p,), and gas viscosity
ps are available from a PVT analysis of the reservoir
fluids, and if the relationship between relative permea-
bility ratio k,/k, and the total liquid saturation, S,, is
known for the reservoir rock under consideration, the unit
recovery by depletion can be arrived at by a stepwise com-
putation of the desaturation history directly from the fol-
lowing depletion equation in differential form:
As,,
-1
APR
B, dR,
S,,- +(I -s,, -s,,, )B,L!
d(liB,s) PL,, k,., dB,,
B,, kR
-+s,,---
dlR I -,? k,,, BdrR
. ..t... .I..........,.........
(15)
where
S, = oil or condensate saturation under reservoir
conditions, fraction,
PLO =
reservoir oil viscosity, cp,
PLK
= reservoir gas viscosity, cp,
k, = relative permeability to gas as a fraction of
absolute permeability, and
k, = relative permeability to oil as a fraction of
absolute permeability.
The individual computations are greatly facilitated by
computing and preparing in advance in graphical form
the following groups of terms, which are a function of
pressure only,
and the relative permeability ratio k,ik,,, which is a
function of total liquid saturation S, only.
The accuracy of this type of calculation on a desk cal-
culator falls off rapidly if the pressure decrements chos-
en are too large, particularly during the final stages when
the GOR is increasingly rapidly.
With modern electronic computers, however, it is pos-
sible to use pressure decrements of IO psi or smaller,
which makes a satisfactory accuracy possible.
This stepwise solution of the depletion equation yields
the reservoir oil saturation S,, as a function of reservoir
pressure pR. The results may be converted into cumula-
tive recovery per acre-foot. In stock-tank barrels per
acre-foot,
(16)
The results may be converted into cumulative recovery
as a fraction of the original oil in place (OOIP) by
L+L) (?c), .,....,.......
N
(17)
while the GOR history, in standard cubic feet gasistock-
tank barrel, may be computed by
(18)
where R is the instantaneous producing GOR, in standard
cubic feet per stock-tank barrel, and the relative produc-
tion rate in barrels per day by
k
o Poi PR
. . .
(19)
where
90 =
kc, =
km =
Poi =
40; =
oil-production rate, B/D,
effective permeability to oil. md,
initial effective permeability to oil. md,
initial reservoir oil viscosity, cp, and
initial oil-production rate, B/D.
It should be stressed that this method is based on the
assumption of uniform oil saturation in the whole reser-
voir and that the solution will therefore break down when
there is appreciable gas segregation in the formation. It
is therefore applicable only when permeabilities are rela-
tively low.
Another limitation of this method as well as of the Tarn-
er method, discussed hereafter, is that no condensation
of liquids from the produced gas is assumed to take place
in the tubing or in the surface extraction equipment. It
should therefore not be applied to the high-temperature,
high-GOR, and high-FVF volatile oil reservoirs to be
discussed later.
Tarners Method. Babson and Tarner have ad-
vanced trial-and-error-type computation methods for the
desaturation process that require a much smaller number
of pressure increments and can therefore be more readi-
ly handled by a desk calculator. Both methods are based
on a simultaneous solution of the material-balance equa-
tion (Eq. 11) and the instantaneous GOR (Eq. 18).
Tarners method is the more straightforward of the two.
The procedure for the stepwise calculation of the cumula-
tive oil produced (N,,)I and the cumulative gas produced
(Gp)* for a given pressure drop from p I to p, is as
follows.
40-l 0 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 40.4-COMPUTED DEPLETION RECOVERY IN STBIACRE-FTIPERCENT POROSITY FOR TYPICAL FORMATIONS
Solution
GOR
(cu ftlbbl)
cRsb)
60
200
600
1,000
2,000
Oil
Gravity,
(OAPI)
-70
;z
50
15
30
50
15
30
50
30
50
50
Unconsolidated
7.2
12.0
19.2
7.0
11.6
19.4
7.6
10.5
15.0
12.3
12.0
10.6
1. Assume that during the pressure drop from p , to pl
the cumulative oil production increases from (N,) , to
(N,,)* N, should be set equal to zero at bubblepoint.
2. Compute the cumulative gas produced (G,,)z at
pressure p2 by means of the material-balance equation
(Eq. 111,
which for this purpose-and assuming
Wp =0-is rewritten in the following form:
(G,,h =(N,h(R,,):!=N (R.7, -R,\)-5.615
3. Compute the fractional total liquid saturation @,)I
at pressure p2 by means of
(s);=S;~+(l-s;,,J~[l-~]. .., . ..(21)
4. Determine the k,lk,, ratio corresponding to the to-
tal liquid saturation (S,), and compute the instantaneous
GOR at p2 by means of
R* =R,$ +ui15$+. . . . . . . (22)
RPK ro
5. Compute the cumulative gas produced at pressure
p2 by means of
RI +R,
(G,)2=(Gp)1+ 2
---[VP)2 -VP) 11, . (23)
in which RI represents the instantaneous GOR comput-
ed previously at pressure p, .
Usually three judicious guesses are made for the value
(N,) 2 and the corresponding values of (G,,) 2 computed
by both Steps 2 and 5. When the values thus obtained for
(G,) 2 are plotted vs. the assumed values for (N,) 2 , the
intersection of the curve representing the results of Step
2 and the one representing Step 5 then indicates the cu-
mulative gas and oil production that will satisfy both equa-
tions. In actual application, the method is usually
simplified further by equating the incremental gas pro-
duction (Gp)z -(G,) I) rather than (G,)Z itself. This
Sand or Sandstone Limestone, Dolomite or
(S,, = 0.25) Chert (S,, =0.15)
Consolidated Highly Cemented Vugular Fractured
4.9 1.4 2.6 0.4
8.5 4.9 6.3 18
13.9 9.5 11.8 5.1
4.6 1.8 2.6 0.5
7.9 4.4 5.8 1.5
13.7 9.2 11.4 4.4
4.8 2.5 3.3 0.9
6.5 3.6
4.7 (1.2)
9.7 5.8
7.2 (2.1)
7.6 4.5
5.4 (1.6)
7.2 4.1
4.8 (1.2)
6.4 4.0
(4.3) (1.5)
equality signifies that at each pressure step the cumula-
tive gas, as determined by the volumetric balance, is the
same as the quantity of gas produced from the reservoir,
as controlled by the relative permeability ratio of the rock,
which in turn depends on the total liquid saturation.
Although the Tamer method was originally designed for
graphical interpolation, it also lends itself well to auto-
matic digital computers. The machine then calculates the
quantity of gas produced for increasing oil withdrawals
by both equations and subtracts the results of one from
the other. When the difference becomes negative, the
machine stops and the answer lies between the last and
next to last oil withdrawals.
Tarners method has been used occasionally to com-
pute recoveries of reservoirs with a free-gas cap or to
evaluate the possible results from injection of all or part
of the produced gas. When a free-gas cap is present, or
when produced gas is being reinjected, breakthrough of
free gas into the oil-producing section of the reservoir is
likely to occur sooner or later, thus invalidating the as-
sumption of uniform oil saturation throughout the produc-
ing portion of the reservoir, on which the method is based.
Since such a breakthrough of free gas causes the instan-
taneous GOR (Eq. 18) as well as the entire computation
method to break down, the use of Tamers method in its
original form for this type of work is not recommended.
It should also be used with caution when appreciable gas
segregation in an otherwise uniform reservoir is expected.
Computed Depletion-Recovery Factors. Several investi-
gators9, 12-14 have used the Muskat and Tarner methods
to determine the effects of different variables on the ulti-
mate recovery under a depletion mechanism. In one such
attempt I2 the k,lk, relationships for five different types
of reservoir rock representing a range of conditions for
sands and sandstones and for limestones, dolomites, and
cherts were developed. These five types of reservoir rock
were assumed to be saturated under reservoir conditions
with 25 % interstitial water for sands and sandstones and
15 % for the limestone group and with 12 synthetic crude-
oil/gas mixtures representing a range of crude-oil gravi-
ties from 15 to 5OAPI and gas solubilities from 60 to
2,000 cu ft/STB. Their production performance and
recovery factors to an abandonment pressure equal to 10%
of the bubblepoint pressure were then computed by means
of depletion (Eq. 15).
10.0
z
2 1. 0
e
=
P
0. 1
0. 01
5
TOT
PER
Not es:
interstitial water is assumed to be 30% of pore space and dead-
oil viscosity at reservoir temperature to be 2 cp.
Equilibrium gas saturation is assumed to be 5% of pore space.
As here used ultimate oil recovery is realized when the reser-
voir pressure has declined from the bubblepoint pressure to at-
mospheric pressure.
FVF units are reservoir barrels per barrel of residual oil.
Solution GOR units are standard cubic feet per barrel of residual
oil.
Exampl e 1:
Requi r ed: Ultimate recovery from a system -having a bub-
blepoint pressure = 2,250 psia, FVF = 1.6, and a solution GOR.
Pr ocedur e: Starting at the left side of the chart, proceed
horizontally along the 2,250-psi line to FVF = 1.6. Now rise verti-
cally 10 the 1,300-scflbbl line. Then go horizontally and read an
ultimate recovery of 23.8%.
Exampl e 2:
F) eqoi r ed: Convert the recovery figure determined in Exam-
ple 1 to tank oil recovered.
Dat a r equi r ement s: Differential liberation data given in Exam-
ple 1. Flash liberation data: bubblepoint pressure = 2,250 psia,
FVF = 1.485, FVF at atmospheric pressure = 1.080 for both flash
and differential liberation.
FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR
Pr ocedur e: Calculate the oil saturation at atmospheric pres-
sure by substituting differential liberation data in the equation as
follows:
Oil saturation at atmospheric pressure = 0.360.
Next, substitute the calculated value of oil saturation and the
flash liberation data into the previous equation and calculate the
ultimate oil recovery as a percentage of tank oil originally in place.
N,, (ultimate oil recovery)=29.3% of tank oil originally in
place.
Fig. 40.6-Chart for estimating ultimate recovery from solution
gas-drive reservoirs.
These theoretical depletion-recovery factors, expressed
as barrels of stock-tank oil per percent porosity, will be
found in Table 40.4 for the different types of reservoir
rocks, oil gravities, and solution GORs assumed.
In cases where no detailed data are available concern-
ing the physical characteristics of the reservoir rock and
its fluid content, Table 40.4 has been found helpful in es-
timating the possible range of depletion-recovery factors.
It may be noted that the k,lk, relationship of the reser-
voir rock is apparently the most important single factor
governing the recovery factor. Unconsolidated intergranu-
lar material seems to be the most favorable, while in-
creased cementation or consolidation tends to affect
recoveries unfavorably. Next in importance is crude-oil
gravity with viscosity as its corollary. Higher oil gravi-
ties and lower viscosities appear to improve the recov-
ery. The effect of GOR on recovery is less pronounced
and shows no consistent pattern. Apparently the benefi-
cial effects of lower viscosity and more effective gas
sweep with higher GOR is in most cases offset by the
higher oil FVFs.
In general, these data seem to indicate a recovery range
from the poorest combinations of 1 to 2 bbl/acre-fi for
each percent porosity to the best combinations of 19 to
20 bbllacre-Mpercent porosity. An overall average seems
to be around 10 bbliacre-ftlpercent porosity.
It is also of interest to note that when the reservoir is
about two-thirds depleted, the pressure has usually
dropped to about one-half the value at bubblepoint.
In another attempt nine nomographs were developed,
each for a given combination of the k, lk ,.(, curve, dead-
oil viscosity, and interstitial water content. The nomo-
graph for an average k,lk, relationship, an interstitial
water content of 0.30. and a dead-oil viscosity of 2 cp
is reproduced as Fig. 40.6. Instructions for its use are
shown opposite the figure.
The authors also introduced an interesting empirical
relationship between the relative permeability ratio
k,/k,, the equilibrium gas saturation S,,., the intersti-
tial water saturation S,,., and the oil saturation S,:
k
ri: =i(O.0435 +0.4556E),
k
. (24)
t-0
where t;=(l -S,,.-S,, -S,)/(S, -0.25). A similar
correlation I5 for sandstones that show a linear relation-
ship between lip, (where p,.=critical pressure) and
saturation is
k rg (1 -S*)I[ 1 -@*)I]
-=
k
ro
(s*)4 , .
(25)
where effective saturation S*=S,I(l -Si,). This equa-
tion represents a useful expression for calculating rela-
tive permeability ratios in sandstone reservoirs for which
an average water saturation has been obtained by either
electrical log or core analysis.
API Estimation of Oil
and Gas Reserves
In a statistical study of the actual performance of 80 so-
lution gas-drive reservoirs, the API Subcommittee on
Recovery Efficiency I6 developed the following equation
for unit recovery (N,,) below the bubblepoint for solu-
tion gas-drive reservoirs, in stock-tank barrels per
acre-foot*:
N,, =3,*44 [ 44;,y 1.6 x (2-J o.0979
( >
0.1741
x(s, ,)O.3722x !k
IM
. . . .
(26)
Pa
where
k = absolute permeability, darcies,
B ob = oil FVF at bubblepoint, RBLSTB,
P,~ = oil viscosity at bubblepoint, cp,
Pa
= abandonment pressure, psig, and
pb = bubblepoint pressure, psig.
The permeability distribution in most reservoirs is
usually sufficiently nonuniform in vertical and horizon-
tal directions to cause the foregoing depletion calculations
on average material to be fairly representative.
However, when distinct layers of high and low perme-
ability, separated by impervious strata, are known to be
present, the depletion process may advance more rapidly
in high-permeability strata than in low-permeability zones.
In such cases separate performance calculations should
be made for each permeability bank that is known to be
continuous and the results converted into rate/time curves
for each by combining Eqs. 16 and 19. The estimated ul-
timate recovery will then be based on a superposition of
such rate/time curves for the different zones.
If there is a wide divergence in permeabilities, one may
find that at a time when the combined rate for all zones
has reached the economic limit the more permeable banks
will be depleted and have yielded their full unit recovery
while the pressure depletion and the recovery from the
tighter zones are still incomplete.
Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Without
Water Drive Above the Bubblepoint-
Volumetric Method t7-19
With progressively deeper drilling, a number of oil reser-
voirs have been encountered that, while lacking an ac-
tive water drive, are in undersaturated condition. Because
of the expansion of the reservoir fluids and the compac-
tion of the reservoir rock upon pressure reduction, sub-
stantial recoveries may sometimes be obtained before the
bubblepoint pressure pb is reached and normal depletion
sets in. Such recoveries may be computed as follows.
The oil initially in place in stock-tank barrels per acre-
foot at pressure pi is according to Eq. 2,
. . 73758x4i(1-Siw)
.
Boi
where 4; is initial porosity. By combining this expres-
sion with the material-balance equation (Eq. 10). the
recovery factor above the bubblepoint in stock-tank bar-
rels per acre-foot may be expressed as
Np=
7375Wi(Pi-Pb)[Co +Cf-Siw(cc~-~w)l
Boi[lfco(Pi-Pb)l
I (27)
where c,,, is the compressibility of interstitial water in
volume per volume per psi.
Example Problem 2. Zone D-7 in the Ventura Avenue
field, described by E.V. Watts, is an example of an
undersaturated oil reservoir without water drive. Its reser-
voir characteristics are
pi = 8,300 psig at 9,200 ft,
pb = 3,500 psig,
#Ii = 0.17,
s
1M
= 0.40,
B
oh
= 1.45,
B
o(1
= 1.15,
70
= 32 to 33API,
CO
= 13x10-6,
c w = 2.7~10-~,
Cf = 1.4x10-6,
S,, = 0.22, and
Rsb = 900 cu ft/bbl.
Solution. On the basis of these data, Watts computes
the recovery by expansion above the bubblepoint at 47
bbliacre-ft and by a depletion mechanism below the bub-
blepoint at 110 bbl/acre-ft (see Ref. 19 for details).
40-13
Volatile Oil Reservoirs-
Volumetric Methods20-25
Deeper drilling, with accompanying increases in reser-
voir temperatures and pressures, has also revealed a class
of reservoir fluids with a phase behavior between that of
ordinary black oil and that of gas or gas condensate.
These intermediate fluids are referred to as high-
shrinkage or volatile crude oils because of their rela-
tively large percentage of ethane through decane compo-
nents and resultant high volatility. Volatile-oil reservoirs
are characterized by high formation temperatures (above
200F) and abnormally high solution GOR and FVF
(above 2). The stock-tank gravity of these volatile crudes
generally exceeds 45 API.
The inherent differences in phase behavior of volatile
oils are sufficiently significant to invalidate certain
premises implicit in the conventional material-balance
methods. In such conventional material-balance work it
is assumed that all produced gas, whether solution gas
or free gas, will remain in the vapor phase during the
depletion process, with no liquid condensation on passage
through the surface separation facilities. Furthermore, the
produced oil and gas are treated as separate independent
fluids, even though they are at all times in compositional
equilibrium. Although these basic assumptions simplify
the conventional material-balance calculations, highly in-
accurate predictions of reservoir performance may result
if they are applied to volatile-oil reservoirs.
In highly volatile reservoirs, the stock-tank liquids re-
covered by condensation from the gaseous phase may ac-
tually equal or even exceed those from the associated
liquid phase. This rather surprising occurrence is exem-
plified in a paper by Woods,24 in which the case histo-
ry of an almost depleted volatile-oil reservoir is presented.
Example Problem 3. Woods reservoir data for this
volatile-oil reservoir were
pi = 5,000 psig,
pb = 3,940 psig,
TR = 250F,
c$ = 0.198.
k = 75 md,
Sib,, = 0.25,
R,,, = 3,200 scf/bbl,
yoi = 44API,
You
= 62API, and
B oh = 3.23.
Solution. At 80% depletion when pR = 1,450 psig and
R =23,000 scf/bbl, the percentage recovery was 2 1% of
which 5% was from expansion above the bubblepoint, 9%
from the depletion mechanism, and 7% from liquids con-
densed out of the gas phase by conventional field separa-
tion equipment (see Ref. 24 for details).
In view of the increasing number and importance of
volatile-oil reservoirs in recent years, appropriate tech-
niques have been developed to provide realistic predic-
tions of the anticipated production performance of these
reservoirs. 2o-z5 The depletion processes are simulated by
an incremental computation method, using multicompo-
nent flash calculations and relative-permeability data, as
indicated in the following stepwise sequence for a cho-
sen pressure decrement:
1. The change in composition of the in-place oil and
gas is determined by a flash calculation.
2. The total volume of fluids produced at bottomhole
conditions is determined by a volumetric material balance.
3. The relative volumes of oil and gas produced at bot-
tomhole conditions are determined by a trial-and-error
procedure that involves simultaneously satisfying the volu-
metric material balance and the relative-permeability rela-
tionship.
4. This total well-stream fluid is then flashed to actual
surface conditions to obtain the producing GOR and the
volume of stock-tank liquid corresponding to the select-
ed pressure decrement.
When this calculation procedure is repeated for succes-
sive pressure decrements, the resultant tabulations rep-
resent the entire reservoir depletion and recovery
processes. Since these stepwise calculations are rather
tedious and time-consuming, the use of digital computers
is recommended.
This method of reservoir analysis provides composi-
tional data on all fluid phases, including the total well-
stream. This information is then readily available for sepa-
rator, crude-stabilization, gasoline-plant, or related studies
at any desired stage of depletion.
In the case of small reservoirs with relatively limited
reserves, such lengthy laboratory work and phase-
behavior calculations may not be justified. An empirical
correlation was developed24 for prediction of the ultimate
recovery in such cases, based only on the initial produc-
ing GOR, R, the reservoir temperature, TR, and the ini-
tial stock-tank oil gravity, yO;.
143.50
N,, = -0.070719+-
R
+O.O001208OT,
+O.O011807y~i, . . . . (28)
where N,, =ultimate oil production from saturation pres-
sure ph to 500 psi, in stock-tank volume per reservoir
volume of hydrocarbon pore space.
It is claimed that this correlation will give values with-
in 10% of those calculated by the more rigorous proce-
dure previously outlined.
Oil Reservoirs With Gas-Cap Drive-
Volumetric Unit Recovery Computed by
Frontal-Drive MethodZ628
The Buckley-Leverett frontal-drive method may be used
in calculating oil recovery when the pressure is kept con-
stant by injection of gas in a gas cap but is also applica-
ble to a gas-cap drive mechanism without gas injection
when the pressure variation is relatively small so that
changes in gas density, solubility, or the reservoir volume
factor may be neglected. A reservoir with a very large
gas-cap volume as compared with the oil volume can
sometimes be considered to meet these qualifications even
though no gas is being injected.
The two basic equations, Eqs. 29a and b, refer to a
linear reservoir under constant pressure with a constant
cross-sectional area exposed to fluid flow and with the
free gas moving in at one end of the reservoir and fluids
being produced at a constant rate at the other end. Inter-
stitial water is considered as an immobile phase.
s? I I I lbfil I
VE A
0 I I I -Al !I
--i
0= I I I
0 0.10 0.20 0.30
&O
0.50 0.60 0.70
S&GAS SATURATION, FRACTION OF
HYDROCARBON FILLED PORE SPACE
Fig. 40.7-Frontal-drive method in gas-cap drive
If the capillary-pressure forces are neglected. the
fractional-flow equation of gas is
(294
E=
k sin @A@,--pR)
. . .
36%.,qr
(29b)
where
fX = fractional flow of gas,
E = parameter,
8 = dip angle, degrees,
A = area of cross-section normal to bedding
plane, sq ft,
PO
= density of reservoir oil, g/cm3,
ph
= density of reservoir gas, g/cm3. and
q, = total flow rate, reservoir cu ft/D.
Since the ratio of k,lk, is a function of gas satura-
tion, and all other factors are constant, j$ can be deter-
mined by Eq. 29a as a function of gas saturation (see Fig.
40.7, Curve A).
The rate-of-frontal-advance equation may be rearranged
to give the time in days for a given displacing-phase satu-
ration to reach the outlet face of the linear sand body as
a function of the slope of the fractional flow vs. satura-
tion curve (Fig. 40.7, Curve B) as follows:
5.615NB,
t= q,(df,,dS;) . .
(30)
Note: Sk as used in this section is gas saturation as a
fraction of the hydrocarbon-filled pore space. When N
is in cubic meters, q1 is in cubic meters per day.
The calculation procedure is first to calculate the
fractional-flow curve (Fig. 40.7, Curve A). The average
gas saturation in the swept area at breakthrough, which
is equivalent to the fraction of oil in place recovered, may
then be obtained from the fractional-flow curve by con-
structing a straight line tangent to the curve through the
origin and reading Sk at fR = 1 .O. The time of break-
through at the outlet face may be computed from the slope
of the curve at the point of tangency. The subsequent per-
formance history after breakthrough may then be calcu-
lated by constructing tangents at successively higher
values of Sk and obtaining Sh in a similar manner.
Example Problem 4. Welge2s presents a typical calcu-
lation of gas-cap drive performance for the Mile Six Pool
in Peru.
Given:
Reservoir volume= 1,902 X lo6 cu ft,
distance from original GOC to average
withdrawal point = 1,540 ft,
average cross-sectional area =
1,902x IO6
1,540
=1.235x106 sq ft,
k, = 300 md,
8 = 17.50,
ps
= 0.0134 cp,
Po
= 1.32 cp,
q, = 64,000 res cu ft!D [I8 125 res m/d],
B,, = 1.25,
B, = 0.0141
N = 44~ lo6 STB [6.996x106 m],
R,, = 400 cu ft/bbl [71.245 m/mJ,
PO
= 0.78 g/cm, and
Ph =
0.08 g/cm 3
Solution. The performance history calculations are
given in Table 40.5 in a slightly simplified form.
Oil Reservoirs Under Gravity
Drainage 29-37
Occurrence of Gravity Drainage
Gravity drainage is the self-propulsion of oil downward
in the reservoir rock. Under favorable conditions it has
been found to effect recoveries of 60% of the oil in place,
which is comparable with or exceeding the recoveries nor-
mally obtained by water drive. Gravity is an ever-present
force in oil fields that will drain oil from reservoir rock
from higher to lower levels wherever it is not overcome
by encroaching edge water or expanding gas.
Gravity drainage will be most effective if a reservoir
is produced under conditions that allow flow of oil only
or counterflow of oil and gas. This may be attained un-
der pressure maintenance by crestal-gas injection, which
keeps the gas in solution, or it may be attained by a gradual
reduction in pressure, so that the oil and gas can segregate
continuously by counterflow. It also may be obtained by
first producing the reservoir under a depletion-type mech-
anism until the gas has been practically exhausted, then
by gravity drainage. A thorough discussion of the many
aspects of gravity drainage will be found in the classic
paper by Lewis.32
y(, =22.5API, N,, for Jan. 1, 1957=44.6 million bbl of
oil; estimated ultimate 47 million bbl or I, 124 bbliacre-
ft, corresponding to 63% of the initial oil in place.
Several investigators 33m36 have attempted to formulate
gravity drainage analytically, but the relationships are
quite complicated and not readily adaptable to practical
field problems. Most studies agree, however, that the oc-
currence of gravity drainage of oil will be promoted by
low viscosities, p,, , high relative permeability to oil, k,,
high formation dips or lack of stratification, and high den-
sity gradients (p, -p,). Thick sections of unconsolidat-
ed sand with minimal surface area, large pore sizes, low
interstitial water saturation, and consequently high k, ap-
pear to be especially favorable.
During the first 20 years the oil level in the field receded
almost exactly in proportion to the amount of oil produced,
just as in a tank.
2. Okluhoma City Wilcox Reservoir, OK. 29~32 The dis-
covery well, Mary Sudik No. I, blew out in March 1930,
and flowed wild for 11 days.
The segregation of gas and development of gravity
drainage began to be important in 1934, when the aver-
age pressure became less than 750 psig, and was virtual-
ly complete by 1936, when the average pressure had
dropped to 50 psig.
These factors usually are combined in a rate-of-flow
equation. which states that such flow must be proportional
to (k,,lp,)(p,, -p,) sin 8, in which 8 represents the an-
gle of dip of the stratum. Smithj7 compared the values
of this term for a dozen reservoirs, some of which had
strong gravity-drainage characteristics and some of which
lacked such characteristics.
Water influx played an effective role until 1936, when
it came to a halt after invading the bottom 40% of the
reservoir. Gravity has been the dominant mechanism
since. The Wilcox sand consists of typical round frosted
sand grains, clean and poorly cemented.
When expressing k,,, in millidarcies, p,, in centipoises,
and p,, and pI: in g/cm, it was found that for reservoirs
exhibiting strong gravity-drainage characteristics the value
of the term (k,,ip,)(p, -P,~) sin 0 ranged from 10 to
203 and that in reservoirs where gravity-drainage effects
were not apparent, this function showed values between
0.15 and 3.4.
The average depth is 6,500 ft; the formation dip is 5
to 15; 884 wells have been drilled on a total area of 7,080
acres. The net pay thickness is 220 ft. The 890,000 net
acre-ft of Wilcox pay contained originally 1,083 million
bbl of stock-tank oil, as confirmed by material balance.
Reservoir data for this reservoir are pi =ph = 2,670 psi
at minus 5,260 ft, TR= 132F, $=0.22, k ranges from
200 to 3,000 md, S;,.=O.O3 (oil wet), Rt,, =735 cu
ft/bbl, B,;=l.361, y,i=40APl, yoci=38 tO 39API.
Case Histories of Gravity Drainage After
Pressure Depletion
The most spectacular cases of gravity drainage have been
of this kind. Following are the two best known.
According to Katz, z9 oil saturations found in the gas
zone were between 1 and 26%, while saturations between
53 and 93% were found in the oil-saturated zone below
the GOC. The oil saturation below the WOC has been
estimated at 43%, showing gravity to be more effective
than water displacement in this reservoir.
1. Lukeview Pool in Kern County, CA. 3~32 The dis-
covery well in the Lakewood gusher area blew out in
March 1910, flowed wild for 544 days, and ultimately
produced 8% million bbl of oil, depleting the reservoir
pressure. Gravity drainage thereafter controlled this reser-
voir. There was no appreciable water influx. The sand
is relatively clean and poorly cemented. The average depth
is 2,875 ft. The formation dip is IS to 45. There are
I26 producing wells on 588 acres. The net sand thick-
ness averages 7 1 ft, the height of the oil column is 1,285
ft. and there are 41,798 net acre-ft of pay.
Cumulative production, N,, for Jan. 1, 1958, is esti-
mated at 525 million bbl and the ultimate recovery at 550
million bbl. After an estimated 189 million bbl displaced
by the water influx is deducted, the upper 60% of the Wil-
cox reservoir will yield under gravity drainage ultimate-
ly 361 million bbl or 696 bbliacre-ft, corresponding to
57% of the oil in place.
Oil Reservoirs With Water Drive-
Volumetric Method9
General Discussion
Reservoir data for this reservoir are pi =P/, = 1,285
psi& PR on Jan. I, l957=35 psig, r,= 115F. 4=0.33,
k ranges up to 4,800 md and averages 3.600 md (70%
of samples above 100 md, 37% above 1,000 md),
S,,, =0.235, R,,,=200 cu ftibbl, Boi= 1.106,
Natural-water influx into oil reservoirs is usually from
the edge inward parallel to the bedding planes (edgewater
drive) or upward from below (bottomwater drive). Bot-
tomwater drive occurs only when the reservoir thickness
exceeds the thickness of the oil column, so that the
oil/water interface underlies the entire oil reservoir. It is
TABLE 40.5~PERFORMANCE-HISTORY CALCULATION
s: = Flowing GOR =
S near
Outget Face
Recover; Fraction
If,41 -01(&/Q
ro krok,,
k f, df,lds; k of Oil in Place x5. l+R, I??
0.30 0.197 0.715 0.496 - - -
a 35 0.140 0.364 0.642 -
0.395 0.102 0.210 0.739 1 .a7 7.1 0.534 1.808
0.40 0.097 0.200 0.752 1.81 7.3 0.535 1.908
0.45 0.067 0.118 0.829 1 .25 10.6 0.586 2.811
0.50 0.045 0.0715 0.885 0.94 14.1 0.622 4.227
TABLE 40X-CONDITIONS FOR UNIT-RECOVERY
EQUATION, WATER-DRIVE RESERVOIR
ration as found by ordinary core analysis after multiply-
ing with the oil FVF at abandonment, B,)O, as the residual
oil saturation in the reservoir to be expected from flood-
ing with water. This is based on the assumption that water
from the drilling mud invades the pay section just ahead
of the core bit in a manner similar to the water displace-
ment process in the reservoir itself.
Reservoir pressure
Interstitial water,
bbllacre-ft
Reservoir oil,
bbllacre-ft
Stock-tank oil,
bbllacre-ft
Ultimate
Initial Conditions Conditions
Pi Pa
7,75848,, 7,75&S,,
7.756@(1 -S,,) 7,758@,,
7,7584(1 - S, , ) I B, , 7, 75&S~B, ,
further possible only when vertical permeabilities are high
and there is little or no horizontal stratification with im-
pervious shale laminations.
In either case, water as the displacing medium moves
into the oil-bearing section and replaces part of the oil
originally present. The key to a volumetric estimate of
recovery by water drive is in the amount of oil that is not
removed by the displacing medium. This residual oil satu-
ration (ROS) after water drive, S,,, plays a role similar
to the final (residual) gas saturation, S,, , in the depletion-
type reservoirs.
To determine the unit-recovery factor, which is the the-
oretically possible ultimate recovery in stock-tank barrels
from a homogeneous unit volume of 1 acre-ft of pay pro-
duced by complete waterflooding, the amount of intersti-
tial water and oil with dissolved gas initially present will
be compared with the condition at abandonment time,
when the same interstitial water is still present but only
the residual or nonfloodable oil is left. The remainder of
the original oil has at that time been removed by water
displacement.
Unit-Recovery Equation
The unit recovery for a water-drive reservoir is equal to
the stock-tank oil originally in place in barrels per acre-
foot minus the residual stock-tank oil at abandonment time
(Table 40.6).
By difference, the unit recovery by water drive, in
stock-tank barrels per acre-foot, is
.(31)
where N,,. is the unit recovery by water drive, in stock-
tank barrels, and S,, is the residual oil saturation, frac-
tion. The ROS at abandonment time may be found by ac-
tually submitting cores in the laboratory under simulated
reservoir conditions to flooding by water (flood-pot tests).
Another method commonly used is to consider the oil satu-
Recovery-Efficiency Factor
The unit recovery should be multiplied by a permeability-
distribution factor and a lateral-sweep factor before it may
be applied to the computation of the ultimate recovery for
an entire water-drive reservoir.
These two factors usually are combined in a recovery-
efficiency factor. Baucum and Steinle3 have determined
this recovery-efficiency factor for five water-drive reser-
voirs in Illinois. Table 40.7 lists the recovery efficien-
cies for these reservoirs, together with some other
pertinent data.
Average Recovery Factor From
Correlation of Statistical Data
In 1945, Craze and Buckley,39,40 in connection with a
special API study on well spacing, collected a large
amount of statistical data on the performance of 103 oil
reservoirs in the U.S. Some 70 of these reservoirs pro-
duced wholly or partially under water-drive conditions.
Fig, 40.8 shows the correlation between the calculated
ROS under reservoir conditions and the reservoir oil vis-
cosities for these water-drive reservoirs. The deviation
of the ROS from the average trend in Fig. 40.8, vs. per-
meability, is given by the average trend in Fig. 40.9. The
deviation of the ROS from the average trend in Fig. 40.8,
vs. reservoir pressure decline, is given by the average
trend in Fig. 40.10.
Example Problem 5. In a case where the porosity,
4=0.20, the average permeability, k=400 md, the in-
terstitial water content, Si,=O.25, the initial oil FVF,
B,, = 1.30, the oil FVF under abandonment conditions,
B, = 1.25, the initial reservoir oil viscosity, pLo = 1 .O cp,
and the abandonment pressure, pu =90% of the initial
pressure, pi, determine the average ROS.
Solution. S,, may be estimated as 0.35+0.03-0.04=
0.34 and the average water-drive recovery factor from
Eq. 31 is
l-O.25 0.34
N,,.=(7,758)(0.20)
>
=473 STBlacre-ft
TABLE 40.7-RECOVERY-EFFICIENCY FOR WATER-DRIVE RESERVOIR
Unit-Recovery Actual
Reservoir
Recovery
Factor Recovery Efficiency
Number $I S,, B, S, , (bbl/acre-ft) (bbllacre-ft)
(O/o)
1 0.179 0.400 1.036 0.20 526 429 82
2 0.170 0.340 1.017 0.20 592 430 73
3 0.153 0.265 1.176 0.20 504 428 85
4 0.192 0.370 1.176 0.20 500 400 80
5 0.196 0.360 1.017 0.20 653 482 74
From flood-pot tests
Average = 79
40-17
0
0.2 0.4 06 I 2 4 6 IO 20 40 60 100 EC0
OIL VISCOSITY AT RESERVOIR CONDITIONS; CENTIPOISES
Fig. 40.8-Effect of oil viscosity on ROS water-drive sand fields.
In another statistical study of the Craze and Buckley
data and other actual water-drive recovery data on a total
of 70 sand and sandstone reservoirs, the API Subcom-
mittee on Recovery Efficiency t6 developed Eq. 32 for
unit recovery for water-drive reservoirs, N,,. In stock-
tank barrels per acre-foot,*
-0.2159
, . . . (32)
where symbols and units are as previously defined ex-
cept permeability, k, is in darcies, and pressure, p, is in
psig.
Example Problem 6. For the same water-drive reser-
voir used previously and assuming pwi =O.S cp, the API
statistical equation yields the following unit recovery
factor:
N,, =4,259
(0.20)(1-0.25) .0422
1.30 1
1.0
( >
-0.2159
x-
0.9
= 504 STB/acre-ft
Because data were arrived at by comparing indicated
recoveries from various reservoirs with the known pa-
rameters from each reservoir, the estimated residual oil
and the average recovery factor based on these correla-
tions allows for a recovery-efficiency factor (permeability-
distribution factor times lateral-sweep factor) that is not
present in the unit-recovery factor based on actual residual
oil as found by flood-pot tests or in the cores.
because Eq 32 IS empirlcally darned, conversion to metric units jmJ/ha.m) requires
mulbpl~cark?m of Nup by 1.2899
Fig. 40.10--Relation between deviation of ROS from average
trend in Fig. 40.8 and pressure-decline water-drive
sand flelds.
l o.30
. .
5,
F :: *a20
Lsk
3a
LiL
1 8 l O.O
02
20
?I+ 0
OIL
hi0
g 6 -o.,o
&L
4
EE
2
-0.20
g
-0.30
20 40 100 200 400 lcco EOW 4oM) Io.ow
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY OF RESERVOIR; MILLIDARCIES
Fig. 40.9-Relation between deviation of ROS from average
trend in Fig. 40.8 and permeability water-drive sand
fields.
Water-Drive Unit Recovery Computed by
Frontal-Drive Method26-28
The advance of a linear flood front can be calculated by
two equations derived by Buckley and Leverettz6 and
simplified by Welge** and by Pirson. These are known
as the fractional-flow equation and the rate-of-frontal-
advance equation. This method assumes that (1) a flood
bank exists, (2) no water moves ahead of this front, (3)
oil and water move behind the front, and (4) the relative
movement of oil and water behind the front is a function
of the relative permeability of the two phases.
If the throughput is constant and the capillary-pressure
gradient and gravity effects are neglected, the fractional-
flow equation can be written as follows:
1
f w =
1 +(k,lk,,,,)(pJp,) .
. (33)
0 20 40 60 SO 100
RESERWR PRESSURE DECLINE: PER CENT
3 1.0
5 0.9
2
k-~0.8
d
5 0.7
I -
z
- 0.6
ii?
: 0.5
1.0 5
Iv.. I
.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
WATER SATURATION, S,,
FRACTION OF PORE SPACE
TIME YEARS +
Fig. 40.11-Fraction of water flowing in total stream f, and
slope off, curve df,/dS,, vs. water saturation S,,
(example: frontal-water-drive problem).
Fig. 40.12-Example of frontal-drive problem, unit-recovery fac-
tor, and WOR vs. time.
wheref,, is the fraction of water flowing in the reservoir
at a given point, k,. is the water relative permeability,
fraction, and pn, is the reservoir water viscosity, cp.
Since k,,lk,. is a function of water saturation, f,+, can
be determined by Eq. 33 as a function of water satura-
tion for a given water/oil viscosity ratio (see Fig. 40.11,
Curve A).
The Buckley-Leverett rate-of-frontal-advance equation
may be rearranged to give the time in days for a given
displacing phase saturation to reach the outlet face of the
linear sand body as a function of the slope of the frac-
tional flow vs. saturation curve (Fig. 40.1 I, Curve B) as
follows:
5.615 NB,
t= qr(df,,,dSi,*,) ( . . . .
(34)
where df,ldS,,. is the slope of thef, vs. Si, curve; the
time, t, is in days; and the total liquid flow rate, qr, is
in reservoir cubic feet per day.
The average water saturation behind the flood front at
breakthrough, and therefore the oil recovery, may be ob-
tained from the fractional-flow curve by constructing a
straight line tangent to the curve through S;, atf,=O,
and reading S ;,, at f, = 1 .O. The time of breakthrough
at the producing well may be computed from the slope
of the curve at the point of tangency. The subsequent per-
formance history after breakthrough may be calculated
by constructing tangents at successively higher values
of S;, and obtaining Si, in a similar manner.
Table 40.8 illustrates the calculation procedure for a
water drive at constant pressure in a homogeneous reser-
voir and with a water-influx rate equal to the production
rate.
Fig. 40.12 is a plot of the results of the performance-
history calculation from Table 40.8. If the economic limit
is taken to be a WOR of 50, then it can be noted from
Fig. 40.12 that the unit-recovery factor will be 575
bbllacre-ft to be recovered in 20.7 years.
Effect of Permeability Distribution t41-44
In some reservoirs there may be distinct layers of higher
and lower permeabilities separated by impervious strata.
which appear to be more or less continuous across the
reservoir. In such a case, water and oil will advance much
more rapidly through the higher-permeability streaks than
through the tighter zones, and therefore the recovery at
the economic limit will be less than that indicated by the
unit-recovery factor.
Methods for computing waterflood recoveries that take
into account the permeability distribution were proposed
by Dykstra and Parsons,4 Muskat. and Stiles.43
In the Dykstra-Parsons paper4 it is assumed that in-
dividual zones of permeability are continuous from well
to well, and a computation procedure as well as charts
are presented for the coverage or fraction of the total
volume of a linear system flooded with water for given
values of (1) the mobility ratio knvpolkropw, (2) the pro-
duced WOR, and (3) the permeability variance.
This permeability variance is a statistical parameter that
characterizes the type of permeability distribution. It is
obtained by plotting the percentage of samples larger
than the sample being plotted vs. the logarithm of per-
meability for that sample on log-probability graph paper
and then dividing the difference between the median or
50% permeability and the 84. I % permeability by the me-
dian permeability. Although the Dykstra-Parsons method
ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES 40-l 9
TABLE 40.8-WATER-DRIVE PERFORMANCE-HISTORY CALCULATION*
Time
Residual Oil Unit-Recovery
Saturation Factor WOR =
s
S,, w df,JdS,w
1w ~
f
(years) (1 -S,,)
(bbl/acre-ft) f,/l -f,
0.545 0.619 0.800 2.70 3.94 0.381 441 4.0
0.581 0.655 0.875 1.69 6.29 0.345 484 7.0
0.605 0.675 0.910 1.29 8.24 0.325 507 10.1
0.634 0.697 0.940 0.95 11.19 0.303 534 15.7
0.673 0.720 0.970 0.64 16.61 0.280 561 32.3
0.718 0.748 0.990 0.33 32.21 0.252 594 99.0
N = 597,000 STB,
ao, = 1 30,
o=o 20.
S,, =0 25, and
qr = 200 E/D x 5 615 cu ftlbbl = > ,222 ,esewow cu fl/D
does not allow for variations in porosity, interstitial water.
and floodable oil in the different permeability groups, it
has apparently been used extensively and successfully on
close-spaced waterfloods. mainly in California.
Johnson4 in 1956 published a simplification of this
method and presented a series of charts showing the frac-
tional recovery of oil in place at a given produced WOR
for a given permeability variance, mobility ratio, and
water saturation. Reznik er al. 4s published an extension
to the Dykstra-Parsons method that provides a discrete
analytical solution to the permeability stratification prob-
lem on a real-time basis.
In the Stiles method4 it again is assumed that individu-
al zones of permeability are continuous from well to well
and that the distance of penetration of the flood front in
a linear system is proportional to the average permeabil-
ity of each layer. Instead of representing the entire per-
meability distribution by one statistical parameter, Stiles
tabulates the available samples in descending order of per-
meability and plots the results in terms of dimensionless
permeability and cumulative capacity fraction as a func-
tion of cumulative thickness. From these data, Stiles com-
putes the produced water cut of the entire system as the
watering out progresses through the various layers, start-
ing with those of the highest permeability. Stiles then as-
sumes that at a given time each layer that has not had
breakthrough will have been flooded out in proportion to
the ratio of its average permeability to the permeability
of the last zone that had just had breakthrough, and then
constructs a recovery vs. thickness relationship. This then
is combined with previous results to yield a recovery vs.
water-cut graph. The Stiles method is used extensively
and successfully, mainly in the midcontinent and Texas,
for close-spaced waterfloods. It does not make allowance
for the difference in mobility existing in the formation
ahead of and behind the flood front. which the Dykstra-
Parsons method allows for. It also does not provide for
differences in porosity, interstitial water, and floodable
oil in the various permeable layers.
Arps introduced in 1956 a variation of the Stiles meth-
od, called the permeability-block method. This method
handles the computations by means of a straightforward
tabulation and does make allowance for the differences
in porosity, interstitial water, and floodable oil existing
in the various permeable layers. Since it is designed
primarily for the computation of recoveries from water-
drive fields above their bubblepoint. no free-gas satura-
tion is assumed. The method further assumes that (I) no
oil moves behind the front, (2) no water moves ahead of
the front, (3) watering out progresses in order from zones
of higher to zones of lower permeability. and (4) the ad-
vance of the flood front in a particular permeability streak
is proportional to the average permeability.
This method, applied to a hypothetical pay section 100
ft thick, is illustrated in Table 40.9, which is based on
data from a Tensleep sand reservoir in Wyoming where
good statistical averages of more than 3,000 core analy-
ses were available. Part of these cores were taken with
water-base mud that yielded the residual-oil figures on
Line 6. Another portion was taken with oil-base mud and
yielded the interstitial-water figures of Line 7. An
oil/water viscosity ratio of 12.5 was used in calculating
the WOR of Line 13.
In Group I the recovery of 61.7 bbliacre-ft for
WOR= 15.5 is the product of the fraction of samples in
the group and the unit-recovery factor. In all other groups
for WOR = 15.5 the full recovery is reduced in the propor-
tion of its average permeability to 100 md. The total
recovery at WOR= 15.5 is shown as 175.6 bbliacre-ft.
The cumulative recoveries for WORs of 35.9, 76.5,
307.7, and infinity are calculated in a similar manner. Fig.
40.13 is a plot of WOR vs. recovery factor. From Fig.
40.13 it can be seen that, if the economic limit is taken
to be a WOR of 50, the recovery factor would be 297
bbliacre-ft.
It should be stressed that the permeability-block method
is applicable only when the zones of different permeabil-
ity are continuous across the reservoir, or between the
source of the water and the producing wells. When the
waterfront has to travel over large distances, nonunifor-
mity of permeability distribution in lateral directions be-
gins to dominate, and recoveries will approach those
obtainable if the formation were entirely uniform (per-
meability distribution factor= 1). In such a case, an esti-
mate based on the permeability-block method may be
considered as conservative, except for the fact that one
of the basic assumptions of this method is that the WOC,
or front, moves in pistonlike fashion through each per-
meability streak, sweeping clean all recoverable oil. In
reality, part of this oil will be recovered over an extend-
ed period after the initial breakthrough, which may tend
to make the estimate optimistic. Those using the
permeability-block method hope that these two effects are
more or less compensating.
40-20
TABLE 40.9-WATER DRIVE PERMEABILITY-BLOCK
Group
(1) Permeability range, mud
(2) Percent of samples in group
(3) Average permeability, md
(4) Capacity, darcy-ft (2) x (3) + 1,000
(5) Average porosity fraction $
(6) Average residual-oil fraction Sgr
(7) Average interstitial-water fractron S,,
(8) Relative water permeabrlity behind front k
(9) Relative oil permeability ahead of front k,,
(10) Unit-recovery factor (B,, = 1.07)
(11) Cumulative wet capacity, E(4)
(12) Cumulative clean oil capacity, 3.241 - (11)
(13) Water-oil ratio WOR= (~00~c)(8/9)(1 l/12)
(14) Cumulative recovery at WOR = 15.5 bbllacre-ft
Min k wei =I00 md
Min k,,, =50 md
(16) Cumulative recovery at WOR = 76.5 bbl/acre-ft
Min k we, = 25 md
Min k we, =lO md
(18) Cumulative recovery at WOR = mbbllacre-ft
Min k wer =0 md
Effect of Buoyancy and Imbibition
In limestone pools producing under a bottomwater drive,
such as certain of the vugular D-3 reef reservoirs in Al-
berta, one finds an extreme range in the permeabilities,
often running from microdarcies on up into the darcy
range. Under those conditions the modified Stiles method
heretofore described yields results that are decidedly too
400, I I I I r f
n
/
200.
1
0
G.--
~100
I I I I
I I I I
g 80-
1
I I
- ECONOMIC , .9 !

5 50
60kIMIT WOR=5Ojmi
-T---q---
5 40
20
RECOVERY FACTOR
=297 BBL/ACRE-
, FT@ WOR =50
lOI
31 ,
, I
0 200 400 600
RECOVERY FACTOR, BBL/ACRE-FT
Fig. 40.13-Example of modified Stiles permeability-block
method WOR vs. recovery factor.
>lOO
8.5
181.3
1.541
0.159
0.173
0.185
0.65
0.475
726
1.541
1.700
15.5
61.7
2
50 to 100
10.9
69.0
0.752
0.150
0.195
0.154
0.63
0.53
693
2.293
0.948
35.9
52.1
CALCULATIONS
3
25 to 50
14.5
34.4
0.499
0.152
0.200
0.131
0.60
0.61
722
2.792
0.449
76.5
36.0
61.7 75.5 72.0
61.7 75.5 104.7
61.7 75.5 104.7
61.7 75.5 104.7
4 5
10 to 25 0 to 10
21.2 44.9
16.1 2.4
0.341 0.108
0.130 0.099
0.217 0.222
0.107 0.185
0.56 0.54
0.66 0.47
623 415
3.133 3.241
0.108 0
307.7
21.3 4op5
42.5 8.9
85.1 17.9
132.1 44.7
132.1 186.3
Total
100.0
3.241
175.6
260.6
344.9
418.7
560.3
low. The reason is that, in pools like the Redwater D-3,
there is a substantial density difference between the ris-
ing salt water and the oil. While the water rises and ad-
vances through the highly permeable vugular material,
it may at first bypass the low-permeability matrix mate-
rial, leaving oil trapped therein. However, as soon as such
bypassing occurs, a buoyancy gradient is set up across
this tight material, which tends to drive the trapped oil
out vertically into the vugular material and fractures. In
the case of Redwater D-3, where the density difference
between salt water and oil is 0.26, while the vertical per-
meabilities for matrix material are only a fraction of the
horizontal permeabilities, a simple calculation based on
Darcys law applied to a vertical tube shows that during
the anticipated lifetime of the field very substantial addi-
tional oil recovery may be obtained because of this so-
called buoyancy effect.
To calculate the recovery under a buoyancy mechanism
it is necessary first to determine by statistical analysis of
a large number of cores the average interval between high-
permeability zones or fractures. A separate computation
is then made for each of the permeability ranges to deter-
mine what percentage of the matrix oil contained in a the-
oretical tube of such average length may be driven out
during the producing life of the reservoir under the ef-
fect of the buoyancy phenomenon.
Surprisingly improved recoveries are sometimes indi-
cated by this method over what one would expect from
a Stiles type of calculation, and the results from recent
studies of the rise in water table of the Redwater D-3 seem
to confirm the validity of this concept.
In addition to this buoyancy phenomenon the effect of
capillarity and preferential wetting of the reservoir rock
by water also should be considered. Imbibition of water
from fractures and vugular material into the low-
permeability matrix as the water advances may material-
ly aid the buoyancy mechanism but is much more difficult
to evaluate quantitatively.
40-21
TABLE 40.10-PSEUDOCRITICAL CALCULATIONS FROM GAS ANALYSIS
Component
(11
Methane
Ethane
Propane
lsobutane
Normal butane
lsopentane
Normal penlane
Hexanes
Volume %
or
MO&
(2)
86.02
7.70
4.26
0.57
0.87
0.11
0.14
0.33
Critical Critical
Temperature Pressure
(;:)
(77
343.5 673
550.1 708
666.2 617
733.2 530
765.6 551
630.0 482
847.0 485
914.6 434
2x3
100
2x4
100
(5) (3)
296-- 572
42.4
26.4
4.2
6.7
0.9
1.2
3.0
54.5
26.3
3.0
4.8
0.5
0.7
1.4
100.00 362.6 663.2
Volumetric Recovery Estimates for
Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs46-53
Compressibility Factor
The compressibility factor z is a dimensionless factor
which, when multiplied by the reservoir volume of gas,
as computed by the ideal-gas laws, yields the true reser-
voir volume. The reservoir volume occupied by 1 lbm-
mole of gas (gas weight in pounds equal to molecular
weight), in cubic feet, is
G=
(10.73)z(460+TR)
( . . .
. (35)
PR
where G is the total initial gas in place in reservoir, in
standard cubic feet, and TR is the reservoir temperature,
F. For example, 1 lbm-mole of methane (molecular
PSEUOO REDUCED PRESSURE
PSEUDO REDUCED PRESSURE
Fig. 40.14A-Compressibility factors for natural gases.
weight 16.04) under standard conditions (PR = 14.7 psia,
TR=~OF) occupies 379.4 cu ft.
The compressibility factor may be determined in the
following ways.
1. Experimentally by PVT analysis of a gas sample.
2. By computation from an analysis of the gas expressed
in mol% or volume %. With this method a weighted-
average or pseudocritical pressure and temperature are
obtained for the gas by multiplying the individual critical
pressure and temperature for each component, with the
corresponding mol% of such component as shown in Ta-
ble 40.10.
The gas whose composition is given in Table 40.10 has
a pseudocritical temperature of 382.8R and a pseudocrit-
ical pressure of 663.2 psia. The pseudoreduced tempera-
ture then is found at a temperature of 150F as
(460 + 150)/382.8 = 1.59 and its pseudoreduced pressure
Fig. 40.14B-Compressibility factors for natural gases et pres.
sures of 10,000 to 20,000 psia.
RESERVOIR PRESSURE (pR] IN PSI GAUGE
14.17 460+ T,
Fig. 40.15-Gas FVF 8, = ~ --------Z
p, +14. 7 460+60
and reciprocal gas FVF
1 p,+14.7 460+60 1
B&l
14.7 460+T, z
vs. pressure, psig, and temperature, OF
Gas gravity 0.6 (air 1 .O).
at 750 psia as 7501663.2 = 1.13. These ratios are entered
into the chart of Fig. 40.14A to read z=O.91. This cor-
relation chart46 and an extended correlation chartj7 for
higher-pressure gas reservoirs up to 20,000 psia, Fig.
40.14B, are designed for gaseous mixtures containing
methane and other natural gases but substantially free of
nitrogen. For hydrocarbon gases containing substantial
amounts of hydrogen sulfide or CO1 , these correlations
do not apply, and additional corrections are necessary as
described in Ref. 48. (See Chap. 20 for complete cover-
age of gas properties and gas property correlations, some
of which are specific to computer applications.)
TABLE 40.1 I-PSEUDOCRITICAL CALCULATIONS
FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Specific gravity Pseudocritical Pseudocritical
of Gas Temperature (OR) Pressure (psia)
(Air=l.O) ( 460+ OF) ( 14. 7+psig)
0. 55 348 674
0. 60 363 672
0. 70 392 669
0. 80 422 665
0. 90 451 660
1 .oo 480 654
1.10 510 648
1.20 540 641
1.30 570 632
1. 40 600 623
1.50 629 612
1.60 658 600
1. 65 673 593
RESERVOIR PRESSURE (pR) IN PSI GAUGE
14.17 460+ T,
Fig. 40.16-Gas FVF 8, = ~ p-z
p, +14. 7 460+60
1 pR+14.7 460+60 1
-= ~-
8,
14. 7 460+T, z
vs. pressure, psig, and temperature, OF.
3. By computation from the specific gravity of the gas.
If only the specific gravity of the gas (air= 1 .O) is known,
another approximate correlation can be used, based on
California natural gases,49 which is expressed by Table
40.11.
For example, if the specific gravity of a gas is 0.66.
the pseudocritical temperature can be estimated by inter-
polation as 381 R and pseudocritical pressure as 670 psia.
The pseudoreduced values then are found as before and
the z factor read from Fig. 40.14A.
Gas FVF
The gas FVF, B,, is a dimensionless factor represent-
ing the volume of free gas at a reservoir temperature of
TF and a pressure of p psia per unit volume of free gas
under standard conditions of 60F and 14.7 psia. If the
compressibility factor, z, is known, B,? may be comput-
ed by
14.7 460+7-,
B,=-
pR 460+60
z=O.O2827(46O+T,)i.
PR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(36)
Typical values of the gas FVF, B, , and the reciprocal
gas FVF, l/B,, for different temperatures and pressures
and for gases of specific gravities between 0.6 and 1.0
will be found in Figs. 40.15 through 40.19.
In estimating gas reserves, the estimator should be care-
ful to indicate clearly the pressure base at which the
reserves are stated. Reserves at a base pressure of 14.4
psia will be approximately 16% greater than the same
reserves stated at a base pressure of 16.7 psia.
40- 23
400 0.4
xx) 0.2
as
02
01 2"
ma g
0.06 =
L
a04 Y
3
a02 6
s
H
QOl
e
o.cca 3
0.006
a004
a002
l.ow Jpoo Jpoo lO.OCQ
RESERVilR PRESSURE &) IN PSI GAUGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE Ip,) IN PSI GAUGE
14.17 460+T,
Fig. 40.17-Gas FVF 6, = ___ -----z
p, +14. 7 460+60
14.17 460+T,
Fig. 40.18-Gas FVF 6, = ~ -z
p,+14.7 460+60
1 pR +14.7 460+60 1
<- 14.7 460+T, z
1 pR +14.7 460+60 1
-= ~-
8,
14.7 460+T, z
vs. pressure, psig, and temperature, OF
Gas gravity 0.9 (air I .o).
The standard pressure base for the states of Texas, Ok-
lahoma, and Kansas is 14.65 psia (14.4 Ibm plus 4 oz/sq
in.); for Colorado, Louisiana, Nebraska, Mississippi,
Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming it is 15.025 psia
(14.4 lbm plus 10 oz/sq in.); and for California it is 14.73
psia).
Gas In Place
According to Eq. I, the gas in place in a reservoir con-
taining nonassociated gas and interstitial water, but no
residual oil, in standard cubic feet of free gas, is
GFj =
43,56OV,$( 1 -S,,)
B, .
Oftentimes the recoverable gas from a reservoir is esti-
mated by multiplying the gas in place by an overall recov-
ery factor.
For example, with a pressure gradient of 46.5 psi/l00
ft of depth, a surface temperature of 74F, a temperature
gradient of 1.5F/lOO ft of depth. a specific gravity of
the gas of 0.7, and a recovery factor for blanket high-
permeability formations of around 80%, typical values
of the recoverable gas in thousands of cubic feet per acre-
foot is found in Table 40.12 for various combinations of
porosity, $J, and interstitial-water content, S;,.
The numbers in Table 40.12 are not directly applica-
ble to wide-spaced low-permeability formations, such as
those which require fracturing or other stimulation tech-
RESERVOIR PRESSURE lo,) IN PSI GAUGE
14.17 460+T,
Fig. 40.19-Gas FVF B, =- - z
pR +14.7 46Ot60
1 p,+14.7 460+60 1
________-
B,- 14.7 460+T, z
Gas gravity 1 .O (air 1 .O).
TABLE 40.12-TYPICAL VALUES OF RECOVERABLE GAS, f&f/acre-ft
Porositv d 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Interstitial water S,,
Depth, ft
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25
37
77
122
159
215
255
277
294
311
80
166
263
342
463
549
598
634
671
niques to produce at commercial rates. In such cases al-
lowance should be made for the fact that the economic
limit of production may be reached before the entire spac-
ing unit is depleted. Known or suspected lenticularity of
the gas-bearing formation also should be taken into ac-
count in estimating the potential drainage area.
Unit Recovery for a Gas Reservoir Without
Water Drive
Dry Gas. The unit-recovery factor (the theoretically pos-
sible ultimate recovery from a homogeneous unit volume
of pay under idea1 conditions) for a dry-gas reservoir
without water influx is equal to the gas initially in place
at pressure pi, minus the gas remaining under abandon-
ment pressure at ultimate recovery. pu, both expressed
in standard cubic feet per acre-foot of sand (Table 40.12).
By difference, the unit recovery for a dry-gas reservoir,
in standard cubic feet of gas per acre-foot, is
G,,=43,56OW;..)($-&), .
where G,I is the ultimate gas recovery from reservoir,
in standard cubic feet, and B,, is the gas FVF at aban-
donment, in reservoir cubic feet per standard cubic foot.
The abandonment pressure (p,) to be used depends on
the operating pressure of the pipeline outlet, the availa-
bility of compressors to boost low-pressure gas to pipe-
line pressures, the depth of the reservoir, the size of the
production tubing, and the permeability and pay thick-
ness of the reservoir.
Gas Condensate. In gas-condensate reservoirs, conden-
sation of hydrocarbon liquids may occur upon pressure
drop in the reservoir and in the surface separation equip-
ment. Condensation of liquids in the reservoir may cause
the unit-recovery factor as computed for a dry-gas reser-
voir to be optimistic, because the volume of condensate
in the reservoir at abandonment pressure is usually smaller
than the reservoir volume of the gases at that pressure
which condensed into liquid. Recovery of condensate in
the surface separation equipment also reduces the amount
of free gas available for sale. In rich gas-condensate reser-
voirs without water drive produced under pressure-
depletion conditions, the recovery computations should
therefore be based on an actual laboratory depletion study
121 172 216 276 342
249 355 444 569 705
395 565 706 903 1,120
512 732 915 1,171 1,451
695 993 1,241 1,589 1,970
823 1,176 1,470 1,882 2,333
896 1,281 1,601 2,049 2,540
951 1,359 1,699 2,175 2,695
1,006 1,437 1,797 2,300 2,851
0.30
0.20
0.35
0.15
of a recombined sample. If such an analysis is not availa-
ble, an approximation may be made on the basis of the
fact that the amount of free gas corresponding to 1 cu ft
of condensate is usually about 150 to 200 scf. Based on
an average figure of 175 cu ft (1 m3 of condensate on
the average corresponds to 175 std m3 of gas), the unit
recovery in terms of residue or sales gas, when the residu-
al condensate saturation in the reservoir at abandonment
time is S,,, and the average produced gas/condensate ra-
tio is R, scf/bbl, may be estimated, in standard cubic feet
residue gas per acre-foot, as
RP
Gl,/ =43,560@------
1 -s,,,. -so,
R, +175 B
,W
- 175 s,,
>
. . . . (38)
S,, may be estimated from a material-balance calculation
on the condensate present in the reservoir gas under ini-
tial conditions, and the condensate to be recovered dur-
ing the depletion of the reservoir in the surface separation
equipment.
Effect of Permeability Distribution
Unless a gas reservoir is known to be permeable and
homogeneous, the unit-recovery factor should be correct-
ed for the fact that depletion may progress more rapidly
in the high-permeability strata than in the low-permeability
zones, particularly if these zones are separated by imper-
vious strata. An uneconomic rate of production may be
reached before the tighter zones are drained down to aban-
donment pressure. In many cases, nonuniformity of per-
meability in lateral directions provides a compensating
influence. In very hard and tight formations, extensive
fracturing may have the same result. A computation based
on the assumption that the strata of different permeabili-
ties are uniform and continuous across the reservoir is
therefore in most cases too pessimistic. Such a computa-
tion does provide a means, however, to indicate the mini-
mum recoverable reserves while the assumption of a
completely homogeneous reservoir and the direct use of
the unit-recovery factor indicate a maximum figure for
the recoverable reserves.
A permeability-block method to compute such minimum
reserves for a nonassociated dry gas reservoir is as
follows.
ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES 40- 25
According to Eqs. 13 and 14 of Sec. 11.15 in Ref. 50,
the boundary pressure in a closed cylindrical gas reser-
voir, drained by a well in the center with zero pressure
against the sandface, may be approximated as
TABLE 40.13-CONDITIONS FOR UNIT RECOVERY
EQUATION IN A DRY-GAS RESERVOIR
Initial Conditions Ultimate Conditions
Reservoir
, .(39)
pressure
Interstitial
water, cu ftl
acre-ft
PI P.3
43, 56OQS, , 43, 56O~S, ,
while the gas production rate is
ql: =C*k,h,p*, . . . .(40)
Free gas,
scf/acre-ft
43, 5604( 1 - S, , ) 43, 56Oc$( i - S, )
B,l
B
! F
in which Ct and Cz are constants and $h and h, are ef-
fective hydrocarbon porosity and effective thickness, re-
spectively
It will be assumed that a large number of core analyses
are available on a gas reservoir, which are divided in per-
meability groups as shown on Table 40.13. The aver-
age permeability, k , for each group is then corrected to
the relative gas permeability,J,, , at the given Si,V satura-
tion. The average porosity. 4. for each group is correct-
ed also to the effective hydrocarbon-bearing porosity,
+/, =4(1 -s,,, 1.
It will further be assumed that each permeability group
represents a separate and distinct homogeneous layer hav-
ing a relative gas permeability k, and a hydrocarbon-
filled porosity 4h equal to the average for each group.
Each layer is sealed off from the others and feeding into
a common wellbore that is exposed to zero pressure.
To keep the computations as simple as possible it will
further be assumed that the ideal-gas laws are applica-
ble. The same method may be applied by taking the devi-
ation from the ideal-gas laws into consideration, by
assuming other than zero wellbore pressure, and by taking
into account liquid condensation in gas-condensate reser-
voirs, but such computations soon become rather un-
wieldy.
By the time Group I, comprising the highest permea-
bility, is bled down to a pressure p t , a time 1 has expired,
which according to Eq. 39 is equal to
(41,) I PI
t=
(-->
1
Cl(k#)lP, PI
(41)
The fractional pressure Pn/p; in any layer n at this same
time t is found by substituting the t value of Eq. 41 into
Eq. 39.
-I
..(42)
The combined production rate from all layers, y,, , at this
time is, according to Eq. 40.
(43)
while the cumulative production from all layers, G,,, , at
this time is
(44)
in which C3 and Cd are constants.
The fractional production rate from all layers. fsn, with
respect to the initial production rate from all layers is,
therefore,
while the cumulative production from all layers as a frac-
tion of the total gas in place in all layers is
,1
G
~(~~),(h,),,[l-(P,ipi)l
P _
G,Z
.,.......
II
(46)
Thus a rate-cumulative relationship may be established
based on Eqs. 45 and 46, whereby the rate is expressed
as a fraction or percentage of the initial rate, and the cu-
mulative as a fraction or percentage of the gas in place.
By selecting an appropriate economic limit rate the recov-
ery factor can then be found. The computation procedure
is illustrated with the example in Table 40.14.
Usually only three or four assumptions for the ratio
p,/p t are necessary to delineate the curve, which may
then be plotted on semilog paper as shown in Fig. 40.20.
In this particular case, it could be estimated that the
minimum recovery factor for this reservoir at a time when
the production rate has declined to 1% of its initial value
would be on the order of 74% of the gas in place.
40-26
TABLE 40.14-PERMEABILITY-BLOCK METHOD FOR GAS RESERVOIRS WITHOUT WATER DRIVE
Group (n)
(I) Permeability, range
(2) kg
(3) dJh
(4) kg/d,
(5) (kg14t,)n +W&,),
(6) Number of samples, n
(7) k,n
63) (ON
Assume (p,/p,)=4
Pressure (p,lp,)
= [ 1 + 3(5)] -
Rate= (7)(pJp,)
Cumulative = (8)[ 1 -@,/p,)]
Assume (p,/p,)=25
Pressure (p,/p,)
= [ 1 + 24(5)] -
Rate= V)(p,@, 1
Cumulative = (8)[1 - (p,/p, )I
Assume (p,/p,)= 101
Pressure @,/p,)
=[l + 100(5)] -
Rate = (7)(pJp, I*
Cumulative=(8)[1 -(pJp,)]
1
lO<k<lOO
25.26
0.070
360.8
1
170
4,294
11.90
0.2500 0.7088 0.9408 0.9815
268.4 894.3 267.6 30.0 1,460.3 ( = 22.8%)
8.92 10.49 2.37 0.25 22.03 ( = 21.7%)
0.0400 0.2333 0.6654 0.8688
6.9 96.9 133.8 23.5 261.1 ( = 4.07%)
11.42 27.63 13.38 1.79 54.22 ( = 53.4%)
0.0099 0.0681 0.3231 0.6139
0.4 8.2 31.6 11.7 51.9 (=0.81%)
11.78 33.59 27.08 5.28 77.73 (= 76.5%)
2
l<k<lO
3.36
0.068
49.4
0.13692
530
1,780
36.04
0 20 40 60 80 100
CUMULATIVE IN PER OF GAS IN PLACE
Fig. 40.20-Permeability-block method for gas reservoirs without
water dcive.
Percent of Initial
rate and
3 4 Total gas in place
O.l<k<l 0.01 <k<O.l
0.34 0.05
0.045 0.022
7.56 2.27
0.02095 0.00629
889 622 2,211
302.3 31 .l 6,407.4 ( = 100%)
40.00 13.68 101.62 ( = 100%)
Recovery From Gas Reservoirs With Water Drive
In the case of gas reservoirs with effective water drive,
the pressure will be wholly or partially maintained by the
movement of water into the reservoir as gas is withdrawn,
the magnitude of the pressure decline being dependent on
the rate of gas withdrawal with respect to the rate of water
influx. Because the portion of the reservoir that will be
ultimately invaded by water is not always predictable, and
because the amount of gas that as a nonwetting phase may
be bypassed by the water is difficult to estimate, the recov-
ery from gas reservoirs with water drive is usually esti-
mated by applying a recovery factor to the volume of gas
originally in place as calculated by Eq. 1, The selection
of this recovery factor depends on the thickness and
homogeneity of the sand, the relative permeability of the
sand to gas and water at varying gas saturations, and the
geometry and dip of the gas-bearing strata.
Because gas is trapped and bypassed by the advancing
water and because of the associated water production
problems, recovery factors are significantly lower for gas
reservoirs with water drive than for those producing by
volumetric expansion. Typical factors range from 50 to
70% for water-drive gas reservoirs as compared with 70
to 90% for expansion-drive gas reservoirs.
Production-Decline Curves35*54-58
General Principles
All estimates of ultimate recovery by extrapolation of a
performance trend fundamentally follow the same pattern.
The two quantities one usually wishes to determine are
either remaining oil reserves or remaining productive life.
Cumulative production and time. therefore, normally are
selected as independent variables and are plotted as ab-
scissas. A varying characteristic of the well performance
that can be measured easily and recorded then is selected
as a variable to produce a trend curve. For extrapolation
purposes this variable has to meet two qualifications: (1)
its value must be a more or less continuous function of
the independent variable and change in a uniform man-
ner: and (2) it must have a known endpoint.
By plotting the values of this continuously changing de-
pendent variable as ordinates vs. the values of the indepen-
dent variable (cumulative production or time) as abscissas,
and graphically extrapolating the apparent trend until the
known endpoint is reached, an estimate of the remaining
reserves or remaining life can be obtained. The basic as-
sumption in this procedure is that whatever causes con-
trolled the trend of a curve in the past will continue to
govern its trend in the future in a uniform manner.
This extrapolation procedure is therefore strictly of an
empirical nature, and a mathematical expression of the
trend curve based on physical considerations of the reser-
voir can be set up only for a few simple cases.
Among the many dependent variables that can be used
in estimates based on performance trends, the rate ofpro-
duction is by far the most popular when production is not
restricted. In that case one commonly refers to production-
decline curves. The two main types are rate/time and
rate/cumulative curves for each of the two independent
variables. Rate of oil production as the dependent varia-
ble has the advantage of always being readily available
and accurately recorded. The endpoint requirement is also
easily met. since known or estimated operating costs
usually make it possible to determine accurately the
economic-limit rate and thus the endpoint of the curve.
Gradual changes in the production rate of a well may
be caused by the following.
I. Decreasing efficiency or effectiveness of the lifting
equipment.
2. Reduction of productive index, or completion fac-
tar, or increase in the skin effects8 as a result of phys-
ical changes in and around the wellbore such as deposition
of wax, salt, or asphaltenes from the produced fluids or
the accumulation of loose sand. silt. mud, or cavings.
3. Changes in bottomhole pressure, GOR, water per-
centage. or other reservoir conditions.
To be used for reserve estimation, production decline
caused by reservoir conditions must be distinguished from
that caused by wellbore conditions or by failure of the
lifting equipment.
The efficiency of the lifting equipment may be checked
by conventional inspection for tubing or valve leaks. and
the volumetric pump efficiency by dynamometer. sonic
tluid-level tests. etc. Such tests may indicate the need for
a pulling job to replace the downhole pumping equipment
or gas-lift valves.
A study of the completion factor, skin effect, or produc-
tive index over a period of time by means of bottomhole
pressure-buildup ana1ysis~* may indicate an adverse
wellbore condition that can sometimes be corrected by
appropriate stimulation methods.
Unless defective conditions of the wellbore are detected
or cured. the reserve estimates obtained by decline-curve
analysis will be limited to those recoverable under exist-
ing and sometimes only partially effective wellbore con-
ditions.
When the lifting equipment is operating properly and
wellbore conditions are found to be satisfactory. a declin-
ing production trend must reflect changing reservoir con-
TABLE 40.15-SAMPLE CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC
LIMIT FOR A WELL
Crude price per bbl 28.00
Gas revenue per bbl 2.00
Total $30.00
Less production taxes 1.43
Less royalty (12.5% after production
taxes) 3.57
Leaves net income per gross bbl $25.00
Estimated direct operating cost at
economic limit $2,500 per month
Estimated economic-limit rate 100 gross bbllmonth
The pwe and taxabon of 011 and gas has changed slgniflcantly ,n the history
of the industry Theestlmated price antiopated to be in effect at abandonment
time are appropriate for this calculation
ditions, and the extrapolation of such a trend can then be
a reliable guide for prediction of the remaining recovera-
ble reserves.
Economic Limit
The economic-limit rate is the production rate that will
just meet the direct operating expenses of a well. In de-
termining this economic limit it is often advisable to ana-
lyze closely the expenditures charged against a well, and
determine how much actually would be saved if the well
were abandoned. This saving yields the best yardstick of
the economic limit of production, because certain expenses
may have to be continued if other wells on the lease are
kept in operation. Table 40.15 is a sample calculation of
the economic limit for a well.
Nominal and Effective Decline
There are two types of decline.s5 The twminul decline
rate, a, is defined as the negative slope of the curve
representing the natural logarithm of the production rate
of y vs. time t, or
d In y dqldt
a=--=--
. . . . . . . . ..__
dt
(47)
4
Nominal decline, being a continuous function. is used
mainly to facilitate the derivation of the various mathe-
matical relationships.
The rfiective decline rate d, being a stepwise function
and therefore in better agreement with actual production
recording practices, is the rate more commonly used in
practice. It is the drop in production rate from 9i to q,
over a period of time equal to unity (I month or 1 year)
divided by the production rate at the beginning of the peri-
od, or
d=91-9i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (481
The time period may be 1 month or I year for effective
monthly or annual decline, respectively.
TABLE 40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE h to 4% PER MONTH)
Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
Effective Decline
l/4% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9975000 0.9975000
0.9950063 1.9925063
0.9925187 2.9850250
0.9900274 3.9750624
0.9875623 4.9626248
0.9850934 5.9477182
0.9826307 6.9303489
0.9801741 7.9105230
0.9777237 8.8882467
0.9752794 9.8635261
0.9728412 10.8363673
0.9704091 11.8067763
0.9416938 23.2641790
0.9138282 34.3825469
0.8867872 45.1719121
0.8605463 55.6420099
0.8350820 65.8022881
0.8103711 75.6619141
0.7863915 85.2297847
0.7631215 94.5145332
0.7405400 103.5245374
Effective Decline
%% oer Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9950000 0.9950000
0.9900250 1.9900250
0.9850750 2.9700999
0.9801495 3.9502494
0.9752488 4.9254981
0.9703725 5.8958706
0.9655206 6.8613913
0.9606931 7.8220843
0.9558896 8.7779739
0.9511101 9.7290840
0.9463546 10.6754386
0.9416228 11.6170614
0.8866535 22.5559511
0.8348932 32.8562594
0.7861544 42.5552644
0.7402610 51.6880687
0.6970466 60.2877255
0.6563550 68.3853585
0.6180388 76.0102745
0.5819595 63.1900692
0.5479863 89.9507277
Different Types of Production-Decline Curves
Three types of production-decline curves are commonly
recognized. 54 With constant-percentage decline the
nominal decline rate, a, is constant, or
dyidt
a- , . . . . ..~....................
(49)
9
which after integration leads to the rate/time relationship
y=qie -. . . . (50)
After integrating a second time, the cumulative produc-
tion at time t is obtained as expressed by the rateicumula-
tive relationship:
N =4i-Y

. ,............................
(51)
a
From Eq. 50, the remaining life to abandonment time may
be obtained as
In F,
t,=-, . . . ..___.....................
a
in which F, =q;/q,, or. by elimination of decline (I with
Eq. 51,
In other words, the future life under constant-percentage
decline will be (FI, In F,)/(F, - 1) times as long as the
life required to produce the same ultimate N,, at con-
stant rate y,.
With hyprrbnlir decline the nominal decline rate a is
proportional to a fractional power n of the production rate.
this power being between 0 and 1, or
dyldt
a=--=bq. _. ,(54)
Effective Decline
J/4% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9925000 0.9925000
0.9850562 1.9775563
0.9776683 2.9552246
0.9703358 3.9255604
0.9630583 4.8886187
0.9558354 5.8444541
0.9486666 6.9731207
0.9415516 7.7346722
0.9344900 8.6691622
0.9274813 9.5966435
0.9205252 10.5171686
0.9136212 11.4307899
0.8347038 21.8742023
0.7626031 31.4155252
0.6967304 40.1326804
0.6365477 48.0968584
0.5815635 55.3731006
0.5313287 62.0208300
0.4854332 68.0943366
0.4435021 73.6432212
0.4051929 78.7127999
Effective Decline
1% oer Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9900000 0.9900000
0.9801000 1.9701000
0.9702990 2.9403990
0.9605960 3.9009950
0.9509900 4.8519851
0.9414801 5.7934652
0.9320653 6.7255306
0.9227447 7.6482753
0.9135173 8.5617925
0.9043821 9.4661746
0.8953383 10.3615128
0.8863849 11.2478977
0.7856781 21.2178644
0.6964132 30.0550922
0.6172901 37.8882772
0.5471566 44.8314939
0.4849910 50.9858562
0.4298890 56.4409899
0.3810471 61.2763380
0.3377544 65.5623173
0.2993804 69.3613447
in which the constant b is determined under initial condi-
tions by
b=;. . . . . . . .._..........t......
(53
41
After integration the following rate/time relationship is
obtained:
q=qJl+na,t)p. . . . ._. . . . (56)
After a second integration the cumulative production
at time t is obtained as expressed by the rate/cumulative
equation
qi N,-
(l-n)a, (q; 1-n -q-). . . . (57)
I
Under certain conditions, production obtained by gravi-
ty drainage will follow this type of decline for the expo-
nent n = % (Ref. 35). The rate/time relationship then reads
4;
q= [1 +(aj,2)t,2 . . . . . .
. (58)
and the rate/cumulative relationship
N 3
P
-(& -4). . . (59)
a,
From Eq. 58 the remaining life to abandonment time
for this special case of hyperbolic decline (n= Y2) may
be obtained as
t gq-1)
(I . . . . . . . . . . ..I.. .
(60)
ai
TABLE 40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE l/4 lo 4% PER MONTH) (continued)
Time
(months)
1
i
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
24
36
4%
60
72
84
96
108
120
Effective Decline
1 J/4% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9875000 0.9875000
0.9751562 1.9626563
0.9629668 2.9256230
0.9509297 3.8765528
0.9390431 4.8155959
0.9273051 5.7429009
0.9157137 6.6586147
0.9042673 7.5628820
0.8929640 8.4558460
0.8818019 9.3376479
0.8707794 10.2084273
0.8598947 11.0683220
0.7394118 20.5859132
0.6358223 28.7700393
0.5467402 35.8075257
0.4701390 41.8590228
0.4042700 47.0626730
0.3476296 51.5372641
0.2989248 55.3849412
0.2570438 58.8935382
0.2210306 61.5385833
Effective Decline Effective Decline
l%% per Month 13/4% per Month
Rate Cumulative Rate Cumulative
0.9850000 0.9850000 0.9825000 0.9825000
0.9702250 1.9552250 0.9653062 1.9478063
0.9556716 2.9108966 0.9484134 2.8962196
0.9413366 3.8522332 0.9318162 3.8280358
0.9272165 4.7794497 0.9155094 4.7435452
0.9133083 5.6927580 0.8994880 5.6430331
0.8996086 6.5923666 0.8837469 6.5267801
0.8861145 7.4784811 0.8682814 7.3950614
0.8728228 8.3513039 0.8530864 8.2481478
0.8597304 9.2110343 0.8381574 9.0863053
0.8468345 10.0578688 0.8234897 9.9097949
0.8341320 10.8920008 0.8090786 10.7188735
0.6957761 19.9773671 0.6546082 19.3912851
0.5803691 27.5557615 0.5296295 26.4079477
0.4841044 33.8771427 0.4285119 32.0849793
0.4038070 39.1500088 0.3466998 36.6781441
0.3368283 43.5482749 0.2805074 40.3943754
0.2809593 47.2170094 0.2269525 43.4010986
0.2343571 50.2772181 0.1836224 45.8337740
0.1954848 52.8298360 0.1485650 47.8019996
0.1630601 54.9590562 0.1202007 49.3944488
or, after elimination of initial decline a, by Eq. 59,
t.=kF. . . . . . .
4;
In other words, the future life under hyperbolic decline
(n = h) will be 6 t
Relationship Between Efective und Nominal Decline. The
lmes as long as the life required to effective decline rate d (or d; for initial conditions) for
produce the same ultimate N,,,, at constant rate qi.
the three types of production-decline curves is related to
With harmonic decline, the nominal decline rate (I is the nominal decline rate a (or ai for initial conditions)
proportional to the production rate, or as follows.
dqidt
a=--=bq, . . . . ,. __... ..(62)
4 .
in which the constant b is determined under initial condi-
tions by
b=lfi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(63)
91
After integration, the following rate/time relationship
for harmonic decline is obtained:
q,L
l+ait ._,,..._.................... .W)
After a second integration the cumulative production
at time t is obtained as expressed by the rate/cumulative
relationship
N=%,,,Vi=Qil,,F
P
q. (65)
ai 4 ai
From Eq. 64, the remaining life to abandonment time
may be obtained as
t, =
F,-1
.
v56)
ai
or, after elimination of initial decline ai with Eq. 65,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effective Decline
2% per Month
Rate
0.9800000
0.9604000
0.9411920
0.9223682
0.9039208
0.8858424
0.8681255
0.8507630
0.8337478
0.8170726
0.8007313
0.7847167
0.6157803
0.4832131
0.3791854
0.2975531
0.2334949
0.1832274
0.1437816
0.1128278
0.0885379
Cumulative
0.9800000
1.9404000
2.8815920
3.8039602
4.7078810
5.5937233
6.4618489
7.3126119
8.1463597
8.9634325
9.7641638
10.5488805
18.8267637
25.3225570
30.4199145
34.4198961
37.5587485
40.0218585
41.9547020
43.4714366
44.6616435
In other words, the future life under harmonic decline
will be (FY - l)/ln F, times as long as the life required
to produce the same ultimate N,, at constant rate q;.
d=l-e- ,,,.,..........,.............. (68)
and
a=-ln (1-d). . . . . . . . . . .._____...__..___ (69)
For hyperbolic decline,
d,=l-(l+nUi)- . . ._ _. ., ..(70)
and
ni=l[(l-n;)-n-I]. . . . ,... . (71)
n
For harmonic decline,
+a,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...... l+ai
(72)
and
di
Ui=y--q. . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...........__
(73)
An analysis of a large number of actual production-
decline curves assembled by Cutler56 indicates that most
decline curves normally encountered are of the hyperbolic
type, with values for the exponent n between 0 and 0.7,
while the majority fall between 0 and 0.4. Gravity-
drainage production under certain conditions will have an
exponent n=O.S (Ref. 59). The occurrence of harmonic
decline (n= I) is apparently rare.
TABLE 40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE l/4 to 4% PER MONTH) (continued)
Effectwe Decline Effective Decline
3% q er Month 3%% oer Month
Effective Decline
2V2% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9750000 0.9750000
Effective Declme
4% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9600000 0.9600000
0.9216000 1.8816000
0.8847360 2.7563360
0.8493466 3.6156826
0.8153727 4.4310553
0.7827578 5.2138130
0.7514475 5.9652605
0.7213896 6.6866501
0.6925340 7.3791841
0.6648326 8.0440167
0.6382393 8.6822561
0.6127098 9.2949658
0.3754133 14.9900821
0.2300194 18.4795354
0.1409351 20.6175575
0.0863523 21.9275445
0.0529089 22.7301864
0.0324178 23.2219728
0.0198627 23.5232952
0.0121701 23.7079184
0.0074567 23.8210388
Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
0.9700000 0.9700000 0.9650000 0.9650000
0.9506250 1.9256250
0.9268594 2.8524844
0.9409000 1.9109000 0.9312250 1.8962250
0.9126730 2.8235730 0.8986321 2.7948571
0.8852928 3.7088658 0.8671800 3.6620371
0.8587340 4.5675998 0.8368287 4.5988658
0.9036879 3.7561723
0.8810957 4.6372680
0.8590683 5.4963363
0.8375916 6.3339279
0.8166518 7.1505797
0.7962355 7.9468152
0.7763296 8.7231448
0.7569214 9.4800662
0.7379984 10.2180646
0.5446416 17.7589797
0.4019446 23.3241626
0.2966344 27.4312584
0.2189157 30.4622883
0.8329720 5.4005718 8.8075397 5.3064055
0.8079828 6.2085547 0.7792758 6.0856813
0.7837434 6.9922981 0.7520012 6.8376825
0.7602311 7.7525291 0.7256811 7.5633636
0.7374241 8.4899532 0.7002823 8.2636459
0.7153014 9.2052547 0.6757724 8.9394183
0.6938424 9.8990970 0.6521204 9.5915387
0.4814172 16.7675099 0.4252610 15.8463764
0.3340277 21.5331058 0.2773214 19.9252836
0.2317625 24.8396782 0.1808469 22.5852220
0.1608067 27.1339192 0.1179339 24.3198220
0.1115745 28.7257601 0.0769071 25.4509900
0.0774151 29.8302468 0.0501527 26.1886477
0.1615594 32.6991834
0.1192306 34.3500082
0.0879920 35.5683143 0.0537139 30.5965865 0.0327056 26.6696893
0.0649379 36.4674222 0.0372690 31.1283054 0.0213280 26.9833863
0.0479241 37.1309623 0.0258588 31.4972345 0.0139084 27.1879545
Decline Tables for Constant-Percentage Decline
Tables 40.16 and 40.17 will facilitate computations of fu-
ture rates and cumulative production for constant effec-
tive decline percentages IOOd, from 1/4 to 10% per month.
Hand-held calculator and computer programs are availa-
ble for constant-percentage decline and other types of
production-decline calculations.
With constant-percentage decline the production rate
in successive months may be designated as a geometric
series,
in which the rate during the last month preceding the peri-
od studied equals unity. For each monthly decline per-
centage IOOd the Rate column in the decline tables
represents the production rate per month (1 -d) after the
number of months I shown in the left and right time
columns has expired. The cumulative production.
(I -d)[l -(I -d)]
d
after t months is shown in the columns labeled Cu-
mulative."
