Prediction of Reservoir Behavior from Laboratory Data

By E. C. BABSON, MEMBER A.I.M.E.

(Los Angeles Meeting. October 1942)
ABSTRACT

IN order to explore the possibility of predicting reservoir performance from laboratory

data, behavior of a hypotheticallow-permeability reservoir has been estimated by applying
data and methods currently available in the
literature. A method of calculating decline in
productivity index is discussed, and recoveries
by internal gas drive, external gas drive and
water drive are estimated.
INTRODUCTION

During the life of a producing oil property an operator is faced with many perplexing problems. Any attempt to determine proper well spacing, optimum rate of
production, or the desirability of pressure
maintenance requires the evaluation not
only of a host of economic and practical
operating factors but also of the future performance of the reservoir. Although in
some cases economic or operating considerations may be of primary importance
in planning a development or production
program, the anticipated effect on ultimate
recovery is more likely to be the decisive
factor.
The soundest basis for evaluating reservoir performance is past experience with
oil fields, but pertinent data are difficult to
obtain or. apply under conditions normally
encountered in California fields. Many of
these fields are characterized by thick
sections of alternating sands and shales
complicated by faulting and rapidly changing lithologic conditions. Further compliManuscript received at the office of the
Iastitute Oct. 23. 1942. Revised Dec. 21. 1943.
Issued as T.P. 1664 in PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY. January 1944.
Union Oil Co. Santa Fe Springs. California.

cations are introduced by haphazard

development and production practices
resulting from competitive conditions,
changing demand for oil, and insufficient
knowledge of structural conditions during
early development. Even in the rare cases
where development has been systematic
and adequate, production policy has usually
been controlled by economic and competitive factors rather than a desire to obtain
information for use in future operations.
In other words, comparable reservoirs in
which development and production practices have been systematically varied are
seldom found.
In the light of these conditions, conclusions based on experiences usually lack the
certainty required for decisions involving
large sums of money. Some other method
of attacking these problems is needed to
supplement and orient field experience.
Progress in laboratory investigations of
the flow of oil, gas, and water through
sands has been so rapid in recent years
that these data may furnish such a supplementary approach in the near future.
In order to explore this possibility the
author has attempted to predict the behavior of one type of reservoir by applying
published data and methods.
BASIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS

Calculations' outlined in this paper are

dependent upon a detailed knowledge of
the properties of oil, gas, and water present
in the reservoir and the portion of the
total pore space originally filled by each.
It is also necessary to know how the permeability of the sand to oil, gas, and water
varies with the saturations of these fluids
120

E. C. BABSON

in the sand. Furthermore, it has been

necessary to make certain simplifying assumptions in order to perform the calculations within a reasonable period of time.
In making assumptions and choosing data,
the writer has attempted to duplicate as
nearly as possible conditions encountered
in certain California oil fields.
The hypothetical reservoir used in the
calculations was assumed to have a porosity
of 21 per cent, of which 25 per cent was
originally filled with water and 75 per cent
with oil containing 700 cu. ft. of dissolved
gas per barrel of tank oil. Reservoir temperature was 210 0 and original pressure
was 3000 lb. per sq. in. abs. Properties of
the oil and gas were assumed to be similar
to those of Dominguez oil and gas described by Sage and Lacey.l.2 Volumetric
data for both oil and gas and viscosity
data for the oil phase were taken from these
papers. Viscosity data for a "lean natural
gas" given by Sage and Lacey in another
paper 3 were used for the gas phase in the
present investigation. These phase data
indicate that the bubble point of the
original reservoir contents was 3000 lb.
per sq. in. abs. and that the initial formation volume factor was 1.42. It was assumed that the oil and gas in the reservoir
maintained phase equilibrium at all times.
This assumption may not be strictly true,
but calculations are almost impossible
without it.
Sand permeability was assumed to be
too low to permit appreciable recovery of
oil by gravity drainage. Despite this
assumption, it was necessary to use the
data of Leverett and Lewis 4 on the relation between the relative permeabilities to
oil, gas, and water and the. saturation of
these fluids. Their data seem inappropriate
because an unconsolidated sand of very
high permeability was used in their experiments, but no other data on the flow of all
three phases through sands have been published. Botset' obtained data on the flow
1

References are at the end of the paper.

