Chapter 40

Estimation of Oil and Gas Reserves

Forrest A. Garb, SPE,
Gerry L. Smith ,** H.J.

H.J. Grt~y & Assocs.

Gruy

6i Asaoca.

Inc.*

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 formulating policies for (1) exploring and developing oil and gas
properties; (2) designing and constructing plants, gathering systems, and other surface facilities; (3) determining
the division of ownership in unitized projects; (4) determining 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 Commission (SEC) or other regulatory body approvals.
Reserve estimates are just what they are calledestimates. As with any estimate, they can be no better than
the available data on which they are based and are subject 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 information is available. Because the information base is
cumulative during the life of a property, the reservoir engineer 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, correspondingly, 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 established. 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 impact on the range of recovery estimates that usually results 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 accurate 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 estimate 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 periods 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 production 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 interpretation 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 information, and subsurface mapping. Interpretation of these

PETROLEUM

40-2

Fig. 4&l-Range
in estimates
of reservoir.

of ultimate recovery during life

data. along with observed pressure behavior during early production periods, may also indicate the type of
producing mechanism to be expected for the reservoir.
The third period, Period CD, represents the period after 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 numerical simulators depend on matching history for calibration 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 materialbalance calculations may also offer valuable clues regarding the type of production mechanism existent in the reservoir. Confidence in the material-balance calculations

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

depends on the precision of the reservoir pressures recorded for the reservoir and the engineers ability to determine the true average pressure at the dates of study.
Frequent pressure surveys taken with precision instruments 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 considered 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 Edmond 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 basic 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 acquiring 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 diminishes rapidly as the number of individual properties increases. 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, supporting discussion, and glossary of terms, are quoted as follows. The probable and possible reserve definitions enjoy
no such official sanction at the present time but are believed to reflect current industry usage correctly.
Proved Reserves Definitions3
The following is reprinted from the Journal of PetroleUM 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 reasonable 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 formation tests or if core analysis and/or log interpretation demonstrates economic
producibility
with reasonable
certainty. The area of a reservoir considered proved includes (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 economically 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 revised 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
gases if they occur in significant quantities.
Reserves that can be produced economically through
the application of established improved recovery techniques-are included in the proved classification when these
qualifications are met: (1) successful testing by a pilot
project or the operation of an installed program in that
reservoir or one with similar rock and fluid properties provides support for the engineering analysis on which the
project or program was based, and (2) it is reasonably
certain the project will proceed.
Reserves to be recovered by improved recovery techniques that have yet to be established through repeated
economically successful applications will be included in
the proved category only after successful testing by a pilot project or after-the operation of an installed-p&g&~
in the reservoir provides support for the engineering analysis on which the project or program was based.
Estimates of proved reserves do not include crude oil,
natural gas, or natural gas liquids being held in underground storage.
Proved Developed Reserves. Proved developed reserves
are a subcategory of proved reserves. They are those
reserves that can be expected to be recovered through existing wells (including reserves behind pipe) with proved
equipment and operating methods. Improved recovery
reserves can be considered developed only after an improved recovery project has been installed.
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) deepening of existing wells to a different reservoir, or (3) the
installation of an improved recovery project.
Most reserve,, engmeers

add the expression

considering

current technology.

Glossary of Terms
Crude Oil
Crude oil is defined technically as a mixture of hydrocarbons that existed in the liquid phase in natural underground
reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after 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 atmospheric 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
quantities of nonhydrocarbons that exists
gaseous phase or in solution with crude
underground reservoirs. Natural gas may
fied as follows.

and varying
either in the
oil in natural
be subclassi-

Associated Gas. Natural gas, commonly known as gascap gas, that overlies and is in contact with crude oil in
the reservoir. **
Dissolved Gas. Natural gas that is in solution with crude
oil in the reservoir.
Nonassociated Gas. Natural gas in reservoirs that do not
contain significant quantities of crude oil.
Dissolved gas and associated gas may be produced concurrently from the same wellbore. In such situations, it
is not feasible to measure the production of dissolved gas
and associated gas separately; therefore, production is
reported under the heading of associated/dissolved or
casinghead gas. Reserves and productive capacity estimates for associated and dissolved gas also are reported
as totals for associated/dissolved gas combined.
Natural Gas Liquids
Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are those portions of reservoir gas that are liquefied at the surface in lease separators, field facilities, or gas processing plants. NGLs
include but are not limited to ethane, propane, butanes,
pentanes, natural gasoline, and condensate.
Reservoir
A reservoir is a porous and permeable underground formation containing an individual and separate natural accumulation of producible hydrocarbons (oil and/or gas)
that is confined by impermeable rock and/or water barriers and is characterized by a single natural pressure
system.

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

PETROLEUM

40-4

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

Probable Reserves

OIL-WATER
CONTACT -7450

Probable reserves of crude oil, natural gas, or natural gas

liquids are estimated quantities that geological and engineering data indicate are reasonably probable to be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under
existing economic conditions. Probable reserves have a
higher degree of uncertainty with regard to extent,
recoverability, or economic viability than do proved
reserves.

Possible Reserves

Fig. 40.2-Geological

map on

Possible reserves of crude oil, natural gas, or natural gas

liquids are estimated quantities that geological and engineering data indicate are reasonably possible to be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing
economic conditions. Possible reserves have a higher
degree of uncertainty than do proved or probable reserves.

top (-) and base (-7) of reservoir.

Computation of Reservoir Volume4

In most situations, reservoirs are classified as oil reservoirs 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.

When sufficient subsurface control is available, the oilor gas-bearing net pay volume of a reservoir may be computed 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 abscissa on an acre-feet diagram (Fig. 40.3) vs. the corresponding 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 determined by the following methods.

Improved Recovery
Improved recovery includes all methods for supplementing natural reservoir forces and energy, or otherwise increasing 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 productive 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.

GROSS

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 hectaremeter 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 )

GAS BEARING SAND VOLUME:

[(0+8&42lt4(24)]

GAS-OIL

~2367

ACRE FEET

CONTACT

GROSS OIL BEARING

y

[W-42+

SAND VOLUME:

378 -242)+4(209-1061]=m

OIL-WATER

100

200
AREA

300

ENCLOSED

400

500

BY CONTOUR

Fig. 40.3-Acre-feet

diagram

CONTACT

600

ACRE FEET

ESTIMATION

40-5

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

Fig. 40.4-lsopachous

map-gas

a. Planimetered from the acre-feet diagram.

b. If the number of contour intervals is even, computed by Simpsons rule:

So/3[(0+136)+4(24+103)+2(46)]=

12,267 acre-ft.

(The separate calculations of the volume of gross gasbearing sand and gross oil-bearing sand by means of Simpsons 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 complicated pyramidal rule:

ss[(O+136)+2(24+46+

103)+J24x88

sand

available on many wells, it is sometimes justified to prepare 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 =

= 11,963 acre-ft.

43,5601/,@(1 -Siw)
*,
,

(1)

where

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 1/2Zfi 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 section 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 oilbearing pay volumes may be computed as, respectively,
net acre-ft of gas pay

and
0.85x9,900=8,415

map-oil

+m

+d5icEm-m-J]

0.85 x2,367=2,012

Fig. 40.5-lsopachous

sand

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

V, = net pay volume of the free-gas-bearing

4
S;,
B,
43,560

=
=
=
=

portion of a reservoir, acre-ft,

effective porosity, fraction,
interstitial water saturation, fraction,
gas FVF, dimensionless, and
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 pressure, 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
properties. and correlalions.

coverage of 011.gas, condensate and watel

40-6

PETROLEUM

TABLE

40.1--BARRELS

OF STOCK-TANK

OIL IN PLACE

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

PER ACRE-FT

Porositv. d
B

1.0

1.5

2.0

3.0

iwS
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
310
272
233
194
233
206
182
155
128
175
155
136
116
97
116
105
89
78
66

698
621
543
465
388
465
411
365
310
256
349
310
272
233
194
233
209
178
155
132

1,047
931
615
698
582
698
617
547
465
384
524
465
407
349
291
349
314
268
233
198

1,396
1,241
1,066
931
776
931
822
729
621
512
698
621
543
465
388
465
419
357
310
264

1,746
1,552
1.358
1.164
970
1,164
1,028
912
776
640
873
776
679
582
485
582
524
446
388
330

2,095
1,862
1,629
1,396
1,164
1,396
1,234
1,094
931
768
1,047
931
815
698
582
698
628
535
465
396

2,444
2,172
1,901
1,629
1,358
1,629
1,439
1,276
1,086
896
1,222
1,086
950
815
679
815
733
625
543
462

Table 40.1 shows the number of barrels of stock-tank oil

per acre-foot for different values of porosity, 4, interstitial 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.,
Bo

(3)

to small changes in the two-phase FVF, B,, an adjustment 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)

Method5-8

In the absence of reliable volumetric data or as an independent 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 constant or changes in a predictable manner with the reservoir pressure when oil, gas, and/or water are produced.
This makes it possible to equate the expansion of the reservoir 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 requires an accurate history of the average pressure of the
reservoir, as well as reliable oil-, gas-, and waterproduction 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 preferably be by means of the method of least squares. Because of the sensitivity of the material-balance equation

..........

. . . .(4)

where
ph =
pR =
B, =
Boi =

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

bubblepoint pressure, psia,

reservoir pressure, psia,
two-phase FVF for oil, dimensionless,
initial oil FVF, dimensionless.

and

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 produced 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,q
B,
B,,, rnB + B- -(m+
,q,
0,

I) I -

&RR(.,+S,,,,!)
1 -s,,,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~....

