_.

_-----'-'--,

JC.p/66:"'D3 -~2

Determination of Natural Gas Recovery Factors

By E. STOIAN and A. S. TELFORD*
, ~.

07th Annual Technical Meet·ing, The Petroleum Society of C.I.k!., Edmonton, May, 1966)
,.~.

ABSTRACT L NON-ASSOCIATED GAS

.~ . Theoretical and statistical methods of determining re-
covery factors of solution, associated and non-associated
natural gas, including gas condensate. are presented as a
set of practical tools_
The effects of recovery mechanisms and pool and gas-
well performance on gas recovery are examined for condi-
tions applying to constant \-'olume, water drive, gravit:,..
segregation and secondary recovery_ 'Val's of recognizing
such cases are indicated.
;,:''''-'.
Range of Recove?'Y Factors
~~~~~::
A preliminary recovery estimation may be based on
:~ .'
the recovery factors of depleted or nearly depleted
pools. Table I shows the probable ranges of recovery
factors on the assumption of normal distributions_
Whereas the averages of the estimations (Ref, 1, 2)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

The supporting tech.niques comprise material balance
calculations, performance predictions and statistical ana-
lyses of depleted pool and predicted recovery data_ In
material balance calculations, the gas recovery is consi-
dered in terms of either: (1) initial gas in place multi-
plied by a recover}· factor or (2) initial gas in place leas
the gas remaining at abandonment. Performance predic-
tions are based on geological, engineering and economic
factors. The background study dealt with explicit correla-
tions between: (1) recovery factor, abandonment pressure
or related expressions - e_g_, (p/Z)"b - and pool depth,
pay thickness, initial reservoir pressure, flow capacity and
size of gas accumulation; and (2) equivalent residual gas
saturation and formation water saturation, porosity, per-
meability and specific surface area. The format for several
correlations presented is predetermined lly theoretical
considerations. Existing short-cut methods are also eval-
uated. Easy-to-use approximations readily yield reliable
estimations despite their simplicit}· and can be of consider-
able significance; however, the practicing engineer is
urged to recognize and understand their limitations.
An extensive review of methods of determining recol'ery
and an analysis of many evaluations by industry form the
foundation for the recommended guidelines to serve the
engineer. The methods of determining recovery factors
are considered according to their practicality; Le. the
al'ailability of data and the complexity of implementation.
Useful relationships are classified, important steps of the
proposed procedures are outlined and several applications
are illustrated.
INTRODUCTION
,,
~ T HE topic of this paper is the recovery factor! de-
fined as:
J Initial Gas in Place - Ga5
Remaining in Reservoir
RF (fraction) = CEq. [)
Initial Gas in Place
The recovery factor is related to the gas remaInIng
in the reservoir which cannot be produced at econo-
.j mic rates, Le_, the "reservoir loss," as follows:
RF (per cent) = 100 - Reservoir Loss (per ct:nt)
The recovery factor depends upon the type of occur-
rence of natural gas and the production processes,
and will be treated accordingly.
compare favourably with the average recoverJ.' factor
of depleted pools (Ref. 3, 4), the spread in estimations
is relatively small, especially in view of the conclu-
sion of some water-drive reservoirs.
A. CONSTANT VOLUME GAS RESERVOIRS
This section is applicable to constant volume, volu-
metric or expansion-type gas pools.
A-I. Methods Based on Reco'Very Factors Applied to
I n;tial Gas in Place
(I) The Conventional Method.- A formula commonly
used to calculate the recovery factor may be derived
from material balance considerations (Ref. 5) :
RF (fraction) P;!Zi - P'lO/Z"b
(Eo. 3'
Pi/Z,
In terms of the gas formation volume factor, this
equation may be expressed as:
RF(fraction) =
BgnL-Bl':,i
(Eq.4)
B,,; lib
This method requires the initial and abandonment
pressures which may be obtained from either general-
ized correlations or detailed considerations.
(2; 3)-The recovery factor may be expressed also in
terms of density (Ref. 6) or pound-mole volumes ~ ..
(Ref. 7) at initial and abandonment conditions_
(4) C01Telations_-Both direct and indirect correla-
tions were evaluated_
Di1-ect Con·elCLtions. Regression analyses indicated
that it is not possible to correlate the recovery fac-
tor directly with pool and well characteristics such as
depth, gas in place, pay thickness, average absolute
open flow and initial reservoir pressure. The aggre-
gate effect of these parameters seems to account for
(Eq.2) less than 20 per cent of the variations in the recovery
factors.
·..rOil and Gas ConseTvation Boa/rd, Calga:ry, Alta.

TABLE I

RANGE OF RECOVERY FACTORS

Average Recovery Range fOT 68 per cent of Number of

Factor (%) RecOl'U}' Factors (%) Pools Remarks Reference
84.8 80.5 - 89.1 44 Alberta gas pools I
85.4 80.4 - 90.4 114 Alberta gas pools 2
84.6 75.7 - 93.5 76 3, 4
85.1 75.8 - 94.4 49 Pools nearly depleted 3
83.7 75.8 - 91.6 28 Study of mature pools 4 ..:

Technology, July-September, 1966, Montreal lIS

 TABLE II

INDIRECT CORRELATIONS OF RECOVERY FACTORS

(D = depth on 1000 feet: AOF in MIVIscf;'day/wellJ
I
RegH'ssio1l Eqrtafiolls R' R' Sy Sr Pools l\vcragc ± S Ref.
- - - - ---- -
D in lOOO's feel
(P/zl; (psial ~ 462.35 D - 77. .. 0.92 0.8·1 227 229 11~ :J.334 ± 1.6·10 2
(p/z)i (p~iaJ
([l,lz); (psia'i
=
~
482.42 D - 245.
450.12 D - ~67.
-- . 0.93
0.96
0.B6
0.92
29~
25~
301
265
44
24
.,1.796 ± 2.1G3
8.07-[ ± 2.527
1
M

(p/zLIo in p"ia
(P/Z)"h (psia) ~ 38.91 D + 68. 0.59 0.35 53 53 11~ 197 ± R3 2
(Plz)"h (psia) ~ 56.20 D + 35 O,li9 0.47 81 83 44 :10~i ± 146 1

Pi In PS1~
Pi (p!'iia) = 378.11 D - 22.5. -- 0.93 0.86 1713 177 114 12:18 ± G-l5 2
Pi (psia) ~ 409.65 D - 183 0.9~ 0.88 22~ 230 4·1 17fl2 ± 914 1
Pi (psiai ~ ~68.65 D - 175._ 0.91 0.82 402 420 2·1 :{609 ± 1241 H

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

pnlo in psia
P~L (psi a) ~ 31;.37 D + 69. O.fiO 0.36 ~9 49 111 190 ± 77 2
p:." (p:mll ~ 50.36 D + 50 -- 0.li9 0,46 7·t 75 4~ 291 ± 131 I

D Ln 1000's feel
P.L (psia.l ~ ·15.1 D + 50. .... 0.672 OA~9 60 61 158 :Uoll ± 1.917 1.2
Polt. in p"ia
Pall (psia) = 2,1 + 57.50 + 115D' .. 0675 OA50 60 61 158 2H1 ± lOG 1.2

Pi Ln psia
Pnh (psia) ~ 0.05 p; + 120 OAO 0.16 60 60 11~ 12:11:: ± 915 2
Pnh (psia) = 0.12 Pi + 77 0.70 0,48 n 7~ 44 17,fl2 ± 91-1 1

AOF in Mscf/D
Pnll (psia) ~ ·19 + 5ID - 0.04 AOF 0.69 0.45 7,' 76 4~ 2 -- 120

IlHlireet C01"l'elatio1/s. In the pursuit of a rapid tool (2;3 )-Similarly, equations in terms or gas density
for recovery factol' estimation, indirect correlations and pound-mole volumes may be developed (Ref. 6, 7l.
were performed between components of the basic re-
covery fador formula (Eq. 3) and practical reser- A-3. Methods Based on M(ll(~rial Balance Concepts
voir parameters. The results of this analysis, using (l) The Pl'es.wrl' Decline .M et!lud.-ThC! matcrial lml-
data pertaining to pools in Alberta, are summarized ance equation may be written as:
in Table II.
The average (p/Z)alJ for shallow reservoirs is 13.5 - III G... + ..E'_
z,
tEq.7)
per cent (Ref. 2) and for deeper pools is 14.5 per cent where
(Ref. 1) of the average (piz);. The magnitude of the p.~ Tr
free term (77 - 120 psia) relative to the gradient m ~ IEq. H)
·13,560 A iJ ~ (I - ~",I '1'••
(0.05 - 0.12) would indicate that it may not be advis-
able to express the abandonment pressure solely as A plot of (p/z) against cumulative gas pmduction,
a fraction 01' pel' cent of the initial pressure. High G p • may be extrapolated to either (p/zl = (P/Zl~h in
well deliverability, a:-; expected, tends to reduce thc order to obtain the gas reserves, or extended to {p/zl
abandonment pressure and increase the recovery, but = 0 to determine the initial gas in place. Eq. 7 cor-
the magnitude of this effect appears insignificant on rectly applieH onl.}' to constant volume resel'voil"~ where
the basis of the information analyzed. Because of this the fluids remain in their initial phase (Ref. 9)_
and because the correlation involving depth and ab- (2) The "Equal Pound. Loss" M(~t!lod.-The original
solute open flow does not indicate an improvement ·'equal pound lo:-;s" method is a special cmie of the
over the correlation vi'ith depth alone. a theoreti~al pressure decline method eliminating the need for a
approach seems necessar,)! to determine the effect of graphical representation:
well productivity on l'e~o"ery.
G - G (P/z), - (p/Z)nl,
~ -I P/z)- (Eq.9)
One of the mo~t lIseful equations is: "," - I' (p/zi,
Pal,(psia) = 50 + 50 D (Eq.5)
where A-4. IHiscellaueolis Methods
D = depth in lOOO'!; or feet.
(1) Rate Decline AnalY81s.-Gas rate decline method~
A-2. Methods Based on DiffereJlce Betn'een Initial are useful in directly determinating re::'ierves after
Gas in Place QJld Gas Remaining at Abandonme,Ji the onset of the true productivity decline.