121

of mixtures of carbon dioxide and water

through a consolidated sand of moderate
permeability. An attempt was made to adjust his data for the presence of a third
phase, but the basis for this adjustment
was not too satisfactory. Furthermore, the
data of Krutter 6 on the flow of gas through
oil-saturated consolidated sands seem to
agree more closely with Leverett and Lewis
than with Botset.
Because these data of Leverett and Lewis
form the keystone of this entire paper, a
brief review of their conclusions seems
appropriate. They concluded that a sand
could be considered to have simultaneously
at) effective permeability to oil, an effective
permeability to gas, and an effective
permeability to water, and that variables
other than the oil, gas, and water saturations affected these permeabilities only to
a very minor degree. (In this paper the
terms "oil saturation," "gas saturation,"
and "water saturation" mean the percentage of the total pore space occupied by
the corresponding phase in the reservoir.)
Effective permeabilities were expressed
not in millidarcys but as percentages
relative to the permeability of the sand
to air. The relative permeability to each
phase was 100 per cent at 100 per cent
saturation oj that phase and decreased as
the saturation decreased.
As oil is produced from a sand, the oil
saturation decreases and the space thus
voided becomes filled with either gas or
water, or both. Thus the permeability of
the sand to oil decreases and the permeability to gas or water increases. In oil fields
we see the effects of these changes in declining productivity indices and rising
gas-oil ratios and cuts. The data of Leverett
and Lewis furnish a means by which productivity index, gas-oil ratio, and water
cut can be related to stage of depletion.
DECLINE IN PRODUCTIVrry INDEX

One source of great concern to the production engineer is the decline in productivity

J2"2

PREDICTION O.F RE,SERVOIR BEHAVIOR FROM LABORATORY DATA

index usually observed in depletion-type

fields. Various explanations have been
offered to expl~in this decline-transportation of silt, prc<-ipitation of asphaltenes,
".u~U;"ii~~a'inn of water .lear the well bore,
and plugging of perforations in the liner.
While all these factors may contribute to
the decline, published data on the relation
betwcfD permeability to oil and oil satural:on indicate that the productivity index
must decline as the oil in the neighborhood
of a well is depJeted. Since low productivity
indices can result in early abandonment of
wells, it is important to know what causes
the observ<:d decline and what can be dont
about it. In order to throw some light on
this problem, an attempt has been made to
determine how the productivity index
:,hould var.v with pressure llud gas-oil ratio
for the 2.3EUmed re~en'oir conditions. By
checking this theoretical decline against
ll.ctual declines observed in wells producing
from similar reservoirs, it may be possible
to determine whether the observed decline
can be accounted for by depletion alone or
whether some other cause must be found.
A method described by Evinger and
Muskat1 has been used in making the
calculations. This method assumes that
flow through sand is steady with respect
to both mass and composition of the
Howing stream. Since the present calculations are for the purpos"! of estimating the
change in productivi~y index rather than
its absolute magnitude, the equation of
~vinger and Muskat has been modified
tv give a relative productivity index.

1//1 =

_ I_

p..(3)

fP.K./Kr

p. - P .. K./K I.lP,.

,.,..,8

dP

[1]*

In which 11 is the productivity index

under some standard reservoir conditions
and at a pressure differential approaching
zero. (In this paper the term "pressure
differential" refers to the difference between the static and producing pressures
* See nomenclature on page 131.

in a well, and this difference is considered

to be equivalent to the term (P. - P ..) in
Eq. 1). Since the choice of standard
conditions is purely a matter of o)n
venience, initial conditions in the assumed
reservoir were taken as standard. When
the corresponding permeabilities and viscosities are substituted in Eq. I, the
following equation results:

In order to solve this equation it is

necessary to know how the relative permeability to oil K.IK varies with pressure.
This can be determined by utilizing another
equation of Evinger and Muskat:

The variation of the ratio of effective

permeabiHties to gas and oil, Kul K
with pressure can be established f'C, !I~l)
produced gas-oil ratio R by O-SSUllii~;g
different pressures I),nd n'.bstituting appropriate values for the rer:aining factors.
The relative permeability to oil K.IK,
corresponding to any value of Kg! K. can
he determined from the data of Leverett
and Lewis if the water saturation is known.
The expression following the integral
sign in Eq. 2 can then be evaluated as a
function of pressure, and the relative
productivity index can be obtained by
graphical integration.
Results of these calculations for a
series of gas-oil ratios and pressures are
shown in Fig. I. The correct method of
calculating a relative productivity index
for a given gas-oil ratio is to determine the
area under the appropriate curve between
the static and producing pressures and
. divide this area by the pressure differential.
Under most conditions, however, the
curves in Fig. I are almost linear, and for
moderate pressure differential the relative
productivity index can be read directly
0.,