II
(5)

ESTIMATION

40-7

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

TABLE
Reservoir

40.2-CLASSIFICATION

OF MATERIAL-BALANCE
Material-balance

Type

Oil reservoir with gas cap and

active water drive

Np]B, +0.1781B,(R,

EQUATIONS

Equation

-R,,)]-(W,

Unknowns

Equation

- WP)

N=

N, W,,

mB,,

Oil reservoir with gas cap;

no active water drive (W, = 0)

Np[B, +0.1781B,(Rp

-I?,,)]+

w,

N=

N. m

N, W,

N, W,

10

11

ma,,

Initially undersaturated
oil reservoir
with active water drive (m =0):
1. Above bubblepoint

N,U
N=

APl(C, +c, -S,&,

2. Below bubblepoint

N=

-S,,)
1(1

we-WP
+APpRco) - ~
B,,

-c,)l

Npl~,+0.f781B,(R,-R,,)1-(W,-W,)
8, -60,

lnltially undersaturated oil reservoir:

no active water drive (m = 0),(W, = 0):
1. Above bubblepoint

N,(l

+W&J-

(1 -St,)

01

N=

QJDR[c,+c,-S,,(c,-c,)l

NJ!3,
2. Below bubblemint

+ O.l781B,(R,

-R,,)]+

W,

N=
6, -go,

G=

G,B,

-5.615(W,

- WP)

Gas reservoir with active water drive

W,

12

B, --By

Gas reservoir; no active water drive

we

=O)

where
N,,
R,,
R.,,
w,,
w,,
Aj?R

=
=
=
=
=
=

B,pi =
III =
f =
c,, =

G,B,

+5.615W,
G

G=
6,

13

-B,,

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 reservoir formation compressibility cf and the interstitial water
compressibility c,,..

When such a reservoir has no active water drive

Eq. 7 results.
For initially undersaturated reservoirs (m = 0) below the
bubblepoint, Eqs. 6 and 7 reduce to Eqs. 9 and I I, depending 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 active water drive is present.
For gas reservoirs the material-balance equation takes
the form of Eq. 12 or 13, depending on whether an active 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.
(W,,=O),

PETROLEUM

40-8

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

TABLE 40.3-CONDITIONS
FOR UNIT-RECOVERY
EQUATION.
DEPLETION-TYPE
RESERVOIR
Initial Conditions
Reservoir
Interstitial
Free gas,
Reservoir

pressure
water, @SW, bbllacre-ft
&S,, bbllacre-ft
oil, bbllacre-ft

$58
0

7pp58
7,758
7,758$~(l - S,, -S,,)

7,758$41 -s,,)
1-S

Stock-tank

oil, bbl/acre-ft

7,758

7,7584

d2
BO,

'SubstIMe

10 000 for the 7.758 constanf

11c"b,c melers per hectare.mefer

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 depletion mechanism may be followed or accompanied by
gravity segregation (Page 40-14).
When a depletion-type reservoir is first opened to production, 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 usually not produced, and its shrinkage upon pressure reduction 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 interstitial 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 process 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 under a depletion mechanism. It is reached when the produced free GOR in the reservoir, which changes according
to the relative permeability ratio relationship and the viscosities 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 ultimate recovery in stock-tank barrels from a homogeneous unit volume of 1 acre-t? of pay produced by a given
mechanism under ideal conditions.
The unit-recovery equation for a saturated depletiontype 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.

Ultimate Conditions

1 -s&v -s,,
B
w

IS used.

By difference, the unit recovery by depletion or

solution-gas drive is, in stock-tank barrels per acre-foot,
1 - S,M - s,,
B o(I

'

.'."

(14)

where S,, is the residual free-gas saturation under reservoir 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 equation is an estimate of the residual free-gas saturation S,,
at the ultimate time. If a sufficiently large number of accurate determinations of the oil and water saturation on
freshly recovered core samples is available, an approximation 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 actual depletion process in the reservoir. Possible loss of liquids 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 flushing 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 content 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 increases or decreases the S,, value by about 0.01 for every 3API gravity.
Example Problem 1. A cemented sandstone reservoir has
an interstitial
water content
a porosity $=0.13,
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 offset the effect of the somewhat lower-than-average GOR.
and the residual free-gas saturation S,, after a 0.05 reduction for the cementation can therefore be estimated at 0.20.

ESTIMATION

40-9

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

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

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 cumulative recovery per acre-foot. In stock-tank barrels per
acre-foot,

>
(16)

[I57 m3/ha.mj.

where N,, is the unit recovery by depletion or solutiongas 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 permeaand the total liquid saturation, S,, is
bility ratio k,/k,
known for the reservoir rock under consideration, the unit
recovery by depletion can be arrived at by a stepwise computation of the desaturation history directly from the following depletion equation in differential form:
As,,
-1

The results may be converted into cumulative recovery

as a fraction of the original oil in place (OOIP) by

L+L)

(?c), .,....,.......

(17)

while the GOR history, in standard cubic feet gasistocktank barrel, may be computed by

(18)
where R is the instantaneous producing GOR, in standard
cubic feet per stock-tank barrel, and the relative production rate in barrels per day by

APR

B, dR,
d(liB,s)
S,,+(I -s,, -s,,, )B,L!-+s,,--dlR
B,, kR

. ..t...

.I..........,.........

PL,,k,.,

dB,,

ko

I-,?k,,, BdrR

(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 calculator falls off rapidly if the pressure decrements chosen are too large, particularly during the final stages when
the GOR is increasingly rapidly.
With modern electronic computers, however, it is possible to use pressure decrements of IO psi or smaller,
which makes a satisfactory accuracy possible.

Poi

PR
.

where
90
kc,
km
Poi
40;

=
=
=
=
=

(19)

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 reservoir 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 relatively low.
Another limitation of this method as well as of the Tarner 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 advanced trial-and-error-type computation methods for the
desaturation process that require a much smaller number
of pressure increments and can therefore be more readily handled by a desk calculator. Both methods are based
on a simultaneous solution of the material-balance equation (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 cumulative oil produced (N,,)I and the cumulative gas produced
(Gp)* for a given pressure drop from p I to p, is as
follows.

PETROLEUM

40-l 0

TABLE

40.4-COMPUTED

DEPLETION

RECOVERY

IN STBIACRE-FTIPERCENT

POROSITY

ENGINEERING

FOR TYPICAL

HANDBOOK

FORMATIONS

Solution
GOR
(cu ftlbbl)

Oil
Gravity,
(OAPI)

cRsb)

-70

Unconsolidated

Consolidated

Highly Cemented

Vugular

Fractured

;z
50
15
30
50
15
30
50
30
50
50

7.2
12.0
19.2
7.0
11.6
19.4
7.6
10.5
15.0
12.3
12.0
10.6

4.9
8.5
13.9
4.6
7.9
13.7
4.8
6.5
9.7
7.6
7.2
6.4

1.4
4.9
9.5
1.8
4.4
9.2
2.5
3.6
5.8
4.5
4.1
4.0

2.6
6.3
11.8
2.6
5.8
11.4
3.3

0.4
18
5.1
0.5
1.5
4.4
0.9

60
200

600

1,000
2,000

Sand or Sandstone
(S,, = 0.25)

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
assuming
(Eq. 111, which for this purpose-and
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 total liquid saturation (S,), and compute the instantaneous
GOR at p2 by means of
....

R* =R,$ +ui15$+.
RPK

..

(22)

ro

5. Compute the cumulative gas produced at pressure

p2 by means of
(G,)2=(Gp)1+

RI +R,
---[VP)2
2

-VP) 11,

. (23)

in which RI represents the instantaneous GOR computed 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 cumulative gas and oil production that will satisfy both equations. In actual application, the method is usually
simplified further by equating the incremental gas production (Gp)z -(G,) I) rather than (G,)Z itself. This

Limestone, Dolomite or
Chert (S,, =0.15)

4.7
7.2
5.4
4.8
(4.3)

(1.2)
(2.1)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(1.5)

equality signifies that at each pressure step the cumulative 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 automatic 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 compute 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 assumption of uniform oil saturation throughout the producing portion of the reservoir, on which the method is based.
Since such a breakthrough of free gas causes the instantaneous 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 investigators9, 12-14 have used the Muskat and Tarner methods
to determine the effects of different variables on the ultimate 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 crudeoil/gas mixtures representing a range of crude-oil gravities 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).

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

10.0
z
2

1.0

e
=
P

0.1
0.01
5
TOT
PER

Notes:
interstitial water is assumed to be 30% of pore space and deadoil 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 reservoir pressure has declined from the bubblepoint pressure to atmospheric pressure.
FVF units are reservoir barrels per barrel of residual oil.
Solution GOR units are standard cubic feet per barrel of residual
oil.
Example 1:
Required: Ultimate recovery from a system -having a bubblepoint pressure = 2,250 psia, FVF = 1.6, and a solution GOR.
Procedure: Starting at the left side of the chart, proceed
horizontally along the 2,250-psi line to FVF = 1.6. Now rise vertically 10 the 1,300-scflbbl line. Then go horizontally and read an
ultimate recovery of 23.8%.
Example 2:
F)eqoired:Convert the recovery figure determined in Example 1 to tank oil recovered.
Data requirements: Differential liberation data given in Example 1. Flash liberation data: bubblepoint pressure = 2,250 psia,
FVF = 1.485, FVF at atmospheric pressure = 1.080 for both flash
and differential liberation.

FORMATIONVOLUME FACTOR
Procedure: Calculate the oil saturation at atmospheric pressure 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
place.

oil recovery)=29.3%

of tank oil originally

in

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 concerning the physical characteristics of the reservoir rock and
its fluid content, Table 40.4 has been found helpful in estimating the possible range of depletion-recovery factors.
It may be noted that the k,lk,
relationship of the reservoir rock is apparently the most important single factor
governing the recovery factor. Unconsolidated intergranular material seems to be the most favorable, while increased 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 recovery. The effect of GOR on recovery is less pronounced
and shows no consistent pattern. Apparently the beneficial 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.

PETROLEUM

40-12

In another attempt nine nomographs were developed,

each for a given combination of the k, lk ,.(,curve, deadoil viscosity, and interstitial water content. The nomograph 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 interstitial water saturation S,,., and the oil saturation S,:
k
ri: = i(O.0435 +0.4556E),
k t-0

. (24)

where t;=(l -S,,.-S,,

-S,)/(S,
-0.25).
A similar
correlation I5 for sandstones that show a linear relationship between lip, (where p,.=critical pressure) and
saturation is
k rg
-=

(1 -S*)I[

1 -@*)I]

(s*)4

k ro

(25)

where effective saturation S*=S,I(l -Si,).