Lamont applied the constant rate decline method
(1) The Cou'ventional M ethod.-The difference be- to predict the recovery faclol· for scvel'al nearly de-
tween the initial and terminal gas in place is readily pleted gas reservoirs (Ref. 4).
expressed as:
Davis used average performaIll..:e curves to predicL
43.560 T"A h ~ (I - S,,,)
T r p"" (
Ec _
Zi
P".)
Z.,b
(Eq. 6) the availability of natural gas (Ref. 3). The anllual
rate of production at abandonment, about 2 per cent

116 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum

 of the initial gas in place, may serve as an end point
in reserve evaluations_
(2) The Cumulative Pressure DrOp ilfethod.-This
method consists of plotting the cumulative reservoir
pressure decline against the cumulative gas produc-
tion on logarithmic paper_
Several empirical methods are discussed in the sec-
tion pertaining to variable volume gas reservoirs, to
which they are more routinely applied.
Quantitative Analysis of Factors Influencing Recov-
","y.-In a studl' by Muller, (Ref. 5), several reser-
voir models ",.'ere obtained by assuming a series of
pool depths and associated initial pressures. For each
model, the abandonment rate and permeability were
varied. Simplified equations were used, e.g.
RF (fraction) = (Eq. 10)
Q ~ C (p,' _ p,')" (Eq. 11)
According to this analysis, a generalized recovery
factor as high as 85 per cent would apply only to re-
servoirs deeper than 3,300 feet with initial pressures
of 1,470 psig or higher and capacities in excess of 600
md-feet.
Several conclusions regarding the gas recovery can
be drawn from an examination of these models;
(a) The higher the initial reservoir pressure the
higher the recovery factor.
(b) The effect of the wellhead flowing pressure at
abandonment is greatest for shallow reservoirs
with low initial pressures.
(c) The advantage of high permeability is substan-
tially reduced at high initial reservoir pressure.
(d) The abandonment rate affects the recovery
factor more in low-pressure and low-flow-capa-
city reservoirs than in high-pressure and high-
flo,y-capacity reservoirs.
Sim1Jlijied Analysis of Abandonment Pressu"re.-
The terminal pressure is an important variable in
most recovery factor expressions reviewed and it de-
serves special consideration.
Several rules of thumb for the estimation of the
abandonment pressure are summarized as follows
:~ (Ref. 10) :
Fi?-st Rule. Set the abandonment pressure at 10 per
cent of the initial pressure. For a 5,OOO-foot-deep re-
servoir with an initial pressure of 1,865 psia, the
recovery factor would be slightly more than 90 per
cent.
Second R~lle. To obtain the terminal pressure in psia,
multiply the depth in feet by 0.05. This leads to a re-
cO\'ery factor of about 87 per cent.
Third Rule. To find the "optimum" abandonment
pressure in psia, multiply depth in feet bl' 0.095. On
a consistent basis, this yields a recover)' factor of
about 75 per cent.
Fow·th Rule. Use an abandonment pressure of 100
psia per 1000 feet of depth. In a comparable situation,
this rule would result in a recovery factor of slightly
more than 73 per cent.
Fifth R"le. According to the studl' reported in this
paper, the abandonment pressure cannot be deter-
mined on the basis of initial pressure alone. If it is
necessary to relate the abandonment pressure to the
initial pressure, however, the following rule may be
used:
Technology, July-September, 1966, Montreal
"To approximate the abandonment pressure in psia,
add 100 psia to 10 per cent of the initial pressure-"
On the average, this would result in an abandonment
pressure of 15 per cent of initial pressure and a re-
covery factor slightly higher than 84 per cent.
Sixth Rnte. Eq. 5 may be set up as a "50-50" rule of
thumb: "To determine the abandonment pressure in
psia, multiply the depth in 1000's of feet by 50 and
add 50:' Accordingly, the recovery factor would be
84 per cent. ".
Extended Analysis of Abandon'ment PressuTe. The
terminal production rate is determined on the basis of
economic considerations. Individual factors which
should be considered include: well operating costs and
gas compression costs - capital, depreciation, fuel,
lubrication, maintenance and labour costs. Once the
abandonment rate and the lowest practical surface
flowing pressure have been established. the COlTes-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021
ponding sand-face flowing pressure, p.., can be calculat-
ed. This sand-face flowing pressure is used in the
appropriate back-pressure flow equation to obtain
the average formation pressure, prj or in this case
p~~.
Procedu'res tOl' Determining Recovery Factors. The
recovery factor can be accurately expressed in terms
of the initial and abandonment pressures by Eq. 3.
The initial pressure is usually measured and the aban- ..
c.
donment pressure may be estimated by methods al- ,;.
ready discussed.
If it is desirable to develop a systematic approach
for the determination of the recovery factors for con-
stant volume gas reservoirs, the follo\'i!ing procedures
are recommended:
During the initial stages of development and pro-
duction, a recover}C factor of 85 per cent may be as-
signed, or preferably it ma~y be determined from the
abandonment pressure: .-c'· .
p,," (psia) ~ 50 + 50 D (Eq. 5)
At the stage when 10 to 15 per cent of the initial
gas in place has been produced, sufficient information
is usually a\'ailable for material balance calculations
and the recovery factor may be more specifically
evaluated. The abandonment pressure from Eq. 5 ap-
plies to "average" pool performance and economics
of production as qualified by: (a) lack of water and
oil in gas production; (b) average deliverability; (c)
.,
gas processing, inclusive of removal of hydrocarbon
liquids but exclusive of special processing for gas
conditioning and sulphur production; and (d) gas
delivery using compressors.
On the basis of general considerations. statistics and
especially the fact that the spread in the actus! re-
cover}C factors is substantially larger than that of the
estimations, the following guidelines are recommended
for modifying pab, the abandonment pressure calculat-
ed by Eq. 5.
(1) n'ate1· and Oil Production.-Because the pro-
duction of oil and water at gas wells is a "nuisance"
and may result in a relatively high abandonment pres-
sure, it is suggested that:
(a) p,,~ should be increased by 10 to 15 per cent if
the liquid production is confined to a few wells in the
pools;
(b) po. should be increased by 15 to 40 per cent if
the production of oil and water is extensive! I.e., most
of the wells in the pool are affected;
(c) conditions of widespread and progressive con-
ing may lead to still higher pab'S.
117
 (2) Delivc1·abilify.-Average deliverabilities at cer- p(eum) is the pressure on the. depletion curve (i,c. cumulillivc
tain reservoir pressures are assumed as follo\\'s: production vs. pressure) corresponding to a particular rccovcrr;
and
Reservoir Pressure (psia): 500 1.000 2,000 3.000 4,000 P(ldcn,IJ is the pressure which woul~1 ex~st at the saillc recoverr
for an Ideal gas, Tbe plot representmg Ideal gas bellm'iour is i1
"AvcriJge" AOF (MIvIscfjD): 2 7 20 35 50 straight line Joining the points p = r'!2;; GI' = 0 and Jl = o.
Gp = G.
Accordingly: (2) Retrograde liquid saflll"a~ion u.~ a fmctio-n of
(a) P.,h should be modified by 15 to 25 per cent the hljdroca1'bon prITt volullle ·ver:jjf.~ prcssl/l·e,-De-
when the actual AOF depart~ 25 to 50 per cent from pending upon data, the following equation may ue
the "uyerage" AOF; used:
(b) palo should be modified by 25 to 40 per cent
when the actual AOF departs 50 to 75 per cent from RF (fraction) = 1_ P:lI, Zi (1 - S~h)
Z",h Pi
the "a'verage" AOF.
fj.233 TrP,cz,Seh V,
(.'3) Extent of Gas Processinu.-In cases where the (Eq. 151
Pi Toe
operating costs relative to o,\'er-all revenue are high-
Sell = condensate saturation at abandonment pressure as .1
er because of sulphur and acid gases, it is suggested fraction of the h~!droc3rbon pore \"Olume;
that Palo be increased by 15 per cenL In dry shallow V,. = vapour volume of one Imperial gallon of retrograde liquid
gas pools, which require processing solely to remove at standard conditions; and
water '\'apour, palo should be decreased by 15 per cent. Zalo is based on the propcrties of thc ~as existing at Poll,.
(4) Pre.sSII..l"B at DeliueTij Po'int. In cases of excep- (3) Retrograde loss e3.·7J1·f!s:'~erl in blJls pel" MJlIscf

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

tionally low delivery pressure, Pab should be reduced of initial gas in place.-If the retrograde liquid at
by 15 per cent. abandonment pressure, Se'lb, is measured during a re-
servoir fluid study and reported in bbls pel· Mi\'Iscf of
(5) Sltmmation of EffBcts.-Siml1ltaneoL1~ effects initial gas in place:
should be accounted for as follo\o,.'s:
(a) individual effects of gas processing, deliver- RF(fraction) = 1 - ~ ~ + 5.015 X 10-11
Z"h p,
ability and delivery pressure should be added;
(b) only a fraction of the modifications for deliver- pur> T"" s,. Rio
- 0.000035 S~ nh V,. (Eq. IIi)
ability and deli'\·ery pressure should be added to that Z"h T r p••
for liquid production. The effect of compressibility and temperature on
During the advanced stages of production, the liquid volumes has been negleeted in Eqs. 15 and IG.
"tail-end" gas recover:,! should be determined from a
rate decline analysis provided that trends reflect pro- B-2. IVlethods Based on Material Balauce Concepts
ductivity limitations. Material balance equations for volumetric gal-! con-
densate resen'oirs are as follows:
B. CONSTANT VOLUME GAS-CONDENSATE
RESERVOIRS G I' = G IJ" )
B~
( 1 - (Eq.17)

Of extreme importance in gas-condensate pools is A plot of G~ against liB'" will be a straight line in-
the formation of a liquid phase as the pressure de- tersecting the absci!::sa at the ,gas in place, G or GIr.
cline~ below the de,v point. Usually, even in extrem-
ely wet reservoirs, the maximum liquid drop-out \"I'ill A second equation IS:
not exceed the critical liquid saturation. p
=~ (Eq. lR)
The recovery factor for a constant-volume gas-con- Z' z,
densate reservoir may be expressed as: A plot of plz' against G1, represents a straight line
z, with the intercept on the abscissa being the gas in
RF ~ I - (Eq. 12) place, G 01" GIP.
p,
where In thp absence of measurements, the initial gas
Z'"lo = two-phase deviation factor at the abandonment deviation factor may be llsed instead of tv.'o-phase
pressure.
deviation factors.