TABLE 40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE 4h to 10% PER MONTH)
Effective Decline Effective Decline Effective Decline
4%% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9550000 0.9550000
0.9120250 1.8670250
0.8709839 2.7380089
0.8317896 3.5697985
Effective Decline
6% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9400000 0.9400000
0.8836000 1.8236000 0.9025000
5% per Month
1.8525000
Rate Cumulative
0.9500000 0.9500000
0.8573750 2.7098750
0.8145063 3.5243813
0.7737809 4.2981622
0.7350919 5.0332541
0.6983373 5.7315914
0.6634204 6.3950118
0.6302494 7.0252612
0.5987369 7.6239982
0.5688001 8.1927983
0.8930250
0.1304804 14.9399289
5%% per Month
1.8380250
0.8439086
0.0661800 16.0447258
2.6819336
0.7974937
Rate Cumulative
3.4794273
0.7536315 4.2330588
0.9450000
0.7121818 4.9452406
0.9450000
0.6730118 5.6182523
0.6359961 6.2542485
0.6010163 6.8552648
0.5679604 7.4232253
0.5367226 7.9599479
0.5072029 8.4671508
0.2572548 12.7617140
0.5403601 8.7331584
0.2919890 13.4522087
0.1577792 16.0021952
0.0852576 17.3801062
0.0460698 18.1246743
0.0248943 18.5270092
0.0134519 18.7444149
0.0072689 18.8618923
0.0039278 18.9253724
0.0021224 18.9596745
Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
0.8305840 2.6541840
0.7807490 3.4349330
0.7943591 4.3641576
0.7586129 5.1227705
0.7339040
0.1077960 13.9778620
4.1688370
0.6898698
0.0513023 14.8629300
4.8587068
0.6484776
0.0244158 15.2841517
5.5071844
0.6095689 6.1167533
0.5729948 66897481
0.5386151 7.2283632
0.5062982 7.7346614
0.4759203 8.2105817
0.2265001 12.1181642
0.7244753 5.8472458
0.6918739 6.5391198
0.6607396 7.1998594
0.6310063 7.8308657
0.6026111 8.4334768
0.5754936 9.0089703
0.3311928 14.1935746
0.1905993 17.1772810
0.1096887 18.8943847
0.0631251 19.8825668
0.0363281 20.4512592
0.0335667 16.6050820
0.0170251 16.8892962
0.0209066 20.7785380
0.0120316 20.9668849
0.0069241 21.0752773
0.0039848 21.1376564
RATE- TIME CURVES
40-31
:~~~~~~~~
0
TIME (1)
I20 0
TIMEIt)
120 , IO 100 1000
LOG TIME(t)
RATE- CUMULATIVE CURVES
::;Ei ~~ ~~
0
CUMULATIVE (Np)
l00,oco 0
CUMULATIVE (NJ
loo~m I00 1 ycc 10.030 ioo,cco
LOG CUMULATIVE (No)
I - CONSTANT PERCENTAGE DECLINE n=O a = 0.03
II --- HYPERBOLIC DECLINE n 1 bz a :OlO
Da---HYPERBOLIC MCLINE (SHIFTED ON LOG-LOG)
m-------HARMONIC DECLINE =I a,=0 30
ma------HARMONIC DECLINE (SHIFTED 0~ LOG-LOG)
Fig. 40.21-Three types of production-decline curves on coordinate, semilog, and log-log graph paper.
Example Problem 7. The production from a lease has
declined from 4,286 to 3,000 bbl/month in 10 months.
Assuming constant-percentage decline. what is the month-
ly decline and what will be the production rate 40 months
later and the cumulative production over this 40-month
period?
Solution. (See Table 40.16.)
3,000+4,286=0.700.
Following the IO-month horizontal line, a rate of 0.700
is encountered in the table for 3 /z % decline per month.
Rate 40 months later:
3,OOOX(rate)je X(rate)d =3,000x0.27732x0.86718
=72 I bbl/month.
Cumulative production over 40-month period:
3,000x[(cum.)16 +(rate)36 X(cum.)aJ
=3,000x(19.92528+0.27732x3.66204)=62,822 bbl.
Straightening Production-Decline Curves
Fig. 40.21 shows the rate/time and rate/cumulative trends
of the three types of production-decline curves on regu-
lar coordinate paper, semilog paper. and log-log paper.
Inspection of this chart shows that in the case of
constant-percentage decline the rate/time curve becomes
a straight line on semilog paper, while the rate/cumula-
tive curve straightens out on regular coordinate paper. In
either case the tangent of the angle of slope is equal to
the nominal-decline fraction.
TABLE 40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE 4% to 10% PER MONTH) (continued)
Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
Effective Decline Effective Decline Effective Decline Effective Decline
6%0/o per Month 7% per Month 7%% per Month 8% per Month
Rate Cumulative Rate Cumulative Rate Cumulative Rate Cumulative
0.9350000 0.9350000 0.9300000 0.9300000 0.9250000 0.9250000 0.9200000 0.9200000
0.8742250
0.8174004
0.7642694
0.7145919
0.6681434
0.6247141
0.5841076
0.5461407
0.5106415
0.4774498
0.4464156
0.1992869
0.0889648
0.0397153
0.0177295
1.8092250
2.6266254
3.3908947
4.1054866
4.7736300
5.3983440
5.9824517
6.5285923
7.0392338
7.5166836
7.9630992
11.5179507
13.1048917
13.8133270
14.1295835
0.8649000
0.8043570
0.7480520
0.6956884
0.6469902
0.6017009
0.5595818
0.5204111
0.4839823
0.4501035
0.4185963
0.1752229
0.0733476
0.0307031
0.0128522
1.7949000
2.5992570
3.3473090
4.0429974
4.6989876
5.2916884
5.8512702
6.3716813
6.8556636
7.3057672
7.7243635
10.9577534
12.3112384
12.8778022
13.1149637
0.8556250
0.7814531
0.7320941
0.6771871
0.6263981
0.5794182
0.5359618
0 4957647
0.4585823
0.4241887
0.3923745
0 1539578
0.0604091
0.0237030
0.0093004
1.7806250
2.5720781
3.3041723
3.9813594
4.6077574
5.1871756
5.7231375
6.2189022
6.6774845
7.1016732
7.4940477
10.4345211
11 S882879
12.0409966
12.2186280
0.8464000
0.7786880
0.7163930
0.6590815
0.6063550
0.5578466
0.5132189
0.4721614
0.4343885
0.3996374
0.3676664
0.1351786
0.0497006
0.0182732
1.7664000
2.5450880
3.2614810
3.9205625
4.5269175
5.0847641
5.5979830
6.0701443
6.5045328
6.9041701
7.2718365
9 9454463
10.9284428
11 2898575
In the case of hyperbolic-type decline curves the
rate/time relationship as well as the rate/cumulative rela-
tionship can be straightened out after shifting to become
straight lines on log-log paper. The shifted rateicumula-
tive curve in this case assumes a reverse slope. Besides
the extra work involved in shifting, this type of paper also
has the disadvantage that the horizontal scale on which
the unknown variable is plotted usually becomes rather
crowded at the point where the answer is desired. For
this reason, special raph paper for hyperbolic decline
has been designed,& whtch makes it possible to plot
either time or cumulative on a linear scale and still ob-
tain the advantage of straight-line extrapolation.
Extrapolation of various production-decline curves by
difference tables with the loss-ratio method is described
in Ref. 54.
Relationship Between Reserves and Decline
From the rate/cumulative equation for constant-percentage
decline,55 it may be noted that the remaining reserves,
N,, are equal to the difference between the present pro-
duction rate and the production rate at the economic limit,
divided by the nominal-decline fraction, provided the same
time units are used for determining both the decline and
the production rates.
In the case of harmonic decline it may be noted that
the rate/time relationship can also be straightened out on
log-log paper after shifting, and assumes a slope of 45.
It may be of interest that in this case a plot of the inverse
of the production rate vs. time on a linear scale also yields
a straight line. The rate/cumulative relationship for har-
monic decline becomes a straight line on semilog paper.
The nominal-decline fraction in this case is equal to the
rate times the tangent of the slope angle.
This leads to the following short cut: when the nomi-
nal decline is 1% per month, the remaining reserves are
100 times the difference in monthly production rates; for
a nominal decline of 2% per month this ratio equals 50:
for 3% it is 33%; for 4% it is 25, etc.
When production rates are on a daily or annual basis
the same formula holds, provided the decline is expressed
on the same time basis.
As a matter of convenience the semilog paper most often
is used for rate/time extrapolations, while regular coor-
dinate paper is favored for rate/cumulative extrapolations.
Because straight-line extrapolation on this paper requires
constant-percentage decline, it will be obvious that such
extrapolations may provide results that are too conserva-
tive. Experienced engineers usually allow for this by
graphically flattening the decline slope in the later stages.
Other Performance Curves
A geometric construction method for such extrapola-
tion is described by Arps.54
Loss-Ratio Method
The inverse of the nominal decline rate q/(dq/dt) is called
the loss ratio and may be used in tabular form for ex-
trapolation purposes and for identification of the type of
decline. In constant-percentage decline the loss ratio is
constant, while in hyperbolic decline the first derivative
of the loss ratio is constant and equal to the exponent n.
In harmonic decline the first derivative of the loss ratio
is constant and equal to one.
Oil Percentage in Total Fluid vs. Cumulative Oil
Another variable that is often substituted for the produc-
tion rate in water-drive fields-particularly when the pro-
duction of oil is restricted-is the oil percentage of the
total fluid produced. Because projections of this oil per-
centage vs. time are not often required, one usually finds
this oil-percentage variable plotted only vs. cumulative.
An example of such a curve on semilog paper is shown
for a Tar Springs sand reservoir in Illinois in Fig. 40.22.
The endpoint in this case is the lowest oil percentage that,
combined with the total fluid-producing capacity of the
lease, will just cover operating expenses.
Cumulative Gas vs. Cumulative Oil
It is a characteristic of most depletion-type oil reservoirs
that only a fraction of the oil in place is recoverable by
primary production methods. Gas, on the other hand,
moves much more freely through the reservoir, and it can
generally be assumed that at abandonment time only the
TABLE 40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE DECLINE (EFFECTIVE DECLINE 4% IO 10% PER MONTH) (continued)
Time
(months)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
Effective Decline
W/z% per Month
Rate Cumulative
0.9150000 0.9150000
0.8372250 1.7522250
0.7760609 2.5182859
0.7069457 3 2192316
0.6413653 3.8605969
0.5868493 4.4474462
0.5369671 4.9844133
0.4913249 5 4757381
0.4495623 5.9253004
0.4113495 6 3366499
0.3763848 6.7130346
Effective Decline
9% oar Month
Rate
0.9100000
0.8281000
0.7535710
0.6857496
0.6240321
0.5678693
0.5167610
0.4702525
0.4279298
0.3894161
0.3543687
Cumulative
0.9100000
1.7381000
2.4916710
3.1774210
3.8014528
4.3693220
4.8860830
5.3563356
5.7842654
6.1736815
6.5280502
Effective Decline Effective Decline
91/z% per Month 10% per Month
0.9050000 0.9050000 0.9000000 0.9000000
0.8190250 1.7240250 0.8100000 1.7100000
0.7412176 2.4652426 0.7290000 2.4390000
0.6708020 3.1360446 0.6561000 3.0951000
0.6070758 3.7431204 0.5904900 3.6855900
0.5494036 4.2925239 0.5314410 4.2170310
0.4972102 4.7897342 0.4782969 4.6953279
0.4499753 5.2397094 0.4304672 5.1257951
0.4072276 5.6469370 0.3874205 5.5132156
0.3685410 6.0154780 0.3486784 5.8618940
0.3335296 6.3490076 0.3138106 6.1757046
12 0.3443920 7.0574267 0.3224755 6.8505257 0.3018443 6.6508519 0.2824295 6.4581342
24 0.1166059 9.4879483 0.1039904 9.0596524 0.0911100 8.6583736 0.07976644 8.2821020
36 0.0408469 10.3250006 0.0335344 9.7720416 0.0275010 9.2643325 0.02252840 8.7972445
48 0.0140673 10.6132747 0.0108140 10.0017697 0.0083010 9.4472378 0.00636269 8.9427359
solution gas in the remaining oil at the then-prevailing
pressure plus the free gas at that same pressure are left
in the reservoir. In other words, even though it is not
known exactly how much oil may be recovered, a much
firmer idea is generally available of the amount of gas
that will be produced during the primary production peri-
od. This provides us with the possibility of an endpoint
to a performance curve. The cumulative-gas/cumulative-
oil method is illustrated in Fig. 40.23. Cumulative oil pro-
duction is plotted on the horizontal scale, while the cu-
mulative gas production is plotted on the vertical scale.
As is normal in depletion-type fields, the trend of the curve
appears to steepen with increasing GORs.
For depletion-type reservoirs, the GOR sometimes is
plotted on semilog paper vs. cumulative oil. Such a curve
often shows a fairly good straight-line relationship, which
may be used to predict the trend of the cumulative-
gas/cumulative-oil curve.
From a volumetric calculation an estimate is made of
the total gas to be released from the reservoir down to
an assumed abandonment pressure. This figure, which in
this case was 1.42 billion cu ft, is marked on Fig. 40.23
as a horizontal line and represents the ceiling of the
cumulative-gas/cumulative-oil curve.
By extrapolating the current trend until it intersects the
estimate for the total gas available, we can obtain an esti-
mate for the total primary oil recovery.
Material-Balance Method for Nonassociated
Gas Reservoirs
The best performance variable in the case of free-gas
reservoirs is the static formation pressure. This pressure
usually is measured periodically by bottomhole pressure
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS
Fig. 40.22-011 percentage vs. cumulative relationship on semi-
log paper. Tar Springs sand production, Calvin Field,
IL.
bomb, or if there are no liquids present in the tubing, it
may be calculated from observed shut-in tubing pressures.
The general material-balance equation for a gas reser-
voir with active water drive may be rewritten as*
1 1
-=--
Gp +(5.615W,lB,) + 5.615W,
B, B,l
GBgi
GBgBgi
(74)
For a gas reservoir without active water drive (W, =O),
this equation converts to*
1 1 G, +(5.615W,lB,)
Bg Bgi
GB,i ) . . . . .
. (75)
and the same equation for a gas reservoir without active
water drive (W, =0) and without significant water pro-
duction ( Wp =0) reads
1 1 G,
-=---
GB,i . . . . . . . . . .
BAJ
B,i
. (76)
By plotting the reciprocal of the gas FVF, l/B,, on
regular coordinate paper vs. cumulative gas produced,
G,, or in case of appreciable water production vs. the
term G.,, +5.615(W,lB,), a straight line should result if
no active water-drive mechanism exists (Fig. 40.24,
Curve a). This straight line intersects the vertical axis at
the value 1 IB,; and its extrapolation to the horizontal axis
indicates the amount of free gas in place, G. When an
active water drive exists, the plotted data fall on a curve
I 1 1 I I!
ESTIMATED TOTAL GAS 1 ___
AVAILABLE 1.42 MMMCF
------ ci
000
[I , fl--Tl--~T1j
I ,I, I I!
IO
I I11111
-10 100 la30
CUMULATIVE 01 L PRODUCTION
IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS
Fig. 40.23-Cumulalive gas vs. cumulative oil recovery. Lake
sand production, Bankline-Owen Field, TX.
WOC or Abandonment Contour vs.
Cumulative Oil
Another method that is sometimes practiced in the larger
water-drive fields such as east Texas is to choose the depth
of the WOC, or abandonment contour, as the dependent
variable to be plotted vs. the cumulative oil recovery as
the independent variable. The endpoint of this type of per-
formance curve is the average depth of the top of the sand
for a given lease. The method of extrapolation in this case
is based on the simple assumption that whenever the aban-
donment contour progresses to the top of the sand the lease
is ready for abandonment. An example of this is shown
in Fig. 40.25.
Plotting this type of chart for many leases in the East
Texas field indicates that the rise in the water table ap-
pears to be more or less proportional to the cumulative
oil production.
A plot of pl,- vs. cumulative gas production, such as
Fig. 40.24, is theoretically sound and should give relia-
ble results for normally pressured, constant-volume gas
reservoirs. Typically, however, a plot of cumulative gas
production for an overpressured gas reservoir (where
reservoir pressure exceeds the normal hydrostatic or relax-
ation pressure) will yield two slopes. An initial slope will
be observed above relaxation pressure, and a steeper slope
will occur after reservoir pressure drops below relaxa-
tion pressure. The second slope will extrapolate correct-
ly to yield initial gas in place and ultimate gas recovery.
Solution of Eq. 77. 6o will yield results equivalent to ex-
trapolation of the correct (second) slope if proper values
of formation compressibility (cf) and water compressi-
bility (c,,,) are entered:
WlTH WATERDRIVE
WATERDRIVE
ULTIMATE
-Gp (ky)
Fig. 40.24-Graphical evaluation of material-balance equation
for gas reservoirs.
with a gradually diminishing slope (Curve h). which in-
tersects the vertical axis at the value l/B,,,, Extrapola-
tion of the initial tangent of this curve to Its intersection
with the horizontal axis also indicates the amount of free
gas in place. G.
Instead of plotting the reciprocal gas FVF, l/B,, , it is
often more convenient to plot p/z on the vertical axis. as
shown on the right side of the scale in Fig. 40.24. The
ultimate gas recovery at the abandonment pressure, po,
is then found by the intersection of the curve with the value
I) 0 I,- <I
at abandonment time.
CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION PER
WELL IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS
Fig. 40.25-Abandonment line (subsea) vs.. cumulative oil recov-
ery. Woodbine sand, East Texas field.
Improved Recovery Reserves
Estimates of improved recovery reserves for conventional
fluid injection and various enhanced recovery processes
are often made by applying an overall reservoir recovery
efficiency in a volumetric calculation. The overall reser-
voir recovery efficiency, E,, may be expressed as the
product of three efficiencies: the displacement (or
microscopic) efficiency, ED, the pattern sweep efficien-
cy, Ep, and the invasion efficiency, E,. The resulting
volumetric equation for improved recovery reserves,
N,, is
NIR=ER
7,758Ah@,
>
Bo ' "'..
(78)
where ER is the recovery efficiency = ED x EP x El, frac-
tion, S, is the oil saturation at start of improved recov-
ery process, fraction, and other symbols and units as
previously defined.
Methods for estimating the various efficiency terms are
presented earlier in this chapter and in Chap. 44. Relia-
ble estimates of improved recovery reserves often require
the use of reservoir simulation models (see Chap. 48) to
account properly for process variables and reservoir het-
erogeneities.
Nomenclature
a = nominal decline rate; the negative slope of
the curve representing the natural
logarithm of the production rate y vs. time
t; also the instantaneous rate of change of
the production rate vs. time, divided by
the instantaneous production rate y: ex-
pressed as a decimal fraction with time in
months or years
A = area, in Eq. 29b in square feet, elsewhere in
acres
b = constant (in decline-curve analysis. Eq. 63)
B,< = gas FVF, a dimensionless factor representing
the volume of free gas at a reservoir tem-
perature of TR, F, and a pressure of pi,
psia per unit volume of free gas under
standard conditions of 60F and 14.7 psia
B,, = oil FVF; a dimensionless factor representing
the volume of oil saturated with solution
gas at reservoir temperature TK and
pressure PR. per unit volume of stock-tank
oil: it may be determined by PVT analysis
of a bottomhole or recombined sample or
obtained from appropriate correlation
charts; a typical oil FVF relationship vs.
gas solubility R, would be of the type
B,=1.05+0.0005#,
B, = two-phase FVF for oil; a dimensionless
factor representing the volume of oil and
its original complement of dissolved gas at
reservoir temperature TR and pressure PR
per unit volume of stock-tank oil; this two-
phase formation factor for oil, B,, is re-
lated to the oil FVF B,, the gas FVF B,,
the gas-solubility factor R,, , and the gas-
solubility factor at the bubblepoint R,,h by
Cf
= compressibility of reservoir rock (formation);
expressed as change in PV per unit PV per
psi: cf appears to vary inversely with rock
porosity from 10X lop6 (10 microsips) for
2% porosity, to 4.8~ 1O-6 (4.8 microsips)
for 10% porosity, and 3.4~10~~ (3.4
microsips) for 25% porosity
CC,
= compressibility of reservoir oil; in volume
per psi for undersaturated oil above the
bubblepoint; typical values for c(, range
from 5X 10m6 (5 microsips) for low-
gravity oils to 25 x 10 ph (25 microsips)
for higher-gravity oils, with 10~ IO( (10
microsips) being a good average
c,,. = compressibility of interstitial water; in
volume per volume per psi; although the
water compressibility c,, varies somewhat
with pressure, temperature, and the amount
of salt or gas in solution. 3X 10mh (3
microsips) represents a good average value
40-35
d = effective decline rate; the drop in production
rate per unit of time (month or year)
divided by the production rate at the
beginning of the period: expressed as a
decimal fraction
E = parameter in Eqs. 29a and b
ER = recovery efficiency, fraction
fi: = fractional flow of gas
f,,, = water fraction of flow stream in reservoir
that consists of oil and water
F, = ratio of initial to final production rate yi/q,
(in decline-curve analysis, Page 40-28)
G = total initial gas in place in reservoir, scf
GFi = free reservoir gas in place, scf
G,, = cumulative gas produced, scf
G,, = solution gas in place, scf
G,/ = ultimate gas recovery from reservoir, scf
&, = effective thickness, ft
h, = average gross pay thickness, ft
k = absolute permeability, md
lie = effective permeability to oil, md
k
4
= relative permeability to gas as a fraction of
absolute permeability
k,, = relative permeability to oil as a fraction of
k
111
= relative permeability to water as a fraction of
In = natural logarithm to the base e
log = common logarithm to the base 10
tn = ratio of initial reservoir free gas volume and
n= exponent (in decline-curve analysis)
N= reservoir oil initially in place, STB
NIR =
improved reserves, STB
N, = cumulative oil produced, STB
N, = remaining oil reserves as of date of study,
STB
N,, =
unit recovery by depletion or solution-gas
drive, STB
N~I =
ultimate recovery from reservoir, STB
No,. =
unit recovery by water drive, STB
pC, = critical pressure, psia
pR = reservoir pressure, psia; generally measured
by bottomhole pressure bomb at a depth
representative of the entire reservoir, e.g.,
the midpoint of the oil or gas column;
although the vertical pressure gradient in
oil fields may range from as low as 20 or
30 psi/l00 ft to as high as 90 or 100
psi/100 ft of depth, typical hydrostatic
gradients usually range from 44 to 52
psi/100 ft
initial reservoir oil volume; related to the
amount of free initial reservoir gas GFj,
the initial gas FVF B,i, the amount of
initial reservoir oil in place N, and the
initial oil FVF B(,; by
40-36
40
= production rate at abandonment, B/D
qh
= rate of gas production, scf/D
40
= rate of oil production, B/D
q, = rate of total fluid production, B/D (on Page
40-14 qr designates the total flow rate of
oil and free gas, on Page 40-I 8 the total
flow rate of oil and water; both expressed
in cubic feet per day under reservoir
conditions)
R = instantaneous producing GOR, scf/STB
R, = cumulative GOR, scf/STB, related to
cumulative gas produced. G,. and
cumulative oil produced, N,, by
R, =G,JN,
R, = solution GOR (gas-solubility factor); the
number of standard cubic feet of gas.
liberated under specified separator
conditions, which are in solution in I bbl
of stock-tank oil at reservoir temperature
TR and pressure PR; it may be determined
by PVT analysis of a bottomhole or
recombined sample or obtained from ap-
propriate correlation charts. A typical gas-
solubility relationship vs. pressure for
medium-gravity crude, expressed in cubic
feet per barrel. would be of the type
R, = 135+0.25p,
S* = effective saturation, fraction
S, = free-gas saturation under reservoir conditions,
fraction of pore space
S,; = free-gas saturation under reservoir conditions,
fraction of hydrocarbonfilled pore space
(Page 40-14):
s; =S,,/l -s;,,.
S,?, = equilibrium (or critical) free-gas saturation,
which is the maximum free-gas saturation
reached when lowering the pressure below
the bubblepoint, before the relative perme-
ability to gas becomes measurable; ex-
pressed as a fraction of pore space under
reservoir conditions
S,,. = residual free-gas saturation under reservoir
conditions at abandonment time, fraction of
pore space
S;,, = interstitial water saturation, fraction of pore
space; generally determined by (1) analysis
of water content of cores taken with a
nonaqueous drilling fluid, (2) measurement
of capillary pressure on cores. or (3)
quantitative analysis of electrical logs
S,, = oil or condensate saturation under reservoir
conditions, fraction of pore space
S,,,. = residual-oil saturation under reservoir
conditions, fraction of pore space,
generally determined by multiplying the
residual oil saturation from core analysis
by B,,
S, = total liquid saturation under reservoir
conditions, fraction of pore space:
s, = 1 -s, =s, +s,
t = time, days (Eq. 30) or months
TR = reservoir temperature, F, measured at a
depth representative of the entire reservoir;
e.g., at the midpoint of the oil or gas
column. Vertical temperature gradients in
oil fields range from 0.5 to 3F/lOO ft of
depth with 1.5F/lOO ft being a good
average
T,,, = standard temperature, 60~
I/ = gross pay volume, acre-ft
V, = net pay volume of the free-gas-bearing
portion of a reservoir, acre-ft
V, = net pay volume of the oil-bearing portion of
a reservoir. acre-ft
W, = cumulative water influx, bbl
Wfl = cumulative water produced, bbl
z = compressibility factor for the free gas in the
reservoir; a dimensionless factor, which,
when multiplied by the reservoir volume of
gas as computed by the ideal-gas laws,
yields the true reservoir volume
2 = height, ft
Yo
= gravity of stock-tank liquid (oil or
condensate), API
8 = angle of formation dip, degrees
p,s
= reservoir gas viscosity, cp, ranging from
0.01 cp at low temperatures and pressures
to 0.06 cp for high gas gravities at very
high temperatures and pressures, with 0.02
cp being a good average
P 0
= reservoir oil viscosity, cp, ranging from less
than 0.1 cp for volatile oils under very
high temperatures and pressures to very
high values for low-gravity oils that will
barely flow at all; most reservoir oils.
however, fall between 0.4 and 2 cp
P M
= reservoir water viscosity, cp, ranging from
0.2 cp at high temperatures to 1.5 cp at
lower temperatures, with 0.5 cp being a
good average
PR
= density of reservoir gas, gicu cm
P 0
= density of reservoir oil, g/cu cm
4 = effective porosity, as a fraction of bulk pay
volume; generally determined by labora-
tory analysis of cores, side-wall samples,
or cuttings; quantitative analysis of
electrical, radioactivity, or sonic logs;
typical values for 4 range from as low as
0.03 in tight limestones, and from 0. IO to
0.20 in cemented and consolidated sand-
stones, to as high as 0.35 in
unconsolidated sands
41, = effective hydrocarbon-bearing porosity, as a
fraction of bulk pay volume. =c$( 1 -S,,,.)
Subscripts
a = abandonment time conditions
h = bubblepoint conditions
i = initial conditions
GF, =
v,s4(l -S;,,.)lO 000
. . B,
(1)
where
GF, is in std m3 of free gas,
I/,? is net pay volume of free gas-bearing portion of
reservoir, in ha.m, and
IO 000 is m3/ha*m.
N=
v,r#q I -S,,,.)lO 000
,
(2)
B,,
where N is reservoir oil initially in place, in m, and V,
is net pay volume of the oil-bearing portion of a reser-
voir. in ha.m.
G, =
V(,4( I -S;,,.)R,, 10 000
..,.............
(3)
Bo
where G,, is solution gas in place, in std m3, and R,r is
solution GOR, in std m/stock-tank m3 of oil.
where
(5)
N, is cumulative oil produced, in rnj ,
R, is cumulative GOR, in std m/stock-tank mi,
R,v, is initial solution GOR, in std m3/stock-tank m3,
W, is cumulative water influx, in m3,
W,) is cumulative water produced, in m3,
ApR is change in reservoir pressure, in atm,
cf is compressibility of reservoir rock change, in PV
per unit PV per atm. and
c,,. is compressibility of interstitial water, atm-
Np=@
I-S,,,. so
~-- 10000,
B,, B,
>
where N, is in m/ha*m.
R=R,++, . . . .(18)
,g llg ro
where R is instantaneous producing GOR, in std rnj/
stock-tank m3. and R,, is solution GOR, in std m3/
stock-tank m3 .
E0.0091; sin 0A(p, -p,)
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(29b)
llgqr
where A is area of cross section normal to bedding plane,
in m2, and qr is total flow area, in res m/d.
NB,,
I= q,(df,,dS,~) ( .
where N is in m3 and q, is in mid.
G=
82.057iTR
. .
(35)
PR
where
G is reservoir volume, in cmig mol,
TR is reservoir temperature. in K, and
pi is reservoir pressure, in atm.
I (273.16+T,)
B,e =-
PR (273.16+T,,,.)
z=O.OO346(273.16+T,)$
PR
. .
(36)
where
T,,,. is standard temperature, 15.56C
I is standard pressure, in atm
TR is in C, and
pR is in atm.
RP
G,,, = IO OOO@p
R,+175
I -sj,,.
1 - siw - so,
X
B,i
B
- 175S,,,
>
, (38)
,q,
where R, is in std m3 gas/m condensate and G,,, is in
std m3 residue gas/ha.m.
NIR ER
10 OoOAh~S,,
>
, (78) B,
where A is in ha and h is in m.
References
I.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Garb. F.A.: Oil and Gas Reserves Classificatwn. Estmlation. and
Evaluation, J. Per. Tech. (March 19X5) 373-90.
Arps, J.J.: Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves, J. Pel. Twh.
(Aug. 1956) 182-91; Twzs.. AIME. 207.
Proved Reserves Definitions. Joint Committee of SPE, AAPG.
and API, J. Per. Twh. (Nov. 1981) 2113-14.
Wharron. J.B. Jr.: Isopachous Maps of Sand Reservoir\, Bull.,
AAPG (1948) 32. No. 7. 1331.
Schilthuis. R.J.: Active 011 and Reservoir Energy. Trtrrzc.. AIME
(1936) 118, 33-X.
Woods, R.W. and Muskat, M.: An AnalyG of Material Balance
Calculations, Tvn.\. AIME (1945) 160. 124-39.
van Everdingen. A.F.. Timmcrman. E.H.. and McMdhon. J.J..
Application of the Material Balance Equation to a Partial Water-
Drive Reservoir. .I. Pvi. Tfwh (Feb. 1953) 51-60: Truw , AIME.
198.
yan Evcrdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Applicatmn of the
Laplace Transformation to Flop Problems m Rescrvoir~. Trci?l\
AIME (1949) 186, 30524.
40-38
9.
IO.
II.
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
17.
IX
19
20
21
22
3
24
2s
Mushal. M. and Taylor. M.O.: Effect of Re\crwtr Fltutl ;1nd Rirch
Charactcrlsttc$ on Production Hi\tnric\ of Ga\ Drl\e Rcwr>oil\.
Trtrnr AIME (1946) 165. 78-93.
Babson. E.C.. Predlctwn of Rcwrvolr Bchavlor- from Lahnr,lto-
ry Data. Trim.\.. AIME 11944) 155. I?@.??.
Tarncr. J.: How Dlffcrent Size Gas Cap,, and Pre\sure Main-
tcnance Programs Affect Amount ot Recoverable Oil. 011 I+&-
/\ (June 12. 1944) 32.
Arp\. J.J. and Roberta, T.G.: The Eflcct of the Relattvr Pcrtw
ability Ratto. the Oil Gravity and the Solution Gas-011 Ratio on
the Primary Recovery from a Depletion Type Rewvotr. 1. PO/.
Tdi. (Aug. 1955) 120-27; 7rrri,.\.. AIME. 204.
Wahl, W.L.. Mullins. L.D., and Elfrink. E.B.: Estimation of Ul-
timate Recovery from Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs. J. PC>{. Td.
(June 1958) 132-38; Trwt.\.. AIME. 213.
Higgins. R.V : Calculating Oil Rccwerles for Solutinn~gas Drive
Re\&oirs. RI 5226, U<BM. Washington D.C. (April 1956).
Torcaro. M.A. and Wyllie, M.R.J.: A Compariron of Calculat-
ed k,,/k,,, Ratios With.a Correlation of Field Data. J. fcr. Twh.
(Dec. 195X) 57-58: Trtms.. AIME. 213.
A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficwq. API &t/l. D-14 (Oct.
1967).
Hawkins. M.F. Jr.: Material Balance\ m Expansion Typu Rcwr-
voirs Above Bubble Pomt. J. Per. Trrh. (Oct. 19.551 49-52.
Trm.\. AIME. 204.
Hobson. G.D. and Mrosov~ky. I.: Material Balance Above the
Bubble Point. J &. TI~I+?. iNov. 1956) 57-58: Tr<or\. , AIME.
207.
Watts, E.V.: Some Aspects of High Pre~aures in the D-7 Zone
of the Venture Avenue Field. Trcrnv., AIME (1948) 174. 191-205.
Jacoby. R.H. and Berry. V.J. Jr.: A Method tor Predicting Deple-
tion Performance of a Reservoir Producing Volatile Crude 011.
.I. Per. Twh. (Jan. 1957) 25-29: 7rrr,l.\. . AIME. 210.
Reudelhuber. F 0. and Hinds. R.F.: A Compostttonal Maternal
Balance Method for Prediction of Recovq from Volatile 011 Deple-
tton Drtvc Reser\oirs. J. Per. Tdi. (Jan. 1957) 19-26: Trtrri.c.,
AIME. 210.
Conk, .4.B.. Spencer. G.B.. and Bobrowskt, F P : Special Con-
siderations in Predicting Reservotr Performance of Highly Vola-
tale Type Oil Rexrvolr~. Trtw.\. . AIME (IYSI) 192. 17-46.
Brinkman, F.H. and Wemaug. C.F : Calculated Performance of
a Dissolved Gas Rescr\oir by a Phase Bchavlor Method. paper
SPE 710-G presented at the 1956 SPE Annual Fall Mectlny. Los
Angeles. Oct. 14-17.
Wcwh. R. W.: Case History of Rerenoir Perf<vmance of a Highly
Volatile Type Oil Reservotr. J. Per. TK/I. (Ocr. lYS5) 156-59:
rr<rn.\. . AIME. 204.
Jacnby. R.H.. Koeller. R.C.. and Berry. V.J. Jr.: Effect ofCon-
Position Temperature on Phase Behavior and Depletion Perfnrmance
01 Rich Gas-Condensate Systema. J. Per. TK/I. (July 19591 5X-63:
Trcrn.\. . AIME. 216.
26. Buckley. S.E. and Leverett. M.C.: Mechanism of Fluid Displace-
ment in Sand, Trams., AIME (1942) 146. 107-16.
7. Pirson, S. J.: Elwwxr of Oil Rrsrrwir Eqyinccrin,q, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York City (14150) 2%.
18. Welge. H.J.: A Simplified Method for Computing 011 Recovery
by Gas or Water Drive. Truns.. AIME (1952) 195, Yl-YX.
29. Kav, D.L.: Possibilities of Secondary Recovery for the Oklahw
ma City Wilcox Sand. Trans., AIME (1942) 146. 2%S3.
30. Stahl, R.F.. Martin. W.A.. and Huntington. R.L.: Gravltatwnal
Drainage Liquids from Unconsolidated Wilcox Sand. Tnrpts..
AIME (1943) 151. 138-46.
31. Sims, W.P. and Frail@ W.G.: Lakeview Pool. Midway-Sunset
Field. Trcrris. ~ AIME (1950) 189. 7-18.
32. Lewis. J.O.: Gravity Drainage in Oil Field<, Trm.. AIME
(1944) 155. 133-54.
33. Cardwell. W.T. Jr and Parson\. R L.: Gravity Drainage The-
ory ,
Trrms.. AIME (1949) 179, 199-215
34. Terwilliger. P.L P, ol. An Experimental and Theoretical Invcs-
tigation of Gravity Drainage Performance, Trms.. AIME (I95 I)
192, 285-96.
35. Matthews, C.S. and Letkovits. H.C.: Gravity Drainage Perfor-
mance of Depletion Type Reservoirs in the Strtpper Stag;. J. Per.
Tech. (Dec. 1956) 265-74: Trurrs.. AIME. 207.
36. Essley, P.L. Jr.. Hancock. G.L. Jr.. and Jones. K.E.: Gravtty
Drainage Concepts in a Steeply DIpping Reservoir. paper SPE
1029-G presented at the 1958 SPE Annual Fall Meeting. Tulsa.
37
3x
39
41
41
42
43
44
4.5
46.
47.
48.
49.
so.
Sl.
52
53.
54.
5s.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Smith. R.H.: Gravit) Draltwge. AIME Study Group Meettng.
Loi Anpeles. Oct. 27. 1952.
Baucunl. A.W. and Stctnlc. P. Efliclcncy of Illtnoi\ Water Drove
Rcicr\~oir\, &I//. rwrl Prod Prw.. API ( lY4h) 1 I7
Craze. R.C. and Buckley, S.E.: A Factual ,Analy\t\ ofthc Eflect
of Well Spacing on Oil Recovery, Drill (r~rd Prcxl P,rrr~. API,
Dallas (194.5) 144.
Guthrie. R.K. and Greenber.wr. M.H.. The Uw 01 Multlplc Corre-
lation Analyses for Interpr&ng Petroleum Engmecring Data. .API
YOI-31-G. API. Dallas (March 1955).
Dykstra. H. and Parsons. R.L.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery
by Water Flood . .%~~~~nc/cr~~ Kucwqv /!f Oil it? r/w Lf~ir<,~/ .%rr.r .
second edition, API. Dallas (1950) 160.
Mwkat. M.: The Effect of Permeability Stratification m Corn-
pletc Waterdrivc Systems, Trms.. AIME. 189 (1950) 349-5X.
Stiles, W.E.: Use of Pernz~hility Dlatribution m Water~Flond
Calculations, Trms.. AIME (1949) 186. Y-13.
Johnson, C.E. Jr.: Prediction ot Oil Recovery by Waterflood-
A Simphfied Graphical Treatment of the Dghwa-Parson?, Method.
J. Prr. Tdz. (Nov 1956) 55-56: Trw\. . AIME. 207.
Rcznik, A.A.. Enick. R.M.. and Panvciker. S.B.: An Anal\iti-
cat Extension of the Dykstra-Parsons Vertical Stratiftcation eis-
Crete Solution to a Continuous. Real-Time Basi\. 4,c Pcdr. k!~,lg.
J. (Dec. 1984) 643-55.
Brown, G.G. CI rrl. : Nmrrcd Gmolww cd rhc Vtk~rilt, Hydroc~rrr--
hens. Midwest Printing Co.. Tulsa (194 I).
Katz. D.L.: Hmdhook qfN~~crtrrrcr/ Gcrs E!~,q/wwiq, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc.. New York City (1981).
Robinson. D.B., Macrygeorpos. C.A.. and Govirr. G W. The
Volumetric Behavior of Natural Gases Containing Hydrogen Su-
fide and Carbon Dioxide, Trm~~., AIME (1960) 219. 54-60.
Standing. M .B ,: Volurn~wic~ cmd Phtrw &/trwior r!/ Oil Fir/c/
~vdro~rrrbons. Reinhold Publishing Corp.. New York City (lYS2)
25-26.
M uskat , M : F/UR of H~~r~~qet~eous Flurdr 7hrotr~h Porow MC,-
c/in. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.. New York City (1937) 71 I.
Gruy. H.J. and Crichton. J.A: A CrItical Review of Method\
Used in the Estimation of Natural Gas Rcserve$. Trm.\. , AIME
(1949) 179. 249-63.
Calhoun. J.C. : F[(~l~/rr,,lrnrcr/,s of Rcwrwrr Etr,~ir~wrir~,~. (revised
edition) U. of Oklahoma Press. Norman (1953) 6-18
Elfrink, E.B.. Sandberg. C.R.. and Pollard. T.A.: A New Cotn-
pressibility Correlation tbr Natural Gases and It5 Applicatmn to Es-
timates of Gas in Place. Trorw.. AIME (1939) 186. 219-23.
Arpa. J.J.: Analysis of Decline Cur\cs. Twos.. AIME (lY45)
160. 2 19-27.
Brons. F. and McGarry, M.W. Jr.: Methods for Calculating
Profitabtlities. paper SPE 870-G presented at the I957 SPE Fall
Meeting. Dallas. Oct. 6.
Cutler. W.W. Jr.: Estimation of Underground Oil Rcwvcs by
Well Production Curves. Bull.. USBM. Washington. DC (I 924)
228.
Arps. J.J.: How Well Completion Damage Can Be Detcrmmed
Graphically. World Oil (April 1955) 225-32.
van Everdingen. A.F.: The Skin Effect and Its Iniluence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well, J. Pet. Tdz. (June 1953) 171-76:
Trms., AIME, 198.
Proved Reserves of Crude 011, Natural Gab Lquidh and Natural
Gas. American Gas Assn. and American Petroleum Inq. Annual
Reports.
RamapoFt. B.P. and Farshad. F.F.: P/Z Abnormallv Pressured
Gas R&rvoirs. paper SPE 10125 presented at the IYil SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio Oct. 4-7.
General References
U.S. Crude 011, Natural Gas, and Natural Liquids, DOE Annu-
al Report (1980).
Reserves Definition, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Regulation S-X.
World Pet. Gong.. London (1983) Oil and Gcr.s J. (Nov. ?I) 58.
Chapter 41
Valuation of Oil and Gas Reserves
Forrest A. Garb, H. J . GJ I I ~& Ass, ocs *
Timothy A. Larson, Ernst & Whi tney
Types of Oil and Gas Property Ownership
The most common types of oil and gas property owner-
ship in the U.S. are mineral interests, working interests,
royalties, overriding royalties. net-profits interests. and
production payments.
A mineral interest in a property is a part of the fee
simple interest. In most states, the mineral interest can
be severed from the surface interest and transferred by
a mineral deed (in Louisiana, the mineral and surface in-
terest cannot be severed in perpetuity). The owner of the
minerals, either through fee simple title or by a mineral
deed, can exccutc a lease of the oil and gas rights. Con-
sideration paid for a lease is called a lease bonus. During
the primary term of the lease, it can be held by paying
rentals. production, or drilling activities. The rentals,
usually called delay rentals, are paid in lieu of drilling
or production. From an income-tax standpoint, these rent-
als are ordinary income to the lessor and arc deductible
by the lessee. For tax purposes, a bonus must be capital-
ized as a part of the cost of the lease by the lessee. This
bonus is income that is subject to depletion for the mineral-
interest owner; although if the lease is not eventually
productive, the depletion taken must be restored to in-
come in the year the lcase is proved worthless.
A royalty or royalty interest is the mineral own-
ers share of production free of the cxpcnse of produc-
tion. It is distinguished from a mineral interest by the
absence of operating rights. The basic royalty interest
usually is expressed as a fraction of the total production,
such as g of %. !& of %. Royalty has historically been
subject to production taxes. federal excise taxes [Wind-
fall Profits Tax (WPT)], and in some states, old ~~lore~t
taxes.
An overriding royalty interest is an interest in oil
and gas produced free of the expense of production and
in addition to the usual landowners royalty. It continues
for the life of the lease and is sub,ject to production taxes.
WPT taxes, and in some states. ud ~~7lowr77 taxes. An
Author of the arlglnal chapter was Jan J Arps (deceased)
overriding royalty interest is commonly expressed as a
fraction of the revenue accruing to the working interest;
for example, /8 of 7/, of the total oil and gas produced.
In some areas, such as the Rocky Mountains, overrid-
ing royalties are often expressed as a percentage of % of
the total oil and gas produced.
A *net-profits interest is a share of the gross produc-
tion measured by the lessees net profits from the opera-
tion of a specific tract of land. It is normally carved out
of the working interest.
A carried interest is a fractional interest in an oil
and gas property that gives the owner no personal obli-
gation for operating or development costs. The opera-
ing or development costs attributable to such fractional
interest are borne and paid by the owners of the remain-
ing fractional working interest, who recoup such expen-
ditures or an agreed sum out of production from the
property.
A production payment is a share of the oil, gas, and
other minerals produced from a tract of land, free of the
cost of production, that terminates when a specific sum
from the sale of the oil, gas, and other minerals has been
realized by the owner of the interest. There is no personal
liability to pay the sum specified in the instrument creat-
ing the production payment: the owner looks only to pro-
duction from the tract of land for the sum specified. A
production payment is usually expressed in dollars and
may carry an incremental payment computed in the man-
ner of interest. A production payment is said to be carved
out when it is transferred out of another oil and gas in-
terest. It is reserved when the interest is retained by
the seller upon the sale of another oil and gas interest.
Production payments limited to oil or gas only are called
oil payment or gas payment, respectively.
A reversionary interest is usually a portion of the work-
ing interest that reverts to another party on the occurrence
of some defined event. This event is often the payout of
the investment or some multiple of the investment or may
bc the passing of some defined time period.
TABLE 41. 1- - REVENUE I NTERESTS
A owns: l / s of B/ e l ess / a of I / * of Ve l ess / a of J / s of a/ 8 , or s/ s4 ( of */ 8) or R/ =0. 07812
~OWnS: / 40f 1/ gOf 8/ or1, &( of 8/ g) or , . . , , , . . . . . . R/ =0. 03125
DOwnS: 1/ gOf 1/ 80f 8/ g0r1/ 6~( Of 8/ g) Or _. . . R/ =0. 01562
All or any part of each of these oil and gas interests
may be purchased, sold, or mortgaged at the owners
election.
Each economic interest in a property represents the right
to a certain fraction of the gross income from the sales
of oil and gas [revenue-interest fraction (RI)], and an ob-
ligation to pay a certain fraction of the cost of production
[workinginterest fraction (WI)]. In the case of royalty
interests, overriding royalty interests, carried interests,
and production payments. the WI is zero because these
interests are free of the cost of production.
A working interest is the lessees or operating in-
terest under an oil and gas lease. The typical oil and gas
lease provides for a royalty to be paid to the lessor or other
royalty owners, free of the expenses of production; the
balance of the production represents the working interest
of the lessee, and this part of the production bears the en-
tire expense of production. The working interest created
by an oil and gas lease may be further divided by the cre-
ation of overriding royalties, production payments, net-
profits interests. and carried working interests. When
there is one lessee under an oil and gas lease, he must
pay the entire cost of production and his WI is 100%.
Where two or more lessees jointly own a lease, the WI
of each lessee when total ed should add up to 100% of the
working interest under such lease. The various co-owners
of such a lease normally enter into an operating agree-
ment and designate an operator of the property. For ex-
ample, for a joint-interest owner who owns a quarter of
the working interest, the WI equals 0.25. The WI is in
effect equal to the fraction of the cost of production that
a lessee has to pay.
An RI, also referred to as net interest or division-order
interest, is a fractional interest in the total gross revenue
from a tract of land that represents the actual quantity of
total oil and gas produced from such land attributable to
an oil and gas interest in such land. An RI is commonly
expressed as a decimal fraction of % of the gross revenue
from such production.
An example may clarify the system. Landowner A
leases his land for oil and gas purposes to D, retaining
the usual / royalty interest. In order to hedge against non-
productive development, A sells 5/4 of his x royalty to
B and l/8 of his )/8 to C. A, B, and C thus become the
royalty owners under the land mentioned above. Their
RIs are computed in Table 4 1.1.
D, the original lessee, then conveys the lease to E, re-
taining x6 of /s overriding-royalty interest. The lease is
now said to be burdened with a x6 override. D now owns
l/j6 of /8 or x2s, or RI=0.05469.
To support him with his development and operating
costs, E now sells one-fourth of his interest in the lease
to F. E now owns W of (7/s of % less x6 of 7/s of %) or
31s
/ 512,
or RI=0.61524, while paying U of the costs or
WI=O.75. F now owns i/4 of (/B of % less x6 of x of
%I or 10%121
or RI=0.20508 while paying i/4 of the costs
or WI=O.25.
The working- and revenue-interest fractions pertaining
to the various economic interests in this example should
now each add up to unity, as shown in Table 4 1.2.
Valuation2-13
Determination of Fair Market Value
Fair market value of an oil- or gas-productive property,
as commonly understood, is the price at which the prop-
erty would be sold after exposure to the market for a
reasonable period of time by a willing seller to a willing
buyer, neither being under compulsion to buy or to sell,
and both being competent and having reasonable knowl-
edge of the facts.
Fiske,3 presenting the viewpoint of the Internal
Revenue Service in 1956, listed six methods used to de-
termine the fair market value in order of preferential
weight: (1) an actual sale of the property near the valua-
tton date: (2) a bona tide offer to sell or purchase the prop-
erty near the valuation date; (3) actual sales of similar
properties in the same or nearby oil and gas fields near
the valuation date; (4) valuations made for purposes other
than federal taxation near the valuation date; (5) analytical
appraisals; and (6) opinions of qualified oil or gas
operators.
This section deals with the determination of the fair mar-
ket value of oil and gas properties by the analytical- or
engineering-appraisal method, enumerated by Fiske as
TABLE 41. 2- WORKI NG AND REVENUE I NTEREST FRACTI ONS
Landowner ( Lessor)
Royal ty Owner
Royal ty Owner
Overri dtng- Royal ty Owner
Operator
Nonoperator
Total
Fracti on of
Worki ng I nterest
( deci mal f racti on
of costs)
0
0
0
0
0. 75
0. 25
1. 00
Revenue-
I nterest Fracti on
( deci mal f racti on
of revenue)
0. 07812
0. 03125
0. 01562
0. 05469
0. 61524
0. 20508
1 . ooooo
VALUATI ON OF OI L AND GAS RESERVES 41- 3
Item 5. With this method, the appraiser estimates the
recoverable hydrocarbon reserves from the property and
appraises the probable future net income or cash flow to
be realized from the production and sale of these reserves.
While fair market value for a hydrocarbon-producing
property is not a precise number, it can be approximated
within rather close limits by use of the engineering-
appraisal method. 3
Preparing a Cash-Flow Projection
For the purpose of determining future net income or cash
flow, oil and gas production should be forecast on infor-
mation about future demand for petroleum or on the ba-
sis of purchase contracts if these govern but should not
exceed the physical ability of the well or wells to produce.
Where proration or market curtailment is in force, trends
in oil and gas allowables or market should be considered.
Usually, the gross income from oil and gas sales to be
obtained from such production is based by the appraiser
on current posted prices for crude oil and on predicted
economic conditions.
The constant price projections are required for financ-
ing and Securities Exchange Commission filings, while
the predicted prices that are based on economic studies
are used for business decisions.
Gas prices should be based on gas-purchase contracts
in force on the properties being appraised. The effect of
escalation clauses in such gas-purchase contracts. which
are subject to future approval by regulatory agencies, are
usually set out separately.
In most states, oil and gas production is subject to state,
county. and local taxes payable by the producer. The
producer customarily charges the appropriate part of these
taxes to the various interests in a given property. Tax rates
on oil and gas production in the various states have histor-
ically varied and may be obtained from the state regula-
tory agency. The taxes are usually collected by the pipeline
company by deduction from the runs.
Corporation or private income taxes are normally con-
sidered outside the scope of an oil and gas property valu-
ation, but some valuation formulas make indirect
allowance for them. Tax ramifications can totally change
the economics of a proposed transaction and related cval-
uation. For certain purposes, such as bank evaluations,
income taxes, as an inherent part of the future income,
are sometimes specifically included in the forecast.
Operating or production costs comprise the expenses
required to produce the oil and gas and to maintain the
leases. These costs, usually called direct lifting costs, in-
clude the cost of labor, field supervision, power, fuel,
repairs, stimulation and/or recompletion of wells, plant
repairs, transportation, insurance, and other such items.
As the age of the wells increases, additional expenditures
may have to be made to keep the wells in operating con-
dition and possibly for disposal of produced salt water.
Capital expenditures include the cost of construction of
gasoline plants, repressuring systems. additional devel-
opment wells, artificial lifting equipment, engines. tanks,
and other durable items required to produce all the eco-
nomically recoverable oil.
An owner of a working interest in oil or gas properties
pays the full amount of his working-interest share of direct
costs and capital expenditures, but he pays production and
federal excise taxes only on the production to his net
revenue interest. Royalty or overriding royalty interests,
however, ordinarily bear none of the normal lifting costs
or capital expenditures but do bear production and feder-
al excise taxes on their revenue-interest portion of the oil
or gas produced.
The gross income to be realized from the production
of the revenue-interest portion of the oil and gas reserves,
when reduced by the amounts necessary for production
and federal excise taxes, the working-interest share of
operating expenses, repairs, recompletions, and additional
capital expenditures, is the future net income or the net
cash flow generated from the production of the estimated
oil and gas reserves. Salvage value of equipment at the
time of abandonment is ordinarily not included in the cash-
flow projection because such income is usually offset by
the cost of properly plugging and abandoning the prop-
erty in compliance with state regulations. An exception
is sometimes made where the life of the property is short
and such salvageable equipment minus abandonment costs
constitutes a major part of the value.
After the technical analysis of the properties has been
made, which results in a determination of the volume and
rate of production of oil and gas, and these data have been
reduced to a projection of future operating net income or
cash flow, it becomes necessary to establish the appraisal
value.
Analytical Methods for
Computation of Appraisal Value
Although there are many methods for computing appraisal
value, only the most popular will be discussed. All these
compute the appraisal value of a property by the
discounted-cash-flow procedure and give proper weight
to the time pattern of future income. Appraisal values that
are based on a given fraction of the undiscounted future
cash income or on payout in a given number of years do
not meet this requirement and are not included.
The examples provided are from the original edition
of this handbook and reflect the economic conditions cur-
rent at that time. The methodology remains valid, how-
ever, and any values in the examples would be subject
to change with time.
Appraisal value equal to a fraction of the present worth
of the net cash flow before federal taxes computed at
a safe rate of interest. Method 1 is relatively simple, easy
to understand, and widely used. It is based on the premise
that future income should only be discounted at an interest
rate that reflects the current-time value of money and that
such interest rate-which fluctuates with the prevailing
cost of money-is not used as a vehicle for the risk fac-
tor. In its application, the combined present worth of the
future operating net income or cash flow is calculated by
discounting the future annual cash-flow increments at
prevailing or projected compound interest rates. An ex-
ample of such a present-worth computation at an interest
rate of lO%/yr is shown in Table41.3. While Table41.3
is a hand calculation, most calculations are made with
electronic data processing equipment, as shown in Table
41.4.
The total present worth of the future net operating in-
come, which in this example is $1,499,941, is not to be
construed as the market value of the oil or gas property.
The purchaser of such a property logically is entitled to
TABLE 41. 3- CASH- FLOW PROJ ECTI ON AND PRESENT- WORTH CALCULATI ON
FOR XYZ OI L COMPANY S I NTEREST I NPRODUCI NG OI L PROPERTY
Operakx XYZ co. 011 Sal es Pri ce =$29 OO/ bbl Lease Mary J ones
Revenue Interest, RI =0 375 Productron Taxes =~.WO pl us $0 0019/ bbl Frel d Rock Creek
Worki ng I nterest: WI =0. 500 Esti mated Operatl nq Expenses =5800 OO/ wel l - month State: Texas
Date of Eval uati on l - l - 85
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Esti mated Future Operati on
Gross l ease
productron. bbl
Net productron to XYZ.
bbl Rl x Step 1
011 revenue. dol l ars Step 3 x Pri ce
Producti on taxes,
dol l ars ( 0 046 x step 3] + [ O0019 x step Z]
Produci ng wel l - months wel l s x months
Operati ng costs. dol l ars Step 5 x $800
Capi tal expendttures,
dol l ars
-
XYZ share of operati ng
pl us capi tal costs,
dol l ars WI x [ Step 6+ Step 71
Net f ederal exci se*
( WPT) . dol l ars
Future net revenue.
dol l ars Step 3 - Step 4 - Step 8 - Step 9
10% annual def erment
f actor ( Tabl e 41 11) F, , =( Step 1 +i ) -
Present worth of XYZ s
cash f l ow
Acres, 100
No of Wel l s 1
111185 1 I I 186 l / 1/ 87 111188 111189 l / 1/ 90 l / l / 91 Total
50. 301 42, 570 30, 738 24, 180 19. 490 13. 847 4, 506 185, 632
18. 863 15, 964 11, 527 9, 068 7. 309 5, 193 1. 690 69, 614
547. 023 462, 949 334, 276 262, 957 211. 954 150. 586 49. 003 2. 018. 748
25, 199 21, 326 15, 399 12, 113 9, 764 6, 937 2, 258 92, 996
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 84
9. 600 9. 600 9, 600 9. 600 9, 600 9. 600 9, 600 67, 200
-
4. 800 4. 800 4, 800 4. 800 4, 800 4. 800 4, 800 33. 600
14, 336 7, 982 4, 957 3, 174 1, 973 987 152 33, 561
502, 688 428, 841 309. 120 242, 870 195, 417 137. 862 41. 793 1. 858. 591
09535 08668 0. 7880 0. 7164 06512 0. 5920 0. 5382
479, 294 371, 713 243. 582 173, 980 127, 261 81. 618 22, 493 1, 499. 941
TABLE 41. 4- PROJ ECTI ON OF ESTI MATED PRODUCTI ON AND REVENUE AS OF J AN. 1, 1985
XYZ 011 co
Worki ng I nterest
Net Oi l l nteresl
Net Gas I nterest
0. 500000
0. 375000
0. 375000
Future Producti on
011
Proved
Pnmary
Produci ng
XYZ 011 co
Mary J ones
l mtl al Wel l s 1
Rock Creek Frel d
Texas
011 or
Condensate Gas Future Gross Revenue Bef ore Producti on Taxes ( dol l ars)
Future Di scounted
Number of Gross Net Gross Net 011 Gas Total ProductI on Net Val ue at
Year Wel l s
WI )
( bbl ) ( Mscf ) ( Mscf ) Revenue Revenue Revenue Taxes Costs Revenue 10 00%
~ ~ 1985 1 50, 301 18. 863 547. 023 547. 023 25, 199 19, 136 502. 688 479, 294
1986 1 42, 570 15, 964 462, 949 462, 949 21. 326 12, 782 428. 841 371. 713
i 987 1 30, 738 11, 527 334, 276 334, 276 15, 399 9. 757 309, 120 243, 582
1988 1 24, 180 9, 068 262, 957 262, 957 12, 113 7. 974 242, 870 173, 980
1989 1 19, 490 7. 309 211, 954 211, 954 9, 764 6. 773 195, 417 127, 261
1990 1 I 3, 847 5, 193 150. 586 150. 586 6, 937 5. 787 137, 862 81. 618
1991 1 4, 506 1, 690 49. 003 49, 003 2, 258 4. 952 41, 793 22, 493
Sub Total 185. 632 69, 614 2. 018. 748 2. 018. 748 92. 996 67. 161 1. 858. 591 1. 499. 941
Remai nl na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 185, 632 69, 614 ~ ~ 2. 018. 748 2. 018. 748 92, 996 67. 161 1. 858. 591 1. 499. 941
The asof - date gross oi l pnce =$29 OO/ bbl . tax ti er 3. Pri ces
and
Wi ndf al l
Prof i t
Taxes
Year $/ bbl
1985 29 00
1986 29 00
1987 29 00
1988 29 00
1989 29 00
1990 29 00
1991 29 00
$/ Mscf WFPTX( $) Year $/ bbl $/ Mscf WFPTX ( $)
14, 336
7. 982
4, 957
3, 174
1. 973
987
152
Total WFP Tax =$33. 561
TABLE 41 S- DI SCOUNTED FUTURE NET CASH I NCOME VS. PROPERTY LI FE
Percentage of Average Percentage
Average 5% Equi val ent 5% Di scounted of 5% Dtscounted
Def erment Factor on Constant- Rate Val ue of Future Val ue of Future
Cash- Fl ow Producti on Number of Net Cash I ncome Net Cash I ncome
Protecti on
( wars)
Transacti ons Pai d Pai d
60 through 84 71
50 through 89 70
58 through 89 75
68 through 98 78
0. 82 through 0. 70 8 through 15 11
0. 70 through 0. 52 15 through 30 13
a profit above the bank interest rate. Also, when cash flow
is computed by this method, the federal income taxes on
the operating net income usually are not deducted, and
allowance must be made for them. In addition, a risk-of-
doing-business factor is usually included.
Depending on whether cost-depletion or percentage-
depletion allowance is applicable and depending on the
amounts of future intangible development expenditures
and equipment depreciation, thih federal income tax lia-
bility will vary on the basis of the tax rate applicable to
the interest owner.
The profit margin required in the transaction may also
vary widely because of risks inherent in the operation of
the property and the respective trading ability of the par-
ties to the transaction.
In addition, in the opinion of many operators, the long-
term inflationary trend may put a premium on future in-
come from sales of a basic raw material, such as crude
oil or natural gas.
Prospective purchasers should. therefore, weigh all
these factors with the federal taxes payable and the risks
of the operations as negative factors and the inflationary
effects and possible additional romance in the trans-
action as plus factors. Thus they can arrive at the proper
fraction of the present worth at some safe interest rate
that they are willing to pay.
In a speech presented at the Petroleum Engineers Club
of Dallas, Oct. 17, 1952, H.J. Gruy considered as fair
market value two-thirds of future net cash income be-
fore amortization and federal taxes, discounted at 5 %/yr.
This methodology is still in use. However, the discount
rate at the time of the evaluation is substituted for the
5 %/yr rate.
A study by Garb et al. in 1981 indicated that, in spite
of varying tax and economic conditions, one classic yard-
stick for estimating the value of oil in the ground had re-
mained reasonably constant through the years. An analysis
of IO major transactions during the period 1979-8 I, a
volatile oil-price period, indicated that oil reserves in the
ground demonstrated a market value of approximately
one-third of their posted wellhead price.
Dodson listed in 1959, among some seven different
methods that may be used to determine the fair market
value of oil and gas reserves, percentages of the pres-
ent worth, which may vary from 50 to 100% but which
recently have been from 75 to 80 %
A study by Arpsh of 34 actual property transactions
made during the postwar years in the mid-continent, gulf
coast, and California showed that the percentage of the
5% discounted value of future net cash income (before
amortization and federal taxes) paid for these properties
varied with their future lives. as shown in Table 41.5.
These data show a tendency for the average percentages
of the last column to increase when the estimated life of
the properties becomes longer. In none of these transac-
tions did the total consideration exceed two-thirds of the
updiscounted future net cash income before federal tax-
es. Fagin introduced an empirical market-value yard-
stick that is based on the trend in actual prices paid for
producing properties during the postwar years in long-
life fields such as East Texas (see Table 41.6). To find
the market value by this yardstick for constant-rate pro-
duction of a similar character, the percentage shown in
Co]. 3 of the market-value-yardstick table for the applica-
ble number of years of constant-rate production of Col.
2 of this table is determined. This percentage is then mul-
tiplied with the average 5% deferment factor of Col. I
and with the undiscounted future net cash flow to yield
the estimated market value.
Example Problem 1. A property with an estimated fu-
ture net cash flow of $1 ,OOO.OOO and a IO-year constant-
rate life would have a market value of
0.73x0.79x$1,000,000=$577,000.
Solution. When the given cash-flow projection does not
show a constant rate, the appropriate percentage is found
in Co]. 3, which corresponds to the applicable average
5% deferment factor from Col. I of Table 41.6. This per-
centage is then multiplied by the average 5% deferment
factor of Col. I and by the undiscounted future net cash
flow to yield the estimated market value.
Example Problem 2. A property with an estimated fu-
ture net cash flow of $500,000. which has a 5 % discount-
ed value of $375,000 (average deferment factor 0.75).
would have a market value of 0.72 x0.75 x $SOO,OOO=
$270,000.
TABLE 41. 6- FAGI N S MARKET- VALUE YARDSTI CK
Market Val ue as
Equi val ent Percentage of 5%
Average 5% Def erment Constant- Rate Di scounted Val ue
Factor on Cash Fl ow Proj ecti on of Future Net
Proj ecti on
Wars)
Cash Fl ow
0. 88 5 79
0. 79 10 73
0. 70 15 71
0. 63 20 68
0. 52 30 66
0. 44 40 70
0. 32 60 71
TABLE 41. 7- MI DYEAR LUMP- SUM DEFERMENT FACTORS FLs=( l +~J ' h- '
Year
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
0. 4951
0. 4854
0. 4759
0. 4665
0. 4574
0. 4484
0. 4396
0. 4310
0. 4059 0. 3502
0. 3941 0. 3384
0. 3826 0. 3269
0. 3715 0. 3159
0. 3607 0. 3052
0. 3502 0. 294s
0. 3400 0. 2849
0. 3301 0. 2753
0. 3205 0. 2659
0. 3111 0. 2570
0. 3021 0. 2483
0. 2933 0. 2399
0. 2847 0. 2318
0. 2485 0. 2096 0. 1769
0. 2389 0. 2006 0. 1685
0. 2297 0. 1919 0. 1605
0. 2209 0. 1837 0. 1528
0. 2124 0. 1758 0. 1456
0. 2042 0. 1682 0. 1386
0. 1964 0. 1609 0. 1320
0. 1888 0. 1540 0. 1257
0. 1495 0. 1264 0. 1069 0. 0905
0. 1417 0. 1192 0. 1004 0. 0846
0. 1343 0. 1125 0. 0943 0. 0791
0. 1273 0. 1061 0. 0885 0. 0739
0. 1207 0. 1001 0. 0831 0. 0691
41
42
43
44
45
0. 1144 0. 0944 0. 0780 0. 0646
0. 1084 0. 0891 0. 0733 0. 0603
0. 1027 0. 0840 0. 0688 0. 0564
0. 1102
0. 1025
0. 0953
0. 0887
0. 0825
0. 0767
0. 0714
0. 0664
0. 0618
0. 0575
0. 0535
0. 0497
0. 0463
0. 0651 0. 0552
0. 0603 0. 0509
0. 0558 0. 0469
0. 0517 0. 0432
0. 0478 0. 0399
0. 0443 0. 0367
0. 0410 0. 0339
0. 0380 0. 0312
0. 4226 0. 2764 0. 2239 0. 1816 0. 1474 0. 1197 0. 0974 0. 0793 0. 0646 0. 0527 0. 0430 0. 0352 0. 0288
0. 4143 0. 2684 0. 2163 0. 1746 0. 1410 0. 1140 0. 0923 0. 0748 0. 0607 0. 0493 0. 0400 0. 0326 0. 0265
46 0. 4062 0. 2606 0. 2090 0. 1679 0. 1350 0. 1086 0. 0875 0. 0706 0. 0570 0. 0460 0. 0372 0. 0301 0. 0244
47 0. 3982 0. 2530 0. 2020 0. 1614 0. 1291 0. 1034 0. 0829 0. 0666 0. 0535 0. 0430 0. 0346 0. 0279 0. 0225
48 0. 3904 0. 2456 0. 1951 0. 1552 0. 1236 0. 0985 0. 0786 0. 0628 0. 0502 0. 0402 0. 0322 0. 0258 0. 0208
49 0. 3827 0. 2384 0. 1885 0. 1492 0. 1183 0. 0938 0. 0745 0. 0592 0. 0472 0. 0376 0. 0300 0. 0239 0. 0191
50 0. 3752 0. 2315 0. 1822 0. 1435 0. 1132 0. 0894 0. 0706 0. 0559 0. 0443 0. 0351 0. 0279 0. 0222 0. 0176
2%
0. 9901
0. 9708
0. 9517
0. 9330
0. 9147
0. 8968
0. 8792
0. 8620
3%
0. 9853
0. 9566
0. 9288
0. 9017
0. 8754
3' / 2% 4% 4' 12% 5% 512 % 6% 6%% 7% ih % 8% 8 /2 %
- ~ ~
0. 9829 0. 9806 0. 9782 0. 9759 0. 9736 0. 9713 0. 9690 0. 9667 0. 9645 0. 9623 0. 9600
0. 9497 0. 9429 0. 9361 0. 9295 0. 9228 0. 9163 0. 9099 0. 9035 0. 8972 0. 8909 0. 8848
0. 9176 0. 9066 0. 8958 0. 8852 0. 8747 0. 8645 0. 8543 0. 8444 0. 8346 0. 8249 0. 8155
0. 8866 0. 8717 0. 8572 0. 8430 0. 8291 0. 8155 0. 8022 0. 7891 0. 7764 0. 7639 0. 7516
0. 8566 0. 8382 0. 8203 0. 8029 0. 7859 0. 7693 0. 7532 0. 7375 0. 7222 0. 7073 0. 6927
0. 8500 0. 8276 0. 8060 0. 7850 0. 7646 0. 7449 0. 7258 0. 7073 0. 6893 0. 6718 0. 6549 0. 6385
0. 8252 0. 7996 0. 7750 0. 7512 0. 7282 0. 7061 0. 6847 0. 6641 0. 6442 0. 6249 0. 6064 0. 5884
0. 8012 0. 7726 0. 7452 0. 7188 0. 6936 0. 6693 0. 6460 0. 6236 0. 6020 0. 5813 0. 5615 0. 5423
0. 8451 0. 7778 0. 7465 0. 7165 0. 6879 0. 6605 0. 6344 0. 6094 0. 5855 0. 5626 0. 5408 0. 5199 0. 4999
0. 8285 0. 7552 0. 7212 0. 6889 0. 6583 0. 6291 0. 6013 0. 5749 0. 5498 0. 5258 0. 5031 0. 4814 0. 4607
0. 8123 0. 7332 0. 6968 0. 6624 0. 6299 0. 5991 0. 5700 0. 5424 0. 5162 0. 4914 0. 4680 0. 4457 0. 4246
0. 7964 0. 7118 0. 6733 0. 6370 0. 6028 0. 5706 0. 5403 0. 5117 0. 4847 0. 4593 0. 4353 0. 4127 0. 3913
0. 7807 0. 6911 0. 6505 0. 6125 0. 5768 0. 5434 0. 5121 0. 4827 0. 4551 0. 4292 0. 4049 0. 3821 0. 3607
0. 7654 0. 6710 0. 6285 0. 5889 0. 5520 0. 5175 0. 4854 0. 4554 0. 4273 0. 4012 0. 3767 0. 3538 0. 3324
0. 7504 0. 6514 0. 6072 0. 5663 0. 5282 0. 4929 0. 4601 0. 4296 0. 4013 0. 3749 0. 3504 0. 3276 0. 3064
0. 7357 0. 6324 0. 5867 0. 5445 0. 5055 0. 4694 0. 4361 0. 4053 0. 3768 0. 3504 0. 3260 0. 3033 0. 2824
0. 7213 0. 6140 0. 5669 0. 5235 0. 4837 0. 4471 0. 4134 0. 3823 0. 3538 0. 3275 0. 3032 0. 2809 0. 2603
0. 7071 0. 5961 0. 5477 0. 5034 0. 4629 0. 4258 0. 3918 0. 3607 0. 3322 0. 3060 0. 2821 0. 2601 0. 2399
0. 6932 0. 5788
0. 6797 0. 5619
0. 6664 0. 5456
0. 6533 0. 5297
0. 6405 0. 5142
0. 6279 0. 4993
0. 6156 0. 4847
0. 6035 0. 4706
0. 5917 0. 4569
0. 5801 0. 4436
0. 5687 0. 4307
0. 5576 0. 4181
0. 5466
0. 5359
0. 5254
0. 5151
0. 5050
0. 5292
0. 5113
0. 4940
0. 4773
04612
0. 4456
0. 4305
0. 4159
0. 4019
0. 3883
0. 3751
0. 3625
0. 4841 0. 4429 0. 4055 0. 3714 0. 3403
0. 4654 0. 4239 0. 3862 0. 3520 0. 3210
0. 4475 0. 4056 0. 3678 0. 3337 0. 302s
0. 4303 0. 3882 0. 3503 0. 3163 0. 2857
0. 4138 0. 3714 0. 3336 0. 2998 0. 2695
0. 397s 0. 3554 0. 3177 0. 2842 0. 2543
0. 3825 0. 3401 0. 3026 0. 2693 0. 239s
0. 3678
0. 3537
0. 3401
0. 3270
0. 3144
0. 3023
0. 2907
0. 2795
0. 2688
0. 2584
0. 3255 0. 2882 0. 2553
0. 3115 0. 2745 0. 2420
0. 2981 0. 2614 0. 2294
0. 2852 0. 2489 0. 2174
0. 2729 0. 2371 0. 2061
0. 2612 0. 2258 0. 1953
0. 2499 0. 2150 0. 1852
0. 2392 0. 2048 0. 1755
0. 2289 0. 1951 0. 1664
0. 2190 0. 1858 0. 1577
0. 2263 0. 2007
0. 2135 0. 1885
0. 2014 0. 1770
0. 1900 0. 1662
0. 1793 0. 1560
0. 1691 0. 1465
0. 1595 0. 1376
0. 1505 0. 1292
0. 1420 0. 1213
0. 1340 0. 1139
0. 3119
0. 2929
0. 2750
0. 2582
0. 2425
0. 2277
0. 2138
0. 2860 0. 2624 0. 2408
0. 2673 0. 2441 0. 2230
0. 2498 0. 2271 0. 2064
0. 2335 0. 2112 0. 1912
0. 2182 0. 1965 0. 1770
0. 2039 0. 1828 0. 1639
0. 1906 0. 1700 0. 1517
0. 1781 0. 1582
0. 1665 0. 1471
0. 1556 0. 1369
0. 1454 0. 1273
0. 1359 0. 1184
0. 1270
0. 1187
0. 1109
0. 1037
0. 0969
0. 1405
0. 1301
0. 1205
0. 1115
0. 1033
0. 0956
0. 0885
0. 0820
0. 0759
0. 0703
0. 2211
0. 2038
0. 1878
0. 1731
0. 1595
0. 1470
0. 1355
0. 1249
0. 1151
0. 1061
0. 0978
0. 0901
0. 0831
0. 0766
0. 0706
0. 0650
0. 0599
While the examples use a 5 % discount factor that is no
longer valid, the methodology remains valid. Users of this
technique should use discount rates appropriate for the
time of the evaluation.
Appraisal value equal to the present value of the net
cash flow before federal taxes computed at a specula-
tive rate of interest. Unlike Method 1, the profit margin
over and above bank interest rates to take care of inherent
risks and federal income tax liabilities is incorporated in
Method 2 the higher discount rate. The possible range of
such speculative rates of return is reflected by various quo-
tations from the literature. This method is, again, fairly
simple in its application, because federal income taxes are
not included in the computation.
Use of Method 2 leads to comparatively high market
values for properties of very short life. Because experi-
ence shows that very few transactions are made where
the total consideration exceeds two-thirds of the future
net cash income, experienced engineers in such cases
usually limit their appraisal value to this maximum. This
formula also tends to discriminate against long-life trans-
actions because high speculative rates of return compound
rapidly and reduce the value of cash-flow increments 20
to 30 years, hence to very small amounts. For example,
Table 41.7 shows that the midyear lump-sum deferment
VALUATI ON OFOI LANDGASRESERVES
41- 7
TABLE 41. 7- MI DYEAR LUMP- SUM DEFERMENT FACTORS f Ls =( I +i ) / - ( conti nued)
Year 9% 9%% 10% 12% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
1 0. 9578 0. 9556 0. 9535 0. 9449 0. 9321 0. 9129 0. 8945 0. 8770 0. 8607 0. 8452 0. 8304 0. 8165
2 0. 8787 0. 8727 0. 8688 0. 8437 0. 8105 0. 7607 0. 7156 0. 6747 0. 6375 0. 6037 0. 5727 0. 5443
3 0. 6062 0. 7970 0. 7880 0. 7533 0. 7046 0. 6340 0. 5724 0. 5190 0. 4722 0. 4312 0. 3950 0. 3629
4 0. 7396 0. 7279 0. 7163 0. 6726 0. 6129 0. 5283 0. 4579 0. 3992 0. 3498 0. 3080 0. 2724 0. 2419
5 0. 6785 0. 6647 0. 6512 0. 6005 0. 5329 0. 4402 0. 3664 0. 3071 0. 2591 0. 2200 0. 1879 0. 1613
60% 70%
0. 7906 0. 7670
0. 4941 0. 4512
0. 3088 0. 2654
0. 1930 0. 1561
0. 1206 0. 0918
6 0. 6225 0. 6070 0. 5920 0. 5362 0. 4634 0. 3669 0. 2931 0. 2362 0. 1919 0. 1571 0. 1296 0. 1075 0. 0754
7 0. 5711 0. 5544 0. 5382 0. 4787 0. 4030 0. 3057 0. 2345 0. 1817 0. 1422 0. 1122 0. 0894 0. 0717 0. 0471
8 0. 5240 0. 5063 0. 4893 0. 4274 0. 3504 0. 2548 0. 1876 0. 1398 0. 1053 0. 0802 0. 0616 0. 0478 0. 0295
9 0. 4807 0. 4624 0. 4448 0. 3816 0. 3047 0. 2123 0. 1501 0. 1075 0. 0780 0. 0573 0. 0425 0. 0319 0. 0184
I O 0. 4410 0. 4222 0. 4044 0. 3407 0. 2650 0. 1769 0. 1200 0. 0827 0. 0578 0. 0409 0. 0293 0. 0212 0. 0115
11 0. 4046 0. 3856 0. 3676 0. 3042 0. 2304 0. 1474 0. 0960 0. 0636 0. 0428 0. 0292 0. 0202 0. 0142 0. 0072
12 0. 3712 0. 3522 0. 3342 0. 2716 0. 2003 0. 1229 0. 0768 0. 0489 0. 0317 0. 0209 0. 0139 0. 0094 0. 0045
13 0. 3405 0. 3216 0. 3038 0. 2425 0. 1742 0. 1024 0. 0615 0. 0376 0. 0235 0. 0149 0. 0096 0. 0063 0. 0028
14 0. 3124 0. 2937 0. 2762 0. 2165 0. 1515 0. 0853 0. 0492 0. 0290 0. 0174 0. 0106 0. 0066 0. 0042 0. 0018
15 0. 2866 0. 2682 0. 2511 0. 1933 0. 1317 0. 0711 0. 0393 0. 0223 0. 0129 0. 0076 0. 0046 0. 0028 0. 0011
16 0. 2630 0. 2450 0. 2283 0. 1726 0. 1146 0. 0593 0. 0315 0. 0171 0. 0095 0. 0054 0. 0032 0. 0019
17 0. 2412 0. 2237 0. 2075 0. 1541 0. 0996 0. 0494 0. 0252 0. 0132 0. 0071 0. 0039 0. 0022 0. 0012
18 0. 2213 0. 2043 0. 1886 0. 1376 0. 0866 0. 0411 0. 0201 0. 0101 0. 0052 0. 0028 0. 0015 0. 0008
19 0. 2031 0. 1866 0. 1715 0. 1229 0. 0753 0. 0343 0. 0161 0. 0076 0. 0039 0. 0020 0. 0010 0. 0006
20 0. 1863 0. 1704 0. 1559 0. 1097 0. 0655 0. 0286 0. 0129 0. 0060 0. 0029 0. 0014 0. 0007 0. 0004
0. 0007
0. 0004
0. 0002
0. 0001
21 0. 1709 0. 1556 0. 1417 0. 0980 0. 0570 0. 0238 0. 0103 0. 0046 0. 0021 0. 0010 0. 0005 0. 0002
22 0. 1568 0. 1421 0. 1288 0. 0875 0. 0495 0. 0198 0. 0082 0. 0035 0. 0016 0. 0007 0. 0003 0. 0002
23 0. 1438 0. 1298 0. 1171 0. 0781 0. 0431 0. 0165 0. 0066 00027 0. 0012 0. 0005 0. 0002 0. 0001
24 0. 1320 0. 1185 0. 1065 0. 0697 0. 0374 0. 0138 0. 0053 0. 0021 0. 0009 0. 0004 0. 0002
25 0. 1211 0. 1082 0. 0968 0. 0623 0 0326 0. 0115 0. 0042 0. 0016 0. 0006 0. 0003 0. 0001
26 0. 1111 0. 0988 0. 0880 0. 0556 0. 0283 0. 0096 0. 0034 0. 0012 0. 0005 0. 0002
27 0. 1019 0. 0903 0. 0800 0. 0496 0. 0246 0. 0080 0. 0027 0. 0010 0. 0004 0. 0001
28 0. 0935 0. 0824 0. 0727 0. 0443 0. 0214 0. 0066 0. 0022 0. 0007 0. 0003
29 0. 0858 0. 0753 0. 0661 0. 0396 0. 0186 0. 0055 0. 0017 0. 0006 0. 0002
30 0. 0787 0. 0688 0. 0601 0. 0353 00162 0. 0046 0. 0014 00004 0. 0001
31 0. 0722 0. 0628 0. 0546 0. 0315 0. 0141 0. 0038 0. 0011 0 0003 0. 0001
32 0. 0662 0. 0573 0. 0497 0. 0282 0. 0122 0. 0032 0. 0009 0. 0003
33 0. 0608 0. 0524 0. 0452 0. 0251 0. 0106 0. 0027 0. 0007 00002
34 0. 0557 0. 0478 0. 0411 0. 0224 0. 0093 0. 0022 0. 0006 0. 0002
35 0. 0511 0. 0437 0. 0373 0. 0200 0 0080 0. 0019 0. 0005 0 0001
36 0. 0469 0. 0399 0. 0339 0. 0179 0. 0070 0. 0015 0. 0004
37 0. 0430 0. 0364 0. 0308 0. 0160 0. 0061 0. 0013 0. 0003
38 0. 0395 0. 0333 0. 0280 0. 0143 0. 0053 0. 0011 0. 0002
39 0. 0362 0. 0304 0. 0255 0. 0127 0. 0046 0. 0009 0. 0002
40 0. 0332 0. 0277 0. 0232 0. 0114 0. 0040 0. 0007 0. 0001
41 0. 0305 0. 0253 0. 0211 0. 0102 00035 0. 0006 0. 0001
42 0. 0280 0. 0231 0. 0192 0. 0091 0. 0030 0. 0005
43 0. 0257 0. 0211 0. 0174 0. 0081 0. 0026 0. 0004
44 0. 0235 0. 0193 0. 0158 0. 0072 0. 0023 0. 0004
45 0. 0216 0. 0176 0. 0144 0. 0065 00020 0. 0003
46 0. 0198 0. 0161 0. 0131 0. 0058 0 0017 0. 0002
47 0. 0182 0. 0147 0. 0119 0. 0051 0. 0015 0. 0002
46 0. 0167 0. 0134 0. 0108 0. 0046 0. 0013 0. 0002
49 0. 0153 0. 0123 0. 0098 0. 0041 0. 0011 0. 0001
50 0. 0140 0. 0112 0. 0089 0. 0037 0. 0010 0. 0001
0. 0540
0. 0318
0. 0187
0. 0110
0. 0065
0. 0038
0. 0022
0. 0013
0. 0008
0. 0005
0. 0003
0. 0002
factor for income received in Year 30 amounts to 0.2371
for 5% interest, 0.0601 for 10% interest, and 0.0046 for
20% interest. Because of these shortcomings, the use of
Method 2 is not recommended, particularly when long-
life properties are involved with a high profit-to-
investment ratio.
In a speech presented at the Oil and Gas Inst. in Dal-
las, March 26, 1949, E.L. DeGolyer commented, It is
rather surprising that more often than not the latter
method, i.e. one-half of a 4% discounted future net
revenue, is very close to the future net revenue (before
amortization and federal taxes) discounted at 10 /z % per
year.
Dodson listed in 1959 among some seven different
methods that may be used to determine the fair market
value of oil and gas reserves, rate of return on invest-
ment of apparently 14% or more.
From a study of five actual and representative valua-
tions that have served as a basis for settlement for gift
or ad valorem taxes, Reynolds concluded in 1959 that:
The range of from 13% to 21% annual rate of return
before tax adjustments provides limits on which the en-
gineer can operate. He also observed that the data from
these appraisals indicate that the project with a short life
will demand a higher rate of return than one with a long
life and low risk. This is probably caused by the inves-
tors long-range faith in the oil industry, the belief that
higher prices per unit are in the offing, and the fact that
less money management is necessary for reinvesting
earnings.
TABLE 41. 7- MI DYEAR LUMP- SUM DEFERMENT FACTORS F, , =( 7 +i ) - ( conti nued)
Year 80% 90% 100% 1 10% 120% 130%
1 0. 7454 0. 7255 0. 7071 0. 6901 0. 6742 0. 6594
2 0. 4141 0. 3818 0. 3536 0. 3286 0. 3065 0. 2867
3 0. 2300 0. 2010 0. 1768 0. 1565 0. 1393 0. 1246
4 0. 1278 0. 1058 0. 0884 0. 0745 0. 0633 0. 0542
5 0 0710 0. 0557 0. 0442 0. 0355 0. 0288 0. 0236
6 0. 0394 0. 0293 0. 0221 0. 0169 0. 0131 0. 0102
7 0. 0219 0. 0154 0. 0110 0. 0080 0. 0059 0. 0045
8 0. 0122 0. 0081 0. 0055 0. 0038 0. 0027 0. 0019
9 0. 0068 0. 0043 0. 0028 0. 0018 0. 0012 0. 0008
I O 0. 0038 0. 0022 0. 0014 0. 0009 0. 0006 0. 0004
11 0 0021 0. 0012 0. 0007 0. 0004 0. 0003 0. 0002
12 0 0012 0. 0006 0. 0003 0. 0002 0. 0001
13 0. 0006 0. 0003 0. 0002
14 0. 0004 0. 0002
15 0. 0002
16 0. 0001
The aforementioned rates of return were applied to the
entire transaction. including the reserved production pay-
ment. Because of leverage afforded by the then-
permitted ABC method of purchasing properties. the ac-
tual rate of return on the equity capital was higher than
the rate of return for the transaction as a whole.
The calculated pretax internal rate of return remains
a useful yardstick for establishing a fair market value. The
acceptable rate of return at any time will be a function
of comparative investment opportunities and the subjec-
tive assessment of the risk. At the time of this writing,
pretax rate of return must fall between 20 and 30% to
be compctitivc with other investment options.
Appraisal value equal to the present value of the net
cash flow after federal income taxes computed at an
intermediate rate of interest. Method 3 is the most
sophisticated approach to the fair-market-value problem.
It requires an actual computation of the federal tax liability
for each year and is rather laborious. The method also
requires tax and accounting information that may not be
readily available to the evaluating engineer. Those favor-
ing this method generally use electronic-data-processing
facilities that reduce the actual work by the valuation en-
gineer to the preparation of the basic input data. The rate
of return in this type of computation comes close to the
actual rate of return that, aside from price fluctuations
and errors in estimating, may be realized on the purchase.
If this method is followed, the fair market value may be
defined as the cash value that, if paid for the property.
would yield a satisfactory rate of return on the purchase
price. A satisfactory rate of return or yield is one that is
sufficient to induce the buyer to risk his funds in the par-
ticular project rather than in safer investments offering
a lower yield. This rate must be commensurate with the
physical hazards of producing and the economic hazards
of future production. In principle, it is the same incen-
tive recognized in the regulation of public utilities, where
the reasonable rate of return upon the fair value of the
property (the rate base) is held to be that sufficient to in-
duce the investment of capital in establishing, mainrain-
ing. and expanding the property.