E. C. HABSON

irom the chart by using a pressure midway

betw(en the static and the producing

pressures.
These CUIves show what Evinger and

per sq. in. for several weeks, the saturation

distribution around the well will gradually
adjust itself to this pressure gradient and a
certain productivity index will be at~ained.

------ t-10

-----1------1------+------+------~

~___:h_~~-~I __~lJ
500

1000

PRESSURE

,~oo

P.ll.!.

zooo

Z5QO

3000

ABS.

FIG. I.-RELATION BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY INDEX, GAS-OIL RATIO, AND PRESSURE AT Z:; "En (,1':NT
WATER SATURATION.

Muskat have already stated-that the

productivity index decreases as the pressure differential increases. At first thought,
this seems contrary to field experience
because indices of actual wells do not
vary in any predictable manner with
pressure differential. A possible cause of
this discrepancy becomes apparent when
the matter is given further consideration.
Pr;>ductivity index is a function of the
average permeability of the sand to oil,
'Vhich in turn is a function of the saturation
distribution in the sand. If a well is proJuced at a pressure differential of 200 lb.

If the well is then opened' up to a differential of 1000 lb. per sq. in., the saturation
distribution around the well will tend to
change and the productivity index will
tend to decrease. Since a large volume of
oil must be moved in order to alter the
saturation distribution, the process requires considerable time. If a t(;3;' .)
made on the well a day or two alter the
prodil.ction ratt; ha:; been 111':ieaseci., i.t i"
probable that the saturation distribution
will have changed only slightiy and the
productivity index will be practically the
same as at the lower rate. Because of this

124

PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR BEHAVIOR FROM LABORATORY DATA

behavior the pressures used in evaluating

a productivity index by means of Fig. I
should relate t9 the normal production
rate of the well rather than conditions
during a short-time test.
In order to illustrate how these results
can be used in predicting the decline in
productivity index, an illustrative example
will be worked out. If a well has a productivity index of 1.5 when the gas-oil
ratio is 1000 cu. ft. per barrel, the static
pressure is 2500 lb. per sq. in. abs., and
the producing pressure is 2300 lb. per
sq. in. abs., what will the productivity
index be at a gas-oil ratio of 2500 cu. ft.
per barrel, a static pressure of 1500 lb.
and a producing pressure of 1000 lb. per
sq. in.? From Fig. I, it can be determined
that 1//1 for the first set of conditions is
0.523, so II is equal to 1.5/0.523, or 2.87.
For the second set of conditions 1/11 is
0.264 and the productivity index is
0.264 X 2.87, or 0.76. Preliminary application of this method to data on several
wells in a depletion-type field of low
permeability has shown that the productivity indices actually decline somewhat
less than the calculations indicate. As
far as the wells studied are concerned,
depletion of the oil can tentatively be
considered the principal cause of productivity-index decline.
INTERNAL GAS DRIVE

In general, oil can be recovered from a

sand by four methods: (I) internal gas
drive, (2) external gas drive, (3) water
drive, and (4) gravity drainage. Internal
gas drive is the normal depletion process
in which oil is displaced by originally
dissolved gas. External gas dri ve is a
process in which a gas front advances
through the sand, displacing oil ahead of
it. Water drive operates by a similar
mechanism with water as the displacing
fluid. In sands of high permeability large
quantities of oil can be recovered by
gravity drainage. In most reservoirs all