This
tion represents a useful expression for calculating
tive permeability ratios in sandstone reservoirs for
an average water saturation has been obtained by
electrical log or core analysis.

equarelawhich
either

In a statistical study of the actual performance of 80 solution gas-drive reservoirs, the API Subcommittee on
Recovery Efficiency I6 developed the following equation
for unit recovery (N,,) below the bubblepoint for solution gas-drive reservoirs, in stock-tank barrels per
acre-foot*:
N,, =3,*44 [ 44;,y

1.6 x (2-J

0.1741

x(s,

,)O.3722x !k
IM
( >

With progressively deeper drilling, a number of oil reservoirs have been encountered that, while lacking an active water drive, are in undersaturated condition. Because
of the expansion of the reservoir fluids and the compaction of the reservoir rock upon pressure reduction, substantial 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 acrefoot at pressure pi is according to Eq. 2,
..
.

73758x4i(1-Siw)

where 4; is initial porosity. By combining this expression with the material-balance equation (Eq. 10). the
recovery factor above the bubblepoint in stock-tank barrels per acre-foot may be expressed as

Np=

7375Wi(Pi-Pb)[Co

+Cf-Siw(cc~-~w)l

I (27)

Boi[lfco(Pi-Pb)l

where c,,, is the compressibility

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 reservoir characteristics are

(26)

where
k = absolute permeability,

P,~ =
Pa =
pb =

Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Without

Water Drive Above the BubblepointVolumetric Method t7-19

o.0979

Pa

B ob =

HANDBOOK

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 ultimate 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.

Boi

API Estimation of Oil

and Gas Reserves

ENGINEERING

darcies,
oil FVF at bubblepoint, RBLSTB,
oil viscosity at bubblepoint, cp,
abandonment pressure, psig, and
bubblepoint pressure, psig.

The permeability distribution in most reservoirs is

usually sufficiently nonuniform in vertical and horizontal directions to cause the foregoing depletion calculations
on average material to be fairly representative.
However, when distinct layers of high and low permeability, 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

of interstitial water in

pi = 8,300 psig at 9,200 ft,

pb =
#Ii =
s 1M
=
B oh =
B o(1 =
70 =
CO =
cw =
Cf =
S,, =
Rsb =

3,500 psig,
0.17,
0.40,

1.45,
1.15,
32 to 33API,
13x10-6,
2.7~10-~,
1.4x10-6,
0.22, and
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 bubblepoint at 110 bbl/acre-ft (see Ref. 19 for details).

ESTIMATION

40-13

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

Volatile Oil ReservoirsVolumetric Methods20-25

Deeper drilling, with accompanying increases in reservoir 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 highshrinkage or volatile crude oils because of their relatively large percentage of ethane through decane components 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 inaccurate predictions of reservoir performance may result
if they are applied to volatile-oil reservoirs.
In highly volatile reservoirs, the stock-tank liquids recovered by condensation from the gaseous phase may actually equal or even exceed those from the associated
liquid phase. This rather surprising occurrence is exemplified in a paper by Woods,24 in which the case history 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 condensed out of the gas phase by conventional field separation equipment (see Ref. 24 for details).
In view of the increasing number and importance of
volatile-oil reservoirs in recent years, appropriate techniques have been developed to provide realistic predictions of the anticipated production performance of these
reservoirs. 2o-z5 The depletion processes are simulated by
an incremental computation method, using multicomponent flash calculations and relative-permeability data, as
indicated in the following stepwise sequence for a chosen 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 bottomhole conditions are determined by a trial-and-error
procedure that involves simultaneously satisfying the volumetric material balance and the relative-permeability relationship.
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 selected pressure decrement.
When this calculation procedure is repeated for successive pressure decrements, the resultant tabulations represent 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 compositional data on all fluid phases, including the total wellstream. This information is then readily available for separator, 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 phasebehavior calculations may not be justified. An empirical
correlation was developed24 for prediction of the ultimate
recovery in such cases, based only on the initial producing GOR, R, the reservoir temperature, TR, and the initial stock-tank oil gravity, yO;.
N,, = -0.070719+-

+O.O011807y~i,

143.50
+O.O001208OT,

. .

(28)

where N,, =ultimate oil production from saturation pressure ph to 500 psi, in stock-tank volume per reservoir
volume of hydrocarbon pore space.
It is claimed that this correlation will give values within 10% of those calculated by the more rigorous procedure previously outlined.

Oil Reservoirs With Gas-Cap DriveVolumetric 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 constant by injection of gas in a gas cap but is also applicable 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. Interstitial water is considered as an immobile phase.

PETROLEUM

40-14

s?

lbfil
-Al

VE A

!I

HANDBOOK

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 constructing a straight line tangent to the curve through the
origin and reading Sk at fR = 1.O. The time of breakthrough at the outlet face may be computed from the slope
of the curve at the point of tangency. The subsequent performance history after breakthrough may then be calculated by constructing tangents at successively higher
values of Sk and obtaining Sh in a similar manner.

ENGINEERING

--i

Example Problem 4. Welge2s presents a typical calculation of gas-cap drive performance for the Mile Six Pool
in Peru.
Given:
0=

0.10 0.20 0.30

&O

I
0.50 0.60

Reservoir volume= 1,902 X lo6 cu ft,

distance from original GOC to average
withdrawal point = 1,540 ft,

0.70

S&GAS
SATURATION,
FRACTION
OF
HYDROCARBON
FILLED
PORE SPACE
Fig. 40.7-Frontal-drive

method in gas-cap

1,902x IO6
average cross-sectional

drive

=1.235x106
If the capillary-pressure
forces are neglected.
fractional-flow equation of gas is

the

(294

E=

k sin @A@,--pR)

..

36%.,qr

(29b)

where
fX =
E =
8 =
A =

fractional flow of gas,

parameter,
dip angle, degrees,
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.

5.615NB,
q,(df,,dS;)

1,540

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
given in Table 40.5 in a slightly simplified form.

are

Oil Reservoirs Under Gravity

Drainage 29-37
Occurrence of Gravity Drainage

Since the ratio of k,lk,

is a function of gas saturation, and all other factors are constant, j$ can be determined 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 saturation to reach the outlet face of the linear sand body as
a function of the slope of the fractional flow vs. saturation curve (Fig. 40.7, Curve B) as follows:
t=

area =

(30)

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 normally 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 under 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

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

40-15

first producing the reservoir under a depletion-type mechanism 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
Several investigators 33m36have 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 occurrence 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 density gradients (p, -p,). Thick sections of unconsolidated sand with minimal surface area, large pore sizes, low
interstitial water saturation, and consequently high k, appear to be especially favorable.
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 angle 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.
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.

y(, =22.5API, N,, for Jan. 1, 1957=44.6 million bbl of

oil; estimated ultimate 47 million bbl or I, 124 bbliacreft, corresponding to 63% of the initial oil in place.
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. 29~32The discovery 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 average pressure became less than 750 psig, and was virtually complete by 1936, when the average pressure had
dropped to 50 psig.
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.
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.
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.
Cumulative production, N,, for Jan. 1, 1958, is estimated 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 Wilcox reservoir will yield under gravity drainage ultimately 361 million bbl or 696 bbliacre-ft, corresponding to
57% of the oil in place.

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.
1. Lukeview Pool in Kern County, CA. 3~32 The discovery 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 reservoir. 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 thickness averages 7 1 ft, the height of the oil column is 1,285
ft. and there are 41,798 net acre-ft of pay.
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,

TABLE

Oil Reservoirs With Water DriveVolumetric Method9

General Discussion
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). Bottomwater 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

40.5~PERFORMANCE-HISTORY

CALCULATION

s: =
S near
Outget Face
0.30
a 35

ro k
0.197
0.140

krok,,
0.715
0.364

0.496
0.642

0.395
0.40
0.45
0.50

0.102
0.097
0.067
0.045

0.210
0.200
0.118
0.0715

0.739
0.752
0.829
0.885

f,

df,lds;

1 .a7
1.81
1 .25
0.94

Recover; Fraction
of Oil in Place

Flowing GOR =

If,41 -01(&/Q
x5. I??
l+R,

7.1
7.3
10.6
14.1

0.534
0.535
0.586
0.622

1.808
1.908
2.811
4.227

PETROLEUM

40-16

TABLE 40X-CONDITIONS
FOR UNIT-RECOVERY
EQUATION,
WATER-DRIVE
RESERVOIR

Reservoir pressure
Interstitial water,
bbllacre-ft
Reservoir oil,
bbllacre-ft
Stock-tank oil,
bbllacre-ft

Initial Conditions

Ultimate
Conditions

Pi

Pa

7,75848,,

7,75&S,,

7.756@(1 -S,,)

7,758@,,

Recovery-Efficiency

further possible only when vertical permeabilities are high

and there is little or no horizontal stratification with impervious 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 saturation (ROS) after water drive, S,,, plays a role similar
to the final (residual) gas saturation, S,, , in the depletiontype reservoirs.
To determine the unit-recovery factor, which is the theoretically possible ultimate recovery in stock-tank barrels
from a homogeneous unit volume of 1 acre-ft of pay produced by complete waterflooding, the amount of interstitial 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 acrefoot 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 stocktank barrels, and S,, is the residual oil saturation, fraction. The ROS at abandonment time may be found by actually 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 satuTABLE

40.7-RECOVERY-EFFICIENCY

Reservoir
Number
1
2
3
4
5

$I
0.179
0.170
0.153
0.192
0.196

Factor

The unit recovery should be multiplied by a permeabilitydistribution 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 recoveryefficiency factor. Baucum and Steinle3 have determined
this recovery-efficiency factor for five water-drive reservoirs in Illinois. Table 40.7 lists the recovery efficiencies 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 produced wholly or partially under water-drive conditions.
Fig, 40.8 shows the correlation between the calculated
ROS under reservoir conditions and the reservoir oil viscosities for these water-drive reservoirs. The deviation
of the ROS from the average trend in Fig. 40.8, vs. permeability, 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 interstitial 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

N,,.=(7,758)(0.20)

0.34
>

=473 STBlacre-ft
FOR WATER-DRIVE

S,,

B,

S,,

Unit-Recovery
Factor
(bbl/acre-ft)

0.400
0.340
0.265
0.370
0.360

1.036
1.017
1.176
1.176
1.017

0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

526
592
504
500
653

RESERVOIR

Actual
Recovery
(bbllacre-ft)
429
430
428
400
482

Recovery
Efficiency
(O/o)
82
73
85
80
74
Average = 79

From

flood-pot tests

HANDBOOK

ration as found by ordinary core analysis after multiplying with the oil FVF at abandonment, B,)O, as the residual
oil saturation in the reservoir to be expected from flooding 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 displacement process in the reservoir itself.