Check List of Data Required for Evaluation
of Oil- and Gas-Producing Properties
Bccausc the prcviouxly discuhscd evaluation procedures
140% 150% 160% 170% 180% 190% 200%
0. 6455 0. 6325 0. 6202 0. 6086 0. 5976 0. 5872 0. 5773
0. 2690 0. 2530 0. 2385 0. 2254 0. 2134 0. 2025 0. 1924
0. 1121 0. 1012 0. 0917 0. 0835 0. 0762 0. 0698 0. 0641
0. 0467 0. 0405 0. 0353 0. 0309 0. 0272 0. 0241 0. 0214
0. 0195 0. 0162 0. 0136 0. 0115 0. 0097 0. 0083 0. 0071
0. 0081 0. 0065 0. 0052 0. 0042 0. 0035 0. 0029 0. 0024
0. 0034 0. 0026 0. 0020 0. 0016 0. 0012 0. 0010 0. 0008
0. 0014 0. 0010 0. 0008 0. 0006 0. 0004 0. 0003 0. 0003
0. 0006 0. 0004 0. 0003 0. 0002 0. 0002 0. 0001
0. 0002 0. 0002 0. 0001
0. 0001
are reflections of the pattern of future revenues, most eval-
uation methods are based on the predicted projections of
oil and gas production. These projections are prepared
either by extrapolating established trends in producing ca-
pacity or by academically estimating anticipated produc-
tion on the basis of geologic interpretations and/or analogy
(see Chap. 40).
To make a sound valuation of a given producing prop-
erty, the appraiser requires certain basic data. The fol-
lowing check list may serve as a reminder when collecting
such data.
Maps and Cross Sections. These include ownership
maps, geological-structure maps. isopach maps, geolog-
ical cross sections, etc.
Lease-Location Data. List leases to be included and
show for each lease the lease name, number of produc-
ing wells, number of temporarily abandoned wells, total
number of acres, field name, county, state, and legal
description of lease.
Well Logs. These logs include all electrical, acoustic,
and radioactivity logs that have been run in each well.
Also, if available, geological-sample logs and direction-
al well-survey reports should be included.
Core-Analysis Data. All core-analysis reports for the
zones that have been cored and analyzed should be
included.
Ruid-Sample-Analysis Data. This includes all bottom-
hole fluid-sample-analysis reports and. for gas wells, gas-
analysis, specific-gravity, or recombined-sample-analysis
reports.
Well History. Chronological history of all well opera-
tions including original drilling and completion, recom-
pletions, and remedial work to date should be included.
If not otherwise included in a complete chronological well
history. provide the following data for each well: con-
servation commission completion, potential test, and GOR
reports: completion (and/or recompletion) date; elevation:
kelly bushing, derrick floor, and ground level; total depth*
and plugged-back depth; casing size and setting depth;
tubing size and setting depth; drillstem test data includ-
ing intervals tested. time open, fluid recovered. and bot-
tomhole pressure (BHP) data: coring data. including
intervals cored. footage recovered. and core description:
geological tops of all major formations encountered; well-
location plats or location description: producing forma-
tion name, interval perforated, initial production and
potential test data; depths to top. bottom. oil/water con-
tact, and gas/oil contact: and pay thickness (gross feet and
net feet).
Past-Production History. This history includes tabu-
lation of oil. water, and gas production by months, by
leases, by wells, and by pay zones since original com-
plction. Also, include other past history reports, such as
production methods (type and size of equipment and dates
installed); BHP and wellhead pressure reports; open-flow
potential test reports (gas wells); conservation comniis-
sion (or USGS) production. allowable, and MER reports:
pipeline run statements: water-disposal and (mating
reports: fluid-injection records; and production history of
offset operations.
Current Production Data. Tabulate for each well the
most current actual test of oil. water. and gas produced
and include test date. choke size [or stroke length and
strokes per minute (spm)], producing tubing pressure, and
producing casing pressure. For gas wells, indicate latest
shut-in tubing and casing pressures. including date well
was shut in and duration of shut-in time.
Current-Allowable Data. Summarize allowable formula
and current daily allowable rates for each well, per
producing day, and per calendar day.
Gross Crude Price. For each lease. give the name of
the crude purchaser, the average gravity of the oil, and
the gross price paid. If the crude is trucked. show the
trucking cost per barrel (may be obtained from pipeline
run statements).
Gross Gas Price. For each lease, give the name of the
gas purchaser and summarize the provisions of the gas
contract such as the gross gas price per 1,000 cu ft. the
contract pressure base. the minimum delivery pressure.
the effective date and term ofthe contract. and escalation
clauses (may be obtained from gas contracts and FPC ap-
proval certificates).
Severance and Local Taxes. Indicate the total value of
both severance and local (state, county, school. etc.) taxes
in terms of a percentage of the total gross income or as
an amount per barrel of oil or Mcf of gas produced.
Federal Excise Tax (WPT) information. This should
include. where applicable. tier. company or entity clas-
sification for tax. natural gas classification. and price con-
trols. if any.
Operating Expenses. Tabulate actual gross operating
expenses per well per month for each lease during the past
year. State whether such expenses include. in addition to
all direct costs. such items as well-stimulation expenses,
wjorkover or recompletion expenses. a portion of district
or division overhead expenses. or severance and (xi
1~1/ore777 taxes.
Completion and Recompletion Costs. In case of un-
developed or nonproducing reserves. provide an estimate
of completed well costs or recompletion costs for reserves
behind the casing.
Division of I nterests. Tabulate the working interest
(fraction of /x ofthe costs) and the revenue interest (frac-
tion of /H of the income) for each interest owner so that
for each lease 100% of the working interest and 100%
of the revenue interest lease is accounted for. Indicate the
lease operator (copy of division orders for oil and gas).
Existing Production Payments or Liens. Tabulate the
balance due on all production payments or liens as of a
recent date and indicate provisions for the rate of payment.
Lease andAssignment Provisions. Summarize special
provisions of all leases and assignments that may adversely
affect the value of the leases. In particular. show special
provisions concerning shallower or deeper rights and com-
mitments or obligations for the drilling of wells (may be
obtained from lease and assignment agreements).
Lease Facilities. Provide complete information con-
cerning lease-facility wells, such as water wells, disposal
wells, and injection wells. Provide specifications (size,
capacity, etc.) for major lease-facility equipment, such
as gas compressors, oil-treating plants, and water-injection
plants.
OperatingAgreements. In case ofjoint interest or uni-
tized properties, provide a list of the basic provisions of
the operating agreement, such as preferential rights to pur-
chase other interests, obligations for development. basis
of overhead allocation, and call on the oil (may be ob-
tained from operating agreements and/or letter
agreements).
Unitization Agreements. In case of unitized properties,
provide a list of the basic provisions of the unitization
agreement concerning the basis for calculation of partic-
ipation percentages and future revisions of same owing
to possible future adjustments in operating methods, uni-
tized area. etc. (may be obtained from unitization
agreements).
Special Reports. Provide a copy of all special geologi-
cal and engineering reports that contain data pertinent to
a current evaluation of the property. In particular, spe-
cial engineering reports concerning plans for future de-
velopment and secondary recovery operations may be
helpful in projecting future production rates and future
net operating income.
Income Tax Information. Include if applicable.
Forecast of Future Rate of ProductionlZ
Declining Production
When a property has a well-established performance his-
tory and the production rate shows a persistent decline.
the appraiser should first make sure that this decline is
not caused by either decreasing effectiveness of the lift-
ing equipment or adverse wellbore conditions.
If he finds that the lifting equipment is operating prop-
erly and that the wellbore is clean, the past decline may
be used as a guide for the projection of future produc-
tion. First the type and rate of decline must be established.
Constant-Percentage Decline
When the drop in production rate per unit of time is a
constant percentage of the production rate. the produc-
tion curve is of the constant-percentage-decline type. This
can best be demonstrated by plotting the production rate
vs. time on semilogarithmic paper, with the production
rate on the log scale. which should then show a straight-
line trend. The production rate may also be plotted vs.
cumulative production on regular coordinate paper. which
should again show a straight-line trend for this type of
decline (Fig. 40. I, Curve I). In either case, the slope of
the curve represents the nominal decline fraction or per-
centage. The decline may also be found by observing the
41- 10
Fi g. 41. 1- Graphi cal extrapol ati on of hyperbol i c and harmoni c
rate/ ti me curves on semi l og paper. Step 1: Smooth
out the gi ven producti on curve, and sel ect three
equi di stant poi nts on i t ( A, B, and C) . Step 2: Draw
a verti cal l i ne mi dway between A and C through Poi nt
B. Step 3: Proj ect A and C hori zontal l y on thi s mi d-
dl e l i ne and f i nd Poi nts A and C . Step 4: Draw A D
and C E paral l el to BC. Step 5: Proj ect D back
hori zontal l y on the curve and f i nd Poi nt F. Step 6:
drawDX paral l el to FE, and f i nd the unknown extrap-
ol ated Poi nt X at the i ntersecti on wi th the hori zontal
l i ne through E.
ratio between the production at the end of a given period
and at the beginning of that period and obtaining the ef-
fective decline by interpolation from Table 40.16 or
40.17. For example, if the production rate from a well
or lease declined from 4,286 to 3,000 bbllmonth in 10
months, the ratio between these two production rates is
0.70, and one may read from Table 40.16 that such a drop
in rate in 10 months corresponds to an effective decline
of 3X %/month.
The forecast may then be made on that basis either by
reading the future rates from an extrapolation of the
straight-line trend on the semilog decline chart or by com-
puting the future rates by means of Table 40.16 or 40.17.
Such extrapolation is then continued until the economic-
limit rate of production is reached.
Hyperbolic Decline
When the drop in production rate per unit of time ex-
pressed as a fraction of the production rate is proportion-
al to a fractional power n of the production rate (0 <n < l),
the production curve is of the hyperbolic-decline type,
This is usually evident from a plot of the production
rate vs. time on semilog paper, which for this case will
not follow a straight line but will show a gradual flatten-
ing out.
A rate-cumulative graph on regular coordinate paper
will show the same type of curvature (Fig. 40.21,
Curve II).
Hyperbolic-decline curves may be straightened out for
extrapolation by plotting on double logarithmic or log-
log paper after the curves are shifted by adding or sub-
tracting a constant amount to all time or cumulative values.
This is a laborious and, with the development of com-
puters, outdated procedure. Most appraisers prefer a
graphical extrapolation of the rate/time curve on semilog
paper. Such extrapolation may be supported by actually
computing a few points of the curve by means of Eq. 60
of Chap. 40 or by using the graphical extrapolation
method on semilog paper shown in Fig. 41.1, which is
based on the three-point rule * : For any two points
on a hyperbolic rate-time curve, for which the produc-
tion rates are in a given ratio, the point midway in be-
tween will have a production rate which is a fixed number
of times the rate of either the first or the last point, regard-
less of where the first two points are chosen.
For example, when the three equidistant points on the
past-performance portion of the curve show production
rates of 2,000, 1,300, and 1,000 bblimonth, then the fu-
ture time interval between the ordinates of 1,000 and 650
bblimonth must be equal to the time interval between the
ordinates of 650 and 500 bbllmonth.
The future projection is then obtained by reading the
production rates from the graphically extrapolated curve.
Hyperbolic decline is the most common form of
production-decline trend found with nonprorated or ca-
pacity production. The fractional power n is usually be-
tween 0 and 0.50, with the latter value applicable to
gravity-drainage-type production under certain conditions.
Harmonic Decline
When the drop in production rate per unit of time ex-
pressed as a fraction of the production rate is proportion-
al to the production rate itself, the production curve is
of the harmonic-decline type.
Such a curve, plotted as a rate/time graph on semilog
paper, does not follow a straight line but shows a rather
persistent, pronounced curvature. The rate-cumulative
graph on regular coordinate paper shows the same strong
curvature (see Fig. 40.21, Curve III).
Harmonic decline may be identified graphically by plot-
ting the inverse of the production rate vs. time on regu-
lar coordinate paper, which should then show a straight
line. It may also be demonstrated by plotting the rate-
cumulative relationship on semilog paper, which should
also follow a straight line.
Harmonic decline for production-decline curves does
not occur very often, and extrapolation on this basis usual-
ly provides a projection that is too optimistic. It is occa-
sionally applicable to capacity production from
depletion-type gas wells or to nonprorated production
from reservoirs with a bottomwater drive where it is ec-
onomically feasible to lift and to dispose of large volumes
of water.
Extrapolation of the rate/time graph may best be car-
ried out by plotting the inverse of the production rate vs.
time on regular coordinate paper and extending the straight
line obtained.
A rate/time graph on semilog paper may also be ex-
tended by the same construction on the basis of the three-
point rule for hyperbolic decline illustrated in Fig. 41.1.
Part Constant Rate-Part Declining Production
In the above discussion, it was assumed that past perform-
ance showed the production to be declining, and in such
cases the projection is merely based on a continuation of
that decline trend.
When no past decline trend is available because the
property is relatively new or under proration or market
curtailment, however, the appraiser must base his projec-
tion on a volumetric estimate of the ultimate recovery and
try to match the future performance of the property against
this estimate. This is usually done by assuming a rate of
decline typical for this type of production and comput-
ing. by means of Eq. 55 of Chap. 40, the cumulative
recovery to be obtained when the production is declining
from the prorated rate to the economic limit. The num-
ber of months of constant-rate production preceding this
decline period is then found by subtracting the cumula-
tive production at the appraisal date as well as the esti-
mated production to be obtained during the decline period
from the estimated ultimate recovery and dividing the re-
sult by the assumed monthly production rate under
proration.
Proration or Market Curtailment
Historically, production frequently has been limited by
proration. Future operations may encounter proration to
guard against loss of reserves through wasteful operations
or may encounter curtailment of production because of
low market demand. These considerations must be pro-
jected in a proper assessment of properties located in af-
fected areas.
Produced Product Prices
The volatility of international energy markets has elimii
nated any confidence in estimating future product prices
on the basis of plots of historical data. Most evaluations
are currently performed over a range of assumptions.
Constant oil and gas price evaluations are most frequent-
ly required for securities registration and for financing
purposes. Projected economic conditions that assume
maximum and minimum cost and price assumptions are
usually applied in management decisions.
Development and Operating Costs 13-15
Development Costs
Costs of development include the drilling and completion
of wells and such improvements as roads, buildings, pipe-
lines, tanks, natural-gasoline plants, and power installa-
tions. These costs are changing constantly owing to both
economic conditions beyond the control of the operator
and technical improvements in drilling and production
methods.
The drilling and completion of wells usually constitutes
the chief item of expense for development. Shallow wells
that are drilled with a portable outfit may cost as little
as $20.000. In the hilly districts of Kentucky, it may re-
quire a greater outlay to move the drilling rig to the loca-
tion than the cost of the well itself. Costs on the high side,
apart from exceptional experiences with mishaps or long
fishing jobs, may reach tens of millions of dollars for
18,000 to 25,000 ft.
The initial exploratory well generally costs much more
than the development wells, and the continued develop-
ment of a field almost always brings lowered costs with
improved methods and increased competition among
contractors.
Tangible and Intangible Costs. For income-tax pur-
poses, development costs are divided into two categories:
tangible and intangible. Tangible development costs rep-
resent the physical property that has salvage value, such
as derrick, pipe, and smaller equipment. They are capital-
ized and retired through annual charges to depreciation.
Intangible drilling and development costs are labor. pow-
er, fuel, freight and hauling, water, repairs, and other
items that provide no salvage return after completion of
the well or that have no physical identity. This class of
costs may either be capitalized and retired through annu-
al charges or written off as an expense item in the income
account during the year it was incurred. Generally, the
latter course is followed. The intangible costs make up
60 to 70% of the entire well cost; the percentage is great-
er with the shallow wells or any other wells where the
casing program requires less pipe than usual.
Well Spacing. An important consideration in appraising
undeveloped properties is the prevailing well spacing.
Properties that are already fully drilled present no prob-
lem, but those that are yet to be developed require con-
sideration of this feature because the future profits will
be controlled greatly by the number of wells required.
The number of development wells commonly required
as a matter of practical necessity by reason of offset, com-
petitive situations, and the specific lease requirements and
obligations is generally much larger than the minimum
number of wells required for proper drainage.
Operating Expenses
These expenses cover the field operations necessary to
bring the oil and gas to the surface and to deliver a sala-
ble product to the stock tank or the gas pipeline.
Direct Lifting Expenses and Direct Expenses. The oper-
ating costs are generally divided into direct lifting ex-
penses at the property, such as labor, power, fuel, repairs,
renewals, and into-the-field organization; or district ex-
penses, such as supervision, engineering, accounting.
timekeeping, warehousing, and general transportation,
which in turn are distributed over a number of property
units on some ratable basis.
In the determination of a proper measure of produc-
tion costs for use in estimates, the appraiser may first as-
certain the definite record of the property under
consideration, or else he may draw on his experience with
similar properties elsewhere.
Cost per Well-Month. Operating expenses are prefera-
bly expressed on a per-well-month basis rather than per
barrel of oil produced. The field cost of operating any
given well is the same, within reasonable limits, whether
the amount pumped is large or small. The pumping as-
sembly that is installed for pumping an 80-B/D well con-
tinues in use when less than half that amount is being
produced, but the cost of the operation continues practi-
cally unchanged.
Average Cost per Barrel. The use of an average cost
per barrel may be acceptable when the production rates
are so severely restricted that they are expected to con-
tinue at a uniform pace over a considerable period of time.
When the production is declining, however, the assump-
tion of an average cost per barrel that is based on a past-
experience figure for the property under consideration
may lead to erroneous results. The reason is that, with
declining production and constant or nearly constant per-
well costs, the operating cost per barrel must increase with
time until it equals the gross income at the economic limit.
TABLE 41. 8- FI ELD OR DI STRI CT OPERATI NG COST
Labor, i ncl udi ng benef i ts
and transportati on f urni shed 20 to 30%
Di stri ct expense, i ncl udi ng I nsurance,
prof essi onal servi ces, damages, etc. 20 to 30%
Repal rs and mai ntenance 30 to 50%
Power, water, waste disposal, and oi l treati ng 5 to 15%
In the case of constant-percentage decline: allowance
may be made for this increasing tendency by computing
a weighted-average operating cost per barrel with the fol-
lowing relationship:
o,, =
0, In q,/q,,
.,....,,,...............
(1)
where
O,, = weighted average operating cost, dollars.
0, = operating expenses per well-month, dollars,
41
= initial production rate, bbl/D, and
cl,,
= production rate at abandonment. bbl/D.
Example Problem 3. If the operating cost per well-
month, 0,, is estimated at $300, and if the initial pro-
duction rate. qi. is 2,113 bbl/welllmonth. while the
economic-limit production rate, q,, is 113 bbliwelli
month, the weighted- average operating costibbl over the
life of the property is
300 In 2,113/113
=$0.44
2.113-113
In the case of hyperbolic decline (n = %), Eq. 1 takes the
form
o,,=oG. . (2)
4;
In the case of harmonic decline. this relationship reads
In the case of constant-rate production, the average
operating cost per gross barrel is simply the estimated
operating cost per well-month divided by the rate of pro-
duction.
The most desirable cost estimate and the one that is con-
clusive if it can be ascertained is the actually recorded
experience at the property subject to such modifications
as may appear to be warranted in the judgment of the ap-
praiser.
Range of Costs. Operating costs per well for primary pro-
duction range from almost insignificant amounts per well-
month up to $10,000 or more per well-month. The latter
rate is found offshore or where heavy equipment handles
large volumes of water with the oil and where power and
maintenance charges are high. Many farms throughout
the eastern U.S. contain wells that yield less than % BID;
their profitable operation is possible only because repair
expenses arc negligible and the men who milk the cows
c c
also attend the wells.
For entire fields or districts. operating costs generally
break down as shown in Table 41.8. Labor and district
expense are of about equal magnitude and together corn
prise about half the total operating costs. The other half
is for repairs. maintenance, power, water, waste disposal.
and oil treating.
Stimulation Costs. Stimulation costs-such as reacidiz-
ing,
reshooting, refracturing, and other stimulation
treatments-should be considered as part of the operat-
ing costs. Fracturing costs have mounted in recent years
to where such stimulation expenses may add from IO to
nearly 100% to the operating costs.
Recompletion Costs. Operating costs generally cover
only those expenses necessary to keep a well on produc-
tion for a given productive interval. The cost of recom-
pleting a well into a different producing zone. therefore,
is normally treated as a development cxpcnsc.
Ad Vulorem Taxes. To the direct operating expenses
should be added the ud vmlorrm or property taxes. These
taxes show a wide variation in different states and coun-
ties and may range from almost nothing to as high as 15 %
Trucking Charges. In case the property is not connect-
ed to a pipeline and oil must be trucked out, such charges
are usually charged directly against the gross income from
oil and gas sales on a per-barrel basis.
The various forms of pr-oducriort ~UJXJ.T and WPTs
directly levied against the oil and gas produced and com-
monly collected by the purchaser are not normally in-
cluded under operating expenses but are charged directly
against the gross income from oil and gas sales.
Administration and Supervision
Under this heading are charged direction. executives,
central-office expense, accounting, insurance, supervi-
sion, personnel relations, and public relations. They are
generally designated as overhead as distinguished from
the field and district controllable expenses. In many com-
pany records, the charges vary widely because of both
management ability and the differences in accounting
methods.
Production Taxes
Taxes levied directly against oil and gas produced by the
various states and usually collected by the pipeline com-
pany come under a variety of names-such as gross pro-
duction taxes, severance tax, excise taxes, stream-
pollution taxes, conservation taxes, maintenance taxes,
license taxes, school taxes, state taxes, or gas-gathering
taxes.
Federal Taxes l6
General
When a projection of future cash net income is made in
the appraisal method previously described, provision for
estimated federal income taxes is made before discount-
ing such future projection to present worth. In this
VALUATI ON OF OI L AND GAS RESERVES
41- 13
method, income taxes are considered an inherent part of
the cost of doing business that must be provided for out
of the producing operation.
The producing properties that often have difficulties are
those whose owners failed to provide for future income
taxes. An oil producer may be able to continue explora-
tion and drilling activities at an increasing rate so that his
exploration expenses and intangible drilling deductions
will reduce income taxes for a number of years. But if
such an operator eventually runs out of drilling locations
or funds for further development, he may be forced to
sell property to meet his taxes or loan obligations. Ac-
cording to this method. the correct approach is to include
federal income taxes in the cash-flow projection and to
consider any tax savings obtainable through exploration
and drilling activities solely as a credit to those activi-
ties. reducing their net cost. Often. the appraiser allows
indirectly for such income taxes by a higher than normal
discount rate or by taking a fraction of the present worth
before income taxes. Computation of the net operating
income after federal taxes requires a thorough understand-
ing of current tax provisions. Because of the volatility of
taxation, the tax consequences on the property valuation
at the time of the appraisal should be verified. The most
important points of federal tax provisions are summar-
ized below.
Depletion is generally considered to be the gradual ex-
haustion of a wasting asset through production. The ob-
jective of the depletion allowance is to permit the taxpayer
owing an economic interest a reasonable deduction for
the estimated cost of the reserves thus exhausted. The
1954 Code, Sec. 61 I, as amended provides that. in the
case of oil and gas wells, the taxpayer will be allowed
to deduct a reasonable allowance for depletion and
depreciation of improvements.
Cost depletion under this provision is computed by mul-
tiplying the depletable basis in the property at the end of
the tax period, unadjusted by current period depletion,
by a fraction, the numerator being unit sales for the taxa-
ble period and the denominator unit reserves at the end
of the period plus unit sales during the period. In con-
trast, percentage depletion for oil and gas wells is 15%
of the taxpayers gross income from the property but can-
not exceed 50% of its taxable income. It is also limited
to 65% of the total taxable income of the interest own-
er/taxpayer, with any amount disallowed by this limita-
tion deductible in a future year when sufficient taxable
income exists. The taxpayer is permitted to deduct, and
is required to adjust basis for, either cost or percentage
depletion, whichever is highest.
Although cost depletion is limited to the recovery of
the taxpayers basis in the property, percentage depletion
is not so limited: if the taxpayer has no depletable basis
in a property or if the entire basis has been recovered
through prior depletion charges, he may still continue to
claim depletion computed on a percentage basis.
Percentage depletion is permitted only as a deduction
to independent producers and royalty owners on a maxi-
mum of 1,000 B/D of oil equivalent. The deduction is
not allowed to integrated oil companies. Gas production
for this purpose is converted to oil equivalent volumes
at a rate of 6 Mcf to 1 bbl oil. It should also be noted
that the transfer of a proven property to another interest
owner will generally cause the loss of the percentage
depletion deduction to the transferee w,ith rcspcct to that
property.
In determining taxable income from the property for
percentage-depletion purposes, deduction must bc made
not only for ordinary operating expenses of the specific
property, including equipment depreciation, but also for
intangible drilling and development costs and for a propor-
tionate amount of the overhead properly attributable to
the producing function. In determinmg the overhead al-
location, it is customary to allocate general overhead ex-
penses between the producing operations and the other
activities carried on by the taxpayer, frequently in propor-
tion to the expenses directly attributable to each activity.
and then further to allocate that portion of the overhead
attributable to the producing function among specific prop-
erties usually in relation to the direct expense from such
propertics.
Capitalized Leasehold Costs. Ordinarily. a depletable
basis in an oil or gas property is of no particular advan-
tage to the taxpayer. The items that must be capitalized
as leasehold costs are direct costs (such as lease bonuses
or lease-purchase prices) and acquisition costs (such as
title-examination fees, recording fees, documentary
stamps if any), and geological and geophysical expenses
incurred as a result of which the taxpayer either acquires
or retains a property interest. Delay rentals paid on un-
productive properties may be expensed or capitalized at
the election of the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer has elect-
ed to capitalize intangible drilling and development costs,
such items are added to the depletable basis in the
property.
Intangibles. While expenditures for tangible items of well
equipment and related items are capitalized and recov-
ered by periodic depreciation allowances throughout their
useful lives, in the case of expenditures for intangible drill-
ing and development costs (intangibles), the taxpayer in
the oil and gas industry may elect to deduct such items
when they are paid or accrued or to capitalize them for
recovery through depletion allowances. Because percen-
tage depletion is allowed without reference to the basis
of the property, it is apparent that only in infrequent cases
would the taxpayer choose to capitalize intangibles.
This concept requires that all costs of drilling and de-
veloping an oil property be divided into the two
categories-tangible and intangible, the former to be re-
covered through depreciation. In general, items with a
salvage value are classed as tangibles while intangibles
embrace all items without a salvage value. Examples of
intangibles include labor, fuel, repairs, hauling, and sup-
plies used in drilling, shooting, and cleaning of wells: any
necessary site preparation, such as ground clearing,
drainage road making, surveying, and geological work;
and in the construction of derricks, tanks, pipelines, and
other physical structures necessary for drilling and prepa-
ration for production.
The decision to expense intangibles must be made by
the taxpayer for his first taxable year in which intangi-
bles are paid or incurred. The choice is available only
to the owner of an operating or working interest who un-
dertakes the risk of drilling on the property.
Once the capitalized cost and applicable depletion
methods have been determined, the allowable depletion,
DA, is the higher of cost depletion, DC, or percentage
depletion, if applicable, with the latter equal to 15% of
gross income, VDE, but limited as stated above under cost
depletion.
The allowable depletion selected will therefore be I5 %
of gross depletion, VDE, when
D, = V,,,
where
vTI >vDE>DC
and
v,,=(o.15xV)<(o.65xl,), . . . .(4)
where
DA = allowable depletion, highest of DC or
lesser of VDE and VT,,
V DE = percent of gross revenue, percentage
depletion,
VT, = 50% of net percentage depletion, equal
to 50% of taxable net income, dollars,
DC = cost depletion; portion of leasehold cost
proportional to reserves produced in a
given year, dollars,
V = gross revenue (value); the total earned
income from oil and gas sales, dollars,
and
Ir = interest owners taxable income, dollars.
The allowable depletion selected will be 50% of net per-
centage depletion, when
where
v~,=o.~oo~~p~l/o~~,Dp, . . . . . .(5)
where
OG = general overhead expenses, dollars,
c PT = local production tax, dollars,
0, = operating expenses per well-month, dollars,
CI = intangible drilling and development costs,
dollars, and
D, = depreciation, the decline in value of
tangible assets with use of passage of
time (obsolescence),
or cost depletion, DC, when
DA =Dc>
and
&S
N, fs
xcd,, (6)
where
Cd, = depletable leasehold cost basis at beginning
of tax period, dollars,
N,. = reserves at end of tax period, bbl or Mcf,
and
s = unit sales during periods.
Example Problem 4. An operator owns half of the work-
ing interest (WI =0.50) in a two-well lease that produced
20,000 bbl of oil during the taxable year. His revenue
interest is % of /s (RI=0.4375). The remaining reserves
(Q) on Jan. I are estimated to be 50,000 bbl. His deple-
tion leasehold cost (LC) on Dec. 3 1 of the taxable year
is $20,000. The gross income per barrel of oil produced
is $30, plus $2 from associated gas sales. Local produc-
tion taxes are 5 % of gross income, or $1.6O/net bbl, while
operating expenses, including district expenses and ad
dorem taxes, are $2,00O/well/month. General overhead
(GO) is $l/net bbl. Intangible development cost during
the year was $40,000, while equipment depreciation is
$2/net bbl of oil produced. What is the allowable
depletion?
Solution.
DC=
20,000
50,000+20,000
x20,000=$5,714.
VT,=0.50x[0.4375x20,000x(30+2-1.60-l-2)
In this case, apparently, VT, > VDE > DC and the allow-
able depletion is therefore DA = VDE =$7,700.
Alternative Minimum Tax. The Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 has been amended at various times to include pro-
visions requiring that a taxpayer pay a specified rate of
tax on certain defined tax preference items. These prefer-
ence items currently include two oil- and gas-related ex-
penses: percentage depletion deductions in excess of the
depletable basis in a specific property and certain intan-
gible drilling and development costs. The latter item is
not applicable to corporate taxpayers.
While the percentage depletion preference item is fair-
ly self-explanatory, the determination of the intangibles
that must be included as a preference item requires
computation:
VTI >D, >VDE. CI P =c/ x- 1, '
41- 15
TABLE 41. 9- TI ER AND RATE STRUCTURE. WPT
Other than
I ndependent I ndependent
Producer Producer
w W)
Ti er 1 ( oi l other than Ti er 2 or 3) 50 70
Ti er 2 ( stri pper oi l and certai n U. S. government i nterests) 30 50
Ti er 3 ( newl y di scovered, heavy and i ncremental terti ary oi l ) 30 30
Ti er 3 ( newl y di scovered oi l subsequent to May 31, 1979) 15 15
where
CIp = preference intangible drilling costs, dollars,
and
CIX = intangible costs minus CrA, dollars.
I,, is the net income from productive oil and gas proper-
ties, defined as the aggregate amount of gross income from
all such properties, l ess deducti ons allocable to the prop-
erties reduced by CIX as set forth above.
This preference item can be reduced if the taxpayer
chooses to capitalize all or any portion of the intangibles
paid or incurred during the year.
Windfall Profit Tax. In April 1980, Congress passed the
Windfall Profit Tax Act that was designed to tax the oil
and gas interest owner on the windfall profit that was to
be received as a result of the deregulation of domestic
crude-oil prices. The taxable profit is the excess of the
selling price over what the price would have been were
it sold before decontrol, adjusted by an inflation factor.
An additional adjustment is allowed for severance taxes
imposed on the difference between the controlled and
decontrolled price. The tax base is also limited to 90%
of the net income from the property.
Once the tax base is determined, the appropriate tax
rate must then be applied. Three tiers have been specifi-
cally defined into which all taxable crude oil falls. The
rates applicable to each tier depend on the classification
of the interest owner and the nature of the oil produced.
Exemptions for certain interest owners and oil types are
also provided. The current tier and rate structure is given
in Table 41.9.
Newly discovered oil. which falls within Tier 3, is sub-
ject to a tax rate schedule that declines from 22.5% in
1984 to 15% in 1986 and thereafter.
Tax Consequences Related to Conveyances. Oil and gas
taxation of property conveyances has evolved into a com-
plex set of rules that are necessary because of the many
variations of transactions that involve oil and gas interests.
Any appraiser who is valuing an interest that includes tax
consequences should be aware of the types of various
transactions.
There are four primary methods of disposing of oil and
gas i nterests: sal e. subl ease, speci al sharing arrangements
in a partnership, and production payments. The acquisi-
tion of interests may involve the reciprocal of these
methods as wel l as the receipt of an interest for services.
The sale/purchase of an interest provides the easiest fo-
rum within which to determine the tax consequences. The
seller will recognize gain that will be characterized as cap-
ital or ordinary, depending on various factors that involve
the classification of the seller and the tax history of the
property. The buyer will merely have basis in the prop-
erty that should be allocated between the mineral interest
and lease and well equipment. Note that an interest own-
er will often look to the appraiser f or guidance regarding
the amount that should be allocated to lease and wel l
equipment.
A sublease commonly arises where the transfer of a
working interest is burdened with a nonoperating interest
retained by the assignor. Consideration recei ved by the
assignor is ordinary income because it is characterized
as a lease bonus. Any basis in the property is attributed
to the nonoperating interest that is depletable; it is not al-
lowed as an offset to the income. The assignees purchase
price will be allocated between leasehold cost and lease
and well equipment, if applicable.
Special sharing arrangements are frequently used i n a
partnership context to allow special allocation of certain
items of income and deduction. The partnership alloca-
tion rules explained in the Internal Revenue Code and the
regulations published by the Dept. of the Treasury should
be used as a guide to confirm the tax treatment of such
allocations. A problem exists in the standard third for
a quarter transaction outside the partnership context: the
expenses paid by the assignee attributable to the sellers
retained interest are considered leasehold cost. They are
not deductible even if they are in the nature of intangibles.
A production payment is the right to a specific share
of production from an oil and gas property. Where the
production payment is used to finance a project, it is treat-
ed as a loan by the lender and the interest owner who
carved it out of production. Where a working-interest
owner retains a production payment and conveys his
working interest, he is treated as having sold his interest
and should report the proceeds as income realized from
the sale of the property. In certain instances, the holder
of the production payment may be treated as owning an
economic interest. As indicated previously, this would al-
low the possible deduction of depletion, subj ect to the re-
strictions discussed.
The acquisition of an interest in an oil and gas proper-
ty is frequently made through the performance of serv-
ices. At one time, it was generally believed that. at the
date of transf er, the party receiving the interest was not
i nvol ved i n a taxabl e event. He, al ong wi th the other ven-
dors, dealers, and professionals involved in the proper-
ty>
was merely contributing capital to enable its
development. This position, while originally accepted by
the Internal Revenue Service, has recently come under
Fi g. 41. 2- Di scounted- cash- f l ow method. Rate of return
j =I;P/I;C, =P/C, =constant. At abandonment
ti me, C, =Tm, ( no i nterest) .
NET PROFIT
0
P=,C
Fi g. 41. 3~Hoskol d method. Rate of return j =P/ C, =constant.
At abandonment ti me t, , C, =S ( i ncl udi ng i nterest. )
c
Fig. 41. 4- Morki l l method. Rate of return I =YZPn; ( C, - S) =
P/C, - S=constant. At abandonment ti me t, , C, =S
( i ncl udi ng i nterest) .
attack and is being severely restricted. The governments
current position is that in most instances, at the date of
transfer, the taxpayer performing services recognizes tax-
able income. The issue is far from settled, and additional
activity is expected to clarify the tax consequences of such
transactions.
Different Concepts of Valuation
The literature includes many different methods that may
be used to evaluate the known or estimated future projec-
tion of net income from a given venture. 7-20 One of
them, the discounted-cash-flow method, illustrated in Fig.
41.2. simply reduces these future income payments to
present worth or present value by a chosen rate of com-
pound interest or rate of return. It represents the bankers
approach to a stream of future income payments and is
widely used in industrial work.
The Hoskold method, i l l ustrated in Fig. 41.3, was spe-
cifically designed for ventures with a limited life, such
as mines or oil or gas wells, and was first used in mine-
evaluation work.
The Morkill method, illustrated in Fig. 4 1.4. is actual-
ly a refinement of the Hoskold method and is also mainly
applicable to ventures with a limited life, such as mines
and oil or gas wells.
The accounting method. illustrated in Fig. 41.5, rep-
resents the accounti ng approach to the valuation problem
and takes into account the actual depletion pattern applica-
bl e to the given venture. I t is particularly suited for those
ventures where a specified total number of units of pro-
duction is involved and where. as is the case in most ex-
tractive industries. the depletion applied to the original
capital investment is on a unit-of-production basis.
Fi g. 41. 5- Accounti ng method. Rate of return j =Z/ XC, . At
abandonment ti me t, , C, =ED, ( no i nterest) .
The average-annual-rate-of-return method, illustrated
in Fig. 41.6, is essentially a refinement of the accounting
method and, by applying the present-worth concept to both
the net annual profits and the net remaining investment
balances, simplifies the computations and properly weighs
the time pattern of the income.
A complete summary of the basic equations for these
different methods and their appraisal and rate-of-return
equations will be found in Table 41.10. The top part of
this table shows the equations for continuous compound-
ing and the solution for the constant-rate case. The bot-
tom part shows the appraisal equations and the
rate-of-return equations for the general case where the
cash flow, I, varies from year to year.
Discounted-Cash-Flow Method
This method, also referred to as the investors method *
or internal-rate-of-return method, ,* is the one most
often used in appraisal work. It is based on the principle
that, in making an investment outlay, the investor is ac-
tually buying a series of future annual operating-income
payments. The rate of return (with this method) is the
maximum interest rate that one could pay on the capital
tied up over the life of the investment and still break even.
The time pattern of these future income payments is,
therefore, given proper weight.
No fixed amortization pattern needs to be adopted with
this method because the annual amounts available for
amortization are equal to the difference between the net
income and the fixed profit percentage on the unreturned
balance of the investment. The computations necessary
for a property evaluation are, therefore, relatively sim-
ple. They usually involve only the discounting of the pro-
Fi g. 41. 6- Average- annual - rate- of - return method. Rate of return
j =present worth of W/ present worth of XC, =Area
ABCDEl Area FGHK. At abandonment ti me t, ,
C, =ZD, ( no i nterest) .
jetted cash flow to present value by means of the desired
rate of interest.
The appraisal value is then
Cj=I,(l+i)-+I2(l+i)-I~+. .+Z,(l+i)-,
fl=r,
C;= C I,(l+i)-, . . . . . . . . (7)
n=l
in which I,, I2 . . . I, represents the projection of the cash
income in successive years and the compound-interest fac-
tor for the speculative effective interest rate i is comput-
ed for the assumption that the entire income for each year
is received at mid-year. Appropriate midyear compound-
interest factors (1 +i)- will be found in Table 4 1.11
for speculative effective interest rates from 2 to 200%.
In the case of oil-producing properties, the computed earn-
ing power by this method is not necessarily the same as
the average rate of return later shown on a companys
books for the net investment in the property. Most oil
companies amortize their investments in producing prop-
erties in proportion to the depletion of the reserves or on
a unit-of-production basis. However, no provision for
such amortization pattern is made in the discounted-cash-
flow method. When the production rate and the income
both follow constant-percentage decline and the ratio be-
tween initial and final production rates is substantial, no
serious difference will result. However, when the rate of
production and the income are constant for a long period
of time, a substantial difference may develop and the aver-
age rate of return, as shown later on the companys books,
may be appreciably higher than the rate of return used
in the evaluation by the discounted-cash-flow method.
41- 18 PETROLEUM ENGI NEERI NG
TABLE 41. 10- SUMMARY OF EQUATI ONS APPLI CABLE TO DI FFERENT VALUATI ON METHODS
For conti nuous compoundi ng,
basi c equati on
Apprai sal equati on f or constant
annual i ncome of I dol l ars
per year
Rate- of - return equati on f or
constant annual i ncome of I
dol l ars per year
General case:
Apprai sal equati on
Rate- of - return equati on
Di scounted Cash Fl ow Hoskol d
I df =j C, dl - dC, ( 8) I dl +j S dt=j C, dt+dS
where f =O C, =C, where t=O S=O
t=t, c, =o t=t, s=c,
Sol uti on f or j whi ch wi l l sati sf y
Eq. 9
, j e - I ,
i =-
C, l - e- .
=ta
c, = c / , ( l +I ) -
= 1,
( 7)
n=,
5 / ( I +/ ) a -
Sol uti on f or i that wi l l sati sf y
Eq. 7
c,=
1 +r[ ( l +, ) a- ]
or
c, =
FPE/
i i
--c J
i
T- l ( 1 +i)-8
The method may be illustrated with the di agram of Fig.
41.2, which shows the application of the discounted-cash-
flow method to a venture that is expected to yield an in-
come of $1 OO,OOO/yr evenly over a period of 10 years
and where a speculative nominal rate of return j of
lSX/yr is desired. Time in years is plotted on the horizon-
tal axis, while the constant income is represented by the
horizontal line for $lOO,OOO/yr in the upper part of the
diagram. The top portion of the diagram shows how the
portion of the total income, I, allocated to amortization,
mk, increases, while the net-profit portion (P) decreases
with time. The bottom portion of the chart illustrates the
manner in which the cumulative Cmk gradually reduces
the unreturned balance of the investment, CB =C; -Cmk,
from its initial value, C;, to zero at abandonment of the
venture.
The computation of the curves for this constant-rate case
is based on the basic differential equation for discounted
cash flow,
Idt=jCBdr-dCB, (8)
or
i
L
FPE
- - - ( l +i ) y s
j =
C, 1
1 - ( 1 +i)-a
HANDBOOK
( 14)
( 15)
(10)
(11)
(12)
( 13)
where
I = yearly net income, dollars,
j = nominal annual speculative interest rate,
fraction, and
Cs = balance of unreturned portion of
investment, dollars.
Integration of this equation for constant-rate income be-
tween the limits r=O, CB = C; and t =t,, , Cs =0 leads to
the appraisal value C, for a nominal rate of return
j=O. 15:
c;=(l-a-J<,) ;
0
J
=[l-e-(o.l,(lo,]
( Y.lYl
~ =$517,900.
,...............,.............
(9)
TABLE 41 .lO-SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT VALUATION METHODS (continued)
Morki l l Accountrng
I dt+j S dt=j ( C, - S) dt+dS ( 18)
where t=O S=O
t=t, s=c,
Sol uti on f or j that wi l l sati sf y
Eq. 19
=Ca
c / , ( l t/ +i ) a-
n=,
c =-
i
1+ - - - [ ( l +i +P) a] -
i+i
Average annual rate of return
I ( 1 tj ) . dt
CI t, - [ dtl : dt
0 0
~f 8
where E: I =
I
I dt
; I
CI ( l tj ) ) dt- k
J
0
where k =] dt( l +j ) - r 1 1 dt
0 0
f a
and EI =
5
I dt
0
c, =
t.3
(23) c, =
t,/,(l -e-J)
,+j.t,
2
jt,- (-1 (I-e-a)
i: ) I
j=2 i - l
c :,
I
c, ta
(22)
( 1 - em a/ ) ( / t ) - - l
t 1
j =
a c, ta
j t, - ( 1 - e - n )
Sol utron f or i that wi l l sati sf y
Eq. 16
Legend:
I , = net annual operati ng i ncome duri ng nth year, dol l ars
XI = total f uture net operati ng i ncome, dol l ars
C, = bal ance of unreturned porti on of i nvestment, dol l ars
S = bal ance of si nki ng f und, dol l ars
C, = i ni ti al capi tal i nvestment or purchase pri ce, dol l ars
F pv = average def erment f actor on cash- f l owproj ecti on at a saf e rate of i nterest i; as a
deci mal f racti on
j = nomi nal annual saf e i nterest rate or rate of return; as a deci mal f racti on
j = nommal annual specul ati ve i nterest rate or rate of return; as a deci mal f racti on
i = ef f ecti ve annual saf e i nterest rate or rate of return; as a deci mal f racti on
i = ef f ecti ve annual specul ati ve i nterest rate or rate of return; as a deci mal f racti on
t = ti me, years
t, = ti me unti l abandonment, years
e = base natural l ogari thms
( Np) n. . 2 = cumul ati ve producti on at the mi dpomt of year n
( N, ) , = cumul ati ve producti on at abandonment ti me: the end of the l ast year f ,
(24)
(25)
TABLE 41.11-LUMP-SUM DEFERMENT FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVE ANNUAL INTEREST RATES FROM 2 TO 200%/yr,
APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS AT YEAR END
Year 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 12% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
10. 98040. 97090. 96150. 95240. 94340. 92590. 90910. 89290. 86960. 83330. 80000. 76920. 74070. 71430. 6897
2 0. 9612 0. 9426 0. 9246 0. 9070 0. 8900 0. 8573 0. 8264 0. 7972 0. 7561 0. 6944 0. 6400 0. 5917 0. 5487 0. 5102 0. 4756
3 0. 9423 0. 9152 0. 8890 0. 8639 0. 8396 0. 7938 0. 7513 0. 7118 0. 6575 0. 5787 0. 5120 0. 4552 0. 4064 0. 3644 0. 3280
4 0. 9239 0. 8885 0. 8548 0. 8227 0. 7921 0. 7350 0. 6830 0. 6355 0. 5718 0. 4823 0. 4096 0. 3501 0. 3011 0. 2603 0. 2262
5 0. 9057 0. 8626 0. 8219 0. 7835 0. 7473 0. 6806 0. 6209 0. 5674 0. 4972 0. 4019 0. 3277 0. 2693 0. 2230 0. 1859 0. 1560
6 0. 8879 0. 8375 07903 0. 7462 0. 7050 0. 6302 0. 5645 0. 5066 0. 4323 0. 3749 0. 2621 0. 2072 0. 1652 0. 1328 0. 1076
7 0. 8705 0. 8131 07599 0. 7107 0. 6651 0. 5835 0. 5132 0. 4523 0. 3759 0. 2791 0. 2097 0. 1594 0. 1224 0. 0949 0. 0742
8 0. 8535 0. 7894 0. 7307 0. 6768 0. 6274 0. 5403 0. 4665 0. 4039 0. 3269 0. 2326 0. 1678 0. 1226 0. 0906 0. 0678 0. 0512
9 0. 8368 0. 7664 0. 7026 0. 6446 0. 5919 0. 5003 0. 4241 0. 3606 0. 2843 0. 1938 0. 1342 0. 0943 0. 0671 0. 0484 0. 0353
10 0. 8203 0. 7441 0. 6756 0. 6139 0. 5584 0. 4632 0. 3855 0. 3220 0. 2472 0. 1615 0. 1074 0. 0725 0. 0497 0. 0346 0. 0243
11 0. 8042 0. 7224 0. 6496 0. 5847 0. 5268 0. 4289 0. 3505 0. 2875 0. 2149 0. 1346 0. 0859 0. 0558 0. 0368 0. 0247 0. 0166
12 0. 7885 0. 7014 0. 6246 0. 5568 0. 4970 0. 3971 0. 3186 0. 2567 0. 1869 0. 1122 0. 0687 0. 0429 0. 0273 0. 0176 0. 0116
13 0. 7730 0. 6810 0. 6006 0. 5303 0. 4688 0. 3677 0. 2897 0. 2292 0. 1625 0. 0935 0. 0550 0. 0330 0. 0202 0. 0126 0. 0080
14 0. 7579 0. 6611 0. 5775 0. 5051 0. 4423 0. 3405 0. 2633 0. 2046 0. 1413 0. 0779 0. 0440 0. 0254 0. 0150 0. 0090 0. 0055
15 0. 7430 0. 6418 0. 5553 0. 4810 0. 4173 0. 3152 0. 2394 0. 1827 0. 1229 0. 0649 0. 0352 0. 0195 0. 0111 0. 0064 0. 0036
16 0. 7284 0. 6232 0. 5339 0. 4581 0. 3936 0. 2919 0. 2176 0. 1631 0. 1069 0. 0541 0. 0281 0. 0150 0. 0082 0. 0046 0. 0026
17 0. 7142 0. 6050 0. 5134 0. 4363 0. 3714 0. 2703 0. 1978 0. 1456 0. 0929 0. 0451 0. 0225 0. 0116 0. 0061 0. 0033 0. 0018
18 0. 7002 0. 5874 0. 4936 0. 4155 0. 3503 0. 2503 0. 1799 0. 1300 0. 0808 0. 0376 0. 0180 0. 0089 0. 0045 0. 0023 0. 0013
19 0. 6864 0. 5703 0. 4747 0. 3957 0. 3305 0. 2317 0. 1635 0. 1161 0. 0703 0. 0313 0. 0144 0. 0068 0. 0033 0. 0017 0. 0009
20 0. 6730 0. 5537 0. 4564 0. 3769 0. 3118 0. 2145 0. 1486 0. 1037 0. 0611 0. 0261 0. 0115 0. 0053 0. 0025 0. 0012 0. 0006
21 0. 6598 0. 5375 0. 4388 0. 3589 0. 2942 0. 1987 0. 1351 0. 0926 0. 0531 0. 0217 0. 0092 0. 0040 0. 0018 0. 0009 0. 0004
22 0. 6468 0. 5219 0. 4220 0. 3418 0. 2775 0. 1839 0. 1228 0. 0826 0. 0462 0. 0181 0. 0074 0. 0031' 0. 0014 0. 0006 0. 0003
23 0. 6342 0. 5067 0. 4057 0 3256 0. 2618 0. 1703 0. 1117 0. 0738 0. 0402 0. 0151 0. 0059 0. 0024 0. 0010 0. 0004 0. 0002
24 0. 6217 0. 4919 0. 3901 0. 3101 0. 2470 0. 1577 0. 1015 0. 0659 0. 0349 0. 0126 0. 0047 0. 0018 0. 0007 0. 0003 0. 0001
25 0. 6095 0. 4776 0. 3751 0. 2953 0. 2330 0. 1460 0. 0923 0. 0588 0. 0304 0. 0105 0. 0038 0. 0014 0. 0006 0. 0002 0. 0001
26 0. 5976 0. 4637 0. 3607 0 2812 0. 2198 0. 1352 0. 0839 0. 0525 0. 0264 0. 0087 0. 0030 0. 0011 0. 0004 0. 0002 0. 0001
27 0. 5859 0. 4502 0. 3468 0. 2678 0. 2074 0. 1252 0. 0763 0. 0469 0. 0230 0. 0073 0. 0024 0. 0008 0. 0003 0. 0001
28 0. 5744 0. 4371 0. 3335 0. 2551 0. 1956 0. 1159 0. 0693 0. 0419 0. 0200 0. 0061 0. 0019 0. 0006 0. 0002 0. 0001
29 0. 5631 0. 4243 0. 3206 0. 2429 0. 1846 0. 1073 0. 0630 0. 0374 0. 0174 0. 0051 0. 0015 0. 0005 0. 0002
30 0. 5521 0. 4120 0. 3083 0. 2314 0. 1741 0. 0994 0. 0573 0. 0334 0. 0151 0. 0042 0. 0012 0. 0004 0. 0001
31 0. 5412 0. 4000 0. 2965 0. 2204 0. 1643 0. 0920 0. 0521 0. 0296 0. 0131 0. 0035 0. 0010 0. 0003 0. 0001
32 0. 5306 0. 3883 0. 2851 0. 2099 0. 1550 0. 0852 0. 0474 0. 0266 0. 0114 0. 0029 0. 0008 0. 0002 0. 0001
33 0. 5202 0. 3770 0. 2741 0. 1999 0. 1462 0. 0789 0. 0431 0. 0238 0. 0099 0. 0024 0. 0006 0. 0002
34 0. 5100 0. 3660 0. 2636 0. 1904 0. 1379 0. 0730 0. 0391 0. 0212 0. 0086 0. 0020 0. 0005 0. 0001
35 0. 5000 0. 3554 0. 2534 0 1813 0. 1301 0. 0676 0. 0356 0. 0189 0. 0075 0. 0017 0. 0004 0. 0001
36 0. 4902 0. 3450 0. 2437 0. 1727 0. 1227 0. 0626 0. 0323 0. 0169 0. 0065 0. 0014 0. 0003 0. 0001
37 0. 4806 0. 3350 0. 2343 0 1644 0. 1158 0. 0580 0. 0294 0. 0151 0. 0057 0. 0012 0. 0003
38 0. 4712 0. 3252 0. 2253 0. 1566 0. 1092 0. 0537 0. 0267 0. 0135 0. 0049 0. 0010 0. 0002
39 0. 4620 0. 3158 0. 2166 0. 1491 0. 1031 0. 0497 0. 0243 0. 0120 0. 0043 0. 0008 0. 0002
40 0. 4529 0. 3066 0. 2083 0. 1420 0. 0972 0. 0460 0. 0221 0. 0107 0. 0037 0. 0007 0. 0001
41 0. 4440 0. 2976 0. 2003 0. 1353 0. 0917 0. 0426 0. 0201 0. 0096 0. 0032 0. 0006 0. 0001
42 0. 4353 0. 2890 0. 1926 0 1288 0. 0865 0. 0395 0. 0183 0. 0086 0. 0028 0. 0005
43 0. 4268 0. 2805 0. 1852 0. 1227 0. 0816 0. 0365 0. 0166 0. 0076 0. 0025 0. 0004
44 0. 4184 0. 2724 0. 1780 0. 1169 0. 0770 0. 0338 0. 0151 0. 0068 0. 0021 0. 0003
45 0. 4102 0. 2644 0. 1712 0. 1113 0. 0727 0. 0313 0. 0137 0. 0061 0. 0019 0. 0003
46 0. 4022 0. 2567 0. 1646 0. 1060 0. 0685 0. 0290 0. 0125 0. 0054 0. 0016 0. 0002
47 0. 3943 0. 2493 0. 1583 0. 1009 0. 0647 0. 0269 0. 0113 0. 0049 0. 0014 0. 0002
48 0. 3865 0. 2420 0. 1522 0. 0961 0. 0610 0. 0249 0. 0103 0. 0043 0. 0012 0. 0002
49 0. 3790 0. 2350 0. 1463 0. 0916 0. 0575 0. 0230 0. 0094 0. 0039 0. 0011 0. 0001
50 0. 3715 0. 2281 0. 1407 0. 0872 0. 0543 0. 0213 0. 0085 0. 0035 0. 0009 0. 0001
To find the rate of return corresponding to a given pur-
chase price by the discounted-cash-flow method, no
straightforward solution is possible; one has to resort to
a trial-and-error procedure.
Hoskolds Method
The curve for the unreturned balance. Cg. for this case
is shown in the bottom portion of the graph, together with
the cumulative amortization (CmL =Ci -CR). The cor-
responding amortization portion. nrk, of the income, I,
is shown in the top portion of the graph.
Most industries and manufacturing enterprises have an in-
determinate life (apparently perpetual) and are therefore
not called on to replace the original investment. This does
not mean that such enterprises will continue forever; it
means merely that, except for competition, nothing is ap-
parent that might cause termination. Because of this un-
certainty, appraisal by the discounted-cash-flow method
is generally the best method for such ventures.
It may be noted from Fig. 41.2 that the rate of return, Oil, gas, mining, and other extractive industries. how-
j, is the constant ratio of net profit (P=l-mi, ) and the ever, differ from the foregoing enterprises. When the oil
unreturned balance of investment (CA = C, -GUI,! ). and reservoir is depleted or the ore body mined out. there is
the balance, CR, is declining slowly at first and faster no value left except possibly some equipment salvage. It
toward the end and does not keep pace with the actual is desirable to return the original capital to the investor
depletion of the source of income. by the time the profitable life of the enterprise is ended.
VALUATI ONOFOI LAND GAS RESERVES 41- 21
TABLE 41.11-LUMP-SUM DEFERMENT FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVE ANNUAL INTEREST RATES FROM 2 TO 200%/yr,
APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS AT YEAR END (continued)
Year 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 160% 190% 200%
~__
1 0. 6667 0. 6250 0. 5882 0. 5556 0. 5263 0. 5000 0. 4762 0. 4545 0. 4348 0. 4167 0. 4000 0. 3846 0. 3704 0. 3571 0. 3448 0. 3333
2 0. 4444 0. 3906 0. 3460 0. 3086 0. 2770 0. 2500 0. 2268 0 2066 0. 1890 0. 1736 0 1600 0. 1479 0. 1372 0. 1276 0. 1189 0. 1111
3 0. 2963 0. 2441 0. 2035 0. 1715 0. 1458 0. 1250 0. 1080 0. 0939 0. 0822 0. 0723 0. 0640 0. 0569 0. 0506 0. 0456 0. 0410 0. 0370
4 0. 1975 0. 1526 0. 1197 0. 0953 0. 0767 0. 0625 0. 0514 00427 0. 0357 0. 0301 0. 0256 0. 0219 0. 0188 0. 0163 0. 0141 0. 0123
5 0. 1317 0. 0954 0. 0704 0. 0529 0. 0404 0. 0313 0. 0245 0. 0194 0. 0155 0. 0126 0. 0102 0. 0084 0. 0070 0. 0058 0. 0049 0. 0041
6 0. 0878 0. 0596 0. 0414 0. 0294 0. 0213 0. 0156 0. 0117 0 0088 0. 0068 0. 0052 00041 0. 0032 0. 0026 0. 0021 0. 0017 0. 0014
7 0. 0585 0. 0373 0. 0244 0. 0163 0. 0112 0. 0078 0. 0056 0. 0040 0. 0029 0. 0022 0. 0016 0. 0012 0. 0010 0. 0007 0. 0006 0. 0005
8 0. 0390 0. 0233 0. 0143 0. 0091 0. 0059 0. 0039 0. 0026 0. 0018 0. 0013 0. 0009 0. 0007 0. 0005 0. 0004 0. 0003 0. 0002 0. 0002
9 0. 0260 0. 0146 0. 0084 0. 0050 0. 0031 0. 0020 0. 0013 0. 0008 0. 0006 0. 0004 0. 0003 0. 0002 0. 0001
10 0. 0173 0. 0091 0. 0050 0. 0028 0. 0016 0. 0010 0. 0006 0. 0004 0. 0002 0. 0002 0. 0001
11 0. 0116 0. 0057 0. 0029 0. 0016 0. 0009 0. 0005 0. 0003 0. 0002 0. 0001
12 0. 0077 0. 0036 0. 0017 0. 0009 0. 0005 0. 0002 0. 0001
13 0. 0051 0. 0022 0. 0010 0. 0005 0. 0002 0. 0001
14 0. 0034 0. 0014 0. 0006 0. 0003 0. 0001
15 0. 0023 0. 0009 0. 0003 0. 0001
16 0. 0015 0. 0025 0. 0002
17 0. 0010 0. 0003 0. 0001
18 00007 0. 0002
19 0. 0005 0. 0001
20 00003
21 0. 0002
22 00001
23 00001
24 00001
This leads to a somewhat different approach to the eval-
uation of enterprises in such extractive industries. One
of the earliest methods, proposed by Hoskold in I877 I)
for the mining industry. emphasizes complete return of
the originally invested capital at abandonment time by
means of a sinking fund. Hoskolds method presupposes
a uniform rate of return at the speculative rate of interest
i on the original capital and provides for redemption of
capital at abandonment time by annual reinvestment of
the balance of the yearly earnings in a sinking fund at a
safe rate of interest i. No fixed amortization pattern is
used, but proper weight is given to the specific time pat-
tern of the future cash-income payments.
The appraisal value by the Hoskold method is computed
with
(IO)
in which the numerator represents the combined value of
the cash-Income payments. I,, (no depreciation or deple-
tion), computed at abandonment time (t,,) including com-
pound interest at the safe rate (i) per year.
When the weighted average deferment factor or dis-
count factor on the production rate and income projec-
tion (FpL,) is available at a safe interest rate of 5%/yr.
this equation reduces to
c, =
FpL,CI
(;/;)-[(;/j)-l](l+;)-,, .....
(11)
The rate of return corresponding to a given purchase
price may be computed directly with the general rate-of-
return equations.
,I=,
I,
i l/C, C I,,(1 +i),,?l -I
i=
1 [
,I= I
1 I
(l+i)lJ -1
,
(12)
or
i=
i[(FpVCI/C;)-(1 +i) -(<I
. *-(,+i) -,,,
(13)
The interesting feature of this method is Its concept of
a safe or bank interest rate (i) that is used to build up the
sinking fund to full return of the invested capital at the
end of the projects life, while at the same time a con-
stant speculative interest rate (i) is earned on the origi-
nal capital investment (Ci ) throughout the same period.
This speculative interest rate (i) is not comparable with
the rate of return used in the discounted-cash-flow, ac-
counting, or average-annual-rate-of-return methods be-
cause it applies strictly to the entire initial investment and
not to the declining balances of such investment.
This method may be illustrated with Fig. 41.3. which
shows what would happen to the net profit, the contribu-
tions to the sinking fund, and the sinking fund itself if
the Hoskold method were applied to the same venture as
before that yielded $lOO,OOO/yr income evenly over 10
years. It was assumed that a speculative rate of return (j)
of IS %/yr is desired, while the safe nominal interest rate
(j) is 5%/yr. The constant-income rate (f ) is again shown
as the horizontal line in the top part of the diagram. This
portion of the chart shows further that the net-profit por-
tion of this annual income (P) is not declining as in the
previous case but is a constant percentage (15%) of the in which the numerator represents the combined value at
initial investment (Ci). The remaining portion of the in- abandonment time (tU) of the annual cash-income pay-
come. which is diverted to the sinking fund, is also con- ments, I, (no depreciation), including compound interest
stant for this case. at the total interest rate (i+i).
The curve on the bottom part of Fig. 41.3 illustrates
how the payments to the sinking fund plus interest at a
safe rate build this fund up to where the entire initial in-
vestment (C;) is available again at abandonment time.
Computation of the data for this constant-rate case is
based on the basic differential equation for the Hoskold
method:
It may be of interest to note that, if the safe interest
rate (i) is zero, this equation reduces to the appraisal equa-
tion for the discounted-cash-flow method, if the
compound-interest factors at the speculative rate (i ) are
applied at year end instead of midyear:
l i =I , ,
Idt+jSdt=jCidt+dS, . . . . . . .(14)
where
fraction,
S = sinking fund balance, dollars, and
C, = initial capital investment or purchase price,
dollars.
tween the limits t=O, S=O and t=t,, S=C; leads to the
appraisal value C; for a speculative interest rate
(j=O.lS) and a safe nominal interest rate (j=O.OS).
c, = ( 1 -e -?I) )I
I
j'-(j'-j)epJf,,
= [I -~-~~~~~~~~~](loo,ooo)
0.15-(0.10)[e-~~~~~~~]
=$440,400. . (15)
Correspondingly, the constant-net-profit portion (P) of
the annual income is 0.15 ~440,400=$66,060, while the
annual sinking fund payment is $lOO,OOO-$66,060=
$33,940, as shown on the top portion of the diagram. The
curve for the sinking fund (S) for this case is shown in
the bottom portion of the figure together with the remain-
ing unreturned portion of the investment (C, -S).
It may be observed that the rate of return (j) is the
ratio of the net annual profit (P) to the initial investment
(C,), and the remaining net investment balance (C, -S)
is declining somewhat more slowly in the beginning than
in the end. Although the curvature is much less than in
the discounted-cash-flow method, it still does not keep
pace with the actual depletion of the source of income.
Morkills Method
A variation of the Hoskold equation was proposed in 19 18
by Morkill. who felt that the risk or speculative rate
of interest (i) should be expected only from the amount
of capital remaining unreturned, while the security or safe
rate of interest (i) should apply to the sinking fund.
The appraisal value by Morkills method may be com-
puted from
Ci= C Z,(l +i)-. . . . . . . (17)
tl=l
Appropriate year-end compound-interest factors
(1 +i ) - will be found in Table 41.11 for speculative in-
terest rates from 2 to 200%.
To find the rate of return corresponding to a given pur-
chase price for the Morkill method, no direct solution is
possible, and one has to resort to a trial-and-error proce-
dure. Morkills method is illustrated in Fig. 41.4, which
shows the net profit, contributions to the sinking fund,
and growth of the sinking fund if this method were ap-
plied to the same venture as the other examples that yield-
ed a $lOO,OOO/yr income evenly over 10 years. As in the
Hoskold method, it was assumed that a speculative nomi-
nal rate of return (j) of lS%/yr is desired, while the safe
nominal interest rate (j) is 5%/yr.
The horizontal line in the top part of the diagram rep-
resents the constant-rate income (I) of $lOO,OOO/yr. The
other curves for this constant-rate case are computed from
the basic differential equation for the Morkill method,
Idt+jSdt=j(Ci-S)dt+dS. . . (18)
tween the limits t=O, S=O and t = t, , S= C; leads to the
appraisal value (Ci) for a speculative nominal interest rate
(j=O.lS) and a safe nominal interest rate (j=O.OS).
c; =
[ , ( , +. i ) f , _ 111
j+j,(j+iV,,
[e(O.*O)(O) - I]( 100,000)
= 0.05+(o.l5)[e0.*00]
=$551,560. _. (19)
The growth of the sinking fund is shown by the curve in
the bottom portion of Fig. 41.4, together with the remain-
ing unreturned portion of the investment (Ci -S). The
net-profit portion (P) of the operating income (I) shown
in the top portion is by definition equal to j times the
amount C, -S. It may be noted from this chart that the
rate of return (j) is the constant ratio of net profit (P)
and the unreturned balance of the investment (C; -S),
and the sinking fund is growing slowly at first and faster
toward the end and does not keep pace with the actual
depletion of the source of income.
c, =
II =,
,I
C I,,(1 +i+i)~~p
,I= I
Accounting Method
This method, also referred to as the average-book
I +[i/(i+i)][( I +i+i)cl - 1] .
.(16)
method, I8 is closely related to many of the concepts used
in conventional oil-company accounting procedure and
VALUATI ON OF OI L AND GAS RESERVES 41. 23
computes the rate of return on a proposed investment as
the ratio of the average net annual profits over the life
of the venture (after depletion) to the average book in-
vestment over its life. It takes into account the actual
depletion pattern and provides results that are compati-
ble with the actual average rate of return later shown by
a companys books. With amortization of an investment
on a unit-of-production basis or in proportion to the deple-
tion of the reserves, the appraisal value by this method
may be expressed for the case where the net income per
unit of production is constant as
c, =
CI
,I =I,

(20)
l+i c l-
(N,),,- ,,2
II = I VP 1 u
1
in which Cl represents the total of the operating net in-
come payments in successive years,
i the desired speculative rate of return, (N,),,- ti the cu-
mulative production at the mldpoint of the nth year. and
(N,), the cumulative production or estimated ultimate at
abandonment time.
Although this method is comparatively simple, it has
found only limited application.
The rate of return (i) for a given purchase price (C;)
may be computed directly by
j=
(WC;) - 1
. =+ ,, _ (N,),,_ ,,~ ,
(21)
,: L- (N,,), 1
or for the constant-rate case by
(22)
Its principal features are illustrated in Fig. 4 1 S, which
shows the net profit (P), the amounts reserved for deple-
tion (DE), and the cumulative depletion @DE) if the ac-
counting method were applied to the same venture as
before that yielded $lOO,OOO/yr income evenly over 10
years. It was assumed that an average speculative rate of
return (j) of 15%/yr is desired. The horizontal line in
the top part of the figure represents the $lOO,OOO/yr in-
come rate. Because the income rate and the depletion of
the reserves for this simplified case are assumed to be con-
stant, the amounts reserved for depletion (DE) are, there-
fore, also shown by a horizontal straight line.
Simultaneously, the cumulative depletion in the bottom
part of the diagram is a straight line running from zero
in the beginning to the capital investment (C,) at aban-
donment time (scale on right side).
By definition the rate of return (j) is the average net
profit (P) divided by the average investment balance (C,)
and is also equal to the total of the annual net profits as
represented by the area of Rectangle ABCD in the top
part of the diagram divided by the total of the annual in-
vestment balances as represented by the area of Triangle
EFG in the bottom portion of the diagram or, al-
gebraically,
C,
td-D,)=.it,y,
while
&=ci,
f
<I
so that, after substitution,
c; =
toI
=
l+J&
(lwloo>ooo) =$571 4oo
l + (O.lS)(lO)
2 2
. . . .
(23)
It may be noted that this method, in contrast to those
previously discussed, allows for a depletion pattern that
follows the actual depletion of the source of income. This
is indicated for this constant-rate case by the diagonal
straight line in the bottom portion of Fig. 41.5.
Average-Annual-Rate-of-Return Method
The average rate of return, computed by this method, is
essentially the ratio of the present value of the future net
profits (after depletion) to the present value of the net book
investments over the life of a property. The method is
particularly suited for investments in oil- and gas-
producing properties, where amortization of the invest-
ed capital is customarily on a unit-of-production basis and,
therefore, is proportional to the depletion of the reserves.
The average annual rate of return used in this method cor-
responds closely to the one later shown by the compa-
nys books, while the time pattern of income payments
is properly weighted. The equation is particularly simple
in its application because the discounting to present worth
needs to be done only for the safe interest rate (i). Be-
cause this interest rate is usually a fixed number. a series
of weighted-average-deferment-factor charts for the most
common types of production decline may be prepared in
advance. Such charts for i=O.OS are shown in Figs. 41.7
and 41.8.
According to Arps,6 the appraisal value by the
average-annual-rate-of-return method for the case where
the net operating income per unit of production is con-
stant may be computed from
-
c; =
FPV~~
(i/i)-[(if/i)-l]FPV
(24)
where I represents the total of the operating net income
payments in successive years,
41- 24
YEARS-
40 45 50 55 60 65 70
1.0
09
0.8 864~.1.. +
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
YEARS -
Fi g. 41. 7- Lump- sum and constant- rate def erment f actors f or
5% i nterest.
and i and i are the speculative and safe interest rates, re-
spectively. FPV is the weighted average deferment fac-
tor on production and income at the interest rate i.
The rate of return (i) for a given purchase price (C;)
may be computed directly by means of the equation
. . . .
(25)
The relative simplicity of these equations derives from
the fact that, with amortization on a unit-of-production
basis, the deferment factor (Fpv) for the production rate
and the net operating income will be identical to the aver-
age deferment factor applicable to the annual amounts set
aside for amortization. For further details of the deriva-
tion and equations, refer to Ref. 21. In cases where the
deferment factor on the net operating income is not ex-
actly equal to the deferment factor applicable to the pro-
duction rates, such as when the lifting costs per barrel
are increasing with time, it is customary to use the weight-
ed average deferment factor applicable to the net-
operating-income projection in the equation.
The principal features of this method are illustrated in
Fig. 41.6, which shows the net profit (P), the amounts
reserved for depletion (DE), and the cumulative deple-
tion @DE) if the average-annual-rate-of-return method
/
042
/
03
2 3456eso ;3 w 4G 60 8v IX
RATIO
INITIAL PRODUCTION RATE (q ,)
FINAL PRODUCTION RATE (q,) =
F,
Fi g. 41. 8- Constant- percentage- decl i ne def erment f actor f or 5%
i nterest.
were applied to the same venture as before that yielded
a $lOO,OOO/yr income evenly over 10 years. It was again
assumed that an average speculative rate of return (j)
of 15%/yr is desired. The horizontal line in the top part
of the figure representing the annual depletion rate, and
the diagonal line in the bottom portion of the diagram,
representing the cumulative depletion, are the same as
previously discussed for the accounting method shown in
Fig. 41.5.
The average constant-rate deferment factor for continu-
ous compounding, a safe nominal interest rate (j=O.OS),
an&a total life (t=lO yrs) may be read from Fig. 41.7
as FcR =0.787 so that the initial capital investment (C;)
may be computed by means of Eq. 25 as
Cj =
(0.787)( lO)( 100,000)
(0.15/0.05)-[(0.1510.05)- ll(O.787)
=$551,900.
The present worth of the net profit, discounted at the safe
interest rate (j=O.OS) is shown by Curve ABC, while the
present worth of the net remaining investment balances
at the same rate of interest is shown by Curve GHK in
the bottom part of the diagram. The speculative rate of
return (j) with this method is then graphically represented
by the ratio of Area ABCDE and area FGHK.
41- 25
Interest Tables and Deferment Factors I7
Simple and Compound Interest
Interest rate is the ratio between the amount paid for or
gained from the use of funds and the amount of funds
used.
and
Simple Interest. In simple interest. the interest to be paid
on repayment of a loan is proportional to the length of
time the principal sum has been borrowed. For example,
on a loan of $100 at a nominal interest rate of 6% iyr for
a period of 2 months. the interest due upon repayment
oftheloanwouldbe0.06~$100~2/;,=$1.00. Loansare
rarely made at simple interest for periods of more than
I year.
Compound Interest. In compound interest. the loan is
increased by an amount equal to the interest due at the
end of the interest period-e.g., on a loan of S 1,000 at
an interest rate of5 %/yr for a period of 4 years, the total
amount due upon repayment of the loan would be
1.0S1x$l,000=$l.216.
Compounding can be annually. semiannually, quarter-
ly, monthly, or continuously, depending on the length of
the stipulated interest period.
Effective and Nominal Interest
The effective annual interest rate (i) is the total compound
interest over a years time, expressed as a fraction or per-
centage of the amount outstanding at the beginning of the
year.
The nominal annual interest rate (j) applies when the
interest is compounded over M periods in a year and is
equal to M times the interest rate j/M for one period. When
interest is compounded once a year, the nominal (j) and
effective (i) interest rates are identical.
The relationships between effective (i) and nominal (j)
annual interest rate are
j= 1+L
( >
-I
M
and
j=M[(I+i)- I]. .
,j=ln(l +i). .(29)
Table 4 I. I2 expresses the relationships between effec-
tive annual interest rate i and nominal annual interest rate
j for annual, semiannual (M=2), quarterly (M=4),
monthly (M= 12). and continuous (M=m) compounding.
Lump-Sum Deferment Factor
A deferment factor Fpv, also referred to as average dis-
count factor or present-worth factor, is defined as the ra-
tio of the present worth of one or a series of future
payments and the total undiscounted amount of such fu-
ture payments. The following deferment factors are com-
monly used in valuation work.
The lump-sum deferment factor F,,. also known as the
single-payment present-worth factor. is the ratio of the
present value or present worth of a single future payment
made t years hence and the amount of the G$e payment.
For an effective annual interest rate (i). the lump-sum
deferment factor for t years is
F,,=(l +i) --f. . .(30)
Tables 4 1.7 and 4 I. 1 I show lump-sum deferment fac-
tors for effective annual interest rates i from 2 to 200%/yr
for payments falling either at year end (I +i) - or at
midyear (1 +i)-, respectively; e.g., the present worth
of a lump-sum payment of $200 to be made 10 years
hence, if interest is computed at 5%/yr. is $200~
1.05~=$200x0.6139=$122.78.
The midyear lump-sum deferment factors are used in
the discounted-cash-flow method when a future-income
projection by years is to be discounted to present value.
It is then customary to assume that the entire years income
is received at the midyear point. For fractional years, the
lump-sum deferment factor for an interest rate of 5 %iyr
may also be read directly from Fig. 41.7. Curve A.
For a nominal annual interest rate j. compounded M
times a year, the corresponding equation is
-lM
(27)
. . . . . . . . . ..__.........
(31)
When the nominal annual interest rate is jzO.06 or 6%/yr
and compounding is on a monthly basis (M= l2), the
For continuous compounding (M= 00) at a nominal an-
monthly interest rate is
nual interest rate (j) this equation reduces to
.i
0.06
-=-
M 12
=O.OOS. or /z%,
and the effective annual interest rate is
F,s=e-. _, _. ,(32)
The lump-sum deferment factor for continuous com-
pounding may be read directly from the graph in Fig. 41.9
for given values of rj.
i=(l +O.OOS) ~ I =0.06168 or 6.168%/yr.
Constant-Rate Deferment Factor, FCK
For the case where interest is compounded continuously
Also known as the equal-payment-series present-worth
(M-t 00). these relations reduce to
factor, this is the ratio of the present worth of a series
of Mt equal payments, made at equal intervals of 12/M
i-e/-l . . . . . . . (28)
months over a period oft years in the future, and the to-
tal amount of such payments.
41. 26
TABLE 41.12--RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE ANNUAL INTEREST RATE i
AND NOMI NAL I NTEREST RATE j FOR SEMI ANNUAL,
QUARTERLY, MONTHLY, AND CONTI NUOUS COMPOUNDING
Ef f ecti ve Annual I nterest Rate i
When the Nomi nal Ratei i s Comoounded
Nommal annual
i nterest rate
( DeAmal )
0. 01
0. 02
0. 03
0. 04
0. 05
0. 01002
0. 02010
0. 03022
0. 04040
0. 05062
0. 01004
0. 02015
0. 03034
0. 04060
0. 05094
0. 06136
0. 07186
0. 08243
0. 09308
0. 10381
1+h - 1
j ' *
0. 01004
0. 02018
0. 03042
0. 04074
0. 05117
Conti nuousl y
m=m
e' =l
0. 01005
0. 02020
0. 03045
0. 04081
0. 05127
0. 06 0. 06090
0. 07 0. 07122
0. 08 0. 08160
0. 09 0. 09202
0. 10 0. 10250
0. 06168 0. 06184
0. 07299 0. 07251
0. 08300 0. 08329
0. 09381 0. 09417
0. 10471 0. 10517
0. 11 0. 11302 0. 11462 0. 11572
0. 12 0. 12360 0. 12551 0. 12682
0. 13 0. 13422 0. 13648 0. 13803
0. 14 0. 14490 0. 14752 0. 14934
0. 15 0. 15562 0. 15865 0. 16075
0. 16 0. 16640 0. 16986 0. 17227
0. 17 0. 17722 0. 18115 0. 18389
0. 18 0. 18810 0. 19252 0. 19562
0. 19 0. 19902 0. 20397 0. 20745
0. 20 0. 21000 0. 21551 0. 21939
0. 22 0. 23210 0. 23882
0. 24 0. 25440 0. 26248
0. 26 0. 27690 0. 28647
0. 28 0. 29960 0. 31080
0. 30 0. 32250 0. 33547
0. 32 0. 34560 0 36049
0. 34 0. 36890 0. 38586
0. 36 0. 39240 3. 41158
0. 38 0. 41610 0. 43766
0. 40 0. 44000 0. 46410
0. 24360
0. 26824
0. 29333
0. 31888
0. 34489
0. 37137
0. 39832
0. 42576
0. 45369
0. 48213
0. 11628
0. 12750
0. 13883
0. 15027
0. 16183
0. 17351
0. 18530
0. 19722
0. 20925
0. 22140
0. 24608
0. 27125
0. 29693
0. 32313
0. 34986
0. 37713
0. 40495
0. 43333
0. 46228
0. 49182
0. 42 0. 46410 0. 49090 0. 51107 0. 52196
0. 44 0. 48840 0. 51807 0. 54053 0. 55271
0. 46 0. 51290 0. 54561 0. 57051 0. 58407
0. 48 0. 53760 0. 57352 0. 60103 0. 61607
0. 50 0. 56250 0. 60181 0. 63209 0. 64872
0. 55 0. 62562
0. 60 0. 69000
0. 65 0. 75562
0. 70 0. 82250
0. 75 0. 89062
0. 80 0. 96000
0. 85 1. 03062
0. 90 1. 10250
0. 95 1. 17562
1. 00 1. 25000
0. 67419
0. 74901
0. 82630
0. 90613
0. 98854
1. 07360
1. 16136
1. 25188
1. 34521
1. 44141
0. 71218 0. 73325
0. 79586 0. 82212
0. 88326 0. 91554
0. 97456 1. 01375
1. 06989 1. 11700
1. 16942 1. 22554
1. 27333 1. 33965
1. 38178 1. 45960
1. 49495 1. 58571
1. 61304 1. 71828
1. 10
1. 20
1. 30
1. 40
1. 50
1. 40250
1. 56000
1. 72250
1. 89000
2. 06250
2. 24000
2. 42250
2. 61000
2. 80250
3. 00000
1. 64266 1. 86471 2. 00417
1. 85610 2. 13843 2. 32012
2. 08222 2. 43593 2. 66930
2. 32150 2. 75909 3. 05520
2. 57446 3. 10989 3. 48169
1. 60
1. 70
1. 80
1. 90
2. 00
2. 34160 3. 49047 3. 95303
3. 12344 3. 90311 4. 47395
3. 42051 4. 35025 5. 04965
3. 73334 4. 83448 5. 68589
4. 06250 5. 35860 6. 38906
Semi annual l y Quarterl y Monthl y
m=2 m=4 m=l Z
When the interest rate over the time interval between 41.7 for oil- and gas-appraisal work. Table 41.14 pro-
payments is j/M and the first payment occurs at the end vides these factors for effective interest rates between 3
of the first interest period, the constant-rate deferment fac- and 20%/yr.
tor is
Constant-Percentage-Decline
-
l-[l+(j/M)JPM
Deferment Factor DcpD
FCR=
.
(33)
rj
This is the ratio of the present value or present worth of
a series of future payments that follow constant-percentage
When the payments are due at the end of each year,
decline and the total amount of such income. When the
the equation reads
pipeline income from oil and gas production and the oper-
ating expense are accounted for at the end of each month,
and when the compounding of interest and the effective
-
F, =
I -(I l ti) -f
(34)
decline d are also on a monthly basis, the equation for
. . . . ti
the deferment factor takes the form
When the annual payments are due at midyear, and the
first payment is 6 months hence, the deferment factor is
F
F,-(1-d)(l++
1
FCR=(l+i),+
[I-(l+i)-] (l+i)-(l+i)+
F,-(l-d)
=
ti ti
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(38)
. . . . . ..~...................
(35)
Constant-rate deferment factors for this case and effec-
tive interest percentages from 3 to 10% are listed in Table
41.13.
The pipeline income from oil or gas production and the
operating expenses are normally accounted for on a
monthly basis, and the constant-rate deferment factor for
such monthly payments then takes the form
F
CR=
1-[1+(j/12)]-2f = I-(l+i)-
t i
12t[(l+i)x,-l].
. . .
(36)
The constant-rate deferment factor according to this
equation for an effective annual interest rate of 5%/yr,
monthly payments, and monthly compounding may be
read directly against the number of years t on Fig. 4 1.7,
Curve B.
For continuous compounding (M=a) at a nominal in-
terest rate (j) the equation reduces to
FcR- ~+"
-
. . . tj (37a)
where
-
F cp~ = constant percentage-decline deferment
factor; the average deferment factor
applicable to a series of future payments
that follow constant-percentage decline,
fraction,
d = effective decline rate, drop in production
rate per unit of time divided by the pro-
duction rate at the beginning of the
period, fraction,
F, = ratio between initial and final production
rates or payments,
i = effective annual compound safe interest
rate, fraction, and
f,
= abandonment time or future life, years.
The constant-percentage-decline deferment factors ac-
cording to this equation for an effective annual interest
rate of 5 %/yr or 0.4074%/month, monthly payments, and
monthly compounding may be read directly from the
graph in Fig. 41.8 for varying ratios F, and different ef-
fective decline rates d.
For continuous compounding (M= 00) at a nominal in-
terest rate j, the equation reduces to
The constant-rate deferment factor for such continuous
compounding may be read directly from the graph in Fig.
4 1.9 for given values of tj. The constant-rate deferment
(39)
factor for the equal monthly payments received at the end
of each month during a specific interval of 1 year between The constant-percentage-decline deferment factors for
(f- 1) and I years from now takes the form such continuous compounding may be read directly from
the graph in Fig. 41.9 for given values of ratio F, and rj.
(l+i)--(l+i)-
Time t, may be computed from Eq. 56 or 57 in
FCR=
12[(l+i)~~-11 . ..