four of these processes are operative in

some degree, but usually only one or two
of them are important from the standpoint
of recovery.
In this paper gravity flow is considered
to be an unimportant factor in production
on account of the low permeability of the
sand, and if natural water drive is ineffective, the operator is in a position to choose
the method by which oil is recovered
from the sand. If the operator simply
produces oil from all his wells until they
no longer yield a profit and then abandons
them, the reservoir will have been depleted
by internal gas drive. This method has
been applied almost universally in the
past, largely because of its simplicity.
Given the relation between oil saturation
and the relative permeabilities to oil and
gas, it is possible to calculate future trends
of static pressure, productivity index, and
gas-oil ratio for wells producing from a
reservoir of this character by considering
flow through the sand as a succession of
steady states. If the wells are produced
at appreciable pressure differentials the
area around a well should be divided into
rings and the flow between these rings
investigated in detail in order properly
to evaluate saturation gradients. It is
entirely feasible by this method to calculate future trends of pressure and
productivity for the entire producing
life of a reservoir, but, unfortunately,
the task is an extremely laborious one
and has, therefore, not been attempted.
This is regrettable, for such calculations
might furnish information useful in determining optimum well spacing and optimum
rate of production, providing that data
pertinent to the actual sand in the reservoir
could be used.
Since time was not available for the
more detailed calculations, future trends
for the hypothetical reservoir have been
estimated by assuming that the oil is
produced at negligible individual wellpressure differentials. It is realized that

12 5

E. C. BABSON

calculations for high-pressure differentials

would probably indicate more rapidly
rising gas-oil ratios together with a more
rapid pressure decline, but it seems likely
I

al
'"
';::...::;

r--

4000

ASSUMlpTIONS

meability ratio K g/ K. obtained from the

data of Leverett and Lewis. This permeability ratio is next converted to free
gas-oil ratio by adjusting for the vis-

I
"I.

POROSITY
21
INTERSTITIAL WATER
GAS-OIL RATIO IN PLACE 700 CU. FT/BIIL
BUBBLE POINT
3000 P.S.I. AilS.

2S1.

~
...
(3

--

zooa

:1'"

2000

'--...i - -

OJ

a:

...
'"~

1000

Go

o
.8

~ r-...

50

100

5.8

11.6
CUMULATIVE

150

'\

'"
.............

200

IU
ZU
OIL PRODUCTION

r--

Z50 DBL.,AC.I'T.

n.o

10 Of OIL III PUCE

FIG. 2.-DEPLETION HISTORY OF A RESERVOIR PRODUCED AT VERY LOW DRAWDOWNS.

that the recovery calculated for the case

of negligible pressure differential is an
upper limit which would be approached at
small but finite differentials. The method
is illustrated by the sample calculation
in Table I. The method is a trial and error
process in which small quantities of oil
and gas are assumed to be withdrawn
from the reservoir and the resultant
pressure is estimated by materials-balance
methods. Since the amount of remaining
oil and the reservoir pressure are now
known, the remaining oil saturation can
be calculated and the gas-to-oil per-

cosities and densities of the gas and oil

phases. The total gas-oil ratio is equal to
the free gas-oil ratio plus the gas in solution
in the oil under reservoir conditions.
If this calculated gas-oil ratio does not
agree with the assumed ratio, the calculation is repeated using a different assumed
ratio. When a satisfactory solution has
been obtained for one step, additional
oil and gas are withdrawn from the reservoir and the calculations repeated. This
stepwise method is followed throughout
the life of the reservoir.

the dcccca.<.ing quantity of &&.3 J13sv~Vtd

in the produced oil as the pressure drops.
In other words, I!lO"t of the ga" i.h&.~ ,.ome.'
O.lt of solution Juring the early stagt:s vi
,

ResUlts of these cakulations art: shown

in Fig. 2, in which gas'0il ratio, pre55i.lri:,
and productivity InJeA. alt: ~")lotttd agaiu"t
cecovely. In an effort to apptoXlmll.tt. at

...

._- 1------ -

70

I~:m~:~ ~
.~ =~~~~~
GAS-OIL RATIO
600

.,/
bS

...v
~

98

OILPROOUC ION PER WE

.. \ - . -

I,,--

60

...a:
I/)

...
0

~
....0

/~

--

55

1950

RESERVOIR PRESSURE
PRODUCING PRESSURE

I 0
ION PER WE ~~
92

GAS-~!Q.

OIL PRODUC

>-

~ 50
I

z
i=
..:

ct

45

.....:

I"

:>

..

VI

~~I ~~~D_U:;\~6

1000

RESERVOIR PRESSURE

40

35

~1

50

100

150
DISTAN~E

52

-;t--

RESERVOIR PRFSSURE
PRESSURE
m~~;"~ RATIO
OILPROCvC ION PERWEL

335

50cig
Z6

.- --- I--

~l

I<~~'l.

ulLPRODUC II,," PERWEU

..-~

~.-

1~~E';'7..URE

200

250

300

FROM WELL - FT.

