Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By MORRIS MUSKAT*
(New York Meeting. February 1939)
37
Issued as T.P.
38
MORRIS MUSKAT
39
* A type of field data pertinent to the problem of well spacing that would automatically take care of differences in sand volume, sand porosity and initial reservoir
pressure would consist of the ratio of the initial gas-oil ratio of the field to its average
value during its production history. For these ratios would be direct measures of the
fractional oil recovery. However, such data, too, would suffer from the complicating
~ffects of free gas zones and water drives in comparisons of different fields, and from
mterlease migrations in the study of producing tracts in a single field.
40
+ aV
{pFI(p)Vp)
V. {FI(P)Vp)
a{:l :tp{p
= IMI ap
ko at
+ ~(1
- p)}
[1]
[2]
where p is the fluid pressure, p the liquid saturation expressed as the fraction of the local pore volume occupied by liquid, t the time, a = 8Mg/C}J.I,
}J.g, IJ.I being the viscosities of the gas and liquid phases, 8 the solubility of
the former in the latter, C the density of the gas at atmospheric pressure,
1 the porosity of the sand, ko its homogeneous fluid permeability, and the
differential operator V refers to the space coordinates. It is also assumed
for simplicity in constructing equations 1 and 2 that the gas is ideal and
obeys Henry's law. The functions koFl(p) and koFg(p) are the empirically
detennined values of the permeability of the sand to the liquid and free
gas phases expressed as functions of the liquid saturation. These functions represent the hydrodynaInic definition of the sand as the carrier
of a heterogeneous fluid, just as the permeability ko is that for a homogeneous fluid (liquid or gas) flow. The technique required to determine
these functions has been described by Wyckoff and Botset (ref. 5, p. 325).
For the linear system these equations reduce to:
41
MORRIS MUSKAT
1l
21
= IL
L1
1 - p(ex, pi,
~,
00
(0) JdX
[4]
the
fLl2n[
Pro = 2nlJo
10 [1 -
= IL
2nx
1 - p ex, pi,
T'
p(ex, pi, x,
)]dx
00
[5]
42
to enter as a parameter in the saturation distribution. The final equilibrium saturation after depletion will therefore be a function as:
p = pea, pi, (J, r, 00). Actually, however, the ratio {J may be shown to
drop out from the function p. For from the earlier study 5 of eqs. 1 and 2
it was found that the equilibrium saturation at a closed boundary, which
is also an equipressure surface, depends only on the ratio of the initial to
final pressure in the system and not on its geometrical properties. Now,
the only way in which these geometrical properties enter at the external
boundary (r = 1) is through {3. Hence it follows that (3 must drop out of
p, leaving for the ultimate depletion saturation p = pen, pi, r, 00). The
total ultimate recovery may therefore be written for unit sand thickness as:
P=
=
II
1 -
[6]
fJ
To see now the manner in which P varies with the area of the system
being drained, we note first from eq. 6 that:
oP
pea, Pi,
1/{3, 00)]
21rfrw
[7]
oP = 2P
or.
r.
+ 21rfr
r.
w2
[1 _
pea
'
Pi 1 00 )] ,...., 2P
, ,
r.
[8]
It immediately follows that Par. 2 , so that again the average ultimate recovery, per unit area, is independent of the total absolute area
which the well drains. While it is not possible to fill out a plane area
completely by means of strictly circular units, it is clear that for practical
purposes the fact that the average recovery in a circular region is independent of the total area of the region also implies that the total ultimate
recovery from a large tract with a number of wells in it will be no greater
than if that tract were drained by a single well at its center. Here, too,
therefore, a close well spacing would not lead to a larger physical ultimate
recovery than would wide spacing.