Calculation of Recm·er,., Factors Ga.s Cycling. The recovery factor fol' cycling opera-
tions is difficult to determine. A simplified assump-
B-1. Methods Based on Resetyoir Fluid Studies tion is that the recovery factm' fOI" a c.\'cled pool flllls
(l) Cwmua.fi1.,e IJrodnction ?)eTSll.s IJressU1·e..-The beh...· een a minimum obtained by pressure depletion
l"ecovery factol" for any abandonment pressure can be (e.g., 80 per cent) and a maximum attained at zero
obtained from the relationship between pressure and retrograde loss (e.g., 88 per cent) and that within
the cumulative production expressed in per cent of these limits it is proportional to the condensate re-
initial gas in place. The two-phase deviation factor covery {e.g., if the retrograde 108s decreases from
can be determined from laboratory measurements 10 to J per cent by cycling, the gas recovery factor
conducted at reservoir tempera cure : will be 84 per cent).
Procedures for Determining fhe Abandonment Pl'es-
21 p V T _c = ----.£..E_G_'__ (Eq. 13)
=
(G' G'p)p~c T r Pi (GI - G\.,l
Sll.rc. The procedures for determining the abandon-
ment pressures are identical to those for constant
\' (cf) cell volume used in the reservoir fluid studY;
G'(sof) initial g3S ,·olume in the cell; and . volume gas reservoirs.
C'I'(scf) cumulati"e gas vo!umt' removed to pressure p
C. WATER DRIVE GAS RESERVOIRS
The two-phase deviation factor may also be deter- As pressure reduction causes water influx, the gas-
mined from: saturated reservoir volume shrinks with production.
P (pu<"c)_ During this procegs, the water advances. either uni-
z' (Eq. 14)
p("!e,,l) formly or through coning, fingering or channelling.

118 The Journal of Canadial"l Pefroleum


In the case of uniform water encroachment ill a ho-
mogeneous reservoir, the gas flow practically ceases
as SOon as the water enters the well (Ref. 11).
The abandonment of wells in a water drive reser-
voir is usually governed by the economics of the pl-O-
duction of gas and removal of water; the reservoir
pressure plays a secondary role, in that it may prolong-
the flow against increasing back pressure.
Wells in pools with substantial relief would be suc-
cessively flooded out, and the recovery would be dic-
tated by the economics of producing the last wells high
on the structure.
In homogeneous edge water drive reservoirs, de-
pending upon the proximity of water and the severity
of pressure drawdowns, water may form tongues or
fingers and cause premature abandonment of wells_
In stratified edge water drive reservoirs, water will
preferentially invade layers of higher permeability.
In this case, the vertical sweep efficiency at econo-
mic water-gas ratios is important and may be calcu-
lated by waterflood prediction techniques (Ref. 12).
The volume of rock invaded at the time bottom wa-
ter first enters the well is dependent upon the relative
size of the horizontal and vertical permeabilities (in-
cluding shale breaks, impermeable barriers), the gas-
water density contrast, pay thickness and well pene-
tration, well spacing and pressure drawdowns.
The recovery factor of water drive gas pools may be
as low as a few per cent for a blanket-type reservoir
and as high as 90 per cent for a partial water drive.
(1) Identification. of TVater Drive.-Several static
and dynamic conditions and factors are indicative of
actual or potential \vater drives:
(a) Relative size of the aquifer as determined by
geological and geophysical data; potentiome-
tric surfaces.
(b) ""Vater produ.ction, its sensitivity with rate and
relation to cumulative production; distribution
and position of wet wells with respect to struc-
ture.
(c) Ratio of fractional pressure depletion, {(p/z),
- (p/z)} I (p/z)" to fractional recover;', G,/G.
, (d) Experience in similar but more mature pools
;, is lIsefui.
(2) Effect of Rate of Produetion.-The pressure
at abandonment will depend primarily on the relative
size of the aquifer, the permeabilit;)r of the aquifer-
reservoir system and the production rate (Ref. 13,
21). On the basis of reservoir pressure alone, the re-
j covery factor improves with an increase in the pro-
j- duction rate, because the reservoir loss is smaller at
lower pressures. Actually, the producing rate is often
limited because of contract commitments and some-
times controlled in an attempt to prevent water entr;)'.
(3) Methods of Dete>-mining Water Influx.-There
are several methods for the determination of water
influx and the pressure performance of water drive
reservoirs; e.g.; digital, analog, graphical (Ref. 14).
A few useful equations are summarized in Table III.
(4) Sweep Efficienc1J.-Certain concepts, not nec-
essarily accurate in all aspects, are useful in the pre-
diction of reserves of water drive gas reservoirs: (a)
areal s\\'eep, (b) conformance or vertical sweep and
(c) displacement efficiencies.
A reduction in recovery because of water b:~r-passing
a group of pores may be accounted for through a re-
duction in either the sweep efficiency or the average
TechnoloC"', July-September, 1966, Montreal
','
displacement efficiency. According to Gorring (Ref.
15), a pore is either flushed of all its gas contents
or by-passed by the water. Thus, the displacement
efficiency at the pore level may be viewed to be 100
per cent. In practice, the concept of a statistical aver-
age pore is frequentl;' used. This pore, when flushed
by water, will contain a residual saturation, 8 g .......
expressed as a fraction of the pore volume. Conse-
quently, the rock volume contacted by the advancing
water may be related to the net water influx and the
residual gas saturation as follows:
W. - (W, - W;)
Rock Invaded lacre-feet) = 7758 (1 S"i Sl:fw) (Eq. 19)
The current position of the gaS-\lirater interface
may then be determined from the relationship be-
tween rock volume and height above the original in-
terface, as determined by geological studies.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021
(a) Areal Sweep Efficiency. For mobility ratios
smaller than 0.05, areal sweep efficiencies higher than
95 per cent may be expected (Ref. 11). As typical
gas pools have mobility ratios of about 0.001, areal
sweep efficiencies should approach 100 per cent.
(b) Vertical Sweep EfficienC1j. In stratified water
drive reservoirs, the limiting water-gas ratio (e.g.
30 bbls per MMcf) will correspond to a vertical sweep
efficiency that may be calculated on the basis of the
formation stratification (Ref. 12). Figure 1 shows a
relationship between vertical sweep efficiency and
permeability variation at several water-gas ratios,
calculated from published data (Ref. 16).
(c) Volumetric Sweep Efficiency_ Cross-flow, capi)-
larity, diffusion, high density contrasts and low mo-
bility ratios tend to establish high volumetric sweep
efficiencies. Experience elsewhere has indicated that
a distance of 5 to 20 feet from the gas-water inter-
face to the base of perforations is necessary to pre-
'lent flooding-out of a gas welL Information in Al-
berta indicates a wide range; however, in the ab-
-,'.
sence of definite information, a value of 15 feet may ,.
be used to position the gas-water interface at aban-
donment.
In blanket-type reservoirs, sweep efficienci.es may
be extremely low. In the case of bottom water drive
reservoirs having substantial relief, the volumetric
sweep efficiency may approach unity_In the case of
edge water drive reservoirs, both pay thickness and
T.'SLE III
WATER INFLUX AND MATERIAL BALANCE
EQUATIONS
(1) Steady Slate and Afodz]ied Stead)' State Flow.-
t
W. (bbls) ~ CONSTANT E (p,-p) <l. t/F (t); where:
o
F(t) ~ I - Standard steady state; F(t) - log t - Sim-
plified Hurst formula;
F(l) = (A + log t) - Simplified Hurst with time con-
version; F(t) = t""n.tBlit - Empirical-statistical method_
(2) Unsteady Stale Radial Flow Jl,tlodel:
Wo (bbls)~B E QD <l. P ~ B(<l.po Qvo + <l.p, QD_D. +
Ap2' QnIl-D2 ... .uP"_l QOn-D(n-l) J
(3) Slraigllt Line A1alerial Balam:e Equation:
G,B.+(W,-W;) ~ B E<l.PQv +G
Bg 81;; (Ba: BEl)
119
 :~ ~
that gas in excess of the initially trapped gas satura-
tion is recovered, then:
• PaL Z,

K~ RF(fractiunJ = 1
Z"L Pi

••

,
'"
'"0 ~
[ 1 - E" + if':'.:;" ]
Case :2: Gas in Excess of In-itz-al Residual is Not Re-
CEq 23)

.~
. . covered. Assuming the gas that remained in the pores
~G'~·o~o~...~ at the time they were contacted bJor the invading water
,
• is not recovered, then:
\:~,-• , RF (fraction) = 1 - (1 - En') ~
z;
p, (1
z;
• Z,t.

~
·
•,
'" '\ ~
~
k=n
k=l
SI;<l,.!l E",-I..
2
( ~ + ~)
ZI.._I

The residual gas is thermodynamically lInlitable

and tends to diffuse through the water_ The rate uf
Zk
(Eq.24)

I~ ~
diffusion is expected to be low and should not play u

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

sub~tantial role in economic g-as recoverJor t Ref. 18).
•, (6) Determination of Residl'nJ Gas Safu1"atiml.-

•, ~ The displacement of gas by water is an imbibition

process. Therefore. a specific gas saturation is ap~
pro<lr;hed from above; that iE;, the reservoir rock is
first saturated with the "displaced" fluid, ill this case
·• ,• 30 10
V.llneAl
. 0 ~O 60
JW~~" ~"'CI~Nr:::V l'~.
,. .. ..
CENT!
, gas, and the gas satul"ation is reduced by the dis-
placing fluid, waler. This ::;pecific gas saturation i,g
Fi,qw'c t.-Relationship Bei!L.·celL Permeability l'ariatiol~ the "residual" gas saturation existing when the rela-
and Ve1'tical Sweep Effidcm;y_ tive permeability to the displaeed fluid, i.e., gas, is
zero.