(37b) Chap. 40:
This annual deferment factor is more accurate than the
midyear lump-sum deferment factor of Eq. 30 and Table
In F
to =
y _ NPII F, In F,
a
qi (Fy-1)
TABLE 41 .13-CONSTANT-RATE DEFERMENT FACTORS F cR = (1 + i) a - (1 + i) H-r/fi
Each Annual I ncome Recei ved ! n One Payment at Mi dyear
Year 3% 3%% 4% 4%% 5% 5% % 6% 6%% 7% 7% % 8% 8wo 9% 9 ' 12 % 10% l O%% 11%
- -
10. 98530. 98290. 98060. 97820. 97590. 97360. 97130. 96900. 9667096450. 9623o. 96oo0. 95780. 95560. 95350. 9513
2 0. 9710 0. 9663 0. 9617 0. 9572 0. 9527 0. 9482 0. 9438 0. 9394 0. 9351 0. 9308 0. 9266 0. 9224 0. 9183 0. 9142 0. 9101 0. 9061 0. 9021
3 0. 9569 0. 9501 0. 9433 0. 9367 0. 9302 0. 9237 0. 9173 0. 9111 0. 9049 0. 8988 0. 8927 0. 8868 0. 8809 0. 8751 0. 8694 0. 8638 0. 8582
4 0. 9431 0. 9342 0. 9254 0. 9168 0. 9084 0. 9001 0. 8919 0 8838 0. 8759 0. 8682 0. 8605 0. 8530 0. 8456 0. 8383 0. 8311 0. 8241 0. 8172
5 0. 9296 0. 9187 0. 9080 0. 8975 0. 8873 0. 8772 0. 8674 0. 8577 0. 8483 0. 8390 0. 8299 0. 8209 0. 8122 0. 8036 0. 7952 0. 7869 0. 7788
6 0. 9163 0. 9035 0. 8910 0 8788 0. 8668 0. 8552 0. 8438 0. 8326 0. 8218 0. 8111 0. 8007 0. 7905 0. 7806 0. 7708 0. 7613 0. 7520 0. 7429
7 0. 9033 0. 8887 0. 8744 0. 8605 0. 8470 0. 8339 0 8211 0. 8086 0. 7964 0. 7845 0. 7729 0. 7617 0. 7507 0. 7399 0. 7294 0. 7192 0. 7092
8 0. 8905 0. 8742 0. 8583 08428 0. 8279 0. 8133 0 7992 0. 7854 07721 07591 07465 0. 7342 0. 7223 0. 7107 0. 6994 0. 6884 0. 6777
9 0. 8780 0. 8600 0. 8425 0. 8256 0. 8093 0. 7934 0. 7781 0. 7632 0. 7488 0 7349 0. 7213 0. 7082 0. 6955 0. 6831 0. 6711 0. 6595 0. 6482
10 0. 8657 0. 8461 0. 8272 0. 8089 0. 7912 07742 07578 07419 07265 07117 0. 6973 0. 6835 0. 6700 0. 6570 0. 6444 0. 6323 0. 6205
11 0. 8537 0. 8325 0. 8122 0. 7926 0. 7738 0. 7556 0. 7382 0. 7214 0. 7052 0 6895 0. 6745 0. 6599 0. 6459 0. 6324 0. 6193 0. 6067 0. 5945
12 0. 8419 0. 8192 0. 7976 0. 7768 0. 7568 0. 7377 0. 7193 0. 7016 0. 6847 0 6683 0. 6526 0. 6375 0. 6230 0. 6090 0. 5955 0. 5825 0. 5700
13 0. 8303 0. 8063 0. 7833 0. 7614 0. 7404 0. 7203 0. 7011 0. 6827 0. 6650 06481 0. 6318 0. 6162 0. 6013 0. 5889 0. 5731 0. 5598 0. 5470
14 0. 8189 0. 7936 0. 7695 0. 7465 0. 7245 0. 7036 0. 6836 0. 6644 0. 6462 0. 6287 0. 6120 0. 5960 0. 5806 0. 5660 0. 5519 0. 5384 0. 5254
15 0. 8077 0. 7811 0. 7559 0. 7319 0. 7091 0. 6873 0. 6666 0. 6469 0. 6281 0. 6101 0. 5930 0. 5767 0. 5610 0. 5461 0. 5318 0 5182 0 5051
16 0. 7968 0. 7690 0. 7427 0. 7178 0. 6941 0. 6716 0. 6503 0. 6300 0. 6107 0. 5924 0. 5749 0. 5583 0. 5424 0. 5273 0. 5128 0. 4991 0. 4859
17 0. 7860 0. 7571 0. 7298 0. 7040 0. 6796 0. 6564 0 6345 0. 6138 0 5941 0 5754 0. 5576 0. 5407 0. 5247 0. 5094 0. 4949 0. 4810 0. 4678
18 0. 7755 0. 7455 0. 7172 0. 6906 0. 6655 0. 6417 0. 6193 05981 0. 5781 05591 0. 5411 0. 5240 0. 5078 0. 4925 0. 4779 0. 4640 0. 4506
19 0. 7651 0. 7341 0. 7049 0. 6776 0. 6518 0. 6275 0. 6046 0. 5831 0. 5627 0. 5435 0. 5253 0. 5081 0. 4918 0. 4764 0. 4617 0. 4479 0. 4347
20 0. 7549 0. 7229 0. 6930 0. 6649 0. 6385 0. 6137 0. 5905 0. 5685 0. 5479 0 5285 0. 5102 0. 4929 0. 4765 0. 4611 0. 4465 0. 4326 0 4195
21 0. 7450 0. 7120 0. 6813 0. 6525 0. 6256 0. 6004 0. 5768 0. 5546 0. 5337 0. 5141 0. 4957 0. 4783 0. 4620 0. 4465 0. 4319 0. 4182 0 4051
22 0. 7352 0. 7014 0. 6699 0. 6405 0. 6131 0. 5875 0. 5635 0. 5411 0. 5201 0 5004 0. 4819 0. 4645 0. 4481 0. 4327 0. 4182 0. 4045 0 3915
23 0. 7256 0. 6909 06587 0. 6268 0. 6009 0. 5750 0. 5507 0. 5261 0. 5070 04872 0. 4686 0. 4512 0. 4349 0. 4195 0. 4051 0. 3915 0. 3787
24 0. 7162 0. 6807 06479 0. 6174 0. 5891 0. 5629 0. 5384 0. 5156 0. 4943 04745 0. 4559 0. 4385 0. 4223 0. 4070 0. 3926 0 3792 0. 3665
25 0. 7069 0. 6707 0. 6373 0. 6063 0. 5777 0. 5511 0. 5265 0. 5035 0. 4822 0. 4623 0. 4437 0. 4264 0. 4102 0. 3950 0. 3808 0. 3675 0. 3549
26 0. 6978 0. 6609 0. 6269 0. 5955 0. 5665 0. 5397 0 5149 0. 4919 0. 4705 0 4506 0. 4321 0. 4148 0. 3987 0. 3836 0. 3695 0. 3563 0. 3440
27 0. 6889 0. 6513 0. 6168 0. 5650 0. 5557 0. 5287 0. 5037 0. 4806 0. 4592 0. 4394 0. 4209 0. 4037 0. 3877 0. 3728 0. 3588 0 3458 0. 3335
28 0. 6801 0. 6419 06069 0. 5748 0. 5452 0. 5180 0. 4929 0. 4696 0. 4484 04286 0. 4102 0. 3931 0. 3772 0. 3624 0. 3486 0. 3357 0. 3237
29 0. 6715 0. 8327 0 5472 0. 5648 0. 5350 0. 5077 0. 4825 0. 4593 0. 4379 0 4182 0. 3999 0. 3829 0. 3671 0. 3525 0. 3389 0. 3261 0. 3143
30 0. 6631 0. 6237 05878 0. 5550 0. 5251 0. 4976 0. 4724 0. 4492 0. 4279 04082 0. 3900 0. 3731 0. 3575 0. 3430 0. 3296 0. 3170 0. 3053
31 0. 6548 0. 6149 0 5786 0. 5456 0. 5154 0. 4879 0. 4626 0. 4394 0. 4182 0 3986 0. 3805 0. 3638 0. 3483 0. 3340 0. 3207 0 3083 0. 2968
32 0. 6466 0. 6062 0. 5696 0. 5363 0. 5060 0. 4784 0. 4531 0. 4300 0. 4088 0. 3693 0. 3714 0. 3548 0. 3395 0. 3254 0. 3122 0. 3000 0. 2887
33 0. 6386 0. 5978 05608 0. 5273 0. 4969 0. 4692 0. 4440 0. 4209 0. 3998 03804 0. 3626 0. 3462 0. 3311 0. 3171 0 3041 0 2921 0. 2810
34 0. 6308 0. 5895 0 5522 0. 5165 0. 4880 0. 4603 0. 4351 0. 4121 0. 3911 0. 3718 0. 3542 0. 3379 0. 3230 0. 3092 0 2964 0. 2846 0. 2736
35 0. 6231 0. 5814 0 5438 0. 5100 0. 4794 0. 4517 0. 4265 0. 4036 0. 3827 0 3636 0. 3461 0. 3300 0. 3152 0. 3016 0. 2690 0 2774 0. 2666
36 0. 6155 0. 5734 05356 0. 5016 0. 4710 0. 4433 0. 4161 0. 3953 0. 3745 03556 0. 3382 0. 3224 0. 3076 0. 2943 0. 2819 0. 2705 0. 2598
37 0. 6090 0. 5656 0. 5276 0. 4935 0. 4628 0. 4351 0. 4101 0 3874 0. 3667 0 3479 0. 3307 0. 3150 0. 3006 0. 2873 0. 2751 0. 2638 0. 2534
38 0. 6007 0. 5580 05198 0. 4856 0. 4549 0. 4272 0. 4022 0. 3796 0. 3591 0. 3405 0. 3235 0. 3080 0. 2937 0. 2807 02686 0. 2575 0. 2473
39 0. 5935 0. 5505 0. 5121 0. 4778 0. 4471 0. 4195 0. 3946 0. 3722 0. 3516 0. 3334 0. 3165 0. 3012 0. 2871 0. 2742 0. 2624 0. 2515 0. 2414
40 0 5865 0. 5431 0 5046 0. 4703 0. 4396 0. 4120 0. 3873 0. 3650 0. 3448 0 3265 0. 3098 0. 2946 0. 2808 0. 2681 0 2564 0. 2457 0. 2358
41 0. 5795 0. 5359 04973 0. 4629 0. 4322 0. 4048 0. 3801 0. 3560 0. 3379 0. 3198 0. 3033 0. 2883 0. 2747 0. 2622 02507 0. 2401 0. 2304
42 05727 05289 04909 04557 0. 4251 0. 3977 0. 3732 0. 3512 0. 3313 03134 0. 2971 02823 0 2688 02565 02452 0. 2348 0. 2252
43 0 5660 0 5220 0. 4631 0. 4487 0. 4161 0. 3909 0. 3665 0. 3446 0. 3249 0. 3072 0 2911 0. 2765 0. 2631 0. 2510 0. 2399 0. 2296 0. 2202
44 0. 5594 0. 5152 0. 4763 0. 4419 0. 4113 0. 3842 0. 3600 0. 3382 0. 3187 0. 3012 0. 2852 0. 2708 0. 2577 0. 2457 0. 2348 0. 2247 0. 2155
45 0. 5530 0. 5086 0 4696 0 4352 0 4047 0. 3777 0 3536 0. 3321 0. 3127 0. 2953 0. 2796 0. 2654 0. 2525 0. 2407 0. 2299 0. 2200 0. 2109
46 0. 5466 0. 5021 04630 04286 0 3983 0 3714 0. 3475 0. 3261 0. 3069 02697 0. 2742 0. 2602 0. 2472 0. 2358 0. 2252 0. 2154 0. 2065
47 0. 5404 0. 4957 0 4566 0. 4223 0. 3920 0. 3653 0. 3415 0. 3203 0. 3013 0. 2843 0. 2690 0. 2551 0. 2425 0. 2311 0. 2206 0. 2111 0. 2023
48 0. 5342 0. 4694 0 4503 0 4160 0. 3859 0. 3593 0. 3357 0. 3147 0. 2959 0. 2791 0. 2639 0. 2502 0. 2378 0. 2265 0. 2162 0. 2068 0. 1962
49 0. 5282 0. 4833 04442 0. 4100 03799 0. 3535 03300 03092 0. 2906 02740 0. 2590 0. 2455 0. 2333 0. 2222 02120 0. 2028 0. 1943
50 0. 5223 0. 4773 04382 0. 4040 0. 3741 0. 3478 0. 3246 0. 3039 0. 2855 0. 2691 02543 0. 2409 0. 2289 0. 2179 0. 2060 0. 1989 0. 1905
Fig. 41
001 002 0. 04 0. 07OI 0. 2 04 07 I 2 4 7 I O 20 30
902 GO4 0070. 1 02 04 07 I 2 4 7 I O 20 30
- - - I I
TI ME , ty, j x NOMI NAL I NTEREST RATE , , , , ) ( CONTI NKl USLY COMPO"NOED,
. 9- Def erment f actors f or l ump- sum, constant- rate, and constant- percentage decl i ne.
VALUATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES
41-29
TABLE 41.13-CONSTANT-RATE DEFERMENT FACTORS F cR =(I +i) -(l +i)-hi (continued)
Each Annual I ncome Recei ved m One Payment at Mi dyear
Year l l Vz% 12% 12' h% 13% 13' / 2% 14% 14%% 15% 15' 2% 16% 16' / 2% 17% 17' 12% 16% 18' / 2% 19% 19' / 2% 20%
I 0 9470 0 9449 0. 9428 0 9407 0. 9386 0 9366 0 9345 0 9325 o 9305 09285 o 9265 0 9245 0. 9225 0 9206 0. 9186 0 9167 0. 9148 0 9129
2 08982 0 8943 0. 8904 08666 0. 8828 08791 0 8754 08717 08680 08644 08609 08573 0. 6536 08504 0. 8469 0 8435 0. 8401 0 8368
3 08527 08473 08419 08366 08314 08263 08212 08162 08112 08063 08015 07967 07920 07873 07827 07781 0. 7736 0. 7692
4 08103 08036 07970 07905 07841 07777 07715 07654 07594 07534 07476 07418 07361 07305 07250 07196 0. 7142 07090
5 0. 7708 0 7630 0 7553 0 7478 07404 07331 07260 07190 07121 07053 06987 06921 06857 06794 06732 06671 0. 6611 0. 6552
6 07339 07252 07166 070' 32 07000 06920 06841 06764 06688 06614 06542 06470 06401 06332 06265 06199 06135 06072
7 06995 06900 06807 06716 06628 06541 06456 06374 06293 06214 06137 06061 05987 05915 05844 05775 05707 0. 5641
8 06673 06572 06473 0. 6376 06283 06191 06102 06015 05930 05848 05767 05688 05612 0. 5537 0 5464 0. 5392 0 5322 0. 5254
9 06372 06265 06162 06061 05963 05868 05776 05686 05598 05513 05430 05349 05270 05194 05119 05046 04975 0. 4906
10 06090 05980 05872 05768 05667 05569 05474 05382 05292 05206 05121 05039 04959 04862 04806 04733 04662 0. 4593
11 0. 5827 05713 05602 05496 05393 05293 05196 05102 05012 04924 04838 04756 04676 0. 4598 0 4522 0. 4449 0 4378 0. 4309
12 0. 5579 05463 05351 0 5242 05137 05036 04939 04944 04753 04665 04579 04496 04416 0. 4339 0 4264 0. 4191 0 4121 0. 4052
13 0. 5347 05229 05115 05006 04900 04798 04700 04606 04514 04426 04341 0. 4259 04179 0. 4102 04026 03956 03887 03619
14 05130 05010 04896 04765 04679 04577 04479 04385 04294 04206 04122 0. 4040 03962 03686 03613 03742 03674 0. 3608
15 04925 04805 04690 04580 04474 04372 04274 04180 04090 04003 03920 0. 3839 03762 03687 03615 03546 03479 0. 3414
16 0. 4733 04613 04496 04388 04282 04181 04084 03991 03901 03816 03733 03654 03576 03505 03434 0. 3366 03301 0. 3238
17 04552 04432 04317 04208 04103 04003 03907 03815 03727 03642 03561 03483 03409 03337 03268 0. 3202 03138 0. 3077
18 04382 04262 04148 04039 03936 03836 03741 03651 03564 03481 03402 03325 03252 03182 03115 03050 02988 0. 2929
19 04222 04103 03989 03862 03779 03681 03588 03496 03413 03332 03254 03179 03108 03039 02974 02911 02851 02793
20 04071 03952 03840 03734 03632 03536 03444 03356 03273 03193 03117 03044 02974 02907 02843 02782 02723 0. 2667
21 0. 3928 03811 03700 03595 03495 03400 03310 03224 03142 03063 02969 02918 02850 02765 02723 02663 02606 0. 2552
22 03793 03677 03568 03464 03366 03272 03184 03100 03019 02943 02870 02601 02734 02671 02611 02553 02498 0. 2445
23 0. 3666 03551 0 3444 0 3341 03245 03153 03066 02983 02905 02830 02759 02692 0. 2627 0 2566 0. 2507 02451 02397 02345
24 03545 03433 03326 03226 03131 03041 02956 02875 02798 02725 02656 02590 0. 2527 02467 02410 02355 02303 02253
25 0. 3431 03320 03215 03117 03023 02935 02852 02773 02696 02627 02559 02495 0. 2434 02375 02320 02267 02216 02168
26 03323 03214 03111 0. 3014 02922 02836 02754 02677 02604 02534 02469 02406 02346 02290 02236 02184 02135 02088
27 03221 0 3113 03012 0. 2917 02827 02742 0. 2663 02587 02516 02448 02384 02323 02265 0 2210 0. 2157 02107 02059 02014
28 03124 03018 02918 0. 2825 02737 02654 02576 02502 02432 02366 02304 02244 0. 2188 02134 0. 2083 02035 01988 01944
29 03031 02927 02830 02738 02652 02571 02495 02422 02354 02290 02229 02171 02116 02064 0. 2014 01967 0. 1922 01879
30 02944 02842 0 2746 02656 02572 02492 0. 2418 02347 02281 02218 02158 02102 0. 2048 0 199. 8 0. 1949 0 1903 0. 1660 01. 318
31 02861 02760 02666 02578 02495 02418 02345 02276 02211 02150 02092 02037 0. 1965 0 1935 0. 1886 0 1844 0. 1801 01761
32 02781 02683 02590 02504 02423 02347 02276 02209 02145 02085 02029 01975 01925 0 1876 0. 1831 0 1787 0. 1746 01707
33 02706 02609 02519 02434 02355 02280 02211 02145 02083 02025 01969 01917 01668 01821 01777 01734 01694 0. 1656
34 02634 02539 02450 0. 2367 02290 02217 02149 02085 02024 01967 0. 1913 01862 01814 01769 01725 01684 01645 01608
35 02565 02472 02385 02304 02228 02157 02090 02027 01968 01913 01860 01810 01763 01719 01677 01637 0. 1599 01562
36 0. 2500 02408 02323 02244 02169 02100 02034 0 1973 0 1915 01861 011310 01761 01715 01672 01631 01592 01555 01519
37 02437 02348 02264 02186 02113 02045 01961 0 1921 01865 01612 01762 01714 01670 01627 01587 01549 01513 01479
38 02378 02290 02206 02131 02060 01993 01931 01872 01617 01765 01716 01670 01626 0. 1565 01546 0. 1509 01474 0. 1440
39 02321 02234 02154 02079 02009 01944 01883 01825 01771 01721 0. 1673 01628 0 1585 0. 1545 01507 0. 1470 01436 0. 1403
40 02266 02181 02102 02029 01960 01897 01637 01781 01726 01676 01632 0. 1568 0 1546 0. 1507 01469 0. 1434 0. 1400 0. 1368
41 02214 02130 02053 01981 01914 01851 01793 01738 01687 01638 01592 01549 0 1509 0. 1470 01434 0. 1399 01366 0. 1335
42 02164 02082 02006 01935 01870 0 1808 01751 01697 01647 01600 01555 01513 0 1473 0. 1436 01400 0. 1366 01334 0. 1303
43 02116 0. 2035 0 1961 01892 01827 01767 0. 1711 01659 01609 01563 01519 0. 1478 0 1439 01402 0. 1367 0. 1334 01303 01273
44 02069 0. 1991 0 1916 0. 1650 01787 01728 01673 01621 01573 01526 01485 0. 1445 0 1407 0. 1371 01337 01304 01274 01244
45 02025 01948 01876 0. 1810 01748 01690 01636 01586 01538 01494 0 1452 01413 01376 01340 01307 01275 01245 0. 1217
46 01983 01907 01836 01771 01710 01654 01601 01552 01505 01462 01421 0. 1382 01346 01311 01279 0. 1248 01218 01190
47 01942 0 1867 01798 01734 01675 01619 01567 01519 0, 474 0 1431 01391 0. 1353 0 1317 0. 1283 01252 01221 01192 0. 1165
48 01903 0. 1829 01762 01699 01640 01586 01535 01488 01443 0 1401 O 1362 01325 0. 1290 01257 0. 1226 01196 01168 01141
49 01865 01793 01726 01665 01607 01554 0. 1504 01457 0 1414 01373 01334 01296 01264 01231 01201 01171 01144 01118
50 0 1828 0 1758 0 1692 0 1632 0 1576 0 1523 01474 0 1429 0, 386 01345 0 1306 0 1272 0. 1238 0 1207 01177 0 1148 01121 01095
Hyperbolic-Decline Deferment Factor, FH?
a series of future payments that follow hyperbolic decline
(decline proportional to a fractional power of the produc-
tion rate) and the total amount of such payments.
For continuous compounding (M= w) at a nominal in-
terest rate ,j the average deferment factor is I)
[Ei($-,)--Ei( &!,)I. ...C40)
where f=future life (in years) determined from Eq. 64
or 65 of Chap. 40.
r-NPlI J FY = 2(J Fy -1)
4,
a;
The hyperbolic-decline deferment factors for such con-
tinuous compounding of interest may bc read from the
graph in Fig. 41.10 for given values of ratio F, and prod-
uct tj.
Harmonic-Decline Deferment Factor FH~
a series of future payments that follow harmonic decline
(decline proportional to the production rate) and the total
TABLE 41. 14- ANNUAL DEFERMENT FACTORS FcR =( 1 +i ) - - ( 1 +i ) - / 12[ ( 1 +i) -I]
Annual Def erment Factors are Apphcabl e to Equal Payments Recei ved at the End of Each Month
Duri ng a Specl f l c I nterval of 1 Year Between ( f - l ) and t Years From Now
Year 3% 3%Q/ cl 4% 4' / 2% 5% 5' / 2% 6% 6%% 7%
1 0. 9842 0. 9816 09790 0. 9765 0. 9740 0. 9715 0. 9691 0. 9666 0. 9642
2 0. 9555 0. 9484 09414 0. 9345 0. 9276 0. 9209 09142 09076 0. 9011
3 0. 9277 0. 9163 09052 08942 0. 6835 0. 8729 08625 08522 0. 8422
4 0. 9006 0. 8853 08704 08557 0. 8414 0. 8274 0. 8136 08002 0. 7871
5 08744 08554 08369 08189 0. 8013 07642 07676 07514 0. 7356
6 0. 8489 0. 8265 08047 0. 7836 0. 7632 07434 07241 07055 0. 6875
7 0. 8242 0. 7985 07738 0. 7499 0. 7268 07046 06832 06625 0. 6425
7%% 8%
0. 9618 0. 9594
0. 8947 0. 8883
0. 8323 0. 8225
0. 7742 0. 7616
07202 07052
6%%
0. 9570
0. 8621
0. 6130
0. 7493
0 6906
0. 6365
0. 5866
9% 9%% 10% 10%% 1 1% 1 1 %%
0. 9547 0. 9524 09500 09477 0. 9455 09432
0 8759 0. 8697 08637 0 8577 0. 8518 08459
0. 8035 0. 7943 07852 07762 0. 7674 0. 7587
0. 7372 0. 7254 07138 07024 0. 6913 0. 6804
06763 0. 6624 06489 06357 06228 06102
0. 6699 06530 0. 6205 0. 6050 05899 05753 0 5611 0. 5473
0. 6232 0. 6046 0. 5692 0. 5525 05363 05206 0 5055 0. 4909
8 08002 07715 07440 07176 06922 06679 06445 06220 0. 6005 05797 05598 0. 5407 0. 5222 0. 5045 0. 4875 04711 04554 0. 4402
9 07769 0. 7454 07154 0. 6867 0. 6593 0. 6330 06080 05841 0. 5612 05393 05183 0. 4983 0. 4791 0. 4608 04432 04264 04103 03946
10 07543 0 7202 06879 06571 0. 6279 0. 6000 05736 05484 0. 5245 0. 5017 0. 4799 0. 4593 0. 4396 0. 4208 04029 03859 03696 03541
11 0. 7323 06959 06614 06288 05980 05688 05411 05149 0. 4901 04667 0. 4444 0. 4233 0. 4033 0. 3843 03663 03492 0 3330 0. 3176
12 0. 7110 06723 06360 0. 6017 0. 5695 05391 05105 04835 0. 4581 0. 4341 0. 4115 0. 3901 0. 3700 0. 3509 03330 03160 03000 02848
13 0. 6903 06496 0. 6115 05758 05424 0. 5110 04816 0. 4540 0. 4281 04038 0. 3810 0. 3596 0. 3394 0. 3205 03027 02860 02703 02555
14 0. 6702 06276 0. 5880 0. 5510 0 5165 0. 4844 04543 0. 4263 0. 4001 03756 0. 3528 0. 3314 0. 3114 0. 2927 02752 02588 02435 02291
15 06506 0 6064 05654 05273 04919 04591 04286 04003 0. 3739 03494 03266 03054 02857 0. 2673 02502 02342 02193 02055
16 0 6317 0. 5859 05436 05046 04685 0. 4352 04044 03758 0. 3495 0. 3251 0. 3024 0. 2815 0. 2621 0. 2441 02274 0. 2120 01976 01843
17 0 6133 0. 5661 05227 0. 4829 0. 4462 0 4125 03815 03529 0. 3266 0. 3024 0. 2800 0 2594 0. 2405 0. 2229 02068 0. 1918 0. 1780 0 1653
18 05954 0. 5469 05026 04621 04250 03910 03599 03314 0. 3052 02813 02593 0. 2391 02206 0. 2036 01880 01736 0. 1604 01482
19 05781 0 5264 04833 04422 0. 4047 0. 3706 03395 0. 3111 0. 2853 02617 02401 02204 02024 0. 1859 01709 0 1571 0. 1445 0. 1329
20 05612 05106 0. 4647 0. 4231 03855 03513 03203 02922 0. 2666 02434 0. 2223 0. 2031 0. 1857 0. 1698 01553 0 1422 0. 1302 01192
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
0 5449 0. 4933
05290 04766
05136 04605
0 4987 0 4449
04841 04299
04700 04154
04563 04013
04431 03877
04302 03746
04176 03620
04055 03497
03936 03379
0 3822 0. 3265
03711 0. 3154
0 3602 0. 3048
0 3498 0. 2945
04468 04049 0. 3671 03330 03022 02743 0. 2492 0. 2264 0. 2058 0. 1872
04296 03675 0. 3496 03156 02851 02576 02329 0. 2106 0. 1906 0. 1725
0. 1703 01551 0 1412
0. 1563 01416 01284
01434 0 1293 01167
0 I 287
0. 1164
01054
0 0954
00863
0 0781
00707
Q0640
0 0579
00524
00474
0 0429
00388
0. 1173 0 1069
0. 1056 00959
0. 0952 00660
00857 00771
00772 0. 0692
04131 0. 3708 0 3330 0. 2992 02689 02419 0. 2176
03972 0. 3548 0 3171 02836 02537 02271 0. 2034
03819 03395 03020 02688 02393 02132 0. 1901
0. 1959 0. 1765
0. 1823 0. 1634
01695 01513
0 1577
01467
01365
0 1270
0 1181
01099
01022
0. 0951
0. 0884
0. 0823
0 1401
01297
0. 1201
01112
01030
0 0953
0. 0883
0. 0817
00757
0. 0701
0. 0765
00712
0. 0662
0. 0616
0. 0573
00533
0 0496
0. 0649
00601
0. 0556
0. 0515
0. 0477
0. 0442
0. 0409
0 1590
01466
01351
01245
01148
01058
0 0975
0 0898
00628
00763
00703
00648
0. 0597
0. 0551
0. 0508
0. 0468
0. 0431
00397
0. 0366
00338
0. 1315 0. 1181 0 1061
0. 1207 0. 1079 00965
0. 3673 03249 0. 2676 02548 0. 2258 02002 0. 1777
03531 03109 0. 2739 02415 02130 01880 01660
03395 02975 0. 2609 02289 02010 01765 0. 1552
03265 02847 0. 2485 02170 01896 01658 0. 1450
0. 3139 02725 0. 2366 02057 01788 01556 0. 1355
03019 02607 0. 2254 01949 01687 01461 0. 1267
02902 02495 0. 2146 01848 01592 01372 0. 1184
02791 02368 0. 2044 0. 1751 01502 0. 1288 0. 1106
02683 02285 0. 1947 01660 01417 0. 1210 0. 1034
02580 02186 0. 1854 0. 1574 01336 0 1136 0. 0966
02481 02092 0. 1766 01491 0. 1261 0. 1067 0. 0903
02386 02002 0. 1682 01414 0. 1189 01002 0. 0844
02294 0. 1916 0. 1602 0. 1340 01122 00940 0. 0789
02206 01833 01525 0. 1270 0. 1059 0. 0883 0. 0737
02121 0. 1754 01453 01204 00999 00829 0. 0689
0. 2039 0 1679 0. 1384 01141 0. 0942 00779 0. 0644
01961 0. 1607 01318 0. 1062 0. 0889 00731 0. 0602
0. 1107
0. 1016
0. 0932
0. 0855
0. 0784
0. 0720
0. 0660
0. 0606
0. 0$56
0. 0510
0. 0468
0. 0429
0. 0394
0. 0361
0. 0331
0. 0304
0. 0279
0. 0985
0. 0900
00822
0. 0750
0. 0665
00626
0. 0571
00877
0 0797
00725
0 0669
0. 0599
00544
0. 0495
00450
0. 0409
00372
0. 0338
0. 0307
0 0279
00254
00231
0. 0210
00191
0. 0696 0. 0620
00627 0. 0556
00565 0. 0499
00509 00448
00458 00401 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
00413 0. 0360
00372 0. 0323
0. 0522
0. 0477
0. 0435
0. 0397
00335 0 0290
0. 0351 00302 0. 0260
00318 00272 00233
0. 0288
00260
0. 0236
0. 0213
0. 0193
00175
0. 0158
00245 0. 0209
00221 0. 0187
0. 0199 0 0168
00179 00151
0. 0161 0. 0135
00145 00121
00131 00109
37 0 3396 0. 2845
38 0 3297 0 2749
39 0 3201 02656
0. 0363
0. 0331
00303
40 0 3107 0. 2566
41 0 3017 0. 2479
42 0 2929 0. 2395
0. 0276
0. 0252
0. 0231
43 0. 2644 0. 2314 01885 0. 1537 01255 01025 00839 00686 0. 0562 00461 0. 0379 00311 00256 0. 0211 00173 00143 OOl l a 00098
44 0 2761 02236 0 1813 0. 1471 0. 1195 0. 0972 00791 00645 0. 0526 0. 0429 0. 0351 0. 0287 0. 0235 0. 0192 00158 "", L' S ""l "6 """67
45 0 2681 0. 2160 0 1743 0. 1408 0 1138 0. 0921 00746 00605 0. 0491 0. 0399 0. 0325 0. 0264 0. 0215 0. 0176 00143 00117 00096 00078
46 0 2602 0. 2087 0 1676 0. 1347 0. 1084 0. 0673 00704 00568 0. 0459 0. 0371 0. 0301 0. 0244 0. 0198 0. 0160 00130 0. 0106 0. 0086 0. 0070
47 02527 0. 2017 01612 0. 1289 0. 1032 00626 00664 00534 0. 0429 0. 0345 0. 0278 0. 0224 0. 0181 0. 0146 OOl l a 0. 0096 0. 0078 0. 0063
48 02453 01949 01550 01234 00983 0. 0784 00627 0. 0501 0. 0401 00321 0. 0258 0. 0207 0. 0166 0. 0134 00108 00087 00070 0. 0057
49 0 2362 0. 1883 01490 0. 1181 0. 0936 0. 0744 00591 0. 0470 0. 0375 0. 0299 0. 0239 0. 0191 0. 0153 0. 0122 00098 00079 00063 0. 0051
50 02312 0. 1819 01433 0. 1130 00892 0. 0705 00558 00442 0. 0350 0. 0278 00221 0. 0176 00140 0. 0112 00089 3 0071 00057 0. 0046
TI UEf l , , ) x NOMI NAL I NTEREST RATETE( , , , ) l CONTl NUDUSLY COMPOUNDED)
Fi g. 41 . l O- Def erment f actors f or hyperbol i c decl i ne ( n =%)
VALUATI ON OFOI LANDGAS RESERVES 41- 31
TABLE 41 .14-ANNUAL DEFERMENT FACTORS F CR = (1 + i) - - (1 + i) -/12[(1 + i) - I] (continued)
Annual Def erment Factors are Appkabl e to Equal Payments Recei ved at the End of Each Month
Duri ng a Speci f i c I nterval of 1 Year Between ( 1- l ) and t Years From Now
J P/ ~ , z' , z% , 3% 131/ z% 14% 14%% 15% 15' W~ 169/ o 16%9/ o 17% 17' / 2% i B% l B' z' "/ " 19% 19%0/ o 20%
09410 0 9387 0! 3365 09343 0 9322 09300 0. 9278 09257 09236 09215 0. 9194 0. 9173 09153 09132 09112 09092 09072
08401 08344 08288 08232 08177 08122 08068 08015 07962 07910 0. 7858 07807 07757 07707 07657 07608 07560
07501 07417 0. 7334 07253 07173 07094 0 7016 0. 6939 06864 06790 0. 6716 0. 6644 06573 06504 06435 06367 06300
06698 06593 0. 6491 06390 0. 6292 06195 06101 0. 6008 05917 05828 05741 0. 5655 05571 05488 0 5407 05328 0 5250
05980 05860 0. 5744 05630 05519 05411 05305 0. 5202 05101 05003 0. 4906 0. 4813 04721 04631 04544 04459 04375
0 5339 0 5209 05083 0 4960 04841 04725 04613 0. 4504
04767 04630 0 4498 04370 04247 04127 04011 03899
04256 0. 4116 0 3981 03851 0. 3725 03604 0 3488 0. 3376
03600 0 3659 0 3523 0 3393 0. 3268 03148 0 3033 0. 2923
0 3393 03252 03118 0 2989 0. 2866 0 2749 0 2637 0. 2531
03030 02891
02705 02570
02415 0 2284
02156 0 2030
0 1925 01805
02634
02320
0. 2044
O. l BOl
01587
0 2401
0 2097
01832
0 1600
01397
0 1719
01535
01370
01224
0 1093
0 0975
00871
0 1604
01426
01267
01127
01001
0 0890
0 0791
0 2759
02441
02161
01912
0 1692
01497
01325
0 1173
0 1038
00918
00813
00719
0. 1398
0 1232
01085
0 0956
0. 0843
00742
0. 0654
0. 2514
0. 2206
0 1935
01697
0 1489
01306
01146
0 1005
0 0881
00773
60678
0 0595
01220
01066
0 0931
00813
00710
00620
00541
0 2293 02191
0 1994 0. 1897
0 1734 01642
0. 1508 0 1422
0. 1311 01231
0. 1140 01066
0. 0992 0. 0923
00862 0 0799
00750 0 0692
0. 0652 0 0599
00567 0. 0519
0. 0493 0. 0449
04397 04294 04194 0 4096 04001 0. 3908 0 3618 03731 0 3646
03791 0 3686 03584 03486 03390 0 3298 0 3209 03122 0 3038
03268 0 3164 0. 3063 0. 2967 02873 02783 0 2696 02613 0 2532
02817 0 2716 02618 0. 2525 02435 0. 2349 0 2266 02196 02110
02429 0 2331 02238 0. 2149 0 2064 0. 1982 0 1904 0 1830 0 1758
0 2094 0 2001 0 1913 0. 1829 01749 01673 0 1600 01531 0 1465
01805 0 1718 01635 0. 1556 01482 0. 1412 0 1345 0 1281 0 1221
01556 0 1474 01397 0 1325 01256 01191 01130 01072 0 1017
01341 0 1265 0 1194 0 1127 01064 0 1005 0 0950 0 0897 0 0848
01156 0. 1086 01021 0. 0959 0. 0902 00848 0 0798 00751 00707
0 0997 0 0932 00872 0. 0817 00764 00716 00671 00628 0 0569
0 0859 0 oaoo 00746 0. 0695 00648 00604 00563 00526 0 0491
00741 0 0687 00637 0 0591 0 0549 00510 00474 00440 0 0409
0 0639 0. 0590 00545 0. 0503 00465 00430 0 0398 0036. 3 0 0341
00551 0. 0506 00466 0. 0428 0. 0394 0. 0363 00334 00308 0 0284
00475 00434 0 0398 00365 00334 00306 0 0281 00258 0 0237
00409 0 0373 00340 00310 00283 0 0259 0 0236 00216 0 0197
00778 00703 00636 00576 00522 0. 0473 0. 0429 00389 00353 0. 0320 00291 00264 00240 00218 00198 00181 00164
00694 00625 0. 0563 00508 00458 00413 00373 00337 00304 0. 0275 00248 00225 0. 0203 00184 00167 00151 00137
00620 00556 00498 0. 0447 00402 00361 00324 0. 0291 00262 00236 00212 0. 0191 00172 00155 00140 00126 00114
00554 00494 00441 00394 00352 00315 0. 0282 0. 0252 00226 00202 00181 00163 00146 00131 00118 00106 00095
00494 00439 0. 0390 00347 00309 0. 0275 00245 0. 0218 00195 0. 0174 00155 00139 00124 00111 00099 00089 00079
00441
0 0394
00352
00314
00280
0 0250
0 0224
0 0200
0. 0390
0. 0347
0. 0306
0. 0345 00306
0. 0306 00270
00271 0. 0237
0. 0274 0. 0239 0 0209
0. 0244 0. 0212 00184
00217 00188 0 0162
00193 00166 0 0143
0. 0171 00147 0 0126
00152
00135
00120
00107
0 0095
00130
00115
00102
0 0090
0 0080
00071
00062
0. 0055
0. 0049
0. 0043
00111 0 0095
0 0098 00083
00086 0. 0073
00076 0. 0064
00067 0. 0056
00084 0. 0059
0. 0052
0. 0046
0. 0040
00036
00271
00238
0 0209
0. 0183
00160
00141
00123
0 0108
0 0049
0. 0240
0. 0210
0. 0183
0. 0160
0. 0140
0. 0122
00107
0 0093
0. 0081
00071
00062
00054
00047
0. 0041
0 0213 0. 0189
0 0185 0. 0164
0 0161 00142
00140 00123
0 0122 0. 0106
0. 0106 00092
0. 0092 0 0080
00080 00069
0. 0070 00060
0. 0061 0 0052
00053 00045
00046 00039
0. 0040 00034
0. 0035 0 0029
00168
00145
00125
00108
0 0093
00080
0 0069
0 0059
00051
00044
00038
00033
00026
00024
0. 0149 00133 00118
0. 0128 00113 0. 0100
0. 0110 0 0097 0. 0085
0. 0094 00083 0. 0073
0 0081 0. 0071 0. 0062
0. 0070 00060 0. 0053
0. 0060 00052 00045
0. 0051 00044 0 0038
0. 0044
0. 0038
0. 0032
0. 0028
00024
0. 0020
00038 0 0032 0. 0028 00024
00032 00028 0. 0024 0 0020
00028 00024 0. 0020 00017
00024 0. 0020 0. 0017 00014
00020 00017 0. 0014 00012
00017 00014 0. 0012 00010
0. 0105 0 0093 0. 0083 00074
0 0079 0. 0070 00062
00066 0 0059 00052
00056 0 0049 00043
00047 00041 00036
00040 00035 00030
0 0034 0. 0029 00025
00028 00025 00021
0. 0021 00018 0. 0015
0. 0017 00015 0. 0013
0. 0015
0. 0012
0. 0010
0. 0009
00012
00010
0 0009
00007
0 0066
0 0055
0 0046
0 0038
0 0032
00027
0. 0022
oooi a
0. 0089
0. 0075
0. 0064
0. 0054
0. 0046
0. 0039
0. 0033
00011
0 0009
00007
00043 00036 0. 0030 00025 00021 0. 0018 00015 00012 0. 0010
00038 0. 0032 00026 0. 0022 00018 0. 0015 00013 0. 0010 0. 0009
00006
00033 0. 0028 00023 00019 00016 0. 0013 00011 00009 00007
00029 00024 00020 00016 00013 0 0011 00009 0 0008 00006
00009 0. 0007 00006 00005
00007 0. 0006 00005 00004
00006 0. 0005 00004 00004
00005 00004 00004 00003
0. 0031 00026 0. 0021 0. 0017 0 0014 0. 0012 0. 0010 0. 0008 0. 0006 00005 00004 0. 0004 00003 00002
0. 0028 00022 0. 0018 00015 0. 0012 00010 0. 0008 00007 0 0006 00005 00004 00003 00003 00002
0. 0024 00020 0. 0016 00013 0. 0011 00009 00007 00006 0. 0005 00004 0. 0003 00003 00002 00002
0. 0021 00017 00014 0. 0011 00009 00007 00006 00005 00004 OM) O3 0. 0003 00002 00002 00001
0 0019 00015 00012 00010 0. 0008 00006 00005 00004 00003 00003 0. 0002 0. 0002 0. 0001 0 0001
00178
00159
0. 0142
0. 0127
0. 0113
00101
00090 0 0075
00081 00067
0 0072 0. 0059
0 0064 0. 0053
0 0057 0. 0047
0 0051 0. 0042
0 0046 00037
0 0041 0. 0033
00036 00029
0. 0038
0. 0034
0. 0030
00027
0. 0023
amount of such payments. For continuous compounding
(M= co) at a nominal interest rate (j), the average defer-
ment factor is I7
Calculation of Loan Payout
In the preparation of an engineering report. it is some-
times necessary to include a projection of future income
and a payout schedule for a proposed loan. To prepare
such a payout schedule, the balance of the loan at the end
of each year or period must be determined.
A calculation procedure has been suggested by Wilson
and Boyd * based on the following assumptions: (I) the
principal amount of the loan is growing by virtue of
monthly compounding of interest; (2) the loan payments
during any year are made in equal monthly installments
that are deposited at the end of each calendar month; and
(3) both the principal and the loan payments bear interest
compounded monthly at the nominal annual interest rate
of the loan.
Wilson and Boyd use two numerical factors to deter-
mine the balance at the end of each year. These are listed
in Table 41.15.
Factor 1 is the total value of $1, invested at the speci-
fied annual nominal interest rate. compounded monthly.
Factor 2 is the total value of $1, invested each month,
~
FHU =
1)
where
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4
N,, (F,-1)
t, =-
4, In F,
The harmonic-decline deferment factors for such con-
tinuous compounding of interest may be read directly from
the graph in Fig. 4 1.11 for given values of ratio F,
and tj.
41- 32
TABLE41. 15- LOAN PAYOUTCALCULATI ON FACTORS
Nomi nal I nterest
Rate Months
4% 1
( W/ o/ month) 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
I O
I I
12
4' 12%
( 3/ &/ month) :
3
4
5
6
8
9
I O
11
12
1. 011292 1. 003755
1. 015085 1. 005639
1. 018891 1. 007528
1. 022712 1. 009422
1. 026547 1. 011321
1. 030397 1. 013224
1. 034261 1. 015132
1. 038139 1. 017045
1. 042032 1. 018963
1. 045940 1. 020885
5% 1 1. 004167 1. 000000
( 5/ , 12%/ month) 2 1. 008351 1. 002083
3 1. 012552 1. 004172
4 1. 016771 1. 006267
5 1. 021008 1. 008368
6 1. 025262 1. 010475
7 1. 029534 1. 012587
8 1. 033824 1. 014705
9 1. 038131 1. 016830
10 1. 042457 1. 018960
I I 1. 046800 1. 021096
12 1. 051162 1. 023238
5' / 2%
( ~$&J o/ month) :
3
4
5
6
1. 004583 1. 000000
1. 009188 1. 002292
1. 013813 1. 004590
1. 018480 1. 006896
1. 023128 1. 009209
1. 027817 I . 011529
1. 032528 1. 013856
1. 037260 1. 016190
1. 042014 1. 018531
1. 046790 1. 020879
1. 051588 1. 023235
1. 056408 1. 025597
8
9
10
11
12
6% 1
( Wdmonth)
:
4
5
6
8'
9
10
11
12
9% 1
@/ p/ o/ month) 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
Nomi nal I nterest
Factor 1 Factor 2 Rate
1. 003333 1. 000000 6%%
1. 006678 1. 001667
1. 010033 1. 003337
1. 013400 1. 005011
1. 016778 1. 006689
1. 020167 1. 008370
1. 023588 1. 010056
1. 026980 1. 011745
1. 030403 1. 013438
1. 033838 1. 015134
1. 037284 1. 016834
1. 040742 1. 018539
1. 003750 1. 000000
1. 007514 1. 001875
1. 005000 1. 000000 8%%
1. 010025 1. 002500 ( 17/ 2, 0/ dmonth)
1. 015075 1. 005008
1. 020151 1. 007525
1. 025251 1. 010050
1. 030378 1. 012584
1. 035529 I . 015126
1. 040707 1. 017676
1. 045911 1. 020235
1. 051140 1. 022803
1. 058396 1. 025379
1. 061678 1. 027964
1. 007500 1. 000000
1. 015056 1. 003750
1. 022669 1. 007519
1. 030339 I . 011306
1. 038067 I . 015113
1. 045852 1. 018939
1. 053696 1. 022783
1. 061599 1. 026647
1. 069581 1. 030531
1. 077583 1. 034434
1. 085664 1. 038357
1. 093807 1. 042299
7%
( 7/ , $Wmonth)
7%%
( ' %p/ ol month)
8%
( 2/ , %/ month)
11%
( l l / I p%/ month)
Months
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
Factor 1 Factor 2
1. 005417 1. 000000
I . 010863 1. 002709
1. 016338 1. 005426
1. 021843 1. 008154
1. 027378 1. 010892
1. 032943 1. 013640
1. 038538 1. 016397
1. 044164 1. 019165
1. 049820 1. 021943
1. 055506 1. 024730
1. 061224 1. 027528
1. 066972 1. 030336
1 1. 005833 1. 000000
2 1. 011701 1. 002917
3 1. 017602 1. 005845
4 1. 023538 1. 008784
5 1. 029509 1. 011735
6 1. 035514 1. 014697
7 1. 041555 1. 017671
8 1. 047631 1. 020657
9 1. 053742 1. 023654
I O 1. 059889 1. 026663
11 1. 066071 1. 029683
12 1. 072290 1. 032715
1 1. 006250 1. 000000
2 1. 012539 1. 003125
3 1. 018867 1. 006263
4 1. 025235 1. 009414
5 1. 031643 1. 012578
6 1. 038091 1. 015756
7 1. 044579 1. 018947
8 1. 051108 1. 022151
9 1. 057677 1. 025368
I O 1. 064287 1. 028599
11 1. 070939 1. 031843
12 1. 077633 1. 035101
:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
1. 006667 1. 000000
1. 013378 1. 003333
1. 020134 1. 006681
1. 026935 1. 010045
1. 033781 1. 013423
1. 040673 1. 016816
1. 047610 1. 020224
1. 054595 1. 023647
1. 061625 1. 027086
1. 068703 1. 030540
1. 075827 1. 034009
1. 083000 1. 037494
1
2
3
4
i
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. 007083 1. 000000
1. 014217 1. 003542
1. 021401 1. 007100
1. 028636 1. 010675
1. 035922 1. 014267
1. 043260 1. 017876
1. 050650 1. 021503
1. 058092 1. 025146
1. 065586 1. 028807
1. 073134 1. 032485
1. 080736 1. 036180
1. 088391 1. 039893
:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
1. 009187 1. 000000
1. 018417 1. 004583
1. 027753 1. 009195
1. 037174 1. 013834
1. 046681 1. 018502
1. 056276 1. 023199
1. 065958 1. 027924
1. 075730 1. 032678
1. 085591 1. 037482
1. 095542 1. 042275
1. 105584 1. 047117
1. 115719 1. 051989
VALUATI ON OFOI LANDGASRESERVES
TABLE 41 .I 5-LOAN PAYOUT CALCULATION FACTORS (continued)
Nomi nal I nterest
Rate
9 /2 o/ o
( ~9/ , , %/ month)
10%
( s/ , %/ month)
10% o/o
( 7/ , %/ month)
13%
( 11/ 12a/ o/ month)
13% %
( I i / , %/ month)
14%
( I J / , %/ month)
Months
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
8
9
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
9
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
Factor 1 Factor 2
1. 007917 1. 000000
1. 015896 1003958
1. 023939 1. 007938
1. 032045 1. 011938
1. 040215 1. 015959
1. 048450 1. 020002
1. 058750 1. 024066
1. 065116 1. 028151
1. 073548 1. 032259
1. 082047 1. 036388
1. 090614 1. 040538
1. 099248 1. 044711
1. 008333 1. 000000
1. 016736 1. 004167
1. 025209 1. 008356
1. 033752 1. 012570
1. 042367 1. 016806
1. 051053 1. 021066
1. 059812 1. 025350
1. 068844 1. 029658
1. 077549 1. 033990
1. 086529 1. 038346
1. 095583 1. 042726
1. 104713 1. 047131
1. 008750 1. 000000
1. 017577 1. 004375
1. 026480 1. 008778
1. 035462 1. 013202
1. 044522 1. 017654
1. 053662 1. 022132
1. 062881 1. 026636
1. 072182 1. 031167
1. 081563 1. 035724
1. 091027 1. 040308
1. 100573 1. 044919
1. 110203 1. 049557
i . 010833 1. 000000
1. 021784 1. 005417
1. 032853 1. 010872
1. 044043 1. 016368
1. 055353 1. 021903
1. 066786 1. 027478
1. 078343 1. 033093
1. 090025 1. 038749
1. 101834 1. 044447
1. 113770 1. 050185
1. 125836 1. 055966
1. 138032 1. 061788
1. 011250 1. 000000
1. 022627 1. 005625
1. 034131 1. 011292
1. 045765 1. 017002
1. 057530 1. 022755
1. 069427 1. 026550
1. 081458 1. 034390
1. 093625 1. 040274
1. 105928 1. 046201
1. 118370 1. 052174
1. 130951 1. 058192
1. 143674 1. 064255
1. 011667 1. 000000
1. 023469 1. 005833
1. 035410 1. 011712
1. 047490 1. 017637
1. 059710 1. 023607
1. 072074 1. 029624
1. 084581 1. 035689
1. 097235 1. 041800
1. 110036 1. 047960
t 122986 1. 054167
1. 136088 1. 060423
1. 149342 1. 066729
Nomi nal I nterest
Rate
II %%
( *3/ &%/ month)
12%
( l %l month)
12' / 2%
( 11/ &/ month)
15%
( 1' / 4%/ month)
15%%
( 17/ 24%/ month)
16O/ b
( I %%/ month)
Months
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Factor 1 Factor 2
1. 009583 1. 000000
1. 019259 1. 004792
1. 029026 1. 009614
1. 038888 1. 014467
1. 048844 1. 019351
1. 058895 1. 024267
1. 069043 1. 029214
1. 079288 1. 034192
1. 089631 1. 039203
1. 100074 1. 044246
1. 110616 1. 049321
1. 121259 1. 054429
I 1. 010000 1. 000000
2 1. 020100 1. 005000
3 1. 030301 1. 010033
4 1. 040804 I . 015100
5 1. 051010 1. 020201
6 1. 061520 1. 025336
7 1. 072135 1. 030505
8 1. 082857 1. 035709
9 1. 093685 1. 040947
I O 1. 104622 1. 046221
11 1. 115668 1. 051530
12 1. 126825 1. 056875
1 1. 010417 1. 000000
2 1. 020942 1. 005208
3 1. 031577 1. 010453
4 1. 042322 1. 015734
5 1. 053180 1. 021051
6 1. 064150 1. 026406
7 1. 075235 1. 031798
8 1. 086436 1. 037228
9 1. 097753 1. 042695
10 1. 109188 1. 048201
11 1. 120742 1. 053745
12 1. 132416 1. 059328
1 1. 012500 1. 000000
2 1. 025156 1. 006250
3 1. 037971 1. 012552
4 1. 050945 1. 018907
5 1. 064082 1. 025314
6 1. 077383 1. 031776
7 1. 090850 I . 038291
8 1. 104486 1. 044861
9 1. 118292 1. 051486
10 1. 132271 1. 058167
11 1. 146424 1. 064903
12 1. 160755 1. 071697
1
:
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
1. 012917 1. 000000
1. 026000 1. 006458
1. 039253 1. 012972
1. 052676 1. 019542
1. 066273 1. 026169
1. 080046 1. 032853
1. 093997 1. 039595
1. 108128 1. 046395
1. 122441 1. 053254
1. 136939 1. 060173
1. 151624 1. 067152
1. 166500 1. 074191
:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I O
11
12
1.013333 1 .oooooo
1.026844 1. 006667
1.040536 1. 013393
1. 054410 1. 020178
1. 068468 1. 027025
1082715 1. 033932
1. 097151 1. 040901
1 111779 1. 047932
1. 126603 1. 055026
1. 141625 1. 062184
1. 156846 1. 069406
1. 172271 1. 076692
41- 33
41- 34
Nomi nal I nterest
Rate
14%O/O
( 1~/ ~4%/ month)
TABLE 41.15-LOAN PAYOUT CALCULATION FACTORS (continued)
Nomi nal I nterest
Rate Months Factor 1 Factor 2 Months Factor 1 Factor 2
17%
( 15/ , $S/ month)
1 7% %
( l ~~/ 2~%/ month)
18%
( l q/ 2%/ month)
18%%
( 1~3/ 2&/ month)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. 012083 1. 000000
1. 024313 1. 006042
1. 036690 1. 012132
1. 049216 1. 018271
1. 061894 1. 024460
1. 074726
1. 087712
1. 030699
1. 036989
1. 043329
1. 049721
1. 100855
1. 114157
1. 127620
1. 141245
1. 155035
1. 014167
1. 028534
1. 043105
1. 057882
1. 072869
1. 088068
1. 103482
1. 119115
1. 134969
1. 151048
1. 167354
1. 183892
1. 056165
1. 062661
1. 069209
1. 000000
1. 007083
1. 014234
1. 021451
1. 028738
1. 036093
1. 043518
1. 051013
1. 058580
1. 066219
1. 073931
1. 081716
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. 014583
1. 029379
1. 044391
1. 059622
1. 075075
1. 090753
1. 106660
1. 122798
1. 139173
1. 155785
1. 172641
1. 189742
1. 015000
1. 030225
1. 045678
1. 061364
1. 077284
1. 093443
1. 109845
1. 126493
1. 000000
1. 007292
1. 014654
1. 022088
1. 029595
1. 037175
1. 044829
1. 052558
1. 060362
1. 068243
1. 076202
1. 084238
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. 000000
1. 007500
1. 015075
1. 022726
1. 030453
1. 038258
1. 046142
1. 054105
1. 062148
1. 070272
1. 143390
1. 160541
1. 177949
1. 195618
1. 078478
1. 086768
1 1. 015417 1. 000000
2 1. 031071 1. 007708
3 1. 046967 1. 015496
4 1. 063107 1. 023364
5 1. 079497 1. 031312
6
7
8
9
10
1. 096139
1. 113038
1. 130197
1. 147621
1. 165314
1. 039343
1. 047457
1. 055655
1. 063937
1. 072305
11 1. 183279 1. 080761
12 1. 201521 1. 089304
1 6X%
( l g/ z. , %/ month)
19%
( l %, %/ month)
19%%
( 115/ 24a/ o/ month)
20%
( 12/ , %l month)
1 1. 013750 1. 000000
2 1. 027689 1. 006875
3 1. 041820 1. 013813
4 1. 056145 1. 020815
5 1. 070667 1. 027881
6 1. 085388 1. 035012
7 1. 100313 1. 042208
8 1. 115442 1. 049471
9 1. 130779 1. 056801
10 1. 146327 1. 064199
11 1. 162089 1. 071665
12 1. 178068 1. 079201
1 1. 015833 1. 000000
2 1. 031917 1. 007917
3 1. 046256 1. 015917
4 1. 064853 1. 024002
5 1. 081714 1. 032172
6 1. 098841 1. 040429
7 1. 116239 1. 048774
8 1. 133913 1. 057207
9 1. 151866 1. 065730
10 1. 170104 1. 074343
11 1. 188631 1. 083049
12 1. 207451 1. 091847
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. 016250 1. 000000
1. 032764 1. 008125
1. 049546 1. 016338
1. 066602 1. 024640
1. 083934 1. 033032
1. 101548 1. 041516
1. 119448 1. 050092
1. 137639 1. 058761
1. 156126 1. 067526
1. 174913 1. 076386
1. 194005 1. 085343
1. 213408 1. 094398
1. 016667 1. 000000
1. 033611 1. 008333
1. 050838 1. 016759
1. 068352 1. 025279
1. 086158 1. 033894
1. 104260 1. 042604
1. 122665 1. 051412
1. 141376 1. 060319
1. 160399 1. 069325
1. 179739 1. 078433
1. 199401 1. 087642
1. 219391 1. 096955
41- 35
01 I I ]
0. 01 002 004 00701 0. 2 0. 4 0. 7 I 2 4 7 I O 20 3040
- 11
TI ME ( t, , ) x NOMI NAL I NTEREST RATE ( j , , ) ( CONTI NUOUSLY COMPOUNDED)
Fig. 41.11-Deferment factors for harmonic decline.
with monthly compounded interest, at the end of a given
number of months, divided by the number of months. The
equations for the factors are
. f
F,= 1+$
( >
and
F = VI--l)
2
( >
Jxt
12
where
F, = Factor 1,
F2 = Factor 2,
j = annual nominal interest rate, and
r = time, months.
The calculation steps are (1) multiply the previous year-
end balance of the loan by Factor 1; (2) multiply the to-
tal annual payment by Factor 2; (3) deduct the product
of Step 2 from the product of Step 1 (the difference is
then equivalent to the year-end balance of the loan); and
(4) for a period of time less than 1 year, the appropriate
factors for the number of months involved are used in-
stead of the 12-month period for the entire year.
TABLE 41.16~SAMPLE LOAN-PAYOUT CALCULATION
Total Loan Loan Loan Year- End
Worki ng- Payments Bal ance Balance Payment Loan Al l ocatI on Al l ocati on
I nterest to Loan Start of x Factor 1 x Factor 2 Bal ance to Pnncl pal to I nterest
Revenue 80% of ( 1) Peri od Factor 1
( 3) x ( 4)
Factor 2 ( 2) x ( 6)
( 5) - ( 7) ( 3) - W ( 2) - ( 9)
Year
( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) (6) ( 7) (8) (9) (10)
9 months 1957 $ 675, 240 $ 540, 192 $2, 000, 000 1. 042014 $2, 084, 028 1. 016531 $550, 202 $1, 533, 826 $ 446, 174 $ 74, 016
1958 835, 200 668, 160 1. 533, 826 1. 056408 1, 620, 346 1. 025597 685, 263 935, 083 598, 743 69, 417
1959 776. 100 620, 880 935, 083 1. 056408 987. 829 1. 025597 636, 733 351, 096 584, 027 36, 853
1960 632, 200 356, 776 351, 056 * . * 0 351, 056 7, 720
1961 514, 000 Payout =9h0
1962 714, 240
Thereaf ter 1, 232. 090
Total s $5, 082, 070 $2. 188, 008 $2, 000, 000 $188, 008
41-36
A sample calculation shown in Table 4 1.16 deals with
the problem of determining the date of payout. the total
payments required, and the annual amount of interest pay-
ments for a loan of $2,000.000 at 5 % 70 nominal interest
per year, payable out of 80 % of the net runs. The calcu-
lations are shown in considerably more detail than re-
quired solely for clarity.
Nomenclature
a = nominal decline rate; instantaneous rate of
change divided by the instantaneous pro-
duction rate, decimal fraction
Cs = balance of unreturned portion of
investment, dollars
C,,, = depletable leasehold cost basis at beginning
of tax period, dollars
Ci = initial capital investment or purchase price,
dollars
Cl = intangible drilling and development costs.
dollars
CIA = deduction if intangibles were capitalized
and amortized over 120 months or
depleted by use of cost depletion rates,
dollars
CIP = preference intangible drilling costs, dollars
CIX = intangible costs minus C,,, , dollars
C PT = local production tax, dollars
C
WI =
working interest, decimal fraction of gross
costs
d = effective decline rate, the drop in produc-
tion rate per unit of time divided by the
production rate at the beginning of the
period, decimal fraction
DA = allowable depletion. highest of DC or
lesser of VDE and I/,
DC = cost depletion: portion of leasehold cost
proportional to reserves produced in a
given year. dollars
DE = depletion; the decline of a capital value as
a result of intentional piecemeal removal
or gradual consumption in use
DKB = depth measurement below kelly bushing
D, = depreciation; the decline in value of
tangible assets with use or the passage of
time (obsolescence)
e = base of natural logarithms
E(x) = exponential integral of x
Fr = total value of dollars invested at specified
annual interest compounded monthly.
dollars
F2 = total value of dollars invested each month
with monthly compounded interest at end
of month divided by the number of
months since investment, dollars
F cPD = constant-percentage-decline deferment
factor; the average deferment factor
applicable to a series of future payments
that follow constant-percentage decline,
decimal fraction
F cK = constant-rate deferment factor: the average
deferment factor applicable to a series of
equal future payments made at equal
time intervals, decimal fraction
F Ho
= harmonic-decline deferment factor: the
average deferment factor applicable to a
series of future payments that follow
harmonic decline, decimal fraction
F HV = hyperbolic-decline deferment factor: the
average deferment factor applicable to a
series of future payments that follow
hyperbolic decline, decimal fraction
F LS = lump-sum deferment factor; the average
deferment factor applicable to one single
future payment. decimal fraction
F PV = deferment factor; a factor used to reduce
revenue received in the future to a pres-
ent value, decimal fraction
F, = ratio between initial and final production
rates or payments
i = effective annual compound safe interest
rate, decimal fraction
i = effective annual compound speculative
interest rate. decimal fraction
;R
= revenue interest: decimal fraction of gross
revenue
I = yearly net income, dollars
I, = net operating income: the total earned
income from oil and gas sales after
deduction of lease operating expenses,
federal excise taxes, and production
taxes, dollars/yr
I,, = net annual operating income during Year n,
dollars
Ir = interest owners taxable income, dollars
j = nominal annual safe interest rate; used
when interest is compounded over M
periods in a year and equal to M times
the interest j/M over one period, decimal
fraction
decimal fraction
mk
= amortization; extinguishment of an
intangible asset or indebtedness
M = number of times the interest is
compounded per year
n = number of yearly payments
N, = cumulative oil produced, bbl
N, = reserves at end of tax period, bbl or Mcf
0, = operating expenses, including ad rvAmm
taxes, dollars
0~ = general overhead expenses, dollars
0, = operating expenses per well-month, dollars
0, = weighted average operating costs per
barrel, dollars
P = net profit; the total net operating income
after deduction of capital expenditures.
dollars
VALUATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES 41-37
Fpc, = future net revenue or cash flow; the
projection of total annually earned
income from oil and gas sales after
deduction of production taxes. federal
excise taxes, operating expenses, and
incidental capital expenditures, dollars
y = production rate, bbl/D/month. or bbl/yr
s = unit sales during periods
S = sinking fund balance
I = time, months or years
t = abandonment time or future life. years
T,!E = Windfall Profit Tax (WPT)
V = gross revenue (value); the total earned
income from oil and gas sales, dollars
V,L- = percent of gross revenue. percentage
depletion
VT, = 50% of net percentage depletion, equal
to 50% of taxable net income, dollars
Cl = total future net operating income. dollars
Subscripts
a = abandonment
i = initial
t = conditions at Time t
References
1.
2.
3
4.
5 _
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
I?.
13.
14.
Foster. V.: The A-B-C\ of Oil Loans, Louisiana State U.. Baton
Rouge (1958).
Daws. R.E. and Stephemon. EA.: The Valuatmn of Netural Gas
Propertie\* J. Put. Tdr. (July 1953) 9-13.
Fiske. L.E. : nw V&c~rwn of Oii wc/ G~rs ProJprrrirs vz E,srtr/c~.\
rrrzrl Trx\~.~. second editmn. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Inst.
119.56).
Chan. S.A.: Fmancu~l and Engineermg Considerations In Petroleum
Property Acquisitions. paper SPE II301 presented at the 1983 SPE
Hydrocarbon Economlch and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas. March
3-4.
Cozzolino. J.M.: A Simplified Utility Framework For the Analysis
of Financial Risk. paper SPE 6359 presented at the 1977 SPE
Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Sympoalum. Dallas, Feb.
21-22.
Egg&ton. W.S.: Methods and Procedures for Estimatmg Fair-
Market Value of Petroleum Propertle~. J. Pet. Tech. (May 1964)
481-86.
Ecotam~i(:~am/ Finunw, Reprint Senec. SPE. Richardson. TX (1980) 16.
DeColyer, E.L. and MacNaughton. L.W : Valuatmn In the Pe-
troleum Industry. Oil wxl Gcz.5 Tcxrs, PrenticeHall Inc.. EnpIe-
wood Cliffs. NJ, 2003. I-2003.6.
Arp$. 3.3 : Profitablllty of Capital Expenditures for Development
Drilling and Producmg Property Appraisal. J. Prji. Twli. (July
1958) 13-20: Trans., AIME. 213.
Reynolds. F.S.: Dscounted Cash Flow as a Measure of Market
Value. J. PH. Tub. (Nov. 1959) 1.5-19.
Terry. L.F. and Hill, K E.: Valuation of Producmg PropertIes
for Loan Purposes. J. Per. T~L (July 1953) 23-26.
Dodson, C.R.: The Petroleum Engineers Function in 011 and Gas
Financing, J. Pc~t. Tec,h. (April 1960) 19-22.
Garb, F.A., Gruy. H.J.. and Wood. J.W.: Determinmg the Value
of Oil and Gas in the Ground, Wdd Oil [March 1982) 105~08.
Fagm. K.M.: An Empuxal Yardatlck ior Appraising the Pres-
ent Fair Market Value of Steady Future Net Operating Income from
Oil and Gas Producmg Properties. Study Group Meeting. Dallas
Section. SPE. Nov. I. 1956.
Grossling, B.F.: *In Search of a Statistical Probdbllity Model for
Petroleum-Resource Assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Rc\ton.
VA (1975).
Gentry, R.W. and McCray. A.W.: The Effect of Re\ewow Fluid Prop-
erties on Production Decline Curves. /. Per. T&T. (Sept. 1078)
1327-41.
Greenwalt. W.A.: Determimng Venture Participalion. J. Pd. Ted.
(Nov. 1981) 2189-95.
Mintz. F.: Reserve Based Financmg-Specific Requlrcmenth and Al-
tcmatives, paper SPE 9578 presented at the 1981 SPE Hydrocar-
bon Economics and Evaluation Sympowm. Dallas. Feb. 25-27.
Newendorp. P.D.: A Strategy for Implementing Rick Analyses. J.
Per. TNh. (Oct. 1984) 1791-96.
Arps. J.J.: Analysis of Decline Curves. 7rww, AIME (1945)
160. 228-47.
Paine. P.: 011 Prop~~rt~ VNII~IO~I, John Wiley & Sons Inc.. New
York City (1942).
Petrie. T.A. and Paasch. R.D.: Implications of Evolvmg U.S. Oil Pric-
ing Policy for Domestic Reserve Values. ./. Per. Tdz. (Feb. 19X I)
34lL48.
Morrisey, N.S.: Active Fields Report Drilling Data. Oil trnd Srcmlnrds furruining ro rhe Esrirncuiq mid AuclififlR of Oil cd Gas
Gas J. (Oct. 6. 1958) 172. Reserw Infi,nwtion SPE. Richardson. TX ( I YXO).
15.
16.
17.
18.
I).
20.
!I.
Joint A\wciatmn Survey of Indwry Drllllng Couth IYSY. 4PI.
lP4.4. and M&Contlnent Oil and Gu\ Asw. (March 1961).
Breeding, C.W. and Hercfeld. J.R.: Effect olT,ixatwn on Valw
ation and Production Engineering. J. PC,/. 7?ch. (Sept. 19581
21-2s.
Brons. F. and McCarty. J.S. Jr : Method\ ot Calculating Profitlc-
bilities. paper SPE 870-G presented at the lYS7 SPE Annual Mcct-
ing. Dal&. Oct. 6-9.
Hdl. H.G.: A New Method ofcomputing Rate of Return on Cap-
&d Expenditures, paper prcsentcd at the Philadelphia Chapter 01
the Natl. A\hn. for Business Budgctinp, Aug. lY53.
Hoskold. H.D.: ~t~~irwc~r .s Vrriui~~,~ A.\ti\rlrnr. Longman\. Green
& Co. Inc.. New York City ( 1877).
Morkill. D.B. Fonw/rr.c ,/iv Miw Vr~l~rairwz. MirunF nnd Scww
tllrc Pres\, I I7. 276.
Wilson. W.W. and Boyd. W.L : Simplified Calculutions Deter-
mine Loan Payout. World O/I (May 19.581.
General References
Arph. J.J.: Reason for Diffcrcnccz in Recovery Elllclcncy. paper
SPE 2068 presented al the 1968 SPE Hydrocarbon Economics und
Evaluation Sympowm. Dallas. March 4-S
Campbell. J.M. and Hubbard. R.A.: Price Forcc;istlng and ProJcct
Evaluation in the I98Os. 1. PH. Tdi. (May 1984) 817-25.
Campbell. J.M. ef crl. : Mirwwl Prc~pc+ Er~o~zow~x. Campbell Petrw
leum Scncs. Norman. OK (19771.
Chapter 42
Injection Operations
W.P. Schultz, Core Laboratories Inc.*
H . M . Shearin, Subhan Propane Exploration Co. Inc. *
Introduction
The petroleum industry, like other industries, exists to-
day because it markets desirable products at a profit. To
do this, it is extremely important that every phase of an
oil companys activity be conducted with this goal in
mind. The specific goals and details of operation of a
particular company may vary slightly or significantly
from those of other companies-depending primarily on
economic and marketing structure-but each desires to
optimize economics of its detailed as well as its overall
operations.
There are, of course, many facets to be considered in
this program of optimization, and these may vary from
one company to the next, from one locale to another, or
even with time. No longer can companies analyze their
economics considering only development and depletion
of their reserves by primary means. World demand and
availability of hydrocarbon products; economics of ex-
ploration, development, production, and transportation;
obligations of drilling and regulation of production
operations imposed by various governing authorities;
taxation; and competition of other raw materials in the
energy market all have had the combined effect on
petroleum industry operations of demanding closer coor-
dination and control of activities within a given com-
pany. Equally important, more detailed consideration
and long-range planning must be devoted to specific
projects undertaken. This chapter has been written with
these general thoughts in mind.
Oilfield development and production operations con-
stitute a major part of most oil companies activities.
More probably can be done to improve the overall
economics of a company and actually shape its future by
critical and thorough analysis of this phase of operations
than can be done in any other activity. Every company is
well aware of the high cost of finding oil, of developing
a reserve, and of producing it. Experience has shown
These authors also wrote ihe otiainal chacster on this lomc m the 1962 edition.
that from most fields primary recovery is not an efficient
process and that, usually, large volumes of oil are left
underground as unrecoverable at the time of abandon-
ment. The technology of oilfield operations has
developed rapidly as a result of research, field applica-
tion, and engineering and geological analysis. Today, in
most field operations, new technology is adopted when
the economics warrant it.
Petroleum reservoir engineering is by no means an ex-
act science. Probably it never will be since so many
parameters that cannot actually be measured or defined
are involved; however, research and experience have
yielded a substantial knowledge that is quite adequate to
serve as a basis for providing management with sound
recommendations regarding field development and
operations, which on the basis of current technology
should result in optimal economic recovery from a
reservoir.
For many years it has been known that injection of
either water or gas into a petroleum reservoir can im-
prove recovery. The general history of field application
of these processes is interesting to review. Many injec-
tion projects were initiated in fields before reservoir
natural-energy-drive mechanisms were understood
-even before there was a general awareness of what
data were needed to evaluate properly either the
possibilities or the results of such processes. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, to find that some projects succeeded
in substantially increasing recovery and others failed.
As the science of reservoir engineering developed,
many injection projects were considered more carefully
before they were actually initiated and, as a result. were
on a sounder technological and economic basis from the
start. Consequently, most injection operations are well
engineered. In fact, the development plans of most new
discoveries include the option of initiating injection
operations right from the start, when feasible.
The solution of problems in any technical operation is
42-2
always dependent on knowing the relevant facts. The oil
industry is no exception to this rule, and many critical
facts that engineers or geologists must use in their
analysis of a reservoir can be obtained best early in the
life of the reservoir. Some necessary facts can be ob-
tained at later times. but only at a very large additional
expense. It is therefore in keeping with sound business
principles for an operator to think ahead when Idrilling
wells and to begin planning ahead the very day a new
reservoir is discovered. With this philosophy, engineers
can be assured that sufficient and necessary information
will be available for proper technical analysis when
needed, that the best program for ultimate depletion 01
reserves is recognized early in the life of the reservoir,
and that the devclopmcnt program for the reservoir is
guided toward maximum use in the exploitation program
best suited for optimal economic recovery. The thought
process involved in this philosophy applied to develop-
ment of a sound injection operation is discussed in this
chapter.
Important Factors in the Design of
Ob.jective
lndlvidual oil and gas reservoirs, like human beings, are
each different, and the reservoirs present a wide variety
of properties for the engineer to consider. Of prime im-
portance in making an analysis of these properties for the
design of an injection program is establishing the objec-
tive of the operation.
The establishment of a proper objective for a given
operator depends on the particular circumstances. An
operator with limited investment opportunities might
favor improvement in reserves. One with ample reserves
for the current rate of production would favor an im-
provement or maintenance of production rate. Another,
having insufficient rate and reserves, would favor im-
provement in each. The objective of the injection opera-
tion will likely be (1) sustaining the rate through pressure
maintenance, (2) increasing ultimate recovery through a
more efficient displacement process, or (3) combining
improved rate and recovery to lead to the accumulation
of maximum present worth.
In many Instances. injection operations have been
undertaken in reservoirs simply because nearby propcr-
ties have responded favorably to injection. This same
line of incomplete reasoning is then generally carried one
step further. and it is concluded that the reservoir condi-
tions are unknown because of variable physical proper-
tics and past production practices; therefore. no proper
engineering analysis can be made and injection must be
tried to see Mshat will happen. Projects initiated with this
reasoning arc almost always injeciion operations without
an objective. This cart before the horse philosophy is
to see what will happen. then decide what is desired.
Without an oqjcctivc the engineering analysis will result
in nebulous conclusions. for the ob,jctivc influences
both the timing and the choice of the Injection process.
Timing
Care must be taken to ensure that the planning of the pro-
gram is not delayed past the optimal time to start the in-
jection physically. In all cases, it is desirable to
recognize the need for injection in a reservoir to obtain
specific objectives as early in the life of the reservoir as
possible. Early planning, even if not in great detail, will
make it possible to obtain adequate basic data for proper
engineering analysis at the only time such data arc
available. In many instances, such planning may dictate
a modidication of the development program so that wells
will be located and completed to provide maximum effi-
ciency.to the injection program with a minimum amount
of costly redrilling or workover expense.
The optimal time to start an injection project is often
related to the best-suited process for the given field. For
example, an immiscible displacement with gas might
.bestsbe undertaken in some high-permeability sands after
ithe reservoir reaches a low pressure, since at low
,:pressures, the cost of compressing gas to replace a reser-
voir barrel of volume is low. Low-pressure waterflood-
ing might perhaps be started when the optimal amount of
free gas is present. Low-permeability reservoirs or those
with high-shrinkage oil might call for the immediate use
of a pressure-maintenance project in maintaining well
productivity and in preventing high shrinkage losses.
Some injection operations may require high reservoir
pressures to accommodate the process.
For older fields, in which the optimal time to start a
project may have long passed, the question becomes not
one of optimal time but of the best process to employ. At
times, the question is whether a change in the conditions
of the reservoir, such as rcpressuring. can re-establish
the opportunity for conducting an improved operation.
Injection Fluids
In any injection project, certain parameters arc fixed and
are beyond the control of engineers. These include fluid
properties of the reservoir oil, rock properties, geologic
stratifications, faulting. and depth. On the other hand,
engineers can vary such items as injection fluid, injec-
tion pressure, pattern. and injection rate. Selection of the
proper injection fluid for a given reservoir is probably
the most difficult part of the design of any injection
operation. Generally, air and water are the only materials
considered inexpensive enough to use in large quantities
for the displacement of crude oil. Current prices of
natural gas make it an expensive in.jection fluid.
However, when it exists in arcas where there is no
market, its greatest economic benefit may be as an injcc-
tion fluid. It is in this area, however. that the knowledge.
imagination, and ingenuity of the reservoir engineer can
be used to develop injection programs that will greatly
improve recovery and profit from most reservoirs. The
project should be designed to allow for the possible use
of small amounts of more expensive materials. such as
propane, butane, liquefied petroleum gas, CO?. wetting
agents. and polymers.
Projected Recovery
Data Required. Projecting oil recovery from a reservoir
in which injection operations are to bc conducted rc-
quires an estimation of (1) the amount of oil in place in-
itially, (2) the recovery by any primary depletion that oc-
curred before the start of injection, (3) the oil saturation
at the start of injection and the residual oil saturation
after the displacement process and how it is distributed
INJECTION OPERATIONS 42-3
through the reservoir, (4) the fraction of the reservoir to
be swept. and (5) the injection and production rates.
Sufficient data are needed to determine these quan-
tities. Some sources of these data are listed in Table
42.1.
Engineering Analysis. The prediction of the perfor-
mance of an injection operation is derived by (1) prepar-
ing an estimate of the oil moved as a function of the
volume injected and (2) defining the injection and pro-
duction rates and related volume injected to time. The
details of the calculation procedures are presented in the
six chapters that follow in this handbook. In general, the
amount of oil recovered is determined from material-
balance calculations applied to the fraction of the reser-
voir swept by the injected fluid. The potential injection
and production rates are calculated from equations or
measurements on models. The rate may be reduced
through proration or through limitation in sizing
equipment.
Optimizing an Injection Operation
The decision as to the optimal injection program for a
given reservoir involves selection of the best process and
of the best manner for conducting that process. The
selection of the best process requires a study of (1)
primary performance, (2) source of injection fluid, (3)
cost of injecting various fluids, and (4) unit displacement
efficiency of various fluids.
The selection of the best manner for carrying out the
operation requires a study of (I) the time to start injec-
tion, (2) pressure maintenance, (3) partial pressure
maintenance, (4) well stimulation, (5) additional drill-
ing. and (6) pattern choice. After the best manner for
conducting each process is developed, a comparison of
the economics of the optimal plan for each process will
show the most desirable program.
Analysis of a Reservoir for
Beginning the Analysis
Data Gathering and Testing. Some reservoirs may be
similar in many respects but completely different in
others. Because of this, it is necessary to obtain informa-
tion that experienced geologists and engineers can use to
define the character of each specific reservoir. Much of
the information is obtained during the development por-
tion of a reservoirs history. Some types of information
are collected periodically throughout the producing life
of the reservoir. Certain types of data arc needed to
evaluate the probable economics and producing charac-
teristics of the reservoir by natural depletion. and addi-
tional information is necessary for proper analysis of
potential recovery and economics under various injection
programs. It is a responsibility of the engineer and
geologist, as a team. to outline a long-range program of
data requirements early in the life of every reservoir and
a schedule of how and when these data arc to be col-
lected. The details of this program should be modified
continuously as more knowledge of the reservoir is
gained.
If conducted properly, the initial development pro-
gram can contribute substantially to the early recognition
of both primary and injection-operation potential of any
TABLE 42.1-DATA REQUIRED TO ESTIMATE RECOVERY
FROM INJECTION OPERATIONS
Oil lnitiallv in Place
Adequate number of wells to define areal extent
Well logs to define productive section and sometimes
content
Core measurements for porosity. interstitial water, oil
saturation, and sometimes capillary properties; these data
also serve as a basis for well-log calibration
Material-balance calculations based on reservoir pressures
and production history to confirm volumetric estimates of
oil in place
Primary Performance
Production of oil, gas, and water by wells
Pressures from periodic pressure-buildup tests
Fluid properties
Relative-permeability measurements on cores for displacing
and displaced phases
Geologic data from nonproductive wells outside the
productive limits to assist in the determination of the
primary drive mechanism
Fraction of the Reservoir to be Swept
Core measurements for variation in permeability and
content
Cross sections and pressure interference tests to determine
the reservoir continuity between wells
Stratification from core measurements and logs
Orienlatlon of permeability
Selected injection pattern
Fluid viscosities and relative permeabilities
Areal sweep performance of injection pattern models
Injection Rate and Production Rate
Effective reservoir permeability from cores, pressure-buildup
tests, and productivity-index tests
Relative-permeability curves on displactng and displaced
phases
Wellbore conditions from pressure-buildup analysis
Injection pressure
Fluid properties
Throughput rate from model performance or calculations
reservoir. This program should be designed to yield (1)
the broad specifications of the reservoir, such as general
field limits, general reservoir geometry, (2) general rock
properties of the producing formation, (3) approximate
location of reservoir gas/oil and water/oil contacts if
present, (4) characteristics of in-place reservoir fluids,
(5) initial reservoir pressure and temperature conditions.
and (6) general information pertaining to average well
productivities. Quite obviously, if this program is to ac-
complish its economic and informative objectives, no
consideration should yet be given to ultimate well spac-
ing. In the case of large structures this initial program
should consist of carefully planned, bold stepouts and, in
all cases, obtaining as much information as needed to
direct properly further field development and data-
gathering techniques.
Often, sufficient information can bc obtained from a
well-planned data-gathering program conducted during
the early portion of development of a reservoir to permit
intelligent preliminary examination of the probable need
for injection and the general feasibility of various types
of injection. Early data-gathering efforts should result in
the accumulation of sufficient information to permit
selection of those techniques that will yield required and
reliable information as other wells are drilled. Such in-
formation also can be used to refine the preliminary con-
clusions pertaining to probable reservoir potential under
42-4
va;ious operating methods begun earlier on the basis of
initial data, Recommendations concerning selection of
the best program of operation for a particular reservoir
normally should be based on behavior forecasts that
involve detailed analysis of primary producing
performance.
The economic potential of injection operations can
suffer materially in many cases if such operations are not
initiated early in the producing life of a reservorr. Thus
an urgency exists to determine early the economic poten-
tial of various operating programs; one often cannot wait
for primary performance information covering a majority
of the reservoirs primary life and still reap the benefits
that might have accrued by early initiation of some form
of injection. Engineers, therefore, have quite a large
responsibility to obtain sufficient information and to
recognize when enough is available for making sound
recommendations concerning future operations in any
given reservoir. The relative timing for when this can be
done in a reservoirs life may be considerably different
for different reservoirs, depending primarily on the abili-
ty to recognize and define the natural forces contributing
to production in each case. From a technical standpoint,
full development of the field on some arbitrary spacing
decided without regard to reseyoir characteristics and
potential should not be undertaken until it can be guided
by the needs of the operating program best suited to the
reservoir.
The initial-development portion of any reservoirs
history is therefore a critical period. The information that
should be obtained during this period includes the
following.
1. Detailed routine core analysis in sufficient volume
and with sufficient well logs of different types permits
selection of those data-gathering techniques that when
used on later wells will ensure obtaining necessary and
accurate interpretations and measurements of rock prop-
erties such as porosity and permeability. Data about the
initial wells should be adequate for general definition of
such things as structure, gross formation thickness. net
productive formation thickness, field limits, porosity,
permeability, lithology, and the homogeneity and con-
tinuity of the producing formation.
2. Drillstem tests define the general productive
characteristics of various zones and help establish the
location of gas/oil and water/oil contacts if present.
3. Periodic static-subsurface-pressure surveys
establish original reservoir pressure as well as subse-
quent pressure history.
4. Temperature surveys establish reservoir temper-
ature .
5. Reservoir fluid samples establish the physical prop-
erties of hydrocarbons present in the reservoir as func-
tions of pressure and temperature and the variation of
these properties with depth and area. Also, formation-
water samples establish chemical composition.
6. Controlled periodic production tests of wells pro-
vide such information as general production character-
istics. GOR, and water cut.
7. Special well tests such as productivity-index
measurements, pressure-buildup tests. and interference
tests provide information regarding efficiency of com-
pletion techniques, average formation productivity. and
formation continuity.
8. Special core-analysis tests on selected, and in some
cases specially preserved, core samples help determine
such things as interstitial water saturation, gas/oil and
water/oil relative-permeability characteristics, residual
oil saturation by waterflood, and permeability reduction
caused by flooding with water of various salinities.
9. Monthly oil-, water-, and gas-production histories
by well are also useful.
The engineer must use judgment with regard to exactly
how much of each kind of basic data is required in any
particular case. In general, the volume of data needed
varies more with complexity of the reservoir system than
with size. Complexity of reservoirs is often disregarded.
Usually, more different types of data should be obtained
early in the development period so that economy and
reliability can be built into subsequent completion
techniques and data-gathering programs.
Type of Injection
Many factors are involved in determining the data need-
ed to analyze properly the potential of various injection
programs for a specific reservoir. Experienced engineers
with proper data at hand should be able to recognize ear-
ly the types of injection programs that might prove wor-
thy of detailed consideration. Often, new reservoirs are
discovered in the same formation and in close proximity
to existing fields for which detailed performance infor-
mation already exists. Unless factors point to differences
between the two, in his preliminary thoughts, the
engineer usually can consider that the new field probably
will behave in a manner similar to the other. If existing
injection projects are successful or if they are failing, the
preliminary thinking on a new reservoir, unless obvious
differences exist, will be that similar projects in the new
reservoir probably would behave in about the same man-
ner. This thought process is a normal one but can be
dangerous in that the results of a specific injection proj-
ect many times are actually a function of the original
thought, evaluation, and planning of the project as well
as the engineering control exercised throughout its life.
Proper engineering control of injection projects in prac-
tice varies considerably, and for this reason, thinking
based on analogy is good for preliminary screening but
should not be the prime consideration in evaluating the
need for or the potential of various injection programs.
Prime consideration should be given to the physical
characteristics of the particular reservoir being
evaluated.
Reservoir Fluid and Rock Characteristics. One of the
first questions that should be answered by engineers con-
cerns the technical feasibility of various forms of injec-
tion. This involves preliminary analysis of reservoir rock
and fluid characteristics and early interpretations of
reservoir geometry. Engineers should be on the lookout
continuously for characteristics such as high interstitial
water content, unfavorable water/oil or gas/oil relative-
permeability properties, unfavorable mobility ratios, in-
dications of natural formation fracture and fault systems,
unusual area1 and vertical variations of porosity and
permeability, and lack of vertical and areal formation
continuity. None of these situations rule out the technical
possibilities of injection projects, but they are warning
signals to engineers and may complicate their problems.
INJECTION OPERATIONS
42-5
Engineers know, for example, that if (I) the reservoir
appears to have fair continuity and shape, (2) permeabili-
ty is reasonably distributed. and (3) relative-permeability
relations and oil properties are favorable, then either
water-, gas-, or enhanced-recovery injection projects are
possibly feasible from a technical standpoint. If the
reservoir oil is viscous, then mobility-ratio characteris-
tics normally favor water over gas injection, and thermal
processes might increase recovery. If a high interstitial
water saturation exists. then under certain conditions this
can be more of a disadvantage for water than for gas in-
jection. Benefits often can be derived through enhanced-
recovery operations in reservoirs containing highly,
undersaturated oils. Through experience engineers have
learned that low formation permeability in itself is not a
factor that eliminates injection possibilities but that often
a more critical factor can be extreme variation of
permeability. All these factors, along with others, can be
available for the engineers scrutiny early in the develop-
ment period and, if used properly, can guide the early
thinking about overall plans for a reservoir.
Availability of Injection Fluids. In viewing the
possibilities of injection operations, engineers must also
consider the availability of fluids for injection. This fac-
tor alone can sometimes eliminate further evaluation of
some particular form of injection or, in other cases.
materially affect the economics of a project. A water-
injection operation might appear very attractive from a
technical standpoint; yet if water cannot be made
available in required quantities and at reasonable cost,
further consideration of the process would be only
academic. Engineers should certainly consider the
possibilities of gas-injection and miscible-drive projects
when gas or liquid plant products are available in the
area. Of course it is impossible to set forth a checklist of
factors that could be used early in the life of every reser-
voir to determine the absolute need or feasibility of injec-
tion projects. Each factor discussed here is important,
and variations of any one or of all the pertinent
parameters can affect results to various degrees.
Predicted Reservoir Performance During
Primary Operations
Another important consideration that must be an integral
part of the engineers appraisal of possible injection proj-
ects is the need for the project. This can be a very com-
plicated part of the overall analysis and should involve
not only technical aspects of the project itself but also the
effect that the projects results might have from an
overall company standpoint. The latter is treated in more
detail along with a discussion of economics in this
chapter. Technical need for injection projects involves
analysis of past reservoir performance, recognition and
definition of the natural energy forces contributing to
primary production, and evaluation of the efficiency and
forecast of performance of the primary production
operations.