It thus appears that under similar conditions of production the total
amount of oil that can be displaced from a sand filled with a liquid that
MORRIS MUSKA T
43
While the conclusions just drawn appear to follow from eqs. 1 and 2,
it must nevertheless be admitted that in themselves they are essentially
only of academic interest. For it has been explicitly assumed in their
derivation that the comparisons between the ultimate recoveries under
various conditions of well spacing are made only after an infinite time of
production. * As previously mentioned, this assumption implies that
one has waited until the pressures throughout the sand have become
equalized and fallen to those maintained at the bottoms of the wells.
A considerable portion of the total recoveries thus obtained would correspond to extremely low rates of withdrawal from the wells, and such as
would be not only unprofitable but would moreover definitely incur
economic losses in the operations. Indeed, it has been not an uncommon
experience to find, especially in tight sands, the pressures between wells
to be of considerable magnitude even though it has become necessary to
abandon the original wells draining the reservoir because they could no
longer yield oil at profitable rates. To have continued to operate these
original wells until the pressures between them had fallen to the low
values immediately surrounding the wells, so that the depletion throughout the whole sand would have attained its ultimate value predicted by
the above theory, would, of course, have been gross economic folly.
It is obviously pertinent, therefore, to inquire whether such theoretical considerations as developed above can also be subjected to the
economic limitations of the problem of oil production. For only under
such conditions will the implications of the laboratory studies have
practical significance. Unfortunately, the mathematical analysis involved
in the solutions of the fundamental eqs. 1 and 2 has not reached the stage
of development wherein any arbitrary geometrical system can be treated.
In fact, only the simplest case, in which the producing reservoir is in the
form of a long column of sand, has thus far been analyzed in detail. For
this case, however, as we shall see presently, it is possible to apply
economic considerations to the problem of well spacing.
The economic restriction that we shall now impose is that the recovery
of the oil will not be profitable unless the rate of production per well is
* While the additional assumptions of strictly constant liquid viscosity and ideal
kinetic theory behavior of the gas and liquid reservoir fluids also limit the generality
of the conclusions even from the physical point of view, it seems very unlikely that
the mere removal of these assumptions would lead to physical ultimate recoveries
which vary appreciably with the well spacing.
44
4-+--+-+
456
10
loot
Real flux in cubic centimeters per second per unit area of sand column is k o/ I'lL
times ordinates. t = dimensionless time.
* A condition of this kind and the general type of economic interpretation of the
well-spacing problem presented here has recently been applied to gas fields by
D. T. MacRoberts. 7
45
MORRIS MUSKAT
Q = 4nko(F ap )
"
lax
p.l
[9]
0
a) odt-= fL Jofl [1 -
= fL Jofi(F!a~
p(a,
Pi, x, O]dX.
[10]
Its variation with t is shown in Fig. 2, for the case corresponding to Fig.!.
028
i
i
024
012
./
II
I
FIG.
I-- r---
P
fL
004
,/
016
I..- VC-
020
008
5_
10
loot
= total
= sand
porosity;
=
( Flap)
ax 0
p.ILQ"o == Qo
4kon
n
[11]
46
;
I
-LH--
1
I I
I
I
! I V:
i
4
00
r--
I-r
I
:/ ill
II
1/
/'
il V
( Vi I j...--
./
/'
-r-1
I
VI
I--'"
...... 1--'"
'3rr
I--'"
.'l-3.- V
~i
II )' 1/
!I Vi !/1
I-- I-- ~
l.-- l- I--
-'
( I
1
'Qo~ I--
; V1\",~~ V
~----c-7~'-/
i i i
!
,
,
1.9P+I
' i
,I
10
n =Number Of Wells
FIG. 3.-VARIATIO~
* These
calculating the slopes ddt from a curve (Fig. 1) which is not known very accurately,
Vo
whereas the integrated form: P = fL[Qol
co idVo] would still involve using Fig. 1,
n
JQo/n
together with that for ftdvo.