Re~idual gas saturations are equivalent to residllul
oil saturations for corresponding wettahility condi-
reservoir dip are significant. The actual yalue of the tions I Ref. 18).
volumetric sweep efficiency depends primarily upon
structure, and thus each pool requires individual con- According to Naar and Henderson, the maximum
sideration. residual ga1i saturation in a mathematical model rep-
resenting the trapping of the non-wetting phase dul'-
The water influx, \V~, and the volumetric ~weep ing an imbibition process i.s equal to !)O per cellt of
efficiency, E..,., can be calculated from the following the initial hydrocarbon pore volume (Ref. 1:~)_
equations:
The residual gas .saturation data from 251 tests
W.. (hbls) = G(B g , - Eo;' + GI' BJ: + WI' - Wi (Eq.20) on small samples were analyzed b.r Chierici ef at and
and none of the attempted correlatil)f1S proved to be SUl.'-
E,., (fraction) We + Wi - \V p cessful for unconsolidated sand~i. s~llldstones or lime-
(Eq. 21)
7758 Vp (l-S",-So:r~) ,tones (Ref. 19l.
where
Based on a careful analysis of fluid and rock daLa
Vp = reservoir pore volume ill3cre-feeL pertaining to sixty frontal displacement experiments,
Gorring found that, "to a good firsL order of appl"ox-
As Wells are successively flooded out, obser"ation~
of the water-gas interface should be made to deter- imation," the non-wetting phase saturation, e.g'. gas,
mine the extent of agreement between predicted and was a function of porosity only (Ref. 15. 20). The
relation ~uggested is:
actual volumetric sweep efficiencies. Large \'ariations
in well performance are to be expected \\·heL·e fracture Sl':r,' t ('~ t = 62 - 1.3~, IEq.2ri)
networks exist. The application of the method of Per- The equation applies to sandstones and uncomiolidated
rotti et rzl. (Ref.17) to gas reservoirs demonstrates porou.,; media.
that, for practical producing rates, the gas water in-
Residual oil :mturations obLained from waterfloocl
terface advances uniformly O\'er the entire resen'oir.
studies for principal oil-producing pools in Alberln
The analysis, however, neglects localized pressure
were analyzed using a digital computer. A summary
drawdowns.
of regression equations is shown in Table IV. In prac-
(5) Effect oj Residual Ga~~ SatuHl.-tion 01/. Rcco've1'Y_ tice, the follo\''t'ing selected equations for Sur" may be
-Generally, the gas in excess of the residual gas en- used for Sgrw in the order listed, depending upon data:
trapped during period m. calculated at time n follow-
Sandstone Resei"'/}oirs
ing expansion, equals:
~ 50.5 - 0.5l S,,, - om" (Eq. 26)
~ ·18.3 - 0.68 S", t E q.27)
(Pn, L + Pm) - l ] S"" CEq. 22) ~ 51 - ~ (Eq. 28)
([10-1 + [Jo) ~ 33.5 (Eq. 29)
This gas maJo~ or may not be reco\'erable. L-imestone Reservoirs
Case 1: Gas in Excess of Residual is Fully Recovered. In the absence of any reservoir information fOI'
Assuming that the gas in the pores behind the water- limestone formations, it is suggested that a value of
flood expands to the abandonment pressure, pUb, and S.-:r" = 35 per cent be used.

120 The JDurnal of Canadian PCl'roleum

 The regression analysis failed to provide a satisfac-
tory correlation; however, there appears to be some
merit in using an equation of the form:
S,~ (%) ~ 40 (1 - 5.-;) (Eq.30)
(c) Laboratory Tests. The residual gas saturation
can be determined experimentally by conducting im-
bibition, relative permeability and flood tests. Eperi-
mental residual gas saturations var~r from 15 to 50
per cent of pore volume. An analysis of core and log
data in watered out gas sands showed agreement be-
tween field and laboratory residuals (Ref. 18).
Figure 6 shows the relationship between water in-
flux and .cumulative gas production for a set of per-
meability values.
Calculations indicated that the recovery factor de-
creases rapidly with increasing ratio of aquifer to
reservoir radii below r,Jrw = 5.
, .
r\..

-- '"~I": ::::::
(7) Recovery Factor Relatio'nships, Calculations
based on information contained in Ref, 9 and 21 illus-
trate significant recovery factor relationships. 1 •
~
Figure 2 represents associated p/zJ s and recover}'

~~
factors for a particular set of conditions assuming ~
u
either that: :

" " ~~

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

(a) gas in excess of residual is fully recovered, (RF 1 ) , ,:: ~'OCI
01'
(b) gas in excess of initial residual is not recovered,
(RF,) .
~
~ ~oo • '-' '.
U
0-.: '\.
Figure 8 shows the effect of the residual gas satur-
ation on the recovery factor for various permeabili-
\
, ~'
ties at a constant volumetric sweep efficiency. °
Figw"e 4 illustrates the effect of the aquifer per-
meability on the recovery factor for several volume-
·'"•
o
')
\f1.
('
...
10 .... 11.
tric sweep efficiencies. Q
.. " • a~eov!.l' , ... elO. A~~UMINa OA~ IN I.CIU 0' .15IDU"'~

Figure 5 illustrates the effect of production rate, ~ I' 'ULW AlCOVIUD

A'~I Areovfu fA.CIO" ""~U""INO 0"" IN UCU5 0' INITI"'l
as reflected by the producing life, on the recovery .~51DU"'l IS NDI .!CDV~lfD

factor for several volumetric sweep efficiencies. •• •

TABLE IV
•• ,. :10 :10 .. .0 •• ~

I!COVlI,Y ....Cl0 •• 1'1 ... ND I"~ ('11 CINlI

•• •• ,~

RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION CORRELATIONS Figu?"r~ f.-Relations/tip Between plz and Recovel·Y Factor
- Producing Life as a Parameter.
RegressioJl Equations Formation R' S, Pools

5.. (%) ~ 483 - 0.685.; sandstone 0.60 5,7 13

5.. (%) ~ 37.5 - 0.14 S., carbonate 0.02 6.3 18
So, (%) ~ 43.2 - 0.·17 S",
So, (%) ~ 51 - q,
unclassified
sandstone
0.29 6.4 31
0.53 6.1 13
••
'.,.1
~'i'" I'-...
So, (%) ~ 24.9 + 1.3 q, carbonate 0.19 5.7 18
So, (%) ~ 39.7 - 043q, unclassified 0.14 7.0 31 VD\U""n.IC 5W!!' I,"CUNCT
So, (%) ~ 56.5 - 0.51 s"., - 7.=1 'fa erNT
0.69q, sandstone 0.81 3.9 13 ••

"',
~J_)
So, (%) ~ 20.7 + 0.14 So·, +
1.54 q,
So, (%) ~ 45.0 - 0.41 So; -
0.25 q,
carbonate 0.21 5.6
unclassified 0.33 6.2
18
31
,.
'.,••I
"'" '- '\.
""
So, (%) ~ 45.0 - 0.23 q, -
0.41 S..-~
- 14q,'/k (100 - q,l'
unclassified 0.33 6.2 31 '. \.

" "'""" "\

So, (%) ~ 58.4 + 0.0118 k -
0.88 q,
- 0.202 (k/q,' - 0.455.,
sandstone 0.81 3.8 13 •• "-
~
So, (%) ~ 23.0 - 0.0105 k +
10

'"
U
1.73 q, carbonate 0.26 5.1 17 :
+ 0.080 (k/q,l - 0.03 5.;
So, (%) ~ 50.3 + 0.0027 k
:r: .0 '- '\. ,- -
- 036q, unclassified 0.46 5.5 30 ~ '\. \.
- 0.069 (k/q,l - 0.525,,,
So, (%) ~ 47,3 - 0216 q, -
~
• •• "-
..',.
'"
0,033 (k/q,) unclassified 0.35 6.1 31 ~ ...
- 0,47 Sw' - 67 q,'/k (100·q,)' \.
So, (%) ~ 47.3 - 0.21q,·0.032 •• ..~ ~ .. '
(k/q,) unclassified 0.35 6.1 31 . ;....
~:.: '
-475., - 69 q,' Ik (100-4»' t- .,.
- 0.006 kJ1
••
Note: Average petro- s." s", q,
graphic parameters Fonnation (%) (%) l%) k(mdl
are as follows: •• '0 ~o m .0 ~o _ ~

Sandstone 335 21.7 17.5 236 anlD\J"'l O ... ~ 5 ..,U ....,IDN ( , n CI'NT 0' 'DAr: VDlUM!1
Carbonate 35.3 16.1 7.9 41'
Unclassified 34.5 18.5 11.9 335 Figure 8:-Relationship Bet1fJ6en RecoveJ·y Factor, RFJo
and Reszdual Gas Satm'atton - Permeability as a
Parameter.

"Ptchnology, July-September, 1966, Montreal 121 , .

 (8) Procedw'es ;01' Detennining Recovery Factors. Following production, procedureH depend on whether
-The following guidelines are recommended: water drive is indicated:
Prior to production, the pro~edure is the same as Ca.se 1: Production and pressure date do not yet
that proposed for constant volume reservoirs, except ascertain that the reservoir is ~ubject to a water
that where edge 01' bottom water is present, the aban- drive.
donment pressure is increased by 15 to 25 per cent. The pool performance. particularly the water pro-
duction, ~hould be examined t(J determine the amount
·
,. by which the abandonment preSSl1 re should be modi~
fi~d, The abandonment pressure may be illcrea~ed by
25 to 100 per cent Ol' more, depending upon the per-
· formance of wells.
Case Z.- Production and pre::>sure data confirm a wa-
• ter drive.
(a) In the presence of a small water influx, the pro-
cedures outlined in Ca:;e 1 apply,

.! ,. ~
u

........
(b) In the presence of an active water drive. the fol-
lowing procedures are recommended:

t\: ............
L Determine the \\,~,ter influx constant and the initial

""""-~

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

~'110 "t"1I Cr"", gas-in-place by extended material bal::t.nce calculntiomi
.... ~. 1tI "EII CtN ,
1
or determine the water influx c:onstant only by match-
ing the pressure-production hi."tor:-r u~ing appropriate
i\."" ""'"- ~f..!~60Ptt en... ,
steady 01' unsteady state flow E'quations (Ref. 22, 14).
..........-.~ • .sa n-!II .eH.Ir 2. Predict the performance ful' probable production

'"""
rates and obtain a plot of reservoir pressure, 1'.
~ r...... ' ..opr.. 1ch.lr again.::5t cumulative gas production, G...
......