FIG. 3.SATURA'rION DISTRIBUTION AT VARIOUS SrAGES OJ!' DEPLETION HISTORY SHOWN IN

FIGt:RE 2.

least some of the effects of finite pressure

differentiai, the productivity index has
been corrected for small differentials,
starting with 100 lb. per sq. in. initially
and gradually increasing to 320 lb. per
sq. in. at a static prebSUle of 335 lb. per
sq. in. According to Fig. 2, the gas-oil
ratio first decreases from 700 to 550 cu. ft.
per barrel, then rises to a peak of 5900 cu.
ft. per barrel, and finally drops off rapidly.
The decrease in ratio during the early
stages of production is caused by the
almost negligible permeability to free
gas at low gas saturations together with

production is stored in the sand. The final

decrease in gas-oil ra.tio is the result of the
increased volume occupied by' gas at
low pressures: The volume 'ratIo'(jf' gas to
oil in the formation is continuously increasing but the standard cubic feet of ga~
per barrel of oil decrease. When 293 bbJ
per acre-foot have been recovered, the
reservoir pressure is 145 lb. per sq. in. and,
if the original productivity index is
assumed to be 1.0, the current productivity
index will be 0.06. This corresponds to a
maximum productive capacity of about
8 bbl. per day, which probably is close to

E. C. BAbSUN

the economic limit. Thus lhe recovery by

internal gas drive is approximately 293 bbl.
per acre-.oot, or 34 per cent of the oiiginc.:
oil in place.
In comparison with tield performance,
lhe gas-oil ratio curve of F'ig. 2 seems to
remain at a low level for an unusually
long period. These low gas-oil ratios
re5u]t in a flatter pressure-decline curve
and greater ultimate recovery than is
generally obtained in pools of this character. It is difficult to determine how
much of this discrepancy is due to the
effects of high pressure differentials and
how much is caused by differences between
California producing sands and the sand
used by Leverett and Lewis. Since the
discrepancies introduced by tinite differentials would be reflected in saturation
gradients in the sand, the saturation
distribution in the sand was calculated
at four stages of the depletion history
shown in Fig. 2, using a well radius of
4 in., a drainage radius of 400 ft., and the
draw downs assumed in correcting the
productivity indices of Fig. 2. The results
of these calculations are shown in Fig. 3,
together with the pertinent data. It
can be seen that the saturation gradients
arc very flat except in the very early and
very late stages of depletion. These
results indicate that, at the low rates of
production assumed, reservoir performance
might approach that shown in Fig. 2.
This evidence, however, is far from positive
proof even for low rates, and at the high
pressure differentials often encountered
in field practice, important discrepancies
may be introduced.
EXTERNAL GAS DRIVE

the bubble point. In a re~etvoir produc.tc:

by internal gas drive the entire reservoir L
depleted more or Ie"" gradually. If thl
oil is displaced entirely by external ga.
drive, however-, the portion of dle re~ervolj
behind the gas froIlt is alillo~( fully ueplete(J
while the portion ahead of the front i~'
undepleted. Thus wells ahead of the front
produce without decline, while tho!,:
behind the front may suffer an almc~!
complete loss of oil productivity. T)'L
problem of estimating the recovery aheal'
of a gas front can be reduced to an estimation of the distribution of oil s6.turatiol~
behind the gas front. Once the average
oil saturation behind the front has been
determined, the calculation of recovery is
simple.
A method proposed by Buckley and
Leverett8 has been used in this paper.
Their method is based upon the assumptiun
that flow is steady with respect to the
total volume flowing. This assumption
requires, in turn, either that the flui<i,:
in the reservoir be il1LOmpressi blc or tha
the pressure be COl!stant over the entin
system. For the case of linear flow the:;
basic equation is
flu =

_Q~ dig
A dS.

(4)

where flu is the distance moved by d

plane of fixed gas saturation during the
time that a total volume of gas Qg enters
the system. The relation between the percentage of free gas in the flowing stream,
fg, and the gas saturation, SQ, can be
established from the following equ... tion:

f -

100

- I + K.Il.
--

[5]

KgfJ..