- S,,)IB,, 7,75&S~B,,

7,7584(1

ENGINEERING

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

40-17

lo.30
..
5,
F :: *a20
Lsk
3a
LiL
1 8 lO.O
02
20
?I+
0
OIL
h i0
g 6 -o .,o
& L
4
EE
-0.20
2
g
0
0.2

-0.30
0.4 06

IO

20

40

60

100

EC0

20

40

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 Subcommittee on Recovery Efficiency t6 developed Eq. 32 for
unit recovery for water-drive reservoirs, N,,. In stocktank barrels per acre-foot,*

-0.2159

..

(32)

where symbols and units are as previously defined except permeability, k, is in darcies, and pressure, p, is in
psig.
Example Problem 6. For the same water-drive reservoir used previously and assuming pwi =O.S cp, the API
statistical equation yields the following unit recovery
factor:
(0.20)(1-0.25)
N,, =4,259
1.30

1.0

x-

100

200

400

AVERAGE PERMEABILITY

lcco

EOW

4oM)

Io.ow

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-frontaladvance 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 fractionalflow equation can be written as follows:

fw=

1
1 +(k,lk,,,,)(pJp,)

. (33)

.0422

-0.2159

( >
0.9

= 504 STB/acre-ft
Because data were arrived at by comparing indicated
recoveries from various reservoirs with the known parameters from each reservoir, the estimated residual oil
and the average recovery factor based on these correlations allows for a recovery-efficiency factor (permeabilitydistribution 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)
mulbpl~cark?m of Nup by 1.2899

requires

20
RESERWR

40
60
SO
PRESSURE DECLINE: PER CENT

100

Fig. 40.10--Relation
between deviation of ROS from average
trend in Fig. 40.8 and pressure-decline water-drive
sand flelds.

PETROLEUM

40-18

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

3 1.0
5 0.9
2

k-~0.8
d
5 0.7
Iz
- 0.6
ii?
:

0.5

1.05
Iv..

.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

WATER

0.6

0.7

SATURATION,

FRACTION

0.8

0.9

S,,
TIME

OF PORE SPACE

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.

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 saturation 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 fractional flow vs. saturation curve (Fig. 40.1 I, Curve B) as
follows:

Fig. 40.12 is a plot of the results of the performancehistory 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.

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 obtained 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 performance 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 reservoir and with a water-influx rate equal to the production
rate.

40.12-Example
of frontal-drive problem, unit-recovery factor, and WOR vs. time.

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 individual 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 produced 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 permeability 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 median permeability. Although the Dykstra-Parsons method

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

TABLE

40-l 9

40.8-WATER-DRIVE

PERFORMANCE-HISTORY

Time

1w

~ S,,

0.545
0.581
0.605
0.634
0.673
0.718

0.619
0.655
0.675
0.697
0.720
0.748

fw

df,JdS,w

(years)

0.800
0.875
0.910
0.940
0.970
0.990

2.70
1.69
1.29
0.95
0.64
0.33

3.94
6.29
8.24
11.19
16.61
32.21

Residual Oil
Saturation
(1 -S,,)
0.381
0.345
0.325
0.303
0.280
0.252

CALCULATION*
Unit-Recovery
Factor
(bbl/acre-ft)

WOR =
f,/l -f,

441
484
507
534
561
594

4.0
7.0
10.1
15.7
32.3
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 fractional 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 problem on a real-time basis.
In the Stiles method4 it again is assumed that individual 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 permeability of each layer. Instead of representing the entire permeability distribution by one statistical parameter, Stiles
tabulates the available samples in descending order of permeability and plots the results in terms of dimensionless
permeability and cumulative capacity fraction as a function of cumulative thickness. From these data, Stiles computes the produced water cut of the entire system as the
watering out progresses through the various layers, starting with those of the highest permeability. Stiles then assumes 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 DykstraParsons 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 method, 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 waterdrive 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 advance 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 analyses 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 proportion 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 permeability 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, nonuniformity of permeability distribution in lateral directions begins to dominate, and recoveries will approach those
obtainable if the formation were entirely uniform (permeability distribution factor= 1). In such a case, an estimate 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 permeability streak, sweeping clean all recoverable oil. In
reality, part of this oil will be recovered over an extended 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.

PETROLEUM

40-20

TABLE

40.9-WATER

DRIVE

PERMEABILITY-BLOCK

(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)

Permeability range, mud

Percent of samples in group
Average permeability, md
Capacity, darcy-ft (2) x (3) + 1,000
Average porosity fraction $
Average residual-oil fraction Sgr
Average interstitial-water fractron S,,
Relative water permeabrlity behind front k
Relative oil permeability ahead of front k,,
Unit-recovery factor (B,, = 1.07)
Cumulative wet capacity, E(4)
Cumulative clean oil capacity, 3.241 - (11)
Water-oil ratio WOR= (~00~c)(8/9)(1 l/12)
Cumulative recovery at WOR = 15.5 bbllacre-ft
Min k wei =I00
md
Cumulative recovery at WOR = 35.9 bbllacre-ft
Min k,,, =50 md
Cumulative recovery at WOR = 76.5 bbl/acre-ft
Min k we, = 25 md
Cumulative recovery at WOR = 307.7 bbllacre-ft
Min k we, =lO md
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 Alberta, 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,

n
/

200.
0
G.--

I
I

~100
g

80-

40

I
I
1

I
I
I

- ECONOMIC
, .9
WOR=5Ojmi
60kIMIT
5 50 -T---q---

I
I
I

RECOVERY
FACTOR
=297
BBL/ACRE, FT@
WOR =50

20

lOI
0
RECOVERY

31
200
FACTOR,

,
400

I
600

BBL/ACRE-FT

Fig. 40.13-Example
of modified Stiles permeability-block
method WOR vs. recovery factor.

HANDBOOK

CALCULATIONS
Total

>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

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

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

10 to 25
21.2
16.1
0.341
0.130
0.217
0.107
0.56
0.66
623
3.133
0.108
307.7
21.3

0 to 10
44.9
2.4
0.108
0.099
0.222
0.185
0.54
0.47
415
3.241
0
4op5

175.6

61.7

75.5

72.0

42.5

8.9

260.6

61.7

75.5

104.7

85.1

17.9

344.9

61.7

75.5

104.7

132.1

44.7

418.7

61.7

75.5

104.7

132.1

186.3

560.3

Group
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

ENGINEERING

100.0
3.241

low. The reason is that, in pools like the Redwater D-3,

there is a substantial density difference between the rising salt water and the oil. While the water rises and advances through the highly permeable vugular material,
it may at first bypass the low-permeability matrix material, 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 permeabilities 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 additional oil recovery may be obtained because of this socalled 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 highpermeability zones or fractures. A separate computation
is then made for each of the permeability ranges to determine what percentage of the matrix oil contained in a theoretical tube of such average length may be driven out
during the producing life of the reservoir under the effect of the buoyancy phenomenon.
Surprisingly improved recoveries are sometimes indicated 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 lowpermeability matrix as the water advances may materially aid the buoyancy mechanism but is much more difficult
to evaluate quantitatively.

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

TABLE

40-21

40.10-PSEUDOCRITICAL

CALCULATIONS
Volume %
or
MO&

Component
(11
Methane
Ethane
Propane
lsobutane
Normal butane

lsopentane
Normal penlane
Hexanes

86.02
7.70
4.26
0.57
0.87
0.11
0.14
0.33

343.5
550.1
666.2
733.2
765.6
630.0
847.0
914.6

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 reservoir volume. The reservoir volume occupied by 1 lbmmole of gas (gas weight in pounds equal to molecular
weight), in cubic feet, is
G=

(10.73)z(460+TR)
PR

. . . (35)

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

Critical
Pressure

2x3
100

(;:)

Volumetric Recovery Estimates for

Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs46-53
Compressibility

Critical
Temperature

(2)

100.00

FROM GAS ANALYSIS

(77
673
708
617
530
551
482
485
434

(5)
296-42.4
26.4
4.2
6.7
0.9
1.2
3.0
362.6

2x4
100

(3)
572
54.5
26.3
3.0
4.8
0.5
0.7
1.4
663.2

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 weightedaverage 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 Table 40.10.
The gas whose composition is given in Table 40.10 has
a pseudocritical temperature of 382.8R and a pseudocritical pressure of 663.2 psia. The pseudoreduced temperature then is found at a temperature of 150F as
(460 + 150)/382.8 = 1.59 and its pseudoreduced pressure

PSEUOO REDUCED PRESSURE

Fig. 40.14B-Compressibility
factors for natural
sures of 10,000 to 20,000 psia.

PSEUDO REDUCED PRESSURE

Fig.

40.14A-Compressibility

factors for natural gases.

gases

et

pres.

40-22

PETROLEUM

RESERVOIR

PRESSURE

Fig. 40.15-Gas

FVF 8,

1
B&l

460+ T,
--------Z
460+60

14.17
= ~
p,+14.7

and reciprocal

RESERVOIR

(pR] IN PSI GAUGE

Fig. 40.16-Gas

p,+14.7

460+60

14.7

460+T,

8,

40.1 I-PSEUDOCRITICAL
CALCULATIONS
FROM SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Specific gravity
of Gas
(Air=l.O)

Pseudocritical
Temperature (OR)
(460+ OF)

Pseudocritical
Pressure (psia)
(14.7+ psig)

0.55
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 .oo
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.65

348
363
392
422
451
480
510
540
570
600
629
658
673

674
672
669
665
660
654
648
641
632
623
612
600
593

460+ T,
p-z
460+60

gas FVF

pR+14.7
14.7

460+60
~460+T,

1
z

vs. pressure,

psig, and temperature,

Gas gravity 0.7 (air 1 .O).