~ r.... !(Jpr.li! l
CrN,
3. Determine the cumulative water influx. \V... at ~e­
,. ............ • I vel'al "alues of cumulative ga:-:; production, G I ,. using
a •• ~o Pl'1l Ce-Nr the p VS, G I, plot and Eq_ 20.
4, A~sign a residual gas saturation, 81:...... either from
'" measurements or from Eqs. 26, 27, 28, 29 or 30,

.. ,. ..
5. Calculate the volumetric sweep efficiency. En,. for
,. ,. ,. ~

FigllJ"C 4.-Relationship Betwcen Recovery Fa.ctol', RF..

~

- ,~
". various \'alues of cumulative water influx uHing E(I.
21.
6, Determine the areal sweep efficiency. En. and the
and Pcrmeability - Volumctric Sweep Efficiency as a vertical sweep efficiency, E., or the volumetric sweep
Pll/'amettr.
efficiency K •• , at abandonment conditions, Find the
..•
"•

....
- r-......
" 0

••
.J ./
••
/

~ ~~ If
0 0
p
.... • '0

·
0
......... "'fOil Cr""'r

~Ellel!""" , f 1
3
u

· ..... t': ~ICr"",

,
"

V/ V
·"
.....
1'-....""- ~~N' I .:10 PI!
• ,
•
.~ /
V
/ /
0 • Cl!1V'
~
u " ~ ~I
~

·, 0
" ce-..... r
· . ,, /
r----~ I
.. cr..... '
• i
<
I
~ 0
:-.............
'0.
f,1 Cl!N

- / /
1/ V
0
...............
~I'''C'N) / / V
0
/ /

.~
V "
0
0 .. ,. ,. o ,. .~ ... ,~ ". ,~ ".
_.
Figure 5.--Rclationslrip Between Recovery Factor and
Producing Life - Volll.metric S1veep Efficiency as a. Figlll'c a.-Relationship Bctween IV/act· Influx and CIl-
Parameter. ItllllatiL'c Gas P/'oduclioJl - Permeability as a Paraml'tf.'1'.

122 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum

 · - ._- - ... -- ... --'--~

.appropl·iate abandonment pressure from the predict- RF (fraction) 1 _ 6.233 T r P8U z! (Seh V~')8h
ed performance and calculate the recovery factor using Pi T ae
Eq. 23 01' preferably Eq. 24. (1 - Eo,) - (1 - S.b).b
7. Assume the abandonment pressure and estimate 6.233 ~r p8e Zi n ~ n
'.'~.~'
the volumetric sweep efficiency if a performance pre- Pi 1.. n = 1
;~
,
.;
diction cannot be made and determine the recovery z, n = n
~ ISh~w - Seh (1 - SRi) III
factor from Eq. 23. (S., V,.)" - Pill S"i)
n = 1
A recovery factor evaluation is presented in Appen-
~EII"'II ( .E... (Eq.35)
dix III. z )"
The subscript "n" refers to the pressure level and
production interval considered.
D. WATER DRIVE GAS-CONDENSATE A similar equation can be developed by expressing
the retrograde loss in barrels per MMscf of initial gas-
~/~:::
,.~X,':.;:~
RESERVOIRS
in-place.
The recoverJ~ factor depends on the composition of '.
the reservoir fluid, the pressure at which the hydro- (2) P1-ocedu,Tes fo}· Determining ReC01JeTY FactaJ"s.
carbon is trapped, the rock volume invaded by water -The procedures for determining pressures, water

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

and residual hydrocarbon saturation.
In water drive reservoirs, the recovery of con-
densate will normally be improved, but the gross fluid
recovery will be less than in constant volume gas-
condensate reservoirs.
For simplicitJ', retrograde liquid saturation and
c.ompressibility factors are assumed to be identical
to those obtained from a laboratory constant-volume
depletion stud}'.
(1) RecoveTy Fa.eto',- Expressions.-Two limiting
conditions will be considered.
Case 1: Gas in Excess of Residual is Fully Recovered.
The residual saturation, expressed in terms of pore
volume, contains gas at the abandonment reservoir
pressure.
Method (a.).- Proper substitutions in Eq. 1 result in:
RF (fraction) = 1 _ 0.233 T r Poe Zi Sell V...
p. T~e
- [ E""IS'm· - So', (1 - S,,;)I
+ (1 - Eo") (1 - So',) (1 - S.i) ] (1 Po's".).
n"
~ water. In the absence of measured residual gas sa-
,
.j
influx, volumetric sweep efficiency and residual sa-
turation are similar to those recommended for water
drive gas reservoirs_
II, ASSOCIATED GAS
Because of mixing in the reservoir, gas produced
from either the gas cap or the oil zone may contain
both solution and associated gas in undetermined pro-
portions. For this reason, it is not practical to at-
tempt to discriminate between associated and solu-
tion gas in production_ The remaining gas at any
time is simply the combined initial solution and as-
sociated gas minus the cumulative aggregate gas pro-
duction.
Proced'ures for Determining Recovery Factors. Pro-
cedures for determining the recovery factors for con-
stant volume and water drive gas and gas-condensate
reservoirs are applicable to associated· gas in corre-
sponding situations. The underlying oil and water are
appraised in terms of the effect they have on volume-
tric sweep and displacement efficiencies in the gas
cap (e.g., oil influx). The recovery mechanisms in-
PI ZRb
(Eq.3I) clude pressure depletion and displacement by oil and

\~
Note: If Pub = Pi then z"" = Zi and Seh =
RF (fractl·on) _ (1 - S"i - S,,,,) Eo,·
0, Eq. 31 reduces to
(Eq.32)
turations after displacement by oil, Sgr<>J the following
approximations may be useful:
.. - (1 5",.)
j (a) If the reservoir rack is preferentially water-
1 lliethod (b): The total gas recovered in terms of ini- wet:
tial gas in place is the sum of the gas recovered by S.~(fraction) ~ (S... or S",,) + 0.10 (Eq.36)
depletion down to the abandonment pressure plus the
gas recovered by water displacement at this pres- (b) If the reservoir rock is preferentially oil-wet,
Bure: Sg"" may be assumed equal to the residual oil satu-
ration, Sn....... determined from Eqs_ 26 or 30. If meas-
RF (Iraction) ~ RF (1) + RF (2) (Eq.33) ured values of Sn......, and Sgrw are available for prefer-
The recovery by pressure depletion for constant vol- entially oil-wet rocks, S&rn could be approximated by:
ume gas condensate reservoirs, RF (1). has already Sara (fraction) = (So,,, or Sgr",) - 0.10 (Eq. 37)
been discussed.
The additional recovery resulting from water dis-
plaoement, RF (2). may be approximated as follows:
III. SOLUTION GAS
RF(2\ ~ 1(1 -5.i -S'm)!(I-S.i)1 EO'. p.bZi (Eq.34) Recovery of solution gas or "oil-well gas" depends
Pi Znb
on fluid and reservoir properties, as well as on the
Case 2: Gas in Excess of Initial Residual is Not Re- methods used to produce the oiL
cove1-ed. The amount of gas remaining in the reser-
voir at abandonment c.an be approximated by the
A. Primary Operations
summation of the gas volumes "trapped" over a series
of pressure levels_ The recovery factor becomes a The soJubility of gas in oil, the saturation pressurQ
function of the incremental water influx and the and the formation volume factors are determined from
con'esponding entrapment pressures: either measurements or correlations_

TechnDlogy, Julv-September, 1966, Montreal 123

 Production pressure data are useful in many ways: (6) Specific ProcedU.1"es fol' Determining RecavcTY
(a) identifying the predominant recovery mecha- Facto-l"s.-
nisms, (b) confirming the initial solution gas-oil ra- Sol1ttion Gas Dri'ue - Jlla..tenal Balance Calf:luations.
tio and bubble point pressure, (c) checking the l·eli-
ability of existing performance predictions, (d) fore- Case 1: Using the Ultimate Oil Recovery, The expres-
casting gas-oil ratio and pre~sure trends and (e) sion [01' lh~ recuvel·Y fadm', Eq_ I, becomes
evaluating reserves b.y empirical methods, RF (fr3ction) = 1 -
Particular attention should be directed to gas lJro- (N -N p ) fin "L -IN B 01 - (N - N v) B~ ,,1,1 5.615 T. r [l.. 11
duction statistics, as the unawareness of the presence T r Jl~r Znh
of gas cap gas in the production will result in mis- N R"
leading solution gas-oil ratios and erroneous reserve (Eq. :i9>
estimations. Ca."ie 2: Using the Residual Gas Saturation.
(1) Dh1Je f.'IechQ11i.cnn and .tlssociatcd Recovery.-
RF(fraction) = 1 -~'_ (I C ' l
The gas recovery is dependent on the amount of oil ([ - 5.,,1 [ ' II - oJ", - SlH
'a' ""II
produced and the gas-oil ratio, :uul these are goYerned 5.615 To. Bm S.-:t P"10
by the resenroir drive mechanisms. (1-5,,,) H... T r p,r Z"h
\I::q. ·10,
In cumplete water c1riye pooLs" the ga::;-oil ratio Sirnilal'ly, the recovery factor may be represented in
will u:5ually remain low. In solution gas drive pools. terms of SO'. This may be done b~r replacing S"t in Eq.
the gas-oil ratio will increase gradually to a maxi- 40 by 1 - S., - So,.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

mum and then decrease rapidly_ Gravity segregation
lends to low producing gas-oil ratios. Sol1(tioll Ga..~
DTiN' and Gra.vity Sf.gr·cgfi.firttL - Per-
;uJ"mafleePredictiolls, The total gas recovery in terms
The gas recovery fador may range from 40 per cent of original gas in place is the .sum of the recover,}' to
in complete water drive reservoirs to more than 75 the limiting oil rate, RFI' as obtained by performance
per cent in the solution drive reservoirs. predictions and the blowdown recovel'.", RF!. as deter-
l2) C·riterla. for ldentijviua TY1JCS of Dri·ves.- mined from material balance calculations.