Oil is recovered by external gas drive

if a gas front is caused to advance through
the sand, displacing oil ahead of it. Partial
gas-drive recovery can be attained by
allowing a gas cap to expand but complete
recovery by external gas drive requires-1:ircinjection of gas to maintain pressures above
.',.

since the gas-to-oil permeability ratie,

K./ K. is a function of the oil and gas
saturations only.
In order to illustrate the method,
calculations for external gas drive at
3000 lb. per sq. in. abs., will be outlined in
sOme detail. First I. is calculated for

128

PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR BEHAVIOR FROM LABORATORY DATA

digg curve .mig.

F' 4 except f or a change
t h e dS

several values of Sg by using the data of

Leverett and Lewis in Eq. 5. These values
of ig are plotted against the corresponding
values of Sg as shown in Fig. 4. The slope

of scale. Since it is impossible for two

different gas saturations to exist at the

I{\

*1

FIG.

I--

I /
/ '! I~
II J \ \

1l/
w

s, (GAS

SATURATION)

~
~

-10 OF TOTAL PORE SPACE

60

4.-PRELIMINARY STEPS IN CALCULATION OF SATURATION DIsTRmUTION BEHIND AN ADVANCING

GAS FRONT AT A PRESSURE OF 3000 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH ABSOLUTE.

of this curve is then plotted as a function

of Sg, giving the peaked curve of Fig. 4.
If it is now assumed that some arbitrary
volume of gas is injected, say 21 cu. ft.
(at reservoir conditions) per square foot
of cross-sectional area, Eq. 4 states that
the distance moved by a plane of given
gas saturation can be found by multiplying
dig at th
'
.
t h e va1ue 0 f dS
e given
saturation
g

by 21/0.21, or 100. As the original gas

saturation of the reservoir was zero, each
of these calculated distances is measured
from the plane of entry of the gas.
Application of this procedure results in
the curve of Fig. 5, which is the same as

same point, and since the total area

under the curve must equal the total
volume of gas entering the system, divided
by the porosity and the cross-sectional
area, the dotted portion of the curve is
considered to be imaginary, and a horizontal line representing the gas front is
drawn at such a position that the shaded
area in Fig. 5 is equal to 21/0.21 or 100.
The average gas saturation behind the
front is 36.6 per cent, which corresponds
to a recovery of 420 bbl. per acre-foot
from the area swept by the front. If a
larger quantity of gas is injected, all the
values of

1f.

are multiplied by a new

E. C. BABSON

12 9

injection pressures, it is obvious that

recirculation of gas will not be economically
feasible, and wells must be shut in soon
after the gas front passes them. If no gas

constant so the curve of saturation as a

function of distance will be identical
with the curve of Fig. 5 except for a change
of scale. Thus the average gas saturation

.00

,-,,\
,
500

.
.....