MORRIS MUSKAT
47
50
MORRIS MUSKA T
51
The author is indebted to Dr. Pa.ul D. Foote, Executive Vice President, Gulf Research & Development Co., for permission to publish
this paper.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
52
DISCUSSION
(B. C. Craft presiding)
R. J. SCHILTHUIS, * Houston, Texas.-Dr. Muskat's paper presents an excellent
analysis and statement of the physical principles governing the behavior and the
localized and regional movements of gas and oil within reservoirs. It throws the
proper light on the significance of this behavior relative to the problem of well spacing
anrl its influence on ultimate recovery.
Well-spacing practices in this country, particularly in Texas, have been motivated
C'lItirely by competitive economic conditions with no proper consideration to either
physical efficiency or the over-all economic efficiency of the operations. The result
of this situation has been a great deal of over-all economic waste, as well as often to
lead to physical inefficiency.
The paper is very timely in laying the groundwork for, and indicating the true
answer to, the physical aspects of the well-spacing problem and its influence on recovery. The fact that well-spacing practice in the past has given way almost entirely
to purely competitive economic conditions, ignoring sound physical as well as economic
considerations is rapidly bringing on a critical situation in many areas today relative
to per well allowables, payouts, etc. For this reason, Dr. Muskat's paper and conclusions are deserving of very careful attention and consideration by the oil operators,
as well as the various state regulatory bodies
In connection with the purely physical considerations in Dr. Muskat's paper,
there is one question I would like to raise; the possibility of the importance of the effects
of gravitational forces in bringing about zonal segregation between the oil and evolved
gases during the course of production and the possible rC'lation of this effect to the wellspacing problem.
T. A. POLLARD, San Francisco, Calif.-Dr. Muskat has shown a certain "ultimate
recovery" for a well or wells, predicated on a number of conrlitions, one of which was
the reduction of the bottom-hole well pressure in the beginning to a fraction of thC'
original reservoir pressure, and maintenance of the well pressure at the same vahlC'
throughout the life of the well. 'Vhat woul(l be the effect on the "ultimate recovery"
if the well pressure were first reduced to, say, 90 per cent of the original reservoir pressure, then 80 per cent, and so on to rlepietion, thus simulating a restricted or prorated condition?
N. D. DRAKE,t New York, N. Y.--This paper must be regarded as one more
of the series of extremely valuable contributions to our knowledge of reservoir fluid
behavior that have been made by Dr. Muskat and his co-workers. It would seem
that it is now possible to show beyond a reasonable doubt the factors involved in
reservoir drainage in an ideal reservoir, and the principal remaining obstacle to widespread practical application of the fundamental principles already disclosed would
seem to be the question of physical changes in the reservoir system during productive
life. Among these changes already appreciated are the changes in permeability to
oil caused by variation in saturation, and the separation of oil and gas within the sand
The latter is perhaps least susceptible at the present time to analysis, or perhaps it
DISCUSSION
53
may be better said that it is most difficult to estimate the effect of t~is phenomenon
in actual operations.
The discussions that have been carried on in recent years regarding the possible
drainage of energy through stratification or slippage of gas without the drainage of
oil are well known, and a case often cited as an illustration is the Mansion area at
Oklahoma City. If in certain types of reservoirs there is going to be a substantial
separation of oil and gas within the oil sand, it is to be inferred that spacing considerably closer than that indicated by mathematical analysis would be required to efficiently drain the oil, but the burden of proof on this point would seem to lie on those
favoring close spacing for this or some other reason. It can be shown that any degree
of stratification of oil and gas within the sand with subsequent flow of gas unaccompanied by oil to tJw well bore is a function of the gravity gradient, the horizontal or
flowing gradient and the physical characteristics of the reservoir. Looking at these
factors, it seems that for any given set of conditions the relation between these two
pressure gradients at, say, 1000 and 2000 ft. from the well bore would be very slight,
hence the inference would be that the wider spacing would cause very little, if any,
loss in oil recovery because of stratification. Putting it another way, it could be said
that given a certain reservoir condition-that is, a certain degree of dip and verticalhorizontal permeability relationship-any well spacing, except one ridiculously close,
will allow a certain degree of separation of oil and gas in the reservoir at some distance
from the well bore, but as between, say, 20 and 40 or 80 acres per well, the difference
is slight.