OF

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 correlation 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 coverage of gas properties and gas property correlations, some
of which are specific to computer applications.)

HANDBOOK

(pR) IN PSI GAUGE

14.17
= ~
p,+14.7

FVF 8,

1
-=

vs. pressure, psig, and temperature,

Gas gravity 0.6 (air 1 .O).

TABLE

PRESSURE

and reciprocal

gas FVF

ENGINEERING

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 interpolation 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 representing 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 computed 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 careful 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.

ESTIMATION

40-23

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

400

0.4

as

xx)

0.2

02

01
ma

2"
g

0.06

=
L

a04

Y
3

a02

6
s
H
e

QOl
o.cca 3
0.006
a004

l.ow
RESERVilR

PRESSURE

Fig. 40.17-Gas

&)

14.17
= ___
p,+14.7

FVF 6,

and reciprocal
1
<-

RESERVOIR

IN PSI GAUGE

460+T,
-----z
460+60

Fig. 40.18-Gas

gas FVF

pR +14.7
14.7

PRESSURE

460+60

1
z

vs. pressure, psig, and temperature,

Gas gravity 0.8 (air 1 .O).

OF.

a002
lO.OCQ

460+T,
-z
460+60

14.17
= ~
p,+14.7

FVF 6,

and reciprocal

460+T,

Jpoo Jpoo
IN PSI GAUGE

Ip,)

gas FVF

1
-=

pR +14.7

8,

14.7

460+60
~460+T,

1
z

vs. pressure, psig, and temperature,

Gas gravity 0.9 (air I .o).

OF

The standard pressure base for the states of Texas, Oklahoma, 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 containing 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 estimated by multiplying the gas in place by an overall recovery 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 highpermeability formations of around 80%, typical values
of the recoverable gas in thousands of cubic feet per acrefoot 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 applicable to wide-spaced low-permeability formations, such as
those which require fracturing or other stimulation tech-

RESERVOIR

PRESSURE

FVF B,=-

Fig. 40.19-Gas

and reciprocal
1
B,-

p,+14.7
________14.7

lo,)

IN PSI GAUGE

14.17
pR +14.7

460+T,
-z
46Ot60

gas FVF
460+60

460+T,

vs. pressure, psig, and temperature,

Gas gravity 1 .O (air 1 .O).

OF.

PETROLEUM

40-24

TABLE

40.12-TYPICAL

VALUES

OF RECOVERABLE

ENGINEERING

GAS,

f&f/acre-ft

Porositv d

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Interstitial water S,,

0.35

0.30

0.30

0.25

0.25

0.20

0.15

37
77
122
159
215
255
277
294
311

166
263
342
463
549
598
634
671

121
249
395
512
695
823
896
951
1,006

172
355
565
732
993
1,176
1,281
1,359
1,437

216
444
706
915
1,241
1,470
1,601
1,699
1,797

276
569
903
1,171
1,589
1,882
2,049
2,175
2,300

342
705
1,120
1,451
1,970
2,333
2,540
2,695
2,851

HANDBOOK

Depth, ft
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
15,000

80

niques to produce at commercial rates. In such cases allowance should be made for the fact that the economic
limit of production may be reached before the entire spacing unit is depleted. Known or suspected lenticularity of
the gas-bearing formation also should be taken into account in estimating the potential drainage area.
Unit Recovery for a Gas Reservoir Without
Water Drive
Dry Gas. The unit-recovery factor (the theoretically possible 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 abandonment 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 abandonment, 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 availability of compressors to boost low-pressure gas to pipeline pressures, the depth of the reservoir, the size of the
production tubing, and the permeability and pay thickness of the reservoir.
Gas Condensate. In gas-condensate reservoirs, condensation of hydrocarbon liquids may occur upon pressure
drop in the reservoir and in the surface separation equipment. Condensation of liquids in the reservoir may cause
the unit-recovery factor as computed for a dry-gas reservoir 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 reservoirs without water drive produced under pressuredepletion conditions, the recovery computations should
therefore be based on an actual laboratory depletion study

of a recombined sample. If such an analysis is not available, 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 residual condensate saturation in the reservoir at abandonment
time is S,,, and the average produced gas/condensate ratio is R, scf/bbl, may be estimated, in standard cubic feet
residue gas per acre-foot, as

Gl,/ =43,560@------

RP

1 -s,,,. -so,

R, + 175

- 175 s,,

B ,W

..

. (38)

>
S,, may be estimated from a material-balance calculation
on the condensate present in the reservoir gas under initial conditions, and the condensate to be recovered during 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 corrected 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 impervious strata. An uneconomic rate of production may be
reached before the tighter zones are drained down to abandonment pressure. In many cases, nonuniformity of permeability 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 permeabilities are uniform and continuous across the reservoir is
therefore in most cases too pessimistic. Such a computation does provide a means, however, to indicate the minimum 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

40-25

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

According to Eqs. 13 and 14 of Sec. 11.15 in Ref. 50,

the boundary pressure in a closed cylindrical gas reservoir, 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

Reservoir
pressure

.(39)

while the gas production rate is

.

ql: =C*k,h,p*,

Free gas,
scf/acre-ft

(41,)I
Cl(k#)lP,

PI
(-->
PI

Ultimate Conditions

PI

P.3

43,56OQS,,

43,56O~S,,

43,5604(1 -S,,)

B,l

.(40)

in which Ct and Cz are constants and $h and h, are effective hydrocarbon porosity and effective thickness, respectively
It will be assumed that a large number of core analyses
are available on a gas reservoir, which are divided in permeability groups as shown on Table 40.13. The average permeability, k , for each group is then corrected to
the relative gas permeability,J,, , at the given Si,V saturation. The average porosity. 4. for each group is corrected 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 having a relative gas permeability k, and a hydrocarbonfilled 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 applicable. The same method may be applied by taking the deviation from the ideal-gas laws into consideration, by
assuming other than zero wellbore pressure, and by taking
into account liquid condensation in gas-condensate reservoirs, but such computations soon become rather unwieldy.
By the time Group I, comprising the highest permeability, is bled down to a pressure p t , a time 1 has expired,
which according to Eq. 39 is equal to

t=

Interstitial
water, cu ftl
acre-ft

Initial Conditions

43,56Oc$(i-S,)
B !F

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 fraction of the total gas in place in all layers is
,1

~(~~),(h,),,[l-(P,ipi)l
1

(41)

G P

.,.......
G,Z

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)

(46)

II

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 cumulative as a fraction or percentage of the gas in place.
By selecting an appropriate economic limit rate the recovery 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.

PETROLEUM

40-26

TABLE

40.14-PERMEABILITY-BLOCK

METHOD

Group (n)
(I) Permeability,

lO<k<lOO

range

l<k<lO

FOR GAS RESERVOIRS

3
O.l<k<l

25.26

3.36

0.34

0.05

(3) dJh

0.070

0.068

0.045

0.022

(4) kg/d,

360.8
1

WITHOUT

WATER

Total

HANDBOOK

DRIVE
Percent of Initial
rate and
gas in place

0.01 <k<O.l

(2)kg

(5) (kg14t,)n +W&,),

ENGINEERING

49.4

7.56

2.27

0.13692

0.02095

0.00629

170

530

889

622

2,211

(7) k,n

4,294

1,780

302.3

31 .l

6,407.4

( = 100%)

63)(ON

11.90

36.04

40.00

13.68

101.62

( = 100%)

0.2500
268.4
8.92

0.7088
894.3
10.49

0.9408
267.6
2.37

0.9815
30.0
0.25

1,460.3
22.03

( = 22.8%)
( = 21.7%)

0.0400
6.9
11.42

0.2333
96.9
27.63

0.6654
133.8
13.38

0.8688
23.5
1.79

261.1
54.22

( = 4.07%)
( = 53.4%)

0.0099

0.0681
8.2
33.59

0.3231
31.6
27.08

0.6139
11.7
5.28

51.9
77.73

(=0.81%)
(= 76.5%)

(6) Number

of samples,

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,
Assume (p,/p,)=
101
Pressure @,/p,)
=[l + 100(5)] -

)I

0.4
11.78

Rate = (7)(pJp, I*
Cumulative=(8)[1
-(pJp,)]

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 recovery from gas reservoirs with water drive is usually estimated 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

20

CUMULATIVE

40

60

IN PER

Fig. 40.20-Permeability-block
water dcive.

80

100

OF GAS IN PLACE

method for gas reservoirs without

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 abscissas. A varying characteristic of the well performance
that can be measured easily and recorded then is selected

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

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 manner: and (2) it must have a known endpoint.
By plotting the values of this continuously changing dependent variable as ordinates vs. the values of the independent 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 assumption in this procedure is that whatever causes controlled 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 reservoir 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 ofproduction is by far the most popular when production is not
restricted. In that case one commonly refers to productiondecline 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 variable 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 factar, or increase in the skin effects8 as a result of physical 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 percentage. 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 productive 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 existing and sometimes only partially effective wellbore conditions.
When the lifting equipment is operating properly and
wellbore conditions are found to be satisfactory. a declining production trend must reflect changing reservoir con-

40-27

TABLE

40.15-SAMPLE
LIMIT

CALCULATION
FOR A WELL

OF ECONOMIC

28.00
Crude price per bbl
2.00
Gas revenue per bbl
$30.00
Total
1.43
Less production taxes
Less royalty (12.5% after production
3.57
taxes)
$25.00
Leaves net income per gross bbl
Estimated direct operating cost at
$2,500 per month
economic limit
Estimated

economic-limit

100

rate

gross

bbllmonth

The pwe and taxabon of 011and 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 recoverable reserves.
Economic Limit
The economic-limit rate is the production rate that will
just meet the direct operating expenses of a well. In determining this economic limit it is often advisable to analyze 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

a=--=--

dt

dqldt
4 .