Other chapters in this handbook deal with the types of
drive mechanisms that can be present individually or in
combination in any given reservoir. Engineers must have
a detailed understanding of these natural processes
before they can recognize the need for application of
supplemental recovery processes to a reservoir. General-
ly speaking, the depletion- or solution-gas-drive process
is an inefficient one, but coupled with good segregation
and oil and gas counterflow, the process can be much
more efficient. In general, better recovery efficiency is
usually expected by a natural water drive than by any
other natural process, and gas-cap expansion-drive proc-
esses are usually intermediate in effectiveness.
Engineers know, however, that these are generaliza-
tions and that the existence and effectiveness of each
must be evaluated for each reservoir. They can make
reasonable guesses of possible future primary pet-for-
mance on the basis of behavior of analogous fields and
on preliminary evaluation of data acquired early in a
reservoirs life, but these guesses can be translated into
sound engineering conclusions only through a detailed
study of the particular reservoirs performance. When
they are able through intelligent use of available infor-
mation concerning basic properties of the reservoir
system to calculate accurately and match the actual past
performance of a reservoir, then they gain confidence in
any predictions they might make of future primary
performance.
An experience factor is involved, however, that cannot
be overlooked. Engineers must be able to recognize
whether a match of calculated and actual performance is
a real match such that the solution is reasonably unique
and their understanding of the primary production proc-
ess is good or whether there actually could be several
widely different solutions that could result in equally
good matches of performance. In the latter case there is
either a lack of understanding of basic reservoir
parameters and a need for more basic data. or there is in-
sufficient production performance available for analysis
at that time.
Often, it might be possible to plan early production
from the reservoir in such a manner as to aid in reservoir
evaluation. Extreme changes in production rate (upward
or downward or both) and maintenance of those rates at
reasonably constant levels for a period of time can often
result in changes in observed reservoir pressure or well
performance that are extremely useful in early recogni-
tion of prevailing natural-energy forces. Since treatment
of the various methods of analysis appears in other
chapters, there is no need to discuss them at this point.
Emphasis, however, should again be placed on the
urgency of early recognition and definition of the effi-
ciency of the primary production process because it is of
prime importance in ascertaining the need for injection.
Predicted Reservoir Performance During
The next step in the process of determining the best
method of operation for a given reservoir is the predic-
tion of performance for various injection programs that
are considered technically and practically feasible on the
basis of preliminary examination of available informa-
tion. Normal methods of accomplishing this objective
are discussed in later chapters; however, the following
philosophy should be a normal part of engineers think-
ing processes. An injection program is not to be designed
for the reservoir at hand because a similar project ap-
peared successful in some other reservoir; it is not
developed simply because the process is one that has
been used extensively in the past; it does not follow that,
just because a certain pattern of injection and production
was good for one reservoir, it should also be the best or
even good in another reservoir. Each reservoir must be
examined in the light of its character and needs.
Many injection projects are hampered by inadequate
programs borrowed from yesterday (a period when reser-
voir fluid-flow processes were not well understood) and
applied to reservoirs without appreciation of differences
in rcscrvoir detail or other pertinent circumstances.
Engineers should strive to be current in thinking and
original in ideas. A surface map showing Incation of in-
jection and production wells for a project might appear to
be extremely radical on first examination: however. if
sound technical procedures show that it could result in
better economic recovery than any other scheme. the
plan is not radical. Programs are developed for obtaining
desired results in underground reservoirs and not to be
symmetrical, uniform, or appealing with regard to
topography or property lines. At the time engineers make
detailed analyses of the potential of injection operations,
they should have already answered, by means of the
planned data-gathering program. as many pertinent
details as possible about characteristics of the reservoir
rock, reservoir fluids. reservoir geometry and continuity.
and well-behavior characteristics.
Economics
Although technical analyses of possible future operations
As stated earlier, it might be more desirable from an
economic and marketing standpoint in one company to
recover as much oil as possible and as fast as possible
in a reservoir must be thorough and sound, an equally
whereas in another company the interest may be for
long-term maintenance of stabilized high production
important consideration during overall evaluation is
rates. Knowledge of this is important in designing an in-
jection project. Engineers should be cautious in their
economics. Any project might be an outstanding success
economic analysis and not permit conclusions to be
drawn that on the basis of the project alone might be
from a technical standpoint, but its real value is
reasonable but that with broader consideration could be
invalid. An example of such a case might be the predic-
measured in terms of income and expense. In designing
tion of a water-injection project that would recover large
volumes of additional oil. The economics of such a proj-
the general specifications of an injection program,
engineers should first recognize or ascertain some of the
overall objectives of their company. Usually engineers
find that there is considerable latitude with regard to
some important considerations in a study that are well
within the limits of sound technology but that with vary-
ing assumptions could represent quite a spread in the
economic results of a given project. This is particularly
true of factors that influence production rate.
ect might appear to be very favorable: however. if the
company cannot market the additional oil at the
forecasted rates and values, such a pro,jcct could not
possibly result in the indicated benefits from an overall
company standpoint.
Many times variables exist in the engineers technical
analyses that seem to defy definition. Engineers must
know how critical reasonable variation of such
Wells arc often drilled that are not needed from the
standpoint of producing reserves. The surplus wells are
there because economic and marketing differences exist
parameters is in the overall analysis. Sometimes results
between companies. because of regulations concerning
drilling requirements, because wells drilled for primary
pertaining to such cases can be derived only through
operations arc not suitable for later operations, and in
some cases because of false economic reasoning. Many
pilot applications. These pilot operations serve the
wells have been drilled simply because they pay out in a
fairly short period of time. Sonic of these wells may have
primary purpose of reducing risk that might be involved
benefited companies from a current-income standpoint, a
lesser number from a present-worth standpoint, and
in a fieldwide program. This is particularly true for EOR
probably very few from an ultimate-recovery standpoint.
Unnecessary drilling is a waste of money and should be
projects where injection of expensive chemicals, steam,
eliminated: engineers can be very instrumental in such a
program through efforts to appraise the potential of
or oxygen is involved. In those cases where it is
reservoirs early in their life and to forestall complete
development until the future plan for the reservoir is
necessary to resort to a pilot program. it should first of
known. At that time only the necessary additional wells
can be drilled and they can be located strategically ac-
all have specific objectives, detailed engineering control
cording to need. The benefits of additional oil recovery
and reduced costs that can be obtained through
to ensure early obtainment of the ob,jectives. and plan-
cooperative or unitized operations should bc uppermost
in engineers minds.
ning to make it an integrated part of the expanded
fieldwide program.
Petroleum engineers today are no longer just profes-
sionals with technical experience or background relating
to oil production. They must also understand principles
of finance. They not only must be able to know what
yardsticks are used by their company and by others to
evaluate the benefits of a specific project. but also must
be able to design the project so that maximum benefits
can result. Engineers can play a major role in the future
of the oil industry. Rewards will certainly come to in-
dividuals who recognize the existing challenge and who,
with know-how, good judgment, and new ideas, are
always striving to improve the specific facets as well as
the overall complexion of the industry.
Chapter 43
Gas-Injection Pressure Maintenance
In Oil Reservoirs
I.F. Roebuck Jr., Roebuck-Walton Inc.*
Introduction
The first recorded deliberate attempt to stimulate
recovery from an oil reservoir by hydrocarbon gas injec-
tion was in the Macksburg field, Washington County,
OH, long before water injection was used for secon-
dary recovery purposes. For almost 60 years, most
secondary recovery projects included some form of im-
miscible gas injection, and its use continued even after
the advent of new methods and materials. In spite of this,
it was the late 1940s before serious attempts were made
to develop quantitative techniques for describing reser-
voir performance under gas-injection operations,
especially with regard to depleted oil reservoirs. Before
then, such efforts were directed primarily toward
describing the water displacement process.
As a result, techniques used to describe the perfor-
mance characteristics of immiscible gas injection consist
of modifications to methods originally developed for
describing performance of water-injection operations,
even though there is a fundamental difference in the
basic displacement mechanisms of the two fluids. Such
modifications, therefore, include the effects of gas solu-
tion in the reservoir oil, vaporization of lighter hydrocar-
bons from oil, or both.
Physical criteria for successful gas-injection opera-
tions are basically the same as for other types of fluid in-
jection: the same physical and thermodynamic variables
control the displacement process. As in all engineering
investigations, pertinent variables must be defined,
evaluated, and applied by the investigative techniques
available and with a knowledge and awareness of the
limitations of the techniques and the accuracy and
reliability of the data and information at hand.
Gas injection has been used to maintain reservoir
pressure at some selected level or to supplement natural
Or!gmal chapter m 1962 edmon. Part 1. Gas- I nj ect i on Pressure Maintenance, was
wnnen by I F. Roebuck J r . and Kenneth M Gar ms. Part 2, Mscl bl e D! spl acement , I S
now a separate chapter (see Chap 45).
reservoir energy to a lesser degree by reinjection of a
portion of the produced gas. Complete or partial
pressure-maintenance operations can result in increased
hydrocarbon recovery and improved reservoir produc-
tion characteristics.
The quantity of additional liquid hydrocarbons that can
be recovered from a reservoir is influenced by several
characteristics of the particular reservoir, including
reservoir rock properties, reservoir temperature and
pressure, physical and compositional properties of the
reservoir fluids, type of reservoir drive mechanism,
reservoir geometry, sand continuity, structural relief,
rates of production, and fluid saturation conditions.
Basically, increased hydrocarbon recovery can be at-
tributed to the oil displacement and vaporization action
of the injected gas and, in some cases. to the prevention
of losses in recovery that would occur if pressure were
not maintained. The conservation aspects of gas-
injection pressure-maintenance operations can be par-
ticularly important with reservoirs containing volatile
high-shrinkage crude oils and with gas-cap reservoirs
containing large quantities of retrograde condensate gas.
Gas injection has also been employed frequently to pre-
vent migration of oil into a gas cap in oil reservoirs with
natural water drives, with downdip water injection, or
both. Other uses of gas injection in high relief reservoirs
have been to enhance gravity drainage processes and to
recover so-called attic oil residing above the uppermost
oil-zone perforations.
Improvements in reservoir producing characteristics
may, in some cases, be sufficient justification to initiate
gas-injection operations even though a competitive
recovery process might be used to achieve greater
ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. Decreased depletion
time resulting from pressure-maintenance operations can
have a significant influence on the economic justification
for gas injection. Decreased reservoir oil viscosity and
gas saturation in the vicinity of the wellbore tend to
maintain individual well productivities, and producing
wells are generally more able to maintain their desired
producing rates or allowables. Further advantages can be
obtained by elimination of penalties imposed by
regulatory agencies for excessive net gas production
where produced gas is not reinjected. Thus, many times
it is possible to maintain full-field allowables over most
of the producing life of the project, thereby reducing the
depletion time of the reservoir, with attendant savings in
operating costs and increased present value of future
revenues.
Since 1978 and the passage of the Natural Gas Policy
Act. the increasing value of sales gas has resulted in a
decline in the numbers of new gas-injection projects.
However, some opportunities still exist in remote areas
where recovery considerations are augmented by the
storage aspects of such projects and by specialized ap-
plications in connection with gravity drainage systems
and attic oil recovery projects.
Concurrent with this, CO2 and nitrogen injection for
miscible displacement of crude oil have been of increas-
ing interest and application. On the basis of both
economic and technical considerations, it is not
unreasonable to expect that immiscible nitrogen-
injection projects will see increasing application in many
oil reservoirs that in the past would have been subjected
to hydrocarbon-gas injection. In general, calculation
techniques previously developed for hydrocarbon-gas in-
jection and displacement can be used for the design and
application of nitrogen-injection projects under condi-
tions of immiscible displacement.
It is the purpose of this chapter to point out the
physical criteria for successful gas-injection operations,
to describe the variables that must be defined and
evaluated, and to demonstrate some of the techniques
available for the prediction and evaluation of field per-
formance under immiscible gas-injection operations.
Most of the calculations described are now ac-
complished with hand calculators or digital computers;
many of them can be applied with relatively basic
varieties of todays generation of microcomputers. At
the same time, the physical and mathematical relation-
ships described have been incorporated into a wide varie-
ty of mathematical reservoir simulation models. The for-
mulation and application of such models is beyond the
intended scope of this chapter, but a few selected
references to technical articles describing models for
gas-injection processes are included in Appendix B.
The calculation techniques described here are the
classical methods for describing immiscible displace-
ment with complete pre-equilibrium between the injected
and displaced phases, gas and oil, while accounting for
the effects of reservoir heterogeneities, injectioniproduc-
tion well configurations, and differing physical
characteristics of the fluids. The reservoir is treated in
terms of the average properties of a unit volume of rock,
and production performance is described on the basis of
an average well.
The simplest types of so-called reservoir simulation
models employ essentially these same techniques but, by
means of one-, two-, or three-dimensional cell arrays,
account for area1 and vertical variations in rock and fluid
properties, well-to-well gravity effects, and individual
well characteristics.
More complex component or compositional models
allow also for nonequilibrium conditions between in-
jected and displaced fluids and can be used to describe
individual well streams in terms of the compositions of
the produced fluids.
The accuracy and reliability of the results obtained
generally increase with each of these methods, or
models, in the order described, depending on the quanti-
ty and quality of the reservoir and fluid data available,
the internal variations in reservoir properties, the fluid
characteristics, and the ability to describe the overall
physical system. The time and worker requirements, and
hence the cost of the study, also increase in the same
order.
Therefore, the choice of a method for describing proj-
ect performance is a matter of judgment, considering
economics, the time available, and the requirements for
accuracy in a practical sense. Obviously, these re-
quirements will vary with the phase of work undertaken
and the overall purpose of the study at hand. Certainly,
early feasibility studies usually can and should be made
with nothing more than the simple, classical techniques.
Such is also the case for many detailed studies where the
effects of gravity and phase equilibrium are negligible or
when the quantity and quality of data are inadequate to
support more complex full-scale simulation studies.
Types of Gas-Injection Operations
Gas-injection pressure-maintenance operations are
generally classified into two distinct types depending on
where in the reservoir, relative to the oil zone, the gas is
introduced. Basically, the same physical principles of oil
displacement apply to either type of operation; however,
the analytical procedures for predicting reservoir perfor-
mance, the overall objectives, and the field applications
of each type of operation may vary considerably.
Dispersed Gas Injection
Dispersed gas-injection operations, frequently referred
to as internal or pattern injection, normally use some
geometric arrangement of injection wells for the purpose
of uniformly distributing the injected gas throughout the
oil-productive portions of the reservoir. In practice,
injection-well/production-well arrays vary from the con-
ventional regular pattern configurations (e.g., five-spot,
seven-spot, nine-spot) to patterns seemingly haphazard
in arrangement with relatively little uniformity over the
injection area. The selection of an injection arrangement
is usually based on considerations of reservoir configura-
tion with respect to structure, sand continuity,
permeability and porosity variations, and the number and
relative positions of existing wells.
This method of injection has been found adaptable to
reservoirs having low structural relief and to relatively
homogeneous reservoirs having low specific permeabil-
ities. Because of greater injection-well density, dispersed
gas injection provides rapid pressure and production
response-thereby reducing the time necessary to deplete
the reservoir. Dispersed injection can be used where an
entire reservoir is not under one ownership, particularly
if the reservoir cannot be conveniently unitized.
Some limitations to dispersed-type gas injection are:
(1) little or no improvement in recovery efficiency is
derived from structural position or gravity drainage, (2)
GAS-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE IN OIL RESERVOIRS 43-3
area1 sweep efficiencies are generally lower than for ex-
ternal gas-injection operations, (3) gas lingering
caused by high flow velocities generally tends to reduce
the recovery efficiency over that which could be ex-
pected from external injection, and (4) higher injection-
well density contributes to greater installation and
operating costs.
External Gas Injection
External gas-injection operations, frequently referred to
as crestal or gas-cap injection, use injection wells in the
the structurally higher positions of the reservoir-usually
in the primary or secondary gas cap. This manner of in-
jection is generally employed in reservoirs having
significant structural relief and average to high specific
permeabilities. Injection wells are positioned to provide
good area1 distribution of the injected gas and to obtain
maximum benefit of gravity drainage. The number of in-
jection wells required for a specific reservoir will
generally depend on the injectivity of each well and the
number of wells necessary to obtain adequate area1
distribution.
External injection is generally considered superior to
dispersed-type injection, since full advantage can usually
be obtained from gravity drainage benefits. In addition,
external injection ordinarily will result in greater area1
sweep and conformance efficiencies than will similar
dispersed injection operations.
Optimal Time to Initiate Gas Pressure-
Maintenance Operations
Generalizations as to the optimal time to initiate gas
pressure maintenance are of limited practical value
because of the exceedingly large number of variables
that must be considered from an economic and reservoir
mechanics standpoint. Obviously, there is no method of
calculating directly the optimal time from an economic
standpoint: instead, several calculations of future perfor-
mance, assuming initiation of injection at various stages
of reservoir depletion, must be made and compared on
an economic basis.
Considering only hydrocarbon recovery and im-
provements in producing characteristics, it can be stated
that generally more favorable reservoir conditions for
gas-injection operations are present when the reservoir is
at or slightly below the reservoir fluid saturation
pressure. Within this range of reservoir pressures, the in-
itial free-gas saturation in the oil zone is at a
minimum-a condition favorable to obtaining maximum
recovery efficiency from the gas displacement process.
Efficiencies of Oil Recovery by
Gas Displacement
It is convenient to analyze and evaluate the recovery effi-
ciency obtainable by gas displacement operations in
terms of three efficiency factors, generally referred to as
(1) unit-displacement efficiency, (2) conformance efti-
ciency, and (3) area1 sweep efficiency. Each recovery ef-
ficiency may be considered as one component element
that accounts for the influence of certain parameters on
the overall recovery efficiency of the displacement proc-
ess. The product of the three efficiency factors provides
an estimate of the percentage oil recovery that can be ex-
pected with this recovery process in a particular reservoir
under specified conditions. Analytical procedures are
available for evaluating each efficiency factor in-
dividually. In certain instances, such analytical pro-
cedures are combined to determine two or more of the
factors as a unit; for example, the term volumetric efti-
ciency is sometimes employed where the conformance
and area1 sweep efficiencies are combined into one fac-
tor. Similarly, the term displacement efficiency is
sometimes used where the unit displacement and confor-
mance efficiencies are evaluated in combination. For the
purpose of this chapter, the three components describing
the overall recovery process are defined as follows.
1. Unit displacement eficiency is the percentage of oil
in place within a totally swept reservoir-rock volume that
is recovered as a result of the displacement process.
2. Conformance eficiency is the percentage of the
total rock or pore volume within the swept area that is
contacted by the displacing fluid.
3. Areal sweep e$iciency is the percentage of the total
reservoir or pore volume that is within the swept area,
the area contacted by the displacing fluid.
Each of the three efficiencies increases with continued
displacement; therefore, each is a function of the number
of displacement volumes injected. The rate of increase in
recovery efficiency in a given portion of a reservoir
diminishes as gas breakthrough occurs. Therefore, the
maximum value of each component efficiency and, con-
sequently, the ultimate recovery efficiency is limited by
economic considerations.
Methods of Evaluating
Unit-Displacement Efficiency
Equations
Unit-displacement efficiency is normally determined by
analytical procedures developed from the two fundamen-
tal equations reported by Buckley and Leverett. * These
equations essentially characterize the mechanics of
steady-state, two-phase fluid flow encountered in oil
displacement by an immiscible fluid. These equations
were developed by means of relative-permeability con-
cepts and are based on Darcys law describing steady-
state fluid flow through porous media.
The so-calledfi-ucrional-flow equation describes quan-
titatively the fraction of gas flowing in terms of the
physical characteristics of a unit element of porous
media. In customary units, using a unit area, this equa-
tion is as follows.
fg =
1 + l.l27[k,A/(~,q,)][(aP,./aL)-0.433(p,, -p,<)sina]
1 +(~&,)(PL,k,)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1)
where
fs = fractional flow of gas,
q, = total flow rate, B/D,
A = cross-sectional area, sq ft,
P, = oil/gas capillary pressure (p, -p,), psi
L = distance, ft,
-c----------
TERSTITIAL WATER
DISTANCE, L
Fig. 43.1-Schematic representation of
saturation distribution during
gas-displacement process.
ti
a 50
%
L
840
NOTE:
V =VOLUME OF GAS (MEASURED UNDER
RkERVOIR CONDITIONS) WHICH HAS
INVADED UNIT CROSS SECTION OF OIL
SAND.
OO
I I I I I I
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DISTANCE, FT
Fig.43.2-Fluid saturation distribution at four time periods during gas displacement
process.
PO =
oil density, g/cm,
P,q =
gas density, g/cm,
CY= angle of dip, positive down-dip, degrees,
Ii,, = effective permeability to oil, darcies,
k n, = relative permeability to oil, fraction,
k,, = relative permeability to gas, fraction,
PC =
oil viscosity. cp, and
PCS =
gas viscosity, cp.
To relate the fraction of gas flowing to time, Buckley
and Leverett developed the following material-balance
equation.
L=
5.615 y,t aj-&!
~A
(-1
, . . as,s
(2)
where
t = time, days,
4 = porosity, fraction, and
S, = gas saturation, fraction.
The value of the derivative d(f,)/&S,) may be ob-
tained for any value of gas saturation by plotting j, from
Eq. 1 vs. S, and determining slopes at various points on
the resulting curve. 3*4 This graphical procedure is
generally considered to be sufficiently precise for most
reservoir engineering calculations. It is especially suited
where the calculations are to be made by hand
calculators. A more precise mathematical procedure for
evaluating the function a&,)/a(S,) was presented by
Kern5 and is particularly adaptable for use with digital
computers.
Figs. 43.1 and 43.2 illustrate the displacement process
described by Eqs. 1 and 2. Calculated oil- and gas-
saturation distributions for a hypothetical example of gas
displacement after successive periods of injection are
shown in Fig. 43.2. The area beneath any curve
represents the gas-invaded zone, whereas the area to the
right of the gas front at any time represents the unin-
vaded zone.
Modifications of Displacement Equations
Eqs. 1 and 2 were developed on the basis of the follow-
ing simplifying assumptions.
1. Steady-state flow conditions prevail.
2. Displacement takes place at constant pressure.
3. The displacing and displaced phases are in com-
positional equilibrium.
4. None of the injected gas is dissolved in the oil.
5. There is no production of fluids from behind the
gas front.
6. The advancing gas moves parallel to the bedding
planes of the formation.
7. The gas front moves uniformly through laminated
sands.
8. The interstitial water present is immobile.
The applicability of the basic displacement equations
to a given reservoir is, of course, governed to a large ex-
tent by the restrictions imposed by the basic assump-
tions. Several authors have reported modifications to the
displacement equations that eliminate the need for mak-
ing certain of the assumptions. Modifications that take
into consideration the swelling effects experienced from
injection into an undersaturated reservoir and production
of fluids from behind the gas front have been presented
by Welge,3 Kern, Shreve and Welch,6 and others.
Jacoby and Berry, Attra,8 and others have presented
equations and analytical procedures for calculating per-
GAS-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE IN OIL RESERVOIRS
formance where there is significant compositional inter-
change of components between the displacing gas phase
and the reservoir oil. The influence of deviations from
the conditions described in Assumptions 6 and 7 is
generally taken into consideration in the determination of
conformance efficiencies.
Influencing Factors
Eqs. 1 and 2 provide a means for investigating the
relative influence of the various parameters affecting
unit-displacement efficiency. These factors are (1) initial
saturation conditions, (2) fluid viscosity ratios, (3)
relative-permeability ratios, (4) rate and formation dip,
(5) capillary pressure, and (6) reservoir pressure and
fluid properties.
Initial Saturation Conditions. Frequently, gas-
injection operations are initiated after reservoir pressures
have declined to such an extent as to permit the ac-
cumulation of free gas released from solution in the oil.
If the free-gas saturation exceeds the breakthrough or
critical saturation determined from the fractional-flow
curve, an oil bank ahead of the front will not be formed;
consequently, oil production will be accompanied by im-
mediate and continually increasing free-gas production. 2
This influence of initial mobile gas saturation on gas
displacement performance has been demonstrated by
laboratory investigations and mathematical analyses. 9
Fig. 43.3 shows a comparison of calculated and ex-
perimentally determined gas displacement performance.
It will be noted that approximately 10% oil recovery was
attained prior to gas breakthrough where the initial gas
saturation was zero, whereas with an initial gas satura-
tion of 18.1% PV, a period of gas-free production was
not observed.
The magnitude of the interstitial water saturation pres-
ent in a reservoir, of course, influences the quantity of
oil subject to gas displacement. It apparently does not
have an influence on the breakthrough unit-displacement
efficiency as determined by the fractional-flow equa-
tions, however. lo If the interstitial water saturation is a
mobile phase, the displacement equations are not direct-
ly applicable since they were developed from concepts of
two-phase flow. Approximations of gas displacement
performance can usually be made where three phases are
mobile by treating the water and oil phases as a single
liquid phase. Displacement calculations can then be
made with k,/k, data determined from core samples
containing interstitial water saturation. Oil recovery can
be differentiated from total liquid recovery on the basis
of k,/k, data or by material-balance calculations incor-
porating an estimated minimum interstitial water
saturation.
Fluid Viscosity Ratios. The effects of variations in oil
viscosity on calculated unit-displacement efficiency can
be seen from an examination of the curves presented in
Fig. 43.4. Note that the oil recovery is significantly im-
proved as the viscosity of the oil approaches that of the
displacing gas. This indicates that the most efficient
displacement will occur where the oil-to-gas viscosity
ratio is unity or less.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA -PREDICTED PERFORMANCE
IO-
10 -
o-
O-
/
0
IITI
Fig. 43.3-Comparison of calculated and experimental gas-
injection performance for two conditions of initial
gas saturation.
Rate and Formation Dip. Note from Eq. 1 that several
factors influence the magnitude of the gravity term.
Since the fractional flow of gas decreases as the
magnitude of the gravity term increases, maximum
benefits from gravity segregation are obtained when the
following occur.
1. Specific permeabilities and relative permeabilities
to oil are high.
2. Reservoir oil viscosities are low and densities are
high.
3. The cross-sectional area to flow is large.
4. The angle of dip is high (Fig. 43.5).
5. Injection and production rates are low.
Frequently, the design of a gas-injection program can
have an appreciable effect on whether maximum advan-
tage is obtained from gravity drainage in a given reser-
voir. For example, proper location and distribution of in-
jection wells along the structurally high portions of the
reservoir may in some cases increase the cross-sectional
area to flow and take full advantage of maximum reser-
voir dip. Cap oil viscosities and relative oil
permeabilities are favorable when pressures are highest.
In addition, injection and production rates, in terms of
reservoir withdrawals, are generally lowest at high reser-
voir pressures, indicating that maximum benefits from
gravity drainage can be achieved by initiating gas-
injection operations early in the life of a reservoir.
Relative-Permeability Ratios. It has been shown that
the concepts of relative permeability can be applied
equally well to complete or partial pressure-maintenance
operations. t Since relative-permeability ratio, along
43-6
o-
5-
80 -
15 -
OO
1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 too
GAS SATURATION-PER CENT
Fig. 43.4-Effect of oil viscosity on fractional flow of gas.
with viscosity ratio, fixes the relative portions of gas and
oil flowing at any given saturation condition, it is one of
the more important factors influencing unit-displacement
efficiency. Relative permeability is a characteristic of the
reservoir rock and is a function of fluid-saturation condi-
tions; therefore, an operator has no control over the
relative-permeability characteristics of a given reservoir.
However, because of the significant influence that this
factor has on the performance of gas-displacement
operations, it is important that calculations be based on
dependable data obtained from laboratory analyses of
core samples. If possible, the laboratory-determined data
should be supplemented by relative permeabilities
calculated from field performance data.
Capillary Pressure. Capillary-pressure forces tend to
oppose the forces of gravity drainage and, as a result,
tend to decrease unit gas displacement efficiency. At ex-
tremely low rates of displacement where frictional fac-
tors become negligible, the saturation distribution may
be controlled to a large extent by the balance between
capillary and gravitational forces. However, at the rates
of displacement normally employed in practice, it is
generally considered that in most cases capillary forces,
or capillary-pressure gradients, can be neglected without
seriously detracting from the utility of the analysis.
Reservoir Pressures and Fluid Properties. In certain
highly undersaturated reservoirs, particularly those con-
taining high-gravity crude oils that are to some degree
volatile, the unit-displacement efficiency can be in-
creased by initiating pressure-maintenance operations at
the highest pressure possible. Under the proper condi-
tions of pressure and fluid composition and at the proper
degree of undersaturation, a miscible-fluid displacement
can be achieved by use of relatively dry injection gas.
The mechanics of this process, which reportedly
achieves unit-displacement efficiencies approaching
SA;:RAT::N - P6:
80 90
Fig. 43.5-Effect of formation dip on fractional flow of gas.
lOO%, will be considered more in detail in Chap. 45.
Recovery efficiency often can be improved by gas injec-
tion at high reservoir pressures even though miscibility is
not achieved. This improvement in recovery may be a
result of (1) swelling or expansion of the undersaturated
reservoir oil resulting from addition of dissolved gas, (2)
reduction of the oil viscosity from addition of dissolved
gas, and (3) vaporization of the residual oil and subse-
quent recovery from the produced gas. I2
Laboratory data obtained from tests using samples of
reservoir fluid and injection gas are necessary to evaluate
quantitatively the degree of swelling and vaporization
that will take place under specified reservoir conditions.
These data may be used in conjunction with conventional
material-balance, compositional-balance, and displace-
ment equations to arrive at an estimate of unit-
displacement efficiency.
Calculation Procedures
Example procedures for calculating displacement effi-
ciency are included in Appendix A for the cases of
horizontal and vertical (downdip) flow of displacing gas.
Methods of Evaluating
Conformance Efficiency
Several methods have been advanced for evaluating the
conformance efficiency for a given reservoir. Generally,
all the methods are somewhat empirical and are based on
either comparisons of calculated and observed past
displacement performance or statistical analyses of core-
analysis data.
If a displacement process such as gas-cap expansion or
pilot injection operations has been operative in a reser-
voir long enough to yield sufficient and reliable data con-
cerning the position of the gas front and recovery as a
function of time, past reservoir performance can be used
to calculate conformance efficiency. The basic premise
for this type of analysis is that the conformance efficien-
cy is the predominant factor responsible for deviations
between actual displacement performance and the ideal
or theoretical. On this basis, the conformance efficiency
is calculated by dividing the observed recovery at vari-
ous time intervals by theoretical recovery for correspond-
ing time periods. Theoretical recovery may be determined
from unit-displacement-efficiency calculations including
an appropriate areal sweep efficiency. The conformance
efficiencies thus determined may then be empirically cor-
related with either rate of production or percent recov-
ery to determine an average value or trend for use in
making future performance predictions.
Several authors have presented methods for determin-
ing conformance efficiencies based on statistical
treatments of core-analysis data. Perhaps the most fre-
quently used is an adaptation of the method presented by
Stiles I3 for evaluating the effect of permeability varia-
tions on waterflood performance (see Chap. 44).
Conformance-efficiency calculations for miscible-fluid
displacement using this analytical technique are
presented in Chap. 45. The same calculation procedures
may be used when immiscible gas displacement is con-
sidered, except that the relative-permeability ratio
k,/k, must be considered for immiscible gas displace-
ment, whereas it is not applicable to miscible displace-
ment. The relative-permeability ratio used in such
calculations is considered to be constant and is generally
taken to be the relative permeability to gas at residual oil
saturation divided by the relative permeability to oil at
initial gas saturation.
Influencing Factors
The conformance efficiency for a given reservoir is
largely controlled by the influence of (1) variations in
rock properties, (2) mobility ratios, and (3) gravity
segregation.
Variations in Rock Properties. Reservoir-rock porosity
and permeability vary from one pore channel to the next.
In addition, reservoir rock almost universally is formed
in layers-stratified-either to a small extent or over
large distances. Stratification can be merely differences
in porosity and permeability of layers in capillary
equilibrium or can be separations caused by im-
permeable shale or other rock streaks. Variations in
porosity and permeability can be both vertical and
horizontal. All these rock heterogeneities tend to
decrease the effective size of the reservoir as far as
displacement operations are concerned. Therefore, the
degree of heterogeneity controls to a large extent the
conformance efficiency attainable from gas-injection
operations in a given reservoir.
Mobility Ratios. The mobility of a fluid is an index of
the ease with which the fluid will flow under specified
conditions. Herein, mobility is defined as the relative
permeability to a fluid at a given saturation divided by
the fluid viscosity. Mobility ratio, M, is an index of the
ease with which one fluid will flow relative to another
fluid. It is defined herein as the ratio of the gas mobility
to the oil mobility or, in equation form,
A4=p 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I......
(3)
m Fg
with permeabilities and viscosities as before.
If the mobility ratio is equal to unity, it indicates that,
for a given pressure differential, oil and gas will flow
with equal ease; values greater than unity indicate that
gas will be the more mobile fluid, etc. During the gas
displacement process, mobility ratio can vary from
essentially zero during periods of low gas saturation to
values approaching infinity during the periods of high
gas saturation.
In heterogeneous reservoir-rock systems, relati<e-
permeability characteristics may be extensively variable
both laterally and vertically. As a result, the displacing
gas will not form a uniform front as it advances but will
tend to finger ahead in the layers or areas having
higher mobility ratios. As the displacement progresses,
the mobility ratio continues to increase in the portions of
the reservoir previously contacted by displacing gas. As
a result, there is a decreasing tendency for gas to enter
regions of low permeability or regions of low gas satura-
tion. These volumes are therefore bypassed and little or
rio oil is recovered from them. It can be seen that the fac-
tors tending to increase the mobility ratio also tend to ac-
centuate the detrimental effects of sand heterogeneity on
conformance efficiency.
High localized injection and production rates in the
presence of adverse mobility ratios and sand
heterogeneity can add to the severity of gas channeling
and resultant bypassing of oil. The possibility of creating
this adverse effect frequently can be reduced through
proper selection of the number and location of injection
wells and proper scheduling of fluid withdrawals so that
minimum pressure drawdown is created in the vicinity of
the advancing gas front.
Gravity Segregation. As was previously mentioned,
gravity forces tend to improve unit-displacement effi-
ciency. Gravity drainage has essentially the same in-
fluence on conformance efficiency, and its effectiveness
is controlled by the same factors-i.e., rate, angle of dip,
vertical permeability, etc. Under favorable conditions,
gravity drainage tends to maintain a more uniform gas
front and therefore tends to offset the effects of adverse
mobility ratios and permeability variations.
Under certain conditions, gravity segregation of the
displacing and displaced fluids has an adverse effect on
the conformance efficiency. In reservoirs having
relatively good vertical communication, low formation
dips, and slow displacement rates, the gas tends to
segregate to the top of the formation, bypassing oil in the
lower portions and creating a so-called umbrella effect,
which causes premature breakthrough of the gas and a
lowering of conformance efficiency.
Methods of Evaluating Area1
Sweep Efficiency
Several investigators have shown that the area1 sweep ef-
ficiency for a given reservoir is controlled to a large ex-
tent by (1) injection/production well arrangements with
respect to reservoir geometry, (2) mobility ratio of the
fluids involved, and (3) number of displacement
volumes injected.
REClkOCAL MOBILITY RATIO, I/M
Fig. 43.6-Sweep efficiency as a function of mobility ratio.
6.0 80 IO
c
Applied mathematical techniques have been used to
investigate the influence of these factors on regular
geometrical reservoir units of constant thickness. On the
other hand, various types of laboratory and numerical
models have been used to study the effects on area1
sweep efficiencies of irregular reservoir boundaries, ir-
regular well arrangements, variable formation thick-
nesses, and variable mobility ratios. From these in-
vestigations, it generally can be concluded that the areal
sweep efficiency at gas breakthrough will bc a maximum
in a given reservoir when the mobility ratio is low and
when the distance from injection to production well is
large. After gas breakthrough, areal sweep efficiencies
are improved as the number of injected displacement
volumes increase. The influence of mobility ratio and
displacement volumes injected on the area1 sweep effi-
ciency of a regular five-spot reservoir unit may be seen
in Fig. 43.6. The data presented in this illustration were
obtained from model studies that used miscible fluids of
various viscosities to study the influence of various
mobility ratios. These data are generally considered to be
applicable to reservoir analyses for either water or gas
displacement when actual model studies for a given
reservoir are not available.
Areal sweep efficiencies, calculated at gas
breakthrough and at successive periods thereafter until
the economic limit is reached, are required for estimating
reservoir performance under pressure-maintenance
operations. If the injection/production well arrangements
and the fluid mobility ratios for a given reservoir closely
approximate those that have been studied in the
laboratory, the data on this subject reported in the
literature may be used as a basis for estimating the areal
sweep efficiencies. Data reported by Dyes et al. have
been found particularly useful since consideration was
given to the influence of production after gas
breakthrough. Note that the quantitative applicability of
laboratory data is inherently questionable because of
uncertainties in model scaling, laboratory techniques,
and associated simplifying assumptions. Nevertheless,
laboratory-model studies still offer the most convenient
means of determining quantitative data concerning areal
DISPLACEMENT VOLUME
Fig. 43.7-Areal sweep efficiency as a function of injection
fluid volume for a mobility ratlo of unity.
sweep efficiencies. For this reason, if mathematical
model studies are not practical for the particular reservoir
under consideration, published data (tempered by ex-
perience) must generally be resorted to as a basis for
predicting areal sweep efficiencies even though the well
arrangements being investigated do not duplicate those
reported in the literature.
For application to performance predictions, it is fre-
quently desirable to construct a curve showing the areal
sweep efficiency for a given mobility ratio as a function
of the fractional gas flow, fK, or the displacement
volumes injected. For example, Fig. 43.7 shows a replot
of the data presented in Fig. 43.6 for a mobility ratio of
unity. If necessary, the trend established from these data
may be adjusted up or down depending on the judgment
of the engineer as to the applicability of the model to the
reservoir under consideration.
As was discussed in a previous section of this chapter,
during gas displacement operations there is a significant
gradient in mobility ratios behind the gas front.
Therefore, an average mobility ratio must be selected to
determine areal sweep efficiencies from published data.
Probably the most representative, and certainly the most
conservative, value for this purpose is the mobility ratio
determined at the average gas saturation behind the front
according to the methods presented in connection with
unit-displacement efficiencies.
Calculation of Gas Pressure-Maintenance
Performance
Estimates of gas-injection performance are generally
based on the simultaneous solution of one or more forms
of the conventional material-balance equations and the
displacement equations previously discussed. The man-
ner in which these equations are applied will vary de-
pending on the scope of the investigation. the type of
reservoir under consideration, and whether dispersed or
external injection is to be used for complete or for partial
pressure maintenance. Rigorous treatment of all factors
influencing production performance and the displace-
ment processes in a given reservoir can result in the
development of calculation procedures that are quite
43-9
complex. Specific analytical techniques and procedures
as applied to various types of reservoirs have been the
subject of numerous articles in the technical literature
and several reservoir engineering textbooks. A selected
bibliography of technical articles dealing with specific
analytical techniques and procedures that can be used for
estimating reservoir performance under gas-injection
operations is included in Appendix B. Note that these
references are indexed according to the type of reservoir
under consideration, the major influencing factors, and
the type of injection-well arrangement. These references
can be used as a basis for developing suitable analytical
techniques to estimate future pressure-maintenance per-
formance in any given reservoir. However, since each
petroleum reservoir is unique, in the final analysis
engineers must rely upon imagination and experience to
develop techniques, based on fundamental theory, for
the particular reservoir under consideration.
Although the equation forms and specific details of
estimating reservoir performance will vary somewhat for
each reservoir considered, certain general analytical pro-
cedures are common to most investigations and can be
used as a basis for developing specific calculation tech-
niques. A complete engineering analysis of a reservoir
for the purpose of evaluating gas-injection operations
will usually consist of four major phases: (1) assembly,
preparation, and analysis of basic data; (2) analysis of
past performance; (3) projection of future performance
of current operations; and (4) estimation of gas pressure-
maintenance performance.
Basic Data
The need for adequate and comprehensive basic data has
been emphasized in other chapters of this book and is ap-
parent when it is realized that the validity and therefore
the utility of any engineering analysis is determined
primarily by the quality and quantity of basic data. The
data requirements for analysis of gas-injection operations
are, with few exceptions, the same as the requirements
for analysis of other types of fluid-injection operations.
Appendix C includes an outline of the usual data re-
quirements for engineering analyses as presented by Pat-
ton, I5 with certain additions and modifications.
Analysis of Past Performance
The methods used to evaluate past reservoir performance
will. of course, vary depending on the active reservoir
drive mechanisms present, the quantity of suitable basic
data available, and the amount of detail or scope of the
investigation. Procedures for analyzing past reservoir
performance are discussed in detail in other chapters.
The results of such analyses will determine to a large ex-
tent the methods used for predicting gas-injection
pressure-maintenance performance and will provide the
current reservoir pressure and saturation distribution
conditions for use in such predictions. Further, proper
analysis of past performance will aid in supplementing
and establishing the reliability of data required for the
projection of reservoir performance under injection
operations.
Projection of Future Performance of
Current Operations
Decisions regarding the installation of gas-injection
operations must be made on the basis of the relative
benefits to be derived from such operations compared
with competitive recovery techniques. Therefore, any
complete analysis of gas-injection operations would in-
clude the projection of future reservoir performance
under the current production operations. Methods of pro-
jecting future primary production performance and other
types of injection operations are discussed in detail in
other chapters.
Estimation of Gas Pressure-Maintenance
Performance
Generally, projections of partial pressure-maintenance
performance, for either external or dispersed-type gas in-
jection, can be made by use of conventional material-
and volumetric-balance techniques in combination with
recovery efficiency determinations previously discussed.
On the other hand, if complete pressure maintenance is
being considered, the project performance can be
estimated by only the displacement equations and other
analytical procedures presented previously in connection
with the discussions of unit displacement, conformance,
and area1 sweep efficiency.
Procedures for calculating the future performance of
both external and dispersed-type gas-injection operations
are included in Appendix A. These example calculations
include the determination of displacement efficiency and
pressure, producing gas/oil ratio, and recovery perfor-
mance for primary operations and for various degrees of
gas-injection pressure maintenance for two idealized
reservoirs.
Performance-Time Predictions. Predictions of future
gas-injection performance are necessary for making
economic comparisons of various types of future opera-
tions. Such predictions will usually include estimates of
functions of time such as (1) reservoir pressures; (2) oil-,
gas-, and water-production rates; (3) gas- and water-
injection rates; (4) GORs; (5) cumulative oil, gas, and
water recovery; (6) cumulative gas and water injected;
(7) number of producing, injecting, and shut-in wells;
and (8) recoverable plant products, if applicable.
To estimate these quantities, it is necessary to develop
relationships between the hydrocarbon distribution of the
subject reservoir and the positions of injection and pro-
duction wells. Once this is done and with a given injec-
tion rate, Eq. 2 can be used to calculate the time
necessary for the gas front to reach incrementally
selected points in the reservoir.
In gas-cap-drive reservoirs and where external injec-
tion is being considered for reservoirs having significant
structural relief, it is frequently convenient to relate
hydrocarbon PV, cross-sectional area, and well comple-
tion intervals to subsea depth within the reservoir. If
such relationships are used and if the advancing gas front
is assumed to conform to structural depth, displacement
equations and fluid inventory equations can be used to
predict the rate of advance of the gas front, taking into
consideration changes in cross-sectional area and reser-
voir productivity.
Until the gas front reaches the top of the perforations
in the structurally highest well, oil and gas production is
controlled by the productivities or allowables of the pro-
ducing wells ahead of the front: and producing GORs
43.10
TABLE 4X1-BASIC RESERVOIR DATA
Oil reservoir having no original gas cap
Initial oil volume, /V. STB
Average porosity, 6, %
Average rock permeability. k, md
Average interstitial water saturation, S w, %
Initial bubblepoint pressure,p,, psig
Oil reservoir with original gas cap
Initial oil volume, N, STB
Initial gas-cap gas volume, Mcf
Area of gas/oil contact A, acres
Ratio of gas-cap to oil-zone volume, m,
fraction
Average porosity, 6, %
Average rock permeability, k, md
Average oil-zone waler saturation, S w. , %
Average gas-cap water saturation, S wg , %
Bubblepoint pressure at gas/oil level pb, psig
30,650,351
29.5
300.0
30.0
1,375
30,650,351
12,716,OOO
842
0.610
29.5
300.0
30.0
25.0
1,375
are controlled by gas-saturation conditions ahead of the
front. If it is assumed that each producing well is shut in
as gas breakthrough occurs, the producing GOR will re-
main a function of oil-zone gas saturation, and the total
OilLproducing rate and gas-injection rate will decline as
the front reaches each successively lower-producing
well. The oil-producing rate at any position of the gas
front can be determined from the productivities or
allowables of the wells in the uninvaded portions of the
reservoir. If it is assumed that each well is produced to
an economically limiting GOR prior to being shut in,
production from behind the front must be accounted for
by use of the modified displacement equations referred
to previously. In such cases, a comprehensive fluid in-
ventory is required to account for the portion of the in-
jected gas being produced at any time and the portion
that is advancing down structure. If partial-pressure-
maintenance operations are being considered, it is
necessary to introduce material-balance equations to
calculate, by trial-and-error methods, the pressure
decline and relative positions of the advancing gas front.
The basic reservoir rock and fluid data used throughout
are presented in Tables 43.1 and 43.2 and in Figs. 43.8
and 43.9.
II. Unit Displacement
A. Horizontal Gas Flow
1. Equation
1
fg =
where
fK = fractional gas flow,
k, = relative permeability to oil at S,,
k,, = relative permeability to gas at S,,
PO
= oil viscosity at p, cp, and
px
= gas viscosity at p, cp.
2. Procedure
With complete pressure maintenance in reservoirs hav- a. Calculate and construct a fractional-flow curve
ing low structural relief or where the gas front is likely to
advance parallel to the bedding planes of the formation,
for selected increments of gas saturation, S,, as in-
dicated in Table 43.3 and Fig. 43.10.
the cumulative hydrocarbon distribution, cross-sectional
area, and reservoir productivity can be related to distance
from injection to production wells. Where dispersed gas
injection is being considered, calculations can be made
for a typical pattern element of the reservoir and the
results applied to the total number of patterns present.
Care should be taken to select a method of reservoir
representation that will conform as nearly as possible to
the anticipated frontal advance in a given reservoir.
APPENDIX A
Example Calculations of Future
Performance
I. Basic Data
Pressure
(Psg)
pb =1,375
1.300
1;200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TABLE 43.2-SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR-FLUID PROPERTIES
Oil-Volume Solution Gas-Volume Oil Gas Oil Gas
Factor GOR Factor Viscosity Viscosity Density Density
1.210 430.1 0.00178 0.480 0.0148 0.765
1.200 414.9 0.00194 0.490 0.0146 0.766
1.186 397.0 0.00211 0.508 0.0143 0.767
1.173 379.0 0.00233 0.527 0.0140 0.769
1.160 361 .O 0.00258 0.544 0.0137 0.771
1.147
1.134
1.120
1.106
1.091
342.0
321.7
301 .o
277.9
254.9
0.00290
0.00329
0.003ao
0.00447
0.00540
0.564
0.587
0.609
0.633
0.661
0.0134
0.0132
0.0129
0.0126
0.0124
0.773
0.775
0.779
0.703
0.788
1.076 230.2 0.00677 0.692 0.0121 0.794
1.060 202.1 0.00904 0.729 0.0119 0.801
1.043 167.9 0.01339 0.773 0.0117 0.809
1.024 125.2 0.02545 0.832 0.0116 0.819
(gGl3)
0.084
0.082
0.079
0.076
0.073
0.068
0.062
0.056
0.050
0.043
0.035
0.027
0.018
0.009
0.001 1.001 0.0 0.19802 0.910 0.0114 0.835
GAS-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE IN OIL RESERVOIRS 43-l 1
b. Construct the tangent to the& curve from the
equilibrium gas saturation, S,(equal to zero in this case),
and read the average gas saturation behind the front at
breakthrough from the intercept where f 8 = 1 .O. This
average gas saturation S R corresponds to the oil
recovery as a fraction of total pore volume behind the
front.
c. Construct other tangents as required to obtain
the average gas saturations and oil recoveries at various
other values of fR or frontal gas saturations S,.
B. Downdip Gas Flow
1. Equation
fg =
1+0.489[k,b, -p,)sin dq, k,)l
1 +(krJkr~)(PLgh4
where
& = fractional gas flow,
k,, = effective permeability to oil, darcies,
P&S
= gas density at p, g/cm,
P 0
= oil density at p, g/cm 3,
01 = angle of gas flow (-90).
q, = rate of frontal gas movement, B/D-sq ft.
k, = relative permeability to oil at S,,
k
%
= relative permeability to gas at S,,
P II
= oil viscosity at p, cp, and
fi,
= gas viscosity at p, cp.
2. Procedure
a. By using a unit flow, calculate and construct a
fractional-flow curve for selected increments of gas
saturation, S,, as indicated in Table 43.4 and in Fig.
43.11.
b. Construct the tangent to thef, curve from the
equilibrium gas saturation, S,,, (equal to zero in this
case), and read the average gas saturation behind the
front at breakthrough from the- intercept where & = 1 .O.
This average gas saturation S fi corresponds to the oil
recovery as a fraction of the total swept pore volume.
c. Construct the tangent to the fs curve where fx
becomes asymptotic to 1 .O and read the ultimate or max-
imum value for S R .
III. Dispersed Gas-Injection
Pressure Maintenance
A. Partial Pressure Maintenance
1. Equations
AN,=
(1 -N,;) A[(B,IB,)-R,,]-B~,bA(liB,)
[(B,IB,)-R,] +R(I -AG;)
I I I I I I I I
100
80
I
-1
-I
I- L\
4
Fig. 43.8-Reservoir volume and area as functions of height.
T
-
i
G/
Flg. 43.9-Relative-permeability data
R = instantaneous GOR, scf/STB,
R = average GOR, scf/STB,
R, = solution GOR, scf/STB,
SL = total liquid saturation, fraction,
S,, = interstitial water saturation, fraction,
k 1 = relative permeability to gas at S1,,
kz = relative permeability to oil at SL,
pfi
= gas viscosity at p, cp,
PLO
= oil viscosity at p, cp,
B, = oil FVF, RBISTB,
B = oil FVF at Pb, RB/STB,
ii = gas FVF, bbllscf, and
AC, = incremental gas injection, fraction of prc-
duced gas.
- I.1
-0
-0
-0
-0
AN,, = incremental oil production, fraction of OIP.
N, = cumulative oil production, fraction of OIP,
N,, = cumulative oil produced from previous step,
fraction of OIP,
43-l 2
TABLE 43.3-FRONTAL-ADVANCE CALCULATION,
HORIZONTAL FLOW
s
(13
k,/k,, W~$,/lo) l+(3)
f, =1/(4)
(2) (4) (5)
-0.000 Cl 0
0.02 0.004 7.725 a.725 0.1146
0.05 0.025 1.236 2.236 0.4472
0.10 0.088 0.351 1.351 0.7402
0.15 0.265 0.117 1.117 0.8953
0.20 0.770 0.0400 1.0400 0.9614
0.25 2.300 0.0134 1 .0134 0.9868
0.30 7.35 0.00420 1.00420 0.9958
0.35 25.15 0.00122 1.00122 0.9988
0.40 117.0 0.00026 1.00026 0.9997
0.45 755.0 0.00004 1.00004 1 .oooo
Fig. 43.10-Frontal-advance performance, horizontal 9as flow.
1.0
lg=O983
I
lg = 0.961
0.9 -
S13=0285
s, 3=0255
0.C
-m "'t I/ I " 1
FRACTIONAL GAS SATURATION, Sg FRACTIONAL GAS SATURATION, Sg
so
(1)
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
2. Procedure
a. Select pressure increments such that any one
mcrement I 10% of the initial or bubble-point pressure
and obtain fluid properties as indicated in Table 43.2.
b. Perform material-balance calculation as shown
in Table 43.5, with no gas injection, by assuming an in-
cremental oil production AhJ, and verifying this value by
the trial-and-error procedure indicated. This procedure
can be shortened by use of previous calculated ANNp for
the second and third trials at each pressure. (Note that
subscript i in Cal. 13 refers to previous step.)
c. Repeat this procedure for various values of gas
injection as shown in Table 43.6.
d. Construct performance curves as indicated in
Fig. 43.12.
Fig. 43.1 l-Frontal-advance performance, gas-cap expan-
sion.
TABLE 43.4-FRONTAL-ADVANCE CALCULATION, GAS-CAP EXPANSION
k,/k,o (k,Jk,,b&,) 1 +(3) l/(4)
k
C, x(6)
f, =
I1 - (7)1(5)
(2) (3) (4) (5) 4 (7) (4
0.770 0.04000 1.04000 0.9615 0.1320 366.6 -351.5
2.300 0.01340 1.01340 0.9868 0.0680 188.8 - 185.3
7.35 0.00420 1.00420 0.9956 0.0320 88.9 -87.5
25.15 0.00122 1.00122 0.9988 0.0130 36.1 -35.06
117.0 0.00026 1.00026 0.9997 0.0048 13.3 -12.30
755.0 0.00004 1.00004 0.99996 0.0116 4.44 -3.40
- 0 1 .ooooo 1 .oooo 0.0005 1.39 -0.400
- 0 1 .ooooo 1 .oooo 0.00015 0.417 0.583
- 0 1.00000 1.0000 0.00004 0.111 0.889
- 0 1 .ooooo 1.0000 0.00000 0.000 1.000
C, =21,306 [ k( Pg - ~~) sm i r l ( q, r r o) ] , where k I S absolute permeability
TABLE 43.5--DEPLETION DRIVE CALCULATION, FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD WITH NO REINJECTION OF PRODUCED GAS
AN,
(assumed)
(2)
P,=l,375 0
1,300 0.0160
1,200 0.0170
1,100 0.0155
1,000 0.0147
900 0.0142
800 0.0132
700 0.0114
600 0.0110
500 0.0097
400 0.0093
300 0.0098
200 0.0112
100 0.0150
0 0.0590
N, =X(2)
13)
0
0.0160
0.0330
0.0485
0.0632
1 -N, t3,1Bob
(4) (5)
-1.0 1.0
0.9840 0.992
0.9670 0.980
0.9515 0.969
0.9368 0.959
0.700
0.683
0.663
0.645
0.6289
0.0774 0.9226 0.948 0.6122'
0.0906 0.9094 0.937 0.5965
0.1020 0.8980 0.9256 0.5818
0.1130 0.8870 0.9140 0.5675
0.1227 0.8773 0.9017 0.5537:
0.1320 0.8680 0.8893 0.5403
0.1418 0.8582 0.8760 0.5262
0.1530 0.8470 0.8620 0.5111
0.1680 0.8320 0.8463 0.4929
0.2270 0.7730 0.8264 0.4472
s, =
(1 - S,)(4)(5)
(6)
,
1.000 22,035
0.983 20,829
0.963 19,951
0.945 18,969
0.9289 17,841
0.9122 16,651
0.8965 15,357
0.8818 13,919
0.8675 12,409
0.8537 10,777
0.8403 9,089
0.8262. 7,184
0.8111 5,149
0.7929 2,882
017432. 403
A
0
0.0001
0.0160
0.0275
0.0431
(8) x (9)
(10)
0
2.1
319.2
521.6
768.9
430.1
414.9
397.0
379.0
361.0
0.0653 1.087.3 342.0
0.0960 1,474.3 321.7
0.1350 1,879.l 301.0
0.1890 2,345.3 377.9
0.2575 2,775.1 254.9
0.3420 3,108.4 230.2
0.4700 3,376.5 202.1
0.6560 3,377.7 167.9
0.9600 2,766.7 125.2
2.580 1,039.7 0.0
R=
/q=
AN, =
(11)+(10) IV, +~,+,W
(5,/B,)-R, (13)+(14) A[(6,/B,)-/?,I (4i)(l6)* A(118,) /3,,A(l/Bg) (17)-(19) (20/15)
(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
430.1
-
250.0
417.0 423.6 205.0
716.2 566.6 165.0
900.6 808.4 125.5
1.129.9 1.015.2 86.4
1,429.3 1,279.6 53.5 1,333.l - 34.9 -32.7 -42.6 -51.5 18.8 0.0141
1,796.0 1,612.6 23.4 1,636.0 -30.1 -27.8 -40.5 -49.0 21.2 0.0130
2,180.l 1,988.0 -6.1 1,981.g - 29.5 -26.8 : -41.0 -49.6 22.6 0.0115
2,623.2 2,401.6 -30.7 2,370.g - 24.6 -22.1 - 39.8 -48.2 26.1 0.0110
3.030.0 2,826.6 - 52.7 2,773.g - 22.0 -19.5 -38.2 -46.2 26.7 0.0096
3,338.6 3,184.3 -71.3 3,113.o -18.6 -16.3 -37.6 -45.5 29.2 0.0094
3,578.6 3,458.6 - 84.9 3,373.7 -13.6 -11.8' -37.1 -44.9 33.1 0.0098
3,545.6 3,562.1 - 90.0 3,472.l -5.1 -4.4 - 35.9 -43.4 39.0 0.0112
2,891.g 3,218.8 -85.0 3,133.8 + 5.0 +4.2 -35.4 -42.8 47.0 0.0150
1,039.7 1,965.8 - 5.05 1,960.8 +80.0 +66.6 -34.2 -41.4 108.0 0.0551
- - - -
628.6 -45.0 -45.0 -45.5
731.6 -40.0 -39.4 -42.7
933.9 - 39.5 -38.2 -43.8
1.103.6 - 37.1 -35.3 -42.7
-55.1
-51.7
-53.0
-51.7
Hand calculated values rounded ofl and will vary slightly from the computer-generated values given here
.I = previous slep
OEPLETION DRIVE, AG = 0
DEPLETION DRIVE. AG, = 0 5
DEPLETION DRIVE, AG, = I 0
PRESS. MAIN., AG,=l 581
I I I
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.58
OIL PRODUCED, N, FRACTION OF ORIGINAI OIL IN PLACE
Fig.43.12-Dispersed gas-injection pressure-maintenance performance.
-
0
10.1 0.0161
12.3 0.0168
14.8 0.0158
16.4 0.0149
43- 14
JNP
P
( assumed)
(2) iv
- \ G, =0. 5
pb =1, 375
1, 300
1. 200
1, 100
1, 000
0 0
0. 0230 0. 0230
0. 0240 0. 0470
0. 0245 0. 0715
0. 0215 0. 0930
TABLE 43.6-DEPLETION DRIVE CALCULATION, FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHOD
WITH DISPERSED GAS INJECTION
900
800
700
600
500
400 0. 0110 0. 1810 06190 08893 0. 510 0610 9, 089 0623 5. 662. 4 230. 2
300 0. 0114 0. 1924 0. 8076 08760 0. 495 0795 7, 184 0860 6. 178. 2 202 1
200 0. 0126 0. 2050 0. 7950 08620 0. 480 0760 5, 149 1 180 6. 075. 6 167. 9
100 0. 0167 0. 2217 0. 7783 08463 0. 461 0761 2, 882 1790 5, 156. a 125. 2
0 0. 0573 0 2790 07210 0. 8264 0. 417 0717 403 4850 1. 954. 5 0 0
AG. =l . O
p. =1. 375
1, 300
1. 200
1, 100
1, 000
R=
R=
( 14) + U@-
AN, =
( l l ) +( l O) i ( R, ; &; , ) / 21 ( 1 - AG, ) R ( B, / B, ) - R, ( 15) A[ ( B, B ) - I ?, ] (20)
( 21H6)
(12) ( 14) ( 15) ( 16) ( 4
' 4; $7 A(lI8,) B, , A( l / E$)
( 19) (20) (21) (22)
- ___
N,=(2) l - N,
BJ B,
(3) ( 4) ( 5)
s, =
( 1 - S, ) ( 4) ( 5)
(3)
0. 700
0. 677
0. 654
0. 629
0. 609
s, =
f, =
s, + s, (~,~~,)(P,~P,)
( 7) ( 8)
k r# ro @)~(Ql R,
(9) (10) (11)
10 1. 0
0. 9770 0 992
0.9530 0. 980
0 9285 0. 969
0 9070 0. 959
1000 22, 035 0 0 430. 1
0977 20, 829 0 009 1875 414. 9
0 954 19, 951 0022 438. 9 397. 0
0 929 18, 969 0044 834. 6 379. 0
0 909 17, 841 0072 1. 284. 6 361. 0
0. 0200 0. 1130 0. 8870 0 948 0. 589 0 889 16, 651 0112 1, 864. Q 342. 0
0. 0170 0. 1300 0. 6700 0. 937 0. 571 0671 15, 357 0167 2, 564. 6 321 7
0. 0150 0. 1450 08550 09256 0. 554 0854 13. 919 0240 X340. 6 301. 0
0. 0135 0. 1585 08415 0. 9140 0. 538 0838 12, 409 0345 4, 281 1 277. 9
0. 0115 0. 1700 08300 0. 9017 0. 524 0624 10, 777 0465 5, 011. 3 254. 9
0 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 700 1000 22, 035
0. 051 0. 051 0 949 0. 992 0. 659 0 959 20, 829
0. 083 0134 0. 866 0. 980 0. 594 0 894 19, 951
0. 150 0. 284 0. 716 0 969 0. 486 0786 18, 969
0. 284 0. 568 0. 432 0 959 0. 290 0 590 17, 841
0 0 430. 1
0019 395. 8 414. 9
0100 1. 995. 1 397. 0
1030 19. 538. 1 379. 0
170. 0 3, 032, 970. 0 361. 0
430. 1
602. 4
835. 9
1, 213. 6
1. 645. 6
-
516. 2
719. 2
1. 024. 8
1. 429. 6
258. 1
359. 6
512. 4
7148
250. 0
2050
165. 0
125 5
884
463. 1 - 45. 0 - 45. 0 - 45. 5
524. 6 - 40. 0 - 39. 1 - 427
637. 9 - 39. 5 - 37. 6 - 43. 8
803. 2 - 37. 1 - 34. 4 - 427
-
- 55. 5
- 51. 7
- 53. 0
- 51. 7
105
126
154
173
0
0. 0227
0. 0240
0. 0241
0. 0215
2, 206, 9 1, 926. 2 963. 1 53. 5 1. 016. 6 - 34. 9 - 31. 7 - 42. 6 - 51. 5 19. 8 0. 0195
2, 886. 3 2, 546 6 1, 273. 3 23. 4 1. 296. 7 - 30. 1 - 26. 7 - 40. 5 - 49. 0 22. 3 0. 0172
3, 641. 6 3, 264 0 1, 632. 0 - 6. 1 1, 625. Q - 29. 5 - 25. 7 - 41. 0 - 49. 6 23. 9 0. 0147
4, 559 0 4, 100 3 2, 050. 2 - 30. 7 2, 019 5 - 24. 6 - 21. 0 - 39. 8 - 48. 2 27. 2 0. 0135
5. 266. 2 4, 912. 6 2, 456. 3 - 52. 7 2. 403. 6 - 22. 0 - 18. 5 - 38. 2 - 46. 2 27. 7 0. 0115
5. 892. 6 5. 579. 4 2. 789. 7 - 71. 3 2, 718. 4 - 18. 6 - 15. 4 - 37. 6 - 45. 5 30. 1 0. 0110
6, 380. 3 6, 136. 4 3068. 2 - 84. 9 2, 983. 3 - 13. 6 - 11. 1 - 37. 1 - 44. 9 33. 8 0. 0113
6, 243. 7 6, 312 0 3, 156. 0 - 90. 0 3, 066. O - 5. 1 - 4. 1 - 35. 9 - 43. 4 39. 3 0. 0128
5, 284. 0 5, 763 8 2, 881. g - 85. 0 2, 796. g +5. 0 +4. 0 - 35. 4 - 42. 8 46. 8 0. 0167
1. 954. 5 3. 619. 2 1. 809. 6 - 505 1, 804. 6 +80. 0 +62. 3 - 34. 2 - 414 1037 0. 0575
430 1
810. 7
2. 392. 1
19. 917. 1
3, 033. 331. 0 1
- -
250. 0
- -
6204 0 205. 0 205. 0 - 450
1, 601 4 0 165. 0 165. 0 - 40. 0
11. 154. 6 0 125. 5 1255 - 39. 5
, 526, 624. 0 0 88. 4 88. 4 - 37. 1
- -
- 45. 0 - 45. 5
- 36. 0 - 42. 7
- 34. 2 - 43. 8
- 26. 6 - 42. 7
- 55. 5
- 51. 7
- 53. 0
- 51. 7
-
0
10. 5 0. 051
13. 7 0. 083
18. 8 0. 150
25. 1 0. 284
GAS- I NJ ECTI ON PRESSURE MAI NTENANCE I NOI L RESERVOI RS 43- 15
TABLE 43. 7- GAS- CAP EXPANSI ON CALCULATI ON, FI NI TE- DI FFERENCE METHOD WI THOUT COUNTERFLOW
We, - R, ) +
ANN,
N, =
(6) -
R( l -AG,)
[ f rom( I I ) ]
W)
1- Np A(B,/B - R, )
(2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 4
( 4; ; y) A(l/B,)
(I+ W,(7)
(from dep. dr. ) $2,
( 7) (3) (10) 01)
- -
AGi-0
1. 375 0
13QQ 0. 0894
1, 200 0. 0829
1, 100 0. 0546
1mQ 0. 0523
900 0. 0423
800 0. 0350
700 0. 0344
AG, =0. 5
1, 375 0
1. 300 0. 0941
1, 200 0. 0904
1, 100 0. 0848
1, QQQ 0. 0718
AG, =l . O
1, 375 0
13QQ 0. 2127
1, 200 0. 3133
x.c694 A:Ez
0. 1323 0. 6677
0. 1669 0. 6131
0. 2392 0. 7608
0. 2815 0. 7185
0. 3165 0. 6835
0. 3509 0. 6491
0 l . OoOO
0. 1046 0. 6954
0. 2103 0. 7897
0. 3124 0. 6876
0. 4092 0. 5906
0 1. 0000
0. 2127 0. 7673
0. 5260 0. 4740
-
- 45. 0
- 40. 0
- 39. 5
- 37. 1
- 34. 9
- 30. 1
- 17. 3
-
- 45. 0
- 40. 0
- 39. 5
- 37. 1
-
- 45. 0
- 40. 0
- -
- 46. 0 - 45. 5
- 37. 2 - 42. 7
- 34. 3 - 43. 8
- 30. 2 - 42. 7
- 88. 6 &6
- 63. 2 46. 0
- 05. 3 51. 0
- 63. 2 53. 0
-
626. 6
731. 6
933. 9
1, 013. 6
0
0.0894
0.0829
0.0548
0. 0523
- 26. 6 - 42. 6 - 83. 0 56. 4 1, 331, l 0. 0423
- 21. 6 - 40. 5 - 78. 9 57. 3 1. 636. 0 0. 0350
- 11. 6 - 41. 0 - 79. 9 68. 1 1, 961. 9 0. 0344
- 45. 0
- 35. 8
- 31. 2
- 25. 5
- - - -
- 45. 5 - 68. 6 43. 6 463. 1
- 42. 7 - 83. 2 47. 4 524. 6
- 43. 8 - 85. 3 54. 1 837. 9
- 42. 7 - 83. 2 57. 7 603. 2
0
0. 0941
0. 0904
0. 0848
0. 0710
-
- 45. 0
- 31. 5
- - - -
0
- 45. 5 - 66. 6 43. 6 205. 0 0. 2127
- 42. 7 - 63. 2 51. 7 165. 0 0. 3133
s,
s,
(from
( 13) +( 16)
A@ )
(18
~fW4,dW)
df ; ' dr. ) f , VS. Sg)
AN,NR AG, [ 17i ) ( l 2) ( 2Wl 5) h,
( 13) ( 14) ( 15)
( l o6 bbl )
(16)
( , , "~' ~~I ) ( ~~) %) ( l o3 bbl ) ( I $$) ( P&&O; bbl )
(17) (18) (19)
___,
- -
0. 00016 2, 034, 560
0. 00017 2, 161. 720
0. 00022 2, 797, 520
0. 00025 3, 179, 000
O. ooO32 4. 069, 120 0. 0878
0. 00039 4. 959, 240 0. 1035
o. Ocm51 6, 465, 160 0. 1182
- -
0. 00016 2, 034, 560
0. 00017 2. 181, 720
0. 00022 2, 797, 520
0. 00025 3, 179, wo
- -
0. 00016 2, 034, 560
0. 00017 2, 161, 720
0
0. 017
0. 037
0. 055
0. 0711
0. 750 0
0. 647' 0
0. 647 0
0. 647 0
0. 647 0
0. 647 0
0. 645" 0
0. 645 0
0 0. 750
0. 017 0. 647' 62i . 5
0. 037 0. 647 1, 165. O
0. 055 0. 647 1, 603. 5
0. 0711 0. 647 2, 120. 6
0 0. 750 0
0. 017 0. 647' 3, 927. 2
0. 037 0. 647 15. 378
Calculated a, correspondmg ,a@ and pressu,e of 1.375 pslg (9480 3 kPa)
Calculated at correspond,ng rate and ,xessure of 900 pslg (6205 3 kPa)
e. For cases where the gas saturation, S, , exceeds
the critical gas saturation as determined from an fK vs.
S, curve at the appropriate pressure, performance from
that point to abandonment must be determined by the
frontal-advance method illustrated in III-B, which
follows. Abandonment recovery to a limiting GOR can
be determined directly from thef, relationship.
B. Pressure Maintenance
1. Equation is same as II-A in preceding section.
2. Procedure
a. Construct fs curve and tangents as shown in
II-A.
b. Calculate performance as shown in Fig. 43. IO.
c. Construct performance curves as indicated in
Fig. 43.12.
d. Calculate injection requirements for complete
pressure maintenance at the bubble-point by the equation
*G,=I+ @o/B,)-R.!
I
R.7 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
827. 5 1, 6xX. 4
1, 992. 5 4, 204. 2
3, 596. 0 09378. 7
5, 716. E 14, 749. 3
0 0
3, 927. 2 7, 616. E
19. 305. 2 40. 734. 0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0. 3
0. 9
2. 1
0
1. 3
- -
2. 034. 6 3, 145
2, 161. 7 3, 341
2, 797. 5 4, 324
3, 179. 0 4, 913
20. 0
17. 0
15. 4
12. 7
10. 0
4. 069. 1 6, 289 6. 9
4. 959. 2 7, 699 3. 4
6, 485. 2 10, 055 - 1. 0
-
3, 640. o
6366. 2
11, 177. l
17, 930. 4
5, 626. o
9839. 6
179275. 3
27, 713. l
20. 0
16. 3
10. 6
3. 7
- 5. 2
-
9, 65X4
42. 897. 0
14, 920. 2
66301. 4
20. 0
12. 1
- 1. 7
IV. External Gas-Injection Pressure
Maintenance
A. Partial Pressure Maintenance
1. Equation
AN,=
(1 -~,,)A[(WB,)W?,] -(I +~P,,~,Nl~B,)
[cB,/B,)-R,]+R(I -AC,) '
where
LW,, = incremental oil production, fraction of OIP,
N,,; = cumulative oil production from previous
step, fraction of OIP,
R = average GOR, scf/STB,
R,Y = solution GOR, scf/STB,
B, = oil FVF, RBISTB,
Bob = oil FVF at pb, RBISTB,
; *ci , -
I
I AG =05
I
7ooom
5
.
6000%
cc
5000 4
z
4ocDg
2
3000~
z
2000 0
2
&
IO00 a
- 1
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 IO0
OIL PRODUCED, NpFRACTION OF ORIGINAL OIL IN PLACE
Fig. 43.13-External gas-injection preSSure-maintenance
performance.
B, = gas FVF, bbllscf,
AG; = incremental gas injection, fraction of
produced gas, and
m = ratio of gas-cap to original oil-zone volume,
fraction.
(Note that subscript i refers to previous step.)
2. Procedure
a. Select pressure increments such that any one
increment I 10% of the initial or bubble-point pressure
and obtain fluid properties as indicated in Table 43.2.
b. Perform depletion drive material-balance cal-
culation with AG; =O, as described in III-A.
c. Perform material-balance calculation as shown
in Table 43.7, using R as determined from depletion
drive calculation in Point b and S g as determined from
unit-displacement calculations.
d. Determine positions of gas/oil level and aban-
donment conditions, using data in Fig. 43.8 and calcula-
tions in Table 43.7.
e. Construct performance curves as indicated in
Fig. 43.13.
B. Pressure Maintenance
1. Equation is the same as II-B.
2. Procedure
a. Constructf, curve and tangents as in II-B.
b. Calculate recovery and construct performance
curves as indicated in Fig. 43.13.
c. Calculate injection requirements for complete
pressure maintenance at the bubble-point by the equation
AG,=l+
[W&-R,]
R,
APPENDIX B
Selected References Containing
Equations, Calculation Procedures, and
Example Calculations Related to Gas-
Injectlon Performance Predictions
External Injection-Complete Pressure
Maintenance
Emphasis on Gravity Drainage and Segregation
1. Combs, G.D. and Knezek, R.B.: Gas Injection for Upstructure
Drainage, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1971) 361-72.
2. Craig, F.F. Jr. etal.: A Laboratory Study ofGravity Segregation
in Frontal Drives, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1957) 275-81: Trans.,
AIME, 210.
3. Martin, J.C.: Reservoir Analysis for Pressure Maintenance
Operations Based on Complele Segregation of Mobile Fluids,
Trans., AIME (1958) 213. 220-27.
4. McCord, D.R.: Performance Predictions Incorporating Gravity
Drainage and Gas Cap Pressure Maintenance - LL-370 Area,
Bolivar Coastal Field, J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1953) 231-48; Trans.,
AIME. 198.
5. Shreve, D.R. and Welch, L.W. Jr.: Gas Drive and Gravity
Drainage Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations, J. Pet.
Tech. (June 1956) 136-43; Trams., AIME. 207.
6. Stewart, F.M., Garthwaite, D.L., and Krebill, F.K.: Pressure
Maintenance by Inert Gas Injection in the High Relief Elk Basin
Field, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1955) 49-55; Trans., AIME. 204.
7. van Wingen, N., Balton, W.C. Jr., and Case, C.H.: Coalinga
Nose Pressure Maintenance Projecl, J. Per. Tech. (Oct. 1973)
1147-52.
General Frontal-Advance Applications
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Buckley. S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: Mechanism of Fluid
Displacement in Sands, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 107-16.
Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959)
361-75.
Dardaganian, S.G.: The Application of the Buckley-Leverett
Frontal Advance Theory to Petroleum Recovery, J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1958) 49-52; Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 365-68.
Justus, J.B. et al.: Pressure Maintenance by Gas Injection in the
Brookhaven Field, Mississippi, J. Pet. Tech. (April 1954)
43-53: Trans.. AIME (1954) 201. 97-107.
Kirby, J.E. Jr., Stamm, H.E. 111. and Schnitz. L.B.: Calculation
of the Depletion History and Future Peformance of a Gas-Cap-
Drive Reservoir, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1957) 218-26; Trans.,
AIME, 210.
Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir En#neering, McGraw-HIII Book Co.
Inc., New York City (1958) 555-605.
Snyder, R.W. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Application of Buckley-
Levereu Displacement Theory to Noncommunicating Layered
Systems, J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1967) 1500-06: Trans.. AIME,
240.
8. Stutzman, L.F. and Thodos, G.: Frontal Drive Production
Mechanisms-A New Method for Calculatmg the Displacing
Fluid Saturation at Breakthrough. J. Pet. Tech. (April 1957)
67-69; Trans., AIME, 210, 36+66.
9. Welge, H.J.: A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery
by Gas or Water Drive. Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 91-98.
Gas Displacement Above the Bubble-Point and
Production From Behind the Front
I. Kern, L.R.: Displacement Mechanisms in Multi-Well
Systems. Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 39-46.
2. Shreve, D.R. and Welch, L.W. Jr.: Gas Drive and Gravity
Drainage Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations, J. Pet.
Tech. (June 1956) 136-43: Trrms., AIME, 207.
Nonequilibrium Gas Displacement
I. Attra, H.D.: Nonequilibrium Gas Displacement Calculations,
Ser. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1961) 130-36; Trans., AIME, 222.
2. Jacoby. R.H. and Berry, V.J. Jr.: A Method for Predicting
Pressure Maintenance Performance for Reservoirs Producing
Volatile Crude Oil, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1958) 59-69: Trans.,
AIME, 213.
Gas injection in Combination Drive Reservoirs
Blair, E.A. et al.: A Reservoir Study of the Friendswood
Field, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1971) 685-94.
Cotter, W.H.: Twenty-Three Years of Gas Injection Into A
Highly Undersaturated Crude Reservoir, J. Per. Tech. (April
1962) 361-65.
Wooddy. L.D. Jr. and Moscrip, R. III: Performance Calcula-
tion& for Combination Drive Reservoirs, J. Pet. Tech. (June
1956) 128-35: Trans., AIME, 207.
43-17
Dispersed Gus Injection-Complete uncl Purtiul
Pressure Muintenunce
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
IO.
Il.
12.
13.
14.
Craft, B.C. and Hawkins. M.F.: Ap/)/ied Prrrolrurn Rrvrrwrr
Engirirrring. Prentw-Hall Inc.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959)
37s~90.
Crttig, F.F. Jr. and Gcffen. T.M.: The Determination of Panial
Pressure Maintenance Performance by Laboratwy Flow Tests,
J. Per. Trrh. (Feb. 1956) 42-49: ~r&s.. AIME; 207.
Craig. F.F. Jr., Geffen, T.M.. and Morwz, R.A.: 01 Rccovcry
Performance of Pattern Gas or Water Injection Operations from
Model Test\, J. Prr. T&I. (Jan. 19.55) 7-14: Trnnc , AIME.
204.
Has, R.L.: Calculated Effect of Pressure Maintenance on Oil
Recovety. ~ Trm.\. , AIME (1948) 174. 121-30.
Kelly. P. and Kennedy, S.I..: Thirty Year5 of Effective Pmawrc
Maintenance By Gas Injection III the Htlbig Field. J. Per. Tdz.
(March 1965) 279-X I.
Last. G.J.. Craig. F.F. Jr.. and Reader. P.J.: Significance 01
PAttial Pressure Maintenance hy Fluid Injectton. J Per. T~I.
(Jan. 1964) 20-24.
Lcihrock. R.M.. H&z. R G.. and Huzarcvich. J.E.: Results 01
Ga Injection in the Cedar Lake Field, Trrrrzs.. AIME (1951)
192, 357-66.
McGraw, J.H. and Lohec. R.E.: The Pickton Field-Review 01
a Successful Gas Injection Project. J. PC,/. Qc,/i. (April 1964)
399-404: discussion, 405.
Meltrer, B.D.. Hurdle. J.M., and Cassingham. R.W.: An Elft-
cicnt Gas Displacement Project-Raleigh Field, Mi\aissippl. J.
PH. 7id1. (Mav 1965) 509%14.
Muskat, M.: P/&cd Priwiples of Oil Proc/uctior~, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York City (1949) 437-53.
Patton, E.C. Jr.: Evaluatmn tit Prewure Mamtenance by Internal
Gas InJectmn tn Volumetrtcally Controlled Reservoirs, Trtrn.r.
AIME (1947) 170, 112-52: Discussion. 154-55.
Pirson, S.J .: 011 Re.c~rwir Efr~~nwn,~fi, McGrawHill Book Co
Inc.. New Yorh City (1958) 4X4-532.
Shehahi, I A.N.: Effective Displacement ofOil by Gas ln,jection
in B Preferentially Oil-Wet, Low-DIP Rewvoir. J. Pet. Td?.
(Dec. 1979~ 1605Sl3.
Tracy. G.W.: Sm~pltficd Form of the Maternal Balance Equa-
tion, J. Pet. Tdt. (Jan. 195.5). X-56: Tiwts.. ACME. 204.
?I~-46.
Mathernaticul Models for Reservoir Simulation
Coats. K H.: An Analysis for Stmulating Reservoir Performaxe
Under Preawre Maintenance by Gas and/or Water Injectton.
Srx PH. Eq. J (Dec. 1968) 331-40.
Cook. R E.. Jacoby. R.H., and Ramesh, A.B.: A Beta-Type
Reservoir Simulator for Approximating Compositional Effects
During Ga Injection. Sot. Pcv. &IX. J. (Oct. 1974) 471-81.
McCulloch. R.C.. Langton. J.R.. and Spivak. A.: Simulation of
High Relief Reservoirs. RainboLc Field. Alhcrta. Canada. J. PC/.
TciIr. (Nov. 1969) 1399-1408.
McFarlanc. R.C.. Mueller. T.D.. and Miller. F.G.. Unsteady-
State Distnbutwns of Flutd Compositions in TwovPhase Oil
Reserwirs Lindergoing Gas In,jection. SIC,. Per. EQ. J. (March
1967) 61-74: Twrx.. AIME. 240.
Price. H.S. and Donohue. D.A.T.: Isothermal Di\placrment
Procese\ With Interphase Mass Transfer. .S~x. Pet. Eq. J.
(June 1967) 20.5-20. Trcln.\. AIME. 240.
Strickland. R.F. and Morse. R.A.: Gas Injection for Upatructurc
011 Dranage. J. PC,/. 7d1. (Oct. 1979) 1323-3 I.
Thomas. L.K.. Lumpkin. W.B.. and Rchcis. G.M.: Rc~crwir
Slmulatton of- Varlahle Bubble-Point Prohlerm. Sock. PC,!. E/Q.
J. (Feb. 1976) 10-16.
APPENDIX C
Data Requirements for Engineering
Analysis of Gas-Injection OperationsI
Analytical Data
1. Core analyses from a representative number of
wells
a. Porosity
b. Permeability
c. Water saturation
2. Special core analyses on a sufficient number of
samples to cover permeability range of the reservoir
a. Capillary-pressure data (for determining in-
terstitial saturations)
b. Gas/oil relative permeability, k,/k,
c. Relative permeability to oil, k,,,
3. Hydrocarbon compositional analysis
a. Gas-cap, casing-head, and trap samples
b. Reservoir-fluid samples
4. Reservoir-fluid property analyses
a. Solubility
(1) Flash
(2) Differential
b. Relative oil volume
(1) Flash
(2) Differential
c. Oil viscosity
d. Oil density
e. Gas viscosity
f. Gas density
Field Data
1. Development history
2. Abandonment history, if any
3. Production history
a. Oil
b. Water
c. Gas
4. Injection history, if any
a. Gas
b. Water
5. Pressure history
6. Well productivity data
7. Gas/oil and oil/water contacts (original and
present)
8. Well and test data
a. Drillstem tests
b. Production tests
c. Sample cuttings
d. Core descriptions
e. Electrical and radioactivity logs
9. Average reservoir temperature
10. Well completion data
Interpretive Data
(prepared from preceding data)
1. Structure maps
a. Top of zone
b. Base of zone
2. kopachous maps
a. Total net sand
b. Net gas sand
c. Net oil sand
3. Reservoir volume distribution
a. Volume vs. subsea depth, and/or
b. Volumes by injection/production units
4. Cross-sectional area
a. Area vs. subsea depth, and/or
b. Area perpendicular to bedding planes for injec-
tion/production units
5. Volume-weighted reservoir datum
6. Average reservoir fluid properties (as functions of
pressure)
a. Differential oil formation volume factor
b. Flash relative volume factor
c. Gas formation volume factor
d. Oil viscosity
e. Gas viscosity
f. Oil gravity
g. Gas gravity
h. Gas deviation factor
i, Differential gas solubility
j. Average oil and gas composition
k. Oil and water compressibility
7. Volume-weighted average pressures
8. Permeability distribution
9. Average reservoir-rock properties
a. Porosity
b. Permeability
c. Interstitial water saturation
d. Gas/oil relative permeability ratio, kg/k,
e. Oil relative permeability, k,/k
10. Well productivities
a. As a function of subsea depth
b. By injection/production units
c. Productivity indices
Nomenclature
A=
B,, =
B,, =
B;: 1
A($;. =
k,, =
k,.,s =
k,.,, =
L=
nl =
M=
N,, =
M,] =
P=
Pb =
cross-sectional area
gas FVF
oil FVF
oil FVF at P),
fractional gas flow
incremental gas injection
effective permeability to oil
relative permeability to gas
relative permeability to oil
distance
ratio of gas-cap to original oil-zone volume
mobility ratio
cumulative oil production
incremental oil production
pressure
bubblepoint pressure
p,. = oil/gas capillary pressure ( p. -P,~)
q, = total flow rate
f = instantaneous GOR
R = average GOR
R, = solution GOR
S,, = gas saturation
S,, =. total liquid saturation
S,,. = interstitial water saturation
f = time
cy = angle of dip, positive downdip
p s
= gas viscosity
P ,I
= oil viscosity
px
= gas density
PO
= oil density
4 = porosity, fraction
f# =
I +(8.639x 10-5)[k,,Aiipq,)] -9.795(p,,-p,)s~1 N
1
where
.fg =
91 =
A=
P,. =
L=
PO =
fractional flow of gas,
total flow rate, m3/d,
cross-sectional area, m2,
oil/gas capillary pressure, P,, -pg. kPa,
distance, m,
oil specific gravity (water= 1) or density.
g/cm3,
Pg =
gas specific gravity (water= 1) or density,
g/cm,
Cl= angle of dip, positive downdip, degrees.
kc, =
effective permeability to oil,, pm,
k, = effective permeability to gas, pm,
PLO =
oil viscosity, Pass. and
Ph =
gas viscosity, Pa* s.
I+ cy (:t)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1)
L=q,r 3
~A
( >
, . . as,s
(2)
where
t = time, days,
C$ = porosity, fraction,
S,q = gas saturation, fraction,
and others are as in Eq. 1.
fq =
1+0.848x lo-[k,,(p, -0,)) sin oll(y,p,,)]
l+(t) (2)
(A.1I.B)
where
a
kc,
k,
0,
PO
CY
9/
CL,,
h
= fractional gas flow,
=
effective permeability to oil, pm,
=
effective permeability to gas. pm.
= gas specific gravity at p (water= 1).
= oil specific gravity at p (water= I),
= angle of gas flow (-90).
= rate of frontal gas movement, m/d*m2
= oil viscosity at p, Pa*s. and
= gas viscosity at p. Pa.s.
Note: All other material-balance, saturation. and GOR
equations that follow are correct for standard SI units,
where B,, and B,v are volume factors (in m/m3) and R.
R,, and R, are GORs (in mim).
References
5.
6.
7.
8.
Muskat. M.: Ph~sica/ Prinqles os0il Pwducrion. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc.. New York City (19491 709.
Bucklev. S.E. and Leverett. M.C.: Mechanism of Fhxd
Displacement in Sands. Trcrrlr.. AIME (1942) 146. 107-16.
Welge. H.J.: A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recovery
by Gas or Water Drive, Trclns.. AIME (1952) 195. 91-98.