One phase of well-spacing studies frequently misunderstood is the effect of the
time factor. It has been shown by Dr. Muskat and others that ultimate recovery
in the ideal reservoir is to a large extent independent of the well spacing, time being
the major consideration in the depletion of the sand. Under ideal conditions, the
time required for recovery of a given amount of oil varies approximately as the
square of the well spacing; that is, with twice the distance between wells the time
required for drainage will be four times as great, and this fact has often been used
to argue against 40-acre as compared to, say, 20-acre, spacing. The main point overlooked in such an argument when considering practical time limits is the fact that the
time required to drain the oil with the closer spacing must be ascertained before any
assumptions as to the time element on the wider spacing are justified. For example,
a 20-acre spacing, purely from the standpoint of hydrodynamics, may be able to drain
a given sand in fiye years even though under proration or some other restriction 20 or
30 years may be assigned for depletion. In such an area, doubling the spacing distance
would result in the drilling of only one-fourth the number of wells, yet under the fourfold rule, the wider spacing would be entirely adequate to yield the recoverable oil
within the 20 or 30-year period.
R. A. CATTELL, * Washington, D. C.-Perhaps what I am going to say should be
prefaced with the suggestion that we may be placing too much emphasis on maximum
ultimatc recovery in our consideration of well spacing. The objective, from a national
standpoint, should be to obt.ain the grcatest benefit from our petroleum reserves rather
than thc great cst number of barrels of oil. The nation and its people need a dependable supply of oil at reasonable prices over a long period-not a flood of oil at low prices
in one period and a shortage, with resultant high prices, in another. The operator's
financial welfare dcpl'nds upon the return on his investment rather than upon the
quantity of oil hl' produces.
I do not wish to say that it is necessary to reduce ultimate recovery to accomplish
the objective of a relativel~ uniform and dependable supply over a long period
.,)4
DISCUSSION
55
higher recoveries than fields with the same spacing operated under the older methods.
With data of that kind it may be practicable to make economic analyses in which the
cost of pressure maintenance can be compared with the cost of additional wells to gain
the same recovery.
These remarks are more or less premature, and I have no desire that any definitp
conclusions be drawn from them. My main purpose in this diseussion is to give a
suggestion of some of the studies the Bureau's engineers are making, and some of th('
factors that are puzzling us, primarily with the hope that as a result we may obtain
further data and ideas that will bear upon the work. If any of you can refer H. B. Hill,
H. C. Miller, or other members of our staff who are engaged in Bureau work that bears
upon weil spacing, to information that discloses differences in recovery between field~
of similar types produced by open-flow methods and by controlled methods, we shall
be appreciative.
H. H. POWER, * Austin, Texas.-It is evident that Dr. Muskat's paper applie~
principally to a pool where the principal source of energy to drive the oil toward the
weil is the gas dissolved in and produced with the fluid. As I understand it, his analysis
is rather definite, in so far as it applies to radial two-dimensional flow under such conditions of reservoir control. To what extent have reservoirs under varying degrees of
hydraulic control been analyzed, and what fundamental issues are involved in so far
as the spacing pattern is concerned, and, more particularly, what would the author
consider to be the radius of drainage of such weils for proper and efficient drainagp of
the oil content?