,
I
I

l-

00

~~~~~~~W~~~~~~~~~~~~=---~~~
GAS

FIG.

SATURATION -

70

OF TOTAL PORE SPACE

5.-SATURATION DISTRIBUTION BEHIND AN ADVANCING GAS FRONT AT A PRESSURE OF

POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH ABSOLUTE.

behind the front iJ; independent of the

distance the front may have traveled.
Furthermore, it can be shown that the
average saturation will be the same for
the radial flow case.
Capillary forces will cause an actual
gas front to be somewhat less abrupt than
that shown in Fig. 5, but the error involved
is probably small. As the front passes a
well, the gas-oil ratio will rise rapidly
from 700 to 8800 cu. ft. per barrel and
will then rise more slowly as the front
continues its advance. The average gas-oil
ratio of all wells in the area swept will be
approximately 20,000 cu. ft. per barrel.
Because of high gas-oil ratios and high

3000

is recirculated, full pressure maintenance

requires the injection of 1370 cu. ft. of gas
per barrel of oil produced. After the gas
front has passed all the wells, the reservoir
will contain 800 M cu. ft. of high-pressur~
gas per acre-foot, most of which can then
be produced and sold. Oil recovery during
this period can be estimated by the method
illustrated in Table I. If all the wells
are produced, recovery from this phase
of production is estimated to be 15 bbl.
per acre-foot, while if most of the production is taken from wells last passed by the
gas front, the recovery might approach
25 bbl. per acre-foot. This gives a total
recovery of 435 to 445 bbl. per acre-foot,

130

PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR BEHAVIOR FROM LABORATORY DATA

all of which should be obtainable by flowing

or straight gas lift.
A word of caution is necessary at this
point. Even if all the calculations in this
paper are applicable without modification
to California oil sands, the additional
recovery due to pressure maintenance
is obtained only from that portion of the
sand actually swept by the gas front.
The remainder of the sand will not produce
more than 293 bbl. per acre-foot and may
conceivably produce somewhat less. For
this reason the gas front must sweep
out a major portion of the reservoir in
order to ensure an appreciable increase in
recovery. It is not within the province
of this paper to discuss the difficulties
involved in pressure maintenance operations, but adequate control of gas fronts
in a typical California oil field is an
engineering problem of major proportions.
If the gas-drive operation is conducted
after the reservoir pressure has been
allowed to fall to 2000 lb. per sq. in., the
average gas saturation behind the gas
front is 35.1 per cent, which gives a total
recovery of 336 bbl. per acre-foot from the
area swept. If the operation is conducted
a t pressures lower than 1500 lb. per
sq. in., the gas saturation resulting from
normal depletion will be so high that there
will be no true gas front. Producing gas-oil
ratios will begin to rise almost immediately
and recirculation of gas will be necessary.
It is extremely difficult to estimate the
additional recovery to be obtained in
this manner, because of a most complex interrelation between physical and
economic factors in this lower pressure
range, but it seems unlikely that large
quantities of oil could be recovered from
the assumed reservoir by this method.
The low recovery from external gas
drive at low pressure in this reservoir
probably is due to the relatively efficient
primary recovery by internal gas drive.
If the primary recovery operation had
been less efficient, owing either to lower

original pressures or to wasteful production

practices, important quantities of oil
might be recoverable by low-pressure
gas drive.
WATER DRIVE

Recovery by water drive has been

estimated by a method similar to that
used for gas drive. If the water drive is
operated at the original reservoir pressure
of 3000 lb. per sq. in., the recovery ahead
of the water front is estimated to be 545
barrels.
I.-Sample Calculation of Depletion
History by Internal Gas Drive at Very Low
Drawdowns

TABLE

Given: Porosity, 21 per cent

Total pore volume - 0.21 X 0.7758 - X630
bbl. per acre-foot
InterstItial water - 2S per cent
Net pore volume - (x - 0.25) 1630 = 1223
bbl. per acre-foot
Initial formation volume factor = 1.42
Oil in place = ~ = 860 bbl per acre-foot
142
Initial pressure - 3000 lb. per sq. in. abs. =
bubble point
Temperature - 210F.
Initial gas-oil ratio - 700 cu. ft. per barrel
Calculation:
A
B
I. Assumed oil production, bbl.
per acre-ft
20
20
2. Assumed average gas-oil
ratio, cu. ft. per bbl.
680
662
3. Remaining oil 860 - (x),
bbl. per acre-ft.
840
840
4. Calculated pressure, lb. per
sq. in. abs.
2,775
2,785
5. Formation volume factor of
liquid
X.365
1.367
6. Oil saturation (3) X (5) /
1630, per cent of total pores
70.4
70.5
7. K./K. (after Leverett and
Lewis)
0.0005 0.00045
8. Conversion factor (pfI,../III),
cu. ft. per bbl.
32,500
32,600
o. Free gas-oil ratio (7) X (8),
