The Potential or Productivity Factor in Allocatiol~Fonnulas i-
The " potential " or " productivity " factor for pro-
ration purposes will continue to cost the oil industry
millions of dollars each year, and result in gross inequi-
ties, unless extreme caution is exercised in the methods
employed in obtaining and applying it. Conde~nnedin
its usual forin of open flow by practically all engineers a s
being inaccurate, wasteful, and dangerous, its use,
nevertheless, is being forced upon good and poor oper-
ators alike. Such action, reinforced a s i t is by court de-
cisions, is likely to continue unless the responsible and
thinking part of the industry presents a satisfactory
substitute.
The statute under which proration is applied in Okla-
homa a t this time specifically states that allocations in
a single pool must be made in relation to the potentials
of the individual wells. A recent decision handed down
by the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that restricted or
"choked " potentials were not acceptable, and that the
tests must be made under full open-flow conditions. This
method of obtaining potentials in the Oklahoma City
pool is estimated to have cost the operators in that field
no less than ten million dollars for over-sized equipment,
such a s casing, Christmas trees, separators, tanks, etc.
Had some other productivity facFor been used, this need-
less expenditure could have been avoided.
During the past 12 months three-judge federal courts
in Texas have indicated very clearly that individual well
potentials must constitute a part of the proration plan
if it is to withstand court attacks. Operators in two of
the largest oil-producing states, therefore, find them-
selves confronted with the necessity of either accepting
the antiquated open-flow-potential idea or of offering a
substitute which will accomplish the same purpose.
Accepting the fact that the ability of a well to yield
oil is one of the factors which must be considered in a n
equitable proration program, the Committee on Alloca-
tion of Production proposes that the indes be obtained
in some manner other than open flow. There are per-
haps two alternatives which a r e practical and appli-
cable to the problem a t this time.
1. Restricted flow :
a. Through tubing.
b. Through tubing with choke.
2. Differential bottom-hole pressure tests.
Restricted Flow through Tubing
Potential tests obtained through tubing of sufficient
diameter to indicate the relation between the tubing and
casing flow offer some advantages over the open-flow
* The Pure Oil Co. Fort \lrorth Tex.
t l'rese~itecl a t ~ o i l r t e e n t h ~ n n ' o a l bleeting. Chicago. Ill..
Oct. 1033.
tests. This method has shown that wells completed with
the same size flow strings and tubing have a relationship
between rate of production through tubing and through
both casing and tubing. By plotting this relationship on
coordinate paper it has been found that a reasonably
smooth curve might be drawn, and after certain refine-
ments a n "average curve " can be made. Corrections
can also be made for wells exceeding the average gas-
oil ratio in the field. Revision of potentials is accom-
plished when desired by merely flowing wells wide open
through the tubing for a specified period and obtaining
the open-flow values from the average curve.
I Restricted Fldw througli Tubing with Choke
The restricted-flow test through tubing and choke,
while nluch less wasteful, detrimental, and expensive
than the open-flow test, does not necessarily give true
relative potentials. It has the effect of equalizing or
" leveling out " the large-capacity wells due to inability
to demonstrate tlieir full capacity.-Under this method
of testing i t is desirable to use a sufficiently large-di-
aineter choke to permit a wide range for the large and
small wells. Even with this consideration i t will be
found that a .large proportion of the wells will indicate
approximately the same potential, notwithstanding dif-
ferences in their flowing pressures show that the ability
of some to produce is greater or less than others. Tub-
ing and choke potentials have been used in several fields
in Texas. The method is recoinn~endedonly a s a n al-
ternative to full open flow, to economize on equipment
cost, and to prevent physical waste.
I Ditferential Bottoni-HolePressure Tests
The use of differential bottom-hole pressure tests to
determine differential drop in the formation pressure a t
various rates of flow has not yet been put into general
practice a s a nleans of determining the relative ability
of wells to produce; but the method has merit, and
offers what appears to be a satisfactory substitute for
open-flow tests. This method was first suggested by
T. V. Moore,$ and has been tentatively recommended
by the Conllnittee on Allocation of Production a s being
the nearest approach to actual well potential yet offered.