Dardaganian. S-G.: The Application of the Bucklev-Leverett
Frontal Advance Theory to P&leum Recovery. J. Per. Tech.
(April 1958), 49-52: Trms., AIME, 213. 365-68.
Kern, L.R.: Displacement Mechanism in Multi-well Systems,
Truns. ( AIME ( 1952) 195. 39-46.
Shreve. D.R. and Welch, L.W. Jr.: Gas Drive and Gravity
Drainage Analysis for Pressure Maintenance Operations, J. Per.
Tech. (June 1956). 136-43: Tram.. AIME. 207.
Jacoby. R.H. and Berry. V.J. Jr.: A Method for Prechcting
Pressure Maintenance Performance for Reservoirs Producmg
Volatde Cmde Oil, J. Per. Tech (March 19%). 59-69: Trans.,
AIME, 213.
Attra H.D.: Nonequilibrium Gas Displacement Calculation,
Sot. PC!. Eng. .I (Sept. 1961) 130-36; Trms., AIME. 222.
9. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: A&rd Petroleum Reserw;r
Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs. NJ (1959)
370
10. Anders, E.L. Jr.: Mile Six Pool-An Evaluation of Recovery Ef-
ficiency, J. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1953) 279-86; Truns.. AIME.
198.
1 I. Craig, F.F. Jr. and Geffen, T.M.: The Determination of Partial
Pressure Maintenance Performance by Laboratory Flow Tests.
J. Per. Tech. (Feb. 1956) 42-49; Trcms.. AIME. 207.
I?. Slobod, R.L. and Koch, H.A Jr.: High Pressure Gas Injec-
tion-Mechanism of Recovery Increase, 0-i//. and Prowl. Pm-. ,
API (1953) X2.
13. Stiles, W.E.: Use of Permeability Distribution in Water Flood
Calculations, Trans.. AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
14. Dyes, A.B.. Caudle, B.H.. and Erickson, R.A.: Oil ProductIon
after Breakthrough as Influenced by Mobility Ratio. J. Per.
T?ch. (April 1954), 27-32; Truns., AIME (1954) 201, 81-86.
15. Patton, E.C. Jr.: Evaluation of Pressure Maintenance by Internal
Gas Injectcon in Volumetrically Controlled Reservoirs. Trans.,
AIME (1947) 170, 112-52, Discussion 154-55.
Chapter 44
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance
and Waterflood Processes
C.E. Thomas, Care Laboratorim Inc.*
Carroll F. Mahoney, Core Laboratone\ tnc.
George W. Winter, Core Laboratories Inc.
Introduction
Many factors that are important to waterflooding are also
important in water-pressure maintenance, so it is difficult
to define the point of separation between the two proc-
esses. Accordingly, a major portion of the information
presented in this chapter applies to both waterflooding and
water-pressure-maintenance operations. For our purposes,
waterflooding and water-pressure maintenance are defined
as follows.
Wurrfl~&ing is a secondary-recovery method by which
water is injected into a reservoir to obtain additional oil
recovery through movement of reservoir oil to a produc-
ing well, after the reservoir has approached its economi-
cally productive limit by primary-recovery methods.
Water-pressure muintrnclnce is a process whereby water
is injected into an oil-producing reservoir to supplement
the natural energy that is indigenous to the reservoir and
to improve the oil-producing characteristics of the field
before the economically productive limits are reached.
General History and Development
of Waterflooding
The first recognition of the benefits that can be obtained
from water injection came as a result of accidental flood-
ing when water was inadvertently admitted to producin
oil sands through abandoned wells. In 1880. Carl1
?
reported increased oil production following accidental
flooding in the Pithole City (PA) area, and suggested the
use of intentional flooding. Although waterflooding was
illegal in Pennsylvania before 1921 and in New York be-
fore 1919. water-injection operations in these areas were
reported as early as the 1890s. Since it was illegal,
limited information is available on operations before 1922;
Orl gl nal chapter i n the 1962 edi ton was wtten by H. C Osborne. C E Thomas J F
Armsl rong, L L Cratn. C. F Mahoney, F C Kel ton 0111 Laf ayette and J E Smi th
however, increased production was noted in 1907 in Penn-
sylvanias Bradford field and in 1912 in New York. The
linedrive pattern was introduced in 1922 and the five-spot
pattern in 1924. The use of pattern injection programs,
when combined with surface pressure injection, provid-
ed a more effective and efficient method of moving oil
to the producing wells.
The initial success of watertlooding in the Bradford area
can be attributed to a number of favorable factors. The
Bradford sand generally had no natural water encroach-
ment, contained a relatively low-viscosity crude, and had
a low initial gas saturation. As a result, primary recov-
ery was limited, and the oil recovery by water injection
was significantly larger than that achieved by natural pres-
surcl depletion.
Waterflooding was slow to expand outside the Pennsyl-
vania-New York area. The first waterflood was initiated
in Oklahoma in 1931 in a shallow Bartlesville sand in
Nowata County. In 1936, waterflooding was introduced
in Texas when injection was applied to the Fry pool in
Brown County. Within 10 years, watcrflooding was in
operation in most of the oil-producing areas. However,
it was not until the early 1950s that the general applica-
bility of waterflooding was recognized. a
There are no generally reliable records of water-
injection operations in areas outside the U.S. during this
developmental period, but sufficient data have been pub-
lished to indicate a comparable growth pattern in other
parts of the world.
Waterflooding currently is accepted worldwide as a
reliable and economic recovery technique; almost every
significant oil field that does not have a natural water drive
has been, is being, or will be considered for water-
flooding.
Important Factors in Waterflooding or
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance
In determining the suitability of a given reservoir for
waterflooding or pressure maintenance, these factors must
be considered: (1) reservoir geometry, (2) lithology,
(3) reservoir depth, (4) porosity, (5) permeability (mag-
nitude and degree of variation), (6) continuity of reser-
voir rock properties, (7) magnitude and distribution of
fluid saturations, (8) fluid properties and relative-
permeability relationships, and (9) optimal time to
waterflood.
Generally, the influence of all these factors on ultimate
recovery, rate of return, and ultimate economic return
must be considered collectively to evaluate the economic
feasibility of conducting waterflood and/or water-
pressure-maintenance operations in a particular reservoir.
Factors other than reservoir characteristics also will have
a great influence. These include the price of oil, market-
ing conditions, operating expenses, and availability of
water.
Reservoir Geometry
One of the first steps in organizing reservoir information
to determine whether water injection is feasible is to es-
tablish the geometry of the reservoir. The structure and
stratigraphy of the reservoir control the location of the
wells and, to a large extent, dictate the methods by which
a reservoir may be produced through water-injection
practices.
Structure is a principal factor in governing gravitational
segregation. In the presence of high permeabilities, recov-
ery by gravity segregation, particularly in old pools, may
reduce oil saturation to a value at which the application
of water injection may be uneconomical. If a suitable
structure exists and the remaining oil saturation proves
sufficient for secondary operations, the adaptation of a
peripheral flood may result in a higher areal sweep effi-
ciency than would the conventional pattern or linedrive
floods. High relief also would suggest investigation of a
companion gas-injection program. The shape of the field
and the presence or absence of a gas cap would also in-
fluence this decision.
Most water-injection operations conducted to date have
taken place in fields that exhibit only moderate structural
relief. Many floods are located in pools where the oil ac-
cumulation occurs in reservoirs of the stratigraphic-trap
type. Since these pools, as a rule, have been produced
by dissolved-gas drive and have not received any benefits
from natural-water encroachment or other displacement-
energy mechanisms, high oil saturations usually remain
after primary-recovery operations, making these reser-
voirs most attractive for secondary-recovery operations.
In such pools, the dip of the strata may be so slight as
to have no noticeable effect on secondary-recovery oper-
ations. Thus, the location of the injection and producing
wells may be made to conform to property lines and to
known sand conditions. Whether such a practice would
prove successful in pools where oil and gas distribution
has been controlled by a high-relief structure is ques-
tionable.
An analysis of reservoir geometry and past reservoir
performance is often important in defining the presence
and strength of a natural-water drive and, thus, in defin-
drive is determined to be strong, injection may be unneces-
sary. Structural features such as faults, or stratigraphic
features such as shale-outs, or any other permeability bar-
rier usually will influence these decisions. An otherwise
suitable reservoir may be so highly faulted as to make
any injection program economically unattractive.
Lithology
Lithology has a profound influence on the efficiency of
water injection in a particular reservoir. Lithological fac-
tors that affect floodability are porosity, permeability, and
clay content. In some complex reservoir systems, only
a small portion of the total porosity, such as fracture
porosity, will have sufficient permeability to be effective
in water-injection operations. In these cases, a water-
injection program will have only a minor impact on the
matrix porosity, which might be crystalline, granular, or
vugular in nature. Evaluation of such effects requires an
extensive laboratory investigation and a somewhat com-
prehensive reservoir study. Evaluations can be sup-
plemented by experimental pilot injection operations.
There is laboratory evidence that a difference between
the mineralogical compositions of the sand grains and ce-
menting material of various oil-producing formations may
account for differences in the residual oil saturation (ROS)
that have been observed subsequent to waterflooding.
These differences in oil saturation are indicated to be de-
pendent not only on the mineralogical composition of the
reservoir rock but also on the composition of the hydrocar-
bons within the rock. Benner and Bartell have shown
that, under certain conditions, the basic constituents of
some types of petroleum cause quartz to become
hydrophobic because of the adsorption of these consti-
tuents by the surface of the sand grains. In a similar man-
ner, the acidic constituents of other types of petroleum
render calcite hydrophobic. At present, there are not
enough data available to permit valid predictions regard-
ing the effects on recovery when the pore walls are made
wet to various degrees by water and petroleum, but it ap-
pears probable that there is some effect.
Although there is evidence that the clay minerals that
are present in some oil sands may clog the pores by swell-
ing and deflocculating when waterflooding is used, no ex-
act data are available as to the extent to which this may
occur. The effect depends on the nature of the clay min-
erals; however, an approximation of the pore-clogging
impact may be determined through laboratory investiga-
tions. The montmorillonite group is most likely to cause
a reduction in permeability by swelling; kaolinite is least
likely to cause a reaction. The extent to which such a
reduction in permeability will occur also depends on the
salinity of the water that is injected. Brines are usually
preferable to fresh water for flooding purposes.
Reservoir Depth
The depth of the reservoir is another factor that should
be considered in waterflooding. If the depth of the reser-
voir is too great to permit redrilling economically and if
old wells have to be used as injection and producing wells,
lower recoveries may be expected than in cases in which
new wells can be drilled. This is particularly true in old
fields where regular well spacings were not observed and
where infill development was not as extensive as lease-
ing the need for supplementing injection. If a natural-water line development. Also, after primary operations, ROSs
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE & WATERFLOOD PROCESSES
44-3
in most deep pools probably are lower than in shallow
pools, because a greater volume of solution gas was gener-
ally available to expel the oil and because shrinkage fac-
tors are higher. Therefore, less oil remains. Greater depth,
on the other hand, permits the use of higher pressures and
wider well spacings. provided the reservoir rock possesses
a sufficient degree of lateral uniformity.
Caution should be exercised in shallow-depth fields
since the maximum pressure that can be applied in a secon-
dary-recovery operation is limited by the depth of the
reservoir. In waterflood operations, it has been found that
there is a critical pressure (usually approximating that of
the static pressure of the column of rock overlying the
productive sand, or about 1 psi/ft of sand depth) which,
if exceeded, apparently permits the penetrating water to
expand openings along fractures or other planes of weak-
ness, such as joints and, possibly. bedding planes. This
results in the channeling of the injected water or the
bypassing of large portions of the reservoir matrix. Con-
sequently, an operational pressure gradient of 0.75 psi/ft
of depth normally is allowed to provide a sufficient mar-
gin of safety to prevent pressure parting. However, to re-
move as much doubt as possible. information regarding
fracture pressures or breakdown pressures in a given lo-
cality should be studied. Either pressure should be con-
sidered as an upper limit for injection. These considera-
tions will also influence equipment selection and plant de-
sign. as well as the number and location of injection wells.
Porosity
The total recovery of oil from a reservoir is a direct func-
tion of the porosity, because the porosity determines the
amount of oil that is present for any given percent of oil
saturation. Since the fluid content of reservoir rock var-
ies from 775.8 to 1,551.6 bbliacre-ft for porosities of IO
and 20%. respectively, it is important that reliable porosity
data be assembled, Porosities sometimes vary from IO to
35% in an individual zone. In limestones and dolomites,
pinpoint and fractured porosities may vary from 2 to 11% ;
honeycombed and cavernous porosities may vary from
15 to 35 %. In establishing an average porosity, the arith-
metic average of the porosities determined from core sam-
ples has proved acceptable. If there are sufficient data,
isoporosity maps are used when the distribution of porosi-
ty is important-as, for instance, when some fields are
unitized. These maps may be areally or volumetrically
weighted to give a very good total porosity value. If
enough core data are available, statistical analyses of
porosity and permeability may be used to improve the use
of these data.
To date, the most satisfactory method of measuring this
important property has been through laboratory measure-
ments of core samples. Various logging methods have
been quite satisfactory in many cases. The logs may in-
clude a microlog or contact log, neutron log, den-
sity log, or sonic log.
Permeability (Magnitude and Degree of Variation)
The magnitude of the permeability of the reservoir rock
controls, to a large degree. the rate of water injection that
can be sustained in an injection well for a specific pres-
sure at the sandface. Therefore. in determining the suita-
bility of a given reservoir for waterflooding, it is necessary
to determine (I) the maximum permissible injection pres-
sure from depth considerations. and (2) the rate vs. spac-
ing relationships from the pressure/permeability data. This
should indicate roughly the additional drilling that would
be required to complete the proposed flood program in
a reasonable length of time. An approximation of the ex-
pected recovery then can be compared with the monetary
expenditure for this development program, so as to indiL
cate quickly the suitability of the reservoir as a flood pros-
pect. If the project profitability is favorable, more detailed
work may be warranted.
The degree of variation in permeability has justifiably
received much attention in recent years. Reasonably uni-
form permeability is essential for a successful waterflood.
because this determines the quantities of injected water
that must be handled. If great variations in the permea-
bility of the individual strata within the reservoir are noted,
and if these strata maintain continuity over substantial
areas, injected water will break through early in high-per-
meability streaks and will transport large quantities of in-
jected water before the low-permeability streaks have been
swept effectively. This, of course, will influence the ec-
onomics of the project and thus the suitability of the reser-
voir for flooding. Not to be overlooked is that continuity
of these streaks or strata is as important as the pcrmea-
bility variation. If there is no correlation between the per-
meability profiles of the individual wells, the chances are
good that the high-permeability zones are not continuous
and that the channeling of injected fluids will be less se-
vere than indicated by performance calculations.
Continuity of Reservoir-Rock Properties
The importance of reservoir-rock continuity in relation
to permeability and vertical uniformity in determining the
suitability of a reservoir for waterflooding has been men-
tioned previously. Since the flow of fluids in a reservoir
is essentially in the direction of bedding planes, horizon-
tal (along bedding planes) continuity is of primary interest.
If the reservoir body is split into layers by partings of shale
or dense rock. a study of a cross section of the producing
horizon should indicate whether individual layers have a
tendency to shale out in relatively short lateral distances,
or whether sand development is uniform. Also, evidence
of crossbedding and fracturing should bc collected from
core data. These features should be considered in deter-
mining well-spacing and flood patterns, and in estimat-
ing the volume of the reservoir that will be affected during
the injection program. The presence of shale partings is
not necessarily detrimental, provided the individual layers
of reservoir rock exhibit a reasonable degree of continui-
ty and uniformity with respect to permeability, porosity,
and oil saturation. When vertical discontinuities exist (i.e.,
when there is a water- or gas-bearing stratum in the
producing formation), shale partings will sometimes per-
mit a selective completion; such a completion allows the
exclusion or reduction of water or gas production and per-
mits selective water injection.
Fluid Saturations and Distributions
In determining the suitability of a reservoir for waterflood-
ing, a high oil saturation certainly would be considered
more suitable than a low oil saturation. Usually, the higher
the oil saturation at the beginning of flood operations, the
higher the recovery efficiency will be. Also, ultimate
recovery will be higher, the bypassing of water will be
less, and the economic return per dollar risked will be
greater. Also involved in the suitability determination is
the ROS after passage of the water front. Methods for
ascertaining this saturation are discussed later in this chap-
ter. The more this value can be reduced. the greater the
ultimate oil recovery and economic gain. Most of the new-
er, more specialized displacement techniques that are cur-
rently under development and experimentation are aimed
solely at reducing the value of ROS behind the displac-
ing medium (see Chap. 42).
Also of great interest is the initial saturation mcasurc-
ment of the interstitial water. A knowledge of this quan-
tity is essential in determining the initial oil saturation.
Leverett and Lewis and other investigators J have
shown experimentally that, as a fraction of PV, oil recov-
ery by solution-gas drive is essentially independent of
connate-water saturations. Therefore. the amount of
residual oil after the solution-gas depletion varies inversely
with the water saturation. Worthy of mention here is the
effect that initial water saturation has on the formation
of an oil bank in front of the advancing water front. If
the water saturation exceeds some critical value, an oil
bank may not form: although substantial oil recovery may
be achieved, oil will be produced at high water cuts. The
water saturation that would preclude the formation of an
oil bank may be determined from the fractional-flow equa-
tion, as illustrated later. This value may vary greatly from
field to field. The fractional-flow equation also will indi-
cate the amount of water that may be expected in the to-
tal flow stream at any particular saturation.
In the U.S. midcontinent area. waterflood programs
have resulted in substantial oil recoveries being obtained
from sands that have water saturations ranging from 22
to 40%. The average saturation in the Bartlesville sand
of Oklahoma is about 30%. In the Bradford field, gas in-
jection has proved unprofitable with oil saturations of 40%
and water saturations of 30%; however, waterflooding
has been very successful.
The Venango fields of Pennsylvania have responded
more favorably to gas injection than to waterflooding be-
cause of high interstitial-water saturations. Oil saturations
in cores range from 20 to 35%, with interstitial water
varying from 40 to 60%. Waterflood oil recoveries have
been uneconomical in these fields, but gas injection has
resulted in additional recoveries of up to 100 bbliacre-ft. 9
An exception to the rule concerning the uneconomical
flooding of sands with high water content occurred in the
Woodsen Shallow field, Throckmorton County, TX; a
successful waterflood program was carried out in this field
where the sands have an average water saturation of
54%. O
Interstitial water content may be estimated from cores
that are obtained with an oil-based mud system, through
electrical log interpretations, laboratory restored-state
floods, or capillary-pressure tests.
Another factor that is instrumental in determining the
susceptibility of a reservoir to waterflood operations is
the free-gas saturation. The pore space occupied by free
gas in the reservoir is dependent on the voidage created
by the produced stock-tank oil and gas, provided no in-
flux of edge water has occurred. If accurate production
data are known. the pore space depleted by the produced
oil and gas may be determined. For solution-gas-drive
reservoirs. the portion of pore space occupied by gas may
be determined by
s,v =(loo@s,,.)
NBni - (N-Np)B,,
. . NB,,i
where
S,? = gas saturation, fraction,
S,,. = water saturation. fraction,
N = initial oil in place, STB.
N,, = oil produced, STB,
B,,; = initial oil FVF, RBISTB, and
B,, = OII FVF, RBISTB.
Several authors have shown through experiments that. for
a given oil saturation, the percent of recovery by water-
flood increases as gas saturations increase to about 30 % ,
but the benefits decline as gas saturations go beyond the
30% level. The effect of free gas has been to cause lower
ROSs behind the front than could be obtained by water-
flooding the same systems in the absence of such gas. The
increased recovery obtained because of the presence of
gas during a waterflood has been variously attributed to
changes in the physical characteristics of the oil, to the
selective plugging action of the gas, to inclusion of oil
mist in the free-gas phase, and to replacement of residual
oil by residual gas. The degree of improvement in recov-
ery has not been established in the field: however, an
investigation into the influence of a free-gas saturation
on recovery by water drive indicated that the optimal gas
saturation could be determined for maximum oil recov-
ery by water displacement. Some operators who have in-
jected gas ahead of water have reported that floods have
benefited in one way or another. Besides the advantages
of increased oil and gas production, benefits such as in-
creased water-injection rates, more efficient flooding, and
decreased paraffin problems have been reported.
The effects of free-gas saturations on oil recovery in
waterflooding remain an academic problem. Until the
merits of injecting gas ahead of (or with) water can be
proved practicable in both the laboratory and in the field,
caution should be used in applying this method to any large
field operation.
Fluid Properties and Relative-
Permeability Relationships
The physical properties of the reservoir fluids also have
pronounced effects on the advisability of waterflooding
a given reservoir. Of major importance among these ef-
fects is the viscosity of the oil. The viscosity of the oil
affects the mobility ratio. The relative permeability of the
reservoir rock to the displacing and displaced fluids is also
a factor in the mobility ratio, as is the viscosity of the
displacing fluid-water, in this case (refer to Chap. 43).
The mobility of any single phase (e.g., oil) is the ratio
of the permeability of that phase to its viscosity. k,,/p(,
The mobility ratio, M, is the ratio of the mobility of the
displacing fluid to that of the displaced fluid. The larger
the mobility ratio, the lower will be recovery at break-
through; hence, more water must be produced to recover
a fixed amount of oil. This is because (I) a smaller area
is swept at breakthrough, and (2) the stratification effect
is enhanced.
44-5
With high-viscosity (low-gravity) crudes, primary re-
covery normally is lower and shrinkage is less than with
low-viscosity crudes. This tends to offset the bad effects
of high-viscosity crudes since it often results in higher
oil saturations at the beginning of water-injection oper-
ations.
Optimal Time to Waterflood
The optimal time to waterflood a particular reservoir de-
pends on the operators primary objective in water-
flooding. Among these objectives might be (1) maximum
oil recovery, (2) maximum number of dollars of future
net income, (3) maximum number of dollars of future net
income per dollar invested, (4) stabilized rate of mone-
tary return, or (5) maximum discounted present worth.
Certainly all these objectives are desirable, and all seem
to call for an early beginning of water-injection opera-
tions; however, that is not always the case. The most com-
mon way to determine the optimal time to begin flooding
is to compute the anticipated oil recovery, production rate,
monetary investment, and income for several assumed
times of initiation-and then observe the effect of these
factors on the most desirable goal.
In a homogeneous reservoir, maximum oil recovery can
be expected if flooding is begun at the precise time bub-
blepoint pressure is reached. This is because residual oil
after waterflooding will have the maximum amount of gas
in solution and, at the bubblepoint, oil viscosity is most
favorable. If the effect of a free-gas saturation on ROS
is ignored, heterogeneity causes the optimal pressure for
highest recovery to be lower than the bubblepoint pres-
sure. If the bubblepoint pressure is quite low, production
rates may have substantially declined and the operator may
prefer an earlier flood. Water-injection operations initiated
above the bubblepoint in a heterogeneous recovery may
ultimately result in less oil recovery but may be justified
economically.
Objective 1, maximum oil recovery, is important to all
operators or agencies who are concerned primarily with
the best interests of the public. Objectives 2, 3, and 5,
involving certain financial goals, are most important to
privately owned companies, either independent or major;
in these cases, the choice would depend on a companys
size and financial position and on whether it is planning
to sell the property. Objective 4, stabilized rate of mone-
tary return, becomes important when financing, such as
production loans and oil payments, and federal taxes are
considered. This last point, federal taxes, is particularly
important to small operators who are subject to large var-
iations in a tax rate that depends on their tax bracket. Also,
some money-lending agencies are particularly interested
in properties that are anticipated to have long producing
lives-i.e., to have a production rate that has been stabi-
lized somewhat below the attainable rate. Other agencies
are more interested in a fast return on investment.
In summary, then, the optimal time to begin water-
injection operations depends on which of the objectives
is of primary concern.
Determination of Residual Oil
After Waterflooding
Perhaps the most commonly used technique for calculat-
ing total waterflood recovery is to subtract the ROS after
waterflooding from the oil saturation before flooding, then
to multiply the difference by the appropriate factors to
convert the displaced portion to barrels of stock-tank oil,
after making adjustments for such things as area1 pattern
efficiency and vertical conformance. If original reservoir
saturation conditions and fluid properties are known or
can be determined, current saturation conditions may be
computed at any time from the pressure and production
history. The determination of the ROS resulting from dis-
placement by an advancing water front can be determined
satisfactorily only from laboratory measurements made
on representative samples of the reservoir rock. These
samples must be subjected to a displacement process that
is similar to that expected under waterflood. Such tests
of waterflood susceptibility, or potential, are run on both
fresh cores and on restored-state samples. Interpretation
of the data is often difficult, particularly when fresh-core
techniques are used or when there are not enough data
available to establish its reliability.
Fresh-Core Techniques
The fresh-core technique has the advantage of being quick-
er and cheaper than the restored-state technique. In ap-
plying this technique, a core sample that is fresh from
the field is subjected to waterflooding and the residual oil
is determined. This procedure is meaningful only when
coring conditions have ensured that flushing and contami-
nation by drilling fluid has been virtually eliminated, as
is the case when a depleted sand is cored with cable tools.
Contamination of cores by the drilling fluid, which often
contains surface-active agents and other chemicals as well
as contaminating solids, can drastically change wettability
characteristics and reduce ROSs to considerably below
the naturally occurring value. Any ROS that has been
determined in this manner should be regarded suspiciously
and be used only if the reported values can be verified
by other means. *
Interpretation of Conventional Core-Analysis Data
In the absence of more dependable data, some authors rec-
ommend that the oil saturation measurement that is de-
rived from conventional core analysis of cores taken with
water-based drilling fluids be used as a reasonable esti-
mate of the ROS after waterflooding. This procedure is
valid only after the saturation value is increased by the
FVF at the existing reservoir pressure. The resulting
measurement is believed to be more dependable than the
saturation value that is determined from further flooding
this same core sample with more water, as is done with
the fresh-core technique.
Laboratory tests I3 indicate that an additional correc-
tion should be made for the reduction in oil saturation that
results from gas expansion as the core is being pulled.
The actual reservoir ROS would be represented by the
term S,,, B,, C,, , where S,,, is the residual oil meas-
ured at the surface, Bog is the oil FVF at current reser-
voir conditions, and C,, is the correction for gas
expansion. (A value for C,,, of 10.0% is acceptable in
the absence of measured data.)
Restored-State Technique
Probably the most dependable means of determining the
ROS behind an advancing front is to study the results of
waterflood susceptibility tests that are performed by the
restored-state technique on representative samples of the
reservoir rock. This requires the obtaining of enough data
to establish dependably that the core samples represent
all the permeability ranges contained in the reservoir. This
ideal situation is very rarely available to the engineer, so
interpretations must be made with less than the ideal data.
In the restored-state technique, the sample is first extracted
and then dried in an effort to remove all contaminants.
Then, the irreducible water saturation is determined by
the capillary-pressure method. After this, the sample is
saturated with brine, which is usually of approximately
the same composition as that of the reservoir. All mobile
water then is displaced with an oil of about the same vis-
cosity as the reservoir oil, leaving the core sample in its
original condition. Then the core sample is sub,jected to
a water-displacement process until the effluent IS essen-
tially 100% water. At this point, the oil saturation is deter-
mined in the normal manner and called the ROS.
Relative-Permeability Curves
ROSs also may be determined from relative-permeability
curves, but the normal purpose of these curves is to give
more data for the area that lies between the two extreme
conditions of interstitial water and ROS. Since the meas-
urements for the area between those two conditions are
made on rather small samples of the reservoir rock, they
are normally performed with an oil of substantially greater
viscosity than that of the reservoir oil. The more viscous
oil facilitates accurate measurement of the pressure gra-
dients that are necessary for dependable relative-permea-
bility determination. Therefore, relative-permeability
curves should be used primarily for fractional-flow and
rate/pressure calculations, with more weight being given
to the middle saturation range than to those on either end.
This view seems to support the practice of arbitrarily
reshaping the experimental k,, curve in the vicinity of
the ROS and the experimental k, curve in the vicinity
of the irreducible water saturation so as to confirm more
dependable determinations of these saturations. Further,
it seems to indicate that considerable error might be in-
troduced by using an ROS taken from relative-permea-
bility measurements alone.
Effect of Initial Saturations
Initial saturations of water, oil, and gas on reservoir suita-
bility have been discussed previously in this chapter. The
effect of these saturations on the ROS behind the water
front will be considered here.
As previously mentioned in the discussion of fluid satu-
ration and distributions, an initial water saturation that
is above the critical value will cause the displacement
mechanism to be of the subordinate-phase variety that
normally prevails after breakthrough. This means that a
frontal displacement will be impossible; still, considera-
ble quantities of oil may be recovered if it is economical
to use large volumes of water. For predictions of this type
of performance, a fractional flow evaluation is
necessary-rather than reliance on the concept of an ROS
behind an advancing front, or piston, of water.
The effect of an initial gas saturation has been inves-
tigated by several authors, most of whom report increas-
ing beneficial results in reducing the ROS left by the
displacing water when an initial gas saturation up to 30%
has been found. 14-16 Some authors 14, have reported
substantial benefits from an initial gas saturation of more
than 30%; however, these benefits begin to decline as the
gas saturation increases. True benefits were also found
to vary with the properties of the reservoir rock as well
as with the properties of the reservoir fluids. All authors
report substantial increases in ROSs as the oil/water vis-
cosity ratio increased. Accurate predictions of the amount
by which the ROS may be reduced as a result of any ini-
tial gas saturation is a matter for laboratory determina-
tion or for calculation from field performance data.
Craft and Hawkins I2 state that the total residual
hydrocarbon saturation will be about the same value,
whether for oil or gas, or a combination of oil and gas.
This view is not rigidly supported by laboratory data but
the value may be used as an approximation.
Influence of Wettability
It has been shown that wettability has an influence on the
interstitial water saturation, ROS, capillary pressure, rela-
tive permeability, waterflood performance, and the
resistivity index of oilfield cores. In short, any property
that is influenced by saturation conditions and/or interfa-
cial relationships also will be influenced by wettability.
This indicates the importance of assuring that all meas-
urements of such properties are made under the correct
conditions. Any laboratory measurements that are made
under improper wettability conditions will give results that
will differ to a potentially large degree from the true mag-
nitude of the property as it exists in the reservoir. The
importance of wettability in reservoir-rock-fluid behavior
has been increasingly emphasized in recent literature. -
In most cases, the laboratory data, engineering calcu-
lations, and field experience will indicate that water is
generally more efficient than gas in displacing oil from
reservoir rocks. There are two primary reasons for this:
(1) the viscosity of water is much nearer that of oil than
is the viscosity of gas, and (2) the water occupies the less
conductive portions of the pore spaces whereas the gas
occupies the more conductive portions. Thus, in water
displacement, the oil is left to the central and more con-
ductive portions of the pore channels. This circumstance
is true only for reservoir rocks that are preferentially
water-wet (hydrophilic), as is the case for most reservoir
rocks. Where the rock is preferentially oil-wet (hydropho-
bic), the displacing water will invade the more conduc-
tive portions first (just as the gas does), thus resulting in
lower displacement efficiencies. However, the efficien-
cy by water displacement still exceeds that by gas dis-
placement because of the viscosity advantage. This effect
is accounted for in capillary-pressure and relative-
permeability measurements only if the rock samples in
the laboratory exhibit the same number and degree of
hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic qualities as those that pre-
vail in the reservoir. Waterflood oil-recovery predictions
that were based on core-analysis data have shown recov-
eries from water-wet rock to exceed recoveries from oil-
wet rock by as much as 15% of the original oil in place
(OOIP). Apparently, coring fluids and core-handling
techniques can disturb the native wettability characteris-
tics of reservoir rock surfaces and may render undepend-
able the laboratory measurements that are made on any
particular core. However, a few coring fluids, brine in
particular, have been found not to affect core wettability,
and core handling and preserving procedures have been
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE & WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-7
TABLE 44.1-EXAMPLES OF THE STILES CALCULATION
k=
Permeabtl I ty at
End 01 Group
= 1%
khM, o
( kh) , - kh
( Eql +( f %+ 1
I V
=' ( 58' ; vo =I W, - ( 51
( 9)
2100 2475- 7. 725
1662 4620 7. 530
167 1 652 5 7, 175
146 4 1. 3695 6, 705
129 5 I , 6315 6, 295
1089 2, 466 0 5, 690
Average
Permeabl l l ty
of Group
( md) =( W2)
(6)
225 0
1950
1775
, 567
water cut
( f racl l on)
=( 6) 1( 10)
( 11)
0 031
0 057
0106
0 170
0 226
0 304
0419
0 564
Recovery Recovery
m
, f Zl l O)
=( 3) +( 12) =( 13) / h,
1131 ( 14)
37 6 0310
42 4 0 348
46 9 cl 384
52 2 0 428
58 5 0 480
67 2 0551
77 0 0631
86 6 0 710
Capacl l y
\ n Group
( md- I t)
( 4)
225
195
355
470
420
kh , - h/ l / i
=( 9Vl 7)
1121
36 6
khM,o +w,
- kh =,6) +(9)
1101
7. 972 5
7. 992 0
8. 027 5
8. 074 5
8. 1165
9. 176 0
6. 265 0
( "WI )
( 5)
225
420
775
1. 245
40 4
42 9
45 2
48 5
52 2
53 0
48 6
t 665 1400
1190 2. 260
3. 150
4. 300
5, 600
96 9
82 1
68 0
53 0
SO 5 3, 465 0 4, 600
75 I 4, 730 0 3, 650
60 5 6. 226 0 2. 290
45 5 7, 566 0 1. 070
31 5 8, 277 5 425
163 8, 662 5 75
- 0. 745 0 0
8. 360 0
6. 516 0
6, 636 0
6. 702 5
9, 737 5
0 731 37 9 95 9 0 786
0 676 23. 5 , 045 0 6571
0951 135 111 5 0914
, 166 0 956 0991
1 000
46
00 1220 1 000
10 45 60 to 23
1, 30 45 10 17
12 15 to30 14
13 oto 15 10
h. =122
I . 220
645
6. 660
7. 525
7. 875
7, 950
379
25 0
75
350
75
c. =7, 950
9, 745 0
k
M
wo
~, l i o( ~) ~o. 2oo~~( , 100) =1100.
k
ro f i b+
0 600 0 90
developed to preserve wettability characteristics during
storage and laboratory testing.
Predicting Water Injection Oil Recovery
and Performance
Predictions of future oil recovery and reservoir perform-
ance for waterflood and water injection projects provide
the basis for the economic evaluation of the profitability
of proposed projects. These performance and recovery
projections should be made in sufficient detail to define
the economic viability of the project. This definition
should be made after consideration is given to the invest-
ment requirements, cost of operations, projected recov-
ery, and the return that is expected on the investment.
In some cases, an estimate of the ultimate oil recovery
that is expected from the operation may be sufficient; in
fact, it may be the only estimate possible if basic reser-
voir and past production data are limited or are of ques-
tionable reliability. However, in most cases, detailed
projections are required for making economic evaluations.
These include the projection of future well requirements
and recompletions, individual well injection and produc-
ing rates, reservoir and injection pressures, producing
WORs, and oil recovery throughout the course of the
project. Detailed projections require complex predictive
methods and complete and detailed reservoir data. It is
the responsibility of the reservoir engineer to choose the
detail and complexity of the performance projections-
following consideration of the management requirements,
the cost of developing the projections, and the amount and
reliability of the basic reservoir and economic data that
are available.
consideration of actual fluid mobilities rather than an as-
sumption of equal mobility for the displacing and displaced
fluids. With this exception, the basic assumptions made
in the development of both techniques are essentially the
same.
For the description of water/oil displacement in
homogeneous reservoirs, two methods are of primary im-
portance: the Buckley-LeverettO frontal advance thee
and a subsequent extension of this work by
%
Welge.
These two techniques provide the fundamental basis for
describing the water/oil displacement characteristics of
a linear reservoir segment with homogeneous properties.
Stiles Calculation. In the Stiles I9 method, the follow-
ing assumptions are made. The rate of flood advance in
a linear bed is proportional to the permeability of that bed.
After breakthrough, the water/oil production rates are
governed by, respectively, the water and the oil mobility
ratios of the beds that produce the water and oil in the
output well. This latter point is equivalent to the assump-
tion that the rate of fluid movement in each bed is propor-
tional to the oil mobility if breakthrough has not occurred,
or proportional to the water permeability if breakthrough
has occurred, and that there is no crossflow between beds.
The Stiles method involves a calculation procedure that
gives recovery values for a unit of the total reservoir.
The data needed for the calculations are the individu-
al, measured, permeability values for the reservoir unit
being considered, the water/oil mobility ratio, and the oil
FVF at flood conditions. The Stiles calculations give the
values of produced watercut vs. oil recovery as a frac-
tion of the total recoverable oil. In practical applications,
the total recoverable oil is determined independently, as
the difference between the amount of oil in the reservoir
at the start of the waterflood and the amount of oil re-
maining after the flood has been completed (to 100%
water cut); this difference is then adjusted by an area1
coverage factor for the flood unit.
For convenience in calculating, the permeability values
are arranged in a numerically descending sequence. If
there are a great many values. they may be grouped by
permeability ranges and the total millidarcy-foot capaci-
ty and footage for each range is computed. In the case
of such grouped values, it is preferable to set the ranges
Displacement Calculation Procedures
There are a number of methods presented in the litera-
ture for calculating the performance of a waterflood proj-
ect. Two of the early methods that were developed for
application in stratified reservoirs are the Stiles I9 and
Dykstra-Parsons. I5 The Stiles method is based on the as-
sumptions that fluid displacement occurs in a piston-like
manner, in a linear bed of a specific permeability, and
that the rate of advance of the flood front is proportional
to the permeability of the bed. The Dykstra-Parsons
method for predicting waterflood performance includes
44-8
.-
80
to
40I
I
I
11 I I )
12 5 10 20 M405oM)7080 w 95 98 9999.5
PORTION Of TOTAL SAMPLE HAVING HIGHER PERMEABILITY
Fig. 44.1-Log-normal permeability distribution.
so that there will be approximately equal capacities in the
middle permeability ranges and somewhat smaller capac-
ities in the high and low permeability ranges.
Values for cumulative capacity and cumulative thick-
ness, as well as the average permeability for each group,
then are calculated. The fractional cumulative capacity
may be plotted vs. fractional cumulative thickness; the
result of this procedure is referred to as a capacity-
distribution curve. In the original Stiles method. the per-
meability data are plotted at the midpoint values of cu-
mulative thickness, a smooth curve is drawn through the
points. and a new set of permeability values are read at
the thickness values to be used in the final calculations.
In the equivalent calculation method presented in this
chapter, the plotting may be eliminated because the
smoothing of permeability values is accomplished by for-
ward interpolation between successive permeability
values. The calculation of fractional capacity and thick-
ness also may be eliminated if the capacity-distribution
curve is not required.
An example of a water-cut recovery calculation is
shown in Table 44.1, In that. table, the letters h and HI,
in Cols. 3 and 5, represent cumulative foot and millidarcy-
foot capacity, respectively; h, and (kh), , inCols. 2 and
4, represent the corresponding totals; and k, in Col. 7,
designates the interpolated average permeability in mil-
lidarcies. The equations for the fractional water cut and
recovery, at the time when h feet are producing water,
are as follows.
f,, =
khM,w,
t khM,,,, +(kh), -kh
and
N,,,L k-t (kh)r-kh , .
h,
k 1
where M,,, equals the water/oil mobility ratio multiplied
by the FVF of the reservoir oil at the time of flooding:
where
k,,./k, = water/oil relative permeability ratio,
fiL,/p, = oil/water viscosity ratio,
B = FVF,
N
1;
= recovery to depletion (abandonment),
= capacity of flowing water, and
1 -kh = capacity of flowing oil.
The resulting recovery vs. water-cut data may be used
as the starting point for further calculations in connection
with the flood unit. For example, if the unit is a five-spot
in a depleted field and an estimate of the gas space in the
reservoir is available, calculations of the time behavior
of the flood may be made for an assumed injection-rate
schedule. These calculations would involve determination
of the fill-up time and a subsequent application of the
water-cut recovery curve so as to calculate the oil pro-
duction rate vs. time.
As noted previously, the Stiles method gives recovery
vs. water-cut data for a hypothetical flood unit, in which
breakthrough into various producing wells of the unit
occurs at the same time. The information could be ex-
pected to approximate that for the behavior of a five-spot
pattern or that for a group of five-spots, provided an ap-
propriate area1 coverage factor is applied.
Dykstra-Parsons Calculation. Dykstra and Parsons I5
performed a series of laboratory waterflooding tests on
field core samples and concluded that oil recovery by
waterflooding is a function of both mobility ratio and per-
meability distribution, with the mobility ratio being de-
fined as follows.
M- kw PO
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
P I, kc,
where k, is the permeability to water in the water-
contacted portions of the reservoirs, and k, is the per-
meability to oil ahead of the waterfront (or mobility of
swept to unswept region).
On the basis of the laboratory test results, and calcula-
tions made on a layered linear model in which it was
assumed there was no crossflow, a correlation that related
waterflood recovery to both mobility ratio and permea-
bility distribution was developed. Permeability distribu-
tion was measured by the efficiency of permeability
variation EK, as follows.
k -k,
EK=-, . . ___ _. (5)
k
where k is the mean permeability and k, is the permea-
bility value at 84.1% of the cumulative sample, as shown
in Fig. 44.1.4
44-9
KrwYo
M=--
k
ro P w
Fig. 44.2-Permeability variation vs. mobility ratio, showing lines
of constant E,(l -S,) for a producing WOR of 1.
The correlations developed by Dykstra and Parsons
were for WORs of 1, 5, 25, and 100, with recovery re-
lated to permeability variation, interstitial water satura-
tion, ROS, and mobility ratio. The basic equations used
in developing the correlations were based on the follow-
ing approach.
At the beginning of injection, the mobility in a layer
is determined by the oil and gas phases. As water advances
into a layer, the mobility is a composite of oil, gas, and
water mobilities; after fill-up, the mobility is determined
by the relative permeability and the viscosity ratios. The
varying nature of the overall mobility results in a con-
tinuously changing injectivity. This method assumes that
the permeability distribution is log-normal.
By use of the linear Darcy flow equation for incom-
pressible fluids, the following equations for coverage
or conformance efficiency and WOR were developed:
and
Br
c ki
i=l
F,,.,, =
i
ki
l=(llH, + I)
J
1
(6)
. . . .._.......................
(7)
of constant ER(l -0.72.S,,) for a producing WOR
of 5.
where
EC =
F
MO =
n=
k; =
k, =
M=
nBT =
fractional coverage or conformance
efficiency,
WOR,
number of layers,
permeability of layer,
permeability of x layer, or the layer that
has just been flooded,
mobility ratio, and
number of layers in which water has
broken through (varies from 1 to n).
When the coverage and F,,(, are known, it is possible to
predict oil recovery and water cut as a function of time,
provided the injection rates can be determined adequately.
To develop the relationship between the producing
WOR and coverage, or fractional oil recovery, the equa-
tions must be solved for breakthrough conditions in each
layer of the system, or at least for a substantial number
of layers. This method is laborious for hand calculations
and, in a later paper, Johnson22 presented a graphical
technique for applying the Dykstra-Parsons method that
was based on the plots shown in Figs. 44.2 through 44.5,
where ER is the fractional recovery of OIP at a given
producing WOR. An example of the manner in which
these plots were used in applying the Dykstra-Parsons
technique was presented by Craig.
Both the Stiles and the Dykstra-Parsons methods were
developed for linear, piston-like displacement in a strati-
fied system, and the results that are obtained when ap-
plying these techniques must be interpreted within the
context of the limitations imposed by the basic assump-
tions. However, the concepts established as a result of
this early work provided the basis for a number of predic-
tive techniques that have since been developed.
Frontal Advance Calculation. The frontal advance cal-
culation was derived from the concept of fractional flow
presented by Leverett 23 in his classic 1941 paper. The
fractional flow equation was developed from Darcys law
for water and oil and, in generalized form, it is as follows.
44-10
k
,WPO
M=-
k
ml*
of constant E,(l -0.52.S,,) for a producing WOR
of 25.
1 -(ko/p,q)
ap,
Z-gAp sin 0
>
. . .
(8)
f w=-
where
fit, =
k,,k,,. =
fraction of water in the flowing stream,
effective formation permeability to the
specific phase, kk, and kk,,,
oil viscosity,
water viscosity,
fluid volumetric flow rate per unit cross-
sectional area,
P,. =
L=
Ap =
capillary pressure, p. -pn
distance along direction of measurement,
density difference between water and oil,
PLI -PO>
@=
g=
angle of formation dip referenced to
horizontal, and
acceleration caused by gravity.
In practical units, the equation becomes
1 +0.001127L!!L
.fw =
CJtPo
2 -0.434A.p sin 0)
where
f i t =
kc, =
k,,. =
A=
41 =
P,. =
Ap =
a=
!-l=
L=
, + CL ,I kc,
~0 kw
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.
(9)
fractional flow of the displacing fluid,
effective permeability to oil, md,
effective permeability to water, md
cross-sectional area of flow, sq ft,
total flow rate, (qM.+qo), BID,
capillary pressure, p. -p ,,,, psi,
density difference, g/cm3, p,,, -po,
dip angle, positive updip,
phase viscosity, cp, and
distance. ft.
k
rwPo
M=-
k
roPw
of constant E,(l -0.4OS,,) for a producing WOR of
100.
In the case of a water drive, neglecting the effects of
the capillary pressure gradient and the dip of the reser-
voir, the terms dP,/aL and gAp sin f3 become insignifi-
cant. The fractional flow equation then reduces to
1
f w =
l+(k,/k,,,)(p,,,/,u,) .
. . (10)
which states that the fraction of water in the flow stream
is a function of the relative-permeability relationships in
which p0 and CL, are constant for a given reservoir pres-
sure. Since k,/k, is a function of saturation, Buckley and
Leverett20 derived the following frontal-advance equa-
tion on the basis of relative-permeability concepts.
s,~) . . . . . .
(11)
where
L = distance, ft,
9, = total flow rate, B/D,
f$ = porosity,
A = cross-sectional area, sq ft, and
t = time, days.
This states that the distance a plane of constant satura-
tion (S,) advances is directly proportional to time and
to the derivative (afJaS,) at that saturation. The value
of the derivative may be obtained for any value of water
saturation by plotting f , b, from Eq. 9 vs. S,,. and graphi-
cally taking the slopes at values of S,,. Fig. 44.6 shows
a plot off,. vs. S,,, in addition to the resultant df,,,./dS,
vs. S,. relationships for the S,, vs. k,/k,,, data at a vis-
cosity ratio of water to oil of 0.50 (see Table 44.2).
If the df,,ldS, values found in Fig. 44.6 are substituted
into Eq. 11, the distance that a given water-saturation
plane or front will advance for any time f can be calculat-
ed for the known throughput q in barrels per day, frac-
tional porosity, and cross-sectional area (in sq ft).
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE 8. WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-11
Fig. 44.7 represents the water-saturation profile or
frontal-advance curves for a bed that is 1,320 ft wide and
20 ft thick, and has a porosity of 20% and a throughput
of 900 B/D for 60. 120, and 240 days with the f,,,,
L3f,,,/&S,,. vs. S,,. relationship shown in Fig. 44.6 The
curves shown in Fig. 44.7 are characteristically double-
valued or triple-valued. For example, the water satura-
tion after 240 days at 400 ft is 20, 36, and 60%. The satu-
ration can have only one value at any place and time, and
the difficulty is resolved by dropping perpendiculars so
that the areas to the right (A) equal the areas to the left (B).
Fig. 44.8 represents the initial water and oil distribu-
tions in the example reservoir and also the distributions
after 240 days. The area to the right is the flood front
or oil bank, and the area to the left is the water-invaded
zone. The area above the 240-day curve and below the
90% water-saturation curve represents oil that may be re-
covered by the displacement of additional volumes of
water through the area. The area above the 90% water
saturation curve represents unrecoverable oil because the
ROS is 10%.
Welge Calculations. In 1952, We1 e* extended the
earlier work of Buckley and
30
Leverett to derive a sim-
plified method for calculating fractional flow and recov-
ery performance after water breakthrough. The basic
equations developed by Welge are as follows:
S,*,-S,,.* =wif<,* (12)
and
wi=-, 1
dSw
H
, . . . . .
(13)
dSw s,1!
where
S, = average water saturation. fraction of PV,
S
w2
= water saturation at the producing end of
the system,
IV; = cumulative PVs of water injected,
fraction, and
f02 = fraction of oil flowing at the producing end
of the system.
An example of the use of the Welge technique for cal-
culating waterflood displacement performance was
presented by Craig. 4 Basic data used in the example cal-
culation are average permeability, 50 md; porosity, 20%;
irreducible water saturation, 10% of PV; oil viscosity,
1.0 cp; and water viscosity, 0.5 cp (see Table 44.3).
By Eq. 10,
The fractional flow vs. water saturation relationship is
calculated from basic data, such as those given in Table
44.4.
TABLE 44.2-S, vs. k,/k, DATA AT A VISCOSITY RATIO
OF WATER TO OIL OF 0.50
S
w
kokw
0.20
0.30 GO
0.40 5.5
0.50 1.70
0.60 0.55
0.70 0.17
0.80 0.0055
0.90 0.0000
Fig. 44.6-Plot of t, vs. S,.
Fig. 44.7-Fluid distribution at initial conditions and at 60. 120,
and 240 days.
Fig. 44.8-Waler saturation distributions as a function of
distance.
44-12
TABLE 44.3--RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
CHARACTERISTICS
Water Saturation,
Relative Permeability
(fra%on)
Oil, k
(fractidon) ~fZrtion~
0.10 1.000 0.000
0.30 0.373 0.070
0.40 0.210 0.169
0.45 0.148 0.226
0.50 0.100 0.300
0.55 0.061 0.376
0.60 0.033 0.476
0.65 0.012 0.600
0.70 0.000 0.740
The fractional flow curve from this calculation is shown
in Fig. 44.9. For water breakthrough, the tangent to the
fractional flow curve from the point of irreducible water
saturation defines (1) S ,,., the average water saturation
behind the front, (2) S,,.z. the water saturation at the
producing end of the system, and (3)f,., the fractional
flow of water at the downstream end of the system.
s,, = 0.563 PV,
S. ,,BT = average water saturation at water
breakthrough, % PV,
S,,.,; = water saturation at upstream end of the
stabilized zone, % PV,
S,,.z = 0.469 PV, and
frc* = 0.798.
From the fractional flow curve, df,ldS,, is determined
for water saturations that are higher than S,,.? at water
9
0
I O 20 30 40 50 60 70
S, . WATER SATURATI ON, % PV
Fig. 44.9-Fractional flow curve, example problem.
TABLE 44.4-FRACTIONAL FLOW DATA
Water Saturation,
(0,: b)
Fractional Flow of Water,
f&v
10 0.0000
30 0.2729
40 0.6168
45 0.7533
50 0.8571
55 0.9250
60 0.9665
65 0.9901
70 1 .oooo
breakthrough conditions, and the df,,./dS,,. vs. S, curve
is developed, as shown by Fig. 44.10. From Eq. 13, Wi
is calculated for increasing values of S,,z andf,,z and cor-
-
respondmg values of SW2 are calculated from Eq. 12.
The results for the calculations of the example prob-
lem are shown in Table 44.5.
Areal Sweep and Pattern Effkiency
The previous discussion dealt with fundamental techniques
for defining water/oil displacement characteristics in linear
reservoir segments in stratified reservoirs and in
homogeneous reservoir rock systems. However, from a
practical standpoint, a truly linear displacement is never
used in waterflood operations. In practice, water is in-
jected into some wells and oil and water are produced from
others, and often portions of the reservoir are never con-
tacted by the injected water. Therefore. it is necessary
to consider the area1 sweep efficiency so as to make esti-
25
10,
__- -
05.
. . , . . . . . . . ,
.
O-
I
40 50
S, , WATER SATRAT%N, %P
70
Fig. 44.10-Plot of df,/dS, example problem.
44-13
TABLE 44.5-WATERFLOOD DISPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE
(Example Problem)
f
s
Exit-&d
Exi%d S
Flowing Stream df,/dS,, Ave;Yalge
Water Consisting of Slope of
W,,
Water
Saturation Water Fractional PV of Cumulative Saturation
(fraction PV) (fraction) Flow Curve Injected Water (fraction PV)
0.469 0.798 2.16 0.463 0.563
0.495 0.848 1.75 0.572 0.562
0.520 0.688 1.41 0.711 0.600
0.546 0.920 1.13 0.887 0.617
0.572 0.946 0.851 1.176 0.636
0.597 0.965 0.649 1.540 0.652
0.622 0.980 0.477 2.100 0.666
0.649 0.990 0.317 3.157 0.681
0.674 0.996 0.195 5.13 0.694
0.700 1.000 0.102 9.80 0.700
mates of recoverable oil for a particular project and to
predict reservoir performance for waterflood operations.
The purpose of this section is (1) to present methods
for determining area1 sweep efficiency for pattern flood
projects, (2) to discuss factors that affect areal floodout
patterns, and (3) to present correlating factors that are
used to define areal sweep efficiency.
Methods of Determining Areal Sweep Efficiency. To
conduct waterflood operations in a continuous reservoir
with a relatively large area1 extent, it is common practice
to locate injection and producing wells in a regular geo-
metric pattern so that a symmetrical and interconnective
network is formed. Five of these basic patterns will be
discussed: (1) direct line drive, (2) staggered line drive,
(3) five-spot, (4) seven-spot, and (5) nine-spot. 24.25 Figs.
44.llA through 44.llE are diagrammatic representations
of these basic waterflood patterns. The dashed areas rep-
resent the basic symmetrical elements that are used in both
analytical and model determinations of sweepout patterns.
It is often impractical or even impossible to design
waterflood operations that correspond to one of the stan-
dard geometrical flood patterns. In such a case, the oper-
ator must select a less sophisticated well network-the
choice being either a peripheral or random injection
pattern.
The random flood pattern will not be considered spe-
cifically in this work because that type of flood is required
only in certain explicit cases; it is used only when it is
impossible to arrive at an arrangement of the peripheral
or geometric type of pattern. Most of the material deal-
ing with peripheral floods will apply generally to random
waterflood networks. Fig. 44.12 is an illustration of the
typical peripheral flood network. 26 It is obvious from this
figure that there is no symmetrical element that could be
considered for analysis, and that reservoir simulation tech-
niques are necessary to obtain reliable future performance
predictions for random or peripheral injection patterns. l7
Mathematical Analysis of Area1 Pattern Efficiency.
Most practical mathematical analyses of flood coverage
are based on Darcys law when it is assumed that steady-
state single-phase flow occurs through large areas of
homogeneous reservoir rock.
Muskat presents a comprehensive review of this the-
ory in his early discussions of the steady-state flow ca-
Y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oPRODUClNG WELLS
4 2 ^ dg CC 2
0 0 0 T-1 o_ 0 0lNJECTlON WELLS
2 mx
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000 0 0 0 0
Fig. 44.1 l A-A diagrammatic representation of a direct-line-
drive well network. Dashed segment represents
basic symmetry element.
Y
1 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl
0 0 0 0
d
,,_ a _
+X
Fig. 44.11B-A diagrammatic representation of the staggered-
line-drive network.
44-14
Y
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
---E 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
d
!!I----
X
0
0
0 0
0
Fig. 44.11C-The five-spot well network. Dashed segment rep- Fig. 44.11D-The seven-spot well network. Dashed segment
resents basic symmetry element. represents basic symmetry element.
pacity of the various pattern networks. As early as 1934,
Muskat and Wyckoff28 presented a theoretical means of
wells and a is the difference between adjacent wells in
a single row. The graph shows a curve for both direct
calculating area1 sweep efficiency for basic flood patterns. linedrive and staggered linedrive patterns with d/u values
Fig. 44.13 is taken from their early work and it shows from 0.45 to 4.0. Even though the absolute values of pat-
the variation in calculated steady-state homogeneous-fluid tern efficiency presented in this illustration apply to a sim-
sweep efficiencies for linedrive networks with different plified system, there are two conclusions that can be drawn
values of d/u, where d is the distance between rows of from the information: (1) at breakthrough, the staggered
t--*--t--*---+--*--t--*--T
I I
I I I
i o i o i o i o i
Fig. 44.1 lE-Nine-spot injection system showing the reservoir
element represented by the model.
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
( 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
( 0 0 0 0
0 0-a
( 0 0 x d d*:-? 0
0 0 0
( 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
< 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 o-o- -
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
) 0 0 0 0
c 0 0 0
0 500 1000
SCALE W
Fig. 44.12-Typical random flood network
04
/
I/
02,
01 I I I I I I I I
0 04 08 1.2 1.6 2.0 24 28 32 36 40
Fig. 44.13-The variation of the calculated steady-state,
homogeneous-fluid sweep efficiencies of line-drive
networks with d/a = distance between the injection
and producing lines/(well spacing within the lines).
I = direct line drive and II = staggered line drive.
line drive will always result in a greater pattern efficien-
cy than the direct line drive regardless of the value of d/u,
and (2) the increase in pattern efficiency is rather insig-
nificant for d/u values that are greater than 2.4.
Muskat presents steady-state equations for computing
breakthrough time and breakthrough sweep efficiency for
the several waterflooding networks. The numerical values
of these idealized flow capacities and sweep efficiencies
are the result of complex pressure distributions within the
flood pattern. As the flood front advances through the pat-
tern, the isopotential lines, which control the streamlines
and pressure gradients, are constantly changing. How-
ever, for the special case of a mobility ratio of one, it
is possible to predict the pressure distribution and stream-
lines of a given pattern by reasonably simple analytical
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
Fig. 44.14-The steady-state, homogeneous-fluid equipressure Fig. 44.16-The steady-state, homogeneous-fluid equipressure
contours and streamlines In a Iwo-well element of contours and streamlines in a quadrant of a five-spot
a direct-line-drive network. Numbers represent per- network element. Numbers represent percentages
centages of the total pressure drop. of the total pressure drop.
38 36 343228 0253033 35 37
Fig. 44.15-The steady-state, homogeneous-fluid equipressure
contours and streamlines in a two-well element of
a staggered-line-drive network. Numbers represent
percentages of the total pressure drop.
44-16
Fig. 44.17-The steady-state, homogeneous-fluid equipressure
contours and streamlines in a segment of a seven-
spot-network element. Numbers represent percen-
tages of the total pressure drop.
techniques. Figs. 44.14 through 44.17 are taken from it is easy to determine the fluid interface position at any
Muskat and Wyckoffz8 and represent steady-state time during the flood by using the methods described by
isopotential contours and streamlines for systems with Craft and Hawkins. I2 In the particular case analyzed for
homogeneous fluids that have direct linedrive, staggered a tive-spot pattern and a mobility ratio of 1 .O, depicted
linedrive, five-spot, and seven-spot networks, respective- by Fig. 44.18, the calculated breakthrough sweep effi-
ly. When the isopotential lines and streamlines are known, ciency is 72 %. This corresponds to a value of 7 1.5 % that
,. - . -- . .
52
54
55
56
57
58
2:
62
5
66
70
80
Fig. 44.18-Potentiometric model study of the five-spot network,
showing the isopotential lines, the flow lines, and
two flood fronts.
Fig. 44.19-Flood between alternate lines of input and output
wells
Fig. 44.20-Flood in five-spot array.
Fig. 44.21-Flood in inverted seven-spot array
was computed by Muskat as the steady-state breakthrough
sweep efficiency for the five-spot pattern at a mobility
ratio of 1.0.
Analog Methods for Investigating Area1 Sweep Effi-
ciency. Several types of analog models have been used
in the petroleum industry to study the shape of injection-
fluid fronts and to evaluate areal sweep efficiencies. All
the models depend on the analogy between Darcys law
and Ohms law for a conductive medium that is scaled
to represent the reservoir geometry. One of the earliest
of these analo
Wyckoff et al.
59
s is an electrolytic model designed by
Its operation is based on the movement
of copper ammonium and zinc ammonium ions in a medi-
um such as blotting paper or gelatin. Figs. 44. I9 through
44.22 are photographic histories of various pattern floods
under steady-state, homogeneous-fluid flow conditions,
as obtained by using a blotter-type electrolytic model. Fig.
44.23 shows the same type of photographic history but
it represents an irregular well network and was obtained
with the gelatin type of electrolytic model. 3o
The potentiometric model was introduced to the indus-
try in 1939 by Swearingen3 as a method for studying
sweep efficiency in gas-cycling operations; the model has
been further refined for waterflood studies by Hurst and
McCarty 32 and Lee33 The potentiometric model is based
on the same basic principle as the electrolytic model ex-
cept that electron flow, rather than ionic flow, is
measured.
Porous Reservoir Models. The approach presented by
Slobod and CaudleM is another that has been used by the
petroleum industry for studying areal pattern efficiency;
this involves scaled porous models of the reservoir ele-
ment. The model initially is saturated with a fluid that rep-
Fig. 44.22-Flood m seven-spot array
resents the reservoir oil. Injected fluid in this case contains
an X-ray-absorbing material and the displacing front can
be followed on a fluorescent screen or X-ray film. Fig.
44.24 is an X-ray shadowgra
7!
h study of the five-spot
model by Slobod and Caudle.. An areal sweep efticien-
cy at breakthrough for the 1 : I mobility system is indi-
cated as 69%
Two-Dimensional (20) Numerical Models. In an ear-
ly paper describing the use of numerical models in pre-
dicting flood coverage for a peripheral, or random, water
injection program, McCarty and BarfieldZh presented re-
sults obtained for two typical field studies, as shown in
Figs. 44.25 and 44.26. In this approach, the computer
is used to perform essentially the same calculations as
those described by Muskat, with the reservoir defined by
a grid network. A valid method of numerical analysis is
used to allow solution of the basic differential equations
that describe the simultaneous flow of oil and water. As
is true of the methods described by Muskat and Wyck-
off, 28 Stahl, 35 and Craft and Hawkins, I2 the digital com-
puter calculates the pressure distribution in the reservoir
and then tracks the progress of the interface between the
displacing and displaced phases.
This calculation can be done for any combination of
injection and producing rates. The approach will allow
the calculation of the optimal sweep efficiency under a
particular pattern as a function of reservoir injection and
producing rate distribution.
Mobility-Ratio Effects. In the previous discussion of
various methods of studying areal sweep efficiency, it is
important to realize that each technique is based on the
assumption that isopotential lines remain fixed during the
advance of the front; that is. that the mobility of the dis-
lnput=30.8% of Area
1
hput = 82 % of Area
2
Input 130% of Area
3
Composite Flood
5
Input 195% of Area
4
Fig. 44.23-The photographic history of the injection-fluid fronts
in an injection project of limited area and with an
irregular well distribution, under steady-state,
homogeneous-fluid-flow conditions as obtained with
a gelatin electrolytic model. Double circles indicate
injection wells.
Fig. 44.24-Typical radiograph showing areal sweepout efficien-
cy for the five-spot well spacing. Mobility ratio = 1.
0 INJECTION WELL
. PRODUCTION WELL
t, EQUAL-TIME LINE
Fig. 44.25-Typical flood pattern resulting from field study.
placing fluid is the same as that of the displaced phase.
However, it is well known that isopotential lines change
constantly during most injection operations. Consequent-
ly, the actual pattern efficiency that will result in the reser-
voir can be quite different from that indicated by a
simplified analysis that assumes a mobility ratio of 1.
The mobility ratio is probably the most important fac-
tor involved in determining pattern efficiency. Even
though the methods previously cited were based on the
assumption of a mobility ratio of unity, it does not mean
that they are not of practical use, and the resulting infor-
mation has served as a basis for further experimental in-
vestigations of certain geometrical characteristics that
come into play during waterflood operations.
Although the early analog models that were used for
studying pattern efficiency did not take into considera-
tion the mobility-ratio effects, later investigations have
made use of ingenious ideas to circumvent this restric-
tion. Burton and Crawford36 described an electrolytic
model that has been used to estimate flood coverage by
mobility ratios of 0.5,0.85, 1.2, and 3. In that work, the
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE 8. WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-1s
INJECTION WELL
PRODUCTION WELL
EQUAL-TIME LiNE
Fig. 44.26-Typical flood pattern resulting from field study.
adjustment for mobility ratios was accomplished through
the use of metallic complex ammonium ions other than
the copper and zinc compounds used by Wyckoff et al. 29
Aronofsky 37 has been able to include mobility ratios
other than unity in a special ada
P
tation of the potentio-
metric model. Nobles and Janzen 8 have presented a var-
iation of the potentiometric model by replacing the liquid
with a system of interconnecting resistors; by changing
the values of these resistors, they were able to introduce
mobility-ratio effects.
The most logical model with which to study mobility-
ratio effects is a porous model, or, specifically, a porous
model that uses X-ray shadowgraph techniques. In this
type of analysis, the injection and displaced phases may
be selected so that almost any mobility ratio can be fixed
in the reservoir model. Experimental studies by Slobod
and Caudle34 take advantage of this feature of the X-ray
shadowgraph technique, so that liquids of different vis-
cosities can be used as the displaced and displacing phases
and the effect of mobility ratios can be evaluated. Their
original work has been extended by Caudle et al. 3y Fig.
RECIPROCAL OF
MOBILITY RATIO ~2.2
RECIPROCAL OF
/
RECIPROCAL OF
MOBILITY
RATIO=O.B
Fig. 44.27-Areal sweepout patterns, five-spot well spacing.
RECIPROCAL OF MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 44.28-Sweepout pattern efficiency vs. reciprocal of mobility
ratio for the five-spot well spacing.
44.27 is an X-ray shadowgraph that shows the effects of
the reciprocal of mobility ratio on sweep efficiency at
breakthrough for three different reciprocals of mobility
ratios. Fig. 44.28 is a plot of the reciprocal mobility ra-
tio vs. five-spot pattern sweepout efficiency at break-
through. It is apparent from these illustrations that there
is little change in breakthrough efficiency for reciprocal
mobility ratios that are greater than 7.
In his monograph, Craig4 has summarized the area1
sweep efficiency studies that have been presented in the
literature for various flooding patterns. These summaries
are listed in Tables 44.6 through 44.12.
Fig. 44.29 is a plot of the area1 sweep efficiencies at
breakthrough that were developed as a function of mo-
bility ratio by the various investigations referenced in Ta-
ble 44.7. As indicated, there is good agreement in the
region below a mobility ratio of 1 .O; however, consider-
able deviation exists at higher mobility ratios. Craig4
points out that potentiometric model data obtained for high
mobility ratios may yield high sweep efficiency values
and that miscible displacement methods may give low re-
TABLE 44.6-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-LINEDRIVE PATTERNS
Date Author(s) Method
1933 Wyckoff et a/. electrolytic model
1934 Muskat and Wyckoff electrolytic model
1952 Aronofsky numerical and
potentiometric model
1952 Slobod and Caudle X-ray shadowgraph using
miscible fluids
1954 Dyes et al. * X-ray shadowgraph using
miscible fluids
1955 Cheek and Menzie fluid mapper
1956 Prats numerical approach
1956 Burton and Crawford gelatin model
Line Drive
direct
direct
staggered
direct
direct
direct
staggered
direct
staggered
direct
d/a
1.0
0.5 to 4.0
0.5 to 4.0
1.5
1.5
1 .o
1 .o
2.0
.O to 6.0
1 .o
Mobility
Ratio
1.0
1 .o
0.1. 1.0. 10
0.1 to 10
0.1 to 17
0.04 to 11.0
1.0
0.5 to 3.0
Af ter- breakthrough perl ormance al so presented I these ref erences
TABLE 44.7-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-DEVELOPED FIVE-SPOT
1933 Wyckoff et al. electrolytic model
1934 Muskat and Wyckoff electrolytic model
1951 Fay and Prats numerical
1952 Slobod and Caudle X-rav shadoworaph using
1953 Hurst
1954 Dyes et al. *
1955 Craig et al.
1955 Cheek and Menzie
1956 Aronofsky and Ramey
1958 Nobles and Janzen
1960 Habermann
1961 Bradley et al.
Af ter- b reakthrough perf ormance al so , , re sented , n these ref erences
miscible-fluids -
numerical
X-ray shadowgraph using
miscible fluids
X-ray shadowgraph using
immiscible fluids
fluid mapper
resistance network
fluid flow model using
dyed fluids
using conductive cloth
Mobilitv
Ratio
1.0
1.0
4.0
0.1 to 10
1.0
0.6 to 10
0.16 to 5.0
0.04 to 10.0
10 to 10.0
0.1 to 6.0
0.037 to 130 46
0.25 to 4 47
Reference
29
28
43
34
44
40
45
41
37
38
Reference
29
28
37
34
40
41
42
36
TABLE 44.6-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-NORMAL
AND INVERTED FIVE-SPOT PILOT
Mobility
Type
Ratio
1958 Paulsell * fluid mapper inverted 0.319
1.0
2.01
1959 Moss et al. potentiometric inverted
1960 Caudle and Loncaric X-ray shadowgraph normal 0.1 tom10.0
1962 Neilson and Flock rock flow model inverted 0.423
Areal Sweep
Efficiency at
Breakthrough
(W
Reference
117.0 48
105.0
99.0
92.0 49
t 50
110.0 51
i Note base area=a . where a I S the di stance between adwent produci ng wel l s)
Af ter. breakthraugh perf ormance al so presented ! n these rel erences
Depends on ratl o of , , ect, on rate to prodwng rate.
suits because of mixing. As a result, he concluded that
the most probable value of sweep efficiency at high mo-
bility ratios for the five-spot pattern is represented by the
solid line of Fig. 44.29. Breakthrough sweep efficiencies
obtained later, from investigations with numerical
methods conducted in 1979 by Martin and Wegner,s6 are
in agreement with this conclusion.
There are insufficient data for patterns other than the
five-spot to allow a comparison of the results obtained
by various investigators: however, the correlations shown
in Figs. 44.30 through 44.48 are standards in the indus-
try for determining areal sweep efficiency relationships
for the normal patterns. In these figures,
Vd = displaceable PVs injected. fraction,
f, = fraction of total flow coming from the
swept portion of the pattern,
fjc,l, = corner well producing water cut, and
fj,r,l, = side well producing water cut.
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE 8. WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-21
TABLE 44.9-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-DEVELOPED
NORMAL SEVEN-SPOT PATTERN
Mobility
Date Author(s) Method Ratio
1933 Wyckoff et al. electrolytic model 1.0
1934 Muskat and Wyckoff electrolytic model 1.0
1956 Burton and Crawford* gelatin model 0.33
0.85
2.0
1981 Guckert X-ray shadowgraph using 0.25
miscible fluids 0.33
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Af ter- breakthrough perf ormance al so presented I these ref erences
Areal Sweep
Efficiency at
Breakthrough
W)
Reference
82.0 29
74.0 28
80 5 36
77.0
74.5
88.1 to 88.2 52
88.4 to 88.6
80.3 to 80.5
72.8 to 73.6
68.1 to 69.5
66.0 to 67.3
64.0 to 64.6
TABLE 44.10-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-DEVELOPED INVERTED (SINGLE
INJECTION WELL) SEVEN-SPOT PATTERN
Date Author(s)
1933 Wyckoff et al.
Method
electrolytic model
Ratio*
1.0
Areal Sweep
Efficiency at
Breakthrouah
(%) -
82.2
Reference
29
1956 Burton and Crawford gelatin model 0.5 77.0 36
1.3 76.0
2.5 75.0
1961 Guckert* X-ray shadowgraph using 0.25 87.7 to 89.0 52
miscible fluids 0.33 84.0 to 84.7
0.50 79.0 to 80.5
1.0 72.8 to 73.7
2.0 68.8 to 69.0
3.0 66.3 to 67.2
4.0 63.0 to 63.6
Af ter- breakthrough perf ormance al so presented m these ref erences
TABLE 44.11 -AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-
DEVELOPED NORMAL NINE-SPOT PATTERN
Mobility
Date Author Method Ratio Reference
1939- Krutter Electrolytic
1961 Guckert modet 1.0 53
X-ray
shadowgraph
using miscible
fluids 1.0 and 2.0 52
Af ter breakthrough perf ormance al so presented m thi s ref erence
TABLE 44.12-AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY STUDIES-INVERTED
(SINGLE INJECTION WELL) NINE-SPOT PATTERN
Date Author Method
1964 Kimbler et al. X-ray shadowgraph using miscible fluids
1964 Watson et al. fluid flow model using dyed fluid
Af l er- breakthrough perf ormance al so presented i n these ref erences
Mobility
Ratio Reference
0.1 to 10.0 25
0.1 to 10.0 54
PATTERN AREA
Fig. 44.29-Areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough, developed
five-spot pattern.
I.0
MOBILITY RAT?l
100
0 r- b- 7 0
! ,
0 L. - , - l A
PATTERN AREA
REF.
.
29
x 40
0 36
Fig. 44.33-Effect of reciprocal mobility ratio on oil production
direct line drive, d/a =1.O.
for the direct line drive (square pattern); d/a =I.
I I
4o0.1
Ill1 I IllI I !I11
I.0
MOBILITY PA:&
I.9
0 r-O-7 0
I
I
Id
h--a--h
PATTERN AREA
REF.
-
0 26
0 40
. 36
staggered line drive, d/a = 1 .O.
0.1 02 04 0.608 I 2 456 810 20 30
Fig. 44.32-Effect of reciprocal mobility ratio on the displace-
able volumes injected for the direct line drive (square
pattern); d/a = 1.
100
90
l-80
b
Y
m70
G
, 1 /IIt I
060.610 20 40 608010 20 30
01 0.2 0.4 0.60.8 1.0 20 40 6.08010 20 30
able volumes injected for the staggered line drive;
d/a =1.
Fig. 44.35-Effect of reciprocal mobility ratio on oil production
for the staggered line drive; d/a = 1
able volumes injected for the five-spot pattern.
90
60
50
01 0.2 0.4 0608lO 20 40 601
RECI PROCAL OF MOBI LI TY RATI O
Fig. 44.37-Effect 01 reciprocal mobility ratio on oil production
for the five-spot pattern.
PATTERN AREA
REf.
- 29
: 28
. 36
0 52
0
normal seven-spot pattern.
o-- 4,
, i
d n 0
\
\ i
O-- -+
PATTERN AREA
REF.
. 29
3 36
52
inverted seven-spot pattern.
Fig. 44.40-Sweepout pattern efficiency as a function of mobil-
ity ratio for the nine-spot pattern at various displace-
able volumes injected.
ity ratio for the nine-spot pattern at various side-well
producing cuts ( f,,).
PRODUCl NG RATE RATI O no. 5
SI DE WELL ABANDONED AT 11, . *0. 99
ity ratio for the nine-spot pattern at various corner-
well producing cuts ( f,C,).
PRODUCI NG RATE RATI O . , . O
SI DE WELL ABANDONED AT 11, . * 0. 99
ity ratio for the nine-spot pattern at various displace-
able volumes injected.
PRODUCI NG RAlE RATI O I I . 0
SI K WELL ADANDOWEO AT I , , . * 0. 99
1. 0
producing cuts ( f,,,).
well producing cuts ( f,,,).
pnoDucI N0 RATC RATI O . 0. 0
910~ WELL AOANDOWLD LT ( I , . * 0. ~3
well producing cuts ( f,,,).
44-25
PRODUCI NG RATE RATI O . J . , ,
SI DE WELL A8ANDONEO AT f , , . . 0 95
producing cuts ( f,,,).
Effect of Reservoir Dip. The effect of reservoir dip on
five-spot sweep patterns has been investigated by Mat-
thews and Fischer. 57 It was found that distortion would
occur in the normal sweepout patterns in dipping reser-
voirs. Most of this distortion was attributed to gravita-
tional effects. The conclusion reached in this study was
that pattern flooding is practical for dipping reservoirs but
that the pattern should be shifted to allow for dip. Figs.
44.49 through 44.52 are charts that show how to locate
wells correctly for pilot and field five-spot floods in reser-
voirs that
N=
SF =
ha;e substantial dip. In these figures,
ratio of square root of production rates,
position of center of unflooded area at
moment of fill-up (correct drilling
location) fraction of length of side or
diagonal,
FF = ratio of viscous to gravity forces defined
by
P=
4=
F =
8
fluid viscosity, poise,
injection rate before interference,
so -so,
s, -s,, 3
so =
so, =
s, =
s,, =
oil saturation at start of flood, fraction,
ROS, fraction,
gas saturation at start of flood, fraction,
and
residual gas saturation, fraction.
Prats er al. 58 have made analytical studies of the same
problem. Van der Poe1 and Killian have made analyt-
ical and analog studies to investigate the area that can be
swept out in dipping reservoirs by using water drive
around the structurally highest wells.
well producing cuts ( f,,).
Effect of Directional Permeability. Some formations
exhibit differences in reservoir permeability in one
horizontal direction relative to another. When this situa-
tion is encountered, it is apparent that pattern sweep effi-
ciencies will be affected adversely when the direction of
high permeability is between an injector and a producing
well. The initial study to determine the effect of direc-
tional permeability on the area1 sweep performance of a
five-spot pattern flood was made by Hutchinson. 6o If the
X-ray shadowgraph technique is used and a directional
permeability difference of 16 to 1 is considered, the data
shown in Figs. 44.53 and 44.54 are obtained for mobili-
ty ratios varying from 0.1 to 10. It is apparent from these
data that improved sweep efficiency results when the pat-
tern is oriented with the direction of maximum permea-
bility, parallel to a line passing through the injection wells.
In later investigations, Landrum and Crawford6 and
Mortada and Nabor6* also studied the effects of direc-
tional permeability on five-spot and linedrive patterns. The
results of their studies confirm the data obtained by
Hutchinson. ho
Effect of Reservoir Fractures
In 1958, Dyes et ~1. 63 presented one of the most com-
prehensive studies of the effect of vertical fractures on
sweepout pattern efficiencies. Their investigations showed
that relatively long and highly conductive vertical frac-
tures, not usually obtained from fracturing operations, are
required to affect sweep efficiencies substantially. Other
investigations 64-67 have confirmed the results of Dyes et
al. ; these show that vertical fracturing can affect break-
through sweep efficiency significantly, but that sweep ef-
ficiency at higher water cuts is influenced to a much lesser
degree. Table 44.13 is a summary of the results obtained
by Dyes et al. 63
Landrum and Crawford68 have investigated the effect
of horizontal fractures on sweep efficiency in thick reser-
voirs. The results of their studies, along with those of
other investigators, 36,69,70 show that the adverse effect
44-26
Fig. 44.49-Correct location of production well in pilot five-spot-side along strike
Fig. 44.50-Correct location of production well in pilot five-spot-diagonal along strike
of horizontal fractures on areal sweep efficiency is a direct
function of fracture radii; that is, only small effects were
observed on sweep efficiency when the fractures had small
radii. However, as the fracture radius increases, sweep
efficiency will be reduced drastically.
Methods for Predicting Waterflood Performance
There are many papers and articles in the petroleum in-
dustry literature that present or discuss methods for pre-
dicting waterflood or water-injection performance. Most
of the classic prediction techniques that have been devel-
oped since the early work by Muskat, Stiles, I9
Buckley-Everett, 2o Dykstra-Parsons, I5 and others have
been modifications, enhancements, or extensions of those
pioneering techniques, which were discussed in the ini-
tial part of this section. In many cases, those techniques,
when combined with data obtained from area1 sweep in-
vestigations, provided the basis from which several of the
methods were conceived and developed.
44-27
Fig. 44.51-Correct location of production wells in a field of five-spots-side along strike.
Fig. 44.52-Correct location of production wells in a field of five-spots-diagonal along strike.
In his monograph, Craig4 has described and compared
the classic prediction methods that were presented before
197 1, and has included recommendations for selecting the
appropriate waterflood prediction technique to obtain the
desired results. The methods that were considered were
categorized into five groups, which may be summarized
as follows: (1) reservoir heterogeneity (Refs. 15, 19, 22,
and 71 through 80), (2) area1 sweep methods (Refs. 25,
28, 34, 37, 40. 50, 55, and 81 through 85), (3) displace-
ment mechanism (Refs. 20, 21, 45, and 86 through 97),
(4) numerical methods (Refs. 98 through 103), and
(5) empirical approaches (Refs. 104 through 107).
Craigs monograph is certainly the most comprehen-
sive review and evaluation of the techniques for predict-
ing waterflood performance that has appeared in the
petroleum industry literature.
Craig compared the capabilities of each method that was
evaluated to the capabilities of the perfect method, in
which the calculation procedures would allow considera-
tion of all pertinent fluid-flow, well-pattern, and hetero-
geneity effects-i.e., the influence of relative permeability
characteristics, wettability, pore size distribution, and in-
itial and final water and oil saturations; the effect of differ-
ent well arrangements and mobility ratio on injection rate
Fig. 44.53-Sweepout pattern efficiency in a five-spot pattern
of anisotropic horizontal permeability. The most
favorable arrangement has the direction of maxi-
mum permeability parallel to lines through injection
wells, as illustrated here.
and area1 sweep efficiency; and the effect of the hetero-
geneity of the reservoir rock recovery and performance.
Table 44.14 shows Craigs evaluation of these tech-
niques, as compared to the perfect method.
Of the many classic methods that were evaluated, Craig
has concluded that the three that most closely meet the
requirements of the perfect method are Hi ins-
Leighton, 93-95.97 Craig et al. 4.108 and Prats et al.
!G, 108
The Higgins-Leighton method can be used for: various
flooding patterns or for irregular well patterns;while the
other two can be applied only for the five-spot pattern.
Computer programs for the Higgins-Leighton and Craig
et al. techniques are available in the literature. Examples
of the calculation procedures and compbe descriptions
of the techniques also can be found in the literature. The
'"r
Fig. 44.54-Sweepout pattern efficiency in a five-spot pattern
operating under the least favorable arrangement;
i.e., with the direction of maximum permeability
parallel 10 a line from an injection well direct to a
producing well.
best, detailed description of the Higgings-Leighton tech-
nique is given in Ref. 97. Complete and detailed calcula-
tions for an example waterflooding problem that was
solved by the Crai
zi
et al. technique are
B
resented in
Craigs monograph and by Timmerman. 8 An exam-
ple of the use of the Prats et al. technique is also presented
by Timmerman. lo8
Other authors have compared results obtained by a num-
ber of the classic methods with actual field performance.
Abernathy 09 compared the observed performance of
five-spot waterfloods in three carbonate reservoirs in west
Texas with the performance predicted by the Stiles,
Craig et al.,45 and Hendricksongo techniques. Figs.
44.55 through 44.57 show these comparisons.
TABLE 44.13-EFFECT OF VERiTlCAL FRACTURES ON FIVE-SPOT PATTERN SWEEP PERFORMANCE:
FRACTURES IN IYNE WITH INJECTION-PRODUCTION WELL DIRECTION
Fracture Length
(Fraction of Distance Between
Fractured Injector and Producer)
Unfractured
M
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
0.1
1.1
3.0
Areal Sweep
Efficiency (%)
90%
Breakthrough Watercut
99 99
72 99
56 92
93 98
45 96
39 92
88 98
37 96
28 92
33 97
14 93
IO 83
78 98
43 95
40 88
38 98
24 96
22 92
18 98
13 94
9 07
Throughput at 90% Watercut
(Displaceable PV)
1.0
1.8
2.2
1 .o
1.7
2.2
1.1
I .a
2.7
1.2
2.3
3.8
1.1
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.7
2.1
1 .a
2.3
3.3
44-29
Fig. 44.55-Calculated vs. actual performance of Panhandle Fig. 44.56-Comparison of actual and predicted recovery his-
field. tory, Flood 1.
Fig. 44.56-Calculated vs. actual performance of Foster field
pilot.
Fig. 44.59-;;m$~~ of actual and predicted oil recovery,
Guerrero and Earlougher lo6 compared the actual and
predicted performance of two floods. The predictive
methods that were compared included Stiles, modified
Stiles, Dykstra-Parsons, Prats et al. s, and the empiri-
cal approach developed by Guerrero and Earlougher. The
results of these comparisons are shown in Figs. 44.58
through 44.61. (Also see Ref. 4, Figs. 8.16 through 8.19.)
Higgins and Leighton% compared the results obtained by
using their method with actual field performance and with
predicted performance obtained by the methods of Prats
el al. and Slider.74 This comparison is shown in Fig.
44.62. (Also see Ref. 4, Fig. 8.20.)
It is obvious from these comparisons that the fields do
not always perform as predicted regardless of the method
that is used to estimate future performance. This is true
for many reasons, including (1) an incorrect or inadequate
description of the reservoir rock, fluid, and water/oil flow
properties, (2) a prediction technique that does not have
the capability to consider all the factors that affect water-
flood performance, and (3) the fact that there is always
a question of the reliability of the estimates of the inter-
well character of the reservoir rock and the vertical and
horizontal variations that exist in reservoir rock and fluid
properties.
44-31
Fig. 44.60-Comparison of actual and predicted recovery his-
tory, Flood 2.
The prediction techniques selected as most promising
by Craig4 appear to deserve primary consideration when
one of the classic techniques is being selected for pro-
jecting future reservoir performance under waterflood op-
erations. The comparisons made by Abernathy lo9 show
the Craig-Stiles multilayer method to be capable of making
predictions that yield a good match with actual reservoir
performance. In the Guerrero and Earlougher compari-
son, the Prats et al. method performed very well in the
case of Flood 2 but erred badly with respect to oil recov-
ery in the prediction of the behavior of Flood 1. The Hig-
gins and Leighton method gave a good comparison with
respect to actual performance in the case presented.
Since the time when Craig made his evaluation and
comparison of the classic prediction methods that were
available, reservoir simulation models have continued to
be improved and expanded to the point that, today, there
are models available for prediction of waterflood or water-
injection performance under a variety of conditions. The
reservoir simulation models that are available to the in-
dustry at present are capable of considering any type of
flooding pattern, as well as gravity, capillary, and vis-
cous forces, with virtually any type of three-dimensional
(3D) reservoir description. The initial developments of
the numerical methods were made by Douglas et al. 98
in 1958, and this work was later extended to two dimen-
sions by Douglas ef al. Iw in 1959. Since that time, nu-
merical models and reservoir simulation techniques have
improved continuously, in step with the increased speed
and storage capacity of the computing systems that have
become available.
Although the subject of reservoir simulator development
and application has been covered in another section of this
handbook, it is important to emphasize that the simula-
tion models and techniques that are presently available
to the industry are capable of modeling the most com-
plex reservoir systems. With the use of these tools, pre-
dictions of waterflood and water-injection performance
can be made in such detail that almost every factor that
affects reservoir and individual well behavior can be con-
sidered and simulated.