cu. ft. per bbl.
16
IS
10. Dissolved gas-oil ratio, cu.
ft. per bbl.
607
612
n. Total gas-oil ratio (0)
(10), cu. ft. per bbl.
623
627
12. Average gas-oil ratio 700
(n)/2
661.5
663.5
In calculation B the calculated gas-oil ratio is 663.5
while the assumed ratio is 662.
This is a satisfactory solution.

+
+

per acre-foot from the area swept. The

production from a well passed by the
front will contain 84 per cent water, and
if production is continued, an additional
35 bbl. per acre-foot can be recovered
before the water content of the well
effluent reaches 90 per cent. The method

E. C. BABSON

used in this paper is not rigorously applicable to a water drive at any pressure
below the bubble point because of the
complications introduced by variable gas
saturation. In order to approximate the
recovery to be expected at 400 lb. per
sq. in., it was assumed that the gas saturation behind the front would be constant
at 5 per cent. Recovery ahead of the front
then becomes 405 bbl. per acre-foot and
the recovery to 90 per cent water in the
well effluent is 472 bbl. per acre-foot.
TABLE

2.-Summary of Recovery
Calculations

since the data entering into these calculations are applicable only to the
particular sand on which the laboratory
tests were made. Permeability-saturation
relations for California oil sands under
reservoir conditions are not yet available
in the literature, hence it is impossible
at present to make reliable predictions of
field performance from laboratory data.
The preliminary investigation reported
in this paper, however, suggests that
future application of such information
may furnish workable solutions to some
of the perplexing problems facing the
industry.

Total Recovery
Method of Depletion

Normal depletion (internal gas

drive) .........................
Full pressure maintenance (external
gas drive at 3000 lb. per sq. in.
plus subsequent depletion) ......
Partial pressure maintenance (external gas drive at 2000 lb. per sq.
in. plus subsequent depletion) ...
Water drive at 3000 lb. per sq. in ..
Normal depletion plus water drive
at 400 lb. per sq. in ............

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bbl. per
Acre-ft.

Per
Cent

293

34

435

51

348
580

41
68

472

55

Although these recoveries seem high,

it must be remembered that they apply
only to the area swept by the water. In
the low-pressure drive, normal recovery
was obtained from the reservoir before
the flood started, so that only the additional recovery from the unswept area
is lost. In the high-pressure drive, however,
it seems unlikely that normal recovery
can be obtained from portions of the reservoir unswept by water because dewatering
a flooded sand is a costly operation.
SUMMARY

Results of the various recovery calculations, which are summarized in Table 2,

should be regarded as examples of the type
of information obtainable from laboratory
data rather than quantitative predictions
of the behavior of California reservoirs,

The author wishes

tude to Howard C.
and guidance and to
the Union Oil Co.
publish this paper.

to express his gratiPyle for his advice

the management of
for permission to

NOMENCLATURE

P
,.
(J

K
p

R
.M

o
</>

Productivity index, bbl. per day per lb. per

sq. in.
Pressure, lb. per sq. in. abs.
Viscosity. millipoises.
Formation volume factor of oil phas~.
bbl. per bbl.
Permeability. darcys
Density of gas. std. cu. ft. per bbl. space.
Total gas-oil ratio. std. cu. ft. per bbl. oil .
Dissolved gas-oil ratio. std. cu. ft. pcr bbl.
oil.
Total volume. cu. ft.
Porosity. fraction.
Cross-sectional area. sq. ft.
Proportion of displacing fluid in flowing
stream. per cent by volume.
.
Saturation. per cent of total pores.
Distance, ft.

u
Subscripts:
o refers to oil phase.
g refers to gas phase.
e refers to conditions at drainage radius.
w refers to conditions at the well face.
1
refers to arbitrarily chosen standard
conditions.
REFERENCES
I.

2.

B. H. Sage and W. N. Lacey: Formation

Volume and Viscosity Studies for Dominguez Field. Amer. Petro Inst. Drill. and
Prod. Practice (I935) I4I.
B. H. Sage and W. N. Lacey: Thermodynamic Properties of Mixtures of a

132

PREDICTION OF RESERVOIR BEHAVIOR FROM LABORATORY DATA

Crude Oil and a Natural Gas. Ind. and

Eng. Chern. (Feb. 1936) 28, 249;
3. B. H. Sage and W. N. Lacey: Effect of Pressure upon Viscosity of Methane and Two
Natural Gases. Trans. A.I.M.E. (I93S)
137, uS.

4. M. C. Leverett and W. B. Lewis: Steady

Flow of Gas-oilwater Mixtures through
Unconsolidated Sands. Trans. A.I.M.E.
(1941) 142, 107

5. H. G. Botset: Flow of Gas-liquid Mixtures

through
Consolidated Sand. Trans.
A.I.M.E. (1940) 136,91.
6. H. K:rutter: Secondary Recovery of Petroleum by Air Drive. Oil Weekly (June
9, 1941) 103, (1), 21.

7. H. H. Evinger and M. Muskat: Calculation

of Theoretical Productivity Factor. Trans.
A.I.M.E. (1942) 146,126.
S. S. E. Buckley and M. C. Leverett: Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands.
Trans. A.I.M.E. (1942) 146. 107.