M. MusKAT (author's reply).-Mr. Schilthuis' reaction that this paper provides a
sound attack upon the well-spacing problem is indeed gratifying, in view of the extensive fundamental researches by himself and his co-workers on the principles of oil
production. His question regarding the effects of gravitational forces in bringing
about zonal segregation between the oil and evolved gases during the course of production is well taken. Indeed, such effects must be present. Although we cannot yPiestimate quantitatively their magnitude, we may be certain that in general gas segregation will be more pronounced under wide well-spacing conditions than for close well
spacings. As such segregation, moreover, will be conducive to gas by-passing and
hence inefficient oil recovery, the close weil-spacing program may for this reason possess
an advantage over wide-spacing plans. In practice, however, this difference Illa~' Iw
entirely insignificant, as its magnitude may be so smail as to be entirely countcrbalaneed by the economic factors related to the cost of drilling and the time of pa~'out,
etc. Moreover, the physical effect in itself will be largely eliminated in producing
formations separated by shale breaks or where the vertical permeability as a whole is
appreciably less than the horizontal permeability.
With regard to Mr. Poilard's question concerning the effect on the ultimat"
recovery of stepwise reductions of the bottom-hole flowing pressures, I can only repeut
from the text of the paper the feeling that it appears unlikely that the well-sparing
problem will be seriously affected by the details of the mode of production. We an'
attempting to generalize the analysis so as to obtain more quantitatiYe predictions for
such effects, but we are not yet able to draw any general conclusions.
Mr. Drake's discussion of the effect of gas segregation is in agreement with our
point of view. Quantitatively, however, we would hesitate to predict with ccrtainty
the exact range of practical conditions where this phenomenon would or would not be
serious. Mr. Drake's comments regarding the time element in well-spacing considcrations are also well taken. At the present time the extended periods of payouts result-
* Professor of
56
ing from proration cannot be ignored. Qualitatively, proration control would certainly
tend to decrease the gap between the life periods of fields producing under wide and
close spacing. On the other hand, it may still be true, under certain conditions, that
the restrictions imposed by proration may automatically disappear in the early history
of a field, owing to the failure of the wells to make their allowables even under openflow conditions. In such cases, which, of course, exclude effective water-drive fields
like East Texas, the depletion time for the closely spaced wells may still remain
litPpreciably smaller than for widely spaced wells. These are admittedly only possibilities and it is not proposed that they represent any general situation or rule.
Mr. Cattrell's brief summary of the recent work of the Bureau of Mines on well
spacing is interesting. The distinct difference between the curves for wells obtained
from different fields and those from tracts in the same field is certainly a gratifying
confirmation of our interpretation. of the significance of field data. We also agree with
the desirability of ultimately applying the physical data of recovery vs. well spacing to
practical economic situations to see what the curves of profit vs. well spacing might
look like. We are planning to carry out this type of calculation on the basis of our
theoretical analysis of the well-spacing problem, and it will be interesting to see how
they will compare with those obtained by the Bureau of Mines in using the results
they are gathering from field experience. Of course, we agree that the oil recovery
observed with any particular field developed over its actual production history does
include the effect of the well spacing characterizing the development. Our only fear
with regard to the use of such field data lies simply in the uncertainty as to the degree
to which the recovery reflects the well spacing and that to which it reflects the sand and
fluid characteristics, the structural features of the field, and such other items as edgewater drives or gas-cap drives. If the work of the Bureau of Mines satisfactorily
eliminates these other factors, without question the field data should be entirely trustworthy and significant.
Answering Professor Power, I should like to stress that our treatment of the wellspacing problem as given in this paper is explicitly restricted to linear systems.
For this reason we feel that it can correctly give only the principles and trends involved
in the problem rather than any quantitative magnitudes. We are attempting to
extend the analysis to radial flow systems and if that should be successful we shall
have results of more immediate practical applicability. As to the matter of reservoir
control, it is true that we have considered only the phase of the production involving
the evolution and flow of the gas originally dissolved in the oil. The inclusion of the
effects of edge-water encroachment appears at present to be extremely difficult to carry
out quantitatively. Qualitatively, however, our studies indicate that whatever
changes water drives may make upon the general picture, it will be such that the
differences between the economic recoveries under close and wide spacing will be
decreased by the effects of water drives as compared to those obtained when water
drives are entirely absent.