..

.... .

..__ (47)

Nominal decline, being a continuous function. is used

mainly to facilitate the derivation of the various mathematical 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 period, or
d=91-9i

... .

.... ....

. . . (481

The time period may be 1 month or I year for effective

monthly or annual decline, respectively.

40-26

PETROLEUM

TABLE

Rate

Cumulative

Rate
0.9975000
0.9950063
0.9925187
0.9900274
0.9875623
0.9850934
0.9826307
0.9801741
0.9777237
0.9752794
0.9728412
0.9704091
0.9416938
0.9138282
0.8867872
0.8605463
0.8350820
0.8103711
0.7863915
0.7631215
0.7405400

DECLINE

0.9950000
0.9900250
0.9850750
0.9801495
0.9752488
0.9703725
0.9655206
0.9606931
0.9558896
0.9511101
0.9463546
0.9416228
0.8866535
0.8348932
0.7861544
0.7402610
0.6970466
0.6563550
0.6180388
0.5819595
0.5479863

0.9975000
1.9925063
2.9850250
3.9750624
4.9626248
5.9477182
6.9303489
7.9105230
8.8882467
9.8635261
10.8363673
11.8067763
23.2641790
34.3825469
45.1719121
55.6420099
65.8022881
75.6619141
85.2297847
94.5145332
103.5245374

Different Types of Production-Decline

0.9950000
1.9900250
2.9700999
3.9502494
4.9254981
5.8958706
6.8613913
7.8220843
8.7779739
9.7290840
10.6754386
11.6170614
22.5559511
32.8562594
42.5552644
51.6880687
60.2877255
68.3853585
76.0102745
63.1900692
89.9507277

Curves

dyidt
9 , . . . . ..~....................

(49)

which after integration leads to the rate/time relationship

y=qie

-.

(50)

After integrating a second time, the cumulative production at time t is obtained as expressed by the rateicumulative relationship:
N

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

In F,
a

HANDBOOK

4% PER MONTH)
Effective Decline
1% oer Month

0.9925000
1.9775563
2.9552246
3.9255604
4.8886187
5.8444541
6.9731207
7.7346722
8.6691622
9.5966435
10.5171686
11.4307899
21.8742023
31.4155252
40.1326804
48.0968584
55.3731006
62.0208300
68.0943366
73.6432212
78.7127999

Rate

Cumulative

0.9900000
0.9801000
0.9702990
0.9605960
0.9509900
0.9414801
0.9320653
0.9227447
0.9135173
0.9043821
0.8953383
0.8863849
0.7856781
0.6964132
0.6172901
0.5471566
0.4849910
0.4298890
0.3810471
0.3377544
0.2993804

0.9900000
1.9701000
2.9403990
3.9009950
4.8519851
5.7934652
6.7255306
7.6482753
8.5617925
9.4661746
10.3615128
11.2478977
21.2178644
30.0550922
37.8882772
44.8314939
50.9858562
56.4409899
61.2763380
65.5623173
69.3613447

in which the constant b is determined under initial conditions 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
(l-n)a,

(q; 1-n -q-).

..

(57)

Under certain conditions, production obtained by gravity drainage will follow this type of decline for the exponent n = % (Ref. 35). The rate/time relationship then reads

. . . ..___.....................

in which F, =q;/q,,
Eq. 51,

4;

q= [1 +(aj,2)t,2

...

..

or. by elimination of decline (I with

and the rate/cumulative

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 constant 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.

to

Cumulative

(51)

From Eq. 50, the remaining life to abandonment time may

be obtained as
t,=-,

Rate
0.9925000
0.9850562
0.9776683
0.9703358
0.9630583
0.9558354
0.9486666
0.9415516
0.9344900
0.9274813
0.9205252
0.9136212
0.8347038
0.7626031
0.6967304
0.6365477
0.5815635
0.5313287
0.4854332
0.4435021
0.4051929

N,-

=4i-Y

DECLINE

Effective Decline
J/4% per Month

Cumulative

Three types of production-decline curves are commonly

recognized. 54 With constant-percentage decline the
nominal decline rate, a, is constant, or
a-

(EFFECTIVE

Effective Decline
%% oer Month

Effective Decline
l/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

40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE

ENGINEERING

_.

,(54)

N 3
P -(&
a,

-4).

. (58)

relationship

. (59)

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..
ai

. (60)

ESTIMATION

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

TABLE

40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE

Rate

or, after elimination

(EFFECTIVE

0.9875000
1.9626563
2.9256230
3.8765528
4.8155959
5.7429009
6.6586147
7.5628820
8.4558460
9.3376479
10.2084273
11.0683220
20.5859132
28.7700393
35.8075257
41.8590228
47.0626730
51.5372641
55.3849412
58.8935382
61.5385833

. ..

. .

In other words, the future life under hyperbolic decline

(n = h) will be 6
tlmes as long as the life required to
produce the same ultimate N,,,, at constant rate qi.
With harmonic decline, the nominal decline rate (I is
proportional to the production rate, or
dqidt

a=--=bq,

. . . ,.

__...

..(62)

lo

4% PER MONTH)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(63)

After integration, the following rate/time relationship

for harmonic decline is obtained:
q,L l+ait

0.9825000
1.9478063
2.8962196
3.8280358
4.7435452
5.6430331
6.5267801
7.3950614
8.2481478
9.0863053
9.9097949
10.7188735
19.3912851
26.4079477
32.0849793
36.6781441
40.3943754
43.4010986
45.8337740
47.8019996
49.3944488

._,,..._....................

.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
4

(65)

q.
ai

From Eq. 64, the remaining life to abandonment time

may be obtained as
t, =

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;.
Relationship Between Efective und Nominal Decline. The
effective decline rate d (or d; for initial conditions) for
the three types of production-decline curves is related to
the nominal decline rate a (or ai for initial conditions)
as follows.
d=l-e-

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

(68)

and
a=-ln

(1-d).

. . . . . . . . . .._____...__..___

F,-1

v56)

ai

or, after elimination

of initial decline ai with Eq. 65,

...

...

.....

....

(69)

For hyperbolic decline,

d,=l-(l+nUi)-

..

._ _. .,

..(70)

and
ni=l[(l-n;)-n-I].

. . . ,...

ai

Effective Decline
2% per Month

Cumulative

0.9825000
0.9653062
0.9484134
0.9318162
0.9155094
0.8994880
0.8837469
0.8682814
0.8530864
0.8381574
0.8234897
0.8090786
0.6546082
0.5296295
0.4285119
0.3466998
0.2805074
0.2269525
0.1836224
0.1485650
0.1202007

(continued)

in which the constant b is determined under initial conditions by

b=lfi.
91

Rate

0.9850000
1.9552250
2.9108966
3.8522332
4.7794497
5.6927580
6.5923666
7.4784811
8.3513039
9.2110343
10.0578688
10.8920008
19.9773671
27.5557615
33.8771427
39.1500088
43.5482749
47.2170094
50.2772181
52.8298360
54.9590562

l/4

Effective Decline
13/4% per Month

Cumulative

Rate
0.9850000
0.9702250
0.9556716
0.9413366
0.9272165
0.9133083
0.8996086
0.8861145
0.8728228
0.8597304
0.8468345
0.8341320
0.6957761
0.5803691
0.4841044
0.4038070
0.3368283
0.2809593
0.2343571
0.1954848
0.1630601

of initial decline a, by Eq. 59,

t.=kF.
4;

DECLINE

Effective Decline
l%% per Month

Cumulative

0.9875000
0.9751562
0.9629668
0.9509297
0.9390431
0.9273051
0.9157137
0.9042673
0.8929640
0.8818019
0.8707794
0.8598947
0.7394118
0.6358223
0.5467402
0.4701390
0.4042700
0.3476296
0.2989248
0.2570438
0.2210306

i
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
24
36
4%
60
72
84
96
108
120

DECLINE

Effective Decline
1 J/4% per Month

Time
(months)
1

40-29

(71)

For harmonic decline,

+a,

l+ai

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._......

(72)

and
di
Ui=y--q.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .._...........__

(73)

An analysis of a large number of actual productiondecline 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. Gravitydrainage production under certain conditions will have an
exponent n=O.S (Ref. 59). The occurrence of harmonic
decline (n= I) is apparently rare.

PETROLEUM

40-30

TABLE

40.16-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE
Effective Decline
2V2% per Month

Time
(months)

Rate
0.9750000
0.9506250
0.9268594
0.9036879
0.8810957
0.8590683
0.8375916
0.8166518
0.7962355
0.7763296
0.7569214
0.7379984
0.5446416
0.4019446
0.2966344
0.2189157
0.1615594
0.1192306
0.0879920
0.0649379
0.0479241

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120

Cumulative
0.9750000
1.9256250
2.8524844
3.7561723
4.6372680
5.4963363
6.3339279
7.1505797
7.9468152
8.7231448
9.4800662
10.2180646
17.7589797
23.3241626
27.4312584
30.4622883
32.6991834
34.3500082
35.5683143
36.4674222
37.1309623

Decline Tables for Constant-Percentage

DECLINE

(EFFECTIVE

DECLINE

Effectwe Decline
3% q er Month
Rate
0.9700000
0.9409000
0.9126730
0.8852928
0.8587340
0.8329720
0.8079828
0.7837434
0.7602311
0.7374241
0.7153014
0.6938424
0.4814172
0.3340277
0.2317625
0.1608067
0.1115745
0.0774151
0.0537139
0.0372690
0.0258588

0.9700000
1.9109000
2.8235730
3.7088658
4.5675998
5.4005718
6.2085547
6.9922981
7.7525291
8.4899532
9.2052547
9.8990970
16.7675099
21.5331058
24.8396782
27.1339192
28.7257601
29.8302468
30.5965865
31.1283054
31.4972345

Tables 40.16 and 40.17 will facilitate computations of future rates and cumulative production for constant effective decline percentages IOOd, from 1/4to 10% per month.
Hand-held calculator and computer programs are available 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,

l/4 to 4% PER MONTH)