The method.s for identifying potential and actual re-
covery mechanisms are based on: (a) experience with
similar pools, (b) structural and regional geological
:::(~:~~:I~)al:U[at(e:1~r~~'1I~8)'aI(l~~l~i:~ fiR "I,)
N ll,; Il"
data, including pregSUI'e, zone continuity and perme-
ability, interface and outcrop information, (Cl dril- 5.615 T.. PII'
+ T, p.: H Zm
II'_,II - ([ - :--r"
~- ". ) B~",I
ling. coring, completion ~md test data, (d) pressure II ,

and solution, gravity segregation and "'ater dri\'e in-

dices and (e 1 manner of productivity and rate de-
5.615 T•• p",
1'1 p.c R.: z.. "
I B,,,- (l --N, N,. '" ) II0."1,,' ,Eq.oI[,
clines.
Subscript "m" in Eq. 41 refers to condition." existing
Ui. l Matel-iai BalClrllce Calculation.J3.-The recovery at the end of the period of economic nil production.
factor for any type of drive can be expressed b~r Eq.
H'uter D,.ire - J[ulerial Balal/ce Crrlculntioll:'. Eq, 1
L The gas remaining in the reservoir at abandonment
may be expressed as follows:
",ill consist of the gas dissolved in the unrecovered oil
in the reservoir as well as free gas. llF'"
{traction/ = I - ( [ - N,.)
N· ----U:--
Il...,.
(·llI-'el'jonnance Prcd.icticn1s.-These usually in-
clude the average gas-oil ratio as a function of oil 5.615 T,e p.[, I I I' ~ I ~ 2
production. Therefore, the gas recovery factor can be l ' rP 8C Z,'h ( 1 -
5 .~,) I'. . 6i , - '".1 - .. + "."
I:" C'
0"", ,o>q.·r)
expressed as: where S~r.. is the l·esidllal gas entrapped by water in
per c:~nt of pore volume.

RF (fraction) = ~I' =
f N"
a Rl'dN[,

N R"
(I::q 38,
Note: 5..., + 5",.• ~ 5,,,. rI::q. ·13)
\...· hel'e S"r~ i~ the residual oil M .. soc-iated with the resi-
dual gas. In developillg' Eq. 42, the pressurefl in the
Eq. 38 may be applied to oil pools subject to any type inyaded and uninwlded portions of the reservoir were
of drive mechanism. assumed to be identical.
(5) Statistical Metlwds.-Empirical methods have For a water dri\'e pool whel'e the pressure is main-
praetical significance, particularly in the latter stages tained above the saturation pressure: R~ "" = R. I ; Slit
of depletion. Useful plots are: (i) log G p ·vs.log N p or N p ; and S"t~ = 0; and the gas recovery factor, Eq. 42, re-
(ii) log \V I' vs. log G I,; (iii) \vater-gas ratio vs. G v ; duces to: RF (fraction) = NI.jN, identical to the oil
(iv) log N p vs, log \-VI'; (v) per cent oil in liquid pru- recoyery factor.
duction vs. NT'; (vi) fluid interface positions vs. G I, Watc7' Drive and Gravity Segregalion - Malcj~ial
or NT'; (vii) cumulative gas-oil ratios vs. N p or pel' Balance CalCHlClrti()11i~. An equation for the recovery
cent recovery; and (viii) rate decline methods: (a) factor can be developed assuming that: (a) no gal;! is
constant "lo~s ratio," (b) exponential or constant per- trapped by the encroaching water and (b) the oil in
centage; (c) hyperbolic. (d) harmonic. (e) antilog the water-inv~-Ided portion of the reservoir is treated as
N I, vs. time. and (f) general statistical decline. e.g'. if it had been trapped at the abandonment pressure:
polynomial.
The rate decline cun'es are applicable onl)r to wells
producing at capacity_ A basic assLlmption in empiri-
RF (traction) = 1 - ( 1 - ~n.) ~:1~ -
cal methods is that future performance obeys past
performance trends. Oil recovery may be determined l
5.6 [5 T., p", lB'
'
f
n g; {I -
p.c Znl' 1.... 6;
E)
-"". - (I - ~,,)
using correlations with pres::;ure, production and pe- B + E", ll,,; ~I
trographic pat·Hmeters. (I::q. ·1·1)
0"" (I-S",)

124 The Journal of Canadian PctrolCl.lm

 The recovery factors obtained from Eqs. 38, 39, 40,
41, 42. and 44 apply to tbe initial solution gas in place.
B. Secondary Operations
As secondary and enhanced oil recovery operations
can considerably reduce the gas recovery, it is im-
porta.nt to know whether an oil pool will be affected.
Economics and reservoir and fluid properties will dic-
tate the type and size of secondary operations. The
change in gas recovery for a solution gas pool caused
by conversion to a gas or miscible flood will be small,
but where ,vater is injected there may be a substantial
reduction (e.g., 30 per cent).
In most cases it is necessary to consider separately
the recovery during secondary operations_ For prac-
tical reasons, the gas produced is equated with the
initial gas in place less the gas remaining in the reser-
voir. regardless of its origin.
(1) Pressu're IIJaintenance by Gas. Eq. 39 may be used,
,~ or Eq. 38 ma~y be applied to primary pressure main-
" (8) R. E. Davis, "Natural Gas Reserve Estimates fo!."
tenance and blowdown operations.
i, (2) PTessuTe 111aintenance by ~Vate1' and Flooding.
Eq. 42. mal' be used where S". '" 0, and Eq. 44 may be
used where S~r~ --= 0_
(3) Miscible Floods. Eq. 39 may be used.
(4) llIiscellaneous, Secondary, Tertiary and Exotic Re-
covery P1"ocesse,~. As there are many different types
and combinations of enhanced oil recover~' operations,
it is impractical to predict orders of implementation
and set up specific rules for determining gas reCOver}'
factors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for a good understanding of the
processes influencing recovery (e.g_ \vater entry in
individual wells), additional experimental data (e.g.
residual gas saturations that may be cheaply deter-
mined b:~r imbibition tests) and effective lise of in-
formation disclosed by actual performance. The pro-
per consideration of theory, laboratory measurements
and performance feed-back should substantially im-
prove the reliability of gas recovery factor evalua-
tions_ In this endeavour, the recover}' should be deter-
mined by a method which is consistent with the
amount and quality of the reservoir information and
the economics of the over-all gas production operation.
The application of either the simplified or compre-
hensive procedures proposed in this paper should be
beneficial in this regard.
NOMENCLATURE
Symbols are AIME standard) as indicated in the
text and additionally as follows:
PEl· probable error of estimate of y - population
PE probable error of estitnate of y - sample
R2y coefficient or index of determination; fractionofyva-
riation accounted for by the regression equation
sample
R2 coefficient or index of correlation - population
Sy standard error of estimate of}' - sample
Sy standard error of estimate of y - population_
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their apprec.iation to the Oil
and Gas Conservation Board, Calgary, fOl" permission
to publisb this paper.
Technoloc " July-September, 1966, Montreal
REFERENCES
(I) "Recovery Data for Alberta Natural Gas Pools,"
Company SUbmissions, OU and Gas GonseJ·vation
BOQ1·d Records, Calgary.
(2) DeGolycT and MacNaughtrm, "Natural Gas Reserve
Estimates for Trans-Canada Pipelines," Oil and
GaB Conservation Board Records, Calgary.
(3) R. Davis and L. H. ll'Ieltzer, "A Method of Predict-
ing the Availability of Nat.ural Gas Based on Aver-
age Reservoir Performance/' T?·ans. AIl\1E (1953),
198, p. 249.
(4) N. Lamont, "Gas Reservoir Study Promises Accu-
rate Recovery Estimate," The Oil and Gas JOll?"nal.
January 14, 1963.
(5) IC. 111uUe?·, "Recovery Factors of Gas Reservoirs
with Gas Expansion," ETdol u. Kohle, November,
1961, p. 900.
(6) W_ H. Jllensch, "Calculation of Gas Reserves from
Gas Density Data:' The Petl·oleu1n Engineer, Sep-
tember, 1959, p. B-49_
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021
(7) H. J. GTUy and J. A. Crichton, "A Critical Review
of Methods Used in the Estimation of Natural Gas
Reserves," T?·a71s. AHdE (1949), 179, p_ 249_
Alberta and Southern Gas Company/' Oil and Gas
Conse1"1Jaticrn BoaTd Reco?·ds, Calgary.
(9) J. R. Bntn8, M. J. Ketkoviclr" and V. C. ilIeitzen,
"The Effect of 'Yater Influx on p/z Cumulative
Gas Production Curves," Journal of PetToleulll Tech_
nology, March, 1965, p. 287.
(10) R. P. Schoemake1', "Gas Appraisal, A Graphical
Short-Cut for Geologists," Alberta Society of PetTo-
leltm Gcologists) 1957 - 1958, 5 and 6. p. 200.
(11) A. B. Dyes, B. H. Caudle and R. A. E1·ickso71, "Oil
ProducUon After Breakthrough - as Influenced by
Mobility Ratio," Petrolelt1n T?·ans. AIME (1954),
201, p. 81
(12) Jf. E. Stiles, HUse of Permeability Distribution in
'Yaterflood Calculations," Trans. AIME (1949),186,
p. 9.
(13) R. G. Aganval, R. Al-Hu8sainy and H_ J. Ra1ney.
Jr., "The Impol'tance of v;.rater Influx in Gas Re-
servoirs," Jow·nal of Pet?'oleum Technology, Novem_
ber, 1965, p. 1336.
(14) D. L. [(atz, M. R. Tck, [(. H. CoatB, M. L. [Catz, S.
C. Jones and M. C. Mille?·, "1lovement of Under-
ground 'Yater in Contact ,'lith Natural Gas," The
Ame?·ican Gas Association, February, 1963
(15) R. L. Gon'i11g, "Multiphase Flow of 'Immiscible
Fluids in POl"OUS l\'Iedia," Ph.D. thesis, The Univer-
sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1952.
(16) H. Dyksbou and R. L. PUTSOn8) "The Prediction of
Oil Recovery by '\Vaterflood," Secondary Recovel!.1
of Oil in the United States, Second Edition, New
York, AmeTican Pet?·oZeum Institute, 1950, p. 160.
(17) G. Perl'otti, T. van GoldfTacht, D. Gal{etti and L
Pcytchev, "Predicting Fract.ured Water-Drive Re-
servoir Performance," Pet1'oleum Engineer. Novem-
ber and December 1963, p. 54.
(18) T. Jl1. Geffen, D. R. Pm-riJ;h, G. lV_ Haynes and R.