Selection of the Waterflood Prediction Method
When choosing the appropriate waterflood prediction
method, the engineer must bear in mind the objective in
Fig. 44.61-Comparison of actual and predicted oil recovery,
Flood 2
r,
PRATS ET AL. METHOD
d
0.2 04 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.4
CUMULATIVE INJECTION IN FLOODABLE ::LUMES
Fig. 44.62-Comparison of field behavior with predicted perfor-
mances by the Prats et al., Slider, and Higgins-
Leighton methods.
making the recovery predictions, the amount and quality
of basic data that are available, and the resources that are
available for performing the calculations in light of both
the manpower that will be necessary and the actual costs
for computer use or data processing. In some instances,
a simple estimate of ultimate oil recovery may be suffi-
cient and, in fact, it may be the only reliable estimate pos-
sible because of data limitations. However, in most cases,
more detailed projections will be required to evaluate the
economic potential of the proposed project; and a method
must be used that will allow the estimation of future well
requirements, producing WORs, producing rates, oil
recovery, injection well requirements, and injection rates
and distribution, all as functions of time.
The methods available to the reservoir engineer range
in complexity from those that provide an estimate of ulti-
mate recovery to those that use sophisticated reservoir
simulation models that are capable of predicting both
reservoir and individual well performance for water in-
jection operations. However, the time requirements and
costs for making the calculations are in direct proportion
44-32
16
2 14

i?
F 12
6

>- 10
t-
8
fi 0.8
REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORR
5
P
3 06
4
:
0.4
0.2
0
0 50 loo 150 200 250 300 350
TEMPERATURE DEG F
Fig. 44.63-Viscosity of water at oilfield temperatures and
pressures.
to the complexity of the technique used. The engineer must
choose the method for predicting performance while
taking into account the availability of time and resources
and the reliability and quantity of the basic data at hand.
The most basic evaluation is that of defining the ulti-
mate oil recovery to be expected from the project. This
can be determined by using the Welge* technique or by
estimating ROSs and conformance. Empirical approaches
are also available to provide these estimates if data are
limited. Guthrie and Greenberger 04 have developed an
equation, based on waterflooding experience in a num-
ber of sandstone reservoirs, that has proven effective for
estimating the ultimately recoverable oil. The equation
is as follows:
ER =0.2719 log k+0.25569S,.--0.1355 log p0
- 1.5380$-0.0003488h+0.11403, . . . . . (14)
where ER is the oil recovery efficiency, fraction, and h
is the formation thickness, ft.
Another equation that is applicable in estimating the ul-
timate recoverable oil was developed by an API commit-
tee. lo7 The relationship developed by this committee is
as follows.
ER co.54898 [ ;;w)] 04** (%) O
-0.2159
)((S )-0.1903
w (13
where pi is the initial pressure and p(, is the pressure at
depletion (abandonment).
When a projection of producing WOR as a function of
oil recovery is required, the basic methods that are avail-
able are those developed by Stiles, I9 Slider,74 and
others. These procedures allow a prediction of the water-
cut performance of the waterflood as well as the ultimate
recovery. The published correlation charts of Johnson,
based on the data developed by Dykstra-Parsons, I5 will
allow a quick prediction of future waterflood performance.
For a more detailed projection of future performance,
Craig4 has suggested the technl;$ues proposed ,x
Higgins-Leighton,93-97 Craig et al., and Prats et ul.
These techniques require considerably more engineering
time and more reservoir data than do the basic calcula-
tions, but they will enable projections to be made in suffi-
cient detail so that an economic analysis of the project
can be made for comparison with the projected return that
might be expected as a result of alternative operational
programs.
The complex reservoir simulation models that are avail-
able to the industry today can produce projections of water
injection performance that consider all the factors that in-
fluence the behavior of the injection operation. Their use
requires a detailed description of the reservoir rock, fluid,
and fluid-flow properties, as well as the characterization
of individual wells. When the basic data are available for
future performance predictions, there is no doubt that the
simulation approach will produce the highest confidence
level that is attainable with todays technology. When
compared to the other alternatives that are available, reser-
voir simulation approaches are expensive; however, if
used properly, these techniques will enable a complete
evaluation of the potential of a proposed water injection
project.
The engineer has many choices available in selecting
the approach that he will use to evaluate a prospective
water injection operation. To repeat, the selection should
be made while bearing in mind the overall objectives of
the evaluation, the resources that are available, and the
data that are either immediately available or that can be
obtained within the imposed time or monetary limitations.
Water-Injection Well Behavior
The initial water-injection rate of a well depends on the
(I) effective permeability, (2) oil and water viscosity,
(3) sand thickness, (4) effective well radius, (5) reservoir
pressure, and (6) injection pressure at the sandface. As
water begins to fill the reservoir, other factors are intro-
duced to affect the behavior of the injection well. These
factors are influenced by the increase in flow resistance
as water extends into the reservoir and by the quality of
the injection water.
The fundamental equation 24 for the rate of water in-
jection into a well is expressed as
1 h, =
0.00708k,h(Pi,f-p,)
. . . . . CLn ln(r,,r,)
(16)
There are numerous uncertainties that make quantita-
tive applications of the equation difficult. They do not,
however, impair its usefulness in ex laining the relative
importance of each of the factors.
P
o
44-33
I. Effective Permeability. The symbol k,,. denotes the
effective permeability (millidarcies) of the sand to water.
According to laboratory work on clean sands, the rela-
tive permeability to water ranges from 30 to 60% of the
dry permeability as the water saturation varies from 70
to 85 % Tests on virgin and artiticially oil-saturated cores
show that the effective permeability of the sand to water
is often less than one-tenth ofthe dry permeability. When-
ever possible, the effective permeability to water should
be determined on representative cores from the field.
2. Viscosity. The viscosity (centipoise) of the injected
water, pa., can be measured, or a value approximated,
from Fig. 44.63.
3. Sand Thickness. The sand thickness, h, is the net
effective sand thickness (feet) of the interval that is open
for injection.
4. Pressure. The bottomhole flowing injection pressure,
pi,,:f, (pounds per square inch) at the sand face can be es-
timated from the wellhead pressure, the depth of the well,
the density of the water, and the flowing pressure gra-
dients. pr is the effective reservoir pressure (external
boundary pressure).
5. Well Radius. The effective radius of a well, rw.
(feet) may vary from a few inches to several feet, depend-
ing on the type of completion.
6. Pressure Radius. The pressure radius (external
boundary radius), r,, can be estimated, at least roughly,
from the amount of water that is injected and from the
available pore space, and is the distance from the injec-
tion well where the pressure is pe. The available pore
space is defined as the total PV less that occupied by in-
terstitial water and oil. As more and more water is in-
jected, the pressure radius, re, in Eq. 16 increases and,
therefore, the injection rate, i,,, must decrease with time.
The pressure radius, rc, depends on the cumulative
volume of water that is injected into the space that is avail-
able, in accordance with the equation
) . . . . .
(17)
where Wj is the cumulative water injected, bbl.
The oil may or may not be moved by the advancing
water. If the oil is not moved, the water will fill the gas
space. If the oil is moved ahead of the water bank. the
volume of injected water that is required to fill the reser-
voir with liquids (oil and water), for a given distance (to
external radius), will still be the same as that which was
originally necessary to fill the gas space.
If a large percentage of oil is being moved, Eq. I6 does
not hold strictly true, and a more exact expression prior
to interference is
I ,,. =
0.00708hk,,,(P,,,5-Pr)
(~,,,lk,,.)ln(R,,/r,, )+(~L,/k,)ln(R,lR,,.)
(18)
where R ,,. is the outer radius of the waterflood front and
R, is the outer radius of the oil bank.
As a rule, the width of the oil bank is small in compar-
ison to the radius of the encroached water so that very
little error will be introduced by considering the simpler
c3
2
8
; ; 8
B
E7
a
&6
a
$5
a
?I 4
E
a 3
9
1
r
2
9 1
e
2
7 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
=
TIME-DAYS
Fig. 44.64-Five-spot pattern computed input well history
case. The change in intake rate with time can be calculat-
ed by Eq. 19.
0.0253kApt
=I+
0.0142khAp
/-h.4q(h4*
-1
P II 1 M
>
x 1@00617WNy.,, I,,)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(19)
Eqs. 16, 18, and 19 can be applied to a single-well sys-
tem (radial flow); however, they are not valid for pattern
floods after interference has occurred between injection
wells. When interference occurs, the advancing liquid
converges on the producing well and, for mobility ratios
near unity, finally stabilizes at the steady-state conduc-
tivity of the specific pattern. The effect of interference
on a five-spot pattern for a system with a favorable mo-
bility ratio (MS 1) is as shown in Fig. 44.64.
Muskat and Deppe 84 have developed equations for
calculating the steady-state injectivities for the normal
flooding patterns when a mobility ratio of one is consid-
ered. These equations are as follows.
Five-spot pattern24 :
O.O01538k,hAp
1 MI = . . . .
>
(20)
Direct line drive24 :
for drl,
a
O.O01538k,,,hAp
I ,I =
(21)
p,,. log? f0.6821-0.798
rI,,
a >
' il
01
j
01 10 IO
Fig. 44.65-Conductance ratio as a function of mobility ratio and
the pattern area swept (E,), five-spot pattern.
Staggered line drive24 :
for !>l,
a
O.O01583k,hAp
I, - , . . . .
(22)
pLw log? +0.682! -0.748
rH
a >
where d is the distance between rows of wells, ft and a
is the distance between wells in a row, ft.
Seven-spot pattern 84 :
O.O02051k,,hAp
I,<, = . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
( 23)
Inverted nine-spot patterns4 :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(25)
where
d=
FP =
AP;~ =
@is =
distance between rows of wells,
corner-to-side-well producing-rate ratio,
pressure differential between injection well
and corner well, and
pressure differential between injection well
and side well.
These equations allow the determination of the steady-
state injectivities for the normal patterns if it is assumed
the system is completely filled with liquid and has a mo-
bility ratio of one.
There are a number of papers that report the results of
investigations to define the variation of injectivities for
the five-spot pattern at mobility ratios that are other than
one. Various techni ues were used. Deppeg4 and
95
Aronofsky and Ramey used potentiometric model tech-
niques; Caudle and Witte8* used the X-ray shadowgraph
technique and a porous model of the reservoir element.
In the Caudle and Witte study, * one-eighth of the five-
spot pattern was modeled. Nobles and Janzen used
resistance networks to simulate mobility differences, and
Prats et al. * used an analytical solution. Qualitatively,
all investigators arrived at the same conclusion-i.e., if
the mobility ratio is favorable (MI l), injectivities will
decline continuously during the entire operation; however,
if the mobility ratio is unfavorable (M> I), injectivities
will increase continuously.
In their work, Caudle and Witte determined the varia-
tion in injectivity for the five-spot pattern as a function
of the mobility ratio that exists before and after water
breakthrough. Fig. 44.65 shows the results of their
studies, in the form of the relationships between the con-
ductance ratio, the mobility ratio, and the fractional areas
of the reservoir that are contacted by the injected fluid.
Craig4 points out that, subsequent to fill-up, the rela-
tionships developed by Caudle and Witte can be used
along with Eq. 20 to calculate water injection rates for
the five-spot pattern:
W
. = FcXib,
where
. = water-injection rate,
i: = Caudle and Witte conductance ratio, and
ib = the injection rate of fluid that has the same
mobility as the reservoir oil in a liquid-
filled (base) pattern, as calculated from
Eq. 20.
As the intake rate declines in the early stages of injec-
tion, it is important to be able to tell whether the decline
results from the plugging of the sand (a situation that re-
quires remedial work), from natural reservoir fill-up, or
from mobility ratio effects. Consequently, a method is
required to determine the intake capacity of the well it-
self without regard to the conductivity of the well system
surrounding it. Such a method would be achieved by con-
ducting periodic tests on certain selected wells scattered
across the flood area. A close check of the efflclency of
the input of the wells could then be maintained.
One practical method of determining the efficiency of
the input wells is to use the calculated injectivity index
Fig. 44.66-Composite type log, Hewitt field, Carter County, OK.
of the well. The injectivity index is defined as the num-
ber of barrels per day of gross liquid that is pumped into
an injection well per pound per square inch of pressure
differential between the mean injection pressure and the
mean formation pressure associated with a specific sub-
surface datum, usually the mean formation depth. To be
most valuable in a study of the behavior of the individual
input wells, use of the injectivity-index concept should
be restricted to defining the conductivity of an individual
well; it should not be used to determine the general con-
ductivity of the well system. This restricted injectivity in-
dex, which may be called a localized injectivity index,
is best used in measuring the conductivity of the cylinder
of sand surrounding the well-most of the pressure drop
takes place in this cylinder, whose inside wall is the
sandface.
The localized injectivity index can be calculated from
a modified Eq. 16:
0.@-)7@%h(Pi,~-Pbp)
I &, =
cLw ln(ri,r,) 3 . . . . . . (26)
where p@ is the transient backpressure and ri is the dis-
tance from the well to the point of pressure equalization
at Pbp.
Differentiating, the localized injectivity index, with pbP
being constant, is expressed as
I-di,-
O.O0708k,h
y, ln(rj,r,). . . . .
dp,w
. . (27)
Experimentally, it has been found that, for small
volumes of injected water, di ,,A$ iw is constant. If small
volumes of water are injected during the course of a test,
r; changes only slightly; r; is considerably greater than
rw and the logarithm of ri/rw is practically constant. If,
however, larger volumes are injected during the course
of the test, the In r,/r, will no longer be constant and
the localized injectivity index, di,ldpi,, will not be con-
stant. If large enough volumes are injected so that equi-
Flg. 44.67-Hewitt unit, Chubbee structure map.
librium conditions are obtained, the corresponding pattern
formula is applicable. In the case of a five-spot pattern,
the change in intake rate for each change in pressure can
be approximated by
I- diw -
O.O03541k,,,h
dpiw
pW [ln(d/r,)-0.61901 . .
(28)
where d is the distance between unlike wells.
The transient backpressure, pbP, is a pressure
phenomenon that occurs when the intake rate of an injec-
tion well is changed. Theoretically, the flow of water from
a well into the surrounding formation will continue until
the intensity of the sandface pressure is reduced to that
of the reservoir pressure. In practice, if the pressure on
an input well suddenly is reduced to the atmospheric pres-
sure at the surface, the well backflows for a period of time
that varies from a few minutes to several hours. The pres-
sure that caused the backflow of water from the well is
defined as the transient backpressure. This pressure,
which occurs near the wellbore, is greater than the aver-
age reservoir pressure and has been attributed qualitatively
to the compressibility of water and gas near the wellbore.
When the injection is terminated, the backflow is caused
by the expansion of the water and gas that results from
the decrease in pressure. Quantitative treatment of this
phenomenon has been given by Nowak and Lester and
Hazebroek et aZ. I2 The transient backpressure gradually
dissipates and approaches the reservoir pressure. The
localized injectivity index should be determined after the
transient pressure has started falling very slowly or is in
equilibrium with the reservoir pressure.
A comparison of the injectivity indices for injection
wells in the waterflood will give an indication as to the
wells that are not performing satisfactorily, and investi-
gations should be made to determine whether the remedial
measures are necessary to improve the injectivity rate.
The intake rate of a normal well declines during its life,
at least until a constant steady-state pressure distribution
is established in the part of the reservoir affected by the
well. In addition to the normal well decline, the sandface
TABLE 44.16-SUMMARY OF ROCK AND FLUID
PROPERTIES, RESERVOIR PROPERTIES, AND
PRODUCTION-INJECTION DATA,
JAY/LITTLE ESCAMBIA CREEK (LEC) WATERFLOOD
TABLE 44.15-HEWITT UNIT RESERVOIR DATA Rock and Fluid Properties
General
Unit area, acre
Floodable net sand volume, acre-ft
Average composite thickness, ft
Original oil in place, MMbbl
Rock Properties
2,610
284,700
109
350.8
Permeability, md
Porosity, %
Interstitial water, %
Lorenz coefficient
Permeability variation
Fluid Properties
Mobility ratio
Reservoir temperature, F
Original FVF, RBlSTB
Flood start FVF, RBlSTB
Oil stock-tank gravity, API
Oil viscosity, cp
Original dissolved GOR, cu ft/STB
Primary recovery mechanism
184
21 .o
23.0
0.49
0.726
4.0
905
96
1.13
1.02
35
8.7
253
solution gas drive
gravity drainage
gradually becomes plugged by suspended solids in the in-
jected water. These suspended solids include materials like
clay, silt, iron oxide, and hydroxides. In addition to sus-
pended solids, dissolved and organic growths may con-
tribute to the plugging of the formation sandface. Plugging
of the sandface by these materials may be minimized with
the proper treatment of the injection water. This treat-
ment is covered in this chapter under the heading Water
Treating.
By means of rate/pressure curves established at inter-
vals of a few months, it is possible to distinguish between
the decrease in intake rate caused by plugging and that
caused by fill-up of the reservoir as mobility ratio effects.
Rate/pressure curves are helpful also in indicating the
value of the critical breakthrough pressure at which rup-
ture of the formation occurs. If plugging is occurring and
the injection rate declines, backflow of the well may be
induced to remove the material from the sandface. Or if
the plugging material on the sandface cannot be removed
by backflowing, then perhaps it can be dissolved through
the use of various types of acids. If necessary, fracturing
may be used to increase the injectivity rate in the well.
Water-Injection Case Histories
Many examples of field case histories of water-injection
projects can be found in the literature. Seven case histo-
ries of waterfloods in both sandstone and limestone reser-
voirs, using pattern as well as peripheral injection, are
detailed in SPE Reprint Series No. Za, Waterflooding
(1973). SPEReprintSeriesNo~.4(1962)and4a(1975),
Field Case Histories and Oil and Gas Reservoirs, also
describe the history of several typical waterflood and
pressure-maintenance projects.
For this chapter, three recently reported water-injection-
project case histories were selected from the literature as
a means of illustrating the use of contemporary technolo-
Porosity, O/O
Permeability, md
Water saturation, O/O
Oil FVF, RBlSTB
Oil viscosity, cp
Oil gravity, OAPI
Sol&on &OR, scf/STB
Hydrogen sulfide content, mol%
Mobility ratio (water/oil)
Reservoir Properties
Datum, ft subsea
Original pressure, psia
Current pressure, psia
Saturation pressure, psia
Temperature, OF
Production area, acres
Net thickness, ft
OOIP, MMSTB
Production/Injection (Jan. 1, 1981)
Oil production rate, MSTBlD
Cumulative oil production, MMSTB
Water injection rate, Mbbl
Cumulative water injection, MMbbl
14.0
35.4
12.7
1.76
0.18
51
1,806
8.8
0.3
15,400
7,850
5,750
2,830
285
14,415
95
728
90
296
250
524
gy and reservoir engineering methods to solve some of
the more complex problems encountered in many oil fields
today. Summarized in the following discussion are results
of projects involving (1) an older field with multiple
sands, (2) a deep carbonate reservoir, and (3) an offshore
field.
The effects of extensive waterflooding operations in the
Hewitt field unit, Carter County, OK, were reported in
1982 by Ruble. I3 The project described in that paper
is a pattern waterflood in multiple sands that had been
essentially depleted through 50 years of primary opera-
tions. The project is a good example of a simultaneous
waterflooding of numerous sands containing relatively
high-viscosity oil at shallow depths, as shown in Fig.
44.66. A structure map of the Hewitt unit is shown in
Fig. 44.67. A summary of the reservoir performance data
is given in Table 44.15. The additional oil recovery by
waterflooding has been estimated to be 34.9~ lo6 STB
(123 bbllacre-ft) as compared to a primary recovery of
109.6~ lo6 STB (385 bbl/acre-ft). These numbers rep-
resent approximately 10 and 31% of the OOIP, respec-
tively. Among the outstanding features of this project are
(1) the use of triple completion injection wells with tub-
ing and packer installations for control of the water that
is injected into as many as 22 individual sands, (2) the
plugging of 680 old wells and drilling of 149 new wells,
and (3) the use of surveillance and selective injection pro-
grams to optimize oil recovery.
Langston et al. I4 have reported on a large-scale water-
injection project in the Jay/Little Escambia Creek field
in Florida and Alabama. The project is a good example
of a pressure- and rate-maintained project in a deep, un-
dersaturated, carbonate reservoir. A summary of the pro-
duction performance data for the field is presented in
Table 44.16. The injection pattern is a 3 : 1 staggered line
drive, as shown in Fig. 44.68. Reservoir pressure and
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE l? WATERFLOOD PROCESSES
44-37
oil production rates, shown in Fig. 44.69, were main-
tained at constant levels for 6 years before they began to
decline. Ultimate oil recovery is expected to be 346 x lo6
STB, or 47.5% of the OOIP. This represents 222~ lo6
STB more recovery than from primary operations-i.e.,
water-injection procedures will account for 64% of the
total anticipated recovery. A great number of rock and
fluid property data were acquired during the early devel-
opment phase of the field. Use of these data provided the
basis for decisions concerning unitization and the subse-
quent injection program.
Although water injection programs are being carried
out in many offshore fields, primarily in the Persian Gulf
area, in the North Sea, on the Louisiana-Texas gulf coast,
and on the California coast, case histories have been
reported on only a few. Jordan et al. I5 reported on in-
jection operations in the Bay Marchand field, offshore
Louisiana, in April 1969.
Initial reservoir pressures in individual sands of the Bay
Marchand field ranged from 4,600 to 5,29 1 psig. Reser-
voir temperatures varied from 182 to 197F. Initial
GORs averaged 450 scf/STB and oil gravities were be-
tween 21 and 30API. PVT properties varied with depth
and the oil columns were undersaturated at their volumet-
ric midpoints. Oil viscosities ranged from 1.1 to 1.9 cp,
indicating favorable mobility ratios.
Porosities were rather uniform and averaged 29%.
However, permeabilities exhibited wide variations; three
reservoirs had geometric-mean air permeabilities of less
than 100 md, while the remaining sands had values up
to 2,000 md. Initial water saturations exhibited a corre-
sponding variation, from 40 to 15 %
Pressure maintenance using seawater for injection be-
gan in 1963. According to McCune, I6 who reported on
operations in the Bay Marchand field in Oct. 1982, suc-
cessful injection operations have been carried out over
a 20-year period in six major sand reservoirs. A typical
sand unit structure map and pressure-production history
are illustrated in Figs. 44.70a and 44.70b, respectively.
The techniques used to test, treat, filter, and pump sea-
water are discussed in detail in the papers by Jordan et
al. I5 and McCune. I6 The basic methods used in the
Bay Marchand field, which include both coarse and fine
filtration of solids, oxygen removal, and chemical treat-
ment for control of corrosion and bacteria, have since been
adopted in many other seawater injection projects.
Pilot Floods
A pilot waterflood is conducted to provide a means of
evaluating the feasibility of a full-field implementation of
the waterflood process. Both reservoir performance and
operational procedures can be evaluated during the pilot
flood. This experience is helpful in performing the engi-
neering and economic studies that are necessary in decid-
ing whether expanded waterflood operations should be
carried out.
It is important to understand that a pilot flood should
be designed to assure engineering success rather than ec-
onomic success. Any small economic loss sustained by
the pilot flood can be weighed directly against the much
greater economic loss that would result from expanded
waterflood operations that are undertaken without accurate
pilot performance data. Such economic losses can result
o PRODUCI NG WELL
WELL
Fig. 44.68-Jay/Little Escambia Creek waterflood well location
map.
Fig. 44.68-Jay/Little Escambia Creek unit performance.
from the project capital investments or from a reduction
in the ultimately recoverable oil reserves.
Caudle and Loncaric 5o has suggested several aspects
of field pilot operations that need to be considered to
achieve the greatest amount of useful data from the proj-
ect. Fluid movement is most critical; one cannot isolate
a segment (pilot area) of a reservoir and confine assess-
ments of fluid movement to that segment.
A commonly used pilot flood pattern is the inverted five-
spot, in which there is one injection well and four produc-
ing wells; all other nearby wells are shut in. The popular-
ity of this pattern is mostly because only one injection well
is required. The inherent problem with this pattern is that
44-38
WEI ORLEMS
-
\
r,
:I
:r
I I
:
I
i
-
Fig. 44.70A-Typical unit structure map, Bay Marchand field.
three-fourths of the produced fluid comes from outside
the pilot area while, at the same time, fluid leaves the
pilot area from the regions between the producing wells.
The re!ative volumes are affected by the ratio of produc-
tion rates to injection rates.
A volumetric balance can be maintained in the pilot
area by allocating only one-fourth the rate of the injec-
tion well to each production well. Although the volumes
are balanced, the production history will still reflect the
fact that only one-fourth of the oil that is produced actu-
ally comes from inside the pilot area. Therefore, no relia-
ble estimate of the amount of recoverable oil in the pilot
area can be made. Computer model studies show that the
production history for this pilot pattern is so greatly af-
fected by conditions outside the pilot area that correction
factors are probably inadequate to compensate for the
errors. This is especially true if there is a gas saturation
in the reservoir at the start of injection.
The considerations noted previously suggest that a
reversal of that pattern, in which one producing well is
surrounded by four injection wells, could be a more ac-
curate mechanism for evaluating the performance of a pi-
lot flood. This pattern would minimize the escape of the
oil originally contained in the pilot area as well as the en-
try of outside oil into the pilot area. The conventional tive-
spot pattern, as it is known, is probably the most simple
and useful pilot pattern. While it is true that three-fourths
of the injected fluid will not enter the pilot area, the pro-
duction from the center producer will be much more useful
for predicting total fluid recoveries.
80
0
Fig. 44.70B-Pressure production history vs. time. Typical unit
reservoir, Bay Marchand field.
The purpose of the pilot flood is to facilitate an evalua-
tion of the performance of a small section of the reser-
voir so that the resulting information can be used to
estimate the behavior of a much more extensive opera-
tion. If the production history of the individual pilot well
does not generate data that are representative of the en-
tire area to be flooded, a correction factor can be used
to adjust the actual production history in order that the
potential production of a fully developed or confined
pattern flood element can be estimated.
Such a pilot (or pilot production well) must operate as
if it were in a confined area (i.e., in one that is surrounded
by many similar areas). In reality, such a situation could
occur only if the pilot area composed the entire proposed
flood project. However, if a sufficient number of similar
elements are operated around the pilot, results that would
closely approximate those of the confined case could be
achieved. The number of similar elements around the pi-
lot area that are necessary to generate results that are us-
able without correction depends on the mobility ratio and
initial gas saturation.
Model studies,* have shown that, in general, the
single conventional five-spot pilot is adequate for mobility
ratios below one. More complex pilot patterns are neces-
sary at higher mobility ratios.
Certain considerations should be weighed in deciding
the location of the pilot area. Knowledge of the reservoirs
geometrical configuration, its structural data, and its strati-
graphic data are necessary to make the selection. A par-
tially confined or bounded area will increase the value
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE 8 WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-39
of the pilot in predicting the behavior of an expanded
flood. The boundaries to be sought are as follows:
(1) oil/water contacts with respect to monoclinal or an-
ticlinal structures, (2) fault planes, (3) small fault blocks,
(4) structural or permeability pinchouts, and (5) shale-outs
to the side.
Reservoir and well conditions must be evaluated before
initiation of the pilot flood. In selecting the portion of the
reservoir in which the pilot flood is to begin, it is impor-
tant to be informed concerning these elements: (1) the pat-
tern and spacing of injection and producing wells with
respect to the formation structure and the distribution of
formation properties, (2) the type of well completions,
completion intervals, and the repair and workovers that
have occurred in the past, and (3) the productivity fac-
tors that have been measured for producing oil wells.
Reservoir conditions and other related data provide in-
formation that is necessary before, and at the initiation
of, the pilot flood. Some characteristics and categories
of data that are valuable in determining the magnitude and
distribution of oil, water, and gas saturations before the
start of the pilot flood are (1) the development and pro-
duction history, (2) total oil recoveries during primary
operations, (3) encroachment of water or gas, (4) reser-
voir pressures within and surrounding the selected pilot
flood area, and (5) distribution of fluids through gravity
drainage.
The behavior of the reservoir and the wells should be
evaluated continually throughout the life of the pilot flood.
The records of this monitpring should include informa-
tion about the following matters: (1) water-injection his-
tory on each well, including the time the injection began;
(2) cumulative volumes of water and the rate of injection,
by well, for the flood; (3) injection pressures and the iden-
tities of the sections taking water; (4) fluid production his-
tory, by well, for the total area within the flood region
and for wells in the surrounding area; included should
be the rate of production and the cumulative volumes of
oil, water, and gas; (5) WOR and GOR trends;
(6) reservoir pressure distribution inside, and surround-
ing, the flood area; (7) the frontal advance and associated
displacement efficiency of water, as evidenced by the time
and location at which water appears in individual wells;
(8) workover history of both injection and producing
wells; and (9) any pertinent changes in the pilot flood
program.
There are two efficiency factors that may be calculated
and used in evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot flood.
One involves a displacement efficiency, determined on
the basis of the ratio of the volume of total fluids pro-
duced to the volume of water injected. This ratio will in-
dicate whether the injected water is effectively moving
fluids from the injection well to the producing well (or
wells) within the pilot area. The second factor involves
the sweep efficiency within the flood pattern and the frac-
tional depletion of the oil zone, which determine the eco-
nomic life of the reservoir as well as the ultimate oil
recovery.
Production data in the form of production-decline curves
may be used to evaluate the pilot flood performance. The
usual procedure in presenting the history of oil produc-
tion in pilot flood operations has been to plot the logarithm
of oil production vs. time or the logarithm of time. The
advantages of using production-decline curves are that
they indicate the time of fill-up and the current oil-
production response with respect to the injection program.
However, there are limitations in using production-decline
curves to evaluate injection efficiencies and the future be-
havior of the pilot. Among these limitations is the fact
that true decline conditions seldom exist because fluid pro-
duction is controlled by water-injection rates. There is no
basis for assuming any particular shape with regard to a
production-decline curve because the oil rate does not nec-
essarily vary with time; the oil production rate is directly
dependent on the rate at which water is injected and on
the physical characteristics of the reservoir rock and the
fluids it contains.
During the development and operation of the pilot test,
certain conclusions regarding the performance of an ex-
panded waterflood may be drawn. For example, if the
reservoir has a high water saturation, the water may be
more mobile than the oil, which would soon result in a
high WOR in the pilot area. Because of the permeability
reductions around the wellbores of the input wells, the
formation itself might not take a satisfactory injection rate
without exceeding the maximum pressure. Again, exces-
sive pressure would produce adverse conditions. Water-
cut data, used in conjunction with the Stiles calculation I9
or other similar conformance calculations, will indicate
whether the pilot is performing as expected.
Surface-Active Agents in Waterflooding
Surface-active agents in waterflooding are used to improve
oil recovery by (1) improving mobility, (2) reducing in-
terfacial tension, and (3) altering the rock wettability.
Laboratory investigations and field tests in which vari-
ous surface-active agents and other chemicals are used
will be discussed in Chap. 45, Miscible Displacement,
and Chap. 47, Chemical Flooding. The large number
of technological advances that have taken place during
the past decade and the voluminous publications on the
use of surface-active agents allow only a brief reference
to the subject in this chapter.
Mobility Improvement
Control of the mobility of the injected water, along with
the use of surface-active agents and chemicals to alter the
wettability characteristics of the reservoir rock, are among
the techniques now being used in certain waterflood
projects to improve oil displacement efficiencies. The ad-
dition of an acrylamide polymer or some similar chemi-
cal to increase the viscosity of water causes area1 and
vertical coverage in the reservoir to be increased as a re-
sult of a reduction in the mobility ratio between the dis-
placed and displacing fluids. This addition of a polymer
also reduces the volume of injected fluids required in the
oil displacement process that lowers the saturation in the
swept portion of the reservoir to its residual value. The
first field studies involving the use of polymers for mo-
bility control were reported by Sandiford in 1964. I9
The injection of a high-molecular-weight polyacryla-
mide polymer to increase waterflood sweep efficiencies
through improved mobility ratios was considered to be
unprofitable in two reported case histories 20.2 that are
summarized below. In the Wilmington field, CA, *O a
large-scale injection program was initiated during 1969
in relatively unconsolidated sands that contained an
18API gravity crude oil with a reservoir oil viscosity
of 30.8 cp, The mobility ratio of brine/oil was 14.2, com-
pared to a mobility ratio of 1.33 for a 250-ppm polymer/
oil. After injection of 1,300,OOO Ibm of polymer over a
period of 2.5 years at an average concentration of 213
ppm, the injection of polymer was discontinued because
no increase in oil recovery could be attributed to the poly-
mer injection. The poor response was believed to be
caused by (1) a polymer concentration that was too low;
(2) injection rates that decreased by an average of 25%
(as a result of scale formation), accumulation of undis-
solved polymer on the face of the formation, and possi-
ble reduction in the reservoir permeability from adsorption
of the polymer (85 lbm/acre-ft); and (3) a premature
breakthrough of the polymer solution through highly
permeable intervals.
A pilot project 12 in the Pembina field of Alberta,
Canada, was started in Nov. 1971 with two la-acre, five-
spot patterns composed of six injection wells and two
producing wells. The producing interval consisted of a
conglomerate zone underlain by a sandstone, and these
zones had average permeabilities of 63.6 and 25.3 md,
respectively.
The viscosity of the 37API crude oil, at reservoir con-
ditions, was 1.05 cp. A total of 217,400 lbm of polymer
was injected, with the first 124,750 lbm being injected
at a concentration of 1,000 ppm and the remaining 92,650
Ibm being injected at decreasing concentrations from
1,000 to 100 ppm. The conclusions reached from the Pem-
bina pilot project were as follows.
1. The overall performance of the producing wells in
the pilot area showed no permanent improvement.
2. Early breakthrough of polymer through the con-
glomerate zone indicated that the polymer did not signif-
icantly reduce the effects of the highly permeable interval.
3. Water/rock interaction and formation water com-
mingling reduced the effective viscosity level of the poly-
mer solution to approximately 25 % of the designed value.
4. There was a significant reduction in the injection
rates of two injection wells during polymer injection.
5. Adsorption of the polyacrylamide polymer was about
2 mg/m of surface area.
The injection of polymer solutions to improve oil recov-
ery through mobility control has not yet been well estab-
lished for general application. Laboratory displacement
tests should be performed on reservoir rock samples, and
the reservoir crude oil and formation water should be used
as a guide in selecting the type of polymer and the con-
centrations necessary for scaling the formulation to field
conditions. Of particular significance is the effect of the
formation waters salinity on reducing both the viscosity
of the polymer solution and its adsorption by the reser-
voir rock.
Published reports -24 about various field applications
of polymer solutions have indicated improvements in oil
recovery efficiencies of 5 to 15% above recoveries from
conventional waterfloods.
Reduction in Interfacial Tension
Early laboratory tests 25m27 indicated that dilute solutions
of surfactants would remove more oil from sandstone
cores than would untreated water. The economic feasi-
bility of using this process in a waterflood has been ques-
tioned because of the loss of the surfactant by adsorption
at the rock/liquid interfaces. The adsorption is especially
problematical with both anionic and cationic surfactants,
and it occurs to a lesser degree with nonionic surfactants.
In one field project, the results of which were pub-
lished28 in 1968, a nonionic surfactant was injected at
concentrations of 25 to 250 ppm into a sandstone reser-
voir at an advanced stage of waterflooding; an additional
oil recovery of approximately 9% was attributed to the
use of the surfactant.
Alteration of Rock Wettability
Recognition of the use of alkaline salts to improve oil
recovery was first disclosed by Squires 29 and patented
by Atkinson I30 in 1927. Wagner and Leach, 13 in 1959,
presented laboratory results that showed improved oil
recovery through the injection of water containing chem-
icals that altered the pH of the injected water. Acidic in-
jection water resulted in an improvement in WOR and
a corresponding increase in recovery; however, its use
as an injection medium has not proved practical because
of chemical reactions with most reservoir rocks. Subse-
quent laboratory tests 13* established similarly improved
oil recovery results with sodium hydroxide.
Laboratory tests have indicated that the injection of
caustic solutions can result in improved oil recovery,
primarily as a result of lowering the water relative per-
meability, 33 pH control 34 and the oil/water interfacial
tension. 35 These effect;, though, are dependent on the
water salinity, 34 the temperature, 36 and the type of
crude oil.
In 1974, there was a report 34 of a field trial in which
a solution containing 3.2 wt% sodium carbonate was in-
jected into a previously waterflooded Miocene sand in
southeast Texas. The test involved two wells located 36
ft apart. Some improvement in oil cuts was noted at the
producing well before alkaline water breakthrough, sug-
gesting the formation of a low-mobility water-in-oil emul-
sion bank. No economic evaluation of the test was
reported.
The first field test of the caustic flooding recess was
mentioned by Nutting 13 in 1925. A report& published
in 1962 of a field trial in which sodium hydroxide was
used in the Muddy J sand, Harrisburg field. West Har-
risburg Unit, Banner County, NE. The injection of a
40,000-bbl slug of 2.0 wt% sodium hydroxide resulted
in a recovery of approximately 8,700 bbl of oil from an
area that previously had been flooded out by normal water
injection operations. In another case, an 8% PV slug of
2.0 wt% sodium hydroxide was injected into a portion
of the Singleton field, Banner County, NE. The test was
in an area under waterflood that had not been completely
watered out. Increased oil recovery, reported 38 in 1970,
amounted to 17,600 bbl, or 2.34% PV.
The only description of a large-scale field trial of caus-
tic flooding that has been published 39 involved a 63-acre
area in the Whittier field, CA. The area had been under
waterflood for 2.5 years before caustic was injected. A
0.2 wt% sodium hydroxide slug, equal in volume to 23%
PV, was injected. The slug was followed by plain water.
The increase in oil recovery beyond that by waterflood-
ing was estimated to be from 350,ooO to 470,000 bbl, or
5.03 to 6.75% PV.
44-41
Water Source and Requirements
During the planning stages of a waterflood program, these
basic steps must be taken: (1) the water requirements
should be determined as accurately as the data will per-
mit; (2) all possible water sources should be surveyed with
special attention given to satisfying the quantitative re-
quirements: and (3) the selected source should be devel-
oped in the most economical manner permitted by good
engineering practice.
Waterflood Requirements
Daily Water-Injection Rates. The largest daily demand
for water from the water source occurs during the fill-up
period when there is no return water available. During
the early life of the reservoirs injection program, or dur-
ing the fill-up period, it is usually advantageous to main-
tain a high rate of injection so as to accomplish an early
fill-up (a rate between 1 and 2 B/D/acre-f1 is desirable).
One author I40 states that after fill-up has been achieved,
the injection rate should be maintained at about 1 B/D
and not less than % B/D/acre-ft. Flood pattern, well spac-
ing, and injection pressures should be designed to meet
these requirements.
Ultimate Water Requirements. The PV method has been
found to give a good approximation of the ultimate water
requirements for a waterflood. The volume of water re-
quired should range from 150 to 170% of the total pore
space, and the measurement of such space should include
the PV of any adjacent overlying gas sand or basal water
sand. The ultimate water requirements, together with the
average water-injection rate, will serve as a basis for es-
timating the total life of the waterflood.
Makeup Water. The volume of return water becomes
an increasingly significant percentage of the required in-
jection rate as a flood progresses; therefore, it is an eco-
nomic necessity that produced water be injected unless
the treating cost of the produced water is higher than that
of the makeup water. If gas or water sands are not pres-
ent, the produced water will compose 40 to 50% of the
ultimate water requirements. If gas or water sands are
present, less return water will be available-thus, the ul-
timate makeup water requirement will increase to as much
as 60 to 70% of the total quantity of water that is inject-
ed. In recent years, federal and state agencies have enacted
regulations that limit or prohibit disposal of oilfield waters
in surface systems. Environmental regulations should be
reviewed carefully when studies of the treatment and dis-
posal of produced water are being made.
Water Sources
There are three principal freshwater sources and two
sources of salt water that can be used for waterflooding
purposes. Freshwater supplies include surface waters,
municipal water. waters from alluvium beds, and some
subsurface waters. Saltwater sources include some sub-
surface waters and the oceans. Where economically per-
mitted, salt water usually is preferable to fresh water.
Fresh Water-Surface Sources. Surface waters, includ-
ing ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers, have been used
throughout the history of oilfield waterflooding projects,
and these are the sources for which competition from other
industries and from municipalities is highest. There are
a number of other factors that limit the availability of this
resource. For example, there is a continuing growth in
the demand for fresh water, and droughts have resulted
in water shortages in some areas during recent years. In
addition, some states have taken legislative action to con-
trol freshwater supplies. Therefore, when fresh water is
to be used in a waterflood project, it may be necessary
to obtain approval from the appropriate state agency be-
fore proceeding with development of such a source. If
salt water is chosen as the injection medium, legal ap-
proval for the withdrawal of the water may not be nec-
essary
Small ponds and streams are very unreliable as a con-
stant source of supply for all seasons of the year. Large
lakes and rivers are preferable; however, these also may
have limited capacity during drought periods. The prin-
cipal disadvantages of surface sources are the unreliabil-
ity of their quality and quantity, the high cost of treating
equipment, and the cost of the chemicals that are neces-
sary to obtain a satisfactory water.
Fresh Water-Alluvium Beds. A more favored method
of using river or stream waters calls for the alluvium beds
near the river to be tested with shallow wells. Use of this
source in some of the worlds largest waterfloods-the
Salem unit in Illinois, 14 rhe Burbank unit, I42 and the
Olympic pool in Oklahoma-indicates the high produc-
tivity that can be achieved from alluvium beds. If closed
injection systems are used, chemical treatment (with the
possible exception of a bactericide) normally is not re-
quired. Filtration usually is unnecessary because of the
natural filtration of the alluvium beds.
Sulfate-reducing bacteria are anaerobic and thrive with-
in a few feet of the surface, so waters from alluvium beds
frequently can be highly contaminated with these bacter-
ia. However, low-cost chemical treatment can control
these organisms. Having noted this minor problem, it is
safe to say that the quality of water from alluvium wells
is more dependable than that from direct surface sources.
Wells are not subject to extreme turbidity changes dur-
ing rainy seasons or to the variable organic content of the
surface waters.
The reliability of alluvium beds as a continuing source
of water is slightly better than the reliability of an adja-
cent river or stream. The water table will drop steadily
when a river dries up, but wells should go on supplying
water for some time after the surface waters are depleted.
The principal advantages of alluvium-bed sources are
their low development cost, low pumping cost, and the
possibility that they will not need filtration. If bacteria
are not a problem, corrosion rates should be low and
chemical treatment unnecessary.
Fresh Water-Subsurface Formations. In certain areas,
subsurface sand or carbonate formations may be tested
for water production with good results. Good-quality
water often is produced from certain formations whose
depths range from close to the surface to 1,000 ft or more.
As in the case of the alluvium wells, closed systems usual-
ly are used, thus eliminating chemical treatment and filtra-
tion requirements. When a well is completed in a
freshwater subsurface formation, drawdown tests should
TABLE 44.17--RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
Dtssolved Gas Test Effects
Hydrogen sullide. H,S Odor or taste. If lab Very corrosive in the
analysis desired, presence of motslure.
sample is preserved parttcularly if oxygen
by addihon of zinc is present.
acetate and sodium
hydroxide
Carbon dioxide, CO, Determine the slabillty
of the carbonate-
bicarbonate balance,
titrate for free CO, at
source point.
Oxygen Determine if the
Fe + + ion is being
oxidized. Dissolved
0, meter and
membrane probe is
used when H,S is
absent.
1. Corroston Increases
wtth Increasing
percentages of
co,.
2 Removal of CO,
may cause
preclpltatton of
metalltc carbonates
or bicarbonates.
1. Ii is largely
responsible for
corrosion of
equipment.
2 Its reaction with
metallic tons
(Fe + + mostly) wtll
cause plugging in
the reservotr
be made to determine the initial productivity. The test
should be conducted for a sufficient length of time to de-
termine the static working fluid level, which will indi-
cate the rate at which the well can be produced.
Optimal spacing in the water-supply wells may vary
from 25 ft for sand points to as much as 1,320 ft for deep
wells. The productivity will indicate how many wells are
necessary to meet the daily water requirements. Where
a number of deep wells are required to develop the fresh-
water source, the economic viability of drilling the addi-
tional wells should be carefully considered.
Pumping equipment for water wells may include
surface-driven or submersible, centrihtgal (or rod) pumps.
If a high-pressure gas source is available, gas-lifting
methods should be considered also. Selection of the pumps
should be governed by economic considerations, and these
are influenced by the static fluid level, the drawdown, and
the desired productivity. The advantages of freshwater
wells in subsurface formations include low corrosion rates
and the possible elimination of the need for chemical treat-
ing and filtration.
Salt Water-Subsurface. In most oil fields, either above
or below the oil zones, there are saltwater formations that
are potential sources of water supply. 143 The relatively
shallow saltwater wells are similar in most respects to the
shallow freshwater wells. 144.45 The saltwater wells are
completed in the same manner and have the same advan-
tages of being adaptable to closed injection systems. Many
producing areas have deep saltwater formations that have
extensive area1 coverage and a thickness of up to several
hundred feet. These prolific saltwater-producing forma-
tions frequently have high working fluid levels. Such for-
mations may contain waters with high mineral content,
and have wellhead temperatures in the range of 100 to
Remedial Treatment pH Control
A decrease in DH will 1 Open aeration
(poor) increase rate df
2 Synthebc or natural corrosion, but the
combustton corrosion rate also
exhaust gases depends on the
flowtng counter- composition of the
current to water contacted metal and
WI packed towers. the alkalinity of the
3 Forced-draft solution.
aerators.
1 Aeratton by the An increase in pH Funclton of the
three methods also will decrease the carbonate and
mentioned above. free CO, that IS bicarbonate stabtlity
2 Increase the present. Free CO, vs. corrosive activtty
alkalinity. may not exisl in water IS caused directly by
3. Chemtcal inhibitors. wtth pH values which the CO,. Not as
are greater than 8 3. corrosive as equal
porttons of O2 or
H,S.
1. Use of closed No effect is to be Limtts of detection-
systems will found tn either acidtc I.e., 10 ppb (Note:
minimize oxygen or alkaline water. iron bacteria can
use. grow in waters
2. Open systems- contatntng 0.3
vacuum aeration
pm.
53 SRB can
has been used. also live in aerobic
3. Counterflow (in conditions.) Soluble
bubble lower) of 0, IS approxtmately
natural gas with four times as cor-
low oxygen rosive as equal mole
content. volumes of COP.
Tolerance Suggested
50 ppm. Corrosron
rate is rapid up to 15
ppm. Hugh H,S
concentrahons,may
act to tnhrbil
corroston.
173F. Hydrogen sulfide may or may not be present. If
the water contains significant amounts of hydrogen sul-
fide, open systems that incorporate aeration, sedimenta-
tion, and filtration capabilities should be used. Examples
of prolific formations are the Arbuckle 146 and Mississippi
limestones in Kansas and Oklahoma, the Ellenburger lime
in Texas, the Tar Springs in Illinois, and the Madison lime
in Wyoming. The drilling and completion costs of deep
supply wells may range up to, and exceed, $500,000;
however, they frequently are the most economical source
of large volumes of water because of small fluid-level
drawdowns. The advantages of the deep saltwater wells
include their adaptability to closed systems, their high and
reliable productivity, the compatibility of salt water with
the oil sand, and, where high hydrostatic fluid levels are
found, the relatively low lifting costs.
Salt Water-Ocean. Use of ocean water for injection pur-
poses is confined to coastal regions and offshore
fields. 6*47-149 Closed systems in which shallow wells
on the shore are used as the source of supply are preferred.
A moderately high corrosion rate should be expected, and
ocean water probably will require a bactericide. The ad-
vantages of oceanwater supply include an inexhaustible
source and low development and pumping costs.
Salt Water-Return Water. During the life of a flood,
the return water may represent a total volume of from
30 to 60% of the injection requirements. The use of the
return water for injection may improve the economic con-
dition of the overall project. In open systems, return water
generally is added to the makeup water and injected. The
mixing of the waters in a pond or settling tank permits
precipitation and sedimentation of the incompatible con-
stituents. In recent years, however, it has been determined
WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE 8 WATERFLOOD PROCESSES 44-43
TABLE 44.18-WATER-INJECTION PRESSURE MAINTENANCE
Organisms GWlUS Phylum
Sulfate reducers Desulfouibrio -
Organisms Pseudomonas -
Iron bacteria Leptothrix -
Crenothrix
Gallienella
Algae
Fungi
Thallophyta
Thallophyia
Agents Used
Enwonment for Treating
Anaerobic (though they Chlortne*
cannot grow in the Quaternary
presence of free ammonium
oxygen, they can live; compounds
will not grow In highly Other bactericides
saline waters.)
Low-pH waters also
stifle growth.
Aerobic or facullallve Chlorine
(usually require free Quaternary
oxygen for growth) ammonium
compounds
Bactena withdraw Bactencides
ferrous Iron (Fe + + ) Chlorine
that is present in their
aqueous habitat and
deposit It in the form of
Fe(OH).
Chlorophyll-contalnmg Copper sulfate
plants (require
presence of sunlight Sodium
and moislure for pendachlorphenate
growth).
Oxvaen (reauire
presence offree
oxygen).
Closed system
Chlorine
Closed system
Llmlled to Iron-free waters
Mercuric and phenolic compounds: fatly and resin amines: formaldehyde
that the mixing of the produced water and makeup water
results in increased scale deposition and corrosion in the
surface system and injection wells. Also, scale deposi-
tion in the perforations, and the transport of suspended
solids (a product of corrosion) into the formation, reduce
the well injectivity and necessitate frequent backwashing
and acid treatments. Therefore, in many of the major
waterfloods, the waters are isolated in the surface sys-
tem and are injected separately into the reservoir.
In closed systems, the compatibility of the return and
makeup waters is more critical than it is in an open sys-
tem, but the two waters can be mixed satisfactorily in most
cases. Complete analysis of the water should be made,
with special attention being given to the detection of any
combinations of ions that may precipitate on being mixed.
The effect of the more common precipitates and the treat-
ment of them is covered in this chapter under Water
Treating.
Water Treating
During the early days of waterflooding, only the quantity,
not the quality, of the water was given consideration.
How-ever, it was soon noted that when the quality was
poor, higher injection pressures were required to maintain
suitable injection rates and corrosion problems mounted.
As a result, the operators of the early waterfloods began
to realize that the quality of the water was equally as im-
portant as the quantity, and that poor water treating was
proving disastrous to waterfloods that otherwise might
have been successful. Water-treating practices have im-
proved greatly as the waterflood industry has matured,
a point that is substantiated in the literature by the many
contributions on this subject. 45,50-64 API has published
recommendations for analysis of oilfield waters I50 and
biological analysis of injection waters. 15 Successful re-
sults normally can be achieved when these recommended
Effect of Agents
m Reducing Growth Purpose in Treating
Partiallv effective 1. To orevent
Effective
Effective
coriosive activity as
a result of H 2 S
formation.
2. To prevent pluggmg
of sandface.
Effective 1. To prevent plugging
Effective. (Note, of equipment
change bactericide 11 2. To prevent plugging
immunization occurs.) of sandface.
Effective. (Note: slug of equipment.
injection is usually 2. To prevent pluggmg
sufflcient.1 of sandface
Effective, depending 1. To prevent pluggmg
on water alkalinity. of equipmenl.
Effective, depending on 2. To prevent plugging
water alkalmlty. of sandface.
Effective
Effective of equipment.
2. To prevent plugging
of sandface.
procedures are followed. Standardized procedures for
membrane-filterability tests, 52 a useful tool in water test-
ing, also have been adopted by the industry.
After the water source is known, a water analysis is
required to determine these matters: (1) compatibility of
the injection water with the reservoir water (the test should
include actual blends as well as theoretical combinations);
(2) whether an open or closed injection facility would be
the most suitable; and (3) what treatment is necessary to
have an acceptable water for the reservoir and to minimize
corrosion of the equipment.
Prudent operation of the waterflood requires that water
analyses be conducted periodically to determine the pres-
ence of dissolved gases, certain minerals (discussed later),
and microbiological growth-undesirable constituents of
water. Samples of the injected water should be collected
at several points in the system-for example, at any point
in the system where a change in water quality could or
should occur, and at the injection wells.
Sampling
The importance of good sampling practices cannot be
overemphasized. An extremely acccurate chemical anal-
ysis of a water sample followed by a brilliant assessment
of the problems indicated by the analysis is worthless if
the sample does not represent the water in the system.
Dissolved Gases
To eliminate the loss of dissolved gases through changes
in tempeature and pressure, testing of such gases should
be carried out in the field soon after a water sample is
taken. The three dissolved gases to be considered are
hydrogen sulfide, CO2, and oxygen. Table 44.17 lists the
test, the effects of the gas when present, remedial treat-
ment, pH control, and tolerance permitted in ppm.
44-44
Microbiological Growth
Static control of colonies of one-celled animals and plants
is of much concern to operators attempting to maintain
a suitable water for injection. Aerobic, anaerobic. fun-
gal, and algal growths will cause reservoir and equipment
plugging and corrosion. Table 44.18 lists the various or-
ganisms, their environment, the various treating agents
that have been used, the results that may be expected, and
the purpose of the treatment.
Special attention and control are required for sulfate-
reducing bacteria (SRB). The presence of the sulfate ion
is essential to the growth and reproduction of these par-
ticular bacteria. Sulfate, in turn, causes plugging. The
reaction of the sulfate ion with the SRB forms the sulfide
ion. which then reacts with iron. Iron sulfide is serious
plugging agent and H 2 S is an extremely corrosive agent.
Early studies of SRB involved the the plate-count meth-
od, 153~1s4 a clinical practice derived for the purpose of
isolating and identifying bacteria. But this technique is
of little value in assessing sulfate-reducing bacteria ac-
tivity, which is what really counts.
The objective of studies of SRB in a water system is
to determine whether practical problems exist, and to be
able to execute effective countermeasures if such prob-
lems are found. The concept of bacterial activity was de-
veloped to meet this objective. The procedures for
conducting these studies are presented in the API RP 38
publication. Is
Many organic and inorganic bactericides are now avail-
able to control this problem.
Minerals
Appearance. A notation concerning the appearance of
the water at the time it is sampled is important for future
reference. Frequently, organic growths and precipitated
material can be detected visually.
Temperature. The temperature of the water sample is
important in estimating the solubilities of various materi-
als. For example, calcium carbonate solubility decreases
with increasing temperature, as does calcium sulfate and
all sulfates.
Significance of pH. Simply put, pH is a measure of the
acidity or caustic intensity of water. Two important points
to remember are that calcium carbonate and iron solubil-
ities both decrease with increasing pH value; therefore,
the higher the pH the more difficult it is to hold iron in
solution and to keep calcium scale from forming. How-
ever, if iron is being removed in the water-treating pro-
gram, then a high pH may be beneficial. The pH value
is very important when corrosion control is considered.
Turbidity. A turbidity test measures the suspended ma-
terial in a water and it is based on the intensity of light
scattered by the sample in comparison with light scattered
by a known concentration of a standard solution. The
higher the scattered light, the higher the turbidity. Stan-
dards are compared to Formazin polymer, which has
gained acceptance as the turbidity reference standard sus-
pension for water.
The generally accepted method of measurement is con-
ducted with a nephelometer. Results are reported in
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), which correspond
with Formazin turbidity units (FTU) and Jackson candle
units (JCU). Normal turbidity measurements are within
the 0- to 50-NTU range.
Iron. Some form of iron is probably the most common
plugging agent encountered in injection wells. Ferrous
;Foent(tF;
+ IS soluble to 100-t ppm, while ferric iron
1 .
) is insoluble except at low pH levels (3 ppm or
less). Low iron contents are desirable in any water. The
retention of soluble iron in solution is the prime objec-
tive in closed systems. In properly operated iron-removal
plants, the iron content in the finished water should be
less than 0.2 ppm. In many cases, it is possible to reduce
the iron so that it is consistently less than 0.1 ppm. There
should be no significant increase in iron content as the
water travels from the pressure source to the injection
wells.
Manganese. Soluble manganese in water reacts somewhat
as iron does, except that it is more difficult to remove.
In most waters, good manganese removal requires a pH
level of 9.5 to 10 ppm. Manganese problems in the Ap-
palachian oil fields have been very severe. Only in a few
isolated cases has it been troublesome in the Illinois ba-
sin; it has been of little concern in most floods in that area,
or farther west. Low to moderate manganese contents are
found in many waters and can be tolerated as long as the
pH values remain low enough to keep it in solution.
Alkalinity. The alkalinity of water is defined by the meas-
ure of its acid-neutralizing capacity. Since the occurrence
of hydroxide is quite unusual in flood waters, alkalinity
generally can be taken as a measure of carbonates and
bicarbonates. Calcium carbonate solubility depends on
alkalinity; however, other factors, such as pH, calcium
content, temperature, and total dissolved solids, influence
the reaction.
Sulfates. Sulfates are of most interest from a deposition
standpoint. Three generalizations may be made with
regard to this class of substances.
1. An abnormally low or zero sulfate value in a brine
suggests the possibility of the presence of barium and
strontium. It requires practice and experience to evalu-
ate a low-sulfate-content water.
2. In general, high-sulfate water should not be mixed
with water containing appreciable amounts of barium or
strontium.
3. A high-sulfate brine indicates there is a possibility
of exceeding the calcium sulfate solubility. The solubility
of SrS04 or CaS04 is governed by the limiting factor
of either SO4 or Ca or Sr and the ionic strength or for-
eign salt concentration of the brine.
Chlorides. Chlorides are the primary indication of the
salinity of a water, or the ionic strength of a brine, or
the presence of a fresh water. Chloride tests can be use-
ful in tracing the progress of a waterflood.
Hardness. The term hardness refers to a measure of the
amounts of calcium and magnesium that are present in
the water and is expressed in ppm of calcium carbonate.
Since calcium is involved, the hardness of the water is
of importance in relation to calcium carbonate stability.
44-45
Calcium and Magnesium. These two minerals are
grouped together because they are the principal contrib-
utors to a waters hardness. The calcium salts are less solu-
ble than magnesium under most practical conditions. Also.
the presence of an appreciable quantity of calcium is nec-
essary for calcium sulfate and calcium carbonate scale to
form. It is important to note that other factors, beyond
the calcium value, must be considered in assessing calci-
urn carbonate formation.
Suspended Solids. Suspended solids are a mixture of line,
nonsettling particles, or precipitated material in the water.
Unless suspended solids are removed, difficulties involv-
ing plugging of the injection or disposal wells can be ex-
pected.
Dissolved Solids. It is necessary to prevent precipitation
of those soluble salts that are dissolved in the water, so
that there will be no plugging of the sandface.
Total Solids. Technically, the term total solids means
the combination of dissolved and suspended solids. Long
experience in operating water injection systems has es-
tablished that good water-quality control requires knowl-
edge of not only the general content of the water but the
constituents of the undissolved (suspended) material that
exist under in-line conditions. It is this suspended mate-
rial that may cause well and reservoir plugging. The sus-
pended solids often are the result of the precipitation of
constituents of the water, but the quantity and type of
solids that actually are precipitating cannot be ascertained
from the water analysis alone.
The MilliporeTM filter test has been developed to pro-
vide a means of measuring suspended material under in-
jection system conditions. This test is conducted with the
MF-Millipore filter of mixed esters of cellulose and a uni-
form pore size of, generally, 0.45pm opening. The filter
diameter may be of several sizes; however, 90-mm-
diameter filters are recommended because a greater
volume of throughput water can be handled, thus giving
a more representative test for the system being examined.
A small stream of water is taken, through suitable con-
nections and the test apparatus, from the selected point
in a system. The test apparatus that holds the filter will
trap all the suspended material flowing through the sam-
ple line. The water effluent that passes through the filter
is measured and recorded, for use in the later analysis,
as volume throughput in milliliters of water. After suffi-
cient water has passed through it and/or the initial pres-
sure of about 10 psig has increased sufficiently to indicate
plugging, the filter is removed and placed in a protective
screwcap tube (preferably containing distilled water to
prevent the drying out of the filter) and submitted to the
laboratory for either comprehensive or selective analy-
sis. As a safety precaution, it is highly recommended that
duplicate samples be obtained through the use of a parallel-
apparatus hookup.
Identification of the solids and particle size distribution
(with Coulter counter) is useful for designing facilities to
treat and to remove solids from the water.
Barium. Barium ions have been quite troublesome in
many cases because of the extremely low solubility of the
most common form of their deposition, barium sulfate.
It is generally undesirable to mix a water with apprecia-
ble amounts of barium with a water containing high sul-
fates or strontium.
Strontium. This is another alkaline earth metal that occurs
in small quantities and is associated with calcium and bar-
ium minerals. It is found principally in the form of celes-
tite (SrS04) and strontianite (SrC03) ores; its solubility
in both forms is considerably greater than its barium coun-
terpart but much less than CaS04.
Sequestering and Chelating Agents. The use of se-
questering and chelating agents in injection waters plays
an important role in preventing the precipitation of salts
of calcium, barium, strontium. iron, copper, nickel, man-
ganese, etc. 55 The definition of each term is given as:
(1) sequester: to set apart, to put aside, or to separate,
and (2) chelute: pertaining to or designating a group or
compound which, by means of two valences (principal
or residual, or both), attaches itself to a central metallic
atom so as to form a heterocyclic ring.
The sequestering agent will separate the metallic cat-
ion from the anion by chelation. This will prevent the
metallic ion from reacting with the anions to form precipi-
tates that will cause plugging of the reservoir. If precipi-
tation of the metallic salt ions does occur, reverse flow
of the injection well and acid treatments usually will cor-
rect the situation so that normal injection rates can be con-
tinued and maintained. The requirements for desirable
sequestering agents are that they Is5 (1) form chelates in
the presence of other ions such as calcium, magnesium,
strontium, barium, and others that are common to waters
used for secondary recovery, (2) form stable water-
soluble chelates or complexes with iron, (3) be compati-
ble with other chemical compounds used for water treat-
ment, (4) be economically feasible, and (5) be easy and
safe to handle.
The most widely used sequestering agents are Ver-
sentates (trademark for certain salts of ethylenediamine-
tetraacetic acid and related compounds), citric acid,
gluconic acid, organic phosphonates, and the poly-
phosphates. Of these, the citric acid sequestrants have
been most successful.
Corrosion Inhibitors. Corrosion inhibitors are chemi-
cals that are used to control the corrosive activity between
the metallic alloys and water. The current interest in
chemical inhibition is largely a result of the availability
of organic treating compounds that possess both corrosion-
inhibiting and biocidal properties. Field and laboratory
tests made with organic inhibitors such as quaternary, ros-
in, and fatty amine compounds have indicated favorable
results in minimizing corrosion caused by dissolved acidic
gases. 56
Selection and Sizing of Waterflood Plants
The selection and the sizing of waterflood plant facilities
normally are unique to each waterflood because of the
many variable parameters. The primary parameters might
be the volume and pressure, while secondary parameters
might include the treating requirements and the econom-
ic position of the investor. A variation in any single one
of these parameters might drastically modify or complete-
ly change the selection and sizing of a waterflood plant.
44-46
The volumes of injection water to be handled will, of
course, be the most important basic item of information
to learn for determining the size of the plant. Here, too,
there are several parameters on which the calculation is
based. Essentially, the water volume is a function of the
gross size of the reservoir to be flooded, the porosity of
the reservoir rock, the anticipated conformity or efficiency
of the flood, and the ROS at both the initiation and com-
pletion of the flood. These data will be applied to the ac-
tual reservoir calculations, and only the final gross volume
and the required daily injection rate must be known by
the plant designer. As a general rule of thumb, 8 to 15
bbl of injected water per barrel of secondary oil, or I %
to 2 PV of injected water, will provide a reasonable esti-
mate of the ultimate water-handling requirements. Daily
injection rates may vary from 5 to 25 bblift of pay. The
producing-equipment capacity may be a limiting factor
in determining the maximum injection rates. A relatively
high ratio between the amount of fluid that is injected and
the amount of fluid that is produced can be anticipated
before fill-up.
There are certain other factors that should be consid-
ered in designing the proper capacity of the plant facili-
ties. If the available quantity of supply water is relatively
small, it is usually necessary to consider produced brine
along with other supply waters so that an adequate injec-
tion volume is provided. Where the original source water
is not compatible with the produced water, or where the
produced water is best handled in a closed system and
original source water is best handled in an open or semi-
open system, flexibility in capacity design will be re-
quired. This flexibility is necessary to adjust or to balance
capacities between two separate injection systems (one
with a constantly increasing load, the other with a con-
stantly diminishing load).
The pressure required to inject water into a formation
is a function of formation depth, rock permeability, water
quality, and the injection rate that is required. The basic
reservoir data and secondary-recovery study will have de-
fined the rock properties so that the anticipated surface
pressures can be defined closely, if no adverse effects are
anticipated as a result of poor-quality or incompatible
water. Poor quality might be because the water contains
a large quantity of solids as a result of poor filtration, in-
adequate settling, precipitation in an unstable water, or
the growth of bacteria. Incompatibility might result from
mixing injection water with formation water, from the
swelling of clay particles, or from chemical reactions be-
tween the rock minerals and the injected water. In gener-
al. it has been found that the pressures than initially are
encountered are less than might be anticipated when the
only governing factors are depth and permeability; how-
ever, increasing pressures should be expected if there is
no plan to reduce the injection rate as fill-up is ap-
proached. A final factor in predicting injection rates is
the method of production. If the reservoir is to be pro-
duced by natural flow, the injection pressure must be suffi-
cient to overcome dynamic hydraulic forces and to support
a flowing rate of production. If, on the other hand, pro-
duction is to be by mechanical means, with producing fluid
levels at or near reservoir depth, a considerable reduc-
tion in injection-pressure requirements is possible. Con-
sideration should be given to what the maximum allowable
injection pressures should be. As a rule of thumb, pres-
sure at the surface should not exceed 0.5 psi for every
foot of reservoir depth. The maximum wellhead injection
pressure will limit the resulting pressure at the perfora-
tions, which is less than the parting or fracture pressure.
This pressure can be determined by an injectivity test con-
ducted before or during pilot flood operations. Breakdown
pressures are often encountered below the 0.5-psi value,
and in such circumstances the maximum pressure will be
defined by the breakdown pressure. In older fields, or in
reservoirs located at considerable depth, the mechanical
strength of the injection-well casing may be the deciding
factor concerning the pressure limit. This limitation can
be overcome by installation of competent tubing set on
a packer.
The source and the condition of the supply water will
be the most important factors in determining a treating
method. It is generally good practice to plan originally
on using a closed system that requires little or no treat-
ing. Subsequently, the closed system may evolve into one
in which the mixing of produced water will require
custom-tailoring for conditions that are unique to the par-
ticular flood being considered. By starting with a basic
treating system, the unit may be expanded into a com-
plete version that may include aeration, chemical treat-
ing, flocculation, settling, corrosion inhibition, and
bacteria control.
In developing the proper treating system for a particu-
lar plant, the economic factors that are unique to the situ-
ation should be given close attention. If the flood is to
be of relatively short duration, it may be profitable to use
a system that is less than adequate and to anticipate more
than normal maintenance demands. In other circum-
stances, it might prove most profitable to install corrosion-
resistant equipment and to reduce the use of corrosion-
inhibiting treatment. Consideration should be given to
installing fiberglass tubing or internally plastic-lined
tubing in injection wells. Also, if new injection wells are
to be drilled, a full or partial string of fiberglass casing
should be considered to minimize corrosion and scale
buildup, especially in the area across the producing for-
mation. A paper published in 1980 discusses the use of
fiberglass liners and injection tubing in a west Texas
waterflood. I65
Possibly the last item to be considered by many design
engineers, and yet the most important item in many com-
panies, is the financial position of the investor. It is quite
possible that a particular operator may have limited in-
vestment capital and would find it desirable to keep this
sum to a minimum, at the expense of higher future oper-
ation costs or additional future investment. The capital
investment situation might also affect the choice of injec-
tion rate. The operator might be in a financial position
in which a low, long-term, constant income would be most
advantageous; in other circumstances, a short-term, high-
income situation might be most desirable. Under either
of these conditions, the normal approach to determining
injection rates and plant design would be modified to
produce the most desirable income vis-8-vis investment
conditions.
When the most desirable injection rate as well as the
pressure and treating technique have been determined, the
plant must be designed to fit the prescribed conditions.
F0r.a closed system, the plant design may be extremely
simple and yet completely automatic. With in-line, high-
pressure filtration equipment and a relatively high-
discharge head source well pump, it is possible to use the
supply pump as the injection pump and to inject directly
from the supply well to the injection well. In this plan,
individual cartridge-type well filters may be used if the
supply water is relatively free of solids.
The next stage in increasing the capacity of the injec-
tion plant would be to install a booster pump downstream
from the filters, so that the supply pump and filters would
not have to operate at injection pressures. The step after
that would be to place a gas- or oil-blanketed water surge
tank between the supply and filter system and the injec-
tion pumps. With this arrangement, low-pressure equip-
ment can be used for supply and filtration; if the supply
water and produced water are found compatible, produced
water can be commingled in the surge tank. Where the
systems are separated, it is also possible to use injection
pumps with maximum pressure capacities. Further flexi-
bility is also possible in that both source and injection rates
can be varied independently, as long as the supply rate
is at least as great as the injection rate. Corrosion fre-
quently is minimized in the low-pressure side of this type
of system by use of plastics, which also results in reduced
fabrication costs.
If a supply water is naturally aerated, the operation of
a closed system becomes pointless. Also, because of ex-
cessive amounts of dissolved acid gases and/or a high con-
tent of dissolved iron, it may be desirable to aerate the
water as a treating technique. When an open treating sys-
tem is being designed, consideration should be given to
using natural elevation or substructures to obtain gravity
flow through the system. Under these circumstances, open
gravity filters are often the most economical and practical.
When a complete chemical-treating program is planned,
the most common approach is to have the prefabricated
mixing and sludge tank placed immediately ahead of the
filters. In certain circumstances, it has been found desir-
ble to deaerate the treated water before using it for injec-
tion. Chemical treatments can be used; however,
chemicals are too costly except for the removal of very
small quantities of oxygen. Counterflow, bubble-tray tow-
ers that use natural gas or a vacuum are sometimes used
for oxygen removal. However, oxygen is not removed
if it can be avoided, because of the relatively high cost
of the process; the price must be weighed against the
deleterious effects of the entrained oxygen.
Centrifugal pumps have proved most satisfactory for
low-pressure supply water and for injection at low pres-
sures. Among the advantages of this type of pump are
the small number of its moving parts and its excellent
adaptability to volume control; however, in cases in which
an appreciable amount of power is to be used, the rela-
tively low efficiencies of centrifugal pumps (particularly
when they are operated at other than design conditions)
may preclude their use. In selecting centrifugal pumps,
the proper metals should be chosen carefully for both the
case and the trim to ensure the best performance. The
greatest economy may be achieved with a cheaper pump
that is subject to some corrosion rather than with a much
more expensive pump, even though it might not be sus-
ceptible to corrosion. The positive-displacement type of
injection pump is the most common one in use. Some use
has been made of multistage centrifugal pumps; however,
they have not yet been widely accepted because of some
limitations in flexibility and efficiency.
The most generally accepted type of pump for medium-
to high-pressure water injection is of either vertical or
horizontal multicylinder design. These pumps are rela-
tively simple to operate and to maintain, and they can be
purchased with a variety of corrosion-resistant parts and
accessories. The selection of the proper number of pumps
and their capacity is contingent on the present and future
requirements for the project. It is, of course, a good prac-
tice to provide a standby capacity that is sufficient to main-
tain continuous injection in case one pump has a
mechanical failure. This can be accomplished by distrib-
uting the maximum design load over two or more units
so that at least half the injection capacity can be main-
tained.
A considerable number of filtering techniques are now
used in the oil field. These involve ceramic-, metallic-,
paper-, and cloth-element pressure filters with sand, grav-
el, or coal media; and rapid sand pressure filters with
sand, coal, or graphite media. The choice of filters is a
function of the raw water quality and volume of water
required for injection. If solids in the water must be re-
duced to submicrometer size, one of the element-type or
diatomaceous-earth filters, or a combination of the two,
is recommended. For less rigorous filtration, the gravity
or rapid sand pressure filters are most widely used. In
general, filtration rates are considered normal at about
2 gal/min-sq ft of filter area; however, this figure will
vary considerably depending on the quality of the influent
and the desired quality of the effluent. Decreased rates
also may be desirable if very frequent backwashing is net-
essary. The rates and techniques for backwashing are
prescribed by the manufacturers of the various types of
filters; this function should be considered in plant design
to ensure adequate clear-water storage for both back-
washing and continuous injection. It may be desirable to
install additional filter capacity so that filtration will not
stop during backwashing. The addition of standby filtra-
tion facilities also offers a guarantee against a total shut-
down in which a filter requires a complete change of the
filter medium.
Refs. 116, 144, 145, 147, 148, and 149 discuss water-
flood plant facilities. Also, Ref. 163 discusses waterflood
plant facilities for a North Sea waterflood project.
For a more derailed discussion on plant design criter-
ia, design calculations, etc., the reader is directed to Chap.
15, Surface Facilities for Waterflooding and Saltwater
Disposal.
Nomenclature
a = distance between wells in a row, ft
A = cross-sectional area, sq ft
B = FVF, RBISTB
3, = 011 FVF, RBISTB
B,,, = initial oil FVF, RBlSTB
B (,R = oil FVF at current reservoir conditions,
RBiSTB
C,, = correction for gas expansion
d = distance between rows of wells, ft
EC = fractional coverage or conformance
efficiency
44-48
E;y = efficiency of permeability variation,
fraction
ER = oil recovery efficiency, fraction
f,,.,, = corner well producing water cut, fraction
f,,,,. = side well producing water cut, fraction
f(,z = fraction of oil flowing at the producing end
of the system
f, = fraction of total flow coming from the
swept portion of the pattern
f,,. = fractional flow of water
F, = Caudle and Witte conductance ratio
FF = ratio of viscous to gravity forces
F
CS
= oil/gas saturation ratio
Fp = cornerto~side~well producing-rate ratio
F,,.,, = WOR
g = acceleration caused by gravity, ft/sec2
h = formation thickness, ft
it,
= injection rate of fluid that has same
mobility as the reservoir oil in a liquid-
filled (base) pattern, as calculated from
Eq. 20, RB/D
i , , . = water-injection rate, RBiD
k,, = effective permeability to oil, md
k,,. = effective permeability to water, md
k. , = permeability of x layer, or the layer that
has just been flooded, md
k = mean permeability, md
k, = permeability value at 84. I % of cumulative
sample, md
L = distance, ft
M = mobility ratio
M,,,, = water/oil mobility ratio multiplied by the
FVF of the reservoir oil at the time of
flooding
n = number of layers
IIBT = number of layers in which water has
broken through (varies from 1 to n)
N = initial oil in place, STB, or ratio of square
root of production rates
N,, = oil produced, STB
N
,I
= recovery to depletion (abandonment),
fraction
PO
= pressure at depletion (abandonment), psi
P II,,
= transient backpressure. psi
PC
= effective reservoir pressure (external
boundary pressure), psi
p, = initial pressure, psi
Api<. = pressure differential between injection well
and corner well, psi
AL,\
= pressure differential between injection well
and side well, psi
P,. = capillary pressure. p,, -pII.. psi
q, = total flow rate (q,,, +q,,), B/D
rr
= pressure radius (external boundary radius),
ft
r,
= distance from well to the point of pressure
equalization at p,,,), ft
ru
= effective radius of a well, ft
R, = outer radius of oil bank, ft
R,,. = outer radius of waterflood front, ft
SF = position of center of unflooded area at
moment of fill-up (correct drilling
location), fraction of length of side or
diagonal
S, = gas saturation at start of flood, fraction
S,,. = residual gas saturation, fraction
S,, = oil saturation at start of flood, fraction
S,,,. = ROS, fraction
S,,. = water saturation, fraction
S
,I 2
= water saturation at the producing end of
the system, fraction
s ,,,~r = average water saturation at water break-
through, % PV
S,,,,sZ = water saturation at upstream end of
stabilized zone, % PV
r = time, days
V,t = displaceable PVs injected, fraction
W, = cumulative PVs of water injected, fraction
8 = angle of formation dip referenced to
horizontal
PO
= oil viscosity, cp
P II
= water viscosity, cp
Ap = density difference between water and oil,
P~,~-P~~, g/cm3
Cp = porosity
ER =0.2719 log k+0.2.5569S,,. -0.1355 log ,L<,
-1.53804--0.0011444h+0.52478 .(l4)
ER =93.5399 [ 44 ;,s,,) ] o.0422 (2) O.O
-0.2159
. .
(15)
I ), =
5.427x 10~4k,,,h(p;,,/-~e)
. .
(16)
3.4542x 10p4kApt
=1+
1.0885x10-khAp
cl,,dSsrb?
-I
CL II 1 IO
>
x 104.7297~10 'klrA&,,i,, J
(19)
44-49
1.178966x lo-k,,hAp
lb, =
,,..........
>
(20)
1.572211~10-~k,,.hAp
l,,. = ,.........
>
(23)
I=
2.714382x 10-4k,,.h
, . .
>
where
B,i is in m/m,
d,h,r,,r,,. are in m,
I is in mid,
i,, is in m3id,
k,k,,. are in pm,
Pivf,Pp are in kPa,
s, s,,
are in fraction,
t is in days,
po,p,v are in Pass, and
4 is a fraction.
References
I Carll, J.F.: The Geology of the Oil Regions of Warren, Venango,
Clarion and Butler Counties. Second Geological Survey of
Pennshmia 1875-79 (1880) 268.
2. Lewis. J.O.: Methods of Increasing the Recovery from Oil
Sands, Bull. 148. U.S. Bureau of Mines (1917) 108-14.
3. Torrey, P.D.: A Review of Secondary Recovery of Oil in the
United States, Seconduq Recovep of Oil in the Unired States,
API, Dallas (1950) 1.
4. Craig, F.F. Jr.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water-
flooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1971) 3,
112-23.
5. Benner, F.C. and Bartell. F.E.: The Effect of Polar Impurities
Upon Capillary and Surface Phenomena in Petroleum Production,
Drill and Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1941) 341.
6. Leverett, M.C. and Lewis, W.B.: Steady Flow ofGas-oil-water
Mixtures Through Unconsolidated Sands, Trans., AIME (1941)
142, 107-16.
7. Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Eqincering, second edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc.. New York City (1958) 360.
8. Muskat, M. and Botset, H.G.: Effect of Pressure Reduction upon
Core Saturation, Trans., AIME (1939) 132, 172-83.
9. Dickey, P.A.: lntluence of Fluid Saturation on Secondary
Recovery of Oil, Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States,
second edition, API, Dallas (1950) 17.
IO. Dean, P.C.: Case History of Water Flooding in Throckmorton
County, Texas, Oil and Gas J. (April 12, 1947) 78.
1 I. Land, C.S.: The Optimum Gas Saturation for Maximum Oik
Recovery from Displacement by Water, paper SPE 2216
presented at the 1968 SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Sept. 29-
Oct. 2.
12. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.J. Jr.: Applied Petrofeum Reservoir
Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959) 107,
357. 412-13.
13. Rathmell, J.J., Braun, P.H., and Perkins, T.K.: Reservoir Water-
flood Residual Oil Saturation from Laboratory Tests, J . Pet. Tech.
(Feb. 1973) 175-85; Trans., AIME, 255.
14. Holmgren. C.R. and Morse, R.A.: Effect of Free Gas Saturation
on Oil Recovery by Waterflooding, Trans., AIME (1951) 192.
135-40.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43
44
Dykstra, H. and Parsons. R.L.: The Prediction ofOil Recovery
by Waterflood, Secondary Recovey of Oil in the United Stutrs,
API, Dallas (1950) 160-74.
Dyes, A.B.: Production of Water-Driven Reservoirs Below Their
Bubble Point, J . Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1954) 3 l-35; Trans.. AIME,
201.
Kyte, J.R. et al. : Mechanism of Waterflooding in the Presence
of FreeGas,J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1956) 215-21; Trans., AIME,
207.
Bobek, J.E., Mattax, CC., and Denekas, M.O.: Reservoir Rock
Wettability-Its Significance and Evaluation. J . Pet. Tech. (July
1958) 155-60; Trans., AIME. 213.
Stiles, W.E.: Use of Permeability Distribution in Water-flood
Calculations, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
Buckley, SE. and Leverett. M.C.: Mechanism of Fluid Dis-
placement in Sands, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 107-16.
Welge, H.J.: A Simplified Method for Computing Oil Recoveries
by Gas or Water Drive, Trcms., AIME (1952) 195, 91-98.
Johnson, C.E. Jr.: Prediction of Oil Recovery by Waterflood-A
Simplified Graphical Treatment of the Dykstra-Parsons Method,
J . Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1956) 55-56; Trans., AIME, 207.
Leverett, M.C.: Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids, Trans..
AIME (1941) 142, 152-69.
Muskat, M.: Phyical Principles ofOil Production, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York City (1949).
Kimbler, O.K., Caudle. B.H., and Cooper. H.E. Jr.: Areal
Sweepout Behavior in a Nme-Spot Injection Pattern, .I. Pet. Tech.
(Feb. 1964) 199-202; Trans.. AIME, 231.
McCarty, D.G. and Barfield, E.C.: The Use of High-Speed
Computers for Predicting Flood-Out Patterns, Trans.. AIME
(1958) 213, 139-45.
Henley, D.H.: Method for Studying Waterflooding Using
Analog, Digital, and Rock Models, paper presented at the 1953
Technical Conference on Petroleum, Pennsylvania State U.,
University Park, Oct. 1953.
MuGkat, M. and Wyckoff, R.C.: A Theoretical Analysis of
Water-flooding Networks, Trans., AIME (1934) 107, 62-76.
Wyckoff, R.D., Botset, H.G.. and Muskat. M.: The Mechanics
of Porous Flow Applied to Water-flooding Problems, Trans.,
AIME (1933) 103, 219-49.
Botset, H.G.: The Electrolyttc Model and Its Application to the
Study of Recovery Problems, Trans., AIME (1946) 165, 15-25.
Swearingen, J.W.: Predicting Wet-Gas Recovery in Recycling
Operations. Oil Week/y (1939) 96.
Hurst, W. and McCarty, G.M.: The Applications of Electrical
Models to the Study of Recycling Operations, Drill and Prod.
Prac., API. Dallas (1941).
Lee, B.D.: Potentiometric-model Studies of Fluid Flow in Pe-
troleum Reservoirs, Trans.. AIME (1948) 174. 41-66.
Slobod, R.L. and Caudle, B.H.: X-Ray Shadowgraph Studies
of Areai Sweepaut Efficiencies, Trans., AIME (1952) 195,
265-70.
Stahl, C.D.: Coverage of Flood Patterns. Prod. Monrhly (May
1957).
Burton, M.B. and Crawford, P.B.: Appllcdtion of the Gelatin
Model for Studying Mobility Ratio Effects, J . Pet. Tech. (Oct.
1956) 63-67; Trans., AIME, 207.
Aronofsky, J.S.: Mobility Ratio-Its Influence on Flood Patterns
during Water Encroachment, Trans.. AIME (1952) 195. 15-24.
Nobles, M.A. and Janzen, H.B.: Application of a Resistance
Network for Studying Mobility Ratio Effects. J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1958) 60-62; Trans., AIME, 213.
Caudle, B.H., Erickson, R.A., and Slobod, R.L.: The
Encroachment of Injected Fluids Beyond the Normal Well
Pattern, J . Pet. Tech. (May 1955) 79-85: Trans., AIME, 204.
Dyes, A.B.. Caudle. B.H.. and Erickson. R.A.: Oil Produc-
tion after Breakthrough as Influenced by Mobility Ratio, J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1954) 27-32; Trans.. AIME. 201. 81-86.
Cheek, R.E. and Menzie, D.E.: Fluid Mapper Model Studies
of Mobility Ratio, Trans., AIME (1955) 204. 278-81.
Prats, M.: The Breakthrough Sweep Efficiency of the Staggered
Line Drive, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1956) 67-68; Trans., AIME,
207.
Fay, C.H. and Prats, M.: The Application of Numerical Methods
lo Cycling and Flooding Problems, Proc.. Third World Pet.
Cong. (1951) 2, 555-63.
Hurst, W.: Determination of Performance Curves in Five-Spot
Waterflood, Pet. Eng. (1953) 25, B40-46.
44-50
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64
65.
66.
67.
68.
Craig, F F., Geffen. T.M and Morse. R.A.: Oil Recovery Per-
formance of Pattern Gas or Water Iniection Ooerations From Model
Tests. J Per. T&h. (Jan. 195537-15: +mns., AIME, 204.
Habermann. B. : The Efficiency of Miscible Displacement As
A Function of Mobility Ratio,J.-Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1960) 26472;
Tiwns.. AIME. 219.
Bradley. H.B.. Heller, J.P., and Odeh, A.S.: A Potentiometric
Study of the Effects of Mobility Ratio on Reservoir Flow Patterns.
Soc..Pet. ERR. J . (Sept. 1961) 125-29: Trans.. AIME. 222.
Paulsell, B.L.: Areal Sweep Performance of Five-Spot Pilot
Floods. MS thesis, Pennsylvania State U., Universtty Park (Jan.
1958).
Moss. J.T., White. P.E.. and McNiel. J.S.: In-Situ Combustion
Process-Result of a Five-Well Field Experiment in Southern
Oklahoma. J. Pet. Tech. (April 1959) 55-64: Trans., AIME, 216.
Caudle, B.H. and Loncaric. I.G.: Oil Recovery in Five-Spot
Pilot Floods. J . Pet. Tech. (June 1960) 132-36: Truns.. AIME.
219.
Neilson, I.D.R. and Flock. D.L.: The Effect of a Free Gas
Saturation on the Sweep Efficiency of an Isolated Five-Spot. Bull.
55, CIM (1962) 124-29.
Guckert. L.G.: Areal Sweepout Performance of Seven and Nine-
Spot Flood Patterns, MS thesis, Pennsylvania State U.. University
Park (Jan. l%l).
Knitter, H.: Nine-Spot Flooding Program, Oiland Gus J . (Aug.
17. 1939) 38, No. 14. 50.
Watson. R.E.. Silberberg. I.H.. andcaudle, B.H.: Model Studies
of Inverted Nine-Spot Injection Pattern, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1974)
801-04.
Aronofskv, J.S. and Ramev, H.J. Jr.: Mobilitv Ratio-Its In-
fluence on Injection or Production Histories in Five-Spot Water-
flood, /. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1956) 205-10: Trms.. AIME, 207.
Martin, J.C. and Wegner, R.E.: Numerical Solution of
Multiphase, Two-Dimensional Incompressible Flow Using Stream-
Tube-Relationships, Sac. Pet. Eni. J . (Oct. 1979) 3-13-23.
Matthews, C.S. and Fischer, M.J.: Effect of Dip on Five-Spot
Sweep Patterns, J . Pet. Tech. (May 1956) 111-17: Trans..
AIME, 207.
Plats, M., Strickler, W.R., and Matthews, C.S.: Single-Fluid
Five-Spot Floods in Dipping Reservoirs, J . Pet. Tab. (Oct. 1955)
160-67; Trans.. AIME, 204.