Effective Decline
3%% oer Month

Cumulative

Decline

ENGINEERING

Rate

(continued)

Effective Declme
4% per Month

Cumulative

0.9650000
0.9312250
0.8986321
0.8671800
0.8368287
8.8075397
0.7792758
0.7520012
0.7256811
0.7002823
0.6757724
0.6521204
0.4252610
0.2773214
0.1808469
0.1179339
0.0769071
0.0501527
0.0327056
0.0213280
0.0139084

HANDBOOK

0.9650000
1.8962250
2.7948571
3.6620371
4.5988658
5.3064055
6.0856813
6.8376825
7.5633636
8.2636459
8.9394183
9.5915387
15.8463764
19.9252836
22.5852220
24.3198220
25.4509900
26.1886477
26.6696893
26.9833863
27.1879545

Rate
0.9600000
0.9216000
0.8847360
0.8493466
0.8153727
0.7827578
0.7514475
0.7213896
0.6925340
0.6648326
0.6382393
0.6127098
0.3754133
0.2300194
0.1409351
0.0863523
0.0529089
0.0324178
0.0198627
0.0121701
0.0074567

Cumulative
0.9600000
1.8816000
2.7563360
3.6156826
4.4310553
5.2138130
5.9652605
6.6866501
7.3791841
8.0440167
8.6822561
9.2949658
14.9900821
18.4795354
20.6175575
21.9275445
22.7301864
23.2219728
23.5232952
23.7079184
23.8210388

in which the rate during the last month preceding the period studied equals unity. For each monthly decline percentage 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 Cumulative."

TABLE

Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120

40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE
Effective Decline
4%% per Month
Rate

0.9550000
0.9120250
0.8709839
0.8317896
0.7943591
0.7586129
0.7244753
0.6918739
0.6607396
0.6310063
0.6026111
0.5754936
0.3311928
0.1905993
0.1096887
0.0631251
0.0363281
0.0209066
0.0120316
0.0069241
0.0039848

Cumulative
0.9550000
1.8670250
2.7380089
3.5697985
4.3641576
5.1227705
5.8472458
6.5391198
7.1998594
7.8308657
8.4334768
9.0089703
14.1935746
17.1772810
18.8943847
19.8825668
20.4512592
20.7785380
20.9668849
21.0752773
21.1376564

DECLINE

(EFFECTIVE

Effective Decline
5% per Month
Rate
0.9500000
0.9025000
0.8573750
0.8145063
0.7737809
0.7350919
0.6983373
0.6634204
0.6302494
0.5987369
0.5688001
0.5403601
0.2919890
0.1577792
0.0852576
0.0460698
0.0248943
0.0134519
0.0072689
0.0039278
0.0021224

Cumulative
0.9500000
1.8525000
2.7098750
3.5243813
4.2981622
5.0332541
5.7315914
6.3950118
7.0252612
7.6239982
8.1927983
8.7331584
13.4522087
16.0021952
17.3801062
18.1246743
18.5270092
18.7444149
18.8618923
18.9253724
18.9596745

DECLINE

4h

to

Effective Decline
per Month

5%%

Rate
0.9450000
0.8930250
0.8439086
0.7974937
0.7536315
0.7121818
0.6730118
0.6359961
0.6010163
0.5679604
0.5367226
0.5072029
0.2572548
0.1304804
0.0661800
0.0335667
0.0170251

Cumulative
0.9450000
1.8380250
2.6819336
3.4794273
4.2330588
4.9452406
5.6182523
6.2542485
6.8552648
7.4232253
7.9599479
8.4671508
12.7617140
14.9399289
16.0447258
16.6050820
16.8892962

10%

PER MONTH)
Effective Decline
6% per Month

Rate
0.9400000
0.8836000
0.8305840
0.7807490
0.7339040
0.6898698
0.6484776
0.6095689
0.5729948
0.5386151
0.5062982
0.4759203
0.2265001
0.1077960
0.0513023
0.0244158

Cumulative
0.9400000
1.8236000
2.6541840
3.4349330
4.1688370
4.8587068
5.5071844
6.1167533
66897481
7.2283632
7.7346614
8.2105817
12.1181642
13.9778620
14.8629300
15.2841517

ESTIMATION

40-31

OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

RATE-

TIME

CURVES

:~~~~~~~~

I20

TIME (1)

0
RATE-

::;Ei
0

CUMULATIVE

I -

CONSTANT

II ---

HYPERBOLIC

m-------HARMONIC

CUMULATIVE

l00,oco

(Np)
PERCENTAGE

DECLINE

DECLINE

n=O

a = 0.03

n 1 bz

a :OlO

=I

a,=0 30

curves on coordinate,

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.

Time
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
36
48
60

Effective Decline
6%0/o
per Month
Rate
0.9350000
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

Cumulative
0.9350000
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

DECLINE

Rate

1000

1ycc
10.030
LOG CUMULATIVE
(No)
(SHIFTED
(SHIFTED

ioo,cco

ON LOG-LOG)
0~

LOG-LOG)

and log-log graph paper.

Cumulative production over 40-month period:

3,000x[(cum.)16

+(rate)36 X(cum.)aJ

=3,000x(19.92528+0.27732x3.66204)=62,822
Production-Decline

bbl.

Curves

Fig. 40.21 shows the rate/time and rate/cumulative trends

of the three types of production-decline curves on regular 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/cumulative curve straightens out on regular coordinate paper. In
either case the tangent of the angle of slope is equal to
the nominal-decline fraction.

(EFFECTIVE

Effective Decline
7% per Month

0.9300000
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

MCLINE
DECLINE

semilog,

Straightening

(See Table 40.16.)

40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE

I00

Da---HYPERBOLIC

period?

TABLE

loo~m

(NJ

ma------HARMONIC

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 monthly decline and what will be the production rate 40 months
later and the cumulative production over this 40-month
Solution.

IO
100
LOG TIME(t)

~~

CUMULATIVE

types of production-decline

CURVES

~~

DECLINE

Fig. 40.21-Three

120

TIMEIt)

DECLINE

4% to 10%

Effective Decline
7%% per Month

Cumulative

Rate

Cumulative

0.9300000
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

0.9250000
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

0.9250000
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

PER MONTH)

(continued)

Effective Decline
8% per Month
Rate
0.9200000
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

Cumulative
0.9200000
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

PETROLEUM

40-32

In the case of hyperbolic-type decline curves the

rate/time relationship as well as the rate/cumulative relationship can be straightened out after shifting to become
straight lines on log-log paper. The shifted rateicumulative 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 obtain the advantage of straight-line extrapolation.
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 harmonic 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.
As a matter of convenience the semilog paper most often
is used for rate/time extrapolations, while regular coordinate 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 conservative. Experienced engineers usually allow for this by
graphically flattening the decline slope in the later stages.
A geometric construction method for such extrapolation 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 extrapolation 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.

TABLE

Time
(months)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
24
36
48

40.17-CONSTANT-PERCENTAGE
Effective Decline
W/z% per Month

Rate
0.9150000
0.8372250
0.7760609
0.7069457
0.6413653
0.5868493
0.5369671
0.4913249
0.4495623
0.4113495
0.3763848
0.3443920
0.1166059
0.0408469
0.0140673

Cumulative
0.9150000
1.7522250
2.5182859
3 2192316
3.8605969
4.4474462
4.9844133
5 4757381
5.9253004
6 3366499
6.7130346
7.0574267
9.4879483
10.3250006
10.6132747

DECLINE

Rate
0.9100000
0.8281000
0.7535710
0.6857496
0.6240321
0.5678693
0.5167610
0.4702525
0.4279298
0.3894161
0.3543687
0.3224755
0.1039904
0.0335344
0.0108140

Cumulative
0.9100000
1.7381000
2.4916710
3.1774210
3.8014528
4.3693220
4.8860830
5.3563356
5.7842654
6.1736815
6.5280502
6.8505257
9.0596524
9.7720416
10.0017697

HANDBOOK

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 production 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.
This leads to the following short cut: when the nominal 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.

Other Performance Curves

Oil Percentage in Total Fluid vs. Cumulative

Oil

Another variable that is often substituted for the production rate in water-drive fields-particularly
when the production of oil is restricted-is
the oil percentage of the
total fluid produced. Because projections of this oil percentage 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

(EFFECTIVE

Effective Decline
9% oar Month

ENGINEERING

DECLINE

4% IO 10%

Effective Decline
91/z% per Month
Rate
0.9050000
0.8190250
0.7412176
0.6708020
0.6070758
0.5494036
0.4972102
0.4499753
0.4072276
0.3685410
0.3335296
0.3018443
0.0911100
0.0275010
0.0083010

Cumulative
0.9050000
1.7240250
2.4652426
3.1360446
3.7431204
4.2925239
4.7897342
5.2397094
5.6469370
6.0154780
6.3490076
6.6508519
8.6583736
9.2643325
9.4472378

PER MONTH)

(continued)

Effective Decline
10% per Month
Rate
0.9000000
0.8100000
0.7290000
0.6561000
0.5904900
0.5314410
0.4782969
0.4304672
0.3874205
0.3486784
0.3138106
0.2824295
0.07976644
0.02252840
0.00636269

Cumulative
0.9000000
1.7100000
2.4390000
3.0951000
3.6855900
4.2170310
4.6953279
5.1257951
5.5132156
5.8618940
6.1757046
6.4581342
8.2821020
8.7972445
8.9427359

ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

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 period. This provides us with the possibility of an endpoint
to a performance curve. The cumulative-gas/cumulativeoil method is illustrated in Fig. 40.23. Cumulative oil production is plotted on the horizontal scale, while the cumulative 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 cumulativegas/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 estimate for the total primary oil recovery.
Material-Balance
Gas Reservoirs

Method for Nonassociated

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

40-33

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 reservoir with active water drive may be rewritten as*
1
-=--

B,

Gp +(5.615W,lB,)

For a gas reservoir without active water drive (W, =O),

this equation converts to*
1

Bg

Bgi

G, +(5.615W,lB,)
GB,i

1
1
-=--- B,i
BAJ

OF BARRELS

Fig. 40.22-011 percentage vs. cumulative relationship on semilog paper. Tar Springs sand production, Calvin Field,
IL.