A. Morse, "Efficiency of Gas Displacement from
Porous l\'1edia by Liquid Flooding," T7·ans. AIME
(1952), 195, p. 37.
(19) G. L. Chierici, G. M. Ciucci and G. Long, "Experi-
mental Research of Gas .saturation Behind the Wa- ,...
ter Front in Gas Reservoirs Subjected to Water
Drive," Sixth IVo1·ld Pet1'olemn Cong~·ess, June 25,
1963; T?·ansacti07l.s, SecUon II, Paper 17-P D 6, p_
483.
(20) M. W. Legatski, D. L. Katz, llI. R. Tek, R. L. Gor_
,.
ring and R. L. Nielsen, HDisplacement of Gas from
Porous Media by Water," AnnuaL Fait l}[eeting of
SPE, Houston, Texas, October 11 - 14, 1964; The
Oil and Gas Journal, January 10, 1966, p_ 55_
(21) K. Mulie?·, Erdol 1£. [[ohle, "Production Rates and
Ultimate Recovery Factors in Gas Fields with Edge
Water Drive," September, 1961, p. 695.
(22) D_ Havlena. and A. S. Odeh, "The Material Balance
as an Equation of a Straight Line," J~urnal of
Peb·oleum Teclmology. August, 1953, p. 896. -,
'..
..
125
 APPENDICES
ApPENDIX I: RECOVERY FACTOR CALCULATIONS Operating costs are as follows:
FOR CONSTANT VOLUME GAS RESERVOIRS
1. Plant. operating costs = $lO,OOO/}'ear.
.4.n Ecollomic Allalysis of Abandonnwnt 2. Well and gatherlng s~'stem operating costs = $13,600/y~:J.r.
3. Compressor operat.ing and fuel cosLs = $11.300/ycar.
Cond1:tions and Dcterrninat'ion of Tenninal
Reset"voit· PreSS'UTe_ The income is as follows: Let the eronomic residue
Data: Gas gravit)· = 0.71; 1', = 685 psia: T c = 393 R Q gas rate equal q :i.'l'lscf/day, th(~n residue gas sales =
Ratio of specific heats, cp/c~. = 1.24 q K 365 K 0.15 $/year ~ 54.S q $/Year.
Depth = -1-,6.,10 feet: P, = 1,519 psia.
Plant capacit)' = 5,000 Mscf per dar. Expressing shrinkage (5 per cent), I~ase fuel (5
Number of wells = -1.. per cent) and royalty <16.67 per cent\ in terms of
Average back pressure test: Q = 0.. 0091 (Pf:! - p,:!) gross prod lIction :
where: Q in fvlscfjday and (Pr:! -- p,?) in psia:!
Assumptions : . 100 [1)0 100
1. Compressor inlet pressure = 100 psig. Raw gas production Q =qx 95 x -gs x 8333 = 1.3~ q
. J\,'lscf/day.
2. Average compressor inlet temperature = 50"F.
3. Line or plant pressure = 900 psig.. The income from liquid producb; is as follows:
4. Back pressure test equation will not change during
depletion. Using a unit recovery of6.0 cu_ feet per J\,·lscf of raw ,l!;<lS:
5. Friction losses in well bore are neg"lectcd - annular flo ....... Condensate recovery = q x 1.33 x 6.0 !icf/day.
Deliverability and 'Vellhead Flowing Pressures: Assuming that 33 sd of condensate vapour equals one

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

Calculation of minimum formation pre.s~ure to main- Imperial gallon of liquid and the stabilized condem-mtl!
tain plant capacit;,',' rate. Le. 5,000 M5cf/da~!, assum- sells for $2.50 per bbl, then condensate saleH equal:
ing wel!head pressure of 100 p~ig:
qxl.33x6.0x365x2.50 630 $1
5000/4
0.0091 (Pr' - P.') ~ 33 x35 = . q, ~'~ar.
Flowing pressure at. wellhead = 113 psia, and P. = 126 psia.
The minimum economic residue gas rate, q, is cal-
Th us: PI-" = 1.250
0.0091 + 1"6"
" ~; Pr = 391'
pSia, culated from a balance throughout the system:
Income $h'ear Operat.ing costs $;year.
The production rates for formation pressures less than 54.8 q +
6.30 Q 10,000 +
13,600 11,300 +
391 psia can be calculated: e.g. at PI = 300 psia, q 571 Mscf/day.
Q ~ 0.0091 (90,000 - 15,880) ~ 674 Mscf/dayIwell. Therefore, limiting raw gas production equals: 571
The ~mndface pressure required to maintain a rate of K 1.33 ~ 759 Mgcf/da)'.
1,250 Mscfjda,r/well, above PI = 391 psia, is now cal- Incorporating an over-all load factor of 0.90, the
culated. deliverability required equals: 759/0.90 = 8-13 Msd/
e.g. at. Dr = 1000 psia: 1,2.50 = 0.0091 (1,000,000 - PA~) dayIpool or 211 Msd/day lweI!.
Thus: DB = 929 psia, that. result.s in a wellhead flowing pressure, A corresponding abandonment formation pi·eHSUl'C
pl(, of about 825 psia.
of 198 p~ia is obL.'\ined from Pigure 7,
Pool production rates and compressor horsepower re-
quirements for varil1us formation pressures are shown The recovery factor can nO\\' be calculated using
in Yi(l/trc 7. Possibly 400 hp or less will be installed. Eq,3.
Two 150-hp compressors will be assumed. RF (I .) I p,," z; I 198 (181
, raction = - Pi Znb = 0.97 "( 1519
= 0.89 or 89 per o~nt.
Note: If two wells instead of four remain pruducing,
then the abandonment pressure equals 230 psia and
the corresponding recovery faecal' 0,87. The effect of
different wellhead flowing pressure:" on recovery ig
indicated as follows:
•• • • Wellhead Pressure (psig): 50 lOO 200 300 ·100
·
• I Recovery Factor (% 1: 91 89 84 79 72

\
...og~~ ..0......,. I
~ ! Applications of P1'Oposed P,.occd",.es of
~ "lKl Calcula.ting Reeo'very Factors for Consta"t
5 I \ l' ol.urne Gas Rese7·voirs.

·
I
~ From EQ. 5: Pnl' = 50 + 50 D = 50 + 50 x ·1.64 = 282 psia.

·~ 0
1/ 1\ Liquid production, extent of gas processing and
~
·~ /; \ pressure at deliver.~! are ·'average" ~ however. the
productivity mllst be considered a~ follows:
The AOF at 1500 psia = 0.0091 x 2.25 x lOG
Ml\:fscf/day/wdl.
= 20.'1

~(pprn 'IiQPUCTIQN !AU '\ The "average" deliverability for pr = 1500 psia
I '\. ,
is 12.5 MMscf/day/well. Therefore, the average well
in this pool has an AOF which is GO per cent above

~
the "average" AOF and the "formula" abandonment

..I
pressure. is reduced by 30 per cent:

• , •••'OU",.. IION .~ ~.
""-
.~
0
P~b = 282 (1 - 0.30) = 197 psia.
,unuu lpo ... l The recovery factor calculated from Eq_ 3 equals
Figu1"e 7.-Delivc1"ability and HOl"SCpOWcr Requil·clI1rmts. ~-!) pel' cent.

126 The Journq! of Canadian Petroleum

 -{"_._--~

~ ".'

ApPENDIX II: RECOVERY FACTOR CALCULATIONS •

FOR CONSTANT VOLUME GAS-CONDENSATE
RESERVOIRS
Data: Pi 4700 psia z, ~ 0.95
Pob 500 psia Z"h = 0.94
T, 650'R. V" ~ 21 sd lImp, gal. """- ..... ',:
,,.
.,.
5,b = 0.13 per cent of hydrocarbon pore volume at

VI
""
500 psia.

~
So: Jlh = 86 bbls per wlMscf of initial gas in place at 500
psia. i
• ~ t·;.:: -.

.-.. t::--"...
u .... l! ".'
The recovery factor at various pressures from a ~
u-
" ........... / '. "" ~ . '
depletion studl': :I ~IOOO
..... ~~
Pool Pressure
(psi.) 4700 4200 3600 2900 2100 1300 705 0
.~
~

..."",, ~ ........... 0
I':~...
'0
.~ Reco,'ery (%) 0 6.51 15.33 28.64 46.56 65.48 79.27 94.80 ~l /
~~ I'...
~
~ ..
8:;;000 ~
According to Method B-1 (1), the reoo"er}" factor
is obtained by interpolating in the above table: "" ........ " ....

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

RF 84 per oent ~
Using Eq. 15:
RF ([ f ) ~ I _ 500 x 0.95 x (1-0.13) ,•• •
rae Ion 0.94 x 4700
6.233 x 650 x 14.65 x 0.95 x 0.13 x 21
4700 x 5.20

RF 84 per cent
Using Eq. 16:
•• • . .
, ,. "
0 .... 5 PIiCClUCTlClN 115C'1
•• .. ••
RF(f .) I 500 x 0.95 Figu1"f3 B.-Plot of PreS8U?·C and P7·essure/Ccnnpressibitity
ractlon = - 0.94 x 4700 vs. Cumulative Gas Production.

5.615 x 10-0 x 500 x 520 x 86

+ 0.94 x 650 x 14.65 - 0.000035 x 86 x 21

RF = 84percent
I ,"
',.-.
ApPENDIX III: RECOVERY FACTOR CALCULATIONS
,!;Xi! '.

FOR WATER DRIVE GAS RESERVOIRS

~"
,"r--
Data: A 1054 acres p, 3670 psia •
,
h
4Jo
32.81 feet
13.4 per cent po
T,
z; 0.877
668 psia V
...
.~
k
5 wi
T,
10 md.
15.0 per cent
636 'R.
GfP
D
390 'R.
40.1 Bscf
10.200 feet .,
u
iY
;;V:-~
.' e 7 x lO-ii voljvoljpsia U''C 0.8 cpo
AOF 45.0 MMscf/day lweI!
Geological information indicates that the aquifer
is 100 times larger than the gas reservoir, therefore
'1'
"I'
ma-
o .' :Iv.......
.:lY,""

/'
l"c/r.. . equals 10. The equivalent radius of the gas re-
servoir, rw, is about 3,800 feet. Y,,/ V
UI'oII!'Ob"-V

There are four wells with pay thicknesses of 55.