I t s use minimizes :
1. The wasteful, dangerous, and expensive factors of
open-flow tests.
2. The need,for uniformity in well equipment.
-.
I 1 T. V., \Ina~l.e. " Detertoination of Potential Production of
Wells W i t l i o ~ ~ 0l)eri-Flow
t Tests." Proc. S . P . I . , 11 ( I V ) . 27
(1930) (Prodrtctiot~Btrlleti~cNo. 0 0 6 ) .

3. The inequalities arising from various production
rates of flow im~nediatelyprior to test.
4. To some extent, the human element which has been
a major factor in inequalities-resulting from u11-
fair practices in obtaining open-flow tests.
The use of differential bottom-hole pressure tests to
determine capacity of wells is likely to give extremely
high values for a portion of the wells in soine fields and
very low values to other wells; a s this method does not
take into account the resistance of flow strings, and
records only the resistance of flow through the sand
o r producing forn~ation.If such a method would be one
of the major factors in deterlnining the relative takings
fro111wells, i t might result in penalizing the snlall wells
to the extent that acreage having such small wells
could not be econo~nically developed, and would be
drained by operators having wells with larger allowable.
I n fields where there is no great difference in the thick-
ness of the producing formation and no large variation
in the capacity of wells, the bottom-hole pressure-drop
method might be lnore practically applicable. The bot-
tom-hole pressure-drop method includes friction caused
by gas, a s well a s oil. This is, of course, true in taking
a n y kind of potential, a s gas would limit the capacity
of the flow string.
The formation-pressure-drop inethod or some modifi-
cation would in most instances provide equity to all
operators and a t the same time conforln to principles
of conservation to the fullest extent.
It is proposed that this type of productivity measure-
ment be termed " productivity index." This may be de-
fined a s the measure of the ability of a producing for-
mation to yield oil a t the face of the sand, and may be
expressed in terms of number of barrels produced a t
the sand face per pound differential in pressure between
static (shut in) .pressure and bottom-hole flowing pres-
,sure. Relative productivity between wells is believed to
be proportional to productivity index when multiplied
by static bottom-hole pressure.
Open-Flow Tests
In fields where unrestricted potentials of the indi-
vidual wells a r e a factor of the proration formula, it is
recon~rnendedthat old open-flow potentials be adjusted
from time to time by the ratio of the new bottom-hole
static pressure to the former bottom-hole static pres-
sure, with corrections where necessary, for the gas-oil
ratio factor. Such a plan avoids the need for new
open-flow tests, and a t the same time maintains within
reasonable limits the relative differences between wells
t h a t existed under the former test. The operators in
the Yates field (Texas) adopted this method of adjust-
ing open-flow potentials, and no general ?pen-flow mea-
surements have been necessary since the original tests
were made during the early development.
Average Unit Potential
The committee strongly urges " average unit poten-
tial " rather than adding the individual well potentials
on any particular unit.
N THE ALLOCATION
O F PRODUCTION
If a tract allowable is proportional to total potential
of all of i t s wells, unnecessary drilling is encouraged,
and results in the development of relative potentials
which a r e by no means representative of the recoverable
reserves under the tracts in question. The method of
averaging unit potential avoids, to some estent, the es-
tablishlnent of a fallacious productivity factor.
Stanclardiziag Tests
Until the use of differential bottom-hole pressure flow
testa is adopted more generally, the industry will be
required to obtain the productivity factor by either re-
stricted or open-flow tests. The duration of the test
period should not be less than three hours, recognizing
only the last two hours a s representative of the well's
production. Mechanical conditions and storage facilities
in the various fields will determine if i t is possible to
estend the tests over a greater period; for, obviously,
the longer the test, the more accurate the result. Ex-
treme caution should be esercised in gaging the produc-
tion, a s gross inaccuracies a r e common. The number
of flow lines, their diameter and length, should be a s
nearly uniform throughout the field a s possible-al-
though i t is recognized that this may be impractical in
the nlajority of pools because of diversified ownership.