. . . . . (75)

G,
GB,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 1IB,; 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

000

PRODUCTION

and the same equation for a gas reservoir without active

water drive (W, =0) and without significant water production ( Wp =0) reads

I 1 1
ESTIMATED

I
TOTAL

AVAILABLE

1.42

MMMCF

, fl--Tl--~T1j

,I,

I!

I I11111

IO
-10

I!
GAS 1 ___

ci
[I

CUMULATIVE

(74)

GBgBgi

GBgi

B,l

------

IN THOUSANDS

+ 5.615W,

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.

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

WOC or Abandonment
Cumulative Oil

WlTH WATERDRIVE

WATERDRIVE

ULTIMATE

-Gp

(ky)

Fig. 40.24-Graphical
evaluation of material-balance
for gas reservoirs.

equation

with a gradually diminishing slope (Curve h). which intersects the vertical axis at the value l/B,,,, Extrapolation 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.

HANDBOOK

Contour vs.

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 performance 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 abandonment 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 appears 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 reliable 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 relaxation 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 relaxation pressure. The second slope will extrapolate correctly to yield initial gas in place and ultimate gas recovery.
Solution of Eq. 77. 6o will yield results equivalent to extrapolation of the correct (second) slope if proper values
of formation compressibility (cf) and water compressibility (c,,,) are entered:

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 reservoir recovery efficiency, E,, may be expressed as the
product of three efficiencies: the displacement (or
microscopic) efficiency, ED, the pattern sweep efficiency, Ep, and the invasion efficiency, E,. The resulting
volumetric equation for improved recovery reserves,
N,, is
7,758Ah@,
(78)

NIR=ER
Bo

CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION PER

WELL IN THOUSANDS OF BARRELS

Fig. 40.25-Abandonment
line (subsea) vs.. cumulative oil recovery. Woodbine sand, East Texas field.

> '

"'..

where ER is the recovery efficiency = ED x EP x El, fraction, S, is the oil saturation at start of improved recovery 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. Reliable estimates of improved recovery reserves often require
the use of reservoir simulation models (see Chap. 48) to
account properly for process variables and reservoir heterogeneities.

ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

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: expressed 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 temperature 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 twophase formation factor for oil, B,, is related to the oil FVF B,, the gas FVF B,,
the gas-solubility factor R,, , and the gassolubility 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 lowgravity 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
absolute permeability
k 111= relative permeability to water as a fraction of
absolute permeability
In = natural logarithm to the base e
log = common logarithm to the base 10
tn = ratio of initial reservoir free gas volume and
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

n=
N=
NIR =
N, =
N, =
N,,

N~I =
No,. =
pC, =
pR =

exponent (in decline-curve analysis)

reservoir oil initially in place, STB
improved reserves, STB
cumulative oil produced, STB
remaining oil reserves as of date of study,
STB
unit recovery by depletion or solution-gas
drive, STB
ultimate recovery from reservoir, STB
unit recovery by water drive, STB
critical pressure, psia
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

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

40-36

40 =
qh =
40 =
q, =

production rate at abandonment, B/D

rate of gas production, scf/D
rate of oil production, B/D
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 appropriate correlation charts. A typical gassolubility 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 permeability to gas becomes measurable; expressed 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,,

HANDBOOK

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
=
reservoir
oil viscosity, cp, ranging from less
P0
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
=
reservoir
water viscosity, cp, ranging from
PM
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 laboratory 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 sandstones, to as high as 0.35 in
unconsolidated sands
41, = effective hydrocarbon-bearing
porosity, as a
fraction of bulk pay volume. =c$( 1 -S,,,.)

ESTIMATION OF OIL AND GAS RESERVES

40-37

Subscripts

where A is area of cross section normal to bedding plane,

in m2, and qr is total flow area, in res m/d.

a = abandonment time conditions

h = bubblepoint conditions
i = initial conditions

NB,,
I= q,(df,,dS,~)

Key Equations in SI Metric Units

GF, =

v,s4(l -S;,,.)lO 000

B,
.

where N is in m3 and q, is in mid.

.

(1)
82.057iTR

where
GF, is in std m3 of free gas,
I/,? is net pay volume of free gas-bearing
reservoir, in ha.m, and
IO 000 is m3/ha*m.

N=

v,r#q I -S,,,.)lO 000

,
B,,

portion of

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,)
z=O.OO346(273.16+T,)$
B,e =PR (273.16+T,,,.)

where N is reservoir oil initially in place, in m, and V,

is net pay volume of the oil-bearing portion of a reservoir. in ha.m.

G, =

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

(35)

PR

(2)

V(,4( I -S;,,.)R,, 10 000

..

G=

(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.

PR

(36)

where
T,,,. is standard temperature, 15.56C
I is standard pressure, in atm
TR is in C, and
pR is in atm.
G,,, = IO OOO@p RP
R,+175

B,i

(5)
where
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-

I-S,,,. so
Np=@~->
B,,

NIR ER

..

.(18)

10 OoOAh~S,,
B,

5.

7.

8.

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (29b)

(78)

References

6.

where R is instantaneous producing GOR, in std rnj/

stock-tank m3. and R,, is solution GOR, in std m3/
stock-tank m3 .

(38)

where A is in ha and h is in m.

,g llg ro

llgqr

>

4.

E0.0091; sin 0A(p, -p,)

- 175S,,,
>

B ,q,

where R, is in std m3 gas/m condensate and G,,, is in

std m3 residue gas/ha.m.

2.

where N, is in m/ha*m.
.

1 - siw - so,

I. Garb. F.A.: Oil and Gas Reserves Classificatwn.

10000,

B,

R=R,++,

I -sj,,.

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 WaterDrive 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.

PETROLEUM

40-38

9. Mushal. M. and Taylor. M.O.: Effect of Re\crwtr Fltutl ;1ndRirch

Charactcrlsttc$ on Production Hi\tnric\ of Ga\ Drl\e Rcwr>oil\.
Trtrnr
AIME (1946) 165. 78-93.
IO. Babson. E.C.. Predlctwn of Rcwrvolr Bchavlor- from Lahnr,ltory Data. Trim.\.. AIME 11944) 155. I?@.??.
II. Tarncr. J.: How Dlffcrent Size Gas Cap,, and Pre\sure Maintcnance Programs Affect Amount ot Recoverable Oil. 011 I+&/\ (June 12. 1944) 32.
12. 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.
13. Wahl, W.L.. Mullins. L.D., and Elfrink. E.B.: Estimation of Ultimate Recovery from Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs. J. PC>{.Td.
(June 1958) 132-38; Trwt.\.. AIME. 213.
14. Higgins. R.V : Calculating Oil Rccwerles for Solutinn~gas Drive
Re\&oirs.
RI 5226, U<BM. Washington D.C. (April 1956).
1s. Torcaro. M.A. and Wyllie, M.R.J.: A Compariron of Calculated k,,/k,,, Ratios With.a Correlation of Field Data. J. fcr. Twh.
(Dec. 195X) 57-58: Trtms.. AIME. 213.
API &t/l. D-14 (Oct.
16. A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficwq.
1967).
17. Hawkins. M.F. Jr.: Material Balance\ m Expansion Typu Rcwrvoirs Above Bubble Pomt. J. Per. Trrh. (Oct. 19.551 49-52.
Trm.\. AIME. 204.
IX Hobson. G.D. and Mrosov~ky. I.: Material Balance Above the
Bubble Point. J &.
TI~I+?.iNov. 1956) 57-58: Tr<or\. , AIME.
207.
19 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.
20 Jacoby. R.H. and Berry. V.J. Jr.: A Method tor Predicting Depletion Performance of a Reservoir Producing Volatile Crude 011.
.I. Per. Twh. (Jan. 1957) 25-29: 7rrr,l.\. . AIME. 210.
21 Reudelhuber. F 0. and Hinds. R.F.: A Compostttonal Maternal
Balance Method for Prediction of Recovq from Volatile 011 Depletton Drtvc Reser\oirs. J. Per. Tdi. (Jan. 1957) 19-26: Trtrri.c.,
AIME. 210.
22 Conk, .4.B.. Spencer. G.B.. and Bobrowskt, F P : Special Considerations in Predicting Reservotr Performance of Highly Volatale Type Oil Rexrvolr~.
Trtw.\. . AIME (IYSI) 192. 17-46.
Brinkman, F.H. and Wemaug. C.F : Calculated Performance of
3
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.
24 Wcwh. R. W.: Case History of Rerenoir Perf<vmance ofa Highly
Volatile Type Oil Reservotr. J. Per. TK/I. (Ocr. lYS5) 156-59:
rr<rn.\. . AIME. 204.
2s Jacnby. R.H.. Koeller. R.C.. and Berry. V.J. Jr.: Effect ofConPosition 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 Displacement 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 Theory , Trrms.. AIME (1949) 179, 199-215
34. Terwilliger. P.L P, ol. An Experimental and Theoretical Invcstigation of Gravity Drainage Performance, Trms.. AIME (I95 I)
192, 285-96.
35. Matthews, C.S. and Letkovits. H.C.: Gravity Drainage Performance 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.

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

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~rdPrcxl P,rrr~. API,
Dallas (194.5) 144.
Guthrie. R.K. and Greenber.wr. M.H.. The Uw 01 Multlplc Correlation 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 Cornpletc 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 WaterfloodA 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\iticat Extension of the Dykstra-Parsons Vertical Stratiftcation eisCrete 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 Sufide 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~eousFlurdr 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/,sof 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 Cotnpressibility Correlation tbr Natural Gases and It5 Applicatmn to Estimates 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 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio Oct. 4-7.

General References
U.S. Crude 011, Natural Gas, and Natural Liquids,
al Report (1980).

Reserves Definition,
Regulation S-X.
World Pet. Gong..

DOE Annu-

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

London (1983) Oil and Gcr.sJ. (Nov. ?I) 58.