45, 40 and 21 feet. The last two wells are underlain
D7
IP .....
" ' - 5lClPl!'WolloTI!:R INI'LIJK CON5TANT
11-:11.5 8bl/p.;

by ''irater and completed 28 and 14 feet above the gas-

water interface.
(1) Recovery factm· estin-wtion p'tior to pl"odu,ct'ion. ·/ DIP·]''i'.:II1C'

-The abandonment pressure is calculated from Eq.

5:
p•• ~ 50 + 50 D ~ 50 + 50 x 10.2 ~ 560 psi•.
,
• ,-
lOp CD.
.-
1I 1l1 -1l 1l,
~_"
6000

10,,' IUc,/BbIJ
III:I:la IQOCIO

To account for the effect of the expected water in-

Figlln 9.-Straight-Linc Jllatel-in-l Balance Plot.
flux on recovery, pab will be increased b}' 25 per cent.
Thus. p~" = 560 + 140 = 700 psia.
pressure is slightl:~r in error and the volume of initial
Using Eq. 3: gas in place, GIP = 72 Bscf, is mueh larger than the
700 x 0877 volumetric. estimation of 40.1 Bscf_
RF (fr.ction) - I - 3670 K 0.927 = 0.82 or 82 per cent
Evaluating the pressure-production data for the
(2) Recove'ry factor estimation afteT five yea.rs of first five years using r./rw = 9.0 and tD = 6 t. and
production_-Figure 8 consists of six points and indi- straight-line material balance techniques, one obtains
cates that either a water drive is present or the initial the first five points in FigU1·e 9.

TechnologYI July-Septemberl 1966, Montreol 127

 A straight line through these points, line "b", ex- This process is repeated for succeeding time inter-
trapolates to a GIP of about 49,0 Bsd. vals to what may be expected to be the abandonment.
The well completed closest to the gas-water inter- Different production rates mar be used. The pool per-
face commenced to produce water in the third year formance for a rate of 1,336 Bscf per year (i,e. 30-
and was suspended within five months. The water year life) is shown in Figure S,
production is believed tu be caused b;V water coning. The water influx is plotted against cumulative ga::l
On the basis of current performance. the estima- production in Fig. 10.
tion of the recovery factor remains unchanged at 82 The residual gas saturation determined from Eq,
per cent, 26 is:
(3) Re('overy facto?' estimation after ten yeCL1"S of S..-:r" = Sor" = 56.5 - 0.51 (IS) - 0.69 0:1.-1) = 39.lj per cent of
pl'odudion.-At the end of the tenth year, the pressure pore volume.
decline plot in FigUT6 8 curves upward, indicating According to imbibition tests, thi.s value should be
water influx into the resen.Toir. Points 5 - 10 in Figu.l'e increased. Thus:
rJ extrapolate to a GIP of 39.2 Bscf. B equals 515 bbl.5
S.:;,,, = 42 pC'r rent.
per psi. These points were obtained using a radial un-
steady-~tate flow model and trial-and-error solutions The yulumetric sweep efficiency can now be deter-
of 1',/1'.. = 9.0 and tn = 6 t. mined from Eq. 21;
Therefore, \V... = 515~.6p Qil and the material bal-
ance equation becomes:
w.. + W, _.
7758(1054) 132,81) 10.13-11 (LUO -1l.tS -
"·1' U.·I~1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

\V~
G" [1" + (WI' - \V,) = G + 515~ up Qo = 15..W :>.lij'ii
(13,; - B,::i) (Bll: - BII:,1
Thll~. the volumetric sweep efficiency Lan be La 1-
The future performance of the l'eservoir may now be
predicted as illustrated below for the eleventh year; culated for yarious amount.s of water influx (F;[JI/I'f~
10) .
(a) Selccted time intcn'al is one )'ear, 10th to 11th year.s.
(b) Assumed withdrawal: fiG I , = 1.336 Bscf; !l(W p - Wi) =0. The vertical .sweep efficienty i~ dl!tel'mined [rolll
Current Gp = 13.360 + 1.336 = 14.696 BscL Fl.qw·c 1 using a permeability variation of \' = 0_7~
(e) Firs[ estimation of reservoir pressure is 2.900 p,;;ia, and there-
fore p/z = 3,465 psia and 311: = 9.2095 X 10 5 res. bbls/Bscf. and a water cut at abandonment of 40 bbl.s/i\Il\'l.sd.
(d) Pressure dechne during mLerval. ~p. equals: 2950 - 2900 For 2700 psia. z equals 0.831 ;
= 50 psia.
(c) W" = 515~...l PQD =
7.2852 X lOll bbls. [J ~ 3,1911, 10', 0,831 ~ 98"1 . lO'
.:; 2700 ..' ~ '{
(f) HI: = 7.2852 X lOG - 0 - 39.2 (7.625 x 10.';)
(1·1.696 - 39.2.1 res. bbls/.M.Msd, and the ;-iurface water-ga.s ratio may
= 9.225 X 10 5 res. bb!/Bscf. be converted to re~en'oir condition.s using:
Because plz equals lO D P". T r/5.ftI5 T dC B g • rjz = 3.1911 x lO\lj WGR (res. bbl/bbl) = "·CR Ibbl').,[\Iscfl B,.IIl'S. bbls/r.IlV[:icfl
9.2~5 X 10 5 = 3459 and z = 0.837; p = 2895 [JSi:L = '10;9.821 x 1O~ = 0.041.
Repeat steps (C) thruugh (f) using p = 2895 and In Figure 1, a vertical swer::-p efficienl'Y of ·12 pel'
so forth, (e,g. 2896), until the difference between cent correspond:i to \' = 0,72 and \VG R --=: 0.0-11. '-\'8-
consecutive pressures faUs within acceptable limits .sumillg that the ~ll'eal sweep effiLiency i~ 100 PCI' cent.
, the vlJlumetric sweep efficienc)' equal.s ·12 pel' cent,
0

IJ The water influx call be determined from 811- 21:

0
I W•. = 7758 (0.'12100541 (32.81) ,0.13...() 11.00 - U.15 - 0.·121
- 0 = 6.'19 x lOu bbls.

0
/ / ,
Moreover, the gas production rOlTespon<ling to il
water influx of 6.49 x 10'; bbls is 1:3.4 Bsd (Fi!Jul't'

z,
.
~ 0
1/ J
10). As~uming that gas in exce:iS of residual is t'e-
covered, the reco'very factor equals el.·I/'1O.1 01" 33,·1
per cent.

~. 0
J f7 ,
As the current recovery already equal,!-; the ultimate
reLO\·ery from stratifiLation cnnsideration.s, it would

-~ •
z
appear that the \...· ater encroaehes uniformly. Depend-
0
1- +- !
•3 ing upon economics, it may be further assumed that
the gas-water interface will d.se to within 15 feet of
~
1/ 1 ~ the perforation of the well located hi~he~t on the re-
-.l' 0
J
·• servoir structure. [n this case, the water will be with-

0
/ 1/ ~ in 20 feet of the crest of the pool at abandonment.
Calc:ulations on this bash; indicate thai the volumetric
s\...·eep- efficiency will equal E.5 pet' cent.

J / •
The water influx from Eq. :.!1 iti:
We = 7758 (O.RS) ( 1054, (32.81) (0.13-1 I (1.00 - 0.15 - 0.·121

1// - 0 ~ [3.14 X 10" bbls.

The cumulative gas production corresponding til a

If• . .. ..•
water influx of 13.14 x 10( hbls in Figlll"l! 10 is 23.2
Bscf. This results in a recovery factor of 23.2/·10,1 or
58 per cent.
CUMUlAIIVI! 0..,5 PROOUCTION 1.5crl
Nott,: The recovenr factor calculated fol' the ca!;l! whcl'e
FiYUJ"{' 1O.-PlfJl oj Wnt,,1' Iujlwr us. C1lnwlativc Gas gas in excess of irlitiai residual j,:; not recovered. using
P1'ouuction. Eq. 2·1, 1:-; 54 per cen t.

128 The Journol of Conadian Petroleum

 -'--',-

(4) Recovery factol' estim.ation after fifteen yea-1°S of has confirmed the predicted performance_ On this
p1"oduction_-No\v the plot includes 16 points and the basis the recovery factor will remain unchanged:
j

cumulative production is 20,04 Bsd. Three wells have RF = 58 per cent.

been suspended because of high ,'I,rater production, but Using a GIP of 39.2 Bscf: Initial reserves = 39.2 x 0.58 =
the fourth well ha~ not produced any water. 22,7 Bsc£.
Remaining reserves: 22.7 - 20.0 =
The actual pool performance over the last five years 2,7 Bsc£.

Elicdor (DareD Stoian, at time of writing, was manager,

data processing, at the Oil and Gas Conservation Board in
Calgary, Alberta. Pre.... iously, he worked os a special studies
and reservoir engineer for the same organization, as an in-
structor at the University of Alberto in Edmonton, and in
various capacities in France, Germany, Austria and his na-
tive country, Roumania. He holds a B.s. degree in mechanical
and petroleum engineering from the Technical University of
Hanover, Germany, and is active in several engineering, com-
puter and data processing societies.
Effective September 15, 1966, Mr. Stoian is in the employ
of the Notional Energy Boord, Ottowa.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-pdf/5/03/115/2165663/petsoc-66-03-02.pdf by guest on 22 May 2021

Alan S. Telford received his B.Sc. degree in chemical engi-
neering in 1955 from the University of Manchester, England.
STOIAN TELFORD He was employed by Canadian Industries Limited in Edmon-
ton until 1957. Since then, he has worked for the Oil and ~; ..
Gas Conservation Boord.

. ...

,;
), .~~.
.,
:~,

:~ ".' ,
i ':~.~
:t~:.-=
'_:. . ,_t_·
:.'- '.
~ :., ,- .:

, ,

REPRINTS OF TECHNICAL PAPERS

EADERS of The Journal oj Canadian Petroleum Technology are reminded that reprints of 'most
R of the tec.hnical papers that have been published in these pages are available from the Journal
Business office_ The price is fifty cents each to the membership of The Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy and one dollar each to non-members.

Technology, Julv-September, 1966, Montreal 129