Van der Poel, C. and Killian. J.W.: Attic Oil, paper SPE 919-G
presented at the 1957 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
Hutchinson, C.A. Jr.: Reservoir Inhomogeneity Assessment and
Control, Per. Eng. (Sept. 1959) Bl9-26.
Landrum, B.L and Crawford, P-B.: Effect of Directional Per-
meability on Sweep Efficiency and Production Capacitv. J . Pet.
Tech. (Nov. 1966) 67-71: Trans.. AIME, 219: .
Mortada, M. and Nabor, G.W.: An Approximate Method for
Determining Areal Sweep Efficiency and Flow Capacity in For-
mations with Anisotropic Permeability, Sot. Pet. En,q. J. (Dec.
1961) 277-86: Trans., AIME. 222..
Dyes, A.B., Kemp, C.E., and Caudle, B.H.: Effect of Fractures
on Sweep-Out Pattems.J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1958) 24549: Trms.,
AIME, 213.
Crawford, P.B. and Collins, R.E.: Estimated Effect of Vertical
Fractures on Secondarv Recovers. J . Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1954)
41-45; Trans.. AIME: 201.
.-
Simmons, J. ef al.: Swept Areas After Breakthrough in Vertically
Fractured Five-Spot Patterns. Truns., AIME (1959) 216, 73-77.
Crawford, P.B. et al.: Sweep Efficiencies of Vertically Fractured
Five-Spot Patterns. Pet. E&. (March 1956) 28. B95-102.
Hartsock. J.H. and Slobod, R.L.: The Effect of Mobility Ratio
and Vertical Fractures on the Sweep Efficiency of a Five-Spot,
Prod. Month!\ (Sept. 1961) 26, No. 9, 2-7.
Landrum. B.L. and Crawford, P.B.: Estimated Effect of
Horizontal Fractures in Thick Reservoirs on Pattern Conductivity,
J . Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1957) 50-52; Trans., AIME, 210.
69. Crawford, P.B. and Collins, R.E.: Analysis of Flooding
Horizontally Fractured Thin Reservoirs, World 011 (1954:
Aug.-139. Sept.-173, Oct.-214, Nov.-212, Dec.-197).
70. Pinson. J. et al.: Effect of Large Elliptical Fractures on Sweep
Efficiencies in Water Flooding or Fluid Injection Programs, Prod.
Monthly (Nov. 1963) 28, No. I I. 20-22.
71. Schmalz, J.P. and Rahme, H.D.: The Variation of Waterflood
Performance with Variation in Permeability Profile, Prod.
Mond~& (Sept. 1950) 15, No. 9, 9-12.
72. Arps. J.J.: Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves.J. Pet. Twh.
(Aug. 1956) 182-91; Truns., AIME. 207.
73. Ache. P.S.: Inclusion of Radial Flow in Use of Permeability Di\-
tribution in Waterflood Calculations. paper SPE 935-G presented
at the 1957 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
74. Slider. H.C.: New Method Simplifies Predicting Watertlood Per-
formance. Pet. En,y. (Feb. 1961) 33. 868-78.
75. Johnson, J.P.: Predicting Waterflood Performance by the
Graphical Representation of Porosity and Permeability Distribu-
tion. J . Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1965) 1285-90.
76. Felsenthal, M., Cobb, T.R., and Heuer, G.J : A Comparison
of Waterflood Evaluation Methods, paper SPE 332 presented
at the 1962 SPE Fifth Biennial Secondary Recovery Symposium.
Wichita Falls, TX, May 7-8.
77. Yuster, S.T. and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Behavior of Water Injection
Wells. Oil Week/y (Dec. 18 and 25. 1944) 44-47.
78. Suder, F.E. and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Waterflood Calculations.
Drill. urrd Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1949) 260-70.
79. Muskat, M.: The Effect of Permeability Stratification in Complete
Water-Drive Systems, Tram., AIME (1950) 189. 349-58.
80. Prats, M. et ai.: Prediction of Injection Rate and Production
History for Multifluid Five-Spot Floods, J . Per. Tech. (May 1959)
98-105; Trans., AIME. 216.
81. Muskat. M.: Flow of Homopwous Fluids 7;hrough Porous
Swtems, J.W. Edwards Inc.. Ann Arbor. MI (1946).
82. Caudle, B.H. and Witte, M.D.: Production Potential Changes
During Sweepout in a Five-Spot System. J . Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1959) 63-65; Truns., AIME, 216.
83. Caudle, B.H.. Hickman, B.M., and Silberberg. I.H.: Perform-
ante of the Skewed Four-Spot Injection Pattern. J . Pet. Tech.
(Nov. 1968) 1315-19; Trans.. AIME, 243.
Deppe, J.C.: Injection Rates-The Effect of Mobility Ratio. Area
Swept and Pattern, Sot. Per. Eng. J . (June 1961) 81-91; Trcms.,
AIME, 222.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Hauber, W.C.: Prediction of Waterflood Performance for
Arbitrary Well Patterns and Mobility Ratios. J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1964) 95-103; Trans., AIME, 231.
Felsenthal. M. and Yuster, S T.: A Study of the Effect of
Viscosity On Oil Recovery by Waterflooding, paper SPE 163-G
presented at the 1951 SPE West Coast Meeting. Los Angeles, Oct.
25-26.
Roberts, T.G.: A Permeability Block Method of Calculating a
Water Drive Recovery Factor, Pet. Enx. (1959) 31, B45-i8,
Kufus. H.B. and Lynch. E.J.: Linear Frontal Displacement in
Multilayer Sands, Prod. Month!\ (Dec. 1959) 24. No. 12. 32-35.
Snyder, R.W. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Application of Buckley-
Leverett Displacement Theory to Noncornmunicatmg Layered
Systems. J . Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1967) 1500-06; Trms., AIME.
240.
Hendrickson, G.E.: History of the Welch Field San Andres Pilot
Waterflood, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961) 745-49.
Wasson, J.A. and Schrider, L.A.: Combination Method for Pre-
dicting Waterflood Performance for Five-Spot Patterns in Stratified
Reservoirs, J . Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1968) 1195-1202; Truns.. AIME.
243.
Rapoport, L-A.. Carpenter, C.W., and Leas, W.J.: Laboratory
Studies of Five-Spot Waterflood Performance, Trans., AIME
(1958) 213, 113-20.
Higgins, R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: A Computer Method to
Calculate Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous
Medium, J . Pet. Tech. (June 1962) 679-83; Trans., AIME, 225.
Higgins. R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: Computer Prediction of Water
Drive of Oil and Gas Mixtures Through Irregularly Bounded
Porous Media-Three-Phase Flow. J. Pet. Tech. (Sept 1962)
1048-54; Trans., AIME, 225.
Higgins, R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: Waterflood Prediction of
Partially Depleted Reservoirs, paper SPE 757 presented at the
1963 SPE California Regional Meeting, Santa Barbara, Oct. 24-25.
Higgins, R.V., Boley, D.W., and Leighton. A.J.: Aids to
Forecasting the Performance of Waterfloods. J . Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1964) 1076-82; Trans.. AIME, 231.
Higgins, R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: Computer Techniques for
Predicting Three-Phase Flow in Five-Spot Waterfloods. RI 7011,
U.S. Bureau of Mines (Aug. 1967).
Douglas, J. Jr.. Blair, P.M.. and Wagner. R.J.: Calculation of
Linear Waterflood Behavior Including the Effects of Capillary
Pressure. Trans., AIME (1958) 213. 96-102.
99. Hiatt. W.N.: Injected-Fluid Coverage of Multi-Well Reservoirs
With Permeability Stratification, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API,
Dallas (1958) 165-94.
100. Douglas, J. Jr., Peaceman, D.W., and Rachford, H.H. Jr.: A
Method for Calculating Multi-Dimensional Immiscible Displace-
ment, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 297-306.
101. Warren, I.E. and Cosgrove, J.J.: Prediction of Waterflood
Behavior in a Stratified System, Sot. Per. Eng. J . (June 1964)
149-57: Truns.. AIME, 231.
102. Morel-Seytoux, H.J.: Analytical-Numerical Method in Water-
flooding Predictions, Sot. Pet. Eng. J . (Sept. 1965) 247-58:
Trans., AIME, 234.
103. Morel-Seytoux, H.J.: Unit Mobility Ratio Displacement
Calculations for Pattern Floods in Homogeneous Medium, Sot.
Per. Eng. J . (Sept. 1966) 211-27; Trans., AIME, 237.
104. Guthrie, R.K. and Greenberger, M.H.: The Use of Multiple-
Correlation Analyses for Interpreting Petroleum Engineering
Data, Dn[/. und Prod. Prac., API. Dallas (1955) 130-37.
105. Schauer, P.E.: Applicatton of Empirical Data in Forecasting
Waterflood Behavior, paper SPE 934-G presented at the 19.57
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
106. Guerrero. E.T. and Earlougher, R.C.: Analysis and Comparison
of Five Methods Used to Predict Waterflooding Reserves and Per-
formance, Drill. and Prod. Pram., API, Dallas (1961) 78-95.
107. Arps. J.J. et al.: A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficiency,
Buil. 140, APL Dallas (1967).
108. Ttmmerman. E.H. : Pracrirnl Reservoir Enwincerinn-Part II,
PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa (1982) 17090.
109. Abernathy. B.F.: Watertlood Prediction Methods Compared to
Pilot Performance in Carbonate Reservoirs. J . Pet. Te&(March
1964) 276-82.
I IO. Dickey, P.A. and Andresen, K.H.: The Behavior of Water-Input
Wells, Sewndory Rrcowry of Oil in The United Srates, API,
Dallas (1950) 30.
I I I. Nowak, T.J. and Lester, G.W.: Analysis of Pressure Fall-off
Curves Obtained in Water Injection Wells to Determine lnjective
Capacity and Formation Damage. J . Per. Tech. (June 1955)
96- 102: Truns.. AIME. 204
112. Hazebroek, P., Rainbow, H., and Matthews, C.S.: Pressure Fall-
off in Water Injection Wells, Trms., AIME (1958) 213. 250-60.
113. Ruble. D.B.: Case Study of a Multiple Sand Waterflood, Hewitt
Unit. OK, 1. Pet. Tech. (March 1982) 621-27.
114. Langston, E.P., Shirer. J.A., and Nelson. D.E.: Innovative
Reservoir Management-Key to Highly Successful JayiLEC
Waterflood, J . Per. Tech. (May 1981) 783-91.
115. Jordan, C.A., Edmondson. T.A., and Jeffries-Harris, M.J.: The
Bay Marchand Pressure Maintenance Project-Unique Challenges
of an Offshore Sea-Water Injection System, J . Pet. Tech. (April
1969) 389-96.
116. McCune, C.: Seawater Injection Experience-An Overview,
J . Per. Twh. (Oct. 1982) 2265-70.
117. Bernard, W.J. and Caudle, B.H.: Model Studies of Pilot Water-
floods, J . Per. Tech. (March 1967) 404-10; Trans., AIME. 240.
I IS. Craig, F.F. Jr.: Laboratory Model Study of Single Ftve-Spot
and Single Injection-Well Pilot Waterflooding, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1965) 1454-M); Trans. _ AIME. 234.
119. Sandiford. B.B.: Laboratory and Field Studies of Water Floods
Using Polymer Solutions to Increase Oil Recoveries. J. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1964) 917-22; Truns., AIME, 231.
120. Krebs, H.J.: Wtlmington Field California Polymer Flood-A
Case Historv. J . Pa. Tech. (Dec. 1976) 1473-80.
121. Groeneveld.. H., Melrose, J.C., and George, R.A.: Pembina
Field Polvmer Pilot Flood, J . Pet. Tech. (May 1977) 561-70.
122. Polyme; Flood Shows Promise as Recovery Tool. Oil and Gas
J. (July 4, 1966) 56.
123. Sloat, B.: Polymer Treatment Boosts Production on Four
Floods, Worid Oil (March 1969) 4447.
124. Sloat, B.: Polymer Treatment Should Be Started Early. Prf.
Eng. (July 1970) 64-72.
125. Taber. J.J.: The Injection of Detergent Slugs in Waler Floods,
Trans. ( AIME (1958) 213. 186-92.
126. Dunnmg. H.N. and Hsiao. L.: Laboratory Experiments with
Detergents as Water-Flooding Additives, Prod. Monrh/y (Nov.
1953) 59 l-96.
127. Johansen, R.T., Dunning, H.N.. and Beaty, J.W.: Petroleum
Displacement by Detergent Solutions, Prod Morrrhiy (Feb. 1959)
26-34.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
Inks, C.G. and Lahring, R.I.: Controlled Evaluation of a
Surfactant in Secondary Recovery, J . Per. Tech. (Nov. 1968)
1320-24; Trum., AIME, 243.
Squires, F.: Method of Recovering Oil and Gas, U.S. Patent
No. 1.238,355 (Aug. 28, 1917).
Atkinson, H.: Recovery of Petroleum From Oil Bearing Sands,
U.S. Patent No. 1,651,311 (Nov. 29, 1927).
Wagner, O.R. and Leach, R.O.: Improving Oil Displacement
by Wettability Adjustment, J . Per. Tech. (April 1959) 65-72;
Trans., AIME, 216.
Leach, R.O. PI al. : A Laboratory and Field Study of Wettability
Adjustment in Water Flooding, J . Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1962) 20612;
Trans., AIME, 225.
Mungan, N.: Certain Wettability Effects In Laboratory Water-
floods, J . Per. Tech. (Feb. 1966) 247-52: Trans., AIME, 237.
Cooke, C.E. Jr., Williams, R.E., and Kolodzie, P.A.: Oil
Recovery by Alkaline Waterflooding. J . Per. Tech. (Dec. 1974)
1365-74.
Ehrlich, R.: Wettability Alteration During Displacement of Oil
by Water from Petroleum Reservoir Rock, paper presented at
the 1974 Natl. Colloid Symposium, Austin, June 24.
Cooper, R.J.: The Effect of Temperature on Caustic Displace-
ment of Crude Oil, paper SPE 3685 presented at the I97 I SPE
California Regional Meeting, Los Angeles, Nov. 4-5.
Nutting, P.C.: Chemical Problems in the Water Driving of Pe-
troleum in Oil Sands, Ind. and E/q+ Chem. (Oct. 1925) 17,
1035-36.
Emery, L.W., Mungan, N., and Nicholson, R.W.: Caustic Slug
Injection in the Singleton Field, J . Per. Tech. (Dec. 1970)
1569-76.
Graue, D.J. and Johnson, C.E. Jr.: A Field Trial of the Caustic
Flooding Process, J . Per. Tech. (Dec. 1974) 1353-58.
Kornfeld, J.A.: Illinois Largest Waterflood Recovers Two
Million Barrels in 25 Months. Waterfloudin~, technical manual
reprinted from Oil and Gas J . 1 Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa
(Aug. 4, 1952) 68-71, 91-92.
Enright, R.J.: Giant Salem Flood in Full Swing, Warerfbod-
ins, technical manual reprinted from Oi! and Gas J ., Petroleum
Publishing Co., Tulsa (Dec. 7, 1953) 71-73.
Barnes, K.B.: Community Water Pipeline Serves Four Producing
Areas, Waferflooding, technical manual reprinted from Oil and
Gas J ., Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (Oct. 13, 1952) 189-91,
Walters, J.D.: Prolific Wat&tlood in East Kansas, Waq7ood-
ing, technical manual reprinted from Oi! and Gas J ., Petroleum
Publishing Co., Tulsa (May 4, 1953) 96-97. 100.
Wheeler, D.: Treating and Monitoring 45O.ooO B/D Injection
Water, Per. &ng. (Nov. 1975) 68-80.
Gates, G.L. and Parent, C.F.: Water-Quality Control Presents
Challenge in Giant Wilmington Field, Oiland Gas J . (Aug. 16,
1976) 115-26.
Stiles, W.E.: Olympic Pool Waterhowl. Wurerfboding, Reprint
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1973) 2a. 44-50.
Morrison, J.B. and Jorque, M.A.: How the Worlds Largest
Injection System was Designed, Pet. Eng. (July 1981) 122-34.
Brown, J.N., Dubrevil. L.R., and Schneider, R.D.: Seawater
Project in Saudi Arabia-Early Experience of Plant Operation,
Water Quality, and Effect on Iniection Well Performance, J . Per.
Tech. (bet. 1980) 1709-10. -
El-Hattab, M.I.: GUPCOs Experience in Treating Gulf of Suez
Seawater for Waterflooding the El Morgan Oil Field, J . Per.
Tech. (July 1982) 1449-60.
Analysis of Oil Field Waters, second edition. API RP 45 (Nov.
1968), reissued July 1981.
Biological Analysis of Subsurface Injection Waters. third
edition, API RP 38 (Dec. 1975). reissued March 1982.
Methods for Determining Water Quality for Subsurface Injection
Using Membrane Filters, Natl. Assn. of Corrosion Engineers
Standard TM-01-73 (Feb. 1973).
Ellenberger, A.R. and Holbren, J.H.: Flood Water Analyses and
Interpretations. J . PH. Tech. (June 1959) 22-25.
Clayton, J.M., Ellenberger, A.R., and Sloat. B.: Water
Treatment in Water Flooding, Prod. Monthly (April 1957) 3832.
Bell. W.E. and Shaw, J.K. Evaluatton of Iron Sequestering
Agents in Water Flooding, Prod. Mwzrh/~ (March 1958) 20-23.
Watkins, T.W.: New Trends in Treating Waters for Injection.
World Oil (Jan. 1958) 143-50.
Ho&day, D. er al.: Experts Answer Questions on Waterflood-
ing, World Oil (Sept. 1958) 106-08.
44-52
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
Torrey, P.D.: Preparation of Water for Injection into Oil
Reservoirs, Baferflortiin~, Reprint Series, SPE. Richardson, TX
(1959) 2, 22-29.
Bilhartz, H.L.: Are We Making Water Systems Too Complex?
WarerJlooding. Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson. TX (1959) 2,
33-36.
General References
Callaway, F.H.: Evaluation of Waterflood Prospects, J. Per. Tech.
(Oct. 1959) 11-16.
Patton. C.C.: Oillield Water Systems, Campbell Petroleum
Series (1977).
Ostroff. A.G.: Introduction to Oiltield Water Technology, sec-
ond edition, Natl. Assn. of Corrosion Engineers (1979).
Mitchell, R.W. and Finch, E.M.: Water Quality Aspects of North
Sea Injection Water, J. Per. Tech. (June 1981) 1141-52.
Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, V., and Harouaka, A.: Prediction of
Scale Problems Due to Injection of Incompatible Waters. J. Pet.
Tech. (Feb. 1982) 273-84.
Shen, J. and Crosby, C.C.: Insight Into Strontium and Calcium
Sulfate Scaling Mechanisms in a Wet Producer, J. Pet. Tech.
(July 1983) 1249-5.5.
Dalton, R.L. Jr., Rapoport, L.A., and Carpenter, C.W.: Laboratory
Studies of Pilot Waterlloods, L Per. Tech. (Feb. 1960) 24-30; Trans.,
AIME, 219.
Jordan, J.K.: Reliable Interpretation of Waterllood Production Data,
J . Per. Tech. (Aug. 1958) 18-24.
Justen, J.J. and Hoenmans, P.J.: Pembina Pilot Waterflood Proving
Successful, J. Per. Tech. (June 1958) 21-23.
Rosenbaum, M.J.F. and Matthews, C.S.: Studies on Pilot Waterflood
ing, .I. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1959) 316-23; Trans., AIME, 216.
Ghauri, W.K.: Production Technology Experience in a Large Wright, F.F.: Field Results Indicate Significant Advances in Water
Carbonate Waterflood, Denver Unit, Wasson San Andres Field, Flooding: Effect of Rates on Performance in Browning Unit Water
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1980) 1493-1502. Flood, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1958) 12-14.
Chapter 45
Miscible Displacement
LeRoy W. Holm, Union oil Co. of California*
Introduction
Through research efforts and pilot testing over the past
25 years, miscible-phase-displacement processes have
been developed as a successful means of obtaining
greater oil recovery in many reservoirs. To understand
these processes, it is first necessary to provide a defini-
tion of miscibility, particularly as distinguished from
solubility. Solubility is the ability of one substance
(fluid) to mix with a fluid or fluids and form a single
homogeneous phase. Miscibility is the ability of two
or more fluid substances (gases or liquids) to form a
single homogeneous phase when mixed in all
proportions.
For petroleum reservoirs, miscibility is defined as that
physical condition between two or more fluids that per-
mits them to mix in all proportions without the existence
of an interface. If two fluid phases form after some pro-
portion of one fluid is added, the fluids are considered
immiscible. Figs. 45.1, 45.2, and 45.3 illustrate the dif-
ference in immiscible and miscible relations between
certain fluids.
Low-molecular-weight (MW) hydrocarbons such as
ethane, propane, butane, or mixtures of liquefiable
petroleum gas (LPG) are the injected fluids (solvents)
that have been used for first-contact miscible flooding.
These solvents in any amount will form a single phase
with the oil in the reservoir, so are miscible upon first
contact with the oil. Heavier hydrocarbons such as C 5 to
C t2 also are miscible with reservoir oils but have not
been used as injectants because of their higher costs.
However, since solvents like ethane and LPG are abun-
dant in most reservoir oil, they can promote miscible
displacement when nonoil-miscible fluids such as
methane, natural gas, CO*, flue gas, or nitrogen are in-
jected to vaporize or extract CZ to C r2 in situ from the
Ortginally. tn 1962 edltlon. this chapter was a part of Chap. 40, Gas-lnpchon
Pressure Mantenance and Miscible-Phase Displacement in Oil Reservors. wrWan
by James L Moore and FIxhard F. Hinds.
oil. This mechanism of in-situ transfer of light hydrocar-
bons from the reservoir oil to the injected fluid that forms
a mixture miscible with reservoir oil is known as
dynamic miscibility or multiple-contact miscibility.
There are, as a result of extensive research and
development efforts by the petroleum industry and
various universities (much of which was funded by the
U.S. DOE during 1973-Sl), several forms of miscible
displacement operations currently in use or under con-
sideration. The processes include (1) miscible-slug drive
for first-contact miscibility, (2) condensing-gas drive for
dynamic miscibility, (3) vaporizing-gas drive for
dynamic miscibility, and (4) extracting-liquid or critical-
fluid drive for dynamic miscibility. A brief discussion of
the theoretical aspects and limiting factors of each of
these types of miscible displacement, in addition to an
outline of engineering study basic requirements, are
presented on the following pages. Engineering examples
are presented in the Appendix in conjunction with a
discussion of alternative procedures.
Theoretical Aspects of Miscible-Phase
Displacement
Miscible-Slug Process
The sim lest type of miscible drive is the liquid slug
process j-4 In this type of miscible drive, a slug of
material such as propane or LPG (liquefied petroleum
gases C2 to C,) is injected into the reservoir and fol-
lowed by a dry gas.* The slug miscibly displaces oil
from the contacted portion of the reservoir by virtue of a
Other ngnhydrocarbon flu& such as cenaln alcohols, can be miscible wh reser-
voll 011. However. these alcohols lend to promote miscible displacement between
011 and in-situ water so that complex phase and moblfity relationships occur. Pro-
hlbltlvefy large volumes of these alcohols are required to mamtain a misctble
displacement m the reservoir. As injecte$,soluble oils or oil exIernal microsmulsions
also are miscible with the reservoir oil. Since complex phase relationshlps also
occur between these fluids and both the oil and water in the reservoir, and because
other chemicals are used in conjunction with them. dlscusslon of this displacement
process is found in Chap. 47-Chemical Flooding
solvent cleaning action. For the purposes of discussion,
LPG will be used to denote the slug material. In practice,
LPG solvents that are first-contact miscible with reser-
voir fluids are too expensive to inject continuously. In-
stead, the solvent is injected in a limited volume, or slug,
that is small relative to the reservoir PV, and the slug, in
turn, is miscibly displaced with a less expensive fluid
such as methane, natural gas, or flue gas. Ideally with
such a process scheme, solvent miscibly displaces reser-
voir oil while drive gas miscibly displaces the solvent,
propelling the small solvent slug through the reservoir.
OIL OIL
(LIQUID) (LIQUID)
Fig. 45.1-Immiscibility of methane (gas) and oil (liquid) at
reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure.
*;E;;/;;; 2000 LB
L-- J
15OOF
. l l . . I
l . l -
t l -. .
...Z. ,-.
-0 -
. l
. . l **
.
M&A-NE
1 l -
MEGANE
Jr-AC\
(GAS)
(LIQUID)
Fig. 45.2-Miscibility of methane (gas) and propane (or LPG)
liquid at reservoir conditions of temperature and
pressure. Here propane (or LPG) is a gas in
presence of gas.
ATMOSPHERIC
p*E PFi
(GAS)
(LIQUID\ u-m;:?
(LIQUID) (LIQUID)
Fig. 45.3-Miscrbility of propane (or LPG) liquid and oil liquid
at reservoir conditions of temperature and
pressure. Here propane (or LPG) is a liquid in the
presence of a liquid.
Pressure and Composition Requirements. The basic
requirement for miscible displacement by the slug proc-
ess is that the solvent slug be miscible with both the
reservoir oil and the drive gas, which is mostly methane.
Miscibility between the LPG slug and the displacing gas
requires a certain minimum pressure,s which can be
estimated from published data on the cricondenbars of
mixtures of pure components (Fig. 45.4). For example,
this pressure may be as low as 1,100 psia at the reservoir
temperature of 1.50F.9 It is important to note that for
temperatures between the critical temperature of LPG
and methane, the critical pressure (miscible pressure) is
usually much higher than the critical pressure of either
fluid. Where additional data are required, these values
should be determined in the laboratory.
Equilibrium phase diagrams, previously discussed in
Chap. 20, are convenient representations of the ranges of
temperature, pressure, and composition within which
combinations of phases coexist.
Fig. 45.5 is a triangular phase diagram that illustrates
the phase behavior requirement for first-contact
miscibility. lo For the pressure and temperature at which
this pseudotemary diagram was determined, all mixtures
of LPG (Cz to C,) and oil (Cs+ ) lie entirely within the
single-phase region. As indicated on the diagram, an
LPG slug could be diluted with methane to Composition
A and the resulting mixtures would remain first-contact
miscible with Reservoir Oil B. Composition A is the in-
tersection of the right side of the triangle (methane/LPG
compositions) and the tangent to the phase boundary
curve that passes through the oil composition.
As the concentration of methane in the injection fluid
increases, the pressure (cticondenbar) increases and
ultimately becomes impractically high for first-contact
miscibility. When this happens, dynamic miscibility can
be achieved by the condensing- or vaporizing-gas drive
mechanisms.
Condensing-Gas Drive (or Enriched-Gas Drive)
A condensing-gas drive is that process of oil displace-
ment by gas that makes use of an injected gas containing
low-MW hydrocarbon (C, to Cg) components, which
condense in the oil being displaced. To effect conditions
of miscible displacement, sufficient quantities of low-
MW components must be condensed into the oil to
generate a critical mixture at the displacing front.
This process was brought to the attention of the in-
dustry in the late 1950s by laboratory investiga-
tions, *I2 which showed that the use of condensing gas
drives would result in increased oil recovery from many
reservoirs during either primary or secondary phases of
MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT 45-3
6000
4000
a
2
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TEMPERATURE OF
Fig. 45.4-Critical loci of binary n-paraffin systems.
production. Laboratory tests were conducted with a wide
of Fig. 45.6. Contiguous zones of miscible compositions
composition range of injection gases and reservoir of bubble- and dewpoint fluids can exist. The bubble-
fluids, at pressures greater than, equal to, or less than the point curve represents the composition of a fluid where
saturation pressure (bubblepoint pressure) of the dis- the last vapor disappears at a fixed pressure and
placed fluid. One of the principal conclusions from these
temperature; the dewpoint curve represents the composi-
tests was that high oil recoveries could be obtained
tion where the first liquid appears at these same condi-
regardless of whether the oil was originally saturated or tions. Regions of liquid/liquid, liquid/liquid/vapor and
unsaturated with natural hydrocarbon gases at the liquid/vapor/solid (asphalt) equilibrium have been found
displacement pressure.
in more recent studies. For this reason it is important that
The phase relations governing this process are il-
lustrated by a triangular diagram in Fig. 45.6. Initially, a
rich gas of Composition C is injected into Reservoir Oil
A. As indicated by a line joining these two points, some
mixture compositions fall in the two-phase region and
thus these two components are not immediately misci-
ble. However, after several consecutive steps of Gas C
contacting the oil, the C2 -to-C6 components condensed
out of the gas at each contact are absorbed by the oil until
a critical Mixture B is obtained at the miscible front. It is
noteworthy that, had Gas C initially fallen to the left of
the immiscible-miscible (I-M) line, it would have been
impossible to enrich the oil to B. There would not be suf-
ficient amounts of the gas-enrichening components in the
injected gas to reach the Miscible Point B. The I-M line
is referred to as the limiting tie line of the phase diagram.
(tlSSLE POINT,
SATURATEO-VAPOR CURVE
CAITICAL MIXTURE
AFTER INFINITE
Limiting Factors (Phase Behavior)
IC~Crj)
I-M OIVIOING LINE
Control of Injection-Gas Composition. As indicated in
the definition of miscible displacement by condensing-
gas drive, the quantity of low MW components in the in-
jection gas is critical. * Also, the actual dynamic or
multiple-contact phase behavior may be more com-
plicated than shown in the simple pseudoternary diagram
INJECTION-GAS COYPOSITION-C
RESERVOIR-FLUID COMPOSITION-A
M MISCIBLE I IMllSClSLE
Fig. 45.6-Illustration of miscible displacement (condensing-
gas drive).
DRY GAS
INJECTION
OIL PRODUCTION
LPG BANK
\
TAKEN FROM
WELLS lN.OlL BANK
LPG AND OIL
MIXING ZONE
Fig. 45.5-Phase boundary curves for the system reservoir
oil/LPG/tail gas; 180F-volume percent basis.
45-4
laboratory displacement tests be conducted to determine tional, immiscible gas drives. The increase in oil
the gas composition required for miscibility development recovery at the higher pressures is believed to result
at a specific injection pressure and reservoir temperature. from: (1) absorption of injected gas by the oil to cause a
Such tests also will help to determine when a sufficient volume increase of the oil phase in the reservoir; (2)
transition zone is established at the front, so that dry gas enrichment of injected gas resulting from vaporization of
that is miscible with the critical gas mixture immediately low-boiling-range hydrocarbons from the oil into the
behind the transition bank can be substituted for the rich gaseous phase; and (3) reduction in the difference of
gas. I3 Economic considerations will usually dictate that viscosity and interfacial tension (IFT) between the in-
a minimum amount of rich gas be used. jetted gas and the reservoir oil as a result of mixing of
the above fluids.
Reservoir Pressure. When the reservoir pressure is
relatively low, a gas very rich in intermediates would be
required for miscible displacement. At higher pressures,
a lesser quantity of C2 to C 6 hydrocarbons would be
needed. Thus pressure as well as gas composition can be
adjusted to achieve miscibility. The reservoir pressure
required for this process will be at least 1,500 psig.
Oil Gravity. The gravity of the oil (if it is higher than
20API) has little effect on the condensing-gas drive
process, although with heavier oil, greater enrichment
of the gas and longer contact with the oil are required to
transfer the C 2 to C 6 components into the oil. The in-
herent higher viscosities of the heavier oils also leads to
more unfavorable mobility ratios for the displacement.
Vaporizing-Gas Drive Process
High-Pressure Gas Injection. Another mechanism for
achieving dynamic miscible displacement relies on in-
situ vaporization of low-MW hydrocarbons (C, to C,)
from the reservoir oil into the injected gas to create a
miscible transition zone. This method for attaining
miscibility has been called both the high-pressure and
the vaporizing gas process. Miscibility can be
achieved by this mechanism with methane, natural gas,
flue gas, 0; nitrogen as injection gases, provided that the
miscibility pressure required is physically attainable in
the reservoir.
The concept was introduced in 195014; the process re-
quires a higher pressure than normally used in conven-
The mechanism of miscible displacement by high-
pressure gas injection has been described in detail by
several investigators. 10,15-18 Fig. 45.7 presents a
triangular diagram I7 to illustrate the phase relations of
this mechanism. Initially, a relatively lean gas of Com-
position C is injected into Reservoir Fluid A. A line con-
necting A and C intersects the phase-boundary curve
EBO, indicating that these two phases are not im-
mediately miscible. However, as Gas C moves through
the reservoir, it will become enriched because of the ef-
fect of vaporization, until it ultimately reaches a critical
Composition B. This fluid now is miscible in all propor-
tions with Reservoir Fluid A or any reservoir fluid lying
to the right of the I-M boundary. Although the basic con-
cepts of high-pressure gas injection may be explained
with the use of triangular diagrams, laboratory data are
required to provide detailed phase relations-particularly
with respect to the pressure at which miscibility occurs
between the injection gas and the reservoir oil.
Miscibility by the vaporizing-gas drive mechanism
also can be developed with nitrogen and flue gas (about
88% nitrogen and 12% CO ) even though these gases
have a low solubility in oil.
24
* - Because the criconden-
bar pressure for nitrogen and for low- to intermediate-
MW hydrocarbons is high, the pressures required for
dynamic miscibility are dependent on the methane con-
tent of the in-situ oil as well as the concentration of other
hydrocatins in the oil. Higher methane concentrations
in the reservoir oil reduce the pressure required to attain
vaporizing-gas drive miscibility with nitrogen. High
reservoir temperatures promote miscibility. The CO2
tends to be partially or completely stripped from the flue
gas at the front because it is soluble in the reservoir oil
and brine. It has been speculated that the flue gas front
may become essentially CO2 -free and develop miscibili-
ty in much the same manner and at much the same
miscibility pressure as if nitrogen had been the injection
gas. l9
GAS DEVELOPED AT
Limitations (Phase Behavior)
Generally speaking, miscible displacement cannot be
achieved by gas injection at realistic pressures unless
certain basic requirements are met.
1. Reservoir depths must be sufficient to permit
pressures greater than 3,000 psi, usually 4,000 psi at
reservoir temperatures.
2. The reservoir fluid must contain sufficient quan-
tities of certain (Cl to C,) components before the
INJECTION GAS COMPOSITION - C benefits of vaporization can be obtained. Referring to
RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITION - A
ENRICHED GAS COMPOSITION - R
Fig. 45.7, the reservoir oil composition must lie on or to
the right of the limiting tie line for miscibility to be at-
Fig. 45.7~illustration of miscible displacement (high-
pressure gas injection).
tained by the vaporizing-gas drive mechanism with
natural gas that has a composition lying to the left of the
limiting tie line.
MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT
45-5
3. The reservoir fluid must be sufficiently under-
saturated with respect to the injection pressure. This fac-
tor is very critical. The requirement that the oil composi-
tion lies to the right of the limiting tie line also implies
that only oils that are undersaturated with respect to
methane can be miscibly displaced by methane or natural
gas. Thus, oil of Composition F on the bubblepoint
curve of Fig. 45.7 could not develop vaporizing-gas
drive miscibility with methane/natural gas. Inspection of
Fig. 45.7 shows that as the concentration of low-MW
hydrocarbons in the reservoir oil decreases, the oil Com-
position A moves toward the left side of the pseudoter-
nary diagram and higher pressures are required to shrink
the size of the two-phase region and to develop miscibili-
ty. Increasing pressure both decreases the size of the
two-phase region and changes the slopes of tie lines by
increasing the vaporization of low-MW hydrocarbons in-
to the vapor phase.
4. The density of the reservoir fluid must be suffcient-
ly low, as reflected in stock-tank gravities of approx-
imately 40API and greater.
Laboratory studies would provide quantification for
these requirements.
Extracting-Liquid or Supercritical Fluid Drive
CO2 Miscible Process. A fourth mechanism for achiev-
ing dynamic or multiple-contact miscibility involves the
injection of a solvent gas (such as COZ, ethane, N20, or
H2S), which is not first-contact miscible with reservoir
oils but is highly soluble in them. Table 45.1 shows the
critical temperatures and solubilities of some of these
solvent gases for comparison with methane.
The critical temperatures of these gases are close to
reservoir temperatures and the gases are very compressi-
ble at these conditions (Fig. 45.8).23 CO2, from the
standpoint of availability, cost, and operational han-
dling, is the most practical of these fluids. As a liquid, or
as a dense, critical fluid solvent, CO;? extracts from the
oil hydrocarbons of higher MW than the predominantly
C2 to Cd hydrocarbons that methane vaporizes. 24 In ad-
dition to the C2 to Cd hydrocarbons, these fluids include
C5 to C 12 hydrocarbons from the gasoline fraction of the
crude and even C t3 to C3c gas-oil fractions of the crude.
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
PRESSURE, PSI
Fig. 45.8-Compressibility factor6 for COs.
TABLE 45.1-CRITICAL TEMPERATURES AND
SOLUBILITIES OF SOLVENT GASES
Critical
Solubility of Gas
Temperature
in a Crude Oil at
1,000 psi and 135OF
W) [Cl
(scf/bbl)
~ -
Carbon dioxide 88 31 634
Ethane 90 32 640
Hydrogen sulfide 213 100 522
Methane -117 -82 209
In fact, the C2 to CJ hydrocatbons are not needed to
achieve miscibility, so reservoir oils, which arc depleted
in methane and the low-MW hydrocarbons (dead oils),
are still candidates for CO;! miscible flooding.25 This
greatly increases the application potential for miscible
displacement. After multiple contacts with the reservoir
oil, the hydrocarbon-enriched-CO2 phase miscibly
displaces reservoir oil. 26*27
The phase behavior representation of this process is
more complicated than the previous hydrocarbon injec-
tion processes. Fig, 45. 9 indicates the enrichment in Cs
to C30 hydrocarixjns required to achieve the miscible
displacement fronts.
Pressure-Comptitioh Requirement. The reservoir
pressures at whichmiscible displacement can occur are
similar to those,ftithe first-contact or enriched-gas proc-
esses (1,000 to 2,000 psi) because of the high solvency
of the dense, supercritical CO* at these pressures and
most reservoir temperatures (< 200F). Lower
miscibility pressures are achieved at lower temperatures.
Also, like the dependence of the vaporizing gas process
on the C2 toC6 content of the in-situ oil, the CO2
miscible process is dependent on the C5 to Csc content
of the oil. At a given reservoir temperature, miscibility
displacement with CO2 is achieved at lower pressures
where the C5 to C3c content is higher (Fig. 45.10). 28
Recent data indicate that the C5 to C i2 content of the
oil has the greatest effect on the miscibility pressure. The
heavy portion (C3t +) of the oil also affects this
IO(P* 1000
RESERVOIR 011 C5 IO Cx pM SOLYEWT
Fig. 45.9-Postulated phase diagram for fluids at displace-
ment front after COP has extracted hydrocarbons
in-situ from reservoir oil, contacted at miscible
pressure pnr
Cop DENSITY REOUIRED FOR MISCIBLE
DISPLACEMENT VS. C&-C30 CONTENT OF CRUDE OILS
0 0.9
c I
5 _
m
L+ -
2
0.6
t: -
E
> 0.7 -
k
4
m
s 0.6 -
z
5
A FARNSWORTH
go.5 - 0 WILMINGTON FORD ZONE
0
A WEST POISON SPIOER
Pi -
Cl NORTHUUNOlS
0 GOMINGUEZ
c -
. EANOINI
z
0.4
0 CS-CSOCUI ItdO STRAWN
, 0 REOWASH I I I
40 50 60 70 60 90 100
C5-C30 CONTENT OF OIL, C5430, WT%
cg+
Fig. 45.10~CO2 density required for miscible displacement
vs. C, to C, content of various crude oils. MMPs
at 165OF for same crude oils.
miscibility pressure. Increased heavy oil components,
usually accompanied by lesser amounts of C5 to Cl2
components, require higher pressure to compress the
CO2 to a more dense fluid and promote adequate enrich-
ment at the displacement front. This means a greater
mass of CO2 would be required for miscible recovery of
heavy oil with accompanying increased costs.
Process Considerations. To effect a true miscible
displacement process, CO* should be injected con-
tinuously, or a CO2 slug should be driven by a gas that is
miscible with the CO,!. Methane, flue gas, or nitrogen
can be used for this purpose. However, because of the
improved mobility achieved, water is often used as the
drive fluid. Although CO* is soluble in the water, it is
not miscible with it, so that the water-driven CO2 slug
dissipates by leaving a residual phase. This residual is
one of the factors controlling the CO2 slug size required.
CO2 often is available in mixtures with other gases.
The effect of these impurities is either to raise or lower
Fig. 45.11--Mixing of solvent and oil by longitudinal and
transverse dispersion.
the pressure re uired to achieve miscible displacement in
a reservoir.
B
14,2 ,30 Gases such as nitrogen and methane
raise the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP); ethane,
propane, or hydrogen sulfide tend to lower the pressure
requirement.
Factors Affecting Displacement Effkiency
Under the conditions of miscible displacement, nearly all
the oil in place within the pore channels contacted will be
displaced by virtue of the elimination of interfacial
forces between the gas and oi13 and by the absence of
relative-permeability effects. As the enriched gas and oil
approach their critical mixture, there is a marked reduc-
tion in their IFT. Even though miscibility (defined by
zero IFT and no interface) has not been reached at this
point, improved oil recovery over immiscible displace-
ment has been observed in laboratory flooding using
such two-phase fluids. Such displacement has been
described as near-miscible (incorrectly as partial-
miscible) displacement. The actual recovery from the
reservoir by miscible and near-miscible floods will be
considerably less than that obtained in laboratory floods
because of factors affecting pattern and conformance ef-
ficiency and dispersion of the miscible slug in the reser-
voir. The following discussion of factors which affect
displacement efficiency applies to all forms of miscible
and near-miscible processes.
Dispersion
Mixing zones form between the reservoir oil and LPG
slug (or multiple-contact miscible slug) and between the
injected drive gas and the slug. Three mechanisms that
contribute to this mixing are molecular diffusion,
microscopic convective dis ersion, and macroscopic
convective dispersion. 7 2 32 33 3Q Microscopic dispersion is
pore-size mixing in excess of that from the random mo-
tion of molecules and is caused by convection in the tor-
tuous flow through porous media. Further mixing of
fluids by macroscopic convective dispersion can be
caused by permeability heterogeneities over a larger area
of the porous rock34 (Fig. 45.11).
In a relatively homogeneous reservoir, the length of
these mixing zones determines the minimum slug size.
The slug should not be diluted to such an extent that
miscibility is lost before most of the reservoir area is
contacted. On the other hand, viscosity and density dif-
ferences between solvent and oil, which also affect the
slug, may be moderated by diffusion and dispersion,
with a decrease in fingering, gravity override, and resul-
tant slug-stabilization tendencies.
Laboratory studies have indicated that in linear-flow
systems the mixing zone grows rapidly at first, decreases
in rate of growth as displacement continues, and even-
tually stabilizes in length. A survey of the literature
shows that a difference of opinion exists about the
stabilizing effect that diffusion and dispersion have on
the mixing zone in the reservoir. It is generally agreed,
however, that the length of the mixing zone varies
P
ro-
portionately with the viscosity of the driven fluid. 4, 6-39
As the viscosities of the injected gases and liquid, and
even the vaporized or extracted hydrocarbon enriched
slugs, are low (less than 1 cp), field applications general-
ly have been restricted to reservoirs with oil viscosity of
less than 5 cp.
Two correlations, based on laboratory data, have been
presented in the literature as a means to estimate the
minimum slug size required for miscible drive in a
homogeneous reservoir. One correlation4 states that the
mixing-zone length is related to the ratio of the viscosit
difference to the viscosity ratio. The other correlation
Y
says that the slug size required for a given path length
varies inversely as the square mot of the path length.
Laboratory tests 3*4 have indicated that, under ideal con-
ditions, a bank of solvent with a volume as low as a few
percent of the hydrocarbon pore space is all that might be
required to maintain miscibility. However, experience
has shown that slug volumes required for practical field
operation range from 10 to 30% HCPV in a pattern area
to counter the effects of dispersion, gravity segregation,
reservoir-rock heterogeneities, well-pattern arrange-
ments, etc. s,2
Mobility Ratio
Despite the fact that displacement of nearly 100% of the
oil in the contacted area occurs, the overall efficiency of
miscible displacement may be lowered by the effect of
an unfavorable mobility ratio (defined here as the ratio of
the displacing to the displaced mobilities). The sweep
pattern in a miscible-slug operation is controlled by the
ratio of the displacing gas to the displaced oil
mobilities40 which in the swept area will reduce itself to
the viscosity ratio of oil to gas4 (Fig. 45.12).
This ratio, of course, is unfavorable when compared
with conventional waterflood operations. Laboratory
tests have indicated that viscous fingering occurs at un-
favorable mobility ratios (Fig. 45.13). This phenomenon
has been described as dendritic fingers of solvent (or
drive gas) forming and growing in length until they break
through the penetrated LPG slug or oil bank. These
viscous fingers result in earlier solvent breakthrough and
poorer oil recovery after breakthrough for a given
volume of solvent injected than would be the case if the
displacing front remained stable. The breakthrough oil
recovery of miscible floods will be governed principally
by the mobility ratio of the injected fluids and reservoir
oil, and by the reservoir geometry.
Conformance Effkiency
Assuming that miscible displacement can be achieved by
one of the foregoing processes, the greatest single factor
that controls maximum recovery of oil from a reservoir is
conformance efficiency. For the purpose of this chapter,
conformance efficiency is defined as the fraction of the
total PV within the pattern area that is contacted by the
displacing fluid. The dominating factors that control
conformance are the gross sand heterogeneity and size
distribution of the rock interstices, which usually are
defined in terms of permeability variation or stratifica-
tion.42 These factors become particularly critical when
effecting the displacement of the higher-viscosity oils.
The associated unfavorable mobility ratio, in conjunc-
tion with a wide variance in permeability, results in a
low conformance. In addition, gravity segregation can
take place in formations possessing vertical permeabili-
ty. 43 This adverse effect occurs when the light injection
gases or liquids rise to the top of the formation or
100
60
60
40
20
IL
INJECTOA
0 HAdAN OATA
0
1 I I
0.1 1.0 10 100
MOBILITY RATIO
Fig. 45.12-Displacement behavior for developed five-spot,
data from 0.0047~in. model.
PV
c
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05
M = 2.40
0.15
0.05
M = 17.3
Fig. 45.13-Displacement fronts for different mobility ratios
and injected PV until breakthrough, quarter of a
five-spot.
45-0
and, consequently, tend to be trapped to a greater extent
by water.
Improving Recovery Efficiency by
Gravity Stabilization
In reservoirs with dip, gravity segregation of fluids can
be used advantageously to prevent viscous fingering or
gravity override. This is achieved by injecting the sol-
vent andlor gas updip and producing downdip at a rate
low enough for gravity to keep the fluids segregated.
Fingers of solvent or gas are suppressed and sweepout is
improved. Field applications of this method have been
Fig. 45.14-Combination waterdrivelmiscibledrive project in
Improving Recovery Effkiency with
low-conformance reservoir provides high oil Foams or Emulsions
recovery by water in the nonconformance sections
and by miscible displacement from the confor-
The mobility of solvents and gas in porous media can be
mance sections.
decreased by foaming or emulsifying them with water
containing surfactants. 46 Laboratory studies have shown
permeable zone and override or bypass the denser reser-
voir oil. The combination of these factors in a miscible
displacement operation can yield an overall recovery ef-
ficiency that is much lower than that of waterflood. This
problem has been a principal deterrent to the use of
miscible processes.
Improving Pattern and Volumetric
Sweep Efficiencies With Water During
Miscible Displacement
In 1957, a method for improving pattern and volumetric
sweep (conformance) in miscible displacement opera-
tions was proposed. 4o The method consists of injecting
LPG, followed by a bank of natural gas to displace the
LPG miscibly, and then natural gas and water
simultaneously. The injection of the water reduces the
relative permeability to gas in the region swept by the
LPG slug and increases the viscosity of part of the
displacing phase. These two factors combine to lower
total mobility of this system, resulting in improved
sweep (Fig. 45.14). Further research and field pilot tests
have extended this technique to both the slu and/or
drive gas in all types of miscible displacement.
$4
Water
usually is injected alternately with the drive gas and/or
the miscible slug (termed WAG). The injection of water
with an LPG or CO2 slug can trap a portion of the oil
mobilized by the miscible gas, particularly in reservoirs
having strong water-wetting characteristics. A low
water-to-gas ratio (0.5: 1) is recommended if WAG is re-
quired. Also, this type operation is limited to reservoirs
in which sufficient injection capacity is available. A tight
reservoir would require too many injection wells to inject
the necessary volumes of gas and water to meet desirable
oil production rates.
Two other potential problems with this technique are
(1) segregation of the injected fluids into different strata
and (2) trapping of oil by mobile water. 45 Fluid injection
into selected strata and proportioning of the injected
fluids within strata may be helpful in such cases. In
laboratory studies it is important to use the actual reser-
voir fluids and rock to determine the effects of rock wet-
tability on oil mobilization and trapping in the presence
of water. Refined oils or single hydrocarbons such as
decane do not wet rock to the degree that crude oil does
that these foams form selectively in the highly permeable
porous channels and thereby tend to reduce fluid chan-
neling. 47,48 Further field testing of this technique is in
progress.
Engineering Study
Basic Requirements
A detailed engineering investigation is necessary to
select and to design the miscible displacement operation
properly and to ensure that it will be successful. The
following information is generally necessary or desirable
as a basis for selecting the operation that will be most
economically feasible.
Detailed Geology. Core analyses from enough wells are
needed to provide adequate areal and vertical distribution
of rock properties, fluid saturations, capillary pressure,
and waterflood susceptibility data.
Information regarding the reservoir structure, size,
shape, and dip with particular emphasis on the definition
of stratification or zoning conditions is needed also. If
the latter is known to exist, an isometric fence diagram
of the reservoir (Fig. 45.15) should be constructed that
shows all the details of porosity development, shale con-
ditions, etc., which can be obtained from well logs, core
analysis, pressure transient tests, and individual well
performance. This diagram aids in relating well perfor-
mances and spacing with reservoir geometry.
Phase Behavior of Reservoir Fluids. Laboratory
analysis of reservoir oil and gas should be conducted to
determine such information as differential and flash
vaporization data, liquid and gas viscosities, and
hydrocarbon compositions over a wide range of
pressures. In many instances, it is necessary to know the
PVT relationships of the mixtures comprising the reser-
voir fluids as well as the possible materials that might be
injected.
Laboratory displacement tests should be conducted in
sandpacked columns (Berea or native cores) to deter-
mine: (1) the pressure required for miscible displacement
[although correlations such as Fig. 45.10 and those in
other references are available, laboratory tests (Fig.
45.16) are the most accurate method to find the
MMP]49; (2) the displacement efficiencies expected in
Fig. 45.15-Three-dimensional (fence) diagram illustrating general reservoir complexity.
the conforming areas for the LPG, condensing gas, high-
pressure gas, etc; and (3) injection techniques at the
desired operating pressure, temperatures, and for vary-
ing concentrations (or compositions) of injected
materials.
Compatibility of injected materials with reservoir
fluids should be determined. COz, LPG products, or
other light hydrocarbons will precipitate heavy paraffinic
or asphaltic material in certain types of crude oil and may
cause a reduction in permeability and a viscosity change
in the oil.
Past Reservoir Behavior and Estimation of Primary
and/or Conventional Secondary Recovery. The
natural reservoir recovery mechanism should he
evaluated to permit a reliable estimate of future primary
recovery. Evaluation of any secondary recovery applica-
tion in the reservoir is needed also.
Existing reservoir conditions should be determined.
Past performance in connection with reservoir fluid and
core analysis will provide an estimation of the state of
the reservoir at the initiation of the miscible displace-
ment project. This will include such essential items as
reservoir pressure, fluid saturation distribution, and
modeling or simulation of secondary-flooding history.
General Applicability of Miscible-Displacement
Techniques. Knowledge of the previously mentioned
factors, such as reservoir geometry and pressure condi-
tions, can lead to the selection of the miscible process
best suited to the reservoir.
Availability of injection materials and proximity of
CO:!, N2, or gasoline-plant facilities may dictate, in the
final analysis, the selection of a specific miscible
process.
Recovery by Miscible Displacement. Pattern efficiency
is defined here as that area1 coverage of the reservoir
through which the displacing fluid moves from its source
to the producing wells. This factor may be estimated
from laboratory model studies or from the literature. 5oS
L
1 I I , I I ,
900 1100 1300 1500 1700
TEST PRESSURE (PSIG)
Fig. 45.16-Laboratory test results for fixed oil composition
and fixed temperature in slim tubes.
It must be noted, however, that in the assumption of a
pattern efficiency, the effect of unconformities and
stratification must be considered.
Volumetric sweep efficiency, defined previously, is
calculated from the knowledge of the stratification, ver-
tical and area1 variation of the rock properties, and
mobility ratios of the displacing fluids to that of the
displaced oil. There are several methods being used by
engineers. 52 One of these methods is illustrated in the
example calculation (see Appendix) with reference to
alternative procedures.
Displacement efficiency should be determined from
laboratory studies. This factor represents the percent
recovery from the conforming volume of the reservoir
and may range from 80 to 100%. As mentioned
previously, it is important to study the actual reservoir
rock and fluids when possible to determine the rock wet-
ting characteristics and their effect on displacement
efficiency.
Fig. 46.17-Assumed reservoir for gas injection (inverted nine-
spot pattern).
TABLE 45.2-CALCULATION OF CAPACITY
DISTRIBUTION FOR EXAMPLE RESERVOIR
Cumulative
Thickness
(fu
1
2
3
4
5
h k
c CCnl
-83.00.19B- 0.198 0.029
0.057
0.086
0.114
0.143
41.0 0.098 0.296
39.0 0.093 0.389
31.0 0.074 0.463
26.0 0.062 0.525
6
ii
9
10
0.171 23.0 0.055 0.580
0.200 19.0 0.045 0.625
0.229 17.0 0.040 0.665
0.257 17.0 0.040 0.705
0.286 14.0 0.033 0.738
11 0.314 13.0 0.031 0.769
12 0.343 10.0 0.024 0.793
13 0.371 7.9 0.019 0.812
14 0.400 7.0 0.017 0.829
15 0.429 6.5 0.015 0.844
16 0.457 6.4 0.015 0.859
17 0.466 6.2 0.015 0.874
18 0.514 4.8 0.011 0.885
19 0.543 4.7 0.011 0.896
20 0.571 4.5 0.011 0.907
21
22
23
f2
0.600
0.629
0.657
0.686
0.714
4.5 0.011 0.91 a
4.1 0.010 0.928
3.6 0.009 0.937
3.5 0.008 0.945
3.4 0.008 0.953
26
:i
29
30
0.743 2.9 0.007 0.960
0.771 2.9 0.007 0.967
0.800 2.6 0.006 0.973
0.829 2.5 0.006 0.979
0.857 2.1 0.005 0.984
31
32
33
34
35
Total
0.886 2.0 0.005 0.989
0.914 1.3 0.003 0.992
0.943 1.3 0.003 0.995
0.971 1.2 0.003 0.998
1.000 0.8 0.002 1.000
419.7
All the oil that is displaced in a miscible flood may not
be produced. The ability of producing wells to capture
the mobilized oil must be considered.
Total recovery factor, or percent recovery of oil from
the entire reservoir, represents the product of the pattern,
conformance, displacement, and capture efficiencies.
Injectivity and Productivity of Wells. These affect
project life and have a significant effect on economics.
Injectivity tests in the field or extensive relative
permeability measurements may be necessary.
Mathematical Simulation. This may be used in pro-
jecting reservoir
modified black-oil s
erformance. Finite-difference,53
simulators55,56
4 finite-element and compositional
ha(le been developed for predicting or
history matching flood performance. Streamtube
models57,58 and scaled physical models59 also have
been developed and may be informative.
Program Design. Design of production and injection
facilities should be coordinated and used with current
operations to the fullest advantage.
Economic Evaluation and Comparison. The miscible
drive operation and other competitive methods60*6
should be evaluated and compared on an economic basis.
This analysis generally governs the final decision.
Pilot Operation and Evaluation of Results. In many
cases where waterflood operations appear very com-
petitive with miscible drive, a pilot injection program is
recommended if a suitable area in the field can be
located. The selection of the ultimate program of opera-
tion may be delayed pending the results of the pilot, thus
reducing the risks inherent in such operations.
Field Experience
Since the first miscible flooding projects of the early
1950s, there have been many applications throughout
the world of all the miscible processes. Some of the best
documented of each of these processes and their varia-
tions are listed under General References for Applica-
tions of Miscible Processes. More complete information
on these is found in the publications listed under General
References for Field Tests of Miscible Processes.
APPENDIX
Engineering Examples
As indicated in the previous sections, oil recovery and
related performance in miscible drive operations will de-
pend mainly on the degree of stratification and
permeability distribution existing in the reservoir. Con-
sequently, engineering calculations generally will be
reduced to a function of estimating conformance
efficiency.
In the following examples we have assumed a reser-
voir under an inverted nine-spot well pattern (see Fig.
45.17), with an average permeability protile and capaci-
ty distribution as indicated in Table 45.2. The procedure
followed is a modification of a standard water-cut
recovery calculation, 62 which is based on the vertical
distribution of productive capacity. The calculations for
these examples are carried out assuming (I) linear fluid
flow with no crossflow, (2) distance of penetration of the
miscible front being proportional to permeability, (3)
constant pressure drop between the injection and produc-
ing wells, (4) S,, (residual oil saturation) behind front
equals zero, (5) SCF (free-gas saturation) equals zero, (6)
k,/k, (relative-permeability ratio) equals one, thereby
defining the mobility ratio as the viscosity ratio of reser-
voir oil to the displacing gas, and (7) abandonment at a
GOR of lC0,OOCVl.
High-Pressure Gas Injection and
Condensing-Gas Drive
For comparison these two processes are calculated
together using the basic reservoir data presented in Table
45.3. High-pressure gas injection is assumed to take
place at the initial reservoir pressure, whereas the injec-
tion pressure for the condensing-gas-drive process is
assumed to be at saturation pressure. The calculation of
the recovery and producing GOR data are presented in
Table 45.4. From this table the fraction of cumulative
ht
Curve
(1)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
45-11
TABLE 45.3-BASIC RESERVOIR DATA FOR
HIGH-PRESSURE-GAS-INJECTION AND
CONDENSING-GAS-DRIVE EXAMPLES
Saturation pressure, psig
Reservoir temperature, OF
Original solution GOR, scf/bbl
Formation volume factor (reservoir oil)
At original pressure
At saturation pressure
Reservoir oil viscosity, cp
Al original pressure
Injection-gas viscosity, cp
Formation volume factor for injection gas, bbl/Mscf
kg/k,o at displacing front
TABLE 45.4-CALCULATION OF RECOVERY AND PRODUCING GOR DATA
(High-Pressure Gas Injection and Condensing-Gas Drive)
C
k,
1-C k,h, k,h,+(l -C)
Ah Curve AC &2) - CuNe 1 - (3) (7) x(l)
(9) + (8)
(2) (3) (4) (5) il (7) (8) (9) (10)
-0.000--y - ---c & i 1.ooo- 0.000 1.000
0.01 0.080 0.080 8.00 0.005 6.20 0.920 0.062 0.982
0.01 0.135 0.055 5.50 0.015 5.30 0.865 0.106 0.971
0.03 0.280 0.145 4.83 0.035 3.80 0.720 0.190 0.910
0.05 0.435 0.155 3.10 0.075 2.61 0.565 0.261 0.826
0.10 0.630 0.195 1.95 0.150 1.50 0.370 0.300 0.670
0.10 0.755 0.125 1.25 0.250 0.95 0.245 0.285 0.530
0.10 0.830 0.075 0.75 0.350 0.64 0.170 0.256 0.426
0.10 0.880 0.050 0.50 0.450 0.43 0.120 0.215 0.335
0.10 0.917 0.037 0.37 0.550 0.33 0.083 0.198 0.281
0.70 0.10 0.946 0.029 0.29 0.650 0.25 0.054 0.175 0.229
0.80 0.10 0.972 0.026 0.26 0.750 0.18 0.028 0.144 0.172
0.90 0.10 0.990 0.018 0.18 0.850 0.15 0.010 0.135 0.145
0.95 0.05 0.997 0.007 0.14 0.925 0.13 0.003 0.124 0.127
1.00 0.05 0.000 0.003 0.08 0.975 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
HI@-pressure gas inpction et original pressure F= 1.0 x 0.2610.029 x 1.675k.74 = 20.3 McWSTB.
Condensing-gas drive at saturation pressure F= 1. 0 x0. 22/ 0. 022x 1. 734/ 1. 15=15.1 McflSTS.
(l&7)
(11)
0.111
0.158
0.183
0.239
0.316
0.447
0.558
0.666
0.779
0.852
0.916
0.955
0.967
0.977
1 .ooo
CF at
Original
Pressure
(12)
CF at
Saturation
Pressure
(13)
- -
1.624 1.206
2.740 2.036
5.683 4.222
8.829 6.559
12.787 9.499
15.324 11.384
16.847 12.515
17.861 13.269
18.612 13.827
19.201 14.264
19.729 14.656
20.094 14.927
20.236 15.033
20.297 15.078
GOR at GOR at
Original Saturation
Pressure Pressure
(12)1(8)+1.13 (13)/(8)+1.13
(14) (15)
1.130 1.130
2.911 2.441
4.324 3.534
9.063 7.058
16.784 12.768
35.711 26.830
63.687 47.596
100.230 75.848
149.979 111.706
4,356
2,446
197
1,130
1.675
1.734
0.26
0.22
0.029
0.022
0.74
1.15
1.0
10.0
9
.l 0
0
0 .l .2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
h - FRAC. OF CUM. THICKNESS OIL RECOVERY-PER CENT
Fig. 45.18-Permeability and capacity distribution vs. sand-
thickness fraction.
thickness, h, is plotted as a function of dimensionless
permeability, kD, and fraction of total capacity, C.
These data are illustrated in Fig. 45.18. The recovery
and GOR data are shown in Fig. 45.19. Note that, at an
assumed abandonment ratio of 100,000 scf/bbl. recovery
by condensing-gas drive was indicated to be 74.2% of
the oil existing in the pattern area. The corresponding
recovery for high-pressure gas injection was found to be
only 66.5 % . The difference in recovery between these
two methods is essentially a result of the difference in the
compressibility factors of the displacing gas at the two
pressures.
Time-Rate Performance. Time-rate performance was
not calculated for all the examples presented since it
would be a function of the well productivity. However, it
must be pointed out that the excess pressure available in
the high-pressure gas-injection process would yield
higher well productivity and a shorter life, which could
lead to more favorable economics.
Recovery of LPG Products. Recovery of LPG products
contained initially in the injected gas under the
condensing-gas-drive process was not illustrated. This
item, however, would be a function of the following fac-
tors: (I) percent recovery from the reservoir (estimated
TABLE 45.5-BASIC RESERVOIR DATA FOR MISCIBLE-
SLUG INJECTION EXAMPLE
Reservoir pressure, psig
Saturation pressure, psig
Reservoir temperature, OF
Formation volume factor for reservoir oil, RBlSTB
Solution GOR, scf/bbl
Stock-tank oil gravity, API
Reservoir oil viscosity at 1,500 psig, cp
injection gas viscosity at 1,500 psig, cp
Formation volume factor for injection gas, RB/Mcf
k,/k, at displacing front
Reservoir-gas saturation. o/o
Interstitial water saturation. O/O
Producing GOR at initiation of injection, scf/bbl
Es;m$d;PG slug volume for sweep pattern area,
1,500
1,500
197
1.218
330
35
0.70
0.015
1.966
1.0
15
22
3,000
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig. 45.19-Comparison of oil recoveries by high-pressure gas
injection and condensing-gas drive vs. producing
GOR.
from GOR and oil-recovery data), (2) gasoline-plant
recovery efficiency, and (3) plant ownership of
recoverable liquids.
These factors, in addition to the high cost of LPG,
become critical in an economic comparison of recovery
processes.
Volume of Gas Injected. The volume of gas injected is
estimated on a reservoir volume in/reservoir volume pro-
duced basis. The volume of rich gas injected in
condensing-gas-drive operations will depend on an
evaluation of performance as related to the zones of
stratification. To achieve the maximum effect from
miscible displacement it is necessary to inject sufficient
rich gas to establish a miscible front in the least
permeable zone.
Miscible-Slug Injection
To illustrate the miscible-slug process the reservoir in the
previous examples was assumed to have been depleted to
1,500 psig. Table 45.5 presents a list of the pertinent
reservoir data that existed for this condition.
The recovery and GOR performance was calculated
using the capacity distribution data (Cols. 1 through 11)
in Table 45.4 and the A factor, as calculated from the
fluid data. These results are summarized in Table 45.6
and illustrated in Fig. 45.20. It is noted that the recovery
at a GOR of 100,000/l was found to be 58.2% of the oil
existing in the pattern area. This is a somewhat lower
value than those indicated for high-pressure gas injection
and condensing-gas drive. The difference is attributed to
the more unfavorable mobility ratio at the lower
pressure.
In this example, the GOR has decreased to approx-
imately solution ratio as breakthrough was approached.
It was assumed that all the free-gas saturation was pm-
duced during this interval.
The size of the LPG slug injected was assumed to be
5% of the HCPV in the pattern area. This volume is
within the range (2 to 10%) dictated by economics but
does not include a substantial safety factor. The volume
of LPG slug produced was not calculated for this exam-
TABLE 45.6-CALCULATION OF RECOVERY AND
PRODUCING GOR DATA MISCIBLE-SLUG-
INJECTION EXAMPLE
C Curve* 1-C
N,*
0.000 1.000 0.111
0.080 0.920 0.158
0.135 0.865 0.183
0.280 0.720 0.239
0.435 0.565 0.316
0.630 0.370 0.447
0.755 0.245 0.558
0.830 0.170 0.666
0.880 0.120 0.779
0.917 0.083 0.852
0.946 0.054 0.916
0.972 0.028 0.955
0.990 0.010 0.967
0.997 0.003 0.977
1.000 0.000 1.000
CF*
2.312
3.902
8.092
12.572
18.207
21.820
23.987
25.432
26.501
27.339
28.091
28.611
28.813
28.900
From Table 45 4
i==l x0.7010.015x 1.218/1.966=26.9 MCWSTE
tR D = Fourth CoLlSecond 201. + 33011,000
RPt
0.330
2.843
4.841
11.569
22.581
49.538
89.391
141.430
ple, but it can be estimated by multiplying the confor-
mance efficiency at abandonment by the volume of slug
injected. The net recoverable LPG, similar to that of
condensing-gas-drive operations, would be reduced by
the gasoline-plant recovery efficiency and plant-
ownership percentage.
The volume of dry gas injected is estimated on a reser-
voir volume in/reservoir volume out basis.
Alternative Calculation Procedures
Alternative procedures for predicting performance of
miscible drive operations are found in the literature.
Several investigators have presented solutions to the
permeability-stratification problem in the analysis of
waterflooding which may be modified to fit miscible-
drive processes. 63-68 Other authors have presented their
treatments with respect to gas cycling, which in itself is
an example of miscible displacement. 69-72 For direct ap-
plication to miscible drive operations, theoretical
analyses and equations for linear displacement have been
presented that offer a direct means for describing
performance. 68.73
An excellent example that compares the results of
calculated and actual performance of a pilot LPG flood
has been published. 21 In this example the reservoir was
divided into several zones of varying permeability with
radial-flow forms of Darcys law used to calculate
performance.
Mathematical simulators commonly arc used today for
designing and predicting reservoir performance of misci-
ble floods. Two examples are (1) a vaporizing gas drive
in a moderately stratified reservoir by use of a composi-
tional simulator74.75 and (2) a condensing gas drive in a
downward displacement in a reef by use of a black-oil
simulator. 76
Nomenclature
C = capacity, fraction of total capacity
C
L771
= cumulative capacity, fraction of total
capacity
CF = equivalent gas production
80
60
F=
h=
k&,, XCLJCL~ XBJB,
cumulative thickness, fraction of total
thickness
h=
average cumulative thickness, fraction of
total thickness
k= permeability, millidarcies
kD = AC/Ah =dimensionless permeability
N, = [ kDh +( 1 - C)]lk~ = fraction of total oil
PM =
R, =
R., =
l-C=
recovery
miscible pressure, psia
CA/( 1 -C) +R, =producing gas-oil ratio,
Mcf/STB
solution GOR
equivalent oil production
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
OIL RECOVERY-PER CENT
Fig. 45.20-011 recovery vs. producing GOR for LPG slug
injection.
References
I.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
I.
a.
9.
IO.
Il.
Clark, N.J. et al.: Miscible Drive-Its Theory and Applica-
tion, J . Pet. Tech. (June 1958) 1 I-20.
Morse, R.A.: British Patent No. 696524 (1953).
Koch, H.A. Jr. and Slobod. R.L.: Miscible Slug Process.
Truns.. AIME (1957) 210, 40-47.
Hall, H.N. and Geffen, T.M.: A Laboratory Study of Solvent
Flooding, Trarzs.. AIME (1957) 210, 48-57.
Gatlin. C. and Slobod, R.L.: The Alcohol Slug Process for In-
creasing Oil Recovery. Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 46-53.
Gogarty, W.B. and Tosch, W.D.: Miscible-Type Waterflood-
mg: Oil Recovery With Micellar Solutions, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1968) 1407-14: Trans., AIME, 243.
Helm. L.W.: Use of Soluble Oils for Oil Recovery. J . Pet.
Twh. (Dec. 1971) 1475-83; Trans., AIME. 251.
Craig, F.F. Jr. and Owens, W.W.: Miscible Slug Flooding-A
Review. J. Pet. Tech. (April 1960) 1 I-15.
Brown. G.G. tr al.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocar-
how, Natural Gasoline Assn. of America (1948).
Hutchmson, C.A. Jr. and Braun, P.H.: Phase Relations of
Miwble Displacement in Oil Recovery, AlChEJ. (1961) 7, 64
Stone. H.L. and Crump. J.S.: Effect of Gas Composition Upon
Oil Recovery by Gas Dnve. Trurts., AIME (IY56) 207. 105-10.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Kehn. D.M.. Pyndus, G.T.. and Gaskell, M.H.: Laboratory
Evaluation of Prospective Enriched Gas Drive Projects, Trans.,
AlME (1958) 213, 382285.
39
Clark, N.J., Schultz, W.P.. and Shearin, H.M.: New Injection
Method Affords Total Oil Recovety, Pet. Engr. (Oct. 1956)
B-4.5.
40
Wharton. L.P. and Kieschnick. W.F. Jr.: Oil Recovery by High
Pressure Gas Injection, Oil and Gas J. (April 1950) 48, 78-89.
Katz, D.L.: Possibility of Cycling Deep Depleted Oil Reservoirs
after Compression to a Single Phase, Trans., AIME (1952) 195.
175-82.
41
42
43
Griffeth, B.L. and Hollrah, V.M.: Report on Field Trial of High
Pressure Gas, Oil and Gas J . (June 1952) 86-93.
Slobod, R.L. and Koch, H.A. Jr.. High Pressure Gas Injec-
tion-Mechanism of Recovery Increase, Drill and Prod. Prac.,
API (1953) 82.
Wilson, J.F.: Miscible Displacement-Flow Behavior and Phase
Relationships for a Partially Depleted Reservoir, Trans., AIME
(1960) 219: 223-28. 45.
44.
Koch, H.A. Jr. and Hutchinson, C.A.: Miscible Displacements
of Reservoir Oil Using Flue Gas, J . Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1958) 7-19;
Trtins., AIME (1958) 213.
Blackwell, R.J., Rayne, J.R., and Terry, W.M.: Factors In-
fluencing Efficiency of Miscible Displacement, J. Per. Tech.
(Jan. 1959) l-8; Trans.. AIME (1959) 216.
lusten. J.J. ef al.: The Pembina Miscible Displacement Pilot and
Analysis of Its Performance. J . Per. Tech. (March 1960) 38-45;
Trans., AIME, 29.
Rushing, M.D. et al.: Miscible Displacement with Nitrogen,
Pet. Eng. (Nov. 1977) 26-30.
Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.: Some Properties of the tighrer
Hydrocarbons, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Carbon Dioxide,
Monograph, Research Project 37, API, Dallas (1955).
Helm. L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: Mechanisms of Oil Displace-
ment by Carbon Dioxide, J. Per. Tech. (Dec. 1974) 1427-35;
Trans., AIME, 257.
25. Helm. L.W. and Josendal. V.A.: Discussion of Determination
and Prediction of CO> Minimum Miscibility Pressure. J . Per.
Tech. (May 1980) 870-71.
26. Orr. F.M. Jr. and Silva. M.K.: Eouilibrium Phase Compositions
of CO? /Hydrocarbon Mixtures-Part I : Mixtures Measurement
bv Continuous Multiple Contact Experiment, Sot. Per. Eng. J .
(April 1983) 272-80:
27. Shelton, J.L. and Yarborough. L.: Multiple Phase Behavior in
Porous Media During CO, or Rich Gas Flooding, J . Per. Tech.
(Sept. 1977) 1171-78.
28. Helm. L.W. and Josendal. V.A.: Effect of Oil Composition on
Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, Sot. Pet. Eng.
J. (Feb. 1982) 87-98.
29. Metcalfe. R.S.: Effects of Impurities on Minimum Miscibility
Pressures and Minimum Enrichment Levels for CO, and Rich-
Gas Displacements, Sot. Per Eng. J . (April 1982) 219-25.
30. Jacoby. R.H. and Rzasa. M.J.: Equilibrium Vaporization Ratios
for Nitrogen. Methane. Catbon Dioxide, Ethane and Hydrogen
Sulphide in Absorber Oil-Natural Gas and Crude Oil-Natural Gas
Systems. Trans.. AIME (1952) 195, 99-110.
31. Simon, R.. Rosman, A., and Zana, E.: Phase Behavior Pmper-
ties of CO?--Reservoir Oil Systems. Sot. Pet. Eng. J . (Feb.
1978) 20-26.
32. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C.: A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media, SOL-. Pet. Eng. J . (March 1963)
70-84: Trans.. AIME. 228.
33. Blackwell. R.J.: Laboratory Studies of Microscopic Dispersion
Phenomena, Ser. Per. Eng. J . (March 1962) 1-8; Trans.,
AIME, 225.
34. Warren. J.E. and Skiba. F.F.: Macroscooic Distxrsion. Sot.
Per. Eng. J . (Sept. 1964) 215-30; Trans..AIME,231.
35. van der Poel, C.: Effect of Lateral Diffusivity on Miscible
Disolacement in Horizontal Reservoirs. Sot. Per.. Enp. J . (Dec.
1982) 317-26: Trans., AIME, 225.
<,
36. Lacey. J.W., Draper, A.L.. and Binder, G.G. Jr.: Miscible
Fluid Displacement in Porous Media, J . Per. Tech. (April 1958)
76-79: Trans.. AIME. 213.
37. van Rosenberg, D.V.: Mechamcs of Steady State Smgle Phase
Fluid Displacement from Pomus Media, J . Am. Chem. Sot
(March 1956) 2, 55-59.
38. Offeringa, J., and van der Poel. C.: Displacement ot Oil from
Porous Media by Miscible Liquids, J . Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1954)
Everett, J.P., Gooch, F.W. Jr., and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Liquid-
Liquid Displacement in Porous Media as Affected by the Liquid-
Liquid Viscosity Ratio and Liquid-Liquid Miscibility, Trans.,
AIME (1950) 189, 215-24.
Caudle, B.H. and Dyes, A.B.: Improving Miscible Displace-
ment by Gas-water Injection, Trans., AIME (1958) 213,
281-84.
46.
47.
48
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Habetmann, B.: The Efficiency of Miscible Displacement as a
Function of Mobility Ratio, Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 26472.
Dykstta, H. and Parsons, R.L.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery
by Water Flood, Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States.
second edition, API, New York City (19.50) 160.
Gardner, G.H., Downie, J., and Kendall, H.A.: Gravity
Segregation of Miscible Fluids in Linear Models, Sot. Per. Eng.
J . (June 1962) 95-104; Trans , AIME. 225.
Blackwell, R.J. er of.: Recovery of Oil by Displacement With
Water-Solvent Mixtures, Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 293-300;
Miscible Processes, Reprint Series, SPE, Dallas (1965) 8.
Tiffin, D.L. and Ye&g, W.F.: Effects of Mobile Water on
Multiple-Contact Miscible Gas Displacements, Sot. Per. Eng. J .
(June 1983) 447-55.
Fried, A.N.: The Foam Drive Process for Increasing the
Recovery of Oil, RI 5866, USBM (1961).
Bernard, G.G.: Effect of Foam on Recovery of Oil by Gas
Drive, Prod. Monrhly (1963) 27, No. 1, 18-21.
Helm, L.W.: Foam Injection Test in the Siggins Field, II-
linois, J . Per. Tech. (Dec. 1970) 1499-1506.
Yellig, W.F. and Metcalfe, R.S.: Determination and Prediction
of CO* Minimum Miscibility Pressures, J . Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1980) 160-68.
Dyes, A.B.. Caudle, B.H., and Erickson, R.A.: Oil Production
After Breakthrough as Influenced by Mobility Ratio, Trans.,
AIME (1954) 201, 81-86.
Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous
Media, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1937).
Claridge, E.L.: CO, Flooding Strategy in a Communicating
Layered Reservoir, J . Per. Tech. (Dec. 1982) 2746-56.
Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Pewoleum Reservoir Simulation, Ap-
plied Science Publishers Ltd., London (1979).
Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H. Jr.: Numerical Calcula-
tion of Multidimensional Miscible Displacement, Sot. Pet. Eng.
J . (Dec. 1962) 321-39; Trans., AIME, 225.
Price, H.S. and Donahue, D.A.T.: Isothermal Displacement
Processes with Interphase Mass Transfer, Sot. Per. Eng. J .
(June 1967) 205-20; Trans., AIME, 240.
Coats, K.H.: An Equation of State Compositional Model, Sot.
Pef. Eng. J . (Oct. 1980) 363-76.
Higgins, R.V. and Leighton. A.J.: A Computer Method to
Cai&late Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous
Medium, J . Per. Tech. (June 1962) 679-83; Trans., AIME,
225.
58 Faulkner, B.L.: Reservoir Engineering Design of a Tertiary
Miscible Gas Drive Pilot Project. paper SPE 5539 presented at
the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. I.
59
60
61
62
Pozzi, A.L. and Blackwell, R.J.: Design of Laboratory Models
for Study of Miscible Displacement, S&. Per. Eng. j. (March
1963) 28-40: Trans., AIME, 228.
Stalkup, F.I. Jr., Miscible Displacemen?, Monograph Series,
SPE, Dallas (1983) 8.
63
64.
65.
Miscible Processes, Reprint Series, SPE, Dallas (1983) 8.
Stiles, W.E : Use of Permeability Distribution in WaterRood
Calculations, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13.
Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fundamenrals of Reservoir Engineering. U. of
Oklahoma Press, Norman (1953) 360.
Muskat, M.: The Effect of Permeability Stratification in Com-
plete Water Drive Systems, Trans., AIME (1950) 189. 349-58.
Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery by
Walerflooding Secondaq Recovery of Oil in the United States,
second edition, API, New York City (1950) 160.
66. Johnson, C.E. Jr.: Prediction of Oil Recovery by Water
Flood-A Simplified Graphical Treatment of the Dykstrr-Parsons
Method, Truns., AIME (1956) 207, 345-46.
67. Suder. F.E. and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Waterflood Calculations.
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1949) 260.
68. Johnson, E.F. and Welge. H.J.: An Analysis of the Linear
Displacement of Oil by Gas Driven Solvent. paper 906-G
37-43; Truns.. AIME, 201. presented at the 1957 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Feb. 24-28.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Muskat. M.: Effect of Permeability Stratification in Cychng
Operations. Trans., AIME (1949) 179, 313-28.
Lindbad, E.N., Standing. M.B., and Parsons, R.L.: Calculated
Recoveries by Cycling from a Retrograde Reservoir of Variable
Permeability, Trans., AIME (1948) 174, 165-90.
Hurst, W.. and van Everdingen, A.F.: Performance of Distillate
Reservoirs in Gas Cycling. Trans., AIME (1946) 165, 36-51.
Sheldon, W.C.: Calculating Recovery by Cycling a Retrograde
Condensate Reservoir, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1959) 29-34.
Gardner, G.H.F.: Equations of Motion for A Linear Miscible
Displacement, PAPER 902-G presented at the 1957 SPE Annual
Meeting, Dallas, Feb. 24-28.
Warner, H.R. Jr. ef al.: University Block 31 Field Study: Part
I-Middle Devonian Reservoir History Match, J. Per. Tech.
(Aug. 1979) 962-70.
Warner. H.R. Jr., Hardy, J.H., and Davidson, C.D.: University
Block 31 Field Studv: Part 2-Reservoir and Gas Plant Perfor-
mance Predictions,J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1979) 971-78.
Gillund, G.N. and Patel, C.: Depletion Studies of Two Con-
trasting D-2 Reefs. paper 80-31-37 presented at the 1980 Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Sot. of CIM. Calgary. May
25-28.
Gemet. J.M. and Brigham. W.E.: Meadow Creek Unit Lakota B
Combination Water-Miscible Flood, J . Per. Tech. (Sept. 1964)
993-97.
General References
Applications of Miscible Processes
Baugh, E.G.: Performance of Seeligson Zone 20-B Enriched Gas-
Drive Project. J . Per. Tech. (March 1960) 29-33.
Glasser, S.R.: History and Evaluation of an Experimental Misctble
Flood in the Rio Bravo Field, Prod. Monthly (Jan. 1964) 17-20.
Griffith, J.D., Baiton, N., and Steffensen, R.J.: Ante Creek-A
Miscible Flood Using Separator Gas and Water Injection, J . PH.
Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1232-41.
Blanton. J.R., McCaskill, N., and Herbeck, E.F.: Performance of a
Propane Slug Pilot in a Watered-Out Sand-South Ward Field, J.
Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 120914.
Griffith, J.D. and Cyca, L.G: Performance of South Swan Hills
Miscible Flood, J . Pet. Tech. (July 1981) 1319-26.
Christian, L.D. ef al.: Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery Project for Griffith, J.D. and Home, A.L.: South Swan Hills Solvent Flood,
JayiLEC Fields Unit, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1981) 1535-44. Proc., Ninth World Pet. Cong.. Tokyo (1975) 4. 269-78.
DesBrisay. C.L. et al.: Miscible Flood Performance of the Intisar Harvey, M.T., Shelton, J.L. and Kelm. C.H.: Feld Injectivity Ex-
D Field, Libyan Arab Republic, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1975) periences with Miscible Recovery Projects Using Alternate Rich Gas
935-43. and Water Injection, J . Per. Tech (Sept 1977) 1051-55.
DesBrisay, C.L. et al.: Review of Miscible Flood Performance, In-
tisar D Field, Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, J .
Per. Tech. (Aug. 1982) 1651-60.
Kloepfer, C.V. and Griffith, J.D.: Solvent Placement Improvement
by Pre-Injection of Water, Lobstick Cardium Unit Pembma Field.
paper SPE 948 presented at the 1964 SPE Annual Meeting.
Houston Oct. 1 I-14.
Hansen, P.W.: A CO;, Tertiary Recovery Pilot, Little Creek Field,
Mississippi, paper SPE 6747 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual
Techmcal Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
Lane. L.C., Teubner, W.G., andCampbell. A.W.: Gravity Segrega-
tion in a Propane Slug-Miscible Displacement Project, Baskington
Field, J . Per. Tech. (June 1965) 661-63.
Herbeck, D.F., and Blanton, J.R.: Ten Years of Miscible Displace-
ment in Block 31 Field, J . Pet. Tech. (June 1961) 543-49.
Helm, L. W. and OBrien, L.J.: Carbon Dioxide Test at the Mead-
Strawn Field, J . Pet. Tech. (April 1971) 431-42.
Macon, R.S.: Design and Operation of the Levelland Unit CO> In-
jection Facility, paper SPE 8410 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26.
Helm, L.W.: Propane-Gas-Water Miscible Floods in Watered-Out
Areas of the Adena Field, Colorado, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1972)
1264-70.
Meltzer, B.D., Hurdle, J.M.. and Cassingham. R.W.: An Efficient
Gas Displacement Project-Raleigh Field, Mississippi, J . Pet.
Tech. (May 1965) 509-14.
Jenks, L.H., Campbell, J.B., and Binder, G.G. Jr.: A Field Test of
Gas-Driven Liquid Propane Method of Oil Recovery, Trans.,
AIME (1957) 210, 34-39.
Palmer, F.S., Nute. A.J., and Peterson, R.L.: Implementation of a
Gravity-Stable Miscible CO, Flood in the 8000-Foot Sand, Bay St.
Elaine Field, J . Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1984) 101-10.
Kane, A.V.: Performance Review of a Large Scale CO,-WAG
Enhanced Recovery Project, SACROC Unit-Kelly Snyder Field,
J . Per. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 217-31.
Pottier, J. ef nl.: The High Pressure Injection of Miscible Gas at
Hassi-Messaoud, Proc., Seventh World Pet. Gong., Mexico City
(1967) 3, 533-44.
Lackland, S.D. and Hutford, G.T.: Advanced Technology Improves
Recovery at Failway, J . Pet. Tech. (March 1973) 354-58.
Thrash, J.C.: Twofreds Field-Tertiary Oil Recovery Project,
paper SPE 8382 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition. Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26.
Marts, D.G.: Field Results of Miscible Displacement Program Using Tittle. R.M. and From, K.T.: Success of Flue Gas Program at Neale
Liqmd Propane Driven by Gas, Parks Field Unit, Midland County, Field, paper SPE 1907 presented at the 1960 SPE Annual Meeting,
Texas, J . Pet. Tech. (April 1961) 327-32. Houston, Oct. l-4.
Pontious, S.B. and Tham, M.J.: North Cross (Devonian) Unit CO,
Flood-Review of Flood Performance and Numerical Simulation,
J . Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1978) 1706-14.
Sessions. R.E.: Small Propane Slug Proving Success in Slaughter
Field Lease. J . Per. Tech. (Jan. 1963) 31-36.
Field Tests of Miscible Processes
Bleakley, W.B.: Journal Survey Shows Recovery Projects Up. Oil
urn! Gus J . (March 1974) 69-78.
Brannan, G. and Whittington. H.M. Jr.: Enriched Gas Miscible
Flooding-A Case History of the Levelland Unit Secondary Misci-
ble Project, J . PH. Tech. (Aug. 1977) 919-24.
Burt. R.A. Jr.: High Pressure Miscible Gas Displacement Project,
Bridger Lake Unit. Summit County, paper SPE 3487 presented at
the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting. New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.

Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Howard B. - Petroleum Engineers Handbook, Part 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Click Here To Continue

You might also like