Flow strings and chokes, where used, should be of the
same respective diameter to obtain comparative flow
data between wells.
Former practice of determining potential production
of pun~ping%wells has created many inequities in cer-
tain fields a s between leases or operating companies,
and the method of obtaining the figures used should be
more closely controlled and standardized if they a r e
not to be inaccurate and costly. Fixed Standards should
be adopted in each field before making potential tests
for the following items :
a
I. Size of tubing.
2. Size of pump (effective diameter of working
barrel).
3. Number of strokes per minute (maximum).
4. Length of stroke (maximum).
5. Duration of test.
6. Basic-sediment and water calculations.
7. Method of gaging.
8. Rate and time of production preceding test.
9. Witnessing of test.
10. Other factors not covered in above which might be
desirable f o r any particular field.
I n the event t h a t uniform tubing size or size of pumps
is not established, the same result can be obtained by
limiting the working displacement of pumps to some
fixed standard.
I t is, of course,. a needless and undesirable expense to
equip pumping wells with larger tubing than would nor-
mally be used merely to demonstrate potential. Unless
controlled, long-stroke pumping devices will make their
appearance, and over-size pumps will become common.
. Shut-down time prior to potential tests will result in
unfair gages and unjustifiable allowances. Keeping t h e
size and operation of t h e equipment on a reasonable
basis will obtain t h e desired relative figures and a t the
saine time avoid a n economic waste t h a t may reach a n
alarming total.
Well potentials, in one form o r another, will no doubt
continue to be one of t h e most iinportant 'factors in
allocatiol~of restricted allowables. Universal applica-
tion of a n y single method of determining the potential
factor f o r a i ~ r o r a t i o nformula is illogical, and will
create inequities between fields, a s well a s between
tracts in the saine field, because of the many and vari-
able physical, mechanical, and econoinic factors involved.
I t is, .therefore, recognized by the Comnlittee on Al-
location of Production t h a t a method of obtaining the
"productivity index" which ineets with favor in one
fieid may be impractical o r unreasonable in another
field. " Open-flow " tests a r e recominended only f o r those
fields whkre t h e producing horizon consists of a dense
procluciilg formation, such a s limestone, where decline
i s rapid, and bottom-hole pressure-drop tests would be
complicated and unnecessarily expensive compared to
benefits derived. The committee strongly advises, how-
ever, against t h e use of " open-flow " potentials in all
other fields. Particular mention should be made of
fields with unconsolidated sand reservoir where open
flow unquestionably results in i n u c h sub-surface me-
chanical damage and physical waste of great magnitude.
Some less destructive method of obtaining potential data
is much to be desired; a n d use of restricted potential
tests, o r bottom-hole pressure data, should be .exhaus-
tively considered before throwing a n y field on "wide-
open " flow tests-with full recognition t h a t the dif-
ferential flow tests will require refinements and ad-
justment before becoming generally acceptable.
DISCUSSION
R. D. Wyckoff (Gulf Research and Development Cor-
poration) : I should like to a s k a question. What con-
sideration h a s been given to determining the potential
o r t h e productivity factors in wells t h a t a r e only par-
tially penetrating t h e sand a n d have water trouble? I
suppose i t has been considered thoroughly, but I should
like to know what w a s taken u p in the discussion.
Chairinan Wood: T h a t w a s considered in t h e com-
mittee from the angle t h a t i t w a s inore o r less one of
t h e gambling elements of t h e business. If a man did not
drill in the sand completely, i t w a s his own operating
problem. If full penetration of t h e sand was prevented
. by water, a n operator would not produce a n y water, and
t h e volun~etric-displacement factor would 11ot penalize
him; and h e would probably be benefited from t h a t
standpoint. It was also viewed from the standpoint
t h a t t h a t question would have to be solved f o r each in-
dividual field, because variation i n penetration in Wink-
ler might be vastly different from t h e penetration prob-
lem i l l t h e E a s t Texas field o r in some other pool.